Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt...

NobodyYouEverWantToKnow, alias:

LessFactMoreHype wrote:

He exxagerates[sic]

By adding an extra X where it's not needed, Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty?

BTW, how are your "absurdies," still "over the top?"

NobodyYouEverWantToKnow, alias:

LessFactMoreHype wrote:

All you need to kill someone is a gun and a plan

As you're one of the original backwoodsmen, I'm surprised you forgot the more basic weapons, Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty.

Yes, the basic weapons, the kid next door to me was stabbed to death in a bar fight earlier this year. He was 24 and just got a position teaching at an elementary school in Illinois.

The basic weapons, hands and feet, add a rock or a piece of wood..........

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

<quoted text>
I check out most of them but rely on PBS. The most uninformative source is Fox. Travon? You think big man Zimmerman shooting an unarmed boy is kosher? I suppose that meets the RW mentality and gun hysteria. Such a totally unreasonable response. There is no way this can be justified. If this is allowed a pass, then the old west will seem a tame span in our history. Pitiful. Just pitiful!

Think you should read his post again.

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

<quoted text>
I know no more of what happened out of the view of any witnesses any more than you. I claimed nothing of the sort. Such a retort shows that you have a political bias. My point is that the Florida law leaves an opening for killing someone and claiming that it was self defense. A very poor law.

Two points - 1)Everybody has political bias whether they want to admit to it or not. I am a conservative in political POV and I freely admit it. 2) Since you admit that you weren't there and don't have all the facts about what happened, then you have no idea if the stand your ground law is flawed. IF you do a little research, you'll find that most states have their own version of a stand your ground law. I just completed a concealed carry handgun class for the state of Utah and they have a law that says that retreat from a dangerous situation is not an obligation. In other words, you have a right to defend yourself and, although retreating is an option, it is not necessarily the ONLY option. You also have states(like Illinois and NY) that say in a situation like that, you HAVE to retreat rather than defend yourself. Otherwise, you could be subject to prosecution. IMO, that is just not sound judgement as you could end up paying a high price.

I'm sure with this Martin/Zimmerman case, you were unaware that the reason Martin was in this neighborhood was because he had been suspended from school for pot residue/paraphernalia. My point is that Martin is NOT the fine upstanding citizen that the LW media has portrayed him out to be. My personal opinion of this is that all the facts of what happened that night are not known but to a few people. The two directly involved, the police and the attorneys. Until then, everyone(including you and the LW media) should just STFU and let the justice system go through its course.

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

<quoted text>
My point is that the Florida law leaves an opening for killing someone and claiming that it was self defense. A very poor law.

ALL jurisdictions in the US recognize the right of use of lethal force in self-defense (that is, "killing someone and claiming that it was self defense" in your words), and ALWAYS HAVE.

Your position here is completely out of step with all jurisprudence going back centuries.

It is, in other words - absurd.

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

<quoted text>
Agreed. The law takes away the rights of the VICTIM to defend himself against harassment leading to a shooting. All you need to kill someone is a gun and a plan of assault, threats and intimidation. No matter what YOU do to provoke a fight, any resistance is a signal that you can now escalate it to murder, even if the other person is totally unarmed and no real threat to you.

Completely false.

"776.041&#8195;Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
...
(2)&#8195;Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a)&#8195;Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b)&#8195;In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force."

Jack Webb wrote:

<quoted text>
ALL jurisdictions in the US recognize the right of use of lethal force in self-defense (that is, "killing someone and claiming that it was self defense" in your words), and ALWAYS HAVE.
Your position here is completely out of step with all jurisprudence going back centuries.
It is, in other words - absurd.

Obviously, you're not a good lawyer, that's if you claimed to be one.

Valid language is: I don't know what is recognized in that jurisdiction.

SpaceBlues wrote:

<quoted text>Obviously, you're not a good lawyer, that's if you claimed to be one.
Valid language is: I don't know what is recognized in that jurisdiction.

Do you have specific law from some US jurisdiction you'd care to cite for us that provides no legal countenance for use of deadly force in defense of self in rebuttal to my statement?

Or are you just FOS?

Handguns, healthcare...when does this board address the pressing issue of abortion?

Anything but climate science, because that's too hard.

Jack Webb wrote:

<quoted text>
Do you have specific law from some US jurisdiction you'd care to cite for us that provides no legal countenance for use of deadly force in defense of self in rebuttal to my statement?
Or are you just FOS?

You are a time waster.

How's your climate science?

http://www.nature.com/news/climate-forecastin...

As climate researchers test drive the new generation of models, they are particularly keen to measure the models' overall sensitivity: how strongly they warm up in response to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases. The addition of indirect aerosol effects makes the new model at NCAR more sensitive to greenhouse gases, says NCAR researcher Andrew Gettelman. Simulations show that the additional cooling from aerosol pollution, as well as the direct effect of haze, masked some of the warming from greenhouse gases during the twentieth century; but the model shows enhanced warming in the twenty-first century as curbs on pollution expose the full power of greenhouse gases. In simplified runs that double greenhouse-gas concentrations — which could happen by the end of this century — the new atmospheric model projects a 4 °C rise in global temperatures, whereas the previous model showed a 3.1 °C increase.

SpaceBlues wrote:

As climate researchers test drive the new generation of models... the models' overall sensitivity.... the new model.... Simulations show...; but the model shows.... In simplified runs...the new atmospheric model projects....

The "science" of models.

GIGO

Mothra wrote:

<quoted text>
The "science" of models.
GIGO

Weather is very difficult to forecast. Probably more difficult than climate but we have seen improvement as time progresses. Forecasts are much better today than just a decade or so ago. Forecast models improve as they are developed and super computers are fed more data.

Much of our understanding of our physical world is based on models of one type or another. E=mc^2 is simply a mathematical model as are all of the mathematical relationships that describe the world around us. There is no known simple equation that describes our climate. Computer models are a relatively new method of attempting to understand complex relationships. As you say, they are no better than the data that is fed into them, but as technology has increased the accuracy of data climate models are becoming more refined and reliable.

The are the best understanding of climate dynamics available today. If you disparage the models, what in the world do you base your understanding upon?

Jack Webb wrote:

<quoted text>
Completely false.

Jack Webb wrote:

<quoted text>
Completely false.

You mean that you disagree.

Yet that is dumb and contrary to reality. The reality is that the dead victim cannot testify to how reasonalbe he was and the shooter can claim he was justified. No witness means means that no charges CAN be laid even with a deliberate and unprovoked murder.

You are obviously not a lawyer.

One does not even need to list a specific case to know that this law is BOGUS and allows intentional murder to pass as 'defense'.

NobodyYouEverWantToKnow, alias:

LessFactMoreHype wrote:

You are obviously not a lawyer.

Maybe he isn't, but what are you?
-
Forty is spelt with a U.
Epistemologists compile dictionaries.
Samuel Johnson [lexicographer] was an American.
Ice calving is restricted by size.
"The equator doesn't have season."
Cars can be charged with road collisions.
Enercon install gearless offshore wind generators.
Vikings didn't know how to live in a warmer Greenland.
"Deforestations is a consequence of AGW."
Alberta is a country.
"Insects and plants" don't qualify as species.
"Scientific laws" aren't science.
Predictions are just for astrologers.
Ethanol is a very workable and effective solution.
America only has two political parties.
CO2 is not vital for life.
Climate and weather are not linked.
'Nondenier' is a real word.
'Fruiting plants' are especially chosen by bees for, "polination."
We acted on CFCs in the 70s.
CO2 is a thermal pollutant.
I would be astounded if you can grow tomatoes in your desert.
AGW is caused by Solar cycles.
The jet stream has nothing to do with tornadoes.

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

<quoted text>
<quoted text>
You mean that you disagree.
Yet that is dumb and contrary to reality. The reality is that the dead victim cannot testify to how reasonalbe he was and the shooter can claim he was justified. No witness means means that no charges CAN be laid even with a deliberate and unprovoked murder.
You are obviously not a lawyer.
One does not even need to list a specific case to know that this law is BOGUS and allows intentional murder to pass as 'defense'.

The gun right nuts just cannot admit this. It is a bad law!

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

<quoted text>
The law cannot be justified.

So I see you have to change the subject. The gun laws have nothing to do with the progressive media advancing a narrative of a hate crime. It's hard to admit that the "reliable, truthful" progressive media is deceitful and it does what it needs to do to advance an agenda leaving so many uninformed and raging out of control with hate and vengeance.

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

<quoted text>
This is just the normal strawman approach of the troll with no real debating skills. He exxagerates and invents a 'position' for the opposition that has nothing to do with their actual points and then knocks it down (hence the strawman analogy).
Pay no attention to him. Trolls live for attention regardless of the reasoning or lack of it.

I backed up my statement, post 30163.