Click to expand
Latest users (3): marinepenguin, redandgreen, valeriya, anonymous(20).
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#67141 - Ken M (08/05/2014) [-]
What's Left-Libertarianism?
User avatar #67153 to #67141 - undeadwill (08/05/2014) [-]
A fantasy of those ignorant of economics.
User avatar #67223 to #67153 - Shiny (08/05/2014) [-]
Explain? Even Marx was fluent in capitalism.
User avatar #67224 to #67223 - undeadwill (08/05/2014) [-]
Where is your evidence that Marx understood economics?

And how does one deal with scarcity without a government or market?
User avatar #67230 to #67224 - Shiny (08/06/2014) [-]
"Where is your evidence that Marx understood economics?"
Reading books is useful.
"And how does one deal with scarcity without a government or market?"
Right and left do not mean market and non-market.
User avatar #67232 to #67230 - undeadwill (08/06/2014) [-]
He fucked up understand that there would still be a middle class, and that the rich did not buy up all the property.

So how is it different from communism and capitalism?
User avatar #67236 to #67232 - Shiny (08/06/2014) [-]
I never said his conclusions derived from capitalism were correct (which is why I have strong reservations about Marxism). Merely that he understood it and why it was supported.

That said, communism is generally on the furthest left of the spectrum; in contrast, social democracy and similar ideologies are capitalistic. The main difference from the right is that they use markets as a necessary tool rather than an ideal method.
User avatar #67240 to #67236 - undeadwill (08/06/2014) [-]
He said it was because people were ignorant, religion blinded them and other such calls.

>Social democracy are capitalistic.
No they are mixed economies neither communist, socialist, fascist or capitalist.

Market=/= capitalism
User avatar #67345 to #67240 - Shiny (08/07/2014) [-]
Partially capitalistic is still capitalistic. If anything, a non-mixed market is pretty much a pipedream, since it requires a state to go to tremendous lengths to avoid passing any sort of legislation that might indirectly have an effect on the economy.
User avatar #67150 to #67141 - oxan (08/05/2014) [-]
Workers' councils and coops and shit.
#67206 to #67150 - Ken M (08/05/2014) [-]
Basically Anarcho-Syndicalism?
User avatar #67265 to #67206 - oxan (08/06/2014) [-]
That'd be a variant of it, I suppose.
User avatar #67143 to #67141 - Shiny (08/05/2014) [-]
Libertarianism on the left. There are many very different interpretations of libertarianism, most of them divided on economics, but in general they have far, far more in common philosophically than authoritarian schools of thought.
#67134 - Kingcgc ONLINE (08/05/2014) [-]
Gaza deserves everything.
#67127 - oxan (08/05/2014) [-]

Tell me what party to join and I might just do it.

Labor, Liberals, Nationals, Greens, Sex Party, Liberal Democrats, First Nations (lol), Fred Nile, Drug Law Reform, HEMP, Natural Medicine, Republican (double lol), Secular, Socialist Alliance and the Socialist Equality Party are all wrong answer.
#67140 to #67127 - Ken M (08/05/2014) [-]
Sustainable Population Party?
User avatar #67149 to #67140 - oxan (08/05/2014) [-]
You might be right, Anon. They seem okay. Would probably vote for/10.
User avatar #67131 to #67127 - Shiny (08/05/2014) [-]
Pirate Party Australia. Show up on ballet day in schmaltzy pirate costume and pretend to think it's related.
User avatar #67129 to #67127 - undeadwill (08/05/2014) [-]
User avatar #67132 to #67129 - oxan (08/05/2014) [-]
I already told you that the Liberal Democrats are out.

Those fuckers want to create an French Foreign Legion-style unit of the Australian Defence Force. It's like a 13 year old wrote their fucking platform, I shit you not. The only good thing is progunz and airsoft.
#67211 to #67132 - cabbagemayhem (08/05/2014) [-]
I don't know what you're ranting about the Australian Defense Force, but Libertarianism is about liberty, not liberalism. It's pretty much the opposite of Liberal Democrats these days.
User avatar #67255 to #67211 - oxan (08/06/2014) [-]
I have to clarify that Australian Liberals are not like American Liberals.

Our current government is made up of the Liberal Party, which are comparable to American Republicans. Our 'Democrats' are the Labour Party.

The Liberal Party advocate neoliberal economics. The Liberal Democrats are full Libertarians. I suppose just to make it more confusing, we also have a minority party called the Australian Democrats and the Republican Party of Australia. Lol.
#67269 to #67255 - cabbagemayhem (08/06/2014) [-]
Hmm, well whichever one resists excessive business regulation and price controls, supports ownership of firearms, wants to promote free trade and keep government small and avoid socialized medicine and other government subsidies, and treats people equal under the law instead of granting supposed "special privileges" to the disadvantaged. Oh, and is against the overuse of the prison system in favor of alternatives, such as was published by the U.N. [1], or just revert to lashings.

1. www.unodc.org/pdf/criminal_justice/Handbook_of_Basic_Principles_and_Promising_Practices_on_Alternatives_to_Imprisonment.pdf
User avatar #67271 to #67269 - oxan (08/06/2014) [-]
>Resist excessive business regulation and price controls
>Supports ownerships of firearms
>Wants to promote free trade and keep government small.
>Avoid socialised medicine
Utmost hue. This is Australia we're talking about. Proposed changes to Medicare that would mean paying $7 to see a doctor resulted in anti-government rallies (although I exaggerate. The rallies were against the budget generally).
>Treats people equal under the law instead of special privileges to the disadvantaged
Depends on who you define as disadvantaged.

I rate it hue/10.
User avatar #67254 to #67211 - oxan (08/06/2014) [-]
I'm ranting about the Defence policy of the LibDems. And I assure you, they are Libertarians. Google Liberal Democratic Party of Australia and have a quick look at their website.
User avatar #67133 to #67132 - undeadwill (08/05/2014) [-]
I actually like the idea of the FFL for a military unit.

Go with the motor club
User avatar #67148 to #67133 - oxan (08/05/2014) [-]
aw, Senator Ricky Muir is just the cutest.
#67069 - lulzfornigeriagirl (08/05/2014) [-]
So what do you guys think of the completely stupid actions the U.S is taking with the Ebola virus?
#67097 to #67069 - cabbagemayhem (08/05/2014) [-]
I think: Good!
An American missionary who went out to help people with Ebola got sick, and now needs American medical care. It's unlikely to spread by him, but will help us gain experience in treating it for when it comes here unexpectedly. Never be too afraid to do the right thing.
User avatar #67103 to #67097 - lulzfornigeriagirl (08/05/2014) [-]
Is this supposed to be sarcastic?
#67110 to #67103 - cabbagemayhem (08/05/2014) [-]
No. Have I not heard the whole story, or do you really think we're going to catch Ebola?
User avatar #67135 to #67110 - alimais (08/05/2014) [-]
Even in the cleanest lab, mistakes can happen.

"Could Ebola now be airborne? New research shows lethal virus can be spread from pigs to monkeys without contact"



#67207 to #67135 - Ken M (08/05/2014) [-]
>both articles from 2012
>both articles from 2012
#67200 to #67135 - cabbagemayhem (08/05/2014) [-]
1. They already wear breathing equipment.
2. This guy isn't the one to worry about. Even if a mistake happens, it can be quickly and easily quarantined. What you should worry about is someone flying over here on a plane while still in the incubation phase. That's the real danger, and if we don't have any experience treating it by then, then what shame turning away a fellow American and Christian peace keeper today.
User avatar #67154 to #67135 - huntergriff (08/05/2014) [-]
It's not airborne. Otherwise most of africa would be infected by now.
User avatar #67172 to #67154 - alimais (08/05/2014) [-]
Africa doesn't have a high population density
User avatar #67173 to #67172 - huntergriff (08/05/2014) [-]
It would have spread with all the people leaving west africa via air travel, as well.
User avatar #67174 to #67173 - alimais (08/05/2014) [-]
I think they got pretty strict at those airports duo their countries having a Ebola outbreak
User avatar #67175 to #67174 - huntergriff (08/05/2014) [-]
Remember it takes 21 days for the disease to show up...you're not contagious until you start showing symptoms.
User avatar #67176 to #67175 - alimais (08/05/2014) [-]
2 to 21 days
User avatar #67177 to #67176 - huntergriff (08/05/2014) [-]
still...had it gone airborne the CDC would have known by now. While it has the capability to go airborne, it hasn't shown up with humans yet.
User avatar #67179 to #67177 - alimais (08/05/2014) [-]
also the the article still says it a hypothesis so it's not really proven.
User avatar #67180 to #67179 - alimais (08/05/2014) [-]
the risk is still there
User avatar #67182 to #67180 - huntergriff (08/05/2014) [-]
there's also the fact that the last time there was an ebola outbreak, of this strain was in 2008-2009...so i mean if it hasn't changed since then, what does that tell you?
User avatar #67183 to #67182 - alimais (08/05/2014) [-]
in the last months more people died of Ebola than in the
Ebola outbreaks last 10 years combined.
User avatar #67185 to #67183 - huntergriff (08/05/2014) [-]
Simple explanation: Unsanitary conditions. remember, it's a third world country for a reason.
User avatar #67187 to #67185 - alimais (08/05/2014) [-]
But outbreaks before were in countries with a much higher population density
User avatar #67188 to #67187 - alimais (08/05/2014) [-]
in Africa
User avatar #67178 to #67177 - alimais (08/05/2014) [-]
I'm pretty sure most opportunities to fly with a plane got much harder even for not infected people.
User avatar #67082 to #67069 - undeadwill (08/05/2014) [-]
it would as it often does kill itself off so long as the sick are quarantined.
User avatar #67102 to #67082 - lulzfornigeriagirl (08/05/2014) [-]
And they are not being quarantined, in fact they are being flown into America.
User avatar #67156 to #67102 - huntergriff (08/05/2014) [-]
they are being quarantined.
User avatar #67104 to #67102 - undeadwill (08/05/2014) [-]
Civilian or CDC airlines?
User avatar #67080 to #67069 - pebar (08/05/2014) [-]
Why do Bats Transmit so many Diseases like Ebola? I think people are overreacting.
User avatar #67101 to #67080 - lulzfornigeriagirl (08/05/2014) [-]
And that video helped your point how...?

I believe it is not anywhere near worth the risk and it seems completely illogical. I hate to be conspiracy like but it seems like a lot of people have to gain from this.
User avatar #67137 to #67101 - alimais (08/05/2014) [-]
I can give you some tinfoil material :3

The Ebola labs where the current outbreak is happening in West Africa is officially financed by a mad-businessman who's known only to do something if it benefits him or ideal George Soros

The US has officially a patent on ebola since 2009

Patent us20120251502

The Ebola patient in the US recovered duo a how You need to login to view this link describes it "a secret serum".
User avatar #67138 to #67137 - alimais (08/05/2014) [-]
Also the labs may be bioweapon labs
#67157 to #67138 - huntergriff (08/05/2014) [-]
Google "Geneva conventions", and "Biological Weapons Convention"
Google "Geneva conventions", and "Biological Weapons Convention"
User avatar #67181 to #67157 - alimais (08/05/2014) [-]
I know those but what's your point ?
#67184 to #67181 - huntergriff (08/05/2014) [-]
So...even though you know what those are...you're still going to say that they may be bioweapon labs?
So...even though you know what those are...you're still going to say that they may be bioweapon labs?
User avatar #67186 to #67184 - alimais (08/05/2014) [-]
Well, if I look them up every article suggests those are bio-weapon labs.

You know, the US has Al-Qaeda still on their terror-list but are officially supporting Al-Qaeda linked groups in Syria.

#67052 - undeadwill (08/05/2014) [-]
Also today I found out my philosophy teacher is an objectivist.
Also today I found out my philosophy teacher is an objectivist.
User avatar #67068 to #67052 - ablueguy (08/05/2014) [-]
My first philosophy teacher was a nihilist.
His class was seriously depressing.
User avatar #67070 to #67068 - undeadwill (08/05/2014) [-]
What is a nihilist again?
User avatar #67074 to #67070 - ablueguy (08/05/2014) [-]
Someone who believes that everything is pointless, even their belief itself.
User avatar #67078 to #67074 - undeadwill (08/05/2014) [-]
Well that is depressing and pointless.
User avatar #67145 to #67078 - ablueguy (08/05/2014) [-]
Well yeah, nihilism is pointless. Heh.
User avatar #67152 to #67145 - undeadwill (08/05/2014) [-]
Its pointless as it deals with a absolute of nothingness and from it nothing can come from it.
User avatar #67055 to #67052 - pebar (08/05/2014) [-]
That doesn't really say anything. All it means is that they think reality exists outside people's minds.
User avatar #67056 to #67055 - undeadwill (08/05/2014) [-]
Ayn Rand objectivist.
User avatar #67063 to #67056 - lulzfornigeriagirl (08/05/2014) [-]
ohh god, OHH GOD.
User avatar #67065 to #67063 - undeadwill (08/05/2014) [-]
Did you cum?
User avatar #67066 to #67065 - lulzfornigeriagirl (08/05/2014) [-]
No yes she is just a horrible person.
User avatar #67067 to #67066 - undeadwill (08/05/2014) [-]
I like her.
User avatar #67072 to #67067 - lulzfornigeriagirl (08/05/2014) [-]
I forgive you my nigga
User avatar #67079 to #67072 - undeadwill (08/05/2014) [-]
Nothing to forgive nigga. I am proud of it.
User avatar #67059 to #67056 - pebar (08/05/2014) [-]
Milton Friedman - Greed Meh.... I never saw the attraction of the "greed is good" bit
User avatar #67060 to #67059 - undeadwill (08/05/2014) [-]
Not so much greed as self interest.
User avatar #67061 to #67060 - pebar (08/05/2014) [-]
Same thing.
User avatar #67064 to #67061 - undeadwill (08/05/2014) [-]
Adam Smith vs. Ayn Rand - Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights

What is wrong with self interest?
User avatar #67076 to #67064 - pebar (08/05/2014) [-]
Self interest can cause lots of problems. Capitalism however, within an certain economic framework, takes that self interest and turn it into something productive.
I'm leaning more to siding with Adam Smith
User avatar #67071 to #67064 - pebar (08/05/2014) [-]
stealing, government corruption, etc
User avatar #67077 to #67071 - undeadwill (08/05/2014) [-]
Ayn Rand - The Virtue Of Selfishness

Ayn Rand - Conflicts Of Interest

You do mistake self interest with that of force to seek ones goals. It is not a philosophy of me first but rather man with the duty to only himself and not at the forced expense of others.
It states the nature of man's goals should foremost be himself and not others. This is not to state that charity is immoral but when it is self sacrificing it is. If one seeks to give money to other he does so but it should not be one's life goal.

Think of it like this, there is nothing wrong with eating a unhealthy food you enjoy but it should not be one's life goal.
User avatar #67049 - undeadwill (08/05/2014) [-]
Do the demands of many out weigh the rights of individuals?
#67159 to #67049 - Ken M (08/05/2014) [-]
A collective only has as much rights and liberties as the individuals who compose it. Screwing over individual rights for "collective rights" is hypocritical and self-defeating.
#67158 to #67049 - Ken M (08/05/2014) [-]
you will find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.

#67122 to #67049 - cabbagemayhem (08/05/2014) [-]
The short answer is no. The needs of the many is a noble end, but the means are terrible. The best way to satisfy the needs of the many is by maximizing individual rights. After all, no one knows what's best for you better than you. A good example of that is gift giving. A group of people can either buy each other gifts or each buy something for themselves. In which scenario will benefits be maximized for everyone? Obviously, the latter. Generally, no one can have the will or desire to look out for you as much as you do. So, everyone is best looked after by themselves, first. Then, you can look after others when you're ready, but self-sacrifice for its own sake is only self-destruction.

In fact, the "needs of the many", and the "greater good" or the "public good" are the excuses used by governments throughout history to perform all of their mass executions. They are used to rush into excessively liberal and socialist policies that ultimately fail or have the opposite effect that was intended.

This actually a very old question. The view that people should give to each other, versus the view that people should work their own way goes back at least as far as some Mayan hieroglyphs I remember seeing. The hieroglyphs seemed to imply the former was the path to destruction.

Don't get me wrong. It's important to give, and to be your brother's keeper. Nature puts that on our heart already, and teaches us to work together. But, to tell someone that he has to give his life or belongings to someone else for the greater good, or we're going to come in and take it, tends to have a net negative benefit.
User avatar #67083 to #67049 - oxan (08/05/2014) [-]
You just reminded me of this fucking arsehole I had to work with in a UN Youth event and his own interpretations of the UDHR that he presented as fact. Fuck that guy. SJW to the fucking max.
User avatar #67084 to #67083 - undeadwill (08/05/2014) [-]
User avatar #67085 to #67084 - oxan (08/05/2014) [-]
Universal Declaration of Human Rights you anti-democratic pleb.
User avatar #67086 to #67085 - undeadwill (08/05/2014) [-]
Human rights should not be determined by either the tyrant or the tyranny of many, creating in a effect creating the tyrant. For if one's rights are subject to this can one say that he has rights or privileges that exist till his neighbors deem them illegal?

I wouldn't expect a Marxist to understand that.
User avatar #67087 to #67086 - oxan (08/05/2014) [-]
>He thinks there's natural rights

Rights are determined by the tyranny of many, m8. Your 'natural rights' mean shit when people think they're shit. Shit is alarming, but is true.

Thankfully we Ausfags have awesome constitutional safeguards on the misuse of political power.
User avatar #67089 to #67087 - undeadwill (08/05/2014) [-]
>Implying there aren't.

So what you are saying, is that rights only exist from a legal basis, and that there is no means to determine what a right is, only what is not banned from the government.
In that you have no rights, and that you are little more than a slave.
User avatar #67090 to #67089 - oxan (08/05/2014) [-]
>There is no means to determine what a right is

There is. It's what the majority think is a right.

Rights have no meaning unless they're backed by force. There is no force without the majority. Even if there were natural rights, they'd be meaningless unless the majority of the people believed in them.

Look at your Second Amendment. Fuckers want to amend your constitution to remove that natural right. They don't give a shit if it's natural.
User avatar #67091 to #67090 - undeadwill (08/05/2014) [-]
Would you then make murder a right for another to take the rights another because 51% percent desired to kill 49%?

Would this be moral?

And how is the right to life backed up by force if it is taken by the government? The only means in which force is legalized?
#67093 to #67091 - oxan (08/05/2014) [-]
>He thinks I like the idea that rights are defined by the majority
User avatar #67094 to #67093 - undeadwill (08/05/2014) [-]
Well stating that one's rights should come into question of majority rule and the tyranny of a majority. By this nature if ones rights are only what the government allows does that in fact take away a man's right to speak or rather does it only punish him for speaking.
User avatar #67095 to #67094 - oxan (08/05/2014) [-]
>By this nature if ones rights are only what the government allows does that in fact take away a man's right to speak or rather does it only punish him for speaking.

Er, both, I suppose, in some contexts.
User avatar #67096 to #67095 - undeadwill (08/05/2014) [-]
So natural rights are rights that man may do at the expense of no other and remains something that a man still would hold a right without the structure of force.
User avatar #67120 to #67096 - oxan (08/05/2014) [-]
Nigga wat

Possessing firearms is a right than does not infringe on the rights of others and fuckers still want to make us nogunz.
User avatar #67121 to #67120 - undeadwill (08/05/2014) [-]
The fact one man wishes to take your rights does not invalidate their existence.
#67123 to #67121 - oxan (08/05/2014) [-]
Oh snap, good retort.

I just want muh gunz ;_;
User avatar #67126 to #67123 - undeadwill (08/05/2014) [-]
Btw that made my day. Thanks.
User avatar #67128 to #67126 - oxan (08/05/2014) [-]
Which part? Pic related? I like that pic.
User avatar #67124 to #67123 - undeadwill (08/05/2014) [-]
Thank you

Don't we all?
User avatar #67051 to #67049 - ablueguy (08/05/2014) [-]
Which demands?
Which individuals?
Which rights?
User avatar #67054 to #67051 - undeadwill (08/05/2014) [-]
Does it matter?
Does it matter?
The rights of life, liberty, and property. Basic human rights.

The question is not meant to be subjective but rather one of principle. For if one finds some crack in a system, they can chip away at it to erode what is someones rights.
User avatar #67057 to #67054 - ablueguy (08/05/2014) [-]
I'm of the opinion that criminals forfeit their right to liberty, and possibly life, depending on the crime.
#67100 to #67057 - cabbagemayhem (08/05/2014) [-]
I hope you emphasize the "depending on the crime" part. Anyone can be charged with a crime, or even commit one in some eyes, and it might seem foreign to you that you could end up on the wrong side of the law, until it happens. Don't forsake all your criminals. Ironically, they're not all bad.
User avatar #67144 to #67100 - ablueguy (08/05/2014) [-]
Yeah, I do put emphasis on what kind of crime it is
#67201 to #67144 - cabbagemayhem (08/05/2014) [-]
Well...ok then!
#67062 to #67057 - Ken M (08/05/2014) [-]
John Stossel - Policing For Profit
User avatar #67058 to #67057 - undeadwill (08/05/2014) [-]
That is a criminal who violated someone else's rights.
#67099 to #67042 - cabbagemayhem (08/05/2014) [-]
That's wrong.
User avatar #67050 to #67042 - ablueguy (08/05/2014) [-]
User avatar #67048 to #67042 - undeadwill (08/05/2014) [-]
#67037 - Ken M (08/04/2014) [-]
What do you guys think of welfare and taxes? I think having raised taxes in order to pay for welfare will pay off in the long run, as any money given to a person on the welfare is given back to the economy, so we don't really lose money on it, and the people on welfare might get a job eventually as they don't become homeless.
User avatar #67130 to #67037 - Shiny (08/05/2014) [-]
Welfare is an ethical choice, not an economic one. I wholeheartedly support a social safety net, but you have to understand that it often fails to make a return on investment and the US's current welfare system is pretty fucked ala healthcare.
User avatar #67081 to #67037 - oxan (08/05/2014) [-]
>Any money given to a person on welfare is given back to the economy

Not necessarily, but I digress.

It helps if there's enough jobs for people. That isn't the case. In Australia, I think the latest statistic is there's one job for every five unemployed people. To be honest, waiting for da crime wave due to the government's new welfare policies. Policies that are dumb as fuck. Six month waiting period after you apply before you receive payments for 6 months, before you have 6 months off it again. Fucking. Retarded.
#67047 to #67037 - cabbagemayhem (08/04/2014) [-]
Also, the money would go back into the economy the wrong way. It's not how much money is spent, but how it is spent. See the broken window fallacy.
Giving to the poor is supposed to be a choice people make on an individual basis. And, with proper money incentives, charities are more effective at restoring honest people from poverty. When government implements welfare, it forces you to pay for a single cookie-cutter method that takes away the incentive of others to work.
#67038 to #67037 - economicfreedom (08/04/2014) [-]
Milton Friedman - Whats wrong with welfare? Because right now, our welfare system penalizes people for working.
Because nobody spends someone else's money as carefully as they spend their own.
Because when people on welfare spend money irresponsibly, it pisses off taxpayers.
Because non-money entitlements like socialized healthcare are horribly inefficient.
Because the way taxes are set up discourages companies from hiring people.
Because it distorts the price signals that control immigration and it encourages people to come in for free goodies and not to provide additional workers, thus immigration must be restricted.
Because when government must borrow money to pay its bills, it raises the interest rate which hurts the expansion of business.
Because the regulations that always come with it are bureaucratic and wasteful.

Because right now, there are other things that could be done (or undone) that could help the poor than simply throwing money at a broken system.
#67034 to #67029 - cabbagemayhem (08/04/2014) [-]
Or, he can move to Chicago and never have to worry about open carry, only shootings. As for me, I will avoid gun controlled areas like the plague.
User avatar #67036 to #67034 - teoberry (08/04/2014) [-]
I don't think he's against OC, just the fat idiots who show up in a target with all their tacticool weapons because "muh rightzzz"
User avatar #67040 to #67039 - teoberry (08/04/2014) [-]
Jesus Christ....

I'm surprised it's not that disgusting green colour most "zombie guns" are
User avatar #67041 to #67040 - pebar (08/04/2014) [-]
Most Tactical AR15... EVER! Here's another one
#67045 to #67041 - cabbagemayhem (08/04/2014) [-]
You all realize those videos aren't meant to be taken seriously, right?
User avatar #67046 to #67045 - pebar (08/04/2014) [-]
Gun Gripes Episode 60: Range Ninjas yeah, I know
User avatar #67031 to #67029 - alimais (08/04/2014) [-]
>russel weinstein
#67027 - Ken M (08/04/2014) [-]
User avatar #67026 - undeadwill (08/04/2014) [-]
Utilitarian is a bunch of horse shit.
#67019 - Ken M (08/04/2014) [-]
I've heard that some Evangelical Christians in America support Israel because of the Rapture or a Holy War or something.
What's up with that?
#67098 to #67019 - cabbagemayhem (08/05/2014) [-]
I don't know about them, but there are better reasons to support Israel.
#67022 to #67019 - byposted (08/04/2014) [-]
Ignorance of the scripture and zealous pastors who feed into it.
User avatar #67073 to #67022 - lulzfornigeriagirl (08/05/2014) [-]
I gotta say that Aryan soldier looks badass.
User avatar #67025 to #67022 - youregaylol (08/04/2014) [-]
Would've been perfect if it wasn't written by a mudslime apologist.
#67023 to #67022 - Ken M (08/04/2014) [-]
most half assed attempt at hijacking a political cartoon I've ever seen.
#67024 to #67023 - byposted (08/04/2014) [-]
>what is 'fair use'
#67005 - ribocoon (08/03/2014) [-]
Jesus would protect his children
Would you?
User avatar #67008 to #67005 - economicfreedom (08/03/2014) [-]
Jesus was against such defense though. Something like "if someone robs you, give them your shirt as well." Jesus only cared about the SPIRITUAL well-being of his "children." If a child dies for whatever reason and that somehow gets an adult to convert to Christianity, then that was part of His plan.

Don't bring religious debates here.
#67028 to #67008 - Ken M (08/04/2014) [-]
Jesus was also against suicide. allowing yourself to become a victim is the same shit.
Then said He unto them, “But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it and likewise his pack; and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one. Luke 22:37
And if you try to bring up that he let the jews kill him, it was to dissolve us of our sins. He knew he was coming back.
#67010 to #67008 - ribocoon (08/03/2014) [-]
It's all meaningless anyways
User avatar #67075 to #67010 - lulzfornigeriagirl (08/05/2014) [-]
hey motherfucker stop stealing the other guys gig.
#67125 to #67075 - ribocoon (08/05/2014) [-]
Why should I? Life has no inherent meaning or rules. Everything you think and say is pointless.
#67013 to #67010 - Ken M (08/03/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #66988 - lulzfornigeriagirl (08/03/2014) [-]
What do you guys think of Michael Savage and his show the savage nation?
User avatar #67018 to #66988 - byposted (08/04/2014) [-]
He's a natural talk show host, patently superior to the bland Hannity and "muh CONSTITOOCHUN" Levin.

Of course, I disagree with him on Palestine, having tuned out of talk radio all together since the conflict began.
User avatar #67035 to #67018 - lulzfornigeriagirl (08/04/2014) [-]
I think I like him.
#67007 to #66988 - Ken M (08/03/2014) [-]
probly a zionist show since you mentioned it
User avatar #66987 - schnizel (08/03/2014) [-]
An Israeli Australian Jew at Sydney Airport גבר ישראלי בנמל התעופה של סידני
User avatar #67004 to #66987 - neroiskill (08/03/2014) [-]
What are you anti-semite ?
You're just jealous of the gods chosen people.
User avatar #66993 to #66987 - alimais (08/03/2014) [-]
Probably wanted to poison plants in West Bank or Gaza :^)
#66994 to #66991 - alimais (08/03/2014) [-]
Well, lying to Goyim is not prohibited for G-ds chosen :^)
#67003 to #66994 - Ken M (08/03/2014) [-]
Oy vey, the goy knows
#66984 - thisiskevinhanian ONLINE (08/03/2014) [-]
tell me why Putin isn't the best leader in the world
tell me why Putin isn't the best leader in the world
#67043 to #66984 - Ken M (08/04/2014) [-]
Because he isn't Alexander.
#67009 to #66984 - Ken M (08/03/2014) [-]
America still exists.
 Friends (0)