BruceVC

The modern right-wing in a nutshell. Oh you sensitive little pink flower. Did it hurt you? Want me to kiss you or hug? I mean poor little man... Oh just ignore him Dark, you know Baro lives in Oz and suffers from " first world privileged blindness " A hard day for them is where the local sheep runs rampant in the " Save The Deadly Creature Protest " and disrupts all the interesting explanation around why the most poisonous creature in the world, an Australian Box Jellyfish, needs special protection from being killed

" Ancient Aliens " that stuff will rot your brains and make you start believing in conspiracy theories

But is it worth watching?

No...we really don't want Trump in the White House ...unless you want to weaken Western influence in the world That's a bold statement to make. Are you implying that any of the other candidates won't? No, the candidates that could potentially do as much damage as Trump to the USA foreign policy won't get through..like Carson So we are realistically talking about Trump, Cruz, Rubio and Bush as the front runners ? And I don't think there has ever been a Republican candidate as bombastic and offensive as Trump....maybe someone knows someone from the past? No, i am genuinely interested here. What should be done to strengthen western influence in the world and how are none of the republican candidates up to it? Sure, I'll explain This is a question of "what in fact would make the USA more prominent around its global influence and this is aligned to the question around how to make the USA safer " So the Republicans believe Obama has made the USA weaker and less respected, I disagree. Most Republican candidates believe the following The Iran deal was a mistake The USA should have supported its " allies " in the ME and attacked Syria at least when Assad used Chemical weapons They think Putin is making a fool of the USA and taking advantage of Obamas apparent reluctance to resort to a military option to resolve certain political events Before I carry on what is your view on the 3 points above ? - The Iran deal is not completely bad, but none of the candidates of either side are actually working to undercut the arab peninsula in favour of Iran and Syria. Neither talks either about putting pressure on Turkey to stop try to outrussian the Russians. - Absolutely not in any way. Syria consists of so many people and religions that only a slow process is, if ever, possible. Assad is the only secular leader that can represent Syria as sovereign at the moment. Those 200 000 could turn into much more if any other faction tries to usurp power. - I bet Putin likes Trump the most, of which pretty much the middle east fears the most. Russia and US best pals? Oooh boy. But those points have little to do what i am wondering about. My point is that neither side has implied any changes in policy that would radically change the western influence for the worse on a global scale, as you suggested. Yes I'll get to the policy difference So now if someone like Trump comes to power he has maintained he will End the Iran deal Attack ISIS directly and also remove Assad from power through a coalition of Arab countries Start to be much more critical about the Russian relationship and also take on the Chinese who are apparently ripping off the USA on numerous financial areas Just these points alone are enough to completely change the global dynamics of the world, new groups of ideological consensus would be formed and things would be very tense...surly you can agree no one wants a world where Russia is aligned with Iran and they both really dislike the West even more ?

No...we really don't want Trump in the White House ...unless you want to weaken Western influence in the world That's a bold statement to make. Are you implying that any of the other candidates won't? No, the candidates that could potentially do as much damage as Trump to the USA foreign policy won't get through..like Carson So we are realistically talking about Trump, Cruz, Rubio and Bush as the front runners ? And I don't think there has ever been a Republican candidate as bombastic and offensive as Trump....maybe someone knows someone from the past? No, i am genuinely interested here. What should be done to strengthen western influence in the world and how are none of the republican candidates up to it? Sure, I'll explain This is a question of "what in fact would make the USA more prominent around its global influence and this is aligned to the question around how to make the USA safer " So the Republicans believe Obama has made the USA weaker and less respected, I disagree. Most Republican candidates believe the following The Iran deal was a mistake The USA should have supported its " allies " in the ME and attacked Syria at least when Assad used Chemical weapons They think Putin is making a fool of the USA and taking advantage of Obamas apparent reluctance to resort to a military option to resolve certain political events Before I carry on what is your view on the 3 points above ?

I like Rubio, he is very intelligent and articulate I am fascinated by the whole Cruz\Rubio tension. And Paul comes across very convincing but I don't think there is much support for his views

No...we really don't want Trump in the White House ...unless you want to weaken Western influence in the world That's a bold statement to make. Are you implying that any of the other candidates won't? No, the candidates that could potentially do as much damage as Trump to the USA foreign policy won't get through..like Carson So we are realistically talking about Trump, Cruz, Rubio and Bush as the front runners ? And I don't think there has ever been a Republican candidate as bombastic and offensive as Trump....maybe someone knows someone from the past?

Did you feel guilty GD....you musnt be a race hater now and hate your race because you feel guilty because Qistina made you realize how your ancestors looted and dominated the world during the Wests rise to ascendancy

You can make a new one, I closed it for length. I hope you won't though. Yeah that whole thread was quite bizarre, it was like people enjoyed the biased and scurrilous comments from Qistina and she almost expected to be insulted .....I am still not convinced she was genuine ?

No...we really don't want Trump in the White House ...unless you want to weaken Western influence in the world

Yes he is way ahead of other candidates but its still early days and right now Trump has support of the Republican conservative base...they like what he is saying but I'm expecting both Cruz and Rubio to start gaining traction

Not yet....also what do you mean by Trump winning, do you mean in the debate ?

Its okay Calax, let the candidates insult Clinton and Obama. Let Trump continue to make offensive comments ....let the Republican circus continue As I said numerous times the best way to ensue a Democrat and Clinton victory is for Trump to become the Republican candidate then the Democrats will have there time at bashing and undermining Republican policy...and boy is Trump a big and easy target for criticism Quite frankly, I feel Trump has the better chance out of the Republican candidates. If Clinton gets elected we'll see whether all her mistakes and her husband's become public. Trump has something that no other candidate has: salt of the earth; and it is weird because he is very far away from being your average joe blue collar working man. Yet compared to two faced politicians which have driven the country into the state that it is in, his clear no nonsense approach will resonate with many that are tired of sifting through all the bull**** and want clarity. Come now Orog..I can think of certain compliments for Trump but to say he is " salt of the earth " implies he is sincere and real...do you think this is accurate?

KP I know this type of thing bothers you but can I ask you a honest question, what is about this that really bothers you ? Is it just the principle or do you think the day is coming when suddenly American citizens will be arrested or harassed for what they say on the Internet ?

No, but he implied that he left because: 1) There was some project or projects he wanted to do but wasn't able to. 2) He was tired of fighting turf wars over his authority. he implied, or you inferred? is such a gray area. yes, chris observed that his role were unclear to him even after multiple years at obsidian. yes, he he made axiomatic observation that there were projects that obsidian would not and could not do. he also rambled on 'bout his role in alpha protocol and offered up chestnuts o' wisdom regarding difficulties employees got following conflicting direction from multiple bosses (welcome to teh rheal world,) but he never actual answered the question. regardless, is the kinda response that different folks is gonna read into it what they wish. HA! Good Fun! For me he did answer, it was indirect but it was still an answer? He left because he felt he could impact no meaningful change in the direction that Obsidian was and is going. He felt he was ultimately handicapped around design choices of various games. I can understand this being frustrating but I can also see the Obsidian perspective

Jeb Bush gets my award for best " anti-Trump comment " I like when he said to Trump " you won't be able to insult your way to the presidency " http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/12/15/jeb_bush_interrupts_trump_how_about_a_taste_of_your_own_medicine.html

Yes it has been proven irrefutably that Assad used chemical weapons against his own people...not sure what Meshugger is trying to say? You mean this evidence? http://www.reuters.com/article/us-syria-crisis-un-idUSBRE94409Z20130505 /sarcasm TLDR: UN had testimonies already in 2013, that sarine was used by rebels... No this ... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10796175/Syria-chemical-weapons-the-proof-that-Assad-regime-launching-chlorine-attacks-on-children.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/13/syria-chemical-weapons-assad_n_3437640.html http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05/07/assad-using-chemical-weapons-again-us-eyes-new-allegations-consequences-unclear.html http://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/25/world/meast/syria-civil-war/index.html Lets not's defend Assad, lets not try to understand his reprehensible decision to use the full might of his army to suppress any political change. He has spent 5 years desperately hanging on to power. It is highly unlikely he will supported by the West in any future negotiations where he plays a part in the future government of Syria and this is understandable

Its okay Calax, let the candidates insult Clinton and Obama. Let Trump continue to make offensive comments ....let the Republican circus continue As I said numerous times the best way to ensue a Democrat and Clinton victory is for Trump to become the Republican candidate then the Democrats will have there time at bashing and undermining Republican policy...and boy is Trump a big and easy target for criticism

Yes it has been proven irrefutably that Assad used chemical weapons against his own people...not sure what Meshugger is trying to say?

I understand the message but its obvious that we are all human Being human is not what divides us, so if you say " guys lets not fight, we are all human " this to me is unhelpful as we need to unpack, address and understand issues that are based on factors such as race, politics and religion So you need labels to understand the issue...this is not a bad thing

Its a good movie and raises some relevant points about what some people feel divide us as a society But for me race is not the most divisive quality, it is one of them. But what about things like ideology, religion or even politics? Also as someone who lives, in the views of many, in one of the most racially divided countries in the world it is important that we accept we are all different races but we just need to learn to respect each others differences In most examples the different races have different cultures in many cases, and historically, have had different challenges and face different social issues ....so I don't see what is wrong with saying " black South Africans have had less exposure to education and this explains why more black South Africans are less educated than white South Africans. We need to address this as a country " This is just an example but highlights where we do indeed need to highlight the race as factor around addressing a problem. I don't see how dropping the " label " which in this case is " black" is helpful in any way?

Says the guy with 16832 posts about Nazis and Neverwinter Nights. Which is actually the title of a game I would totally play. Also Volo you forgetting the bad grammar and spelling that are common in your posts....the mask Volo, never forget the mask

But the concept of Capitalism didn't really exist in the days of Jesus....so is it really fair to say " Jesus would be opposed to Capitalism " I would say you right if you think Capitalism is about greed or abuse of workers for example. But I don't consider that a fair description of Capitalism?

The answer I use is "I love this kind of work and I'm really looking forward to applying my skills to a new challenge". It's an enthusiastic tone that reassures competence by bringing up your skills and hits two of the big HR type buzzwords "forward" and "challenge". Yeah, also I would add something like " and leaving my old work has had its benefits as it has given me a chance to look at other perhaps more promising avenues" Because he won't assume Malc just needs another job to pay bills and is committed

Sure, I hear you But is that what Xmas is really about? That for me is just an aspect of Xmas and even then its just the buying things over the season part of Xmas