Michael Hardner

Bildeberg group -> "Hey everybody, let's all secretly gain control of the economy so that we might destroy it." The Greeks also believed that the gods played with humans and sometimes lived among them.

Bradco - I agree.Especially with this: "It is time to stop thinking as a supporter of a political party and time to start thinking as a Canadian and a concerned citizen. Who values acountability over abuse." I'm a centre-left voter but I think our country's political system is far more pressing than any left-right issues right now. If we don't have a healthy political process, we won't elect the right people to solve all the other problems. It seems to many of us that democracy was healthier in the past somehow. From Neil Postman's book "Amusing Ourselves To Death", he paints an interesting portrait of early American townhall democracy as a place where right and left confronted each other and were forced to hash out best-fit compromises. Of course, that's not practical on a national level but even so there are elements of townhall democracy that should exist on the national level, and currently do not. What we have, instead of healthy debate amongst the citizenry, are remotely programmed television-based marketing campaigns directed at a barely sentient mass audience. So, here are som ebasic roots to the problems we have: * Life is too short for most people to waste good time looking into complex issues of government. Sure, we MapleLeafers look into issues all the time, because it's our "thing", but seriously how many people are as informed as we are ? In case I sound arrogant, look to those polls that are constantly showing how many people can't name the PM, etc. Early democracy in North America didn't have universal sufferage - they only let male (Christian ?) landholders vote. My sense is that such a person looked more like a MapleLeafer than an average voter. * There's no way to get information because it makes more sense for political parties (or brands) to spend their time on advertising campaigns than policy specifics. Again, early NA political discussion took place largely in the print media, which is more conducive to ideas. We can't turn back the clock, though. Here are some solutions I've written about in the past: Instead of making politics more restrictive by assigning 'extra votes', requiring a degree or making voting mandatory, why not just direct the information to come from better sources ? If we eliminated political advertising entirely (as Postman suggests) that would go a long, long way to eliminating misinformation. A next step after that would be to somehow shame television networks into making all political discussion more town-hall-like, ie. moderated, solid ground rules, no soundbytes or unreasonable timelines. Print is a good way to present factual ideas, and reasoned debate is a good way to air them. This is a tall order, though. Also, we could also go a long way to making government more understandable by fighting against the mundane complexities that sprout from bureaucracy. Such forces are self-serving and help no one. Simpler government would make discussions more accessible - just witness how much general political interest is piqued by easier to understand issues. In conclusion, alienation and disinvolvement are indeed a problem, but fighting these problems with more of the same (more complexity, more rules, forced involvement) will not improve matters.

I see... A good site that tracks down urban legends, rumours et al. - harmful and otherwise - is Snopes.com. They track down the rumours, and usually slay them. I think it's more important than any tv news programme at keeping people informed. And, as you say, the themes are largely the same throughout time. Snopes takes every opportunity to point this out. For example, if there's a scare that gangs are roaming WAL MART parking lots, Snopes will relate it to, say, similar rumours that have been around for years. www.snopes.com

M - Hardly a conspiracy in the sense it's used today. He was a demagogue who won an election, that's all. Not the same thing as shadowy people, whom TimeMachine says are trying to destroy the very economies they lord over now.

There's enough greed and manipulation going on right in the open - we don't need to look for shadowy world conspiracies to explain what goes on. Conspiracy theories are fairy tales for adults.

The situation with movies is worse, though, Auguste as there is less choice. You're speaking of network prime-time broadcasts, which are becoming less and less viable. Also, British film critic Leslie Halliwell wrote an eloquent essay about the 'Golden Age' of Hollywood, wherein the films had to appeal to a very wide audience BUT the films were constructed intelligently enough that they could be enjoyed by audiences with sophisticated tastes, and those who enjoyed easy entertainment. 'Casablanca' would be the archetypical example - a love story, some intrigue, heroes and villains, and even some music within a strong story...

As much as the income trust announcement was reviled, I think when the dust settles people will see Harper as someone who isn't afraid to make tough choices. I think voters are through with politicians that pander to them, and Harper is anything but that.

Figleaf, Read the thread and you'll see that AC is a feverish supporter of PR. He even talks about soldiers dying for demcracy etc. etc. He's very passionate about it. I also was basically accused in this thread of opposing PR because I'm right wing, even though I have campaigned for and voted for the NDP pretty consistently throughout the years. PR will result in endless coalitions, and more politics in a system that is dying for less politics. AC thinks that people who are put off by the system now will somehow be brought inside the fold if more gerrymandering, politicking, and backslapping is added. I don't.

Except that the inquiry found the government to hold some of the blame. How can you believe complex conspiracy theories that blame government on one hand, and not accept the findings of a completely transparent process on the other ?

For me it boils down to - one killed people, one didn't. And I mean 'boils' as in - BOIL WATER WARNING.

I have to say that this decision makes Harper even more of a mystery to me. He really seems to be going in a complete unique direction, almost like he's ignoring anyone who has a lobbyist.

Do you think, for example, if WAL MART went away, there wouldn't be any jobs in retail ? The jobs are there because there's demand for goods and services. The relationship between the owners and the employees is a tricky one. It's important to keep in mind that the corporation's goal is to reduce costs, which include taxes and labour. At a certain point, the balance tips too far in favour of the owners but the question is - where is that point ?

Wasn't the former leader a former Ontario PC ?

So are we saying now that the cover-up is about reducing exposure of the buildings' owners and builders to lawsuits ? If so, that makes much more sense.

Exactly. So we already have a confession, with a motive - all links going to Osama. You'll need more convincing proof even, if you want to tie the crime to anyone else.

Sure. Well, I didn't consider that but everything I posted still applies. You would need to find a smoking gun, with thicker smoke than we have now, to implicate the crazy billionaire.

CA, The approach you suggest would work if you were plotting, but not working backwards. The reason is that there are too many possibilities. I suggest that a billionaire would be crazy to risk his life to double his money. Your response seems to be 'that's the key - no one would suspect that'. If my assessment is accurate, then we can't even begin to look into this, in my opinion. There are too many false leads, and threads to follow. If a crazy billionaire decided to risk his 5 billion and his own life, for another five billion it might be very hard to trace the crime back to him. But, starting with a crime, you have to follow the evidence to the criminal, beyond reasonable doubt. It's not reasonable to assume that a crazy billionaire rigged the entire thing as a set-up just because it's possible. All of the evidence points to the hijackers, and even most truthers think they're culpable. Once you start implying that said crazy billionaire risked his own fortune, life and reputation NOT to send planes into the WTC but only for the 'special effect' of the collapse afterwards, then you're really in the twilight zone.

CA - Why is that smarter ? There's a universe of possibilities if you take what might have happened into account - there's no end to it. If we're looking for answers, then we want to put together a reasonable hypothesis, I would think.

CA - you are correct ! If you're a billionaire connected to the defense industry and all levels of power and somebody came to you a few years before 9/11 to propose risking all of it, including possibly your own life if you're caught, for a few extra billion... even doubling your wealth... what is the chance that you'd do it ? It's probably not 0%, so - you're right - we can't rule it out.

Ghost - that's logical but you have to look at the big picture. Whoever had the most to gain also had the most to lose, so there was risk involved - a great deal of risk. The more people involved, the more risk was involved.

I think so.

CA - now you're talking about real detective work. I'm not sure if that's practical. What do you think ?

Leaf: Don't you think that might be because it's happening in Canada ?

Ah, but there the argument is reversed. Two airplanes against the twin towers is such an audacious act of terror that it sends an extra message of defiance. That could be argued, but it wouldn't take that much extra planning or encur much more risk to hijack several planes over a single plane, once the MO was worked out. Well, it sounds from the description that the decision would have been made on site by someone in charge of rescue. Does that sound right to you ? If so, we can scour news reports and email individuals to try to get an answer.

I've read this rationale before and it's not believable at all, in my opinion. If somebody told you, on September 10th, that jets would be hijacked to hit those buildings you would have been horrified by that thought. It would not have been necessary to add that the buildings collapsed. The horror would come from the fact that American had not been attacked before, and the prevailing sentiment at that time that America was untouchable in that regard. The extra effort to fell the buildings would not add much more to the horror of the incident, and it would expose the operation to so much more risk of being discovered. It just doesn't add up.