On the 7/7 bombings did you ever find the BBC special that I was talking about that went after the conspiracy theorists and absolutely shredded them.
Quote:
Also, can you perhaps explain the news report where they report the collapse of building 7 and it is still seen standing over the left shoulder of the reporter? That one sure had me confused. Anyways, this is by far my favourite thread and I really enjoy everybody bickering over things that nobody is going to be able to prove anyways.
What did the reporter say before they mentioned that building 7 collapsed, something along the lines that their information was very very sketchy.
also remember the time line, fire fighters were already stating that building 7 was going to collapse that was at 2:00 pm, they reached that conclusion due to both the massive hole in the building and the creaking noises that the building was making. Most likely in a chaotic situation like that the report got changed from going to collapse to has collapsed.
I don't see why the government would feed the news agencies a report about a building collapsing instead of blowing up the building and having the reporters report the news . . . scripting makes no logical sense whatsoever.
It wouldn't be the first time reporters got something so completely wrong. They said it was a small plane at first, remember? They said Kerry choose Gephardt for VP, remember? They told the family members of trapped mine workers that their 13 loved ones were alive, all but one, when it was the other way around. Those are just a few glaring examples. I could go on... Reporters rush to be the first one with the news and often do a poor job of getting the facts straight. History is littered with examples of this.
Again this goes back to the whole collapse of the conspiracy theory. If the government did this, why would they involve an additional body (ie the reporter) if they didn't need to, they don't need to script the collapse if the building was going to collapse anyways.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
That seems to be the popular trend here. Why wont the government just release all the details and answer all the questions if everything just happened the way they said it did? What do they have to hide?
I wouldn't worry about it though, ignorance is bliss.
The government would never be able to release enough to satisfy your paranoia.
Seriously.
If it's not one thing, it will be another.
You can never be satisfied which is what makes you different than the thousands, tens of thousands or even millions of others who have looked at the same thing you have and come to a different conclusion, the one you will never accept.
Those who have seen what you have seen and arrived at a different opinion are dismissed as "sheeple."
That is always the trick with arguing with a conspiracy theorist who's bitten badly . . . . . arguing validates the argument, implying there is something to argue about. There's no point to it really. It is actually more interesting to examine what compels the conspiracy theorist.
By the way, there is no such thing as "the government."
That's a catch phrase that allows the common conspiracy theorist to get around the fact that he's actually talking about dozens, hundreds or even thousands of people making decisions about keeping quiet . . . . . and the more people involved in the process, the more unlikely a secret conspiracy becomes.
There is no one more gullible and less open to differing opinions than a conspiracy theorist . . . . and that, of course, is the irony.
Cowperson
__________________
Dear Lord, help me to be the kind of person my dog thinks I am. - Anonymous
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Cowperson For This Useful Post:
You have a lot of misconceptions about what a corporation actually is. Most corporations are privately owned and run by small businesses.
They act to shield the owners from liability. Imagine if you were running, for example, a painting company and an employee fell off a roof. Without a corporation the employee could sue you and take everything you own, including your house/car etc.. With a corporation the employee can only take assets in the business.
In the case of large corporations they allow people to raise large amounts of capital they otherwise couldn't. How fair do you think it would be if someone who owns one share in a company could be sued for everything they own becasue the company has made a mistake? Without corporations companies like Ford and GM could not exist. There would be noone to manufacture cars or carry on any business that allows the raising of capital. In other words we would fall back to the stone age quickly.
As for the movie "the corporation", I know all about it. I went to UBC Law, where Joel Bakan teaches. I have had many disagreements with him about his film. I consider it to be sensationalist. To an educated audience it exposes the dangers of corporations. It, however, fails to mention any of the advantages or why and how a coporation actually works. Thus to an uneducated audience it becomes another propaganda tool.
I also don't see why the Bilderberg group having affiliations with corporations would help them in any way or why heads of state would need to be associated with corporations. If they have the kind of money and power you are talking about, that in itself would give them the power to rule. You've just associated the word corporation with them, because it's some bizarre prerequisite for evil.
Janeane Garofolo: As actors, it is our responsibility to read the newspapers, and then say what we read on television like it's our own opinio
Tim Robbins: Let me explain to you how this works: you see, the corporations finance Team America, and then Team America goes out... and the corporations sit there in their... in their corporation buildings, and... and, and see, they're all corporation-y... and they make money.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
The government would never be able to release enough to satisfy your paranoia.
Seriously.
If it's not one thing, it will be another.
You can never be satisfied which is what makes you different than the thousands, tens of thousands or even millions of others who have looked at the same thing you have and come to a different conclusion, the one you will never accept.
Those who have seen what you have seen and arrived at a different opinion are dismissed as "sheeple."
That is always the trick with arguing with a conspiracy theorist who's bitten badly . . . . . arguing validates the argument, implying there is something to argue about. There's no point to it really. It is actually more interesting to examine what compels the conspiracy theorist.
By the way, there is no such thing as "the government."
That's a catch phrase that allows the common conspiracy theorist to get around the fact that he's actually talking about dozens, hundreds or even thousands of people making decisions about keeping quiet . . . . . and the more people involved in the process, the more unlikely a secret conspiracy becomes.
There is no one more gullible and less open to differing opinions than a conspiracy theorist . . . . and that, of course, is the irony.
Cowperson
Dude, I totally love you . . . but not in a gay way.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
You have a lot of misconceptions about what a corporation actually is. Most corporations are privately owned and run by small businesses.
They act to shield the owners from liability. Imagine if you were running, for example, a painting company and an employee fell off a roof. Without a corporation the employee could sue you and take everything you own, including your house/car etc.. With a corporation the employee can only take assets in the business.
In the case of large corporations they allow people to raise large amounts of capital they otherwise couldn't. How fair do you think it would be if someone who owns one share in a company could be sued for everything they own becasue the company has made a mistake? Without corporations companies like Ford and GM could not exist. There would be noone to manufacture cars or carry on any business that allows the raising of capital. In other words we would fall back to the stone age quickly.
As for the movie "the corporation", I know all about it. I went to UBC Law, where Joel Bakan teaches. I have had many disagreements with him about his film. I consider it to be sensationalist. To an educated audience it exposes the dangers of corporations. It, however, fails to mention any of the advantages or why and how a coporation actually works. Thus to an uneducated audience it becomes another propaganda tool.
I also don't see why the Bilderberg group having affiliations with corporations would help them in any way or why heads of state would need to be associated with corporations. If they have the kind of money and power you are talking about, that in itself would give them the power to rule. You've just associated the word corporation with them, because it's some bizarre prerequisite for evil.
Yes there are some corporations that do not exploit... Then there are some that do, and do it very well. These corporations are evil IMO.
Janeane Garofolo: As actors, it is our responsibility to read the newspapers, and then say what we read on television like it's our own opinio
Tim Robbins: Let me explain to you how this works: you see, the corporations finance Team America, and then Team America goes out... and the corporations sit there in their... in their corporation buildings, and... and, and see, they're all corporation-y... and they make money.
"Dr. Evil: Okay, here's the plan. We get the warhead and then hold the world ransom for... 1 MILLION dollars!
Number Two: Sir, strictly speaking, a million dollars will not go very far these days. Virtucon alone makes over 9 billion dollars a year.
Dr. Evil: Really? Okay then... we hold the world ransom for one... hundred... BILLION dollars!!!"
and...
"Dr. Evil: Ahh. Number 2, your timing is impeccable. Go ahead. Take Mr. Powers away.
Number 2: [pointing a gun at Dr. Evil] No.
Dr. Evil: What?
Number 2: Dr. Evil, I spent 30 years of my life turning this two-bit evil empire into a world class multi-national. I was going to have a cover story with Forbes. [Dr. Evil puts his hands up] But you, like an idiot, want to take over the world. And you don't realize there is no world anymore! It's only corporations!
Dr. Evil: [putting his hands down]Silence, Number Two!
Number 2: NO! [whimpers] I've had enough of you pushing me around! [to Austin Powers] Mr. Powers, I have a business proposition you might find very interesting. [sits down on a chair while Austin walks forward to the table in front of Number 2]
Dr. Evil: All right, I've had enough of this. [pushes the button that causes Number Two's chair to tilt back and drop him into the pit of fire] "
The Following User Says Thank You to blankall For This Useful Post:
Yes there are some corporations that do not exploit... Then there are some that do, and do it very well. These corporations are evil IMO.
Mom and Pop shops... are not the discussion.
Then why did you need to associate Stephen Harper with a coporation. What possible benefit does the government of Canada have being a corporation instead of a state?
You did this solely for associating the government with the word "corporation" which you have designated as evil.
Large corporations do enough evil things to gain profits, including environmental, paying off warlords etc... I'm not sure why you feel the need to make up some conspiracy theory involving the governments of the world on top of this. If you want to find assocaitions between governments and coporations look at the recent bailouts happening all over the world.
Then why did you need to associate Stephen Harper with a coporation. What possible benefit does the government of Canada have being a corporation instead of a state?
You did this solely for associating the government with the word "corporation" which you have designated as evil.
Large corporations do enough evil things to gain profits, including environmental, paying off warlords etc... I'm not sure why you feel the need to make up some conspiracy theory involving the governments of the world on top of this. If you want to find assocaitions between governments and coporations look at the recent bailouts happening all over the world.
He visited the B group in the CBC article so I used it in the response. Canada Corp is not made of roses IMO. Canada corp which is stated above (CANADA (Central Index Key 0000230098) registered on the Securities Exchange Commission and its business Address is CANADIAN EMBASSY 1746 MASSACHUSETTS AVE NW WASHINGTON DC 20036.)with it's location. CANADA has a leader; it is currently Harper.
Why did I use him as well? Did you look into his eyes!!!!
You bet, and are correct in the bailouts. Who is going to pay that cost? We are. Now what are you or anyone else going to do about these criminal buyouts?
He visited the B group in the CBC article so I used it in the response. Canada Corp is not made of roses IMO. Canada corp which is stated above (CANADA (Central Index Key 0000230098) registered on the Securities Exchange Commission and its business Address is CANADIAN EMBASSY 1746 MASSACHUSETTS AVE NW WASHINGTON DC 20036.)with it's location. CANADA has a leader; it is currently Harper.
Why did I use him as well? Did you look into his eyes!!!!
You bet, and are correct in the bailouts. Who is going to pay that cost? We are. Now what are you or anyone else going to do about these criminal buyouts?
Hopefully they can audit the Fed.............and then end the Fed. Stupid bail-outs.....
If they were smart they would put the Glass-Steagall act back into place also.
The first point to mention here is "corporations".
The B Group are a bunch of Corporate Heads. Only the best and richest and powerful are invited. CANADA is also a Corporation.
CANADA (Central Index Key 0000230098) registered on the Securities Exchange Commission and its business Address is CANADIAN EMBASSY 1746 MASSACHUSETTS AVE NW WASHINGTON DC 20036.
Who is head of this Corporation? Stephan Harper.
As it was pointed out earlier the Leader of other corporations attend as well. A book store corporation... Harmless.?
It's media and media is needed to be controlled.
What is the goal for Corporations? Now, here is where it gets unique.
Corporations exist for profit. That is why they are created. They are PERSONS in all the legal sense but have no conscience. So you may act with in a corporation and as long as the bottom line is being met you will stay with the corporation.
If the B Group is built with levels of the most powerful leaders of corporations they have the money, influence, and lack of conscience (as they are acting under the corporate goal) and gather to plan to meet that main goal of profit.
Have you seen "The Corporation"? It's won 37 awards throughout the world and is made by Canadians. You can view it shareware on Youtube. It explains the PERSON (Corporation) very well.
So, yes. The Bilderberg group IMO is not a healthy group at all. IMO they are there for profit and when you want profit ASAP you need the power to get it.
The first point to mention here is "corporations".
The B Group are a bunch of Corporate Heads. Only the best and richest and powerful are invited. CANADA is also a Corporation.
CANADA (Central Index Key 0000230098) registered on the Securities Exchange Commission and its business Address is CANADIAN EMBASSY 1746 MASSACHUSETTS AVE NW WASHINGTON DC 20036.
Who is head of this Corporation? Stephan Harper.
As it was pointed out earlier the Leader of other corporations attend as well. A book store corporation... Harmless.?
It's media and media is needed to be controlled.
What is the goal for Corporations? Now, here is where it gets unique.
Corporations exist for profit. That is why they are created. They are PERSONS in all the legal sense but have no conscience. So you may act with in a corporation and as long as the bottom line is being met you will stay with the corporation.
If the B Group is built with levels of the most powerful leaders of corporations they have the money, influence, and lack of conscience (as they are acting under the corporate goal) and gather to plan to meet that main goal of profit.
Have you seen "The Corporation"? It's won 37 awards throughout the world and is made by Canadians. You can view it shareware on Youtube. It explains the PERSON (Corporation) very well.
So, yes. The Bilderberg group IMO is not a healthy group at all. IMO they are there for profit and when you want profit ASAP you need the power to get it.
Sold GOLD!
I bet if I gathered up a group os simple minded people, talked to them like I knew what the hell I was talking about, I could convince them that the Edmonton Oilers will win the Stanley Cup in 2010
Kep on trucking Mr. Here is all the information you need to know but I won't tell you why you need to know it other than you need to nor ewill I ever tell you that I believe it or follow it or implement it or have proven it's true. You make all us sane people very proud
You bet, and are correct in the bailouts. Who is going to pay that cost? We are. Now what are you or anyone else going to do about these criminal buyouts?
Well when you consider that corporations and the super rich pay the majority of taxes, they're really only using a small percentage of 'your money.'
I couldn't find any conclusive data on how much tax is paid by the various income levels. In the US the top 1% paid 34.4% of the federal tax share in 2001. If we assume similar numbers in Canada in 2005 (probably a poor assumption, but I would wager the numbers are close). That gives us $36 billion (34.4% of the remaining $105 billion).
So in total corporations and the super rich paid $84 billion in income taxes which is about 55% of the total income tax revenue.
Holy crap, I just received secret video tape footage from inside of the last Bilderberg group meeting. Please note the appearance of Stephen Harper receiving his secret initiation
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
I couldn't find any conclusive data on how much tax is paid by the various income levels. In the US the top 1% paid 34.4% of the federal tax share in 2001. If we assume similar numbers in Canada in 2005 (probably a poor assumption, but I would wager the numbers are close). That gives us $36 billion (34.4% of the remaining $105 billion).
So in total corporations and the super rich paid $84 billion in income taxes which is about 55% of the total income tax revenue.
Well done!
Now it would be important to also find out what these companies are and the tax brackets.
22% on the next $40,726 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income between $40,726 and $81,452), +
26% on the next $44,812 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income between $81,452 and $126,264), +
29% of taxable income over $126,264.
It is fair to say here that the rich are to pay more. However it also says taxable income. Claims in loses, write offs and tax tricks which can lower the amount paid as well.
Would it be fair to say the rich and the corporations can pay even less that 29% on income? So in a sense the number you posted should be higher? (I myself usually paid 10% in the past.)
What about the corporations that rely on making money through Canada's resources and selling it back to the population? I know this part is off topic. Should they be paying more in tax?
