Fiery_penguin_of_doom Posts

Since nobody is going to ask...How the hell did he get over there? I thought there were weight limits on aircraft or did he just hop in the ocean with an oar?

There are two types of environmentalists in my eyes. The people like us average Joes and Janes who want to make changes in our own behavior to help out. Like the guy who installs solar panels on his roof so he doesn't have to use power from carbon emitting coal plants. Or drives an economy car instead of a full sized one. Then we have the elitists who claim they care about the environment but, really have some sort of political interest (money, station) and are willing to potentially starve thousands of people, for a species of frog. You know, because they care.

I've been disowned once..no, twice actually. I forget the reasons they had back then but, I believe it had to do with financial problems of my parents. That coupled with my father's desire to find a scapegoat to blame, so he wouldn't have to accept the reality that he is at fault for his problems.

I wasn't exactly at fault for their problem but, I wasn't exactly innocent either. A shade of gray in a black and white interpretation of the world. A interesting fact about the character that disowned me twice. He even got pissed enough to rant/yell at my mother for me moving out. Yeah, fucked up isn't it? I get blamed and yelled at for every wrong at the house and then he has the audacity to get pissed for me moving out.

tl:dr I was disowned because I wouldn't accept the full blame for the actions of the accusing person.

Assuming that statement to be true. I now have an even more intense hatred for Judges and lawyers, the whole fucking system in fact.

Looks like I'm late to the party (all rights, and trademarks reserved and are owned by Gambler).

Glad to have you back kitty. It seems your trademark typing style has changed a bit or is it just me?

I am against the death penalty based on personal beliefs. I see the government as being "of the people". Which translates into the government is made up of the people and all laws that affect the people also bind the government in the same way.

Why is the government allowed to deprive a man of his life if you would be charged as a murderer for the same action? Why is there a different standard?

Actually, I was able to get the blue line chilipepper mentioned to appear for me and I moved it to sadpanda so I could repost it.

To be honest, I think that is the only picture I have with a penguin in it is that one, excluding my non-H material obviously.

It's a penguin & a loli.

I'm not going to say either one is worse than the other as it conflicts with my personal beliefs. It's your body and as long as you are not a danger to others then you should be allowed to do it.

Weed should be legalized, taxed and regulated in a manner similar to both cigarettes and alcohol. Make the purchasing age 18 or 21 and make it illegal to drive while high in the same manner as drunk driving.

As for the hallucination I had of Gibbous making a post that I agreed with 100%.

Make drugs legal and kick all users off the government dole. All people receiving benefits must undergo weekly tests to prove that they are clean. If caught while receiving benefits then you lose them, permanently.

If your caught D.U.I. then you lose your, license and car. Spend a little time in jail, pay a large amount of fines. Not to mention you are prevented from acquiring jobless benefits & welfare.

Welcome back Rukia. Planning on staying long or is this just a social call?

Also hows the relationship fairing? I hope things have been going well for you.

The laws aren't uniform but, some do have laws on the books that increase punishment if a gun is involved regardless if it kills anyone. I support measures that increase the punishment level of people who use a gun for a crime. I believe gun ownership should be promote while gun crime should never even be tolerated and severely punished.



The point was; use a better analogy. Comparing a firearm to a biological weapon doesn't even come close to being a good analogy. You can aim a firearm, you can't aim anthrax. Also a gun has the ability to kill only 6-12/13 people on average while biological weapons can kill 6-12/1300 in the same amount of time.

Also, biological weapons can't be used for home defense, unlike a firearm.

I always make a point Tsurayu, it's just I may not be explicit with it.




...wut...

They get their guns through the black market. Weapons are either stolen from houses during break ins where the guns are not kept in safe places such as locked gun cabinets, safes or smuggled through the boarder. How else are the larger more organized gangs getting grenades, RPG's and assault weapons (especially in states where gun ownership is far more difficult than other places? I can't walk into a local gun shop and walk out with a box of grenades. Nor can a criminal with a federal record purchase a weapon and yet, these guys seem to avoid those "pesky" laws about them not being allowed to have a weapon.

This is the truth no matter how much you deny it. Criminals get their weapons through illegal means. You can ban everything sharper than a butter knife and they will still have access to all the "BANNED" weapons.

Gangs rarely if ever get their guns through legal channels like a gun shop and they should never be allowed to. Background checks and the like are supported measures of gun control even by some pro-gun enthusiasts. If somehow a criminal with a Federal record gets a weapon from a shop, they weren't doing their part and should be punished for putting the gun in their hands and should be held accountable.

Lil'von's topic along with a recent headline from the USA Today (I believe) made me ponder the question.

"What degree of privacy should public figures reasonably expect?"

This runs the whole array from "private" matters such as the scandal involving Palin's daughter to "public" matters such as who visited which politician when, and why.

So, how much privacy should public figures be given and why?

Edit: This question applies to politicians, athletes, celebrities,etc

The contempt of modern police in America hasn't grown because these men were doing their jobs. The problem and the source of the festering hatred is that they are NOT doing their job.

Next time you are out driving around, look for the cop that is driving well above the speed limit for no reason other than "just patrolling". There is no reason for a trooper to drive 100+ just because. If he was on a call to assist another officer or if he was chasing down a speeder he'd have his lights on. The reality is they are just speeding because they can get away with it. Who is going to pull them over? The other cops?

I've seen police using their lights just so they can blow a red light because they didn't feel like stopping and No, it wasn't an emergency, they were at the red light ahead of me and the officer flipped his lights on, drove through the intersection and then once across he turned them off.

Or next time you open a news paper or turn on the news. keep in mind next time a cop is being "punished" with paid leave or desk duty for assaulting someone who wasn't a threat. Like the elderly black woman and her dog that was shot like I mentioned before. It took protests in the black community before the officers were actually punished. Oh, I forgot to mention the cops also planted pot on the 92yr old woman. I can provide an article if you wish.

How about two Toledo police officers beating the piss out of a 14yr old boy? Why did they beat the boy into a bloody mess? Because they claimed he kicked one of them.



How about the 5 NYPD officers who were charged with sodomy assault...with a police radio antenna?

I could go on for much, much longer but, I believe you'll see my point. These incidents are not isolated, they occur every day but, since you don't hear about it all the time it's not in the front of your mind.

I say fuck the police simply because the corruption is so blatantly rampant all across the country and yet, the "good" cops do nothing to stem the tide. Yes, there are good men in uniform who do honest work and honestly want to help protect people but, their existence alone doesn't remedy the sins of their comrades in uniform. They stand by and do nothing so in my eyes their hands are just as dirty, save for their clean conscience for not actually committing the deed.

I will look at every person hiding behind a badge with utter scorn until they get their damn act together and start obeying the laws and constitution they are charged with enforcing.

A problem with communism/socialism is the lack of economic liberty. The government in those systems stakes a large claim to the fruits of your labor in hopes of distributing it "more fairly". Such as taking care of the "needy" or as some people would say the leaches of society. So the Government takes away your choice to be charitable, or use the fruits of your labor in the ways you deem necessary. Charity at gunpoint isn't really charity.

Look around the world at the socialist/communist countries in the world. Red China, Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea, and Laos.

Look at the real world examples of such a great system. Poverty is rampant, food is scarce*. The government of those countries treat their people like slaves. Even Mao Zedong spoke of the 38 million he starved to death as merely "replaceable".

*Exception being the current government of China.

With all the brutality and general human rights violations of these countries. Why do people keep thinking this form of Government is so awesome when real world implementation has shown that it can't work? Isn't the definition of madness, doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results? The real world versions of that theory are horrid abominations that should be carved from the minds of society and the wounds cauterized.

History has proven that communism can't and will never work. Get used to it as history repeats itself.

The only half way decent thing about anything "socialist" is the Canadian medical system but, that's a completely different thread for a completely different time.

The U.k also has a large benefit of geographical location. You're, an island compared to a large country with a group of corrupt & inept countries to your south (Columbia, Peru, Mexico).You guys have...France. Though I'm not sure which is worse, the French Attitudes or the Mexican Mafia.

The U.K. doesn't have am open boarder problem where drug cartels can sneak huge amounts of drugs and weapons across the boarder. Not only can they smuggle those but, the cartels have even hired the Mexican military to cross into American territory which any other country would consider a declaration of war.

When can't solve the open boarder policy due to the desperate need the Democrats have for the Hispanic vote. Then the Republicans tend to show only apathy towards the issue as businesses "donate" to them for cheap labor.

This is another reason why I can't trust the Government. They can't even be bothered to secure the boarders and sovereignty of our country. Nor do they listen to the pleas of the citizens when drug cartels are kidnapping people from cities as far from the boarder as Atlanta and Nashville.

With the open boarder, even if the American Government succeeded in stripping the second amendment from it's people. The guns would still flow freely as the Cartels would bring them in from the south. This also doesn't really solve the problem as even our ports are so open with the sheer volume of containers that go unchecked at our ports that experts believed biological weapons or even radioactive material could be smuggled into the country in one or more of those containers.

It would take every country in both North and South America to ban firearms and be effective with it in order for guns to reach the levels in the U.K. I highly doubt that they will effective in even one country, let alone all of them.

Long story short, American's desire for drugs,along with political problems are fueling the very problems that lead to a lot of gun violence. Everyday we hear stories of some guy getting shot by a gang and people immediately grab for guns to try and take them away but, why are they trying to take guns out of the hands of people who aren't using them for illegal purposes? Why not keep them out of the hands of criminal instead? Why does the hunter, sportsman, law abiding citizen have to suffer for the actions other others?

How about changing the gun laws so if you use a gun in a violent crime (rape, assault, murder), robbery or a B&E then you lose the right to own a gun permanently. If the gun was used to harm someone in the illegal action then you go to jail, permanently. Most gun crime is committed by repeat offenders. Remove the repeated part and crime will go down sharply.

So debate a political theory but, we can't talk about the reasons why it's not a fantastic idea in reality? Kind of backwards don't you think? eh, why the hell not.

On paper, communism is the perfect system. No government, everybody works together towards a common goal, everyone retains their individuality and independence ...on paper.

In reality, communism is a huge democracy which means it turns everything into a popularity contest. If communism was "successful" smaller voices won't have the forum to have their ideas heard like a Republic. Not to mention the problems with production. Who decides to build factories? Who decides what is to be made and how much? Who decides where it goes and what methods are used to deliver those goods?

On a large scale communism is plagued with production inefficiency as there isn't any management to oversee production nor entrepreneurs who put their own money at risk for a return investment.



On the local government scale you have problems of who is going to build what, and where such as roads, water treatment, general infrastructure. You can't hold elections for local representatives as true communism can't have a government other than the entire population of the area (city, town, village) being in agreement.

With those out of the way, the countries that claim to be communist all have shown signs of overpowering government doing as it pleases against the population. The only reason these countries have a government is that a mid to large society can't exist without at least the minimal amount of Government. So what ends up happening is the Federal (or whatever equivalent term for those countries) tends to take control of everything as some round about way of "the people" owning everything but, that is really in name only as "the people" don't own the government, they just support it through taxes and labor. So in a roundabout way, these communist government always degrade into dictatorships as one man or a group of men have absolute power.

Another flaw in the argument for Communism is that the opponents are arguing against a theory as most supporters ignore the real world "communism/Socialism" or simply excuse their way out of it by saying that capitalism ruins the idea of communism or, "it just wasn't implemented correctly" or whatever excuse they cook up nowadays.

As I pointed out, evidence contrary to the idea of "man made global warming" was suppressed, even destroyed for all we know. Some evidence in the emails also details different ways to "slice" the information so that it comes to a certain outlook. Already, that is two blows to the credibility of Global warming researchers. Then there is the obvious link of funding. Politicians can basically blackmail scientists into only showing what they want shown as they can withhold grants and various other funding.

remember that graph from "An inconvenient truth". ever look at the expanded version of that graph? Probably not, probably never even knew the graph he used was zoomed in to only a small section as if one would look at the whole graph it starts viciously tearing holes in Al Gore's theory.

A.D.D. moment: Anybody see the hypocrisy of Al Gore promoting the idea of man made global warming when he's flying around in a personal Jet and his whole catering service. His Carbon foot print is well beyond what the average planet killing American puts out. His electricity bill is double what most Americans pay in a year!



Long story short, they are trying to cover their asses for being caught with their pants down so they'll pull just about anything to cover it up. I am well aware of bias and ... not quite corruption but, we'll go with "naughty behavior" in the climate science community. I mean, it's hard not to be bias when a politician signs your paycheck for your results.

Time.Uk

What's that colloquialism, oh yeah, bollocks. (Mine didn't come from wiki OR the "home office")



I guess reading is a bit different across the pond but, gun bans open the door. A dictator can't take control of an armed populace. They very absence of guns in the hands of the general population make it easier. All it takes is one president to simply say "I'm not stepping down" and what can a disarmed population do? Send the lapdogs..err police to remove him?

As for trusting the police. Go back and read Warrens V. D.C. That shows you why we have no trust in our police. Every day the police are abusing their power and they are protected by the courts. Several cops gun down an elderly black woman down in Atlanta and the cops get desk duty. Despite they broke into the wrong house and shot a woman and her dog. Everyday the police and Courts convict innocent simply on the testimony of a cop. I'm treated as a second class citizen when it comes to any disagreement between police and the citizens. Beating the shit out of people who aren't even resisting. Even when they are caught red handed beating people like elderly women or teenagers the police aren't even disciplined.

Police arrest people daily for not even breaking the law. I've personally been threatened with arrest for exercising my constitutional right of Free Speech. They have no incentive to protect me or my family. Most are so overweight that they couldn't be of use in an emergency anyways. Trust, the police? I say fuck the police!

As for our Representatives in the Government. I won't go so far as to say all but, damn near every single house member, senator is corrupt. Starting at State level (Pennsylvania & Illinois) all the way up to the Federal level. They don't give a fuck about the country, they only care about pleasing their donors like Unions or Big Businesses so they'll get re-elected. They don't campaign like people think they should on issues. They are merely buying the votes of the less intelligent. Promising more hand outs if they vote for them or spreading fear that party X will take away benefit Y if they don't get elected.

Want an example? Democrats claim every election that if Republicans are elected they'll take away the Social security benefits of the elderly. While Republicans pull the "if democrats get elected they'll make American unsafe against terrorism.

Should I also go into the trillions of fraud and waste of the last ten years? How about the violations of the civil rights by the Government in the last ten years? How about the efforts of the Federal Government to "fix" things only to cause more problems than they started with of the last thirty years? What about the numerous politicians who have been caught with bribes or other illegal activities of the last twenty?

The American political system is rotted to the core but, not quite rotted to the point the maggots won't survive like some governments. The cancer is already spreading throughout the body and it's people like you who claim "why don't you trust them?" are the reason those corrupt bastards can keep their seats and continue to lead the country into ruin.

I'm not one of those people who claims doom and gloom at every turn but, political kickbacks, back room deals, under the table negotiations, large influence of special interests making sure they get their slice of the pie, uncontrolled spending by both parties,etc are going to destroy this country and I want that cancer removed, now.

The E.P.A has been shown to be biased towards an agenda in recent years. I don't take anything a Government body says without question. Especially, a Government funded body (there are government entities that are privately funded such as National Public Radio)

I see this as nothing more than an attempt by the Obama White house to control the economy even more than it already does. With the current attempt to grab a chunk of the American economy. I sense that the whole cap& trade legislation is a "spread the wealth" policy extended to foreign countries where the so called "rich" nations have to fund projects in developing nations...because...yeah...



Global Warming was pretty much debunked as a hoax by the "climate gate" documents taken from the English University. Documents show that the "evidence" the supporters were using was just skewed and misrepresented. Even going so far as they even suppressed evidence contrary to their views. Never letting the evidence be heard in public. Now, that certainly shows that somebody had ulterior motives than what they claimed.

Climate Science is linked err chained to Government funding and by that connection you know that the information is bias.



Welcome to S.D. it's tradition for us to make large paragraphs and thoroughly explain our positions and evidence. Dante didn't mean anything by it.

Obvious exaggeration is obvious and fails to prove a point. We're talking about a firearm not a weapon of mass destruction that is banned by international agreements.



Nobody ever plans on having their homes invaded, mugged or even killed. I don't plan on having my apartment burn down but, I still have insurance to cover my losses. Isn't that the most basic of logic, to seek a means to protect what you have whether it be people or property? A insurance policy won't protect me from getting killed by an intruder but, a gun will. At least I can keep the intruder pinned down long enough for the police to get there so they can do their jobs. Without that gun I'm at the criminals mercy.



If that is your wish then so be it. I applaud you for having principles and sticking too them. I am not being sarcastic, I honestly respect people who stick to their principles. With that said, your decisions should only apply to you. You don't have any right or claim to deny the rights of others regardless if you agree with them or not.



Grab a history book for me or better yet, a history of military tactics. What do the American revolution, Vietnam, the Cuban revolution, the "Hubel Partisans", Afghanistan and Iraq all have in common?

They have shown us repeatedly that a small lightly armed force CAN defeat a larger, and better equipped standing army. As long as those people have access to semi-automatic weapons even the American military can be defeated.




I have brought up how ineffective gun bans truly are when trying to stop crime and that area's with higher gun possession actually have lower crime. If criminals are cowards like you say they will take the path of least resistance and I know a gun counts as "resistance".

Allow me to direct you to the detailed version of Warren V. District of Columbia.



Now ask yourself this. Would the original rape victim have suffered as long if her two companions had a firearm? Would all three women have been brutally raped and assaulted for fourteen hours if they had that gun? Remember, Marvin Kent and James Morse only had a knife.

This is why gun bans are not only ineffective but, morally wrong. You only remove the guns from the people not inclined to use them for criminal purposes.

IF you wish I can also give you the statistics of the 1997 gun ban in England and how crime rates soared 340% in Both England and Whales. There is a literal mountain of evidence (if it was put down on paper) against the claims of gun grabbers. Please, start seeing the logic.