View the latest news and breaking news today for U.S., world, weather, entertainment, politics and health.

Why are we laughing?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Why are we laughing?

    Because terrorists can murder 31 people and injure 180 others, and we’ll still be told to our face by liberals that our cars are doing more damage.



  • #2
    A sad state of events.
    Comment>

    • #3
      I can't believe liberal's hardheadedness sometimes.
      Comment>

      • #4
        Last year, about 30 people were killed by terrorists in the USA.. 30,000 people are killed every year by guns in the USA. The same can be said about drunk driving.

        I don´t really agree with Obama, but I will say this

        1. We spend almost 100 billion a year on homeland security and the TSA. The TSA has had more than 500 arrests for stealing and inappropriate behavior. The amount of terrorists plots thwarted by a TSA agent = 0. That is 100 billion in mostly wasted money that could be used so we don´t have to poising our kids with lead.

        2. There is no ISIS solution other than the USA fulling invading Iraq and Syria again. It is short-sighted and ignorant of history to think we can just ´carpet bomb´ them to extinction. And the best part of it is, terrorist organizations are like hydras, if you kill one person, then you now have created recruitment options from their childrens, wives and friends. Most of the ISIS members in Iraq now, are family members of people we ´carpet bombed´ in the Iraq war.
        Comment>

        • #5
          If somebody says cars are doing more damage than terrorist they're equating two issues that are unrelated. Both issues have to be dealt with, and saying cars kill more people in response to terrorist kill people is just ignorant. It's apples and oranges they don't relate.
          Comment>

          • #6
            Honestly, money is the big motivator in it all. There's money for war and contractually obligated money. This goes for both sides of the aisle. It really is a sad state of affairs no matter how you address it.
            Comment>

            • #7
              Originally posted by martinearletara View Post
              Honestly, money is the big motivator in it all. There's money for war and contractually obligated money. This goes for both sides of the aisle. It really is a sad state of affairs no matter how you address it.
              I sort of think that money isn't really an object to the American government. They'll pour millions/billions into the war effort every day, despite already trillions into debt.
              Comment>

              • #8
                I agree with Beardedfellow on this one. The two topics are completely unrelated. I don't think two completely separate topics should be compared in such a way. No matter what the numbers say, it doesn't make the amount of people killed by terrorists any less appalling just because more people are killed by any other means.
                Comment>

                • #9
                  Okay, let's try this again. For some reason my post froze up and then.....nada.

                  If we use the numbers properly and not as a fixed equation as has been done, the comparative study can indeed be made into a valid point but again, not as it was presented.

                  If say, we have 1000 cars as a base number and 3 get into an accident causing fatalities. We could then say that .003% of a 1000 cars are involved in a fatal accident.

                  Now, if we have HOWEVER many terrorists: 1,10,100, 10000 it doesn't make any difference in the number because the number of terrorists involved in a fatality is nearly 98%. Whether they only kill themselves or 1 to 150 people the percentile remains the same.

                  Per Capita, there are more terrorist related fatalities than there are in ANY other methodology of death including cancer.

                  Ah, made it without the big freeze. God Bless...........Bobby
                  Comment>

                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Bobby Cole View Post
                    Okay, let's try this again. For some reason my post froze up and then.....nada.

                    If we use the numbers properly and not as a fixed equation as has been done, the comparative study can indeed be made into a valid point but again, not as it was presented.

                    If say, we have 1000 cars as a base number and 3 get into an accident causing fatalities. We could then say that .003% of a 1000 cars are involved in a fatal accident.

                    Now, if we have HOWEVER many terrorists: 1,10,100, 10000 it doesn't make any difference in the number because the number of terrorists involved in a fatality is nearly 98%. Whether they only kill themselves or 1 to 150 people the percentile remains the same.

                    Per Capita, there are more terrorist related fatalities than there are in ANY other methodology of death including cancer.

                    Ah, made it without the big freeze. God Bless...........Bobby
                    Interesting. I think the liberal mindset, for example, would suggest that x amount of fatalities are caused by cars, and not drunk drivers or texting on the Iphone. The true cause of death is not by cars, but by the drivers actions which are attributed by other factors, the true death from terrorist are caused by terrorist, unless one would go so far to lay the blame on God or the devil... . which would bring to question from where terrorist ideology originates.
                    Comment>

                    • #11
                      Originally posted by William View Post

                      Interesting. I think the liberal mindset, for example, would suggest that x amount of fatalities are caused by cars, and not drunk drivers or texting on the Iphone. The true cause of death is not by cars, but by the drivers actions which are attributed by other factors, the true death from terrorist are caused by terrorist, unless one would go so far to lay the blame on God or the devil... . which would bring to question from where terrorist ideology originates.

                      Yes, but that begs the question. If drunk driving and texting is killing 20,000 people per year, and terrorists killed 30 people per year... why are we not talking more about drunk driving and texting, and why are we spending 100 billion per year to stop those few terrorist attacks.

                      The answer is easy, because the private contractors of the TSA and the defense industry spends hundreds of millions on lobbiests and so politicians have to scare up support for their wasteful, pork-barrel spending. If MADD was able to spend hundreds of millions on political campaign donations, then maybe we would spend as much fighting 30,000 deaths per year as we spending fighting 30 deaths per year.
                      Comment>

                      • #12
                        Your point is well taken petesede, but there is a slight flaw here. If we add all of the salaries of police, the cost of jailing drunk drivers, the amount of fines taken in for vehicular offenses, tv and radio ads for vehicle educational purposes I believe the amount would be WAY over 100 billion dollars a year.

                        Now, back to the terrorists. It only took a dozen terrorists to take down the towers on 9/11, a half dozen to kill 130 in Paris, 2 killed some more in San Bernadino, 1 killed 13 at Ft. Hood and the list just keeps getting longer.

                        While drunk drivers, cell phone users, druggies, and down right idiots have the "potential" to kill someone, the ratio of fatalities compared to that of a terrorist who kills 99% of the time is absolutely immense.

                        The problem here is that most drunk drivers are usually spotted and arrested before they do any real damage while a terrorist could be living right next door to you planning to shoot up and/or bomb your local mall and no one is the wiser until it is too late.

                        Just a note: I do not like alcohol, drugs or Cell Phones for that matter. (I do not carry around a phone and have a passion for body building) I have had friends killed by a drunk driver so I am definitely on board for any ideas other than the ones we are already spending money for.
                        Comment>

                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Bobby Cole View Post
                          Now, back to the terrorists. It only took a dozen terrorists to take down the towers on 9/11, a half dozen to kill 130 in Paris, 2 killed some more in San Bernadino, 1 killed 13 at Ft. Hood and the list just keeps getting longer.
                          Exactly, it was a minority in number that murdered millions, from Nazi Germany to the Japanese. The minority extremist were responsible, despite the majority of peace loving moderate Germans or Japanese. My personal belief is that the pacifist majority likewise had a share in the responsibility. Whether the church remaining silent in the face of German adversaries or to today when Secularism has silence the voice of America's conscience - the Church. It isn't always what we do, but what we don't do. I think history suggests that the moderates (Muslims today) are meaningless when faced with the damage only a minority group inflicts on the general populace.

                          Likewise, the statistics don't reflect the ratio of casualties by just one terrorist. Another words one may show that each car accident caused two or three causalities on avg. And only one atomic bomb caused x amount of casualties. The avg number of casualties inflicted on us from just one terrorist isn't conveyed in the statistics. Terrorist are much more deadlier than your avg car accident, resulting in not only multiple fatalities but secondary injuries.

                          God bless,
                          William
                          Comment>

                          • #14
                            Well interesting choice of words, for sure.

                            There are several ways to say something and it looks like that this tweet and whole Obama saying things like that is somehow out of context. I do not think that terrorists and climate change can be really mentioned in the same page. Maybe there are several other threats going on around at the world, at the same time and we should not forget any of them but to really compare them is a little bit too much.
                            Comment>

                            • #15
                              Interestingly enough when Obama speaks of climate change the issue is debatable among scientists and scholars. There is definitely some sort of change going on, but it is believed that it just is a natural cycle that occurs over thousands of years. On the other hand the problem with ISIS is something that we can actually have some say in. Trying to control the elements, or trying to rid of ISIS are two different things. The former being much less of a factor that we can control.
                              Comment>
                              Working...
                              X
                              Articles - News - SiteMap