wat? Change.gov is a government website now?

[ICRS]

At my HS all students had to take health, and health had a required 100 hours of communoy service for 10% of your grade. But what obama wants is much more of a burden, it would be 50 hours a year istead of 100 hours for 1 year.

Over 250 hours of communicty service in a 4 year period was required for many of the honors at my H.S though.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Xavier434
I am not certain where I stand with this sort of thing. There are positive and negative sides to it. What I won't do is fear what someone "might" require later in America because I believe that we should worry about crossing that bridge only when and if we ever get to it.

However, many people in America including those on this forum are always bitching about how America is not responsible enough. Doing nothing to teach more responsibility will change nothing. While I don't view this idea as a full solution to that problem, such a program could have influences on teaching America's future more about responsibility. That's one of the potential positive sides. That plus there are tons of High Schools which require Community Service hours that amount to 50 or something close to it in order to graduate already.

Obviously the details have not been laid out yet. That is one very short paragraph on his site after all. However, I do hope that additional options are available and I think that the middle school and college hours should be less. Maybe make it 25 for middle and 50-75 for college. Maybe either reduce the hours or exempt those who participate in certain extra curricular activities such as ROTC or band or some kind of sports. Such rules are already in place for many programs like this. I remember putting in a total of 250 hours over the course of 4 years in HS.

Not sure. Like I said my position is undecided on this. It depends on so many details that we do not know.

It all hinges on the word "required". Offering incentives? Sure. "Obey us"? No.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: nkgreen

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Why? I have kids in school. They have to learn math and science and the like. They have after school activities the can CHOOSE to participate in. No one is forced.

Would you be happier if those activities acted as a form of exemption for the community service? I know that I would. Those are the kinds of details which we do not know yet. Give it time before passing judgment. Let's see what the real deal is first.

No. If parents want to allow their kids to sit at home eating cheesy-poofs after school they damn should be able to.

For the most part, that is exactly what they would still be able to do. If 50 hours becomes mandatory then that means about 1 hour per week and if you toss in things like exempt hours for after school extracurricular activities then most high school students will not have to worry about it much at all. This already happens in a very large number of school districts across the nation and it works. I was in ROTC in HS and I was exempt for example. For those that do not participate in such activities, they can spread out that 1 hour per week to 30 min over two days for 15 min over 4 days.

Anyways, I am just speculating. It could be like how I describe. It could be much much better. It could be much much worse. The point is we just don't know and shouldn't pass any judgment yet until we find out what is really being proposed.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Xavier434
I am not certain where I stand with this sort of thing. There are positive and negative sides to it. What I won't do is fear what someone "might" require later in America because I believe that we should worry about crossing that bridge only when and if we ever get to it.

However, many people in America including those on this forum are always bitching about how America is not responsible enough. Doing nothing to teach more responsibility will change nothing. While I don't view this idea as a full solution to that problem, such a program could have influences on teaching America's future more about responsibility. That's one of the potential positive sides. That plus there are tons of High Schools which require Community Service hours that amount to 50 or something close to it in order to graduate already.

Obviously the details have not been laid out yet. That is one very short paragraph on his site after all. However, I do hope that additional options are available and I think that the middle school and college hours should be less. Maybe make it 25 for middle and 50-75 for college. Maybe either reduce the hours or exempt those who participate in certain extra curricular activities such as ROTC or band or some kind of sports. Such rules are already in place for many programs like this. I remember putting in a total of 250 hours over the course of 4 years in HS.

Not sure. Like I said my position is undecided on this. It depends on so many details that we do not know.

It all hinges on the word "required". Offering incentives? Sure. "Obey is"? No.

It is already required in a lot of counties to graduate. America has been moving towards this direction for a long time. Hell, lots of students barely stand a chance at getting scholarships unless they dedicate community service hours and for most people scholarships and other forms of financial aid are required to attend college.

At the same time, I do understand what you mean which is why I am undecided. Again, we just don't know enough information to draw an educated conclusion. We need to be patient and stop allowing our fear of the "unknown" and what "might" happen effect us so much. We are America and we should be stronger than that.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Sawyer
I can't believe and am shocked at the lack of outrage about the domestic surveillance mentioned on the site, Obama was supposed to be different and bring change

:\ The same people being hush-mouth would be throwing a fit if this was a Bush or R plan

AFAI am concerned, I'm going to do two things. One is see what is actually proposed on the community service issue and others before I trash Obama and the Dems, and then I will see who the hypocrites are. They would be the Reps who bash Obama for something they supported before (although pointing out the liberals who flip-flop is fair), and the Dems who suddenly think domestic spying is terrific. We'll see who is who.

 

[jonks]

I was required to do community service by my high school. I'm now scarred for life.

 

[AWVigo]

Not sure why all the outrage about this now. It's nothing new. I had to provide 40 hours of community service to graduate high school. Frankly it was a very positive experience. There are also exemptions like ROTC. In any case, something like this as it stands (we are assuming alot here) would need to pass through congress. Most things like this fall under state jurisdiction as well.

What caught my eye was ..

I can't believe and am shocked at the lack of outrage about the domestic surveillance mentioned on the site, Obama was supposed to be different and bring change

What is meant by this?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: jonks
I was required to do community service by my high school. I'm now scarred for life.

Apparently so.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: ICRS
At my HS all students had to take health, and health had a required 100 hours of communoy service for 10% of your grade. But what obama wants is much more of a burden, it would be 50 hours a year istead of 100 hours for 1 year.

Over 250 hours of communicty service in a 4 year period was required for many of the honors at my H.S though.

lol, fuck high school honors

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: AWVigo
Not sure why all the outrage about this now. It's nothing new. I had to provide 40 hours of community service to graduate high school. Frankly it was a very positive experience. There are also exemptions like ROTC. In any case, something like this as it stands (we are assuming alot here) would need to pass through congress. Most things like this fall under state jurisdiction as well.

What caught my eye was ..

I can't believe and am shocked at the lack of outrage about the domestic surveillance mentioned on the site, Obama was supposed to be different and bring change

What is meant by this?

He's beating up on the libs because there's talk of domestic surveillance by people who opposed Bush. His statement omits things like warrants and the like. Few were against it in principle, it was the execution which mattered to people like me. You ought not to circumvent the law, based on the Constitution, for wiretaps. If Obama were to use the same means as Bush, I'd raise hell. Having a program with legal protections built in is a good thing. It all depends.

 

[AWVigo]

Thanks for the reply. I just don't see how this is domestic surveillance. I might be missing something.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: AWVigo
Not sure why all the outrage about this now. It's nothing new. I had to provide 40 hours of community service to graduate high school. Frankly it was a very positive experience. There are also exemptions like ROTC. In any case, something like this as it stands (we are assuming alot here) would need to pass through congress. Most things like this fall under state jurisdiction as well.

What caught my eye was ..

I can't believe and am shocked at the lack of outrage about the domestic surveillance mentioned on the site, Obama was supposed to be different and bring change

What is meant by this?

He's beating up on the libs because there's talk of domestic surveillance by people who opposed Bush. His statement omits things like warrants and the like. Few were against it in principle, it was the execution which mattered to people like me. You ought not to circumvent the law, based on the Constitution, for wiretaps. If Obama were to use the same means as Bush, I'd raise hell. Having a program with legal protections built in is a good thing. It all depends.

It looks like he's going to use the same methods but just make them completely legal instead of questionable.

 

[NoStateofMind]

I've read a bit about this. It seems that its about funding. A school will be given funding if they implement this into their curricular. So in actuality, its kind of a backdoor way to force people into community service. Kids are required by law to go to school, then the schools take up the community service BS because they want more funding. It's not Obama standing over them declaring they serve, but its Obama standing over the schools with money saying "Do what I say and you get cash!".

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: AWVigo
Not sure why all the outrage about this now. It's nothing new. I had to provide 40 hours of community service to graduate high school. Frankly it was a very positive experience. There are also exemptions like ROTC. In any case, something like this as it stands (we are assuming alot here) would need to pass through congress. Most things like this fall under state jurisdiction as well.

What caught my eye was ..

I can't believe and am shocked at the lack of outrage about the domestic surveillance mentioned on the site, Obama was supposed to be different and bring change

What is meant by this?

He's beating up on the libs because there's talk of domestic surveillance by people who opposed Bush. His statement omits things like warrants and the like. Few were against it in principle, it was the execution which mattered to people like me. You ought not to circumvent the law, based on the Constitution, for wiretaps. If Obama were to use the same means as Bush, I'd raise hell. Having a program with legal protections built in is a good thing. It all depends.

It looks like he's going to use the same methods but just make them completely legal instead of questionable.

I could take that a couple ways. Is he going to make warrantless wiretaps "legal", or is he going to make them conform to the Constitutional standard? The mechanics of wiretapping are irrelevant.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

I could take that a couple ways. Is he going to make warrantless wiretaps "legal", or is he going to make them conform to the Constitutional standard? The mechanics of wiretapping are irrelevant.

I just made a separate thread, this one is bogged down.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
I've read a bit about this. It seems that its about funding. A school will be given funding if they implement this into their curricular. So in actuality, its kind of a backdoor way to force people into community service. Kids are required by law to go to school, then the schools take up the community service BS because they want more funding. It's not Obama standing over them declaring they serve, but its Obama standing over the schools with money saying "Do what I say and you get cash!".

Source?

Assuming that is correct, the kids work a little and learn about personal responsibility while the schools get more funding and provide more quality academics to our kids? This is a good thing. We need education funding and instead of the government basically providing schools extra cash almost like a hand out they force them to do things which improve the quality of America's youth. Of course, there will also be plenty of other details I am sure which may include many options that satisfy the requirement as well as opportunities to make the service easy. Nothing is certain though.

 

[Gand1]

All high school students in my district need 100 hours of community service to get a diploma anyhow... no big deal imo.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
What about mandatory foreign service for a year between high school / college?

Create an international, larger version of the Peace Corps + FEMA = Global Emergency Management Agency.

19-year-olds would be required to learn basic life skills, CPR, etc. to help the poor in countries around the world / those devastated by natural disasters, etc.

I think it's what a lot of spoiled American kids need.

Repeat after me: I am not the property of the government.

It is so depressing to me that the only liberal concept of charity is at the gunpoint of the federal government. Coerced charity is not charity at all - it's simply another form of taxation. "Freedom of choice" doesn't include how my money or time are spent, apparently.

This is not a liberal ideal... How is this any worse than spying on Americans and then giving telecoms legal immunity for the "better good"... stop playing games.. both sides have done this, so it certainly is NOT liberal based.

I do not agree with mandatory community service. Government should be staying out of lives, not more in.

I am an independent.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: SirStev0

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: SirStev0
Oh and in case I did guess wrong and you are whining about how hard it is to be a business major or something... 100 hours a semester... (not a full year, a semester) would be 6.66 hours a week.

If you couldn't manage college and 6.66 hours doing something to better your community while at the same time getting money for college you are pathetic, lazy and helpless.

The moral argument for communism. Mark my words, we will hear this same shite for the next four years.

The ideological argument for laziness. Mark my words, we will hear this same shite for the next four years.

You are just against gov handouts when they are not for you.



Amazing how EARNING money is communism when a liberal suggests it.

Defend it if you must. There will be many like you so you should feel comfortable. I'm sure you would like China, I suggest you pack your bags.

It's not earning money at all, no paychecks involved. It is not a request from government but a mandate. You should learn the difference.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
I've read a bit about this. It seems that its about funding. A school will be given funding if they implement this into their curricular. So in actuality, its kind of a backdoor way to force people into community service. Kids are required by law to go to school, then the schools take up the community service BS because they want more funding. It's not Obama standing over them declaring they serve, but its Obama standing over the schools with money saying "Do what I say and you get cash!".

Source?

Assuming that is correct, the kids work a little and learn about personal responsibility while the schools get more funding and provide more quality academics to our kids? This is a good thing. We need education funding and instead of the government basically providing schools extra cash almost like a hand out they force them to do things which improve the quality of America's youth. Of course, there will also be plenty of other details I am sure which may include many options that satisfy the requirement as well as opportunities to make the service easy. Nothing is certain though.

So what if a kid decides it's his or her life, or if a minor, the parent doesn't want to participate. How should the government punish them?

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Defend it if you must. There will be many like you so you should feel comfortable. I'm sure you would like China, I suggest you pack your bags.

It's not earning money at all, no paychecks involved. It is not a request from government but a mandate. You should learn the difference.

We are already mandated to send our kids to school in order to preserve America's future. Is it not part of preserving America's future to raise and teach responsible young adults too? Why would adding something to the already required curriculum that both helps assist with teaching responsibility and provides schools with more money harm America?

 

[sactoking]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
I've read a bit about this. It seems that its about funding. A school will be given funding if they implement this into their curricular. So in actuality, its kind of a backdoor way to force people into community service. Kids are required by law to go to school, then the schools take up the community service BS because they want more funding. It's not Obama standing over them declaring they serve, but its Obama standing over the schools with money saying "Do what I say and you get cash!".

Source?

Assuming that is correct, the kids work a little and learn about personal responsibility while the schools get more funding and provide more quality academics to our kids? This is a good thing. We need education funding and instead of the government basically providing schools extra cash almost like a hand out they force them to do things which improve the quality of America's youth. Of course, there will also be plenty of other details I am sure which may include many options that satisfy the requirement as well as opportunities to make the service easy. Nothing is certain though.

And how do you feel about No Child Left Behind? That's the same thing: the federal government threatening school funding to further their own questionable (and ineffective) policies.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
I've read a bit about this. It seems that its about funding. A school will be given funding if they implement this into their curricular. So in actuality, its kind of a backdoor way to force people into community service. Kids are required by law to go to school, then the schools take up the community service BS because they want more funding. It's not Obama standing over them declaring they serve, but its Obama standing over the schools with money saying "Do what I say and you get cash!".

Source?

Assuming that is correct, the kids work a little and learn about personal responsibility while the schools get more funding and provide more quality academics to our kids? This is a good thing. We need education funding and instead of the government basically providing schools extra cash almost like a hand out they force them to do things which improve the quality of America's youth. Of course, there will also be plenty of other details I am sure which may include many options that satisfy the requirement as well as opportunities to make the service easy. Nothing is certain though.

So what if a kid decides it's his or her life, or if a minor, the parent doesn't want to participate. How should the government punish them?

I can't answer that until I have more details about how the program will work. No one knows that information yet.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: sactoking

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
I've read a bit about this. It seems that its about funding. A school will be given funding if they implement this into their curricular. So in actuality, its kind of a backdoor way to force people into community service. Kids are required by law to go to school, then the schools take up the community service BS because they want more funding. It's not Obama standing over them declaring they serve, but its Obama standing over the schools with money saying "Do what I say and you get cash!".

Source?

Assuming that is correct, the kids work a little and learn about personal responsibility while the schools get more funding and provide more quality academics to our kids? This is a good thing. We need education funding and instead of the government basically providing schools extra cash almost like a hand out they force them to do things which improve the quality of America's youth. Of course, there will also be plenty of other details I am sure which may include many options that satisfy the requirement as well as opportunities to make the service easy. Nothing is certain though.

And how do you feel about No Child Left Behind? That's the same thing: the federal government threatening school funding to further their own questionable (and ineffective) policies.

You are noting similarities but this proposed program and No Child Left Behind are different beasts. No Child Left Behind was mostly a issue due to lack of funding.

 

[extra]

See, here is what I don't get. An "assault weapon" is just a scary looking semi automatic rifle. Not even a powerful one. One in alaska we wouldn't even have carried with us for anything other than if you were trying to shoot like, a small creature like a wolverine or squirrel or something.

Here's the real thing I don't get though. Why the focus on scary looking, honestly fairy puny (though you can kill a person easily with even a .22lr, us humans are sadly fragile ), semi auto rifles????? I mean, this is going to sound terrible and honestly writing this kind of makes me feel ill, but, if I was a horrible murdering criminal, I mean not the average type that does a spur of the moment shooting with a pistol, but a real like serial killer who just wanted to do as much damage as possible, and you sat down and had to pick between these two weapons:

1. A fully automatic ak-47 with 100 rounds of ammo. (which obviously isn't an assault rifle, assault rifles are just semi auto)

Or

2. A bolt action .416 remington (good cartridge for bear hunting, but we used it for deer hunting as well because it ensures quick humane kill and the large bullet doesn't fragment and damage any meat) with 100 rounds of ammo in a backpack and a good quality hunting scope.

Which could you honestly do more damage with???