Gene Frenkle

I'm talking about the motives behind the attacks (but you know that). What you say is true, but there are certainly examples of Christian organizations who are/have been devoted to violence against doctors/abortion clinics. Islamic terrorism is certainly a much larger problem today.

It's interesting that a thread about Trump turns into an Obama and Hillary bashing party from the right. Nobody wants to support this GOP front-runner? I see a lot of bitching with no solutions, as per usual.

Some of the responses here lead me to believe that many of you would support an actual elephant if it won the GOP Primary. Also, in before: "Babar would be better than Obama!"

I'd just like to throw this out there one more time. Please forgive the redundancy, which is actually a funny thing to say, considering the venue... Does anyone here see a fundamental difference between this attack and the Planned Parenthood attack?

All you're doing is pointing fingers and saying how wrong and unreasonable the "other" side is without any inward reflection. This is the problem. I agree with your points about the Liberal position. For example, why does the NRA/GOP oppose the funding of actual scientific research into solutions to the problem? Does that not seem like a reasonable thing to do if most reasonable people see that a problem exists? Your "side" appears to have as much of an agenda as anyone. Again, I agree with much of what you're saying, but it's an all-or-nothing approach with inconclusive evidence and little or no compromise. In other words, it's a very convenient argument based on your beliefs.

Will do!

I'm looking for an alternative to Hillary, jackass. Believe it or not, some of us have a vote that is not indiscriminately pre-decided along party lines.

It feels to me like too many people on both sides are dug in to their position, with no room for rationality. The GOP blocks government funding for studies into the effectiveness of various proposed measures, while Democrats pander to raw emotions after each such incident. Even if potentially effective measures are coceived of, people will still reject implementation based on ideology. We're going about this the wrong way, but what else is new...

It's unbelievable to me. At this point, we deserve deserve what we get.

Note, I did not propose that stricter gun laws or increased background checks would help solve the problem. I'm asking what it would take for you all to change your position.

Are you people serious with this? Are you really so anxious to see another Clinton in the White House? Idiocracy, indeed. http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/04/politics/donald-trump-poll-cnn-orc-national/index.html

Out of curiosity, what would it take for all of you gun enthusiasts and freedom defenders to concede that increased background checks and stricter gun laws are needed? Serious question.

Which one is that? Everyone is an atheist. Most just hedge that statement with a single exception. Since when do you base your opinion on what Obama thinks? Is there a difference between this attack and the Planned Parenthood attack in your mind? The appropriateness of having these two incidents discussed in the same thread is overwhelming.

Crazy religious fanatics at it again.

Because you either have to want to turn the Middle East into a glass parking lot or you're pro-Islamic terrorism. Get it? Nuance is for suckers!

They don't exactly seem too hung up on following the actual "word of god". They usually just like to hold the book in their hand for pictures. * Note: this is not based on actual statistics, just what the media tells me *

It would just be a lot funnier if it were a solar harvesting plant. Everybody's a critic, right?

Well, that's certainly true. Fanatics do generally drive fanatical terrorism.

It's a Franklinian thing, actually. They worship kites, which is weird. The major trigger for "going postal" (a very un-PC term, btw) is said to be dogs, which is god backwards, but only in the singular. True story. I hadn't heard of him, but he obviously has a great name, so I like him without even reading past the title. Most great men in history have been folically challenged, while most serial killers traditionally have lots of hair. Nobody really wants that and I hate to disturb the perfect echo, except occasionally. It's generally quite beautiful and uniform. As God intended.

Well I don't know what I don't know...so please enlighten me. What is the leading driver of fanatical terrorism in the world today? In your opinion.

Lol, you never disappoint... I failed to mention Obama, Pol Pot and of course Greenpeace, but thought I covered the Commies with the Stalin shout-out. If I had some hair, I'd probably be a much happier person, but that goes without saying. Also, I'd probably be happier if I spent less time lurking in the echo chamber.

As in they'd all be doing the same stuff in the name of some other ridiculous cause if it didn't happen to be religion? I've heard and *gasp* even comprehend the argument. I agree it has some merit. The majority of it today seems to be committed in the name of Allah or (more rarely) Jesus. I certainly wouldn't hesitate to criticize atrocities committed in the name of Hitler or Stalin.any less because the retarded masses were seduced by some other ideology. People are stupid and people are sheep. Let's make a huge leap and assume for a moment that this guy in particular, like many before him, decided to shoot up a clinic because his religion tells him that abortion is wrong. In that case, can anyone really honestly say that this incident is likely to take place at all?

A lot of things. But when specifically talking about acts of terrorism (as opposed to combat), there is no difference. In either case, it's all a bunch of backward-ass ****.

I get jokes, buddy. I just prefer funny ones.

I'd certainly consider them an army of religious fanatics. I'd define the words terrorist and terrorism differently, that's all. Like I said, semantics. You're deflecting. What are all the aforementioned solely motivated by? The only reason you're concentrating on ISIS is because you can't defend the rest of it.