BruceVC

No, notice his/her signature "Lord of Lords", put that together with the style of prose that indicates that English is possibly not their first language and that they've made two inane threads about some deeply shallow concepts...It's LoF's new alter. Discussion: Rage sent me to make this thread - is this a mental issue or a social issue? That is the question. Its a mental perspective influenced by a social factor, so I would say its a combination of both ?

We don't, you say ? Hm. Ah well, Reddit's admins are doing this half-assed as always, they've left other hate subs that don't leave their box, heh. Would be nice if this backlash led to the site's decline though. Don't you support Reddit ?

I prefer Hydroponic weed....what do you like ? I assume you smoke weed and your stoned revelations helped motivate this post....or is that just a conspiracy theory

Certainly have some that act that way. But there is a line between politeness and treating someone as sacred lest they pout a bit. Why should be happy for that, by the way ? Well in its proper implementation PC is suppose to be a way of making a point about groups of people without offending them. So for example you don't refer to gay people as " faggots" we refer to them as " homosexuals or gay folk " And since we don't like people to get offended this is naturally a good thing and should make us happy But I do accept that sometimes PC can be taken too far when it gets to the point where you suddenly cannot criticize someone for bad behavior

Its not a cult being PC, I wish you guys wouldn't be so dramatic Its about treating people with respect and maintaining a level of decorum. We should be happy that some aspects of society try to be PC

This is welcome news, Reddit is attempting to implement a semblance of moderation. Long overdue but appreciated anyway Today Reddit...tomorrow RPGCodex !!!

Not sure why this is an issue? Its unusual I'll give you that but CNN has many different news shows so if you have an issue with advertisers creating stories on this particular series then just don't watch it. The rest of CNN will continue to provide interesting and pertinent news stories and documentaries Edit: TL:DW The whole point of native advertising is to masquerade as news. This is bad. But if CNN is open about the fact that this particular news unit is about there advertisers then there is no surreptitious behavior? Also this is about advertiser content that other companies like the Wall Street Journal also uses. I can see you concern as there is a risk of news stories being influenced by advertisers but if its transparent then I don't see concern...and remember this is only one news unit that will probably feature once a day like the rest of there news stories So you will still get the other independent stories like Connect the World and Quest means Business

Use your magic stone to hide your true posting intentions

Not sure why this is an issue? Its unusual I'll give you that but CNN has many different news shows so if you have an issue with advertisers creating stories on this particular series then just don't watch it. The rest of CNN will continue to provide interesting and pertinent news stories and documentaries

How ****ing out of touch with reality are you Bruce, Jesus ****ing Christ... seemed as if bruce were making a funny... which if true makes it seem as if longknife is the one actual divorced from reality. HA! Good Fun! I was indeed joking ( I thought it was quite funny ? )

Its probably got to do with his dislike of Romance and how popular they are to the fanbase?

Your apology is accepted. You may choose to believe that I spew rhetoric and grandstand, though voicing ones opinions in a clear, concise fashion is neither, however that is subjective so i'll let it pass. However you accused me of pursuing a false agenda and now being woefully misinformed, please provide factual evidence to corroborate this. Nonek I don't want to derail this thread with a debate that basically is just about you and me But next time I see you doing it I will raise it

Even if we put aside the enormous potential for that information to be abused, and the fact that mass surveillance, as people have proven repeatedly, is a completely inefficient tool of terrorism prevention - therefore a vastly funded program that employs mass surveillance does hurt citizens indirectly, by virtue of not assigning that money to methods that actually work, which simultaneously counts as a misuse of taxpayer money, hurting said taxpayers, and a failure to protect people whose lives could've been improved if said money was spent more productively-, even putting these concerns aside... ...actually, we shouldn't put these aside. They're valid concerns. ...Anyways, even putting them aside, if we accept that internet harrassment is wrong, even if it doesn't result in physical harm, due to the mental stress inflicted, we should also accept that surveillance is wrong. There are a lot of people who are incredibly uncomfortable with the idea of being spied upon by their own government (for some reason), who are hurt by such a program. There are studies concluding that productivity plummets when faced with the prospect of being surveilled, not to mention that it results in generally increased stress levels. Knowing the effects of prolonged stress on the human body, I can only conclude that surveillance is physically harmful to the subjects. I'd definitely count that as "being hurt". Well the reality is we live in an interconnected digital world and when a country faces the real threat of cyber warfare, like the USA does, it makes sense that the country would invest in technology that allows them to tackle this digital threat. Prism was designed with this in mind, also as I keep saying we don't know the additional information that Prism provided outside of those articles that have been linked that basically say " Prism hasn't enabled any arrests ", my point being Prism isn't just about arresting extremists but would protect the USA in other ways like the fact the USA is able to determine where those latest Chinese hacking attacks came from http://money.cnn.com/2015/06/05/technology/why-china-hacks-us/index.html http://thehill.com/policy/technology/298153-pentagon-claims-chinese-government-behind-intrusions-on-us-computers http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/17/china-hacked-pentagon-contractors-senate-hearing Finally I sell and implement eDiscovery software that the financial institutions invest in. This gives them the ability to retrieve data about there employers quickly and effectively. And do you know why they invest it this? Its not to police people, its not to see how productive they are or what there emails to family members say. No its about the ability to gather data needed for internal and external governance reasons. So for example investigating inside trading, legal disputes, cases where the bank gets sued and any other example of financial irregularity that there staff may be complicit in. So its used to protect its staff, its customers and its investors. So even though a corporation can use this software to spy on people they don't. Its used positively ...and that's the same as Prism

Waiting for answers from whom ? If its me do you mind repeating the questions? You accused me of lying and pursuing a false agenda, please provide factual evidence to corroborate this. I take back the lying accusation, you are at times guilty of spewing rhetoric and grandstanding and your opinion is sometimes woefully misinformed but that's not the same thing as intentionally lying. I believe you believe what you say is true Sorry for the misplaced lying accusation

Obviously if the existence of said secrets is in itself harmful to the citizens of your country, revealing them should be your patriotic duty, shouldn't it? Well that's obviously a risk, but, it's kind of the job of an intelligence agency to predict this, and employ appropriate countermeasures. Remember, we wouldn't be having this conversation if they weren't completely **** at doing the only thing their government pays them to do. But the secrets Snowden revealed didn't highlight that US citizens were being hurt? It was just about the ability of the NSA to track user information and communication, its not like he brought to the attention of the world clandestine USA death squads that were operating within the USA But it did hurt the intelligence gathering ability of the USA as he spoke about Prism which was classified

That's extremely unpatriotic....yet you don't seem to be embarrassed ? It's the opposite of being unpatriotic. Patriotism means standing for the principles and values your nation was built on. Violating the privacy of your citizens for ****s and giggles (terrorism prevention through mass surveillance is a statistical impossibility, if you do the math involved) is very much not in compliance with said principles and values. I'm not sure I can ever agree that revealing intelligence secrets about your government can be seen as patriotic? And we only know what Snowden told the world officially, do you not think he has been unofficially debriefed by the Russians on all other topics ? So now Russia has information around how the USA maintains its intelligence that should be confidential ?

Sure, then rather say " I won't give more to this KS" But that's not the same thing as saying " I can't give more " ( yes its semantics I know )

In my opinion, it seems a bit insulting that instead of creating an interesting character of whatever ethnicity/race(black most of the time) they insist on changing a white character into a black character. Like putting on blackface and saying that's good enough. I notice you guys have conveniently ignored my solution to this whole Magneto issue. Why can't he be a black Jewish character? You do get black Jewish people...yes I don't think any black Jews were kept in concentration camps but its a comic...we do allow artistic licence ?

Waiting for answers from whom ? If its me do you mind repeating the questions?

As I said I support his foreign policy decisions, all of them. And if people don't like the USA because of them thats there issue, the decisions were correct So pulling out of Iraq, not attacking Iran and Syria, the ISIS bombing campaign and the killing of Bin Laden to name a few Killing Bin Laden was a covert military action. Doing so without consulting the Pakistani government first and violating Pakistani territory was a policy decision. Before I begin remember that you asked this: "give me 3 things he did that have now made the global community dislike the USA even more " Just remember that this is about what the global community believes and not necessarily my personal opinions, lord knows there are enough things in the US I can take shots at Obama about. You asked for three? Here's more than a dozen .... (apologies for the wall of text) 1. Ignored the UNSC resolutions in Libya that justified NATO military intervention by repeatedly calling for Qaddafi's overthrow when the resolutions provided for no such thing. The unintended consequences was that China and Russia as well as the emerging powers on the Security Council (Brazil, India, and South Africa), are no longer willing to countenance UN Security Council resolutions that could lead to military interventions to overthrow regimes elsewhere in the Arab world. At the very least that made it more difficult for Obama to isolate the Assad regime. 2. Ignored calls for increased security at the Benghazi embassy leading to the death of Stevens et al and then tried to cover it up. (Okay this is really an internal US reaction but the US is part of the global community.) 3. Promised a secure and stable Iraq after the troop withdrawals. How did that work out? Obama didn't even make an effort to negotiate a SOFA extension. By reducing the proposed troop contingent from the 20,000 man force recommended by the US military to 3,000 he virtually guaranteed that there would be no SOFA. This despite the fact that Maliki was willing to agree to a smaller 8000 man commitment. Obama seriously overestimate the combat readiness of Iraq's military. And he's about to repeat the same mistake in Afghanistan. The current bombing of ISIS a direct result of Obama's overconfidence in the Iraqi military; it is simply an attempt to correct a massive ****-up of Obama's creation. 4. Yemen's government collapsed despite massive US support and the US is now directly involved in the Yemen-Saudi War. The US is providing targetting information, intelligence and aerial refueling of Saudi airstrikes. “American military planners are using live intelligence feeds from surveillance flights over Yemen to help Saudi Arabia decide what and where to bomb, U.S. officials said.” These video feeds are being provided via U.S. drones, because American manned aircraft are reportedly not presently flying over Yemeni airspace. In 2011, Hillary Clinton said Washington had "rebalanced" its spending priorities to help create a "unified, stable, democratic and prosperous Yemen where civil society has room to operate but al-Qaeda does not." Really? Tell that to the Houthi. Source: ForeignPolicy 5. Obama already-gasping Middle East peace process went from simply being on life support to being declared DOA for the remainder of Obama’s presidency. Obama pressured Israel for a settlement freeze as a necessary concession for peace and downplayed Palestinian terror, anti-Israel incitement and the terror group Hamas’ role in Palestinian government as impediments to it. The increasing frustration between the two countries has resulted in US/Israel relations being at an all time low. So bad in fact, that the US has threatened to abandon Israel at the UN and Israel has threatened unilateral action against Iran if the nuclear talks break down. 6. Obama's claims of no boots on the ground are BS. Obama and JSOC have run thousands of covert operations using Seal Team 6 or CIA/Seal Team 6 joint ops in foreign countries, often without the permission of the host countries. They are now the go-to force whenever Obama wants to flex his military muscle. He overuses the force to the extent that the unit had to be tripled in size to accommodate all of the requests for its use. (Source: NYTimes) 7. Ran a world wide program that eavesdropped on the governments of Brazil and Germany (among others) with almost universal condemnation from those leaders. Then he compounded the issue by failing to adequately secure the information to prevent it from being leaked. 8. Issued a red line in the sand ultimatum to Syria with no clear plan to follow it up. Although he managed to secure destruction of the Syria WMD with Russian help, oh wait he didn't since Assad has used chlorine gas against the Syrian civilian population. The civil war is still raging and please ask the Jordanians how they are doing coping with the massive refugee influx. 9. Obama’s plan to pull out all U.S. combat forces from Afghanistan by the end of 2016 after the massive troop surge makes little sense. Afghanistan has just navigated a difficult democratic transition of power (Iraq spring to mind here at all?) . But it also deprives the United States of operational bases from which to carry out possible strikes against future Al-Qaeda, ISIS and other extremist targets in South Asia. There is no viable alternative location from which to monitor and if necessary attack America’s enemies throughout the Afghan-Pakistani Pashtun belt. 10. Obama has failed to establish a consistent strategy for Pakistan, alternating between embrace and embarrassment in ways that often make our policy as inconsistent and frustrating as the Pakistanis are themselves. It’s hard to figure out even what our stated policy is, much less to implement it. China is now viewed as Pakistan's greatest ally and not the US. 11. Obama's wavering between the Muslim Brotherhood and General Sisi's government have left both feeling betrayed. Egypt's most powerful man, Gen. Abdel Fatah al-Sissi, has said, "You [the U.S.] left the Egyptians; you turned your back on the Egyptians, and they won't forget that." 12. One of Obama's stated goals was resetting the U.S. relationship with the Muslim communities around the world. Given the failures in Palestine, Syria, Libya, Egypt and Yemen, how do you think that's working out? The entire middle east is a complete mess. 13. For all of Obama’s success using drones, and he has massively ramped up their use, they are not viewed favorably around the world. Many feel that the precedents the United States is setting with drone attacks will come back to haunt us. Now is the time to begin to develop an international consensus around rules governing drones and other means of individualized 21st-century warfare. Opposition to Obama's use of drone strikes appears to be the most significant driver of his drop in worldwide popularity. The United States is the only nation among the 22 surveyed that showed majority support (62 percent) for the use of drone aircraft to strike at targets in the war on terrorism. http://www.christianpost.com/news/global-opinion-of-obama-falls-due-to-use-of-drone-strikes-76610/ 14. The IRAN nuclear deal has not yet been finalized and may never be. As part of the tentative agreement reached in April in Switzerland, Iran was to implement a so-called Additional Protocol giving the IAEA more intrusive access to facilities in Iran. Iranian officials have been giving conflicting messages about what kind of access would be granted to crucial military sites. Iran is stalling. Iran’s acquisition of a nuclear capability will lead to reciprocal action by the Saudi government. After all, Saudi Arabia’s long-term financial support for Pakistan’s nuclear program has never been just about Islamic beneficence. Instead, that funding was a down payment for future opportunity. Source: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/418410/obamas-ludicrous-middle-east-policy-tom-rogan 15. Only 19% of Turks and 12% of Jordanians offer a favorable opinion of the U.S., and at 10% Egypt gives the U.S. its lowest rating in the survey. http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/07/14/global-opposition-to-u-s-surveillance-and-drones-but-limited-harm-to-americas-image/ Obama's foreign policy is one of soaring rhetoric and undelivered results. It's a total failure. http://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2015/05/06/obamas-foreign-policy-realism-has-left-the-middle-east-an-unstable-mess I appreciate the effort you have put into this response but some of those points you have confused with " personally I think this is bad foreign policy decision " as opposed with " this is a bad foreign policy decision for the USA " For example the decision to not attack Syria is because of the UNSC Veto, so if you think this was a mistake you need to ask yourself what the global community would have felt about the USA if it had ignored the UNSC veto? Then you have given several examples that have led to the Middle East disliking the USA. Lets be honest, most of the ME dislikes the USA for one reason or another. Or rather the citizens of certain countries dislike the USA, this animosity is trenchant and historical and there is very little the USA can do to change this. So we shouldn't base the global view of the USA on the perception of the USA from the ME Then the USA does have real enemies and real threats it needs to address, so the deployment of special force soldiers ( not the same as boots on the ground ) and drone strikes is part of the military strategy to deal with extremism and this needs to continue. For example when Bin Laden was killed this was very unpopular within Pakistan because they saw this as an attack on there sovereign territory. So you could argue that the USA shouldn't have done this as it would have angered the Pakistanis..yet this was the right decision. So sometimes foreign policy decisions will occur that will always anger certain countries and make the USA unpopular, I just ask people to consider what would be the consequences of acting a certain way or not acting a certain way when juxtaposed to the circumstances. So if the USA had informed the Pakistan government about there intentions to kll Bin Laden what would have happened? Permission for the attack could have been refused or Bin Laden might have been warned and he would have fled. Then we have the Israel\USA relationship. In summary the Israelis are angry because the USA hasn't agreed with them and bombed Iran....this is the real contention between Israel and the USA. And once again I support the USA in this decision, negotiations are still a better route ( even if they fail ) than just attacking Iran. Especially considering the fact that Iran wants to negotiate because of the crippling impact of the sanctions. I'm not sure if you really believe that bombing Iran is the most effect strategy to get them to stop enriching Uranium? Yes I agree, the efforts that the Obama presidency has done to attempt to change the perception of the USA is more good than bad. Of course not all USA foreign policy decisions are ideal but I never claimed they were

That's extremely unpatriotic....yet you don't seem to be embarrassed ?

You & I are definitely reading different news sources Bruce. So I am referring to foreign policy decisions that influence global sentiment If you think Obama's foreign policy decisions have been wrong and have made people think less of the USA can you give 3 examples of things you would have done differently For example would you have ignored the UNSC and bombed Syria, attacked Iran despite the sanctions bringing Iran back to the negotiation process, not gone to Africa to help combat Ebola ? Just 3 examples I'm leaving for work in 10 min. Check back tonight. I can come up with 4 off the top of my head. Later While we wait for GD, why don't you list the examples of things that you think he did right? I'll give you Ebola as a free drop but in honesty any US president would have done the same thing. You rather give me 3 things he did that have now made the global community dislike the USA even more. I support his foreign policy decisions, you guys don't. The onus is on you to produce examples You claimed "The USA has really done well under Obama to make its global image better." I'm asking you to provide examples to back up that claim. The onus is on YOU to back up your assertion. I mean didn't you claim some time ago that you liked to debate on facts? So provide some. As I said I support his foreign policy decisions, all of them. And if people don't like the USA because of them thats there issue, the decisions were correct So pulling out of Iraq, not attacking Iran and Syria, the ISIS bombing campaign and the killing of Bin Laden to name a few

You & I are definitely reading different news sources Bruce. So I am referring to foreign policy decisions that influence global sentiment If you think Obama's foreign policy decisions have been wrong and have made people think less of the USA can you give 3 examples of things you would have done differently For example would you have ignored the UNSC and bombed Syria, attacked Iran despite the sanctions bringing Iran back to the negotiation process, not gone to Africa to help combat Ebola ? Just 3 examples I'm leaving for work in 10 min. Check back tonight. I can come up with 4 off the top of my head. Later While we wait for GD, why don't you list the examples of things that you think he did right? I'll give you Ebola as a free drop but in honesty any US president would have done the same thing. You rather give me 3 things he did that have now made the global community dislike the USA even more. I support his foreign policy decisions, you guys don't. The onus is on you to produce examples

Yeah, being a Jewish Holocaust survivor is pretty darn central to Magneto's character. I mean sure, they could give him a completely different identity - but at that point, even why keep the name? Cant he be a black Jewish person....then we kill two birds with one stone as far as inclusivity is concerned