Fiery_penguin_of_doom Posts

Still misusing the quote. You should spend a few minutes to either look for a more suitable quote or research what Ben Franklin was saying with the original quote. Either way, it is not the right quote for what you are trying to say. Again, that quote is more suitable to T.S.A. screenings/pat downs, the Patriot Act, Cyber security act of 2009, etc. Not a policeman using pepper spray vs someone breaking multiple laws (specifically violating the property rights of U.C Davis, Zucotti park, Woodruff "Troy Davis" park, and other locations). Not to mention the damage to banks and other store by groups like Occupy Oakland.

Though, I wonder if property rights have any meaning to you. Allow me to ask you some questions, I am allowed to just take up residence in your home as a form of "protest"? Can I just pitch a tent in the middle of your living room or yard if I'm "protesting"? Can I help myself to whatever is in your pantry or fridge as long as I am "protesting"? Can I obstruct you or your family from going to work or school as a form of "protest"? Am I allowed to physically or verbally harass you as a form of "protest"?

I agree that the rule of law should not be maintained when it works against the freedom of the people. However, the OWS demographic would use the very rule of law to strip me of my liberties and property because of their ideology demands it. So forgive me if I view this as poetic justice for the injustices they have caused me over the years.

Here's where we differ (as if it wasn't obvious already)

You believe the use of pepper spray vs non-violent protestors should not be used, whether it be 1, 10 or 100.

I believe that, if someone is being arrested and resists, the use of pepper spray should be used to bring compliance. The amount should be tied to the level of resistance.

The officer at U.C Davis was excessive with the pepper spray but, I will not fault the man for suing pepper spray by following the orders of the University's Chancellor and his Department Chief.

Use of pepper spray was okay. The level of pepper spray was excessive.



If the same court disagreed with you, then you'd believe they were corrupt. Courts are full of activist judges from both sides of the aisle. I don't put much merit behind court decisions anymore. I'll wait to hear the supreme court's decision if it ever gets that far.

If you watch more of the videos, you see the officers try to pick up the protestors, the protestors resist. At that point it's resisting arrest. Pepper spray is used to bring a suspect into compliance with the officers demands. The protestors continued to disobey, pepper spray was continually used until they come into compliant.




That's too general of a statement. Police are not always to blame, protestors are not always to blame. That is something that can only be decided and discussed on a case by case basis. I will however concede that I too am worried about law enforcement becoming paramilitary organizations. Cobb County Georgia recently bought a tank. Obviously, I am not happy about the police being more heavily armed than the general populace. It's part of the reason why I'm so gung-ho about the second amendment.

Occupy Oakland and Occupy Wall Street Protests in recent weeks have turned violent with protestors distributing pamphlets saying 'when to shoot a cop", calls to use Molotov cocktails on Macy's, damage occurring to banks with protestors smashing store fronts or ATM's. Violent protests should be suppressed by whatever measures are deemed necessary at the time to maintain law and order.

These are not "peaceful" protests. Don't generalize the protests as all being peaceful with the protestors being poor victims of overzealous police and I won't generalize the protests as the opposite. Somewhere in-between you and I can come to a mutual understanding.

First of all, you are misusing the quote. I was speaking about maintaining the rule of law in this country and that we should not allow people to simply disregard the law because it's inconvenient to them. I'm sure you don't advocate Anarchy because you dislike the system. If you do, why the hell are you on Fakku and not throwing a Molotov at the police?

Property rights, how do they work?

Seriously, go read some books on laws involving copyright, patents and intellectual property.

To put it simply without writing a novel. You violated the property rights and copyright of the video owner. Despite you purchasing that video, you do not own it. I know it's a difficult concept to wrap your head around, we all believe that by purchasing something that we are immediately the owner and are entitled to do with it what we wish. This does not apply to media. By purchasing the video you did not acquire the copyright. Therefore the copyright holder stills holds the exclusive right to reproduce the work or authorize it's reproduction.

Let's see, trespassing, protesting without a permit. Multiple counts of civil disobedience, disobeying a law enforcement officer, obstructing a law enforcement officer and that's only what you've mentioned so far. The officers gave those protestors a clear, and legally standing order to disburse. The protestors refused and they were pepper sprayed as per department policy and the directive of the Universities Chancellor. You should be arguing that those policies should be changed, not whining about police brutality.



As I said before tear gas, pepper spray are long standing methods to deal with groups. This was a group of non-compliant individuals. Department policy dictates the use of pepper spray to disable them prior to arrest. The chancellor of the university gave the authorization to spray the protestors. They were in clear violation of the universities (to prevent a semantic argument, I refer to the owners of the University not the university itself) property rights.



Occupy Oakland. Threats of Arson at OWS. All I have to say about that.



They should have been prepared to be pepper sprayed.

The powers that be simply do not want the proles to be aware. An ignorant populace is a compliant populace.



The police are justified to use whatever force is deemed necessary to enforce the law and maintain order. We are a Republic, we abide by the rule of law. These protestors have repeatedly violated the laws of our country and they are being arrested then claim police brutality. The students at U.C Davis were on government property during their protest. They did not have a right to protest on that property. Before you argue that we have a right to protest, that right ends when the owner of the property in which you are standing says you can not protest. The property owners wanted the protestors to leave and they refused. The police were called in and ordered the protestors to disband. The protestors refused those orders, they get pepper sprayed and arrested for disobeying an officer.

Edit: The use of pepper spray, tear gas and rubber bullets is a long standing policy of police departments to deal with crowds.



The only problem we as a country have, is the blatant disregard for the rule of law by these protestors. I hate the federal government more than any other member on Fakku but, I still obey the laws. We fix the problem by ignoring and marginalizing those unlawful elements while the law abiding people fix the system legally.

by the unlawful elements I mean the



If the country is as bad as OWS claim, peaceful protests won't do anything anyway. If that is the case, it only leaves the option of open and violent rebellion against the Federal Government in the same way the Libyan people rebelled.

Studies on successful drug policies have shown that treatment is the cure for drug addiction, not incarceration. Throwing people in jail for soft drugs only waste law enforcement manpower, time and money. It is cheaper to rehabilitate a drug addict than throw them in prison. By the time they leave prison, the felony on their record prevents them from getting jobs or really amounting to a whole lot in their lives because of the legal hurdles. The private prison industry promotes these policies to keep their beds full. It is a harmful policy to this country and should be abolished.

If we legalized drugs, we could regulate them and put an end to lacing of softer drugs with harder drugs. Currently, there is no regulation or consumer protection on drugs. We already know people will take drugs regardless of their legality. We saw the same thing happen during prohibition. When we review history we learn that prohibition is not the proper method to prevent usage.

Legalize, regulate, rehabilitate.



Wonderful job they are doing with that. Ever take a look at Mexico? Notice all the drug cartels that are as powerful as their government? That is directly related to the U.S drug policy. People want drugs, whether it's legal or not is only a minor deterrent like a high fence(i.e keep the honest people honest). The drug policy of incarceration only leads to a cycle of abuse, incarceration and further abuse. We should be rehabilitating these people not incarcerating them.

I don't know about you but, if meth was legalized tomorrow. I certainly wouldn't use it. I wouldn't use any of the harder drugs despite their legality. I highly doubt the majority of American's are abstaining from hard drug use because of enforcement policies. So hard drug use won't see an increase. Soft drugs will see an increase though the size of the increase can be debated. I say the increase will be minor because I believe the majority of those who would smoke marijuana already do.

Nah, it's too much fun disrespecting you.



That's essentially how every democratic system works. Constitutional, Direct, socialist, Anarchist. The only systems that doesn't have this is a proportional system which we both agree will never occur in the United States.



It's called the electors. You'd know that if you read more. They are the ones who cast the votes who decide. They can vote against the popular vote if they believe the majority to be wrong.



The electors are capable of voting however they wish. If their district voted Mitt Romney, the electors are within their rights to vote Obama as much as they are within their rights to vote for Ron Paul. I think camping laws need to be changed to allow 3rd parties and abolish the monopoly held by the Democrat and Republican parties.



You do not have a right to vote for the president. I'd prefer that the millions of uneducated did not have a say in how this country is run.



We'll disagree about this so there really isn't a point in discussing. The majority of American's are not politically aware. They listen to the talking heads on T.V and vote how they are told or simply vote based on peer pressure. These people should not have the power to decide the fate of a nation when they are clearly uneducated and unqualified. A political scientist's vote is worth the same as some Arkansas mongoloid named Bobby Joe. Some 18 year old in high school has as much pull in the election as an economist. An autistic man has as much say as a University professor. I don't know about you but, I'd prefer the political scientist, Economist and university professor to have a louder voice than the mongoloid, the high school senior and the asperger.

I'd rather let economists decide economic policy rather than leaving it up to a general vote. Same applies to all other relative subjects.



Yeah, exactly what we need to happen, more beer-swilling idiots who pay more attention to college football or Nascar than politics.



Agreed, however those within the current parties will fight tooth and nail to maintain their power monopoly. The idiots voted these people into power then fell asleep while the crooks absconded with the nation's treasure.

Direct war? Only as a last resort.

Proxy wars using smaller countries as the fighting grounds? Certainly, because it happened in Vietnam.

On topic: I see nothing happened because of Palestine getting a U.N. seat besides the usual impotence of the organization. Anything Palestine or it's supporting states proposes that threatens Israel, will be Vetoed by the United States at the security council.

The electoral college is designed to give smaller states more leverage in elections. If we used the system like the video proposes, then states with smaller populations essentially shouldn't vote because their votes don't matter. The larger states are not going to miss the 1-2 votes that are distributed to the smaller states. So the video's stating "Makes their votes count for less" is mere hyperbole. If the smaller states received MORE votes than the larger states then the statement would be true but, they don't, so it's not.

Why is it that people think popularity automatically means it's right?





Maybe you should research more into the electoral college rather than take all your information from a single video on youtube.

On topic: I say keep the system. Of all the electoral systems created, the college is the only one devised that protects the minority within the system. All other systems do not have such a mechanism built in, thus it leaves the minorities to defend themselves from the current mob in power.

This is also the same reason why we have a House of Representatives and a Senate. The house allows the bigger states to have sway in that body while the senate puts the smaller guys on a level playing field as the big boys. Just because a state, opinion or whatever isn't as popular doesn't make it worth any less than any other.

If you are not willing to risk life and limb for something, how can you ever say you stood for something? Sounds very "I-don't-care"-ican.

On topic: Martyrdom walks a fine line between noble and stupid. An example of noble would be the Tibetan monks and nuns who set themselves on fire in protest. An example of stupidity would be the Islamic extremists blowing themselves up in hotels, market places and on buses. If you want to martyr yourself as your way of "fighting" then by all means but, don't force someone to take that trip with you, especially if the person going doesn't know you bought them a ticket.

A tangled web of alliances would draw everybody into conflict to some degree

-Israel attacks Iran which draws aggression from other Middle Eastern states like Palestine.

-Iran retaliates against Israel and also deploys mines into the Strait of Hormuz to disrupt oil trading. This would cause severe damage to the world economy.

-Initially, the U.S supports Israel by funding, weapons or actual manpower.

-Eventually the U.S will be drawn into a 3rd war to clear the Strait of Hormuz and clear out the mines and to "stop Iran's Nukes".

-China (and possibly Russia) sells arms to Iran in exchange for oil or access to natural gas reserves. The Chinese Government uses Iran as another Vietnam to act as a proxy war between themselves and the U.S.

-The quagmire in the middle east eventually draws support for the U.S from European Union member states for fear of nuclear weapons being used.

-Due to increase western presence in the middle east China and or Russia are eventually forced to be more direct with their support eventually moving troops to aid Iran in order to protect it's oil/natural gas fields.

-This build up could possibly lead China and or Russia to invade Japan and attack the U.S military bases in Japan, specifically the Naval base. This would cripple the U.S presence in the Pacific and effectively defeating South Korea and Japan. It is also possible China would attack Taiwan to "reclaim" it.

- The U.S ships based in and around Japan would either be forced back or destroyed. This would hinder the U.S war effort in the pacific forcing south Korea, Taiwan and Japan to fend for themselves.

-The conflict in Japan could lead Korea (China's ally/puppet state) to attack South Korea due to the United States being tied up with an exponential situation in the Middle East.

That's just a scenario I came up with off the top of my head.

I didn't make such a claim. You're attempting to put words in my mouth.



The teacher's union protects bad teachers and ties the hands of administrators. The teachers themselves may be decent people but, the union officials are more concerned with padding their wallet than the education of children. There is a quote floating around of the (former?) head of the teacher's union publicly stating he didn't give two shits about the children and would only care about them when they were old enough to cast a Union vote.



Abolishing the Teachers unions would:

Remove the protections for bad teachers. Currently the union protects these teachers and shuffles them through the system to moderate the level of damage they do to children. As a aspiring teacher, you should be appalled that these people are protected.

Attract competent people to the field of teaching by eliminating the barriers to entry. Also by eliminating the Union, the money that goes towards the union bureaucrats will remain with the teachers, effectively raising their salary. I believe teacher's need a raise and I believe the unions are the problem because they block any and all reform. Like I already said, we spend more money per pupil than any other country IN THE WORLD. Money isn't the problem, it's the other factors including where the money is being spent and the students.





Merit pay should be determined on a case by case, teacher by teacher basis by the persons peers. I can remember a handful of teachers who I believe deserve a significant pay raise. While a few others deserve to be taken out back and shot to expunge them from the world.



I don't know why you harp on merit pay. I didn't even use nor imply merit pay in my post. I believe if you are a good teacher who invests time and energy into your students then you should be rewarded. I can remember one teacher who I think should easily earn double the average salary simply because she invested everything into her students and did a damn fine job.

*insert usual anti-government statement*

Reminds me of the event where Sp00ky from Team Sp00ky (a group that does Fighting Game Streams for those who don't know) had his streaming equipment confiscated by homeland security.

This is just another case of Government wanting to do surgery with a chainsword.

I live in the south as well and the issue you bring up is countered with

1) the constitution: If a government school involves prayer as a mandate or even implied mandate, sue them. The ACLU in your particular state would throw it's weight behind your case.

2) School vouchers: Your school implements school prayer, teaches creationism or similar activities then remove your child and send them to another school.

3) Moving: You are not tied to a specific place. If your school district does not suit your needs then pack up your things and leave.

I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion, maybe you misunderstood me.

Elected official goes into office. He does his job, represents the will of the people of his state. Everything is fine.

Elected official goes into office. Does not do his job and represent the will of the people of his state. The people in his state become angry, call the governor to have a vote. If the majority of people in the state vote to recall the official then the official is forced to go home and be replaced. It's less partisan than allowing congress to police themselves which is essentially allowing the criminals to police the other criminals.

I'm a survivor of the public education system and I have a few suggestions.

1. Abolish the department of education
2. Implement school vouchers
3. Break up the teachers union.

Department of Education: By removing education from the Feds hands we put the power closer to the community at the state or county level. When the power is shifted to the parents and local school boards the parents can't sit on their ass. If they want their child to have a decent education then they better get involved.

School Vouchers: If your school is terrible, leave. The majority of countries in the world tie the money to the child, we don't. We segregate children into schools based on where they live rather than any other factor. "Oh you live in a poorly performing school district? Sucks to be you". Yes, yes we can go on and on about how the schools need more funding but, we already spend more money per pupil than the rest of the world. All we are doing is throwing money into a black hole.

Teacher's Union: The contracts the union has essentially make it difficult to impossible to fire poor performing teachers. It wraps the school in so much red tape that it's simply easier to just shrug and pretend there isn't a problem.

All I need to do is point to New Yorks infamous rubber rooms to show the kind of asinine bullshit that occurs because of the union's deals.

In addition, the teacher's union has been fervently against any and all reforms that don't include giving them a pay raise

Don't get me wrong, I value teachers. I believe the Union officials are the real problem here. Take away their bloated salaries are all the asinine by-laws and contracts associated with it and we'll be making a step forward in education.

I probably butchered the quote but, you probably get the jist.

I don't think I really need to comment on the subject, my opinion is painfully obvious.

Though I would like to see the members who voted "yes" lynched and hung outside the congressional building as a warning to their replacements to not "fuck around" but, that's a tad extreme.

Something I want to add to this system for Congressmen. A variation of the parliamentary "No confidence vote". If the people of a state feel one or more Representatives in the Senate or the House is not acting in a way the people desire. The governor can hold a vote to "call back" the Representative and replace them with someone else to finish out the current term.

I love my countrymen but, they have the political memory of a goldfish. 2+ years is too long to wait to vote some asshole out of his/her position.