I don't mean to take offense to those on the other side of this debate but the notion that anyone would, with a straight face, advocate spending taxpayer dollars on a private company is so offensive to me it's just unconscionable. So in a sense what your saying is that we should privatize profits while socializing losses. Is that how I am to understand the opposition on this issue.

Dick Cheney would be a great choice.

Phelps is undoubtedly the greatest Olympic athlete of all time. This is a purely objective measure based off the number of gold medals around his neck and world records under his belt. No one can reasonably take this title away from him. However, weather or not he is the greatest Olympian of all time is open to rational debate. A great Olympian is not simply the greatest athlete at the Olympics but also a great citizen of the world and representative of their nation. I am not an Olympic scholar but would love to learn more about Olympians who have embodied the spirit of the games.

There's nothing like selflessly giving pleasure to another person. The only thing that comes close is cooking for another person.

I'd like to know more about your father before I answer this. But without knowing more, I'd say give the man a day off.

Driving is a zero sum game. You either get to where your going safe and sound, or you don't. So as a basic rule, doing anything while driving, other than driving, diminishes your driving capabilities. However, since we're always doing something other than driving while driving it makes sense to evaluate this proposition in context of how we really drive. Is talking on the cell phone, if done responsibly, any less distracting than listening to Shock Radio? Or reprimanding two unruly children who won't sit still? I don't think so, talking on the phone is just another distraction, no more hazardous than listening to the radio.

to know without something doing the knowing doesn't make sense as an argument. Knowledge requires a mindbody construct to 'know', to make the point that you don't know what it's like to be dead until your dead is just patently ludicrous and implies a certain amount of ignorance on your part. That's like asking what you were like before you were born.

I'm glad this question draws a distinction between a world without 'god' and a world without 'religion.' Religions are a social construct and have been used to control and organize populations to serve a minority elite. As such, if you believe that the majority functions best by dictation then religions have served a higher good. If you believe in personal freedom and liberty that religions have served only those privileged enough to be within the ranks of the ruling class. Freedom and liberty are the rights of all people, religions are a burden to free people everywhere and a parasite on the backs of civilizations.

The question presumes a distinction between the mind (the 'we', he refers to) and the body. We speak of the body as if they are two different things, the self exists as a mindbody constant. The parameters may change, one could loose a limb or suffer brain damage but so long as the mindbody constant remains unbroken the self can arguably be said to exist. However, to the question of do 'we' exist when our bodies die? I think the answer to that can only be no. At least no without appeal to such irrational concepts as 'immortal soul' or 'divine spark' or other such notions.

Life before life is no more rational that life after life.