You're amalgamating two quite separate things: terrorism and crime. The latter has everything to do with lack of education (including basic civic behaviour sometimes), of money, and/or is a result of immigration with purely criminal intent (yes, that exists too). The former, however, needs only nationalistic or, in this case, religious ideology to be its fuel. Most (if not all) recent Islamist terrorists have come from middle-to-upper class families, have usually been well educated and had no "criminal gain" (i.e. $$) to be made from their actions.

>> ^Smugglarn:

You make the same mistake as the media in Sweden and Norway; labeling all immigrants and refugees as "foreigners". The problem with terrorism, crime, rape etc is fairly specific to different ethnic and religious groups of refugees: Somalis, Iraqis, Albanians etc. Not all of them, but they are dramatically over represented. I happen to know a an MP that is of Iraqi descent, but she is an atheist and I would guess from, if not upper class, then upper middle class. So that would be dominating factors, but knowing that - importing violent, uneducated fanatics?
The right wants cheap labour. The left wants votes to bring down the right. The middle and lower classes lose - including a lot of immigrants that have done nothing but being well mannered citizens of a secular democracy.
Oh, and do not think for a minute integrated immigrants feel sympathetic with the criminal element. Only left wing stooges do that - often in the media.
>> ^Yogi:
So now foreigners can't even be trusted in countries because they have bombs and they're there to blow up people? Even if it turns out to be a foreigner how the fuck do you two explain all the foreigners that day who DIDN'T blow anything up? The country is full of fucking morons and only a very select few of them post here, remember sifters there's tons of motherfuckers who actually think like this.
Also why does anything even genuine sentiment on Twitter sounds like you're being an asshole?
"I fear that many 100s could be dead. Poor poor poor guard that worked in the first floor. ,"

You make the same mistake as the media in Sweden and Norway; labeling all immigrants and refugees as "foreigners". The problem with terrorism, crime, rape etc is fairly specific to different ethnic and religious groups of refugees: Somalis, Iraqis, Albanians etc. Not all of them, but they are dramatically over represented. I happen to know a an MP that is of Iraqi descent, but she is an atheist and I would guess from, if not upper class, then upper middle class. So that would be dominating factors, but knowing that - importing violent, uneducated fanatics?

The right wants cheap labour. The left wants votes to bring down the right. The middle and lower classes lose - including a lot of immigrants that have done nothing but being well mannered citizens of a secular democracy.

Oh, and do not think for a minute integrated immigrants feel sympathetic with the criminal element. Only left wing stooges do that - often in the media.

>> ^Yogi:

So now foreigners can't even be trusted in countries because they have bombs and they're there to blow up people? Even if it turns out to be a foreigner how the fuck do you two explain all the foreigners that day who DIDN'T blow anything up? The country is full of fucking morons and only a very select few of them post here, remember sifters there's tons of motherfuckers who actually think like this.
Also why does anything even genuine sentiment on Twitter sounds like you're being an asshole?
"I fear that many 100s could be dead. Poor poor poor guard that worked in the first floor. ,"

>> ^marinara:

good job corporate idiots. TY OBama


er.. i don't think it was Obama loaded the supreme court with corporate stooges..

>> ^MarineGunrock:

Yeah: "He who warned the British that they [the British] weren't going to be taking away our arms..."
Or: "Paul Revere, who warned the British that they weren't going to be taking away our arms."
What is so difficult about this? Why did you quote me and repeat that quote? What are you trying to accomplish?

>> ^marbles:
>> ^MarineGunrock:
No, I think she actually meant that she warned the British that they wouldn't be taking our guns. Notice how she never utters the phrase "are coming"?>> ^marbles:
@MarineGunrock
Like how it's painfully clear Obama's a pompous stooge whenever he's talking without his teleprompter?
Of course it's a failure to articulate. Like you have a failure to think critically--so you actually believe she meant: Revere warned the British that the British were coming to take our arms?


"He who, warned uh, tha, [pause] the British that they [the British] weren't going to be taking away our arms..."



"What is so difficult [pause] about this? [pause] Why did you quote me [pause] and repeat that quote? [pause] What are you [pause] trying to accomplish?"

Yeah: "He who warned the British that they [the British] weren't going to be taking away our arms..."
Or: "Paul Revere, who warned the British that they weren't going to be taking away our arms."
What is so difficult about this? Why did you quote me and repeat that quote? What are you trying to accomplish?


>> ^marbles:

>> ^MarineGunrock:
No, I think she actually meant that she warned the British that they wouldn't be taking our guns. Notice how she never utters the phrase "are coming"?>> ^marbles:
@MarineGunrock
Like how it's painfully clear Obama's a pompous stooge whenever he's talking without his teleprompter?
Of course it's a failure to articulate. Like you have a failure to think critically--so you actually believe she meant: Revere warned the British that the British were coming to take our arms?


"He who, warned uh, tha, [pause] the British that they [the British] weren't going to be taking away our arms..."

>> ^MarineGunrock:

No, I think she actually meant that she warned the British that they wouldn't be taking our guns. Notice how she never utters the phrase "are coming"?>> ^marbles:
@MarineGunrock
Like how it's painfully clear Obama's a pompous stooge whenever he's talking without his teleprompter?
Of course it's a failure to articulate. Like you have a failure to think critically--so you actually believe she meant: Revere warned the British that the British were coming to take our arms?



"He who, warned uh, tha, [pause] the British that they [the British] weren't going to be taking away our arms..."

No, I think she actually meant that she warned the British that they wouldn't be taking our guns. Notice how she never utters the phrase "are coming"?>> ^marbles:

@MarineGunrock
Like how it's painfully clear Obama's a pompous stooge whenever he's talking without his teleprompter?
Of course it's a failure to articulate. Like you have a failure to think critically--so you actually believe she meant: Revere warned the British that the British were coming to take our arms?

@MarineGunrock

Like how it's painfully clear Obama's a pompous stooge whenever he's talking without his teleprompter?

Of course it's a failure to articulate. Like you have a failure to think critically--so you actually believe she meant: Revere warned the British that the British were coming to take our arms?

>> ^antonye:
She appears to be a stooge, but a great trick none the less.


You think all that fit inside that box? Of course she's a plant. You can see the little critters moving around inside beforehand too.

She appears to be a stooge, but a great trick none the less.

>> ^csnel3:

I really liked the video, Especialy the old "monkey wrench thru the top of the skull" gag. The song was absolute shit though. This needs a remix with some Fred Flinstone , Three stooges sound effects, and the music from "Knight Rider" . I'll show this version to everybody at work, but the sound will be kept down.


LoL; Yakety Sax

I really liked the video, Especialy the old "monkey wrench thru the top of the skull" gag. The song was absolute shit though. This needs a remix with some Fred Flinstone , Three stooges sound effects, and the music from "Knight Rider" . I'll show this version to everybody at work, but the sound will be kept down.

Canadian Government matches so I made a $500 donation a month or so ago via Oxfam... take that government stooges!

The weirdest part is I'm an atheist so I'm not sure where I get my morals from...

I'm going easy on THE QUEEN.

She's as ridiculous as a guy eating a double cheeseburger leaning over and chastising someone else for putting salad dressing on her salad.

There are so many radical subversive stooges in the ranks of the taxocrats (and DC) it would be a full-time job tracking them all. Fortunately it will be a little easier after November.

Don't they still have to answer to stock holders? I mean, the "books" would have to mention something about donations to "XYZ" foundation right? The idea itself seems kind of silly to me; like asking the CEO of old spice have to pop on the end of every commercial of side brands they own. Or like Ford's CEO having to come on at the end of a Mazda commercial and say, hey look, we own this really. With the internet especially, we have the power investigate things like this to a level unknown to man. I am all for holding large corporate interests at an arms length from manipulation capital hill, but a tap dance at the end of a commercial seems a bit much. And ultimately, it could undermine private donation anonymity which I consider a very dangerous road to travel. I still hold that we need to investigate if we want corporate charters to exist in the way they exist currently, as the seem to offer to much protection of liability from risk, but that is a subject of a different conversation.

O ya, and if anyone thinks that Demos are any less corporate stooges then Rep, then they are pretty fool hearty. You can bet your hindquarters pet sponsors of Dems will have some kind of exemption or get to write the rules, just like Goldman got to sentence their former competitor to bankruptcy and then purchased all their assets.