BruceVC

That sounds normal to me, in SA most dog lovers do that Post a picture of him? I like Dachshunds

I did, unfortunately she quickly ran out because she had to get to work so I'm all alone right now. Did you hire an escort? No, I have a girlfriend and would not pay some poor woman in a bad situation for sex. My bad....but KP you mustn't see hiring an escort in a negative light You could treat her very well in the same way as any girl so the overall experience is a good one It isn't how I treat them, its the situation they're in with pimps and other unpleasant realities of prostitution. I know you liberals think turning everything into a commodity to be sold is good, but I have no desire to contribute to a situation that turns women into products to benefit pimps and treat said women like slaves. Not to mention it's illegal and I don't want to end up in jail. Oh no I'm not talking about a hooker who has a pimp, I mean a professional escort. They dont have pimps, there cliental would be businessmen. So you would hire them for an evening, you can have dinner, movies and you dont have to have sex ...its more about the company Regardless I really like my girlfriend and don't see the point in paying for (subpar)company or sex, which I find...strange to begin with. Yes of course, I'm not suggesting you get a escort now....you are clearly in a happy relationship But if you ever single, Houston has some nice ladies

It's like all those conspiracy movies, but it is actually happening. I can believe this, it may be a bit late but I hope they do stop Trump....but its doubtful

I did, unfortunately she quickly ran out because she had to get to work so I'm all alone right now. Did you hire an escort? No, I have a girlfriend and would not pay some poor woman in a bad situation for sex. My bad....but KP you mustn't see hiring an escort in a negative light You could treat her very well in the same way as any girl so the overall experience is a good one It isn't how I treat them, its the situation they're in with pimps and other unpleasant realities of prostitution. I know you liberals think turning everything into a commodity to be sold is good, but I have no desire to contribute to a situation that turns women into products to benefit pimps and treat said women like slaves. Not to mention it's illegal and I don't want to end up in jail. Oh no I'm not talking about a hooker who has a pimp, I mean a professional escort. They dont have pimps, there cliental would be businessmen. So you would hire them for an evening, you can have dinner, movies and you dont have to have sex ...its more about the company

I did, unfortunately she quickly ran out because she had to get to work so I'm all alone right now. Did you hire an escort? No, I have a girlfriend and would not pay some poor woman in a bad situation for sex. My bad....but KP you mustn't see hiring an escort in a negative light You could treat her very well in the same way as any girl so the overall experience is a good one

I did, unfortunately she quickly ran out because she had to get to work so I'm all alone right now. Did you hire an escort?

Exactly my point right here! The constitution of the Unites States specifically FORBIDS the Federal Government from interfering with the governance of the states except in the execution of the responsibilities assigned to the Federal Government by the Constitution. Social things like gay marriage is not among those. That he thinks he can is a problem! That he does so and gets away with it is a bigger problem! I hear you but surly if the objective is positive then it should be fine? GD are you worried about a Trump presidency ...in the sense he may do something really dumb like attack Iran What do you think he would do first if he became president ...I think real Obamacare? No, it is NOT OK if the outcome is positive. Didn't you read my post in #93? A good end NEVER justifies a bad means. Dictatorships and Oligarchies are not made overnight. The Constitution is the supreme law of the United States or there is no law but what the current body politic decides. I've posted this before but the question everyone needs to ask themselves is 'Do you trust the people in government? Do you trust the people who will be there 10 years from now? 20 years from now?" The only rational answer is "No!" Trump appears to favor a non interventionist foreign policy which suits me fine. As for what he's going to do, who the hell knows? He hasn't said anything intelligible yet except promise to do things no President can do like raising tariffs on Mexico. Well Mexico is a signatory of NAFTA. We have a treaty with them meaning you CAN'T raise tariffs on them. Either he thinks he can and that's a problem. Or he knows he can't and he full of s--t and that is a problem. I understand your point, you see the Constitution as sacrosanct and you cannot change it But what if the Constitution became a stumbling block to progress...so people found a way to bypass it. Like the Gay Marriage Bill...you realize if the Supreme Court hadn't intervened you would still have states that would be refusing to allow two people who are in love to get married, of course these would be same sex couples But thats not fair GD...the USA is not about discrimination Ok, this is a far more complex subject than can be worked over in the few lines I have time to write. Although I am pleased with the outcome I don't like the means by which Obergefell was decided. It stems from this: marriage in the US is a legal contract. That gives the court jurisdiction over it. It never should have been than and this whole mess would have been headed off long ago. I'd love to dig more into this but I have to leave for work now. Later GD

A bit lazy of me because I'm at work right now. The rundown Wiki page about the event My own tl;dr version, Maastricht Treaty was about the ever increasing integration and erosion of national sovereignty, giving that up in favour of the EU institutions. In true democratic nature, the "Eurocrat" politicians in Denmark were horrified when the voting results became official and promptly decided a new referendum was needed (and they would probably repeat that until the stupid people finally voted the way they were supposed to). In order to prevent a repeat of the first result, Denmark got 4 exemptions added to the agreement that pretty much left the country out of those key elements and letting the Danes have more autonomy in areas that other countries weren't offered (because the politicians there never asked people if they wanted it, they simply signed away chunks of sovereignty to Bruxelles at the time). I voted no at the second referendum too, but sadly the second result was a yes (with the key elements of the Maastricht treaty not applying to Denmark). It's also the reason Denmark could keep it's own currency for example. Gorthie I meant to ask you, how are you enjoying the UK? You staying in the countryside right...whats your routine like, found any good restaurants or places you like to go to You know my family are from the UK so we have strong tries

Exactly my point right here! The constitution of the Unites States specifically FORBIDS the Federal Government from interfering with the governance of the states except in the execution of the responsibilities assigned to the Federal Government by the Constitution. Social things like gay marriage is not among those. That he thinks he can is a problem! That he does so and gets away with it is a bigger problem! Not directly related to the US election, but similar sentiments is what keeps most Scandinavians (and the UK) from ever having developed warm feelings for the entire European "Union" concept. Free and open markets, etc. yes. A super national construct telling individual countries how they should run their countries, no. Proud voter of "No!" to the Maastrict treaty in 1992 What does that mean Gorthie? The Maastrict treaty And you say that you are firm believer of EU I kid, but it is treaty that created EU. Yes I did recognize the name but to be fair the post I'll make later is about the EU now ....not when it was created

Exactly my point right here! The constitution of the Unites States specifically FORBIDS the Federal Government from interfering with the governance of the states except in the execution of the responsibilities assigned to the Federal Government by the Constitution. Social things like gay marriage is not among those. That he thinks he can is a problem! That he does so and gets away with it is a bigger problem! I hear you but surly if the objective is positive then it should be fine? GD are you worried about a Trump presidency ...in the sense he may do something really dumb like attack Iran What do you think he would do first if he became president ...I think real Obamacare? No, it is NOT OK if the outcome is positive. Didn't you read my post in #93? A good end NEVER justifies a bad means. Dictatorships and Oligarchies are not made overnight. The Constitution is the supreme law of the United States or there is no law but what the current body politic decides. I've posted this before but the question everyone needs to ask themselves is 'Do you trust the people in government? Do you trust the people who will be there 10 years from now? 20 years from now?" The only rational answer is "No!" Trump appears to favor a non interventionist foreign policy which suits me fine. As for what he's going to do, who the hell knows? He hasn't said anything intelligible yet except promise to do things no President can do like raising tariffs on Mexico. Well Mexico is a signatory of NAFTA. We have a treaty with them meaning you CAN'T raise tariffs on them. Either he thinks he can and that's a problem. Or he knows he can't and he full of s--t and that is a problem. I understand your point, you see the Constitution as sacrosanct and you cannot change it But what if the Constitution became a stumbling block to progress...so people found a way to bypass it. Like the Gay Marriage Bill...you realize if the Supreme Court hadn't intervened you would still have states that would be refusing to allow two people who are in love to get married, of course these would be same sex couples But thats not fair GD...the USA is not about discrimination

Exactly my point right here! The constitution of the Unites States specifically FORBIDS the Federal Government from interfering with the governance of the states except in the execution of the responsibilities assigned to the Federal Government by the Constitution. Social things like gay marriage is not among those. That he thinks he can is a problem! That he does so and gets away with it is a bigger problem! Not directly related to the US election, but similar sentiments is what keeps most Scandinavians (and the UK) from ever having developed warm feelings for the entire European "Union" concept. Free and open markets, etc. yes. A super national construct telling individual countries how they should run their countries, no. Proud voter of "No!" to the Maastrict treaty in 1992 What does that mean Gorthie? The Maastrict treaty

Exactly my point right here! The constitution of the Unites States specifically FORBIDS the Federal Government from interfering with the governance of the states except in the execution of the responsibilities assigned to the Federal Government by the Constitution. Social things like gay marriage is not among those. That he thinks he can is a problem! That he does so and gets away with it is a bigger problem! I hear you but surly if the objective is positive then it should be fine? GD are you worried about a Trump presidency ...in the sense he may do something really dumb like attack Iran What do you think he would do first if he became president ...I think repeal Obamacare?

They vote option that other party didn't propose regardless of what the proposition was. That is at least the feeling that I get from the news. That is also true I'm afraid...there is political gridlock. The Republicans basically will try to oppose Obama on anything they can But for me the main difference is Obama believes that the Federal government needs to sometimes intervene in the states to achieve a more equitable society....like the Gay Marriage Bill Republicans are tired of big government spending and interference in how they run the states Other people can correct me or add something else

Elerond do you know what the primary difference between the Republicans and Democrats is nowadays ?

Consensus in the USA political theater ......son whatever you smoking I want some

Which post are you referring to GD? I may have done it several times

Yes, it sounds horrible to say it out loud as it sounds arrogant but its true...people focus on things that aren't relevant and then they sway the voting system a certain way But as Baro pointed out we can't really do anything about it I suppose?

We've had 5 Prime Ministers over a span of 5 years. I've honestly not noticed much difference. So much for those Western values. Okay I see the contradiction in my post .....yes a free and fair election is part of Western ideology I take back what I said earlier

I speak the truth my friend and the truth is often intimidating

Most of those changes of PM's in Australia the last 10 years were internal party squabbles in the Labour party. They have this weird thing that gives the unions a disproportional influence and they practise cloak and dagger politics a lot. Kevin and Julia taking turns gathering enough votes at political meetings to have each other dragged out of office in the middle of the night and replaced with new labour leader cliques, replacing the top powerstructures with "loyal legionaires" while disposing of anyone loyal to the ruling Caesar PM. It's quite entertaining in a tv drama kind of way. Australia also has an unusually short maximum term of 3 years before new elections are required, making it even more impressive that they backstab each other before elections are up anyway. Yes, I was referring to Kevin and Julia How does a PM get replaced in Oz before his term ends? Who can vote them out....it just seems like a fragile system because the reality is you can't expect the average common citizen to really understand who is the best person to run a country? Get enough important party members to summon an impromptu caucus and elect a new party leader. Simple as that. The people vote for the party, not the person, so in the end, the party decides who resides in the "cottage" (the PM's residence, like the White House and 10, Downing Street). Yeah it adds to the chaos because you just have to ensure you have enough party members to be on your side .....can they have a leadership change anytime? What boys? Wait let me guess.....you guys know the best candidate for your country right

Most of those changes of PM's in Australia the last 10 years were internal party squabbles in the Labour party. They have this weird thing that gives the unions a disproportional influence and they practise cloak and dagger politics a lot. Kevin and Julia taking turns gathering enough votes at political meetings to have each other dragged out of office in the middle of the night and replaced with new labour leader cliques, replacing the top powerstructures with "loyal legionaires" while disposing of anyone loyal to the ruling Caesar PM. It's quite entertaining in a tv drama kind of way. Australia also has an unusually short maximum term of 3 years before new elections are required, making it even more impressive that they backstab each other before elections are up anyway. Yes, I was referring to Kevin and Julia How does a PM get replaced in Oz before his term ends? Who can vote them out....it just seems like a fragile system because the reality is you can't expect the average common citizen to really understand who is the best person to run a country?

Victor is my second name and C is my surname

Yes it correct you dont charge the ladies ...but you shouldn't charge the guy then as it was consensual In South Africa we dropped the age of consent between young people to 12 and 16....so you wont get charged From Volourn's link: "The case has come before the courts in County Kildare in the Republic of Ireland where the age of consent for males and females is 17. Boys under that age can be prosecuted for statutory rape, but females cannot." I guess the Irish still need to catch up a bit on the equal rights front? 17 is far to strict but Ireland is Conservative due to Catholicism But seriously ....thinking its wrong people at that age want to have sex As I said we acknowledge the reality of sexual activity in teenagers and young people. So we allow consensual sex from the age of 12 to 16

Invoking Bruce. I'm betting he's standing in front of his mirror chanting ONE BRUCY VC, TWO BRUCY VC, err... uhm, like, right now. "Bruce" even rhymes a bit with "Beetlejuice" u funnny, I enjoyed that movie

Again Bruce, the issue is not who Dean votes for as a Democratic primary voter or general election voter, it's that he is a superdelegate and his support for Clinton is the equivalent of 1/16th of the entire state of Vermont. It's criticism of the superdelegate system in the Democratic primary because it is undemocratic. Okay well thats easy to address.....its not Deans fault the system is like that. Once Hilary is elected then you guys should push for changes I just see that reason as a valid point but more a distraction as Dean cant change that Still trying to skew that people here are talking about Dean himself? No one here has said it was at all about him, it was about the power of superdelegates and he was used as an example. Are you deliberately obtuse or do you lack conceptual thinking? You funny I just addressed the question of the super delegates ....in the post you quoted. I said " its not Deans fault the system is like that. Once Hilary is elected then you guys should push for changes" Meshugger I like you...you really weird but you are also the last person who should be calling me obtuse....and this term " conceptual thinking " ....are you sure you want to debate something that has a unclear meaning for you? He is correct Bruce. You are either completely misunderstanding what has been written by many here, and is easily located via search engine, or you are going out of your way to ignore pertinent facts and your mind is truly does lack the ability to think, conceptually, critically, as well as objectively. You will find no honest ethical person, Democrat, Republican, or whatever, who understands the 'super-delegate' system that will defend it. It is an absolute cowpie system, created by corrupt Ftards, and generally made up of corrupt Ftards such as Dean. Interesting, you also dont seem to comprehending my basic point? Guys for the last time, I'm not defending it as I mention in the post quoted AGAIN by you We cant fix it now, wait till after the election then push for change? Its about activism Vals ....its about not just complaining on a forum. This is why I spend so much time on radio talk shows discussing politics and events that influence SA