CanucksCorner.com Forums

Per wrote:For those of us who were alive in the 1970's, what is truly astonishing is how safe London has become since the heyday of the IRA...

I lived in London during that time. You are right. There were signs about bombs everywhere and they actually killed Mountbatten and almost got Thatcher. The media makes out like it is the end of the world.

Strangelove wrote:

Per wrote:

Topper wrote: How is he corrupt?

Oh, let me count the ways.....

Apart from having foreign governments renting office space from him in the USA, which is in breach of the US consitution

Wrong.

Per wrote: blatant nepotism in appointing family members to government office

He did nothing wrong here.

Per wrote: trying to obstruct justice by asking the FBI director to lay off the investigation into those pesky Russian ties

Falsehood.

Per wrote: , then firing him when he refused to obey

See what I mean about lefties running with accusations, innuendo, and raw emotion!

They've all gone nuts!

... even the once-sane Per.

How is he corrupt? He is in the real estate game in NYC. That should be enough. Its the American equivalent of pouring concrete at Olympic Stadium in Montreal. It just comes with the territory.

Strangelove wrote:

Per wrote:

Topper wrote: How is he corrupt?

Oh, let me count the ways.....

Apart from having foreign governments renting office space from him in the USA, which is in breach of the US consitution

Wrong.

Nope.

https://sidebarsblog.com/the-emoluments ... ent-trump/

Strangelove wrote:

Per wrote: blatant nepotism in appointing family members to government office

covfefe

Per wrote: trying to obstruct justice by asking the FBI director to lay off the investigation into those pesky Russian ties

covfefe

Per wrote: , then firing him when he refused to obey

Covfefe!

So, in conclusion, you are not refuting the mob ties?

Looks like a hung parliament in the UK, but they're not done counting yet.

At least they had the sense to not elect a single Ukiper!

Per wrote:

Strangelove wrote:

Per wrote:

Topper wrote: How is he corrupt?

Oh, let me count the ways.....

Apart from having foreign governments renting office space from him in the USA, which is in breach of the US consitution

Wrong.

Nope.

https://sidebarsblog.com/the-emoluments ... ent-trump/

"Opinions are like assholes..."

As i say, the left is running with unsubstantiated accusations, hearsay, and innuendo.

How 'bout we wait until after this (frivolous, political) lawsuit filed by lawyer friends of Hillary:

https://www.ft.com/content/231579ce-e16 ... 5580d6e5fb

I'd say it's very obvious the lawsuit will fail, it's a ruse and nothing more.

Trump's lawyers (best in the world) set things up this way after much consideration.

No way did Trump need to sell his hotels just because he became President.

And he is not personally profiting from "foreign governments renting office space".

If you read the details you would know, but sadly you're caught up in this illogical emo frenzy.

Who needs proof/truth/logic when you're running with raw emotion amirite?

Sad.

damonberryman wrote:

Per wrote:For those of us who were alive in the 1970's, what is truly astonishing is how safe London has become since the heyday of the IRA...

I lived in London during that time. You are right. There were signs about bombs everywhere and they actually killed Mountbatten and almost got Thatcher. The media makes out like it is the end of the world.

Yeahno that graph is complete and utter bullshit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... at_Britain

In the first 5.1 months of 2017 there have been 36 deaths from terrorism in the UK.

That is an 86-deaths-per-year pace.

Pretty sure that is the worst in UK history other than 1988

(just one single attack in 1988 - Pan Am Flight 103 = 270 deaths)

Seriously Per, can you double-check the accuracy of your graphs before posting them?

We should be using graphs in an effort to get at the truth, this graph accomplishes the opposite.

Thought you were going to stay out of this thread Damon?

Strangelove wrote:

Per wrote:

Strangelove wrote:

Per wrote:

Topper wrote: How is he corrupt?

Oh, let me count the ways.....

Apart from having foreign governments renting office space from him in the USA, which is in breach of the US consitution

Wrong.

Nope.

https://sidebarsblog.com/the-emoluments ... ent-trump/

"Opinions are like assholes..."

As i say, the left is running with unsubstantiated accusations, hearsay, and innuendo.

How 'bout we wait until after this (frivolous, political) lawsuit filed by lawyer friends of Hillary:

https://www.ft.com/content/231579ce-e16 ... 5580d6e5fb

I'd say it's very obvious the lawsuit will fail, it's a ruse and nothing more.

Trump's lawyers (best in the world) set things up this way after much consideration.

No way did Trump need to sell his hotels just because he became President.

And he is not personally profiting from "foreign governments renting office space".

If you read the details you would know, but sadly you're caught up in this illogical emo frenzy.

Who needs proof/truth/logic when you're running with raw emotion amirite?

Sad.

Well, all previous presidents of the USA have recognised it as a conflict of interest and placed their holdings in a blind trust during their presidency.

But of course Donald Trump figured the rules don't apply to him...

Strangelove wrote:

damonberryman wrote:

Per wrote:For those of us who were alive in the 1970's, what is truly astonishing is how safe London has become since the heyday of the IRA...

I lived in London during that time. You are right. There were signs about bombs everywhere and they actually killed Mountbatten and almost got Thatcher. The media makes out like it is the end of the world.

Yeahno that graph is complete and utter bullshit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... at_Britain

In the first 5.1 months of 2017 there have been 36 deaths from terrorism in the UK.

That is an 86-deaths-per-year pace.

Pretty sure that is the worst in UK history other than 1988

(just one single attack in 1988 - Pan Am Flight 103 = 270 deaths)

Seriously Per, can you double-check the accuracy of your graphs before posting them?

We should be using graphs in an effort to get at the truth, this graph accomplishes the opposite.

Thought you were going to stay out of this thread Damon?

Nah, the list you look at should be renamed "List of MAJOR terrorist incidents". Over the 45 years that span 1970-2015, there were a total of 1679 acts of terrorism in the UK with at least one casualty. Back in the 1970's bombs were going off every week, and especially on Northern Ireland. There were lots of knife or gun attacks as well, often claiming just the odd victim. But together they add up. In the mid seventies there was a five year period with at least 200 casualties per year from terrorism in the UK.

Your list only shows a handful of the major attacks.

Here is a different graph, from the Washington Post, showing casualties per month in the UK over that 45 year period:



As you can see it goes from a constant red back in the 1970's, hardly a month without casualties, to nearly complete calm, with the odd greater pillar when you get closer to the present. (the grey bars are the totals for Europe, and in recent years most attacks have occurred in Eastern Europe, outside the EU, and particularly in Russia.)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics ... in-europe/

Yeah... I don't know how to make the pics fit the page width. h4ck3r 5k1ll2, anyone?

Seriously, doc, you don't remember the 70's?
Too much drugs? Or are you that much younger than I thought?

Here's another, that separates the deaths caused by islamistic/jihadist groups and those caused by other terrorists:



Ha! I even managed to adjust the size of this one, as it had the settings right there in the address!

http://www.datagraver.com/case/people-k ... -1970-2015

*the 2017 bar is only until mid-May, so it does not include the last two assaults in Britain.

OMG WE'RE ALL DOOMED™

or.... maybe it's just fun for us to think we're going to die in some blaze of glory rather than the many, many other (preventable to a point) dull reasons that will actually get us.



Rather than worry if we have a .00001% or .00002% chance of dying in a terrorist attack (or winning the lottery), why doesn't government (and this is a thread about elections and government, right?) concentrate on things that might actually effect us? In the meantime, they can consider other ways to deal with power hungry idiots hiding behind religion (terrorists) rather than bombing them and giving them free (if you don't count dead people) publicity and PR?

Per can have all the graphs in the world and like mine, some might even fit in the page - but Doc will still find something wrong with them. Meanwhile, Doc's hero has no clue about what do about power hungry idiots hiding behind religion.

I am much more concerned with why the government doesn't allow better food labeling (country of origin for a start) and net neutrality than whether vetting, extreme vetting or double secret probation vetting is the answer. It's just another issue to divide people.

Never mind everything else...wtf is up with the 2 million plus diarrhea deaths lol...taco bell?

Uncle dans leg wrote:Never mind everything else...wtf is up with the 2 million plus diarrhea deaths lol...taco bell?

I was wondering who was going to catch that... I think the numbers include Taco Bell and Chipolte.

rats19 wrote:

ukcanuck wrote:To

Doc

Stupid is as stupid does


Stupidity is a more dangerous enemy of the good than malice. One may protest against evil; it can be exposed and, if need be, prevented by use of force. Evil always carries within itself the germ of its own subversion in that it leaves behind in human beings at least a sense of unease. Against stupidity we are defenseless; reasons fall on deaf ears; facts that contradict one’s prejudgement simply need not be believed–in such moments the stupid person even becomes critical–and when facts are irrefutable they are just pushed aside as inconsequential, as incidental. In all this the stupid person, in contrast to the malicious one, is utterly self-satisfied and, being easily irritated, becomes dangerous by going on the attack. (Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Letters & Papers from Prison,

Thnx UK, that's the best description of current liberal mind set I have ever heard

Lol. Its not exactly what I had In mind Rats


but it is a great quote even when you twist it

Cornuck wrote:OMG WE'RE ALL DOOMED™

or.... maybe it's just fun for us to think we're going to die in some blaze of glory rather than the many, many other (preventable to a point) dull reasons that will actually get us.



Rather than worry if we have a .00001% or .00002% chance of dying in a terrorist attack (or winning the lottery), why doesn't government (and this is a thread about elections and government, right?) concentrate on things that might actually effect us? In the meantime, they can consider other ways to deal with power hungry idiots hiding behind religion (terrorists) rather than bombing them and giving them free (if you don't count dead people) publicity and PR?

Per can have all the graphs in the world and like mine, some might even fit in the page - but Doc will still find something wrong with them. Meanwhile, Doc's hero has no clue about what do about power hungry idiots hiding behind religion.

I am much more concerned with why the government doesn't allow better food labeling (country of origin for a start) and net neutrality than whether vetting, extreme vetting or double secret probation vetting is the answer. It's just another issue to divide people.

Well, of course all food must be labelled with country of origin! That's the law.
Albeit for some reason they don't demand it on restaurant menues.

Btw, in America toddlers with guns kill twice as many people as terrorists do.
So instead of worrying about immigrants, Trump should focus on deporting toddlers.



http://www.euronews.com/2017/01/31/arme ... terrorists