I think he thinks it’s a dirty word. I knew a snobby girl back in the day who thought calling me “uncivilized” was the nastiest insult ever.
[QUOTE=Blinkyandpinky]
I shouldn’t have to keep remind you to FUCK OFF, but here we are again.
Monty
February 12, 2017, 6:32pm
43
No doubt: "Number 11, in the latrine use of the term ‘11’‘’.
Nah, abortion clinic bombings do not bother me in the least, as they are not exactly a common occurrence or a regular event, unlike Islamic terrorism which occurs practically all of the time, every single day, all across the globe.
President Trump agrees with me, and we know what the main priority is, and we are working towards that noble goal.
What size brown shirt do you wear?
Extra small like Derek , our other white meat.
Actually, yes you can. Start by not thinking it matters.
it was one of your “liberal” gang who brought colour into it.
I second that, because nowadays a lot of the early studies are in doubt and seen as counterproductive.
Also, most of the sites I have seen do point at the many years that most targets of radicalism had being alienated or being convinced to take to arms. Many experts I read about point that no single causes or mechanisms for the path of radicalization are there, meaning that also anyone declaring an specific short time for the radicalization should not be considered to be a serious one. Or the bigot here is just using an statement with very little support. Describing a case that took place once or just in very few specific cases.
In the real world the act of pointing at rare items in an attempt to dismiss the most likely time lines of radicalization (in this case) is called cherry pickin g.
Jefferson:
“Liberals”, eh.
Yes, liberals sure do engage in psychological projection an awful lot. It’s kind of cute.
Blinkyandpinky:
Nah, abortion clinic bombings do not bother me in the least, as they are not exactly a common occurrence or a regular event, unlike Islamic terrorism which occurs practically all of the time, every single day, all across the globe.
President Trump agrees with me, and we know what the main priority is, and we are working towards that noble goal.
Stop making idiocy a noble goal.
http://www.newsday.com/opinion/oped/is-the-terrorism-threat-exaggerated-1.10832611
Just ask John Mueller. A political scientist at Ohio State University and a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington, Mueller is the opposite of Chicken Little in the counterterrorism world; he is the guy who year after year points out that the sky is not falling.
The threat of terror, he told me, “is massively exaggerated in both the public and official mind.” The facts are indisputable. The risk of death by terrorist act is infinitesimal. The risk, in the lexicon of statistics, is trivial. We are spending billions hoping to marginally reduce the risk of a real but very remote danger.
Since 1970, 3,305 American citizens have been killed by terrorism in the U.S. If you eliminate the 9/11 fatalities, the figure drops to 397.
Since 9/11, the odds of being killed by terrorism are 1 in 110,000,000.
Consider: In 2010, 32,999 people died in car accidents; 3,841 from drowning; 38,369 from suicide; 2,791 from malnutrition; 29 from lightning.
There were four fatalities from acts of terror.
How much do we spend to prevent these rare fatalities? Estimates hover around $16 billion annually on domestic counterterrorism. Mueller says when intelligence operations and state and local programs are included, it’s closer to $75 billion, not including foreign wars.
The risk-reward ratio is out of whack. Yes, terrorism is a unique type of threat; it is an evil. Of course, we have to reduce the threat - but rationally.
Yet we act as if a death by terrorism is the moral equivalent of thousands of deaths from malnutrition, car wrecks or firearms. Counterterrorism programs are exempt from risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis applied to national security and public safety spending.
Mueller is particularly galled by the conventional wisdom that terrorism is an “existential threat” to the U.S. - a plausible threat to the survival of the U.S., its power and population. The Civil War was an existential threat. Soviet nukes were, too. The Axis powers may have been. The Islamic State and al-Qaida are not.
…
Proof and perspective are scarce. Collective phobia is immune to evidence. Fear trumps facts, especially when the people in charge warn about phantom enemies and exaggerate the strength of the real ones.
Mueller’s new book is called “Chasing Ghosts.” It’s a fitting title. But 14 years after 9/11, we shouldn’t be scared by ghost stories.
Jefferson:
If the people of the world were more like I, sunshine, it would be a far, far, far, far, far, far better place.
The pronoun you were looking for is me, Mr. smarty pants.
Sure, cute. [Sarcasm]
The reality is that there is plenty of evidence of the projection seen by posters with fascist ideas.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19982362&postcount=26
Nope, you are wrong, wrong, wrong.
Jefferson:
“Liberals”, eh.
Hey, you what would be cute… if you two retards got a room, stuck your dicks in each other’s ear and fuck started your brains.
Fucking morons.
Still it could be worse. The uncouth fellow could be out burning out cars and smashing up shop windows.
It keeps him off the streets.
Liberals, eh. What are they like!
there. Are. Four. Lights.
