Michael Hardner
-
Posts
43,067 -
Joined
-
Days Won
97
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Michael Hardner
-
-
9 minutes ago, Nationalist said:
While I'll admit Gates is not stupid...I will admit he's dangerous.
This push to get people to accept fake meat, eat bugs, forsake farming because of cow farts...is Gawd Damn insidious. The bast@rd is busily buying up all the land...not already bought by the Chinese.
This greenie agenda is evil.!
Well, it's a set of ideas, like Marxism, fascism, democracy , postmodernism..
The way these things work is you go after the ideas. You can call the adherent dangerous, say the idea is insidious and evil.
But that doesn't say anything about the idea.
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, CdnFox said:
Why? The pay is better in most countries, they'll have a long immigration wait to get here and trudeau just decided to tax them more.
Fast tracking could be done with a stroke of a pen. I'll bet Nigeria, Pakistan, India have good candidates.
-
3 hours ago, suds said:
The first thing we have to do is fix the doctor shortage. Whether it's public, private, or whatever, just give us something that works. It's amazing we have no shortage of dentists.
I'll bet there are tons of qualified family doctors overseas who want to live here.
-
43 minutes ago, Hodad said:
It gets better--and worse--every time we lower the cost of entry.
Nobody was going to fund the FERN (Flat Earth Radio Network) but now every dumb idea has unlimited cheap distribution. And before you know it lizard people secretly rule the world and the most scrutinized election in history was secretly "stolen" but nobody can quite say how.
Back before the printing press, the standards were VERY high to merit copying and distributing a book. 😁
I don't know about the cost. Radio and television were pretty expensive to get into.
-
2 hours ago, Hodad said:
We all imagined democratized access to information and publication would be a great thing. And in some ways it is. But it's also just made it a lot easier for crazies to validate their crazy ideas by finding like-minded people online.
It's funny though, other media have gone through the same thing, specifically, radio.
They thought it would be used for lectures, to transmit poetry, etc. As soon as advertising took off, a lot of people were angry with what was happening.
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, impartialobserver said:
Well, that's who i was referring to
Yar matey.
(Not a rational response but I just wanted to say that for some reason) -
9 minutes ago, Hodad said:
I have been there. I have lived there. It's not hyperbolic. You could pick up the phone and randomly dial any number in that town, and any adult who answered the phone (from whichever side) would know exactly what you're talking about.
McLuhan predicted the Balkanization of America. We can see it in its early stages. When there is no influential voice preaching unity anymore, disunity will happen.
-
1
-
-
33 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:
1. Well, then, maybe the left should stop saying storms are getting worse and hurricanes are stronger. That's weather.
Maybe the left ...
https://science.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/how-climate-change-may-be-impacting-storms-over-earths-tropical-oceans/
It's published papers actually, but to be clear last time I checked there wasn't a consensus on that yet.
"The left" doesn't do science, nor does the right... Scientists do.31 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:both sides play the game of supposing one data point describes the whole...
Only in the media and on web forums. The science is mostly above the political fray.
-
7 minutes ago, Black Dog said:
A hybrid public/private system like France could work in theory but would require consistent oversight to ensure equity of access and quality of care that the Canadian political class (particularly conservative provincial governments) are unwilling or incapable of providing.
For example: here in Alberta, the UCP privatized lab services community lab services in the south half of the province. Eight months later they pulled out of the 25 year contract eight months later with the whole fiasco costing taxpayers nearly $100M because the UCP are ideologically motivated incompetents who don't give a rat's ass about improving healthcare but lining the pockets of the wealthy.
This is what I have said. I would tie it to "top tier care must create [defined] better conditions to lower tier care" either though continued improvement/relief of that system in terms of wait-times, contributed costs etc.
The Doug Fords of this country don't know how to manage things any more than the Olivia Chows. If people expected more from them, I theorize, then they would have to do better. -
19 hours ago, I am Groot said:
1. If someone had a megaphone and led the convoy protesters down the street and started shouting "Adolph Hitler had the right idea! Death to the Jews!" how many people do you think would have cheered? Anyone? Probably everyone would have been so gobsmacked they'd have stopped in their tracks.
2. When the Muslims leading these protests say similar things they are cheered. Large cheers, too.
3. Do you see the difference that justifies thinking of them differently?
1. I don't know that this happened...
2. Well that's terrible. I didn't discount the Convoy, though, despite the fact that Racists and Wexiters were leading them.
3. Perhaps, but since we're not there either I can't be sure that characterizations of the protest one way or the other are entirely true. And to be sure the protests are indeed characterized both ways. Why should I believe your characterization before other accredited journalists ? And why should I believe them over you. I guess I could do hours of research, or go there myself but that's not happening. In the meantime, I will say there is a point to it, they can express themselves freely even if I disagree, and violence and hate speech should be condemned and acted on. I'm not so naive to believe anything on this issue. -
33 minutes ago, I am Groot said:
1. I have a low opinion of fools. And those protesting fall into two categories, the Muslims who reflexively hate Jews, and the fools.
2. According to these people Israel is a uniquely evil state, the worst by far on the face of the Earth.
1. Ok, well you might want to keep an open mind because sometimes fools are right.
2. I stopped reading there. They are asking to Divest from certain enterprises, that's all. There are Jews favouring this too. -
14 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:
1. My level of personal support for their causes is irrelevant to their breaking the law.
2. The reason why i'm the harshest on these anti-Israel protestors is because there's quite a number of them all over the US and Canada on video chanting and cheering support for genocide, mass murder/rape/hostage-taking, and ethnic cleansing as well as engaging in ethnic discrimination. This is not comparable to being illegally parked and honking horns to annoy people.
1. 2. Ok. That's honest. Well I invite you to listen to my podcast link, where the misdeeds of the other side are laid out. And none of it matters to the points raised, except that a lot of people are working to discredit both sides.
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:
1. What is the point you're making with the picture? If the picture illustrates it, then yes. It is an argument. Or rather, supports the argument that you're making.
2. I see it like Wendy's stating that while they like to clown around and treat their customers like kings, that freezing their burgers just doesn't live up to their freshness promise. Their argument would support the picture of a crown and a random clown, to take digs as their biggest competitors.
3. In your opinion. You chose to post a picture with nothing supporting it. I supported mine. I would have a dozen arguments that could be made with that picture, from comical to political and in between.
4. Sanity is the playground for the unimaginative.
5. Who says I want them to resonate?
1. Same as yours: to typify a group by showing an individual.
2. Right. Exactly. I hold these discussions to a higher standard.
3. Like "This is Trump nation." ? Like that ?
4. Insanity is the playground for the imaginative ? What ?
5. If you don't want them to resonate then ... you don't want people to get your message. -
18 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:
I’m not proposing deportation. I referred to the election. I guess figures of speech are out of the question now.
Not at all. You just need to clarify sometimes, which is why I asked. Thank you.
-
10 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:
1. Sure you can. If that picture stands for something, the symbolism enough is sufficient to be included in an argument.
2. When a picture speaks powerfully, I am confused as to why I wouldn't use it.
3. You're doing with a word, what I did with a picture.
4. I say "a Karen stopped me in the parking lot, because my car has a loud V8 engine" and most automatically know how the exchange likely went.
5. My wife has periods, so her moodiness is justified. Whats your excuse?
6. I wake up in a good mood every single day. There is literally not a reason for me to be in a bad mood, unless someone affects my good mood. Am incredibly grateful for my blessings. I wake up singing. Would be dancing if not wanting to wake the wife up.
1. 3. Is THIS an argument ? I would say not.
2. Because a picture closes the argument. There's nothing more to be said. It isn't anything that can help or further any kind of intelligent discussion.
4. And that means nothing either. You could stop a million Karens or Biden supporters or a million MAGA hat wearing Trump supporters. What does it mean ? It means that there are a million people who look like that, act like that. J
5. I'm a human being ? You can't expect me to be not-moody all the time any more than I can expect you to be horny.
6. That strikes me as crazy but I'm not saying don't be you. I'm saying that arguments should be universal if you want them to resonate to someone who lives outside your skull. -
46 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:
1. My argument was made with words, and the pictures pointed to people on an opposing spectrum, struggling to accept the reality they were facing from that said opposition.
2. Am quite confident most posters got the point. I used a poster child, to reflect the point I was making. If you didn't connect the dots, it isn't due to my laziness.
3. This isn't a stereotype. It's clearly a real life caricature. Same thing as you calling people chuds. Any derogatory terms you use, point to a caricature.
4. If I have to point out that not all left thinking individuals conducted themselves in this way, and enumerate how the post was not to be taken literally since am pointing to hypocrisy, it is you being lazy, and refusing to read between the lines.
5. Am arguing the fact that either political side had hysteria attached to it. Proving my point with a picture, I could have posted more to solidify my point. From the media, to comedians to entertainment, shining light on hysteria on the other side.
6. You not liking it, isn't my problem. I fail to see the laziness in it, if one explains their point in depth.
7. Maybe (ironically enough), you should lighten up?
1. You closed with "Never forget..." and a picture. So your closing point is "look at a picture of this person".
2. I also got the point, but I stand by what I said: you can't point at a picture of a person and use that as an argument. That's propaganda methodology. Arguments are made from data, evidence... not taking a picture of a single damaged person and saying "see ?"
3. I define Chud as a class of people who are proudly ignorant. It's not a single person. A picture isn't a definition. Use words. We even used to have a rule here that said no pictures, in the golden era.
4. Then what are you doing ? For every image you post there's a counter-image of the opposing viewpoint that also serves no purpose.
5. Nope. The fact that you're using comedians as a parallel says it all. If you were trying to make people laugh, maybe you'd have a point.
6. It's not whether I like it or not. It's about your whole way of posting here... it's all about people you know personally, archetypes and stereotypes, and droning on about your experiences. If you want to pick out damaged people on the other side, then I'm going to pick on you... You are unable to make arguments unless you are part of the picture.
7. Well... maybe... you've got me there. I don't usually respond to this stuff negatively unless I'm in a bad mood. Like when I've been sick all weekend and I can't find anything truly interesting on here to comment on. Cheers anyway. -
10 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:
1. Why do you keep misconstruing my arguments in all of your replies and creating strawmen? Please stop this. I'm talking about the protests too.
2. Since virtually none of the convoy folks were chanting Nazi slogans or brandishing Nazi symbols etc then generally no. Were a few of them Nazis? Probably. I think I saw one or 2 people with Confederate flags, though they were in a pickup truck, not a big-rig, so probably outside agitators. Were there some far-right folks among the convoy? Yes i'm sure there was. That one guy sounded like a nut, and they stopped some guns at the border.
3. I'm objectively against pro-genocide pro-terrorism supporters and racial harassment/discrimination. Are you against those things?
4. Or would you prefer to stay silent about them? You seem to have a strong opinion on my comments, but no opinion of protestors supporting and calling for more Oct 7 events and ethnic genocide. But go ahead, sit on the fence and claim "objectively". Would you have done that during the civil rights movement in the 60's too or during the WWII holocaust?1. Ok. I read back and you kind of went back and forth. I'll stand corrected. It's the protests.
2. "Virtually none" ... were Nazis ... you say of the convoy folks. On the Israel protest: "These folks cheering don't believe in liberal democracy or basic human rights, they're Islamofascist Nazis. " " a lot of them chanting 'From the river..." "If Nazis marched down the streets of this country shouting and cheering genocidal antisemitic violence" "Most don't want peace and NEVER have" "I'm sure there's some actual peace-loving protestors in there somewhere. But anyone who chants "From the river to the sea..." is a genocidal ethnic-cleansing sh!tbag, and that's a lot of them. "
Your stance on the two protests is markedly different, and you are relying on quantifying the nutjob contingent to justify that... but different ways. I posted a podcast that laid out that it's exactly the same problem with both sets of reporting: you can't quantify what is happening to scale. Justin Ling points out also that Counter protesters beat protesters and used racial insults but that it was under reported.
My point to you: you don't have to pick a side.
3. Of course.
4. I have strong opinions about your comments because I care what you think. You're not part of a mass mob, you're a public commenter. There's no doubt we are roughly on the same side, but I stand by my point that you are slagging the protest - you are. From the comments in 2. And to me, it's a double-standard because all the same reasons people wrote off the Convoy are happening here also.
But ok, maybe I am looking to closely at the rhetoric (again, comments in 2) and it's making me not understand what you're saying on the whole. I went back to look at your comments on the Convoy and while you were decidedly lighter on them but again, that's rhetoric.
-
1 hour ago, I am Groot said:
And weak-kneed, left-wing university administrations wringing their hands at the thought of sending in the police. I note both Ottawa U and UofT warned they would not tolerate encampments. When encampments were set up they then did absolutely nothing. A UofT professor 'infiltrated' the encampment there and found most weren't even associated with the university in any way. Yet the university might have to call off its graduation ceremonies because of them. And this is, ironically, for students who missed graduation ceremonies as high school students due to covid.
They're certainly not standing up for the civilians tortured, raped and murdered by the Palestinians on Oct 7. No, they're cosplaying. As soon as this sort of thing spread through the US system it was only a matter of time before our empty-headed progressives imitated them. Whatever progressives do in the US almost immediately spreads to Canada, even if not relevant. The cause is irrelevant. They really don't care. They mostly don't even know much about it. The white kids are there to feel the thrill of taking part in something 'virtuous', and getting selfies out onto their social media pages for 'likes'. The Muslims are there because they hate Jews.
There are no principles involved here. Certainly, the demonstrators don't have any. Thus the total absence of any calls for Hamas to release hostages or stop firing rockets into Israel.
1 hour ago, I am Groot said:Only if they go to far. Which they have not yet done in Gaza.
53 minutes ago, I am Groot said:They only want to stop it because Israel is winning. If it was the other way around none of these people would be out demonstrating. Many would be celebrating.
None of them have investments in Israel nor in Israeli companies. The protesters can't even name any investments they want the to sell.
1. I would expect University admin to be weak-kneed, at least as much as the City of Ottawa. I don't know if action is warranted here, though. The podcast I posted detailed how the scale of the protest is largely unreported. Maybe that changed.
2. The 'cosplay' accusation shows that the foundation of your criticism is based on a low opinion of students, not the events of the day. One can still protest Israel - a nation state that is susceptible to public opinion and presumably acts at a higher level of morality than terrorists. The idea that you have to protest against criminals at the same time in order to show a kind of both-sidesism is odd to me.
3. I don't know if Israel has gone too far in Gaza but it's possible.
4. I don't think Israel is winning, but ok.
5. Again, you don't have to have investments to protest.
-
13 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:
1. I just specifically explained to you how I don't see this issue in a binary way and never have and then you completely ignored it ...
2. I already explained that I agreed with the mandates the convoy were protesting but disagreed with their illegal protest methods and always maintained that the truckers should have been fined and/or arrested.
3. ... illegal racial/religious discrimination on campuses. ...If Nazis marched down the streets of this country ...
4. You want to pin me down as a characture in your own mind, leaving you as "objective". You're the one who is biased here, not me. One thing offends your politically correct sensibilities and the same thing happening by a different group doesn't. That's a you problem, not a me problem. I have consistent ethics regardless of the race, religion, ethnicity, but you don't, and I can say the same about a lot of progressives these days who have double-standards for everyone based on some victim hierarchy.
1. You think that the "issue" here is Israel/Palestine but I am talking about the protests.
2. Ok.
3. Again, you are missing the scale. Fine you thought the Convoy was out of bounds but did you think they were Nazis ?
4. And here's the evidence. Because I don't pick a side on the protest, you label me as PC. That's a you problem. You may think you're objective, we all do, but you have to ask yourself how you react to different scenarios and step back a little more. My take is that you don't do that enough, which is where I get my opinion. -
8 minutes ago, User said:
1. Yes, he was saying he didn't want Obama to succeed in making government bigger...
2. Yeah, it might improve some lives if Obama crashed a train killing thousands. Are we wrong to want him to fail?
3. Rush did not say he wanted the country to fail... you are extrapolating more than was said
4. No, failure means fail to implement. You are once again extrapolating more than was said in trying to say he opposed the good goals being achieved...
5. So, moving forward, you will no longer express any opinions on this forum against any particular policies, because doing so means you are opposed to *GASP* my god, your being wrong?Well, seeing as you have already been fabricating more things than were ever said to argue against, I imagine you can take this conversation a lot of places.
1. No he never parsed it down to that level of detail. I listened to the whole thing.
2. Did Obama propose this?
3. Failed programs mean that they fail to reach their objectives, which are to help country.
4. It's custom in politics to wish success for your opponent and be gracious upon the handover of power. This changed with Limbaugh's rabid style of populism.
5. No, I enjoy being wrong because it means I've learned something.
Fabricating? Like Obama's plan to crash trains into each other or whatever?
Listen... I'm on here to discuss and learn from other posters not to win. Zero-sum politics is the problem, and you are clearly an adherent of that style.
Do you think liberalism should be bad? Socialism? You're perfect for the new age.
If you don't think you have anything to learn from me, or think I'm 100% wrong, why would you ever discuss anything with me?
-
3 minutes ago, blackbird said:
Generally they don't listen.
Then you win. But at least you're engaging with them and not saying they should be deported or "stamped out" as some on here do.
-
1
-
-
11 minutes ago, Nationalist said:
1. Oh no you don't.
2. We both know that when the USA sneezes, Canada gets a cold. Likewise when they succeed, our economy goes with it. Not only that but, we've all read your comments and know you are rather concerned about who is POTUS.
3. You don't seem to like Polievre much either.
4. As for Limbaugh...turned out he was right about Obama.
1. I don't what ? You're saying I'm lying about myself here ? Did you see that part where I said you shouldn't talk to me if you think I'm a liar ?
2. I didn't say I wasn't concerned. I do not take it personally the way you do. I acknowledge that I have a dislike for Trump and I work to try to rise above that in my analysis. I have also said good things about him here as I really dislike binary takes.
3. I have also said there's potential for him to do well, have expressed hope that he does well, etc. Do you think Trudeau or Singh have potential to do well ? Do you hope they succeed ?
4. Obama was a non-factor in so many ways. I would say he listened to the experts on the economy and it eventually went well for him, and I would say his foreign policy was inconsistent and weak. He had the least experience of any president I can think of back to... He was a one-term Senator but let's see
Bush - State Governor
Clinton - State Governor
Bush Sr - VP and head of CIA
Reagan - State Governor
Carter - State Governor
Ford - Not elected but I think he was a Senator
Nixon - Senator, VP
Johnson - Senator, VP
JFK - Senator
Eisenhower - Military Leader in European Theatre, WW2
Truman - Senator, VP
Roosevelt - State Governor
Hoover ... ?
Ok I went back 100 years just out of interest and Hoover is the one guy who is less qualified than Obama -
53 minutes ago, blackbird said:
Liberal and left thinkers are the problem in Canada. They have too much influence in everything and the education system is breeding them.
So... debate them... if you can. Instead of complaining about them.
-
2 minutes ago, User said:
1. Thank you for proving my point.
2. No, success means implementing the left-wing policies we oppose and do not think improve our lives.
3. So, you are now trying to redefine patriotism to mean wanting the policies your political opponents support to succeed? I don't think so. You don't get to redefine words like this.
4. No, I was quite clear. Why you feel the need to play this dishonest game of twisting what I said regarding policies I do not support failing = "Things go downhill"
5. No, I oppose those policies and want them to fail because I don't think they make things better and are what will cause us to go downhill.1. I guess it is context. But he simultaneously states that Obama's approach is flawed yet acknowledging the possibility of success by "wishing" failure. Ok.
2. But... they might improve lives. It's at least possible.
3. No - I mean success by political opponents sometimes means better lives for all. Patriotism is not wanting your party to succeed but for the country to. This is elementary.
4. That is exactly what failure means, the program fails to achieve goals which are ostensibly to improve things.
5. But if they succeed, my god... that could mean you were wrong?
Is there anywhere else for this conversation to go ? I don't see it.-
1
-
It's May 5 and we've been hammered with snow.
in Federal Politics in the United States
Posted
Evidence of what? y