Bob

I was suspended because there are hardcore leftists on this board that are greatly intimidated by my presence, so they send in complaints to the website's administration to censor me for allegedly being rude or undiplomatic. Of course, parroting anti-Semitic propaganda of malicious Jewish influence in America, making sickening claims of "genocide" and "war crimes" being committed by Israel, and exploiting the Holocaust for a vile anti-Israel agenda is just fine. Basically, I've shattered so many leftist illusions so many times that I've earned a target on my back on MLW which I wear proudly. There is absolutely no question whatsoever that the loudest screamers for censorship on this board, as in the "real world", are leftists. I'm not sure that MLW's administration is leaning too hard to the left, but since it responds robotically to complaints from thin-skinned leftist patrons who compose the bulk of criers, MLW invariably ends up predominantly censoring right-of-centre views.

Who do you think passed the Human Rights Act of 1977 that criminalized "hate speech" in order to protect people from being offended? Conservatives or the Canadian right? And again, another leftist tries to censor speech. It's particularly disappointing considering that Irwin Cotler seems to understand security issues in Israel, yet can't grasp the importance of freedom of speech.

If you weren't "commenting" on that, then why did you quote it? What hyperbole were you commenting on? Be specific. Or were you being intentionally broad so that you could hide behind emoticons once questioned and asked to clarify?

There are Chinese groups paying millions to lobby the government of the USA. And Muslim/Arab groups (who have far more influence on American foreign policy). And Russian groups. And environmentalist groups. And pharmaceutical lobbies. And oil and gas lobbies. And on and on and on. Of course, none of them matter to a Jew hater like yourself who sees an evil Jew under his mattress and hiding behind every corner, pulling the strings of society. It's funny how Obama, who set new records for a presidential campaign budget in 2008, is ignored by you - while he is poised to set a new record this year. Of course, you'll just parrot some lies about it being "grass roots" money, ignoring the millions Soros poured into PACs and other left-wing interests.

I agree, completely. As long as we have anti-Semites like bud in our midst, the need for Israel with remain.

Your definition of "artist" is so broad that an infant throwing her spaghetti bowl into the air can qualify for membership by claiming the kitchen floor served as her canvas.

You're disputing the fact that freedom of speech is most broadly protected in the USA?

Nobody ever said self-employed artists didn't exist. What was challenged was your leftist narrative of the downtrodden artist who will never be appreciated in a free market system by the ignorant masses who aren't wise enough to see real talent.

Well, Bonam.... any loser can just claim "artist" status. That's the point. The kid working at Loblaws who plays guitar for a few hours a week is the underappreciated "artist" who needs a taxpayer handout.

Softening OBL's image, and by extension the relative's by attempting to lessen guilt-by-association. Also, an attempt to sell this lie of the children being absolved from terrorist obligations as passed on by the father. Islamists lie all the time. It's what they do.

I understand exactly what you mean regarding family having the greatest likelihood of causing a person to reconsider even his or her deepest convictions. This story, however, doesn't convince me at all. Seems like post-mortem lies from an OBL family member.

You really believe that? That OBL had a change of heart?

This is the leftist romanticization of the tortured and unappreciated artist. Is Steve Carrel an artist? Is Martin Scorsese an artist? What about John Grisham? What about Chris Cornell? What about animators who work for Disney productions? Architects? Costume designers? Graphic designers? Ballet performers? The list of lucrative professions that are highly artistic is endless. This characterization of downtrodden one-person "art operations" with the struggling long-haired twenty-something loser living off of TV dinners is absolutely untrue. If you're genuinely talented and skilled in something meaningful, you'll be making a lot more than twenty or thirty thousand dollars a year. Free markets are, without question, THE best systems for producing the highest quality of art, accessibility to art for more people, diversity of art, and accessibility to the means to produce art. All this leftist nonsense whining about the need for government to navigate society's art direction through spending taxpayer dollars is just predictable follower-rhetoric. You leftist followers need to be led by anointed superiors who will decide for you what art your money should be spent on, since the collective wisdom of freely associating people in our society can't compete with the infinite knowledge and sound judgment of an art minister.

Even funnier than you joke is the fact that Manny doesn't get it.

Wrong. I addressed this misnomer, already.

In other words, Christianity is whatever you say it is. bush_cheney2004 - I see you're going after the low-hanging fruit (Michael Hardner). It's just too hard to resist, sometimes. I understand.

This is somewhat misleading. Just as with many other niche products, all you need is a sufficient customer base, it doesn't need to be broad. Consider a painter - all he or she really needs is one buyer for each painting. This isn't a profession which requires a broad appeal, like some TV shows and movies. We've got more artists making more money and more art consumers being satisfied with a greater volume and diversity of art than ever before. All thanks to free markets. This thread is just showcasing the typical vile attitude of the leftists who think they should be appointed as the stewards of our societies, since the free masses aren't smart enough to know what constitutes "good" art. Basically, we need them to enlighten us and spend our tax dollars on the kinda art that isn't sufficiently appreciated by the ignorant masses without the heavy hand of government. Without the government, all we'd have is Trailer Park Boys, and not "higher" art like This Hour Has 22 Minutes. It's absolutely ridiculous, and it shows the follower-mentality of the leftists who want to be lead by self-styled philosopher kings who will dictate to them what constitutes "good" art. Repulsive, really.

Free markets are the best system for all aspects of art: quality of art, access/affordability to art, and volume and diversity of art. Moreover, access from artists to the means to create and develop art is greater than it's ever been. Art is no longer relegated to the elites, all thanks to free markets. The only thing that free markets cannot compete with is the extravagant art that can seemingly only be commissioned by tyrannies, such as the Hermitage in St. Petersburg built for the Russian aristocracy (beautiful, but possible only through extreme repression). Free markets do not permit such an absurd concentration of wealth in the hands of an elite while simultaneously permitting exploitation of workers to construct such ostentatious (although beautiful) works of art. Those pathetic artists that complain that the free market doesn't earn them enough money simply don't have the talent or commitment to quality required to get a sufficient client-base. That's not our fault, that's their fault. Although of course many pathetic artists think their pathetic art is fabulous, and is unfairly unappreciated. Such is the self-delusion of many pathetic artists. If only they could force the stupid masses to support their artistic pursuits! That'd show 'em! Free markets are absolutely the best system for art and for artists and for consumers of art.

You're taking an OBL relative at his word?

First of all, why are we accepting the word of one of OBL's relatives at face-value? According to OBL and many other Jihadists, "living in peace" is a temporary condition until the right time to engage in Jihad. He and many other Jihadists have stated this many times.

Of course that's what you're saying. That's what you always say, or at the very least imply. You refuse to engage in anything that is arbitrary or subjective. Determining that likelihood of success of a candidate for immigration to Canada on the basis of his or her political orientation, religious identity, or other cultural values and beliefs is simply too political sensitive for you to even think of. You refuse to define Canada in any cultural or political manner, and therefore refuse to even fathom the idea that Canada's immigration policies should implement screening inquiries that go beyond requests for financial information and a criminal record check (often falsified). For heaven's sake, we're barely requiring medical examinations anymore! It is entirely because of people like you that our immigration authorities cannot interview immigration candidates about their political views, their attitudes towards freedom, their religious perspectives, and other subjective matters. So, we keep importing plenty of trash to sit in subsidized-housing projects and hospitals. 4 When the government made a symbolic move towards addressing Canadian grievances about contemporary immigration policies by releasing a new "citizenship guide", we saw the usual moral outrage from the left. I remember Justin Trudeau stating that he felt "uncomfortable" with the new guide's description of honour killings as "barbaric". Really, Justin? What adjective would he have preferred - "controversial", perhaps? Yeah... honour killings are "controversial". This is your nature, Michael Hardner. Your brain short-circuits as soon as subjectivity factors into an equation, even when this involves an easy moral judgment for a normal person to make. The funny thing is that you seem to think this is an endearing character trait.

Actually, those efforts have never been implemented. Let the market decide which disciplines live or die by stopping the subsidization of post-secondary education. Student-loans should be the be-all and end-all of academia, not automatic subsidies that cover a huge portion (over 50%, I think) of every undergraduate student's tuition costs. Many students would think twice before enrolling in "Social Justice" programs if they were required to pay over ten thousand dollars in tuition costs per year rather than the five thousand they currently pay. If real free choice was implemented, we'd have a lot less people pursuing nonsense educations and being economic liabilities rather than assets.

Absolutely correct. I'd go one step further - stop all subsidies for post-secondary education. At the very least, create a much smaller fund for government supports towards post-secondary education and make it conditional on high-performance. Let the market determine post-secondary education, and you'll quickly see a dramatic decrease in nonsense arts disciplines that are only able to exist because of unjustifiable public financial support. People shouldn't be pursuing educational endeavours at the expense of the taxpayer if they can't cover the costs on their own. I think a student loan system is a fantastic idea, but as it currently exists in Canada it punishes young people who earn a living or who have gainfully employed parents. If your parents have strong incomes, your eligibility for student-loans is greatly diminished, as is the case if you're employed. Student loans should be based on one thing only - acceptance and enrolment into a program. Beyond that, stop subsidizing post-secondary education which only props up unjustifiable "academic" pursuits like "women's studies" and "conflict resolution".

No other country protects freedom of speech like America. Although preservation of that freedom is a never-ending battle as leftists continue to assault that right. Canada should learn lessons about freedom of speech from America.

The part they're not telling you is the motivation OBL had for encouraging Muslim children to get educated in the West - so that they can use those skills against the West via Jihad. Moreover, he and many others like him also suggest that one long-term strategy for fighting in this conflict-of-civilizations between the West and Islam is demographic warfare - emigrate to the West, have lots of kids, and conquer the West for Islam "peacefully".