View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

Why Do Conspiracies Have so Much Appeal?

Discuss General Topics.

Re: Why Do Conspiracies Have so Much Appeal?

Postby cecil1 » 27 Apr 2012, 02:03

Arouet wrote:Again, you do not understand what you are reading. This is a legal protection that prevents others from being able to require you to give over any documents or other information that you got from the government under this Act. The determination of whether you are a canadian owned business will require providing and receiving documents related to the internal working and setup of the business, including who is involved, etc. If you are a telecommunications company being sued by someone, for example, you cannot be compelled to produce the information you got from the government with regard to this act in that lawsuit.


You're the one who sees words that don't exist in the act and construed make believe definitions. You completely make up defintions that are not present in this act, telecommunications have their own control and ownership act, this is a seperate act, you are woefully confused, you don't really know what you're talking about here.

Arouet wrote:Obvious of what? Did you actually read the links I provided to you?


Where do you find the word business in the definition of person in the defintions section of this act? Please point it out, simply prove me wrong, point it out. Why can't you point it out? Doesn't the act agree with your position? Surely business must be in there... just show it in the defintion of person it's really easy... copy and paste it for us all with the link... why can't you do it? What's so hard Arouet? Why don't you just prove me wrong?

Arouet wrote:Let's say that your interpretation is correct: how does it affect you in practice? What injustice can you relate to this?


I'm not interpreting this act, the act tells us this point blank, it just uses really big words that you use to misconstrue the meaning of to protect your law society. But let's go on this for a minute... you know I stated this act enforces legal slavery, you've typed out my understanding yourself, yet you ask me how slavery is immoral????

If you cannot grasp the immorality of slavery then you lack good moral ethics and are exactly the type of person one should be concerned with.

People like you is the reason the law was needed in the first place.
cecil1
 
Posts: 141
Joined: 13 Apr 2012, 02:31






Re: Why Do Conspiracies Have so Much Appeal?

Postby Arouet » 27 Apr 2012, 02:35

cecil1 wrote:You're the one who sees words that don't exist in the act and construed make believe definitions. You completely make up defintions that are not present in this act, telecommunications have their own control and ownership act, this is a seperate act, you are woefully confused, you don't really know what you're talking about here.


Yes, telecommunicatons have different acts regulating them. This Act is about how to get certified as a Canadian owned and controlled. Did you see the link from MeCarthy-Tetrault? And you yourself cited the explantion about the act being in the context of federally regulated petrol companies. I'm honestly not sure what is causing your confusion at this point.

Did you read those links? Do you understand them?

Where do you find the word business in the definition of person in the defintions section of this act? Please point it out, simply prove me wrong, point it out. Why can't you point it out? Doesn't the act agree with your position? Surely business must be in there... just show it in the defintion of person it's really easy... copy and paste it for us all with the link... why can't you do it? What's so hard Arouet? Why don't you just prove me wrong?


The word business in not in the definition of person in that act - it doesn't need to be.

Again, don't just trust me: if you think you as an individual can get a certificate about your own body, why not go and request one?

I'm not interpreting this act, the act tells us this point blank, it just uses really big words that you use to misconstrue the meaning of to protect your law society


Which big words are you having trouble understanding.

But let's go on this for a minute... you know I stated this act enforces legal slavery, you've typed out my understanding yourself, yet you ask me how slavery is immoral????


I asked you to provide me with an actual, real-life example of how this act has resulted in injustice. Can you provide such an example? If this act is as outrageous as you seem to believe, it shouldn't be too hard to find an example.

If you cannot grasp the immorality of slavery then you lack good moral ethics and are exactly the type of person one should be concerned with.


In case there is some confusion, I don't condone slavery.

People like you is the reason the law was needed in the first place.


Ok, c'mon, you must be trolling, right? This doesn't make sense even in the context of how you have been trying to present it. You said the law itself enables slavery, how does your sentence make sense?
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Why Do Conspiracies Have so Much Appeal?

Postby cecil1 » 27 Apr 2012, 03:13

Arouet wrote:Yes, telecommunicatons have different acts regulating them. This Act is about how to get certified as a Canadian owned and controlled. Did you see the link from MeCarthy-Tetrault? And you yourself cited the explantion about the act being in the context of federally regulated petrol companies. I'm honestly not sure what is causing your confusion at this point.

Did you read those links? Do you understand them?


I don't see the relevance of your statements.
What words are giving you trouble in the act? Start small and we shall work on your comprehension of it, I know it's daunting but since you're a lawyer you should be able to figure this out, it is in simple english after all with definitions provided. It's all there so you must just need a hand, what exactly is giving you trouble here? I'm willing to help you Arouet it just takes some sincere investigation on your part of the meaning of words. This isn't rocket science, it's english with definitions provided, you must be trying really hard to be so obtuse here.

Arouet wrote:The word business in not in the definition of person in that act - it doesn't need to be.

Again, don't just trust me: if you think you as an individual can get a certificate about your own body, why not go and request one?


So you finally admit person is not defined as business... so all your previous arguements about this act pertaining to wether a business is canadian owned is complete nonsense THANK YOU FOR FINALLY APPLYING SOME HONESTY... i didn't think you would but you surprised me. Good Form Arouet Good Form.
About applying for a certificate it's not so easy, I mean look at your understanding of this act, woefully confused and dazzled by big words would you even pass the control test in this act or are you ignorant of that as well?

Arouet wrote:Which big words are you having trouble understanding.


I see you're just a troll, but a fun troll.


Arouet wrote:I asked you to provide me with an actual, real-life example of how this act has resulted in injustice. Can you provide such an example? If this act is as outrageous as you seem to believe, it shouldn't be too hard to find an example.


Yes, I can, this act is the example, it outlines legal slavery, it is one of several acts used in conjunction to create this legal effect, slavery is immoral, if you don't know that then you lack good moral ethics. Slavery anytime is wrong. If this is the mentality of todays lawyers were going to have a very hard time getting any justice. People need to be concerned about folk like you.
I know I am.


Arouet wrote:In case there is some confusion, I don't condone slavery.


Why not?
It most certainly is not because it is immoral because you don't recognize slavery as immoral. You continue to ask what about the act is immoral, the act provides enforcement for legal slavery, slavery is immoral, so why don't you condone slavery?

Arouet wrote:Ok, c'mon, you must be trolling, right? This doesn't make sense even in the context of how you have been trying to present it. You said the law itself enables slavery, how does your sentence make sense?


Better run to your law society and tell em you got a live one.
cecil1
 
Posts: 141
Joined: 13 Apr 2012, 02:31

Re: Why Do Conspiracies Have so Much Appeal?

Postby Arouet » 27 Apr 2012, 03:21

cecil1 wrote:I don't see the relevance of your statements.
What words are giving you trouble in the act? Start small and we shall work on your comprehension of it, I know it's daunting but since you're a lawyer you should be able to figure this out, it is in simple english after all with definitions provided. It's all there so you must just need a hand, what exactly is giving you trouble here? I'm willing to help you Arouet it just takes some sincere investigation on your part of the meaning of words. This isn't rocket science, it's english with definitions provided, you must be trying really hard to be so obtuse here.


C'mon - August? Is that you? Ninja? IP check? If it is it's an impressive bit of trolling I must say!

So you finally admit person is not defined as business... so all your previous arguements about this act pertaining to wether a business is canadian owned is complete nonsense THANK YOU FOR FINALLY APPLYING SOME HONESTY... i didn't think you would but you surprised me. Good Form Arouet Good Form.


I'm trying to decide if you're entertaining enough to keep this going, I'll go another round...

The act does not specify business - it doesn't need to. The only legal person's who would use the act are those who need the certificate. They would only need the certificate if they are a federally regulated business that requires Canadian ownership and control.

About applying for a certificate it's not so easy, I mean look at your understanding of this act, woefully confused and dazzled by big words would you even pass the control test in this act or are you ignorant of that as well?


Haha - as far as trolls are, you are pretty clever. I like this one! Well done!


Yes, I can, this act is the example, it outlines legal slavery, it is one of several acts used in conjunction to create this legal effect, slavery is immoral, if you don't know that then you lack good moral ethics. Slavery anytime is wrong. If this is the mentality of todays lawyers were going to have a very hard time getting any justice. People need to be concerned about folk like you.
I know I am.


Ok, B- here. Anyhow, looking forward to what you have for us next!


Arouet wrote:In case there is some confusion, I don't condone slavery.


Why not?
It most certainly is not because it is immoral because you don't recognize slavery as immoral. You continue to ask what about the act is immoral, the act provides enforcement for legal slavery, slavery is immoral, so why don't you condone slavery?

Arouet wrote:Ok, c'mon, you must be trolling, right? This doesn't make sense even in the context of how you have been trying to present it. You said the law itself enables slavery, how does your sentence make sense?


Better run to your law society and tell em you got a live one.[/quote]
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Why Do Conspiracies Have so Much Appeal?

Postby cecil1 » 27 Apr 2012, 03:26

Arouet wrote:C'mon - August? Is that you? Ninja? IP check? If it is it's an impressive bit of trolling I must say!


lol

Arouet wrote:I'm trying to decide if you're entertaining enough to keep this going, I'll go another round...


lol

Arouet wrote:Haha - as far as trolls are, you are pretty clever. I like this one! Well done!


lol


Arouet wrote:Ok, B- here. Anyhow, looking forward to what you have for us next!



Arouet wrote:In case there is some confusion, I don't condone slavery.


cecil1 wrote:Why not?
It most certainly is not because it is immoral because you don't recognize slavery as immoral. You continue to ask what about the act is immoral, the act provides enforcement for legal slavery, slavery is immoral, so why don't you condone slavery?


I see why you avoided this question.
cecil1
 
Posts: 141
Joined: 13 Apr 2012, 02:31

Re: Why Do Conspiracies Have so Much Appeal?

Postby cecil1 » 27 Apr 2012, 03:43

Arouet wrote:The act does not specify business - it doesn't need to. The only legal person's who would use the act are those who need the certificate. They would only need the certificate if they are a federally regulated business that requires Canadian ownership and control.


Explain this then because the act itself states diffrently, see?

Trust property
(3) For greater certainty, for the purposes of this Act, a separate trust exists with respect to all assets, investments or property held by a trustee under a trust instrument for the benefit of a person, group or class of persons, notwithstanding that under the same trust instrument different assets, investments or property are held for the benefit of a different person, group or class of persons.
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts ... lText.html

See here's the problem with this situation of you telling me what the law is Arouet;

The law says very clearly that for the greater certainty a seperate trust exists, your telling me it doesn't, do I believe the law or you?

Clearly for the greater certainty it does. You are failing at your deception here. F-
cecil1
 
Posts: 141
Joined: 13 Apr 2012, 02:31

Re: Why Do Conspiracies Have so Much Appeal?

Postby Arouet » 27 Apr 2012, 04:15

cecil1 wrote:Explain this the because the act itself states diffrently, see?

Trust property
(3) For greater certainty, for the purposes of this Act, a separate trust exists with respect to all assets, investments or property held by a trustee under a trust instrument for the benefit of a person, group or class of persons, notwithstanding that under the same trust instrument different assets, investments or property are held for the benefit of a different person, group or class of persons.
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts ... lText.html

See here's the problem with this situation of you telling me what the law is Arouet;

The law says very clearly that for the greater certainty a seperate trust exists, your telling me it doesn't, do I believe the law or you?

Clearly for the greater certainty it does. You are failing at your deception here. F-


I haven't said that this act doesn't apply to certain trusts - it clearly does. I'm not exactly sure what you think this provision means- but I'm pretty confident it doesn't mean what you think it means (assuming you are not just trolling of course).

Did you read the links I provided you?
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Why Do Conspiracies Have so Much Appeal?

Postby cecil1 » 27 Apr 2012, 04:57

Hey don't tell me that this trust that exists for greater certainty doesn't really exist, tell the department of justice!
Have fun argueing with them about it.

Evidentiary privilege
19. Notwithstanding any other Act or law, no person who obtains information or documentation under this Act shall be required, in connection with any legal proceedings, other than proceedings relating to the administration or enforcement of this Act or criminal proceedings under this Act or any other Act of Parliament, to give evidence relating to any information or documentation that is privileged under this Act or to produce any statement, document, writing or portion thereof containing any of that information or documentation.

1980-81-82-83, c. 107, s. 51
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts ... lText.html
cecil1
 
Posts: 141
Joined: 13 Apr 2012, 02:31

Re: Why Do Conspiracies Have so Much Appeal?

Postby Arouet » 27 Apr 2012, 06:02

Ok,now you're not even trying!
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Why Do Conspiracies Have so Much Appeal?

Postby Twain Shakespeare » 27 Apr 2012, 17:42

ProfWag wrote:
August West wrote:I'm responding to the original poster here: He asks "What is it that draws 'conspiracy mongers' to 911?

This is a very stupid question with a very easy answer.

911 was a conspiracy. That's why. Even the "official" story is a conspiracy theory. People plotted and conspired together in secret to make these events happen. That is a conspiracy.

Well that settles it then--9/11 was a consiracy! August West just said so and no other evidence is necessary.



The amount of insecurity on this thread is phenomenal. Prof, August made a simple, and serious statement, one I also stated in my one previous post on this thread, and you mocked him by claiming he claimed to have solved the mystery ex cathadra. Shame on you for a cheap shot.! Did you learn that trick from the CIA or the Jesuits, or just from a good grounding in rhetoric?

The question was ..."Why are conspiracy theorist particular attracted to 9/11, not who the conspirators were"
August pointed out, simply, that their was one conspiracy to committ the crime, that was no US government has seriously investigated, or else Usama would have been hung, instead of Saddam, but the government preeferred to use the event as an excuse to conspire to bring about the Brutal conquest against an innocent nation. Is it any wonder conspiracy theorists are attracted like flies to shit with honey?
"What's so Funny about Peace, Love, and Understanding?"
User avatar
Twain Shakespeare
 
Posts: 375
Joined: 20 Jul 2010, 05:19
Location: El Paso Del Norte on the sunny Jornada del Muerta

Re: Why Do Conspiracies Have so Much Appeal?

Postby Arouet » 27 Apr 2012, 17:53

Twain: August was just being coy, saying that no matter what 911 was a conspiracy - if only one done by Al Qaeda. But maybe cecil could elaborate if I'm wrong on what he meant?
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Why Do Conspiracies Have so Much Appeal?

Postby Twain Shakespeare » 27 Apr 2012, 17:56

ProfWag wrote:
Twain Shakespeare wrote:3. Can you think of any reason I should believe anything the government doesn't deny?

Other than the liberal media types who would like nothing better than to find fault with a Republican President or the conservative media types who go to great lengths to find dirt on Democratic presidents? Otherwise, your belief in the US Government is based on your own experiences and opinions--both of which are your own.


Apologies for my last post, I had not seen you had admitted over stepping bounds. I am not impressed with you for this, because that is the honesty I expect from you at your best :) , and I am sorry I was too quick to judge you.

If I ever said anything thati ndicates I consider media, churches, corporations, universities, or people in general to be more truthful than the government, I will bet the statement points to people in general. If you ever catch me believing something the media hasn't officially denied, shoot me. ;)

And no, this is not based merely on experience, or even an opinion which I might change on a whim. It is a mind set that has never let me believe anything merely because of who says it, but instead to always try to check the facts. Experiencially, my distrust has been confirmed.
"What's so Funny about Peace, Love, and Understanding?"
User avatar
Twain Shakespeare
 
Posts: 375
Joined: 20 Jul 2010, 05:19
Location: El Paso Del Norte on the sunny Jornada del Muerta

Re: Why Do Conspiracies Have so Much Appeal?

Postby cecil1 » 27 Apr 2012, 21:13

Arouet wrote:Ok,now you're not even trying!


This really doesn't raise an arguement. Why not rebut me? The debate is slipping through your fingers.
cecil1
 
Posts: 141
Joined: 13 Apr 2012, 02:31

Re: Why Do Conspiracies Have so Much Appeal?

Postby Arouet » 27 Apr 2012, 21:49

cecil1 wrote:This really doesn't raise an arguement. Why not rebut me? The debate is slipping through your fingers.


Rebut what? You didn't say anything other than repeating that you somehow believe I said the act didn't apply to certain trusts when I already said clearly that I never said that.

As for debate - you're not really engaging in any debate. You haven't responded to any of my points nor acknowledged my links. Instead you keep repeating the same things over and over again. This is troll like behaviour and I'll play as long as its entertaining - but just repeating things over and over isn't that entertaining.

If you're not a troll, then why not go back over my posts and actually respond to what I wrote rather than simply throwing baseless insults.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Why Do Conspiracies Have so Much Appeal?

Postby cecil1 » 27 Apr 2012, 22:25

Arouet wrote:Rebut what? You didn't say anything other than repeating that you somehow believe I said the act didn't apply to certain trusts when I already said clearly that I never said that.


I'm not sure you understand what the act actually states, it states that for the greater certainty a seperate trust exists in respect to all assets property and investments, a corporate trust has a trustee(s) and a shareholder(s), if you as an individual are in a corporate trust as the act states, then I don't see how you can logically keep avoiding that fact. it's not working, you aren't even using logic. This act applies to individuals because the word person is used, the act clearly states an individual is a person in the definitions section... individuals can apply. geesh are you having fun disinfo guy?
You know when you lie you slip into bad moral ethics right Arouet? You reek of bad moral ethics. Show some honesty you troll.

Arouet wrote:As for debate - you're not really engaging in any debate. You haven't responded to any of my points nor acknowledged my links. Instead you keep repeating the same things over and over again. This is troll like behaviour and I'll play as long as its entertaining - but just repeating things over and over isn't that entertaining.


But you haven't really made a point, all you do is sidestep the act, you keep implying the trust doesn't apply to individuals, the law states very clearly for the greater certainty it does indeed exist but doesn't restrict the application to trusts, who is right? The Law or Arouet?

Arouet wrote:If you're not a troll, then why not go back over my posts and actually respond to what I wrote rather than simply throwing baseless insults.


If your not a disinfo troll then go back and read the act and tell me if the trust that exists for greater certainty applies to individuals.

QUALIFIED APPLICANTS
Who may apply
4. The following are qualified to apply for a certificate:

(a) an individual other than a non-eligible person;

(b) a corporation incorporated in Canada;

(c) a partnership, if the relationship among the partners as such is governed by the laws of a province;

(d) a trustee in respect of a trust, if the trustee and beneficiaries are, with respect to their status as such, governed by the laws of a province;

(e) an insurance company incorporated in Canada in respect of any of its segregated funds within the meaning of the regulations; and

(f) any person prescribed as being qualified to apply for a certificate or who falls into a class of persons prescribed as being qualified to apply for a certificate.
1980-81-82-83, c. 107, s. 37.

Control status
(2) Subject to any regulations made under paragraph 20(f) or (g), a person is Canadian controlled if that person is not a non-eligible person and is not Canadian controlled if that person is a non-eligible person.

So Arouet where do you see this act restricting application to only trusts? C'mon make a point, show me you're not just a troll.
cecil1
 
Posts: 141
Joined: 13 Apr 2012, 02:31

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests