USA Politics Thread - *No gun debate*

[scrim 1]

Honestly, that wasn't politics, it was death threats because people didn't agree with him/banned him when he started with the threats. This thread has gone on for 540 pages, and I'm pretty sure there aren't any death threats in any of those because of differing opinions. Judging from what he wrote me, it was subjects far more strange/controversial than race and politics, but even if it isn't against the rules to post PMs, I have no intent of sinking to the level of doing that, not that it would be half as bad as death threats.

[LordJarhead 1721]

Honestly, that wasn't politics, it was death threats because people didn't agree with him/banned him when he started with the threats. This thread has gone on for 540 pages, and I'm pretty sure there aren't any death threats in any of those because of differing opinions. Judging from what he wrote me, it was subjects far more strange/controversial than race and politics, but even if it isn't against the rules to post PMs, I have no intent of sinking to the level of doing that, not that it would be half as bad as death threats.

I maybe forgot to mention that I didn't followed this thread at all, because I kinda hate to see such discussions in a non politics concerning forum (even if its a off topic block, I know, just my opinion). I just saw he got banished and was looking for the post that may could have caused it, now I found it (or the whole thread) and just posted about that. I don't know what happened here in any way, and I don't want to put myself on ANY side here, sir!

I'm really sorry to see whats going on sometimes in our forum. Thats it ;)

Thanks,

LJ

[Phantom Six 25]

Unfortunately, when people discuss politics, it can often lead to a bunch of raging and bickering depending on how hardcore the other person is. Yeah, I'm in the US myself, but I don't like to discuss politics, especially with a bunch of extremists hard to their firms. Politics, like religion, is a very controversial. Media sources can be very bias as well. Some media leans more on one side than the other so you can't always trust your sources either. Now, when a bunch of people start not agreeing, some people can go on with a friendly conversation but in most cases, some are much more sensitive of it and it starts to getting to a "I'M RIGHT!! YOU'RE WRONG!! I'M SMART!! YOU'RE STUPID!!" argument type of situation. When controversies start pouring into the topics, it often make the situation worsen as well.

There are also things that I'll say I find quite offensive about the topic of "new culture endangering American dream". Actually no, cultures develop and change over time. What I find sucks is for those of the people who cannot adapt. No one speaks in those old languages and dress in those old school clothing nowadays anymore. Coming from a family of immigrants who can adapt to new culture and are willing to accept other cultures, new culture is not what poison the US but its what shapes it.

As for everyone's opinion, to his his own, I don't care whether people agree or disagree with me or not, but I'll be out of this. Politics gets too subjective, unlike mathematics :/

This is a really sad situation I see here. But as much (or less) I know about life: Never discuss politics when you don't want to have disputes all over the place.

Politics is #2 on the dispute list. Religion would be #1 if I remember correctly. 2 both highly sensitive subjects to talk about.

[W0lle 1046]

I won't discuss this even further but since a few people asked me already why MAVEN is banned:

* He threatened scrim with "personal consequences" and not only once.

* He threatened BI with his "supporters" causing havoc in case he gets banned

* I told him to stop harassing scrim by sending abusive PMs. Instead using his last chance he sent him another one

* After his ban he returned with a new account and personally threatened me too (quoted from a deleted post):

And you W0lle. I guess you rushed to ban me and didn't get my last message in time (which explains many things you asked previously). This reply might not even get approved, and may get removed. However, I have the message if you still want it here pm me (or any other administrator/moderator/team member, that will be even better). I will do what I said I will do, regardless of who you think you are and regardless if I am removed from any forum for that matter (even on a period of time). What's between me and you will be resolved personally not on these forums, with an exception that I will be enjoying my life while you face the consequences of your actions and insults you directed to me, within a month, few months, a year, several years, when you last expect it. I give you my word.

I haven't banned him at first, but after this post I changed the 90 days ban in a permanent one. I don't care how talented he is, I don't care what a good addition he is to the community. With his behaviour he stepped over the thin red line. He will not return, except someone above me removes it.

Please, no further discussion on this. Feel free to PM me if you want to discuss it. :)

[Tonci87 163]

God damn, he seemed like a sane person...

The Internet in a nutshell...

[onlyrazor 11]

The BI Forums, where every member can discuss their favourite games and threaten each others' lives over politics they really have no control of! Explains why I avoid OFFTOPIC when it's not about games :P

[spooky lynx 73]

Why???

[Hillsbills 1]

Not enough people dropping out on marches I guess.

[spooky lynx 73]

I really feel sorry for all the combat troops in A-stan that will be flooded with all that chick wanting to get necessary record for promotion.:(

[Tonci87 163]

Why???

Why not?

[spooky lynx 73]

Why not?

Do you see many women that are capable of serving somewhere at small FOB in A-stan mountains with minimum of private space, constant threats, patrols, firefights, lack of hygiene, sh**ty food as infantryman or some heavy weapon crew just like as their male peers? I don't. Real gender equality means equal tests and physical stresses. But not one tests and requirements for males and other, weakened, for females to help the latter get some record needed for further career promotion. Either DoD will be flooded with lawsuits from many females failing the physical tests or DoD will have to weaken all the requirements for both sexes. And weakened requirements are not the best thing for those detachments that take part in combat (and not only for them). I don't believe that all that females who aren't able to perform current standart male physical tests for combat detachmants will toughen up and train themselves to be able to perform them finally. Instead of it they will sue DoD for those test preventing them to be 'equal' and being discriminating them.

Oh and those females who will get to combat detachments finally just for another promotion record will become dead weight for their serving male peers who will have to defend such 'warriors' and make some cosy conditions for them - carry their loadouts, covering them in battle, providing with showers etc.

[Tonci87 163]

Maybe they should go for a "women only" division then?

[Hillsbills 1]

They perform admirably in their current billets, and even when faced with limited engagements, but they're not built for the long term patrol base ops.

[scrim 1]

Why not?

Less dense skeletal system = going to break when carrying heavy loads, just like I believe the Red Army found out in Afghanistan when something like +50% ended up with broken hip bones when they tried to carry the same packs their male counterparts did. 50% less upper body strength as well. I'm going to ask the rethorical question of how they would/will be viewed by the male majority when they can't carry mission critical equipment themselves, and leave it to others to carry even more for them? Only problem is it won't happen right away, because IIRC, it won't be in effect until 2016, when all the wars are slated to be over, meaning that the next time there's an actual war going on, there'll be plenty of female officers and NCOs who will do whatever they can to destroy any attempts at doing things like let's say, raise the PT tests of women to the level of male soldiers (this hasn't been said to change, meaning that female recuits will have considerably lower PT standards than their male counterparts).

Or that the IDF has tried it, but when there was more shooting going on, they discovered that the male soldiers would suffer a much larger psychologial hit when the female soldiers were wounded or killed, and do riskier things to save them.

The last time I checked, the military didn't owe people the opportunity to make a career for themselves anywhere, and that should certainly apply to the combat jobs. And judging from the fact that female PT standards are much lower, it seems that politicians who have never served think that they do owe women a career in certain fields, even if they are not physcally speaking up to the requirements of the job by a long shot.

I sort of doubt having female only units would be a good idea. This is done for PC (even if it ends up costing lives, because those are appperantly worth less than millimetre justice). Segregated units have already been done, and bringing it back would hardly look PC, so you'd lose for PC, and then not get it at all. So instead of big loss + small win, it'd be big loss + small loss.

Edited January 24, 2013 by scrim

[spooky lynx 73]

Maybe they should go for a "women only" division then?

Maybe they should leave an idea of gender equality and female service in combat detachments? Or presume high PT male standarts for everyone who tries to get into combat deployment and screw those who are unable to fit in them.

Less dense skeletal system = going to break when carrying heavy loads, just like I believe the Red Army found out in Afghanistan when something like +50% ended up with broken hip bones when they tried to carry the same packs their male counterparts did.

40-th Army had no females in combat detachments. Only some nurses (who hadn't participated in any combat activities and sat at the base), stational hospital personnel, HQ staff and so on. But no weapon crews, infantry or drivers.

Or that the IDF has tried it, but when there was more shooting going on, they discovered that the male soldiers would suffer a much larger psychologial hit when the female soldiers were wounded or killed, and do riskier things to save them.

The whole ME war theatre (Israel and neighboring countries) is tiny when compared to A-stan for example. So there's almost no problems with sitting at some remote FOBs with no private space, no hygiene and not the best supply.

Edited January 24, 2013 by Spooky Lynx

[kireta21 13]

@Scrim

Red Army was renamed to Soviet Army in 1946, also last time Soviet women participated in regular combat was WW2. So you might be mixing up two different wars.

Back then women volunteers were valuable asset for Red Army, because were usually better educated and more competent than regular conscripts, doing far better in roles that requred more brain than muscles like pilots, mechanics, snipers, engineers, tankers, AA defence etc.

[scrim 1]

Nah, I've read about it somewhere, just can't remember exactly where. And either way, it corresponds with the fact that women have a more fragile skeleton, especially in the hip area.

Even if women can complete basic training under the same PT standards as men, it still wont work, because it's basic training.

[PsychoPigeon 10]

Isn't it about time we stopped letting our governments send people to wars we didn't vote on? I don't want to be put into huge debt because some douche wants minerals and oil from Africa

[scrim 1]

Well, there's something called elections, where you chose your government.

[nodunit 397]

Or "Recall Elections", where you vote to remove an elected official from office.

[GRS 10]

Elections are so popular in some districts that they get a 158% voter turnout!

[SpecOp9 0]

People's 'elections'? Or Corporate 'selections'.

I wonder.

[GRS 10]

Not to mention the fact that just because a majority wants something, does not make that the best choice; just the most popular one. Or that we aren't actually a democracy so the whole "well, you voted for them" thing is somewhat moot.

Edited January 26, 2013 by GRS

[scrim 1]

A country with free elections is a democracy. Regardless of who you voted for, or what might obviously or not be the best choice doesn't make it any less true.

[GRS 10]

Electoral college says what?