Fiery_penguin_of_doom Posts

I'm very well of what is protected under the constitution. Especially considering I carry a copy of the constitution on my person at all times. Stop me in public one day and ask "Where's you Con?" and I'll display it promptly.



Personally? No, though I will eventually more specifically Law. While I lack personal experience I know from those who have experienced it first hand. I know of people who have had their thesis dismissed entirely because it proposed an idea that was heretical to the accepted academic norm.



It was an example no need to get your panties in a knot. Climate gate was easily the most recognizable example for me to display without having to dredge up. If you desire another example to prove my statement simply ask. I could Google half a dozen more beyond the ones I already have prepared.



OOoo Squelch, someones been using their thesaurus. You are more than welcome to tell me to "Shut the fuck up" as you so eloquently put it. That is not the issue here, allow me to re frame the argument as to make my point clearer.

Government school vs Public school
Illegal Alien vs Undocumented worker
African American Vs Black
Homosexual vs Gay
Handicapable vs Handicapped
Native America vs Indian*

*Native American makes more sense considering we were here in the Americas first and Indian is specificity a term for those who lived or descend from those from the country of India.


So, is it more "polite" to call it a public school as opposed to a Government school? Is it more polite to call someone an undocumented worker as opposed to illegal alien? No, it's simple doublespeak. Doublespeak should remain in 1984 where it belongs.




Oh no, best not offend someone because then...then someones feelings might get hurt! If a word offends you, or if you are just a person who can be offended. Go talk to your therapist. Civilized society has no place for those who lack skin thicker than tissue paper.



Must be your favorite word. At least we sort of agree. While it's okay to try and be nice when selecting your words (i.e. firefighters v. Firemen) but the terms are getting out of hand. Call someone an illegal alien and you're branded a racist. Doesn't matter if you're wife or husband is an immigrant from Cuba and you've adopted 4 children from Venezuela. You're a racist because you used a politically incorrect term. That's another thing that irks me, how quickly the term racist is slapped on those who don't use politically correct terms.



Some, not all but, some. If I call someone out on being PC it's to mock them for not having the testicular fortitude to actually use another term.

My my how dumb the children are in this day in age, depressing really. You claim it's not censorship then you turn right around that it only limits "hateful" ideologies. Make up your mind girl. It's either censorship (limiting) or it's not.


I've already proven my point that PC language/culture is censorship but, if I must I'll provide the definition of censorship (which I'll lift from wiki as Dictionary.com is being bollocks)

Censorship is suppression of speech or other communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the general body of people as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body.

As for the "you've never been a victim of discrimination" while I personally may have come a few hundred years after the genocide of my nor suffered any direct discrimination, I still understand how they are forced to live in poverty on tiny plots of land that are pretty much useless for any real commercial interest. Thus, my people are forced to give up their culture to join the rest of the U.S. in order to actually provide for their families.

Starting off

Slander: a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report.

Libel: anything that is defamatory or that maliciously or damagingly misrepresents.

Notice something tying those two words together? Both words require that the person "speaking" intentionally says something erroneous. Calling a homosexual a "faggot" is not Libel nor is it slander by the very definition of the words. If anything it's hateful or hurtful. Nothing more nothing less.


Slander would be more along the line of Kanye west saying "George bush hates black people" because of the Katrina response. THAT is slander You're example proves your ignorance at the very definition of the bloody word. Reference a dictionary next time as to not waste my time.

As for Global Warming, the scientific and journalistic community dismissed "Climate gate" documents along with a myriad of others that show data was either misrepresented or that conclusions simply did not fit into what the global warming crowd was claiming. Anytime a scientist speaks up with an opposing theory or idea about global warming they are threatened or intimidated into staying quiet rather than discuss the possibility that green house gases are no the cause. In all honesty, I've lost what "faith" I had in the scientific community for their blatant hypocrisy. Modern day scientists are just hacks in lab coats who circle jerk one another for grant money. I'm ashamed of what the scientific/academic community has become after the influence of money. It's all a popularity constest. If you aren't on the popular side you get very little in the ways of money.




I follow my fellow libertarians (of the Ludwig von mises institute) on the interpretation of "Freedom of Speech" to only extend to the consent of the property owner. If Jacob (the property owner) does not wish certain material to be posted on his website then he is well within his rights to forbid such. Personally, if I had the money I would fund Fakku 110% just to free Jacob from his advertisers forbidding him from hosting loli on his site not to mention the argument for free F! Swag and trimming from his magical beard next time I need to make a wish.

I issue a challenge to you, please locate and post information as to why those C.E.O's should have their personal assets seized? Majority of them did not break any laws, merely lead companies with bad business practices. The companies merely road the gravy train of easy money along with every idiot who thought they could buy a $300,000 house on a $30,000 salary. Companies were idiots for making all these bad and unsecured loans but, it was the end consumer who was applying to these loans.

Most of those companies were actually following mandates from as far back as the Carter Administration. Bill Clinton in the 90's made a compromise with the Republican congress at the time exchanging tax cuts for the laws that would forbid banks from refusing to offer loans to lower income people. In the end, Gingrich got his tax cuts and Clinton looked like he was helping the poor get homes.

End result, this was coming for a long long time. Bad Government policy, Human Greed (both corporate and consumer) and consumer idiocy all combined into a maelstrom of fuckery.

Now, income inequality in the states is neither the fault of the Republicans or Democrats alone. Policies such as NAFTA encourage companies to outsource manufacturing to other countries such as India, China, etc. Now most people would immediately jump on the bandwagon and attack corporations for outsourcing but, the person who is really to blame is you. Yes, you the consumer. Why? Because you shop at companies that outsource, you buy products that were imported from other countries. You have an Iphone, Ipod or Ipad? Congrats, you encouraged Steve Jobs to continue to use cheap labor of 20year old Chinese or Korean workers rather than telling Jobs you refuse to purchase their products or use their services until they employ workers from the U.S. So NAFTA and consumer habits encourage companies to outsource which leads to underemployment or unemployment of U.S. workers.

-----------------------------

Another reason is, it is far easier for you to save money when you have more expendable income. a $20,000 income has a harder time saving money than someone with a 200,000 income.

Lets draw an example.

A RothIRA with a starting contribution of $100 adding in $100 per year from the ages of 24 to 65 at 8% return with a marginal tax rate of 25% will result in 32k with 18k being taxable.

Now, compare that to a 200,000k income opening a Roth at 24 years old with a contribution of $100 and adding $5,000 (the maximum legal limit according to U.S. law) at 8% return will result in 1.5 million by the time of retirement.

End result? the more money you have the easier it is to save money.

------------

Third is a lack of access to higher education. The current access to such "easy money" for education has actually caused colleges and universities to be less efficient in their operations which has had the side effect of raising the cost of tuition among others (such as cost of non-education staff) so your tuition is paying these universities to hire "staff" who will never see a student except for grad students.

------

In my opinion we need to fix the inefficiency in the education industry either by market forces (the consumer going to a community college for two years and finishing their degree at Prestige U) or by government regulation of the industry to maximize efficiency (for you market socialists out there). Once everybody has an easier access to education without crushing debt they won't climb out from under for 20 years then our economy will improve.