Coreeece

Here, a treat while you await a response: http://phorcys-static.ewg.org/Kwikeesystems/1415376072_20115/754918081988_CF___JPEG_3.JPG Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

The majority of arrests typically come from areas where there are a large number of cops. Large numbers of cops are typically found where there is a large number of crimes. Large numbers of crime are typically found in large cities. Large cities typically have densely populated areas. Those areas are typically densely populated with minorities. Those minorities are typically black. This however does not mean that black people have more of a propensity toward crime, nor does it mean that the cops are racist. It's just simple mathematics. Using recent Billvonian logic, I say we kill off 13% of minorities in large cities... Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

And I entered it to correct your wrongful correction with an example of why the application was correct. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Monday, December 28, 2015 Happy the in-laws finally fucking left, day - Jesus Christ. . . Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Merriam-Webster (a dictionary) says; Definition of sexism 1: prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially : discrimination against women 2: behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex Definition of sexist : based on or showing sexism Simple Definition of dictionary : a reference book that contains words listed in alphabetical order and that gives information about the words' meanings, forms, pronunciations, etc. Perhaps Mr. Trump could use one? Perhaps you've heard of the term "sexist pig." They often view the "social role" of women as being sex objects. Some even use their power to take advantage of young subordinates for sexual favors. I can't say it amazes me that liberals who often pose as defenders of "women rights" often give Bill a pass simply because they lack the ability to grasp the nature of his offense. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Ok, so to sum your overall case against Trump as seen on SC: -If you vote for Trump, we'll all regret it but lean a valuable lesson. (appeal to the future) -David Duke likes Trump. David Duke is Bad - Therefore Trump is Bad. (guilt by association - kinda sorta) -If you dare point out Bill's fallacious arguments against Donald Trump, you defend Donald Trump! Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Never understood why it's called Christmas. It seems like that would be a more approproate name for Easter. ...but ya, peace and happy new year. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Bah Humbug Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

He is not. Coreece is. It may seem that way to you, but I don't think that's the case for anyone. NPR is the one that made the meaningless comparison. I'm well aware of the United State's reluctance to haste toward an influx of Syrian refugees - and Canada is well aware that the liberals aren't going to make good on their promise to bring in 10,000 Syrians next week, nor the 25,000 by the end of February - so there's no reason to believe their promise of bringing in 50k by the end of 2016. If Canada is setting any example for America, it's that we can match their impossible per-capita nonsense and just say to hell with it - were gonna take in 100,000 Syrians by next Thursday and 250,000 refugees by the end of February just to get you people off our back - and then pile on the excuses when it never happens - and then promise to bring in 500,000 by the end of next year, along with more excuses - politics at it's finest. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

I don't doubt your intention - it was NPR's comparison that rubbed me the wrong way. Had they had left it out, I probably would've just questioned if Canada is ready to handle the influx and double their refugee count - which apparently they are not, given their inability to make good on their promises to refugees so far - it all just seems like a bunch of liberal fanfare. Also, with all the focus on Syria, where does that leave all the others seeking refuge from around the world? With the U.S increasing their refugee quota by a practical 30k this fiscal year, perhaps there is an opportunity to pick up those refugees that may be placed on the back burner. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Where we lack in Syrian refugees, we make up with a variety of 70,000 other needy refugees around the world that also need our help, along with about 1,000,000 new immigrants each year and 3-4 Billion Dollars of aid to Syrian refugees. ...but no, that's not my point, what's yours? Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

If NPR wanted to compare Canada to the US, then why not just keep the comparison consistent? Why not just compare the number of US refugees in the last year to the number of Canadian refugees in the last year? If all they wanted to do was circle jerk Canada, they why make the comparison at all? Seriously, why did NPR make the comparison that they did if not to take a jab at the US in an overt attempt to sway public opinion with a bunch of bullshit? Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Ya, but wtf difference would it make, both countries have taken in about the same number refugees - especially in the last year. What would make a difference is if Canada gets 8000 more refugees by the end of the year like they promised...or the 25,000 by the end of February - but they won't, it's all bullshit - so now they're saying they'll have 60,000 by the end of next year - more bullshit, lol. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Well thanks, but it didn't take much skill to see that the US had accepted 2547 syrian refugees in the last 5 years - NPR already told us that number, remember? However, since they didn't keep a consistent comparison, I had to dig for the Canadian refugee number myself - approx. 2,987 according to the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada and CIC. I wish I could get an exact number for you, but apparently Canadian record keeping/transparency/technology does not seem up to par with the US state department's. I hope that doesn't get in the way of the 8000 more refugees they promised by the end of the week, lol. So to sum it up: My Manipulative Comparisons Syrian Refugees In The Last 5 Years United States - 2547 Canada - 2987 Syrian Refugees In The Last Year United States - 2192 Canada - 2130 NPR's Manipulative Comparisons Syrian Refugees In The Last 5 Years United States - 2547 Syrian Refugees Since Last Month Canada - 1608 Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

So what you're saying is the USA has 9 times the population of Canada and takes in only 3.5 times as many refugees. Certainly there are other factors to include other than mere population, like economic and social issues, GDP per capita, population density, immigration, etc. At what point does population begin to limit the number of people a country can take in? Is taking in 300,000 refugees a year just as sustainable as taking in a modest 100,000 a year? What is best in the long term? How many more refugees should the U.S take in? What could ever make you people happy? Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

How did I manipulate any numbers? Where did the State department compare last months spike in Canadian refugees to the total number of U.S refugees over the last 5 years as if it actually meant something? Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Again, here's the part of the article in question: It's a manipulative comparison that appeals to their bias. NPR is basically saying "hey look everyone, Canada has taken in almost as many Syrian refuges in the last month that the U.S has taken in since 2011" - but if you apply an equal standard, there really isn't a significant difference in the amount of Syrian refugees accepted by either country in the last 5 years. According to numbers from CIC, it appears that overall, the U.S takes in about 50,000 more refugees than Canada every year, so I find it laughable that NPR is trying to portray Canada as if they're setting some type of example for the U.S. So far Canada has been all talk - They only have around 3000 of the 25,000 refugees they promised to take in by the end of February - now they'll have you believe that they're gonna take in 50,000 by the end of 2016, lol - crazy canuks. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

I'm just asking for an equal comparison without manipulating the stats just to take a jab at the U.S - perhaps you should try it sometime in lieu of you vain attempts at getting under people's skin. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

The third paragraph is clearly biased - no assumption needed. If the article was centered then it would've made an equal comparison by showing how many syrian refugees both countries have accepted in the last 5 years, just as they did with the U.S - but then that wouldn't have effectively conveyed their bias, would it? Then they could've left out the third paragraph altogether. Besides, the U.S has consistently taken in about 70,000 refugees a year for the past 40+ years - we fair pretty well without Canada's example. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

I beg to differ. It's offensive to a portion of humanity. A larger portion is not offended by it. You don't find late term abortion offensive? Even many of those who are pro-choice find it offensive, yet we still allow 2000+ a year in this country. Ah yes....The infamous movable goal post. Cheater. It's all apart of the discussion. I don't see you throwing a flag when people bring up abortions in cases of incest and rape. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

It's biased... If all things are really considered, than you have to make an equal comparison. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Good for Canada, I'm proud of you guys. (golf clap) However, I'm sorry you can't see passed the bias of NPR in it's shitty comparison of Canada to the U.S. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

I beg to differ. It's offensive to a portion of humanity. A larger portion is not offended by it. You don't find late term abortion offensive? Even many of those who are pro-choice find it offensive, yet we still allow 2000+ a year in this country. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

I stopped reading after the third paragraph: Lol, wtf is that? A biased POS article. Pffft, NPR: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQSO0RbmHBI Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Well, I suppose if you're gonna lump them in with murderers, it's only fair that they get to lump you into whatever characterization they see fit - tho I'd say that calling them murderers is probably more accurate than calling you an over zealous religious nutcase. Personally, if someone is gonna call me a nutcase just because I find abortion offensive, then perhaps their mental state is the one that should be called into question. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour