Smeelious

Honestly, I feel that the reasons they would claim responsibility are the same reasons they would plan the attack in the first place. Who did it is less important than why ISIS wanted it to happen. (Which, since they are claiming responsibility, they did)

That last line is actually a very good point. I'm not sure that it would bear scrutiny however. (research time!) Especially given the Old Testament, which honestly you can't just disregard.

I'd argue that by all accounts she is "science-y" but not necessarily "scientific"....

Well in that case, people plead guilty for more reasons than being guilty. (Probably could rephrase to: Innocent people plead guilty all the time) In this case though...why would ISIS do that? I'm not sure there is a good answer.

If ISIS is claiming responsibility, does it matter? What would the alternate scenarios be?

Generally this is the only viable theory for why they attacked Paris (IMO). Aside from anything else, I dislike this thread. So I leave it with this. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

Exactly!! Vote Bernie! oh wait..... The problem with US politics is you have to be wealthy and have nothing better to do with your time. So the people who should really be in charge have no chance at all. It also helps if you are a complete loon (see: every candidate for the US presidency)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/federal-infrastructure-fund-spending-favoured-conservative-ridings/article25172781/

Maybe it'll be a male on odd days, and a female on even days. Interestingly, I think Harper would make a great speaker.

Why is a geographer talking about MS treatments in the first place...Anyway, that article can be read in a lot of ways. Not all of them are especially negative. She also isn't wrong to suggest that young female scientists are often treated with derision..such as "[she] does not understand how science works" or "She was “a megalomaniac, a control freak,”. *shrug* I assume that politicians don't know anything to begin with, you just have to hope the people under then know what they are doing.

I'd be more worried about not being part of the TPP right now.

Honestly I think "The Bern" has changed into "The slight warming"

Though I'm not sure that we are really disagreeing about anything (in this case) If a company is funding/whatevering research that says one thing, while telling the investors things counter to said research, I'd call that fraud. Again, I'm mostly saying that didn't happen in this case, since the research was available anyway. The article doesn't really delve into specifics, so I can't actually comment on what alleged fraud occurred. "Climate Change" is too broad a claim in this case anyway. Exxon would have to have had specific and concrete evidence of their operations having definite negative effects on the environment, and then specifically lied about it to investors. And, I think in this case since it was the investors that were allegedly defrauded, they would have to bring the suit themselves. With claims such as "We were promised that the operations would not negatively impact the environment, which has shown to be false!" But even then, based on the research, which agrees with "mainstream" research, I can't see how they were actually defrauded.

http://cdn.exxonmobil.com/~/media/global/files/energy-and-environment/climate_peer_reviewed_publications_1980s_forward.pdf Papers citing Exxon on climate change. Anywho, I haven't read these, but the article posted in the OP says they mostly agree with "mainstream climatology" whatever that means. I take it to mean that exxon published/funded/supported papers that show climate change is real...so how they defrauded their investors while publishing publicly available papers is and odd one.

Anywho, the actual case seems to stem from what EM told its investors vs what its own research was saying. IF what their research said one thing and the company told their investors the opposite...That could be fraud. If in house research says that smoking does cause cancer and they sell to the investors that it clearly doesn't... Good luck proving that level of harm for climate change. Honestly the case is likely to be tossed.

Well this could be interesting. We wouldn't have: paper, gunpowder, the printing press, the compass, bruce lee, It even might reduce the awesomeness of Chuck Norris!! Way to break the world.

I think like 4 of the last 5 US Presidents were left handed....coincidence?!

Elizabeth May has blue eyes...

This should be it's own thread. Interesting all the same

Actually that's kinda what he said, In his own way.

Gotta be careful with "equal" vs "fair". The two tier might be equal, but I'm not sure that it would be fair. And, I'm not sure that fair is more important here than equal.

Well, Kent kinda deserved it. As to the gender wage gap...that's a whole other thread. Actually this whole post should be another thread "Why I think JT is a complete idiot." That could be a fun thread in and of itself. While Harper wasn't the most emotional person, I doubt anyone would claim that he was an idiot. We'll see how the next few years treats Trudeau.

Proportional votes for some; tiny flags for the rest!! Two tier voting...I'm not digging it. Somehow going STV with rural/geographic exceptions would strikes me as benefiting the Conservatives. They would still get representation in urban areas, while retaining most of the rural. Time for research! (Well, in Ontario anyway)

This calls for an infographic on the effect of 7 member ridings!! I'll leave this for someone else.

How big would said ridings be? Would they still be "local"? We already have ridings that are far too large.