Fiery_penguin_of_doom Posts

There are threads scattered around Fakku, a few Yugioh tournament threads instantly come to mind for me and I rarely visit any other fakku forum aside from S.D.

The argument can also be made that since Fakku has no clear section for it, the users who would post in it don't know where to post their threads. This ultimately leads them to just give up.

No harm is trying a forum for 2-3 months to see if it garners a consistent population.

A way to lower taxes even more would be to cut out welfare. The libertarian school of thought is "If he can't control his dick then why are we required at gunpoint to foot his bill?"

If it's remotely popular then random would begin to get flooded with individual threads ranging from "Rate my Deck/Army/Character" to speculating on a new release for Necrons or the newest Magic: The Gathering set, etc



Does Sports and Fitness garner enough attention to warrant it's own section?



So by receiving little attention, it deserves its own board. That seems a bit backwards in my opinion. Shouldn't popular subjects get their own board instead of unpopular ones?



You saying two different thoughts here. You say Traditional games aren't worthy of their own sections and you justify that by pointing to a section that isn't really that popular to begin with.

Question to those who voted No.

Why should Fakku not have a forum for such games when other forums as K-1 has pointed out don't really fit?

The purpose of this poll is to learn if a sizable amount of Fakku users would like to add a new special interest forum for "Traditional Games"

We currently have forums for various special interest topics ranging from romance to video games. It struck me when I was talking to a friend and fellow fakku user that some of the Fakku members play games that fall into 4chan's "Traditional Games" section. Some of us play various Pen & Paper RPG's, board games, Trading Card Games, or even table top war games. I've personally played Magic: The Gathering and various Warhammer 40,000 RPG's from fantasy flight games.


Edit: Here is a list of possible subject titles, this is in no way a comprehensive list.

Tabletop Wargames can include: Warhammer 40,000, Warhammer Fantasy, Blood Bowl, Heavy Gear, Battletech, Flames of War, Warmachine, Hordes, Infinity, Heroclix.

Role Playing games: Dungeons & Dragons, Pathfinder, Fantasy Flight titles (Rogue Trader, Deathwatch, etc), GURPS, Battletech, Legend of the Five Rings, New/World of Darkness Titles ( Mage: The Awakening, Vampire: The Masquerade, Requiem, etc)

Card Games: Magic: The Gathering, Yugioh, Pokemon, Duel Monsters, VS Systems, Naruto

To my knowledge, there is no monetary requirement to run for office. It is more of the minimum amount of money required to pay staff, travel expenses, and etc.

When speaking politically, public means government. Public schools are run by the government. Public parks are owned by the government, public roads are owned by the government.



That's what public financing is! Politically speaking public = government. When something is "publicly funded" it's funded by the government. Not the people, not companies, government. Repeat this 100 times every morning "Public = Government".



That's private donations. Money donated from an individual person or a non-government organization is considered private money. It is similar to how the current system works since the United States is a mix of Government and private funding.



No, it won't. Only the naive think that by limiting campaign donations you will magically fix the corruption within the body politic.Reforming campaign financing will do nothing to stem the corruption as the money will just move into other areas to influence the election. Your little PAC claims that they won't be able to indirectly give money to the candidates, which is easily circumvented by buying t.v ads or billboards. If you ban that then you also have to ban the same behavior for Unions As by eliminating "corporate" donations you would also effect P.A.C's like AARP from lobbying for seniors. If you're going to ban one private interest, you gotta ban them all.



It does limit free speech. Money has been ruled to be considered protected by free speech. Which means, I can spend, invest or donate my money as I see fit. If I wish to donate 100,000 to Ron Paul's campaign and you stop me, you are infringing on my right to free speech. With the $100 limit you also hinder lesser known candidates from smaller parties who wouldn't be able to raise as much money as a more well known candidate which is hardly "leveling the playing field" as you so quaintly put it. Thane Eichenauer will never raise as much money as Barrack Obama. You probably said "Who the hell is Thane Eichenauer?" which proves my point.



Do yourself a favor so you'll stop looking like an idiot. Google these names and read something about each.

Talk shows: Jay Leno, David Letterman, Ellen DeGeneres, Conan O'Brien

Conservative Talk Radio: Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Neal Boortz, Glenn Beck,Laura Ingraham, Michael Savage, Bill O'Reilly, and Mark Levin,

Liberal Talk Radio: Alan Colmes, Stephanie Millier, Ed Schultz, Thom Hartmann, or even The young Turks.

Even better, watch or listen to their shows.



That is a failure on your end. I clearly laid out how public financing (which you clearly do not understand what it actually is and instead just regurgitate what you hear or read) and you failed to understand it. You should also spend some time reading the campaign finance laws.

Care to do something else besides regurgitate their talking points?

Simply put, public (government) financing for every campaign is a dream for the politically ignorant. Do you realize the millions of dollars that would be required for even a bare bones campaign? How many candidates should we allow to run per party, per state, per position? 5 presidential candidates? 5 candidates per senator seat, 5 candidates per house seat? That's assuming just 1 candidate from the major and the larger "minor" parties. At $1 million per campaign that comes to a hefty $540,000,000. So we the American Taxpayers should foot the bill for these candidates? Why should my tax money go to Michelle Bachman or Rick Perry? I do not like them and do not wish to directly or indirectly support them with my taxes.

Then we have issues like, what if I want to stick a Ron Paul bumper sticker on my car. Is that considered part of his campaign? Should the effective marketing cost of my bumper sticker be deducted from his campaign finances? What if the candidate gets on a talk show like Jay Leno, David Letterman, Ellen, etc should the effective marketing of their appearance also be deducted? Should we ban politicians from speaking on talk shows which might effectively give them more "air time" than another candidate? Should we force people like Stephanie Miller or Sean Hannity to host multiple political candidates? Sean Hannity's listeners won't be receptive to a Democrat but, they would be receptive to a Republican. So should we ban politicians from going on radio shows too? Where is the line since private money "corrupts the democratic process".

What if a bunch of Union workers from Detroit want to pool their money and get a campaign add for their candidate? Should we forbid them from spending their money like that? What if it was a church group? Should we also ban AARP from lobbying for seniors too?

If you want to ban corporate donations then for equality, you need to ban every type of private donation or support. Which then cuts deeply into our freedom of speech.

You can say that it's practically the same and you would be partially correct but, it's also no different than if Fakku got together and donated $1 a piece to a particular campaign (ignoring foreign donation rules in the U.S for sake of example).

Really when you get down to basics, corporate donations are fundamentally no different than PAC or Union donations. If you have worries of corruption then make private donations illegal and require all candidates to use a set amount of public money to run their campaign.

If people really want to have their voice heard then they need to recenter the political landscape. Make it focus more on the local level where you can actually meet your Representative rather than centralizing power far away, in a city you may have never been to in your life.

Libya ruled by Sharia law.

Alternative link.

Oh how lovely.

99% of people don't really know anything about the Lybian conflict. They don't know who the rebels are or what started the conflict.

This is what started it all.

Houses. A while later Jamal al-Hajji a writer and activist


What did they need to protest for? They had free education, plenty of housing subsidized by the Government, comprehensive social welfare services, and general standards of health that were among the highest in Africa.

Don't get me wrong, He was no saint but, I seriously question the American involvement in that conflict. We invaded a nation that was not a threat to us under "Humanitarian" reasons. Why haven't we "aided" the Syrian rebels yet? Probably because Syria doesn't have any oil but, that's just my theory.

All depends on who the rebels are.

If they were people wanting a Democracy, they will get a shitty form of democracy.

If the majority were Islamic extremists we will get another Iran.

If the new "government" doesn't take solid control it'll turn into another Somalia.

I'm voting for a strained Democracy that teeters on the edge of destruction of Qaddafi loyalists continue to fight and harass the "traitors

Apply for a visa at a Japanese consulate or embassy. Helpful Link.

Foreigners who have resided in Japan for more than 90 days must apply for a specific "Alien" card.

Other requirements according to article 5 of it's nationality act. One must be/have

1: Continuous residence in Japan for five years or more
2: At least 21 years old and otherwise legally competent
3: History of good behavior generally, and no past history of seditious behavior
4: Sufficient capital or skills, either personally or within family, to support oneself
5: Stateless or willing to renounce foreign citizenship




No, To become Japanese requires the renouncing of foreign citizenship. You'll have to legally renounce your English/U.K. Citizenship.

You may need to clarify if you are speaking about Libertarians or libertarians. Yes, there is a difference depending on which case of the L/l you use. Libertarians don't care about corporate person hood since the corporation is largely owned by the shareholders who could in turn all collectively donate money to a particular campaign so eliminating corporate person hood you effectively do nothing which brings me to libertarians. They are not unified on corporate person hood but, those who subscribe to the more "left" varieties like left-libertarianism, libertarian socialism, various forms of Anarchism are all opposed to corporate person hood for the various reasons.

It's not exactly fair to lump all libertarians into the same group. It's a broad spectrum of ideas with a common focal point of personal liberty.

Somebody didn't stay awake during political science class.



Direct Democracies is one of the most abhorrent systems of Government. Instead of the tyranny of one man such as a dictatorship, it is the tyranny of the masses. Also you seem a bit naive as to how the system actually works. With a direct democracy you'd still have "Representatives" but, instead of there being a system involved the Representatives would be placed in positions of power by popular vote. You really should look up how the Electoral College works or better yet look at the U.S system.. If you really want to get rid of the Representatives and still use a Democratic system. Look into various forms of Anarchism.

No capitalist society has existed since the early 1900's. The United states stopped being Capitalist when FDR signed the New Deal. One could argue that we stopped being a Capitalist society before then but, I don't feel like writing a college thesis at this particular point in time. America is "officially" a capitalist state much like Cuba & China are "officially" a Republic.

Anyways, I did a quick Google search and you may findthis little FAQ to be helpful in understanding what Capitalism really is. If you wish for more general info talk to Flaser for Communism (Proclaimed Marxist) or you can talk to me (Former Laissez-Faire Capitalist, Libertarian).




That is Socialism not Communism. Within Communism the state would own all means of production thus it would be the monopoly and not regulating them.



The first part is an aspect of Corporatism aka Crony Capitalism where the government enacts laws to limit competition of larger businesses. Overpricing is a subjective term. What is overpriced to you or me may not be overpriced to someone else. I look at luxury vehicles and think they are overpriced, yet some people think the prices are just fine considering people still buy them. You may have meant to say "To prevent price gouging" which again is still subjective since it only comes about when shortages of goods occur. An example of such shortages would be generators during Florida's Hurricane season. Now, according to laws I couldn't rent a truck, buy lots of generators, drive down to Florida and sell them to people who need them at a price that covers my expenditures because of "Price gouging" laws in other words due to these "price gouging" laws people who want generators prior to a hurricane must go without because local store quickly sell out. If you wish, I can also list an example for hotel rooms and how they work with price gouging.



Yeah, we American's are much for shutting up and falling in line. We're just silly that way.



China is "officially" communist but, in practice it's more of a mixed economy. The Communist Manifesto does not permit private ownership of the means of production. Capitalism does not permit the public ownership of the means of production. Therefore it is a mixed economy a.k.a. socialism.

Provide evidence of a communist state that has not suffered a drop in the living standard, resulted in a centralized government that ignored the rights of it's people or resulted in mass killing and genocide.

The final step of the communist manifesto can not be implemented because once the power is allocated to the Government. The politicians will resist giving that power up.

Hallelujah, we have a miracle!



Lydon B Johnson formed the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development in 1965 as a step toward the "Great Society". Later the the Community Reinvestment Act was proposed in 1974 after pressure from activist groups such as National People's Action about the "deteriorating conditions" facing lower income neighborhoods. Unfortunately, I can not find any information on the original authors or the date the bill was proposed and passed but, I can tell you it was passed originally during the Carter administration with revisions or amendments occuring in 89, 91, 92, 94, 95, 99, 05, 07 and 08. So you have revisions during the Bush Sr, Clinton and Bush Jr. Administrations.

To throw you a mindfuck. The Federal Reserve is on record stating that the Community Reinvestment act is not responsible for the financial Crisis.




I've argued with you long enough to see a pattern over the last year or two. Criticism of government has been...lacking in your posts. I don't expect an anti-government tirade since that's my personal shtick but, if I can admit government can occasionally do something right. I expect you to occasionally admit that government can fuck up.



Won't hear an argument from me here. The system is corrupt to the core which is why I want to nerf the Federal Government. Kind of an "eggs in one basket" kind of deal. Concentrate power in one institution and they only have to corrupt one institution to wreck the system.



This clashes a bit with the general sentiment that University professors are generally Progressives or former socialists/Marxists. Granted corporations have money and think tanks want that money. I also find it odd to hear "Prevalence" and Austrian school of Economics in the same sentence. You say "I believe in Austrian Economics" and people give you a look similar to the "weird moon landing denier guy" look. The Keynesian school is all the rage nowadays.



The corruption, at least from my perspective is inherent to governing. Every governing body from Rome to the Soviet Union to the U.S has had to deal with corruption. Governing means power, that power attracts greedy and selfish men. Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely. I blame voter apathy for the level of corruption in the U.S government and the ones who aren't apathetic are usually misinformed by one side or the other.



I hate to play the doomsday card but, from what I have witnessed and learned in the past 10 years I can only come to one conclusion. The United States will fall and it will be in my lifetime. Deteriorating infrastructure, declining middle class, declining education, build up of law enforcement by the military, the erosion of civil liberties, the political circus designed to instigate infighting amongst the people pitting one group against another. rich vs poor, black vs white, citizen vs immigrants, Republican Vs Democrat, the rampant corruption of the political process by special interest money from Unions, Big Oil, Big Pharma, and Multinational Corporations. The constant bombardment of the American people with distractions so they don't realize the system is falling apart.



This is why I'm not a Libertarian, because I don't believe in Laissez Faire capitalism at least, not right now. Laissez Faire capitalism can work but, this isn't the time to implement such a policy. It would, as you said, exacerbate the situation.

Oh shit, you said something negative about Karl Marx. Better get a helmet.

To avoid making a post without some substance. Which biography is this by the way? There are other accounts that Lenchen was a friend that worked with the engles to put the marx papers together.

Might want to source that.

Just an FYI Chriton, Flaser is a proclaimed Marxist. Now you know what you just got yourself into.