Charles Anthony

Hmm.... Did those passenger jets fly all the way from Afghanistan before arriving in Manhattan on that fateful morning? You have evidence of that?I think this is in the realm of what is known as "common knowledge". It's the sort of thing that occurs when there is an overwhelming amount of evidence...like that the WTC fell down because planes ran into it. -- and like that the Battle of Vimy Ridge defined Canada, too. Right???? "Everyone has a horrible fantasy that makes the actual horror seem (to him) worth putting up with." - Joseph Sobran

Perchance, may this new information have any connection at all with the old information?

A new softwood lumber thread?

Don Imus -- who does not appear to be a Black American -- had to say "nappy-headed hos" for me to learn what it meant. I have heard "nappy-headed hos" several times in the past and like most monotonous atonally articulated jive-talk over beds of a repetitive beat, I never cared to understand what it meant. I just tap my foot and enjoy the rhythm. Were his managers Jewish?

Gone are the days of taking racism lightly. Don Imus is in show business and just like Michael Richards - Kramer, His rasist remarks, he should have had the discipline to know what NOT to say. Show business is fickle and can flip over instantaneously. That is the nature of the beast. Nobody who ventures in show business deserves job security. Ratings, ratings, ratings should be on every broadcasters mind. Personally, I do not care if Don Imus is a racist -- he might be or might have genuinely slipped. However, Don Imus is no longer paid to do that anymore. One thing that I find interesting is the terms "nappy-headed hos" are frequently heard in modern Black American music.

Now, now, RiverWind! Soon you are going to need TWO left wings to keep your plane afloat!

I agree with your assessment but as a point of order... ... no! I do not moderate. In other words, I do not close nor edit nor merge threads. Greg, the one and only moderator does that. You should just report this thread and your message will get to him. Please check this post from a different thread:

One more thing: Both WTC1 and WTC2 started to collapse at the point of the impacts.

Yes, really. I suppose that "a fair number of lawyers" are zillionaires with money over-flowing their pockets too. I have a LOT of disdain for people who automatically assume that lawyers are rich. At first, I thought the Opening Post was not serious and would only lead to a foolhardy thread. Then, I thought I was wrong because the thread started to get serious and reasonable. The arrogance of post #31 confirms my first thought.

????Anyone up for some honest discussion or debate? Personally, I have a LOT of disdain for people who are presumptuous about the incomes of various professionals.

Enough. Lyndon LaRouche may have suffered unfair incarceration -- I will not say. However, he certainly advocates state protectionism for certain sectors of the economy but not others. Morally, he is no better than the statists he opposes. Anti-globalists would do better to oppose state privilege or subsidization of the transportation sector if they want to be logically consistent.

I want the PM to do nothing about it. What do YOU propose he does about it?

More power to them! I welcome it. They have taken more of the cost of enforcing their copy-protection themselves.

I should be more clear because what YOU are defining as "public space" is too limited. The sidewalk between my house and your house is what I call "public" space . I would suspect that most of our multi-nationals would not exist in a fully "private" system. You are starting to understand mArket forces. Let me know when you want A membership card.

That is irrelevent to the argument and impossible to prove either way.

We are in a dog-eat-dog world -- the same world in which poor people in Canada live. In our current State of affairs, Yes. However, if I and every other private citizen in Canada can defend the land we each privately own, the answer is No. This is the mistake you are making: you are assuming that State-monopolized law is the only possible law. It is not. Many disputes between individuals can be settled without resorting to any agent of the law. The following thread: Not enough cops -- Why does crime go unpunished? examines alternatives to State-monopolized law services in great detail.

If somebody wants to live as a Freeman -- escape the State while still living within the State -- he is taking a huge risk. It is certainly techinically possible but involves giving up practically all statist comforts. I have heard that the best chances of success are with people who start young: work for cash, never apply for a student loan, never open a bank account, never apply for a social insurance number, never drive a car, etc. etc. It can actually be easier if your parents do not register your birth. Ultimately, one has to avoid a bureaucratic paper trail. Very difficult and practically impossible without accepting a drastic simplification of lifestyle choices. Outside of the city, there is more chances of success if you can live off the land -- hunting, fishing, farming, etc. in secluded areas. In the city, freemen abound. They are effectively living and earning their living on the street -- hobos and prostitutes -- for whom anarchy is a reality. I disagree. If State services or actions become unaffordable or inept or untrustworthy relative to private functions, the State can conceivably whither away gradually. No, it is not as simple as that. [Where I am right now, it is about a two month walk to the nearest border. Luckily, I am a good swimmer.]If you drop everything and deny all of our "obligations" to the Canadian state, you will be pursued by Canadian agents even if you are in a foreign country. That is tyranny. No. That is tyranny. Je m'en fous fiche -- pardon my French. Un internaute qui nous demande de discuter un sujet d'apres un video qui dure de plus d'une heure (et sans scenario!) n'est pas serieux. Ce n'est pas comme ca qu'on echange l'information sur l'internet. De plus, il y en a assez de fils absurdes dans ce forum qui debute d'une telle maniere. Vous etes genereux.

That takes a moral load off my back. I need only convince more people to agree with me any which way possible. They will use their Almighty Democratic Power to out-number copyright-apologists.

A strawman - all people who created the copyrighted works today did so because they believe the government will help them protect their rights. Changing the rules after the fact amounts to government confiscation of their labour.It is no strawman at all. However, your comment is interesting. Is "government confiscation of their labor" morally wrong or is it just against the rules? What moral right do you have to place that obligation on the tax-payer?

There is nothing in that article that suggests how this "problem" was resolved. Nor is there anything about how it can only only be solved or only be avoided with government-enforced copyright law. Try again. Copyright is NOT simply about the entertainment industry. It shows up in many different places.Granted. To be morally consistent, copyright should be treated the same regardless of where it shows up. That touring musician depends on the laws of physics too. Does he have a right to tax-payer's money to secure his pyrotechnics display??? No. The government and the tax-payer does not have a moral obligation to fund the security of that musician's reputation nor his tour. No. I am saying the entertainment industry does not have a moral right to work as it does -- secured by tax-payer's funds. That is a big difference. For the same reason taxpayers should pay for police to catch car thieves or stock fraud artists.In that case, all I have to do is convince enough people to agree with me and vote copyright-apologists out of office. We could simply change the laws and secure the moral high-ground. Correct?? I will keep plugging away. Real-life examples of the sleazy use of government office to secure commercial gain like this one: Wikipediaoffers ammunittion to argue against benevolence of copyright law by exposing instances of pure hypocrisy. The tax-payer has no moral obligation to people who feel they have a government-decreed right to make money out of spreading their creative ideas to the wind. The tax-payer has no moral obligation to fund the marketing of a book-writer's hypothetical career.

Freeloading what? The entertainment industry is using government power and taxation to market their monopoly business. They are the freeloaders. That is a highly speculative statement and certainly not a moral justification for government interference in the market. It is also a very naive attitude of how the entertainment industry operates. Right now, an independent recording artist has more chances of making a successful living by doing the following: 1) release a promotional album with NO copyright 2) have everybody copy it 3) have pirate do the marketing for free 4) tour 5) owe nothing to a record company Copyright and intellectual property have generated a bloated entertainment industry where a NON-freeloading independent artist is drowned in a see of garbage business-artists. I have a question for the copyright-apologists: why do you think you should somebody be paid (enforced by the tax-payer, I repeat) more than once for the work they do?

Whether Louis Bernard's proposal works as a strategy towards independence or not is to be seen. However, it gives an opportunity for the PQ to save face while lingering on. La souveraineté et rien d'autre Abandon aspirations of governing: Pequiste

NovaScotian, It is against the forum rules to re-copy an entire article. You can post selections and provide a link: http://www.isuma.net/v02n04/murrell/murrell_e.shtml instead.

You probably will not find it supported by big government advocates either. To what are you trying to appeal?

Bingo!If a troll falls down in the forest, who rushes to feed him? Part of the logistical problem with objectionable forum behavior is that others feed it. If everybody ignored the "conspiracy theory" threads, they would be nothing but repeated post after post after post after post by the same member with NO discussion -- which can objectively be identified as a forum rule violation independent of the political point of view expressed. On the otherhand, if other members are feeding the "conspiracy theory" how is a moderator to maintain political neutrality????