I agree with Dally's oft repeated line. Obama has made the world a more dangerous place.

What withdrawal are we talking about? The last time I checked the number of US military withdrawals was offset by a (VAST) increase in mercenaries who perform pretty much the same task without having to keep pesky records.

As for the concept of "political correctness" - it's just another way of dividing people.

It reminds me of the seventies and eighties when the women's movement was threatening to make some serious political inroads (remember the Nuclear Freeze?). Then - purely by COINCIDENCE - came the issue of abortion which set them at each other's throats and completely neutralised their effectiveness as a political force.

All you need to know about Donald Trump:

When "The Donald" opened "Trump Towers" in Atlantic City he was given the $250,000,000 capital investment, a stake in the gaming tables, his name on the building and ... best of all ... a five-year indemnity against LOSING MONEY. Talk about a deal you can't refuse.

Trump is the face of what can only be described as The International Crime Syndicate. He made his fortune doing what was in the 80s one of the most challenging tasks in the world - laundering the hundreds of millions of dollars that were spewing out of the Reagan-North/Nazi/CIA cocaine pipeline through his casinos.

He is represented by Roy Cohn. Cohn was the legal council to Senator Joseph McCarthy throughout the House on Un-American Activities trials. Both made their name in Washington by sabotaging the Malmedy War Crimes trial featuring top members of the Nazi Party & SS (such as Joachim Peiper, Sepp Dietrich etc.). Whilst McCarthy was stabbed in the back by his own team and died embittered and disgraced Cohn went on to become the top man in an international crime syndicate under the title of Permindex which was kicked out of Italy for attempting to rig elections, murder politicians etc. but was also implicated in the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

Two of Trump's biggest business partners are Russian mobster Dmitry Yevgenyevich Rybolovlev and arguably the world's biggest arms-deader-cum-Mr. Fixit - Adnan Khashoggi (Trump purchased the Saudi businessman's yacht which at the time was the biggest in the world). Khashoggi has a rap sheet which could fill a book and is arguably best known for his involvement in the Iran-Contra affair which broke when Catholic aid workers brought a lawsuit against the US government for the murder of activist priests in South America. The subsequent shitstorm revealed the involvement of Oliver North, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush in wholesale cocaine trafficking into inner-city ghettos in exchange for financing an illegal war against the populist Nicaraguan government. Meanwhile a side-deal was cut with Iran (at the time an ENEMY of the United States) to supply missiles and intel for their battle with Iraq (at the time an ALLY of the United States).

Iran-Contra prevented Bush from getting a second term and so he cut a deal with one of his young lieutenants - William "Bill" Clinton - to take his place. Both Clintons were heavily involved in the very same cocaine-trafficking pipeline via the Mena airport operation run by hotshot CIA-pilot, Barry Seal.

It's hard to think that ANYONE could be less worthy of the presidency than Hilary Clinton but Donald Trump is a great candidate. A choice of Clinton or Trump can only mean BIG trouble in the very near future.

On the flipside - Trump has effectively destroyed the Republican Party.

Mugwump wrote:What withdrawal are we talking about? The last time I checked the number of US military withdrawals was offset by a (VAST) increase in mercenaries who perform pretty much the same task without having to keep pesky records. As for the concept of "political correctness" - it's just another way of dividing people. It reminds me of the seventies and eighties when the women's movement was threatening to make some serious political inroads (remember the Nuclear Freeze?). Then - purely by COINCIDENCE - came the issue of abortion which set them at each other's throats and completely neutralised their effectiveness as a political force. As an addendum to the above - I think people should be very cautious before getting themselves wrapped up with activist movements. I mean, on the whole I am in favour of grass roots activism because it really is the only way you are ever likely to get real change. Whilst politicians and such usually get all the credit for legislative change (on issues such as slavery, the rights of children, Health & Safety in the workplace etc.) the truth is NONE of these decisions were driven by politicians. They literally had to be FORCED kicking and screaming into action by organised groups of outraged citizens. HOWEVER, you need to exercise caution when people appear seemingly out of the blue espousing this or that message. Where did these people come from? How did they arrive at their position? I say this because many people were shocked to discover that the leader of the feminist movement in the United States, Gloria Steinem, who emerged in the sixties advocating a radical manifesto which literally had folk tearing out each other's throats was forced to admit that she was actually on the payroll of the Central Intelligence Agency! As stated, the best indicator that a particular form of activism is fishy is how it is treated by the media. Campaigners who challenge the status quo are usually starved of air time - not least because they harm the interests of sponsors. Which is why you should be VERY careful when people such as Julian Assange & Edward Snowden, who from the outset were given front-page headline attention, emerge seemingly out-of-the-blue. Had either attempted to publish information which was as explosive as they claimed my bet is they would have run into some very serious (and potentially injurious) consequences.

Mugwump wrote:What withdrawal are we talking about? The last time I checked the number of US military withdrawals was offset by a (VAST) increase in mercenaries who perform pretty much the same task without having to keep pesky records. As for the concept of "political correctness" - it's just another way of dividing people. It reminds me of the seventies and eighties when the women's movement was threatening to make some serious political inroads (remember the Nuclear Freeze?). Then - purely by COINCIDENCE - came the issue of abortion which set them at each other's throats and completely neutralised their effectiveness as a political force. As an addendum to the above - I think people should be very cautious before getting themselves wrapped up with activist movements. I mean, on the whole I am in favour of grass roots activism because it really is the only way you are ever likely to get real change. Whilst politicians and such usually get all the credit for legislative change (on issues such as slavery, the rights of children, Health & Safety in the workplace etc.) the truth is NONE of these decisions were driven by politicians. They literally had to be FORCED kicking and screaming into action by organised groups of outraged citizens. HOWEVER, you need to exercise caution when people appear seemingly out of the blue espousing this or that message. Where did these people come from? How did they arrive at their position? I say this because many people were shocked to discover that the leader of the feminist movement in the United States, Gloria Steinem, who emerged in the sixties advocating a radical manifesto which literally had folk tearing out each other's throats was forced to admit that she was actually on the payroll of the Central Intelligence Agency! As stated, the best indicator that a particular form of activism is fishy is how it is treated by the media. Campaigners who challenge the status quo are usually starved of air time - not least because they harm the interests of sponsors. Which is why you should be VERY careful when people such as Julian Assange & Edward Snowden, who from the outset were given front-page headline attention, emerge seemingly out-of-the-blue. Had either attempted to publish information which was as explosive as they claimed my bet is they would have run into some very serious (and potentially injurious) consequences.

Nope, it is alive and well

Mugwump wrote:As an addendum to the above - I think people should be very cautious before getting themselves wrapped up with activist movements. I mean, on the whole I am in favour of grass roots activism because it really is the only way you are ever likely to get real change. Whilst politicians and such usually get all the credit for legislative change (on issues such as slavery, the rights of children, Health & Safety in the workplace etc.) the truth is NONE of these decisions were driven by politicians. They literally had to be FORCED kicking and screaming into action by organised groups of outraged citizens. HOWEVER, you need to exercise caution when people appear seemingly out of the blue espousing this or that message. Where did these people come from? How did they arrive at their position? I say this because many people were shocked to discover that the leader of the feminist movement in the United States, Gloria Steinem, who emerged in the sixties advocating a radical manifesto which literally had folk tearing out each other's throats was forced to admit that she was actually on the payroll of the Central Intelligence Agency! As stated, the best indicator that a particular form of activism is fishy is how it is treated by the media. Campaigners who challenge the status quo are usually starved of air time - not least because they harm the interests of sponsors. Which is why you should be VERY careful when people such as Julian Assange & Edward Snowden, who from the outset were given front-page headline attention, emerge seemingly out-of-the-blue. Had either attempted to publish information which was as explosive as they claimed my bet is they would have run into some very serious (and potentially injurious) consequences. Logged in just to say how refreshing it is for someone to actually know his stuff. And has clearly been reading alternative political stuff as opposed to the mainstream claptrap(lies) most succumb to these days.

Mugwump wrote:As an addendum to the above - I think people should be very cautious before getting themselves wrapped up with activist movements. I mean, on the whole I am in favour of grass roots activism because it really is the only way you are ever likely to get real change. Whilst politicians and such usually get all the credit for legislative change (on issues such as slavery, the rights of children, Health & Safety in the workplace etc.) the truth is NONE of these decisions were driven by politicians. They literally had to be FORCED kicking and screaming into action by organised groups of outraged citizens. HOWEVER, you need to exercise caution when people appear seemingly out of the blue espousing this or that message. Where did these people come from? How did they arrive at their position? I say this because many people were shocked to discover that the leader of the feminist movement in the United States, Gloria Steinem, who emerged in the sixties advocating a radical manifesto which literally had folk tearing out each other's throats was forced to admit that she was actually on the payroll of the Central Intelligence Agency! As stated, the best indicator that a particular form of activism is fishy is how it is treated by the media. Campaigners who challenge the status quo are usually starved of air time - not least because they harm the interests of sponsors. Which is why you should be VERY careful when people such as Julian Assange & Edward Snowden, who from the outset were given front-page headline attention, emerge seemingly out-of-the-blue. Had either attempted to publish information which was as explosive as they claimed my bet is they would have run into some very serious (and potentially injurious) consequences. Logged in just to say how refreshing it is for someone to actually know his stuff. And has clearly been reading alternative political stuff as opposed to the mainstream claptrap(lies) most succumb to these days.

Mugwump wrote:As an addendum to the above - I think people should be very cautious before getting themselves wrapped up with activist movements. I mean, on the whole I am in favour of grass roots activism because it really is the only way you are ever likely to get real change. Whilst politicians and such usually get all the credit for legislative change (on issues such as slavery, the rights of children, Health & Safety in the workplace etc.) the truth is NONE of these decisions were driven by politicians. They literally had to be FORCED kicking and screaming into action by organised groups of outraged citizens. HOWEVER, you need to exercise caution when people appear seemingly out of the blue espousing this or that message. Where did these people come from? How did they arrive at their position? I say this because many people were shocked to discover that the leader of the feminist movement in the United States, Gloria Steinem, who emerged in the sixties advocating a radical manifesto which literally had folk tearing out each other's throats was forced to admit that she was actually on the payroll of the Central Intelligence Agency! As stated, the best indicator that a particular form of activism is fishy is how it is treated by the media. Campaigners who challenge the status quo are usually starved of air time - not least because they harm the interests of sponsors. Which is why you should be VERY careful when people such as Julian Assange & Edward Snowden, who from the outset were given front-page headline attention, emerge seemingly out-of-the-blue. Had either attempted to publish information which was as explosive as they claimed my bet is they would have run into some very serious (and potentially injurious) consequences. Any links to facts, as opposed to opinion pieces?

Mugwump wrote:As an addendum to the above - I think people should be very cautious before getting themselves wrapped up with activist movements. I mean, on the whole I am in favour of grass roots activism because it really is the only way you are ever likely to get real change. Whilst politicians and such usually get all the credit for legislative change (on issues such as slavery, the rights of children, Health & Safety in the workplace etc.) the truth is NONE of these decisions were driven by politicians. They literally had to be FORCED kicking and screaming into action by organised groups of outraged citizens. HOWEVER, you need to exercise caution when people appear seemingly out of the blue espousing this or that message. Where did these people come from? How did they arrive at their position? I say this because many people were shocked to discover that the leader of the feminist movement in the United States, Gloria Steinem, who emerged in the sixties advocating a radical manifesto which literally had folk tearing out each other's throats was forced to admit that she was actually on the payroll of the Central Intelligence Agency! As stated, the best indicator that a particular form of activism is fishy is how it is treated by the media. Campaigners who challenge the status quo are usually starved of air time - not least because they harm the interests of sponsors. Which is why you should be VERY careful when people such as Julian Assange & Edward Snowden, who from the outset were given front-page headline attention, emerge seemingly out-of-the-blue. Had either attempted to publish information which was as explosive as they claimed my bet is they would have run into some very serious (and potentially injurious) consequences. Any links to facts, as opposed to opinion pieces?

I ask again are we seeing the end of PC in the Western world? Trump has signed off on the wall building and blocking immigration from 6 Muslim countries. Brexit has been voted on. Stoke, a safe Labour seat for years, looks likely to be a big margin win for UKIP. Seems the inevitable backlash against brainwashing has begun. In Britain the Labour Party has consistently sided against the instincts of its core voters and created a vacuum that is being filled by what may turn out to be a hard right party (UKIP). When Germany follows the lead they will inevitably take things too far. Things could get nasty soon. As I have argued on here for years - the inevitable result of feeble-minded liberal-left thinking and politics.

You were saying...