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:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#25011 - Womens Study Major (03/07/2013) [-]
I m from Pakistan and i am very happy to see amerikkka in heavy debt crisis,financial crisis,decline in morals,decline in living standards.Amerika is getting weaker and weaker day by day,just take a look at amerikan streets,beggers sleeping on streets,broken bridges,jobless poople etc.Now i think that its the time to nuke amerika on its major You need to login to view this link you already know that Pakistan is even more dangerous than Iran because we posses extremely deadly nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction that can very easily hit europe and entire of north amerika and can cause extreme catastrophic destruction.So do u think that it is the best time to either nuke major cities of amerika or nuke 140000 amerikan troops in kabul by just pressing a You need to login to view this link far as mutually assured destruction(MAD) is concerned,forget about that thing..amereika wont dare to nuke Pakistan because we wont hesitate even a single second to handover our deadly nuclear arsenals to alqaeda and entire middle east.
#25043 to #25011 - Womens Study Major (03/07/2013) [-]
We'll just glass the entire middle east. The Jews included.
#25040 to #25011 - eight (03/07/2013) [-]
What a fucking idiot.
#25039 to #25011 - yourbed ONLINE (03/07/2013) [-]
"amereika wont dare to nuke Pakistan because we wont hesitate even a single second to handover our deadly nuclear arsenals to alqaeda and entire middle east."


Does this mean you will nuke the us like they did in Dr.Strangelove?
User avatar #25025 to #25011 - pebar (03/07/2013) [-]
I think you have your countries confused...
#25013 to #25011 - repostsrepost (03/07/2013) [-]
Iran is not however, India's little bitch. lol Pakistan thinking it's relevant.
#25012 to #25011 - Womens Study Major (03/07/2013) [-]
I just LOVE to see amerikans women,children,men weeping out of helplessness,despair etc.3000 people killed on 9/11 were little we want cities like wembley,washington,los angeles to disappear in one second this time.I wanna see many 9/11(WTC collapse) on amerikan soil.9/11/12, 9/11/13, 9/11/14 etc
User avatar #25010 - latinotornado (03/07/2013) [-]
In the united states, how does State Law go against Federal Law?
User avatar #25049 to #25010 - pebar (03/07/2013) [-]
A state and the federal government are two seperate governments.
If a federal law exists, it is above state law; this is called the supremacy clause. However, state law enforcement is not obligated to enforce any federal laws because that would give the government way too much power; they have to do the work themselves. States' rights are very important in America..... at least they used to be.... now I'm sad....

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printz_v._United_States#The_structure_of_the_Constitution
User avatar #25042 to #25010 - eight (03/07/2013) [-]
Because it is the 10th amendment in our constitution. In a sense, each state is its own individual government. A state can secede from the union and still operate as its own body. They make their own laws, usually based on the consensus of their people, but not always.

The United States is just that, a union of states all agreeing to be connected to one another under one giant governing body. The framers did not want a central government that would be too powerful, hence the 10th.

Most people do not realize that federal laws can be overruled by the state. And our government seems to think they are more important and often completely ignore the existence of the 10th.
User avatar #25050 to #25042 - pebar (03/07/2013) [-]
A state has never been allowed to secede, unless you mean metaphorically that a state is set up like its own mini country. Then yeah, I agree.

and no... state's cannot overrule federal laws. If they could, the federal government would be pointless. The federal government exists to set basic guidelines that all states must follow and to deal with interstate and international issues. However, the fed is heavily restricted in what it can and cannot do and I agree that the federal government often overlooks the 10th amendment.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_clause
User avatar #25003 - abstract (03/07/2013) [-]
I have gotten into politics recently and after reading up on many issues and stances of each party, I seem to identify the best with the Libertarian party. I want to see both sides of this, so is there somebody that can tell me some cons of the Libertarian party and how other parties might do a better job in certain areas?
#25026 to #25003 - oxan (03/07/2013) [-]
Non-intervention is a plus.

But deregulation is a retarded idea and didn't work.

Speaking of deregulation:

This explanation for the economic doldrums won enough public support to be enacted. Less regulation, less domestic spending, and more tax cuts for the wealthy followed. By the 1990s, however, the crisis of the middle class had not eased; it had just become more complicated... The richest families had soared to new heights of income, the poorest families had sunk after 1970, and the middle-income families had gained slightly. But this slight gain was bitterly misleading. The middle class managed to sustain modest income growth, only by mothers taking jobs and fathers working longer hours. Also, the slight gain could not make up for growing economic insecurity and parents' anxiety that key elements of the "American Dream"--college education, a stable job, and an affordable home--were slipping beyond the grasp of their children. And so the phrase "the disappearing middle class" began to be heard.

http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s5877.html
User avatar #25004 to #25003 - pebar (03/07/2013) [-]
You could consider anarchy to be the most extreme libertarianism. This is a con because the need for government is obvious in certain areas such as roads, public schools, quality regulation, etc.

IMO, it is best not to think of politics in terms of parties. I think too many people are like that and think "I'm in this party therefore I will vote this way." It would be better to think about the philosophy of each individual topic and make your votes based on your own personal ideology. After you have decided on your views on certain topics, then you look at which party best suits you.

Don't listen to people you say one side is "better" than another, then it's just a bandwagon. Choose for yourself.
User avatar #25005 to #25004 - pebar (03/07/2013) [-]
republican > democrat for a 2 party system
User avatar #25000 - pebar (03/07/2013) [-]
North Dakota Century Code
29-06-19. Offense committed in presence of magistrate.
"When a public offense is committed in the presence of a magistrate, the magistrate, by a verbal or written order, may command any person immediately to arrest the offender, and thereupon may proceed as if the offender had been brought before the magistrate on a warrant of arrest."

Judges have a lot of power...
#24999 - Womens Study Major (03/07/2013) [-]
FAT BEN MADE POOP
#24992 - Womens Study Major (03/06/2013) [-]
What if we irradiated Jerusalem, that way nobody gets it...?

discuss
Anon because of reasons
#24997 to #24992 - Womens Study Major (03/07/2013) [-]
I say alternate between weeks.
#24987 - moser (03/06/2013) [-]
Here's an angle of the gun debate I haven't seen disused on this board yet.
What do you guys think about the theory that a culture of violence (violent movies and violent video games) directly correlate to real world violence?

Personally I think it's bullshit. The argument basically states that shooting at characters in a video game or seeing someone get shot in a movie de-sensitises a person to violence and therefore erodes their sense of morals to the point where they don't see the difference between real world violence and fantasy violence. And thus are more likely to commit acts of carnage.

Using that logic, couldn't you make a case that using human shaped silhouettes at gun ranges or kids playing with plastic guns and pretending to shoot each other are equally damaging to someone's mental health? Does the lack of context of a silhouette teach gun owners that generic gun violence is acceptable in society? Are children just teaching themselves that gun violence is all fun and games when they play with plastic guns? No, because that's retarded, and so is applying that logic to a movie or video game.
#25015 to #24987 - repostsrepost (03/07/2013) [-]
I've yet to see advocates of that argument use any type of empirical evidence or statistics. Because violent crime is actually on a decrease.
User avatar #24998 to #24987 - teoberry (03/07/2013) [-]
All bullshit. The blame always ends up on the media. We don't have a violence problem or a gun problem. We have a people problem. We're not letting mentally unhealthy people get the treatment that they need, so they slip through the cracks, get a hold of a weapon, and start firing.
#25001 to #24998 - byposted (03/07/2013) [-]
>Take Dr. Shlomo's pills and you will be okay i promises

In the opinion of a mentally deranged (or so they say) person, who will probably commit an act of violence in the future, pills will forever be out of the question. If they work, you are an artificial being who is truthfully better off overdosing on said pills. If they don't work, you become even more unstable. Every school shooter in recent memory, like Lanza, was on medication.
User avatar #25009 to #25001 - teoberry (03/07/2013) [-]
maybe, point is we gotta deal with these fuckers instead of blaming in on guns or videogames.
User avatar #25006 to #25001 - pebar (03/07/2013) [-]
Could you please expand on what you mean by "artificial being"?
User avatar #25007 to #25006 - byposted (03/07/2013) [-]
I don't believe what I have to be a mental illness, thus treatment is fundamentally irrational. Having excessive thoughts about killing yourself and/or killing other people is your character and persona.

My misery is natural, Shlomo's drugs are a vice placed on millions of children. Taking mood-altering drugs changes you into a nobody. Why aspire to be a common-man? If you hate life, you hate it for a reason. I hate common-men, I do not aspire to amount to them.
User avatar #25008 to #25007 - pebar (03/07/2013) [-]
Legally speaking, in my state,
"Mentally ill person" means an individual with an organic, mental, or emotional disorder which substantially impairs the capacity to use self-control, judgment, and discretion in the conduct of personal affairs and social relations."
If a person is truly a threat to society, it is the duty of the government to reduce that threat. That is the whole reason why government exist in the first place: to protect the general welfare of everyone. The law also says,
"Person requiring treatment" means a person who is mentally ill or chemically
dependent, and there is a reasonable expectation that if the person is not treated for
the mental illness or chemical dependency there exists a serious risk of harm to that
person, others, or property..."

it then goes on to define what it means to be a serious risk, which it says is the substantial likelihood of suicide or killing others etc.

In cases like these, the necessary treatment should by offered by society in order to protect the overall welfare. The person should also be allowed to refuse the treatment but if that should be the case, society should isolate or remove that person. Living in a society means you have to give up certain rights that you originally would've had in the wilderness. You no longer have the right to commit murder because that would put society as a whole at risk. If a person commits murder, they are removed. Likewise if a person is unable to live peacefully in a society due to a mental illness, they should be given the option to either accept treatment for the illness or be removed from society.
User avatar #24993 to #24987 - paintbucket (03/07/2013) [-]
well, the guy who did the mass shooting in norway, which i would point out is the worst mass shooting ever committed by one man in history, admitted specifically that he used Call of Duty MW2 as a training aid.
all of the recent shooters played violent games.
so you could argue that the video game contributed just as much as the guns involved.
but i'm not arguing for games to be banned, as millions of people play video games without killing anyone, just as millions of people own guns without shooting anyone.
however, i believe, and my younger self would hate me for this, the +17 on the back of a video game should be followed as much as the +18 on a cigarette pack.
it desensitizes you.
when the army changed training targets from bullseyes to silhouettes, they found it made it easier for troops to actually shoot real people on the battlefield.

now, i played "war" with fake guns a lot when i was a kid. the reason it doesn't incite violence in children is because a child's imagination can't stretch much more than cheesey cowboy movie violence, and you friend always gets back up after you "shoot" him.
conversely, in a violent video game, the effect of what you are doing is so much more real, and you become numb to the violence. and that transfers to real life.
User avatar #25017 to #24993 - moser (03/07/2013) [-]
It actually hasn't been confirmed that the Newtown shooter ever played video games. And the Virginia Tech shooter never touched a game in his life.
User avatar #25073 to #25017 - paintbucket (03/08/2013) [-]
he did play games.
and i said recent shooters.
User avatar #25095 to #25073 - moser (03/08/2013) [-]
Yeah, Dance Dance Revolution, Mario Party and World of Warcraft.

Here's a few recent shooters;

Accent Signage Systems shooter- Office worker who was disgruntled about being fired, no link to video games found. -killed 7 people, 2012

Sikh temple shooter- white supremacist former army veteran who received a general discharge for drinking while on duty , no link to video games found. -killed 7 people, 2012

Aurora theater shooter- (you probably know this one), played World of Warcraft and League of Legends (both rated T or lower Role Playing Games that don't have guns) for up to 14 hours a day, a poster for the game Soldier of Misfortune was found in his apartment but their was no evidence that he actually played it and that the poster could have easily come from a magazine. -killed 12 people, 2012

Seattle Cafe shooter- motivation unknown, randomly opens fire in a coffee shop in Seattle before killing himself, no link to video games found- killed 6 people, 2012

Oikos University shooter - former student of the university snapped and decided to get back at the school for various bad experiences he had with them, no link to video games found- killed 7 people, 2012

The Su Jung Health Sauna shooting, The Seal Beach shooting, The Carson City IHOP shooting, The Tucson shooting, The Hartford Beer Distributor shooting, non of them has the shooter been linked to playing violent video games. And there has never been a legitimate scientific study that supports the claim that their is a link between this type of violent behavior and violent video games.
User avatar #24989 to #24987 - pebar (03/06/2013) [-]
I could see it in 6 year old kids maybe but not teenagers/adults.
Legally speaking, it's not possible for someone under 7 to commit a crime.
User avatar #24990 to #24986 - moser (03/06/2013) [-]
I want to see a Latino do that. If you're white, all you have to do is say 'yes' to the question and they wave you through.
User avatar #24983 - eight (03/06/2013) [-]
You need to login to view this link

What the fuck. I think these ridiculous courses will cause more anger than what already exists.
User avatar #24988 to #24983 - pebar (03/06/2013) [-]
Gun owners, at least those who carry concealed, are probably the people with the most control over their anger. They know very well that they hold a weapon that could easily be misused.

proposing legislation =/= it passing
User avatar #24978 - Shiny (03/06/2013) [-]
Everybody talks about the importants of guns to protect themselves from tyranny, but I've noticed that America is pretty lacking in nonviolent resolutions to poor government leadership. Do we have anything like motions of no confidence?

Frankly, I find it worrying that only the federal government can impeach the federal government.
User avatar #24985 to #24978 - eight (03/06/2013) [-]
Maybe because when America resorts to non violent resolutions, the protestors are maced, beaten, shot or arrested.

And then you have the media always criticizing anything that involves some sort of protest, especially if it is against the government so the majority of the people (the sheep) just go along with whatever the TV says.
#24977 - Womens Study Major (03/06/2013) [-]
u do realize that the Saudi Arabian economy could crush your country at any moment they want to. They play a major role in supplying you with money and goods you need, and anyone can cut you off and take your money at anytime, you just wait til ur out of goods and you´╗┐ will be reduced to nothing more than shit on my shoe my friend. You are the ones who took the slaves so you are ones who started it. WE conquered. You stole and betrayed. WE are victorious and proud. You are lucky thieving cowards.
#25014 to #24977 - repostsrepost (03/07/2013) [-]
Arabia hasn't been relevant since the fall of the Abbasid Caliphate. Oil is everywhere it can be dug up anywhere else.
User avatar #24991 to #24977 - pebar (03/06/2013) [-]
WE have our own oil...
It's just cheaper to get it from the middle east. If the US was cut off, gas prices would rise but there wouldn't be a shortage. Economies adapt.
#24982 to #24977 - Womens Study Major (03/06/2013) [-]
"WE conquered. You stole and betrayed."

You conquered someone else.

Then WE conquered YOU.
0
#24973 - swiftykidd **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#24959 - samous (03/06/2013) [-]
You like him or not he was a great man


discuss
0
#24975 to #24959 - whyisthissohard **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #24951 - tredbear (03/06/2013) [-]
man, there is some crazy shit goin on in Syria right now.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBnOi2-7QyI&list=FLaTDlrHpoy4zpJ5eUiIKotw&index=5
User avatar #24968 to #24951 - eight (03/06/2013) [-]
What is happening in Syria is the absolute antithesis of a grass-roots revolution; it is bands of foreign trained and paid mercs, placed on the ground to accomplish "regime change" in Syria as a prelude to regime change in Iran.

We are only just a little over 90 days out from the Iranian election and Ahmedinejad cannot run for a 3rd term. The truly logical thing to do would be to wait for the elections, and see how they play out.

However, unfortunately, logic...has not appeared to be the US government's strong suit for quite some time now, and the financial situation in this country is dire. Historically, the US government has gotten itself out of financial messes through a world war, as happened with World War 1 and World War II.

This was, however, before Russia and China became nuclear armed countries.

Obama is scheduled to go to Israel just two weeks from today, where I am sure, Netanyahu is going to use every strong-arm tactic he can conjure to get Obama to sign off on an invasion of Iran, whether or not the Syrian president Bashar Al-Assad has been deposed, which was the original plan, to isolate Iran and make it a "softer target" for an attack.

Thinking Americans understand that there has already been too much blood and money sacrificed upon the altar of potential Israeli hegemony in the Middle East, and that while some Israeli geopolitical objectives do mesh with, and have resonance with, those of the American people, this is not one of those times. In fact, the very converse is true, regarding a potential US attack against Iran.

An attack against Iran would galvanize its people around the most ideologically extreme, anti-Western leaders.

Such a war may well not be the short, sharp, shock "surgical strike", so blithely talked about by the talking heads in the US and Israel, many of whom have absolutely no comprehension of the real horrors of war.
User avatar #24969 to #24968 - eight (03/06/2013) [-]
If such a war goes long, you can expect a massive counter-attack by both Iran, then in Israel, from Hezbullah from the north, with a horrific number of Israeli casualties. Every single American asset, military or civilian, will be in grave peril, not only in the Middle East, but also, around the world.

Such a war may well go very badly for the US government, because, to be painfully honest, it does not have the troop strength, the money, or the manufacturing to insure a successful outcome.

And I would like to remind our readers of the following: to date, NO IAEA INSPECTORS HAVE FOUND ANY EVIDENCE, WHATSOEVER, THAT ANY OF THE NUCLEAR MATERIAL BEING USED BY IRAN'S NUCLEAR ENERGY PROGRAM HAS BEEN DIVERTED TO A NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM.

So, should the US attack Iran, it will be over an alleged nuclear weapons program which cannot, to date, be proven to exist.

But from the US perspective, that is only the "cover story"; the real reason for a US invasion of Iran is because Iran refuses to sell all their oil for US dollars.

Let me get back to Russia and China for a moment. In the last year, officials of both nuclear armed countries have gone on record, stating very bluntly, that should Iran be attacked, they will come to its aid militarily.

So what we have here is the potential for a global nuclear confrontation over an alleged nuclear weapons program which cannot be proven to exist, and over a badly failing US petrodollar, which appears to be on its last legs as the premier world currency.

And to those in the bowels of power in DC and Tel Aviv, who absolutely believe that such an attack would be a good thing, I would strongly caution you to be very, very careful what you wish for as the outcome of such an attack; the unintended consequences could be both horrific...and irreversible.
User avatar #24970 to #24969 - eight (03/06/2013) [-]
This is not my words. It is the words of someone else. What do people think of it?
#24994 to #24970 - tredbear (03/07/2013) [-]
Some of the shit America tries to bullshit people about just to use force of arms to make a profit, all in the name of averting catastrophe from weapons of mass destruction, that my sir is some colplete bullshit, and Russia and China sees what the US is going to do with Iran, so they are setting up troops in the middle east, ready to strike the US when they invade Iran for their oil, Russia in Syria, and China in Pakistan. Western media makes Iran look bad. I know that Mahmoud ahmadinejad can make poor decisions, but every leader does it, Mahmoud seems fearless, he is always ignoring the Bigger countries saying that he can't do this for his country or that for his allied countries, Iran has made many achievements ever since it started carrying it's own weight. Iran has been almost completely independent, from the auto industry to military equiptment, Iran can do as they please, and with a lake of oil under them, there is no need to buy oil from other countries. Iran is a great place, I wish to visit Iran, it does seem safe there, and ever since the 90's, they have been very independent, but with hel from Russia and what not, on their military, and without help, they already have laser guided artilery shells, and stealth aircraft, Iran just keeps going, never letting their spirits down. I would rather live there that here in the states, here, we are very dependent on others for money consumer goods, I think we spent to much on military equiptment, plus Iran is more than capable in defending themselfs from military invasion. I think Iran and Syria should join CSTO, Israel and the US would have to think twice of attacking them if Iran has Russia as there ally, because, you know, Russia is part of CSTO.
User avatar #24995 to #24994 - eight (03/07/2013) [-]
Good points. But I wouldn't want to live in Iran. I hate sand, I hate heat. And I wouldn't want to live in a place that is in the middle of a high risk area. (high risk for war)
User avatar #24996 to #24995 - tredbear (03/07/2013) [-]
there are some nice places in Iran, there is even ski resorts up in the mountains there in Iran, it is nice there as long as you live near the water, the rest is open rangess, for oil drilling, military practice, testing nuclear weapons, ect.
User avatar #24945 - pebar (03/06/2013) [-]
www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3hY1eagq88
"Reagan Warned Us About Obama" is the name of the video. It's a little under 5 mins but kinda interesting.
#24939 - Womens Study Major (03/06/2013) [-]
I think USA should just become a Monarchy.
#24980 to #24939 - feelythefeel ONLINE (03/06/2013) [-]
If you live in USA, you may not have to wait very long for an equivalent. Or a lot of other countries, for that matter.
If you live in USA, you may not have to wait very long for an equivalent. Or a lot of other countries, for that matter.
User avatar #24955 to #24939 - oxan (03/06/2013) [-]
One of the founding fathers actually advocated for an elected monarch.
#24940 to #24939 - pebar (03/06/2013) [-]
Good for you. I'm glad you're able to say what you think even if it's an unpopular opinion. The right to do that probably wouldn't exist in a monarchy. Your rights could be taken away by the whims of a single person.
User avatar #24941 to #24940 - glad (03/06/2013) [-]
Well it's best for him to learn through experience, so lets do just that and take away his rights.
#24937 - Womens Study Major (03/06/2013) [-]
In the War in Afghanistan, America are the "bad guys."

What does /politics/ think about this?
Anon because of reasons
User avatar #24966 to #24937 - mexicoman (03/06/2013) [-]
Of course America is the bad guy in this instance. They get away with this manufactured conflict because they understand that its easy to coddle the people into a state of ignorance or apathy about all the people they murder under the guise of 'collateral damage'.
User avatar #24956 to #24937 - oxan (03/06/2013) [-]
America, yes. Most of ISAF? No.

The USSR had more of a right to enter Afghanistan than 'Mericuh.
User avatar #24950 to #24937 - eight (03/06/2013) [-]
I think it is perfectly fine. I wouldn't like if somebody invaded America, even if we were the ones to blame for the cause of the war and invasion, I would still defend my homeland because it is my home, my family, and my friends.

The Afghans have every right to do the same especially when U.S. forces are causing collateral damage and death to non terrorist settlements and civilians.

If any of you have family members who served in Iraq and Afghanistan (I have had three). You have heard the stories and know exactly what I am talking about.
0
#24974 to #24950 - swiftykidd **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#24938 to #24937 - Womens Study Major (03/06/2013) [-]
grammar... whatever
#24935 - roliga (03/06/2013) [-]
Why can't I stop fucking laughing at this?
#24929 - Womens Study Major (03/06/2013) [-]
america number 1
 Friends (0)