Andy9o8

That's irrelevant, because assigning that percentage to the sub-set of all Muslims who, in your words, "are jihadists committed to our demise" is using a figure that you pulled totally out of your ass. It's shit you made up, then you pulled it out of your ass, then you use it as "reasonable presumption." Which, of course, is pure bullshit. Virtually every religion earnestly indoctrinates its adherents, from early childhood, to dislike and distrust non-members. It's not even solely religious, it's more ethnic; for (just one) example, the considerable xenophobia that many Japanese, even to this day, feel toward "gaigin" (outsiders), particularly non-Asian ones. But even if people are trained to dislike others, that doesn't mean they want to kill them. Let me put this in terms you can understand. In the American pre-Civil Rights Act deep South, there were an awful lot of common-folk white people who, by virtue of intense social indoctrination and reinforcement, really disliked black people and deeply resented the civil rights movement. But I surely doubt that even one-half of 1 percent of Dixie white people were Klansmen committed to seeing them all lynched from the nearest tree.

Yes, he said that in 1964 while campaigning for election as President. He was lying, to increase his chances of getting elected, just as he lied about the Gulf of Tonkin "Incident" in 1964 to get blank-check Congressional approval to send troops to Vietnam. Indeed, in the Spring of 1965, just a few months after making that "pledge", he sent 25,000 "American boys" to Vietnam. In July of 1965 he sent over another 100,000. Later that year he authorized another 100,000 to be sent in 1966.

It was what I said it was.

Sigh. The point simply being, the opposite of what you presumed I was suggesting. In other words: some people are well-suited to long-term permanent relationships, while others are not, and of course there's everything in between that. That's not judgmental about any of those groups; there's nothing wrong with one or the other, it's simply what a personality is. But there's a natural bias in society toward physically attractive people, often expressed in utter amazement that Attractive Person X or Y is not attached. And I think that's based on a fallacious presumption that merited debunking.

Oh, I see. So Scientific American is more like... Scientific Canadian now.

There's an old saying "men's egos are large, but fragile." Getting rejected hurts, even if you were planning to reject the same person. Most of us secretly want every woman in the world to fancy us. Not logical, not sensible, but true. Doesn't excuse bad behaviour though. Bingo. Most men have far, far lower standards than women. Take Nataly for example: She's hot, smart, cute, has a good job, pretty, rides a motorcycle, hot, skydives (or at least used to), cute, good sense of humor, pretty, rides horses... And she's hot. What's not to fall for? Politics? Religion? Family choices? Personal values? Mental or emotional issues? Pfft. Who cares. If those get in the way later, we'll just leave. And break up via text or voice mail. And before you flame me, I'm kidding.... Kinda. I'm not saying this necessarily applies to anyone in this thread. But FWIW: At my college we had co-ed dorms. Roughly 50/50 men/women on each floor. I recall this one girl who lived on my floor. She was seriously, seriously hot. But she burned thru one (female) roommate after another, and there was a reason for that. And... surprise! - despite her hotness, she never seemed to have a steady boyfriend, either. She was the kind of girl who got hit on and went out on first dates tons of times (as you'd expect), got only a few second dates, and almost no third dates. I'll just leave that story out there.

Except for advice on orthopedic medicine, in which case DZ.com is usually the best source. Apparently.

I find that difficult to believe Professor. Do you know how much Disneyland costs? It's the second thing they do. They have to steal the good jobs first to make the money to pay for it. http://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/54944397.jpg

Right, that's more akin to Christian churches that sound church bells on Sunday that can be heard for miles around. You weaken your message when you cross the line into being ethnically judgmental.

You mean... there could be... a muslim politician!?!?!?!? Truly, the end times are coming All it takes is one... then one becomes two, then three, then eventually you get a majority and then they start to take over. What are you gonna do when the population tilts to a majority Muslim in a country that was founded on Christian principles? Thankfully it won't happen in my lifetime, or my children's lifetimes, but beyond that.... I know you're not really that paranoid and silly. Please stop pretending.

Then come up with a number that don't want to kill Americans. Muslims in america, to the nearest percent? 100% No, no; an exact number, or you're just a poser.

The Queen's English does. One should know that.

Sometimes neighborhood watch groups work well, but other times they go overboard (and unlawful) like this and should be reined back in. As I recall sometimes the Guardian Angels deserved (or at least received) similar criticism. At least LEO agencies do psych screening to weed-out the wack jobs. Yeah, right. Where's my sarcasm emoticon?

Actually, no I don't think that. I believe they are doing more continual damage by trying to maintain a unique identify as Muslims with activities such as this. Why, yes! For another example, the damage done to American values by annual St. Patrick's day parades and the like has been immeasurable.

See Post #3.

Not unlike, for example, the commonality of Catholics submitting to sub-group social pressure to seek ecumenical annulments as a means of "legitimizing" their divorce, or, conversely, the considerable pressure the clergy of the Catholic Church puts on their laity to force them to remain in broken marriages by often making annulments difficult, and in some cases, refusing them. By further example, also see, generally, Christian Ecclesiastical Courts.

I'm curious if there is a reason it has to be 'Texas Muslim Capitol Day.' Why not just 'Texas Capitol Day?' In Texas, every day is Christian Day. Grinds people's gears so much to give Muslims one lousy day?

This manner of ... ilk.... recently did similar shit in successfully threatening-down Duke University's plan to have a Muslim call to prayer emanate from its bell tower. This disgusting group of thugs and intimidators were led by "Reverend" Franklin Graham, the wanna-be son of Billy Graham, who generally promotes himself by claiming to speak on behalf of the teachings of Jesus Christ, fighting the good fight in defense of the "War against" the +/_80% of the American population who are born into Christian families. To Duke U's shame, they (mostly) acquiesced to the blackmail.

Yeah. What part of "They were lied to" do you not understand? Don't feel bad. LBJ did the same thing to us about the Gulf of Tonkin in Vietnam in '64. We believed him about that, too. How'd that work out for us?

Agreed. That said, you and I well remember when involuntary conscription of civilians into the military existed in the US. You'll also recall it ended in the 70's.

http://sassyology.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/blog12.png

No, I was referring to the set of people that have the mindset that they are better than everyone else. Skydivers? Theoretical physicists? Japanese? self important asshats Ah! The French.

Younger skydivers who die will tend to die from skydiving or other non-natural causes that are either higher-risk or are done in a higher-risk fashion. Older skydivers who live long enough will tend to die more of natural causes. When I was younger, I knew a lot of people who died of non-natural causes. Now that I'm middle-aged, more people I know who die, especially age contemporaries, do so of natural causes. I'm not sure this reveals anything all that ground-breaking.

No, I was referring to the set of people that have the mindset that they are better than everyone else. Skydivers? Theoretical physicists? Japanese?

Indeed. If a customer speaks to a rep who understands his language well and speaks it clearly and responsively, the customer is more likely to see it the complaint through, so there's a higher likelihood of remediation at company cost. But if the person at the call center is a recalcitrant zombie in Mumbai who can't follow what the customer is saying, is barely intelligible in the the customer's language and just repeats scripted talking points, many customers will just say Fuck It and go away. Thus: savings to company.