BruceVC

Okay you have asked some good questions, I need to explain my point better kock was sentenced fairly to 212 years but he should never have been released. Many members of my family and there friends fought for South Africa but they werent racist, most of them came from Rhodesia and they fought Communism...the Cold War was on and Communism was a real threat. So the distinction is important so you understand that most people who fought for South Africa didnt fight for Apartheid, I'm sure you dont care but it matters to me as its the principle But kock killed people within the boarders of SA, he headed an assassins team....like in the movies We were told as white people " of course there are no death squads, what do you take us for. We are Christians and the enemy is Communism " So when it was exposed at the TRC it made many soldiers realize they hadn't been fighting for a legitimate reason So after serving 22 years only he " agrees " to help black families find there relatives he had killed and they released just for that ....does that seem reasonable ?

Have you stopped beating your girlfriend? lol Stupid question but I dont get this joke? It's fun because it goes both ways. Numbersman illustrates that my pontification is an accusation where there is no possible answer to refute the question(s), while on the same hand it is very permissable to beat your wife in islamic countries. Okay that is quite funny But we cant say that is true for all Muslims so we just need to not say things that will offend them

So, in the last 5 years, on average, there's been slightly less than 17 deaths per year attributed to Muslim extremism. The US sees 14-15k cases of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter a year. The terrible menace you speak of is responsible for a little more than 0,1% of the total murder rate in the country. I can't help but add that about 70% of Americans profess to be Christians. In the absence of other data, we should default to the base ratios, meaning that we can safely assume that Christians committed 70% of those 14k murders. Even if we assume that Christians are especially peaceful, and are only responsible for half the normal rate of murders, this still puts them at around 5k. There you have it, folks - even by exceedingly conservative estimates, you're almost 300 times as likely to be killed by a Christian than a radical Muslim! Tremble before the true scourge of America. I like you, you often display a real degree of sensitivity about certain topics ...you really dont like to just make unfair generalizations And often your insights are right but lets be honest sometimes its easy to reject some of the generalizations some of our members make, when you and Meshugger start debating you always make me laugh But anyway trust me on this one, there is no positive side to the likes of ISIS

Well, exactly. I'm not sure how much of the "but why do you not see any Christian terrorist groups!" thing is inherent to Christianity versus just not having that many desperate and disenfranchised people around who can easily be talked into sacrificing themselves for intangible rewards. I would think part of it was the founder of christianity preached love and acceptance, and the founder of Islam preached hate, murdered countless people and raped children. While Christians often fail to uphold the values of Jesus, Muslims do a much better job with that of Muhammad I would think part of it was the founder of christianity preached love and acceptance, and the founder of Islam preached hate, murdered countless people and raped children. While Christians often fail to uphold the values of Jesus, Muslims do a much better job with that of Muhammad This is a pretty biased way to differentiate between the two religions. It also is fairly sloppy with the history. But most egregious of all is the ignoring all the things that have happened in the name of the two religions over the past centuries. Just because Christianity is in a time of stability does not mean we should just label it the good religion and Islam the bad one. And realistically, how does that do any good? Is Islam going to become stable because of that? Probably not. Oh no Oerwinde, I'm sorry I didnt read that part in your post ...this must be omitted "nd the founder of Islam preached hate, murdered countless people and raped children " everything else is fine but Hulrshot is right I was going to tell you after you said you feared a civil war that I have been working in the ME since 2001, they prefer to use consultants from outside the USA. Anyway I can share some real insights with you if you want and once I'm done you will realize there will be no civil war But I'm going to honest ...the good and bad. And there is more bad but remember my views on SJ so I tend to be critical. I wont be bigoted but things do need to said If you want to hear this let me know but its a few paragrahs so I will only write it if you want to read it

Once again so nice to see someone in the EU on this forum say something sincere and kind about how they feel about the EU "But we do also take care of each other when needed " I have been on these forums for 4 years and I have a semi-photographic memory and thats the first time anyone has ever said anything personal and real about each other. Seriously, 4 years and not one person who lives in the EU out of all the members ever just said something like " I may have issues with the central government but I care about my fellow EU members " Even people like Elerond who is positive would say " yes I like the EU but structural changes must happen " Normally I would say something because its not normal but I left it as my second home is the UK, after SA , and this was one of those rare times where I felt I am not going to try to convince people how lucky they are \ So I left it ..... But thanks for being honest

Yes but they dont need to feel that way, they choosing to say this " matters " But many people may say the EU is more important in the long term

we gave you multiple examples. 1200 civil servants controlling a nation of 300 million? the spanish had 1000 soldiers conquer the aztec empire, which were having a populace of millions. the number o' spaniards in mexico were relative small for most o' the 300 years. and why does colonialism make a difference? were no emerging democracies during the colonial period? mill wrote during the 1800s. is unique in the sense that sa took longer than the rest o' the western world to be embracing the notion that regardless o' race, all men and women deserve equal treatment by the State. even so, is any number o' nations that struggled with the exact same issues as did sa, but they did so in the 1800s through the early post ww ii era. am not sure why you think 1950s, when numerous nations were finally freeing themselves from colonial rule is making a fundamental difference compared to 1994 end o' apartheid. again, the real tragedy 'o south africa were not that it were unique, but that until relative recent in history, it were common. regardless, if a fundamental human right such the freedom o' expression can be abridged 'cause o' sa's unique situation, then what personal liberty is truly protected? because o' due process rights, an otherwise guilty white criminal would get away with _____, which would inflame the black population o' south africa. so we got an excuse for suppressing due process in sa, yes? what freedom is free in sa if you genuine believe that your unique situation can lead to the abridgment o' that which mill and others knew were the most essential o' all rights: free speech. democracy is dangerous. we have mentioned elsewhere, and to no avail, that democracy and liberty is actual antagonistic. the founders o' democracies invariably set certain liberty rights beyond the reach o' the majority will, because the majority can be fickle and vicious and stupid. everybody loves free speech, until the majority is offended by an utterance. everybody loves freedom of religion, until a religion makes most god fearing people uncomfortable. democracy has always been the greatest threat to liberty in modern western nations. for sa to prioritize the emotional well being o' the majority over individual fundamental liberty rights is a dangerous reversal o' philosophy. HA! Good Fun! regardless, if a fundamental human right such the freedom o' expression can be abridged 'cause o' sa's unique situation, then what personal liberty is truly protected? because o' due process rights, an otherwise guilty white criminal would get away with _____, which would inflame the black population o' south africa. so we got an excuse for suppressing due process in sa, yes? what freedom is free in sa if you genuine believe that your unique situation can lead to the abridgment o' that which mill and others knew were the most essential o' all rights: free speech. I still dont think you get my reality but this paragraph has really resonated with me Its weird you used certain words but I need to add something you have touched on At the end of Apartheid we had this Truth and Reconciliation Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_and_Reconciliation_Commission_(South_Africa) where people in the Apartheid military and security services could come forward and be honest about military atrocities and things they had done during Apartheid because thousands of black people now wanted to know what had happened to there family members...some of them hadn't seen there sons or husbands for 10 years / One of the most notorious Apartheid soldiers was Eugene de kock who headed up a secretive Police unit called Vlakplaas and this place was where the clandestine Death Squads operated from, he ran Vlakplaas from 1983 and is credited with killing at least over 50 black people but he was charged for less. Anyway he was sentenced to 212 years https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_de_Kock Anyway he should never have been released but after serving 22 years our new black government honestly somehow released because he agreed to tell the authorities where various bodies are buried so black families get closure It doesnt seem right somehow ? In the USA would they release someone if he told people where the bodies are

Relevant. Last I checked, no known President or leader in the history of forever claimed to be an absolute expert in every field. This is why even dictators have advisors that are specialized in those fields and there to provide sound advice and wisdom. And last I checked, Sanders plan to break up the banks was largely a plan of having the Treasury Department comprise a list of which institutions pose an economic threat should they fail, in which case they would be forced to correct themselves over time, though the manner of correction would be up to discussion and negotiation and not something that the banks themselves would have no say in. That seems completely reasonable, completely realistic and completely rational to me. Of course it's not a simple task to achieve and not something achievable overnight, that's why you do it over time and that's why you engage the banks themselves and demand compliance in devising ways to reduce the impact of a single institution while avoiding harm to the dealings of the institution itself as much as possible and without severely damaging the global economy. To continue to press onward status quo only has one outcome: the rich get richer. That *is* dangerous for the global economy. If the poor cannot afford to purchase or deal with the rich, guess what happens to the value of currency itself. We are all tied together, and a market where cash is not in constant flow from one hand to another is an unhealthy market. A market's cash flow works best when money is evenly distributed because it means all parties involved have about equal purchasing power, pricing of products at a reasonable sum as well as the value of currency itself is easily devised, and people are unquestionably capable of receiving the goods they desire. You are basically arguing that because something may be difficult or complex, it must be impossible OR we just shouldn't bother and "admit defeat." We cannot do that, because what you are proposing is more or less procrastination. You are ignoring the growing problem of economic instability and convincing yourself "it's fine." It's not. The day when you and I cannot afford a loaf of bread is the same day that people stop caring how many stacks of cash Bill Gates has because that currency trade has proven too volatile to be worthwhile. The richest 1% will continue to grow wealthier because there is simply more earning power in having money to spend. This is not an issue exclusive to the lower and middle classes; no, that issue would eventually affect the rich as well. You are hearing a mantra of "no it's impossible, keep going" because for the time being the issue hasn't come back around to bite them in the ass yet. If you would like to name a specific issue with some tangible plan that Bernie has named, I'd be happy to hear it. But to claim "I cannot picture it working, therefore it won't" is not an argument. http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/transcript-bernie-sanders-meets-news-editorial-board-article-1.2588306?cid=bitly http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/07/upshot/yes-bernie-sanders-knows-something-about-breaking-up-banks.html?_r=0 Just some links, once again I like Sanders but even in the first link the rhetoric is apparent and of course he does have some very reasonable points like the outsourcing of jobs but he says Daily News: Okay. Well, would you name, say, three American corporate giants that are destroying the national fabric? Sanders: JPMorgan Chase, and virtually every other major bank in this country. Let me be very clear, all right? I believe that we can and should move to what Pope Francis calls a moral economy. He quotes the Pope as someone who he feels is a good example of someone to follow. Now dont get me wrong I really like and respect the new Pope. He is the first Pope who seems utterly unconcerned with materialistic things and he rejects opulence But the new Pope also embraces the poorer and impoverished countries in South America and Africa which is good but he thinks there failed or weak economies is a fault of other countries. End of the day the Pope is just a nice person but he bases his views on emotions and not logic Sanders I see as the same. But to be honest after reading those links I am not clear on what benefits Sanders and his supporters think they will get from this break-up? You are basically taking a point where Bernie praised the Pope's morality and named it as an example to us all, then running with that and arguing "if Bernie supports the Pope, then obviously he must be just as ignorant-albeit-well-intentioned as the Pope." No, that's not how this works. I support the current Pope. Everyone I know supports the current Pope, because holy **** he's actually a great person and not a pedophile or an idiot for once. You are making a very broad and bold claim based upon a rather basic admiration for the Pope. You've done nothing but explain a perceived similarity between the two while failing to explain why you harbor that opinion of him. Okay I did think the point was clear, Sanders means well but that doesn't mean what he thinks can be implemented But dont misunderstand me I do understand the broader point about inequality But maybe I am being unfair in the sense we can both acknowledge he wasn't always going to deliver on this one but the other things he could have ..like the 1 % and the free education You see he cant break the economy by trying to implement those maybe I should see the positive

Have you stopped beating your girlfriend? lol Stupid question but I dont get this joke?

Bruce, I feel you're missing the key thrust of this. It's not a question of whether they'll be benign or not. The question is would you really, truly be perfectly happy to abandon your say in your government purely on the fuzzy promise that they'll look after you in the future. But if they don't.. you'll have given up your chance to argue with them or vote them out of office. You see to me that is not an issue because I currently have no say in government and my vote is irrelevant ...but thats because of our history so its not a big deal Also let me not hide this, I am in a very fortunate position where I could get a job in the UK and possibly the USA because of the work I do. So I never ever feel trapped not that I want to leave SA That's great for you, but completely irrelevant to the situation at hand. You have to understand that most people, well, they're not you. In fact, this bears repeating, because I feel it's something that you should really take to heart. Most people are not you, Bruce. Most people are not in your, dare I say it, privileged position. Now I am not saying you should be ashamed, but you could maybe try to see things through other people's eyes sometimes. I am saying this without a trace of irony, by the way. I think it is disingenuous to come to any forum and discuss social realities but deny your own reality or to now act like you have had a hard life but please be aware I have been working the last 15 years but yes I suppose I have always had a net to fall back on. So I wont deny that But this mustnt been seen as a way to dismiss my view on the EU and other topics because its exactly because of my exposure to certain industries ....or rather for example in this case a view that is a combination of opinions. Two of my cousins work at HSBC in London in emerging markets. These guys are really clever at finance, much clever than me and yet they are in panic about this possible exit ..its weird they normally have a informed view or multiple opinions but this has unnerved them

Well, exactly. I'm not sure how much of the "but why do you not see any Christian terrorist groups!" thing is inherent to Christianity versus just not having that many desperate and disenfranchised people around who can easily be talked into sacrificing themselves for intangible rewards. Yes that would be a factor and also the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lankas had Christians in there movement and they used suicide bombers But nowadays its only the Muslim extremists who use this tactic and I'm not being biased. There is a real problem that the Muslim world needs to resolve as most victims are Muslims

Bruce, I feel you're missing the key thrust of this. It's not a question of whether they'll be benign or not. The question is would you really, truly be perfectly happy to abandon your say in your government purely on the fuzzy promise that they'll look after you in the future. But if they don't.. you'll have given up your chance to argue with them or vote them out of office. You see to me that is not an issue because I currently have no say in government and my vote is irrelevant ...but thats because of our history so its not a big deal Also let me not hide this, I am in a very fortunate position where I could get a job in the UK and possibly the USA because of the work I do. So I never ever feel trapped not that I want to leave SA

The religious right isn't massacring infidels in the U.S. Or gays. Or people with contrary political beliefs. Muslims are. I'm counting... one Muslim, in recent memory? yes but lets not be pedantic I am not religious but it is a valid point to say " Islamic extremism " is the problem, not " Christian conservatism " If the outcome is "they foster homophobia with hateful rhetoric", I genuinely see little difference between the two. Yes I hear you, as you know I am very supportive of LGBT community and 10 years ago I remember travelling to the USA for work and seeing the religious bigotry and always wondering why people would select something negative in the bible instead of the positive But there is a huge difference with radial Islam and Christian conservatism on a number of levels ...and I'm not making excuses For example Christians still respect the sanctity of a single life....while Muslim extremism believe its okay to sacrifice yourself for a jihad. But who do you think normally volunteers for these suicide missions ...its not successful, intelligent Muslims And also this killing of a group of people irrespective of casualties has got to be the most obvious inconsistency And finally ISIS doctrine is selective quotes from the Koran so all the reprehensible deeds they commit they claim are " allowed as its in the Koran " ....so there really is a difference if we fair Check this video about life in the ISIS capital....these people are like savages http://www.wsj.com/video/life-inside-the-isis-home-base-of-raqqa-syria/AA8CB9E3-B6A9-49AB-A2C9-F8E843413B85.html

Uh, Dude, this is not giving up bureaucracy. This is increasing bureaucracy, this is giving up your DEMOCRATIC vote. You will have NO say in the laws. You will not get to vote for representatives who make laws. You will not get the right to vote representatives out of office who make laws you think are wrong. Once laws are made by the EU, there is NO process to have them repealed. The people who make the laws aren't voted for. So, it's pretty much giving up any sense of having a say in how the government works. Just be a good little boy, give us the taxes, let us have our money, and trust us to do good by you. Be happy that you have a safe zone. Okay but surly the views of the UK would be at least considered ?

Yes, this is exactly what the EU offers and it can only work if it is structured the way it is I am surprised people object to this, was this not explained? So your economy will flourish and you will never be abandoned...guys do you have any idea how many African countries will gladly give up things like bureaucracy just to get out of poverty?

I sincerely hope no one complains about this !!!!

The religious right isn't massacring infidels in the U.S. Or gays. Or people with contrary political beliefs. Muslims are. I'm counting... one Muslim, in recent memory? yes but lets not be pedantic I am not religious but it is a valid point to say " Islamic extremism " is the problem, not " Christian conservatism "

Relevant. Last I checked, no known President or leader in the history of forever claimed to be an absolute expert in every field. This is why even dictators have advisors that are specialized in those fields and there to provide sound advice and wisdom. And last I checked, Sanders plan to break up the banks was largely a plan of having the Treasury Department comprise a list of which institutions pose an economic threat should they fail, in which case they would be forced to correct themselves over time, though the manner of correction would be up to discussion and negotiation and not something that the banks themselves would have no say in. That seems completely reasonable, completely realistic and completely rational to me. Of course it's not a simple task to achieve and not something achievable overnight, that's why you do it over time and that's why you engage the banks themselves and demand compliance in devising ways to reduce the impact of a single institution while avoiding harm to the dealings of the institution itself as much as possible and without severely damaging the global economy. To continue to press onward status quo only has one outcome: the rich get richer. That *is* dangerous for the global economy. If the poor cannot afford to purchase or deal with the rich, guess what happens to the value of currency itself. We are all tied together, and a market where cash is not in constant flow from one hand to another is an unhealthy market. A market's cash flow works best when money is evenly distributed because it means all parties involved have about equal purchasing power, pricing of products at a reasonable sum as well as the value of currency itself is easily devised, and people are unquestionably capable of receiving the goods they desire. You are basically arguing that because something may be difficult or complex, it must be impossible OR we just shouldn't bother and "admit defeat." We cannot do that, because what you are proposing is more or less procrastination. You are ignoring the growing problem of economic instability and convincing yourself "it's fine." It's not. The day when you and I cannot afford a loaf of bread is the same day that people stop caring how many stacks of cash Bill Gates has because that currency trade has proven too volatile to be worthwhile. The richest 1% will continue to grow wealthier because there is simply more earning power in having money to spend. This is not an issue exclusive to the lower and middle classes; no, that issue would eventually affect the rich as well. You are hearing a mantra of "no it's impossible, keep going" because for the time being the issue hasn't come back around to bite them in the ass yet. If you would like to name a specific issue with some tangible plan that Bernie has named, I'd be happy to hear it. But to claim "I cannot picture it working, therefore it won't" is not an argument. http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/transcript-bernie-sanders-meets-news-editorial-board-article-1.2588306?cid=bitly http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/07/upshot/yes-bernie-sanders-knows-something-about-breaking-up-banks.html?_r=0 Just some links, once again I like Sanders but even in the first link the rhetoric is apparent and of course he does have some very reasonable points like the outsourcing of jobs but he says Daily News: Okay. Well, would you name, say, three American corporate giants that are destroying the national fabric? Sanders: JPMorgan Chase, and virtually every other major bank in this country. Let me be very clear, all right? I believe that we can and should move to what Pope Francis calls a moral economy. He quotes the Pope as someone who he feels is a good example of someone to follow. Now dont get me wrong I really like and respect the new Pope. He is the first Pope who seems utterly unconcerned with materialistic things and he rejects opulence But the new Pope also embraces the poorer and impoverished countries in South America and Africa which is good but he thinks there failed or weak economies is a fault of other countries. End of the day the Pope is just a nice person but he bases his views on emotions and not logic Sanders I see as the same. But to be honest after reading those links I am not clear on what benefits Sanders and his supporters think they will get from this break-up?

Sup All Jaded inspired me to make this post, this is to all EU forum members How do you feel about the UK possibly leaving? Do you care ....does it matter?

Yes, well, countries like the Netherlands, Sweden, Finland and Denmark may feel quite a bit more uncomfortable in an E.U. without GB to balance out Germany and France, so I wouldn't be too sure things will be business as usual. Especially since GB's contributions to the budget will fall away, and that money will have to come from somewhere. And it sure won't be coming from those nice Eastern European chaps... I am very glad you are asking these questions, sometimes I feel you guys in the EU just dont care or realize how beneficial the EU is So I agree, its not a nice thought to think of someone like the UK leaving but the reality is no other country can just leave because of the single currency and the fact the majority of countries in the EU have had to sacrifice old financial structures to integrate. This is also normal and what was required You may not believe me but I promise you its very relevant....there is no leaving the EU unless a country is prepared for a economic meltdown....thats why the UK is different Now being forced to stay may not seem ideal but it is, so people will complain but no one will leave. To be honest I hope we see a reaffirming of commitment and loyalty from some EU members, like PIGS countries, and they contribute towards the deficit from the UK leaving But to be fair you cant expect the East Europeans to fix the gap but never forget the loyalty of the Scandinavian countries The EU will adapt and survive but yes it will be a initial revenue impact

Are you suggesting that with the status quo, the amassed wealth of the 1% will eventually trickle down to the middle class and the poor and then everything will be great? Not at all but why have you convinced yourself this was ever going to happen? This whole 1 % attack is just something people love to support as suddenly that type of obscene wealth is unpopular and he could theoretically do this with no real impact My concern with Sanders was the whole " I will break up the global investment banks " This you absolutely cannot do, Sanders has no idea how this would even be accomplished but why would he think he could possibly know more about whats good for banking than people like Janet Yellen or the erudite Ben Bernanke from the Federal Reserve. In 2008 the US government prudently intervened to save the US banking sector and by proxy the world from going into a recession At that point the US could have forced major changes through if the like of Benanke or Timothy Geithner had really believed the " banks were too big " But both men understood the reality of how global banks are structured and how breaking them up would only negatively impact them So my issue with Bernie is how he could have inadvertently created a economic meltdown in the USA

You guys must read the comments on this video, people have a very negative view of Islam

As you know I'm very vocal about my support for things like the West. But I understand that not everyone, even a resident of a country, may want to debate politics But Im glad you are invested in this thread as it is important but it also highlights how divisive the whole BREXIT campaign has been So my family as I mentioned have ties to the UK so you and I are in the same boat, I believe in the EU but its a trading block and even if the UK leaves it wont impact any military alliances So my first loyalty has to be to the UK and what the citizens decide. The UK is in a unique position to leave the EU and to recover and sustain itself economically but this will take 10-18 months But if the UK leaves these are the things that will 90 % happen, so when they do happen dont stress and think OMG !! We made a destructive and fatal decision. This is to be expected but some newspapers will make a big deal about it If the UK leaves the pound will suffer some loss as low risk investors pull out and some speculators sell currency. Maybe 10-18 % maximum. But remember the UK economic fundamentals are solid within 12 months it will recover Yes certain corporations are indeed holding back on investment to see how things work out....this is also normal so dont see this as serious Will the EU allow the UK access to the free trade zone ?Impossible to predict but the UK will prudently renegotiate other deals You may hear stories of " international companies leaving the UK " . I dont buy this one for one second, why do business make major investments in the UK? Its because of London and the reality of the UK being an excellent overall choice. These business wont now just pack up and leave ..in fact the large ones will see this as a way to renegotiate things like tax with the UK Finally to our friends who are part of the EU dont think if the UK leaves this is the end of the EU dream, absolutely not. The EU will continue to be a successful union but with less overall revenue which it will address And new trade deals will happen with the UK who will always be part of Europe in principle

The economy will destroy itself, just like it almost did in 07. The rise of the populist right and left is a reaction to global capitalism being stretched to it's limits and on the verge of collapse. I suppose its possible but I dont see any economic data that suggests this? What are you basing this on

Honesty is always the best policy. Can I please tell you what is the relevant outcome ...on the day of the actual election Hilary will beat Trump and mark my words when they break down the demographics you will see that the vast majority of women voted for Hilary and correctly assured her victory Trump has horribly offended and misunderstood this voting block and I really want to see his face in the final results ...do you think he will still be laughing and pandering to that sexist and rude group of supporters who actually think its funny to call any women " a fat, disgusting pig "