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): borderlineparanoid, raimicheck, anonymous(12).
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #28942 - beatmasterz (05/09/2013) [-]
Why are Bilderberg meetings still okay? Why aren't there countless lawsuits against it? I spits in the face of democracy.
User avatar #28950 to #28942 - Shiny (05/09/2013) [-]
It's just a rich people circlejerk. Who cares.
#28932 - xxxsonic fanxxx (05/09/2013) [-]
Nice try, faggots, but you can't escape from the wrath of ANIME BOARD
User avatar #28916 - CapnInterwebz (05/08/2013) [-]
This board is stalling. What should we talk about?

#28966 to #28916 - xxxsonic fanxxx (05/10/2013) [-]
Weaponized Didldoes.
User avatar #28929 to #28916 - oxan (05/09/2013) [-]
It always stalls like this. Just need to wait for something interesting to happen.

Until then, we can have numerous political compass threads ^.^

Maybe we should actually save them this time. A census!
User avatar #28930 to #28929 - CapnInterwebz (05/09/2013) [-]
I guess we could make fun of Dennis Rodman, who asked Kim Jong-Un to "do him a solid" and release the American they have there:

You need to login to view this link
User avatar #28937 to #28930 - Ruspanic (05/09/2013) [-]
"the Supreme Leader of North Korea or as I call him `Kim'"
It's funny because that's his surname.
User avatar #28931 to #28930 - oxan (05/09/2013) [-]
Haha, oh wow.

That reminds me of the random American than DPRK's Twitter account follows. They only follow three accounts, and one is some random guy ^.^
#28919 to #28916 - xxxsonic fanxxx (05/08/2013) [-]
The plague that is "political correctness," how it is running rampant, and how to get rid of it. It's terribly bad in the UK. You know there's something wrong when a group of foreigners can get drunk and assault a white lady screaming "KILL THE WHITE SLAG" and be set free without penalty on the basis that they were "not used to being drunk." Meanwhile, a white person can be sent to jail simply for making racist comments on twitter.

Looking at the US, it seems to be headed down the same road. It just hasn't gotten this far yet.
User avatar #28941 to #28919 - teoberry (05/09/2013) [-]
That twitter thing pisses me off so much. It wasn't even racist. A black soccer player was injured, and a guy was celebrating. Not because of race, because he didn't like him. People talk shit about athletes all the time. Look at Derrick Rose. He's getting the most shit, yet no one's arresting him. Fuck Britain's government.
#28943 to #28941 - xxxsonic fanxxx (05/09/2013) [-]
Him rejoicing about Mumba's injury wasn't what they called racist. When facing backlash, he called some of his attackers "wogs" (commonly a racial slur for any dark-skinned people) and told them to pick cotton. It's still retarded to sentence somebody to jail over that.

What really pisses me off is what the district judge said. Liam claimed to be drunk and the judge told him "You need to learn how to handle alcohol better." With the Somalian girls and the drunken "KILL THE WHITE SLAG!" assault incident still fresh in my mind, I fucking raged after reading that.
User avatar #28956 to #28943 - teoberry (05/09/2013) [-]
Ah. That's bullshit.
User avatar #28957 to #28956 - teoberry (05/09/2013) [-]
To clarify, I believe you, but that entire incident is a load of shit. Fuck UK
User avatar #28933 to #28919 - Shiny (05/09/2013) [-]
Political correctness is such a weird term.
#28944 to #28933 - xxxsonic fanxxx (05/09/2013) [-]
Because it doesn't make a lick of sense. Everything that's "politically correct" is retardedly wrong.
#28909 - yourbed (05/08/2013) [-]
I honestly feel that more bad than good will come out of this dowloadable gun that so many people are praseing.   
Inb4 i am labeled a pink-o commie anti-gun liberal.
I honestly feel that more bad than good will come out of this dowloadable gun that so many people are praseing.

Inb4 i am labeled a pink-o commie anti-gun liberal.
User avatar #28936 to #28909 - teoberry (05/09/2013) [-]
Eh, I'm not too concerned. What what I heard, two or three shots and the frame starts breaking. Not a viable weapon for any sort of shooting. Just a novelty, and a toy. When shit gets more serious, and better guns are available, we might have to do more, but right now, we're fine.
#28928 to #28909 - oxan has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #28925 to #28909 - undeadwill (05/09/2013) [-]
Its a single shot gun,
with the reliability of the Chauchat, (French WW1 machine gun that after three shots, jammed so much it was labeled the worst gun ever)
is as about as lethal of a large rock (Seriously kitchen knives are deadlier)
Has the range of a throwing knife
And the cost of 4000 Us dollars plus 50 maybe more+ Tax (The combined value of 3-4 AR15s)
With possible decreases in price in the next....10-20 years?

Seriously. Everyone quit freaking out just because its a gun.
User avatar #28939 to #28925 - yourbed (05/09/2013) [-]
It's a single shot gun
So? You only need one shot.

with the reliability of the Chauchat, (French WW1 machine gun that after three shots, jammed so much it was labeled the worst gun ever)
Great it's a shitty gun, it is still a fully working gun that anyone can dowload for free of the internet.

It is as lethal of a large rock & has the range of a throwing knife
Even a .22 LR shot can do damnage and even kill someone young if it hits them in the head.

And the cost of 4000 Us dollars plus 50 maybe more+ TaxWith and possible decreases in price in the next....10-20 years?
I can find one at Staples for 1300 bucks. And prices useually drops around 3-4 years.

Think about this: In the year 2013 anyone with acces to a 3D printer will be able to print and manufacture a handgun in their own home.
User avatar #28959 to #28939 - undeadwill (05/09/2013) [-]
One shot, you can miss at longer ranges and at close range it is still as about a deadly as a knife (Which can be made undetectable by x-rays)
Cross bows are more dangerous than this gun.

Sure if, (Big if) it hits someone it could (Could) kill them if it hit them in vital targets but with one shot it has limited killing power.

But can it make the same gun? I am doubtful. and prices might go down? (Might) You still need the better up models to make the gun. And if in a few years they can make guns cheaper? So what?

Tell me what could possibly makes this weapon somehow more dangerous than weapons kids have access to and a clear and present threat to society? And then what is the solution? Censorship of transfer of files on the internet? That's Sopa talk you fascist.

The gun was simply a "I told you I could" thing.

Yes we all saw a dose of buckly but doesn't understand what this is.
User avatar #28926 to #28925 - pebar (05/09/2013) [-]
it's the concept that's significant
User avatar #28927 to #28926 - undeadwill (05/09/2013) [-]
Exactly. Libtards Libtards everywhere
User avatar #28912 to #28909 - pebar (05/08/2013) [-]
I think it will greatly affect places like the UK that have a crime problem but simply don't have guns. We'll see how violent that place really is compared to the US.
#28914 to #28912 - valeriya (05/08/2013) [-]
It'd be funny because they'd probably ban or limit accessibility to 3d printers knowing brits.
#28865 - xxxsonic fanxxx (05/08/2013) [-]
We should Fat Ben's poop!

#28859 - tredbear (05/08/2013) [-]
what you guys think about the Israeli airstrikes on Syria?
#28860 to #28859 - tredbear (05/08/2013) [-]
I think If Israel keeps this up, Iran might start putting more effort in helping the Syrian government, and if the US starts supplying the rebels, Russia might start supplying the Syrian government because Russia does not want to lose their only naval port in the middle east. Right now, Israel seems to be making it even worse.
#28853 - feelythefeel (05/07/2013) [-]
>rednecks on the internet want to glorify the confederacy and start another civil war
>eventually they stop pussyfooting and do it (They won't but let's pretend)
>suddenly the entire bible belt loses internet, among other things
>no rednecks on the internet anymore
>MFW nothing of value would be lost
User avatar #28924 to #28853 - byposted (05/09/2013) [-]
I would probably die a martyr for the "rednecks."
#28854 to #28853 - xxxsonic fanxxx (05/08/2013) [-]
>Implying rednecks know how to use the internet.
User avatar #28855 to #28854 - feelythefeel (05/08/2013) [-]

They practically have their own internet.
User avatar #28827 - tredbear (05/07/2013) [-]
"The U.S. invades Iraq 10 years ago because we were suspicious of them possessing weapons of mass destruction, yet they never threatened them. North Korea has proven that they have weapons of mass destruction, and constantly threaten the U.S and yet we haven't invaded... U.S. logic"
User avatar #28861 to #28827 - oxan (05/08/2013) [-]
Like CapnInterwebz said. There's more to it than Iraqi Freedom.
User avatar #28858 to #28827 - CapnInterwebz (05/08/2013) [-]
>implying Iraq was invaded for anything related to WMDs
#28834 to #28827 - princessren has deleted their comment [-]
#28832 to #28827 - xxxsonic fanxxx (05/07/2013) [-]
Probably because very few think Kim Jong Un has the balls to act out his threats. To most, he just appears to be a fat kid putting on a tough guy act.
#28824 - miskwaamiikana **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#28820 - levchenko (05/07/2013) [-]
This image has expired
Who do you think the aggressor is?

And why Is the USA backing them?
User avatar #28907 to #28820 - InglushMayjur (05/08/2013) [-]
I'm biased, because I think the creation of Israel was one of the biggest mistakes of the 20th century.

But I really do believe that Israel's response is incredibly disproportionate to the actual threat posed. And it's often exacerbated by the fact that Israel lies about their actually attacks. For example, they denied the use of white phosphorous against civilians during the Gaza conflict, although it is now accepted that they did.
User avatar #28866 to #28820 - oxan (05/08/2013) [-]
Israel's the aggressor. Their borders are far larger than what they were originally given.
User avatar #28847 to #28820 - Shiny (05/07/2013) [-]
Israel is often the retaliator, but their response can be very excessive.

I admire them for maintaining a modern, progressive society in the Middle East....but they seem to have one hell of a Napoleon complex.
#28833 to #28820 - xxxsonic fanxxx (05/07/2013) [-]
#28825 to #28820 - valeriya (05/07/2013) [-]
To take from the last time we discussed Israel Palestine, Israel is the product of Imperialism and is unnatural in its existence it upsets the region just by being there, with the aid it receives from other nations it continues to exist and cause upset.
#28829 to #28825 - xxxsonic fanxxx (05/07/2013) [-]
Wait, Palestine was a independent nation?
User avatar #28864 to #28829 - oxan (05/08/2013) [-]
I'm not sure on the specifics, but I know enough to point out that Israel's current territory wasn't what they were orginally given. It's the result of imperialism.

Israeli Jews 'buy' houses and evict their Arab residents by block, and just have a few Israelis move in. There was no reason that Arab states and Israel could not have lived neighbouring each other peacefully. I fear now the hatred is too entrenched that it'll ever be resolved peacefully.
#28830 to #28829 - valeriya (05/07/2013) [-]
No (To the best of my knowledge) , It existed without the state of Israel as a state as a part of the British empire they were not independent prior to this they existed as part of the ottoman empire and before that as part of Egypt although in all cases it was "semi-autonomous", the land was then dictated apart by the U.N in 1948 into a "Jewish state" and a "Palestinian state" because culturally they were different to the rest of the arab nations in the middle eat and that's how Israel and Palestine came to be, the Israeli state is something just whipped up out of thin air with the people being told "Tough shit" I'm not surprised they don't stand for it.
#28821 to #28820 - pebar (05/07/2013) [-]
Israel is a tiny country surrounded by many Islamic nations that all want to destroy it. Even if Israel is the aggressor I still support them doing what they have to so they won't be overrun.
User avatar #28862 to #28821 - oxan (05/08/2013) [-]
>implying Israel's hostility and 'muh holocaust' complex isn't why they're hated in the region
#28901 to #28862 - xxxsonic fanxxx (05/08/2013) [-]
>implying bigotry isn't part of islam
#28838 to #28821 - esspe **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #28814 - eight (05/07/2013) [-]
In America, if a cop pulls you over for something very minor, first offense or for no reason at all and acts very rudely, and even belligerent, would you act in the same way back? The Golden Rule in a sense...

It is not a crime to speak your opinion or to insult a police officer. And too many times I have seen such authority figures abuse their power when challenged by a citizen.

And all to often I see people warning others to never insult a police officer because of the "consequences", able to be detained for up to 48 hours without charge.

But the real question is, should we allow them to continue their abuse, or should we stand up for our rights and call out the corruption?

This is also very related to random checkpoints in such places as New York City or anywhere around the Mexico border.
User avatar #28815 to #28814 - oxan (05/07/2013) [-]
Remaining calm, and cooly arguing with the officer will give you a lot more support if you intend to take it to court. Like you said, a lot of people warn others not to insult a cop. Arguing loudly and aggressively makes it look like the officer is justified.
User avatar #28816 to #28815 - oxan (05/07/2013) [-]
I agree with you, but we should be smart about it.
User avatar #28817 to #28816 - eight (05/07/2013) [-]
I NOW bring a camera with me in case of running into an issue like this. Just the other day we were harassed by a cop who stopped us under the pretense of "vehicle matching the description of one used in a crime."

He was very rude and mean asking mom what we were doing (which she shouldn't have answered by right). Then he looks to me in the passenger seat and asks me my name as if it matters. I tell him my first name. Then he says loudly and somewhat aggressively "Your last name SIR!". I answered him. And then it donned on me that I did not need to answer. So I shouted as he was walking away towards his car "What does it matter to know my name?" Especially considering he never asked for my ID.

He was back at his vehicle for about 10 seconds, hardly enough to check anything. He comes back and lets us go on our way without ever answering the question I know he heard.

He did it just to piss us off.

And the backstory on this..an off duty sheriff backed up into my moms car. She sued. And since then she has been stopped in the EXACT manner, by the exact police officer 3 times now with the EXACT reason since her collision which caused her injury and vehicle damage.

It is like he has a vendetta against her and is using his authority inappropriately. Two complaints to the sheriffs office has done nothing. Maybe a third has done it.

User avatar #28819 to #28817 - oxan (05/07/2013) [-]
Indeed. I'd just record on my phone in the event I was pulled over in the future. I do live in a (relatively) small city, and far enough from the CBD and the bulk of the police presence, so the interactions I have with police aren't unpleasant. The most recent interaction I've had, months ago now, was while I was waiting for a bus just in a street - so not at a bus stop - and a police car stopped and just asked me if I had seen some kids go up the street.

But there are indeed plenty of instances where police officers are just dicks. I find female officers when with a group of male officers are the worst, as if they have to prove themselves.

But anyway, I think it's best to just remain cool and collected, and calmly converse with the officer, even if (s)he's yelling in your face, because like you said, people generally side with a cop if you're both yelling at each other.
#28799 - xxxsonic fanxxx (05/07/2013) [-]

levchenko conirmed for full slav (look at jacket)
User avatar #28846 to #28799 - mykoira (05/07/2013) [-]
that is adidas jacket, i have adidas jacket, am i full slav?
User avatar #28803 to #28799 - oxan (05/07/2013) [-]
Okay, yeah. What is with Slavs and adidas?

And squating instead of sitting, for that matter.
#28767 - byposted (05/06/2013) [-]

Libturds want more of your money, but never fear, the Republican House is here!

Why are those who supposedly hate the rich pursuing legislation that is prone to harm small businesses and consumers? Large online retailers like Amazon, the company whose owner is a big pusher for normalizing the activity of sodomites, support the bill.
User avatar #28774 to #28767 - oxan (05/06/2013) [-]
Capitalists working to make monopolies. Nothing new here.
#28837 to #28774 - xxxsonic fanxxx (05/07/2013) [-]

User avatar #28772 to #28767 - aceofshadows (05/06/2013) [-]
Because they want many people to hate someone else so they can exploit your hatred of whatever other group to pass shitty legislation without you thinking about the consequences of passing it.
User avatar #28771 to #28767 - pebar (05/06/2013) [-]
The idea of a tax on sales at all is foolish.
#28765 - byposted has deleted their comment [-]
#28764 - byposted has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #28751 - pebar (05/06/2013) [-]
is it 2016 yet?
User avatar #28808 to #28751 - oxan (05/07/2013) [-]
>Vote republican
>Republicans do something the electorate doesn't like
>Approval ratings drop
>Next election vote democrats

A two-party system doesn't offer any choice.
User avatar #28809 to #28808 - pebar (05/07/2013) [-]
you always have 50% who are very unhappy, 40% who are barely tolerant, and 10% who actually like the policy (and they're extremists)
User avatar #28818 to #28809 - Ruspanic (05/07/2013) [-]
Not so. The advantage of the two-party system is that both sides moderate themselves to appeal to a broader constituency. They do things to appease their various elements of their constituency (e.g. the religious right for the GOP, or the environmentalists for the Democrats), but on the whole remain relatively moderate, if at times inflexible.
User avatar #28869 to #28818 - oxan (05/08/2013) [-]
That's not an advantage at all. Because they make themselves broad enough to attract such a large section of the electorate, they become essentially the same party, but differing on a few issues that become the issues (even when there's far more important issues).

A two party system gives no real alternative. You find that they essentially go back and forth. The only time there's actually a real alternative is when your country is on the brink of collapse, like Greece, or the Weimar Republic. Then you get radical parties.
User avatar #28874 to #28869 - Ruspanic (05/08/2013) [-]
That's a good point. In a two-party system the parties can only differ on issues that the public is clearly divided on, leaving smaller minority opinions unrepresented.

On the other hand, in multiparty systems political parties have less incentive to moderate themselves and more incentive to cling to a loyal ideological base. In a legislature this is okay if the seat distribution is more or less proportional to the popular vote, but in the executive the victor will almost inevitably have the support of only a minority of the populace, and because of the lack of ideological moderation this will leave a majority of people unrepresented.
User avatar #28877 to #28874 - oxan (05/08/2013) [-]
That's in a proportional system. Other countries, like Australia, don't have that system.

The issue, as I see it, is that with a two party system - or where the major parties are moderate parties at least - people only see those two options. In America, you're either a Republican or a Democrat (for a simple example). Republicans see the democrats as these far left communists, and Democrats see the republicans as far right fascists or whatever. What people don't recognise is that the parties are almost identical. Same goes for Australia.

If people recognised there's actually more than two options - as they did in the Weimar Republic, but unfortunately with the Nazis - then I think you'll find that support for the moderate parties will erode, and parties that offer a real alternative - whether they be fascists or communists - will see huge gains in votes.
User avatar #28881 to #28877 - Ruspanic (05/08/2013) [-]
Though it's good for people to see issues in politics as more than just a partisan dichotomy, change for the sake of change is not desirable. I don't consider a rise in fascist or communist ideology to be a positive development.
User avatar #28882 to #28881 - oxan (05/08/2013) [-]
Most issues are related to the current mode of production of the world, anyway. Only a radical change in the mode of production will solve many of the issues we face. That's why social democracy and the welfare state is inadequate in solving unemployment and poverty.
User avatar #28886 to #28882 - Ruspanic (05/08/2013) [-]
I don't see a fundamental problem in the mode of production. Though there need to be checks to prevent monopolies (including monopolies of the public sector), I don't have a problem with the idea of private ownership of resources.
User avatar #28890 to #28886 - oxan (05/08/2013) [-]
The fundamental problem is capitalism's inherent contradiction: the capitalists want to pay their workers as little as possible, but at the same time require a market to sell their commodities to.

Once again, we're seeing manufacturing relocating. This time from China to Vietnam. This relocation can't continue forever. Furthermore, the ruthless lust for profit is unsustainable. Not only unsustainable, but production for profit is immoral. Tons of goods are destroyed to not upset capitalist markets daily, yet much of the world lives in poverty.

And then, the key point: private ownership of the MoP is theft.
User avatar #28897 to #28890 - Ruspanic (05/08/2013) [-]
That inherent contradiction is part of what keeps the system functioning. Also, there is a market for labor just as there is for any good: employers must compete for their employees, and they do so by offering higher pay and additional benefits such as health insurance coverage. If an employer offers employees significantly less than their labor is worth, competitors will lure those employees away by offering higher pay. Provided the workers are not deceived (and increasing transparency helps prevent that), this ensures that companies don't treat employees like slaves.
Of course, in the underdeveloped world there is a lot more exploitation and workers are treated worse, but the fact that they freely take those jobs demonstrates that it's an improvement from their prior situation.

Relocation of manufacturing isn't really that big a problem in an era of international trade. The money saved by companies through the use of cheaper labor allows them to increase production and revenue and expand, creating jobs in the home country while also lowering prices on goods. Also the wealth circulates in the global economy.

I don't see production for profit as immoral. People respond to incentives, and self-interest is a constant and reliable driving force of production. So the producer benefits from the consumers' money, and the consumers benefit from the producer's goods. Destruction of goods is a problem that stems from companies misjudging demand, often by misreading market indicators. I don't see a way to reliably fix this, but it can be alleviated by eliminating some of the factors that skew market indicators, such as manipulation of interest rates.

Standards of legitimate ownership are established by society. Private ownership of means of production is only theft if you presume that the legitimate owners are all people collectively. This premise is not accepted in Western society, so this is not theft by Western standards.
User avatar #28813 to #28809 - oxan (05/07/2013) [-]
>Moderate parties
#28745 - xxxsonic fanxxx (05/06/2013) [-]
niggers commit a very large proportion of crime. they don't belong in modern civilization.
#28777 to #28745 - miskwaamiikana **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #28749 to #28745 - pebar (05/06/2013) [-]
Crime is caused primarily by foolish laws creating black hue markets for things that have been criminalized. Society would be better off legalizing things like drugs and dealing with the few who fuck up their lives than by inadvertently creating gangs which tear apart communities. Money saved on law enforcement and criminal justice could be better invested in things like education.
User avatar #28759 to #28749 - byposted (05/06/2013) [-]
Society would be better off legalizing things like drugs
lolberg pls. Drugs are harmful to society and history should teach you this. Stoners are not exactly the type of people you'd want a country to be made up of. Harder drug users are out of the question in this regard.

Money saved on law enforcement and criminal justice could be better invested in things like education.
Money spent on edumucasion =/= better performance. Washington DC schools have the highest spending per capita in regards to education and also one of the largest amount of niglets per capita, but a typical niglet performance with it.

I'm not saying that the "war on drugs" has done us benefit for the cost but certainly taking the lolberg approach of, "legalize everything and give the chillens all the surplus funds" is not any better, in fact it is much worse.
User avatar #28770 to #28759 - pebar (05/06/2013) [-]
Drugs are harmful, crime caused by the black market is worse.
The education I was referring to was education about the effects of drugs. Removing demand would be far more effective than removing suppliers and just throwing them and jail, just to have more dealers take their place, thus putting more people in jail, etc. Those convicted of crimes related to their irresponsible drug use would be forced into rehab as part of the punishment. As for the people who make stupid choices and just hang out in the gutter and drool on themselves, just leave them; it's their own fault. Also, those who wish to apply for government aid must submit to rehab if they have a history of drug abuse. Society doesn't have to help people who intend to throw their lives away.

The money saved all doesn't have to be spent by the government. Taxes could be lowered and the economy could flourish.

The US has the highest demand for illegal drugs in the world. With the price being reduced significantly, drug cartels in mexico and south america would lose all their profits and with away. Quality of life in those countries would improve and so would foreign relations.
User avatar #28779 to #28770 - byposted (05/06/2013) [-]
That's certainly a nice spin you put on legalizing all drugs. How would one, "remove demand" from the drug market by legalizing the drugs? The new drug dealer would be the government, with very high taxes on these drugs, naturally, to harm their markets. This would actually help the black market prosper, unless you want drugs to be something sold at Wal-Mart next to Kellogg's® Froot Loops® Cereal. But there comes your next point...

Also, those who wish to apply for government aid must submit to rehab if they have a history of drug abuse. Society doesn't have to help people who intend to throw their lives away.
How does this have a relation with legalization? This is like saying that all those who own guns should be put on a watchlist for terrorism. If drugs are something legal and somebody's choice to use them under the doctrine of lolbergtardinism, then what right is it of the state to punish him for his lifestyle? Isn't this like those old Christian bigots who don't want me and my buttbuddy getting married because of "muh jeebus?"
User avatar #28780 to #28779 - pebar (05/07/2013) [-]
Legalizing drugs doesn't remove demand, it creates it. Education removes demand. If people wan't to screw up their lives, it's their own fault.

The whole point of government aid is to invest in getting someone back on their feet and back to work, thus helping the economy in the long run. If you want free money from the government, then the government should watch you to make sure the investment doesn't go to waste. Our current welfare system expects people to get back to work if you throw money at them for being poor; people won't work harder if it means they get off welfare and lose money. The government involvement is their choice if they want to do drugs.

It's not cost effective to put people with guns on watch lists since guns are self-regulating. Guns don't hurt the economy; gay marriage doesn't hurt the economy. Drugs do hurt the economy, but wasting money on brute force law enforcement hurts the economy more since it creates gangs and removes people with business skills (dealers) from the work force. People who choose to get into drugs are stupid. If they choose to OD and die out, that means the smarter people have more room to flourish. Sane people don't get in to hard drugs.

And what's with the "lolbergtardinism" shit?
User avatar #28789 to #28780 - byposted (05/07/2013) [-]
Popular support goes completely against leaving druggies in the gutter. We are an entitlement society, that cannot be more true with the new generation. Do you think your peers will turn a blind eye to the homeless and drug-addicted if they've been taught all their lives that everybody is a winner and that we're all equal?

User avatar #28788 to #28780 - byposted (05/07/2013) [-]
Education removes demand.
Indeed, those who typically use drugs value state-education.

If people wan't to screw up their lives, it's their own fault.
I agree with this, but society does not; we are past the time of such logic. We must, thus, look at the implications of your policy under a realistic view. The welfare state, as it has come to be known, is here to stay. The same arguments that politicize gay marriage will find itself at the forefront of drugs if they are to be legalized (i.e. MUH INDIVIDUALISM). Perhaps they would not sound themselves immediately, but a younger generation would take it forth against the wicked elders of reaction. If you have a market for drugs, and the only check preventing society from nosediving via skyrocketing addiction rates thereafter is "education," it is easy for this system to fail due to external factors such as, but these are general implications, an economic collapse and/or the spread of poverty. The education provision would not work in modernity because your next check against drugs becoming popularized, welfare restrictions, would not be accepted in our modern entitlement society (see the gay marriage slippery-slope). We are a changing society and you are hoping to structure a philosophy (a form of abstinence) of which is doomed incompatible.

In modern "gib me dat" America what you are thinking of is impossible. It is not a matter of my opinion. A better first step, after abolishing the modern war on drugs, would be to secure our border with Mexico insofar as possible and crack down on weapons trafficking (which would require some liberal legislation). This would hurt the cartels, its extent dependent on enforcement, and raise the prices of drugs. The difference between this policy and yours is that the one I speak of is possible (Liberals would be more than happy to get some gun-legislation passed and Conservatives would enjoy the prospect of a secure border).
User avatar #28791 to #28788 - pebar (05/07/2013) [-]
and mandatory rehab for those who have shown they have a problem
that's a key part

Welfare and food stamps should be done away with completely IMO. Tax funded low quality soup kitchens (and similar) would be cheaper and have a better effect on the economy. But then again, it would be more efficient to give tax breaks and to subsidize certain charities.

and fuck liberals and their gun control
User avatar #28797 to #28791 - byposted (05/07/2013) [-]
mandatory rehab for those who have shown they have a problem
It is more likely that being a drug-addict would consider one legally disabled by the state, like with Alcoholics, and the addicts given money with or without rehabilitation. Either way, with or without mandatory rehab, it will prove expensive to deal with the druggies. You cannot stop the scum of society from not taking care of themselves and you cannot convince the bourgeois to let them die, unfortunately.

and fuck liberals and their gun control
Perhaps this is the one issue where a compromise would do good. Gun Control in my theory would go so far as to require ID for firearm purchases with real investments in trafficking prevention.
User avatar #28804 to #28797 - oxan (05/07/2013) [-]
>It is more likely that being a drug-addict would consider one legally disabled by the state, like with Alcoholics, and the addicts given money with or without rehabilitation.

That's the issue. The solution is to enforce mandatory rehabilitation.
User avatar #28806 to #28804 - arisaka (05/07/2013) [-]
why do you even bother with fuckwits whose opening statement involves violent segregation
User avatar #28807 to #28806 - oxan (05/07/2013) [-]
'We throw all this money at it with a terrible policy directing where the money goes, so it mustn't work!' is an argument that really annoys me.
User avatar #28812 to #28807 - arisaka (05/07/2013) [-]
save your energy for the good fights, man.
User avatar #28800 to #28797 - pebar (05/07/2013) [-]
hell.... even just legalizing pot would probably be good enough
User avatar #28798 to #28797 - pebar (05/07/2013) [-]
Still cheaper than dealing with gangs and the huge number of bystander casualties from gang violence, plus less incarcerated people (which the US has a problem with).

The only reason guns are considered a problem is due to the extensive gang activity and foolish blanket gun restrictions. People tend not to risk committing a crime, even with a gun, if they know there is a risk their victim being armed. That's why I say guns are self-regulating.
User avatar #28743 - mykoira (05/06/2013) [-]
everyone has rights to live and chose, if you take those right away from someone they can be taken from yourself. What do you think guys?
User avatar #28750 to #28743 - Ruspanic (05/06/2013) [-]
Agreed. But in practice this can be hard to apply.
With murder it's pretty straightforward, but what about theft or assault?
A shoplifter violates the property rights of the storeowner, therefore implicitly forfeiting his own property rights. But it's not okay to take his car or house in retaliation.

Or if you're beaten up by your girlfriend's jealous ex, he has violated your right to not be beaten up and forfeited his own equivalent right (which is why using force in self-defense isn't a violation of the attacker's rights). But that doesn't make it okay to use him as a punching bag for the rest of his life.

Yet doesn't setting these restrictions come dangerously close to quantifying rights?
#28744 to #28743 - valeriya (05/06/2013) [-]
If I agree I forfeit my right to life, if I don't agree then flying cats.
#28739 - miskwaamiikana **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #28776 to #28739 - oxan (05/06/2013) [-]
/pol/ in a nutshell:

'So, Anon, what are your political views?'
#28790 to #28776 - xxxsonic fanxxx (05/07/2013) [-]
#28778 to #28776 - miskwaamiikana **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#28792 to #28778 - byposted (05/07/2013) [-]
Are you >implyng that blacks do not have lower brain density than Whites and Asians, and thus lower IQs, and thus higher probabilities to be criminal?

>the face when correlation does equal causation
#28793 to #28792 - miskwaamiikana **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#28795 to #28793 - byposted (05/07/2013) [-]
Except no credible research has been done on the whole race=IQ thing.
JIDF pls.

A lower IQ does not make you more prone to crime.
le shig.

Arthur Jensen. The g Factor. (1998:571)
According to Jensen, when crime rates are compared between races while adjusting for IQ, they are approximately the same. Thus, Jensen proposes, the disparity in crime rates between races can be explained by the proportions of each group with IQs in the range at greatest risk for criminal behavior.
The correlation between violent crime rates and percentages of US state populations that are Black and Hispanic is 0.81. Controlling for poverty, education, and unemployment only reduces this to 0.78.

I am waiting for the "EVIL WHITE BIGOT SCIENTIST" response and/or "PSEUDOSCIENCE."
User avatar #28805 to #28795 - oxan (05/07/2013) [-]
'Subordination means material deprivation for students, which in turn impairs their achievement; two, subordination usually involves group segregation and concentration, which, by multiplying disadvantage and drawing all group members into difficult learning situations, undercuts academic achievement; and three, subordination produces a stigmatized identity of inferiority, which in turn breeds resignation or rebellion, both of which limit academic achievement. The histories of African Americans and Latino Americans, as well as their current conditions, more than suffice to explain why their members tend to score lower than whites on tests and also why they do less well in the race for success. The American case fits the global pattern; it is not genes but caste positions that explain the apparent differences in cognitive performance.'
Inequality by Design: Cracking the Bell Curve Myth

The fact of the matter is that historical events have actually had an affect on people. It's not to say that slavery 150 years ago justifies 5 innocent bystanders being killed in a drive-by shooting, nor is it to say that it's the 'white man's fault'. A lot of this shit is intergenerational. Throwing money at the situation, in the form of welfare or whatever, and expecting things to improve is a dumb idea. There's a cultural problem.
#28761 to #28739 - byposted (05/06/2013) [-]
Try reading some literature into revisionism. One factoid that is dismissed in holocaust death counts is the fact that Poland was void of nearly one million Jews who fled the country prior to the outbreak of WWII.

This didn't really surprise me since Jews were definitely the worst minority in Poland (and the largest at around 25%). As a Polack, I hate kikes who whine about, us, Polish, not having helped them in their petty uprising. Fuck you kikes. You fled the country and avoided conscription, then wanted us to sacrifice ourselves for you? Jews made up such a tiny amount of the Polish armed forces by avoiding conscription, which seems to be a natural phenomenon for them. Jews would rather have others die for them than sacrifice themselves.
User avatar #28740 to #28739 - Shiny (05/06/2013) [-]
The Holocaust is a ZIONIST LIE. You need to open your eyes to the TRUTH.

You need to login to view this link
User avatar #28734 - undeadwill (05/06/2013) [-]
Libtard thread?
Libtard thread.
(Aka tumblr feminist vegan liberals, so don't get your panties in a knot Oxan)
User avatar #28781 to #28734 - pebar (05/07/2013) [-]
>throws money and poor people simply because they're poor
>confused when people decide not to work after they lose incentive because working for money would mean less free money
User avatar #28784 to #28781 - undeadwill (05/07/2013) [-]
>Throws money and poor people
User avatar #28786 to #28784 - pebar (05/07/2013) [-]
throws money "at" poor people
User avatar #28787 to #28786 - undeadwill (05/07/2013) [-]
Still funny.
User avatar #28782 to #28781 - pebar (05/07/2013) [-]
#28775 to #28734 - xxxsonic fanxxx (05/06/2013) [-]
>Vehemently opposes death penalty for even the worst of criminals
>Supports casual, unrestricted, taxpayer-funded killing of the unborn like it's no big deal, no matter how late into the pregnancy it is.
User avatar #28785 to #28775 - undeadwill (05/07/2013) [-]
>Says if it saves even one child its worth it about gun control
> Supports abortion even it kills a million children.

(I'm pro abortion but this shit pisses me off)
#28794 to #28785 - xxxsonic fanxxx (05/07/2013) [-]
I'm not necessarily anti-abortion either. I just don't want it being treated like something casual and ending up with people everywhere engaging in sexual activity irresponsibly on the basis that they can get a "free" abortion at taxpayer's expense whenever they want.
User avatar #28801 to #28794 - undeadwill (05/07/2013) [-]
Exactly since when did abortion and women's birth control get put on the same importance as cancer treatment, emergency care, and many other NECESSARY functions of healthcare?
User avatar #28754 to #28734 - oxan (05/06/2013) [-]
Why would I be concerned about liberals?
User avatar #28757 to #28754 - undeadwill (05/06/2013) [-]
idk figured I'd add it in.
User avatar #28760 to #28757 - oxan (05/06/2013) [-]
Liberal either means neoliberals or American liberals. Mocking either of them would not upset me.
 Friends (0)