gc1765

I always thought Guiliani was supposed to be on the "left" side of the Republican party? After seeing him in the debate, I'm not so sure. I can only hope that he is only trying to win the primary and doesn't actually believe what he says.

What concerns me is this: "The report also slammed Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor for his work as a lobbyist for 28 firms, including five of the world's top 10 defence contractors, "almost all seeking government contracts during the period just prior to his appointment as defence minister." Link Who is getting these contracts? Anyone have this information?

Of course the troops need the equipment, but does that mean the government should just give out contracts to whoever they want? Did the Conservatives not realize that the general public (as well as the opposition parties) might question such a move? If the Liberals were handing out these contracts, does anyone expect that the Conservatives would stand idly by?

"The Opposition has raucously attacked the federal budget bill just hours before the crucial final vote, but neither the Prime Minister, nor the Ministers for Finance and Foreign Affairs were there to hear it. Stephen Harper, Jim Flaherty and Peter MacKay were conspicuously absent from Question Period on Tuesday, as were two Conservative MPs, prompting speculation of closed-doors meetings to heal a deepening Tory rift. And while Nova Scotia Premier Rodney MacDonald is in Ottawa, he was not present in the public gallery as the House of Commons traded verbal thrusts and parries over resource revenue distribution in the budget equalization formula." Link Looks like there could be more negotiations going on...

From the same article: "Mr. Coderre said equipment actually needed for use in Afghanistan would not be affected by a moratorium." "He cited the example of the multibillion-dollar program to buy the Chinook helicopter, which won't be delivered until 2011 or 2012. Canada's Afghanistan mission ends in February 2009, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor has repeatedly said in the Commons." Anyways, if the Conservatives care so much about the troops, why did they give out 40% of the contracts without competition?

If you read the scientific journals, it's not the journals that are politicking, it's the politicians. Again I must ask, is there a better alternative?

If you read the literature, you can see the debate for yourself without all the politicking that politicians add. I guess I'm just assuming that everyone has acess to these articles, but I guess that's not true. Anyways, if you are really interested in the subject, and you happen to live near a University, you could always visit the library in the University and look up some articles on the subject. That's exactly what peer-review is...except it's not an open debate with the public because they are not experts, it is a "debate" with other scientists before it gets published.

I don't know whether irrational is the correct word or not, but it certainly requires a leap of faith to outright believe or not believe in God, considering there is less than absolute proof. I don't know if that is irrational, but think of it this way: If a man walked up to you and offered to make a bet that if God exists he would give you nothing (or perhaps a penny), but if God doesn't exist, you have to give him all of your money. If you were absolutely, 100% certain of the existence of God, you would probably make that bet. Is that rational? EDIT: It should be noted that it works the same way with atheism. So, the people who would be willing to make such a bet would be the theists or atheists. Anyone not willing to make such a bet can not be said to be 100% convinced, which technically speaking, would make them agnostic. That's why we need a better definition of agnosticism, because there is a huge range there, from 99.9% certain that God does not exist, right through to 99.9% certain that God does exist.

I can't find a good definition of rational (maybe it's not the best word) but this comes close: "Using reason or logic in thinking out a problem". Nobody has absolute proof for the existence or absence of God, so anyone who claims to be 100% certain one way or the other is not basing their decision on the evidence available and must make a leap of faith. When I said that it's not rational, I meant that it's based on faith not evidence. Faith: "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence". This issue has been discussed at lenth in This thread . If you are interested in understanding what I am trying to say, I recommend checking out that topic.

I think we are in the same boat. I have no reason to believe that there is a million dollars in your backyard, as I have no reason to believe that God exists. I can probably say with 99% confidence that there isn't a million dollars in your backyard. With God, perhaps I am less certain, but I still have no reason to believe in God. I believe technically that makes me agnostic, even though I am closer to the atheist side of agnosticism than the theist side.

Just because there is no evidence for something, does not mean that it is not possible. IOW, what evidence is there to prove that there isn't some sort of God/deity?

Things are heating up... Link

The other side is perfectly free to publish their findings in peer-reviewed journals as well. What I mean is do you have a better way for scientists to share their findings/data other than peer-reviewed journals. If so, please share.

I don't want our Queen either. Does anyone here actually want to swear their allegiance to the Queen?

I say it's hard to defend the atheist position because there is no way to prove that God doesn't exist. When I say atheist, I mean someone who is 100% certain that God does not exist. If someone is a Christian, how can they be absolutely certain that Zeus or any other God does not exist as well? I disagree. Agnosticism is not an attempt to avoid the issue. Agnosticism is admitting that we can not prove the existence or absence of God. If I were a betting man, I would put my money on the absence of God, but since I can't be absolutely certain, that would make me agnostic, technically speaking. I would argue that agnosticism is the only rational belief. Anyone who thinks they are 100% certain that God either exists or does not exist is not rational, IMO.

Hey, I saw it! You can't hide it from me!

and here I thought we were going to have an intelligent discussion... My mistake.

Even if that is true, why retaliate at all?

That much is a given. But if the Lebanese do continue to kill Israelis, the Israelis should not retaliate by killing nearly 10 Lebanese for every Israeli. That will only encourage 100 more terrorists to kill 1000 more Israelis.

Yep. Want to share it?

As would I. I am suggesting that the best way to stay alive is to avoid doing such unpopular things as killing thousands of Palestinians (or Lebanese).

Someone should tell the Israelis that when the other side is fighting a war based on propaganda, and they kill many more Palestinians than vice versa, that they are only inspiring more hatred and propaganda, and making themselves less safe.

Got a better suggestion?

And no special jails for celebrities too?

Yes, but America, being rich, will be much more capable of dealing with drought. Sounds good to me. A carbon tax should be used for purposes such as this, to help Africa (and other nations) deal with global warming.