BruceVC

Now we have to talk about it ....the moment anyone says " I would rather not talk about it " I immediately think we should But Sharia Law...there isn't much to say about it ? Its the law that gets implemented in most Muslim countries . Its archaic, anachronistic, brutal and uncompromising but it will get modernized and eventually become more palatable and reasonable. The Muslim world is going through numerous changes, like dealing with Islamic extremism, but eventually I believe it come out of this transition stronger I believe firmly in the importance and sustainability of how Western countries are governed. Things that matter to me are human rights, free media , governments that are accountable, free market driving the economy .etc One of the biggest criticisms I now have of all the refugees is the realisation that its complicated to integrate people who have lived for decades under Sharia to now integrate into Western countries

I posted this article earlier, I watched this video today. Its very accurate and telling

Sorry for using your post as an example, but see what happens when you shroud a few excerpts taken out of context in social reality? Pretty nasty, huh? Not at all. You are perfectly welcome to shield yourself and dismiss others as you wish. The truth is that the guy has suspicious contacts, mentioned by personal name in the Podesta-leaks (Austyn Crites), and it is already been established that the DNC hire professional agent provocateurs thanks to the Project Veritas investigations, where they admitted to the Chicago and Arizona riots. Meshugger please stop arguing for the sake of arguing, you know Indira is right

Aaaah, the fear of the press as their deceased corrupt temple is about to fall on their heads. It's a wonder to behold. "My name is Legion," he replied, "for we are many."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-donald-trump-could-never-be-a-normal-candidate/2016/11/03/68483dd4-a203-11e6-a44d-cc2898cfab06_story.html Guys please take the time to read this post, I found it very instructive and insightful

Unfortunately volo is seldom right as his points lack context and consistency, he mostly ignores the historical precedent or the actual current reality , this point is no different In 1970's, 80's, 90s and even early 2000's a terrible culture existed in ostensibly Western countries where politicians, celebrities , musicians, actors and any other man who had influence could commit terrible crimes of sexual abuse and they were never charged or discovered and there was rampant abuse of children The authorities seemed to ignore it and cases of paedophilia were sometimes investigated by the police but then literally shut down from orders from a higher position of power, this occurred particularly in the UK This terrible injustice seemed to permeate many levels of society, for example the appalling initial response when the Roman Catholic Church sent priests known to have abused children to the USA to continuing abusing children. Nowadays the RC has made amends for this and acknowledge it was a terrible mistake the church made, so this is not a personal attack on the RC church Anyway the last 5-10 years more and more cases of abuse and child abuse are coming to light and people who could have committed these crimes. There have been cases of celebrities being investigated going back decades like Jimmy Savile and Cosby Now Im not saying Trump is a child molester or rapist of women but if you consider that type of sexual deviancy was ignored in the 1980s and onwards why would a celebrity like Trump who groped and touched several women ever be charged around such a " mild " issue when there was real abuse ongoing all around So in summary, its a false dichotomy to say " Trump couldn't have abused all those women because he has never been accused since the 1980 s " No one was accused ...no one was really charged or prosecuted ...most people got away with it

Excellent assessment, I wish I could make points in this way. I try but sometimes I just cant articulate my view in the way you have done In summary this is my view of Wikileaks, exactly how you have summarized it I agree with you and Elrond there is an adgenda behind all this. And yes Wikileaks is showing the whole world private information that it's agents stole by hacking into private server's and e-mail accounts. However, that does not make any of that information untrue. And there is so much data the argument that the information lacks context just does not hold water. The problem lies in that there is just too much data. By leaking hundreds of thousands emails that mostly contain nothing of importance, they create data block than isn't verifiable by any common person, because it take month probably years for person just to read all that information let alone alone check if all those emails are real. And then when somebody highlights one email from that pile, it is very difficult to check if if it is only email about subject or tone of earlier and later correspondence between same parties or parties from same circles. In other words there is so much information that for most people that read about wikileaks emails, it would be same if emails that aren't highlighted by somebody didn't exist because they will never read them. Drowning people on too much information is what big law firms nearly always do in tv series (and probably in some extent in real life) all the time by sending every unnecessary document with documents that opposition actually wants in order to hide those documents from their opposition. So one could ask why people use tactics that are meant to obscure and hide information if they want to inform people. Drowning people in too much information gives impression that you don't hide anything from them even though you are doing just opposite, because if people can't get information because there is too much noise then people are just in same place when there was just silence. Again another indubitably insightful and accurate post around Wikileaks and its true nature

I have just been to gym, first time in 2 months so I'm clearly not that fit But it went well, I did my 60 minutes of cardio. I'm not pushing it on the cardio disciplines and for the next 7 sessions I'll just be getting back into the training regime

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/05/politics/trump-rushed-off-stage-at-campaign-rally/index.html volo this is going to shock you, some innocent poor guy was assaulted at a Trump rally just because he raised a sign that said " Republicans against Trump " and initially he was detained because someone said he had a gun. Yet he has NO gun volo its clear the Trump campaign doesnt care about freedom of speech and will blame innocent people for trying to assassinate Trump ....what are you going to do about this ?

Wikileaks doesn't have agents. It just acts as a dead/ drop box for other people's info. Which may or may not have been obtained illegally. That's the problem for the US, much as they'd love to go after WL overtly they cannot since they definitely don't do any hacking or similar directly illegal stuff; they just distribute information that is leaked to them. eg Manning didn't illegally obtain the info he gave to wikileaks, he illegally distributed information he had legitimate access too- similarly Snowden (albeit not WL related) didn't hack the NSA, he had legit access to information he then distributed. If Mark Rich gave WL the DNC leaks- as Assange has repeatedly hinted at- then it wasn't hacked either, since he had legit access to it. The only election relevant stuff that was likely hacked is the Podesta emails where he fairly clearly got phished. Yep, and that's the crux of the matter. They're real documents and emails, and there's never been a serious effort to discredit WL information as being false or altered, all the effort has gone into obfuscation rather than denial. If they were false that would be the defence, and it would be a complete one that would discredit WL far more than any amount of neo Red Scare McCarthyism and claims of bias could. Gee what a surprise, Zora defending Wikileaks. As usual you present a subjective and biased view of the reality of political developments around the world. For example you say things like " It just acts as a dead/ drop box for other people's info" and " they just distribute information that is leaked to them " , someone who believed you and had no knowledge of Wikileaks would think " so its just a benevolent organisation that just seeks to share information with the global information , whats wrong with that " Nothing would be wrong with that if that is what Wikileaks does....but they absolutely dont do that. They selectively target the Democrats and have ensured they release certain emails strategically to achieve the maximum disruption to the US election..nothing negative about Trump ...nothing So please stop suggesting Wikileaks is about " distributing information that is leaked to them ". They have a political agenda and only release information that aligns to that agenda That is the crux of matter Two things: 1) Nothing Zora said was subjective. He just laid out how the organization works. That's it. 2) You lack proof that Wikileaks is targeting the Democrats so much as Wikileaks may be targeting the biggest criminal. That's the issue, that's why no one buys your narrative. There's a very important difference between targeting someone due to personal bias and targeting someone because they've broken the law or done something wrong. When Nixon was thrown out, it was not because he was a Republican and the administration was targeting Republicans, but because Nixon legitimately broke the law. We lack proof that Wikileaks has an agenda against the Democrats for being Democrats or against any particular philosophy. Wikileaks itself has gone on record to say it has something against corruption and illegal activity, and thusfar their leaks do indeed match that claim. Given that we have 100% proof that Clinton and people within her campaign (Donna Brazile for example) have lied multiple times, and seeing as there's not one confirmed story of Wikileaks releasing bogus information, clearly evidence would suggest it's time to trust the latter group. Interestingly, Project Veritas' videos and Wikileaks inadvertedly confirm each other as true (forget exactly how, but information that came forward in one of the parts inadvertedly aligns perfectly with info from one of the wikileaks emails), as does Colin Powell when he simply came forward and stated his involvement in the leaks 100% happened and every email involving him is 100% legitimate. I am a registered Democrat, or was. At this point I'd like new parties. If I felt the media, Wikileaks or anyone else was unfairly targeting Democrats due to a difference in policy or a belief Democrats are idiots that deserve no respect or what-have-you, I would be up in arms. That's not happening here though. Wikileaks is not targeting Democrats, it's targeting CRIMINALS. And while few would deny the Republican party currently faces a sort of identity crisis and a whole wagon full of problems, if anyone's being unfairly represented or unfairly treated, it's them. The media is outrageously bias against Trump and Republicans at the moment (save for FOX news of course, who does the same to Democrats) that it feels like many carry the attitude that Republicans deserve no respect. That likewise disgusts me, so here I am up in arms about it and Clinton cannot rely on my vote this election. Okay lets keep this simple, thousands of emails of have released during the election that have negatively impacted the Democrats and they all basically about Clinton and DNC Please provide me with links and or emails released by Wikileaks that have negatively targeted Trump and his campaign , I'll give you time to research this but I want to see the evidence that Wikileaks has been doing this...just find me two examples? There should be many if Wikileaks is this objective organisation and dont suggest that there has been nothing untoward or controversial or possibly illegal about the Trump campaign and numerous emails that would have been sent by them? So in summary, I want to see evidence that suggests Wikileaks is not only targeting the Democrats in their " quest to stop corruption and criminal behavior " and this pertains to the last 8 months and the US election

Wikileaks doesn't have agents. It just acts as a dead/ drop box for other people's info. Which may or may not have been obtained illegally. That's the problem for the US, much as they'd love to go after WL overtly they cannot since they definitely don't do any hacking or similar directly illegal stuff; they just distribute information that is leaked to them. eg Manning didn't illegally obtain the info he gave to wikileaks, he illegally distributed information he had legitimate access too- similarly Snowden (albeit not WL related) didn't hack the NSA, he had legit access to information he then distributed. If Mark Rich gave WL the DNC leaks- as Assange has repeatedly hinted at- then it wasn't hacked either, since he had legit access to it. The only election relevant stuff that was likely hacked is the Podesta emails where he fairly clearly got phished. Yep, and that's the crux of the matter. They're real documents and emails, and there's never been a serious effort to discredit WL information as being false or altered, all the effort has gone into obfuscation rather than denial. If they were false that would be the defence, and it would be a complete one that would discredit WL far more than any amount of neo Red Scare McCarthyism and claims of bias could. Gee what a surprise, Zora defending Wikileaks. As usual you present a subjective and biased view of the reality of political developments around the world. For example you say things like " It just acts as a dead/ drop box for other people's info" and " they just distribute information that is leaked to them " , someone who believed you and had no knowledge of Wikileaks would think " so its just a benevolent organisation that just seeks to share information with the global information , whats wrong with that " Nothing would be wrong with that if that is what Wikileaks does....but they absolutely dont do that. They selectively target the Democrats and have ensured they release certain emails strategically to achieve the maximum disruption to the US election..nothing negative about Trump ...nothing So please stop suggesting Wikileaks is about " distributing information that is leaked to them ". They have a political agenda and only release information that aligns to that agenda That is the crux of matter It's afraid. Who is afraid of what ?

Wikileaks doesn't have agents. It just acts as a dead/ drop box for other people's info. Which may or may not have been obtained illegally. That's the problem for the US, much as they'd love to go after WL overtly they cannot since they definitely don't do any hacking or similar directly illegal stuff; they just distribute information that is leaked to them. eg Manning didn't illegally obtain the info he gave to wikileaks, he illegally distributed information he had legitimate access too- similarly Snowden (albeit not WL related) didn't hack the NSA, he had legit access to information he then distributed. If Mark Rich gave WL the DNC leaks- as Assange has repeatedly hinted at- then it wasn't hacked either, since he had legit access to it. The only election relevant stuff that was likely hacked is the Podesta emails where he fairly clearly got phished. Yep, and that's the crux of the matter. They're real documents and emails, and there's never been a serious effort to discredit WL information as being false or altered, all the effort has gone into obfuscation rather than denial. If they were false that would be the defence, and it would be a complete one that would discredit WL far more than any amount of neo Red Scare McCarthyism and claims of bias could. Gee what a surprise, Zora defending Wikileaks. As usual you present a subjective and biased view of the reality of political developments around the world. For example you say things like " It just acts as a dead/ drop box for other people's info" and " they just distribute information that is leaked to them " , someone who believed you and had no knowledge of Wikileaks would think " so its just a benevolent organisation that just seeks to share information with the global information , whats wrong with that " Nothing would be wrong with that if that is what Wikileaks does....but they absolutely dont do that. They selectively target the Democrats and have ensured they release certain emails strategically to achieve the maximum disruption to the US election..nothing negative about Trump ...nothing So please stop suggesting Wikileaks is about " distributing information that is leaked to them ". They have a political agenda and only release information that aligns to that agenda That is the crux of matter

Excellent assessment, I wish I could make points in this way. I try but sometimes I just cant articulate my view in the way you have done In summary this is my view of Wikileaks, exactly how you have summarized it I agree with you and Elrond there is an adgenda behind all this. And yes Wikileaks is showing the whole world private information that it's agents stole by hacking into private server's and e-mail accounts. However, that does not make any of that information untrue. And there is so much data the argument that the information lacks context just does not hold water. Yes I agree. The reality is Im sure many of the emails were sent by people within the Clinton campaign. The issue I have is based on the fact Wikileaks is trying to undermine the entire US election process. So this is about the principle as far as Wikileaks is concerned, its not about Trump or Clinton its about a foreign entity interfering in the view US citizens have around the legitimacy of their own election Thats my main criticism of Wikileaks

Oh, my bad. What point have I missed? Is this around Wikileaks or celebrities supporting Clinton or something else? I make so many points and at times I am unclear about what point I may be missing Not that Jay-Z & Beyonce were supporting Clinton. That's not big news. The funny part was after they did their sets Clinton came out to speak and the crowd left. THAT'S what's funny. The artists are there for Clinton, the crowd was just there for a free Jay Z & Beyonce concert. Okay, I see what you mean ..shame that must have been a little embarrassing but for me fans in crowds at music concerts can be fickle creatures

Excellent assessment, I wish I could make points in this way. I try but sometimes I just cant articulate my view in the way you have done In summary this is my view of Wikileaks, exactly how you have summarized it

Oh, my bad. What point have I missed? Is this around Wikileaks or celebrities supporting Clinton or something else? I make so many points and at times I am unclear about what point I may be missing

There is huge support for Clinton from many famous celebrities and musicians especially over the 2-3 weeks around the whole efforts the various surrogates are putting into the final election This whole Beyonce event was targeted at getting more African Americans to vote for Hillary, I'm not sure why people would listen to any celebrity when it comes to politics but apparently they do have influence But musicians openly supporting Hillary is fairly common http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/singers-miley-cyrus-katy-perry-campaign-hillary-clinton/story?id=42991480 http://www.ew.com/article/2016/10/25/adele-endorses-hillary-clinton-miami-concert

Immediately rejected, its Wikileaks Again I will repeat this point because some of you guys keep using Wikileaks as a credible and or authoritative source of information Wikileaks is like a group of people gossiping, similar to Reddit..its hearsay. It should not be used a foundation of valid information. If there is no way to verify or proof check something from Wikileaks why would you concern yourself ? Anything released from Wikileaks that cant be corroborated from another source I cannot in good conscience read and or consider Wikileaks is sending out THEIR e-mails to each other. They are not posting rumors they heard third hand. Lets focus just on this argument, who is Wikileaks ? Where is there HQ, who is there official spokesman, where do they get the actual emails they release , what are there structures throughout the world, how do we sue Wikileaks for defamation? My list of questions are many but if you could start with those questions that would be much appreciated I can give you the answers to all other institutions in the world that are part of the election process that would be reasonable , some I support and I some I support on some issues but they all at least credible in the legal sense. Like the NRA or Clinton Foundation

what Its true alum, the Hungarians have been trying to control the world's financial market for decades and implement a new social order .....EVERYONE know this. There machinations start with polluting the world's water and end with control of the Obsidian forums

I went and checked the Soros thing. http://www.snopes.com/george-soros-controls-smartmatic-voting-machines-in-16-states/ Geddit? About the only credit I'd give you now is if you went down this route to provoke me into insulting you to get me banned. So I'll be clear in insulting you here: go and ask Obsidian to send you on a professional development course in undoing binary thinking styles (that way when people like me show you some courtesy and humour as I have in the past, you don't just ignore them), and when everyone else in the room is bantering with each other and having polite debate's (kinda the way people do on this forum, even when they're poles apart politically) and your the only one with a crash helmet on your head, being asked to walk from one side of the room to the other - think about that impact on you face as the days and weeks go by, and try to relate it to your foot, the garden rake, and your mouth. Chippy these forums are different to other forums you may have frequented Moderators are allowed and encouraged to share their opinions and often get into debates and this has nothing to do with Obsidian rules. Its a good thing, the Mods here dont insult people and saying something like " people who support Brexit are racist " is not an uncommon view, many people have this misunderstanding So in other words just because a Mod gets into a debate and has an opinion that doesnt mean they automatically right or there view is credible but it also doesn't mean we dont debate with them in a normal way or they have some agenda to get people banned Its not like that, I hope this makes sense

Immediately rejected, its Wikileaks Again I will repeat this point because some of you guys keep using Wikileaks as a credible and or authoritative source of information Wikileaks is like a group of people gossiping, similar to Reddit..its hearsay. It should not be used a foundation of valid information. If there is no way to verify or proof check something from Wikileaks why would you concern yourself ? Anything released from Wikileaks that cant be corroborated from another source I cannot in good conscience read and or consider

Had another excellent dinner evening with Bronwynn, she is very fit and is doing a 5 km fun run tomorrow. Its good she is into fitness because that will help motivate me around my own cardio training

Listen, I don't know if you're playing dumb or legitimately so, but do not joke about such a thing with someone who mentions they're depressed. I'm not someone that would act on that (at least I don't think), but plenty would. If someone were to kill themselves because you or someone else made a comment like that? That's negligence at it's absolute worst, so I don't care how seriously you take someone when they talk about depression or suicide, do not make remarks like that. If you can't say anything else, don't say anything period. Why shouldn't he joke about it ? Does Malc have such impact on your life that if he says " you must kill yourself " then you may do it? Is he that influential in your decisions ? Really ? People have been telling me to kill myself since 2001, its just words and it should be irrelevant. Toughen up son, its the Internet " and the whole Internet is a stage and all people mere actors "

Let's break this dumb list down... Ok, so there are three examples here. They aren't clear which party the dead people voted for. Ok, this has more potential. Although it sounds like whoever was behind this fraud messed up by not letting the fraudulent voters know what there job was. How many of them successfully lobbied a democratic vote? 700 people cast two ballots! That's terrible. Who did they vote for? Who organized this? I'm going to stop there, but Pennsylvania actually come up two more times, so it is clear that they've got issues. But are they rigging it for one side? I mean, sure, you could assume allowing illegals to vote is clearly an attempt to get more Democrat votes. Except no one seems to have let those illegals know what their role is in this. It is also pretty clear that the registration is tied to driver's licenses, which is more of an example of dumb bureaucratic paperwork practices than actual fraud. So basically all of these examples don't clearly favor one party, they seem highly disorganized, and in a nation of 300 million, they are still a drop in the bucket. I'm going to go with stupidity over fraud. I didn't say that Hillary is rigging the elections, that link was for Bruce who doesn't think theirs ANY going on. No I never said there was no rigging, in a country the size of the USA that has such a complex political system it would be impossible there was no attempts to manipulate some voting results in some parts of the election I said the elections aren't rigged, meaning the final result is not due to cheating and or rigging as the real rigging that occurs will have a negligible impact to the final results

....this sounds like something I might say