Fiery_penguin_of_doom Posts

1). The current poverty rate in the United States is at 12% give of take. Not fantastic but, if could be worse. Until you take into account that the poverty rate in the United States is based on 1969 standards of living. Updating the poverty line for economic growth since 1969 would yield a 2010 poverty line of $45,736 for a family of four. A family of four living on less than $45,736 today is just as poor -- relative to the country as a whole -- as a family in poverty was in 1969 when the current line was set. By that standard, about 28% of American families of four are now living in poverty, twice the official poverty rate. If that sounds high, it's only because we are much more miserly today than our grandparents were in 1969.

2). The United States finished 2009 with a debt-to-GDP ratio of 85%, according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The 90% level has become the IMF's make-or-break point for countries hoping to grow their way out of debt. If the government debt load climbs above 90% of GDP, economic growth slows so much that growth is no longer a viable solution for reducing that debt, and the IMF insists on austerity measures. The current standing in 2011 is at 92%.

3). Declining Civil Rights. In America, private discussions and movements are monitored.free speech is corralled. the freedom to assemble for protest is by Government decree. Then anyone who questions or challenges the system are labeled as you.terrorists, pedophiles or whatever else they can slap you with to demonize and disgrace

4). America's crumbling infastructure



5.Disappearing middle class: During the last presidential debate season, they argued that a family income of $250K was solidly middle-class. Well,Census data shows less than 15% of families make over $100K, and only 1.5% of families make over $250K. The income gap between the rich and poor has increased at a staggering pace, while many more middle-class folks join the ranks of the poor every day. Cavernous income gaps may be what Third-World nations are best known for.

6. Devalued currency: The value of the Federal Reserve Note (U.S. dollar) has declined 96% since the inception of the Rederal Reserve in 1913

7. Controlling the media: A government-influenced media that censors information is a key component of Third World countries. In some countries it is openly owned by the State. In America, privately-owned major media is not as balanced or as diverse as it seems; the concentration of ownership has led to
censorship when national and corporate interests have sometimes overlapped. The persecution of high-profile investigative journalists such as WikiLeaks is set amid a backdrop of the proposed Internet censorship of bloggers who wish to remain anonymous. The end of net neutrality creates a pay-to-play system that can lead to further corporate and government control of information and opinion.

Time to wake up Dorothy. You're not in Kansas anymore.

Well, I'll be damned. I've never heard of these parties. Looks like I've got some reading material in between classes on Monday.

I may have to amend my previous post in light of this new information.



I have a request of you. Would you be willing to send me a PM of the beliefs you have as a conservative Republican? I'm curious as to how a conservative is on a forum dedicating to pornography.

Did I say "be more like 'merica" No, I didn't, please stop jumping to conclusions, it makes you look foolish. It's not hypocrisy because I don't advocate the United States addiction to deficits. I chastise my own country, harshly I might add, about it's debt and apathy of the American people towards the debt. I also harshly criticize my country over the loss of it's manufacturing sector and movement towards a post-industrial society.




Did I even imply it was your fault, no. Did I state the commonsense notion that perhaps you could increase tourism, exports of coal, wine and medical equipment? Yes.

I don't even know where the conceited remark comes from. I assume you're just fishing for something to raise my ire. If that's the case, you're going to have to do a lot more to get a rise out of me.

I'm certainly not conceited about my country. If I had my way, I'd raze half of the country to the ground, and see a few politicians doing the hangman's jig from the nearest structure capable of supporting their weight.

Indeed, damned if you do, damned if you don't.



I was asking for your definition of "libertarian rights" based on the context you were using it.



People don't eat them for various reason but, mostly due to bad publicity. You mention bristling and people say "Huh, what?" but, you mention sardine and people run for the hills. Bristling and Sardines are actually the same. Next time you're in the grocery store and some cans of Sardines will list Bristling as ingredients. All about marketing and education to fix this problem. Most people aren't aware of the levels of over fishing in the world.



If we started growing our own food? I don't know if you are aware of this but, we're not called the bread basket of the world for nothing. It would be unfortunate for New Zealand but, that is the price of not being diverse in your economy. If you rely on exporting certain products then you must face the consequences of that decision. Same goes for countries like Guam who rely on tourism. If your economy isn't dynamic then you are fragile.

Side note: I would love to visit New Zealand some day. Is the greeting like

"Welcome to New Zealand. Here's a complimentary sheep. If so, is it a faux pas to not accept the sheep because I don't have room for one in my apartment.

If nuclear fusion was cheaper to operate then oil companies would capitalize on it. As crude oil gets harder to acquire it raises the cost of their operations as well. Currently, oil companies make only 2-3 cents (from the last figure I heard, but it's been a while) on every gallon of gas. So if you are paying 3.60 a gallon the oil company probably spent 3.57 to mine, process and transport it. Oil companies are already buying up patents on alternative fuels like solar and wind farm technology.

I am a libertarian (note the lower case l).

I am not affiliated with any party because no party represents me nor my ideals.

The Libertarians lost me with laissez faire economics which I think is too impractical. Social issues I agree with them but, I disagree on economic issues. Though to be fair, I agree with the rhetoric but, I don't see it happening since I believe it's too idealistic.

The Democrats never had me as they pretty much don't exist anymore. The people who call themselves "Democrats" are in actuality are FDR style Progressives which does not mesh with my libertarian ideals. Their political tactics of fear mongering, vote buying and out right lies/misrepresentations have turned me off permanently from them.

The Republicans lost me because the "Republicans" moved into Neo-Con territory and became overt war-hawks which clashes with my non-intervention mentality. Neo-Con "Republicans" also have a practice of expanding government in invasive ways such as the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act. Pretty much their flagrant disregard for our constitution while claiming to be the party OF the constitution reeks of hypocrisy.

"Conservative" Republicans lost me because they are the very people I hate almost as much as corrupt politicians. These are the people are fine with legislating morality such as banning of alcohol, marijuana and gay marriage which I find abhorrent.

If I had to pick a candidate that I would vote for it would be Ron Paul. While he and I have some disagreements he's the closest to representing my mix of extremes from both the left and right wings of the political spectrum.

Damn kids. Why back in my day, Fakku members were known as Fakkuza! Why, back in my day we didn't have computers. We drew our hentai on cave walls and were damn grateful when the dial up was invented!



I've personally experienced a polygamous relationship though, it was more of a Ménage à trois but, the relationship did occur during high school.

Though, on the topic of polygamy I believe that consenting adults can enter into any arrangement they seem fit. So long as everyone involved is consenting then I see no problem and say "more power to them."

[quote="Anesthetize"]You'll be waiting forever then =/. People are often sheep who need herding.

You make it sound as if we have no ability to balance our rights with a sustainable planet. Also, please elaborate on what "libertarian" rights are. Being a libertarian myself I am curious as what "rights" have become associated with my political philosophy. Though, I guess one could say libertarians of all varieties believe that each person has an exclusive right to the fruits of his or her labor as their private property.



I honestly, did not know that we produced enough food. I was under the impression that we were in a shortage. Thank you for enlightening me.




There are two failures here. First, I was not clear enough. When I suggested "aiming our forks lower" I was implying consumption of smaller fish varieties (instead of larger fish such as swordfish and Tuna) which can be farmed in a varieties of ways, either by fish farms, aquaponic farms or by simply catching them (since they are smaller and are destined for shorter lifespans they breed much, much faster than larger varieties.

The second failure is any claim of overfishing address only the larger varieties of fish such as Tuna and others whose names currently escape me. Tuna do not breed as fast as Brisling.

As I mentioned earlier the smaller varieties of fish are more versatile when it comes to farming since they can be included in aquaponic farms. I want to mention that aquaponic farms tend to have fish like Tilapia and Bass so we wouldn't be limited to just smaller varieties.




Even if we moved to alternative fuels, it wouldn't help a single iota. Petroleum is the cheapest form of fuel we have on this planet (Currently). So switching to alternative fuels wouldn't help as it'd simply cause the prices of foods to increase (since cost of operation would likewise increase). The real problem (and the one I assume you meant to address rather than sounding like some anti-oil rally) is that food travels too far from farm to plate which I think is averaging 1500-2400 miles. So we need to start considering ways to migrate the farms closer to home (if not actually make them AT home).

If we consider that an aquaponic farm is small enough to function on a building's roof then we can start alleviate the traveling problem.

How would we make them pay taxes? Income tax is useless as they aren't even in the system or have fraudulent social security cards. The majority of them are below the radar and the Government doesn't even know they are there.

The only way to collect taxes from illegals is a consumption tax placed at the point of sale but, that particular idea is stalled in congress as politicians won't be able to use the tax system as a political weapon to garner votes.

really, the only good option is to threaten employers with heavy fines and long jail times for hiring illegals and. Then once the demand for their employment is gone via penalties and the mandatory use of e-verify style programs they will simply return home and apply for legal status.

The other outcome would be a sudden surge in anchor baby births thus forcing us to "accept them". Though that would put them into the system so we can tax them.

Problem with this is idea is; the ideas are unpopular. Politicians stay in power by pandering to popularity (regardless if it's right or not). They will stay the course right up until the Nation collapses Soviet Union style OR the people wise up and start thinking beyond the moment.

Violent revolution would turn America into Lybia as the military would be used to put the people down. With the level of corruption within the Government and the military personnel thinking of themselves or their families first they would fire on Americans citizens before anything else. Not to mention the vast superiority of the military armaments compared to the citizens.

Though this brings up the question of 'would Europe (or select nations) support the American people in a violent revolt?"

Peaceful revolution is really the only option but, that kind of dedication and support is not something the American people are known for.

I specifically separate egoism from individualism. I see egoism as an extreme. Similar to the separation of eating to outright gluttony.




Rights are unconditional, they are inalienable, otherwise they are not rights. It is unfortunate that people think too much of themselves (specificly the level of materialism we find in the developed world) but the best we can do within the constraints of respecting the rights of others is to simply provide an educational experience. Most people don't realize the impacts their decisions have on the world simply because they don't know that their actions have such an impact. A kid who wants an X-box 360 doesn't realize the scope of his decisions impact on the world. His decision provides demand for electronic parts from Asian countries, petroleum from the Middle East, South America or Russia, the fuel required to ship the parts around the world, etc. That kid just wants an 360 so he can run home and play Halo Reach with his friends online.

The Capitalist in me wants to say, that some hipster's decision to buy the latest mac with whatever inane little "innovation" they come up ends up providing better living conditions within China as those workers would have been farmers (which isn't exactly the easy life that Western Farmers have).



Anyone whose spent 5 minutes in a sociology or an economics class would be able to tell you that. For example, after 9/11 people stopped flying. Thinking with emotions



I agree 98% with the remaining 2% disagreeing on abolishing propaganda as I would prefer the situation where people simply question the propaganda until it falls apart. Notice the theme in my posts where I want people to consent in some form or another with no 3rd party involvement.



You throw corruption around like it's heresy in the Warhammer 40k universe.

Man Made causes

1). Our reliance on grazing cattle for our protein. (1 acre of cereal or vegetable productions feeds 10 times the number of people using that same acre for cattle),

2). Government policy (Google Malawi selling grain reserves to pay off interest on debt).

2a). The U.S (and other countries) subsidies to farmers to NOT GROW FOOD.

2b). 1). The asinine concept of corn-ethanol. Our elected officials in their infinite wisdom decided that we should start relying on corn-based ethanol as our alternative fuel. Unfortunately, this means we started putting our food in our cars instead of our mouths (Thanks Brazil for giving these idiots that class A, gold standard clusterfuck of an idea).


Natural causes

1). Degradation of agricultural land
2). Flooding
3). Hurricanes/tornadoes
4). Drought

In short, it's a cluster fuck. We can either try to slow down the rate in which humanity is growing or simply wait for them to outpace their food supply where millions will starve. Then we'll have that reminder that food is not infinite. Another alternative is that necessity being the mother of invention will cause people to develop a cure for our food shortages (for example the aquaponic and hydroponic farms that are developing around the world).

Another idea is for the World to aim it's forks a little lower on the food chain. Start eating smaller fish such as bristling, herring,etc instead of relying on varieties of Tuna and other larger fish.

Side note: by eating smaller fish, we will acquire smaller amounts of mercury as larger fish have a larger amount of mercury in their bodies.

Kind sir, I would greatly appreciate if you would cease and desist these outrageous claims that individualism is to blame. It is basic logic that a man must be capable of taking care of himself before he can take care of another.



Nothing in that definition even touches on what you claim individualism does. An individual is someone who wants control over their own lives. They don't want a Government, their neighbor, etc telling them what they can do because it infringes on their right of self ownership (aka they can't exercise their rights as the owner of their body). It is not individualism that is causing the world to go into the proverbial shitter. It's the ignorance, complacency and materialism of the first world that is the problem.



What is a society? A collection of individuals working in cooperation with each other for their mutual benefit. Keyword, individual. So to develop society one must develop the lives of the individuals in said society.

It is our responsibility to our fellow countrymen and fellow humans to help them fulfill their two lower levels in Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.

I'll agree with you all day that we have a moral obligation to help our fellow humans but, we also have an equal moral obligation to respect the rights of other humans. I would never apply force to you or use an organization such as the State or Federal Government to apply force on you unless I am a victim of damages caused by you.

Where we differ is I believe that nobody care use force to bring about that interaction. If I want to be an asshole who sits in my basement and fap to loli all day. Well, then nobody has the right to interfere with my decision to be an asshole who sits in my basement and faps to loli all day.

To deny this, throws out the concept that a person owns themselves. If someone doesn't own themselves then the basis for any argument pertaining to rights is void. All rights stem from the concept of natural/inalienable rights. Except legal rights but, fuck those, they're just glorified privileges.

Also to break a hole in your Indonesian argument.

Indonesian exports to the U.S 2010

Natural rubber … US$711.9 million, up 105.1% (9.1% of total)
Crude petroleum, 25-degree testing and over … $273.5 million, up 313.4% (3.5%)
Cotton pullovers … $250.8 million, up 17.4% (3.2%)
Cocoa beans, raw or roasted … $189 million, up 84.2% (2.4%)
Crude petroleum, under 25-degree testing … $164.5 million, up 23.7% (2.1%)
Shrimps and prawns, frozen … $128.2 million, down 11.1% (1.6%)
Digital video cameras, still image … $118.4 million, down 12.6% (1.5%)
TV set top boxes … $90.8 million, down 21.1% (1.2%)
Insulated ignition wiring sets … $74.6 million, up 88.1% (1%)
Aluminum plates … $74 million, up 808.9% (0.95%).


Top Imports from the U.S 2010

Natural rubber … US$711.9 million, up 105.1% (9.1% of total)
Crude petroleum, 25-degree testing and over … $273.5 million, up 313.4% (3.5%)
Cotton pullovers … $250.8 million, up 17.4% (3.2%)
Cocoa beans, raw or roasted … $189 million, up 84.2% (2.4%)
Crude petroleum, under 25-degree testing … $164.5 million, up 23.7% (2.1%)
Shrimps and prawns, frozen … $128.2 million, down 11.1% (1.6%)
Digital video cameras, still image … $118.4 million, down 12.6% (1.5%)
TV set top boxes … $90.8 million, down 21.1% (1.2%)
Insulated ignition wiring sets … $74.6 million, up 88.1% (1%)
Aluminum plates … $74 million, up 808.9% (0.95%).


Link.

If Indonesia is cutting down rainforest it's to grow more food for their country. Same reason the rainforest is being cut down in Brazil. So farmers can grow more food to satisfy the growing demand within their borders for food.

Something I wish to address. The link I provided is the U.N.'s response to the disconnection of internet in countries as part of a Government crackdown on dissidents. I personally, abhor any type of censorship and such a move by my own government would result me toasting the politicians...with Molotov Coktails.

The article brought up the question of whether or not the internet is a basic right. I wish to hear more opinions of the subject to maybe convince me that it could indeed be a right in the digital era. Much like the newspaper was in the 1800's.

Side note: I am a little disappointed in how poorly this thread did.

To put it simply and bluntly if you are illegally here. You do not belong here. Those who sneak in across the border, overstay visa's, etc should be deported.

Their existence here is a slap in the face of the generations of people who have migrated legally to the states and those around the world who wait patiently for a green light to immigrate. Illegals, have essentially cut in line and we all learned in elementary school that those who cut in line should be sent to the back of said line. I believe the constitution should be amended so that if a child is born with at least one parent being a legal U.S citizen then the child is considered an American citizen. Then if the non-American parent marries the American Citizen that parent can apply for citizenship with their family. This would be an easy/"humane" way to solve the "Anchor baby" problem.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not the American equivalent of the BNP. I am for immigration, I want reforms to the system that will open the door so more legal immigrants can move here, bring their expertise or improve this country by receiving an education. Though, I will not overlook those who have not followed our laws and who take from our system without giving anything in return. These people do not deserve to be here and should be deported but, since that is impractical. We should severely and I emphasize severely punish the companies and farmers who use illegal immigrants to supply their labor force. It takes advantage of the immigrants who have come to this country as a way to escape their former countries or to simply seek a better life only to end up as slave labor to these people.

People who truly care for the "illegals" would seek reforms that would reduce the demand for their labor and open the door for these people to migrate legally. Otherwise you are condemning these people to be slave labor. Farmers and manufacturing companies certainly won't allow elected officials to just grant amnesty to the illegals.

One thing I wish to note: if we reform the immigration policy so people can and have to legally migrate here then we can end the social security fraud. Go to your local flea market. One of them near here in Georgia (near Ziggy and Myself) sells fake Social Security cards/I.D's. The people who buy these I.D's have no desire to pay into the Social Security system but, simply wish to reap the benefits of other people's labor.

tl;dr. Reform the immigration policy, punish those who do not obey our laws.

CNN

With the birth of the Arab spring, this little question has started circulating amongst politicians and other politically aware people. Most recently the United Nations has declared that



Now, the purpose of this thread is to discuss whether in fact internet access constitutes a human right.

According to Amnesty International "Human rights" are

Rights break down into two sub-categories which are "Natural" or "Inalienable" rights. These are rights are not granted by some authority and simply exist. On the other hand we have "legal" rights which are rights granted to us by an establishment, organization, etc.

Now that I've framed the discussion.

I do not believe internet access to be a human right. At least, of the natural/inalienable variety. I don't consider "legal" rights to be anything more than a glorified privilege since for a right to have any meaning it must have some level of staying power. The legal variety can simply be removed if it becomes a problem to that particular organization that granted it. For example, a democratic Government with the "Freedom of Religion" legal right becomes theocratic. That Government can amend whatever document entitled it's citizens with the "Freedom of Religion" right and force them to change their religion or face persecution.

To add to this, I believe in property rights, especially self ownership. I believe a person is entitled to 100% of the fruits of their labor. That means, whatever you build or create,etc. Whatever you have created is yours free and clear and it is a violation of your rights for someone to take it or any amount of it from you without your permission.

So how does this play into internet? First, let me ask you this question



The answer is you can't, not without throwing out property rights as a whole. Other people and organizations own the networks that make up the internet. In other words, the internet is a collection of interconnected properties.

To compare the internet to something universal like free speech. Free speech is a human right that represents a natural capability to speak one's mind. The internet is a tool-- we don't have human rights to tools. I do not have a right to pen and paper but, I do have a right to speak my mind. That is what the internet is, our pen and paper.

What are you thoughts?

Imagine my surprise when I was informed that I have a wikia page. Not sure what to say other than, thanks. It brought a smile to my face to know that despite my absence, some people still remember me. I must have left an impression with some people. Good to know.

First of all, I am astounded that Waar was able to scurry away with nary a moment spent in those lovely cufflinks the authorities are so enamored with.

Waar if you would be so kind, please enlighten us as to what side of the border you were searched on. Was it the Canadian or State side?

Look on the bright side of all this. You and I have something in common now. We've both had incidents at the border. Though, I assume you weren't as roughed up as I was.

Side note: I was under the impression you were not a fan of loli. My how things have changed.

That is the key right there. Forcing those or misleading those who do not consent to the addition of Lithium to their water is morally, ethically and legally wrong and a violation of natural rights.

The "municipal water source" is owned by all the legal residents of that municipality. Legitimate Governments can only act if 100% of those governed consent to the action. To do otherwise is a violation of the natural rights of those who are coerced into drinking tainted water. Even if one side has an overwhelming majority of 99.999% support. You can not violate the rights of that final .001%.

Mind altering substances in the very thing that we need to live is a horrific act that I would have expected to come from China or North Korea. I'm horrified to think that someone as smart as you would support such an act. I am truly dismayed. So it's a "pretty good idea" to force people by economic conditions to take something that will alter their mind (for the greater good!) instead of solving the actual problem? So it's okay to alter the minds of millions in order to solve a problem caused by a minority? That is back asswards if I've ever heard it.

You are aware of the side effects of lithium correct?

Mild hand tremor; mild thirst; temporary, mild nausea and general discomfort.

Severe allergic reactions (rash; hives; itching; difficulty breathing; tightness in the chest; swelling of the mouth, face, lips, or tongue); blurred vision; confusion; diarrhea; drowsiness; excessive weight gain; fainting; giddiness; inability to control the bladder or bowels; increased thirst; increased or decreased urination; involuntary twitching or muscle movements; loss of consciousness; loss of coordination; muscle weakness; persistent headache; persistent or severe nausea; ringing in the ears; seizures; slow or irregular heartbeat; slurred speech; swelling of the ankles or wrists; unsteadiness; vision changes; vomiting.

the excuse of "well the dose will be so tiny..." if the dose will be so tiny then why are we even putting it in the water supply?

So what are we to do with pregnant women or those with allergic reactions to lithium? Simply force them to drink it and damn the consequences or force them to buy distilled water and place an unnecessary economic burden on them?

What about people like me who won't consent to mind altering chemicals in their water? Are they supposed to go without? Be forced to buy distilled water?

If somebody needs or wants lithium in their water, then they should add it instead of forcing me to take something that I do not need nor want. Give it to those who need it as opposed to forcing those who don't need it to take it.

If this is implemented in my state you can safely bet that I'll sue everyone who was even standing in the same room as that proposal.

I am a huge proponent of creating an organization that "polices the police" as the current system of "the people" policing the police isn't working. The courts and laws are skewed to protect officers from liability. Though, I am unsure how effective an inquisition for corruption would really be. I man can dream though.

Seriously though, I think every officer involved should be charged with murder (or at least manslaughter) and spend some time in jail/prison then upon their release, be barred from being so much as mall security. They should also be banned from any position that would require them to be armed. Police abusing their power even in the slightest makes my blood boil and causes me to foam at the mouth like some rabid animal.

tl:dr Crucify them, literally.

I am disappointed in you.

It boggles me mind that someone can be complacent with someone tampering with their water. Whatever, drink as much of it as you want if you're fine with drinking it. I'll be filtering my water and if that does not suffice, I'll switch to bottled water (not acquired through municipal sources).

I'm for the removal of Flouride and all other contaminants or addatives from the water supply. Regardless if they are "good" for us or not. Water should only be basic hydrogen and oxygen.