Obama: Pro-Slavery. ::cough:: I Mean "Compulsory Volunteerism" ?? WTF ??

my2hands

blackredyellow wrote:

Or you can actually read what he said instead of how some op-ed portrayed his remarks.

i dont even bother anymore... thats the new way of the anti obama MT crowd... surf the net until you find an op ed pice that is total crap or find a speech and just cherry pick some quotes and use them totally out of context

anti obama folks around here are desperate... mostly because i think the majority of them have a general distaste for all politicians and try to be cool by perpetuating the "politicians are all evil" rhetoric... so they are trying everyday to find any little shred of anything on Obama and run with it for miles

i think it is hilarious at this point

Sludge Factory

It seems to me that some people need to remind themselves what the definition of a volunteer really is:

http://www.tfd.com/volunteer

Comparing forcing someone to do homework and forcing them to volunteer is sort of an irrelevant comparison.

my2hands

HailHailVitalogy wrote:

i mean i agree that there should be some volunteerism to middle and high school students but the amount of hours is unnecessary...college students 100 hours?

this is the bullshit that happens in a soundbyte society when the biased OP doesnt put out the whole story, and posts op-ed articles with a clear bias

his proposal is simple, and fully voluntary. if you provide 100 hours of community service, then the federal government will provide a $4,000 credit towards your college tuition. as a man that paid his own way through college i think it is a great idea and i would have done it in a heartbeat. $4000 in exchange for 100 hours is more then generous and a tremendous idea.

wtf is wrong with that?

lgt

Pj_Gurl wrote:

maybe i just look at things differently. when i was at school in australia, i was forced to study italian for 4 years. 4 lessons a week of an hour. absolutely hated it. what did it teach me? how did it help me become a better person? it didn't. i would much rather have spent those 600 odd hours on something community based like obama is proposing. i guarantee i would have learnt a whole lot more.

The point of learning a new language is also to learn more about a different culture and customs, etc. The issue perhaps is that you were forced and you were not interested to start with, and that's why you hated it in the end.

But how would that work for other students forced to volunteer and not being interested? You might have the same results, right?

Then again, you might get some people who even if initially hated to learn a new language actually fell in love with it (me with French, e.g.) or discover new things.

my2hands

blackredyellow wrote:

That's what annoys me... The only thing that this article is, is a fear-mongering, political hit job. You take a few sentences of a 40+ paragraph speech, mis-represent it, and add words/phrases like "slavery" or "forced servitude" to scare people.

like i said, welcome to the MT 2008

Kel Varnsen

Sludge Factory wrote:

It seems to me that some people need to remind themselves what the definition of a volunteer really is:

http://www.tfd.com/volunteer

Comparing forcing someone to do homework and forcing them to volunteer is sort of an irrelevant comparison.

But how are they different if both are forced requirements you need to pass on to the next grade? I mean is spending 4 hours on a weekend writing a paper any different than spending 4 hours on a weekend working in the office of a charity, if both were assigned by your school? Hell working at a charity you might be put to work writing letters to people to solicit donations, so it is kind of exactly like doing writing for homework. I am curious how you see the comparison as not working. It is not like the only form of volunteering is hard physical labour.

blackredyellow

Sludge Factory wrote:

It seems to me that some people need to remind themselves what the definition of a volunteer really is:

http://www.tfd.com/volunteer

Comparing forcing someone to do homework and forcing them to volunteer is sort of an irrelevant comparison.

Again, probably why Obama never used the term "volunteer" in the speech talking about these programs. They are referred to as service programs.

I guess the op-ed hit job worked by inserting terms like "compulsory volunteerism" when they were never in the speech.

DriftingByTheStorm

my2hands wrote:

his proposal is simple, and fully voluntary. if you provide 100 hours of community service, then the federal government will provide a $4,000 credit towards your college tuition. as a man that paid his own way through college i think it is a great idea and i would have done it in a heartbeat. $4000 in exchange for 100 hours is more then generous and a tremendous idea.

wtf is wrong with that?

Maybe FFG can jump in here and explain where such an arrangement is provided for in the grant of federal powers within the constitution. I mean, since he seems to be so convinced that this is an exchange of labor for benefit, and is all hunky-dorey.

Also, like i said, it is specifically in contradiction with the principle of GENERAL welfare. You have now moved to a society which provides for the SELECTED welfare of a "voluntary" few.

I maintain that this is above the mandates provided for federal government, and therefore not okay.

again, regardless of any benefit.

and accuse me of biased partisan bullshit all you want.

no one in this thread has addressed the fundamental concernt that such an act is not within the constitutional limits of government authority.

:(

Sludge Factory

blackredyellow wrote:

Again, probably why Obama never used the term "volunteer" in the speech talking about these programs. They are referred to as service programs.

I guess the op-ed hit job worked by inserting terms like "compulsory volunteerism" when they were never in the speech.

I wasn't exactly referring to whatever Obama did/didn't say. I was referring to the people in this thread that would be okay with "compulsory volunteerism".

Vince

my2hands wrote:

this is the bullshit that happens in a soundbyte society when the biased OP doesnt put out the whole story, and posts op-ed articles with a clear bias

his proposal is simple, and fully voluntary. if you provide 100 hours of community service, then the federal government will provide a $4,000 credit towards your college tuition. as a man that paid his own way through college i think it is a great idea and i would have done it in a heartbeat. $4000 in exchange for 100 hours is more then generous and a tremendous idea.

wtf is wrong with that?

Absolutely nothing.

Sludge Factory

Kel Varnsen wrote:

But how are they different if both are forced requirements you need to pass on to the next grade? I mean is spending 4 hours on a weekend writing a paper any different than spending 4 hours on a weekend working in the office of a charity, if both were assigned by your school? Hell working at a charity you might be put to work writing letters to people to solicit donations, so it is kind of exactly like doing writing for homework. I am curious how you see the comparison as not working. It is not like the only form of volunteering is hard physical labour.

But they are different. The very definition of volunteer displays that. You can't force someone to do something that is defined as "performing a service voluntarily" and then label it volunteer work; that is more like forced servitude.

You start forcing people to volunteer as a requirement to pass to the next grade and then it becomes something else; it is no longer volunteer work.

farfromglorified

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Maybe FFG can jump in here and explain where such an arrangement is provided for in the grant of federal powers within the constitution. I mean, since he seems to be so convinced that this is an exchange of labor for benefit, and is all hunky-dorey.

There's nothing constitutional about direct federal education grants, which is why they're typically routed through the states.

I don't think this plan is constitutional, nor do I think this is even a very good idea. I simply disagree with your classifications of "compulsory volunteerism" or "slavery".

Also, like i said, it is specifically in contradiction with the principle of GENERAL welfare. You have now moved to a society which provides for the SELECTED welfare of a "voluntary" few.

I maintain that this is above the mandates provided for federal government, and therefore not okay.

again, regardless of any benefit.

and accuse me of biased partisan bullshit all you want.

no one in this thread has addressed the fundamental concernt that such an act is not within the constitutional limits of government authority.

:(

:rolleyes:

If your beef here is constitutional, cherry-picking this plan to complain about is pretty silly. It's like attacking those state-themed quarters on the grounds that the Federal Mint shouldn't exist.

Getting rid of the voluntary tax credit isn't going to stop the federal government from meddling in education financing. If you have constitutional beefs with federal education spending, then attack 65's Higher Education Act or the Department of Education. Attacking this kind of plan as "unconstitutional" makes no sense when it simply stems from existing departments and laws that would, based on your argument, also be unconstitutional.

FiveB247x

In all honesty, what's wrong with making kids voluteer for a small portion of time? Wouldn't it give them a sense of duty to the society and nation around them? Wouldn't it get them to recognize how much better off they are compared to living in poverty or having the variety of other issues and problems those they'd be helping? I don't think this is a bad idea at all, depending on that the person volunteering can decide which organization or issue they can help.

Sludge Factory

FiveB247x wrote:

In all honesty, what's wrong with making kids voluteer for a small portion of time? Wouldn't it give them a sense of duty to the society and nation around them? Wouldn't it get them to recognize how much better off they are compared to living in poverty or having the variety of other issues and problems those they'd be helping? I don't think this is a bad idea at all, depending on that the person volunteering can decide which organization or issue they can help.

It's not volunteering if you have to make someone do it.

farfromglorified

FiveB247x wrote:

In all honesty, what's wrong with making kids voluteer for a small portion of time?

What's wrong with making black people pick your cotton?

DriftingByTheStorm

farfromglorified wrote:

I don't think this plan is constitutional, nor do I think this is even a very good idea.

well, i'd like to just say "no further questions" and leave it at that.

however, this whole notion of "cherry picking" and accusing me of being focused on issues that are sub-issues of sub-issues is infuriating!

with this attitude, it seems like you are saying that we the people should just lay down and take every transgression that is threatened against our constitution.

I mean, fuck it, right?
Yes. Of COURSE the DOE is unconstitutional and all of public education is fundamentaly a farce.

But this assumption that because the system is broken already, we should therefore allow policy makers to come along and absolutely SHATTER it, is simply absurd.

Why is it silly to attempt to stand up against, and more importantly explain to and warn others against, such bad and unconstitutinal policies?

Shit, most people here have NO idea waht the fuck i am saying.
They have ZERO understanding of the constitutionality of this issue, or how it simply serves to further degrade their supreme law, and set bad precedent.

And here you stand, accusing me of "cherry picking" and being asinine for it.

All i want is for people to think criticaly about their options; to understand what the supreme law of the land IS; and to hopefuly be motivated to defend it -- regardless of how fluffly and lovely some new legislation sounds.

jeffbr

FiveB247x wrote:

what's wrong with making kids voluteer

The sentence makes no sense. If they're being coerced, it isn't volunteering, is it?

My kids have both done service hours to fill requirements of the school and the national honor society. They understand that it is a required service. They have also volunteered to do things, and understand the difference.

If we call it compulsory service or required service in exchange for additional benefits, then it might at least make sense as far as the language goes.

Vince

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

well, i'd like to just say "no further questions" and leave it at that.

however, this whole notion of "cherry picking" and accusing me of being focused on issues that are sub-issues of sub-issues is infuriating!

with this attitude, it seems like you are saying that we the people should just lay down and take every transgression that is threatened against our constitution.

I mean, fuck it, right?
Yes. Of COURSE the DOE is unconstitutional and all of public education is fundamentaly a farce.

But this assumption that because the system is broken already, we should therefore allow policy makers to come along and absolutely SHATTER it, is simply absurd.

Why is it silly to attempt to stand up against, and more importantly explain to and warn others against, such bad and unconstitutinal policies?

Shit, most people here have NO idea waht the fuck i am saying.
They have ZERO understanding of the constitutionality of this issue, or how it simply serves to further degrade their supreme law, and set bad precedent.

And here you stand, accusing me of "cherry picking" and being asinine for it.

All i want is for people to think criticaly about their options; to understand what the supreme law of the land IS; and to hopefuly be motivated to defend it -- regardless of how fluffly and lovely some new legislation sounds.

Personally I don't think you understand or believe half of the stuff your saying.

FiveB247x

Firstly, if you honestly believe that "forced" volunteerism is comparable to slavery, you seriously need your head examined. Get a grip and come back to reality.

Secondly, however you want to designate such a program - whether forced or a new way to help society by acclimating kids to help those around them in some manner. Do you not recognize all the good things that an come from this? Is our society that "on track" where instituting such a program, where teenagers put down video game controllers, turn off their ipods, tvs, computers, and similar to help less fortunate people and issues in our nation? Consider it an internship into the reality of our society in which they'll gain experience and have their eyes opened to the larger world around them through a particular issue, cause, belief while become more socially responsible citizens. Isn't that the kind of nation we want to become? So why wouldn't we embrace something that promotes such core values and morals?

blackredyellow

farfromglorified wrote:

What's wrong with making black people pick your cotton?

Not really worth a response because it's like comparing apples and platypuses...

Requiring high school kids to do some sort of community service (this plan says 50 hours, so like an hour a week) as part of their education isn't even remotely comparable to buying and forcing people into grueling labor based on race.