GostHacked

I agree, he carried himself very well when in that chair. Confident, respectful, may not have asked all the hard questions all the time. But his forum in which people debated topics was one of the most respectful news shows I have ever seen. Rarley if at all would you find him insulting others, or spinning things.

I also want to throw this into the loop and see what it garners. I will try to look for the video of it... ... There are scientists working on all these theories, and also working with the god question. Through one program I watched, these scientists were using real science and math and physics to explain god. This has me interested because they are truely testing the concept of god through the scientific method. These guys have the best shot (in my view) of either proving or disproving the theory of god. Because god is just an unproved, untested theory. Remember in high school where you had to show your work to be able to prove your point? Teacher always said, show your work.

Well gravity is something we are beginning to understant and this is where string theory plays a major role in explaining gravity and how it works between obects of celestial size to objects on the atomic level. Again Einstien's theory does not replace anything. It unifies the constants/variables into one equation to explain the interaction between all involved in the equation. Relativity is one theory .......Quantum Mech is another theory They do not play nice together, because they have different rule sets. But we know for a fact that they must interact somehow, or else it simply would not exist the way it is. This is what Einstein had problems with. He could not understand it at first and was upset with how unpredictable QM really is. But since he discovered E=MC(squared) science has proven his theory as correct. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light I may have failed physics in high school, and I am not very good at math. But I have known since highschool that the speed of light had a constant and it is the value we call 'c' . Or else E=MC(squared) could not ever exist as a theory. Many constants have been established and have a designation. Yes there are variables, and they are taken into consideration. I suggest watching something called The Elegant Universe. 3 Part series on string theory. You will get a better understanding on what string theory really is. I had to watch the series twice, there are some really mind blowing things in there. Some concepts did not make sense at first, but after a second run through, it made a lot more sense. One you wrap your head around what a unifying theory is, then this all makes a lot more sense. And we have barley worked out the math for the dimensions we are in, let alone the dimensions we are not sure exaclty exist. Once we discover those dimensions, then it is a whole new ball game to learn. We may find yet another unifying theory that encompases all we know. http://www.superstringtheory.com/ http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/ <--- catch it on video.google.com It sucks I failed it in high school, but holy crap this stuff is fascinating. I like simple grade 8 analogies. And you can use those analogies with anyone. Even grade 7 students. http://www.tenthdimension.com/flash2.php This grade 8 analogized bit shows up to the 10th dimension, and talks about string theory as part of it.

It still will not replace anything. The Theory of Relativity does not replace any former theories, it unifies them in away that we understand the interaction between two different rule sets. You still need those separate theories when dealing with the individual parts of the equation. IF you completely replaced them, then you would need to work out a whole new equation theory to work from. The speed of light constant cannot be changed at all, Relativity uses the constant component so it can work in the whole unifying theory. String theory does not replace anything, it unifies the Relativity and Quantum Mechanics so we can begin to understand the interaction between R and QM. But this is still a work in progress, and the scientists working on this understand that it could be the wrong direction of thinking. If a theory is replaced by another one, it is because the premise of the original theory is wrong. Think of the universe as a car. You need all these parts for it to work right. Change some of those parts, and you could end up with a plane. The car is the overall unifying theory of how all the individual parts connect and interact with each other. Replace some of the major components with something new/different, and you might not end up with a car. JB Athiests don't have a text/book/guide to show them how to be an athiest. Neither do agnostics. So there are really no preconceived rule sets to govern how an athiest should act. Most major religions have some text to show them how to be a good Christian/Catholic/Jew/Muslim. So those people can be judged based on how they live in accordance with their respected religious text.

BC Principles are important when fighting a war on terror based on the ideology of freedom.

No, actually it was easier because Iraq had actually invaded another country called Kuwait, and did at that time posess chemical/bio and working on nukes. GW II can't even really add anything. Besides he reads with the book upside down. WMDs whuuuuuuut???/ Because the majority still beleives that the lies were the truth, and will swear to that god up there that those lies are the truth. Deceiving an ignorant populous and taking advantage of the ignorance to further their own means. I call those people a$$holes.

Again it is how the Bush packaged it and sold it to the american people to garner support. Can't be telling them the real truth right? They would never support it.

Chicken little, the sky is falling. Little Boy who cried wolf.

No actually I could stand by my statement, we have all shown and proven that there IS intolerance on both sides. Have we shown the intolerance ourselves? For the most part no. But through this thread we have demonstrated how there is intolerance on both sides. If there was none, we would not be having this discussion.

But yet you felt the need to post this useless bit. BC WMDs, Saddam, Al-queda. Someone in the BUSH administration better make up their minds and tell us straight up what the deal is. And since they have not, nor will they ever, their minds are made up to deceive the general population into supporting the war for the totaly wrong reasons. Again you will work Canada into it somehow, and sure I will agree with you. And you will always say it is the way it has always been.

String theory is a new Unifying theory. When Einstein discovered Relativity, his theories work for large scale celestial bodies, like suns, planets, moons and how they interact with each other. Quantum mechanics (won't be abanonded anytime soon) deals with interactions of the smallest particles like atoms, quarks, positrons, electrons, protons, ect. The rules for Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are drasticly different and can't really be interchanged with each other. String theory is a new theory that some how fills the gaps to unify the interaction between the drasticaly different rule sets. Can string theory be proven at this point? No, but the science gives us results which steers us in this new unifying theory direction. Quantum mechanics and Relativity MUST interact with each other somehow. Planets are made of atoms. So how do we explain the interaction between them ... well ... one has to start somewhere. For all we know this theory will be disproven as time goes on. Yes the possibility of it is there. If you think they just 'made them work', you really need to understand all that math behind it. I am no mathemetician, never was really good at math, but I know that much of it will make many people's head spin. And yes there are still some unknown variables. Again claiming to know everything off the get go is foolish and also dangerous. Electricity and Magnetism are two drasticly different things, but interact with each other, but the rules to explain them are different. We unified them with something called Eletromagnetism, this new set of rules tells us how these two interact with each other. American Woman It is a general blanket statement. I included myself in there as well. So don't think I specificaly pointed you out. I am not here to insult. So don't take it as one. If I wanted to insult you, I would have been more clear about it . Again, it was not intended to be specific, but there is intolerance on both sides. I am open to there being a god, but being a kind of person who needs to see things to beleive them, I just cannot put any faith into the existance of a god. Not sure if this makes me more intelligent, but it does make me more open minded of the possibility. Most religions and again another generalization but it fits here, religions tell you what is inside the box and god created all that is in the box. End of story. I look at this as an outsider of religion. Never grew up with it, so it really had no impact of influence on my life. Most of my friends were brought up to go to church and be the Catholic/Chritsian ect that they should be. White Doors Science will never make that claim that it has it all figured out. The Scientific Method is there because we do not know everything. Once we get an answer for one scientific question, we find out that there is more than we though there was before. This makes us refine the science. Science has brought us so much advancement technologicaly as a race/species. Religion has given us some basic and common core morals to live by. ------------------ Oleg Bach Not quite sharp to grasp Christianity? Hmm that is interesting. People are scared to be alone it seems. Even if they are alone in life. The beleif in a god or a higher power somehow comorts ones mind. When life is bad, they turn to the god to make everything right, their security blanket. They pray, they hope, they wait.. and wait ... and wait. They want someone else to fix their problems for them. Only yourself, or your fellow man, will help you out. White Doors If you can grant the same to Athiests who do not beleive in god to have a more open mind. Holding out for that higher power does not make one humble. Learning through your mistakes, and admitting you were wrong will make you humble. I was one that was quick with opening the mouth to state a fact. More often than not, I got myself into trouble for it. I don't shoot off my mouth much anymore if I know little about the subject. So wait, maybe I am not Atheist in whole. I am really agnostic, which says, there is a possibility that god does or does not exist. This is something I do not expect to discover in this lifetime.

Monty Burns He cannot really complain, he died for all our sins anyways. That was the deal, and that poor man did not even have a say in his sacrafice. God's will. I really love those who talk about Quantum Mechanics and how it is all theory. But there is quite a bit of math to back all that up. Ever look at that math? It is very complex and has been reworked to accomodate our new understanding. Science is ever growing and evolving with our constant growth and understanding of the universe around us. Einstein has developed his theories, but was only provable with newer understanding of how the universe works, and that was after his death. Einstein had doubts about his theory as well, and understood that they will be tested and either proven true, or false by others scrutinizing the theory. This is how science works people. Religion, stagnant, this is how it is, always was, always will be. End of disscussion. Which leads to a close minded mentality. If one is confident enough in their beleifs, then they have no problem with those beleifs being tested by others. This is what it really comes down to. From what I gather is this. Organized religion makes you think inside the box. Others want you to think outside that box. But what if there really is no box at all? It is a possibility, but it is discarded by so many on both sided of the non existent box. I kind of equate the god/religion question as a security blanket. People freak out when they do not have a security blanket to crawl under and say everything is fine. Religion and god provides that security for many. And it is not entirely a bad thing. People panic to find an answer, so they choose the easy route of religion, where everything is already explained and interpreted for them. As a young boy, I had a firm beleif in god. As time went on, that beleif was tested. Which concluded in my atheism. It was hard to deal with really. Everyone else beleived in a god, why can't I? I struggled with it for a few years, but ultimately, I can say, there really is no god. Athiets/Agnostics and the like are different. I consider myself and athiest/agnostic. The only one who is ever going to save my ass is me and me only. When I die and there is a heaven, I will be judged then. But then again that might work to my advantage. For the saying goes, god only helps those who help themselves. The Theory of Relativity has been proven through many experiments that garnered the same results, so more or less it is a provable theory with defineable repeatable results. Open up your mind to this: My Oma was a religious woman. However she despised organized religion and how it is portrayed. She beleived in the live and let live. She had her own pesonal relationship with whatever god she beleived in. The way she lived her life was through generosity, love and respect for others. And to stand up for what is right. She lived and taught through example. Her whole life was a lesson for me. Her morals and ideals will carry on in me and the other grandchildren and even my parents (who consider themselves athiests btw). Her wisdome was some of the best I will ever encounter. Now on the other hand I am an Athiest, but I have taken her lessons and carried them on in my life. Both different people, but both being intelligent and wise, and understanding that we will never know everything and that beleifs will be tested througout your life. Religion hands you a beleif system and says, this is the way it is, always was , always will be. (Closed mind) Science looks for answeres through scientific method, and understands that things can and will change. (Open Mind) IN a world that science built, (gas vehicles, world air travel, space travel, space station, power distrobution, mp3 players, computers, .... you use so much proven science in your average day, that it is hard to ignore what it is all about. Change. WIP Demonstrates just that... change. I just want to say that all other animals execpt for humans are not very intelligent. I doubt any of them have even wondered about their own existence let alone if there was a god. There is intolerance on both sides of this fence. All of us in this thread has proven that. And still this discussions rages on and no one has gained any insight or wisdom. Think of it in terms of thinking about possibilities and probabilities. Is it possible that there is no god? Yes. Is it possible god exists? Yes. Do we know for sure there is a god? No.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0201/08/ltm.05.html Richard Butler , former UN Weapons Inspector. So you have Harmid Karzai, a former UNOCAL board member himself, and also a former member of the Muhajedeen (that pesky militant group who fought off the Soviets) as leader of Afghanistan, running Sharia Law.... the same law the Taliban ran with. Nothing has changed there. Only the people in charge have changed. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...mp;pagewanted=2 Dated June 27 1998. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...751C1A9679C8B63

This is even good news to those that are held in the mainland US under the same conditions as those in Guantanamo. There are many held in the US that have not been charged. This will help to determine if the evidence against them is solid enough to keep them in custody. But even then they can do another American thing and sue someones ass of after the fact.

Yes, those people who work to find a cure for highly contageous/hazardous materials should be scared and cautious of their work. Maybe they were hunting a cure for the Ebola Virus. Consider it at least. If you work with viruses, or pharmecuticles, you should be very cautious. Remember some of the over the counter drugs we buy can cause us death if taken to much or the wrong type. The US, would have those same facilities as the Soviets. Both have used or sold chem weapons to other countries. basicly so the Soviets and the US could proxy war without ever getting directly involved.

Osama needed dialysis from what I have read online and in various news sources. If this is the case, then he is never far from a medical facility, or they have the equipment and personel to handle the dialysis. He simply would not be able to survive very long if he did/does not have the medical equipment to take care of it. Probably why we don't see his face on the news anymore. Well not video anyways, it is now replaced with a static image of him with audio of his voice. Also, it is worth mentioning that the CIA had disbanded the unit that was responsible for hunting down Bin Laden. Just another thing that does not smell right. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/23/...in2035766.shtml Sept 23 2006 Holy crap if Pakistan can track him, why not the US? Nothing more than a boogyman.

This is something I totaly support. I am really glad this is happening. And you are correct, people love (and I am guilty of it) hittin on Bush/US. If this is a real War, the War on Terror, then these captured individuals are simply Prisoners of War POWs. Eventhough the US will only use the Geneva Convention when it suits them, this really complies with the Convention. At least now these captured individuals will be able to view the evidence against them that brought them there in the first place.

They also threw missles into Sudan. Suspected chemical weapons plant.... turned out it really was a pharmaceuticle plant. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh...etaliation.html Sounds familiar, like those ever elusive WMDs in Iraq. This man helped out the Muhajedeen in Afghanistan to fend off the Soviets. Ahh, the doubts are growing. Hmmm those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it. Or like BC says, it was all part of the plan and who cares, nothing matters if they lied about it anyways. Which is really a cop out. You are correct. And they got their man who coordinated the 9/11 attacks. Kaleid Sheik Mohammed. Bin Laden may have just fronted the cash to do it. But KSM was the mastermind of the attacks. This is the reason why you wont see Bin Laden being involved with the 9/11 attacks. Simply no real hard evidence to support it.

Fine ... Queen of the United Kingdom .. I wonder where you got France and Germany in there the first time. (edit cause my grammar sucks sometimes) You would say she has more power, but without some research, and without you providing links, I will, by the information I have read (and yes more will be done) say that the POTUS has more power. It could be as simple as this. Who in the United States authorized the invasion of Iraq. The President of the United States - and he did so without the approval of congress or the senate (i could be wrong here) Who in the United Kingdom authorized the invasion of Iraq. The Queen sure did, but only on the approval of Parliment, without the approval, she can't do a thing. (edited/deleted cause this one line was wrong) http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page3718.asp http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page4696.asp http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page4698.asp

It is hilarious that you think England does not have a queen but Canada does. That same female is also the symbolic figure head of Canada. Which is again the Queen of England. It is a nod to part of our European roots. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_of_england http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_of_canada I was wrong to say the Queen of England has no power. She does, but it seems limited, and there are checks and balances in place. Not sure if the Queen can veto anything passed in Parliment. The Queen can influence policy, but Parliment has to approve of the item. The POTUS is the Commander in Cheif. He has plently of power, and the ability to use it. Also POTUS has the veto power, which can override items. But the congress/senate have the ability to override the veto with a 2/3rds vote in favour of overriding. So there are checks and balances in place for both. But the Queen, from what I can gather, has no veto power. So in conclusion the Queen does not hold as much power as the POTUS.

What is Bush's obsession with 'freedom' ? Is it bogus that none of the hijackers were Iraqi?? Or is it bogus I keep pointing out those facts to you? Or am I bogus. Who even uses the term bogus anymore? The 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Egypt. I was wrong to include Pakistanis in that list. OH NO I WAS WRONG!!!!! But yet Ira(q) and al(q)eda was the only link Bush could have ever made. They came from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Hmmm... OK, what about Gerald Bull. Please tell me all about him. No, not googlin him, you tell me BC, you tell me everything I want to know. Go ahead, the thread is all yours now. It was a crime in how the investigations of 9/11 happened. Plain and simple. One lie on another lie on another lie... this is where we get a person like BC. Sure he wants to tell us the PNAC is underway. So we know for sure that there was never any link, and the US invaded for resources and to be in control of the area. I beleive they call it FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE. But that FSD comes under the ruse and the lie that is the War on Terror. And the idiotic population eats it all up, because they do not know the truth. No one can possibly take anything you say at face value anymore BC. You support the lies to the means end. You support more deceit and lies but say 'that is just the way it's always been... oh and blame canada while you are at it.' Because we know you cannot stand up for yourself, you are so apologetic to the status quo it makes other posters nauseated. Again, you represent what is wrong with America. Yes the FBI director knows more than all of us, and this is the reason why you don't find on the FBI most wanted list the 9/11 reasons for wanting Bin Laden. Maybe it is because they have no definate proof, and to this day they do not have any definate proof against Bin Laden in regards to 9/11. If they did, it would be presented already and shown to the world, and blasted from the rooftops. But we don't see that happening. Bush before 9/11 said he never really thought about Bin Laden. Can't blame the Clinton's for that if good ol unCurious George did not really care about it untill it was too late. So sad.

BC No it does not make sense, because you cannot make sense of it. He said, he suspected his neighbour of stealing it, so he stole his neighbours car. But in fact someone else has stolen it. Whew,,, that was hard. Hope this clears things up for you BC. Like invading Iraq when none of the hijackers were Iraqi. Most were Saudi's. Still, I know this will never make any sense to you. OH let's play this game again. BUT BUT BUT BUT... waaaaahhhh. FFS BC, get yourself a real scapegoat. I wonder where Saddam's chemical weapons came from?

When you spend taxpayers money it matters to all of us, and you can see the reasons we hate waste in our own lives and really hate to see that scale of waste. It is becuase you don't care that much about money that is not your. But alas, some of that money is yours, in taxes you pay. So please treat it with respect and get the best bang for that dollar. If you are just going to piss it away, I would rather have someone else in charge who cares. It is not an origional observation, but the fact is that observation has been around for decades, and nothing done about it. You should have more care with goverment money/documents because it means more that just one person's personal life. It means many many lives will be affected by this. So again, take more care with our money.

Yes, indeed, same type of fear scenario to get people to vote a certain way. CO2. Carbon Dioxide. Humans breath in O2, and breath out CO2. Solve the problem by killing off half the human race. Carbon dioxide is good for plants. Plants convert this into oxygen so we can live. More people, less trees means a bad thing. If we are talking about behaviour modification, then this is basicly an attack on excesiveness. Living above our means. I gave up owning vehicles about 7 years ago. I just could not stand the constant cost of the vehicle. Gas, oil, tires, parts, labour ect ect ect ...... Just not worth the cost. Since I stopped owning (and I do not lease or have a vehicle) cars, I have saved a bucket load of money. My sister is always throwing money into her car. And she cannot afford a new one because of the cost of the current one. Another thing is she is always broke. I have a nice pad zone of cash now. Global warming will happen, but i doubt it will be the way those scientitst tell us. Simply put, we do not have enough data on what temperatures were during a specific time period. INCONCLUSIVE is where we are at for this issue.

I take it all back when I say we should be putting more faith into each other and ourselves. This thread has shown me the err of my ways. CO2 is good for plants.