OK, so I have a12 year old daughter.
Speaking from first hand experience, my daughter received this shot in grade six (last school year). There were no adverse effects. But as a parent, it is still a scary situation that we put our lives and the lives of our children at risk to medications we don’t know anything about.

Sure, some medications can be a good thing. But it seems odd to me that a vaccination can cause so many problems and cause such an uproar. There is quite a lot of negative media out there for this drug, as well as the fact that they want to make this drug mandatory for all kids, and they are considering prescribing it for all boys as well. - That right there puts up red flags for me.

Big Pharma companies are always looking for the new “New Drug” to sell us. They don’t stay in business unless they keep us buying their products. And with the monies involved in these drugs, I don’t put it past them to fake results, skew data, lie or deflect negative publicity. I also don’t put it past them to create the illnesses that ail us, just so they can sell us the fix. (not that I'm saying that's what they've done here).

Kerry Mullis (http://www.karymullis.com/)said it best in his book, that we always take what we are given, always thinking someone is out there looking out for us, but there isn’t! Big companies only look out for themselves. The only one that can look out for you, is you! – So be aware…

If we don’t stop and question what is being shoved down our throats, then who is going to? I’m not flat out accusing anyone of anything specific, but don’t just think that if a government agency has passed it, that it is safe.

Kids should not be getting sick and dying because of this drug – but they are.
Not all of them, it’s a small percentage, but in my mind and the minds of many others and in the minds of those who have been effected, it is still too many. You can’t think, “Oh, that’s OK, we can kill off a few kids and make a bunch more suffer – it’s for the greater good”. Because that’s NOT OK in my books.

premise fail , sometimes it costs more mony to then reduce the cost of things . for example if you invested more money in education you might end up with more students that work harder / don't require later support which in tern produce more mony for the country. the net result would be less spending and money saved.

without knowing the specifics of how the money is going to be spent ore the context of things then there is no descussoin to be had as it is not based on anything . Whoever made this video was clearly a dip shit and thought they would convince people with absolutely no evidence.

Ahh ok, you are at least being reasonable and putting forth arguments, I will continue this thread.

First, we are confusing language here I believe. Let us try it a different way.

Making something a law OBLIGATES you do to it. That obligation has to come from something, some kind of reasonable position. In the US, it was understood from the start that the powers not spelled out in the constitution were reserved for the people. Some people didn't trust the government with that, and the bill or rights came to being. All of that is just to say that there was a real concern from the start about the government sticking their nose in where it didn't belong.

So, to make a law promising health care is out of place. It has no foundational presence in the federal charter of the land, it is merely something a large group of people want. As such, there is no place for it as a federal system. Just because a bunch of people want something doesn't mean that is should be so, if it violates the main tenants of the land, it should not be. So one has to ask, what are those main tenants? What are those core, foundational rights that we signed up for when we accepted this social charter. Simple, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Any law that isn't trying to uphold those tenants is invalid.

However, as a legislative body, what you are trying to do is not promote those things, merely stop others from robing people of them. For instance, murder violates those core ideals, slavery violates those ideals. Any arrangement made that violates those shall be void or not enforced.

In other words, laws are for negative rights. The right from something, as has always been their nature for thousands of years. However, in recent moments, we have moved away from preventative, to causative laws. So, instead of you having a right of something not done to you, now it is a right TO something...a very drastic shift. Now, people are owed things. This type of right systems is not something the US was setup for...it violates the idea of freedom.

How so? Well, if you have the right to something, it has to be provided somehow, and as we don't yet have robot slaves doing our every bidding, those things have to be provided at the cost of others. This basic notion undermines liberty and freedom. This is so because there is no real prove of natural rights; of what you are entitled to. The list grows as your own personal convictions change, and they change from person to person; they are completely subjective.

What you end up is in an argument over 60% vs 40% with both having only subjective reasons to back their side up. One side wants prayer in schools, or one side wants free toothbrushes proved for all, or one side wants TV's as a minimum standard of living for all, the list of personal moral convictions is endless. And moreover, all those come at the cost of someone else's personal moral convictions. If I am forced to pay for federal health care you, me and everyone else, then I am forced not to give to a selection of charitable organizations that I find to be better. Maybe I don't believe that the body is all there is to a person, so healing it without some spiritual message is futile to me...however, I am unable to practice that as the state can't have anything to do with religion. So I am forced to do something in a way I don't do it.

However, with voluntarism, people can choose to do what they want, both the 60% AND the 40% are free to do with their monies as the see fit. It is free, it is fair, and it isn't morally dubious.

THAT is the problem I see with ALL social legislation's, they only cater to a portion of the populations moral convictions at the cost of the others. It violates the ideas of freedom...and hell, of charity. As a person, I believe in Universal truths, however, I don't think they can be shown in a logical way as to what they are...is it life, is it justice, is it freedom, who is to say? One thing is for sure, I don't want the government, and visa vi, you telling me what is the most important thing in life. (and by telling, I mean forcing me to pay taxes to fund things of the sort)

Sorry this is long winded, I just think we were chasing each other around in circles Thanks for the reasonable conversation, they are harder to get now a days, if you would however, like me to address directly what you mentioned in your comment, I can, just ask

(up-voted your comments for peacefulness

edit: I would like to add I don't believe in perfect systems. People suck, it is one of my core ideals in viewing a system that is the most free of government as the better of systems you can choose from. People who expound about "greater goods" are the utopia builders, I am trying to say those ideals are foolish (I means this as a form of ignorance, not stupidity) and come at the price of peoples own personal utopias they want to build for themselves, or/and their families. When considering a system, I want it to enforce fairness (lets call it justice) and consistent. As such, it can't cater to the whims of the majority...no matter how "Good" it may be. The realm of "the good" has to be a personal affair and not a government one; it is what it means to be free to determine what it means to be good.

Good points, WP. But you see, this is not a forum for actual truth and accountability, it's a group therapy session for the like-"minded". I'd bet if the lefties were in charge during Katrina, things wouldn't have been much different, including the righties blaming the lefties for fucking up. Just look who Obammy picked to solve our current economic problems: Timothy Geithner...hahaha

- Tax cheat
- CFR
- Bilderberg
- Kissinger lackey

The only jobs created so far have been accountants for the banks and auto companies to count the bailout monies coming in.

Change...what a bunch of bullshit.

Pure capitalisum could be grate the only problem is as pure capitalist society can never excsist , unless you removed mony from everyone and reset the whole system (evan then over time it would fuck up) ,

your also forgetting that success of a product is not necoserly based on the actual merits of a product. this is why advertising is such a huge industry. and this also means that you could have a successfull entity in a capitalist environment that screws everyone over , in the end the only way for capitalism to work is if you have checks in place that make wealth not the sole motivator , in other words capitalism can only work when it is married with socialism .

The free market argument is bullshit , If you leve things to business you end up with individuals manopalizing things and exploiting things. As far as I understand the expenses with current health service are because of capitalism and the insurance companies working out ways to derive more money from people ,

capitalism is only concerned about money it is not concerned about people and fairness.

getting ill is like a house fire you don't expect it often its not predictable you can never tell if its only a small thing or if its a huge thing, now as everyone has a body surly it makes sence for everyone by dufult to have coverage Tax makes more sence for this kind of thing, If you belive the goverment is waist full with money then you need to work on the governments ways of spending mony and whats going wrong in the goverment , its not that the idesa of tax funded helth car is wrong. If you make it private its out of the peoples controle and the system is motivated to cheet people out of mony its unfixable.

I don't devalue art at all i think people overvalue individual peaces of art, just because something is popular dose not make it "better art" , and as i sead all his works are not deleted so we haven't lost the art he has made. MJs art was like porn just enjoyable the messages not particularly deep or thought provoking not that thats a bad thing but its not like he poineard the message of his songs ect. he put together some nice tunes and did some good dancing that resonated with a majority of people. Yes he was a significant musicon and had a huge influence on pop music but i don't see that as a reason to be sad over him not existing Anny more.

everything is about proportionality peoples reactions are not proportional and that is a serous problem.

tell me specifically what people who don't know MJ personally have lost ? most his recent music was average not bad but most MJ experts would agree its not evan close to his older music,

i guess we lose watching retards scream and chase after him whenever he walks around and maby he would have produced a couple more really good songs and done maby 1 or 2 tours who knows , but its not a huge lose to any one other than his close family.

This whole midea hyp over his death is just a way to make mony from fame its totally separate to his art achievements and message, media is about making mony and well MJ and famous people that are talented + random are easy to make money out of.

as i say lets just play his music enjoy it and not be retards let his family and people who know him get on with stuff do what they have to do to get over there personal loss,

I'm relay into computer games and some people have really pushed games as an art form forwards dosent mean im going to get all emotional when they die ill just be like oh that's a shame that they wont do any more or that they wont continue to push the art in a direction some people might have liked. in the end things will progress and other artisits will come along and do things that's equally as enjoyable but in different ways.

say Steven Hawkins dies and i would argue he is and has been far more important to society than MJ then i would not be particualy sad , it be the same fealing of oh that's a shame that he will no longer be advancing humanity in his way , but i would also know that there are thousands of scientists that are doing other work that is just as relivent but not as easy to pin on a singular person.

Casual games , are largely played by single women / women at home.

there is definalty a market for this alot of women in this demographic will have the wii due to wii fit and brain training games. this game will be in u supermarket and women will see it on there shop and think oh i like the tv show oh look the box says it lets u flirt and make desisoins as characters of the show. from that alone they will hand over mony for it.

He Has an overly simplistic view of the world, He assumes that if sum one has a gun and then sum one pulls a gun on you the person getting robbed would always win , this is not the case , with guns its who ever pulled the gun/ has aliment of surprise that normal wins. so if sum one pulls a gun on me and i reach for mine im for more likely to end up dead than if i don't have a gun and just do as they say.

if you arm everyone then you are making guns very available and culturally acceptable, this dose not instantly cuse gun crime as there are many cultures with lots of guns without such a problem , but in a culture that has a large population of people who think its OK to take another life whether it be an individual or the state executing people that's when u have a problem. and that the atitude in large parts of USA,

Guns unfortunately have alot of collateral due to the nature of the weapon and i think alot of people rnt educated as to how affective they are at killing.

relay i see no use for owning a gun unless you hunt, do sports shooting , why would you want to kill sum one that's robbing you ?

I think Manny Americans attitudes to wanting guns is just a reflection of there insecurities and distrust in people. I personally feal no need to carry weapons with me , id rather just hand over my stuff to sum one that's robbing me than kill them. It wouldn't take me long/cost much to replace what was taken , eventually that person that dose all the robbing would get cought and if you had a decent prisoin/reform system thay would no longer steal. if they were an actual danger to people then they could be locked up for life.


In a modern democratic society with a shared wealth robing sum one becomes less necessary as it would not really be worth it. If USA fixed its disparity between rich and pore i think that would probably reduce gun crime far more than just a ban on guns, i do think a ban on guns would be a good idea as i stated i see no need for guns and once you have fixed wealth issues the only people who would want to shoot people r the mentally ill and that's a very small% of people , But we all know rich people wont want to give up there mony and power and so gun crime and other shitiness will continue.

yah it would be made clear that its outside of the democratic process. i dont see a problem if its isolated from the rest of the sift siting at the top of the website. the point is is that if u don't like it it would only cos you a small amount to replace it . if you wanted to you could buy credit in balk say its USD5 to get 5 points allowing you to change the video 5 times.

the problem with power points and these other systems is thay are inbeded within the website and really the majority of users just don't care ore don't get it, in some ways my idea is still needlessly complicated, u need something that monatises users that really don't care what the sift is because that's the majority of people that come on the site. evan though there is a good core community i don't know if there would be an affective way to monatise them all , as you would probably need $30 of everyone to make a significant amount of money from them.

how about a video sift tv typ web page where it automatically streams the highest voted content clip buy clip maby there would be some way to paint this with adverts so that it can generate a significant CPM ?

you could lock down the whole site and force everyone to pay 3USD to access it lol.

who cares u cnt live without food and u cnt get food without mony

Like all issues, Piracy is not black and white and I find that people arguing for either side are frustratingly dogmatic about pointing out arguments that only support their side. Ironically, the people that I've seen that argue from a wider perspective are the people that set up and run piratebay.

As an example, I often see people citing the following in favour of piracy:

1. 'Piracy' as try-before-you-buy to prevent getting defrauded by lying marketers.
2. Piracy allows people to make use of works where the user would otherwise be unable to pay for them.

On the first note, if you're being realistic it's a nice ideal but one that isn't representative of the whole truth. I have downloaded games from the piratebay and other sources; played them through to the end and thoroughly enjoyed them. Often, I have then not gone on to purchase them. I would imagine the same is true for many people who give this argument, as well as those who don't.

On the flip side, I have purchased said games where the game gives me a large amount of replayability and I continue to play it; or where the games has online functionality that requires a purchased key.

However, I should point out that I have also paid for shareware with the exact same reasoning. Software and games that are legal to copy, distribute and use freely where payment is optional, that I have then gone on to purchase.

On the second note, being 'unable' to pay for them is contextual. Like everyone else I have a budget (be it $40/£40 or a bazillion cash monies). For each individual, this budget is quantifiable and correlates to a specific amount of possible purchases and profit made. Being unable to pay for something may not mean that I literaly don't have the money to pay for game X, but that I don't have the money to pay for game X and movie Y and have chosen instead to pay for game X and pirate movie Y instead.

This leads to arguments against piracy:

1. Piracy is theft.
2. For each copy sold, an amount of profit has been taken away.
3. It's the people at the bottom of the industry chain that suffer the most.
4. If nobody paid for intellectual property, nobody would create it.

The first argument has been made many times, and countered with the fact that stealing results in somebody having less of something; which leads on to the second point.

However, as I pointed out, people have quantifiable budgets; and I believe that people spend their gaming / software / entertainment budgets (for that's what defines them). There's a mistake on the part of people who are against piracy in imagining that there is somehow an infinite consumer budget for their property. Meaning that for every copy of a $40 game pirated, they have lost $40. But if my budget allows for me to purchase two games, and I purchase two while pirating two then I have given my entire budget to the games industry. It's not possible for them to have received double my budget, therefore they have not lost half of it regardless of what I do.

I'll repeat the point: I have given my entire budget. What more could somebody who provides a service want? The fact that I gave that budget to person X and not person Y has no bearing on the effects of piracy and is more about the quality of the product which lead me to my purchasing decisions.

I can't imagine that all of the people downloading from piratebay are stockpiling their money into a giant vault with a 'Money we didn't use to pay for intellectual property' label on it.

Going back to points made by the guys who run piratebay themself, along with many individuals with their eye on modern forms of distribution; the above misconception and imaginary infinite budget comes from a dead capitalistic culture where distributors (agents, publishers, managers and other middlemen) have come to assume that payment for creativity is somehow a virtue and not a benefit to be grateful for.

By the same logic, I should start creating simple matchstick men; or drawing squares on paper and wonder why I can not sell them for money (although Martin Creed may beg to differ).

Making profit on something that you have created is a boon, and should not be taken for granted. If you fail to sell something in a world of digital distribution then you have to change either what you are creating or how you are distributing it.

Another point that is often unmentioned is that; in terms of intellectual property (rather than a physical manifestation of work) your sale is based entirely on limitation and restriction, rather than production. You are taking profit on providing the service of not stopping somebody from making a copy of your work; rather than taking profit for creating a copy of your work. This is what licensing, patenting and copyright is all about.

For those who say that it's the people at the bottom of the industry that are hurt the most from copyright infringement (the people who actually do the work), I propose that this isn't a symptom of piracy at all and is entirely about how companies own, sell and trade intellectual property, and how corporation and public companies obey their bottom line. If their sales are hurting, they recoup their costs by hitting the people at the bottom while protecting the incomes of those at the top. This is an entirely different subject of wrong that would take us way off topic and is in no way limited to the effects of piracy.

However, to say that entire industries will die if people stopped paying for them is, in fact valid. So lets imagine for a moment that we live in a world where there is no copyright law; no intellectual property or patents. Is this a world without music? A world without movies or games? In that world, the first thing that would happen is that people will start paying other people to make these things; and that might just be a world where people pay other people for creating something that they want, rather than paying a middleman who takes the largest cut of profit using a retroactive 'license' for some sub par product that they bought from someone else and then marketed as good.

In a world without the expensive middleman, artists can take more risks; independants who work for pleasure rather than profit can thrive; and the enthusiast can sell without trying to satisfy a middleman's arbitrary bar of statistical sellability for a publishing deal.

With Radiohead, NIN, iTunes, netflix, steam and the slow rolling back of DRM, it's a world that we are heading towards; and a world that the piratebays and napsters helped to create.

She is aware of the issue and is not just attacking the false use of the word theft , for copy right infringement.

It is a fact that in some cases copy right infringement amounts to theft by proxy.

say i was sum one that designs and makes bikes i would have had to invested my time in making the bike i would have invested cost in buying the metal and then that money will have gone to the people who got the metal for me.

if you duplicated bikes ore it was passable it would no longer be financially viable for people to design and build bikes and the metal industry would no longer be able to make mony from the bike industry. and well i would no longer be able to make mony from bikes evan though it was something i loved.


Why am i not allowed to make money out of music ore software ?


If we lived in a compleaty flat structured anarchist/ socialist society then I would not mind the problem is in the current system if your default position is copy everything that's non hard ware without paying for it then you are actually stifling creativity. ( ore at a minimum the ability to derive an income from creativity)


the thing that makes it worse is the big companies who are actually pushing the anti copy agenda are the ones that are not affected by it because thay can brain wash large sectoins of the populatoin with advertising to still buy the stuff thay are selling. Where as independent artists , small dev studios are counting on 100 - 1,000 sales to bank roll there next project.


I agree that Theft is the wrong word to use but Theft by proxy is a more than appropriate description of what copy right infringement can do in some cases not all.

I am actually more on the side of people copying things and distributing materials freely Evan if that is at the determent to some indi artists (not all indi artists ) I just don't think oversimplification of the issue is constructive.


In an educated ethical society it would not be illegal to copy anything and in fact all perchises of physical/non physical goods would be the same . you would simply pay Base rate production costs + what u thought it was worth. that way people with lots of money would pay relative to what thay had and people with less would pay relative to what thay had.

In the capitalist society we are in now this is only possible for coffee shops and other small retailers that can use sociology to there advantage in terms of people fealing obliged to be reasonable and it is yet to be seen if this could work if it was the norm (although i would hope it did).

So retarded , yes its not theft of the file , but if sum one is selling something and you copy it so that thay cannot make money from it you are depriving them of mony.

as an example say i copy a 5 pound note i have made 1 more but i have now devalued all the other 5 pound notes in the system essentially i have stolen value from everyone else.

granted that example is not enterly analogous to duplicating software. and i think that the financial loss from software piracy is more than just a bit exaggerated.

The worse thing is that piracy affects the small players worse than the big players.

the only solutoin is that people pay for what thay think is good. and the fact is a good propotoin of people are uneducated and un aware and given the opertunity thay will just copy something without anny thought.

in the end you cannot make a law for this as its not relay enforceable and would remove to many other liberties to Evan try to enforce.

the only real solutoin is education and for individuals that make software/music to make there audience aware that thay need money to live on.


This vid demonstrates a complete ignorance to the issue it is supposedly countering.

so funny this has been so clear from at least 6 years ago and im not Evan American only all the content about the fed and mony was considered conspiratorial

Had this done to my big toe nail when I was about 13 or 14. Some buddies and I saved up all our monies and rented out an ice rink to play some hockey together. They day before, I was cleaning my room so my parents would let me go. My t.v. was on a rolling stand, and I pulled it out so I could vacuum behind it, but I noticed too late it had three wheels as opposed to the four it was supposed to have. So as I pulled it forward, it tipped over where that missing front wheel was, and slid off the stand. I tried to catch it by the sides, but it was too heavy and slipped through my hands. Quick thinking lad I was, I tried instinctually to catch it with my foot (I didn't want to break my t.v.!), but only managed to catch the very corner of it as it smashed down onto my toe. Luckily my doc used these little threaded needles to make the three holes to relieve the pressure, not the bic and clip method. And indeed it didn't hurt at all, but my step-dad passed out watching them do it. Needless to say the resulting monstrosity didn't fit into an ice skate, and my buddies took my share of the rent and had a good ol' time. A little while later the entire toe nail fell off, and it's never looked the same since.