arguments about politics

Political spin is all about emotions. Its about clever usage of adjectives to influence peoples emotions about a subject. logic, in argument, is only the arena its played in, the actual battle is one of emotions. understanding this is key to winning.

first of all. War. america has open declared War on the concepts of Terror and Drugs. This was a clever move by the neocons as then they can use Military Commissions to consider nearly any human alive who seem Terrifying or does Drugs as an enemy combatant and can hold them without due process and lots of other things like waterboard them or hook their dickheads up to an ceiling fan or whatever. Essentially, all political arguments now are designed to grab an emotion and twist it away from the logic of the argument.

for example, neocons are pushing for open borders in the US, things that make illegal immigration something that qualifies in some cases for US aid, or gives you a fast track to citizenship. This is NOT in sympathy to those who have come here illegally and therefore dont have access to some of the benefits of society. This IS a slow cultural expansion of the borders of the area they control to include canada and mexico. This is a economic takeover of North America, not by the US, but by the neocons and the corporations they represent. They dont introduce this bill as a UNITE NORTH AMERICA bill because they know that that cancels out all their arguments about NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY and PATRIOTISM. essentially, they want you to feel that you are CARING and HELPFUL to introduce the bill, not IMPERIALIST and DOMINATING, which is what this is. dont doubt it.

the war. there are two types of people when it comes to war. a. irresponsibly unreasonable people who believe war should never happen and is avoidable. and b. irresponsably unreasonable people who believe wars are fought because they are right or for a reason that is morally appropriate and need to happen. the fucked up part is each and every one of us is one of these 2 at different points in our life, this is proven by polling during times like after 911 or at times like right now. Some of you treehugging latte sipping dot commers at the peace rally had an american flag on their car and furiously demanded a military action of some sort against someone, whoever we could think of after 911 and you know it. but the reality of it is war always exists, and must, and will find a reason to exist, emotionally based at various places and times in human sociality. a refusal to have a strong military will make your nation unsafe . so in a sense he Neocons love to use the fact that we have military power as a way to show that they are working for your safety by fighting for various goals, such as reducing "terror". however terror is not a possible thing to reduce or fight. True national safety is to have the most powerful military on earth, and not use it. if someone sets foot on your country, as an agent of a national sovereign nation, and commits an act of violence, you respond with a very clear show of force.

HOWEVER, when an agent of a public interest group(al qaeda or something) attacks, this is not an act of war, this is a CRIME, which falls under the responsibility of POLICE or SECURITY AGENTS and not HOMELAND SECURITY, that is by NO MEANS a police force or security force, haha, that is an OCCUPATIONAL FORCE by the NEOCON party.

ok, so for getting out of war in Iraq, theres guys who say, "hey! we can't leave! thats losing! losing sends the wrong message"

ok, thats retarded logic, the only reason were losing something is because someone is claiming we are trying to fight a real war against ideals. here is an example of an arguement to contradict that

"our troops have completed their missions: the liberation of iraq, the capture of Saddam Hussein, and the
provision of security for the January 30, 2005 elections. American military personnel should be
commended for accomplishing these difficult tasks and performing them in a courageous and selfless manner.
we cannot continue to keep our servicement and women committed to an open-ended, violent conflict in Iraq" -from shane corey of the Libertarian party's iraq exit strategy plan

so when the redneck dude says we can't leave iraq because losing is the wrong message, rather than insulting him, or something you can use this argument to suggest getting out. this makes you sound like your not unreasonably arguing that war should never exist, or something that diminishes the credibility of your argument to leave iraqi occupation behind. bear in mind most people who wanted the war in the first place were fooled into thinking there was a serious international threat by Saddam Hussein to use nuclear weapons against us... they dont have the ability to go back in time and realize that. (btw, BUSH's neocon cronies are using this same argument, but dont believe them, they read LEO STRAUSS who promotes and advocates using false flag events to spurn america into war, this isn't conspiracy theory horseshit, read your history books about the SPANISH AMERICAN WAR)

now to argue why it was wrong to go to iraq in the first place....... save that one for when it applies, when the neocons try to urge us to attack IRAN, SYRIA, LIBYA, and then CHINA, probably in that order.

remind them the cost in money, human life, and international opinion of the US when we do imperial actions.

what were doing in IRAQ right now is occupation, not a war, and a costly, pointless, useless occupation as far as to the US opinion. Im sure the neocons have some TROTSKY based use for it however they're not telling us about...