Jump to content

Michael Hardner

Senior Member
  • Posts

    44,580
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    98

Everything posted by Michael Hardner

  1. From the CBS article: It all sounds pretty innocuous to me. I'm not sure where you're getting these assumptions from, but anyway if what you're saying is true and a plane didn't hit the pentagon then what are we left with ? A plane that never existed full of non-people. Given the assumption that they were able to fell the twin towers without detection, doesn't it seem strange that they would have botched this part of the plan ?
  2. You are correct, Scriblett. It denigrates people in the worst way. Rumours like this: The implication is that there was no plane, and that none of the people aboard ever existed.
  3. Nonsense. You can't discriminate against English people by offering additional services in French. That's like saying barbers discriminate against bald people. I'm sorry but I thought you had posted something upon which we agreed - a building block upon which we could launch a productive discussion. As I said, it's difficult to disprove an opinion. So you're right - I didn't disprove anything because you haven't posted enough material that is substantial enough to discuss. For example, let's examine this quote of yours: What is there to prove or disprove in your post above ? Let's look at it closely, breaking it down. 1. French politicians were acting in the interest of Quebec. Well, they were acting in the interest of national unity, which includes all provinces but that isn't what you were getting at, I suspect. In order to prove that they were acting in the interest of Quebec to the exclusion of the rest of Canada you would have to provide some kind of evidence, which you did not. 2. ...who are not in the positon in my opinion to implement anything outside of Quebec without a full parliamentry debate and a national referendum. As you state yourself in this sentence - it is your opinion only. I'm hardly in the position to disprove an opinion. If you want to show this as a fact, and not an opinion, you would have to cite some reason why a referendum would be required. Then we could discuss it. 3. ...the British who won Canada not the French and Quebec. Well, this is a fact at least. You are correct, of course, but the relevance to the discussion is unclear. If you think you have a case here, then report me to the moderator. I have been fairly begging you to post something other than your personal opinions on the motives of Quebec born politicians. You regard these opinions of yours as "proof" but they are nothing of the sort. How can I be expected to disprove that ?
  4. This letter is disconcerting to say the least. It's no wonder that folks such as yourself are disgusted with the system when complaints like this surface. Hopefully the Citizen will press the government to inquire into this matter. There should be audits done from time to time, as well, to determine whether the system is functioning - and not only in a political way.
  5. Crims: Much of what you have posted is wrong, some is nonsense, and some of it is dishonest. Some examples: There are limits to what humans can do. An architect can only foresee so much happening to a building. An organization can't anticipate every type of security breach. Investigators will not examine every single piece of evidence when they have enough evidence to come to the proper conclusion. I find it strange that 9-11 conspiracy types continually cite Ockham's Razor when Ockham's Razor dictates that the simplest explanation is the reason. Needless to say, the supposed plot is anything but simple. The terrorists used well known holes in security to execute a low-cost high-impact attack that had never been tried before and that is what happened. For no reason ? I could see how tapes of the crash would have significance for security and why they wouldn't want that in the public domain. The second tower was hit worse than the first, so what happened makes sense. Flying a plane into a building doesn't cause a homogeneous amount of damage through and through. There were also some severed human hands recovererd from the roof of a building. Out of the country ? Is there a source for that ? I thought FEMA was supposed to be in on this ? I also thought that some wreckage was kept around for months. How could anybody separate the debris into evidence-bearing and non-evidence-bearing debris ? He was on the board of directors for awhile, and left long before the attacks. This is the type of intentionally misleading quote that is strewn in with unexplained facts in order to spread rumours and misinformation. I have weighed the evidence and found that the official explanation is mostly correct. Yes, there are some unexplained events that happened but the reasons for what happened are obvious. You, on the other hand, will believe anybody who has anything to say regarding a conspiracy. Who is the blind one ?
  6. Yes, it goes up in down in the polls. When it hits 50%, and the PQ is in office they try a referendum... and fail. What is a 'Quebecker' was the question. The answer - somebody from Quebec. As predicted, you're going to try to change this very obvious definition to something devious. Thank you/Merci. Yes. See my previous point. What has it been - 34 years since official bilingualism ? The country is still together. I suspect Harper will decentralize government to the satisfaction of Quebeckers, securing the BQ vote in the commons and further unifying the country. Harper is an Ontarian, and thus sees the value of a united Canada. I'm glad we're finally in agreement on the other points. Cheers.
  7. It's not clear that they're targetting NASCAR. They already did a football game, so it seems they just want to do a piece on discrimination. Given that NBC has a contract to show NASCAR this season, it's hard to see why they'd want to bring down the sport.
  8. Well, MacLuhan would say something about the balkanization of America, I suspect. Separation is a fad that comes and goes, though and so far they haven't gone.
  9. Someone from Quebec ? I guess you're going to expect me to defer to your opinion on what a Quebecker is. And the only province that thinks of themselves as Canadian first is Ontario, as has been posted here. Sorry, Leaf, but I do know the difference between opinions and facts. The definitive quote above from you is 'if that's not proof then I don't know what is'. That was posted at the end of a piece void of fact or argument. It might be easier if you just post a list of groups you don't like. Watch your spelling when you're deriding my English skills. I am English Canadian, but stop trying to figure me out and focus on the discussion if you are able. Merci bien. I appreciate the discussion. I am open minded, but I need something to put in there other than your feelings on an issue. Read the article I linked to, for example, and try to refute it for a start.
  10. I had forgotten about this story until today... CNN At first glance, this seems pretty big to me. I remember Bush threatening to fire anyone who leaked information, but now Libby is saying that the president approved it ? This isn't as big as Clinton's "I did not have relations..." lie, but - if true - is more than a little misleading. Breitbart Article Personally, I'm stunned by this development. While not a fan of Bush, I would never have suspected him of being devious enough to leak his own goverment's secrets for political gain. If it's found to be true, I see this as the biggest scandal of the administration so far. *NOTE: After reading the article again, I realize that it's not the Plame leak that they're talking about here. My apologies.
  11. Having worked my entire career in organizations where information is constantly misplaced, I can see how it would happen. I take heart with your point that the conspiracy theory is too thin to damage confidence. I hope you're right.
  12. So you acknowledge that the country is officially bilingual ? Good. Now we're getting somewhere. All of the rest of it is your opinion only and you will not convince anyone unless you add more information. You say they were doing it to help Quebec, I say it was for national unity. It was done as a response to the 1980 referendum and helped seal national unity. Here's a reference: Vigile Article "This constituted a massive blow to the nationalist cause, which had accumulated substantial political capital by playing on a fundamentally dyadic conception of Canada in which the English "people" were forever slighting "Quebec."" Did it work ? So far it has. Thirty-odd years after official bilingualism Quebec is still in Canada. People who live in Ontario - the most populous province - are concerned about national unity and are willing to live with official bilingualism in order to keep it together. This sentence: " Absolutely, and only proves that 'offical languages' were presumed by particularly French politicians 'equal' in nature despite all provinces not being designated 'officially bilngual' and without first being qualified by a 'national referendum'." So, you acknowledged above that the federal government had a policy of official bilingualism yet you expected the government to assume the country wasn't officially bilingual when drafting the constitution ? Confusing. Moreover, there's a lot more to the constitution, ie. the charter of rights. I'm guessing you don't like that either. Please explain the conspiracy behind that part of the document, as it exists in your mind. Incorrect. Canadian politicians acting in their self-interest against separatist cause effectively and decisively. They were not French. They were Canadian. They opposed separatism and their plan has worked so far. You haven't said anything other than calling the politicians "French" (they're not - they were Canadian and opposed to separatism) and bringing in extraneous facts such as the fact that there was no referendum etc. Who cares if the British won. Really. Who cares. Nobody does, and nobody should. The idea is to solidify a country called Canada. A country of two languages and many peoples. Calling people "French" doesn't prove any kind of conspiracy outside your own mind. If you have further proof please furnish it.
  13. I'm not talking about scrutiny here. I'm talking about spreading rumours, discrediting institutions and making scandalous statements accusing people of murder. I disagree. Though these institutions are fallible, people on both sides of the political spectrum are very quick to accuse the other side of inhumanity. That goes beyond trust - it's bad faith.
  14. I would like to reiterate that rumour-mongering and discrediting of all government agencies - including law enforcement - weaken our institutions and breeds cynicism and mistrust and faithlessness. If these elements of democracy erode, we will be left with no trusted sources of information, and eventually an ability to achieve consensus.
  15. Unfortunately, for the conspiracy minded, one only becomes a 'pro' when they have a theory to brandish. If 100 people agree on what happened, they will take the word of the person who doesn't agree just because. This, by the way, is the same tack used by those who submit that the UN Global Warming study is a fraud and their one scientist who disagrees must be the one who is right... The idea put forward is that planes hitting a building wouldn't be 'shocking' enough so demolition of the buildings had to be added to make the scene truly terrifying. Does that not sound farcical to you ?
  16. Absolutely what ? It's not clear what he's saying. There were two official languages already when the constitution was drafted, so you're saying they presumed that the policy that was in place was indeed in place. It proves nothing at all. To quote an oft-used term around here - national unity is not a zero sum game. They were working towards unifying the country. If you want to ascribe some kind of conspiracy to that, then prove it. Don't just say that it can't be disproven.
  17. I read a large part of the first link, which took me fifteen minutes. The writer, Dr. Reynolds, comes across as a scientific expert in the writing, which he is not. It would be more informative for an individual to have a counter-point to his claims as there's nothing to go on if you don't have the training to understand what he has written. I will say that he puts in too much innuendo in his writing. Trucks with GPS are described thusly: "New York City officials had every debris truck tracked on GPS." What does this mean ? Did all NYC trucks have GPSs or just the ones for this cleanup ? When was it done and why ? This is exactly what I'm talking about when I talk about combing through the wreckage for oddities. He claims that no one saw any buckling of the floor. I did read such a report early on in one of the 9-11 calls. What can be said is that there's no way such a thing could have be done. Without more evidence than this, we should all move on. They don't know what caused the fire is a better way to put it. Unexplained. Doesn't mean there was a conspiracy. Ockham's Razor demands the simplest explanation. Given the evidence, the simplest evidence was that the terrorists did it.
  18. She was the least substantial candidate and wouldn't have been able to defeat Harper. The candidates that are left are very Harper-like in that they're more idea men than politicians. It's not looking good for the Liberals at this point.
  19. What exactly do you mean by that ? There's a spectrum of meaning that could be derived. Do you mean that they openly discussed how they themselves would benefit from such an arrangement to the exclusion of other benefits ? Do you mean that their view of Quebec's place in Canada affected how they thought the country should be put together ? Implicit in this is that people are inherently selfish. That's one aspect of human behavior but it doesn't explain all human behavior. There's a formula for amendment and maybe the current government may try for this option.
  20. Can you source these three pieces of information please ? And what is your response to my assertion that "top down" the conspiracy theories make no sense, while "bottom up" investigations will inevitably lead to unexplained facts ? Is there any point in combing through wreckage for years, when this is so ?
  21. I have a big problem with that. If you remove the responsibility from the corporations, there are a number of downsides: - Working for a company now involves personal risk to you but not to the owner. - If an individual is ordered to commit some kind of misdeed, then there's only so much that that individual can do to cover damages even if they're personally ruined. - Such an arrangement would inevitably lead to irresponsible behavior on the part of large companies. You can fire them or decide that they didn't perform their duties, but the courts determined years ago that the ultimate responsibility is with the person who engages that individual in the activity. You indicated that limited liability was a problem, and that sole proprietorship would be ideal but your response would eliminate even more responsibility from corporations. This is one of the problems with Sarbanes-Oxley legislation. It puts individuals on the line for financial reporting but it doesn't protect them from being manipulated by their employer. If you were to refuse to sign off on financials, you could cost the company a large amount of money and your employment could be affected.
  22. Actually, they can. Martin's Liberals made decisions concerning campaign funding which moderated television advertising by political parties - a good thing in my opinion. Mr. Harper, being more an idea man than a politican, seems to want to go more in that direction. The state can't improve the quality of information, but it can create conditions whereby better information comes out. I look forward to it.
  23. We've already discussed this a lot on this board here. To summarize : No one has been able to explain how and why such a plot could ever be planned, approved and executed and who could/would do that. The theories that are out there come from people with a penchant for mysteries - people who comb through the millions of facts out there to find unexplained incidents, coincidents or oddities then build their theories on that. With an incident of this scale, there will always be these types of phenomena. To build conspiricies on that is simply destructive to society. Research the 'umbrella man' at JFK's assasination. For years, he was thought to be part of some conspiracy but it was eventually explained.
  24. Clear: The idea of property is easy to grasp when you're talking about individuals with tangible goods. It becomes a lot less murky when you start talking about multinational corporations, intellectual property, speculation and so forth. If you do me some harm, I can bring a lawsuit and try to get reparations. But if you're a corporation, I won't have the resources to fight you and even if I win, you have limited liability so I might not get what is justly mine.
×
×
  • Create New...