BruceVC

Thanks Elerond, I appreciate as usual your studious efforts to find relevant links to make a point But I'm not sure if people are not bothering to read my posts in detail or I'm not explaining my point properly, I did say what I mean by terrorist attacks " This is a planned and orchestrated attack on a country by Islamic extremists So this is not the endless violence perpetuated by ISIS or the killings in Libya " So war ravaged countries like Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan dont count and neither does the violence we see committed by Al-Shabaab because they are involved in a civil war for decades. So its interesting but not relevant to tell me "Muslims suffered between 82 and 97% of terrorism-related fatalities over the past five years." because I know Muslims represent the majority of victims....because much of the violence and civil wars is in Muslim countries So maybe I need to clarify the question, its not about number of victims but its about attacks from foreigners or domestic people who follow extremism but not in a war ...okay now that sounds complicated Anyway my point still stands but I do think Pakistan may have actually been subjected to more terrorist attacks than the USA ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHbYk2l9w-E Elerond thanks for posting this potentially interesting video but I'll be honest I cannot determine the actual number of terrorist attacks per country? I just see some map of the world with flashing lights and annoying music

Also guys the fact that over 40 attacks have been prevented by various state security institutions is something that should be celebrated as a real success story of how your various governments, Bush and Obama have been successfully keeping the US safe..just because the FBI don't announce them doesn't detract from the point that they could have been a successful attack. And I'm not suggesting living in the USA is a dangerous place that you are likely to die in a terrorist attack...no quite the opposite. It seems only homegrown attacks, more the loan wolves who don't use the Internet to plan there strategies are successful...like Boston Marathon attack And I have to add that we can't say for certain but I'm pretty confidant that systems like Prism play an instrumental role in preventing these 40 attacks?

No they aren't, since 9/11 the USA has always been the ultimate target for Islamic extremists. But to target the USA is much harder for groups like ISIS due to the logistics and distance and also as I mentioned the USA has very effective security mechanism's and information gathering that prevent these attacks...people just arent aware of it. So I am referring to attacks that were prevented. You will see from this link that 40 attacks have been prevented since 9/11 and this link is from 2011..so I am confidant that no other country has been targeted for extremist attacks this much since 2001 including any Muslim country? http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/09/40-terror-plots-foiled-since-9-11-combating-complacency-in-the-long-war-on-terror Nope, Volourn is entirely correct. Your chances of being involved in any type of terrorist attack in the US are incredibly slim. 40 attacks in 15 years in a country of this size? Color me unimpressed. I risk my life way more every day I get on the freeway to drive to work. Wow you guys arent understanding my point and I thought it was clear..okay it must be me So I stand by the statistics but maybe you guys are misunderstanding the definition of terrorist attacks. This is a planned and orchestrated attack on a country by Islamic extremists. So this is not the endless violence perpetuated by ISIS or the killings in Libya, so firstly how can Volo be right when he is comparing the entire race of Muslims to a single country, its an incomparable concept. But lets say that Volo is talking about every Muslim country in the ME I still doubt they have seem more single attacks than the USA....but you guys can find the data on individual countries in the ME. Saudi Arabia has been a high target for extremist attacks and they have only seen 20 or so https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_Saudi_Arabia So again the USA has been the country that has received the highest number of successful and prevented attacks...here is another link that says the number is 50 and this is in 2013 so we can safely add another 20? http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/nsa-director-50-potential-terrorist-attacks-thwarted-controversial/story?id=19428148 NSA chief’s admission of misleading numbers adds to Obama administration blunders Also, just for kicks, 10 Things More Likely to Kill You than Islamic Terror Okay now I have to say Im misunderstanding why you guys are objecting to this notion that the USA has prevented more terrorist attacks than any other country...okay forget that link I posted and use this one I posted earlier. 40 attacks prevented since 9/11, lets keep this simple and find me one other country in the world that has had and prevented more than 40 attacks between 2001-2011 http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/09/40-terror-plots-foiled-since-9-11-combating-complacency-in-the-long-war-on-terror

This line has been trotted out a lot by people. As someone who's doing some related research, let's make it very clear: based on publicly available evidence, the harms of programs like Prism are 'potential' - in exactly the same way that the benefits of those programs are 'potential'. I don't have time for a long post and citations, but the simple point is that you can't take one without the other. If you want to say that it's paranoia to be afraid of Prism until we know for sure that somebody's life has been ruined, then surely we must admit that there is no concrete evidence of Prism's benefits, because despite some wild claims (famously the '54 cases stopped' cited in 2013 by Keith Alexander & others), it has been shown (e.g. by the White House committee) that there are, at most, one or two cases where these programs have made a difference. And if someone wants to say, as Dianne Feinstein did in 2013, well of course Prism has actually helped stop a lot of attacks and such but we can't tell you about it because of national security - OK, so now you're imagining potential evidence. *shrug* there might just as well be secret evidence we don't know about that Prism has caused harm. The argument that you have to show Prism has specifically screwed someone over is ignorant of the structure of this entire problem as a whole. The US government has consistently used this argument as an excuse to try and shut down legal challenges and other forms of debating the problem - or even revealing details that would be relevant to the problem. See the catch-22? It's easiest to see in the case of Stingrays (devices that mimic cell tower signals to spy on your phone location): the government has a track record of pulling out of numerous court cases specifically because they did not want to reveal any details about the use of Stingray (and often the very existence of Stingray they refused to confirm). It would be narrow-sighted to just argue that the public, which is denied a lot of confidential information, must first prove that Stingrays have caused specific harm, before the state can be induced to release information or to not dodge the court cases. And we haven't even gone into the definition of harm or abuse. A rubber stamp secret court which, by its own admission, has no ability to audit the intelligence agencies: is that a problem? Or is it only a problem when we find out someone's been killed? Police officers routinely damage and purposefully obstruct the use of cameras and mics. Is that a problem? Or is it only a problem when we can concretely show that a camera was destroyed to conceal the fact that they shot an innocent man? (If you can ever concretely show that without camera footage?) I'm glad you responded to this contentious but interesting debate because I know you believe in the importance of certain liberal values and I'm sure your point and perspective is echoed by many other people. I will be honest I dont think the point I'm trying to make about the relevance and importance of Prism will be supported by any people on this forum because fundamentally most people are misunderstanding my reason why Prism and other government intervention in monitoring data should not be considered an infringement of the US Constitution or an example of " Big Brother " intervention So I'll try to make my point another way because I do agree with much of the post you are making. Do you guys in the USA accept that devices can be used to store information about a terrorist cell and if you agree with that what is your view of a potential situation in the future where the NSA arrest 3 out of 4 people in cell and now the authorities don't know where the fourth suspect is. Lets say the 3 terrorists aren't talking and the NSA find that all the 3 suspects have Apple devices which are now locked. Lets say this fourth suspect has a bomb and is now suicidal...what do you suggest the NSA do to get access to the 3 phones Now because you guys have been saying " a backdoor is a infringement on the privacy of citizens " how would they access the phones? Gromnir like most of us on these forums I love a debate in a mature way, of course I always think I'm right but I have been wrong occasionally But you are one of the few people I have decided to not engage in a debate unless I'm 100 % sure and committed...and this is not one of those cases. I agree with you that any changes to law enforcement can be abused. But end of the day the point I made with Tigranes is why I support this Federal request, what happens now if the NSA has no way to access these devices?

No they aren't, since 9/11 the USA has always been the ultimate target for Islamic extremists. But to target the USA is much harder for groups like ISIS due to the logistics and distance and also as I mentioned the USA has very effective security mechanism's and information gathering that prevent these attacks...people just arent aware of it. So I am referring to attacks that were prevented. You will see from this link that 40 attacks have been prevented since 9/11 and this link is from 2011..so I am confidant that no other country has been targeted for extremist attacks this much since 2001 including any Muslim country? http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/09/40-terror-plots-foiled-since-9-11-combating-complacency-in-the-long-war-on-terror Nope, Volourn is entirely correct. Your chances of being involved in any type of terrorist attack in the US are incredibly slim. 40 attacks in 15 years in a country of this size? Color me unimpressed. I risk my life way more every day I get on the freeway to drive to work. Wow you guys arent understanding my point and I thought it was clear..okay it must be me So I stand by the statistics but maybe you guys are misunderstanding the definition of terrorist attacks. This is a planned and orchestrated attack on a country by Islamic extremists. So this is not the endless violence perpetuated by ISIS or the killings in Libya, so firstly how can Volo be right when he is comparing the entire race of Muslims to a single country, its an incomparable concept. But lets say that Volo is talking about every Muslim country in the ME I still doubt they have seem more single attacks than the USA....but you guys can find the data on individual countries in the ME. Saudi Arabia has been a high target for extremist attacks and they have only seen 20 or so https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_Saudi_Arabia So again the USA has been the country that has received the highest number of successful and prevented attacks...here is another link that says the number is 50 and this is in 2013 so we can safely add another 20? http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/nsa-director-50-potential-terrorist-attacks-thwarted-controversial/story?id=19428148

Thats a good article and largely accurate but WOD it doesn't just attack Obama as it doesnt assume he is is weak for not getting more involved in Syria, it goes into real reasons for the Russian intervention in Syrian and is quite honest about why the USA isn't more involved. So in fact I would say it supports my view that end of the day the USA doesn't care about getting involved in Syria and if the Russians want to be the heroes...let them. I maintain that the USA foreign policy is about prudence and not doing things to " prove the USA can militarily " ...people abuse this idea, allies of the USA claim the USA needs to support them in wars that ultimately end up meaning the USA has to provide the military resources and then they are disliked anyway in places like the ME. And then when Obama wisely decides that to intervene in Syria would mean they have to now support the reconstruction and in fact this will become another Iraq he keeps the USA out of Syria the USA is accused of being "weak" No my friend, trust me even once there is an eventual end to this interminable conflict in Syria the real drain of finances is going to be how they rebuild Syria...and its going to be funny if the Russians are tasked to do this, they don't understand concepts like " rebuilding nations "

I just saw this, I liked Jeb Bush. He did come a dynasty which I think worked against him but he did make some reasonable points and he publicly challenged Trump which I appreciated

I can't disagree with you more. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Now I don't necessarily have a problem with federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies obtaining a search warrant with a federal judge based on a specifically outlined probably cause; but the idea of mass surveillance of the general citizenry or introducing a backdoor to break encryption with the understanding that it'll only be used this one time and that no one else will ever have access, or can steal, or hack into the software, pretty please you can trust us; is a bit naive. I'll be honest this is exactly the response I thought you were going to post, its very reasonable and its similar to the concerns I have seen posted by other people who like us I would consider are liberals and support the whole Obama legacy..so this is one example where we disagree on this type of government initiative. And I think its because of where we live So it seems your objection to the likes of Prism is not based on real examples of abuse of the system but rather on the concept of the potential of abuse? In other words can you give me some examples of how people have been illegally detained due to Prism? And I'm not trying to catch you out but this does seem to be the general criticism of Federal ideas like this whole Apple request..." no we are not going to help the Federal government out by providing a backdoor because of the possible problems we may face in the future" ...you see its just a general fear mongering tactic that immediately galvanizes support from many Americans who don't like the idea that the government can now read your emails ...if you are connected to terrorism'. So of course there may be some instances of perhaps misconduct but I don't think its naive at all to suggest that the likes of the NSA can manage a system like Prism without us assuming there will be egregious abuses, you need to have more faith in the abilities and integrity of people who work there In the rest of the world governments make changes to laws like the Apple event because of real terrorist attacks...so you guys in the USA have the luxury to object to certain laws based on a possible outcome Bruce, I actually don't have a fundamental mistrust of the NSA, CIA, FBI, or any other three letter acronym agency. I like the USA and I like the federal government. But yes, misuse and abuse of law enforcement and intelligence databases is a not so uncommon an occurrence as you assume it is. Sure, most of it is minor and there are very few serious abuses, but they do, and will continue to happen, no matter how innocuous. That's why there are internal Offices of the Inspector General, Internal Affairs, etc., to monitor and investigate abuses. Most of these violations are handled internally and appropriate action is taken against the offending party. Nevertheless, it's precisely because of this potential for more serious abuse, and the likelihood for information and technology to be leaked or hacked that gives pause and worry. Also, I take the Fourth Amendment very seriously and as such, it is not the role of the government to be Big Brother, because...TERRORISM. This is the rule of law and the belief of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is part of the inexorable spirit of what is an essential American characteristic. I may disagree with some of our more libertarian voices here on many issues concerning the role of Government, the FBI, the Second Amendment, and the Post Office, but there are also cases where I will disagree with Uncle Sam. What Gromnir wrote is very relevant. Generally speaking they do a great job, and for the most part --don't deserve the blind cynicism and vitriol some of us direct their way. However, the U.S. Government is not infallible. They make mistakes. Repeatedly. Security over liberty is one of them. Fear of terrorism should never give cause to the infringement of our fundamental rights to liberty and privacy. It's un-American. Sure, I recognize your rationale support for the USA government and what motivates them. I share and appreciate your views and to be honest I don't like debating with you because I think we share many of the same opinions so I'll make one final comment about this I have come to realize how seriously most of you American guys take the Constitution...even if it doesn't make sense to an outsider . And this is not a criticism, its just the way you guys feel about how relevant the actual US Constitution is to modern issues the US grapples with A couple of examples that come to my mind that I never agreed with but I understand you guys made a decision on because the Constitution said it I remember that appalling and provocative Prophet Muhammad art gallery in Texas, despite the fact it was very insulting to Muslims most of the American members said it had to be allowed because of the Free Speech part of the Constitution even though they said it was insulting When the US Supreme made the Gay Marriage Bill mandatory in all states everyone celebrated this important on this forum but there were some criticisms of it from some of the liberal members on this forum who support Gay Marriage but said in fact this bill was pushed through unconditionally. Like Gromnir who restrained his legal criticism of it because he didn't want to seem to be attacking this long overdue social development The whole Gun Control debate in the USA finds support in the Second Amendment from some members of the NRA This whole event you see as a form of an attack on the Fourth Amendment....I get it but I wish people would just see this initiative as a valid step to ensure better domestic security Okay so finally I guess the difference in our views is I firmly believe that it makes sense that it is very possible that there may come a time where the NSA may need to access an Apple device but now they will be prevented. I still don't agree with Gromnir's example as the targeting of the Japanese was a knee-jerk reaction as the USA was at war with Japan and was ended when WW2 ended but the interest to have a backdoor to devices will never end as social media will always be a form of data monitoring that the US needs to have access to...but we can agree to disagree

No they aren't, since 9/11 the USA has always been the ultimate target for Islamic extremists. But to target the USA is much harder for groups like ISIS due to the logistics and distance and also as I mentioned the USA has very effective security mechanism's and information gathering that prevent these attacks...people just arent aware of it. So I am referring to attacks that were prevented. You will see from this link that 40 attacks have been prevented since 9/11 and this link is from 2011..so I am confidant that no other country has been targeted for extremist attacks this much since 2001 including any Muslim country? http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/09/40-terror-plots-foiled-since-9-11-combating-complacency-in-the-long-war-on-terror

Yeah, I also don't like his general mannerisms....its something I can't quite put my finger on ?

I can't disagree with you more. fear has always been the greatest motivating factor in history. the terrible things we do to each other in the name o' fear is legion. am gonna avoid the obvious and overused european examples, but the US internment o' the Japanese in ww2 is a prime example o' the danger ' sacrificing liberties in the name o' safety and security. http://www.historynet.com/the-niihau-incident.htm Japanese internment were not unpopular, and many liberal-minded newspapers such as the LA Times actual wrote editorials in support o' internment before and after it occurred. peoples were afraid and they thought their fears were justified. the US government had cracked Japanese diplomatic codes which included Japanese ambassadors speculating that in the event hawaii were occupied by the Japanese, the bulk o' the hawaiian-japanese population would support the occupation. the fears were real. heck, perhaps the fears were more justified than is typical taught in US schools. even so, Japanese Internment is almost universal recognized as one o' the low points in US history... with the exception o' trump who sees Japanese internment as legitimizing some o' his more extreme immigration plans. he more liberty you willing give up, the easier it is for governments and corporations to take away your remaining liberties and freedoms. gotta learn from history. tHA! Good Fun! But Gromnir I can respect that analogy " the more liberty you willing give up, the easier it is for governments and corporations to take away your remaining liberties and freedoms " and course it is applicable. But is that Japanese example relevant? We were talking about WW2 and the fact that Japan was at war with the USA....but I am referring to a reality where the state security institutions are looking at ways to address the fact that technology is being used by Terrorist groups, so is it an invasion of liberties for the NSA to look at addressing this?

I can't disagree with you more. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Now I don't necessarily have a problem with federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies obtaining a search warrant with a federal judge based on a specifically outlined probably cause; but the idea of mass surveillance of the general citizenry or introducing a backdoor to break encryption with the understanding that it'll only be used this one time and that no one else will ever have access, or can steal, or hack into the software, pretty please you can trust us; is a bit naive. I'll be honest this is exactly the response I thought you were going to post, its very reasonable and its similar to the concerns I have seen posted by other people who like us I would consider are liberals and support the whole Obama legacy..so this is one example where we disagree on this type of government initiative. And I think its because of where we live So it seems your objection to the likes of Prism is not based on real examples of abuse of the system but rather on the concept of the potential of abuse? In other words can you give me some examples of how people have been illegally detained due to Prism? And I'm not trying to catch you out but this does seem to be the general criticism of Federal ideas like this whole Apple request..." no we are not going to help the Federal government out by providing a backdoor because of the possible problems we may face in the future" ...you see its just a general fear mongering tactic that immediately galvanizes support from many Americans who don't like the idea that the government can now read your emails ...if you are connected to terrorism'. So of course there may be some instances of perhaps misconduct but I don't think its naive at all to suggest that the likes of the NSA can manage a system like Prism without us assuming there will be egregious abuses, you need to have more faith in the abilities and integrity of people who work there In the rest of the world governments make changes to laws like the Apple event because of real terrorist attacks...so you guys in the USA have the luxury to object to certain laws based on a possible outcome

Very interesting opinion as I was expecting, I like to hear what all you American guys say about issues like politics. I don't necessarily agree with anyone but this forum has actually helped me understand a lot more about what motivates the average American citizen. I reference excellent opinions like the Economist and CNN but this forum has helped me really understand what the different people in the various states think...and your opinions are often very different which is understandable considering how different the various states are. I use some of the views I read on these forums to sometimes make points on the several Radio Talk shows I Iisten to in SA when I feel the need to explain what motivates the USA...and boy there is loads of misinformation towards the USA from some sectors which I feel I have to dispute Just a quick comment or question on what you said about some of candidates Trump: I have always maintained that he poses immense negative changes to the American image and perception that the world has of the USA if he comes to power. But let me not be dramatic, if he becomes president and based on your view that the president has limited domestic power could Trump actually do the following Reverse Obamacare Build the wall Deport the 11 million so called illegal immigrants? Sanders: I like the guy and I wish I could support him but he makes far too many populist ideas that I know resonate with people who really mean well but its not practical to implement. The biggest concern I have with him is this almost constant attack on big business and Wall Street. I get this negative view people may have of large corporations but what exactly is the issue here? Do people not like the fact that Walmart or Bank of America is so large...I get the 2008 concerns but don't large corporations in the USA actually do more good than bad, for example they Employ thousands of people Pay taxes and contribute towards the general improvement of any state they in Due to there size they often have R&D departments that do create innovative products They do work in most cases. I refer to the fact that the success criteria is measured in profitability..which is a good way to ensure good governance and less corruption, in South Africa one of the biggest causes of corruption in the Public Sector is due to the fact the targets are not set in the state organ being profitable. So this leads to much more failed government initiatives...trust me profitability is easier to follow if its done in a reasonable way I have only ever basically worked for large corporations in the private sector and they have always been good to me..so I dont understand what Sanders wants to change? Clinton: Yes I agree with your general criticism of her...she is unassuming but I still think she is the best candidate and I hope she becomes the next president. She doens't support anything radical and she is a disciple of Obama and his domestic policies who I have always supported...despite some of the valid criticisms from some of our members the USA is in a much better place from a foreign policy perspective. Nowadays the USA is about consensus around the UNSC and it doesnt feel the need to respond to attacks on its pride from people ...for example " Russia has outmaneuvered the USA in Syria " ..who cares about what Russia does in Syria ?

But guys lets look at this objectively as its not really relevant to consider the words of the sagacious Benjamin Franklin in this case The USA is the biggest target for Islamic extremist attacks in the world.The reality is many attacks have been prevented since 9/11 because of the diligence, hard work and resources of groups like the NSA, CIA and Homeland Security...but these groups are required to use what many of you guys consider are unorthodox or even unconstitutional methods like Prism. So once again I support the intention of Prism, I also don't understand the whole " Prism is a possible invasion of the American privacy "....has anyone ever been arrested unfairly due to abuse of Prism? I get the whole irritating and traitorous comments of Snowden where he " felt the whole world had to know now that the NSA has a means to monitor and track the communications of certain people once they were brought to the attention of the authorities" Now I work in eDiscovery in the financial sector and the concept of Prism makes sense ...but why would you guys have an issue with the state department being able to track the communication of real threats to the USA by people who possibly belong to a extremist cell and who use social media to update and there discuss there motives....yes guys social media is used by extremist groups? Would you prefer the government had no way of at least intercepting and understanding this information? And I see this Apple issue as the same type of thing, what difference does it make to you if the federal government has a backdoor to your devices? They would not access your personal data unless you are really implicated in terrorism...unless people feel they just cannot trust the Federal government which is a bit of a difficult debate to have with someone. I would have to read real examples of how Obama has used Prism to abuse his power to even consider this The reality of the world is simple now, we have to accept that certain ideas of liberty and privacy that we use to consider as sacrosanct are changing due to the threats the West faces...so please dont see this an attack on your way of life...its about your various elected governments trying to make the citizens of there countries safer

Thats what I thought. Don't get me wrong I enjoy the varied views of the members who dislike the West on this forum, they are wrong almost all the time or they are biased but I enjoy seeing a different view on certain political developments But my question is why is Poland so unhappy with the EU? I don't mean this is in a superficial level so " its about the refugees being forced on to us " ( I am still very annoyed by this move and I feel that it shouldn't be mandatory for any EU country to have to accept any Syrians...let the Germans and the Norwegians take them in but to just expect the East European countries to do this is just unreasonable..and I'm still a huge fan of Merkel and Germany despite the initial mistake to take in original refugees ) But I see now that there is real political division in Poland with this new " anti-EU " party? Why would this exist and are there objectives reasonable?

No Trump is just attacking Apple because he wants to maintain his tough, implacable, populist " I'll be tough on Muslim Extremist attacks" stance for the presidential debates I have very little in common with Trump as you know. No my criticism of Apple in this matter is I really think you guys are very concerned with " privacy issues " but you ignore the reality of the world now where to say " I reject any changes that infringe in my privacy " just seem to me to be idealistic and misplaced due to the real threats of the likes of homegrown terrorism or other internal attacks So you Americans basically have to chose..do you want to live in a society where you take the risk of a terrorist attack occurring or succeeding more likely because the Federal government is unable to access certain information or do you trust your government that it actually will use this new access to Apple devices in a way that is used to ensure state security For me its a no-brainer...but I admit I don't understand the concern around " privacy "...I have no issue with the government being able to scan all my communications, for me I have nothing to hide but the world and the threat to the West has changed...sadly due to the nature of terrorist attacks all Western governments have to now implement more data surveillance for there citizens. Its done to protect the country

Dark we sometimes have different views on some topics but I have always found you to be a interesting person to debate with, if someone asked me what your overall view on the West was I would say " you don't necessarily dislike the EU and other similar institutions but you question the overall positive and constructive impact the idea of Western ideology has had on the world " ?( is this accurate? ) Why I raise this is you seem to be in the distinctive group of people on this forum who generally are " anti-Western "...now this is fine of course and we must all be honest and debate what we feel is what we believe ..but I really like you so I have to ask this Are you looking for an alternate system of global financial influence and or general military significance than what works in the world, like the power of the IMF, EU and USA? So for example why do you think Iran and China economic alliance is in anyway significant and why do you think Russia's strategies in Syria is better than what the West has done?

Whats your view on this Elerond? I say Apple is being unreasonable and must abide by the governments wishes...its just one phone. Yes if the request is an automatic backdoor for the Federal government for all Apple devices I would also consider this reasonable but this just takes more time I get a little annoyed when people debate something like " its a privacy issue " when in fact its more important like state security

it appears that he is smoking a cigarette. HA! Good Fun! Gromnir I haven't noticed your views on who you currently leaning towards in the various presidential debates ? I'm sure you alluded to voting for Republicans normally but with the current ideological stances of the leading 3 Republicans I don't you align with any of them ...would you vote for the Democratics? Please share as much information as possible as I'm very interested in your opinion due to your life experience and current job

http://europe.newsweek.com/donald-trump-pope-francis-mexico-visit-425792?rm=eu Guys this is UNACCEPTABLE, now Trump has insulted the Pope and called him " political" .....we know there is no worse insult than to compare someone to a politician,....its a low blow and I think Trump needs to seek immediate forgiveness and absolution

Guys I have to support Meshugger around this point, it would be imprudent to Ignore my posts....I do occasionally post real inspiration Took me three reads to realize you wrote "imprudent" not "impudent". Thats funny....I could easily have made that mistake

Guys I have to support Meshugger around this point, it would be imprudent to Ignore my posts....I do occasionally post real inspiration

Oby it seems like you want Turkey to go to war with Assad ....now Russia may get involved. Are you sure Russia should be doing this considering the mess the Russian economy is in?

You did? Where? I must have missed it. All I see is this... ...which actually rather says the opposite, as it says you know you annoy certain people...which I would think would imply you know what certain people you annoy... No Barti you are completely missing another option but I can see how you may think my view is inconsistent There are people who I know I annoy but that aren't necessarily the people who may have an issue....its potentially 2 separate groups It sounds what you are referring to is how you feel once you realize I have won the debate....thats never been a strong point of yours. You notice I often admit I'm wrong...the older you get the less relevant " being right" is