Jump to content

Michael Hardner

Senior Member
  • Posts

    43,100
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    97

Everything posted by Michael Hardner

  1. eb Capitalists are not wage earners they are investors. A salary cap on all people is something that they might even love. Imagine the NBA team owner being told "You can't pay any of your players over 100K.". Do you think he would mind ? If you have to ask, then it's not a big enough problem. The system may not destroy itself, but rather it may continue to change as it has.
  2. Dave_ON, I think the parties' policies are actually closer than they have been in a long time. The ideology and rhetoric makes them sound like they always did, but there isn't much difference there. Vote for whomever you have confidence in managing the country adroitly. Harper is the obvious choice, given that he's been doing it for awhile now, but then again who knows what a majority may bring.
  3. CBC Article The thing I find most interesting about this idea is that we are finally moving towards the a model - where a show's creators make a series of series. I believe the British do something like this...
  4. eb, The salary adjustment is my own choice. I would like to see a lower work week, but there should be some give and take. How would a Maximum wage work ? There's no maximum wage for capitalists. The income gap is a problem, but not enough of a problem yet to destroy the system. Instead, it adopts socialistic attributes, but mostly if forced to do so.
  5. DoP All the better to not use you as the standard bearer I suppose.
  6. eb, Actually, there is a limit as to how much work can be done in that way. And there's no reason to think that they won't follow our lead. Maybe a better approach is to start encouraging different work weeks. I would like to eventually work 4 days instead of 5 and would accept a salary adjustment.
  7. DoP, Ok - you said "becoming a scourge" ... which led me to think that you didn't think it as much of a problem now. Ok, you find PC distasteful and disagree with George W. Bush on the nature of Islam. Even not knowing your ideas in depth, if I had to choose between you, I would choose him as a recognizable standard-bearer for the mainstream of conservative thought.
  8. DoP Not Obama's words - Bush's. Probably the last two options. Actually, we saw on this very thread that someone mused about how Muslims would react to the threat of dropping a bomb on Mecca and nobody stepped up to say such actions were unreasonable or to denounce them. I think that most people quietly disassociate themselves from radical ideas but naturally don't feel that they have to say something. I guess you're saying that they're not a scrouge to civilization now ? Yes, a small group of people can always be a threat I suppose. Political correctness may be distasteful to you personally, but as I pointed out - conservatives also see the civility in being polite and pointing out that Islam is peace as the President did.
  9. DoP Perhaps they should be taken to represent the view of mainstream conservatives then.
  10. DoP These are the president's words not mine. I think they represent the view of mainstream Christians too: "These terrorists don't represent peace. They represent evil and war."
  11. Pliny Well, shouldn't it be ? The idea of making lying illegal seems like excessive state intrusion to me. I'm not sure why you would support that - it seems impractical. Culture is pretty difficult to change, and sometimes it needs to be changed. The US civil rights act in the 1960s, coupled with centrally programmed culture (corporate control, advertising, press and entertainment media controlled from New York City) broke down prejudices that were ingrained. Would America have eventually changed ? Perhaps. South Africa didn't change until 25 years later though. I was going to use that as a 2nd example after the US. Imagine what a progressive but intelligent government could achieve if there was a will there. I'm of the opinion that culture is fluid. We should try to preserve history, in order to provide some meaning and some sense of belonging to our descendants but we shouldn't try to preserve culture. Values are something that we should preserve at the core ( as they're defined in our constitution ) but those too need to be modified over longer periods of time. We went to war for God, Queen and Country in the 20th century and lost over 100,000 Canadian lives in the World Wars alone. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I doubt that significant numbers of teenage men would be willing to die for Prince Charles. Maybe I'm out on a limb here. You don't need these people to tell you - you can recognize it in what they say. It's evident when you hear Horowitz that he's identifying and putting blame on a group - whether or not you agree with his point of view. I don't think the Hasan case is relevant to a discussion on multiculturalism, freedom of the press and so forth - whether he was a patriot, an extremist, or unstable. He was a threat and that's enough to know. I appreciate the fact that multiculturalism, and culture change in general imposed by law is difficult. And I'm not entirely comfortable with sections of our constitution that limit free speech either. But the best thing that can result from these parts of our system are that they generate interest and intense discussion, such as happens here. If there are enough eyes, and differing points of view on the philosophy behind these things it will help ensure that some kind of consensus - however brittle - will result.
  12. What I believe is that it's time for us to reduce the work week again across the board. The 5 day work week is something like 80 years old. We have obviously seen productivity increases grow exponentially during that time. Relative wage growth doesn't reflect the increases in profit or productivity, but a 4 day week would do that.
  13. Wulf - one more thing. If you support the US and its president, you should not be against Islam as you have stated but understand what the president said "When we think of Islam we think of a faith that brings comfort to a billion people around the world. Billions of people find comfort and solace and peace." Get onside with our allies !
  14. Wulf, Sorry - can you point out where I personally attacked you ? I can point out where you personally attacked me quite easily. Let's see if you respond to my question or just breeze on by. Now you're saying "i [sic] really don't care what happens in the M.E.". This from the poster who was just wondering what would happen if the U.S. threatened to bomb the centre of Islam" This behavior is called "running away" and it's cowardly behavior to state a point of view then turn tail and say you don't care what happens. And no, that's not a personal attack by the way - it's a comment on your posting style as evidenced in the thread. You need to learn the difference: "You're a moron" = personal attack, actionable by the moderator "Your method of stating an opinion and then fleeing from it shows cowardly debating style" = comment on your argument, fair game Do you understand now ?
  15. K, Fine, but we were discussing trying to get the root of how this kind of bias happens and to that point, you can only drill down so far. As long as it's about just getting the media to do a better job, I'm with you. These discussions, though, can sometimes cross over to the world of the paranoid and you know what I'm talking about here. If we take a common ground shared between reasonable left-ish and right-ish posters, it might be that news as information should be separated form news as entertainment. Both have their purposes, and more to the point - their markets. I'm glad that Nancy Grace and Bill O'Reilly exist. More and more, they report on things that the general public isn't really even aware of - only their audiences. This represents the 'full circle' evolution of entertainment news, and this process should be allowed to continue. Hopefully, we'll have a core of real news that addresses the job of giving out objective information.
  16. Wulf, And you're a terrible speller. You just accused me of attacking you, ("sticking to the arguement they attempt to attack the poster") when I was pointing out how you wondered aloud about the US threatening Mecca with nuclear attack. Then you backpeddle as such: It's baffling to me as to how you seem to consider the option to threaten nuclear attack against innocents, then try to say you were talking about opium fields.
  17. Pliny I thought freedom of speech did mean freedom to tell lies. I'm not sure what the subtleties are being truths/untruths/opinions/facts in law, and I don't care. It's enough to focus on a reasonable interpretation of the text. We're not interested in detecting liars, but in preventing people from generating civil discord. violence against identifiable groups. [edit]
  18. Pliny You can't educate people out of being too trusting. Take it from me. I mean it - TAKE IT FROM ME. I won't likely complain. My science degree doesn't give me the ability to not trust a friendly saleslady and as such, I own much of Florida's swamps.
  19. DA, You could go do the dance and gawk at them, but then staring intently at high school lesbians would likely cause you to meet a real D.A.
  20. Wulf, You said "what if the US threatened to bomb..." which is a hair short of advocating such a threat. I suppose I have to acknowledge that your daydream about threatening to kill civilians doesn't in itself comprise advocacy of killing civilians. It's a strange fantasy to have though, IMO.
  21. MD I don't either. I was subtly referring to the 'moderate Muslims don't speak up enough about extremists' school of thought.
  22. WB I suppose it depends on what you mean by root cause. I don't try to equate cultures in the way you're saying. Ok... I think I understand what you're saying.
  23. Gabriel, That's what Wulf mentioned, as I already explained. Fine, if you're recanting, then we'll leave Wulf's daydream of bombing Mecca on the table, and we'll note that you are more of a moderate, yet do not feel it necessary to speak out against extreme daydreams such as Wulf postulated on.
  24. Wulf, Fine, then say so instead of daydreaming about bombing civilians which, again, is disgusting.
  25. Wulf, You never used the word "Imagine" - you're no John Lennon. Here's your quote: If that's not putting the bombing of Mecca on the table, then what is it ? You need to choose a side - are you an 'ass kicker' like Gabriel or are you an imagineer like John Lennon ?
×
×
  • Create New...