"infrastructure risking homeland security visit"
please dont think up new reasons for them

genius for putting his recognizable vehicle and face at the end

This is some Rodney King shit here.
Unfortunately, so many large cities (like artician here points out) have so many cops off the chain that this has become common-place thanks in large part to homeland security upgrades to civil liberties post 9-11. The shit is broken, and uniformed thugs are given free reign to smash skulls and destroy lives by turning humans into recycling by placing their names into the NET as "felons" or "suspicious" or "terrorist"

Note to the computer chair enthusiasts (oh, and members of Videosift who are law enforcement or former law enforcement??) who have the loop running constantly in their minds when they see something like this video that belches, "Well, if they weren't breaking the law" or, "cops were just doing their job" etc., yer fucking out of touch with the reality that is being created for you while you SLEEP, or, yer simply out-of-touch cunts who are still in the "good-ole-boys" club of the mind.

All these cops should be suspended without pay and crucified. Period. Don't care if the suspect was a fucking dead baby-skull rapist, these cops used extreme force to subdue and otherwise KILL this guy.

What you are witnessing is state-sanctioned attempted murder by a gang of thugs iwth ill-fitting uniforms and too many lethal toys. Petty, fucking thugs who need to be separated from the rest of the human population. Especially that fat piece of shit with the tazer...the thug with the club needs his own cell..The hotbox in solitary for about a year would be perfect.

@deedub81 I'm on board, just a few questions though:

"I can't believe how you all blame the state for this"
All of 'us'? Who exactly?

"and yet you "
Who exactly?

"vote for and defend 'big government' political candidates"
When? Who?

"Take my guns away,"
Who is advocating that?

"give up my privacy in the name of homeland security"
I don't think I've seen a single sifter hold this position

"outlaw everything"
Most sifters are against the War on Drugs, so what is being advocated for outlawing?

Holy WOW. I can't believe how you all blame the state for this, and yet you vote for and defend 'big government' political candidates (left and right). Take my guns away, give up my privacy in the name of homeland security, outlaw everything.

This is a tragedy. The government is scary. Imagine them taking your kid away for a small time thing like smoking pot. I've had my freedom removed from me for a CLERICAL ERROR. Our most sacred rights in this country are voluntarily forfeited because we don't trust our neighbors.

At the end of the day, this is really the fault of that sick foster "mom."

Sad, sad, sad. I got teary eyed about this, too.

Oh yeah you must be right, England has always interfered all over the world, stopping bad people doing horrible things out of the goodness of their heart.

There's a lot more to it, you can look it up if you're curious. But I would suggest that you never take the side of the fallen Empire who's intervening Thousands of miles away from it's homeland. Most likely, they're wrong.

To pick nits ... the bill of rights was the first set of amendments to the original constitution. A very good addition through amendments, but it is still somewhat sad that it required amending to get those freedoms spelled out and nailed down as opposed to being in the original document. I guess hindsight is 20/20 and all that.

Shit like the patriot act, citizens united, etc. aren't amendments -- they are legislation passed into federal laws. I'd fully agree with any argument that they are "breaking the actual constitution"; such an argument seems quite clear cut to me. Unfortunately the judicial branch is the entity designated as having the checks and balances on the legislative branch, and they have failed to strike down such nonsense as unconstitutional when given the opportunity.

This is why I am feeling rather betrayed by the whole goddamn system. Bush the younger (executive) fed the patriot act to congress (legislative) who made it law, and the law was help up by the supreme court (judicial) with minor challenges. Later congresses (legislative) voted to renew expiring parts of the act. Obama (executive) could have vetoed that OR eliminated, cut back/pared down, or instructed the offices that actually implement the patriot act busywork (Dept. of Homeland Security, NSA, CIA, FBI, etc.) to kill or reduce the scope of the program.

At any single stage of that, any one of those governmental branches could have grown a pair and said enough was enough. But that didn't happen, and here we are. I have absolutely no faith in any branch or office of my federal government anymore. I hope Snowden evades capture and gets somewhere that won't bend to extradition pressure (which there will be a shitload of).

Silly Teacher, don't you know the Homeland knows how to train our little soldiers best?

The problem with this kind of argument is that it conflates the crimes of select people in the Japanese military (not everyone was a bloodthirsty or order-following robot) with innocent civilians (although see my comment from 5 years ago about how some have rationalized attacks on Japanese civilian population centers). If you believe that the Japanese people are culpable for the crimes of their military and should pay the ultimate price (i.e. death) for those crimes then you've essentially also rationalized the 9/11 attacks on the U.S., as those that planned them explicitly stated they were retaliation for U.S. political and military interventions in a variety of Muslim countries (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motives_for_the_September_11_attacks for more info). Holding the citizens responsible for the actions of their government/military leads to very murky waters indeed.

To be fair to America at the time though, everyone was targeting civilians during World War 2--the Germans were bombing indiscriminately in London, the Brits and U.S. retaliated with the same kind of attacks on the German homeland, the Japanese military was doing medical experiments on random Chinese farmers they rounded up... it was a f'd up war all around and I think by the time the firebombings and atomic bombs were dropped in Japan people were willing to do just about anything to end the war. Victory became more important than humanity.

On a less personal and more constructive point,

There is no instant way to solve this crisis in the US society. No instant pill that's going to fix things today.

But start with gun manufacturers who are making the guns and filtering mass amounts of firearms into the populous. They created this homeland conflict and continues to feed it. As long as they keep mass producing the guns for consumption, this problem will never go away. Regulations on what can be sold to who and how many is a start. (lets go back to six shooters with a hammer??)

Secondly, education. Teach people to solve problems without the force of might. There may be a way to solve conflict without violence. Education has never made things worse.

Third, Public health. A more concerted effort to identify and counsel those people who need it. Teach problem solving skills and coping skills.

Make it harder to acquire ammunition as well as guns. Not just to the new gun purchaser but at gun shows where most people buy their guns. The second hand market is about as loose on laws as it can get. Most people can get a gun over night and most times in the same day. This tells me that no real process goes into who can get a gun and if the the guns are being used for protection or for crimes.

Mandatory gun storage laws. Lock it up or loose it.

Gun buy-back programs. Not only should these programs exist on an ongoing basis, there should be a surcharge on gun purchases to help fund this initiative. I think the process of eliminating the excess guns is another key gun control.

Gun registry laws were tried in Canada but it was a miserable failed attempt as it was poorly executed. I don't think this can be successful without superior planning. Direct registration of guns already in public hands at a cost to the owners is designed to fail.

A free registration method on initial registration and a surcharge every time a gun is sold and re-licenced to a new owner would allow gun ownership to be tracked much like car ownership. You could tell who owned it previously, who the dealer was who sold it and so on. Then guns could slowly be taken off the streets if they didn't change hands legally or were un-registered to start with.

The argument to a registry program is that only honest people would register their guns, criminals wouldn't. True but it would give authorities license to confiscate and destroy unregistered guns and/or track how they came into wrongful possession..

Homeland is phenomenal.

The residents of Nabi Saleh and their supporters who are international activists.

It cannot be disputed that Palestinians do and have used children for political gain. Nor can it be disputed that Israelis have used excessive and lethal force against.

In this particular instance they are protesting about the expansion of the Israeli settlement of Halamish. Halamish is not a border settlement like we are led to believe most settlements are. It is 10 miles from the Israel border.

https://maps.google.com.au/maps?q=Halamish&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=0x151d295311c3dc3d:0xe8c9eec7d4996da0,Halamish&gl=au&ei=aJWbUISYCcTqiAf664CgDA&ved=0CIMB
ELYD

It has the constant protection, and therefore tacit approval, of the Israeli government and violates a multitude of international agreements and laws regarding occupation. Each week there are protests which are met with a military presence against an unarmed mob. These protests are monitored by Amnesty International. Unfortunately their site is down at the moment and I can't find any reliable links to this other than the BBC which says little. However you can read the following if you want to know more.

http://www.bikyamasr.com/80182/amnesty-international-declares-palestinian-activist-a-prisoner-of-conscience/

I guess the crux of my argument is this: To what extend does the use of children for political purposes compare to the often brutal and expanding occupation of a homeland? What is the right thing for these villagers to do under the circumstances?

"Mitt never let our national security get so lax the red chinese swooped in and stole our missile guidance tech." Nixon (R - crook) opened China.

Isn't that what liberals want--"dialogue" with our enemies? Nixon also created the EPA. Pobody's nerfect. The 'crook' who had no knowledge of Watergate and never ordered it, but still stepped down, unlike Slick Willie the convicted felon. Nixon is a statesman by comparison to both Bubba AND Obozo.

"Mitt didn't built bureaucratic walls between law enforcement agencies to hide his own crimes." Bush II (R - derp) built the Homeland Security Department which helped the CIA cover up crimes of torture.

You mean the guy with higher test scores than Kerry? By international law tis only a crime to torture recognized enemy soldiers of an actual nation, not IED-laying sh1tbag terrorists. If it saves American lives, I'm for torturing every last one of them.

"Mitt didn't tell subordinate women, 'Suck this or lose your job'" Clarence Thomas (R- Koch Ind.) did.

Hearsay and bullshit, rebuked testimony, no charges filed. Nice try, though! Nothing brings out the racist in a liberal like a Black conservative, who by the way, is an intellectual giant compared to Obozo's recent affirmative action twins. Oh, and Thomas was never accused of rape like bubba.

I know pointing out facts won't deter qm, it's just fun to show him up as an ill informed redneck.

Facts? Where? Oh, was that your version of facts? You've failed in your mission. Utterly. I expected less--much less--from a liberal. And you delivered. Let me know when you want another keyboard beating.










>> ^Boise_Lib:

>> ^quantumushroom:
Mitt never let our national security get so lax the red chinese swooped in and stole our missile guidance tech. Mitt didn't built bureaucratic walls between law enforcement agencies to hide his own crimes. Mitt didn't lie under oath, which for you and me would mean serious prison time. Mitt never cheated on his wife. Mitt was never disbarred and disgraced. Mitt didn't tell subordinate women, "Suck this or lose your job", and if Mitt did any of these things, he sure wouldn't have in-the-tank, subservient media shills covering his ass like they did this clown.

"Mitt never let our national security get so lax the red chinese swooped in and stole our missile guidance tech." Nixon (R - crook) opened China.

"Mitt didn't built bureaucratic walls between law enforcement agencies to hide his own crimes." Bush II (R - derp) built the Homeland Security Department which helped the CIA cover up crimes of torture.
"Mitt didn't tell subordinate women, 'Suck this or lose your job'" Clarence Thomas (R- Koch Ind.) did.
I know pointing out facts won't deter qm, it's just fun to show him up as an ill informed redneck.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Mitt never let our national security get so lax the red chinese swooped in and stole our missile guidance tech. Mitt didn't built bureaucratic walls between law enforcement agencies to hide his own crimes. Mitt didn't lie under oath, which for you and me would mean serious prison time. Mitt never cheated on his wife. Mitt was never disbarred and disgraced. Mitt didn't tell subordinate women, "Suck this or lose your job", and if Mitt did any of these things, he sure wouldn't have in-the-tank, subservient media shills covering his ass like they did this clown.

"Mitt never let our national security get so lax the red chinese swooped in and stole our missile guidance tech." Nixon (R - crook) opened China.


"Mitt didn't built bureaucratic walls between law enforcement agencies to hide his own crimes." Bush II (R - derp) built the Homeland Security Department which helped the CIA cover up crimes of torture.

"Mitt didn't tell subordinate women, 'Suck this or lose your job'" Clarence Thomas (R- Koch Ind.) did.

I know pointing out facts won't deter qm, it's just fun to show him up as an ill informed redneck.

You know this is whats going to happen.


"Hello Police? I just saw a guy that had been hanging around the playground. bury something in the sand and walk away!!"


So now what you thought would be hours of discovery and fun for a kid turns in to hours of you talking to,
Police
FBI
Bomb Squad
Homeland Security.

Boston freaked out about light brights from ATHF. Think about what they would do to someone burying things in playgrounds....

It would be a cool idea in a less paranoid world.

@shinyblurry

Therefore, the question is, how would you tell if you're in a Universe that God designed?

I would test it, if I could. By “God”, I’m assuming you’re still talking about Yahweh specifically, and not just any random god-type entity. If that’s the case, then I’ve already falsified the claim that the Bible is perfect, so that argument is gone. If you’re merely making a deist claim, then I can’t argue with you. I take no position on deism other than if some deity created the universe and set it in motion, I have no reason to believe it cares about humans, and it certainly has made no edicts that I perceive as to how I should live my life.

The real question is, why is either possibility more or less likely than the other? … leap of faith in favor of your atheistic naturalism... you have to discard your assumptions about what you have seen or haven't seen and think about this on a deeper level.

You’re not listening to me. Seriously. I do have ways of determining which story is more likely. Occam’s razor is the best for this problem. The complexities introduced by faith in Yahweh and the Bible are necessarily more complex than the problems they solve. They are also blind faith (I'm talking about the vast majority of the faithful, and about what you're recommending I do), which is willful self-delusion. The theories that physicists and biologists have come up with are quite convincing, especially if you understand how science works.

A created being should expect to find himself existing in an environment capable of creating him.

Agreed. I find myself in an environment in which my species was capable of evolving. It says nothing of how statistically improbable it is.

In the same way, you should be surprised to find yourself to be a created being in a finely tuned Universe. A finely tuned Universe should tip the scales of that evidence, if you are being honest about what you can really prove.

Disagree. I’m lucky that of all the possible combinations of molecules that could have come together to create our terrestrial environment, the right ones came together to create life, then the right DNA strands combined to eventually create me. I’m lucky, sure, but given the length of time we’ve had, there’s no reason I should be surprised, especially when there's no reason to assert that this is the only universe. You ask why multiple universes are more likely than a deity? Because you and I both know for sure there is at least one universe, so positing some more of them is less of a stretch than asserting a self-contradictory entity, alien to our objective experience, defying any consistent and meaningful description, so vastly complex that it cannot be properly understood, and so full of human failings that it looks man-made.

[me:]… it could be that 10^one trillion universes with different physical properties have formed and collapsed, and when a balanced one finally came out of the mix, it stuck around, and here we are.

[you:] It could be, except there is no evidence there is. Why is it you that can imagine an infinite number of hypothetical Universes with no evidence, but you object to supernatural creation as somehow being less plausible than that.

I’m sceptical of all your claims because that’s how I roll. I’m sceptical of everything, especially big claims. It’s the smartest way to avoid being duped. You have been telling me that I must believe in the one true thing that is true that is Yahweh and the Bible and creation because it’s true because it’s true because it’s true because it’s the only possibility. Now, I conceive of another possibility: my 10^trillion universes. You agree it’s possible, so there’s no reason for me to believe yours is necessarily true. If I have to choose between them, the one that doesn’t require the further explanation of a sentient deity more complex than 10^trillion universes is simpler. And even then, I DON’T HAVE TO CHOOSE one or the other. I can remain sceptical. To me, it’s foolish not to.

While we’re talking about being honest with ourselves, I’d like to hear it from you that the following things are *at least technically possible*: that Yahweh doesn’t exist; that your relationship with Yahweh is an illusion created by you inside your head because you are human and human minds are prone to occasional spectacular mistakes; that the Bible was created by deluded humans; that the universe is around 14 billion years old; that the Earth is around 4.5 billion years old; that life on Earth started 1-2 billion years ago; and that all species evolved from primitive life forms. To be clear, I’m not asking you to accept them as true or even probable, just state whether this collection of statements is possible or impossible.

Notice what George Wald said?

I notice that you only quote scientists out of context, or when they’re speaking poetically. I guarantee he never said that in a scientific paper. Life may be a wonder, not a miracle.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/blog/2012/03/is-the-universe-fine-tuned-for-life/

Near the end, you’ll find this gem: “The history of physics has had that a lot, … Certain quantities have seemed inexplicable and fine-tuned, and once we understand them, they don’t seem to [be] so fine-tuned. We have to have some historical perspective.”

If you haven't done so already, watch the first 10-20 minutes of this: http://videosift.com/video/The-God-of-the-Gaps-Neil-deGrasse-Tyson. It's "creationism/intelligent design" laid bare as a position of weakness. Your "fine tuning" trope is part of "intelligent design" and has the same historical flaw.

They acknowledge there are only two possibilities, one being God, but since they hate that possibility more than they hate embracing the anthropic principle, they go with that instead, having absolutely no evidence to base that conclusion on. They simply don't want to acknowledge the obvious, which is that a finely tuned Universe is *much* stronger evidence for an omnipotent God than it is for multiple Universes.

What do you mean, “they hate that possibility”? Why should a scientist hate any possibility? If there were science that pointed to the real existence of God, that’s exactly the way their investigations would go. That’s what motivated early modern scientists – they believed unravelling the laws of the universe by experiment would reveal God’s nature. It was only when the scientific path of experimentation split conclusively away from the biblical account that anybody considered that religious faith and scientific endeavour might become separate enterprises.

As for the “much” stronger evidence, as stated in the article, every time scientists solve a mystery of something they thought was “finely tuned”, they realized that there is a much simpler explanation than God. Evolution, for instance, eliminates the question of "fine tuning" in life. “God” is a metaphor for “things outside my understanding”. Once they move within our understanding, nobody claims that they’re God anymore. And FWIW, some of the most famous scientists ever came to the same "Because God" conclusion, which held until someone else got past it and solved what they couldn't.

So to your conclusion, how do you figure that the appearance of fine tuning—which seems to go away when you look close enough—is stronger evidence? What is your rationale for the weighting so strongly in favour of God? Couldn't it be that we simply don’t know yet how the universe came to be the way it is? To me, that’s actually the most likely scenario, since that’s what’s happened with so many other erroneous theological claims, including by some of science’s greatest minds ever.

A limited temporal creature, trying to disprove Gods existence with his own corrupt reasoning is kind of laughable, isn't it?

Eh??? But in your last nine paragraphs, YOU yourself, a limited temporal creature, have been trying to prove God’s existence with your “fine tuning” argument (corrupt reasoning, like you say), even after you've repeatedly asserted in the other threads that the only possible evidence for God is that he’ll answer our prayers. Why are you bothering? It is laughable how inconsistent you’re being here.

Or perhaps He had sovereignly arranged for only insincere prayers or prayers outside of His will to be prayed for at that time which would give the results of the test the appearance of randomness.

Keep fishing. Either the patient being prayed for recovers or doesn't recover. If not, the sincere prayers weren't answered. Unless you’re suggesting God secretly removed the free will of the scientists and the people praying so that the tests would come back negative? Gimme a break.

The Jews are historically from Israel, and there is archaeological evidence to prove this. The reason they came back to Israel is because it is historically their homeland. Given the opportunity, they would have come back to Israel with or without the bible saying they were entitled to. The point is that they were predicted to come back, not only around the date that they did, but their migration pattern was in the exact order, their currency was predicted, their economic and agricultural condition was predicted, and many other things.

And all of this was written only after the prophesy was fulfilled. A little too convenient.

The 70 weeks are not concurrent, first of all.

I know. I'm assuming they were consecutive. How could 70 weeks be concurrent? That makes no sense at all. Even if you meant to say “not consecutive”, what does it mean to declare a time limit of 70 weeks if they're not consecutive? It means nothing. That time limit could extend to today. What's your source for saying they're not concurrent/consecutive/whatever?

Second, Jesus is the one who predicted the fall of Jerusalem:

Again, conveniently, this “prediction” doesn't appear in writing until after the fall of Jerusalem.

I'll rephrase this by saying, that Jesus fulfilled dozens of prophecies about the coming of the Messiah. Clearly, the impact of that Jesus has had on the world matches His claims about who He is.

Which clearly defined prophecies did he fulfil, not including ones that he knew about and could choose to do (like riding on a donkey)?

Christ speaks, however, and from that moment all generations belong to him.

Except for all the religions that aren't Christian. They don’t belong to him, and they have surely had enough time to hear his voice.

The other founders of religions had not the least conception of this mystic love which forms the essence of Christianity.

You really think that’s unique to Christianity? Do you know much about Islam? And I don't mean Western stereotypes of it. I mean, really know how normal Muslim people live their lives.

The metaphor that is used for testing is that of impurities being refined out of gold or silver. Tests are to prove your sincerity, not necessarily what God knows.

I get it. It’s a test of sincerity. For whom? Who is going to read and understand the results? To whom is the sincerity proven that didn't know it before, requiring a test? I think you’re avoiding admitting it’s God because that would mean there’s something God doesn't know.