About iwog


49 friends
Follow   24,341 comments   47 male   Followed by 32   Following 0   Ignored by 12   Ignoring 4   Ignore iwog
Registered Nov 10, 2007


iwog's most recent comments:

  • On Thu, 8 Oct 2015, 1:57pm PDT in Will soon be illegal to name your team "Redskins", iwog said:

    Blurtman says

    It is the tyranny of the minority rights, and white man's guilt. There is an implicit understanding that all white people are responsible for the crimes of totally unrelated white people, an implied responsibility by dopey liberals and hand-out wanting minorities, that transcends time and generations.

    I think some are confusing the freedom of speech with the freedom to inject speech into any forum one wishes.

    They aren't even close to being the same. You can say whatever you want. As the director of the mint however, you cannot freely issue American coins with "FUCK YOU" as the national motto. That isn't protected speech.

  • On Thu, 8 Oct 2015, 1:55pm PDT in Will soon be illegal to name your team "Redskins", iwog said:

    Patrick says

    Disagree. We are the state. For the state to restrict "offensive" speech according to the political winds of the moment is clearly a violation of the first amendment.

    The point of the first amendment is exactly to protect speech which the state finds offensive.

    It's the state naming the school in the first place. If the state finds the name offensive than obviously the state is going to name it something else.

    There is no speech being violated here. Naming a school is a COLLECTIVE ACT, not an individual act nor individual speech. Furthermore if some individual took it upon himself to name his particular school mascot the Redskins, he would be doing so in violation of the COLLECTIVE OPINION and thus representing his views in a forum that doesn't belong to him.

    This is the flip side of the coin from the lunatic who refuses to grant marriage licenses to gay people. She claims it is her constitutional free expression of religion, which she certainly has. However she is expressing her freedom of religion in a forum that doesn't belong to her. As a government official, she represents the will of the collective, not her own agency and when she turns it into her own personal dictatorship, she is granting herself rights she doesn't have.

    A public school district belongs to the state of California and as you pointed out, ultimately to the people. The liberal people of California are quite clear they don't want their schools to use this name and therefore they have every right to have their collective opinion written into law. Again.....should a school district or even a single school administrator decide that he/she should have the freedom of speech to use Redskins in any school activities, it is claiming a forum that doesn't belong to that individual.

    There is no fundamental difference between an individual claiming a minority view be respected in a public forum and a guy spray painting "death to America" on the Statue of Liberty. It is not a free speech issue.

  • On Thu, 8 Oct 2015, 12:21pm PDT in Krugmans Dopey Diatribe Deifying The Public Debt, iwog said:

    indigenous says

    No mutt, only an idiot would consider that point. The growth has to exceed the debt or it does not grow the economy.

    Yeah except bullshit and you're an idiot for making that comment. I'm really tired of calling you stupid. PLEASE stop being stupid.

    If you borrow any sum of money in our current fractional reserve system, you expand demand in every case. It doesn't matter if $100 in borrowing results in $5 more in economic activity because the $100 came from nowhere and the $5 is growth is an actual transaction. This would work even in a hard money Austrian cartoon fantasy because you're talking gold that is sitting in a vault and liberating it to create commerce and production.

    I'll simplify it because you're a moron.

    If I "loan" a child $20 and tell that child to spend $5 on candy and put $15 in a piggy bank, that $20 loan has resulted in $5 worth of growth. $5 worth of additional demand, additional supply and additional GDP. Now because you're a moron you're insisting that it needs to result in $20 or more in growth for that loan to have grown the economy, but this simple example demonstrates why you're wrong.

home   top   share   link sharer   users   register   best comments   sftech companies   about