Explain.
How is what I said wrong?
Why do you knee-jerkingly assume I mixed up terms? I said copyright, they claim copyright rights...not trademark or patent rights.

Knee-jerk reaction based on misinformation.
Watch http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks-getting-started/trademark-basics/trademark-patent-or-copyright to learn the difference.

seriously dude?
that is a serious statement?
and why should i consider ANY criticism you offer with having any weight?

considering that on another video i posted you claimed the speaker was a nutter.thats it..no actual rebuttal or opinion..just "nutter",and when i asked for your actual reasons for your opinion.you admitted never having watched the video.

so let me guess.
ezra levant is maybe somebody you disagree?
(nevermind that it is lauren southern that has been following this case closely).
maybe he is right wing?libertarian?

maybe he is,i have no idea,but just by your knee-jerk and ill-thought out comment and your OBVIOUS bias.i think it is safe to assume that is the metric on how you judge the information you consume.

so let me ask you.
what information being presented here is false?untrue?fabricated? hell,even biased?

hmmmm?

you have done what you always do.
you do a drive by comment that attacks the speaker,poster or lecturer without examining the evidence and/or information.

and in THIS case you insult ME.
that somehow because i post a video from someone you happen to disagree,dislike or despise automatically translates to me becoming a bobknight wanna-be who worships at the altar of limbaugh.

so you dont like ezra levant.
who cares?
does that make ANY of the information in this video any less true? or pertinent?

nope.

so if you do not have anything of value to offer except for petty insults.i ask that you kindly take this cookie and go play outside.this is an adult conversation.

did i just totally misread your comment?
lol..i am an ass.
i need to step away from the computer and go outside.
i been knee deep in researching this particular subject for weeks.

"I need knee pads"

*COUGHCOUGHCOUGHCOUGH*

I totally knee-jerked and was cursing the vert video before I realised it actually kind of made sense. Now I feel stupid.

Yeah, I'd love to hear him on Trump and Cruz...I think he'd be all about Sanders. He blasted the Tea Party, so we can be fairly sure he'd be blasting the leaders of the current field. He'd probably admire that Trump is at least honest enough to say what he wants without a filter, but also reflect how dangerous it is that his views are so accepted among a scary percentage of Americans. How if Trump, or even Cruz, get's elected, it would isolate the US from our allies. They are still upset about Bush, and going that far to the right would endanger our relationships with all of them, save perhaps Israel, which is all the Christian right care about anyhow. He'd be giving a Hitch Slap to the media for the way they are following the Trump circus just for ratings, and building up Clinton while largely ignoring Sanders. Of course the political right would use that people like Hitchens would support Sanders and reason enough to ignore and fear him. "That demonic Atheist supports Sanders, so that's what you get with a vote for Sanders. Satanism wrapped up in the disguise of Atheism... and we all know that every knee will bow and every tongue confess, and we know they honestly do believe, but are just mad at God about something and trying to turn others against him", or something along those lines.

I was kinda hoping for devolved humanoids with half blind greyish eyes sniffing, barking in the dank caverns, and murdering each other in proximity to you as you flee, crawling on your hand and knees with its nails still freshly embedded in your flesh.

hmmmm...i see.
i took the description directly from the youtube page of the canadian association for equality.i really have know idea if she is actually a sensation but her lecture was pretty non-controversial.she was simply comparing the terms toxic masculine and toxic femininity by using historical examples.

she really didn't inject her own opinion or views.she just was offering differentiating comparisons by way of historical examples.

so i was simply,and quite sincerely,curious your take on her lecture,but i have a sneaking suspicion that you didnt actually watch this lecture and instead made a knee-jerk reactionary based solely on the description.

It's a shame Affleck didn't let the guy speak. This is something that needs to be talked about. That doesn't make anyone racist, and any right thinking Muslim would agree with that because we are ALL at risk.

However. There is currently the largest episode of human migration in history. The west is responsible for this with their destabilising campaigns in the middle east. Those places are breeding grounds for terrorism. Personal loss to the point of numbness towards violence and death, hunger, insecurity, fear, uncertainty... these things play directly into the hands of evil people looking to manipulate people to do their dirty deeds for them.

Our actions have led to this worldwide humanitarian crisis which has made us far more unsafe than before we began our poorly planned excursions into the region based on a knee-jerk, eye-for-an-eye reaction to a small number of individual thugs tragically murdering thousands of people. And haven't we just played into the hands of the extremists...

The indiscriminate bombing has to stop. This only ends diplomatically, but we are already at it again in Syria dropping bombs with no clear long term plan. We are fueling an already out of control humanitarian crisis and doing exactly what the terrorists need us to do for them to thrive.

On our knees, passed back and forth between Miley Cyrus and Amy Poehler and Bill Murray and George Clooney. My jaw is starting to lock up just thinking about it.

It seems like a knee jerk reaction - but it's kinda stupid when a car is coming towards you and you would like them to break to shoot them in the face resulting in no break being pressed.
Easier said from the comfort of my arm chair though.

Not to sound like a keyboard warrior, but I would have tackled his ass when he was stammering on the sidewalk. He can't see, and big guys never expect people to come in low. Take out his knee, then take his wallet. At least that's how we do in the Mountain Coast.

Me neither, but here's the explanation from above:

Chickens raised wearing artificial tails, and consequently with more posteriorly located centre of mass, showed a more vertical orientation of the femur during standing and increased femoral displacement during locomotion. Our results support the hypothesis that gradual changes in the location of the centre of mass resulted in more crouched hindlimb postures and a shift from hip-driven to knee-driven limb movements through theropod evolution.

It's a discussion we've been having in this country for as long as I can remember and was one of the prime arguments made for a vast set of reforms a decade ago. And I still don't buy it.

At the very basic level, the argument is that a declining percentage of working age people have to pay for an increasing number of pensions. But that's only half the story. The working age population has to generate enough output to sustain not just themselves and retirees, but also children, the unemployed, the sick, anyone not working. A shrinking population means less children, and most importantly less unemployed. Increases in productivity are more than enough to compensate for that, no need to increase birth rates or immigration.

Germany is regularly paraded around as a country in dire need of immigration, given our low birth rate. Even if we ignore for a minute that any 50 year population forecast of the past has been invalidated after maybe 5 years, the "worst" they could conjure up was a decline in working age population of 34% by the year 2060. So what? That's 0.8% a year. And since it's based on a population decline of 20% over the same time, it's an annual drop of 0.2%. That's their worst case scenario, and it's statistical noise.

We've had a massive increase in average age over the last century as well as two world wars and our system managed just fine. And an annual drop of 0.2% is supposed to bring it to its knees? Pah.

Now, I'm all in favour of immigration, primarily to spice things up and prevent our society from becoming too homogeneous. But our pension system needs neither mass immigration nor an increased birth rate. What it needs is for politicians to stop funneling funds from our "PAYGO" system towards their buddies in the private sector. Current income = current payments, public system. Everything else is too volatile and susceptible to the Vampire Squids on Wall Street.