FJ should now work well with mobile. Try it out on your mobile/tablet browser!
Click to expand
Latest users (2): kanadetenshi, redandgreen, anonymous(15).
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #45203 - jadewest (08/15/2013) [-]
labor or liberal?
#45191 - conservativegod (08/14/2013) [-]
Liberals hate Christianity because the Christian god is the biggest competitor to their own god: the government.
User avatar #45251 to #45191 - undeadwill (08/16/2013) [-]
I've been saying that for years.
#45217 to #45191 - feelythefeel (08/15/2013) [-]
Gotta give them "Liberals" credit, it's not everyday that you see someone worshiping something that actually exists.
#45218 to #45217 - conservativegod (08/15/2013) [-]
They think something is a god that is not a god.

If the Christian God does not exist, then praying to him will do nothing. "Praying" to the government, however, will summon the embodiment of incompetence, the King Midas of failure, who worsens everything he touches.
User avatar #45238 to #45218 - feelythefeel (08/15/2013) [-]
I can list a lot of things that praying to the Christian god does, just know that this will be coming from an atheist so not very many of them will be good.
User avatar #45207 to #45191 - subtard (08/15/2013) [-]
Not sure if people are thumbing this up because it's a funny troll or if people think it's serious and this board is retarded.
User avatar #45210 to #45207 - pebar (08/15/2013) [-]
it's a troll in response to another troll
User avatar #45204 to #45191 - Shiny ONLINE (08/15/2013) [-]
So, liberals worship something that exists?
User avatar #45202 to #45191 - jadewest (08/15/2013) [-]
I blame the commies
User avatar #45194 to #45191 - liberalgodess (08/14/2013) [-]
That is such BS. The Christians basically run this country so it's only fitting that they be brought down to everyone else's level. If you yourself are Christian, you need to apologize for all the agony you're putting people through, especially the gays.
User avatar #45206 to #45194 - jadewest (08/15/2013) [-]
such opinion
#45205 to #45194 - repostsrepost (08/15/2013) [-]
Really? Which Christians run this country? Obama is a bigot Christian then? Good to know.
#45197 to #45194 - conservativegod (08/14/2013) [-]
The gays cause themselves agony by choosing to be homosexual and then shoving it in everyone's face. They only have themselves to blame for being hated.

Besides, the Christians don't run this country. The communists secretly do. They're trying to bankrupt America, morally and financially, in an attempt to make everything collapse so they can instill a totalitarian Stalinist-style dictatorship.
User avatar #45199 to #45197 - loomiss (08/15/2013) [-]
Yeah, gays definitely choose to be gay, so society can hate them and make htem miserable, so miserable they'd rather take there own life than "choose" to be straight I mean if they chose to be gay and everyone gives em shit why don't they "choose" to be straight. Fucking asshat
#45219 to #45199 - conservativegod (08/15/2013) [-]
They choose to be gay because they are obsessed with sex. They have no desire to control their lust (which is one of the seven deadly sins, btw), so they choose homosexuality because then they can have sex as much as they want without bearing offspring. They would rather obtain already existing children so they can convert them to their corrupt ways. Convincing people to be gay is their second most favorite thing to do (with sex being the first.)
#45220 to #45219 - loomiss (08/15/2013) [-]
Obvious troll.   
I'm done here. You blew your cover, sir.
Obvious troll.
I'm done here. You blew your cover, sir.
#45230 to #45220 - conservativegod (08/15/2013) [-]
It was obvious to begin with. You were just slow enough not to see it until the second post.

User avatar #45242 to #45230 - loomiss (08/15/2013) [-]
Well IDK some people in the world are actually that dumb and think like that so I wasn't sure..
User avatar #45208 to #45162 - teoberry (08/15/2013) [-]
So, basically, I could claim to be female (even tho I'm a guy), and start playing women's rugby, football, lacrosse, hockey, tennis, bDarius Negrophalluston and I could run women's races and win it all? Count me in!
User avatar #45211 to #45208 - liberalgodess (08/15/2013) [-]
and what if you lose like Cartman in that one episode of South Park when he joins the special olympics?
sexist pig
User avatar #45212 to #45211 - teoberry (08/15/2013) [-]
lol i'm a man, I can beat women at most sports
#45196 to #45162 - valeriya (08/14/2013) [-]
Gender politics are of very little importance in the wider scheme of things, don't really care... They can be put on hold for now.
User avatar #45195 to #45162 - liberalgodess (08/14/2013) [-]
Totally support it. It's so sad that this kind of discrimination even exists in the first place.
User avatar #45173 to #45162 - byposted (08/14/2013) [-]
Make a list of these mentally deranged people and they will all have ropes set aside for them.
User avatar #45201 to #45173 - jadewest (08/15/2013) [-]
can u not
User avatar #45170 to #45162 - feelythefeel (08/14/2013) [-]
I agree in theory, but then there's the whole sexual dimorphism issue. For example, men are generally stronger than women, so what if a guy does well simply because he's transgendered and competes on the female side of a strength based sport?

Not that it really matters in high-school sports, but it has to be considered. Especially if it gets taken farther than just pep rallies.
User avatar #45224 to #45170 - teoberry (08/15/2013) [-]
That's the thing. I can claim to be a women and just dominate in their sports. Men have a natural advantage in this shit. The only way to get around that would to do a complete psychological test, but then the trannies will complain about that.
User avatar #45164 to #45162 - pebar (08/14/2013) [-]
That's retarded... teams are split up by sex because as a general rule, testosterone fueled males are more aggressive; it has nothing to do with gender identity.
User avatar #45165 to #45164 - rageisfunny (08/14/2013) [-]
I agree. Retarded.
#45149 - feelythefeel (08/14/2013) [-]
You know how Google defined rape as "Committed by a man"? Guess what search engine doesn't give the definition of rape anymore?
User avatar #45156 to #45149 - liberalgodess (08/14/2013) [-]
But rape IS committed by men; I don't understand what you're saying.
User avatar #45123 - tredbear (08/14/2013) [-]
World In Conflict (USSR March)

This just gives me the chills, because if the Soviet Union really wanted to, they would easily rip us a new asshole, within a blink of an eye.

that shit scares me, the soviet union was not to me messed with.
User avatar #45172 to #45123 - byposted (08/14/2013) [-]
The Communists were more afraid of the West invading them than the other way around. Had General Patton had his way, then the war would have been continued and Poland would have been truly freed. It had about as much of a chance of being realizied as Churchill's pleas to invade Russia in the late 1910s.

It didn't need to happen in the end for Western politicians realized that the Soviet Union's lifespan was limited. It destroyed itself from within barely 50 years later.
User avatar #45175 to #45172 - tredbear (08/14/2013) [-]
that's why they were the onces preparing for an attack rather than attack themselves.
User avatar #45132 to #45123 - akkere (08/14/2013) [-]
With graphics that bad, we'd never stand a chance against the Soviet Union and their superior framerates.

God Bless the PhysX
#45118 - akkere (08/14/2013) [-]
Pro-Morsi camps were violently cleared out recently by Egyptian security forces, whom used just about everything ranging from armored cars, bulldozers, and armed forces using bird shot and even live ammunition (some of which were snipers).

The camps became a sight of a conflict as protestors fought back with make-shift utilities such as gasoline bombs and even hurling paving stones, but hardly stood much ground against the security forces that cracking down on the two camps.

[From New York Times] Egyptian media claimed the dead were up to 95, including two policemen, though the injured that were flooded into hospitals would stipulate that the death toll would certainly rise higher, [From Washington Post] The government claims at least 149 were killed, and 800 injured, [From Christian Science Monitor], CSM (can't find the exact citable source) claims over 250 were killed in the clashes.

A spokesperson for the Egyptian government made a statement on state-run TV, stating that the government blamed the Muslim Brotherhood "for any blood spilled" and urged protesters to abstain from using violence. The spokesperson also warned that authorities will not stand for any attempts to attack state buildings and police stations in the wake of the crackdown.

The Muslim Brotherhood has been up in arms about the altercation, immediately estimating the death toll in the hundreds (exact figure isn't found in either articles) and calling the altercation a "massacre".

User avatar #45221 to #45118 - annoos (08/15/2013) [-]
You do know that the citizens of Rabaa al adawya were complaining about how the protestors were shitting and pissing all over their buildings, also going up asking for food from houses in the name of god.... there were complaints to the authorities and they tried to evacuate them, but the protestors refused to go and started throwing stones at the police cars, which made them use tear gas, authorities did not shoot until about 30 police men which include about 10 officers to be SHOT dead.
The muslim brotherhood is just a dangerous organization working for the west, you cannot prove otherwise. They just want to let egypt become like my country , syria.
Don't go along with it. There is no freedom in there, there is no democracy wanted, they just want bloodshed and the country to become dead....
User avatar #45235 to #45221 - akkere (08/15/2013) [-]
I don't like Morsi at all. I'm just posting news from You need to login to view this link because, well, it's topics that are presented from all sides. I don't like anything that has a "Muslim Brotherhood" tag to it, nor do I like anything with any organized religion tag to it, especially if its militant.

I still have confidence in what's called the "Arab Spring" (a label I didn't even know about until church mentioned it) because there's still a populace that actually wants democracy, hence how Morsi got ousted as well. Even though a large portion of it has corrosion from militants, if Egypt's direction turns properly, it could create a ripple effect for the other Middle Eastern nations.
User avatar #45241 to #45235 - annoos (08/15/2013) [-]
And if you heard about the three isreali airstrikes on Government millitary weapon storages. that were filmed by rebels in videos that can be found on youtube with them shouting ALLAHU AKBAR like they freed mekkeh again....
#45240 to #45235 - annoos (08/15/2013) [-]
But you do not get it. the people who actually want democracy will soon crumble off the streets in the face of muslim brotherhood militias or maybe even die in the streets! it is just another enactment of what happened in my country, syria! The revolutions were stolen and turned into a tool of TERRORISM by muslim organizations.... they are just a tool used by isreal and the west to fuck up the middle eastern countries that had just gotten back on their feet. Syria had no debt for no country, it was the most secure place ever i was like 12 years old and i would stay out till like midnight and the streets would stay enlightened and there are many people, i have never heard of a robbery in my area! look at us now...   
You cannot believe non of that arab spring crap, the media says what it wants, im in syria and im telling you what it is.
But you do not get it. the people who actually want democracy will soon crumble off the streets in the face of muslim brotherhood militias or maybe even die in the streets! it is just another enactment of what happened in my country, syria! The revolutions were stolen and turned into a tool of TERRORISM by muslim organizations.... they are just a tool used by isreal and the west to fuck up the middle eastern countries that had just gotten back on their feet. Syria had no debt for no country, it was the most secure place ever i was like 12 years old and i would stay out till like midnight and the streets would stay enlightened and there are many people, i have never heard of a robbery in my area! look at us now...
You cannot believe non of that arab spring crap, the media says what it wants, im in syria and im telling you what it is.
User avatar #45248 to #45240 - akkere (08/16/2013) [-]
Hm, if that's the case, then I am very sorry about what's happening in your country. I suppose I'll take that and look into the matter more, especially when I make another news post regarding the issues in Syria as well as the Middle Eastern conflicts, I'd just have to find some reports online regarding the matter.

The primary focus of my postings is to present information from all sides, to have links to a variety of news sources so that all bias is factored out and only the full details and numbers remain. Of course, that's limited to what numbers stick to the headlines, but eventually everything gets accounted for at some point, even if it unfortunately doesn't make it as soon as preferred.

Because of that, I understand the Arab Spring isn't as fantastic as it's romanticized to be by the mainstream media sources (hence why I always read my news online rather than watch televised news) , and I understand that at the current moment, organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood and just plain militant groups who could be rated on the level of Jihad extremists (if they aren't already are) have gripped some of these movements to destabilize any government that isn't Theocratically Islam.
User avatar #45260 to #45248 - annoos (08/16/2013) [-]
It kinda of is alot sadder. You see you know about the free syrian army right? the one that came at first. This shit is everywhere in vast numbers, but they utterly fail most of the time, who does all the work are called "jabhat al nosra" which would roughly translate to "The aiding front" or some shit like that, all i know is they don't even speak arabic, they also have videos on youtube with only "allahu akbar" and some afghani gribbles in there.
The current regime certainly wasnt the best, but i would take it over people who want a muslim kingdom any day
User avatar #45117 - liberalgodess (08/14/2013) [-]
Gas should be sin taxed to make it $15/gallon. That way people would either drive less or at least get into the market of greener cars. The environment can't take much more abuse.
Not to mention the cut down on deaths from automobile accidents.
#45181 to #45117 - feelythefeel (08/14/2013) [-]
Shhh, don't give the bourgeois any ideas.
User avatar #45135 to #45117 - junkaccountman (08/14/2013) [-]
That's...GENIUS! You'll make it so only the rich can afford to go anywhere or transport food and other goods over distances too long for walking!

You have been an excellent strategist in helping the rich rule the poor! Lord Jew will be pleased and shall reward you handsomely for your efforts!
User avatar #45122 to #45117 - cactaur ONLINE (08/14/2013) [-]
you doing another devils advocate thing again?
User avatar #45108 - CapnInterwebz (08/14/2013) [-]
So now the new Egyptian government has installed generals as provincial governors and is currently razing the pro-Morsi sit in camps around the country.

How long until the people rebel against this government?
#45110 to #45108 - valeriya (08/14/2013) [-]
No idea, watching al jaz on this right now... It wouldn't be unheard of in Egypt for the military to consolidate power, but in the past it's usually had good affects, granted the modern Egyptian army isn't the same as the one 60 years ago.
#45106 - fatbenreloaded (08/14/2013) [-]
User avatar #45086 - Major Mayhem (08/14/2013) [-]
Could you guys show me your collection of jew comics, I fucking love those
#45092 to #45086 - valeriya (08/14/2013) [-]
I've some around here somewhere.
#45096 to #45092 - valeriya (08/14/2013) [-]
Spot the difference.
User avatar #45097 to #45096 - jewishcommunazi (08/14/2013) [-]
The tucans aren't secretly trying to control the world through an international conspiracy?
#45101 to #45097 - teoberry (08/14/2013) [-]
What do you think froot loops are for? One bite, and you've got millions of nanobots in your bloodstream, making their way to your brain and slowly taking control of you
User avatar #45102 to #45101 - jewishcommunazi (08/14/2013) [-]
Oh yeah, now I remember! It even makes you desire interracial sex!
User avatar #45103 to #45102 - teoberry (08/14/2013) [-]
No, that's only the froot loops with the hearts in them
User avatar #45104 to #45103 - jewishcommunazi (08/14/2013) [-]
Are the regular ones for pre-marital sex, then?
User avatar #45105 to #45104 - teoberry (08/14/2013) [-]
Yes. The marshmellow ones are for pedophilia, and I don't want to get into what the 'treasures' ones do to you
#45088 to #45086 - teoberry (08/14/2013) [-]
do you mean like this?
User avatar #45087 to #45086 - akkere (08/14/2013) [-]
byposted, it's your time to shine.
User avatar #45065 - alhemicar (08/14/2013) [-]
Would anyone care to explain me the difference between a parliament and a congress?
#45615 to #45065 - LarsGoes (08/21/2013) [-]
the congress is the parlament of the USA
User avatar #45077 to #45065 - byposted (08/14/2013) [-]
That's a loaded question. In the UK I know parties get seats in parliament proportional to the national vote while in the US Congress the composition is made up via local elections at the state (Senate) and district (House) levels.
#45076 to #45065 - byposted has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #45078 to #45076 - alhemicar (08/14/2013) [-]
Eh, maybe you can answer this www.funnyjunk.com/politics/45073#45073

I have magical powers to reply to deleted comments that exceed the understandings of your mind
User avatar #45069 to #45065 - oxan (08/14/2013) [-]
They're just different names, basically.

Did you mean the difference between the presidential system and the parliamentary republic system?
User avatar #45073 to #45069 - alhemicar (08/14/2013) [-]
No, the difference between the institutions. I've read on the internet that in a congress the representatives/delegates are freer from influence of their parties, but no explanation as to why.
User avatar #45090 to #45073 - oxan (08/14/2013) [-]
The head of government in the US is elected independently of the congress, whereas parliamentary systems have the head of government drawn from the parliament and he or she must retain the confidence of that parliament. That generally means the leader of the largest party becomes the head of government. Party discipline, therefore, is necessary.
User avatar #45079 to #45073 - byposted (08/14/2013) [-]
I've read on the internet that in a congress the representatives/delegates are freer from influence of their parties
That would depend on how the members of parliament are appointed. We established that the different parties win x number of seats according to the national vote, but do the parties get to appoint these members? If so, they would most likely pick people who follow their party-line. Come the next national election, the parties can just remove those that deviate.

I believe, in effect, that the system we see in the U.S. allows for more distance from influence because the candidates are appointed not by the Party but by the people in different sectors of the country. The members of Congress have to be diverse in believes as a rule to appeal to their voters.

We need somebody with knowledge of British politics to confirm what I'm getting at.
#45109 to #45079 - valeriya (08/14/2013) [-]
British lower house (House of commons, 650 seats across gb & ni) is elected Upper house (House of lords) is mostly appointed, in order to run as part of a part you have to get permission from that party to do so, most parties operate like let's take the labour party there's about 2/3 factions, Democratic "socialists", Trade union roll overs and petty bourgeois with a guilt complex, so there's no clear "party line" on most issues but they'll still have a universal policy which is basically a heavy compromise which is what whips don't want you to deviate from (Explained lateR), you see it now with David Cameron trying to bring in gay marriage some of his own party are against him doing so. The solution parties around the world take to this, is whips they're the ones who will threaten bribe etc you to try keep you in accordance with the official policies which are agreed upon, if you keep deviating you'll probably have your party endorsement withdrawn but you'll still be kept in your seat just without a party and be considered independent, which isn't as big a deal as it is in America, some parties have less votes then others yet hold more seats, or hold more seats in proportion to votes. It's quite confusing. Source Living there.
User avatar #45080 to #45079 - alhemicar (08/14/2013) [-]
I'm not British, and yes, in my country we have a parliament and at first it was: party gets x seats, party appoints x representatives/delegates. But later the election law was changed that the representatives get elected directly, person for person (while delegates in the upper house were elected indirectly).

Still, the parties have great influence at their members, but I think oxan was right, from what I've gathered it's just different names. I've only now realised it's just most common for parliamentary republics to have a parliament, and presidental countries mostly have a congress.

How the parliament (or congress) works is, after all, defined by the constitution and election law.
User avatar #45082 to #45080 - byposted (08/14/2013) [-]
Indeed. As for the upper house, there are different manners in which delegates can be appointed there. The crown can do it, thus giving relevancy to the modern-age monarch, or a commission of some sort which is the case in Britain. How does this "indirect electing" work in your country? It interests me for there's nothing like it in the US.
User avatar #45083 to #45082 - alhemicar (08/14/2013) [-]
My country's unique in forms of gouvernment. Bosnia & Herzegovina's constitution is the Dayton peace agreement, wich ended the Bosnian war.

B&H remained in it's historical borders and the only sovreing state, but it was parted into two "entities": The Federation of B&H and Republika Srpska. The upper house of the parliament is the "House of peoples", it has 5 Bosniak, 5 Croat and 5 Serb delegates, and the quorum is the majority of votes, if atleast 3 Bosniak, 3 Croat and 3 Serb delegates are present.

The entities have the same type of parliaments, so the B. and C. delegates get appointed by the respective clubs in the house of peoples of FB&H, and the S. delegates get appointed by the council of peoples in Republika Srpska.

The state-level excecutive power is made up by the council of ministers, headed by the prime minister, who also acts as the mandatary and after a coalition is formed the parliamentar assebly gives a constructed gouvernment it's affiance (and can remove it later, if necesary).

There is no state-level judicial power that is established by the constitution, but the court of B & H was formed in 2003 and works the haviest cases of crime: war crimes, organised crimes etc.

Interestingly, I think this is the only country that formally is nothing - not a republic, not a monarchy, not a confederation...
Also, our head of state is a three-man presidency, of course a Bosniak, Croat and Serb member of the presidency...
User avatar #45037 - tredbear (08/13/2013) [-]

What is your Most Preferable Form of Government?

User avatar #45074 to #45037 - akkere (08/14/2013) [-]
>No Anarcho-Monarcho-Socialist-Totaliarianism

Welcome to pleb-ville. Population: You.
User avatar #45064 to #45037 - pebar (08/14/2013) [-]
What the hell is a capitalist government? Run by private property rights?
#45039 to #45037 - jewishcommunazi (08/13/2013) [-]
Only three votes... this is kind of boring.
Only three votes... this is kind of boring.
User avatar #45040 to #45039 - jewishcommunazi (08/13/2013) [-]

>Form of government.
User avatar #45042 to #45041 - jewishcommunazi (08/13/2013) [-]
Did you vote?
User avatar #45043 to #45042 - tredbear (08/13/2013) [-]
that's confidential information.
#45044 to #45043 - jewishcommunazi (08/13/2013) [-]
You either voted for fascism or nazism, didn't you?
#45047 to #45044 - tredbear (08/13/2013) [-]
it's going to take a lot more than that to make me crack
#45048 to #45047 - jewishcommunazi (08/13/2013) [-]
Oh yeah? What if I zoom in the picture like this?
#45049 to #45048 - tredbear (08/13/2013) [-]
Le legionary flag should give you a hint
User avatar #45050 to #45049 - jewishcommunazi (08/14/2013) [-]
Is it Fascism (Francoism), then?
User avatar #45051 to #45050 - tredbear (08/14/2013) [-]
User avatar #45052 to #45051 - jewishcommunazi (08/14/2013) [-]
I see... it's a yes, then. You seem to change your philosophy pretty quick, then.
User avatar #45053 to #45052 - tredbear (08/14/2013) [-]
no, I always had that ideology in my mind, it was always communism second.
User avatar #45054 to #45053 - tredbear (08/14/2013) [-]
very different things, but I am a strange man
User avatar #45055 to #45054 - tredbear (08/14/2013) [-]
both have their advantages and disadvantages though
User avatar #45056 to #45055 - jewishcommunazi (08/14/2013) [-]
Basically, they're the opposite of each other regarding a lot of things (especially positions regarding race, nationality, class, etc.). In short (unless you want to give a big answer, I'm fine with both), Why communism and why fascism?
User avatar #45059 to #45056 - tredbear (08/14/2013) [-]
fascism because it consists of an all-powerful totalitarian government, which has total control of the people, the nation and the economy, and you end up with things like free health care, and paid vacations, better national security, Limits media on biased bullshit ( even though the gov can use it to lie and shit, but every governent does that) and it also gives Economic growth.

Communism because everyone gets a paycheck, the poor are fine with that, all People are equal, so no women be oppressed and shit, An internally stable economic system, everyone can get a job, efficient distribution of resources, and no other political party to try and ruin it all for everyone else.

User avatar #45063 to #45059 - jewishcommunazi (08/14/2013) [-]
So, Stalinist socialism?
User avatar #45071 to #45063 - tredbear (08/14/2013) [-]
stalin was not my favorite leader in my book
User avatar #45098 to #45071 - jewishcommunazi (08/14/2013) [-]
What was your favourite?
User avatar #45045 to #45044 - jewishcommunazi (08/13/2013) [-]
On a side note, I really only asked this so that I could make use of this picture of this fish from Spongebob with a judgemental look.
User avatar #45046 to #45045 - jewishcommunazi (08/13/2013) [-]
Although I'm kind of curious too, but no need to answer.
#45036 - akkere (08/13/2013) [-]
The North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory signed in the Voter ID bill into law yesterday, Monday August 12th.
The bill would require voters to show some form of government-issue (student IDs are not valid) photographic identification - a driver's license, passport, veteran's ID, etc. The governor states that the bill will not require for voters to provide an ID until the 2016 elections.

The bill also adds that it would provide for a "free ID" at DMVs, though some state estimates claim that the costs to providing voters that lack IDs would be substantial ( $834,200 for the current populace of voters, and then $24,100 every two years).

The bill has been met with legal opposition, as a coalition of groups including the ACLU and NAACP have filed a lawsuit against the bill, charging that it violates the Constitution's equal protection clause and Voting Rights Act of 1965.

User avatar #45057 to #45036 - pebar (08/14/2013) [-]
don't most states already do this?
User avatar #45061 to #45057 - akkere (08/14/2013) [-]
34 States require Voter ID in general; not all of them are exactly the same, and certainly not most of them are similar to what North Carolina is doing, I believe.

The States that have voter ID laws vary heavily;


Some require a Photo ID, some require IDs that don't have to be photographic, and some are "strict", which I'm not sure what that means right off the bat.

I'm not quite sure where North Carolina would stand, but I'm guessing from the way this whole thing is being broadly placed, it's probably going to be Strict ID.
User avatar #45032 - mykoira (08/13/2013) [-]
i hate D'Hondt method. Let's say Bieber wants to get in gongres, but he is in same party with Hitler and Stalin and other shitty persons (no offend to any of our stalinist or neo-nazies). Because Bieber is so popular he gets many votes what means he brings Hitlers and Stalins votes up what means that they too get in the gongres even they had just 7 and 2 votes and someone with 20,000 votes can't get in
User avatar #45035 to #45032 - pebar (08/13/2013) [-]
Oooh you mean people getting votes because they're popular, not because of their political views?
Yeah, that happens all the time, especially with democrats because of Hollywood and stuff...
#45019 - mykoira (08/13/2013) [-]
so, i found this map, it's a map of people England has invaded.
User avatar #45038 to #45019 - tredbear (08/13/2013) [-]
lol, nobody invades Mongolia
User avatar #45089 to #45038 - teoberry (08/14/2013) [-]
You don't really invade mongolia, you just sort of walk in, give a goat to the leader, and then you're in charge
#45031 to #45019 - sgtdalesmith (08/13/2013) [-]
BRITAIN not England !! There are other countries around England you know.
#45021 to #45019 - yourbed has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #45022 to #45021 - mykoira (08/13/2013) [-]
User avatar #45010 - undeadwill (08/13/2013) [-]
Hey fascists what was Italy's strong point in WW2 if any?
User avatar #45002 - jewishcommunazi (08/13/2013) [-]
I'm not sure if I asked this before, but what are your ideologies/ideas/methodologies/stuff/etc.?
User avatar #45058 to #45002 - arisaka (08/14/2013) [-]
Postmodernism and poststructuralism
User avatar #45060 to #45058 - jewishcommunazi (08/14/2013) [-]
Welcome back.

Also, can you explain more or less what it means? I'm not very familiar with those terms.
User avatar #45062 to #45060 - arisaka (08/14/2013) [-]
Both are terms that are hard to kind of describe. Post-structuralism relates to ideas and currents that evolved in critical theory during the 1960's and 1970's. "A post-structuralist approach argues that to understand an object , it is necessary to study both the object itself and the systems of knowledge that produced the object."

Post-modernism is a philosophy that argues against the ability to put all knowledge into a single framework (called a metanarative).
#45029 to #45002 - rety (08/13/2013) [-]
Religious Views- Whatever floats your boat as long as it doesn't affect other people in a bad way (fundamentalism and getting rid of separation of church and state)
Political views- human rights and shit, yo
world views- Stop putting your army into everything , America.
Personal Views- Live a good life, get educated, marry late, have kids that surpass you.
User avatar #44990 - Major Mayhem (08/13/2013) [-]
What do you think are the serious odds of another party being voted into American office? Like none of this Tea Party or Liberal bullshit anymore.
User avatar #44998 to #44990 - akkere (08/13/2013) [-]
Presidential or Congressional/Senatorial?
Either way, it's more or less unlikely. Dems and Reps have a major advantage of the fact that they can achieve massive funds from lobbying to fund even more massive campaigns. Seriously, campaigns are the equivalent of rolling up dolla dolla bills y'all and smoking it away to get one man into an office. Smaller parties can hardly ever get the publicity required to acquire the funds to achieve any of that, so presidential office is extremely unlikely.
Congressional/Senatorial Offices are more likely but it requires a lot more grunt work most people (sadly) will generally assign themselves as a major party and cast their vote in that direction no matter what. Even if an up-and-coming super-star type comes running up the aisles throwing actual plans to solving issues, if he's in a state that's populated by people that simply don't see the point in stepping away from a more dominant force that's at least somewhat appealing to their own view, he might as well look into a different career (I think shoe designers are actually in a good market now).

It's more likely a lesser party will augment themselves into a larger one to an extent, in which they are slowly assimilated into the views of the major and eventually become nothing more than a puppet party, as... tin-foiled as I'm sure that sounds. The people that were slowly hoping to maintain a degree of independence from the larger forces only remain fooled, for their independence is merely an illusion and dream so long as they believe any party that augments itself entirely into a major one is worth following no matter what.

tl;dr It's pretty hard for any small party to win anything unless they can shit entire gold bars.
User avatar #45016 to #44998 - Major Mayhem (08/13/2013) [-]
Hardly anyone here tl;dr's, You had very valid points.
#45007 to #44998 - valeriya (08/13/2013) [-]
The Alternative Vote Explained Maybe introduce this...
User avatar #44991 to #44990 - CapnInterwebz (08/13/2013) [-]
Next to none. I bet the majority of Americans are unaware that there's other teams besides red and blue.
 Friends (0)