[Popsyche]

Originally Posted by The Dark Wolf

To address your issue with the Iraqi battalion article -

Would we call half-trained troops "trained", i.e., fully ready to be sent into battle?

Of course not. Therefore, it is no stretch to call only one Iraqi battalion, if that is the ONLY one capable of military action, "trained." The rest would be said to be in trainING. After 3 years, billions of dollars, thousands of dead, hardly a stunning success. My whole point. But I see you prefer to selectively overlook parts of the argument that you don't care to address, ChrisPCritter.


Also, FTR, I see no one here personally attacking you. No need to play the martyr. Talk to one of us in a different thread, and we'll treat you no different than any other ss.org brother. I personally take great exception to your portrayal of ss.org as a a place of intolerance. This is a very friendly forum, but people enjoy real debate. As such, people should approach with an open mind, and a willingness to back up their assertions. Putting someone down for political inclination? No. But putting someone down for erroneous beliefs, i.e., like Iraq had WMD, or that Saddam was a part of a 9/11 conspiracy? You had better believe that you will get called out for nonsense like that here. People are generally too-well informed for that sort of Faux news chicanery to pass by unnoticed.

For myself, personally, I am not a liberal. Neither am I a conservative. I am a firm supporter of the 2nd amendment. I believe in fiscal responsibility and the limited role of government. I believe in the conservation of natural resources and wildlife. I believe in a robust defense of the first amendment. I believe in a comprehensive public welfare system, i.e., universal healthcare. I hardly fit a single label. Please quit trying to pigeon-hole us, either collectively or individually, to benefit your ill-formed arguments.

Thanks.

+1!

[Metal Ken]

Originally Posted by ChrisPcritter

I
Also Metal Ken I didn't know that democrats and republicans were enemies, thanks for the tip. When I see someone quoting only the parts of the news that I find exclusively on the more liberal programs it makes me think that they only watch liberal programs. .

Hell Yeah they're enemies. According to Rush limbaugh, Liberals are whats wrong with this country. Most neo-con pundits just rag on liberals all day as a scapegoat for all the problems in the government. Liberals are "Spineless Hippies" if you listen to Rush. Ann Coulter pretty much says their insane. Mark Lebin Says that "Libs" are the scum of the earth. Its funny cause the Liberal radio shows i listen to (All 3 of them lol) dont spend any time blaming anybody except the president and his cabinet. the conservatives pundits blame half the country.

Just like the weapons of mass destruction comment that was made earlier. "Not one was found" Does anyone remember the media coming out to say a bunch of confiscated weapons of mass destruction came up missing. If not one was found how could any be missing?

Remember when donald rumsfeld said he knew exactly where they were at? and then remember a few months later when Donald Rumsfeld said he never said he knew where they were at?

[The Dark Wolf]

Originally Posted by Metal Ken

Remember when donald rumsfeld said he knew exactly where they were at? and then remember a few months later when Donald Rumsfeld said he never said he knew where they were at?

Yeah. They were "north, east, south, and west of Tikrit."

[Drew]

Originally Posted by The Dark Wolf

Yeah. They were "north, east, south, and west of Tikrit."

"By golly, they're around here somewhere... I guess Saddam DOES have weapons of mass destruction, but we just lost them before we could find them."

[Metal Ken]

Or like they say on The Boondocks.. "The Absense of Evidence is not the Evidence of Absence!"

[ChrisPcritter]

All I was trying to say is that I have been mis interpreted here on some key points.
Number 1:
I don't believe all liberal minded people support criminals and their rights or the porn industry and theirs, actually "I Believe" (meaning it's my opinion) that there are a small number of left wing liberal groups (meaning extreme liberal groups) that do. And that the rest of the groups and people want to make things better in our country and protect the rights and future of the people..
Number 2:
I didn't say that SS.org was a bad enviroment, I said that until this, every thing I had seen has been positive. (If that isn't how it came out I apologize as that was what I meant) It seemed like people were just waiting for me to make a comment so they could point out how stupid I am since my opinions don't match theirs and it was said that I was brainwashed. I do understand that I also said that it seemed some only paid attention to media that was liberal and was not meant to be derogotory although I understand it probably seemed thatway, but when I look at all the so called facts the media puts out there seems to be a large gap between more liberal and more conservative stations. To say that one is right and one is wrong is an opinion so it's difficult to have someone tell you that you are obviously brainwashed because of what you choose to believe. If you believe that Iraq was no threat then I can totally understand not wanting us there, but that is not my opinion so all I am saying is we are not political enemies just people with different beliefs. Trying to put each other down or make each other feel ignorant won't change the beliefs.
Number 3:
At no point was I trying to imply that anyone here was ignorant, immoral or anything else negative but it began to seem a little like five on one when I made a comment about believing that people had both liberal ideals and conservative morals and values inside their soul (which I meant as there personality, conscience or what ever you want to call what make you, you ). It was just my opinion and I did not intend it to be offensive to anyone. I am by no means a Right wing (extreme consevative) as I find them a bit offensive as well, like Rush Limbough for example. I also don't want their political or religious beliefs shoved down my throat. I also do not feel I have the market on some sort of moral superiority as has been stated.
Number 4:
When I spoke of conservative and liberal traits in people I was speaking in the broader sense of the words not the political sense. I was not saying, or trying to at least, that people only act responsibly when a conservative side kicks in but that it's the conservative traits that keep us balanced with our liberal ones and used the analogy of eating too much to try to get my non politcal understanding across, meaning that everyone in my opinion has both liberal and conservative traits but controlling the amount of each that comes out in our lives is what makes us who we are.
Number 5:
I do understand that running a deficit government is "BAD" for our country and makes other countries economically stronger while ours gets weaker but we used to have higher tarriffs with the chinese as well as mexico to help offset that problem. I do believe a lot of the tarrifs were lowered if I remember correctly under president Clinton. I know NAFTA was signed then. I thought the tax breaks were a bad idea across the board but I still went and cashed my refund so I can't complain too much without being a hypocrit.
Number 6:
While I understand the people who don't believe we should be in Iraq, I never actually thought the weapons of mass destruction issue was the main reason we were there. From the start I thought it was because Saddam had spent ten years kicking out the inspectors in what was believed an attempt to hide what he had from the United Nations and then invited terrorists to seek sanctuary in his country after 9 11. I thought the whole weapons of mass destruction issue to be something that the democrats were trying to make a big deal of after the fact to make voters distrust the current regime, so either I am incorrect or it worked pretty well, that's an opinion we each have to decide on our own...

[Chris]

I didn't say that SS.org was a bad enviroment, I said that until this, every thing I had seen has been positive.

I'm not part of this thread, but I want to chime in here with one point. I was very much against making this subforum since people's political views, especially when you have American and non-US folks in the same place, differ quite a bit. I don't want to see arguments between members and when discussing politics, it's inevitable that people are going to disagree.

So please look at it this way. This is a politics forum on a (for lack of a better term) "international" website. People's views are going to differ, because the places that we live are all very different. If you're at ss.org to discuss music, the music forums are moderated enough (and the members are cool enough) to where heated arguments/debates are few and far between. If you're going to click on the Politics forum however, you have to understand that there is going to be tension. My only hope is that people be civil to one another in here and whatever differences there are in THIS forum stay in here and don't spill over into the music forums, which are the heart and soul of this community.

So please, no offense meant here, don't judge ss.org based on the posts in this forum. Sevenstring.org is a music forum and this one subforum is a very small part of it. If you (or anyone else reading this, I don't mean to single you out) are strongly politically-biased one way or another, treat this as any other politics forum on the internet. People will disagree and the veil of anonymity granted by the internet will tend to bring out the worst in people at times. If it pisses you off, no worries, just bow out of this forum and stick to the music forums - that's what I do for the most part, and politics aside it's why most of us are here.

There are many hot issues that people are passionate about one way or another, and sometimes it can get personal. Just don't judge the rest of this site or it's community based on the political views of the people who choose to express them here.

Again I really don't like this forum and I hope it all stays civil. People are different. Opinions are different. I hope everyone can agree to disagree when the situation presents itself instead of resorting to flaming and namecalling that's so common on other forums. We may not all agree on forums, but we do all have music in common and that's what makes the ss.org community so special.

[noodles]

^ Good post.

[Drew]

Originally Posted by ChrisPcritter

I do understand that running a deficit government is "BAD" for our country and makes other countries economically stronger while ours gets weaker but we used to have higher tarriffs with the chinese as well as mexico to help offset that problem. I do believe a lot of the tarrifs were lowered if I remember correctly under president Clinton. I know NAFTA was signed then. I thought the tax breaks were a bad idea across the board but I still went and cashed my refund so I can't complain too much without being a hypocrite.

I'm just going to interject in passing that even as a liberal Clinton-supporter, I too think Nafta was a pretty bad idea. On paper, sure, free trade rocks. But to really maximize the benefits for all related parties in a free trade zone, you need to have aproximate economic parity between all parties. Considering the wide economic disparity between the Mexican working and upper classes, production costs are so much lower in Mexico than they are in the states or canada that there's no way in hell american companies can compete with Mexican production without economic terrifs in place.

Free trade's a great idea and all, but with the current state of Mexico's economy, it's just an economic drain on the US.

[noodles]

Originally Posted by Drew

Free trade's a great idea and all, but with the current state of Mexico's economy, it's just an economic drain on the US.

Who do you think keeps Mexico that way? The Mexican government would change it's tune if the US decided it would no longer allow American companies to do business with any country that did not meet the labor law requirements as US companies. Mexico has no middle class, and we take advantage of that cheap labor force, making the Mexican upper class shitloads of money in the process. NAFTA would work if Mexico had to pay minimum wage, health care, social security, worker's comp, etc.

Currently, it's an economic drain on the middle and lower class. The upper class and government officials--every last one of them has a (most likely illegal) immigrant mowing their lawn and cleaning their house--make a fortune by shipping manufacturing off to Mexico. Just ask the CEOs of Ford, GM, Fender...