BruceVC

As far as I know (and I welcome correction on this point), there's no such thing as an illegal citizen in the US. Naturalized citizens would have to be denaturalized to be deportable and citizens by birth can only renounce their citizenship, not be denaturalized. Legally at least (I know they're are cases where the courts have due to judicial error deported people). You are pretty much correct. Put simply, they aren't 'illegal citizens', they are illegal aliens. It's one of many things Bruce has wrong. He's often like a 3rd grader who hasn't been paying attention to the math teacher telling an astrophysicist how to go about their calculations, then having the audacity to double down when the astrophysicist nicely explains why he's wrong. Calling me a 3 rd grader is rich coming from you Vals, you the guy who believe 9/11 was committed by the USA to itself And you call me uninformed Yes Bruce, you are generally uninformed about near everything you ever talk about, as for the most part all you ever do is parrot the talking points of propaganda source X. Being able to parrot something, talking point or thought process given to you, is not being informed. Also, cognitive dissonance, the natural result of swallowing the diet of pure B.S. you yum up so often, is not a positive asset. I easily spent over ~200 hours researching 9/11 some years back, watching footage, interviews, documentaries directly/indirectly related to the event, reading all sorts of stuff, and re-watching much of what I'd already seen. I even had the opportunity to speak with people who were in the buildings as well as that were in the military responding to the event that day (I've lived very close to a military installation that was directly involved in that event). I've spent much more than that ~200 hours contemplating all that I took in. The truth in regards to that event is a very ugly and hard pill to swallow. It is a pill that most people will not want to swallow, and many will ignore is even there. The truth is also quite complex. It is not as simple as '9/11 was committed by the USA to itself'. This is not something I wish to discuss with you, as frankly it would be a waste of my time. You are probably the most close minded person and one of the least truly informed people on this forum (at least of the folks who post here regularly). Ironically, and even somewhat tragically for yourself, you believe the opposite. You have my sincere pity. No Vals 9/11 is actually not that hard to understand, the attack on the US is well documented and understood by most people....outside of conspiracy theorists like yourself And despite the fact Al-Qaeda has admitted committing 9/11 people like you dismiss the facts because " you know something no one else knows " But I have also no interest in discussing 9/11 with you, I find your views equally as exasperating as you find mine You should stick to things that you really are an expert on Vals like your views on the US Constitution....you really understand the US Constitution hey Vals, you similar to Gromnir when it comes to the Constitution, well informed and insightful. Oh wait....you not really

As far as I know (and I welcome correction on this point), there's no such thing as an illegal citizen in the US. Naturalized citizens would have to be denaturalized to be deportable and citizens by birth can only renounce their citizenship, not be denaturalized. Legally at least (I know they're are cases where the courts have due to judicial error deported people). You are pretty much correct. Put simply, they aren't 'illegal citizens', they are illegal aliens. It's one of many things Bruce has wrong. He's often like a 3rd grader who hasn't been paying attention to the math teacher telling an astrophysicist how to go about their calculations, then having the audacity to double down when the astrophysicist nicely explains why he's wrong. Calling me a 3 rd grader is rich coming from you Vals, you the guy who believe 9/11 was committed by the USA to itself And you call me uninformed

When were the big banks in the USA broken up? Shady did you read this link I posted http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/up-front/posts/2016/04/04-four-questions-to-ask-before-breaking-up-banks-klein?utm_campaign=Brookings+Brief&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=28095032&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_eaSQSi7KF2_PHOJtPRh_mm68CJ3x6M1IEQ9QWWb83Fvo_c453O_hhUBJIWTl5CQk_LHX0RmsCj_b8ZkeHQzTjqPit8w&_hsmi=28095032

For me the women is obviously more sexualized and objectified ..sorry but thats just how the two images look to me?

Is Bruce from a family of bankers? That would actually make oodles of sense. He even has a family member in prison for some sort of Wall Street scandal. No not Wall Street scandal, inside trading. But his actions were condemned unequivocally by all, no one made excuses. You can work in the financial sector and be ethical and not break the law But yes Vals many members of my family are involved in the financial sector but that has got nothing to do with my real concern about this suggestion to break-up the banks or implement restructuring in the financial sector in the USA You ask what has not been implemented before from Trump or Sanders....many things they suggest are radical and never been implemented before..in fact conventional wisdom is vociferously against most of these idea....lets see Sanders : Restructuring of the financial sector in the USA : Never been done before Sanders : Extreme taxing of the wealthiest Americans : Never been done before Trump : We will bulld a wall between the USA and Mexico : Never been done before Trump : We will deport all 11 million illegal, mostly Latino's, citizens : Never been done before Trump : We block all Muslims coming to the USA: Never been done before I can on and on if you want but I think you get my point

Elerond you know David Camerons father is dead? He has been dead for 6-7 years now

Nonono, they are doing it "responsibly", you understand. They aren't Wikileaks. When was Bruce appointed as head of ICIJ and why didn't I get the memo? Ah, but who cares... Well obviously we shouldn't assume everything in these documents are true, countries need to do there own investigations This is not the same as confidential US Diplomatic cables being leaked that could directly impact the US security. I would have assumed the distinction would be obvious 2133?

Both Trump and Sanders are anti-established in there own political leanings and views, these views despite having populist support are dangerous and concerning as both candidates offer some ideas and solutions that have never been implemented before or just make no economic sense I wont go into everything I disagree with Trump about but lets take Sanders, he wants to break-up the banks and large global Investment banks based in the USA. This is a terrible idea and makes no economic sense, see the link below http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/up-front/posts/2016/04/04-four-questions-to-ask-before-breaking-up-banks-klein?utm_campaign=Brookings+Brief&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=28095032&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_eaSQSi7KF2_PHOJtPRh_mm68CJ3x6M1IEQ9QWWb83Fvo_c453O_hhUBJIWTl5CQk_LHX0RmsCj_b8ZkeHQzTjqPit8w&_hsmi=28095032

Guys I agree with TN on this matter Dont get me wrong of course I like to see what I would consider are attractive female characters but even this becomes debatable because " what defines sexy characters in a game " ? For me Isabela in DA 2 was perfect, she was liberated, attractive and confidant and I thoroughly enjoyed her entire character story and arc. But end of the day I would still have played DA2 even without Isabela....so aesthetics for characters are important but they not as important as factors like the narrative and actual quests and more importantly the actual value and focus of people you interact with

My objective that I have been unequivocal about since day 1 is a Hillary Clinton Democratic nomination But I also respect the reality that in this election you have popular support for anti-establishment candidates like Sanders and you cannot ignore his support base even if I dont agree with all of it But as far as the Democratic nomination is concerned you need 2382 delegates to win the nomination and Hilary has more or less 1700 to Sanders 1000? So my question is how can Sanders realistically win based purely on the Math considering the outstanding states that still need to vote? This link raises an interesting point http://edition.cnn.com/2016/04/04/politics/hillary-clinton-memo-bernie-sanders/index.html?eref=rss_politics

Okay so Cruz and Sanders won Wisconsin Interesting result, I am more excited now about NY....that's going to be very exciting

Volo Emma Watson is a great supporter of Gender Equality, she has publicly been very vocal on several issues and received unfair criticism I respect her immensely as she is using her celebrity status in a positive way to get attention to various SJ issues . I'm surprised you aren't more supportive of her?

http://abcnews.go.com/International/putins-reported-best-friends-implicated-massive-document-leak/story?id=38136494 I see some of Putin's closest friends have been implicated in this scandal, its no surprise that Putin would have some association to this The Kremlin has dismissed this of course ....its " just a Western scandal to undermine Putin ", this comment surprises me as Putin doesn't need the West to undermine him...he does this perfectly fine on his own

Can you imagine an Iraq style invasion of Switzerland by the USA....

No Its much easier to hide and transfer money in a country like Panama than Switzerland. There would be less accountability or enforcement of certain legal banking procedures Switzerland is still a "neutral " country and encourages people to invest money but it also has in the past opened its banking sector up to allow for certain bank accounts to be frozen If I wanted to hide money from the South African government I would still chose somewhere like Switzerland over Panama

Not sure this is fair to the reality of the modern world? Most systems work and deliver more good than bad. Corruption is a choice ultimately...yes there are factors that influence corruption but I still believe its a choice Also what systems reward the dishonest ? I know this point is subjective but because you live in Denmark which is consistently rated as one of the least most corrupt countries in the world I am interested in what systems you would consider so flawed?

Here is an interesting question, do you not think a document like the US Constitution that is over 200 years old needs to be updated to reflect the reality of the social and political challengers of the 21st century? How can everything in the US Constitution really be relevant to modern society and yes I understand Constitutional lawyers debate and interpret this type of thing in courts nowadays but I wonder if it would make more sense to create an " update " of the US Constitution And of course I'm not suggesting the core values of the US in the Constitution get removed or surreptitiously changed....I am suggesting they get modernized And the only reason I mention this is because I'm sure if you could somehow ask most people who you may think have tried to "undermine " the Constitution they wouldn't see it like this. They will probably say something like " undermine? No not at all...I have only tried to make the Constitution more reflective of a modern society " So in summary my question is basically " is it a reasonable suggestion in the year 2016 to make some changes to the US Constitution " ?

Yes that was difficult to write

Its called brevity Zora, sometimes you dont need to write a paragraph to make a simple point

Thats okay, its the RL outcome from Trumps sexism and how women will vote that matters

Also if you think of Adult Mods you need to go to a specific place that is not easy to find

Men do matter but not in this case because its about the Democrats getting as much of the womens vote as possible Men have dominated US elections for decades and decades so I think its fine we focus primarily on women for this one...men will be fine I promise you Besides isn't Trump considered more the mens choice? And now you clearly making excuses about reaching out to the Muslim community...Volo its disingenuous to suggest you want to get involved and then refuse the first task given to you \ If a women really calls you ugly its probably true and then its NOT sexist

Well, given that you're attributing claims to me that I blatantly did not make (the bolded part), you possibly may. And since you used plural, it's kind of obvious that you meant Bruce and me (or possibly Bruce and a bunch of imaginary enemies lurking around who happen to believe the thing you accuse them of believing and also read this topic). The jab against my "vocabulary" is kind of funny in light of the level of reading comprehension you just demonstrated, though. Actually, in regards to the bolded part I was referring to something BruceVC stated in an earlier post. My apoligies for assuming and inferring you shared his bolded view because you share the rest. Vals you missing the point, sorry I assumed you knew what I meant when I said " women everywhere " I'll happily explain it but I'm sure you dont really believe in sexism and gender equality so I dont want to waste my time but I will if you serious ? No... I'm done. It's too much work to hold your hand and walk you through consonant thinking. Sorry. Look me up if you're ever in New York. We'll have beers. No problem i prefer people just being honest like you did now because its a waste of my time to make a long post if the person isnt that keen

As I mentioned I am always impressed by your DYI abilities....surly people dont do as much DYI as you anymore or is this common in the USA? Do you get tired doing DIY or do you see it as fun and or a hobby

Well, given that you're attributing claims to me that I blatantly did not make (the bolded part), you possibly may. And since you used plural, it's kind of obvious that you meant Bruce and me (or possibly Bruce and a bunch of imaginary enemies lurking around who happen to believe the thing you accuse them of believing and also read this topic). The jab against my "vocabulary" is kind of funny in light of the level of reading comprehension you just demonstrated, though. Actually, in regards to the bolded part I was referring to something BruceVC stated in an earlier post. My apoligies for assuming and inferring you shared his bolded view because you share the rest. Vals you missing the point, sorry I assumed you knew what I meant when I said " women everywhere " I'll happily explain it but I'm sure you dont really believe in sexism and gender equality so I dont want to waste my time but I will if you serious ?