Michael Hardner
-
Posts
42,785 -
Joined
-
Days Won
94
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Michael Hardner
-
-
5 minutes ago, Nationalist said:
1. If you found that OP as obviously imposing and stupid as I did...my apologies.
2. What "other side"?
1. I did NOT watch the videos in this thread. I'm principally against forming political opinions based on videos like this.
2. In YOUR case, libs/democrats or whatever you call them. -
32 minutes ago, Nationalist said:
Sure ya did...
You knew this was a joke right ?
Were you the one that posted video of fires, to summarize impact of BLM protests ? As such, you can probably see the other side with these videos. -
19 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:
Coleman Hughes demonstrates how to express and debate the problems with today's leftwing racial identity politics ("woke" ideology) using logic while remaining calm and respectful and finding common understandings where possible. @Michael Hardner this is our guide to elevate discussion.
Here's he's confronted on The View:
On Bill Maher, where he finds disagreement and agreement with another reasonable person regarding police racial issues. Great discussions!
1. I think I agree with the first guy, but two things:
- His message is not for a mass audience, it's not so much a moral message as it is directed at policy makers and a "public" discussion
- Probably shouldn't have used the term "call a spade a spade"
2. Love how Maher says "no other show will talk about this..." meanwhile The View had Hughes on...
-Message is not for a mass audience either, and as such having an audience that APPLAUDS points is stupid. I haven't watched this show because I find Maher to be a blowhard
I agree with the manner of discussion in both of these clips - and they're well positioned to inform a public of various sides of an issue. Only thing I don't like is audience applauding points that they morally agree with... -
I had to take a Gravol after scrolling this thread...
-
1
-
-
11 hours ago, WestCanMan said:
1. Yeah but it wasn't 'hindsight'.
2. What happened to young people here was a crime. A total crime.
3. Buddy, CBC and the Star is where you go if you want to find garbage. CNN.
4. Not even people TBH, corporations with 'reputations' (lol) to protect and legal teams.
1. You are looking back at events, therefore hindsight.
2. Your examples may not be representative of the whole of the data that public health was looking at. "Crime" goes beyond errors in execution, so the bar of evidence is higher than presenting selective data - you have to show specifically how public health committed said crimes. The examples in Israel, or that young people weren't as affected don't amount to crimes not even close.
3. They still make corrections and apologize when wrong. Even if these examples are errors of judgment that wouldn't amount to crimes and a respectable organization wouldn't accuse people of criminal action.
4. Yes, organizations that are incorporated. If you think corporations are "bad" then you are likely a leftists because they own anti-corporate sentiment in the public sphere.-
2
-
-
6 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:
It didn't work. The whistleblower was harassed through retribution by an authority over her by getting kicked out of her job, then her party, and when she ran as an independent she wasn't re-elected, and the Liberals got re-elected into government. Thus far I don't recall Trudeau or the head of the Privy Council being punished.
We're just lucky that JWR was an honest enough person to put her ethics and our democracy above her own career. Every other MP chose their own careers over our democracy when they voted her out. It was vile.
Like I said, not completely. But an official acted ethically, in that the information got to the public. They did not care enough to unseat the government.
I think we're on the same page here.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, eyeball said:
No I'm as surprised as you that it was entirely because an honest Liberal Cabinet Minister blew the whistle on Trudeau.
You simply can't get over your shock because if you did your head would explode.
🎯 Bullseye.
We are all surprised when the system works. But it does sometimes. But also not completely...
-
5 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:
1. How is "young people grievously injured or killed by the jab" something that never really needed to be discussed?
Covid dominated the news cycle for two full years and you were fine with it.
People were scared into vaxing, and into vaxing their children, then the story went away even though deaths went up by 30%...
Hindsight is 20/20. Our statistics are much better than in the US, and we had more Public health response so...
If you're saying there was malfeasance, I don't see it. If you're saying there was incompetence, well maybe, but also pretty incredible public response to an unprecedented mass event.
Hindsight is 20/20.
5 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:Why pull your head out of your ass now?
Because I waste enough of my time reading garbage on here.
Feel free to post thousand word responses which I also read. There are limits as to how much information I need to gather to come to the conclusion that sh1t is brown.
-
1
-
-
On 4/3/2024 at 12:01 PM, impartialobserver said:
My prediction is that Trump wins this time around. If he does, well then he does. My life will be unchanged.
You seem sane... (Closes one eye, steps back a few feet and takes another look)
So why do you say that with such confidence? I want to believe.
-
17 minutes ago, Nationalist said:
1....the lit fire to a cop shop. There's no comparison between the damage done by progressives vs the trucker convoy.
1. Think meta. Point is videos won't tell you anything big picture.
-
6 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:
You are fully aware that young people who didn't need the jab were harmed by it, and you don't even want to know how badly or how many.
I have had enough of this topic years ago.
I don't remember what you ever said about it, but I haven't read anything lucid on the topic from that angle that had a balanced take.
Let's cut to the conclusion: are you blaming people for mistakes here or alleging a conspiracy?
Tldr please, I didn't read the post.
-
1
-
-
15 minutes ago, Army Guy said:
1. Sorry mike but i'm not following the first part of your post, what conditions do Canadian workers face that are better in France or Scandinavia.
2 Maybe it is becasue most Canadians really don't trust our governments to do anything of real value, that and there is not accountability except every 4 years at the polls, that and Canadians are way to busy in their own bubbles to care to much, other than to bitc* on a forum to stand up and do something that will invoke change...and when they do, we see them as the enemy....
3. Which is why i don't understand why the liberals are trying so hard to buy votes, when in one years time nobody is going to remember what the hell all the spending was about....what they are going to remember is how much the liberals added to the debt...
1. Stability, social welfare, vacations, public services...
2. Yes I think that I alluded to this.
3. I'm not sure, but maybe eating NDP votes. Latest Nanos poll has Liberals up, NDP down so maybe...
-
2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:
1) This just takes the legal impetus out of a vax-death scenario. The gov't can swoop in and quickly cover the cost of a funeral, leaving less room for people to file a lawsuit against the gov't.
Imagine a case where someone has to take the jab to keep their job, and they have to keep their job or they'll lose their mortgage. They don't want to take the jab, but they have no other choice, and they "die suddenly" [it kills them].
In that scenario the bereaved family members could try to sue the gov't, and they have very finite costs of a funeral on the books to sue for which makes their lawsuit necessary for the courts to deal with, but those costs are just quickly scratched off the ledger by the gov't. Now it's only a hardship case which is a huge grey area, along with the grey area stemming from the fact that medical authorities don't put "vaccination" down as a cause of death.
People who "die of covid" are checked off on the spot: "Coughed ten days ago? Check. We're done here." People who die after vaxing are left as question marks. "Died suddenly" is a new official cause of death:
- SDS is not a formal diagnosis: no set criteria universally define sudden death. However, a 2023 article suggests that many experts have adopted the World Health Organization’s (WHO) definition. It states that SDS is sudden, unexpected death from natural causes witnessed within one hour of symptom onset.
2) This has "political expediency" written all over it. It's like the Duffygate $90K on steroids.
"Do you want the cheque to cover your funeral costs or not, lady? Sign here, and don't get any of your stupid tears on the paper. This is 98 brilliance, 28 lb paper. It's over $25 a ream."
The jab-apologists are out in force today. What's up?
But if the government wanted to keep it quiet, why would they allow this appearance of liability? Since they own the judges and presumably have enough experts to fund a big lie, they could get the lawsuits thrown out of court by bringing in one of their paid experts right?
The moral of the story is that conspiracy theories still need to have internal logic.
-
2
-
21 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:
I already know your response, so maybe don’t bother?
You first.
Why don't you just complain about the weather? I would read that.
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:
Did someone burst the conspiracy bag again?? LOL
It's a piñata now...
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
14 minutes ago, Black Dog said:
OK this is 100% a troll, no one could be this stupid and still be able to operate a computer. You got me good.
I am 100% that this is Mr. Canada. This person was such a troll that they actually trolled themselves into thinking they were straight. Read the first paragraph here with a straight face if you can
My reasons for my opinion are deep.
-
1
-
-
Seems to me they're doing the opposite
-
1
-
1
-
-
Just now, Nationalist said:
1. Ok Mike...call me out. And I'll call you out.
2. The reason you have to deny your own senses is that you have stumbled into a debate you cannot win.
3. The evidence is irrefutable.
Thus you must warp reality to try to make a point. A point that is, in essence, a lie.
4. Lol...so you call on folks..
"DONT LOOK ETHEL!"
1. I apologize or respond with Mea Culpa when my own methods fail, so please do.
2. I don't see it as a debate. I'm asking you to educate me on the scale of those the fires and unrest in those videos. I haven't said you were wrong yet.
3. Good to hear. Please post it then. What is the impact of the riots that you have videos on. Wait... Didn't they stop or are people still rioting over this stuff?
4. I am old enough to get the reference... Ray Stevens recorded "The streak" about 1975 if I remember correctly.
-
2 minutes ago, West said:
Smaller landmass and production spread across hundreds more years than Canada probably plays a bigger role in that.
I would say it's French culture. Their Royals were far worse than ours, and in the 18th century they did something about it. The Americans liked it, but made it a little more mainstream.
-
Btw @Nationalist I just searched and found four pages of you referencing the MSM negatively. And you're using them as a source? Quite curious.
-
Propaganda uses images as a proxy for reasonable argument. Don't fall for it and call people out if they do it.
-
3 minutes ago, Nationalist said:
Can you show me a video of the convoy folks burning buildings and rioting?
No but I can show videos of them acting like idi0ts
This is why videos aren't evidence of anything beyond the incident pictured.
-
1
-
-
45 minutes ago, Nationalist said:
It is a threat.
Mike, you can pretend all you like but, that progressives are not a threat
Is a lie.
Can you give me something that puts this on context? I heard people moaning about the Convoy too... Could I show you a video and expect to to accept that?
No.
-
1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:
The rot in universities is so deep now that higher education has lost a lot of credibility over the past few years. Once bastions of free speech and innovation, students must proclaim their allegiance to the anti-colonial, anti-patriarchal rainbow and climate zealots.
It’s not that universities didn’t have Marxists, feminists, gender studies and pseudosciences before, it’s their elevation to the level of unquestioned dogma and so-called reality that’s frightening. Questioning it risks reputation or actual career loss.
What got us here? The guy who sat on George Floyd? Constant messaging in liberal media and facile devouring mothers like those on dumb shows like The View? No, the radical activists have infiltrated our governments and HR departments.
When people are labeled white supremacists or privileged simply because they are white and haven’t bent the knee or declared themselves “allies” of the radicals, when people are forced to use language they don’t agree with based on pseudoscience (non-biological gender pronouns), and what used to be understood as killing (based on science) is normalized or downplayed in radical ways (unlimited abortion and euthanasia), and when students aren’t even allowed to question these creepy new dubious orthodoxies in case they’re triggered or offended, you have the ingredients of cultural collapse. Universities are leading the revolution.
That’s why I’ve encouraged my kids to enter fields that the stupid people haven’t been able to monopolize like engineering. Unscientific stupidity and flakiness are quickly exposed in such disciplines.
You know, older folks have been moaning about the values of the younger folks since forever.
Beyond the gnashing of the teeth and plaintiff wailing, is there any substantive evidence that social progressivity is some kind of threat?
I acknowledge that appalling breaches happen, that principles are sometimes trounced to satisfy political concerns... but there's lots of attention given to these cases.
Yet another long post with no links... It does get boring. 🌲
KEEP THOSE VACCINE DEATHS QUIET!
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted
1. Ok
2. Deliberate underreporting is not an error. It's wrong.
3. Well, the person I'm responding to hasn't given full context and that's the problem. They quote some data and imply that the fact that such data exists means that "crimes" happen as far as I can see.
4. I don't know what you want to show me with the example - that such cases exist ? Of course they do.
5. Why do you think I would agree ?
People come on here with their arguments front-loaded with ANGER, all caps. If you don't agree with them immediately without thinking then you are cheering for the other side, right ? If you ask for a cite then you disagree with them, right ? Wrong...