Lost

Memorial Stadium

What's next? Will some Presidential candidate suggest we should block everyone of a certain religion from coming into the US?

Cornographic: You just violated stipulation #2. "Just because we can't eliminate 100% of any given crime doesn't mean we can't reduce the problem. DUI and Crack Cocaine use were sited earlier." We lowered DUI deaths by 50% without taking away anyone's cars. Shouldn't we try to reduce gun deaths without taking away anyone's guns?

Ok. However, the first child to die from a gunshot after Sandy Hook was the kid who found his uncle's gun as he played while the parents wrapped presents downstairs. The gun owner, the uncle was an Oklahoma State Trooper. Well trained. Well practiced. Made a fatal error.

To have a meaningful discussion on this topic, I think all parties need too agree on three key stipulation. 1. Nobody is going to come and take away your guns. 2. Just because we can't eliminate 100% of any given crime doesn't mean we can't reduce the problem. DUI and Crack Cocaine use were sited earlier. 3. Focusing only on a certain gun type (hand guns, assault rifles) sends us down a rabbit hole and leads to ineffective band aide solutions. Any objections?

So in 14 years, there have been 27 attacks and 9 were done by radical Muslims and you don't see a problem with that? 1/3 of all attacks carreid out by members of a group which at most represents about 1% of the popution. Of course you are not counting all the foiled attacks. Obviously the latest Muslim radical attack in California just yesterday where 27 more people shot. FBI and Cops find bombs, remote control mobil explosive devices, attack weaponry and ammo and gear, vests, etc. Recent travels to the middle east, etc, etc. etc. FBI has already arrested 71 of the known terrorists of at least 200 inside the USA right now. Thousands more trying to come in with the radicals of Syria (known as refugee-hadists). We have had 11 of these guys arrested up here in the twin cities in just the past 12 months. We know many more attacks would have occured if not prevented by the good detective work. A population of 350 million will produce a small number of nut cases anyway. But doubling and tripling the historical numbers of radicals who profess to belief in terror, murder and etc as part of their religion. You see no problem with this? Yes. I have a problem all 26 of the attacks: 7 of which were done by Muslim while most the others are done by supremacist/anti government fanatics. 74% of sheriff and police departments nationwide say that one of the 3 the greatest extreme violence threat comes from 'anti government' wackos while only 39% say it's extreme Muslims. Who suggested the Syrian refugees would double or triple the number of radicals? More facts: Since 9/11, there have been 785,000 refugees admitted to the US. About .001% have been arrested or removed for terrorism concerns. None of them Syrian. The UN has referred 23,000 Syrian refugees to the US. Only 7000 got interviews outside the US. Only 2165 were allowed to come to the US. All 19 of the 9/11 terrorists came to the US via our visa wavier program. None of them where refugees. In fact, they only thing stopping all but 2 of the Paris terrorist from coming to the US was buying a plane ticket. If they had try to by a ticket, they would not have been flagged and would be in the US right now. Our visa wavier program poses a MUCH great risk but I don't hear any calls to halt that until a better screening tool can be found.

This goes against what the left is saying. Statements like "these people are not true Muslims" serve no purpose. They say they are Muslim so why do we feel the need to challenge what they believe? The first thing an organization will do when there is any affiliation with something negative is issue a statement and distance themselves. Obviously, a religion that has a Billion vs a clown not serving a cop at Arby's are vastly different in scope. Given the severity of issues associated with Muslims, is it really that out of line for a large scale denouncement with some action? This goes against what the left is saying. Statements like "these people are not true Muslims" serve no purpose. They say they are Muslim so why do we feel the need to challenge what they believe? The first thing an organization will do when there is any affiliation with something negative is issue a statement and distance themselves. Obviously, a religion that has a Billion vs a clown not serving a cop at Arby's are vastly different in scope. Given the severity of issues associated with Muslims, is it really that out of line for a large scale denouncement with some action? "They said they are Christians so why do we feel the need to challenge what they believe"? Does that door swing both ways? Which is a greater threat to the safety of Americans, Muslim immigrants or people here on a work visa? Be careful how you answer. We have 20+ years of data.

Is it ok to use the term xenophobic? They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Ben Franklin Here is a report from June of 2014 that says that since 9/11, there were 19 deadly attacks by non-Muslim extremist compared to 9 by Islamic militants. The death toll was 48-26. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/25/us/tally-of-attacks-in-us-challenges-perceptions-of-top-terror-threat.html The updated figures will show the trend continuing.

I thought Ameer did well in the debates. I'd vote for him.

If Bo had added Scott Frost to his staff, Bo would have quickly become less popular than his OC and the calls for a promotion for Scott would have never stopped. It would take a confident HC to hare such a popular native son as his OC.

If anyone deserves the credit beyond the players who did the work, it would have to be Ursula Walsh. http://www.nytimes.com/1983/12/31/sports/scouting-146236.html

I want to understand the really important part of this story. If you have a fiance, are you married or single? Thanks.