BruceVC

You guys are funny But it does matter, the views of your average South African will be generally echoed throughout the African continent Surly misplaced perspectives about the USA from a whole continent ....thinking how racist the USA is should concern you Patriotism Barti...patriotism Barti. It should matter if Trump is creating a very bad impression around the USA and its citizens? Do you think they'll start to think of us so negatively they'll stop coming here illegally? Good point WOD and one of the great contradictions that permeates much of this anti-Western sentiment No of course many people will still criticize the West but will happily immigrate to a Western country

You guys are funny But it does matter, the views of your average South African will be generally echoed throughout the African continent Surly misplaced perspectives about the USA from a whole continent ....thinking how racist the USA is should concern you Patriotism Barti...patriotism Barti. It should matter if Trump is creating a very bad impression around the USA and its citizens?

Sure, Trump knows how to get maximum exposure from the press that generally benefits him and he is a successful businessman But that doesn't mean he understands the negative impact of some of his more controversial policies

Things like Bernie being too soft and not on the attack feeds to my musings about him just being controlled opposition and never really threathening her place as the nominee. But at the same time, he gets almost the same treatment as Ron Paul got back in 2012 by the media (think of the false accusations like the manufactured "BernieBros-scandal"). Maybe the interests just intertwine, or he's just a meek character, who knows. All i can say, i find it amusing that she got 86% of the black vote in South Carolina, compared to someone who actually marched with MLK and got arrested while protesting during the Civil Rights-era, all while she was campaigning for Nixon. Oh, and Milo thinks that Rubio is a flaming homo. This is hysterical. The issue with attacking Hillary is that the Clintons are party royalty and an attack on her would trigger a lot of liberals and could potentially hurt him in the primary. I'd say he should do it because framing himself as the crusader for better economic status for the lower classes and Hillary as a Wall Street shill would both weaken her and differentiate him from status quo Democrats. But as you said, he's getting the Ron Paul treatment and the debates are scheduled at times when people aren't likely to watch so perhaps the DNC decided it wants Hillary so perhaps there isn't anything that can change that. And I asked my friend's roommate if he thought Rubio was gay and he said that Rubio looks like a bottom. Make of that what you will. KP do you think Hilary is a Wall Street shill...thats seems a little unreasonable ?

Yes but he can still do some serious damage to the perception of the USA that people have...this is irritating and takes years to undo Already most people in SA think " the support for Trump and his offensive and racist comments is actually what all Americans have always thought.,..now we seeing the the real face of the USA ".....its complete BS but people think that

Its true....much of what you said did worry me immensely and set off my SJ warning bells But you have been right about several things so I want to recognize that

They probably went home back to Syria....so technically they aren't lost ? Most of them are most likely still in Germany or other EU countries. They just live with their relatives or other acquaintances illegally in Germany or they seek asylum in other countries with possible new name or live in those countries illegally (similarly with relatives or other acquaintances). And then some of them are victims of human trade. Okay ...well thats not a good outcome, lets rather say they went back to Syria...settled down, white picket fence, a large family and a dog in some quiet Syrian neighborhood Now doesn't that sound better than your view of what happened

They probably went home back to Syria....so technically they aren't lost ?

Attacking Hilary would go against what Sanders' strategy. As he has stated from beginning of his campaign that he will not smear other candidates but tries to win what he has to offer. Hillary gets run quite freely with his foreign policy expertise because Sanders has even less and his focus is in domestic politics. Although Sanders strategy not attack his opposition has worked quite well for him, because it was something fresh in US politics and his opponents that attacked him suffered because of those attacks instead of him. I would say that Sanders would not be as serious contender as he is without that strategy. And GOP side the leading candidate is one that owns every attack against him and makes them seem as his strengths. Which is caused that more Trumps opposition smears him more popular Trump becomes. You can see Clinton's expertise in politics how she has adopted Sanders like strategy to avoid direct smear towards Sanders and how she has also adopted lots of things from his campaign so that it don't look so unique anymore. Especially as said adoption strategy seems to work for her quite well. Also foreign policy is not Sanders strong point...he doesn't have too much insight on these types of matters

How unusual.....draconian implementation of laws in a Muslim country

Nah, Liberty isn't being lost ...it just feels that way because of the necessary intervention by the Federal government End of the day even the Obama\Clinton\Sanders ideal of a prosperous middle class still requires the actual people to work hard...you can't legislate economic transformation But we yes we do need to ensure big business can do its job

WOD do you hunt in Texas? I mentioned to you how I met several Texas hunters in SA....hardcore guys, real outdoor survivalists. The type of people who could live in the wilderness if necessary

Yes but the outcome will still be secretive, unless you saying the outcome will become public record later?

But the only way you could reasonably blame the West for wanting to depose Gaddafi is if you believe the Arab Spring was a creation of the West....do you believe that? Yes and no. But western want to depose Gaddafi had little to do with Arab Spring, it just give them opportunity do something that they had wanted to do for long time before that point. And fact that people in Libya wanted to depose Gaddafi give west absolution of responsibility of their actions in Libya. I must admit that I just can't comprehend your reasoning why Arab Spring would anyway remove/lessen responsibility that west has over their actions and decisions. Yes I agree to a certain degree...once the Libyan conflict started the West wanted to depose Gaddafi, I also wanted that. He was dictator who abused his country and his people I would add 6-8 current African leaders that I wish would be removed from power and arrested for numerous crimes...people like Gaddafi never had a real election when he was in power....not once, not once in 40 years . He was never the legitimate leader of Libya And the reason I keep bringing up the Arab Spring is that was the reason in places like Libya and Syria there was a civil war...irrespective of what the West did once these conflicts started the West is not to blame for causing them

Thats a good question, I'm glad you asked that. That article is a cleverly written piece of anti-Clinton propaganda. It was created for one reason, to besmirch Hilary Clinton and to try to erode her integrity. Its common in politics, it contains just enough " information " to make you think its credible but then consider points they make That campaign has been widely reported by Reuters and other media outlets, but it officially is classified as a “Top Secret/Special Access Program” (SAP), meaning only a limited number of people whose names are on a special list are allowed to learn details about it. A spokesman for NGA did not immediately respond to requests for comment. CIA spokespeople declined to comment. It was unclear what the congressional committees that received the classified reports, the House and Senate intelligence and foreign relations panels, will do with them. The contents cannot be discussed publicly. The committees requested intelligence reports in connection with their efforts to ensure that government secrets are appropriately protected. So in fact basically we have NO idea if she was vindicated, chastised, supported.....its very incoherent the whole thing

"However, the agency reports found some emails included passages that closely tracked or mirrored communications marked “top secret,” according to the sources, who all requested anonymity. In some cases, additional classification markings meant access was supposed to be limited to small groups of specially cleared officials. Under the law and government rules, U.S. officials and contractors may not transmit any classified information – not only documents – outside secure, government-controlled channels. Such information should not be sent even through the government’s .gov email network." At least 22 emails had info from documents marked "top secret" or above. Over a thousand emails with some level of classification sent over the public internet. Each instance of mishandling classified info is a felony. WOD that article mentions the general rulings are confidential and so is the final reports Why would you have an opinion on something where there is no substantive evidence?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/mar/29/arms-libya-rebels http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05/28/emails-show-clintons-interest-in-arming-libyan-rebels-despite-prohibitions.html http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/1/hillary-clinton-libya-war-push-armed-benghazi-rebe/?page=all http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/06/world/africa/weapons-sent-to-libyan-rebels-with-us-approval-fell-into-islamist-hands.html http://www.reuters.com/article/us-libya-usa-order-idUSTRE72T6H220110331 For starters Yes but as I mentioned the Libyan rebels were already fighting Gaddafi before the USA sent this assistance, in other words the civil war didn't need the West to sent military equipment for the rebels to fight Gaddafi http://www.reuters.com/article/us-libya-rebels-weapons-idUSTRE73B5C220110412 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1363780/Libya-US-ask-Saudi-Arabia-supply-weapons-rebels-bid-oust-Gaddafi.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8606541/France-supplying-weapons-to-Libyan-rebels.html http://www.news24.com/Africa/News/Libya-rebels-ask-for-extra-arms-20110721 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-13966976 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/apr/19/libya-rebels-will-receive-25-million-from-us/?page=all http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/worldtonight/2011/04/a_libya_hypothesis_the_rebels.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/libyan-rebels-cant-win-fox-admits-so-we-need-a-traitor-in-gaddafis-circle-2329677.html http://www.reuters.com/article/us-libya-idUSTRE7270JP20110330 Libyan rebels may already been fighting against Gaddafi, but their change to win Libyan military was estimated to be non-existent without help from west. Yes but my point being they would have killed Gaddafi even if the West hasn't helped him You believe the West has to take responsibility because they helped the rebels but I'm saying countries and people need to accept there own actions ....Gaddafi was killed by the rebels. I still fail to see how the West is responsible My point was that rebels wouldn't have been able to kill Gaddafi without help from west and people in west need admit consequences of their actions too (they supported, even demanded deposing Gaddafi and his supporters, they give arms to rebels that had ties to Al-Qaida and other terrorist groups, they used their superior military strength to destroy Libya's national army, important infrastructure, legal institutions that kept peace in the land, without these actions current situation in Libya would be different and Gaddafi probably would still be alive) But the only way you could reasonably blame the West for wanting to depose Gaddafi is if you believe the Arab Spring was a creation of the West....do you believe that?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/mar/29/arms-libya-rebels http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05/28/emails-show-clintons-interest-in-arming-libyan-rebels-despite-prohibitions.html http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/1/hillary-clinton-libya-war-push-armed-benghazi-rebe/?page=all http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/06/world/africa/weapons-sent-to-libyan-rebels-with-us-approval-fell-into-islamist-hands.html http://www.reuters.com/article/us-libya-usa-order-idUSTRE72T6H220110331 For starters Yes but as I mentioned the Libyan rebels were already fighting Gaddafi before the USA sent this assistance, in other words the civil war didn't need the West to sent military equipment for the rebels to fight Gaddafi http://www.reuters.com/article/us-libya-rebels-weapons-idUSTRE73B5C220110412 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1363780/Libya-US-ask-Saudi-Arabia-supply-weapons-rebels-bid-oust-Gaddafi.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8606541/France-supplying-weapons-to-Libyan-rebels.html http://www.news24.com/Africa/News/Libya-rebels-ask-for-extra-arms-20110721 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-13966976 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/apr/19/libya-rebels-will-receive-25-million-from-us/?page=all http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/worldtonight/2011/04/a_libya_hypothesis_the_rebels.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/libyan-rebels-cant-win-fox-admits-so-we-need-a-traitor-in-gaddafis-circle-2329677.html http://www.reuters.com/article/us-libya-idUSTRE7270JP20110330 Libyan rebels may already been fighting against Gaddafi, but their change to win Libyan military was estimated to be non-existent without help from west. Yes but my point being they would have killed Gaddafi even if the West hasn't helped him You believe the West has to take responsibility because they helped the rebels but I'm saying countries and people need to accept there own actions ....Gaddafi was killed by the rebels. I still fail to see how the West is responsible

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/mar/29/arms-libya-rebels http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05/28/emails-show-clintons-interest-in-arming-libyan-rebels-despite-prohibitions.html http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/1/hillary-clinton-libya-war-push-armed-benghazi-rebe/?page=all http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/06/world/africa/weapons-sent-to-libyan-rebels-with-us-approval-fell-into-islamist-hands.html http://www.reuters.com/article/us-libya-usa-order-idUSTRE72T6H220110331 For starters Yes but as I mentioned the Libyan rebels were already fighting Gaddafi before the USA sent this assistance, in other words the civil war didn't need the West to sent military equipment for the rebels to fight Gaddafi

I cant see that happening, almost every single one of Trumps policies is based on something that has to change and be implemented and is considered radical ...the wall, the deportation of 11 million people, the breaking down of the Iran deal, the end of Obamacare etc. Once the actual debates begin between the 2 final presidential candidates it will be easy for the Democrats to start undermining Trumps views Hilary I feel has a real advantage as her policies are basically extensions to Obama's legacy and are much more realistic

Its not too violent GD? You didnt find yourself feeling uncomfortable with some of the adult themes ? Its okay to be sensitive

Deliberately obtuse or just uninformed? Neither, he is right. Gaddafi was captured hiding in some drain and then killed by his captives a short time later....he got what he deserved. And this was the Libyan rebels....not the West who killed him When you arm, finance and offer intelligence, air and electric communication support to people that did the deed can you really say that you weren't involved? Sure if that was what supported the Arab Spring you would be right....but the West didn't arm, finance or initially support the Arab Spring. It was an ideological movement created and spread by Muslims who wanted a more equitable society in many countries in the North Africa and the ME who were tired of being ruled by families or dictators for decades But Libya's rebels were armed and supported by west in their effort to depose Gaddafi. Even if rebellion itself was not started by west, said rebellion would have most likely failed without help from west. So it is quite dubious to say that west didn't play part in Gaddafi's death. Let take hypothetical and badly fitting metaphor to give an example that resembles situation distantly. Person has been beaten and otherwise subjugated by thier spouse and then they plan to get revenge against said spouse and ask help from their neighbor who then provides them a gun, and then goes and strikes said spouse unconscious and then leaves said person with a gun to sort things out with their unconscious spouse, who then shoot their spouse. Would you say that neighbor in question is innocent and didn't partake in said murder anyway, because said person was already planning to murder their spouse? I agree that in your example about the neighbor it would mean the neighbor has to take a degree of responsibility But I don't think that happened in Libya, the people of Libya consist of tribes and they have always been armed and had access to weapons. If you can find a link that suggests the West armed the Libyan rebels in the beginning that would be interesting but the West only provided air power. At the end the Libyan rebels fought hand to hand battles with the remaining military forces in Tripoli who were loyal to Gaddafi....they found Gaddafi and then executed him but there were no Western ground troops and the West couldn't exactly dictate to the Libyan rebels. So I don't see how the West can be blamed for a decision another military group made?

Deliberately obtuse or just uninformed? Neither, he is right. Gaddafi was captured hiding in some drain and then killed by his captives a short time later....he got what he deserved. And this was the Libyan rebels....not the West who killed him When you arm, finance and offer intelligence, air and electric communication support to people that did the deed can you really say that you weren't involved? Sure if that was what supported the Arab Spring you would be right....but the West didn't arm, finance or initially support the Arab Spring. It was an ideological movement created and spread by Muslims who wanted a more equitable society in many countries in the North Africa and the ME who were tired of being ruled by families or dictators for decades

Deliberately obtuse or just uninformed? Neither, he is right. Gaddafi was captured hiding in some drain and then killed by his captives a short time later....he got what he deserved. And this was the Libyan rebels....not the West who killed him

Not familiar with this. I have just realized I think in SA we use the wrong description of Eisbein, its a crsipy pork knuckle..its looks like this http://route24pub.co.za/?attachment_id=1051