Michael Hardner

Well, it's not necessary. If there's a fact out there, it can be disputed or confirmed. If someone turns out to be wrong, then they can admit it and move on - it's not the end of the world.

Very interesting thread. Can those on this thread who have the most knowledge (and presumably the most entrenched beliefs) also recommend a way through it ? I'd be interested to read that too.

Norman has now posted the fact. It should be easy for people to refute it, or not, without insults shouldn't it ?

Do you really believe this ? ie. That this has never been imagined before ? I have seen pictures of these people baking giant cakes featuring the WTC after 9/11. There's nothing new here. But to try to tie that to every Muslim everywhere is deceiving, and - especially this - drives a wedge between the West and the moderate Muslims that are part of our bridge to unity.

The best report I ever read on media bias in America (sorry, no link) concluded that the bias that exists in media is identical to the bias in the social group that produces journalists: upper middle-class and college educated. They are fairly liberal socially, but favour lower taxes and defer to authority. They trust corporations for the most part, and believe in American institutions. They're not that religious, as a rule, and are suspicious of firebrand preacher types. They're ambitious and are focussed on their careers. This is the social group that journalists come from. Yes, they are more liberal socially but also supportive of the corporate world. (No big surprise there, as that is where most of them will spend their working lives.) That to me was the definitive study, and it did a great deal to enlighten me as to how there's a controversy about liberal media, etc.

Exactly. This isn't bias they're talking about. If it was, then it wouldn't change with every election. It's reporting. Norman - there's nothing wrong with the data. What I disagree with is that reporting necessarily constitutes bias. For example, based on my assessment of the study, my 'bias' against it means I'm Conservative, right ? Well, I'm not.

The term 'bias' is usually used to describe an inclination that exists in an individual or an group that is brought to their roles as journalists from outside. However, this thread (and to some degree the article) seems to be using the term to describe any kind of reporting at all. If a "negative" article is written about the Liberals, one that mentions the sponsorship scandal for example, then the article is described as having a bias. I suspect that this approach is being done with an agenda to neutralize those who accuse the media of having a liberal bias (in the normal sense of the term) but it does a disservice to the truth, in my opinion.

Poly, That is incorrect. From the site FAQ: http://www.911myths.com/html/site_faq.html Mike Williams is behind the site. The Popular Mechanics article did an excellent job of refuting a pile of misinformation that was being disseminated at the time the article came out. Unfortunately, the web is faster so that information was replaced by a lot more. I will say this: Your new page of patriots is impressive, and I imagine it will take awhile before it is debunked. I can already see that two of the bios seem to be identical there.

I don't know if it's 'tolerance' or mere 'politeness' that people are showing. After all, people generally put up with Borat whether he's casually making an anti-Semitic comment, or talking about some sexual matter that's totally inappropriate. I think the film's success is due to the fact that it destroys all boundries of social convention. Fascinating to watch, but not as funny as I thought it would be.

To clarify - I didn't mean to say that criminals should be excluded from incarceration because they belong to a religion. I meant to say that it's wrong to imprison people solely due to their religion. But I think you knew that.

And Bin Laden's confession doesn't implicate him because it was a double, right ? Can you see why we say these things about you, Poly ? Every time we come up with something that we regard as a fact, you have a reason why it's been faked out. We're at a standstill because you want to include facts in your argument that we can't debate.

Wrong. We've debated him in 9/11 threads before, and every time a point is countered he comes up with another one. And he simultaneously decries the lack of open-mindedness in the general population. If you don't accept these ridiculous theories of his, you're just not open minded, I guess. There's no convincing him.

Poly, This thread will get sidetracked quickly, but... ...that's just bad thinking. My point is that it's hard to differentiate experts/nonexperts information/pap...

AC, I would say one term should suffice. And the second referrendum should not be optional. If the system turns out to favour the majority too much, as it seems destined to do, that majority shouldn't have the option of cancelling the follow-up referendum.

Poly, It's pretty difficult to guage reliability, especially when it comes to 'expert material'. Many will choose to believe their existing opinions. 9/11 is a good example. You've got the American Society of Civil Engineers on one side, and, say, an economics professor on the other side yet many will believe the latter for some reason.

Leafless - Here's your post: Internment camps based on religion is a bad idea in my books. Do you think that arresting people solely on the basis of their 'suspected religion' is a good idea ? That is, Italians, and swarthy types could be arrested based on how they look ? I answered your question, now you answer mine.

AC - I think the first paragraph is the best summation of your argument yet. I still disagree but... 1 ) The fact that the current minority government seems to be as productive as the previous majority government gives me enough pause to consider that you might be right. ie. Maybe permanent minority government in Canada can work. 2 ) My fear is that, once this is implemented, it would be impossible to de-implement if it was failing. I would submit that pending a referrendum a limited term experiment be tried, with an expiration date, after which a second referrendum on whether to extend the system. How's that sound ?

Leafless - it's unclear from your post if you're referring to Arab Muslims suspected of criminal activity, or merely people suspected of being Arab Muslims. Betsy, That makes no sense. Anything could happen, and many things have happened but that has no bearing on whether a proposal is reasonable or not. The term 'precedent' is usually used to discuss legal decisions that changed the law, not usually to discussed mistakes in history. And, yes, there's no reason to not discuss anything.

AC: The end result of that arrangement is that no party can implement their vision of what has to be done, and gridlock results. If you're looking for a 'voice' for people who aren't represented now, why not just add a single MP for any party that received 5% (or some number) of the vote as an MP with a geographical constituency. That MP would speak on the party's behalf and achieve this goal without completely restructuring the way our democracy works.

Betsy, Interning innocent people a taboo ? I wonder why ? We aren't robots, we're humans. Certain ideas are shocking to some - this would be one of them.

Betsy, I guess it's not 'wrong' to discuss anything. But surely you realize that what you're suggesting is revolting to a great many people, and would never be implemented.

Argus Exactly. The previous post reveals an unabashed arrogance. The idea being that a company should tell the government how much tax it should pay.

Sorry, norm, but I disagree. Harper's quiet, dignified approach is worthy of praise. Take the recent income trust decision as an example. A true righty demagogue would have embraced the opportunity to decimate Canada's revenues.

Cameron - I would modify your question to 'Are they really as bad as the Liberal said they would be in the election campaign ?'. As someone who didn't vote Conservative, I would say that they're not that bad. As much as I disagree with Conservative policies in general, I commend the current government on its pragmatic approach to issues. Harper is far above the screaming conservative demagogues we've seen from the US, and I look forward to the level of debate in federal politics to continue to be elevated. That said, I'm still not going to vote for him.

Can you provide a link ? Googling the key terms here, I couldn't find the story.