I don't think he asked for evidence of non-existance but that humans created gods to explain what they cannot control.

However, it is noteworthy about how much blind faith you seem to have in asserting there is no god

Only liberal fools think the government is capable of being economical and efficient. Most others understand it it wastefull and irrational most of the time.

I really don't think military spending is comparable to the economics of water supplies unless you think diverting miltary spending to water resources has some sort of merrit. I do not. You can argue the merits of either all day long but when one depends on destroying the other, the argument is lost.

Lol.. that is a bit humorous but likely true to some degree. Even if it isn't something that killed off the dinos, there could be life in it that has evolved completely in isolation to the rest of the world and that could create issues on a similar scale if it isn't purified safely.

But hey, at least we have a weapon in reserve should the dinos become a problem again.

Wrong. Even hunter gatherers would pillage an area then move on. The american indian done this so well, their socity lived in housing that could easily be picked up and moved. Man has always fought for resources to plunder and rarely has been at peace unless the resorces where plentiful enough for all to share.

Sustainability has a different definition today then in past times. It used to be regarded in the context of effort, now it is soley within the confines of fixed resources.

What rockets in use can be filled up at the local shell station?

I think we use a little different type of energy then rockets. And once in space-beyond our atmosphere, solar becomes much more productive.

Actually, it is current technology and it is more expensive which is why cheaper solutions are prefered. It seems that if anyone has blind faith it would be the tree huggers who think using the most expensive ways won't have negetive effects on the majority of populations. Of couse that is a stretch because most tree huggers simply don't care if their positions keeps people in poverty or deal hardships to anyone. Some would be just as happy if it contributed to the deaths of people because they think the world is over populated and man should make changes to accomodate that excess population because their utopian enviroment is more important.

Its sad but true. We have floods killing people because dams used to controlling floods have been removed, we have wildfires killing people because timbering forests are out of the question, fire breaks had to be abandoned, and controlled burnings are restricted in order to preserve what they want to be the natural state.

They've been upset for a long time, about doing secret, unapproved missions. It's a snowden LEAK that make their discontent ... public knowledge.

Meh. I disagree - I think most NSA employees love that they get to do something really james-bond-ish, get a blank-check budget, and have essentially unlimited power over everyone else. There is no doubt a strong voyeuristic angle to the whole thing. They're also, by and large, getting paid obscene amounts of money.

I've met a number of people who work government jobs with clearances and they all act so goddamn smug about it, I've wanted to punch them in the mouth.

I think they were all quite happy nobody knew the power they had; they were "getting away with it." Now that we do, they're demoralized because they don't get to lord over us with the mystique. Plus, robbing the cookie jar isn't fun when everyone sees you do it.

Fuck 'em. I hope the place becomes a miserable place to work and the whole thing falls apart at the seams.

There is a line about diet that says something about how the PH of your body can affect cancer cell growth or something like that. I guess the more acidic it is, the easier it is for the cancer to grow and spread. No one says it will cure cancer, but they seem to claim it will slow it's progress and prevent it in most cases.

However, I heard it from some radio doctor who pushes alternative treatments so I don't know how much value I would place in it. Seems to me if this was true more then a couple anecdotal incidents it might be a common practice. I know Jane Fonda attempted to treat her ass cancer with diet. My brother nad a friend of ours swears up and down that our friend's grandmother was dieing from cancer and our friend gave her some hash because the pain pills were making her nauseous and she perked up and lived somewhat well for about a year and six months longer then the doctors said she should (wasn't bed ridden either where before she was). They claim that she ran out and didn't tell anybody to get more and died about 3 weeks later. I don't think the hashish fixed her cancer or helped her outside of maybe dealing with pain in a seemingly less toxic way though. But none of us are doctors. I do know that when my back was blown out, the Vicodin and Morphine would get me that way sometimes when I would take too much. Taking a couple one-hits masked the pain enough to tolerate it but didn't have the side effects of the other drugs.

That's the traditional definition but recently Biden decided that âoebullets designed to inflict maximum damage.â are cop killer bullets in the recent gun control pushes so it is no wonder why people are confused.

All they should have to do is paint the blades a color that significantly contrasts the background and place a few streamers on the tips. The spinning blades will appear as a wall when moving fast and a predator when moving slow. Perhaps stripes could make the slow moving blades appear to be more of a threat.

Eagles are off the endangered species lists now. But they are still protected under the migratory bird treaty or something like that.

So your solution is to point out that not everyone is the ideal person and they should uproot their entire lives, leave their friends and families behind and live somewhere else?

I mean that is so Hitler of you. You might as well go the extra mile and suggest he be sent to the t4 and be put out of his misery while you are at it.

I simply do not understand the Naziism in some of you people. You are seriously worse then those jingoist who say if you don't like it, get out of the country as if like it or leave it is the only option. Instead, you say you aren't as worthy as the rest and you need to torture yourself or leave because you are defective.

That all depends on what type of war they intend to fight in Iran. The one described is not the same that was fought in Afghanistan so your comparison is moot.

We have not fought a war of annihilation like WWII since then. Every war we have been involved with has always attempted to preserve resources for future use by factions within the waring country. That's a lot different then trying to conquer a nation. When you are willing to go Sherman on them and burn a trail to their capitol or bomb every single factory or annihilate entire cities, your efforts find a lot more victories then trying to distinguish between good and bad guys dressed similarly and in an area you are wanting to protect.

Even Germany who fought parts of the European war the same as we are fighting in Afghanistan, had troubles with resistance pockets except they didn't really care about killing innocents.

The FBI is a police organisation, not a spy organisation (though catching spies is also part of their duties). So everything you said about spying is not relevant in this context.

You are right. I took the context of how they solved the issue to be part of the bigger picture of government spying though.

You have a point in that they first needed to find out what country the person of interest was in. When they found out it was Iran, it should have become the responsibility of Iranian police.

According to the article, all they have done so far is generally locate the person by installing the software. It is yet to be seen if anything else, including cooperation with Iranian authorities, would happen. So I guess arguing that would be pointless on my part.

It is possible (IANAL) that the FBI violated Iranian laws by installing spyware on someone elses computer in Iran. (They didn't have a warrant from an Iranian judge.) Would the USA be willing to deliver those responsible, or would they rather harbour criminals within their borders and make war "a necessity"?

I doubt the US would ever hand someone over for doing something under color of law or as an official state action. Wars will be fought if it happens just like those European courts who indicted Bush and Cheney knew that it was all symbolic and the governments would never arrest them when they showed up for state visits because the US would respond militarily if they did. As a matter of fact, even if the current president didn't respond that way, I'm pretty sure one will be elected on the promise to do so.

As for calling the FBI criminals, I don't think that could technically be possible unless Yahoo has a server located somewhere in Iran and he logged into that server. But it would be just as ridiculous to imagine a law banning the installation of spyware being carried into extraterritorial matters of law as Iran simply does not have that stretch of influence. I know it sounds like a matter of double standard and it is, but the influence you have determines a lot about what local laws can be enforced outside your country. And to that matter, even the US laws being enforced in other countries are largely parts of treaties like copyright and trade treaties with the exception that I know of with the computer tresspass law enforce on that kid in England. There they took the concept of the person logging into US government computers as if he traveled to the US which would be the concept carried about logging into a yahoo server outside of Iran.

So I don't think they could be called criminals and if war is a necessity, it will be because of crazy leaders in Iran more then anything else. Installing software that exposes the location of a computer used in violation of a country's laws should not be an act of war under any sane interpretation of any country's sovereignty.

It is not exactly the same. The difference is between something like that happening and being able to make it happen or encourage it to happen. I don't know of any christian groups that think they can do anything to make it happen where the 13th Imam groups believe if there is enough chaos in the world, it will force it to happen and by creating the chaos they can aid in it.

Outside that, yes, it is very close.. But this shouldn't surprise anyone. Islam is more or less a contrived version of Judaism or the correct version depending on the beliefs of who you talk to. Christianity is more or less an extension to Judaism revolving around a new covenant that was prophesied by the Judaism portions of the bible (which is mainly why the old testament is included- Jesus was a Jew). So it shouldn't surprise many if the culmination of the three have similar but different concepts. Even if those differences and similarities are expounded by differing sects within each religion.

I'm not sure I have ever seen Americans trying to force the second coming of Christ. Could you provide some examples? I do know there are some who think the chaos in the world is signs of the tribulations and will end with the second coming and they welcome that but none that I know of who take the position that they can make it happen.

You see, one would be ancillary to the other as in if it happens, I will be happy. The other seems to think they can make it happen and they will be happy. A big difference just like the difference between wishing someone was dead or harmed so you will be happy and then being happy when they drive drunk and wrap themselves around a telephone pole and you actually killing them or harming them so you will be happy.

But yes, it is a strange concept of Jesus coming to aid a Muslim if you take the Christian religion into account.