Fiery_penguin_of_doom Posts

The talk radio in Chicago was on fire with claims that America is turning into a Fascist police state. Even claims...well heavy implying that immigrants will be sent to concentration camps...Y'know to help them learn English to take the proper test.

The state of Arizona (and the other boarder states) are fed up with having their pleas being ignored by the federal government. So the legislature in the state of Arizona drafted and passed a bill that simply gives the local law enforcement the ability to enforce federal law (the immigration laws that already exist on the federal level). The citizens in the boarder states have used up their patience and decided to do something about their problems.

Imagine for a moment, when you look out your window at your yard during the night you see drug smugglers waltzing their way through your yard armed to the teeth with heavy weaponry escorted by a military humvee.

Imagine that every day you hear about people being kidnapped in the local area and then hearing that they were either held for ransom or found naked in a ditch a few days later.

Would you feel safe? Didn't think so.

Now imagine that you have been pleading with your Representative in congress for decades to protect you and your family but, ultimately ignored due to political games. You'd feel pretty pissed right?



I'm not too fond of letting police use their "gut" to determine if suspicion exists but, trying to pin down such a thing with legal definition makes the mess complicated.

Kris Kobach, a University of Missouri at Kansas City law professor (the man who helped draft the bill) states in a op-ed in the New York Times



The result would be "Sir, can you show me proof of your legal residence".

I must have misread your initial post. I had taken the statement as a claim that it is easier to kill a man with your bare hands than using a firearm. Technically a straight punch to the head or the throat can kill someone if enough force is exerted. Then we have various submission holds/chokes like the Guillotine, reverse naked, triangle,etc. Each of those chokes can kill someone if held too long.

Can I ask how that is true? Wouldn't forcibly injecting a chunk of metal into someones body would be more likely to kill than bare hands?

I am finding it difficult to make the connection. Can you explain it for me?

*I agree the constant threads are an annoyance even for me.
*The sub-moronic,etc,etc post come from both sides. Their annoying and the pro-loli ones with the moronic posts make it harder for people like flaser and myself to argue in favor of loli as we're swept away in a tide of demagoguery.
*I hate that particular argument that lolicons use as a defense. It's an empty statement at best and the equivalent of shooting oneself in the foot at worst.




Yes, I can understand why some people would like to ban it but, I feel (and the evidence will support me on this) there is no reason TO ban it.

You find loli creepy? That's fine, don't look at it. I find guro creepy and I take steps to avoid it. Why can't you do the same for loli?

Call me a pedophile or whatever names you can come up with. The difference is; I don't find real children sexually attractive. Whenever I see a young girl, I imagine myself as a father and how I anticipate myself reacting to various scenarios. That or I simply "d'aww". Yesterday for example, I was at Subway and I watched a young girl help her even younger brother tell the guy making their sandwich what they wanted. The way the little girl explained things like banana peppers, olives and the like was adorable. So adorable in fact, it's enough to penetrate the rough and manly exterior of Gibbous.

Being homosexual is hereditary by means of genetics. Since each generation passes it's genetics onto the next it would be deemed hereditary. Similar to your disposition to certain cancers or diseases.



To my knowledge I have heard no evidence that promotes or counters the idea that pedophilia is genetic. Though I have heard arguments that pedophilia is a product of the nurture side of the "nature vs nurture". The reason for this is I have seen articles of men who had difficulty adjusting or associating with women their age. The Japanese men in this study were found to have reverted back to a time where they could relate and interact with women confidently (which was in their childhood). I'll look for the study but, I won't be able to locate it before sometime in July.

S.B. 1070 has been twisted so much I find it almost laughable. The Arizona simply enforces or mirrors the Federal law.

The law says:



This section means that if you are arrested in Arizona. They (the police) will have to verify your identity by contacting federal agents.



Kris Kobach, a University of Missouri at Kansas City law professor who helped draft the bill, said in an interview with National Public Radio "the law doesn't force officers to go out looking for illegal immigrants, only to call immigration officials to determine the status when the officer develops a reasonable suspicion".

In simple terms. If you are involved with a law enforcement matter in Arizona the police can question you about your legal status.



Simple terms. Show valid documents and you are let off the hook regardless of suspicion.



I don't need to explain this.



Self explanatory. It's illegal to work in Arizona (actually the whole country) and not be of legal residence or visa.

tl;dr

Shags, your fine and your buddy doesn't have to worry.

Edit: It it also Federal Law that all people who have immigrated into the country must have their documents with them at all times. That was in place long before Obama even ran a campaign for president.

A bit more thought provoking in my opinion.

Attack the arguments not the users Ethil.




One of those men would have had a knife or a "Black Jack" for "self defense" in lieu of a firearm. Also the occurrence of such "crimes of passion" are not as frequent as you would like to believe. More often than some guy losing his temper and shooting another guy, it's usually some battered housewife who shoots her husband as he's violently beating her.




Thank you Ethil, Apparently I'm completely retarded for trying to find a legal way of defending myself when I go into Chicago, New York or many other large crime infested cities. I'm banned from carrying a firearm while I'm working as it's illegal to carry one in a commercial vehicle and it's also illegal to carry them across state lines without permits or something to that effect.

Before you say "you'll just end up getting shot". At least a knife and my makeshift cudgel can protect me against anything outside of a gun. Yes, I know how to disarm somebody but, giving me a knife increases my chances of getting away alive.

Criminals will still get their hands on guns. I detailed it above. Gang bangers and their associated scum will buy illegal guns that are channeled from Mexico through the military handing them over to cartels who will then pass them on to their dealers who will sell them to anybody with enough cash. Another way guns will end up in criminal hands is corrupt cops selling evidence from the evidence lockers. Don't say it can't happen because it has.



Criminals avoid people who are openly carrying a firearm. The risk of the person fighting back is too great (unless the person is a crack addict or high on PCP and in that situation you'd rather be fighting a horde of zombies). Also the more guns in an area the more likely somebody can use their firearm to defend somebody else. There is a lot of evidence of events where people have used firearms to defend themselves (from store clerks being robbed) to people stopping a rape in progress or even assaults in progress. Lets end the demagoguery and argue by the use of empirical evidence, logic and facts.




You admit that crimes are committed with a gun but, not because of the gun. You keep arguing for the removal of guns despite that the crimes won't stop just the methodology. Gangs and dealers will still have access to guns. Gang violence won't diminish and that is a large part of our high homicide rates. Look at the American cities with the highest rates and look at the ones with the lowest rates. You'll see the connection.

'Zerker rage isn't a common crime. Even if the gun wasn't there, something else would be used, a knife, a fork, a tack hammer whatever. yes, a gun makes it easier but, is it really logical to disarm and entire country to make 'Zerker rage a little more difficult to commit? What about the increase in other crimes like home invasion?

Also Ethil Sweden doesn't have the rampant gang problems and low income problems that America has. You can feel safer in your country at night because your country is safer. You don't have to worry about Bloods, Crips, Folk Nation, La EME, Nuestra familia, Maniac Latin Disciples, Los Zetas,etc.

Macross made some very nice points in this post. You probably neglected to read it since it has an opposing point of view.

@loosehead99

Unless otherwise stated in a specified law that Puerto Rico is exempt. All Federal laws are as legally binding to Puerto Ricans as they would be to a New York or someone from North Dakota. P.R. is an American territory. American Federal Laws are binding in U.S. territories like the Virgin Islands and P.R.

Also the charge was possession of Child pornography. Which is a Federal Law. Just as binding in P.R. as it would be in Arizona.

On topic: The American legal system isn't the greatest but, it isn't the worst. The entire system is simply in dire need of a remodeling and extensive reforms covering just about every detail you can imagine.

The books need cleared and the language simplified as well. You shouldn't have to have a legal degree or hire someone with such a degree to read the paperwork so you can know if you can legally put a pool in your backyard or erect a garage.

Gibbous put the phrase a lot more eloquently and I fear I butchered his words trying to repeat them. I know the quote is sitting somewhere at home...mocking me.

I'm going to break from my usual habit of posting sources for my argument. I'm currently not at home and don't have access to my records and other information. Please take my word for it this time.

First, Europe has always had a lower homicide rate than the United States since the countries inception. This has nothing to do with firearm ownership rates.

Second, removing firearms from law abiding citizens does nothing to prevent the ownership of firearms by non-law abiding citizens. These people are already breaking the law to begin with.

By applying the same logic we use for arguments against the war on drugs and prohibition we can see that making something illegal doesn't make it go away. You simply move the industry from a controlled and regulated environment to an unregulated environment. If a drug dealer wants a gun, he will get that gun, legally or illegally.

America currently boarders one of the most corrupt countries in the western hemisphere. The Mexican military personnel often work for drug cartels. Not only this but, they occasionally traffic in weapons stolen from the military cache. This places various automatic weapons in the hands of lesser affiliated gangs.

You can ban all automatic weapons within the territory of the United States and you still would not stop possession of such weapons within the country.

As Macross pointed out, the police have no reason to protect you. If the police don't have to protect you, who will? Even if the police were mandated to protect you they won't be able too. This is one of the reasons Americans feel the need to carry firearms. Criminals will avoid confrontation with people who are armed and aim for those they perceive to be unarmed.



Consider for a moment. How many shootings have occurred on a high school or college campus in America(where guns are prohibited). Then compare it to any place in America where guns are plentiful. You will see fewer shootings in areas of high gun possession. I often rely on the mandatory gun ownership law in Kennesaw Ga. crime rates were reduce after the law came into effect. There were fewer "B&E's", lower rates of mugging and even a minor reduction to domestic abuse and assaults. The exact number elude me as I don't have access to my records to post such information.

Guns get a bad reputation simply because the media portrays them in a negative light. We are unable to compare how many crimes were prevented by the possession of a gun or the perceived possession of a gun. the reason is these events are not reported and the few instances where a story in the media presents guns in a positive light they concentrate on the "heroism" of the person who used the gun.
I read an article once of a woman being assaulted by her boyfriend or husband in public. Another man stepped forward and drew a revolver and order the man to stop. He was able to keep the man in place until police could arrive and arrest the wife beater.

I'm more on the extreme side of gun ownership. I believe in bringing back the militia for various reasons and arming the militia members with automatic weapons like an ak-74 (or ak-47), M4A1,etc. This stems from my "isolationist" point of view with the military and it's existence for defense only.

Last but, not least. The first thing any dictator does once coming to power is to disarm his domestic enemies. Armenian Genocide, The Nazi gun laws of 1938, Rwanda, Cambodia, Uganda, etc,etc,etc



Don't punish the people who are simply trying to protect themselves. Punish criminals who use guns to violate the rights of others.



Unarmed self defense is a good base but, has it's limits.

I believe so, though it still won't be without challenges over cypress and other territorial squabbling.

I think a broader question to this is, how did Greece get into this mess to begin with and what are other countries going to do to insure that they don't fall prey to the same fate.

On another note: What does this mean fore Ireland, Portugal and other countries with huge debt to gdp ratios

Posting in I/b/ doesn't raise your post count but, if the post (or a thread containing those post) are delete it works against you.

Adding assistance to Tusrayu:



Bottled water is a suggested component of disaster kits (Tornado's, hurricanes, etc) and it's a wise decision to have a reliable amount of bottled water in a secure place.

This is about your day to day usage of water. Do you drink water from the tap or do you buy your water?

As tsurayu has pointed out every water source that provides for more than 100,000 people has to have a report that displayed the chemicals and percentages of those chemicals in your water.

2008 Water Quality Report for New york city.

Less regulation on bottled water means that the bottled water can contain chemicals that are present in unregulated water supplies (ones that don't serve at least 100,000 people).

Bottled water is far more expensive than tap water (as pointed out in the video). If you live in the continental United States, and draw from a municipal source you should just drink the tap water. Leave bottled water for emergency kits when disaster strikes.

If you are still worried about chemicals in your water supply after you get a report. Then buy a filter and make sure to make a greater effort to take care of your teeth as the fluoride will get filtered out though your charcoal or other filters. The lack of fluoride will increase the rate of tooth decay.

You probably don't go to the same regional event that I used to though I would find it amusing if we've played before. I dropped out around lorwyn due to money issues and lack of interest (I saw it the first time in onslaught and I wasn't about to sit though another Legions). I stayed out until I moved away form my old group and my old decks and mats are sitting in the closet.

If I had to guess, you're a blue or U/W control player, my antithesis. The only aspect of the game that made me contemplate murder.

Edit: We of all people just derailed a thread in I.B. Oh the irony.

I would have never pegged you as a MTG player. I learned something today. Oh well, at least I have a buddy to commit federal crimes with. You want the Molotov or the kerosene?

Illusions of Grandeur caused loss of life once your lost control of the enchantment/nitpick. Hence the old Donate/Illusions deck.

Random advice to audio.

Look up "burning bridges" and toss in furnace of wrath for multi-player.

Ensnaring bridge+ empty hand=no creatures attacking

Chandra/damage source + Furnace of Wrath = double damage

Spinerock Knoll+ Chandra's ability= cheap spell.

Furnace of Wrath + Pyroclasm = 4 damage to all creatures without flying.

Hellbent abilities like crackling flames work well in burning bridge decks.

Side note; Gatherer just revealed the "level up" ability to me. I feel like burning down Wizards of the Coast now. Rage....

Hypothetically speaking if the card was real. It's ability would never be used. It'd just be a beat stick. Though I've been out for a while the last creature that held a similar cost to power ratio was a 5/3 haste for RGW. The legendary bit would sideline him a lot. If he had to compete vs the creature I mentioned.

I should start playing again. It's true! Magic is Crack!

Humor on the internet is about as easy to detect as sarcasm or musical patterns. I'll try and work with others on making S.D. less "hostile" as you put it. Hopefully this "hostility' will morph into a mentality of demanding fact driven arguments rather than opined. I'm personally trying to disperse the past hostilities between us by not being so hostile. Though, I'll continue to make you justify your arguments like any other member in S.D.

On topic:

As K.o.I said, it's in the past now and that's all there is too it.

Edit: Unit 731....*Twitch & Cringe*

The Rei card is too wordy and if it was used at an event I judged. I would probably weep with the sheer number of interactions that would require me to dig out the old rule book.

If the other two were real cards, I would never use them outside of sealed or draft events.