Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search
hide menu

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Show:   Highest Rated Top Rated Newest
auto-refresh every 1 2 3 5 seconds

Per page:
Latest users (2): pebar, undeadwill, anonymous(12).
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #27926 - daryldixon (04/26/2013) [-]
So California passed a law to allow illegal citizens to be picked on jury duty.

User avatar #27937 to #27926 - pebar ONLINE (04/26/2013) [-]
Now it really is a jury of one's own peers.

-Daniel Tosh
User avatar #27989 to #27937 - oxan (04/27/2013) [-]
#27928 to #27926 - anonymous (04/26/2013) [-]
wouldn't it just be fucking awesome if California broke off and sank into the sea?
User avatar #28022 to #27928 - ilovelsloths (04/28/2013) [-]
That is actually possible, since there are so many faults in that area. We'd have only 47 contiguous states then.
#27913 - EdwardNigma ONLINE (04/26/2013) [-]
What if, to choose world leaders, it was a fight to the death?

We have a normal debate set up. The two candidates have to fight each other while shouting what they'll do as president/whatever. People can send in votes via little remotes and then when you get enough votes, you get a weapon. A small bat, to a fucking greatsword.

This would make is considerably more interesting.
#27924 to #27913 - anonymous (04/26/2013) [-]
we certainly wouldn't have fucking obama.

that would be great.
User avatar #27933 to #27924 - beatmasterz (04/26/2013) [-]
Obama would've wrecked McCain and Romney.
User avatar #27938 to #27933 - pebar ONLINE (04/26/2013) [-]
Obama and Romney were basically the same politically
#27936 to #27933 - anonymous (04/26/2013) [-]
Not if the deathmatch had no weapons.
#27906 - anonymous (04/26/2013) [-]
There is no point in making laws because criminals don't follow them.

Agree or Disagree?
User avatar #27947 to #27906 - Zarke (04/26/2013) [-]
Laws establish a code of justice; a system by which actions deemed "wrong" by society can be systematically punished. Without a code of laws to determine how someone gets punished for what, punishments for crimes are entirely arbitrary, and that is a human rights violation waiting to happen.
Some laws are written knowing that they will be broken.
User avatar #27943 to #27906 - rageisfunny ONLINE (04/26/2013) [-]
People like order and laws in general. If you removed all the laws people would band together into small communities that then made their own laws which would probably pretty closely reflect all the laws that were disbanded.
User avatar #27919 to #27906 - oxan (04/26/2013) [-]
Laws create a guideline of what society considers acceptable, and what it considers unacceptable (generally). These guidelines are what we socialise children with. Laws enable social cohesion.
#27925 to #27919 - anonymous (04/26/2013) [-]
>commie talking about social cohesion

User avatar #27965 to #27925 - oxan (04/27/2013) [-]
What of it?
User avatar #27912 to #27906 - EdwardNigma ONLINE (04/26/2013) [-]
If you remove the laws, then more people will become criminals. A lot of people won't commit a crime due to the fear of being caught, they can go to jail. Remove that, more crimes are committed. Because now if they are caught, they'll kill who catches them. And no one will care because theres no law, so what can they do? No one will try to catch them.

Basically, thats fucking retarded.
User avatar #27908 to #27906 - eight (04/26/2013) [-]
Agree. Remove laws and you have happier people who are now actually able to punish the true criminals in their own way. Laws prevent good people from doing nothing and they often restrict peoples rights.

Our instincts, our natural law is to protect our own, be it family, friends, and property and we don't need laws to enforce that. We all understand that concept, some people just don't care to.

But it is equally in our nature to control others, which is why we will never be able to live in a lawless society. Our desire to control is far too compelling.
User avatar #27934 to #27908 - beatmasterz (04/26/2013) [-]
No. Remove laws and you'll have people murdering each other over a piece of meat. Laws are made to protect as many people as possible and to protect our species. Without laws we'd all be murderers rapists and even more likely dead.
User avatar #27941 to #27934 - eight (04/26/2013) [-]
No we wouldn't. Laws do not actually exist. People only think they do and they are accepted because people allow them to.

At any moment laws can change or you can choose to ignore the laws and break them. If there were no laws, there would still be consequences for your actions, but not judged by any official body of authority. You become the authority.

The laws of nature are to protect and survive. If those fundamental, instinctual laws are broken, there will be consequences. So no, a bunch of people would not murder each other over a piece of meat, not any more than they do currently and when those select few did murder, they would be punished by the family of the person murdered or by the community and friends of the victims.

But again, laws can never not exist, because of peoples instinct to control one another. It can never be tested.

User avatar #27948 to #27941 - beatmasterz (04/26/2013) [-]
In many situations, murdering someone over food is called protection and survival. That's not human instinct, that's every instinct. Wolves move in packs so they can survive better, that's their law. But other animals rather move alone and only care for their own survival. Without our laws, we would be no different than savages.
User avatar #27950 to #27948 - eight (04/26/2013) [-]
When one is starving, he must do what he can to survive. It does not mean it is wrong. It is survival of the fittest. But unless there is a major food shortage, you won't have to worry about acting desperately to feed yourself.

You can have laws, but if people are starving, people will kill regardless of the law, rendering that law pointless and your point incorrect.
User avatar #27907 to #27906 - Ruspanic (04/26/2013) [-]
That's fucking retarded.
#27894 - anonymous (04/26/2013) [-]
𝓕𝓪𝓽 𝓑𝓮𝓷 𝓶𝓪𝓭𝓮 𝓹𝓸𝓸𝓹
#27888 - miskwaamiikana **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#28011 to #27888 - anonymous (04/27/2013) [-]
Staying out of it would be pointless unless you can get some distance from the country. People on both sides will say "If you aren't part of the solution, then you are part of the problem" and seek to kill you.
User avatar #27956 to #27888 - akkere ONLINE (04/27/2013) [-]
Circumstantial query.
Probability-wise; I'd prefer to stay out of it.

The people who wish to start a revolution are most likely extremists that don't want to push for freedoms, but rather use that as a guise so they have the opportunity to seize power and then handle the freedoms as they see fit, contrary to what some of the pro-modern revolution types would love to believe.
This is pretty well-evidenced with how history has shown past "revolutions" and their general outcomes.

Whatever you despised about the "fascist" government, you ended up just creating a probably more fascist government, one that is run with the violent momentum that the hype probably initially painted.

Also, the government is now more likely than ever to outgun whoever stands as the "revolutionaries". The only possible way they'd stand a chance is through other government intervention, which ALWAYS leads to more problems along the way.
#27932 to #27888 - princessren has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #27909 to #27888 - marinepenguin (04/26/2013) [-]
It would depend on the Scenario. Why is there a revolution? Will there just be a change in leadership or a change in governing system altogether? The country may not be in the greatest shape at the moment, but I'm not going to fight against it unless some serious shit goes down.
User avatar #27903 to #27888 - Zarke (04/26/2013) [-]
We need more violent revolutions. Grab a brick if you can't grab a gun. Any fool can put gas in a bottle.
The government can't squash all the people, or else there would be none to govern. And really, how hard can it be to get everyone violent? Beat a man to death on TV and nobody cares, but God forbid you see one nipple or hear someone say "shit".
User avatar #27896 to #27888 - oxan (04/26/2013) [-]
Take a guess.
#27910 to #27896 - anonymous (04/26/2013) [-]
you're australian, dipshit.
#27939 to #27910 - anonymous (04/26/2013) [-]
bypo is a polak and i don't see people bitching.
User avatar #27915 to #27910 - oxan (04/26/2013) [-]
>The people or the government
>Or would you stay out of it

User avatar #27892 to #27888 - byposted (04/25/2013) [-]
I would join a clan of conspirators to subvert the revolution from the petty needs of the mongrel hoards (eg. more welfare, more obamaphones, more tolerance and sodomite "rights")

I would, after it, enjoy a bureaucratic position and possibly become a lead figure of politics through my exceptional cognition.
User avatar #27889 to #27888 - pebar ONLINE (04/25/2013) [-]
if the gov tried it could easily win
however I think another civil war is way more likely
User avatar #27890 to #27889 - pebar ONLINE (04/25/2013) [-]
and if the civil war is anything like last time, being about states' rights, I'd join the confederates
User avatar #27893 to #27890 - byposted (04/25/2013) [-]
Unless the negroes start caring about anything but dey ebt, swipe...swipe...swipe, etc. Dixie will continue being dead.
#27880 - nigalthornberry has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #27897 to #27880 - oxan (04/26/2013) [-]

Okay, maybe. Doubtful, but maybe.


OP, wut r u doin


Op stahp.
User avatar #27882 to #27880 - pebar ONLINE (04/25/2013) [-]
I doubt NK would be a part of it. Sure they have a large military but they simply couldn't afford a huge war any time soon.
#27883 to #27882 - nigalthornberry has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #27879 - fistoftheaxis (04/25/2013) [-]
I was reading about terrorism thanks to the Boston aftermath. Reading about the history of terrorism, it's mostly terrorism inspired by religion, ethnicity, nationality and other petty differences. My question is, are there any group out there that are "purely" terrorist? As in people who terrorize because they get some kind of satisfaction from delivering terror, and they continue to do so solely for the feeling it gives?

I posted this on the random board first, but then I realized this would be more appropriate here.
#27905 to #27879 - anonymous (04/26/2013) [-]
terrorism is used to promote a political agenda, not for personal pleasure
User avatar #27885 to #27879 - pebar ONLINE (04/25/2013) [-]
serial killers
User avatar #27877 - eight (04/25/2013) [-]
Truth About False Flag Attacks

www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/04/forget-boston-911-and-oklahoma-city-is-fa lse-flag-terrorism-even-a-real-concept.html
User avatar #27917 to #27877 - rageisfunny ONLINE (04/26/2013) [-]
Pearl Harbor itself throws up a lot of markers that the U.S. government knew it was coming, and let it happen, to justify coming into the war.
User avatar #27923 to #27917 - eight (04/26/2013) [-]
Yeah. The government basically attacked us themselves, them doing nothing about a known attack is just as bad as the attacker.
User avatar #27940 to #27923 - rageisfunny ONLINE (04/26/2013) [-]
Yep. The U.S. citizens wanted nothing to do with another war in Europe, but if Americans died in a surprise attack, thats another thing.
User avatar #27846 - CapnInterwebz (04/25/2013) [-]
>FBI follows people and essentially spies on people of suspicion/political opponents of the President (talking about Nixon here)
>Public outraged at Stasi-esque shit and blames government for domestic espionage, all government officials involved are impeached, imprisoned, or resign

>FBI investigates at a person at request of a foreign government, then stops because he does not seem suspicious
>Public outraged as the man bombs a public event; claims the government should have "done something" to prevent it simply because his name crossed an FBI desk several years ago

User avatar #27878 to #27846 - eight (04/25/2013) [-]
The older brother was likely a spy of sorts. Working for some intelligence agency. That's why his name crossed the desk and that is why he was dropped from investigation despite known associations with certain targets.
User avatar #27853 to #27846 - pebar ONLINE (04/25/2013) [-]
I'm not outraged they chose to respect privacy rights and not waste money.
User avatar #27848 to #27846 - oxan (04/25/2013) [-]
Land of the free, home of the brave.
User avatar #27850 to #27848 - CapnInterwebz (04/25/2013) [-]
Yep. There's hypocrites all over the world. It's a shame people are too stupid to think things through sometimes.
#27843 - divinejester (04/24/2013) [-]
Hey guys, i have a few questions that will help me win a contest within my high school. If you guys can help me, that would be great...
1. Which president taught at Harvard Business School?
2. Which president's nickname (from his family) was "Grandpapa"?
3.Which two presidents were related to Richard Nixon the most closely?

I have searched far and wide, and I came to FJ as my last resort(Yes, I am that desperate)...
User avatar #27849 to #27843 - oxan (04/25/2013) [-]
Would've had better luck asking Yahoo Answers or something.

A significant portion of this board isn't American.
#27845 to #27843 - anonymous (04/25/2013) [-]
1. Fat Ben
2. Fat Ben Sr.
3. Fat Ben and Fat Ben Sr.
#27844 to #27843 - anonymous (04/24/2013) [-]
1- Hitler
2- Hitler
3- Hitler
4- Roosevelt

I'm glad I could help.
User avatar #27827 - pebar ONLINE (04/24/2013) [-]
What should be done about immigration?

#27841 to #27827 - anonymous (04/24/2013) [-]
If you're a Pseudoliberal Democrat: Open borders and free government handouts. Guaranteed electoral victory!
If you're a redneck Republican: Close the borders entirely! No spics allowed!

If you're someone reasonable, regardless of your party: What you just said in post #27829.
User avatar #27837 to #27827 - CapnInterwebz (04/24/2013) [-]
Make the legal path more open and convenient for those willing to enter lawfully
Make the illegal path strict and (where possible) closed entirely
Add more harsher repercussions for those entering illegally

User avatar #27829 to #27827 - pebar ONLINE (04/24/2013) [-]
1. do something to discourage drug consumption to hurt the latino drug suppliers
2. close borders
3. make it easier to legally immigrate
4. allow a grace period (like 5 years) so illegals can turn themselves in and only get a hefty fine
5. after that grace period, any illegals found will be deported for the first offense, imprisoned for 1 year for any additional offense and then deported again
User avatar #27831 to #27829 - pebar ONLINE (04/24/2013) [-]
also immigrants will not be eligible for public assistance, like welfare, and they can't vote
#27839 to #27831 - anonymous (04/24/2013) [-]
That seems a little harsh, but maybe you just worded it poorly. Is the following statement more along the lines of what you were thinking?

Illegal immigrants will not be eligible for public assistance, like welfare, and they can't vote. Legal immigrants can become eligible for public assistance and able to vote after being a citizen for a certain number of years.
User avatar #27840 to #27839 - pebar ONLINE (04/24/2013) [-]
They get nothing (cept public education) until they become a naturalized citizen which requires them to be resident for 5 years (during which time they would not be eligible for benefits).
User avatar #27826 - byposted (04/24/2013) [-]

Ann Coulter's new article on the problem of immigration in America, and the folly which was the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act.

Teddy Kennedy's 1965 immigration act so dramatically altered the kinds of immigrants America admits that, since 1969, about 85 percent of legal immigrants have come from the Third World. They bring Third World levels of poverty, fertility, illegitimacy and domestic violence with them. When they can't make it in America, they simply go on welfare and sometimes strike out at Americans.
User avatar #27819 - marinepenguin (04/24/2013) [-]
There was a shooting about an hour ago in Manchester, IL about 20 miles North of where I live. 5 dead (two were young children), 1 injured. They just caught the guy. This is in a quiet and very rural area where nothing bad happens, the fuck is going on these days?
#27824 to #27819 - anonymous (04/24/2013) [-]
[url deleted]

The pastor of Manchester Baptist Church tells KSDK-TV that the shootings took place inside a public housing complex.

Gee...I wonder what types of people usually take advantage of government housing. Being Southern Illinois, though, it is questionable. If this would have happened in Chicago, I would bet money on a youth.

Anyway, the link shows the dead; an entire family. Quite saddening.
User avatar #27866 to #27824 - marinepenguin (04/25/2013) [-]
Actually, this part of Illinois has far less poverty than the state average, and its a mostly Republican area even though there isn't a lot of wealth.
#27825 to #27824 - anonymous (04/24/2013) [-]
www(DOT)christianpost(DOT)com(slash)news(slash)5-people-dead-in-il-shooting-susp ect-confirmed-dead-after-shootout-with-police-94630/
#27823 to #27819 - anonymous (04/24/2013) [-]
he used hunting guns
User avatar #27864 to #27823 - marinepenguin (04/25/2013) [-]
He used a shotgun as far as I know. Very common around here.
#27822 to #27819 - anonymous (04/24/2013) [-]
It's Illinois... That's what happens when people aren't allowed to defend themselves. It would happen a lot less if criminals feared the risk of dying while committing a crime.
User avatar #27865 to #27822 - marinepenguin (04/25/2013) [-]
We're allowed to defend ourselves. It's rare to find a household that doesn't have a gun around these parts.
#27821 to #27819 - princessren has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #27820 to #27819 - Zarke (04/24/2013) [-]
Copycat killers? Us just being more sensitive to these kinds of things these days? Increased media hysteria (which feeds into the Copycat problem), raising awareness?
User avatar #27816 - pebar ONLINE (04/24/2013) [-]
Cali seems to finally be giving rights to people instead of just taking them away
User avatar #27818 to #27816 - oxan (04/24/2013) [-]
'"To just sleep on the corner and say that that's OK, I don't think that's good for the community," said Los Angeles resident Sarah Korc.'

I agree. We shouldn't have homeless people to begin with.

But anyway, it seems to be a step in the right direction.
#27782 - natedizzie (04/23/2013) [-]

Boston was a set up training mission.
Set up the bombs as a means to train police in searching peoples homes and taking over cities.
All this is preemptive training for the when they set up their next large scale "terrorist attack"
Government will set up a V for vendetta style attack probably chemical/biological warfare against a large city probably down south maybe Houston.
Right after the attack Army will arrive in city saying they need to instate martial law.
President will come on saying the chemical/disease is spreading through the wind and that they need to unstate martial law in all major cities to prevent outbreak.
Military starts forming in every city.
After a few months when people start questioning another attack will happen.
President will say that these attackers are using american citizens and need to search households for terrorists cells. Army takes neighborhoods at a time and kick people out of their house taking all weapons and computers saying they are dangerous to have and can be used for terrorism.
Next police remove all tv stations but the news and government approved programming
most citizens go along with change but some start questioning the regime
they are at first used as examples called terrorists and the phrase "Questioning your government is a form of terrorism." Murdered in the streets. As people dislike this the government sets up prisons for the people called rehabilitation camps.
#27817 to #27782 - anonymous (04/24/2013) [-]
At least the people of Houston might get the rare chance of loseing som weight.
#27792 to #27782 - anonymous (04/24/2013) [-]
#27806 to #27792 - anonymous (04/24/2013) [-]
User avatar #27781 - oxan (04/23/2013) [-]
A pre-emptive ban is needed to halt the production of weapons capable of attacking targets without any human intervention, a new campaign has urged.


This is something everyone should support, I say.

#27810 to #27781 - anonymous (04/24/2013) [-]
User avatar #27791 to #27781 - pebar ONLINE (04/24/2013) [-]
Stealth was a horrible movie...

But ya, I agree. Killing people should not be done lightly; there needs to be some philosophical reasoning behind it. Unless robots are capable of thought on the same level of humans, they should not be allowed to make important decisions like that.
User avatar #27802 to #27791 - oxan (04/24/2013) [-]
An armed forces consistently mostly of robotos incapable of human emotions - sympathy, compassion, mercy for example - is a frightening proposition. It really permits the ruling class to do literally /anything/ that they want without even trying to justify it.
User avatar #27793 to #27791 - pebar ONLINE (04/24/2013) [-]
and if robots ever do gain that level of though, I think we'd have a bigger problem
#27805 to #27793 - anonymous (04/24/2013) [-]
User avatar #27774 - pebar ONLINE (04/23/2013) [-]
Should domestic terrorists be tried for treason?

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
#27767 - anonymous (04/23/2013) [-]
Don't be stupid, be a smartie!
Come and join the Nazi party!
#27758 - tredbear (04/23/2013) [-]
this time I found a nice Soviet made music piece, hope you enjoy.

#27760 to #27758 - oxan (04/23/2013) [-]
The Guard remains my favourite.

User avatar #27757 - oxan (04/23/2013) [-]
'Residents filled the parking lot with bags and baskets hoping to get some of the baby food, canned goods, noodles and other non-perishables. But a local church never came to pick up the food, as the storeowner prior to the eviction said they had arranged. By the time the people showed up for the food, what was left inside the premises—as with any eviction—came into the ownership of the property holder, SunTrust Bank.

The bank ordered the food to be loaded into dumpsters and hauled to a landfill instead of distributed. The people that gathered had to be restrained by police as they saw perfectly good food destroyed. Local Sheriff Richard Roundtree told the news “a potential for a riot was extremely high.”'

You need to login to view this link
User avatar #27759 to #27757 - kingnarnode (04/23/2013) [-]
See the website name, the fists and hammers. Gee I wonder if this site could be biased in any way, interesting story though
User avatar #27761 to #27759 - oxan (04/23/2013) [-]
Bias or no, the destruction of 'surplus' food is common practice throughout the world. Your comment made no constructive point.
User avatar #27773 to #27761 - kingnarnode (04/23/2013) [-]
yes and it's terrible that this happens, but I wasn't trying to be constructive, I was just pointing out the obvious.
 Friends (0)