BruceVC

PC is absolutely not suppose to be about saying things that you dont believe in order to gain a political or social advantage. Some people may believe this but that is not its purpose. Its where we make points that may offend people if spoken in a certain way but instead we make the same point without offending people So there is nothing wrong with being PC if its purpose is used correctly

This makes sense on some levels but isn't IMO the actual correct answer that applies to " why are some people marching for Trump " For some Trump supporters they truly believe all the promises and hyperbole that Trump used during the election campaign. Trumps victory was a combination of tapping into a certain view many white Americans have of the reality of the USA under Obama and what the USA needs to do to become " great " again This is a very nuanced and complex topic that will have many different and varied views but if I just focus on what the objective " making the USA great again " could mean For some Americans free speech has been undermined by politically correct commentators who they believe falsely represent hypercritical so called " SJ " types Trump gained support from this group from day 1 when he openly ridiculed and dismissed "PC ", his view resonated with people who think "PC " is about people not telling the truth And sometimes supporters of SJ unintentionally corrupt and make the concept of "PC" appear like a real dysfunction and they do come across as hypocrites. For example if you say you believe in a tolerant and non-discriminatory society then white men also deserve this same respect But PC is not suppose to be about hiding the truth, its much simpler than that. Its supposed to be where we are able to debate and discuss potentially controversial topics like " colonialism and its impact on black African people " without offending any one group So for some Americans they still think its okay for Trump to say what he wants on Twitter because they cannot or will not accept the way that Trump communicates can be both interesting but also divisive and leads to unintended confusion. They think this is an irrefutable part of what they like about Trump For me Trump should drop Twitter because he is impulsive and his opinion on Twitter is more confused than positive ...so its about the greater societal impact his Twitter comments have

This is complete nonsense, how have we destroyed our way of life [by going against terrorism]? -Constant surveillance of everyone through several secret services -Rise of unreasonable and uneducated prejudice towards one specific religion -As a result, (rising support for) unreasonable policies against members of said religion -(rising support for) ignorance of humanistic values due to protectionist fears -Rise of authoritarianism -Rise of populism -Rise of demagoguery -Rise of nationalism -Rise of protectionism -Rise of isolationism That's just of the top of my head None of these automatically need to be relevant to any country that decides to be assertive in dealing with Islamic Extremism and this definitely applies to governments This is not a zero sum game, we can address terrorism without suddenly it signaling the perceived end of the Western world. How do you think the West has dealt with any ideological challenge over the last 100 years? Security gets increased but we dont lose our values around tolerance, equality and our belief in Democracy. We just make some societal and legal adjustments around the threat that we face at the time Its not complicated or difficult to implement

This is complete nonsense, how have we destroyed our way of life by killing any armed terrorist? No we need more armed policemen in the UK, the UK is use to dealing with terrorism. In the 1970's and 1980's they dealt with terrorism from the IRA and now its Islamic Extremism Im fine if you think addressing this type of threat is " somehow destroying the entire Western world " but most of us are very supportive of eradicating this threat, we stand for tolerance and Democracy but that doesnt mean we dont combat something like Islamic Extremism

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-lobbies-congress-eve-key-health-care-vote-220135684.html Big vote today for Trumps new health care bill....I wonder how it will go ?

http://www.kcra.com/article/british-police-search-for-associates-linked-to-parliament-attacker/9172017 8 arrests already, good and prompt work UK authorities

Why not? Any policeman or government person involved in protecting institutions like the Houses of Parliament needs to be armed, what possible reason would you object to this? One policeman died because he attempted to rugby tackle this terrorist who was armed with knives, you dont attempt to peacefully subdue an armed terrorist . You shoot him, why is this a problem ? The mayor of London agrees London Mayor Sadiq Khan said: "My heart goes out to those who have lost loved ones and to everyone who has been affected," he said, paying tribute to the emergency services. He announced the deployment of additional armed officers on the streets of the British capital. "We stand together in the face of those who would seek to harm us and destroy our way of life," he added. "Londoners will never be cowed by terrorism." http://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/22/europe/uk-parliament-firearms-incident/index.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-security-photographer-idUSKBN16T1Y5?il=0 5 dead and 40 wounded, its a high number for this type of attack. The UK should consider arming all there policenmen

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/22/europe/uk-parliament-firearms-incident/index.html This has been a very disturbing development, it appears to be over

Sorry guys but I feel I need to write this melancholic post One of my uncles came to visit my dad from the USA and he reminded us of how his son and friend was killed in the Angola War, I remember the day like yesterday. He was a paratrooper and very well liked. His funeral was very packed with many people, many varsity people and army buddies http://samvousa.org/operation-firewood-26-year-remembrance/ Then I remembered all the people I have known who died in the wars in Southern Africa against Communism, my family in Rhodesia use to mention how after Vietnam several hundred former Vietnam soldiers came to Rhodesia to continue the fight against Communism They were very proficient and experienced fighters, they actually helped refine the Rhodesian fireforce helicopter special attack strategy which they used in Vietnam. Check this out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fireforce They were instrumental in this attack, imagine these numbers of casualties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Dingo Here is some information about the US soldiers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crippled_Eagles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_C._MacKenzie

You don't understand how our system works. Wilders was one of the big winners and his party gained a significant amount of seats in parliament. His influence has only grown. Oh so educate me, what does it mean with these results ?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/polls-open-dutch-election-barometer-063457284.html It looks like Wilders has lost .....this is great news for the future of Democracies

Volo I know you joking in some ways but why do you think the possible collapse of the EU is fantastic? The EU represents an important foundation of Western ideology which you are part of. I find it odd you think this election is about people feeling "butthurt " I dont think Netherlands will vote for Wilders but it is something that should concern us

The best recommendation to vote Wilders. Go Wilders, go right wingers, go, go, go! You guys cant seriously want Wilders to win? Name one constructive thing that will come from this political outcome ?

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/15/europe/netherlands-election-populism-rutte-wilders/index.html Guys this election is important as its a barometer for how much impact right wing populism is making on the EU countries. Our friends in Netherlands are in the frontline of an ideological battle that could lead to the disastrous breakup of the EU...its unlikely but possible Anyway lets hope Wilders doesn't win as to me he represents a divisive and intolerant view for the future of the Netherlands

I read it on the Internet ? Isnt it true ?

Im surprised you would watch this? I have heard its very racist and condescending towards South Americans? Dont be a race hater .....remember the SJ code !!!

I really am enjoying it, maybe my standards are low but I am enjoying all the supernatural aspects But it obviously wasn't very good hence the show being cancelled

Depends, was it a good series? Let me put it this way, generally speaking I'd rather have 13 episodes of something I want to watch than 300 of one I don't. Ideally those 13 episodes won't end on a cliffhanger (but it has happened). Im glad you responded, I need your logic on this one because I am conflicted on why I get put off by one season series Yes sometimes the season is awesome but thats the issue, I dont get to see where it ends and I end up having unanswered questions which bugs me For example Im watching Aftermath at the moment and its excellent and Im on episode 6 but I see its been cancelled....and now I am not sure I want to carry on watching it? Do you think I should rather just focus on the fact Im enjoying it even if I will never know how it finally ends. For me the best series are the ones that have 4-6 seasons but then end at the right time like Dexter, Lost, Justified and Sons of Anarchy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aftermath_(2016_TV_series)

Guys do you watch a series if it is cancelled after one season? Normally I dont because I think " where is the longevity and point in 1 season " .....I want to know any series has a future and if it doesnt then I think there is no reason getting attached to the plot or characters

Cheap gas, in an economy wholly dependent on oil, is actually very good. That's what the "protecting our interests abroad" part in the US military readiness report WoD posted means. Otherwise a two war-capable military would make no sense -- unless you are the aggressor, you never need to fight more than one war simultaneously. Used to be wheat from Egypt, gold and silver from Bolivia and Mexico, etc. Now it's oil. If it weren't the US doing it, it would be someone else. Sucks for parents whose kids get blown to pieces by an IED and for homeless veterans crippled by PTSD, but hey, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Yes and there was a time where the ME controlled most of the oil production in the world and was going to use it to achieve political objectives by forcing the West to do what it wanted in respects to the Israeli and Palestinian conflict The world doesnt work like that, you cannot control a critical commodity like oil and then try to force certain countries to do what you want. It would be like a country that had the only supply of water threatening " either you drop sanctions or we dont supply you water " So the words " "protecting our interests abroad" use to be very relevant as the stability of the ME was paramount to how oil was supplied to the whole world Thankfully the days of the ME wanting to blackmail anyone over oil are over

Absolutely and we do through the UN The UN allocates tens of millions of dollars for relief efforts to various conflicts in the ME and this funding comes from donor countries, take a look at this link to see which countries contribute the most. Its the USA which contributes the most but I see Russia is on this list so good on them https://factly.in/united-nations-budget-contributions-by-member-countries/

Are you asking if I want the Kurds to have there own region? I would like them to but you also have to realistic, Turkey wont give up parts of there country. This is just not going to happen, Turkey is an important strategic country in the region and we need to recognize that I am not sure on what historical context the Kurds want parts of Turkey but its extremely unlikely any country will just give up parts of there sovereign territory So lets say hypothetically I controlled the military might of the USA I wouldnt get involved in the whole Turkey\Kurdish conflict because it would involve a bitter and violent outcome and Turkey is a friend of the West in certain ways Bennie nowadays when it comes to these interminable sectarian conflicts in the ME I believe the countries involved need to sort the issues out and the West should stay out

I also like the Kurds, they have been the most consistent and committed partner to the West in both Syria and Iraq The problem with their political objectives is they want there own autonomous region and they want parts of Turkey to be included, this is highly unlikely this will be possible so I dont think they are being realistic around there goals

100% opposed to sending Marines, or any other military asset into Syria. And I have been since the get-go seven years ago. If Russia wants to wade into that quagmire then let them. There are no "good guys" in that mess and the people you help today will be sending suicide bombers against you tomorrow. Beyond honoring our alliances with Turkey & Israel (like them or not they are alliances) the US has no business intervening in the middle east of far east. We've been doing it for seventy years and no good has come of it. Muslims love killing and oppressing other Muslims. Nothing you can do about that. The only thing to do is leave them to it to sort out themselves. I agree with almost everything you say, the USA has no need to send ground troops into a hellhole like Syria and you right there really are no " good guys " especially with all the factions within Syria. Personally I think troops are being sent to Syria as this is part of the misplaced view from Trump and some in his cabinet that the " USA needs to do more in Syria "....I dont agree with that The only strategic benefit is it will hasten the end of the war, this means less Syrians trying to immigrate into the EU or USA Assad can stay in power, this is Iran and Russia's problem as they will need to fund his presidency as the Syrian economy is almost bankrupt