Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Another Old American Century - style Democrat emerges...
OLD American Century / White Rose Society message boards > Political Discussion forums > Welcome New Members!
ira13ping
Hey all,

I'm Abraham. I'm a student and a political science major. I'm pretty active in politics (wasn't this last election fun?). That said, I'm a big fan of Harry Truman probably actually do find the old-american century better as far as my personal politics go. What can I say? I like cold-war liberals.

That said, my interests are tennis, chess, politcs, wine, and women. biggrin.gif

-Abraham
sky of mind
Welcome to the White Rose Abraham.
If you liked the mid terms, just wait till November 08!
ira13ping
Yeah, I'm totally pumped already!!
nygreenguy
Poli sci major? Where? My fiance majored in gender studies and poli sci. Shes in law school now. Do you plan on going into law?
ira13ping
QUOTE(nygreenguy @ Tuesday, 14 November 2006, 4:41 pm) [snapback]79584[/snapback]

Poli sci major? Where? My fiance majored in gender studies and poli sci. Shes in law school now. Do you plan on going into law?



Hahah, my parents want me to go into law. I'm interested in studying public policy at a graduate school somewhere. I'm considering a career in lobbying. Foreign affairs are an interest and passion of mine. I really want to learn more about National Security policy for our country as well. I'll admit, I'm a bit of a hawk since I believe in a robust defense (Democrats like Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson were the last to show real committment to such ideas).

IPB Image
happymisanthropy
QUOTE(Abraham @ Wednesday, 15 November 2006, 10:05 pm) [snapback]79741[/snapback]

Hahah, my parents want me to go into law. I'm interested in studying public policy at a graduate school somewhere. I'm considering a career in lobbying. Foreign affairs are an interest and passion of mine. I really want to learn more about National Security policy for our country as well. I'll admit, I'm a bit of a hawk since I believe in a robust defense (Democrats like Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson were the last to show real committment to such ideas).

IPB Image


Is "robust defense" a euphamism for "offense?"
ira13ping
QUOTE(happymisanthropy @ Thursday, 16 November 2006, 1:40 am) [snapback]79768[/snapback]

Is "robust defense" a euphamism for "offense?"



Actually I feel my beliefs are quite in line with the Democratic Party's current Party Platform:



QUOTE
Defending America against attack at all costs. First, the world should be on notice that we will take every possible measure to defend ourselves against the possibility of attack by unconventional arms. If such an attack appears imminent, we will do everything necessary to stop it. If such a strike does occur, we will respond with overwhelming and devastating force. But we should never wait to act until we have no other choice but war.



Am I really that off-base? "Robust defense" means this (see above excerpt). Don't like it? It's the Democratic Party Platform and they're finally starting to rediscover the national security principles which made America great.


IPB Image
happymisanthropy
QUOTE(Abraham @ Thursday, 16 November 2006, 12:04 am) [snapback]79770[/snapback]

Actually I feel my beliefs are quite in line with the Democratic Party's current Party Platform:
Am I really that off-base? "Robust defense" means this (see above excerpt). Don't like it? It's the Democratic Party Platform and they're finally starting to rediscover the national security principles which made America great.

I asked a simple question. I'm just asking you the difference between "robust defense" and "offense." And don't quote me part of one paragraph about how democrats would respond to an actual threat from an actual foreign enemy with actual WMDs who are actually preparing to use them. That situation has never occurred. Defining your position by saying how you would respond to a situation that has never occurred is pretty weak.

Tell me, what Democratic leader would not have behaved as in that paragraph from John Kerry's platform? And if you can't name any, what gives you the right to say your position is different from theirs?

You seem to be saying "Dems are pussies because they don't believe in R.D. And I define R.D. to be something I pulled out of John Kerry's platform, which is such a no-brainer that everyone believes in it."

Tell me how that is consistent.
ira13ping
QUOTE(happymisanthropy @ Thursday, 16 November 2006, 3:02 am) [snapback]79775[/snapback]

I asked a simple question. I'm just asking you the difference between "robust defense" and "offense." And don't quote me part of one paragraph about how democrats would respond to an actual threat from an actual foreign enemy with actual WMDs who are actually preparing to use them. That situation has never occurred. Defining your position by saying how you would respond to a situation that has never occurred is pretty weak.

Tell me, what Democratic leader would not have behaved as in that paragraph from John Kerry's platform? And if you can't name any, what gives you the right to say your position is different from theirs?

You seem to be saying "Dems are pussies because they don't believe in R.D. And I define R.D. to be something I pulled out of John Kerry's platform, which is such a no-brainer that everyone believes in it."

Tell me how that is consistent.



Alright, fine. I imagine most Democratic leaders would behave as Kerry's platform (though my intuition has some reservations about Carter). I suppose you havea point. I'll delve into detail. For me, having a "robust defense" means maintaining a larger military budget and standing army.

As far as pre-emption is concerned, I would probably be in favor of it if it was actually practiced against a sound threat (unlike Bush's pre-emption against Iraq).
soon2b
QUOTE(ira13ping @ Thursday, 16 November 2006, 8:49 am) [snapback]79790[/snapback]

Alright, fine. I imagine most Democratic leaders would behave as Kerry's platform (though my intuition has some reservations about Carter). I suppose you havea point. I'll delve into detail. For me, having a "robust defense" means maintaining a larger military budget and standing army.

As far as pre-emption is concerned, I would probably be in favor of it if it was actually practiced against a sound threat (unlike Bush's pre-emption against Iraq).

The current war isn't even included in the defense budget, it's paid for by "emergency supplementals". This at the cost of health care, education and other social programs that also make our nation strong. About how much bigger would you like it?
IPB Image
Rousseau
This shows that a large military budget is possibly the most obscene thing on the planet, except "Slippery" Dick and the PNAC's leering members with their evil little zionist agenda.

Strangely enough, they go hand-in-oily-hand....

Huge defense budget DOES NOT mean security. Is Israel secure ? Nope. Is the USA secure ? Nope. There are far better ways of gaining the peace than by stockpiling weapons of mass destruction and filling the lustful, greedy, gaping jaws of the arms and death industry, but you need to think a little bit "outside the box" before you understand...
maxanne
US Nuclear Weapon Arsenal See Ben Cohen illustrate how large our nuclear arsenal is - and the cost maintaining it.

Death and Taxes - go on in and check out their poster of where the money goes.
ira13ping
QUOTE(Rousseau @ Thursday, 16 November 2006, 10:41 am) [snapback]79811[/snapback]

This shows that a large military budget is possibly the most obscene thing on the planet, except "Slippery" Dick and the PNAC's leering members with their evil little zionist agenda.

Strangely enough, they go hand-in-oily-hand....

Huge defense budget DOES NOT mean security. Is Israel secure ? Nope. Is the USA secure ? Nope. There are far better ways of gaining the peace than by stockpiling weapons of mass destruction and filling the lustful, greedy, gaping jaws of the arms and death industry, but you need to think a little bit "outside the box" before you understand...



No, i fully admit, Iraq was absolute mistake, the only group that gained from our invasion were terrorist (even Israel is suffering more attacks because of us).
nygreenguy
QUOTE(Abraham @ Thursday, 16 November 2006, 1:05 am) [snapback]79741[/snapback]

Hahah, my parents want me to go into law. I'm interested in studying public policy at a graduate school somewhere. I'm considering a career in lobbying. Foreign affairs are an interest and passion of mine. I really want to learn more about National Security policy for our country as well. I'll admit, I'm a bit of a hawk since I believe in a robust defense (Democrats like Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson were the last to show real committment to such ideas).

IPB Image

trying....to hold back.....jewish lawyer jokes...... tongue.gif
ira13ping
QUOTE(nygreenguy @ Thursday, 16 November 2006, 3:42 pm) [snapback]79864[/snapback]

trying....to hold back.....jewish lawyer jokes...... tongue.gif



biggrin.gif biggrin.gif biggrin.gif biggrin.gif biggrin.gif clap.gif clap.gif clap.gif clap.gif biggrin.gif biggrin.gif biggrin.gif biggrin.gif biggrin.gif
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2008 Invision Power Services, Inc.