BruceVC

In my experience that's not why we're laughing at you. Thats fine but you guys really need to start debating with me and then we can gauge who is the most informed, its not about being superior. Its just a debate....but I'll be honest you seem to debate mostly using emotion which is influenced by a certain bias so because I can honestly support everything I say I doubt you would win.. But its just fun, I love having debates ....but I wont hold back

Uh oh, Val is going to take his ball and go home. We better lay off guys. This whole courtroom is out of order! Fantastic quotes of Scalia, btw Gromnir. I don't know how they will replace his opinions. Vals dont overreact, this forum isn't that bad ....seriously of course Gromnir will challenge you on certain views you have about the Constitution. Can you blame him considering the fact he is a Constitutional Lawyer and he should give us the proper interpretation...its nothing personal. You should just look at this as way to improve your view on these matters, he isn't malicious and he doesn't feel the need to correct everyone so its not inordinate

Okay but you seemed to be concerned about the fact that Americas enemies were laughing at you because they see America as weak and stupid ...yet you mention countries that cannot laugh at either of those things because Russia's economy is in recession and this wont change and the Chinese great economic experiment of a export driven economy and relying on state control in times of economic hardship has failed .....its really failed and the Chinese are now restructuring there entire economy to consumer based and industrialized. This makes sense but will take 3-5 years if it succeeds So think about it neither of those countries could possibly laugh at the USA when they failed to maintain there own economies. And this is a fundamental point that actually contradicts what certain right wing views espouse...and I'm worried they may be unduly influencing your view. I'm not suggesting you stupid at all but can you see how someone saying " America is now the laughing stock of its enemies due to Obama" is factually not correct And I'm not going to even mention NK or Iran as they are no real threat to the West

Well, US was in the Civil War at the time. Also I'm not sure how something that happened 150 years ago is relevant now. Rule of law definitely declined when the President constantly refuses to enforce or follow the law. We're a laughing stock in foreign affairs because our enemies believe us weak and stupid. All the new regulations and laws and the general anti-business attitude I believe hurt the economy. The accumulated national debt is a heavy burden on the economy. The deficit is going up without bound again and no one's dealing with it, possibly leading to an economic collapse in the future. As far as Iraq having nuclear weapons, I think Cheney meant to say Iraq had reconstituted a nuclear weapon capability, not an actual nuclear weapon, because I don't remember such a claim being made at the time. Okay those criticism are not dissimilar to GD, when you say enemies can you be specific ? Question, what would you say if I told you that millions of people who live outside the USA think that USA offers them the best quality of life and the best economic prospects ?

Of course,also he used them against the Iranians and the Kurd's I am way over the whole " America should not have invaded Iraq" .....the real issue here is most of the ME is just not interested in understanding why a Democracy is a good thing. For them religious intolerance is preferable ....so the West must just not get involved. The Russians also dont place much value in overall human rights unless its there own citizens so they would feel more comfortable in the region...that makes sense to me

No dont be so dramatic....this is an interesting development but IMO not that bad So firstly lets be honest...do we really care? I don't ...the ME should have been taken care of there own problems years ago. So the Saudi and the Turks attack ISIS ....good no Western troops have to die The Russians and Assad now know not to bomb the " good rebels " and the Russians target ISIS ...good maybe ISIS is removed from Raqqa ISIS is by the far the biggest concern to the region, I don't care if the Russian, Saudis or Turks remove them...I just don't want the West to have to do it So what if the Russians and Saudi actually go to war...Russian will quickly subdue them. But there is NO way the West will go to war and start WW3 over such a pointless and benighted region as Syria....the West doesn't really care, why should they after all the effort and constant criticism If Russia " wins " and Assad stays in power do we really care? I dont even know if the " good rebels " are good....let Assad run his broken country. His entire economy will be dysfunctional and the country will be a failed state I really dont understand what Putin thinks is the benefit? People say " Russia has outmaneuvered the USA in Syria " Why do people think the USA cares if Russia ends the conflict. Maybe Putin is hoping if they end the war then the West will drop sanctions as then the Syrian refugees can go home which would be great But why would the refugees want to go home to Assad ....there will NO economic prospects under his rule I'm glad the Russians are involved but unless Assad resigns then the Russians will be left having to support a very unpopular leader who the West detests and this is understandably

" but I am opposed to activist judge" I love the world you guys all live in....I have called this " first world privileged blindness " ( dont you think thats a cool phrase )and I'm not being condescending. I often see it and hope one day that would be a reality for what ails my fellow countrymen Its a good place to get to and not realize you there

I find porn sites the only place where true love can be explained in such a sincere and non-platonic way

Funny how liberals suddenly find outmoded, useless Constitution when it's convenient. WOD do you think the USA has declined under Obama...and if so what specifically? You have mentioned some things but I am still keen to see your updated view

Firstly I don't blindly trust my government because it all it members are human and they aren't usually brightest minds in my country. Also they are there to represent my interest (and interest of other people in Finland) and if they aren't open and give reasons for their decision I and other people of Finland can't review and determine if their actions were actually in our best interest as they should. And without that knowledge I can't do educated decision in next elections if I continue to give my support for them or do I seek new representatives for my interests. Also blind trust for government opens doors for corruption and other things that people who have power but no supervision do and in democratic societies people are supervisors of their government, all their power should come from will of people. Not blindingly trust in government is even more important when it comes to EU, because EU represent all it member nations and not only Finland so representatives there less likely represent my interest than they do in Finnish government. Also nature of EU's governance allows even more corruption and misuses of power than government of Finland. Although on bright side our representatives in our local governments work as partial supervisors over EU's governance which make it easier to supervise such multinational institution, but existence of EU make it even more important that people in Finland supervise our own government and demand them to do their jobs and supervise over EU's governance and keep us in the loop. Also it is important to keep our representatives in European Parliament responsible of their actions and give reasons for Parliaments actions and supervise European Commission. If people don't question their governments and keep up how their interest are handled by them our democratic systems lose their foundation. It would be like company that don't question actions of their employees. It is not fear that they can sue, it is actual fact that TTIP's current revision would give corporations power sue countries and ECB or Commission or any other institution but that new international trade court, which will be established to handle those suits, will have power to say anything about it if agreement would come in effective in its current form. Whole purpose of that agreement is to create new rules in trade between USA and EU and those new rules will overwrite current ones to make trade easier and more free. Also it is not USA who has ability to sue, but US companies that make invests in EU (this of course also means that EU companies can sue USA, but I write these concerns from Finnish perspective naturally). And as I pointed out those concerns in my previous post were from out Foreign Trade minister, who is the accountable Finnish representative in negotiations about the agreement (so I am not sure that are you saying that I should trust or not trust my government in this matter? Because now your statements are contract each other ). People don't need to necessary know how any specific company will work in Finland, but they need to know when some international agreement will change how they can govern themselves. And also need to have knowledge of new rules so that they can judge how those will effect their everyday lives, companies, etc.. / Hold on...maybe I'm misunderstanding you....are you telling me Finnish citizens get to scrutinize government decisions? In my country people like me help people make the right decision....think about it Elerond wouldnt it be better not having to think about a solution when I can just tell you the right answer.....then you don't have to worry about making the wrong decision ?

Baro when I think of the Republican debate I imagine a pack of feral, snarling wolves fighting in some arctic featureless plain, the wind is howling and visibility is limited ....they tear into each other, its brutal and savage...no mercy is given but finally one wolf emerges as leader...blood covering its mouth When I think of Sanders and Clinton I imagine two cuddly bear cubs rolling down a hill in some Alpine valley, its summer and the entire valley is covered in flowers. The bear cubs don't really fight each other but merely play, they don't want to destroy each other. Finally one cub emerges as victor ...( and bear cubs are soooooo cute )

That's what the people of Flint did. Do you know how they were rewarded? Well in the case of the USA the state governments can make certain mistakes

Yes. Do you have a point to make about the lack of transparency on these trade agreements that impact almost everyone on this forums or are you just triggered by Assange? Okay I watched the entire video so I would understand your concern...a couple of considerations There are trade blocks throughout the world that are designed to only benefit its members ...like BRICS There is constant scrutiny of USA companies by the EU ...like the whole tax issue around Google in the UK. So the idea that somehow the USA is going to be able to abuse the EU through this agreement just doesnt make sense ..the EU is well aware of how to grow there economy The idea by that Journalist that " large global corporations " will be able to run rampant in poor countries that will have no rights is really 1970's " Confessions of an Economic Hitman " rhetoric. Nowadays large corporations have to jump through numerous hoops to integrate Finally the average person on the street doesn't need to know the contractual agreement between a multinational and a government ....people need to learn to trust there governments Hopefully this will alleviate your concerns ? Agreement and how it is prepared and negotiated are very questionable and agreement actually has impact on average person on street so they should have ability say about it, at least if we want to continue to call ourself as democratic society. Here is some examples of questionable things in agreement's current form: That it threatens self-determination right of EU member countries, because it includes things like establishing separate trade court in which US companies can sue countries over their changing laws and making court decisions that they feel to hamper their investments (like for example those actions that UK take against Google) . And members of this court consist from arbitrators that companies themselves pick. (Although this at least something that those who negotiate on behalf of EU didn't accept and it is under further negotiations, but their counter proposal of court that consist from judges from EU, USA and third world, this proposal has yet to go in negotiation round). Another things is harmonization of standards, because it can heavily hamper how countries can limit things that are dangerous for health and/or environment. Especially when currently most of harmonization would follow US standards instead of EU's. Free movement of investments and protections for investments. There is already quite big problem because companies move their profits in tax havens inside of EU and free movement of investments from EU to USA would make situation even worse than it is now. Protections for investments lets companies hide their real owners which gives them to slip from their responsibilities and it would make tax evasion even easier for them, which is step to opposite direction than where EU is currently going. And finally people should never trust their governments and always question their actions and ask rationale behind them, because we are democratic societies after all. P.S. Those questionable things are from Finland's foreign trade minister, who is pro EU, pro USA, pro Nato and pro Free Trade liberal conservative. Although she estimated that trade deal will not be struct during Obama administration and they mostly start from beginning if USA's next president is republican. I appreciate your post but this is one of those rare times I am going to disagree with you Firstly its not the sign of a Democratic society to not trust your government? Do you not believe that the Finnish government actually wants the best for your people ? Why would you assume you can't trust your government... I agree that in some countries you absolutely can't trust the government but not the EU? Then that whole video is a combination of global economic reality and fear mongering, so at the moment basically every single country in the world has elements of global multinationals. This is a major foundation of a global world ...this is a good thing and something that third world countries are desperate for, investment. Now give me an example of why the average person in the street needs to understand the terms and conditions of how HSBC would operate in Finland.....why should you need to know? Most people wouldn't understand it and once again the various governments in the EU and HSBC own legal departments are very pedantic around the agreements and what the company can do Then this whole fear of the USA being able to sue the likes of the EU and the EU actually agreeing to this is ....just absurd. The EU consists of the likes of ECB, the European Commission and the individual finance ministers of some of the most prominent and successful economies in the world....why would these people agree to something that would undermine the EU economy?

Yes. Do you have a point to make about the lack of transparency on these trade agreements that impact almost everyone on this forums or are you just triggered by Assange? Okay I watched the entire video so I would understand your concern...a couple of considerations There are trade blocks throughout the world that are designed to only benefit its members ...like BRICS There is constant scrutiny of USA companies by the EU ...like the whole tax issue around Google in the UK. So the idea that somehow the USA is going to be able to abuse the EU through this agreement just doesnt make sense ..the EU is well aware of how to grow there economy The idea by that Journalist that " large global corporations " will be able to run rampant in poor countries that will have no rights is really 1970's " Confessions of an Economic Hitman " rhetoric. Nowadays large corporations have to jump through numerous hoops to integrate Finally the average person on the street doesn't need to know the contractual agreement between a multinational and a government ....people need to learn to trust there governments Hopefully this will alleviate your concerns ?

They haven't acted very likable way in last decade. Like for example censoring and blocking social media platforms and apps. Using violent methods to stop protests Jailing political opposition Instigate violence against their minority population Questionable actions when it comes to ISIS etc. Okay I suppose that makes sense....but if you exclude the last reason all those points apply to countries like Russia and China who seem to very popular on these forums to some members ? I would guess that is because they work as opposition for western politics and criticizes western leadership therefore they score points from those who don't like current western politics and decisions by western leaders for one reason or another. Where Turkey is seen as western puppet that just behaves badly, so they just score those negative points. Does anyone support China? Can't recall anyone regularly doing that. There isn't much dislike of Turkey, it's dislike of Erdogan/ AKP who happens to be its leader. That's different from, for example, the generalised dislike of Russia which is seated in old Anglo/ Euro orientalist stereotypes developed and actively nurtured since the time of Ivan the Righteous; that's a healthy dose of paranoia and propaganda leavened by hatred of anyone baulking strategic interests. Those were all in evidence even when that sot Yeltsin was in charge, and the west loved him. The view of Turkey has changed mostly over the past decade, up until then it was largely seen as a model for 'westernised' secular muslim nations- with problems such as an over powerful military (seen by some as a plus), bad relations with Greece/ Kurds and the Cyprus situation. The only one of those to go has been the powerful military, sadly replaced by monomaniacal neo-Ottomanism and religious conservatism; and those last two are far more dangerous to the outside than a military that might decide to coup. Kind of ironic, but Erdogan clearly models himself on/ admires Putin. No thats not the issue the West has with Russia....thats the old concern After the USSR collapsed Russia suffered due to Yeltsin and corruption ...yes Putin was needed to restore the balance But its his paranoia that caused this issue...Georgia, Ukraine ....a distrust of NATO and a real belief in somehow restoring the Russian empire even if a country prefers the West You can't just annex any country you want...sorry

But all of these points are irrelevant to the issue at hand. The Swedish justice system could interrogate Assange in London, which is the current praxis. The only interesting point is that an emphasis has been placed on getting him extradited before proceeding with the trial, which has no precedent and is completely unnecessary. Everything points to that certain people in the Swedish justice system have taken unprecedented steps towards getting their hands on him, without getting a conviction. That is the only interesting and relevant issue in this entire story. He might be guilty of rape, and might not be, he might be an ****, might not be, but that is kind of beside the point. No its not as simple as that, the Ecudorian embassy denied the initial attempt by Swedish lawyers to interview him in the embassy ..so they are also complicating the issue http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ecuador-sweden-assange-prosecutor-idUSKCN0VI0V0

Lolwut? Cost of Russian oil is ~ 10-14 US dollars per barrel. Do you meant they restore their 700% profit level? Every Oil producing country needs a minimum selling price to make oil production sustainable and to effectively contribute towards the economy. Russia needs the oil price to be between $90-105 to contribute towards growth https://www.rt.com/business/197380-oil-price-russia-100-budget/ Nothing can fix this and Putin needs to take a large share of responsibility for not diversifying the Russian economy

They haven't acted very likable way in last decade. Like for example censoring and blocking social media platforms and apps. Using violent methods to stop protests Jailing political opposition Instigate violence against their minority population Questionable actions when it comes to ISIS etc. Okay I suppose that makes sense....but if you exclude the last reason all those points apply to countries like Russia and China who seem to very popular on these forums to some members ? I would guess that is because they work as opposition for western politics and criticizes western leadership therefore they score points from those who don't like current western politics and decisions by western leaders for one reason or another. Where Turkey is seen as western puppet that just behaves badly, so they just score those negative points. Yes good observation, I agree. People will align with Russia because its seen as " anti-western" and standing up to " Western imperialism "

I'm not asking you that and I'm not trying to catch you ..I just want to know if you like and or respect him? So let me get my point, in London he was fighting extradition to Sweden. He had hundreds of supporters and people who paid his legal fees...then he decided to skip bail and went to hide out in the Ecuadorian embassy. His argument was Sweden would send him to the USA where he would be tortured and suffer indescribable punishment But he really did was Insult the entire Swedish legal system by suggesting they would pander to any American request. He also also called the Swedish legal system liars as the rape charges were just fabrications He insulted the entire USA legal system by telling everyone he would be tortured...can you imagine a reality under the Obama government where such a high profile person would be tortured? And he has made NO effort to actually address the rape charges.... So why would you respect him or take what he says seriously?

They haven't acted very likable way in last decade. Like for example censoring and blocking social media platforms and apps. Using violent methods to stop protests Jailing political opposition Instigate violence against their minority population Questionable actions when it comes to ISIS etc. Okay I suppose that makes sense....but if you exclude the last reason all those points apply to countries like Russia and China who seem to very popular on these forums to some members ?

KP can I ask you a question? I may not agree with it but I understand your view on the negative aspect of big business but do you like or respect Julian Assange ?

Soooooooo...who is in love or plans to spoil there respective partners? I enjoy the day if you want to put effort in but its not mandatory, I just like hearing romantic stories

Guys I am sorry to ask what may sound like a silly question but why does no one seem to like Turkey?

Something else to consider it was officially announced at Davos by various Chinese ministers that China is undertaking a huge and complicated economic project. They are going to change there economy from export driven to consumer based, it makes sense for them but this will take 3-5 years....if successful. So we can't expect too much from them The Chinese came to Africa and said " we want to build real friendships with Africa in a mutually beneficial way...we won't dictate to Africa like the West has done"...what a load of BS !!! They just aren't public about what they expect African leaders to do And now the South African economy is under massive pressure and stress because of our China\BRICS relationship It always disappoints me how many African leaders assume countries like China must offer a better economic partnership than the West