I think it was Clarke who invented the phrase; "Science faction." He believed that what man can imagine, man can make fact. That's terrific, but there are people with dark imaginations too.

QM, Mossadegh's effort to nationalize his nation's oil was not a threat to the United States. For one, they were not doing it to make a political point against any government; so, the Iranians had no interest in withholding oil from any customers. What they wanted were the revenues and profits from the oil coming out of their own land; which would have hurt British interests, or more specifically, the precursor to BP. The US got involved because of cold war ideology. Also, our governments were not in conflict at the time; Mossadegh even visited the states at least once.

Your proposition that they would have eventually overthrown Mossadegh is faulty on a number of points. First of all, Mossadegh was an elderly man who could not have lasted a couple of decades. Secondly, he was a prime minister in a democracy with many thriving factions. Like in all democracies, his administration would have eventually been voted out. Also, the Islamic fundies in Iran developed as a direct result of the Shah's brutality. The Persians had one of the richest, intellectual and tolerant cultures in the region, beforehand, IMO. If their democracy had had a chance to mature and thrive, they could have been a major positive force in the region. Why would people in possession of wealth and democracy overthrow their own government?

It's a very interesting story, documented in the book All the Shah's Men, if you are interested in learning more.

>> ^quantumushroom:

@ChaosEngine Thank you for your more civil tone of late. Am I surprised that someone reached for the mouse to downvote MY comment while ignoring THIS?

Stukafox: There's only two kinds of Republicans: Corporate tools and complete psychopaths.

The Blame America First mindset is very real. It's taught in our public schools government indoctrination centers from K thru kollij. "Anarchist" Gnome Chompsky has made millions off this bizarre worldview, which glibly ignores the 100 million murdered by communist regimes and the defeat of fascism (and rebuilding of Europe) by the United States.
As for the charge of US meddling in Iran, the reality is we have interests around the world, things we want to buy and nations that want to sell. Glancing at wikipedia: when the elected government nationalized the Iranian oil industry, that was a threat to both Britain and the US.
Yeah, the Shah was an a-hole, but he was replaced with an even bigger a-hole, an islamic fundie. So instead of utopian perfection, we had an evil replaced with a greater evil. (And who's to say had Prime Minister Mosaddegh kept power through the 1970s, he wouldn't have been overthrown by Khomeini anyway)?
There is not any one era when international relations was superior and reasonable, just brief burps where there was an odd peace.
If you want to celebrate red china for "putting America in its place" like our idiot excuse of a president does, you better damned well understand what you're favoring: a ruthless communist regime that kills people as easily as you throw away coat hangers.

The first miracle of Jesus is turning water into really good wine at the wedding feast in Canan. What's more is our lord converted six 20 - 30 gallon stone jars worth! That's like the Costco of the ancient world for wine!! Pretty sure a few people got pretty drunk off of Le Vin Du Jesus that good day.
>> ^Duckman33:

>> ^shinyblurry:
This is a Christian:
Luke 9:23-25
If anyone would come after Me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow Me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for Me will save it. What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, and yet lose or forfeit his very self?
If you do these things you will not inherit the kingdom of God:
Galatians 5:19-21
Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Everyone is guilty of breaking some of these, but we are to repent and change our ways. The word sorcery in the greek is pharmakeia, which is where we get the word pharmacy. It is specifically referring to drug use, especially as it pertains to idolatry. A Christian does not use drugs receationally, nor approve of their use. It is also violation of federal law to smoke marijuana.

>> ^Duckman33:
See? Even Jesus Christ wants it to be legal!

>> ^brycewi19:
Is no one noticing the pure awesomeness of who, in fact, sifted this?


I think you missed the point. I was making a tongue in cheek comment on the fact that this guy looks a lot like the popular interpretation of what Jesus looked like. Not that he endorses drug usage.
However:
Genesis 1:29
Then God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you"

>> ^shinyblurry:

This is a Christian:
Luke 9:23-25
If anyone would come after Me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow Me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for Me will save it. What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, and yet lose or forfeit his very self?
If you do these things you will not inherit the kingdom of God:
Galatians 5:19-21
Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Everyone is guilty of breaking some of these, but we are to repent and change our ways. The word sorcery in the greek is pharmakeia, which is where we get the word pharmacy. It is specifically referring to drug use, especially as it pertains to idolatry. A Christian does not use drugs receationally, nor approve of their use. It is also violation of federal law to smoke marijuana.

>> ^Duckman33:
See? Even Jesus Christ wants it to be legal!

>> ^brycewi19:
Is no one noticing the pure awesomeness of who, in fact, sifted this?



I think you missed the point. I was making a tongue in cheek comment on the fact that this guy looks a lot like the popular interpretation of what Jesus looked like. Not that he endorses drug usage.

However:

Genesis 1:29
Then God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you"

Having a glass of wine is not abusing drugs. It is a sin to be drunk, it is also a sin to drink to get buzzed, but it is not a sin to have a glass of wine with Jesus at the last supper. I don't drink any alcohol, and I don't think anyone should, but there isn't going to be condemnation for drinking one glass of wine. The wine also probably had a very low alcohol content.

>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^shinyblurry:
This is a Christian:
Luke 9:23-25
If anyone would come after Me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow Me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for Me will save it. What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, and yet lose or forfeit his very self?
If you do these things you will not inherit the kingdom of God:
Galatians 5:19-21
Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Everyone is guilty of breaking some of these, but we are to repent and change our ways. The word sorcery in the greek is pharmakeia, which is where we get the word pharmacy. It is specifically referring to drug use, especially as it pertains to idolatry. A Christian does not use drugs receationally, nor approve of their use. It is also violation of federal law to smoke marijuana.
>> ^Duckman33:
See? Even Jesus Christ wants it to be legal!

>> ^brycewi19:
Is no one noticing the pure awesomeness of who, in fact, sifted this?


So those 12 dudes hanging out with JC at the last supper drinking wine, they weren't Christian? Good to know.

>> ^shinyblurry:

This is a Christian:
Luke 9:23-25
If anyone would come after Me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow Me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for Me will save it. What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, and yet lose or forfeit his very self?
If you do these things you will not inherit the kingdom of God:
Galatians 5:19-21
Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Everyone is guilty of breaking some of these, but we are to repent and change our ways. The word sorcery in the greek is pharmakeia, which is where we get the word pharmacy. It is specifically referring to drug use, especially as it pertains to idolatry. A Christian does not use drugs receationally, nor approve of their use. It is also violation of federal law to smoke marijuana.

>> ^Duckman33:
See? Even Jesus Christ wants it to be legal!

>> ^brycewi19:
Is no one noticing the pure awesomeness of who, in fact, sifted this?


So those 12 dudes hanging out with JC at the last supper drinking wine, they weren't Christian? Good to know.

This is a Christian:

Luke 9:23-25

If anyone would come after Me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow Me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for Me will save it. What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, and yet lose or forfeit his very self?

If you do these things you will not inherit the kingdom of God:

Galatians 5:19-21

Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Everyone is guilty of breaking some of these, but we are to repent and change our ways. The word sorcery in the greek is pharmakeia, which is where we get the word pharmacy. It is specifically referring to drug use, especially as it pertains to idolatry. A Christian does not use drugs receationally, nor approve of their use. It is also violation of federal law to smoke marijuana.


>> ^Duckman33:
See? Even Jesus Christ wants it to be legal!


>> ^brycewi19:
Is no one noticing the pure awesomeness of who, in fact, sifted this?

@joedirt

I think both I and Mr. Greenwald understand what a corporation is. Let me describe it in another way from you, even though I don't think your description is wrong. Is it a free collection of citizens arranged for a specific end. For instance, the ACLU is a corporation. Are we going to start staying that only certain groups of freely gathered citizens are allowed protection under the law? Are we going to start writing different sections of laws for different factions of people? I can honestly say this is the WORST idea we could have to amend the constitution in this way. This is the same kind of logic that denies voting rights to minorities, and to women, or to Catholics. Specifically limiting certain groups participation is censorship of the worst kind, it is also forbidden by the constitution, see Article I, Section 9.

And @dystopianfuturetoday, if money isn't speech, then isn't there no problem? I mean, no "group" has vocal cords persay, but factions are things we all are a part of. How is a political faction, or a family faction, or a business faction, or a religion faction any different? The ALCU isn't that much different than IBM computers, or the Church of Christ in the way the carry out their actions. They are groups of freely gathered people with common aim to achieve certain goals, and as such, have a right to freely petition the government in the affairs that concern them collectively. I don't see how collective spending is any more of less evil that individual spending. If you aren't free to petition the government as a certain faction because some other faction has successfully lobbied your legal pacification, then far have we fallen from what was supposed to be the thrust of the 10th federalist paper.

Not to say that I don't support some form of campaign finance reform of sorts, but I do not agree with the legal notion of denying people the ability to do with what they own they like; spare it harm someone else, because some other group doesn't like you...it is horrible and reeks of the worst kind of oppression.

Believe me Mr Dirt, I find all those subsidy and bail outs abominable, just as I found those terrorists on 911. But I will not permit anyone to pass a new sort of patriot act against the rich that really is attacking us all in the end. I say this not as a rich man, but one whom exists in poverty.

(crap, misclick on the upvote, sorry dirt )

thank you @ghark.
i always appreciate your insightful comments but i have to disagree with your main premise and here is why:
i have made no bold statements concerning my faith,just that i am a man of faith.
so i have not put myself in a position where i have to defend a non-existent dogma or doctrine.
because i have none.

which leads me to my next point.
to argue faith JUST on the faith itself is a wasteful argument.by its very nature faith is based on the intangible and therefore cannot be argued in any concrete or conclusive manner.this is why you will not find me knocking on your door asking if you have found jesus,or allah or buddha for that matter and to imply that the onus is on me to prove the validity of my faith further implies that i have the desire to do so.
which i do not.
because faith is personal.

the meat of what you are talking about is the prove/disprove god.
this is a futile argument,for neither side can conclusively prove either position.so just as an intelligent person has to leave the option that god MAY exist (though unlikely in their view),the person of faith has to come to the exact same conclusion but in reverse.
my view is that this argument is a waste of time and produces nothing of value.
now the discussion on WHY somehow has faith,or a lack of it is a much more interesting conversation and THAT conversation can open so many avenues of dialogue which can benefit all parties involved.

i think the best approach to have a decent discussion about faith vs atheism is to define the terms before the discussion even begins.
and this has to be the main definition to discuss:
define GOD.
because if you begin a discussion without making that vital distinction the discussion has a tendency to devolve into presumption based on ones own subjective knowledge.

i have had many discussions with atheists (quite a few here on the sift) and usually this is due to their curiosity about me being a man of faith.they were respectful.they allowed me to express where my faith resides and they didnt judge,many times they even understood (though still disagreed).
those discussions with "militant" atheists went in a totally different direction which almost mirrored my discussion with fundamentalist christians and muslims and what i found most abhorrent about those discussions was the PRESUMPTION that not only were they absolutely correct but also where my faith originated.
this is the epitome of fundamentalism and i find it not only lazy but distasteful.

concerning harris, you may be correct.my opinion of him is anecdotal and based on his lectures i have watched and being a neuroscientist i am sure he has much to say about things concerning the mind.my point was that hitchens went after what needed to be addressed.which is dogma and doctrine.harris shows a palpable disdain for anybody who deems themselves a person of faith.which is just arrogant and weak.

my whole point was to express the difference between a regular atheist (is that even a term?) and a militant atheist.just like their is a huge difference between a religious person and a fundamentalist religious person.
in my experience i have found the militant will react viscerally just by the mere mention of "faith" and will presume a whole litany of non-presented facts based on nothing more than their own prejudice.the fundamentalist will do basically the same thing when the validity of their holy writ is brought under scrutiny as not being the un-erring word of god.both of these factions make the mistake that their position is inviolate based on their own limited understandings.

at least i KNOW i do not know everything and wisdom needs to be tempered with reason and conclusions drawn from experience otherwise it is not wisdom but rather misused data.
i am a man of faith.
you are not.
and i am totally ok with that.
namaste.

>> ^criticalthud:

hope and change will have new meaning:
thanks for changing our fundamental rights. i hope i get out of prison some day.
at this point i would actually consider voting for a republican, in the hope that things would become bad enough that in 4 years we might actually get a real progressive in office.
once again the"middle" has been pushed to the far right, and the far right is now just fucking insane.
and leaves the american people with the typical - pick-the-lesser-evil type of decision.


I think this has shown us right, left distinctions are meaningless; mere distractions created by our "betters" to create a impetus of infighting and faction. Eisenhower warned of this decades ago, and is now being fully realized. The republic stands on the brink, I am doubtful of a peaceful resolution and fully expect an American line of Cesar's to come about.

Well that's just the puritans. There were also a whole bunch of other religious factions (quakers, protestants, etc.) really just looking for "space" to practice their own faith in private and America provided the vast amount of space needed (except for some pesky natives...)

>> ^Quboid:

>> ^residue:
Wasn't part of the reason for initial colonization of America (by Europeans) to escape religious prosecution? The thought that America has to be an entirely Christian nation is in direct opposition to the principles of freedom that the country makes its stance upon...

I think that's not true. The puritans went to America to escape persecution of their particular brand of fundamentalist Christianity. In today's terms, the English got sick of these bible bashing morons, so they shipped off to become the American Christian far right.
They didn't want freedom from religious persecution; they wanted religious persecution - but crucially, their religious. Exactly what the Christian right want to do now.

The OWS proof is in the pudding. Thier 'rap sheet' is an odious pile of thefts, sexual assaults, property damage, threats against police, and many other things far too numerous to list. Oh - wait - you can...

http://biggovernment.com/jjmnolte/2011/10/28/occupywallstreet-the-rap-sheet-so-far/

OWS had a purpose at one point. As time went on it collapsed into a bunch of hooligans even more crass and vile than the yobs in the UK earlier this year. They are what they are - Cap'n H or not.

And OWS does not have a message. No matter how much you or anyone else may try and protest otherwise, OWS never once articulated a unifying message that they all got behind except "we're the 99%". It is not a disingenous statement to make, because it is uncontested truth. In fact, OWS was quite proud of the fact that they had deliberately avoided putting forward any sort of message.

Not sure why you're trying to deny this. OWS shot itself in the foot in that regard. But it's hard to put forward a unifying message when your 'movement' is comprised of about a thousand different factions.

Was this really about a Prius driver vs what looked like to be some sort of Avalanche driver or was it an over dramatic woman bitching about some dude in a big truck pulling up next to her and idling in what seemed to be a relatively empty portion of a parking lot?

Disregarding the "environmental" concerns between the two opposing vehicle factions, what the dude did is still considered rather rude. He could have parked anywhere, but chose to pull up next to the two parked Prius(i) and sit at idle. From the way the wife got all bent out of shape, the 'lanche couple seemed every bit as entitled as the woman. True colors were thrown around by both parties here.

1. He can park anywhere he chooses. Fine.
2. He can idle his truck as he pleases. Fine.
3. She could have chosen to pack up and move. Fine.

Ultimately, he had every right to be a douche and she had every right to return said douchiness back, but this could have easily been avoided by a little considering for "the next guy." Instead, it's like a giant troll video about fat, bitchy Prius drivers vs marketing/horse owners and their Detroit awesomesauce.

@Sarzy

I actually re-activated my account a couple weeks ago, and I've been playing through the "Cataclysm" content with some friends, but this is actually going to send me away from WoW, possibly for good.

It actually has nothing to do with the zones, to be honest I think that's kinda cool. But the fact that the Pandas can join either faction seems kinda meh to me in the first place, but they're also once again streamlining the game so that it's again got far less choices.

WoW has gotten progressively easier over the years, some changes for the better, some obviously just to make it easier. Mounts acquired at far lower levels and lowered cost, dungeons streamlined to be made shorter, and far easier, flying mounts in Azeroth, and finally the biggest one, they completely re-vamped the talent system, giving spells you'd normally get at level 60 at level 10.

Now, with this expansion, they're once again re-vamping the talent trees so that instead of having your 31 points (reduced from something like 70 points) they're once again reducing that to about.. 10-15, Essentially forcing you to play a certain style and once again making the game rediculously easier.

Our foreign policy is too screwed up. This CBS News story talks about how a huge number of Christian Americans (70 million?) feel they are compelled by God and the Bible to support Israel against all of its enemies. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/03/60minutes/main524268.shtml

I wish all support for Israel was dropped by the US. If private citizens want to fund Israel's defense, then go ahead. But they should be required to publically declare any support they have for Israel so that any terrorists can specifically target them, and not blast us in their collateral damage causing attacks. Right now Americans are being threatened by people such as Al Qaeda forces because the whole of the American country is defending this minority faction of Americans who are die-hard Israel supporters.

Why do we all need to protect these pro-Israel people??? Let them fend for themselves. That's their belief system when it comes to everything in the world. Everyone must be self-reliant, free market, and so forth. But when it comes to defending Israel, they want all 300 million Americans to support it, and will take our tax money to do it. They are hypocrites!