kimmy

I think a new anthem is a great idea! I think using an instrumental would be an excellent way to avoid future debates about whether the lyrics are dated or offensive or accurately reflect Canada's identity. I also think that going with something strong and aggressive sounding would reflect our country's youth and vigor, and inspire the sort of confidence and enthusiasm that we want each Canadian child to feel every time the anthem plays. And when a Canadian wins at the Olympics, it would be awesome to see the whole stadium rocking out with the Canadian anthem. But there should also be a slow interlude in the anthem, to give people a moment to the reflect on the solemn sacrifices that have been made in building our great land. But after that, the fierce and relentless sound returns, as we charge undaunted towards our brilliant shared future. So, my suggestion for Canada's new national anthem is: "Orion", by Metallica. Just picture it. -k

The levees and canals in New Orleans were designed to prevent a hurricane from flooding the city, so the flooding of New Orleans COULD NOT have been an accident or an act of nature. And why are we even discussing this, since the entire disaster was engineered by the military! The US Army has admitted it! Link: US Army Corps of Engineers Admits Guilt! Wake Up People!! -k {Chocolate city! Chocolate city!!}

It's a completely unjustified invasion of personal privacy. If photo ID is no longer sufficient and some more reliable method of personal identification is required, non-invasive options such as fingerprints or iris scans exist. -k

are you saying it's time to Learn to Stop Worrying and Love Congressman Ron? -k

I read that Ron Paul used to be a gynecologist. So if he eventually becomes president, he will displace Clinton as the president who's seen the most-- nah, I can't go through with it. -k

It became obvious that "global warming" was a part of the globocorpofascist conspiracy when Alex Jones's rusty, smog-belching 1974 GMC half-ton was banned from the roads by Texas DMV "Air Care" regulations. If you can't see the connection between Air Care and concentration camps, you're just an apologist. Think about it. Why do Vancouver Air-Care car testing centers have entrances but no exits? Getting your car certified is a one-way trip. Nobody ever returns. You might hear reports about it in the mainstream media, but those are fabrications. There's lots of proof. -k

It's the "unity flag". The idea was that adding blue to the flag would acknowledge Quebec. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Unity_Flag -k

Rumsfeld admits the missing money cannot be traced. What is the matter ? Are you going to say it was a fake Rumsfeld making this admission on TV ? Get A Grip !!!!! And once again we return to the fact that the phrase "According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions" means something a lot different from the meaning that truthies have attributed to it. My own banking information indicates that I've engaged in tens of thousands of dollars through my bank account during my lifetime, and yet I can't track any of the transactions older than a month or two. If I was applying truthie logic to this situation, I would be jumping up and down with rage shouting "OMG I have been robbed of tens of thousands of dollars!!!!" Since I'm not a truthie, I look at the situation rationally, note that I never actually had tens of thousands of dollars at any point, observe that the tens of thousands of dollars of transactions I've made consist of both withdrawals and deposits spaced over a number of years, and remind myself that I have not kept very good records of what I've spent my money on when I've withdrawn it. The fact of the matter is that Rumsfeld was calling for improved accounting procedures, not announcing a gigantic theft. The fact $2.3 trillion figure exceeds the DoD budget by an order of magnitude proves that the $2.3 trillion of transactions they can't track had to be made over at least a decade, and more likely over the course of many decades. And, the fact that he mentioned the money at all casts doubt on the idea that they thought it was anything to cover up. Like, duh. -k

This again is a meaningless arguement. It makes sense if Rumsfeld himself had admitted to the missing 2.3 trillion dollars. Its now over 3 trillion dollars and its enough to buy 500 fully equiped Nimitz class aircraft carriers. Yes, we all understand that $2.3 trillion dollars is a lot of money. In fact, it's far more than they had access to. If somebody told you that a gas station got robbed, and that a million dollars was taken from the cash register, would that make sense? You'd be skeptical, right? You'd say that's not possible? You'd say there's no possible way that the cash register had a million dollars in it, right? You'd be suspicious of the whole story? So how does it make sense that $2.3 trillion was stolen from a department that only had an annual budget of $200 million? It makes perfect sense if the government has gone criminal which it has. This is what you need to figure out. You're claiming they stole over 10 times as much money as they even had access to. That only makes sense if you're bad at math. And that is what YOU need to figure out. -k

I guess the congressional testimony must be purgery then. I wonder how come it hasn't made the news. Maybe the military is lying like they did with those Osama confession tapes or WMD's. I doubt it's perjury, but I'll bet dollars to donuts that the testimony doesn't refer to what the truthies say it refers to, because the "truth movement" never quotes anything accurately or in context. The decision to fire on civilian aircraft is a decision with immense political ramifications (see KAL flight 007) and would not be undertaken without the highest authorization in any event. Wrong again. The attacks of Sept 11 had been rehearsed by the Pentagon for defensive purposes. This has been on mainstream. Both Pentagon and wtc attacks had been simulated/excercised. I recall reading that there had been memos written about the possibility of airliners being used as battering rams by somebody with either the DoD or the antiterrorism advisory group. If I recall correctly, these memos were not given serious consideration at the time. I've never heard any suggestion that there were simulations done, and certainly nothing to suggest that this ever became part of the training for field personnel such as fighter pilots or NORAD air control staff. If you can provide any information to the contrary, I'd love to hear it. I believe she was a colonel. If she was there and could read the time I think it makes her qualified to say that explosions occured 5 minutes before a plane hit. Of course you believe she was a Colonel. That's exactly what I've come to expect from you. However, back in the real world, she's not, and never has been. She did work for the Reagan administration briefly during the early 1980s. As a gender equity consultant. Not a Colonel. Not a Pentagon Insider, or Military Advisor, or Naval Historian, or any of the other stuff she's been called by truthies attempting to inflate her credentials to anything beyond "public relations desk". Any evidence that she was actually at the Pentagon? As far as I can tell, her account is based on alleged interviews, not first-hand observation. Nothing about her background indicates that she'd have the knowledge of the Pentagon to guess at where the accounting group's offices were located or the access to assess that the accounting group's offices were attacked with bombs rather than the external impact, or the knowledge to distinguish between bombs and building fires and external impacts anyway. A fully equiped aircraft carrier costs 6 billion dollars, a nuclear submarine costs 1 billion dollars. Do the math. What's that got to do with anything? From the end of the Gulf War until 9/11, the Department of Defense budget averaged around $200 billion dollars per year. (I guess that's 30 aircraft carriers and 20 subs, if that's how you insist on measuring it.) For the "stolen $2.3 trillion" theory to be true, Rumsfeld would have had to have stolen EVERY SINGLE PENNY of the Department of Defense budget from the end of the first Gulf War right up to Sept 11, AND A LOT MORE! Do you not see a problem with this? Do you just not get why this doesn't make any sense? -k

It's a whole bunch of spur-of-the-moment speculation from people who are hearing loud noises and seeing dust and debris flying around. They don't actually know what's going on but are in panic mode and are already thinking "terrorists" and "bombs" because of the situation. However, if you do put a lot of faith in the idea that there were actually explosions, I guess that would destroy your theory about a "mini-nuke" that "dustifies" the building as it's dropped. -k

Why do you keep calling SunsetTommy "kimmy"? Are you more confused than usual, or is this a new conspiracy theory you're promoting? No way. He did not have the capability to get Cheney to give the stand down order for Pentagon defences (surface to air missiles) That's an urban legend. There are no permanent air-defenses on site at the Pentagon. This article points out that mobile air defenses were deployed in Washington DC on Sept 11 2002, the one year anniversary of 9/11, and that http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/09/10/ar911.air.defense/ 50 miles by jetliner equates to less than 5 minutes of warning. Even if mobile anti-aircraft defenses were scrambled at that exact moment, they'd have had no time to get in place anyway. Fighters needed explicit authorization to shoot down any planes, and as the Olbermann showed during his investigation of 9/11 audio from NORAD, they weren't given this authorization until too late. The recordings also reveal confusion over how many planes had been hijacked and what the fighters were actually allowed to do. uh-huh riiight Also note that prior to 9/11, protocols concerning hijacked aircraft concerned situations such as hostages and planes being taken to other destinations; situations where it was assumed that hijackers wanted to survive. A suicide attack of this nature was outside the training and preparedness of anyone involved. Barbara Honegger is not a Colonel. Her only connection with the military is that she works at the PR department at the Naval Postgraduate School. (which is in California, not Washington DC, if you were wondering.) Her job is to write press-releases: http://www.news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=6904 http://www.news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=27574 "By Barbara Honegger, Naval Postgraduate School Public Affairs" "For related news, visit the Naval Postgraduate School Navy NewsStand page at www.news.navy.mil/local/nps " Pentagon insider? She writes press releases for the "Naval NewsStand" web-page. I guess she's a Colonel in the same sense that David Hawkins is a doctor of thermodynamics or James Fetzer is a "theoretical physicist". Three trillion dollars have gone missing from Pentagon with no investigation and a very laughable explanation from Donald Rumsfeld that consists of transaction losses due to old poorly connected old computers. Three trillion dollars is enough to build and fully equip 500 Nimitz class aircraft carriers or 3000 Los Angeles class nuclear submarines. Three trillion dollars is four times the entire yearly economic output of Canada. Do you think they have a bag of 3 billion hammers buried somewhere that they paid $1000.00 each for ? And once again you have no response to the fact that the $2.3 trillion dollars would represent every penny of the DoD budget for a whole decade, which in itself disproves the "truthie" interpretation of what the $2.3 trillion represents. Once again you use your "old computers" saw, which is not actually what Rumsfeld said. And once again you have no possible explanation why Rumsfeld would admit to this supposed heist the day before a massive operation to cover it up. The "stolen money" and the "dead investigators" are just an attempt to weave a John Grisham mentality into the events of that day. Like, come on, even if the whole thing really *was* a huge conspiracy planned an executed by government operatives, they'd have a way better motive than this Hollywood style caper movie silliness. Think about it logically. If there was really $2.3 trillion in stolen money, how would they really cover it up? -reassign nosey accountants to other tasks -assign really nosey accountants to other countries -if an accountant still won't take no for an answer, arrange for him to turn up dead with a prostitute and an armful of bad heroin. -NOT talk about the stolen money in speeches. Like, come on. The whole "stolen money" narrative is complete nonsense from every angle. And given your beliefs about how banking operates, how is stealing money a motive anyway? In your world view, bankers stealing money would make about as much sense as eskimos stealing snow. -k

What? Are you saying that Osama Bin Laden was not responsible for 9/11 because one of his lieutenants planned the details of the operation? As Al Qaeda leader, Bin Laden is certainly responsible. That's not to say that he did the planning of the mission. It is similar to saying, for example, that George W Bush is responsible for the invasion of Iraq, even though the planning and details were left to his staff. Dimwits have been saying stuff like "how could have he have done 9/11, when he lives in a cave?" and similar idiotic remarks, but the claim has always been that it was an Al Qaeda operation, and the focus on Bin Laden in particular is It's a simple enough concept. When people march around blaming George W Bush for killing Iraqi children, do you correct them by pointing out that Bush hasn't killed Iraqi children because he's in Washington and has never been to a combat zone in his life? Of course not. As Al Qaeda chief, Bin Laden bears responsibility and by his own words was involved in the genesis of the idea. Whether the details were carried out by him or by others in his organization is a matter of academic interest, but doesn't change anything. -k

Thats not evidence. The 2 trillion that was already missing from the Pentagon could have paid for the operation too, under the same logic. Sure, money does go missing from the Pentagon, and it could be (and undoubtably some of it is) used to fund all kinds of shenanigans. I don't think anybody has ever doubted that the US had the means to perform the operations performed on 9/11. But so did Bin Laden. You asked "means? motive? opportunity?" Clearly, the means to perform the 9/11 attacks were easily within Osama's capability; he's astoundingly wealthy and has access to many willing recruits. Clearly, the opportunity was present. It's not difficult for people to live illegally in the United States, either with fake documents, or no documents at all. And it's been shown that airport security is pretty leaky even after 9/11. And you don't have to look very far to see plausible motives for angry Muslims to lash out against the United States. Objectives like attempting to change American middle east policy, retaliate against American involvement in the middle east, or provoking a conflict that would lead to Muslim countries pushing American interests out of their countries are examples. "Means? Motive? Opportunity?" Bin Laden had plenty of all of them. You asked what means, motive, and opportunity as if you thought they were difficult to answer for people who believe the official story. But in fact those are very easy questions to address. -k

I posit that the JPG artifacting and blurring are obvious to anybody who examines the "Osama E" image. And I posit that the fact that difference in color of the walls between the video stills and the "Osama E" image is obvious, and that the dramatically different light/dark contrast levels between the video stills and the "Osama E" image are also easily apparent to anybody who compares the two pictures. As a result, I posit that the pictures themselves provide all the proof that is necessary to demonstrate that the "Osama E" image has been manipulated, and that the "Osama E" image is not representative of the Is that what that was supposed to be? I listened to 3 seconds of it, heard some pimply-faced teenager say "voice morphing technology", and closed the page. You and the missing trillions again. (last time it was $2.3 trillion. Now it's $3.3 trillion. Inflation?) I've dealt with this many times already elsewhere, but to summarize once again: -Rumsfeld never once claims that the money was lost or stolen. He states that there are $2.3 trillion in untraceable transactions, which is hardly a claim of malfeasance, theft, fraud, loss, or anything else except for inadequate accounting practices. In a speech where Rumsfeld was calling for updated accounting and oversight in the DoD, this is hardly surprising. -$2.3 trillion would represent ten times the annual budget for the Bush regime from the time they took office up to Sept 11. Stealing 10% of the budget without being caught would be a remarkable feat. Stealing 100% of the budget without getting caught would be bloody astounding. But stealing 1000% percent of the budget is just impossible, which in itself proves that the $2.3 trillion figure doesn't represent what the truthies claim it does. -you knuckleheads have never once come up with an answer as to why Rumsfeld would admit to a huge heist if there was a plan to execute a massive cover up the very next day. Lets see it. Link ? here you are: from Al Jazeera, November 2, 2004 Lets see it. Link ? -k

Big jet airplanes full of fuel. Subordinates willing to die for their beliefs. A vast personal fortune capable of easily funding the operation many times over. Opposition to American policy in the Middle East. Desire to retaliate for American support for Israel. Desire to provoke a confrontation between America and the Islamic world that would lead to Muslim countries freeing themselves from economic servitude to American interests. Lots of good reasons, really. Provided by inadequate airliner security and lax enforcement of visitor visa regulations. -k

Proof !!! YOUR OPINION DOESN"T CONSTITUTE PROOF. I saw that video when broadcasted I know it wasn't Bin Laden. Show us the real video then if you say that one has been doctored. You are definetly a contender for the Golden Hockey Puck award but show us the beef ! All of this was covered very early on in this thread. Refresh your memory by reviewing it: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....ndpost&p=163752 -k

This again? I thought I put this steaming turd out of its misery months back. But talking with the truthies tends to be like a game of Whack-A-Mole. Knock down one pop-up gopher, beat down some other pop-up-gophers, and before you know it, the first gopher pops up again. The truthies are keen-eyed enough to notice that "fake Bin Laden" has different colored skin from the known Bin Laden, but are apparently not keen-eyed enough to notice that the walls behind him in the "fake" pictures are a different color from OTHER IMAGES CAPTURED FROM THE SAME VIDEO. Proof that the images have been monkeyed with? Loads of JPG artifacting in the "fake Bin Laden" images. That alone proves that the "fake Bin Laden" images have been manipulated. The mysterious color change in the walls proves that at least one of the things that has been done to the images has been messing with the color and light/dark balance. One of the truthwagon sites has a frame-by-frame capture of that video where they look for inconsistencies. While their intent is to look for details that might suggest he's not the real Bin Laden, the real value of the exercise was to put numerous actual, unmanipulated photos from that video on the web. And guess what? The "fake Bin Laden" pictures look NOTHING LIKE the video that they're taken from. They have been DOCTORED. Doctored evidence is of zero value. (why do the Truthies continue to peddle the same two badly manipulated image from that video, when there are many unmanipulated high-quality images from the same video? I leave that to you to decide. And why is it that nobody in the truth movement can seem to create a half decent website? You can't judge a book by it's cover, but the crappy webpages tend to create the impression that they're run by handicapped children. I digress.) The fake pictures are proof of just two facts: -the truthwagon needs better software if they want to create fake evidence. I'd suggest The Gimp, which is free and open-source. There are tutorials available, so that even the truthies will be able to learn to quickly doctor photos with high-quality results. -the truthwagon is not terribly picky about the accuracy of the information they pass around, just as long as it agrees with their ideas. -k

You may speculate on what the corporations are thinking as much as you want. The fact is that they are lobbying to prevent sex trade crimes involving little kids from being prosecuted in the USA when committed abroad. Its all quite clear. They are lobbying against the sex trade thing only because it is part and parcel of a larger human trafficking legislation that could threaten their financial interests. If you'd actually read the article, you'd recognize that the human trafficking legislation poses a threat to their profits, which is the most rational explanation for why any corporation does anything. I believe that they are greedy and immoral and put their financial interests ahead of human dignity. You know who the apologist is, Nzzb? It's YOU. You defend these pieces of junk journalism as if your life depended on it. In this one, you've completely ignored the randomness of attempting to link the cases of Sanchez, Gannon, the "Franklin Cover-up" hoax, and defense-industry lobbyists. And you strenuously argue that the motivation behind the defense lobbyists is the alleged child raping parties, despite no evidence that such things ever occured, and despite the fact that corporate profits is a far more credible and compelling explanation for the lobbyists. Or how about the desperate things you wrote while trying to defend David Hawkins? We should go back through that thread again to see some of the hilariously over-the-top stuff you wrote while attempting to defend that dimwit. You've gone to absurd lengths to defend people who you agree with. Defending the truthies for misrepresenting the qualifications of the Skollers for 911 Trooth (the one about how Fatty Fetzer really IS a Theoretical Physicist, since he has Theories... about Physics... was a classic of western literature) or defending Jones for misrepresenting the poll question in the "overwhelming majority now believes the government was behind 9/11!" poll. Really, you're the biggest apologist on the whole site. You've had to be, because trying to explain away the deficiencies in all these ridiculous stories you post is pretty much a full-time job. -k

Is climate change bad? To put it in terms that avid righties would appreciate, it's going to be awfully unprofittable. Climate change will bring (as the name suggests) change. Sometimes, change can create opportunities. But change can also cause disruption to established industries and economies and practices. for instance, if winters are no longer cold enough to kill off parasites such as pine-beetles, then agricultural industries (such as forestry) are going to be adversely affected. If agricultural areas find themselves find changing temperatures or amounts of precipitation, crop yields are going to be affected. If land that used to be suitable for grazing cattle becomes more suitable for raising alpacas, then that'll be a blow to cattle ranchers but a boon to alpaca farmers. Change in itself isn't necessarily bad, but there will be economic winners and losers. In situations where there are large economic interests vested in the climate status quo, the effects of climate change could be quite dramatic. -k

I can affirm that in recent months, my special guy (who has a background in electronic and medical technology) has been actively sought after by Canadian Forces. -k

I am not interested in your opinions or your efforts to justify their actions- or their efforts to explain away their actions. I am only interested in fact. Is it not a fact that government lobbyists are trying to restrict the US government from prosecuting cases of child sex trade involving multinationals abroad or not ? I do not believe that the courts would somehow confuse forced labour with the child sex trade. You do - you must in order to justify their actions. The lawmakers have not "confused" the two. The proposed legislation concerns human trafficking, whether for forced labor or for prostitution. And while kooks like yourself and Alex Jones might be inclined to believe that child sex rings are the reason DynCorp and KBR and their ilk are opposed to the proposed legislation, normal, rational, non-retarded people are able to recognize that the more likely and plausible explanation is the threat to profit margins posed by restrictions on exploitive labor practices. Actually, I shouldn't say that. I should say that there are two possibilities here: (1) the defense contractors are afraid that the proposed legislation will hurt their profits by reducing their use of exploitive labor practices and making them legally liable for human rights abuses, or (2) the defense contractors oppose the legislation because they think it will interfere with their Luciferian child-sex rituals. You tell us which you think is the more plausible explanation, and reinforce everybody's opinion of you in the process. Face it, chew-toy, while you and your fucqued up friends desperately want to believe that Satanic child sex abuse is the reason behind the lobbyists, the exploitive labour and profit motive are by far the more credible and sensible explanation. Sorry, Nzzbxxr, but once again you and Alex Jones come away looking like shit-smears on one-ply generic-brand toilet-paper. -k

You said you didn't even read the article. How do you know what it says? I read the article. And while the planned legislation regards human trafficking for both prostitution and forced labour, the thrust of the article (and of the defense contractors' concerns about the legislation) concerns the forced labor. You asked: "I wonder why there are lobbyists lobbying to prevent US gov from prosecuting these cases." And the fact is, the Chicago Tribune article to which you are referring does not say anything of the sort. The article reports that lobbyists are attempting to persuade authorities to make changes to the proposed legislation. Why are defense contractors paying lobbyists to fight for changes to the proposed legislation? Because the contractors want to protect their profit margins and avoid legal responsibility for exploitive labour practices. The article makes both motives clear. But you didn't know that, because Jones & friends focused on the child prostitution aspect and ignore the forced labor aspect, even though the forced labor aspect is by far the more pervasive problem. -k

If this crack was supposed to have been directed at me, it's off the mark. I have never been a Mennonite. My mother was, but she left the faith as a young woman. Nice try, though. -k