You don't see anything wrong with the president cheering on the angry mobs one day (and then trying to tone it down the next when it was getting out of hand) and then telling these bankers that he's the only one standing between them and the pitchforks? How is that not an abuse of his power?

When I was in my early 50s, I always said that the only thing I wanted for my birthday was dyslexia so that I could be 25 or 35 again.

“A side note- isn't it funny how our points are climbing now that people can't ding them when they get ticked off because they're losing an argument?”

Yeah, funny about that. Or knocked down just for having a 'wrong' opinion.

HA HA HA HA!

Everything is relative, isn't it? 48 or 58, back when we WERE in our early 20's, there was no difference to us. Anything more than, say, 32 was old. No need to cut it finer.

Oh well, I am older, but refuse to grow up.

I honestly don't know what to make of it at this point, but it certainly bears keeping a watchful eye on.

The name itself is so Orwellian as to raise eyebrows. And yet, people in both parties have proposed various forms of this throughout the years, and it can be benign. I do think some of the provisions have that feeling of getting the pavers out for that road to hell…but I also think it's too soon to judge that there's any intentional foray into Brownshirt or Hitler Youth territory.

A side note- isn't it funny how our points are climbing now that people can't ding them when they get ticked off because they're losing an argument?

Good example, I just about had a heart attack just now when I typed out my age. I know I was just 20 something not too long ago. What the heck happened? What cruel game is this?

Actually, I distrust authority in general. I am 48, and still don't trust the man. He is trying to put us down!.

I overcame mine so don't give up hope. Remember, you have to be an optimist or this crappy world will get you down.

This is just one of those that has the feel of 'the road to hell, good intentions, etc.'

Couple that with my general cynicism towards all politicians, and a firm belief that all government programs grow and expand their power, and in doing so become more corrupt, well…

You haven't been around this board enough to know, but I have mentioned before I am Jeffersonian in my opinion on how to keep government in check.

Seriously, I think the non-participation thing is to stop that very criticism. It would be decidedly at bad thing if all Obama's youth started to march in support of a plan. That, I believe was the point of the bill introduced. It was an attempt to remove volunteerism from political and religious meddling.

Hitler youth had a political affiliation (Nazism) and a religion (Hitler). Obama's volunteerism is closer to the peace corps, only inside America. That's change I can believe in.

If you want to take the 'volunteerism' bill and turn it into quasi-military service, quite frankly you are getting into Hitler Youth and Brownshirts territory. (Damn, I HATE being the one to invoke Godwin's Law).

Persuading? Ok, so, you go to your local bank for a loan to handle a credit crunch. The bank says, sorry, you are too high a risk.

So now you go to your local loan shark, who gladly loans you money in, say, November of last year. It is now March of this year. You need yet more money. You draw up a plan to show him how you plan to replay him, and why you need additional money to get there.

He says, 'I will draw up a new plan for you, and decide how you will earn and spend your money, what you will do for a job, and I think it is is your best interests that you do what I 'suggest'.

Persuasion?

Anyway, time to stop this thread, as we have both (I think) thown our best out there. Let's go find a new one to commandeer! The TMV Thread Pirates.

If you want to argue if the complete collapse of our economic system is not existential, I'd defer. Not because you're right, mind you ; just because it's a value judgment.

I would say that since the US went off the gold standard, America's well being hangs upon the economic confidence that the rest of the World holds in us. If the confidence goes, so goes trade and credit. Two pretty big criteria for judging our survivability.

I admit, we kind of got into the tall grass on this one.

Let's narrow this down to a simple question. Obama is persuading, not ordering. There is no law against persuasion.

Just to throw a wrench into the bill you mentioned. Don't Armed forces personnel agree to similar stipulations? You can't advocate for a particular candidate while dressed in your uniform, can you? Just thought I'd add to touch of chaos….

OK, that is what I get for not doing more research last night.

First, the bill has been passed by both Houses, and now awaits Obama's signature.

However, I went to http://www.govtrack.us, and read (skimmed) the final bill as passed. Sec. 1304 (Section 125) (the nasty one in question) was indeed repealed in its entirety.

Always best to go to a primary source for accurate information.

I go back to my original proposition, Obama wants to bring change to Washington, both sides of the aisle require it. I've said repeatedly, I may be naive about Obama; however, he's not done much to date to make me disbelieve his stated purpose. The closest he's come so far is the wire tap laws Bush created and Obama has not disavowed. I watch that front very closely.

AR – A great inter-change! I hoped you benefited as much as I did. A good debate is not about winning, it's about learning. Thanks man

ps
Don't forget your helmet.

As someone else pointed out elsewhere, there real insidiousness of this revolves around the fact that kids will AHVE to volunteer if they want certain school loans for college now, but over time, history shows that quickly ANY financial assistance to people below a certain age will require it, and the system will end up modified so that almost ALL kids need that financial assitance.

Also, go do some primary research of your own on HR 1388 if you have not already. See what type of 'training' they must get, and what kind of 'volunteer duties' they will do. I will bet it reminds you things you hav seen described in other countries that use a different political system than we do.

I am concerned with the degree of the President's persuasion. Enlighten me as to when this would be an unconstitutional power grab. I am uncomfortable with the president speaking for the people. That seems to take the people's voice away. But I would grant that the president makes a contract to represent the people. I feel much more comfortable with the concept that the president upholds the Constitution. If these roles are in conflict, the sworn duty is to uphold the Constituution.

On the Socialist path question, how about this little doosy:

“The House passed the Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act on Monday. The bill includes language indicating young people will be forced to participate in mandatory national service programs. The bill also states that “service learning” will be a mandatory part of the youth curriculum.

That doesn't sound much like “volunteerism” does it? The mandatory youth plan requires America's youth to participate in mandatory service youth programs.

But that's not all.

HR 1388 is called “Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education” (GIVE). Here is part of the HR 1388 bill’s wording:

SEC. 1304. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AND INELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS.

Section 125 (42 U.S.C. 12575) is amended to read as follows:

SEC. 125. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AND INELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS.

(a) Prohibited Activities- A participant in an approved national service position under this subtitle may not engage in the following activities:

(1) Attempting to influence legislation.

(2) Organizing or engaging in protests, petitions, boycotts, or strikes.
…

(7) Engaging in religious instruction, conducting worship services, providing instruction as part of a program that includes mandatory religious instruction or worship, constructing or operating facilities devoted to religious instruction or worship, maintaining facilities primarily or inherently devoted to religious instruction or worship, or engaging in any form of religious proselytization.

Any thoughts on THAT one?