bloodyminded Posted January 9, 2011 Report Share Posted January 9, 2011 "I am not qualified nor interested in supporting my statements here, however I am willing to make such statements" Just so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 9, 2011 Report Share Posted January 9, 2011 OK....prove me wrong. It's your time....have fun. I believe it was Morris Dancer who said "proof lies with the positive claimant", i.e. YOU. I have no opinion on which Communist government (the US or Canada) pays it's people better for forcing them off their land, only an opinion that they both do it. Go back and research property ownership in the Soviet Union. Stalin says that I shouldn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 9, 2011 Report Share Posted January 9, 2011 I believe it was Morris Dancer who said "proof lies with the positive claimant", i.e. YOU. I am not trying to "prove" anything. However, you will do well with Mr. Dancer as your master and mentor. When you can take the pebble from his hand.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 9, 2011 Report Share Posted January 9, 2011 I am not trying to "prove" anything. However, you will do well with Mr. Dancer as your master and mentor. When you can take the pebble from his hand.... You are making a statement though, so if you're not willing to back it up then it's a (maple) leaf in the wind. And no thanks, I will not risk touching Morris' hand... yuck... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 9, 2011 Report Share Posted January 9, 2011 (edited) You are making a statement though, so if you're not willing to back it up then it's a (maple) leaf in the wind. As is much of what gets posted here by members. Do you really think that any of this chatter is proven to the now famous PM Chretien standard? And no thanks, I will not risk touching Morris' hand... yuck... You made the assertion without any prompting from me. Edited January 9, 2011 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 9, 2011 Report Share Posted January 9, 2011 As is much of what gets posted here by members. Do you really think that any of this chatter is proven to the now famous PM Chretien standard? Generally, if someone is challenged on something though - they are expected to either back it up or admit they don't know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LonJowett Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 Generally, if someone is challenged on something though - they are expected to either back it up or admit they don't know. And he already did the latter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 Generally, if someone is challenged on something though - they are expected to either back it up or admit they don't know. Hardly...there is no such obligation. Methinks you take this forum (and others) a bit too seriously. Shall I "challenge" all such ramblings and declare "victory" when not met by a strong, multi-link defense? This is anonymous discourse, not academic intercourse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 (edited) Hardly...there is no such obligation. Methinks you take this forum (and others) a bit too seriously. Shall I "challenge" all such ramblings and declare "victory" when not met by a strong, multi-link defense? This is anonymous discourse, not academic intercourse. Hardly...there is no such obligation. Its not a matter of obligation its a matter of credibility. When someone zealously and confidently asserts a fact, and then balks when asked to provide some sort of support for that claim they just lose credibility. In your case you take pride in having no credibility though, so Im not quite sure why Hardner would pursue this angle with you at all. Seems sorta like asking a wheelbarrow to make you a sandwich. This is anonymous discourse, not academic intercourse. Thats true, but I see people at least take a shot at validating claims theyve made all the time. Just because its anonymous doesnt mean you can have a little bit of pride in yourself. Edited January 10, 2011 by dre Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 ...Thats true, but I see people at least take a shot at validating claims theyve made all the time. Just because its anonymous doesnt mean you can have a little bit of pride in yourself. Why is it "true"? I offered up no supporting links or evidence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 Why is it "true"? I offered up no supporting links or evidence. Your statement was objectively true... Hardly...there is no such obligation. ...was objectively true. Theres nothing in the TOU for this site that would prevent someone from making a bogus claim, and then refusing to provide support for it when challenged. Not sure why you need to ask that question... I quoted the part of your post I was referencing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 Your statement was objectively true... No...it is objectively a statement or claim...just like anything else. Truth is an abstraction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 No...it is objectively a statement or claim...just like anything else. Truth is an abstraction. I know! I used to have a bright orange tricycle too! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinko Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 (edited) Yep...happens all the time...and may the best team of lawyers win. Courts have adjudicated in favor of cities because the public good (e.g. redevelopment) outweighs the private property interest. As long as fair market compensation is paid, all is well. Try that in Canada. It is quite obvious you are not familiar with the law in Canada as it relates to property rights. Edited January 10, 2011 by pinko Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 (edited) It is quite obvious you are not familiar with the law in Canada as it relates to property rights. Oh.....you mean like the fact such takings are called expropriation, not eminent domain? Shall I invest the time to become an expert on "the law in Canada" even as other members stumble on the proceedings and law in America? Edited January 10, 2011 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 Hardly...there is no such obligation. Methinks you take this forum (and others) a bit too seriously. Shall I "challenge" all such ramblings and declare "victory" when not met by a strong, multi-link defense? This is anonymous discourse, not academic intercourse. Is it worth anything though ? I would like to know facts, so I do challenge ramblings - for the record if for nothing else. I don't need to declare victory, I don't think. Rather, I look for all posters, including myself, to prove their seriousness about the discussion by conceding points when necessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 Is it worth anything though ? I would like to know facts, so I do challenge ramblings - for the record if for nothing else. OK...but that's just more of the same. This is the corner cafe or pub, not Parliament. I don't need to declare victory, I don't think. Rather, I look for all posters, including myself, to prove their seriousness about the discussion by conceding points when necessary. Ah...so you do project your own values and priorities as an expectation of others. As I stated, there is no such obligation expressed or implied. Little can be "proven" here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinko Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 Oh.....you mean like the fact such takings are called expropriation, not eminent domain? Shall I invest the time to become an expert on "the law in Canada" even as other members stumble on the proceedings and law in America? You should certainly be better informed about Canadian law before you make unsubstantiated claims about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 Remembering when my young daughter went for therapy...There was a rule...self control was not to be enstilled...having self control was a no no.... Now that poses a problem - those that have an uncontrolable urge to control others simply can NOT control themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 You should certainly be better informed about Canadian law before you make unsubstantiated claims about it. Why am I saddled with this burden while others are not. Is the right to make such claims without studious research reserved for Canadians only? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 OK...but that's just more of the same. This is the corner cafe or pub, not Parliament. Ah...so you do project your own values and priorities as an expectation of others. As I stated, there is no such obligation expressed or implied. Little can be "proven" here. My values align with the values of MLW somewhat: in a pub if somebody says something, I may ask them about it. If they say nothing, or walk away then I will be surprised, and most people listening would likely wonder what was wrong with them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 (edited) My values align with the values of MLW somewhat: in a pub if somebody says something, I may ask them about it. If they say nothing, or walk away then I will be surprised, and most people listening would likely wonder what was wrong with them. So you mean like...when somebody in the pub says, "America sucks!"? You can ask if you want, but no response is owed. I do not typically badger members for such responses. All of this chatter is voluntary. Edited January 10, 2011 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted January 11, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 The lion's share, as you know, incurred by poor, innocent peasants caught between the two Giant Gangsters fighting it out.... Unlike the relatively trivial incident of 2 - 4 million Vietnamese. "Two Giant Gangsters"? You must mean Brezhnev and Ho Chi Minh. Ho Chi Minh chose to get involved. He and Brezhnev killed the innocent peasants. OTOH, innocent peasants in Thailand, even Burma and Sri Lanka still enjoy life. "Two Giant Gangsters"? Lyndon Johnson was no "gangster". Nor was Richard Nixon. Unlike gangsters, both Nixon and Johnson gave up power voluntarily, and retired in civilized manner. Brezhnev and Ho Chi Minh, typical of tyrants, lost power only in death. As Carter said, "The destruction was mutual."Carter, another so-called "gangster leader".Anyone who thinks the US is the "strong gang" on the block should think of Carter, or Obama. Obama and Carter are weaklings. ---- America's strength is not in its leaders; it is in its republican institutions. And these institutions are based on individual liberty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinko Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 (edited) Oh.....you mean like the fact such takings are called expropriation, not eminent domain? Shall I invest the time to become an expert on "the law in Canada" even as other members stumble on the proceedings and law in America? I doubt you will become an expert in Canadian law or for that matter American law. I challenge you to identify a state that doesn't have the capacity to seize property from it's citizenery regardless of the label attached to it. Edited January 11, 2011 by pinko Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrGreenthumb Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 I like a comfortable environment wherever I go. If it isn't comfortable I may sometimes try to make it more comfortable. This is my way of making this environment more comfortable, and as I appear to be interpreting the rules correctly I will stop saying anything but will simply report conduct which goes against the rules. crybabbies and tattletales...tsk tsk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.