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:
Order:
Latest users (3): alimais, nadam, youregaylol, anonymous(32).
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #31297 - cleverguy (05/31/2013) [-]
what do you guys think of polygamy? should it be legal?
#31325 to #31297 - byposted (05/31/2013) [-]
Marriage needs to be taken away from the state and thus all benefits need to go as well. Let one man marry twelve women. At that, let five women marry five hundred men and six thousand women marry six hundred men. Marriage is a bigoted old christurd institution which needs to be liberalized into nothing. Revleft's dream of bus-stop orgies can finally be realized.

Marriage used to designate the raising of children, but the union at this point has turned into a sexual contract. Why even have families at all anymore? Having families only leads to bigotry and outlying opinions in the minds of impressionable children due to their parents' prejudices. Thus, we must send all newborns into the state's (proletariat's, i swear it represents you guys - lenin) arms while the parents labor for dimes in the factory under glorious socialism. But, hey, bus-stop orgies, guys!
User avatar #31326 to #31325 - byposted (05/31/2013) [-]
Sorry for my homophobia. I forgot to acknowledge that seven hundred men can marry two hundred men as well. And this is only if they think they're men. Gender isn't binary. Two million pansexuals can marry five hundred pots if they want to.
User avatar #31483 to #31326 - cleverguy (06/01/2013) [-]
well in regards to raising children, the financial benefits of marriage are important for that
#31317 to #31297 - repostsrepost (05/31/2013) [-]
You run in to a few legal issues like custody of children, inheritance, and tax identification which need to be strictly defined. But a consenting relationship between adults shouldn't be regulated.
User avatar #31311 to #31297 - reretzu (05/31/2013) [-]
I think it should be legal, if it's consensual on all sides then I see no reason to force people to love just one person. And I'm fine with homosexual polygamy too.
User avatar #31304 to #31297 - oxan (05/31/2013) [-]
Like most communists, it's not something that is of concern to me. So yes, polygamy - including same-sex polygamy - should be legal. The socialist or workers' state has no real business in marriage. Public welfare and services will make most functions of marriage obsolete.

People can have whatever bonding ceremony they want.
User avatar #31306 to #31304 - cleverguy (05/31/2013) [-]
i believe government should have a say in marriage because it is equal parts love commitment and legal commitment.

why do you think it is illegal?
User avatar #31368 to #31306 - oxan (06/01/2013) [-]
Polygamy's illegal just because of old societal values. It's only a legal commitment because of these values.

Like I said, public welfare and services will made marriage obsolete as a legal institution.

Again, this is assuming a socialist state.
User avatar #31482 to #31368 - cleverguy (06/01/2013) [-]
while it was made a legal commitment because of old societal values, the legal aspects of it are not a result of those values.

how would that make marriage obsolete?
User avatar #31484 to #31482 - oxan (06/01/2013) [-]
Child support, alimony, etc, will all by taken over by public services. As the family becomes socialised, it too will become superfluous.
User avatar #31485 to #31484 - cleverguy (06/01/2013) [-]
isn't that a little dehumanizing?
User avatar #31486 to #31485 - oxan (06/01/2013) [-]
Not at all. If anything, it'll make marriage a more 'human' thing, by removing the economic aspects, and recreating it as a bond based purely on love.
User avatar #31487 to #31486 - cleverguy (06/01/2013) [-]
interesting in theory, but im not sure that would happen in practice
User avatar #31489 to #31487 - oxan (06/01/2013) [-]
Marriage has been something I've neglected to study in depth. I'm not explaining it very well, to be honest.
User avatar #31490 to #31489 - cleverguy (06/01/2013) [-]
fair enough
#31278 - anonymous (05/31/2013) [-]
What kind of world would we likely live in if all the money spent on the War on Terror in the last 12 years had gone to NASA instead?
User avatar #31312 to #31278 - reretzu (05/31/2013) [-]
I've had the exact same thoughts, NASA has done amazing things despite getting the same amount of money in a year that the military get's in a couple of days.
If scientific companies had generally got more focus than militaries around the world I think we'd be living in a completely amazing world.
However, even in this world with so much going to war I still think we're making great technological progress.
User avatar #31280 to #31278 - pebar ONLINE (05/31/2013) [-]
Or if all the money spent on the war on terror stayed in the pockets of tax payers so it could be spent in the private sector thus creating demand for more business and thus more jobs....... But alas this is what happens when you have a big government.
#31248 - funnybox (05/31/2013) [-]
Politicians
#31194 - byposted (05/30/2013) [-]
chicago.cbslocal.com/2013/05/30/emanuel-not-taking-sides-in-kirk-and-rush-dispute-over-gangs/

Mayor Rahm Emanuel (✡ kike ✡) refused to take sides Thursday in the verbal jousting over street gangs between Republican U.S. Sen. Mark Kirk and Democratic Congressman Bobby Rush.

WBBM Newsradio Political Editor Craig Dellimore reports Kirk has said he wants U.S. Attorney nominee Zachary Fardon to focus on taking down the 18,000-member Gangster Disciples street gang if and when the Senate confirms Fardon as the next top federal prosecutor in Chicago.

In an interview with the Sun-Times, Rush said Kirk’s idea was an “upper-middle-class, elitist white boy solution to a problem he knows nothing about.”
------------------
You commies might have a chance in an agitation of the negroid community. They hate the suburban White man so much that they can be herded to pillage and loot everything that shows an ounce more of prosperity than dey hood, to the exemplar of what were the Red Guards in China and Russia.

Bobby Rush wants to throw crime-fighting money into a job fair, apparently. Ah, the magical lower-class negroid solution to a problem he knows nothing about. Pouring money into Chicago's education system to help the youfs learn has done nothing, and, similarly, money will not solve the "jobs problem" of the urban community. It has been tried in previous decades and more recently by Obama. I wonder if Rush understands the correlation between crime and business. Many businesses would prefer not be located in areas of high crime.

Chicago's efforts to destroy the violent gangs from above have actually lowered violent crime in specific target neighborhoods. Bobby Rush, as a former Black Panther, cannot be blamed for trying to defend his homies, though.
User avatar #31205 to #31194 - oxan (05/30/2013) [-]
'Rush said Kirk’s idea was an “upper-middle-class, elitist white boy solution to a problem he knows nothing about.” '

Wait, really?
User avatar #31211 to #31205 - byposted (05/30/2013) [-]
Imagine if Kirk used my line on Rush. The media crickets would be turned into a media frenzy, with Rachel Maddow giving a privilege check that night. She won't mention this, though.

Rush is the kind of politician who comes about by the Chicago electorate.

www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/Bobby-Rush-Plays-the-Race-Card-209544741.html

When then-state Sen. Barack Obama challenged him for his congressional seat, Rush had his allies call Obama “the white man in blackface” and question his affiliation with “elite” institutions such as Harvard and the University of Chicago. After the shooting of Trayvon Martin, by a Florida neighborhood vigilante who thought he was firing at a gangbanger in a hoodie, Rush donned a hoodie on the House floor. The chair ruled him out of order for violating congressional dress codes.

His preoccupation with race is one reason he’s so popular in that historically black district, which has been represented by an African-American longer than any in the country. But it’s also a reason he has no influence outside it. When Rush ran for mayor in 1999, as a Great Black Hope against Richard M. Daley, he got 29 percent of the vote -- even losing some black wards that saw through his race baiting.

Kirk grew up in Kenilworth, attended New Trier Township High School, and now lives in Highland Park, all many, many tax brackets away from the South Side that Rush represents in Congress.
User avatar #31218 to #31211 - byposted (05/30/2013) [-]
Unfortunately, Kirk is one of those Republicans who wants to be a Democrat. I am under the assumption that he is a homosexual.
User avatar #31222 to #31218 - oxan (05/30/2013) [-]
His orientation has no real basis on anything.

And
>implying there's much difference between Republicans and Democrats
User avatar #31243 to #31222 - byposted (05/30/2013) [-]
difference between Republicans and Democrats
Don't delude yourself into thinking that there isn't. I know that the only true political party can be one, in your eyes, that represents the plebians and their petty issues, but in deciding how to vote, one who is rational would not go anywhere near the Democratic Party. This applies so much more so in Illinois, where the Madigan cult in Springfield has run this state into the ground (to the point in which many liberals hate him). It is the Chicongoens who are even corrupting the Republican Party into shifting leftward in Illinois. Mark Kirk is one of those new-era Republicans whose name seems to taste of vomit. There is not much he can do in response to Rush without losing his "collaborative" persona.

To him being a suspected homosexual, this does not go well for his R stamp. Homosexuals have, since their supposed extermination in Germany and before, been left on the political spectrum. Faggotry is not "fabulous" but rather vice. Their lifestyle should not go encouraged.

The same general shift leftward, as has been seen in Illinois, has made it appear, in the Presidential elections, that the two parties are the same, but it is really only the candidates who have moderated. Joe Walsh, the Republican whose district I resided in, is one of those true Republicans who I'm proud to have been a voter.
User avatar #31247 to #31243 - oxan (05/31/2013) [-]
>Plebians and their petty issues

The Proletariat make up the majority of the world's population. You can call me deluded all you want, but if you think the Republicans serve your interests - or that the Democrats serve the left's interests - then you are the one that is, in fact, delusional.
User avatar #31254 to #31247 - byposted (05/31/2013) [-]
By the way, I did not call you deluded, but said that buying into the meme that there is no difference between the two parties is delusional.
User avatar #31250 to #31247 - byposted (05/31/2013) [-]
Politicians like Joe Walsh have done nothing to spite me from support, as outlying tea-party members. Of course, he is a pro-Israeli slave, but who isn't in this country? Duckworth, the chink who won my district's election largely due to the GOP's incompetence, is not much less of one.

I did not say the Republican Party represents my interests, I said the Republican Party is crucial in preventing the left from having a dictatorship. It is the only opposing force to Madigan and Obama which is what drives my vote. I do not consider myself a Republican.
User avatar #31255 to #31250 - oxan (05/31/2013) [-]
Suggesting Obama is a part of the Left is absurd. More importantly, by voting Republican as a reluctant last resort against Democrats, you're perpetuating the two-party system. More needs to be done to destroy the American two-party system and usher in something a little more democratic.
User avatar #31259 to #31255 - byposted (05/31/2013) [-]
Suggesting Obama is a part of the Left is absurd.
He is a liberal in American Politics.

More needs to be done to destroy the American two-party system and usher in something a little more democratic.
Not going to happen for one, and if it did, a lot more problems would come about for Conservatism since it would become divided in a time of need for unity. A revolution within the Republican Party is what is needed.
User avatar #31261 to #31259 - oxan (05/31/2013) [-]
Liberal is hardly left. His policies reflect social democracy at best, but he's a typical capitalist.

Further, a revolution won't happen within the Republican Party. They're not going to turn more to the right, by virture of the system being a two-party system. Both parties have to be moderate to retain a near even section of electoral support.
User avatar #31265 to #31261 - byposted (05/31/2013) [-]
Liberal is hardly left. His policies reflect social democracy at best, but he's a typical capitalist.
Of course, left/liberal is used synonymously since American Liberal is as far left as it goes here.

Further, a revolution won't happen within the Republican Party. They're not going to turn more to the right, by virture of the system being a two-party system. Both parties have to be moderate to retain a near even section of electoral support.
The GOP will either acknowledge Conservative principles or suffer a divide, which is becoming a foreseeable solution. Mitt Romney was a joke to Conservatives and the Marco Rubios are being denounced left and right by the core of the party.

We'll have to see how the tide turns. If I could get my way in a split, the GOP would act as a moderate party while a separate Conservative faction would be formed as a local party, which would ally itself with the GOP in Congress.
User avatar #31266 to #31265 - oxan (05/31/2013) [-]
If the GOP splits, then Democrats will dominate. If you're going to have a coalition of two parties, on which split from the other because of dispute, then why even split? Seems pointless.
User avatar #31269 to #31266 - byposted (05/31/2013) [-]
For the Presidential industry. Every 3 years billions of dollars are spent in rallying the masses to vote for either candidate, and this is what is pushing the GOP to give in on immigration amnesty and other major issues to the favor of the Democrats.

This is where the local party initiative takes root; it will stand for true Conservatism locally to build a viable movement, while the GOP makes sure the executive is in check.
User avatar #31271 to #31269 - oxan (05/31/2013) [-]
Why not just have the GOP decentralise themselves and become more grassroots? If you have two parties for that, you're just splitting up resources.
User avatar #31274 to #31271 - byposted (05/31/2013) [-]
Because a division is already clear in the party; the Presidential Industry will jeopardize the grassroots program. There is an apparent conflict of interests at work.

My idea of a coalition, one movement for the locality and the other for the executive and metropolitan areas, to the like of the Octobrist and Kadet coalition, will save the Conservatives from destruction in a changing country. It may even pave the road for a separatist movement.
User avatar #31275 to #31274 - oxan (05/31/2013) [-]
To be honest, I can't help but think it'd be more effective for the GOP to resolve its internal issues. It'd form a stronger conservative government than two parties, even in a coalition.
User avatar #31276 to #31275 - byposted (05/31/2013) [-]
Recent happenings prove this as unlikely. The GOP will not be able to get itself to focus on grassroots issues entirely like you suggested with decentralization, thus ditching any chance of Presidency, and half of the party will not tolerate more Marco Rubios (moderate-radicals, if you will).

But this is very ideologic and it is doubtful if friendly relations would be kept in Congress, for one.
User avatar #31270 to #31269 - byposted (05/31/2013) [-]
insofar as it can to rally support from the moderate elements.
0
#31240 to #31222 - byposted has deleted their comment [-]
0
#31196 to #31194 - byposted has deleted their comment [-]
#31192 - repostsrepost (05/30/2013) [-]
Something needs to be done about this board
#31324 to #31192 - anonymous (05/31/2013) [-]
What does The Beatles have to do with politics?
User avatar #31210 to #31192 - oxan (05/30/2013) [-]
Go on, then.
#31173 - repostsrepost (05/30/2013) [-]
Democratic Mercantilist? Don't even know what the fuck that's supposed to mean. Not a big fan of Mercantilism either and I prefer republicanism to democracy. Fuck You political compass thing.
#31273 to #31173 - Shiny (05/31/2013) [-]
Basically, I'm a hippie. I guess.
#31228 to #31173 - teoberry (05/30/2013) [-]
Whatever the fuck this makes me
0
#31251 to #31228 - commiejewnazi **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #31260 to #31253 - oxan (05/31/2013) [-]
>Austria

When did you actually move to Australia again? That's another point: you're just a permenant resident, aren't you? Otherwise, you wouldn't have to be conscripted if you went back to Austria.
User avatar #31277 to #31260 - naxo (05/31/2013) [-]
Dual citizenship, I came here when I was little but return to Austria annually..
User avatar #31281 to #31277 - oxan (05/31/2013) [-]
Dual, huh? Does the Austrian armed forces even allow that? I think some states don't.
User avatar #31282 to #31281 - naxo (05/31/2013) [-]
Who knows, I'm just going to play it by ear.
User avatar #31234 to #31228 - oxan (05/30/2013) [-]
You seem to be just a typical conservative.
User avatar #31235 to #31234 - teoberry (05/30/2013) [-]
That is what I though
User avatar #31239 to #31235 - oxan (05/30/2013) [-]
politicalcompass.org
politicaltest.net

Give them a go, and we can work from there.
#31244 to #31239 - teoberry (05/31/2013) [-]
Here's the first,
User avatar #31249 to #31244 - oxan (05/31/2013) [-]
Yeah, a conservative. Nothing too extreme.

I do find it strange, however, that you support both private and public police, but at the same time only public building of roads. Seems a little strange.
User avatar #31178 to #31173 - mykoira (05/30/2013) [-]
you filthy antropocentric capitalist
#31179 to #31178 - repostsrepost (05/30/2013) [-]
More commies? Just what this board needed.
User avatar #31182 to #31179 - mykoira (05/30/2013) [-]
i'm not very communist, but capitalism has never lead to anything good, definetly with anthropocentrism on the side. (1930's great depression)
#31189 to #31182 - repostsrepost (05/30/2013) [-]
ANd I really don't know what anthropocentrism has to do with anything at all. I didn't even realize it was a word.
#31188 to #31182 - repostsrepost (05/30/2013) [-]
How about the massive amounts of economic growth and technological innovation from the 1800s until today?
User avatar #31288 to #31188 - mykoira (05/31/2013) [-]
well i cannot deny that, but soviet union had technological innovations without capitalism, like all the space rockets
#31292 to #31288 - repostsrepost (05/31/2013) [-]
Who landed on the moon?
User avatar #31303 to #31292 - mykoira (05/31/2013) [-]
who got the first satellite on space, who got the first living thing in space, who brought back the first living thing from space, who take first man in space, or first woman? and apollo got in space by Saturn V, what was designed by two nazis, Wernher von Braun and Arthur Rudolph
User avatar #31168 - tredbear (05/30/2013) [-]
and I would like A Pickle please
#31167 - tredbear (05/30/2013) [-]
what is your guys' opinion on the Syrian civil war situation?
#31171 to #31167 - repostsrepost (05/30/2013) [-]
A footnote in history. Regardless of political rhetoric, nobody is going to war over Syria. Its worth it to no one. Syria has nothing of value to anyone. That being said, that's why we shouldn't touch it. Syria has no strategic value to us. Foreign policy based off of humanitarianism is stupid. We can protect our liberty, not a whole lot we can do about the liberty of others.
#31174 to #31171 - valeriya (05/30/2013) [-]
Proxy wars make for good shows of monetary strength or just a political superiority. "Ha our side we were backing one, yay socialism" - USSR after vietnam.
#31176 to #31174 - repostsrepost (05/30/2013) [-]
Syria has no oil, a nonexistent economy, no natural resources, there is nothing to be gained by anyone. The Russians aren't pushing for global communism, and European Marxism is a foreign concept to Arabs. Nobody has anything to gain. We can't get involved every time a Middle Eastern country has a violent revolution, because if anyone has studied that part of modern history, they'd know Syria and much of the Middle East has had more revolutions and coups than anyone can count.
#31177 to #31176 - valeriya (05/30/2013) [-]
You'd be surprised at the reasons people will do things, it's not really about the ideology it's about sending a message, there's a lot of nationalism here in Russia, it's somewhat common (In my equivalent of your state if you're america) to have nationalists out on the street wanting the government to give a show of force to the world, it's a "WE STILL MATTER" deal think of it as these people want Russia to be a superpower again (Only natural when you think about it), the history matters little when it's a chance to show off your capacity against someone you've a dislike for.
#31147 - anonymous (05/30/2013) [-]
The existence of actual Holocaust Denial is unproven. It's clear that Holocaust Denial was made up by the Jews to gain sympathy.

No one has ever seriously denied the Holocaust. It's all made up. Wake up sheeple!
#31140 - anonymous (05/30/2013) [-]
Muslims are like daleks.
They're extremely intolerant of anything that isn't like them and are willing to die if it meant spreading their religion.
#31134 - levchenko (05/30/2013) [-]
This image has expired
This was content a while back, thoughts?
#31172 to #31134 - anonymous (05/30/2013) [-]
I agree 110%
#31136 to #31134 - valeriya (05/30/2013) [-]
I'm not sure what he's trying to preserve exactly, I prefer the soviet/Yugoslav outlook to culture, you eradicate national identity and replace it with a universal culture that is agreeable with all of them and any immigrants should be expected to assimilate to it nationalism is stamped out and crushed. In other words there wouldn't be Russian there'd be soviet, there wouldn't be Ukrainian there'd be soviet, you never get anywhere when you're dividing yourself up.
User avatar #31103 - pebar ONLINE (05/30/2013) [-]
www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/10815286
Ricin letters sent to Bloomberg; can't say I'm upset...
User avatar #31116 to #31103 - oxan (05/30/2013) [-]
>The billionaire mayor

Oh yes, someone who, even if they weren't given government protection as mayor, would be living in (no doubt) a fenced community with private security promoting gun control.
User avatar #31080 - tredbear (05/30/2013) [-]
the amount of People wanting US military action in Syria IS TOO DAMN HIGH!
#31079 - tredbear (05/30/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #31067 to #31064 - naxo (05/30/2013) [-]
Serbian.
User avatar #31066 to #31064 - pebar ONLINE (05/30/2013) [-]
swedish apparently
User avatar #31044 - pebar ONLINE (05/29/2013) [-]
We should supply gangs with as many guns as we can so they can all kill each other. Then when the dust settles, gun violence in the US will drastically decrease.
User avatar #31052 to #31044 - naxo (05/30/2013) [-]
Flood the drug market too?
User avatar #31056 to #31052 - oxan (05/30/2013) [-]
Overdoses for everyone!

Pebar might be onto something.
#31065 to #31056 - repostsrepost (05/30/2013) [-]
samefag?
User avatar #31081 to #31065 - oxan (05/30/2013) [-]
Naxo isn't me. He's a friend of mine, too uncreative to think of a name, so he just put mine backwards.
User avatar #31061 to #31056 - pebar ONLINE (05/30/2013) [-]
All the druggies would die and no longer be on welfare and government spending could be decreased!!!!!!
User avatar #31046 to #31044 - oxan (05/29/2013) [-]
What if they come together to form one super-gang?

Yay, hypothetical situations!
User avatar #31058 to #31046 - pebar ONLINE (05/30/2013) [-]
Most gun deaths are due to rival gang battles; if they form a super-gang, there wouldn't be any rival gangs. This new monopoly gang would dominate the drug market. The higher ups would create horrible working conditions for the street dealers and force them to be part of the gang under threat of death so the street dealers would have to revolt against the higher ups which would destabilize the whole drug market and everything would collapse.

....In a perfect world

But the demand for drugs would still exist and new suppliers would enter the market and everything would start over. This is why simply imprisoning dealers is a waste of labor and the "war on drugs" should be handled differently.
User avatar #31060 to #31058 - oxan (05/30/2013) [-]
Indeed. Efforts need to be made to attack the source of gangs and the drug market. That isn't to say we should legalise all drugs, however.
User avatar #31062 to #31060 - pebar ONLINE (05/30/2013) [-]
Maybe not all drugs, like meth, because they can be addicting and totally screw up people's lives, but at least weed since that's mostly harmless and a majority of gang revenue comes from that. Allowing licensed competition would decimate gangs' profit margins....
User avatar #31086 to #31062 - oxan (05/30/2013) [-]
I'm not willing to support legalising marijuana.

By removing this source of gang funds, you don't really solve the problem. They'll just move into another area to fund themselves.
User avatar #31087 to #31086 - pebar ONLINE (05/30/2013) [-]
Perhaps, but there's also the problem of so many people in jail for petty marijuana charges. These charges hurt people's reputations and it's harder to get jobs and out of poverty. It has become a victimless crime and is more like prohibition in the 1920's; all it does is piss people off. The only real argument against it is that it could lead to harder drugs, but TBH that makes it thought-crime. If there's not a good reason for something to be illegal, than it shouldn't be illegal to begin with.

As longs as certain goods are illegal, black markets will always exist. But allowing regulated trade reduces all the negative community effects of gangs. IMO it would help immensely.
User avatar #31089 to #31087 - oxan (05/30/2013) [-]
Leniency on users, sure. But we should come down hard on dealers.

Still, if we legalise marijuana, gangs will just move into other areas to obtain finances. You're still not attacking the source of gangs.
User avatar #31091 to #31089 - pebar ONLINE (05/30/2013) [-]
The source of gangs is demand for illegal goods. If there is demand for something, there is profit in supplying it. The legality is irrelevant; in this case the law is merely another expense of business.
User avatar #31092 to #31091 - oxan (05/30/2013) [-]
>The source of gangs is demand for illegal goods.

No, that funds them. There will always be contraband, you cannot just legalise everything. It's unethical, and simply not practical. You need to analyse why people join gangs. Some reasons include it provides structure, family and community. Here we can look at deviance and control.
User avatar #31093 to #31092 - pebar ONLINE (05/30/2013) [-]
The serious gangs cannot continue to operate without money.
Also, if you look at places like Chicago and LA, places with strict gun control and concentrated poverty areas, people turn to gangs as a form of protection. It's like a pseudo-government that you have to pay dues to. This creates an unsafe environment for non-gang members so people join other gangs for protection. This cycle continues on and on...
User avatar #31094 to #31093 - oxan (05/30/2013) [-]
No need to mention gun control. I think we're pretty much on the same page on that one, albeit for slightly different reasons.

Now, I know that gangs cannot operate without money. I'm not disputing that. But you seem to be saying that if we legalise marijuana, then they won't have any way to obtain funds. I'm arguing that they'll simply move into a new area - harder drugs for example. Thus, legalising the drugs doesn't really fix the problem.
User avatar #31095 to #31094 - pebar ONLINE (05/30/2013) [-]
But there is a lot less demand for harder drugs so there is much less profit. Marijuana makes up a huge portion of gang revenue so providing competition would drastically lower their profits. All this revenue can't simply be replaced on a whim.
#31006 - feelythefeel (05/29/2013) [-]
According to:

You need to login to view this link

I'm closest to a Marxist on the communist spectrum. Anyone's thoughts?
#31063 to #31006 - repostsrepost (05/30/2013) [-]
Anti-Communist.
you hate commies. Why are you even taking this quiz? haha whatever man peace
User avatar #31021 to #31006 - byposted (05/29/2013) [-]
You hate commies. Why are you even taking this quiz? haha whatever man. peace.
k
User avatar #31020 to #31006 - akamrhood (05/29/2013) [-]
Anti-Communist. Good to finally know.
#31019 to #31006 - feelythefeel (05/29/2013) [-]
>ask for your thoughts
>everyone takes the test instead
>nobody gives their thoughts
ISHYGDDT
#31023 to #31019 - valeriya (05/29/2013) [-]
I gave my thoughts regarding someones results... Does that count?
#31024 to #31023 - feelythefeel (05/29/2013) [-]
What do you think of Marxism?
User avatar #31018 to #31006 - mykoira (05/29/2013) [-]
leninist
#31015 to #31006 - anonymous (05/29/2013) [-]
FAT BEN'S POOP
#31009 to #31006 - pebar ONLINE (05/29/2013) [-]
liberal socialist
liberal socialist
0
#31008 to #31006 - kanade **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#31005 - akkere ONLINE (05/29/2013) [-]
Has anyone ever used or heard of AllSides?
You need to login to view this link

It's a website whose purpose is to address the issue with bias news sources by sorting through articles and sources and appropriate a bias rating that showcases what one side would be most focused on in terms of issues or what their viewpoint would be on an issue judging from how an article is written or from the general content of the source.

I've used it for a while now and enjoy how it's set up. I'm not sure if the articles only focus on American issues or if one can somehow alter a setting to focus on other nations, however (I'm an Amerifag so I've never had a problem, obviously).
0
#31013 to #31005 - kanade **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
0
#30983 - kanade **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #31027 to #30983 - oxan (05/29/2013) [-]
Marxism-Leninism has become a fancy term for Stalinism. I'm a Leninist, I'm a Marxist, but I don't call myself a Marxist-Leninist for that reason. There's few differences between Bolshevik-Leninism (which is Trotskyism) and Marxism-Leninism, to be honest. It's mostly just the methods that differ.

Anarcho-communism is silly to me.

But yeah, if you have any questions, feel free to ask.
#30998 to #30983 - valeriya (05/29/2013) [-]
I see Trotsky before Stalin... Do you have any last words?

I kid (This is my personal ideas some is akin with Marx some more akin with Stalin I seem to pick from everywhere), communism is basically the end result of socialism the best way to think of it is like this, primmative communism -> slave society -> feudalism -> Capitalism (We are here, mostly, private ownership of the MOP with the state serving the capitalists) -> Socialism (Common ownership of the MOP with the state serving the workers) -> Communism (Never achieved to date, state withers away classes no longer exist, private property no longer exists and everyone works for the good of each other)

The general idea is that the workers will always make up the majority of the population and are controlled by the capitalists as a sort of resource (Which in all fairness we are) and kept in a state of disarray, naturally there are alot fewer capitalists then there are workers, so by seizing the means of production from the capitalists and giving it to the proletariat, now it has to be seized you can't reform the state to work for the workers you have to destroy it and in doing so you are shifting the balance of power to where it truly belongs, in the hands of the workers, now the party has control over the state, the party should represent the people, ideally the will of the party will be the will of the people, now the states role should be; to continue the socialist ideology and to bring communism to fruition (This is why in my eyes it has to be authoritarian because people tend to be stupid), to spread socialism to other countries, to manage the economy and (if required) industrialize further, ensure the needs of the people are met. (I started writing this and I've basically gone and come back and lost my train of thought)
0
#31002 to #30998 - kanade **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #31029 to #31002 - oxan (05/29/2013) [-]
North Korea is a huge clusterfuck. China began the market 'socialist' road a long time ago. Vietnam, I'm not too familiar with.

The protests in Tinanamen (spelling lel) Square were actually for socialism, and against market liberalisation.
#31007 to #31002 - valeriya (05/29/2013) [-]
The thing with the USSR is Russia was a backwards peasant nation, 90% of the population was peasants and the farming methods used were incredibly inefficient and they often suffered famines, stalins solution was to try rapidily urbanize the population and make the farming more efficient, basically make the countryside one big factory farm. (Collectivization as opposed to allowing small scale capitalism to continue which was intended only to be short term).

One thing you have to be wary of is places saying they're communistic or socialist when they're not, North Korea has more akin to national socialism then it does to socialism, one party rule is somewhat necessary as is the authoritarian aspect as a way of making sure that the country stays on the right road, as you can see some have diverged into some horrible things, see China, that is nowhere near socialism anymore that's more authoritarian capitalism, to be honest rights are a human construct that are relatively irrelevent, things like social equality should be undertaken by the state, if you mean like the right to vote well ideally on the local level it would be democratic, but in

Well in the west it seems the state still continues to serve the capitalists first and serves to disillusion the working class, at this point I don't think it's possible to transition into socialism in most of the west, like I said it would have to be a violent revolution and the people are too lumpen and passive to bleed for anything, the thing is with capitalism is so long as it exists alongside a state or in any other form it will continue to serve the capitalist class and capitalist class alone.
0
#31010 to #31007 - kanade **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #31042 to #31010 - oxan (05/29/2013) [-]
>Didn't the collectivization of Stalin result into a mass famine in Ukraine?

Maybe partially. But the real responsibility lies with the Kulaks that burned crops and slaughtered livestock.

>On the other hand, Laos, North Korea, and Cuba have not allowed very many market reforms, and one can clearly see the state of their economies.

I'm pretty sure Cuba's main export is sugar or something, and the biggest importer is the United States. The US doesn't trade with Cuba. Nevertheless, Cuba's healthcare system is arguably the best in the world.
#31014 to #31010 - valeriya (05/29/2013) [-]
Off the top of my head example is Tito for an example of an authoritarian society, how to benevolent dictatorship 101, the thing is Yugoslavia worked well, until Tito died (Note the trend when people die that's when shit hits the fan), the trick was nationalism was fought with an iron fist.

Ah now this is where the west will warp everything you've ever heard, Ukraine at this point in time still had a massive nationalist movement, and you had a new class emerging the infamous kulaks who sided with the nationalist who burned their grain and killed their cattle rather then allow it to be collected by the state (and do their part), so the state didn't send them any grain or cattle (you do not contribute you do not receive) remember also that prior to this famines were relatively common as farming was inefficient it was nothing exceptional or new, and yes grain exports did continue because as far as the state was concerned there was no need to distribute all those that had contributed had received their share.

The thing is with North Korea and Cuba the world has damned them for the crime of socialism and in NK's case jingoistic, un sanctions are more then just a slap on the wrist they're an essential death sentence for a country, see iraq and saddam and all those children that died courtesy of a US backed UN Sanctions, Laos I'm not familiar with, the issue these countries have (In comparison to russia) is they don't have a large amount of resources to draw from being unable to trade with the world naturally their economies have crashed, Laos I'm not familiar enough with to talk about, China and Vietnam, interesting both are no longer socialist anymore, and when you say living standards have increase ask for who have they increased, have they increased for the workers and peasants, no not at a good rate (China has a large population to deal with) the distribution of wealth is starting to skew upwards but they have increased for the petty bourgeoisie and capitalists, yes
0
#31016 to #31014 - kanade **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #31043 to #31016 - oxan (05/29/2013) [-]
Indeed, please not what Valeriya has said below you. Even on FJ, the opinion will vary. What she has said will differ greatly from what someone like, say, Arisaka would say. To a lesser extent, it'll differ from what I say.

Remember, communists (and the left in general) are plagued by sectarian nonsense.
#31017 to #31016 - valeriya (05/29/2013) [-]
Once again these are my interpretations and perceptions of events and communism / socialism etc etc, don't hold it to all communists.
0
#30991 to #30983 - princessren has deleted their comment [-]
#30958 - thehumor (05/29/2013) [-]
This is a bad place to be a democrat
This is a bad place to be a democrat
User avatar #30968 to #30958 - akamrhood (05/29/2013) [-]
What type of arguements do you have against republicans? oropinions that you hold that make you democrat?
User avatar #30970 to #30968 - thehumor (05/29/2013) [-]
gay rights, views on global warming...

I need to find a good website that shows both sides so i can properly choose for myself
User avatar #30972 to #30970 - akamrhood (05/29/2013) [-]
Since you are a democrat, I'm guessing you are for gay marriage. Why is that? Im just curious.
User avatar #30973 to #30972 - thehumor (05/29/2013) [-]
Because people should be allowed to be married if they want to. Two grown men or women who have rights, should be allowed to marry each other.
User avatar #30976 to #30973 - akamrhood (05/29/2013) [-]
Could you elaborate more on that? What about what the bible says or that it devalues marriage.

Just to let you know, I believe in gay marriage. Im just curious why others believe what I do that aren't gay.
User avatar #30982 to #30976 - dracodiabolus **User deleted account** (05/29/2013) [-]
14 endearment motherfucker
Murifag here
User avatar #30977 to #30976 - thehumor (05/29/2013) [-]
Let me just point out, this country was founded on the ideal of religious freedom. Not a single religion forcing itself upon you. This whole "It's wrong in the bible" thing, is just a way for Christianity to force its beliefs upon others

People DESERVE the right to marry who they choose. Not be stopped by a belief they might not even believe in
User avatar #30978 to #30977 - akamrhood (05/29/2013) [-]
This nation was founded on christian beliefs, values, and morals. Shouldn't that carry into our laws aswell?
User avatar #30984 to #30978 - dracodiabolus **User deleted account** (05/29/2013) [-]
1 amendement
User avatar #30980 to #30978 - thehumor (05/29/2013) [-]
Christianity has great teachings. It teaches to love your neighbor, and how to live happily. But to hold onto a belief because your great great great ancestors lived it, isn't very smart. The bible says you can kill your wife if she's lying to a priest, disobeying her father, disobeying you, working on sunday, etc. Should we follow those laws too? According to the bible, it says homosexuality is an "Abomination." You know what else it says is an abomination? Eating shellfish, and wearing two different type of fabric. If you're wearing denim and ANYTHING else besides it, you're technically on the same level as being gay.
User avatar #30985 to #30980 - akamrhood (05/29/2013) [-]
Even if it says in the constitution the seperation of church and state, the government is supposed to be a represntation of its people. 90% of America is Christian and (i forget the percentage) are against gay marriage. So shouldnt the government make a law against gay marriage considering majority of its populace dont want equal marriage rights?
User avatar #30986 to #30985 - thehumor (05/29/2013) [-]
Actually, 81% of americans 18-30 SUPPORT gay marriage. America is changing. Younger americans are more open. Sexually and religiously. I believe gay marriage is a handful of states now (around 10 maybe). In my point of view, the people against it are old bible thumping christians who cant handle someone doing something in their own home that they don't agree with.
User avatar #30989 to #30986 - akamrhood (05/29/2013) [-]
That is a good point, but the majority of the influence in this counrty are the people 40+ in age. It is a nice to see that young american are becoming more vocal on their opinions. Which is a larger population of this nation considering there are an ass load of baby boomers still left and they hold the majority of support against gay marriage.
(This is hard forming valid arguements against something I already believe in. Sorry)
Usually at this point the person against gay marriage starts saying how you arent a christian that you are going to burn in hell for eternity. But I have no more valid arguements against gay marriage.
User avatar #30990 to #30989 - thehumor (05/29/2013) [-]
www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57576249/poll-53-of-americans-support-same-sex-marriage/

Here i found this. A poll taken 2 months ago that 53% of all americans support gay marriage.
User avatar #30992 to #30990 - akamrhood (05/29/2013) [-]
Thats kind of a small sample of people. But not too bad. I was reading through some of the comments. There was one comment about:

how gays arent looking for the acceptance form God but they are lookign for is the tax break. They already know that they are living in sin and with be punished for it. So now they are just trying to use "marriage" as a scheme to get a tax break. Open your eyes people, these people are abominations. I rest my case.

HAHA It is just fun to see the ignorance and the miss steps in logic these people run with.
User avatar #30993 to #30992 - thehumor (05/29/2013) [-]
It's been fun talking, but i gotta go. Got stuff to do
User avatar #30994 to #30993 - akamrhood (05/29/2013) [-]
Have a great day sir!
 Friends (0)