kimmy

Insightful. Can you elaborate? -k

Prostitution, including underaged prostitution and human trafficking of prostitutes, are spheres overwhelmingly controlled by gangs.Pretty sure that all 3000 of those girls got where they got throw channels controlled by organized crime, and that none of them were taken out of their classrooms by police in front of witnesses to be put in brothels. Yes, many men, including soldiers, use prostitutes. Soldiers quite likely use prostitutes more than average, because when they are serving they are away from their wives or girlfriends or, generally speaking, other opportunities to socialize with women. I have no doubt that prostitution springs up in areas where large numbers of soldiers are stationed. That does not, however, make any claim as to who might be in control of these prostitution enterprises. It's almost certainly local gangs that are running the prostitutes that the soldiers frequent. Wait, the Queen is the head pimp? Lots of people from the FBI are comming out about that. Ted Gunderson isn't the only one. Yeah? Who? -k

Probably around the time that it became easy to find a lawyer who would file a civil suit if a teacher even raised their voice to your little angel. The lawsuit is in the works. If the school had used bodily force to put her in a room by herself, the lawsuit would be against the school instead of the cops. All the more reason to throw the book at the tyke! SLAMMER TIME!!! I've read no suggestion that "the book" will be thrown at her. I do suspect, however, that social services will be investigating to find out why the kid is going berzerk, throwing chairs, and attacking people. Which is probably for the best. I doubt that something like this happens out of the blue. -k

You can bet that regardless of how the school had tried to deal with this child, it would have been the wrong thing according to self-styled defenders of the downtrodden. And you can bet that in 2 weeks, Alex Jones will be linking to this article as proof that devil-worshiping politicians are abducting children for Luciferian sex-parties. After watching the video of the kid's mom, I'm not terribly surprised that this kid is having trouble at school. -k

To whom are you referring? -k {and it had better not be me.}

Reported. In its formal usage, "goy" means "nation" or "people". Colloquially, "goy" and "goyim" are used by Jews to refer to non-Jews. What's to report? -k

You still have not provided a single shred of evidence to support your claim that this is "adscam in a different form". Lots of dodging and misdirection, but you didn't answer the challenge. But you didn't compare it to Jane Stewart's HRDC controversy. You compared it to Adscam. And while you continue to try to promote that comparison by calling it "railscam" neither you still haven't provided any support at all for that ridiculous claim. How? Show me anything in your article that even remotely suggests that there is any connection between Show me anything in your article that even remotely suggests that the Conservatives have benefited from this. Show me where your article that claims that money has been stolen at all. I want to be very clear about this: I'm not defending the Conservatives, I'm attacking you and your dumb little buddies. The Conservatives don't need defending in this because there's no suggestion from anybody other than yourself that they've done anything wrong. -k

I agree that this was rude, and an attempt to offend the religious sensibilities of the Muslim students. But a hate crime? Seriously? At a former job where a number of my co-workers were Muslims, there was a lunch-party one day. Among the food provided by our employer were pizza with ham on it, as well as hot-dogs which undoubtedly contained pig-byproduct as well as other sorts of mystery meat and other mysterious substances as well. While none of the Muslims ate the ham pizza or hot-dogs, neither did any of the Muslims take the presence of these foods to be an offense. I even joked about the dubious content of the hotdogs with them, suggesting that they might be safe for the Muslims to eat since there's probably no actual meat in the hot-dogs. They were amused, not offended. As well, I have at least a few times purchased bacon, ham, and sandwich meats containing pork from cashiers who are Muslims. I'm sure that there are a great many Muslims who work at grocery stores in North America, and I am sure that these Muslims handle packages containing pork on a daily basis. A nearby convenience store that is owned and operated by Muslims keeps a jar of those little vacuum-packed sausage sticks that contain pork right on the counter next to the cash register. My point (and I do have one) is that while Muslims' beliefs may prohibit them from eating pork, the claim in the article that merely being around pork is offensive to Muslims seems rather dubious. While I do agree that the student was deliberately attempting to offend the Muslim students, I see no reason to believe that this is any more criminal than any other attempt to offend or insult someone. I don't see why this is different from (for instance) eating a big rare steak in the presence of vegans, drinking a double martini next to a table full of Mormons, reading a Cosmo magazine at a meeting of radical feminists, wearing a fur coat to an animal rights protest, and so on. Obnoxious? Of course. Criminal? I disagree. -k

At some point, everything is a conflict of interest. I think weighing this issue boils down to 2 important questions: (1) Does Fortier have a personal interest in CGI? (2) Has Fortier actually interfered in the bidding process? He's described as having a financial interest in a company that's a "strategic partner" of CGI. Depending on the details of how much financial interest, and what exactly the "strategic partnership" means to the company of which Fortier has a direct financial stake in, Fortier's financial interest in CGI's success might be significant or it might be minimal or nonexistent. More information is required on that. Has Fortier actually interfered in the bidding? There's no indication that he has, except for an accusation from someone with an obvious vested interest. I would file this one under interesting, but not yet suspicious, and keep an eye on it. Perhaps there's more to it, or perhaps it is (as Scottsa suggests) an attempt by the accuser to influence the bidding process. Personally when I first heard that a Quebec company might be awarded a contract over an Ontario company with a lower bid, my first thought was of the CF18 maintenance contract debacle of 20 years ago. -k

I tried to watch it, but it wouldn't load. All I could get was an ad for fireplaces. (They did look cozy and warm, mind you.) Can you summarize the video? -k

We now know that Cho Seung Hui was investigated by police a couple of years ago after stalking complaints by two women. We know that he was committed to a mental institution at that time, and that he was described as likely a danger to himself and others at that time. He was also investigated by campus police when his English teacher found his graphically violent creative writing to be so disturbing that she contacted university officials about him. I don't understand how people can argue that the United States has adequate gun control laws when *this guy* was able to purchase a gun legally and easily. I can appreciate that it's difficult to guess who *might* become violent, and that psychological screening of anybody who wanted to buy a gun would be impractical. But here is a guy who psychologically screened himself. He made himself known to the authorities as a stalker and a mentally ill person with a disturbingly violent imagination, and was committed to a mental institution for the protection of himself and others. If the system can't flag *this guy* as somebody who shouldn't have a gun, then obviously the system just isn't adequate. -k

I would not think this to be a big deal. The Conservatives had this sort of problem a couple of years ago with Carol Jamieson. Liberal-boosters and Conservative-bashers had a grand time with it; there were at least a couple of "Tories coming unravelled!" "Harper is finished!" type threads here if I recall. But where's Jamieson now? And where's Harper now? I don't know if Ray Heard is a big deal or not, but I don't think it matters. If Dion begins to turn the polls around, this "Dump Dion" movement will vanish just like the "dump Harper" movement vanished. If Dion can't turn things around, more and more people will be calling for Dion's head, and it won't be because Ray Heard is a big deal, it'll be because the Liberals want a leader who they think can win an election. As hokey as it might sound, it will be Canadian voters, not Ray Heard, who decide how long Stephane Dion stays as Liberal leader. -k

If fruitcakes could fly, this place would be an airport. -k

Prove it. If you're referring to this: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=8639 ...then you and your little friends' attempt to link this to Harper is one of the most dishonest things I've read on this board in the past 3 years, and I would think if that you people had any self-respect you'd be ashamed of yourselves for having done so. -k

I don't know why I'd even bother. This thread was just another typical Hiti drive-by smear: he posted this steaming pile of lies without any intention of engaging in discussion or being accountable for these remarks. He emerges from his cave just long enough to post this garbage, then vanishes until his next drive by. It seems to me that this sort of tactic-- posting inflammatory remarks with no intention of participating in a debate-- has been deemed "trolling" in the past, and has been grounds for being banned from this site. Therefore I'd call on Hiti to either get back here and defend these remarks, or else get off of this message board for good. -k

And did you read the article? Or are you just taking hiti's word for what it actually says? -k

No problem, my friend! Just try to learn from this experience. Well, it might be too late for that, but I do try to help when I can. Don't be ashamed! Realizing you have a problem is the first step toward finding a solution! There are lots of places you can seek confidential help. Don't worry, sweetheart! I've been there myself a few times. But sooner or later, we have to learn to think for ourselves. Would you jump off a cliff if Hiti did first? -k

Great thread you've started here, Figleaf. Chock full of reasoned debate. -k

Long Island. http://tinyurl.com/yqal99 I am cheering for the Islanders this year because even though the Oilers are not in the playoffs, Ryan Smyth is. -k

Nor are the Liberals particularly liberal. Nor are the New Democrats particularly new anymore. -k

Adscam in a very different form: -your article contains not even a single suggestion that anyone associated with the Conservatives has done anything wrong, and not even a suggestion that the Conservatives or anybody associated with the Conservatives has benefited from any corruption. -in fact, the article doesn't even indicate that there's been any corruption. It just indicates that accounting procedures were not followed adequately. -as well, since the audit in question was conducted in Summer 2006, just a few months after the Conservatives took office, it seems likely that many of the audited contracts were actually awarded before the Conservatives even took office. It also seems certain that many or most of the DND staff on hand during the period under audit predated the Conservatives. But ya it's just like Adscam. You set out to make a point regarding Harper and the Conservatives, but what you've actually done is make a point about either how dishonest you are or how poor your reading comprehension skills are. And Margrace shows us that her reading comprehension skills are just as sharp as hiti's. Show me anywhere in the article where it suggests that the Conservatives have stolen *anything*, Margrace. $100 million is the total value of the contracts. There's no claim anywhere in the article that $100 million has been stolen, lost, or spent inappropriately. In fact there's not a claim in the article that *any* money has been stolen, lost, or spent inappropriately. ...and you should join Hiti, Margrace, and Whosdoingwhat in remedial reading, since you obviously don't have a clue what the article actually says either. Apparently none of you people know how to derive basic meaning or content out of a newspaper article. -k

The Taliban wasn't against the poppy crops. They allowed it to continue unchecked for many years under their rule. Afghanistan's production of opiates hit all-time records under Taliban rule. The Taliban did not interfere with poppy production at all, until 2000, when they banned poppies in an attempt to gain foreign aid and diplomatic recognition. Declaring that all middle eastern men mistreat women is pretty surprising, coming from one of MLW's supposed "progressives". Declaring that this mistreatment is a result of their religion is doubly so. In middle eastern countries, women tend to face restrictions on what they can wear, circumstances under which they can socialize with men, and so on. In Afghanistan under the Taliban, women were unable to attend school, work, or receive medical care. While you and your ilk would like to equate the two and ask why we care about the rights of Afghan women when we don't care about the rights of women in other Muslim countries, the reality is that the Afghan women under the Taliban were far worse off than women in other Muslim countries. What if the moon were made of green cheese? -k

The math in computer graphics can be as sophisticated as anything else. Hoffman has shown that mathematical problems that were not solvable can be solved with computer graphics. Sure, but that doesn't make Hoffman a "PhD", nor does it make him a "respected scientist", nor any of the other qualifications that Truthies have claimed he has at one point or another. Yeah, but nobody's going around calling any of my teachers authorities on building collapses. He did the programming grunt-work for someone's PhD research, and the Truthies declare him a PhD. He contributes graphics and models to Scientific American articles, and it's "research published in top scientific journals." Like "Colonel" Honegger or "theoretical physicist" Fetzer, or "doctor of thermodynamics and renowned forensic accountant" David Hawkins. None of which really changes the fact that his famous calculation yields a result so extraordinary that it requires a belief in magic-like technologies to explain it. Do you feel that believing in space-based death rays or nuclear weapons that cause destruction through some mechanism other than heat and kinetic energy is any more plausible than Evil Spirits or Orgones? ...and got booted out of "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" for saying as much, didn't he? What's Dr Jones' stance in regard to Hoffman's energy deficit calculation? If Jones rejects the science fiction garbage being promoted by Judy Wood and others, then what's his position on the "energy deficit"? Does he accept it as a valid calculation? And if so, how does he propose that this massive sum of energy was contributed to the collapse? -k

First off, he's not a "well respected scientist." He's a computer programmer and graphics expert. His contributions to Scientific American magazine consist of computer graphics for their articles. His contribution to the "PhD research in multidimensional surfaces" (or whatever it was) was, likewise, graphics. Hoffman's credentials, like just about everybody else in the "Truth Movement", have been ridiculously inflated by the Truthies who want to appeal to his theories. Secondly, I didn't dispute Hoffman's conclusions (though others have trashed his basic quite thoroughly, particularly with respect to the particle-size samples which form the basis for his calculations.) I simply stated that if you believe Hoffman's calculations, then you *have* to believe that fantasy technologies were used, because no conventional technology could have supply enough energy to make up Hoffman's energy deficit while still being covert. Hoffman's energy deficit equates to 4,000,000 kilograms of conventional explosives; there's no way such quantities could be installed or detonated covertly. If Hoffman's calculations are correct, then fantasy technology had to have been used to destroy the WTC. If such fantasy technologies don't exist, then Hoffman's calculations can't be correct. It's obviously one or the other. I don't claim to know for sure which it is; I just have a high school education. I leave it up to people to decide for themselves which is more likely. Of course fanatasy technologies exist. The public is not privy to the most advanced programs in the US military. The blackbird aircraft was around since the 60's yet its existance didn't become mainstream knowledge until the eighties when it decommisioned then recommisioned for NASA. Scientific knowledge grows exponentially. You would have to be an ignorant fool to say that these fantasy technologies that stretch the imagination do not exist. The Blackbird's just an airplane. A really, really fast airplane, sure, but an airplane nonetheless. It doesn't stretch the imagination that somebody could build faster airplane. What the truthies propose, however, does stretch the imagination, and seems to be well beyond any technology used anywhere by anyone. I would think well-known principles relating to diffraction and scattering would make it a physical impossibility for a space-mounted weapon to provide the surgical precision which would be necessary to cause a "controlled demolition". If that's not good enough reason to doubt the existence of such a device, one could look at the energy/weight ratio of any electrical storage device ever devised and draw some conclusions about the likelihood that some satellite contributed the 18 TerraJoules of energy that Hoffman claims is unaccounted for. To contribute that quantity of energy to the WTC collapses, this satellite would have to be roughly the size of the George Lucas Death Star. And nuclear devices that don't explode but instead turn stuff into dust? What's the mechanism that causes the "dustification", if not the heat and energy of an explosion? Magic? Evil spirits? Truth-rays? Negative Orgones? I think we all understand that the US military has access to technologies beyond what Mr Public has access to or even knowledge of. But they're not wizards. They can't do magic. They have a hard enough time doing stuff that conventional technology should make possible-- like intercepting missiles or building lasers that are powerful enough for battlefield use. Why would I believe they can perform acts of magic that defy any normal understanding of physics when they're having a hard time doing the possible? -k

As I understand it, the movie (as well as the Frank Miller comic on which it is based) are in fact largely based on the chronicles of Herotodus, whose writings about the Battle of Thermopylae are the source of much of what we know about this time in history. And as I understand things, while modern scholars do agree there's some amount of exaggeration in the writings of Herotodus, they also believe that the kernel of the story is historical fact. While there seems to be some disagreement on whether the Persian army numbered 175,000 or 250,000 or 500,000 there's no arguing the fact that they outnumbered the Greeks by a vast proportion. While there's some disagreement on how many Greek allies were at the battle or how long they stayed, there's no disagreement that there were 300 Spartans. Or that they caused the Persians causualties of many times their own numbers-- Herotodus and modern scholars seem to agree on the number of 20,000 Persian casualties. And there seems to be no argument over the fact that the Spartans delayed the Persian invasion long enough for Athens and Sparta to mount a united naval counterattack on the Persia fleet, which effectively ended the invasion for good. Even some of the moments that seem to have been Hollywoodism at its best-- lines like "Come and take them" or "...then we shall fight in the shade" were not inventions of the movie or the comic book, but rather come from ancient Greek accounts. I have read that modern Greek military units have adopted "Come and take them" and "then we shall fight in the shade" as their insignia, and that there is a monument to King Leonidas on the site of the battle with the inscription "Come and take them." The movie and comic-book are no doubt a romanticized and biased account of the battle, which is no surprise since the writings on which they're based themselves would be a romanticized and biased account of the battle. And the movie makes no claim at being anything more. Indeed, the end of the movie reveals that the narrator is a Spartan soldier who was sent home to rally his countrymen to arms with a tale of heroism and inspiration. It is ridiculous to criticize the movie for being propaganda, when the movie itself acknowledges that very fact in its own narrative. -k