I'm sure this is a random shooting

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3325100/NRA-defends-blocking-bill-stop-terrorists-getting-guns-emerges-TWO-THOUSAND-suspected-extremists-freely-purchased-firearms-U-S.html

A criteria that even the ACLU has criticized. Are you suddenly in opposition to the ACLU, Il Professore?

i don't support an organization blindly. if the ACLU is opposed to this, then in this instance i disagree with the ACLU. if you are on a watch list or if you are a suspected of terrorism, i want the government to hold off on selling guns to you until you are properly investigated.

Hellsangel wrote:Someone just said this to me "Obama is a pussy."

Regarding how he is handling terrorism.

Hellsangel wrote:Someone just said this to me "Obama is a pussy."

Regarding how he is handling terrorism.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:Someone just said this to me "Obama is a pussy."

Regarding how he is handling terrorism.

I dont think he is a pussy. He thinks the iSlamis are "salvageable" and he is being a bit naive although he means well.

At the least, he should have come out with an open and honest statement that the reasons behind an increasing number of muslim youth resorting to terrorism need to be investigated and the moderate muslims shoud take responsibility in propagating the moderate views of iSlam preventing the youth from getting radicalised.  I dont think anyone except Trump and the Looney Co is brave enough to say that openly.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:Someone just said this to me "Obama is a pussy."

Regarding how he is handling terrorism.

I dont think he is a pussy. He thinks the iSlamis are "salvageable" and he is being a bit naive although he means well.

At the least, he should have come out with an open and honest statement that the reasons behind an increasing number of muslim youth resorting to terrorism need to be investigated and the moderate muslims shoud take responsibility in propagating the moderate views of iSlam preventing the youth from getting radicalised.  I dont think anyone except Trump and the Looney Co is brave enough to say that openly.

He has often said something very similar to what you wrote above. But if people choose to be deliberately tone deaf, it's difficult to hear him.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/19/obama-tells-moderate-muslims-dont-let-isis-hijack-islam

Propagandhi711 wrote:I'm sure that quip makes you feel smart, but it only exposes your bias. not a word about islamic fundies and the legitimate fear concerning their ongoing immigration but focus on intelligence failures, republican party and nra...surprising you didnt work in trump, modi and chaddis into it somehow to complete the roundup of usual suspects.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:Someone just said this to me "Obama is a pussy."

Regarding how he is handling terrorism.

You'll hear that a lot when you are inside an echo chamber. Try and step outside once a while.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:I want to hear about why this guy was on the FBI watch list and nothing was done about it. I want to hear about how Republican obstinacy about background checks and preventing sales to terrorists enabled this guy. I want to know how this guy got his weapons. I don't want to hear about thoughts and prayers.

Blaming the Republican Party or the NRA is not going to solve anything. The real problem is the easy availability of illegal guns and assault weapons. This blackmarket must be eradicated by legal means.

do you know what percentage of weapons used in mass shootings have been bought illegally? and why is this an either or proposition? we can do logical and urgently needed things like preventing weapon sales to guys on watch lists AND do something about illegal gun sales. they aren't mutually exclusive.

Hellsangel wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3325100/NRA-defends-blocking-bill-stop-terrorists-getting-guns-emerges-TWO-THOUSAND-suspected-extremists-freely-purchased-firearms-U-S.html

A criteria that even the ACLU has criticized. Are you suddenly in opposition to the ACLU, Il Professore?

swapna wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3325100/NRA-defends-blocking-bill-stop-terrorists-getting-guns-emerges-TWO-THOUSAND-suspected-extremists-freely-purchased-firearms-U-S.html

A criteria that even the ACLU has criticized. Are you suddenly in opposition to the ACLU, Il Professore?

"a criterion," not "a criteria."

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/criteria wrote:
singular criteria is not uncommon in edited prose, and its use both in speech and writing seems to be increasing. Only time will tell whether it will reach the unquestioned acceptability of agenda.

Hellsangel wrote:

swapna wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3325100/NRA-defends-blocking-bill-stop-terrorists-getting-guns-emerges-TWO-THOUSAND-suspected-extremists-freely-purchased-firearms-U-S.html

A criteria that even the ACLU has criticized. Are you suddenly in opposition to the ACLU, Il Professore?

"a criterion," not "a criteria."

HTH, Ammachi:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/criteria wrote:
singular criteria is not uncommon in edited prose, and its use both in speech and writing seems to be increasing. Only time will tell whether it will reach the unquestioned acceptability of agenda.

swapna wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

swapna wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3325100/NRA-defends-blocking-bill-stop-terrorists-getting-guns-emerges-TWO-THOUSAND-suspected-extremists-freely-purchased-firearms-U-S.html

A criteria that even the ACLU has criticized. Are you suddenly in opposition to the ACLU, Il Professore?

"a criterion," not "a criteria."

HTH, Ammachi:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/criteria wrote:
singular criteria is not uncommon in edited prose, and its use both in speech and writing seems to be increasing. Only time will tell whether it will reach the unquestioned acceptability of agenda.

apparently, the acceptability of "criteria" for "criterion" is questionable.

Hellsangel wrote:

swapna wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

swapna wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:
A criteria that even the ACLU has criticized. Are you suddenly in opposition to the ACLU, Il Professore?

"a criterion," not "a criteria."

HTH, Ammachi:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/criteria wrote:
singular criteria is not uncommon in edited prose, and its use both in speech and writing seems to be increasing. Only time will tell whether it will reach the unquestioned acceptability of agenda.

apparently, the acceptability of "criteria" for "criterion" is questionable.

Apparently it is not uncommon, Ammachi.

swapna wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

swapna wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

swapna wrote:
"a criterion," not "a criteria."

HTH, Ammachi:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/criteria wrote:
singular criteria is not uncommon in edited prose, and its use both in speech and writing seems to be increasing. Only time will tell whether it will reach the unquestioned acceptability of agenda.

apparently, the acceptability of "criteria" for "criterion" is questionable.

Apparently it is not uncommon, Ammachi.

I had not commented on how common it is, but only about its incorrectness and unacceptability, angel.

Hellsangel wrote:

swapna wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

swapna wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:
HTH, Ammachi:

apparently, the acceptability of "criteria" for "criterion" is questionable.

Apparently it is not uncommon, Ammachi.

I had not commented on how common it is, but only about its incorrectness and unacceptability, angel.

Unacceptable to you perhaps, Ammachi. And questionable to you. But used regardless. Deal with it.

swapna wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

swapna wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

swapna wrote:
apparently, the acceptability of "criteria" for "criterion" is questionable.

Apparently it is not uncommon, Ammachi.

I had not commented on how common it is, but only about its incorrectness and unacceptability, angel.

Unacceptable to you perhaps, Ammachi. And questionable to you. But used regardless. Deal with it.

according to webster, its acceptability is questioned by others too.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:I'm sure that quip makes you feel smart, but it only exposes your bias. not a word about islamic fundies and the legitimate fear concerning their ongoing immigration but focus on intelligence failures, republican party and nra...surprising you didnt work in trump, modi and chaddis into it somehow to complete the roundup of usual suspects.

Sure. Breastbeating limpwristedly and wailing about Islam - the religion of terror - and dubbing all muslims as terrorists is going to solve the problem. Why stop the free availability of guns when the bad guys are going to find some other means to kill us all anyway?

Trust wanker boy to inject sense and rationality into any discussion.

Hellsangel wrote:

swapna wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

swapna wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

Apparently it is not uncommon, Ammachi.

I had not commented on how common it is, but only about its incorrectness and unacceptability, angel.

Unacceptable to you perhaps, Ammachi. And questionable to you. But used regardless. Deal with it.

according to webster, its acceptability is questioned by others too.

And yet its usage is increasing. Get with the times, Ammachi.

swapna wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

swapna wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

swapna wrote:
I had not commented on how common it is, but only about its incorrectness and unacceptability, angel.

Unacceptable to you perhaps, Ammachi. And questionable to you. But used regardless. Deal with it.

according to webster, its acceptability is questioned by others too.

And yet its usage is increasing. Get with the times, Ammachi.

"usage is increasing" does not mean that "a large number or percentage of people are using It." if 10 people out of the 320 million people of the u.s. said "a criteria" in 2013, 18 used the phrase in 2014, and 20 did in 2015, usage is increasing, but it is negligible. moreover, the rate of increase is decreasing, and usage may attain an equilibrium at a still-low level.

regardless, it is typically incorrect american english. following the herd is a bad idea; so is using weak logic.

Hellsangel wrote:The charming father

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:The charming father

Must be Jerry Falwell's buddy. Funny how right wing loonies have such broad overlaps.

Propagandhi711 wrote:

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:I'm sure that quip makes you feel smart, but it only exposes your bias. not a word about islamic fundies and the legitimate fear concerning their ongoing immigration but focus on intelligence failures, republican party and nra...surprising you didnt work in trump, modi and chaddis into it somehow to complete the roundup of usual suspects.

Sure. Breastbeating limpwristedly and wailing about Islam - the religion of terror - and dubbing all muslims as terrorists is going to solve the problem. Why stop the free availability of guns when the bad guys are going to find some other means to kill us all anyway?

Trust wanker boy to inject sense and rationality into any discussion.

go suck on a bearded mullah penis in a backalley, midget.

Propagandhi711 wrote:

• The suspect was identified as Omar Mateen, a 29-year-old U.S. citizen whose family is believed to be from Afghanistan. Federal officials are investigating Mateen's possible ties to radical terror organizations.
  
  

https://www.yahoo.com/news/orlando-fla-ap-gunman-wielding-000000701.html

Hellsangel wrote:

swapna wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

swapna wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:
Unacceptable to you perhaps, Ammachi. And questionable to you. But used regardless. Deal with it.

according to webster, its acceptability is questioned by others too.

And yet its usage is increasing. Get with the times, Ammachi.

"usage is increasing" does not mean that "a large number or percentage of people are using It." if 10 people out of the 320 million people of the u.s. said "a criteria" in 2013, 18 used the phrase in 2014, and 20 did in 2015, usage is increasing, but it is negligible. moreover, the rate of increase is decreasing, and usage may attain an equilibrium at a still-low level.

regardless, it is typically incorrect american english. following the herd is a bad idea; so is using weak logic.

You live in the United States, Ammachi.

** I do, and I am indian, not american.

Yet you've never learned to spell 'color' or 'neighbor'.

** I choose to spell those words as 'colour' and 'neighbour.'

No one says agendum or datum anymore to specify singular usage.

** and everyone who knows and respects basic grammar and effective communication says "a criterion," not "a criteria."

No one will say criterion in a few years.

** no one who knows grammar says "a criteria" now. neither you nor I know whether people will say "criterion" in a few years; even webster doesn't.

You evolve or you stay a dinosaur.

** a dinosaur is an inappropriate analogy; it is extinct. the use of "a criterion" is alive and well. extinction is irrelevant here. what's relevant is that "a criteria" is plainly wrong.

** following irrational and inconsistent american language and spelling habits is moronic. I shall say more about those habits later; they are not as innocuous or sensible as you seem to think.

swapna wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

swapna wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

swapna wrote:
according to webster, its acceptability is questioned by others too.

And yet its usage is increasing. Get with the times, Ammachi.

"usage is increasing" does not mean that "a large number or percentage of people are using It." if 10 people out of the 320 million people of the u.s. said "a criteria" in 2013, 18 used the phrase in 2014, and 20 did in 2015, usage is increasing, but it is negligible. moreover, the rate of increase is decreasing, and usage may attain an equilibrium at a still-low level.

regardless, it is typically incorrect american english. following the herd is a bad idea; so is using weak logic.

You live in the United States, Ammachi.

** I do, and I am indian, not american.

Yet you've never learned to spell 'color' or 'neighbor'.

** I choose to spell those words as 'colour' and 'neighbour.'

No one says agendum or datum anymore to specify singular usage.

** and everyone who knows and respects basic grammar and effective communication says "a criterion," not "a criteria."

No one will say criterion in a few years.

** no one who knows grammar says "a criteria" now. neither you nor I know whether people will say "criterion" in a few years; even webster doesn't.

You evolve or you stay a dinosaur.

** a dinosaur is an inappropriate analogy; it is extinct. the use of "a criterion" is alive and well. extinction is irrelevant here. what's relevant is that "a criteria" is plainly wrong.

** following irrational and inconsistent american language and spelling habits is moronic. I shall say more about those habits later; they are not as innocuous or sensible as you seem to think.

** see ** above for my responses.