BruceVC

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quarry_(TV_series) Guys I recommend this, its about an ex-Vietnam veteran who does 2 tours and returns home to different reality since he has been at war. He then becomes a hitman for a variety of reasons and some you can understand

Well, she IS her father's daughter. I dont get it ?

Hair dye works wonders but its harder to dye the beard so stay clean-shaven

GB are you worried the media is indeed controlling your thoughts ? How deep does the rabbit hole go ..... No of course they don't. But it is arrogance and hubris of the highest order that they think that is their role. Okay, good to know because I was going to say "if you are someone who is suppose to be controlled by the media then they have failed utterly and abysmally in creating kinship and loyalty around their perceived thought control programs " ( the media scores an F- in controlling thoughts )

GB are you worried the media is indeed controlling your thoughts ? How deep does the rabbit hole go .....

" Breitbart linking to Breitbart ".... This really made me laugh, just the thought of that is so absurd its hilarious

I dont hate Trump, its counterintuitive to hate a new president of any country. Objective criticism is fine, I have seen some very good decisions by the Trump presidency around foreign policy but he has made some questionable domestic political decisions. But its far too early to write him off I can answer the link though, I'm confused by the point the link is making? Trump is neither of those options, I can see positive in both options but neither is ideal for me. But I dont get the spurious comparisons or what is the expected outcome of answering the questions?

The thing is that those things can be address those grievances but there are things that are higher on importance list for those who decide things, like fighting over if gays can marry or not, for billionth time. I think the rights of the gay citizens of any country should be more important than trying to integrate immigrants Citizens rights IMO should always come first in most cases But the thing is we increased marriage right to include same sex unions several years ago, this year our new government wanted to take that back just month before the new law come in effect. You joking? You telling me the Finnish government is trying to reverse gay marriage in Finland, what was the outcome ?

But arent we facing a hopeless outcome of inevitable violence if you right, we both admit some of the refugees dont have the same life they had in Syria and this is to expected. Countries like Sweden and Finland are not Syria and never will be, so if the outcome to end violence is " we need to address there core grievance " which is not possible, then surely we are saying " there will always be violence " as we cannot make certain immigrants happy I consider that an unacceptable corollary to immigrants coming to our Western countries ? The thing is that those things can be address those grievances but there are things that are higher on importance list for those who decide things, like fighting over if gays can marry or not, for billionth time. I think the rights of the gay citizens of any country should be more important than trying to integrate immigrants Citizens rights IMO should always come first in most cases

Do you know what new happen that riots started? Edit2: People seem to be angry about their life and said arrest seems to have worked as convenient excuse to release that anger in the violent and nonconstructive way that is typical for some people regardless of their origin. What complaints would immigrants have living in such a generous country as Sweden have that they are angry? What are they angry about ? There are lots of things to complain and when those things are solved there are more things to complain. Like for example why some native Finns (about 200 people) were so angry that they felt need to riot on our independence day by throwing rocks towards police, purposefully trying to hurt police horses and break their legs, breaking shop windows, stealing stuff, and vandalizing places. They gave multiple reason why they did what they did, they said that they don't get enough money from government, government don't give them enough jobs, president is idiot, rich should not have parties paid from tax Euros, etc.. When people feel that their life sucks some of them will always find reasons to cause damage to others or their properties like that somehow would make their life better if other people are also miserable. But dont you think its worse to see people who left there own country for various reason and immigrated to a first world Western country, which provides examples of some of the best qualities of life, and then those immigrants still complain and are angry? In other words I have no issues with citizens in a country complaining unreasonably but I have an issue when a country takes in immigrants and its small groups of those immigrants complaining.,.,.they can always go home ? Dont you think its inconsistent ? It depends what you think are those examples of some of the best qualities of life are? The life of immigrants especially refugees isn't really nothing to speak about when it comes to quality of life. Most Syrians for example had much better quality of life before their civil war than what they get here in Finland and I don't believe that situation is any better in Sweden. Like for example we don't let them work even if they want, we put them in centers/housing areas where they don't have little contact with natives, which don't have really any activities, especially in evenings. They are usually put in with people from lots of other countries. It is all planned to be temporal, but then decade past and nothing changes, except that they need to share their living quarters with more people. Of course above isn't faith that everybody faces but it is faith that lots of those who are angriest share. Fair enough, you make some valid reasons why immigrants could be unhappy in a first world Western country But I'm not completely convinced this somehow justifies them committing acts of violence as people who have been invited and welcomed to live in another country. So you can be angry but that shouldn't translate to acts of violence and public criminality ? Acts of violence and public criminality isn't never acceptable, which is why looking causes behind people's actions is important step in help to find ways to prevent more such happening in future. But arent we facing a hopeless outcome of inevitable violence if you right, we both admit some of the refugees dont have the same life they had in Syria and this is to expected. Countries like Sweden and Finland are not Syria and never will be, so if the outcome to end violence is " we need to address there core grievance " which is not possible, then surely we are saying " there will always be violence " as we cannot make certain immigrants happy I consider that an unacceptable corollary to immigrants coming to our Western countries ?

Do you know what new happen that riots started? Edit2: People seem to be angry about their life and said arrest seems to have worked as convenient excuse to release that anger in the violent and nonconstructive way that is typical for some people regardless of their origin. What complaints would immigrants have living in such a generous country as Sweden have that they are angry? What are they angry about ? There are lots of things to complain and when those things are solved there are more things to complain. Like for example why some native Finns (about 200 people) were so angry that they felt need to riot on our independence day by throwing rocks towards police, purposefully trying to hurt police horses and break their legs, breaking shop windows, stealing stuff, and vandalizing places. They gave multiple reason why they did what they did, they said that they don't get enough money from government, government don't give them enough jobs, president is idiot, rich should not have parties paid from tax Euros, etc.. When people feel that their life sucks some of them will always find reasons to cause damage to others or their properties like that somehow would make their life better if other people are also miserable. But dont you think its worse to see people who left there own country for various reason and immigrated to a first world Western country, which provides examples of some of the best qualities of life, and then those immigrants still complain and are angry? In other words I have no issues with citizens in a country complaining unreasonably but I have an issue when a country takes in immigrants and its small groups of those immigrants complaining.,.,.they can always go home ? Dont you think its inconsistent ? It depends what you think are those examples of some of the best qualities of life are? The life of immigrants especially refugees isn't really nothing to speak about when it comes to quality of life. Most Syrians for example had much better quality of life before their civil war than what they get here in Finland and I don't believe that situation is any better in Sweden. Like for example we don't let them work even if they want, we put them in centers/housing areas where they don't have little contact with natives, which don't have really any activities, especially in evenings. They are usually put in with people from lots of other countries. It is all planned to be temporal, but then decade past and nothing changes, except that they need to share their living quarters with more people. Of course above isn't faith that everybody faces but it is faith that lots of those who are angriest share. Fair enough, you make some valid reasons why immigrants could be unhappy in a first world Western country But I'm not completely convinced this somehow justifies them committing acts of violence as people who have been invited and welcomed to live in another country. So you can be angry but that shouldn't translate to acts of violence and public criminality ?

Do you know what new happen that riots started? Edit2: People seem to be angry about their life and said arrest seems to have worked as convenient excuse to release that anger in the violent and nonconstructive way that is typical for some people regardless of their origin. What complaints would immigrants have living in such a generous country as Sweden have that they are angry? What are they angry about ? There are lots of things to complain and when those things are solved there are more things to complain. Like for example why some native Finns (about 200 people) were so angry that they felt need to riot on our independence day by throwing rocks towards police, purposefully trying to hurt police horses and break their legs, breaking shop windows, stealing stuff, and vandalizing places. They gave multiple reason why they did what they did, they said that they don't get enough money from government, government don't give them enough jobs, president is idiot, rich should not have parties paid from tax Euros, etc.. When people feel that their life sucks some of them will always find reasons to cause damage to others or their properties like that somehow would make their life better if other people are also miserable. But dont you think its worse to see people who left there own country for various reason and immigrated to a first world Western country, which provides examples of some of the best qualities of life, and then those immigrants still complain and are angry? In other words I have no issues with citizens in a country complaining unreasonably but I have an issue when a country takes in immigrants and its small groups of those immigrants complaining.,.,.they can always go home ? Dont you think its inconsistent ?

Do you know what new happen that riots started? Edit2: People seem to be angry about their life and said arrest seems to have worked as convenient excuse to release that anger in the violent and nonconstructive way that is typical for some people regardless of their origin. What complaints would immigrants have living in such a generous country as Sweden have that they are angry? What are they angry about ?

RT is the paradigm of the true fake news development we face , you need to post links from other websites if you want me to respond

Bravo Bruce for victim blaming.Milo was a victim and if this kind of remarks helped him to deal with the trauma then I have no problem with that. I don't see this comment any more outrageous or supportive of pedophilia than Sarah Silverman, Jeff Dunham, Anthony Jeselnik and legion of others comedians who make this kind of jokes at regular basis. Let's be clear the story has nothing to do with people wanting to fight pedophilia it's a cynical excuse to attack Milo. Besides he appologized for poor choice of words: http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2017/02/21/milo-apologizes/ I personally hope he will be ok. " I personally hope he will be ok " :lol: You joking right, tell me you joking right? Oh wait you not joking .... So you think his comments about pedophilia are not uncommon, so please give me an example of someone in the public limelight who had been abused by a child molester and made an utterly reprehensible comment like " I am glad I was abused because thats why I am so experienced at sex " ...and I want actual real comments they made similar to this I look forward to your examples The same people who attack Milo are defending a convicted pedophile because he's a famous director - Roman Polański. That's all I need to know about those people. It seems its ok to be one if you are a part of the clique but it's not ok to joke about your own abuse if you're not a part of the clique. As for quotes only recently Silverman asked is ot still pedophilia if the kid did the first move. I could post a dozen or a hundred, but why bother you would just ignore them. Which people who dislike Milo think what Polanski did is okay? Can you provide links that make this comparison....I will read them But again I doubt you can provide this information because you live and operate in the world of alternative facts so when you are called out on these types of comments you cannot respond with anything credible Also I would think its appalling if any other person, whether they are a comedian or not, attempted to normalize, justify or make light of pedophilia. So I'm not sure how you can possibly think just because someone like Silvermans comments are similar to Milos makes it okay or makes Milo any less of a lowlife and degenerate human being Lets be clear, ANYONE who thinks pedophilia is okay needs to judged and harshly criticised in the public limelight

Bravo Bruce for victim blaming. Milo was a victim and if this kind of remarks helped him to deal with the trauma then I have no problem with that. I don't see this comment any more outrageous or supportive of pedophilia than Sarah Silverman, Jeff Dunham, Anthony Jeselnik and legion of others comedians who make this kind of jokes at regular basis. Let's be clear the story has nothing to do with people wanting to fight pedophilia it's a cynical excuse to attack Milo. Besides he appologized for poor choice of words: http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2017/02/21/milo-apologizes/ I personally hope he will be ok. " I personally hope he will be ok " You joking right, tell me you joking right? Oh wait you not joking .... So you think his comments about pedophilia are not uncommon, so please give me an example of someone in the public limelight who had been abused by a child molester and made an utterly reprehensible comment like " I am glad I was abused because thats why I am so experienced at sex " ...and I want actual real comments they made similar to this I look forward to your examples

But there is a valid and positive update around this protracted military engagement Eastern Mosul has been taken ....now the Iraqi coalition is about to attack and defeat ISIS in Western Mosul https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/19/world/middleeast/iraq-starts-offensive-to-retake-western-mosul-from-isis.html?_r=0 But geez this is taking a long time.....Raqqa is going to be much harder than Mosul and I am very hesitant to guess how long that campaign will take ISIS is no pushover, there forces in Iraq and Syria are entrenched and there are real hardcore fighters in their ranks so I suppose the length of the military campaign is inevitable

I see he also lost his book deal, my day is getting better and better https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2017/02/20/milo-yiannopoulos-loses-his-book-deal-with-simon-schuster-amid-growing-outcry/?utm_term=.6cdbf5548344

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/bombthrower-milo-yiannopoulos-belated-backlash-article-1.2978256?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NydnRss+%28Top+Stories+-+NY+Daily+News%29&utm_content=Yahoo+Search+Results Shame poor Milo, resigning from Breitbart. The guy is a disgrace and a bigot and its about time, I cant see him achieving much now and he should fade from the public limelight He had the audacity to support pedophilia when he said “I’m grateful for Father Michael, he boasted, saying that he wouldn’t be as skilled at sex if not for the man who had violated him " I know Milo was a personal hero for some members like Sharp_one but guys its time to find new role-models

First I have heard of this Melania Trump incident, I'm certain its not common news on the global media channels

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/320140-mccain-growing-inability-to-split-truth-lies Guys I think this offers some good perspectives

I do understand your concern for the cultural future of your country, I share some of your anxiety. This is why i want to see how things develop in Sweden I believe the Swedish " culture " will still survive in a slightly modified way

GD I appreciate this is a form of a coping mechanism but you cant reasonably compare Trump and Obama ....you need to separate there presidencies and have honest and separate views on them Bruce you can have different varieties of bad. Obama knew what he was doing and it involved seizing power away from Congress and State Governments as well as curtailing individual liberty of citizens. That is bad. Trump does not seem to know what the heck he's doing. He's jumping from one thing to the next and in much of it he's acting on power the Presidency does not have. That's bad. So yes, it is totally comparable because it is all rooted in the same thing: extra-constitutional power. Would you rather be stung by a hornet or bitten by a venomous spider? Not really the same thing but neither is desirable. Get the idea? I do see your point but you can ask anyone on this forum from outside the USA who follows US politics and updates. I can guarantee you they will say Trump is seen as much more controversial But as I have mentioned his foreign policy decisions have been mostly prudent and reasonable rather an active participant in it that advances their own ends. GD I cant stress enough how important it is when people like you who encounter this type of sentiment immediately address it and challenge it Yes after Trump faith in the media should return but at the moment the media is constantly attacked and criticized by Trump or his campaign team. Remember this is about free speech and I think we both value this Faith in the media will not return. Here is why. Suppose in 2020 Trump is replaced by a rabid, freedom hating left-winger like Elizabeth Warren. The "media" will do an immediate 180 and President Warren will be the benefactor of their fawning praise and forbearance against reporting anything negative even when they should. I will be honest I have never really understood some of the criticism towards the Democrats or people like Warren but after the Clinton presidential loss I now take these comments very seriously and do use them in the my overall paradigm of US political predictions The old BruceVC would have ignored them.....hence one of the reasons for people like me getting the 2016 election result wrong

GD I appreciate this is a form of a coping mechanism but you cant reasonably compare Trump and Obama ....you need to separate there presidencies and have honest and separate views on them Bruce you can have different varieties of bad. Obama knew what he was doing and it involved seizing power away from Congress and State Governments as well as curtailing individual liberty of citizens. That is bad. Trump does not seem to know what the heck he's doing. He's jumping from one thing to the next and in much of it he's acting on power the Presidency does not have. That's bad. So yes, it is totally comparable because it is all rooted in the same thing: extra-constitutional power. Would you rather be stung by a hornet or bitten by a venomous spider? Not really the same thing but neither is desirable. Get the idea? I do see your point but you can ask anyone on this forum from outside the USA who follows US politics and updates. I can guarantee you they will say Trump is seen as much more controversial But as I have mentioned his foreign policy decisions have been mostly prudent and reasonable rather an active participant in it that advances their own ends. GD I cant stress enough how important it is when people like you who encounter this type of sentiment immediately address it and challenge it Yes after Trump faith in the media should return but at the moment the media is constantly attacked and criticized by Trump or his campaign team. Remember this is about free speech and I think we both value this

Oh, thanks for this. I'll mention this as its relevant from the principle. It never ever gets checked but all debates are recorded and you never can be too honest So I'll say exactly what you said above but still use your general view