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 (4): admin, akkere, jewishcommunazi, pebar, anonymous(13).
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #22724 to #22719 - pebar ONLINE (02/03/2013) [-]
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
It's so true...
User avatar #22712 - pebar ONLINE (02/03/2013) [-]
TBH I think the only reason why we have these nationwide debates is because the federal government tramples over the 10th amendment all the time; it's too involved with state affairs. If the federal government just backed off and let the states deal with their problems their own way, it would all be better. That's the whole reason why this huge nation was split into states in the first place, so there wouldn't be a tyranny of the majority situation. 200 years ago, the US was more like a strong alliance between many small countries, each with their own laws and constitution, with the federal government acting only as a mediator with a simple set of guidelines that each state had to follow (ie the US Constitution). Nowadays I think that is lost. Sure each state can still have it's own laws but there are so many federal laws that still have greater authority.

If we got back to that, we wouldn't have these shitstorms all the time. A person could choose the state with the philosophy they like best and live there. Other states could have their own set of laws, and they wouldn't affect other states. Like the assault weapons ban in California, I couldn't care less because I don't live there. But now one of their senators (and Obama who is from Illinois which also has strict gun laws) want to force that ban on the entire nation. This has caused a massive debate.

What does /politics/ think?
User avatar #22714 to #22712 - eight (02/03/2013) [-]
You have pretty much hit the nail on the head.

Unfortunately, the federal government will only seek more power as times goes on. Little by little they will descend on our liberties and take them away right under our very nose.

Eventually, either the people will rise up and fight the government or individual states will break off from the union and form their own coalition.
User avatar #22716 to #22714 - pebar ONLINE (02/03/2013) [-]
assuming they still have the means *cough* assault weapons & high cap mags *cough* to do so
User avatar #22718 to #22716 - eight (02/03/2013) [-]
Yeah. But hey, the Bielski brothers during World War 2 got a hold of a few hand guns through German friends and assaulted German forces, getting their weapons and fighting back. They lived out in the forest for I believe a year or two and fought off the Germans many times. By the end 1200 had been saved from the concentration camps and had built a community.

If worst goes to worst, we could do something similar.
User avatar #22720 to #22718 - pebar ONLINE (02/03/2013) [-]
With the current war in Afghanistan, US soldiers are very well trained in dealing with insurgents. Even basic police wear handgun resistant body armor all the time. Handguns would be of little use should it ever come to civil/revolutionary war. Really the only hope there would be is if soldiers defected and brought weapons with them.
User avatar #22721 to #22720 - eight (02/03/2013) [-]
Yeah in the rare event of revolution, the first place that should be sacked is Homeland Security. They purchased hundreds of thousands of hollow point and bullet piercing rounds (and not for target practice as they claim). They are bound to have armor and weapons too.
User avatar #22722 to #22721 - pebar ONLINE (02/03/2013) [-]
Either that or the ATF buildings which would have records of all registered firearms (because they'd probably be registered at that point)
User avatar #22723 to #22722 - eight (02/03/2013) [-]
Yup. I hope a good amount of soldiers would side with the people, I know many who wouldn't.
User avatar #22708 - douevensax (02/03/2013) [-]
All non-Americans...... are your politics as rage-inducing and interesting as ours? If so, then which country?
#22796 to #22708 - lecherouslad (02/05/2013) [-]
In Northern Ireland, the Unionist have been rioting for 3 months now. All over a flag dispute, veritably.
User avatar #22709 to #22708 - akg **User deleted account** (02/03/2013) [-]
In Scandinavia immigration has got a lot of heat, because of the increase of violence, rape and robberies in heavily immigrated communities.
User avatar #22710 to #22709 - douevensax (02/03/2013) [-]
Huh. I'll check it out. Thanks.
#22707 - qazzuiop (02/03/2013) [-]
yeah. This sums of Obama and Bush's terms in one fell swoop.
#22711 to #22707 - pebar ONLINE (02/03/2013) [-]
IDK which is worse...
Obama's excessive use of executive orders or

him whoring out children to make it look like his gun control campaign is a worthy cause. That time when he signed them, he had children around him. Utterly pathetic propaganda...
User avatar #22733 to #22711 - Ruspanic (02/03/2013) [-]
Out of curiosity, could you point out the specific executive orders you have a problem with, or which ones you think constitute an overreach of executive power?
Seems to me like most of them have been pretty mundane and mostly harmless. Even the ones concerning guns.
User avatar #22735 to #22733 - pebar ONLINE (02/04/2013) [-]
The ones that say medical professionals have a say in who is banned from purchasing a firearm. According to the gun control act, only those who have been committed or who have been determined by a court to be mentally defective are restricted.
Simply saying, "this person could potentially be dangerous" and banning that person is just wrong. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty...

And it's more future executive orders that I'm worried about. Most of the time executive orders simply clarify laws that already exist. However the president still has the authority to bypass congress to make his own laws, assuming they don't get shot down. The executive branch is supposed to be the one that enforces current laws, not make new ones.
User avatar #22737 to #22735 - Ruspanic (02/04/2013) [-]
I think medical professionals are better qualified than courts to determine whether a person is mentally ill or unstable. It's not a matter of innocent or guilty because having a mental disorder isn't a crime, but such people shouldn't be allowed to own firearms, just as the blind cannot get driver's licenses.

Your earlier post indicated that you don't like Obama's use of executive orders so far, and the image seems to compare them to royal decrees. It's fine and reasonable to be worried about the growth of presidential power in general, but I don't see that much of a basis for your strong disdain of Obama's executive orders.

(Using children for political gain is of course deplorable.)
User avatar #22715 to #22711 - eight (02/03/2013) [-]
Bush used executive orders just as much, most of them carried over into Obama's term.
#22701 - anonymous (02/03/2013) [-]
This place has become a Redneck feasting ground.
#22734 to #22701 - anonymous (02/03/2013) [-]
Your mom has become a crab feasting ground.
+3
#22700 - thekingofop **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#22698 - anonymous (02/03/2013) [-]
So, not too be a "tin-foil" hat fag or anything, but it seems as though the minute the new gun law was proposed, there has been an AWFUL lot of shootings reported within a short amount of time, I don't know something is suspicious there.

Also, you should check out the documentary: Last Call at The Oasis, its really interesting but scary at the same time, which leads me to my next thought, if the world is on a verge of a water shortage crisis, why is that the Harper government of Canada wants to pass a bill that would stop protecting thousands of Canadas many lakes and rivers, which would basically allow polution of the water which in turn all the available "fresh safe water" would be snatched up by huge retailers and then sold at much higher price to consumers.... wake up sheeple.
User avatar #22717 to #22698 - eight (02/03/2013) [-]
It is either a conspiracy or people are just calling more attention to events that were happening anyway before the latest gun crisis's for the soul purpose of trying to ban or regulate guns.
#22702 to #22698 - feelythefeel ONLINE (02/03/2013) [-]
>Not wanting to sound like a conspiracy theorist   
>Using the term "sheeple"   
Choose one.
>Not wanting to sound like a conspiracy theorist
>Using the term "sheeple"
Choose one.
User avatar #22696 - marinepenguin ONLINE (02/03/2013) [-]
gay marriage should be legalized within the United States, religion should not be a large factor in the decision. That's like one large point in our ideals anyways, separation of Church and State and whatnot. Religious rules should not effect the lawmaking of the Government.
#22690 - anonymous (02/03/2013) [-]
The Ben of Fatness will MAKE POOP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
0
#22685 - kanade **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #22692 to #22685 - Shiny (02/03/2013) [-]
That's actually a pretty interesting question. Trotskyism, ideally, would have been a much different philosophy from Stalinist socialism.
User avatar #22693 to #22684 - CapnInterwebz (02/03/2013) [-]
rip barney 2k13 ;((
#22675 - roliga (02/02/2013) [-]
I lol'd really hard
User avatar #22972 to #22675 - mexicandudeinsd (02/07/2013) [-]
"what you gonna do bout it, faggot?!?" thats what i think the little person is saying
User avatar #22697 to #22672 - lecherouslad (02/03/2013) [-]
A POLITICIAN LIED?! Wha- how is this even possible!?!
#22683 to #22672 - moser (02/03/2013) [-]
Why does it matter?
Why does it matter?
User avatar #22686 to #22683 - paintbucket (02/03/2013) [-]
it shows insecurity that he had to lie about it.
User avatar #22687 to #22686 - moser (02/03/2013) [-]
"white-lie"
Sound's more like an exaggeration. What the president said was more accurate then what Paul Ryan said about his ability to run a marathon in 5 minutes, but that also had no relevance to anything.
User avatar #22677 to #22672 - paintbucket (02/02/2013) [-]
yeah i saw that
♥ TTAG
-3
#22669 - nigalthornberry has deleted their comment [-]
#22670 to #22669 - anonymous (02/02/2013) [-]
CODfag...
soldiers sometimes refuse orders if they consider them "wrong"
a soldiers friends are what make their service bearable

gtfo
-3
#22671 to #22670 - nigalthornberry has deleted their comment [-]
0
#22661 - barkin **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #22656 - Shiny (02/02/2013) [-]
I'm not for increasing gun control myself... but I'm starting to see why others might be.

http://www.fstdt.com/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=92155
User avatar #22681 to #22656 - mayormilkman (02/02/2013) [-]
I find the butthurt on that website more amusing than its content, especially when they fall for a fake.
User avatar #22665 to #22656 - pebar ONLINE (02/02/2013) [-]
"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -Thomas Jefferson

The British trying to take the guns for the colonists in order to stop the rebellion is what sparked the revolutionary war. People like that in what you posted is the whole reason the second amendment was put into the constitution. Wanting a revolution is perfectly legal as long as you're not going out into the street and yelling "let's kill the government" to all those who pass by. You can't take a person's gun if they are a threat to the government as long as they aren't killing innocent, uninvolved civilians, because that's the only difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter.
User avatar #22691 to #22665 - Shiny (02/03/2013) [-]
Let me elaborate my point. If you act like a fucking crazed lunatic, people will take your rights away, whether or not they should.
User avatar #22655 - acuteangles (02/02/2013) [-]
Who would most likely team up against the US and go to war?
#22694 to #22655 - repostsrepost (02/03/2013) [-]
Assuming China gets in on it, North Korea would join then as would Iran. Russia's questionable as seeing China in a vulnerable position presents some strategic advantages to them.
#22660 to #22655 - feelythefeel ONLINE (02/02/2013) [-]
If we're talking about modernized countries going up against USA, China is a must mention. I don't know, maybe Russia if it ever got its shit together. Maybe North Korea is only bullshitting 99% of their claims (In which case, prepare for a fight).

You have to understand that most the modern battles are happening partially on the stage, and even more so on the stock market. As things stand, individual military outcomes have relatively little effect on world politics. Most countries would much rather gain power politically and economically rather than militarily, to the point where a military only serves to further those ends. Perhaps that's even for the best.
#22663 to #22660 - acuteangles (02/02/2013) [-]
The whole idea of this was to have a debate about wars. It was for more fun rather than scenarios about realism. Example: "Iraq, China and North Korea"
#22664 to #22663 - feelythefeel ONLINE (02/02/2013) [-]
I suppose that was just my two cents on the matter as a whole.
I suppose that was just my two cents on the matter as a whole.
#22652 - acuteangles (02/02/2013) [-]
If the U.S. ended up having Mitt Romney as the president it would be fucked... Martial Law would attempt to start, anarchy in the south, ( just a educated guess) P.B.S. would most likely ended being cut, the lower income families would get taxed more than the rich. Oh yeah, and he isn't the brightest when it comes to politics.
(Please remember that this is just my opinion and a educated guess.)
#22682 to #22652 - duudegladiator (02/02/2013) [-]
You. Shut up.    
   
If Romney was President, not many major changes would have occurred versus what Obama did in his first 4 years. Romney would have completely destroyed the "Obamacare" and remade it so that it wasn't so costly to the public/federal government. HE WOULD NOT ever declare martial law even if there were a bunch of raging negroes in the street saying "The Election was rigged! Obama should have won! Riot! Riot!", There would not be Anarchy in the south, there may be little disturbances from disgruntled Obama supporters, but that is it. P.B.S. was using Federal Grants to pull a great amount of profits versus if Romney cut the Federal grants. Romney is pretty good at politics, how do you think that he got to be the Presidential Nominee? Sheer luck?    
   
Your opinion sucks.
You. Shut up.

If Romney was President, not many major changes would have occurred versus what Obama did in his first 4 years. Romney would have completely destroyed the "Obamacare" and remade it so that it wasn't so costly to the public/federal government. HE WOULD NOT ever declare martial law even if there were a bunch of raging negroes in the street saying "The Election was rigged! Obama should have won! Riot! Riot!", There would not be Anarchy in the south, there may be little disturbances from disgruntled Obama supporters, but that is it. P.B.S. was using Federal Grants to pull a great amount of profits versus if Romney cut the Federal grants. Romney is pretty good at politics, how do you think that he got to be the Presidential Nominee? Sheer luck?

Your opinion sucks.
#22680 to #22652 - Ruspanic (02/02/2013) [-]
>educated guess
User avatar #22635 - eight (02/02/2013) [-]
North Korea has allegedly been placed under martial law and its ruler Kim Jong-un has ordered the army to “prepare for war”, a South Korean daily claims.

The North Korean leader issued a series of orders to his top defense and security officials on Saturday to conclude preparations for a new nuclear test, the Seoul based Korea JoongAng Daily alleges citing an unnamed source.

The source reportedly said that Kim Jong-un issued a secret order to “complete preparations for a nuclear weapons test <…>and carry it out soon”.

According to the source, Kim Jong-un also said, “The country will be under martial law starting from midnight January 29th and all the frontline and central units should be ready for war.”

The source told the South Korean daily that the nuclear test could come earlier than expected. Other analysts have said it would likely be held on February 16th, the birthday of the former leader Kim Jong-il, who died in 2011.

Another suggestion as to the test’s timing included February 25th, the inauguration day of South Korean President-elect Park Geun-Hye, the Korea JoongAng Daily reported.

North Korean media also reported that Kim Jong-un told his top defense officials to take “effective, high-profile state measures” at a meeting on Saturday.

The alleged measures come amid a new spike in tensions caused by a new round of sanctions on North Korean entities and individuals, including travel bans and asset freezes, which were passed unanimously by the United Nations Security Council in December 2012.

The Security Council, including China, backed Resolution 2087, after Pyongyang carried out the launch of a long range rocket in December 2012.

Pyongyang claimed it was for the peaceful launch of a satellite, but critics say it was a thinly veiled test-firing of an intercontinental ballistic missile.




#22653 to #22635 - themanwithnoplan (02/02/2013) [-]
And I remember hearing some News Corporations saying that Un wanted to cooperate more than Il.
And I remember hearing some News Corporations saying that Un wanted to cooperate more than Il.
User avatar #22649 to #22635 - Ruspanic (02/02/2013) [-]
Martial law?
Oh dear, I hope this doesn't mean they'll be suspending elections.
0
#22641 to #22635 - nigalthornberry has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #22642 to #22641 - eight (02/02/2013) [-]
They don't. It's that North Korea is unpredictable and suicidal. They follow a different set of rules than the rest of the world. They will do anything to win even if that were to mean sacrificing many of their men to win. That is why Japan in world war 2 was a tough fight. They wouldn't quit coming and the soldiers did not have any fear of death.
Now NK has nukes...They don't care about their people enough to avoid firing the nukes in fear of retaliation as most countries do.
Anyways, who knows what NK will do. This will probably breeze over as usual, but eventually it will lead to war again...lets hope China doesn't back them.
+1
#22643 to #22642 - nigalthornberry has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #22645 to #22643 - eight (02/02/2013) [-]
God I hope not. I don't think we would win. I have doubt that even if all of North, South, Central America, Australia, Japan, South Korea and Europe allied together, we wouldn't be able to fight off China which would most certainly ally with much of the Middle East, parts of Africa and other smaller Asian nations. Also, Russia would more than likely ally with China..
Tell you what, World War III would likely be the most deadly war. I can't see nukes not being used.
0
#22647 to #22645 - nigalthornberry has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #22651 to #22647 - eight (02/02/2013) [-]
Our technology isn't much more advanced and it is even less-more effective. The American media loves to paint foreign nations as technologically stunted or less advanced to confirm our "greatest country in the world ego", but it really isn't that much of a difference. Their tech still gets the job done, we simply pay millions more for a jet that goes a few mph faster for instance or a rocket that is less heavy. America has fought less advanced countries before and had our ass handed to us. It is all comes down to strategy, number of troops and territory.
#22657 to #22651 - tiredofannon (02/02/2013) [-]
Actually, the technology advantage is bigger than you think. I believe China just finished its first aircraft carrier just last year. The United States has over a dozen. Aircraft carries are pretty important when it comes to naval firepower. Furthermore, their air force isn't as strong as ours, mainly due to the fact that most of their air force tech is based on stolen US plans but changed to reduce costs. Ground forces would kick our ass just on numbers though.

I think it'd honestly come down to who strikes first and if the other side was prepared. China has the ability to destroy Satellites which could cripple us, but I'm sure we can do the same. Furthermore, both countries are large, and a loss of communications would likely result in nuclear launches, by doomsday systems. So its for the best if any military action is avoided at all.

Another reason that people worry about North Korea is that it could virtually destroy all of Seoul before people even know an attack is happening, due to the placement of several artillery batteries near by, the fact that Seoul is extremely close to the DMZ and the placement of a large damn just outside of Seoul. That would be several million civilian deaths as the opening shots of the war.
User avatar #22673 to #22657 - eight (02/02/2013) [-]
Specific military branches are stronger than our foreign counterparts, in troops, training and tech, but generally speaking, the overall difference of ALL military tech and strength is not that much different. Certainly not different enough to affect the outcome of the war. If we were fighting strictly the Middle East, that would be a very big difference as we have seen thus far.
0
#22644 to #22643 - nigalthornberry has deleted their comment [-]
 Friends (0)