Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:


1. An anti AGW advocacy group founded by a climate skeptic
2. See Magons' post
3. See Magons' post. The fact that this is the Kremlin's line on climate science is worrying, and doesn't bode well for future climate negotiations
4. Another climate skeptic advocacy group founded by a group of petroleum geologists
5. Religious conspiracy site?
6. ??

Perhaps you misunderstood what was meant by 'scientific body or institution'. It's not a lobby group set up to fight climate science, or a group of conspiracy nuts. To give you an example, here's a list of dozens of scientific bodies/institutions worldwide, and many of their statements on climate change: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Conc
urring

Also note that many of these bodies are not funded by governments, and those that are, generally aren't funded for their views on climate change.

It's not personal. It's just war.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:
Upon request, Auraptor can't name a scientific body or institution that disputes the theory of man-made climate change.

---

All that proves, if it is indeed true, is that there isn't a scientific body or institution that disputes the theory of man-made climate change.

It doesn't prove that these institutions are CORRECT in supporting the theory of man-made climate change.

History of science is replete with examples of scientific institutions being incorrect in the theories they have supported.

-----

Disobedience is not an issue if obedience is not the goal.

---

CTS: nice contribution. Some ditz will follow with a question of any one example of science history - so try that whole "flat Earth" fabrication put forth by all the scientific institutions of the time. EVERYBODY knew it was true, including all scientists. (anybody who didn't think it was true was, like, decaptiated for, like, heresy)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Quote:

---

Niki wrote:

The Supremes are batting it around (like you can find much ELSE on the news...sigh...), so why don't we? Maybe not debate the issue of same-sex marriage ITSELF, since we've been there/done that enough times to choke a horse, but make guesses as to what the Supremes will end up doing?

---

When asked, Rappy doesn't care to hazard a guess at what the Supremes might decide on DOMA and/or Prop 8, but worries that it will lead directly to dogs marrying horses, or something.



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Oh, and because I'm about 95% sure that Rappy is going to come stumbling in any second and start whining about "Cites?", here ya go, even though you steadfastly refuse to produce any such cites for your own idiotic claims.

---

I don't readily recall AURaptor asking for "cites" here. Can you cite?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:
I would welcome one. And I certainly wouldn't take it as an 'attack thread'.

It's not personal. It's just war.

---

I would too. But they won't do it - because we'd actually do our best to address them - and then they wouldn't be able to claim (falsely, but whatever) that we won't have "honest discussion."

But come on, righties - prove us wrong, I DARE YOU.

(of course, they're too scared to even enter the thread, so the challenge will likely go unseen.)




"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Oh, and because I'm about 95% sure that Rappy is going to come stumbling in any second and start whining about "Cites?", here ya go, even though you steadfastly refuse to produce any such cites for your own idiotic claims.

---

I don't readily recall AURaptor asking for "cites" here. Can you cite?

---

Can you read? Because no such claim was made.

Fuckin' wingnuts, man. READ.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:
Auraptor tells Magons, 'You need to get laid', and claims his reasons for it 'weren't the least bit sexist'. But then he can't/won't answer:


Why, according to you, does Magons, 'need to get laid'? Why are you making assumptions about the length of time since she last had sex, and what does it have to do with what she posted?


It's not personal. It's just war.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:
In the "Race relations have plummeted since Obama took office" thread, Geezer refuses to answer:


"What do you think? Has Obama done much to turn black people against white people, or vice-versa? If so what exactly has he done?"


He calls it a "Have you stopped beating your wife?" question.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:


Upon request, Rappy cannot state what his definition of "incest" is, only that he agrees with Jeremy Irons that a man marrying his son isn't incest.

Reference thread:

http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=54520

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:
Auraptor tells Magons, 'You need to get laid', and claims his reasons for it 'weren't the least bit sexist'. But then he can't/won't answer:


Why, according to you, does Magons, 'need to get laid'? Why are you making assumptions about the length of time since she last had sex, and what does it have to do with what she posted?


It's not personal. It's just war.

---

The old saying "An apple a day keeps the doctor away, an orgasm a day keeps the shrink away" goes a long way. Getting laid helps you people keep your crazy in the closet.
How clueless must you really be to not understnad the basest of human needs?

---

Quote:

---

Are you admitting that a question that you can't answer is Have you stopped beating your wife?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I have yet to get an explanation of what "libertarianism" is, altho I'm being berated for trying to "run away from" understanding it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
Well, let's see.

I don't think anyone has ever come up with a LOGICAL reason for anyone saying someone "needs to get laid" that makes any sense, except that it is a sexist put-down. Nobody ever NEEDS to get laid, and saying that has no logical connection to any argument or debate.

As to race relations, of COURSE they've worsened since Obama was elected. This flies in the face of everything racists believe; that even a HALF African-American could ever rise to that kind of power is something unheard of in their world view, so of course it's brought out the worst in them. I didn't read the thread--I'm skipping quite a few these days, they're self-explanatory by title alone--but if he did claim it was a "have you stopped beating your wife" question, then see above. It is not a response, it's a dodge.

As to libertarianism, I knew little about it before I came here. After people here saying they were libertarian, I tried to educate myself on it. It appears that, much like religion, it's something that is defined one way, believed another, and practiced in yet another some people. I see little connection to what it's defined as and what those kinds of people use it to argue from.

You'll never get any answers on any of those three, in my opinion. They are things which those questioned don't WANT to answer, because there is no logical answer, so all you'll ever get are dodges. I'd love to be proven wrong, but I'm not holding my breath.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:

Auraptor can't answer what 'terrorist' acts Mandela committed that had him put in prison.


It's not personal. It's just war.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BIGDAMNNOBODY:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:
It's okay, we know you can't muster the courage to answer any of these. We know all you're capable of is snark. Poor wittle wingnut.

---

I reject the premise of this thread. This is nothing more than a "prettied up" attack thread IMHO.
And what makes you think you are somehow deserving of answers?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:
I would welcome one. And I certainly wouldn't take it as an 'attack thread'.

It's not personal. It's just war.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:

Geezer can't back up his claim that the CBO were behind Obama's ARRA stimulus package (and that the IMF were behind Japan's recent economic policy) and so their analysis on the subject can't be trusted

Geezer also can't answer this: "Got any answer to the mountain of evidence of governments cutting back on spending during downturns, and hurting growth?"


It's not personal. It's just war.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:

Auraptor can't answer what 'terrorist' acts Mandela committed that had him put in prison.


It's not personal. It's just war.

---

You should try wikipedia, although we are not surprised you are incapable of mastering things like search engines on the interwebs.
I suppose you think wikipedia is conservative, eh? Or maybe your definition of terrorist is surprisingly akin to libtard hero?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CaveTroll:
Many innocent people, including women and children, were killed by Nelson Mandela’s MK terrorists. Here are some highlights

-Church Street West, Pretoria, on the 20 May 1983

-Amanzimtoti Shopping complex KZN, 23 December 1985

-Krugersdorp Magistrate’s Court, 17 March 1988

-Durban Pick ‘n Pay shopping complex, 1 September 1986

-Pretoria Sterland movie complex 16 April 1988 – limpet mine killed ANC terrorist M O Maponya instead

-Johannesburg Magistrate’s Court, 20 May 1987

-Roodepoort Standard Bank 3 June, 1988

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CaveTroll:
Nelson Mandela was the head of UmKhonto we Sizwe, (MK), the terrorist wing of the ANC and South African Communist Party. At his trial, he had pleaded guilty to 156 acts of public violence including mobilising terrorist bombing campaigns, which planted bombs in public places, including the Johannesburg railway station.

---

Quote:

---

1/20/2017, the end of an error.

---

Quote:

---

The Rivonia Trial occurred in 1962 and 63, I assume this is the trial referred to here:

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
So here is a question. Anyone can answer.

If you live in a violent, oppressive state and commit or organise acts of violence with the intent of overthrowing aforesaid state, does that make you a terrorist?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:

Quote:

---

The Rivonia Trial occurred in 1962 and 63, I assume this is the trial referred to here:

---

Following your advice and looking on Wikipedia, I see that the charges against Mandela do not mention 'terrorism' once - instead they mention 'guerrilla warfare' and 'sabotage'.

But apparently you guys know better. Can you give me an example of one of these 'terrorist' acts Mandela committed? Any at all?


It's not personal. It's just war.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
So here is a question. Anyone can answer.

If you live in a violent, oppressive state and commit or organise acts of violence with the intent of overthrowing aforesaid state, does that make you a terrorist?

---

There's no internationally agreed-upon definition of terrorism, but I would say it depends on whether the act of violence targeted civilians or not.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:

There's no internationally agreed-upon definition of terrorism, but I would say it depends on whether the act of violence targeted civilians or not.

---

Quote:

---

The leader of the anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa, Nelson Mandela, was to be jailed for life for sabotage.
Seven other defendants, including the former secretary-general of the banned African National Congress (ANC), Walter Sisulu, were also given life prison sentences.

Crowds gathered silently outside the court building in Pretoria's Church Square waiting for the verdict to be handed down. Hundreds of police patrolled the area.

The Rivonia trial - named after the suburb of Johannesburg where several of the defendants were arrested - began eight months ago, with Mandela, 46, and his co-defendants proudly confessing their guilt to plotting to destroy the South African state by sabotage.

As members of the ANC - the main African nationalist movement - they have campaigned for an end to the oppression of black South Africans.

But the movement was banned in 1960 following the Sharpeville massacre and campaigners decided they had no choice but to resort to violent means.

Struggle for equal rights

Mandela - a lawyer by training - told the court earlier: "I do not deny that I planned sabotage. I did not plan it in a spirit of recklessness nor because I have any love of violence. I planned it as a result of a calm and sober assessment of the political situation that had arisen after many years of tyranny, exploitation and oppression of my people by the whites."

His co-accused included: Walter Sisulu, Dennis Goldberg, Govan Mbeki, Raymond Mhlaba, Elias Mosoaledi, Andrew Mlangeni - all ANC officials and Ahmed Kathrada, the former leader of the South African Indian Congress.

Lawyer for the defendants, Harold Hansen QC said: "These accused represent the struggle of their people for equal rights. Their views represent the struggle of the African people for the attainment of equal rights for all races in this country."

But the judge, President Quartus de Wet, said he was not convinced by their claim to have been motivated by a desire to alleviate the grievances of the African people in this country.

Judge de Wet said: "People who organize revolution usually plan to take over the government as well through personal ambition."

However, he stopped short of the imposing the supreme penalty of death.

The convicted men were cheered as they left court in a police lorry. The crowd was dispersed without any serious incident.[/quote
Just goes to show you, half measure accomplish nothing.

Your turn to answer a question. How do you defend Winning Mandela's acknowledged advocacy for necklacing? (For those that don't know, necklacing is murdering people by placing a gasoline filled tire around the victim's neck and setting it on fire.)


1/20/2017, the end of an error.

Quote:

---

Guerilla Warfare is against military or government targets.

---

Quote:

---

So how do you claim that Mandela's targeting of civilians for violence and sabotage does not fit your definition of terrorism?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:

There's no internationally agreed-upon definition of terrorism, but I would say it depends on whether the act of violence targeted civilians or not.

---

So by that definition, Hiroshima, Nagasaka and Dresden were all acts of terrorism committed by Allied forces.

---

Quote:

---

Just goes to show you, half measure accomplish nothing.

---

Quote:

---

Your turn to answer a question.

---

Quote:

---

How do you defend Winnie Mandela's acknowledged advocacy for necklacing?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:

I was answering according to your premise you outlined earlier: "If you live in a violent, oppressive state and commit or organise commit acts of violence with the intent of overthrowing aforesaid state..." Allied forces were not involved in a guerrilla struggle against an oppressive government, as per your original premise. My definition of terrorism does not include actions by governments. Nazi/Japanese atrocities were not 'terrorism', for example.

---

Quote:

---

You stated that if civilians were targeted it was probably terrorism.

---

Quote:

---

I didn't mention guerrilla struggle in my question.

---

Quote:

---

So would the French Resistance be considered terrorists as they targeted civilians for reprisal?

Would the Jewish militia be considered terrorists for their actions during and post WW2 in Palestine, as they targeted civilians?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:

Quote:

---

You stated that if civilians were targeted it was probably terrorism.

---

Within the outlines of your premise, of living in an oppressive state and trying to overthrow it, yes.

Quote:

---

I didn't mention guerrilla struggle in my question.

---

How else do you violently overthrow an oppressive state that you live in?

Quote:

---

So would the French Resistance be considered terrorists as they targeted civilians for reprisal?

Would the Jewish militia be considered terrorists for their actions during and post WW2 in Palestine, as they targeted civilians?

---

Give me specific acts and I'll answer. I would suggest that the 'violent acts' have to be more than shaving people's heads, or tarring and feathering, to qualify as terrorism.

It's not personal. It's just war.

---

Quote:

---

Well the French resistance did more than shave people's heads, they murdered/executed civilians suspected of collaborating both during the war and at liberation. About 9000 without trial.

---

Quote:

---

The Jewish militia blew up hotels, targeted civilians which resulted in casualties.

---

Quote:

---

Tarring and feathering must at least count as torture, don't you think?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarring_and_feathering

---

Quote:

---

I suppose how I see it is one person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.

---

Quote:

---

Operating through a cell structure, MK agreed to acts of sabotage to exert maximum pressure on the government with minimum casualties, bombing military installations, power plants, telephone lines and transport links at night, when civilians were not present. Mandela stated that they chose sabotage not only because it was the least harmful action, but also "because it did not involve loss of life [and] it offered the best hope for reconciliation among the races afterward."

---

Quote:

---

Why does declaring war by a government make murdering civilian men, women and children legitimate and therefore acceptable whereas its an outrage if done without a declaration of war or by non government forces?

We (as a society) dont think these issues of morality through quite enough, in my view.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:
Another unanswered question to Auraptor:


"Are you saying that individual climate scientists can earn more money pushing the case for AGW than this 'skeptic' got paid by the fossil fuels industry - $1.2 million over 10 years?

Cites?"


It's not personal. It's just war.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:
Another unanswered question to Auraptor:


"Are you saying that individual climate scientists can earn more money pushing the case for AGW than this 'skeptic' got paid by the fossil fuels industry - $1.2 million over 10 years?

Cites?"


It's not personal. It's just war.

---

I'm saying AGW isn't - anything.

Love how you couch your question to specifically 'individual climate scientists' while ignoring AlGore, who has made 10's of millions off of the scam of AGW.

Not bad for a former VP, if you can con enough people.


So, exactly when did you stop kicking puppies ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:


1. An anti AGW advocacy group founded by a climate skeptic
2. See Magons' post
3. See Magons' post. The fact that this is the Kremlin's line on climate science is worrying, and doesn't bode well for future climate negotiations
4. Another climate skeptic advocacy group founded by a group of petroleum geologists
5. Religious conspiracy site?
6. ??

Perhaps you misunderstood what was meant by 'scientific body or institution'. It's not a lobby group set up to fight climate science, or a group of conspiracy nuts. To give you an example, here's a list of dozens of scientific bodies/institutions worldwide, and many of their statements on climate change: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Conc
urring

Also note that many of these bodies are not funded by governments, and those that are, generally aren't funded for their views on climate change.

It's not personal. It's just war.

---

It's interesting to look at that website, a very comprehensive list of renowned scientific institutions from across the world from a multitude of disciplines vs a few conspiracy theory sites, and organisations funded by the petrochemical and mining industries.

I see what consensus looks like.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Is a "few" equal to over 31,000?

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2008/07/01/30000-scientist
s-sign-petition-global-warming

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Is a "few" equal to over 31,000?

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2008/07/01/30000-scientist
s-sign-petition-global-warming

---

31,000 Americans with college science degrees... including in Medicine, Engineering, Biology, Agriculture - fields barely related to climate science. In other words this is just a petition by Americans with irrelevant science degrees who vote Republican.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

---