What happened to this...

[Yonivore]

...Morgan Freeman?

GeixtYS-P3s

Today?

Cm6Iszm31qI

What happened to "Stop talking about it?"

Why can't people want Obama to be a one term president simply because we disagree with his agenda and policies?

What does Morgan Freeman say to blacks that oppose Barack Obama?

uUqRoTCpTz0
Racist?

WYxG0F3xubo
Racist?

0cHkRX9W59o
Racist?

TswMeHnh2cA
Racist?

mOJxQ7umeVw
Racist?

[Vici]

hahahahahahahahaha

[Vici]

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=184804

[Yonivore]

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=184804
Again, your point?

[ChumpDumper]

Damn yoni is obsessed with black people.

[fraga]

Is this all you do???

[boutons_deux]

Yoni is obsessed with strafing the forum with trivial shit threads.

[Vici]

Again, your point?


:lol

[Yonivore]

Is this all you do???
Nope.

[Yonivore]

:lol
So, no point?

[Actually, I think I know the point you're trying to make -- for the second time now -- but, there's a response to that point in the thread to which you keep linking. So, have fun with it.]

[Spurminator]

Damn yoni is obsessed with black people.

And celebrities.

[ElNono]

Damn yoni is obsessed with black people.

And army boners.

[Vici]

So, no point?

[Actually, I think I know the point you're trying to make -- for the second time now -- but, there's a response to that point in the thread to which you keep linking. So, have fun with it.]

My point is you have no point. You're posting trivial things after starting a thread about posting trivial things. If you're a troll keep it up, it's entertaining and I'll bite everytime just to keep you posting. :lmao

[clambake]

yoni, to avoid another incident, buy yourself a volt.

[Yonivore]

My point is you have no point. You're posting trivial things after starting a thread about posting trivial things. If you're a troll keep it up, it's entertaining and I'll bite everytime just to keep you posting. :lmao
By the looks of it, you, ElNono and Spurminator are the trolls. I seem to collect them in here.

Just keep trolling, guys. It is entertaining.

[Spurminator]

I agree, it's entertaining. Even better is that it takes no work on our part, unlike your trolling which you seem to spend a lot of time preparing for. But whatever makes you happy.

[Yonivore]

I agree, it's entertaining. Even better is that it takes no work on our part, unlike your trolling which you seem to spend a lot of time preparing for. But whatever makes you happy.
Takes no time at all, Mr. 19,950 to my 20,522 posts. iPads, smart phones and Google, combined with a busy travel schedule make this a nice diversion in airports and during down time.

[Vici]

Takes no time at all, Mr. 19,950 to my 20,522 posts. iPads, smart phones and Google, combined with a busy travel schedule make this a nice diversion in airports and during down time.

May I suggest reading a book? Or many?

[Yonivore]

May I suggest reading a book? Or many?
I don't have Kindle or an electronic library yet so, carrying them on the road is a bit difficult.

But, I'd suggest you read a few; starting the the history if Israel and the land in which they reside.

[DMX7]

Books are elitist; aren't they, Yoni? Yeah, they are... :hat

[ElNono]

By the looks of it, you, ElNono and Spurminator are the trolls.

:cry

[Yonivore]

:cry
I think it was a fair characterization based on the three posts, by y'all, just prior to my saying that.

When it becomes about following Yonivore around, just to throw little insults, at every chance, I think that's called trolling. "Army boners?" "Celebrities?"

But, by all means, continue. If it becomes a nuisance and your posts are no longer germane to the conversation but just a string of irrelevant jabs, I'll just ignore you like ChumpDumper.

[ElNono]

I think it was a fair characterization based on the three posts, by y'all, just prior to my saying that.

Wasn't responding to you or your post. You don't have to like what I post.

Keep :cry yoni

[Yonivore]

Wasn't responding to you or your post. You don't have to like what I post.
I didn't say it was a response to my post. It was a response to another troll. You were basically sucking ChumpDumper cock by reposting his troll and adding your own.


Keep :cry yoni
Call it what you want. We'll get by.

[ElNono]

I didn't say it was a response to my post.

So why are you all :cry?

I can conceivably say you're the troll.

[Yonivore]

So why are you all :cry?

I can conceivably say you're the troll.
Why are you allowing ChumpDumper to butt fuck you into repeating his nonsense? I can definitively point to your post and say, you're a troll. What did "And army boners" add to the thread?

And, starting a thread that demonstrates the hypocrisy of the left's "racism" charge against people that don't like Barack Obama's policies and actions, as President, doesn't make me obsessed with black people.

You can conceivably say anything. That doesn't make it so.

[George Gervin's Afro]

yoni the victim..poor guy:lmao

[Yonivore]

yoni the victim..poor guy:lmao
Don't cry for me, I'm fine.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Don't cry for me, I'm fine.

then stop complaining you whiner

[Yonivore]

then stop complaining you whiner
I didn't start the trolling and I'm not sure you understand the term "whining."

I've continued to post on the issues while calling out ChumpDumper, and his butt boy ElNono, for trolling me. Contrary to being upset, I'm kind of flattered that poster, I once considered reasonable (no, CD, never you), are reduced to ad hominem attacks and ChumpDumper like trolling.

Are you getting ready to join their ranks?

[ElNono]

Why are you allowing ChumpDumper

I'm concurring with his assessment that you stress over retarded stuff.

This thread is further proof of that.

Not my problem if you have him on ignore and you can read the quotes.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I didn't start the trolling and I'm not sure you understand the term "whining."

I've continued to post on the issues while calling out ChumpDumper, and his butt boy ElNono, for trolling me. Contrary to being upset, I'm kind of flattered that poster, I once considered reasonable (no, CD, never you), are reduced to ad hominem attacks and ChumpDumper like trolling.

Are you getting ready to join their ranks?

I won't stop trolling you when you make ridiculous unsubstantiated claims..and then fail to defend them when called out..

now where is the data that supports your claim that the large majority of liberals blame critcism of obama on racism?

[Yonivore]

I'm concurring with his assessment that you stress over retarded stuff.

This thread is further proof of that.

Not my problem if you have him on ignore and you can read the quotes.
I hope y'all have a wonderful life together. Really.

[ElNono]

I hope y'all have a wonderful life together. Really.

Thank you. :jack

[Yonivore]

Thank you. :jack
Hey, I don't need to see what you and Chump do in private. But, seriously, I hope y'all are happy.

[ElNono]

Hey, I don't need to see what you and Chump do in private. But, seriously, I hope y'all are happy.

I don't know Chump anymore than I know you.

This must be new to you, but it's ok to agree with somebody else even if it's not part of your team.

[Agloco]

now where is the data that supports your claim that the large majority of liberals blame critcism of obama on racism?

Your thoughts Yoni?

[Yonivore]

Your thoughts Yoni?
My thoughts are in the thread (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=184883)where that topic was discussed.

[ChumpDumper]

Damn, yoni sure is ignoring me. :lol

[Vici]

I don't have Kindle or an electronic library yet so, carrying them on the road is a bit difficult.

But, I'd suggest you read a few; starting the the history if Israel and the land in which they reside.

I have actually. Many of them and aced a course at UT on this exact subject. You clearly have no idea about the history other than what you've been told and know it. Coming from a man to another man, buck up, read a little, and know about what you talk about before speaking.

[Yonivore]

I have actually. Many of them and aced a course at UT on this exact subject. You clearly have no idea about the history other than what you've been told and know it. Coming from a man to another man, buck up, read a little, and know about what you talk about before speaking.
Was the land currently home to the "Palestinians," Israelis, and Jordanians, under the control of the Ottoman empire for roughly 500 years before the empire was dismantled after WWI? Yes or No?

Did the League of Nations take control of the area through their "Mandate for Palestine?" Yes or No?

Did the 1917 Balfour Declaration support the establishment of a Jewish home in the land and, further, declare non-Jewish inhabitants shall retain their religious and civil rights? Yes or No?

Did the 1917 Balfour Declaration give all citizens more rights than had been enjoyed under Ottoman rule? Yes or No?

Did the 1917 Balfour Declaration encourage immigration, to the land, by Jews? Yes or No?

Did the Arab inhabitants demand a stop to Jewish immigration and did a representative of the Arab people say they would "push the Zionists into the sea or they will push us back into the desert?" Yes or No?

Did Aref Dijani, a "Palestinian" leader from Jerusalem, say it was impossible to live with the Jews and tell the League of Nations that the country would become a river of blood unless they reversed their decision and stop the Jews from immigrating? Yes or No?

When the League of Nations refused to grant the "Palestinian" demand, did they not launch a Jihad, against Jews in Jerusalem in April 1920? Yes or No?

Did a newspaper editor names Arif el Arif say that unless we used force against the Jews they would never be rid of them? Yes or No?

Was the so-called "Nebi Musa" riot the opening salvo in a 90-year effort to reverse the Balfour Declaration? Yes or No?

Did the League of Nations try to assuage and pacify the Arabs by setting aside the Trans-Jordan and making it inaccessible to Jews? Yes or No?

Did "Palestinians" aligned with the Nazis during WWII to limit immigration from Germany to the Mandate territory, resulting in the holocaust? Yes or No?

Did the Jews not offer, to the Peel Commission, to take a small parcel of land if the Arabs would cease their Jihad? Yes or No?

Did the Peel Commission not propose a two-state solution, in 1937, that gave the Palestinians 80% and Jews 20% of the land? Yes or No?

Did the Jews accept that proposal and the Arabs reject it? Yes or No?

Did the U.N. take control after WWII and propose a two-state solution that was divided the territory almost 50/50? Yes or No?

Did the Jews accept the partition and the Arabs reject it? Yes or No?

Did the 20 member Arab League immediately declare war and send the armies of Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq to attack Israel? Yes or No?

Did the Arab League's Secretary General call it a "war of extermination" and a "momentous massacre?" Yes or No?

Did Israel defeat them? Yes or No?

Did Jordan occupy the West Bank for 18 years and deny civil rights to the Palestinians there? Yes or No?

Did Egypt occupy the Gaza strip and deny Palestinians civil rights there? yes or No?

Did the "Palestinians" protest or violently resist the occupation by Egypt or Jordan? Yes or No?

Did President Clinton broker a deal that would have given Palestinians control of the Gaza Strip, West Bank, and East Jerusalem? Yes or No?

Did Israel agree to the proposal? Yes or No?

Did Yasser Arafat walk out on the negotiations and immediately launch an intifada? Yes or No?

Did Israel completely pull out of Gaza in 2005? Yes or No?

Did the Palestinians immediately destroy a thriving export business, donated in an effort to jump start their economy, and then start launching rockets into Israel? Yes or No?

In 2008, did Ehud Olmert offer the Palestinians a two-state solution that gave them nearly 100% of the land contained by the pre-1967 borders? Yes or No?

Did the Palestinians ignore the offer? Yes or No?

So, what did he leave out? Which of the facts, above, are misrepresented or wrong?

[ElNono]

Yes, he left out the attacks from zionist terror groups (Irgun, Lohamei) on the british, the Deir Yassin massacre, etc.

Once upon a time, terror worked for Israel too. I don't condone the terror in the past or the current terror, but history is much more complicated than that.

[Yonivore]

Yes, he left out the attacks from zionist terror groups (Irgun, Lohamei) on the british, the Deir Yassin massacre, etc.

Once upon a time, terror worked for Israel too. I don't condone the terror in the past or the current terror, but history is much more complicated than that.
History isn't that complicated.

There is considerable disagreement over whether the Deir Yassin massacre was that or whether it was a legitimate response to break a blockade of Jerusalem by Palestinians. But, it's safe to say, if the blockade hadn't existed the deaths would not have occurred.

Irgun was a response to Arab refusal to allow Jews to immigrate. Given the Arabs had Hitler on their side, I'm thinking Irgun, operating within the borders of the Mandate, is a legitimate -- if not state-sanctioned -- response. If Arabs hadn't promised a war of extinction and promised to drive the Jews into the Sea, I doubt there would have been a need for the Irgun.

Now, tell me about the Lohamei. That should be interesting.

In any case, you're talking about Israeli violence occurring almost a century ago, at a time when it was commensurate with, or in response to, Arab violence. As time has passed, it is clearly the Arabs who have refused to come to the negotiation table -- which, based on the loss of two wars -- they had no right to even be invited.

The fact remains, Arabs, in Israel (and arguable in Gaza and the West Bank) have absolutely no claim to the land. If ever they did, it was forfeited when they lost the territory in wars of 1948 and 1967. They, or their benefactors (Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Iran, etc... the Arab League), have at various times, over the past 90 years, tried to take the land by force. Israel has successfully repelled every attack. By right of conquest, the land belongs to Israel. That they have traded parcels back, in exchange for peace, does not mean they forfeit sovereignty over the remainder.

The fact remains, Israel has, on several occasions, agreed to or offered a two-state solution that gave Palestinians much more than they deserved...which, in every case, has been rejected by Palestians and, more often than not, resulted in violence against Israel.

The fact remains, the latest leader of the Palestinian Authority has already said they will never recognize a Jewish state.

Who's being intransigent?

[ElNono]

History isn't that complicated.

Sure it is. Especially that many years. And there's no disagreements about the Deir Yassin massacre after looking at the body count.

Furthermore, violence is violence, now or back then. Also, it wasn't just arabs attacked, but the British too.

Are you a terror supporter now, yoni?

[Yonivore]

Sure it is. Especially that many years.
Recorded facts are hard things to refute, eh?


And there's no disagreements about the Deir Yassin massacre after looking at the body count.
There's no disagreement the Arabs were blockading Jerusalem. The disagreement is over whether or not the killing was wanton or, as is the current case with the despicable Palestinians, they garrison their fighters among innocent civilians.


Furthermore, violence is violence, now or back then. Also, it wasn't just arabs attacked, but the British too.
Let's say the violence was commensurate, a century ago, which side has continued the violence in the face of repeated offers of peace?


Are you a terror supporter now, yoni?
Nope. Are you going to continue to deny the facts stated in the video?

[ChumpDumper]

Yoni absolutely supports terrorism and torture.

Apparently the Bible tells him to.

[ElNono]

Recorded facts are hard things to refute, eh?

Not at all. The problem seems to stem from selective memory.


There's no disagreement the Arabs were blockading Jerusalem. The disagreement is over whether or not the killing was wanton or, as is the current case with the despicable Palestinians, they garrison their fighters among innocent civilians.

Let's say the violence was commensurate, a century ago, which side has continued the violence in the face of repeated offers of peace?


Terror violence is terror violence. You either support it or you don't. Some of those groups were even condemned by jews at the time.

So which is it, yoni? Are you an apologist for terror violence? Do you support it when it's your team doing it?

[ElNono]

Yoni absolutely supports terrorism and torture.

Apparently the Bible tells him to.

Apparently.

[ChumpDumper]

Who did this?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c7/KD_1946.JPG


Freedom fighters!

[Yonivore]

Not at all. The problem seems to stem from selective memory.

Terror violence is terror violence. You either support it or you don't. Some of those groups were even condemned by jews at the time.

So which is it, yoni? Are you an apologist for terror violence? Do you support it when it's your team doing it?
Which groups still exist and are committing terrorist acts; and, does the existence of those groups, a century ago, give legitimacy to the claims and threats of the Arabs?

[ChumpDumper]

Well the Zionist terror groups got what they wanted, a state. Their leaders became PMs of Israel and stuff.

[ElNono]

Which groups still exist and are committing terrorist acts; and, does the existence of those groups, a century ago, give legitimacy to the claims and threats of the Arabs?


Well the Zionist terror groups got what they wanted, a state. Their leaders became PMs of Israel and stuff.

Well put. Worked for them. It was despicable then, don't know why it shouldn't be despicable now.

[RandomGuy]

Why are you allowing ChumpDumper to butt fuck you into repeating his nonsense? I can definitively point to your post and say, you're a troll. What did "And army boners" add to the thread?

And, starting a thread that demonstrates the hypocrisy of the left's "racism" charge against people that don't like Barack Obama's policies and actions, as President, doesn't make me obsessed with black people.

You can conceivably say anything. That doesn't make it so.

Indeed. One can say any stupid shit that springs to mind on the internet, regardless of whether it passes the barest of common sense tests.


"Missing" global heat may hide in deep oceans (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/18/us-climate-oceans-idUSTRE78H1TF20110918?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews&rpc=22&sp=true)

What the article basically says is this; we cannot explain why the earth isn't warming like we said it would so, we're going to make up a new hypothesis, hard (if not impossible) to disprove, start plugging new assumptions into our faulty models based on this hypothesis, and tell you that's why it isn't warming as fast as we said it would.


Is it possible to measure deep ocean temperatures in a systematic way to test the thesis that the researcher presented?

Still waiting on this one. A simple yes or no will suffice.

[Yonivore]

Well put. Worked for them. It was despicable then, don't know why it shouldn't be despicable now.
The Arabs have been offered a state of their own on several occasions. They rejected each proposal and responded with violence.

Are you suggesting the U.N. partition of 1947 was in response to Zionist violence? In that proposal, the two states shared the land almost 50/50, with a bit more going to the Arabs than the Jews.

The Jews accepted the proposal. The Arabs declared war. By defeating the 5 armies assembled against Israel, by the Arab League, I would suggest they won rights to the entire territory by right of conquest. That they've continued to try and negotiate with the Arabs in good faith is a testament to their willingness to compromise.

The Arabs attacked again in 1967 and got their asses handed back to them. Israel took parts of Egypt, including Gaza. That they returned the Sinai is a testament to their willingness to compromise and find a solution.

On at least two occasions since then, a two-state solution has been negotiated and brokered; the Israelis accept, the Arabs reject. In one case they start an intifada. In the most recent case, they just walk away and continue bitching...leading up to the unilateral decision to try and extort statehood from the U.N. saying it's that or they will keep killing Jews. Of course, in demanding statehood, they also say they'll never accept a Jewish state so, in effect, even if they gave the Arabs a state, they'd still continue killing Jews.

Name one time the Arab "Palestinians" have been sincerely engaged in any negotiation for a two-state solution?

[Yonivore]

Is it possible to measure deep ocean temperatures in a systematic way to test the thesis that the researcher presented?

Still waiting on this one. A simple yes or no will suffice.
What's more problematic is making the connection between deep ocean temperatures and the effects that has on global warming.

This "deep sea heat trapping" wasn't proposed as a possible reason that global temperatures weren't reaching the heights predicted by the global warming models until they needed a reason to explain why global temperatures weren't reaching the heights predicted by the global warming models.

If he models fail again, in the future, they'll find something else to explain it.

Tell, what is the ideal global temperature and why is warming worse than global cooling?

[boutons_deux]

"why is warming worse than global cooling"

who said it was? other than your straw man.

Either one, extreme enough, is disastrous for human civilization. The mini-Ice Age a few 100 years ago in Europe was a disaster, even without the Black Plague.

[ElNono]

The Arabs have been offered a state of their own on several occasions. They rejected each proposal and responded with violence.

Worked for Israel's terror groups. You basically were for it before you were against it. Which is ok btw, there's nothing wrong with changing your mind. It just comes across as hypocritical, that's all.

[Yonivore]

Worked for Israel's terror groups. You basically were for it before you were against it. Which is ok btw, there's nothing wrong with changing your mind. It just comes across as hypocritical, that's all.
Who says it worked for the Israelis? First of all, I don't buy that Jewish terrorism ever reached the level and garnered the support that Arab terrorist groups have managed over the past 100 years.

The U.N. offered a two-state solution in 1947; the Jews accepted it and set about building a nation in the areas allotted them. The Arabs rejected it and the Arab League declared war.

And, if your denouncing a century-old Jewish violence, where's your outrage over nearly a century of continuous Arab violence against the Jews?

So, what's your solution? How does Israel stop the Arab violence?

[ElNono]

Who says it worked for the Israelis?

They obtained a state. Some of the leaders of those terror groups ended up being Israel PM. Looks like it worked for them.

Why isn't the attacks from said terror groups against Arabs and the British in the video?

And I *AM* outraged at the Arab violence against Israel. I said I don't condone terror violence, now or back then.

[Yonivore]

They obtained a state. Some of the leaders of those terror groups ended up being Israel PM. Looks like it worked for them.

Why isn't the attacks from said terror groups against Arabs and the British in the video?
Probably because the person making the video disagrees with the characterization they were terrorists. But, more importantly, it's not germane to the position that the legitimate international body that had jurisdiction over the Mandate, created the state of Israel and offered the Arabs a Palestinian State.

Why did the Arabs declare war in 1947?

Why did they attack again in 1967?

Why do they have any claim to any of the territory after losing both wars?

How does any of this legitimize the acts terrorism by Arabs after decisively losing two wars over the territory?

What is your solution?

[ElNono]

Probably because the person making the video disagrees with the characterization they were terrorists.

So you're saying that if some Arab makes a Palestinian video and doesn't include Hamas because he doesn't consider them a terror group, you'll be ok with that line of history?

You're too easy to convince when it suits you.


What is your solution?

There might not be a workable solution. Seeing the decades of conflict, it's fairly obvious that there's no silver bullet or even band aid. In that vein, and seeing that Israel has dealt with this problem for long enough, I trust they know what they're doing.

[Yonivore]

So you're saying that if some Arab makes a Palestinian video and doesn't include Hamas because he doesn't consider them a terror group, you'll be ok with that line of history?

You're too easy to convince when it suits you.
I'd like to see that video.


There might not be a workable solution. Seeing the decades of conflict, it's fairly obvious that there's no silver bullet or even band aid. In that vein, and seeing that Israel has dealt with this problem for long enough, I trust they know what they're doing.
What would be your solution?

[ElNono]

I'd like to see that video.

I'd like to see the video you posted with the complete history.


What would be your solution?

I personally don't think there's a solution. I think violence will only end when one side gets wiped (or Israel leaves). I don't see either as a real solution or likely to happen without severe consequences to the other side, which is why it hasn't happened, and very likely won't happen. So I think Israel is doing a good job in minimizing the violence, which isn't a solution, but something they can do.

[Yonivore]

I'd like to see the video you posted with the complete history.
How does adding your claimed omissions change any of the video from 1947 forward?


I personally don't think there's a solution. I think violence will only end when one side gets wiped (or Israel leaves). I don't see either as a real solution or likely to happen without severe consequences to the other side, which is why it hasn't happened, and very likely won't happen. So I think Israel is doing a good job in minimizing the violence, which isn't a solution, but something they can do.
If Israel believes they're going to be nuked or, they are nuked, we're all fucked.

So, do you believe Arab violence, since 1947, is legitimate?

[ElNono]

How does adding your claimed omissions change any of the video from 1947 forward?

As pro-terror back then, you should know that the Deir Yassin massacre happened in April 1948.


If Israel believes they're going to be nuked or, they are nuked, we're all fucked.

I don't think Israel thinks they're going to get nuked. I also think Israel can defend itself and doesn't need us at all. They're armed a whole lot better than any surrounding country and have a very fine intelligence service.


So, do you believe Arab violence, since 1947, is legitimate?

Nope. I don't know how many times I have to say I don't condone terror violence, either by Israel terror groups or any other group, at any time.
I think it was despicable then, and it's still despicable today.

That I hate it doesn't mean that it didn't work for Israel though.

[Yonivore]

As pro-terror back then, you should know that the Deir Yassin massacre happened in April 1948.
What ever happened in Deir Yassin, it was due to the Arab Blockade of Jerusalem and their proclivity to garrison fighters alongside women and children.


I don't think Israel thinks they're going to get nuked.
That's why they've taken out nuclear facilities in Syria and Iran. And, that's why they've been seeking assistance in taking out Iran's second attempt to go nuclear? I see.


I also think Israel can defend itself and doesn't need us at all. They're armed a whole lot better than any surrounding country and have a very fine intelligence service.
Thanks to a long relationship with the United States.


Nope. I don't know how many times I have to say I don't condone terror violence, either by Israel terror groups or any other group, at any time.
I think it was despicable then, and it's still despicable today.
So, what should be done with the Palestinian Terrorists today? What should bee done with Hezbollah, Hamas, and Fatah? What should be done with their terrorist benefactors, Syria and Iran?

Should the United Nations just continue to ignore the terrorism while issuing condemnation, after condemnation, of Israel for incidents that occur while they defend themselves?


That I hate it doesn't mean that it didn't work for Israel though.
Then, it worked for the Arabs too. They were just stupid and rejected -- and continue to reject -- the offer of a state.

What's the solution?

[ElNono]

What ever happened in Deir Yassin, it was due to the Arab Blockade of Jerusalem and their proclivity to garrison fighters alongside women and children.

Not really. It was a terror attack that left hundreds, including women and children dead. Unprovoked. That's why it's called a massacre.

But it's good that you accept being pro-terror. Which really makes you a huge hypocrite.


That's why they've taken out nuclear facilities in Syria and Iran. And, that's why they've been seeking assistance in taking out Iran's second attempt to go nuclear? I see.

Looks like they've done what they needed to do. Exactly what I said.

lol reckoning


Thanks to a long relationship with the United States.

Exactly. That's why the US doesn't need to be in the region at all.


So, what should be done with the Palestinian Terrorists today? What should bee done with Hezbollah, Hamas, and Fatah? What should be done with their terrorist benefactors, Syria and Iran?

If it would be easy to tell who the terrorists are, then I'm sure Israel would've done something about it. Instead, they've contained violence, which is something they can do.

You still have to demonstrate that Israel's policy is a failed policy.


Should the United Nations just continue to ignore the terrorism while issuing condemnation, after condemnation, of Israel for incidents that occur while they defend themselves?

I don't agree that the UN ignores terrorism. I also think the UN rightly issues condemnation when excessive force is used on civilians. You don't really have to like it.


Then, it worked for the Arabs too. They were just stupid and rejected -- and continue to reject -- the offer of a state.

What's the solution?

The fact that you think there has to be a solution right now doesn't make it true. There's currently no credible threat to Israel existence, and whenever there might have been, Israel acted on it.

Looks like, unlike you, they know what they're doing.

[ElNono]

Yoni absolutely supports terrorism and torture.

No doubt about it now.

[RandomGuy]

"Missing" global heat may hide in deep oceans (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/18/us-climate-oceans-idUSTRE78H1TF20110918?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews&rpc=22&sp=true)

What the article basically says is this; we cannot explain why the earth isn't warming like we said it would so, we're going to make up a new hypothesis, hard (if not impossible) to disprove, start plugging new assumptions into our faulty models based on this hypothesis, and tell you that's why it isn't warming as fast as we said it would.


Is it possible to measure deep ocean temperatures in a systematic way to test the thesis that the researcher presented?

Still waiting on this one. A simple yes or no will suffice.



What's more problematic is making the connection between deep ocean temperatures and the effects that has on global warming.

This "deep sea heat trapping" wasn't proposed as a possible reason that global temperatures weren't reaching the heights predicted by the global warming models until they needed a reason to explain why global temperatures weren't reaching the heights predicted by the global warming models.

If he models fail again, in the future, they'll find something else to explain it.

Tell, what is the ideal global temperature and why is warming worse than global cooling?

:depressed

This post is yet another indictment of the state of science education in this country.

Science is advanced my making hypotheses, gathering data, and testing that data against those hypotheses. That is the definition of good science.

The answer to my question, is yes, it is fully possible to test the scientists model by collecting data. You didn't answer that obvious question, because it put your entire statement that they are somehow trying to make the theory of AGW some undebunkable dogma as complete bullshit.

Your entire response to that question flies in the face of good science. Good science and good scientists changs theories as data is aquired. That is NOT the sign of some sinister plot. That is how science works.

As for your questions, they are irrelevant red herrings. That you seem to think they mean something is a further indictment of your flawed thinking processes.

There is no "ideal" global temerature.

and

Warming is not inherently "worse" than cooling, to my knowledge.

Maybe you can expand a bit on why it is you think these bullshit questions are actually relevant. Do tell.

[Jacob1983]

Liberals and Democrats trying to not be racist by being racist FTW!

[Yonivore]

Blah blah blah
RG, we've been told the science has been settled on Anthropogenic Global Climate Change for years now. All of a sudden, when the temperature doesn't match the model; the scientists who have been telling us the science is settled, start scrambling to find an excuse. Heat trapping is convenient.

What will it be next time empirical evidence challenges the "settled science" of the global warming religion?

Sorry, your position has lost all credibility. Just look at how the "settled science" is being viewed by the global community. You're full of shit.