I see you posted a pic. But I can't see it so I assume it's a picture of you and me with a heart and a unicorn.
Love brother. Much love.
- 1
I see you posted a pic. But I can't see it so I assume it's a picture of you and me with a heart and a unicorn.
Suck my tiny Jewish dick you powerless, feckless piece of trash. You have no power here.
Says the dude that licks Bagel Yeast nightly on command. Now be a good doggie and go back to acting like you matter somewhere where you can actually do something.Impotent Bagel Eater rage is the topic of this thread.
Thank you for your compliance citizen.
You have it wrong from the outset.Screamfeeder DickTrickle
So I wanna get this right, are you two mocking the fact that I don't consume and believe news sources without researching them a little?
Terrorist Ideology | Terrorism Deaths per Ideology | Annual Chance of Being Murdered |
Islamist | 3,085 | 1 in 2,462,626 |
Nationalist and Right Wing | 219 | 1 in 34,685,286 |
Left Wing | 23 | 1 in 330,264,250 |
Unknown/Other | 15 | 1 in 506,405,183 |
Total | 3,342 | 1 in 2,272,914 |
You said "those sources are bad".
I said "Even if you disagree with the source, the data can still be correct, which says you were factually incorrect."
You said, "No! Give me a source that aligns with my political ideology on why I am wrong!"
I said "That's silly"
You said "I deep dive into my sources!"
I asked for an example.
You said "I really dive SUPER deep into them"
I again asked for an example of any source that provides factual data that your statement was correct and to provide evidence.
Honestly I just read or consume multiple sides, typically Twitter to find a starting point and then branch from there. USUALLY I'm not lookign for deep information unless it is a new law so I'm mainly looking for conformation.
That basically looks as simple as it sounds, if the claim is reasonable and both sides are talking about it from the side of their talking point, the topic may likely be true.
If I am looking up laws, I read the actual laws, if i can find them.
If i am looking up he-said she-said, Twitter-MSM..whatever.
If I'm looking up statistics, I try and find a source that is related to the statistic. (this one is getting harder since now states and other sources are omitting some data because of pressure from political groups.)
I again asked for an example of any source that provides factual data that your statement was correct and to provide evidence.
Literally the left has been doing political violence for 5-6 years now domestically. Attacking rallies, attacking Trump supporters in the streets, all fueled on this rhetoric from Mainstream News and their elected officials that tell them Trump and his cronies are evil.
Annual Chance of Dying in a Terrorist Attack by Ideology of Perpetrator, 1992–2017
Annual Chance of Dying in a Terrorist Attack by Ideology of Perpetrator, 1992–2017
Yeah bud that's just...wrong.mcveigh was left wing not right
Uhhh yeah.So wait...they are considering Timothy McVeigh right wing?
Because he held right wing beliefs and ideology. Are you retards really trying to say that Timothy fu king McVeigh WASN'T a right wing terrorist? Have we honestly gone that far?because?
Because he held right wing beliefs and ideology. Are you retards really trying to say that Timothy fu king McVeigh WASN'T a right wing terrorist? Have we honestly gone that far?
Right wing isnt a party. Neither is left wing. McVeigh had ALWAYS been associated with the fringe right militia movement...always.You are gunna have to walk me thru this, you and I are ROUGHLY the same age and you are the first person that I ever heard associate a party with McVeighy.
When you linked the numbers I was legit thinking, "Okay, abortion killings (meaning of staff and doctors) and racist attacks that ended in a death" not a bombing of a federal building.
Right wing isnt a party. Neither is left wing. McVeigh had ALWAYS been associated with the fringe right militia movement...always.