Calling all dems

[Christy]

Okay, let us try and get past the political mudslinging shall we and move onto thoughtful debate.

1. As a Democrat, what do you propose we should do with our military?

2. How would you fight the war on terrorism?

3. Should we be dictated to by the UN? If so, why?

4. How would you address the failing public school system?

5. Who is your choice for the next Democratic Presidential Candidate?

 

[missi1013]

Those questions are too hard for demo's! They might have to tell the truth and say "I don't know"

 

[Kyle]

Originally posted by missi1013
Those questions are too hard for demo's! They might have to tell the truth and say "I don't know"

They never say "I don't know"... They just make something up. It's far more convenient.

G'night all! Have fun!

 

[missi1013]

Yeah your right!!:razz2:

 

[Sharon]

And when you call them on it they slander you.

 

[missi1013]

Why?

 

[Sharon]

Not worth 2¢

Originally posted by Evil Dewars
Calling all Repugnantcans:

Okay, let us try and get past the political mudslinging shall we and move onto thoughtful debate.

... since most conservatives who surf the internet all day are on welfare.

Tootles, losers.

You should get a refund.

 

[Christy]

Just what I thought. It is impossible for Evil Dewars to take part in intelligent debate.

I was seriously interested in their opinion. I'd still like to hear the thoughts of anyone else from the "underground" that can coherently put together their thoughts and form a good argument, rather than nonsensical blather.

 

[MGKrebs]

OK, I'll take the bait.

Originally posted by Christy
Okay, let us try and get past the political mudslinging shall we and move onto thoughtful debate.

1. As a Democrat, what do you propose we should do with our military?

Too vague. Please be more specific. In general, I don't think Dem's have a problem with the military. We may be a little less quick to pull the trigger on sending them out. I think most Dem's feel that many conflicts are based on extending our economic power, imprinting our culture on others, or kicking the asses of people we've pissed off for 100 years. Do a google search on "Smedley Butler". He was an ancestor of mine. Cool story.

2. How would you fight the war on terrorism?

If we didn't call 1/3 of the world our enemy, and threaten anyone who "wasn't with us", we might be able to develop some actual intelligence data to prevent future attacks. Develop trade, address the issues that cause people to hate us. When Bush or whoever says they "hate our way of life" or "hate our freedom", I don't buy that for a minute. They hate us because we have been F****** with them for so long. How could the Taliban give a rats ass about us? They're hungry for crying out loud. You should read about Serbia/Bosnia/Croatia. We are TAKING over that area. First we bomb the crap out of them, and then bring in the big corporations to rebuild. Which may be fine, but they then OWN all the infrastructure. What about the locals? What if they don't want it like that? What if they want to be socialist or something?
I have no problem with "profiling" in regards to terrorists. Check 'em all. But DON'T "detain" American citizens with no charges, no access to a lawyer, no contact with family. There are rules for this kind of stuff. If we need NEW rules, fine. Just do it so we all know what the rules are.

3. Should we be dictated to by the UN? If so, why?

Absolutely yes. It can't be ignored anymore- it's one little world. We all affect each other. New Zealand may have issues. They should be heard. Do we just impose our will on the whole world, just because we can? No wonder everyone hates us. No wonder they attack us.

4. How would you address the failing public school system?

I'm glad you asked. First of all, who says it's failing? Compared to what? If whatever you will compare it to is better, why don't we just do that? Secondly, I think parental involvement is the key. Since the advent of both parents working, there is less time available for the kids. (I could go on.) This is one reason vouchers won't work. It's bad enough now, but how about when your kid is in school across town? Third- if you are not happy with your school, why? Poor teachers? Talk to the principle. Bad building? Don't bitch next time that city bond is up for approval. Classes too big? Gonna need more teachers. Cough up some money. Other parents not working with their kids to make them better? Become a mentor, read to them. Invite them over. Help them.

5. Who is your choice for the next Democratic Presidential Candidate?

Right now I'm pretty inspired by Gore. (Bring it on. I can defend him.)

 

[demsformd]

I am not a member of the Democratic Underworld but I am an ardent Democrat. I don't agree with the way that my Democratic friends have attacked conservatism. I also disagree with the way that my Republican counterparts have dealt with this. We can fight this in a more civil way. Thank you Christy for asking these great questions. And I will answer them the best way that I can.

Question 1: The question is rather vague but I have several postions that I think should be adopted by the government. While military action is often needed, it should not be the first option for the government. The policy of the United States should be "peace first, second, and last." Defense spending should also be trimmed, as should other department's budgets, in order to promote government efficiency. The Department of Defense is by far the most wasteful and inefficient department in the government. I am not advocating massive cutbacks but minimal cuts must be made to ensure fiscal responsibilty.

Question 2: I feel that the War on Terrorism is going nowhere. We're fighting the whole Islamic world right now and any country that has ever aided them. How practical is a goal of stopping all terrorism? We are never gonna be able to do such a thing. We have not found bin Laden and we are never gonna find him. If we kill him, there will be another person to take his place. But the most distressing thing I see in the war is that the Taliban still has a strong grip on Afganistan. It is evident that the region is still incredibly unstable and that freedom and equality are from the plans for a new Afganistan. I feel that we could be making a better mark in Afganistan than a bomb crater in the middle of a desolate desert.
As for "profiling," I do not see a problem with that either. I do have a problem with some measures due to civil rights intrusions but we are gonna have to do it in order to ensure our safety.

Question 3: Of course we should participate in the UN. The last time that our nation refused membership to a league of nations, World War II happened. The UN promotes peace just as the US should.

Question 4: The public school system is failing. A private-school voucher would definitely not help the situation especially if it drains money from the public school system. Anyway, how can one say the best way to help the school system is to divert funds from it? I also feel that parental involvment is the ulitmate key. That cannot be legislated but more funding for school construction, teacher's salaries, and a more fundmamental ciriculum can be.

Question 5: My choice for the nomination is John Edwards of North Carolina. He is a charismatic and young man that can attract votes from both parties and ideologies. He also stands for many liberal causes although he has a very moderate voting record. I love Al Gore because he wanted the White House so bad but his style just won't make our party victorious. Mr. Edwards will because he is from the South, a key region that the party must carry to win the White House.

 

[vraiblonde]

Ya know, Dems, I got to the part where you said you were an "ardent Democrat" and I quit reading. Anyone who is that big of a political partisan isn't worth listening to. Their minds aren't merely closed, they are slammed shut and deadbolted. If it makes a difference, I would also quit reading someone who said they were an ardent Republicn or Greenie or any other artificial political club created to enslave us and keep power for the privileged few.

Why don't you try being an ardent human or an ardent student of life? Then maybe you could earn some respect instead of just a token from your Democratic massas.

 

[demsformd]

vrailblonde, shame on you for attacking me for being close-minded. You are an ardent conservative that will never endorse a liberal viewpoint in your life. I hate the name-calling and the mud-slinging but if you say something derogatory of myself I will fire back. What a negative and hateful response.
I have conservative postions, especially concerning environmental policy and government spending. Do not attack me as close-minded, especially since you do not understand that I come from a Republican family. My ideas today are my own and I disagree with my party on some issues. You label me as a partisan, well you too are a staunch partisan. Read what I have to say and maybe your heart will be changed. I have read your views, understanding that you are a conservative, and while it raises some questions in my mind, I cannot justify changing my position. Rejecting the opinions of a person is close-minded, wouldn't you say? The hypocrisy in your statement is evident.
So I respectfully disagree with your assertion that I am close-minded due to my political affiliation.

 

[Christy]

Yeaaaaa! Finally some dialogue! Thanks Demsformd! I'll probably do seperate posts to counter with my views so as not to create one huge post!

Question 1: The question is rather vague but I have several postions that I think should be adopted by the government. While military action is often needed, it should not be the first option for the government. The policy of the United States should be "peace first, second, and last." Defense spending should also be trimmed, as should other department's budgets, in order to promote government efficiency. The Department of Defense is by far the most wasteful and inefficient department in the government. I am not advocating massive cutbacks but minimal cuts must be made to ensure fiscal responsibilty.

I agree "peace first, second, and last", however my approach is slightly different. The only way to form a lasting peace and keep us (Americans) out of harms way, is to "Speak softly and carry a big stick". The military as it stands now is stretched to it's limits. We need to pull most of our military out of foreign countries and bring them back home. With the exception of countries who ask for our presence and are willing to foot the bill for it, or give us some benefit in return. We need to build up massive "offensive" weapons and technology as well as "defensive". That is how we won the Cold war. A strong offense is the best defense. We should have learned by now, cutting our military is the quickest way to be blindsided. Look at what happened after WWI.

I wouldn't say the DoD is the most inefficient department of the government. I'd give that award to the IRS.

 

[Christy]

You may also want to take note that the Clinton Administration used our military far more than any other President in History.

Madeline Albright made the statement once to Colin Powel, “What is the point of having this superb military that you’re always talking about if we can’t use it?” His response was "American GIs were not toy soldiers to be moved around on some sort of global game board”

 

[Christy]

Question 2: I feel that the War on Terrorism is going nowhere. We're fighting the whole Islamic world right now and any country that has ever aided them. How practical is a goal of stopping all terrorism? We are never gonna be able to do such a thing. We have not found bin Laden and we are never gonna find him. If we kill him, there will be another person to take his place. But the most distressing thing I see in the war is that the Taliban still has a strong grip on Afganistan. It is evident that the region is still incredibly unstable and that freedom and equality are from the plans for a new Afganistan. I feel that we could be making a better mark in Afganistan than a bomb crater in the middle of a desolate desert.

I think we should take lessons from Israel on fighting the war on terrorism. They do a pretty good job of it when we keep our noses out of it and strong arm them into backing off. We will probably never stop all terrorism, but we sure can keep it at bay through vigilance. The harder you make it for them to operate with ease, the safer we will be. The politicians need to let the Intelligence Community do what it does (well used to do) best. The jugular was cut on every single Intelligence Agency we have during the 90's. It will take many many years before they will recover.

 

[MGKrebs]

Originally posted by Christy

I agree "peace first, second, and last", however my approach is slightly different. The only way to form a lasting peace and keep us (Americans) out of harms way, is to "Speak softly and carry a big stick". The military as it stands now is stretched to it's limits. We need to pull most of our military out of foreign countries and bring them back home. With the exception of countries who ask for our presence and are willing to foot the bill for it, or give us some benefit in return. We need to build up massive "offensive" weapons and technology as well as "defensive". That is how we won the Cold war. A strong offense is the best defense. We should have learned by now, cutting our military is the quickest way to be blindsided. Look at what happened after WWI.

I'm not sure I agree that the military is stretched to the limit. They ARE stretched to the limit if we are going to fight every country that doesn't do what we say, but it doesn't have to be this way.
I will also take exception to the "massive offensive" weapons comment. As long as we do that, other countries and cultures will fear, and therefore , hate us. Yes we need to protect ourselves, yes we need a strong military. But someday we will have to join the community of nations and stop trying to export our way of life to every corner of the world. I don't think Canada or Australia or Portugal or Sweden or Switzerland receives the kind of animosity directed towards us, I think because they (mostly) don't mes with anybody. There's always gonna be some maniac that needs to be smacked, but why not let the UN decide who? Why are we the sole arbiter of world justice? Take China for example. We now have much more influence over their behavior than we did as enemies, because they are so dependent on us (and vice versa, perhaps).
As far as the cold war, yes, we outspent them to destruction. Kudos to Ronnie for that. But I don't think we can expect that to be the solution in all cases. Instead of bringing the military guys home, bring home the CIA guys, or at least stop trying to overthrow governments because we feel like we need more oil.

 

[missi1013]

Cari- BITE ME!!!! I have said my point and views a lot on here. Political and not political! So !!

 

[Christy]

I'm not sure I agree that the military is stretched to the limit. They ARE stretched to the limit if we are going to fight every country that doesn't do what we say, but it doesn't have to be this way.

That is pecisely why we are stretched to the limit. We are being brought into way too many conflicts that do not serve our National Interest. The UN is always calling on us to intervene in petty civil wars, yet where is the UN when it comes to calling on the world to "have our backs"?

more to follow....

 

[MGKrebs]

Originally posted by Christy


That is pecisely why we are stretched to the limit. We are being brought into way too many conflicts that do not serve our National Interest. The UN is always calling on us to intervene in petty civil wars, yet where is the UN when it comes to calling on the world to "have our backs"?

more to follow....

I'm not sure I can take a general "position" on this. In other words, we shouldn't ALWAYS get involved in petty civil wars, but we shouldn't NEVER get involved either. I guess this is why I would trust the UN to come to a consensus on what the right thing to do is. These are very, very diffuclt issues, and we (or the UN) won't always be right. But ya' gotta keep trying to do the right thing. Not getting more involved prior to WW2 was probably a mistake in hindsight. But getting involved in Serbia was probably right, as long as we don't turn the country over to Exxon/Mobil .

 

[demsformd]

Christy, I disagree with your belief that the best defense is a good offense. I can best explain my disagreement with a football analogy. (on a different subject, how bout them skins?) The St. Louis Rams have had a prolific offense the past years especially the year that they won the Super Bowl. That year they had a great defense as well but the next two years their defense was lacking. Those two years were hard due to below-average play. Furthermore, look at the Indianapolis Colts. This team is always a leader in offensive rankings but have never gotten past the second round of the playoffs in the past five years because their defense cannot stop anything. So my point is this, without a good defense a good offense is nothing. It would be impossible for the government to fund dually the build-up of offensive and defensive weapons unless taxes were raised or popular entitlement programs were cut.
The most advantageous thing for this government to do is to protect the homeland and have sound foreign policy that does not allienate even the smallest of countries.