Leftfield

Has no problem beating his kid for "corrective action," but wails about any effort by the legal system to do the same for a septuagenarian with the same mentality.

If a guy punches you and you barely feel it, do you beat him into the ground, or do you sit there and laugh? Either is effective, but that latter is far more demoralizing because it shows he couldn't hurt you. It also keeps others from jumping in to help him.

Possibly a slight amount short-term. Don't think it will amount to much. Do you look at that attack and say "Wow, Israel really dodged a bullet there"? I don't. The second I heard drones were the primary weapon I thought it was futile.

A strong Israeli response. Again, Iran knows full well Iron Dome's capability. They knew it was a largely futile and symbolic attack. If Israel's capabilities were weaker, I'd bet the attack would have been, too.

I perfectly understand that Iran finances terror all over the place. Have not seen any evidence that the Iranian General was the one leading the attack, but that doesn't mean it's not there. I'll take a look. Don't cop out. You're just evading so you can blame him no matter what happens. Again, what do you think he should do?

Israel fired six missles, which leveled a building and killed 16 people. Iran launched about 300 drones and missles and pretty much hit air. The US wouldn't appear weak if Netanyahu does what he should, which is yawn.

Iran didn't carry out that attack. Did they cheer it? Certainly, and they probably supported it, but there is no firm evidence that the government had anything to do with it. I was talking specifically about the Iranian drone/rocket attack. So what do you think Biden should do? Should he support Israel no matter what? Do you think Iran's attack warrants a response that will likely lead to war?

Agreed. I didn't spank much, but when I did it was usually a firm swat, and when they were 2-4 years old. You can't reason with them at that age. They just don't have the capacity to understand or communicate. I'm generalizing, of course, and maybe there are circumstances with his son that I don't know, but by 6-7 the spankings were pretty much done. Kids still mess up but at least you can explain how they messed up. Just seeing the anger is usually enough for them by that point. I'd have been more ticked at the neighbor. Talk about someone who needed punishment.

Then mark me as a fool, as well. He's right...you were pissed and took it out on him. I was guilty of it at times myself, but I never bragged about it. Do you seriously think the reason he did well in life was because of that incident? The fact he took it upon himself to get dressed and find someone to take him to Church speaks more to that than your punishment.

Not in this case.

The man was literally found liable for sexual abuse.

And Netanyahu, as expected, is saying they will oblige. In my opinion, this is what he's wanted for decades - an excuse. Unfortunately he's going to try to pull us in with him. As I said in the thread on the main board, I think the best play would have been to basically ignore the attack. Israel lost virtually nothing. The attack was the equivalent of a finger prick, if that. Iran should frankly be embarrassed if that's what they consider a "response" to what Israel did. At worst, Netanyahu should just go to the media and ridicule the attack as being so weak it wasn't worth addressing.

Thank you. Not nearly as bad as it initially sounded, but can't understand why he would use "beat" instead of "spank." Horrible connotations with that word.

Before I get ticked off, I guess I need clarification: What is beating in a circle? Have never heard that phrase before (sounds uncomfortably close to another phrase). Hoping it's a figure of speech referring to spanking, because otherwise I'll be sorely disappointed in some of these responses.

Not to be rude, but just by proposing this it shows you literally have no idea what you're talking about. Take our oil off the world market and you'll see Saudi Arabia and Russia laughing all the way to the bank, while our allies suffer higher prices and everybody gets pissed at us. Then you'll see economic retaliation and trade warfare. As Dub said, if you think things are bad now, they'd be orders of magnitude worse if we get out of the market. Even if we did leave the market we couldn't make the switch immediately, because a good chunk of our refineries aren't made to refine the oil we produce in the States. They're set up for the heavier, dirtier crude that we've been importing for decades. We could be producing double the amount of oil we are now and still couldn't use it. It would take years and billions to convert existing refineries or build new ones.

1. Almost certain that the debris in Jordan was drones that were shot down. No reason for Iran to target them. aside from maybe US outposts there. 2. They shouldn't. I haven't seen any reports that a single person was killed. If that changes then a response may be warranted, but at this point you don't escalate the situation. Just feels like it was a face-saving move on Iran's part, not an earnest attack.

If Iran is true to their word and this "attack" concludes their response, Netanyahu better be smart enough and leave it alone. This was a face-saving move for Iran. Doesn't strike me as any serious attempt at an attack. Iran knows full well Iron Dome's capability. They can't have expected much if anything to get through. I actually think it works better to do nothing - tell the world the attack was so insignificant as to not warrant a response, which is pretty much true. Only other thing of value I can see for Iran in this is observing what the US would do to assist, so they might be able to use it in propaganda against us.

I don’t know what other people believed or denied about acid rain. It was a relatively small area affected and was easily diagnosed. I don’t remember what Reagan said about it or care at this point. It does take a while to get legislation passed. I believe the response was effective and the problem is under control. That would seem to be a success story but you seem to think it wasn’t. Did you believe it? Small area relative to what? Should it not have mattered to the areas that were affected by it? Would the affected area not have increased if we had done nothing? Of course you don't care what Reagan thought, because you never experienced any major effects from the issue. You say it takes a while to get legislation passed. While true, do you not think that the legislation would have been passed earlier had some people not taken so long to be convinced? Can't understand why you wrote those last two sentences, because it's the very point I was trying to make. Governments finally recognized the problem and implemented a solution that worked, after years of many people claiming it wasn't a problem. Do you not see a parallel with the present situation? No by all means don’t ignore it. Try to find a verifiable cause and effect and initiate a comprehensive remedy that will significantly reduce the problem. That’s what we don’t have yet, despite all the rhetoric about farting cows, fossil fuels, permafrost, and private jet travel (oh wait that one doesn’t count). Cause: Increased emissions and therefore concentration of CO2 (and some others) in the atmosphere traps some heat that would normally be radiated into space. Effect: The planet warms. It's that simple. I don't know why you keep saying that's not verifiable. A simple science experiment can prove CO2 traps infrared heat. No one disputes it, yet all the people here who don't believe the atmosphere is warming do so in spite of this well-established fact. There are solutions, but anything proposed is shouted down by those who don't believe there's a problem. Or they just have the "you ain't takin' my truck" mentality. In truth, individual action can't do much, but getting politicians in place that can affect legislation/budgeting can. That doesn't mean you have to vote Democrat - there are Republican politicians that support such legislation, but they can't get any traction because the vast majority of skeptics are in the Republican party. Check out eea.europa.eu topics in depth current state of ozone layer. Interesting article. Greenhouse gases actually cause the hole to get smaller in some areas of the globe, and the hole is made larger by cooler temperatures over the poles. They committed a foul though when they said “…greenhouse gases are thought to lead to warmer temperatures…” Ouch. It is an interesting article, but I have no idea why you pointed it out other than you think the line about greenhouse gases is somehow an own goal. Even with that, you're cherry picking one sentence from an entire website that clearly advocates for action to mitigate emissions that cause both warming and ozone depletion. If there is a cause aside from normal climate fluctuation that has occurred historically, the please promote one. You just don’t have one that is provable scientifically. I can prove scientifically that the climate of the planet does change as it has for all of its history. That is fact. The cause is not fact. Does there need to be a cause? When you mess with Mother Nature you could get some pretty serious unintended consequences. As predicted, there's your "the climate has always changed" argument. Thanks for obliging. The key here is in your first sentence, where you say "normal climate fluctuation." The entire point, which skeptics keep ignoring, is that the change we're seeing now is not normal. The climate is warming much faster than it should be. An ironic final sentence, because spewing pollutants into the environment for more than 100 years is in fact messing with Mother Nature. The solutions being proposed simply try to stop messing with her. What's sad is that you can't seem to recognize that. I'm really trying to not attack your intelligence, but you're making it very, very difficult.

Yet there were still people who denied for years that it was a problem. I'd be willing to bet you were one of them. Reagan was, too, until he was finally convinced. It took more than 20 years for legislation to be passed to address this "easy to observe" problem. Ah....so since warming is much more difficult to address, we should just ignore it, right? "Poof?" It still isn't back to normal, and won't be for decades. As you pointed out, the hole is usually over sparsely populated areas, so we don't hear much about it. If it had kept growing, we certainly would. Out of sight, out of mind. Well, at least minds like yours, who refuse to believe that anything that doesn't directly affect them is a problem. We've been over this. And over this more. You've never given any other reason for the cause, you just say it's not greenhouse gases. I'd ask you again for a cause, but guessing we'll just get your "the climate has always changed" response. By the way, climate change is the effect. Which has been proving out, but you refuse to notice. Of course you remember. I was born in the seventies and even I remember. The difference is you hold on to predictions, from 50 years ago, that weren't even close to universal acceptance. There were plenty of scientists that disagreed, and the articles from the time point that out. The only reason you keep going back to them is because they fit your narrative about science not knowing what the hell it's talking about.

Sorry, I misunderstood that that's what you were getting at. Wouldn't be a big deal if he was the only one that isn't worried about it.

Not really. If governments hadn't agreed to take action the problems would have gotten much worse. I've mentioned the Montreal Protocols several times in other discussions as a success in governments working together to tackle a problem. Same thing with acid rain. Man-made emissions that cause acid rain are down dramatically from the levels in the 70s. A quick Google search says sulfer dioxide emissions are down 94% from levels in 1970. I did not verify that number with other sources, but safe to say the emissions have been reduced dramatically. To complain there was a bunch of fear mongering about problems that never became severe only because humans actually took action to prevent them is the height of absurdity.

Is your contention that acid rain and the ozone layer wouldn't have been problems even if governments had done nothing?

One Democrat. And you use it to illustrate all Democrats. Where did this come from? It's so unlike you.