How dare you compare your countries threat to Israels tho.
The real irony with that comparison is that the person do it probably sees Israel as more of a threat than radical muslims.
Posts by MiniD
-
-
It is hard, even by with the reaction of the leftish media, to see this as anything but an attack on "deplorables". "Most likely Republicans". "I don't feel bad for them because of...". "White man? Who would have guessed." Nope. No agenda there. None at all.
-
It would have to be above the waste only fighting or Segal would definitely win. With above waste rules, I'd venture Foreman just needs Segal to think a punch to Foreman's head will slow him for George to connect with something that will hurt Segal. I'd venture Foreman has been hit as hard as Segal can hit him in the past. I doubt Segal has been hit as hard as Foreman can hit him. Of course, doing this shit over 60 is a whole different story for both.
-
Sure lazs, whatever you say... now. I'm just going by what YOU said back then. But, don't let what you said get in the way of your self promotion. It took one day to understand why you'd have multiple ex wives. You could never love a woman as much as you love yourself.
As for the con, I really remember it being pretty good. I also remember that any time you were in the room, you were talking about you non-stop. Any time beet1e was in the room, he was talking about how everyone he saw in America was fat. Tomato was nice, though. Whatever happened to her, beet1e?
-
I don't think people here would be violent with each other in person.
Then again I'm new.
I've been wrong before.
That's how most people think. At least, enough that when someone worries the other way it kinda stands out.
-
That someone would attack them (one of the other con members). Beet1e expressed this on numerous occasions. Lazs brought is son along the first day as "backup". It was funny.
-
I've met you, and you are a snivelling little runt and the last person on earth who should be calling somebody else a little shit.
And yet, here you are... being a little shit that has been a little shit and will continue to be one.
BTW... when we met, there were only two people who showed up to that con afraid. You were one of them. Lazs was the other.
-
Well yes and no. All NFA rules apply to this but you can buy a registered lightning link or registered drop in ready sear. Then you can put these in any compatible semi auto and turn it into a full auto. They ain't cheap and it's about a 1 year wait time...
That is no different than buying a registered full auto. These must have been made and registered prior to 1986. They cannot be manufactured and are not readily available.
You make it sound as if this is an easy function. It is not. It requires a massive amount of money and government intrusion. It is not an off-the-shelf product and cannot be manufactured.
-
Beet1e,
I can tell you see this as an opportunity to pull out your old anti-USA rhetoric and try to shoehorn it in again where it doesn't fit. It really makes you look like someone who was a little shit in grade school who was continually beat up and decided to blame it on bullies instead of anything you said or did.
-
Automatic weapons are restricted, yes?
Then if so, why are mod kits available to make semi auto weapons full auto available?
Please point to one of these kits. They would not be legal. You cannot legally modify a weapon that is semi-auto to be full auto. You cannot sell kits to do it.
What it seems was used was a bump stock which is a spring between the shoulder and the stock that causes the rifle to move forward and back while you hold it enabling you to essentially squeeze the trigger rapidly. This is something I'd be all for banning.
-
Clearly a leftist cuntstain. There was never any doubt in my mind.
I was hoping for a non-political madman. I don't know that those terms are compatible any more. That's 3 so far this year. Fortunately, none of the others were as successful as this politically motivated madman.
-
Whitey has increased his killing power.
Most mas shootings are by whitey.
Most? I'd say proportionately, less.
-
white guy gone feral. who would of thought that.
You've repeated similar sentiments several times. You may want to look at what the <now> #2 largest "mass shooting" was.
-
Something that also occurred to me in regards to the irony of this protest. I wonder what is higher per capita: the number of black men killed by police officers or the number of black men killed by NFL players.
-
As to the original subject of the thread:
New Orleans took a knee prior to the anthem, then stood for the anthem. I have absolutely zero problem with that.
-
OK, the article begins
So let me ask you - how do they know, how COULD they know that computer models have overstated the rise in global temperature? The answer is that they compared the projections with empirical data - actual temperature readings. How else would they know? But the reason they believe the rise in global average temp to be smaller than the models predicted is because they've used the wrong empirical dataset - HadCRUT4, which excludes temperatures in the Arctic region, where temperatures are rising faster than in any other part of the planet.
Nuke was right about you MinD. You really are a boring old fart.
You really don't understand what you are talking about, Beet1e. The modelling is over a decade old. That is a decade of results to compare to it. They do not match. The modelling is wrong. It really is that simple. So, please continue waiving your hands and ignoring science and the data that is right in front of you so you can focus on modelling that has already been demonstrated to be wrong. They'll get the modelling right the next time... right?
-
Once again, redwing7, have you met Beet1e? I know you think he must be trolling because what he says is usually so stupid. When you meet him, you'll understand that is not the case at all. There are fewer things more bizarre than a fat Brit coming over to America and commenting on how fat Americans are.
-
If people had read the article and not trick bait thread title they would know it was front line.
Huh? I'm not quite sure what you're talking about with "trick bait thread title". You can assume he's talking about the front line by reading the article, but surely you can concede he calls the an all-black lineup instead of "front line" which tends to hint at not really knowing much about football. That's not really trick bait, is it?
-
That was a reference to modelling, which the article is about... which is not anything you've really addressed other than pretending it is everyone else that is spewing rhetoric. The fundamental difference is recognizing that science is the collection of data, modeling is the prediction of it. When collected data (science), does not match modelling, the modelling is wrong.
-
Display More
LOL Lazs! Many great inventions have come from Britain, including the world wide web, which you are using to read this thread. Storch did not believe this - until I posted the proof, after which he went very quiet!
Mini - you are free to hold whatever beliefs you want about climate models. They are not 100% accurate (nobody said they were) but have given us the ability, for example, to obtain reasonably accurate 5 day weather forecasts, when only 1 day weather forecasts would have been possible in the past. I know you think that MMGW is horseshit because climate models are not 100% accurate, but that doesn't matter because warming can be assessed from empirical data each year, and compared with previous years.
The belief that a projected global temperature won't be reached by 2022 (the topic of this thread) is based upon the global average temp now and the erstwhile rate of warming. It has NOTHING to do with models. The dataset being used in the analysis was the HadCRUT44 dataset, and as you can see from the chart I provided in post #3, it provides an historical temperature record from c1980 up until the present.
But as with the "hide the decline" storm in a teacup scandal of 2010, some of you dickheads just grab a headline and believe it at first glance if what you read (but don't necessarily understand) tells you what you WANT to believe.
The "hide the decline" and Phil Jones scandal was a classic example, in which emails from the CRU had been hacked and quoted out of context. Some twat even made a song about it. But it turned out that when Phil Jones spoke of hiding the decline, he wasn't talking about the global average temperature record, but was discussing tree ring data from 1960!
I said at the time that guys who'd sucked up the denialist bullshit at that time were going to look like even bigger wankers at the end of it. And so it proved. :biggrin
Ummm... where have I established my "beliefs" about climate science? This is about an article talking about how the modeling is wrong. You are the one relying on rhetoric and ignoring what is actually being presented while desperately clinging to the words of those being shown to be in error.
