Upload
Login or register
Highest Rated Newest
auto-refresh every 1 2 3 5 seconds


Latest users (4): theism, unforgivensoul, whitechino, youregaylol, anonymous(27).
Anonymous comments allowed.
122 comments displayed.
#111925 - feelythefeel
Reply 0
(03/31/2016) [-]
BE DEUTSCH Achtung Germans on the rise  NEO MAGAZIN ROYALE mit Jan Bhmermann  ZDFneo >intro from V for Vendetta
We are anomalous. Expecto patronum.
>"Can you hear your Call of Duty"
Yep, soundtrack's pretty sweet. Gameplay's dull, though.
>"The world has gone completely nuts"
Probably the only moment of clarity in this shitfest, even if it's accidental.
>"That's why we're back to help"
Tell that to all of the enriched Belgians. I'm sure they're very grateful for your "help".
>"Germans on the rise"
No thanks to you, fag.
>"This time, we are fucking nice"
Nice, or total pussies? I suppose it's all in the eyes of the beholder.
>"Authoritarian nationalist dorks, so tough with your torches and pitchforks"
Better than posting on social media about it and crying yourself to sleep.
>"You are not the people, you are the past"
How ironic coming from a government funded broadcast. At this point Merkel isn't just telling you what to believe, she's dictating to you what you already believe. Fucking Ministry of Truth level shit right here.

I honestly can't be assed to disseminate this further. One minute in and I'm writing whole paragraphs. Fuck this shit, day of rope when?
#111941 to #111925 - kanadetenshi
Reply +1
(03/31/2016) [-]
Apparently the song is a parody making fun of both the far left and far right.
#111924 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(03/31/2016) [-]
www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3516207/Harvard-researcher-warns-ISIS-brink-using-nuclear-weapons.html

"Harvard researcher warns ISIS may be on the brink of using nuclear weapons."

Rip Europoors.
#111929 to #111924 - marinepenguin ONLINE
Reply 0
(03/31/2016) [-]
I don't believe they have access to a nuclear weapon.
#111930 to #111929 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(03/31/2016) [-]
Perhaps not now, but who knows in the near future.

Also there's the possibility of either bombing a reactor or detonating a dirty bomb, both of which are completely feasible.
#111931 to #111930 - marinepenguin ONLINE
Reply 0
(03/31/2016) [-]
They'd have to buy one, which I have no idea how feasible that is.

That other idea is a possibility though.

That attack would be their grave though, the world would pour infinitely more support into destroying ISIS than it already is. Imagine the political backlash, or how that would affect world politics. An attack like that would have severe repercussions on a world scale.
#111932 to #111931 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(03/31/2016) [-]
Whether or not it would be their grave is difficult to say, but it would definitely stir shit up.

But with states like Iran pursuing nuclear technology, and North Korea and Pakistan already in possession of nuclear weapons, I'm not too confident that getting hands on nuclear weapons is impossible.
#111933 to #111932 - marinepenguin ONLINE
Reply 0
(03/31/2016) [-]
Their capital of Mosul is actually a possible target recently, they're been losing ground in vast swaths, at this rate I'll give them another 6-8 months at the most.

And those nations have been relatively stable for the last half century. They've had the time to build up their R&D and infrastructure to support such activities. A state like ISIS is too young and concerned with keeping itself afloat to even have gotten a nuclear development program off the ground. I'd put my money on alien first contact happening before ISIS builds a nuke.
#111934 to #111933 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(03/31/2016) [-]
I disagree that they have been relatively stable, especially Iran. Especially after the Iran deal they now seem more keen than ever on playing a major regional role with Russia backing them. In Pakistan we see a large number of people supporting Taliban, and keep in mind how long Bin Laden stayed there without anyone saying anything.
And the last couple of years, especially last year and the first couple of months of this year, North Korea have been extremely agressive, fired an ICBM, fired several rockets, shelled across the border to South Korea, and most importantly detonated a nuclear device.

Also same Harvard professor, among others, believe it's very likely a larger terrorist group would be able to construct a simple atomic bomb if they got their hands on nuclear material. Even a study dating from 1977 backs it up.
nuclearsecuritymatters.belfercenter.org/blog/belgium-highlights-nuclear-terrorism-threat-and-security-measures-stop-it
#111935 to #111934 - marinepenguin ONLINE
Reply 0
(03/31/2016) [-]
I meant stable, as in the political regimes have remained the same. Iran less so, I agree, but they may not have any. We just know they're pursuing it.

North Korea and Pakistan, while both have their domestic issues, have had relatively stable leadership for a long time.

And maybe, but it would have to be something very simple, at most a lower yield weapon that's they'd have to plant somewhere. They haven't build the infrastructure to produce much on their own and rely on oil sales to buy weapons from outside. So them building a missile program or anything resembling something like what North Korea or Iran is pursuing is what I'm talking about.

But my personal belief is that its still slim to none for them to build their own. I think it's highly likely they'd try to purchase a more sophisticated one from the cold war era.
#111943 to #111935 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(03/31/2016) [-]
And remember that Little Boy was only 10 feet long, which could easily fit in a truck. It killed more 60,000 people in the blast alone and that was 70 years ago. And with the internet today, anyone can get their hands on nuke blueprints. It's all a matter of obtaining nuclear material.
#111940 to #111935 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(03/31/2016) [-]
Well, the cell in Belgium (which may still be at large) did surveil the nuclear powerplant, and there is evidence that the plant was the primary target before Abdeslam was apprehended.
If we go with the scenario the professor sets forth, the amount of nuclear material they'd have access to would be enough for several nuclear bombs. Given it took Belgian authorities several months to track down Abdeslam, it would give terrorists a fairly large window to construct such a device. And, as stated, "Only modest machine-shop facilities that could be contracted for without arousing suspicion would be required".

I think the threat is very real, although not here in the US. But given that more than a million refugees have passed unchecked into Europe, and several large terrorists group have stated that they have hundreds if not thousands of their people among these refugees, such a scenario seems increasingly likely.
Thankfully it's the main subject of The Nuclear Security Summit so hopefully the issue will be addressed in the near future.
#111923 - feelythefeel
Reply 0
(03/31/2016) [-]
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-35922858

I dare you to find any period document that even came close to recognizing "Aborigine Australia" as an actual nation-state that can, by extension, be formally invaded. Keep in mind, Sokoto was recognized as a nation state at around the same time, so it wasn't exactly hard.
#111920 - shekelnator
Reply +1
(03/31/2016) [-]
FAIL Rebel Dies of Sarin But Lives to Tell the Tale guys i think we found jesus.
#111910 - pebar
Reply 0
(03/31/2016) [-]
Should Trump put giant gold letters of his name on the white house?
let's say he uses his own money so there's no issue with wasting tax dollars
#111911 to #111910 - unforgivensoul ONLINE
Reply 0
(03/31/2016) [-]
Are you allowed to?
#111913 to #111911 - pebar
Reply 0
(03/31/2016) [-]
would trump care?
#111915 to #111913 - unforgivensoul ONLINE
Reply 0
(03/31/2016) [-]
The law would.
#111918 to #111915 - pebar
Reply 0
(03/31/2016) [-]
you're no fun...
#111901 - kanadetenshi
Reply +1
(03/31/2016) [-]
Rand Paul said he would give a major endorsement tomorrow. How likely will it be that it's going to be an April fools joke?
#111939 to #111901 - duudegladiator
Reply 0
(03/31/2016) [-]
Im thinking its an April Fools joke. But if he wants to represent his electorate, he'll endorse Trump.
#111908 to #111901 - PopcornViking ONLINE
Reply 0
(03/31/2016) [-]
my money is on Kasich
#111905 to #111901 - unforgivensoul ONLINE
Reply 0
(03/31/2016) [-]
Maybe its Bernie lel?
#111898 - unforgivensoul ONLINE
Reply 0
(03/31/2016) [-]
This post has been a long time coming, and by that I mean 2 weeks. Hopefully by the time I'm done writing this it won't be too long.

I've come to realize something about politics, and something that I've been doing far too much. Identity politics is a cancer to progress, and I've been a culprit far too long in pushing it. Identity politics has made me agree with people who share my same identity even if I shouldn't agree with them on an issue to begin with. Identity politics has made me dismiss the arguments of "liberals" simply because they seem to be ones or describe themselves as ones. Identity politics has destroyed intellectual conversation from an impartial perspective for far too long in my scenario and many others. I've come to realize that I should look at every single issue from a merit basis regardless of who I may agree with, and I've probably been one of the biggest culprits in doing the opposite.

I've convinced myself to support ideas that I shouldn't support just because I labeled myself "conservative" or "far rightwing". I've come to realize how "liberal" I truly am on many positions when I throw away identity politics. I've learned my lesson, and that lesson is that I'm no far right winger or far left-winger, I don't know what category I could belong in, and I think that's actually for the best. From here on out I will call myself an independent even though I seem to agree with a social democrat system with nationalist tendencies. I've been putting up with the bullshit of retarded republicans for far too long, the Regressive right as I'd like to call them which are as dangerous as the regressive left hold wildly disgraceful and absurd opinions that I can no longer put up with just like the regressive left does. The constant hawkish foreign policy, destruction of individual liberty through pushing the NSA programs, marijuana decriminalization, prostitution criminalizarion no I don't smoke it. Tried it once and felt kinda disgusted afterwards and stupid bible-thumping is not something I can defend.

Something else I've realized is a huge issue that I've glossed over just because an old leftwing fart was talking about it, is corruption, aka money in politics. Corporate sellouts rule the fucking system on both sides and are responsible for so much of the regression that goes on. The system is not about merit and actual discussion, but freaking money and I cannot brush that off any longer. This is probably the #1 problem in politics today in America. Instead of republicans pushing actual issues that will benefit the people, they push for the policies that benefit their corporate donors and sprinkle some pandering over that to get gullible voters like me. That's not to say democrats don't do either, but it seems like they have more people impervious to it even if its a small minority.

I've changed my opinion on a number of things after having this epiphany and I don't give a fuck what party agrees with them, that shouldn't matter.

-torture is wrong, immoral and doesn't work
-close Guantanamo
-decriminalize most drugs
-pro-single payer/universal health care
-universities should be made less expensive somehow (but not free)
-I'm relatively pro-non intervention in some cases it has been necessary, I'll always defending propping up Augusto Pinochet over a communist who'd make Chile a Venezuela
-money our of politics is a huge issue
-common core seems like a good idea since it stops states from pushing Christian science bs
and probably more I've forgotten.

1/2
#111928 to #111898 - marinepenguin ONLINE
Reply 0
(03/31/2016) [-]
The only thing I got out of this is that you like common core, which makes you retarded.
#111937 to #111928 - unforgivensoul ONLINE
Reply 0
(03/31/2016) [-]
Uh I don't understand how that's the only thing you got when I literally wrote a list of examples on issues I changed my beliefs on, which means you couldn't have known about that before. Which means you got more than just that.

Also give me a reason why there shouldn't be common core standards so Southern states can't get away with speaking lies about evolution, creationism, ect? I expected more substance from you than just this.
#111919 to #111898 - pebar
Reply 0
(03/31/2016) [-]
this confirms what I've been saying forever,
that nat socs and similar ideologies are closer to the left in terms of policy, than to the rest of the right side of the spectrum

I said the same thing when youregaylol did his troll post are you trying to fuck with us like he did

now once you've recognized the problems, you just need to acknowledge the right solutions
#111921 to #111919 - unforgivensoul ONLINE
Reply 0
(03/31/2016) [-]
> are you trying to fuck with us like he did
I'm dumb founded you would ask me this after I write 2 long posts about it.

>that nat socs and similar ideologies are closer to the left in terms of policy, than to the rest of the right side of the spectrum

problem is I wasn't a nat soc to begin with. I was a reactionary with free-market beliefs. Now I've a social democrat with nationalist beliefs meaning I abandoned free-market beliefs and certain "conservative" beliefs

>you just need to acknowledge the right solutions
Yep I have them, a mix of everything. Hybrid systems.
#111900 to #111898 - kanadetenshi
Reply 0
(03/31/2016) [-]
So basically you're what would happen if Sanders and Trump did fusion.
#111902 to #111900 - unforgivensoul ONLINE
Reply 0
(03/31/2016) [-]
....yeah I guess.
#111897 - unforgivensoul ONLINE
Reply 0
(03/31/2016) [-]
This isn't to say I'm just some social progressive now. Yeah I'll pass on that one, I'm still a racist because I honestly think its common sense to be one for many reasons. I'm also not in favor of immigration and still think illegals are a huge issue liberals gloss over because their people propose to do nothing about it. Hell both parties don't because of money, because people behind the scenes love cheap illegal labor. I've also come to realize that there isn't much of a point on being single issue over racial preservation in America. America lost that war a long time ago, there is no point in me voting for this one guy because he supports halting immigration totally. America will be non-white in the future, forever unless some-kind of race war occurs which is highly unlikely.

Only Europe really has a racial war to fight, and there being single-issue is something I totally support because ultra-progressive loonies are raping the natives of Europe with their mass migration garbage that if unchecked will leave Europe a "multicultural" country with a minority native population. In the words of Stefan Molyneux, "what is the benefit of multiculturalism?".

So who would I vote for, well I think I'd have to shock a lot of people here and say Bernie first, Trump second. Now I absolutely despise Bernie and his supporters, I think he's an old fart that will die before re-election season and I think he's an ultra progressive dimwit. I can't stand the fact that he pushes feminist myths like the wage gap, shakes hands with the devil Al Sharpton, panders to blacks when they certainly don't deserve it and is pro-BLM. For this I will never respect this man, however there are enough opinions that I think he is genuine about solving that I support specifically money out of politics , which is why I'd probably suck it up and vote for him if I could. Not that he really has a chance of winning, but just out of principle. Trump is second because he's anti-establishment and the establishment is absolute garbage, I love agents of chaos for that matter and I like the nationalistic ring to him.

In summary, I've become a redpilled version of Shiny except I'm not a furry, cuck, or goyim.

2/2
#111899 to #111897 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(03/31/2016) [-]
Why is it common sense to be racist?
#111922 to #111899 - unforgivensoul ONLINE
Reply 0
(03/31/2016) [-]
The general definition of racism is "the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races."

Problem is races are different, different ethnic groups have different traits. This is science. Blacks, whites and Asians have different skull features, we evolved for hundreds of thousands of years if not millions separate from each other its actually 2 million years, humans started immigrating out of Africa 2 million years ago . Evolution applies to humans too whether you like to deny it or not, the most common theory is that Asians and whites are descendants from our ancestors mixing with the neanderthals. Then of course separation over many years split Europeans apart from Asians and made the two different. Thing is, no one beliefs that over hundreds of thousands of years the only thing that evolves is your skin, of course not that's fucking ridicolous. Many things change, not just melanin.

This explains why South Koreans have smaller penises significantly then Congoid people, or why Northern Europeans are significantly taller than Asians. Or why melanin in skin cells is different throughout different groups. Or why blacks are generally stronger than Asians. All of these are facts, the problem is people are too afraid to deny that the same can occur with the brain, which is stupid. Evolution doesn't just work in one specific place, it works throughout. This is why I firmly believe there is such a huge IQ gap between asians and blacks. Just apply Occam's fucking razor.

In the end, races are obviously different, you don't even have to say one is superior. It's just a fucking fact. Though I do think Whites are superior to blacks (not that I believe in segregation, just point it out). Either way everyone would call you a "racist" for simply stating objective facts.
#111936 to #111922 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(03/31/2016) [-]
I agree that races are different, it's pretty evident physiologically. As to how it manifests in the brain is hard for me to say, as I'm no neurologist.
Of course it would be ridiculous to say that the brains of the respective races are exactly alike, but my personal belief is that these difference are miniscule. I believe that the gaps in terms of IQ (which have been proven numerously) are mainly the product of sociological parameters, such as the quantity and quality of education.
#111890 - pebar
Reply 0
(03/31/2016) [-]
#111892 to #111890 - pebar
Reply 0
(03/31/2016) [-]
I took an economics class so I know more than the experts
#111889 - pebar
Reply 0
(03/31/2016) [-]
#111872 - anon
Reply 0
(03/31/2016) [-]
**anonymous used "*roll picture*"**
**anonymous rolled image**
Advice to Women Protesting Trump.
My Advice to Women Protesting Trump
#111884 to #111872 - anon
Reply +1
(03/31/2016) [-]
Right wing subhumans need to be gunned down.
#111903 to #111884 - anon
Reply 0
(03/31/2016) [-]
ALL subhumans need to be gunned down.
#111863 - theism ONLINE
Reply 0
(03/31/2016) [-]
Because you know that's not an actual police state.

(This was not endorsed by Trump as far as I know)
#111882 to #111863 - seniorawesomesauce
Reply 0
(03/31/2016) [-]
How about instead of making veterans into the secret police we use actual programs and organizations like ICE, which Trump has said he will expand to help deport the 11 million illegals in the country.

Also Ted Cruz said he wouldn't support a "deportation force", but instead he'd support ICE deporting people.... ????????
#111879 to #111863 - lotengo
Reply 0
(03/31/2016) [-]
I've been on the fence between Bernie and Trump for a week, 10 days tops. But been on the Trump side ever since
But i just have to say that this sounds... AWESOME
GOD I WANT TO BE A PART OF THAT SO BAD
pic not related
#111880 to #111879 - theism ONLINE
Reply 0
(03/31/2016) [-]
It's probably demoralizing as he'll busting down people's doors with the rest of the gestapo. And how do you flip flop between beanie and trump?
#111868 to #111863 - anon
Reply 0
(03/31/2016) [-]
"Says he will have a deportation force. But how will he do that? "

Isn't that what ICE is for?
#111869 to #111868 - theism ONLINE
Reply 0
(03/31/2016) [-]
Apparently the ICE isn't doing enough. IDK.
#111862 - anon
Reply 0
(03/31/2016) [-]
Germany Crosses the Demographic RUBICON 2035s a MINORITY by 2020
#111861 - pebar
Reply +1
(03/31/2016) [-]
The modern academy pays lip service to diversity. Yet as a "stigmatized minority," the authors note, right-of-center professors feel pressure to hide their identities, in many cases consciously emulating gays in similarly hostile environments. "I am the equivalent of someone who was gay in Mississippi in 1950," a prominent full professor told Shields and Dunn. He’s still hiding because he hopes for honors that depend on maintaining his colleagues’ good will. "If I came out, that would finish me," he said.
reason.com/blog/2016/03/30/being-conservative-in-academia-like-bein
#111870 to #111861 - anon
Reply 0
(03/31/2016) [-]
This is why I got my degree in Economics. Professors could not only freely support the free market, they could prove that they were right in believing so. (I don't know if right of center applies since most of the economics faculty at my college were libertarians but still)
#111849 - hadrian
Reply -1
(03/31/2016) [-]
#111873 to #111849 - thumbfortrump
Reply +1
(03/31/2016) [-]
>username hadrian
>not wanting to build wall
#111858 to #111849 - pebar
Reply 0
(03/31/2016) [-]
#111856 to #111849 - anon
Reply 0
(03/31/2016) [-]
Libertarianism Rising Johnson Polls at Double Digits
#111850 to #111849 - mixednuts
Reply 0
(03/31/2016) [-]
#FeeltheJohnson
#111837 - seniorawesomesauce
Reply +6
(03/30/2016) [-]
"There should be punishment for women choosing to have illegal abortions"

UGH, OH MY GOD DRUMPF, HOW COULD YOU POSSIBLY SUGGEST THAT PEOPLE BE PUNISHED FOR COMMITTING CRIMES?????? UGH. HOW COULD WE LET THIS FASCIST GET AWAY WITH THESE THINGS????
#111854 to #111837 - mixednuts
Reply -3
(03/31/2016) [-]
Bodily autonomy is under attack from Republican state legislators who want to punish people for having sex and Donald's first reaction is anger towards the women so desperate that they turn to back alley abortions knowing that their risky.

Yeah, fuck off. Nice simplification.
#111885 to #111854 - unforgivensoul ONLINE
Reply 0
(03/31/2016) [-]
Nice simplification too. I'm for abortions and I understand all the consequences of not doing them. But there is a point in time where having an abortion makes you a despicable piece of shit. Just look at what that popcornviking guy said, he wants to kill fetuses that can feel pain without even giving them anesthesia. That's soulless shit.

As far as I understand, most states have first 20 weeks legal, so anyone doing illegal abortions would be doing them with a 5 month+ year old baby in their womb. I'm assuming you don't harbor radical opinions in abortions, so you should clearly see why people like me can be concerned.
#111887 to #111885 - PopcornViking ONLINE
Reply 0
(03/31/2016) [-]
I'm against making women pay for the anesthesia
#111888 to #111887 - unforgivensoul ONLINE
Reply 0
(03/31/2016) [-]
uhhh no, you said you didn't want to give anesthesia to fetuses because they were gonna "die anyways". That's soulless shit.
#111891 to #111888 - PopcornViking ONLINE
Reply 0
(03/31/2016) [-]
right

so anesthesia is a waste of money, morally correct or not
#111904 to #111891 - unforgivensoul ONLINE
Reply 0
(03/31/2016) [-]
Yet you support the right for animals to receive a humane death before consumption right? Would you be ok if cows were killed by knifing them in the stomach till death?
#111907 to #111904 - PopcornViking ONLINE
Reply 0
(03/31/2016) [-]
i didnt know you ate fetus's

if you want to give the fetus' anesthesia, thats fine
but you cant make the women pay extra for it
#111909 to #111907 - unforgivensoul ONLINE
Reply 0
(03/31/2016) [-]
A) you didn't answer my question. Don't ignore it, answer what I asked you
B) whether I eat it is regardless of whether it deserves a humane death or not, that's entirely irrelevant. God you sound like a horrible person when you argue like this
C) "but you cant make the women pay extra for it" ...why not?
#111912 to #111909 - PopcornViking ONLINE
Reply 0
(03/31/2016) [-]
no, i wouldnt be ok with that

but a fetus isnt even a human yet
different animals that we eat have much more sentience than a fetus such as pigs
i wouldnt call the killing floors a humane death for animals tho

you are right in the the fetus' deserve a humane death
but millions of women all around the country can barely afford abortions as is, and now youre going to make them pay extra to do it humanely
thats pretty hypocritical if youre against raising taxes
#111914 to #111912 - unforgivensoul ONLINE
Reply 0
(03/31/2016) [-]
>no, i wouldnt be ok with that
Good, you're a hypocrite though. Fetuses deserve the same right as cows to a humane death

>but a fetus isnt even a human yet
Yet an animal isn't humane too, however you say it deserves a humane death because it can feel pain. Well so can fetuses, they may not be "human", but they also deserve humane deaths because they can feel pain like cows.

>different animals that we eat have much more sentience than a fetus such as pigs
So the less sentience, the less humane the death? Weird, I thought we do it because they can feel pain. Again, an irrelevant argument.

>i wouldnt call the killing floors a humane death for animals tho
Exactly, I wouldn't call ripping a fetus out without anesthesia a humane death for a fetus "tho"

>but millions of women all around the country can barely afford abortions as is, and now youre going to make them pay extra to do it humanely

Another irrelevant argument, money should have nothing to do with our morality. Just because it costs more, doesn't mean its ok. Also I don't think its going to cost a significantly more amount.

>thats pretty hypocritical if youre against raising taxes
No idea what your point is here.


#111916 to #111914 - PopcornViking ONLINE
Reply 0
(03/31/2016) [-]
i just said a fetus deserves a humane death
and so do animals
and neither get humane deaths right now

all im saying is that it shouldnt cost extra to do so

#111917 to #111916 - unforgivensoul ONLINE
Reply 0
(03/31/2016) [-]
If you're trying to say that the government should pay for it, then you must therefore believe that the government should pay for an abortion because the anesthesia is part of it.

I disagree with making the government pay for abortion, therefore I disagree with making the government pay for anesthesia.
#111878 to #111854 - pebar
Reply +1
(03/31/2016) [-]
democrats don't give a rat's ass about bodily autonomy
#111953 to #111878 - mixednuts
Reply 0
(04/01/2016) [-]
That's all well and good, but I'm not a Democrat. I vote Democrat out of convince

I don't care about trans-fats
What is "demeaning labor"? In fact let's not even get into that, because it has nothing to do with abortion.
I don't want to get into hard drugs and prostitution either. Because I generally believe that they should be decriminalized but you'd probably like to see those markets far less regulated than I would and that is also another conversation to have.
"Sin taxes" harm the poor more than they discourage vice.

Not everything can be approached from the same angle. An abortion is a choice that effects a woman and her boyfriend/husband. Lowering labor standards or allowing pimping and unlicensed drug dealing have externalities.

#111874 to #111854 - pebar
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#111859 to #111854 - youregaylol
Reply +3
(03/31/2016) [-]
GIF
>uses simplification
>Yeah, fuck off. Nice simplification.
#111855 to #111854 - seniorawesomesauce
Reply 0
(03/31/2016) [-]
"so desperate that they turn to back alley abortions knowing that their risky. "
BACK ALLEY ABORTIONS ARE ALREADY ILLEGAL.
YOU CAN ALREADY BE PUNISHED FOR THAT.
THERE ARE LEGAL ABORTIONS AND ILLEGAL ABORTIONS. YOU GET A LEGAL ONE- THE THING DONALD TRUMP'S BEEN ABOUT FOR HIS ENTIRE LIFE- THEN FINE. YOU GET AN ILLEGAL ONE- WHICH HE WAS ASKED ABOUT TONIGHT- THEN YOU'RE PUNISHED.
#111857 to #111855 - mixednuts
Reply 0
(03/31/2016) [-]
Abortion clinics are being closed en mass across states like Ohio and Texas by legislators while assembly members in Indiana are forcing women to carry children with down syndrome to term.

While this is going on to be calling out illegal abortions, while being quite about the effective outlawing of safe legal abortions is a clear dog whistle to the anti-choice crowd.
#111877 to #111857 - pebar
Reply 0
(03/31/2016) [-]
if democrats were as pro-choice on everything else as they are on abortion, they wouldn't be democrats

like the law mandating abortion doctors have hospital admitting privileges within a 30 mile radius.

If this were any other industry, democrats would be cheering the law as a protection for customers from the evil greedy corporations would have abortions performed in septic tanks if it weren't for the generous protection of the government

and likewise republicans would be damning it as destroying businesses and jobs, which you can see the effect of right now. This is exactly what the pro-choice crowd is saying.
#111954 to #111877 - mixednuts
Reply 0
(04/01/2016) [-]
I don't entirely disagree with you on this.

Democrats have done this with tobacco, particularly the Phillip Morris Company. But "any other industry" is a stretch. I don't think their are too many Democrats out there pushing for laws that force restaurants or retail stores to be located within 30 miles of their distributors.
#111860 to #111857 - marinepenguin ONLINE
Reply 0
(03/31/2016) [-]
"Anti-choice"

In their mind it's "anti-baby killing". The left doesn't consider the fetus an individual with rights and focuses on the mother, while the right is more concerned about the fetus itself.

In my opinion if you have sex, you assume the risk of conception and should be required to carry the child to term with exceptions for rape, children who can be proven to have a disease that will give them a low quality of life, or pregnancies that threaten the life of the mother.
#111944 to #111860 - redandgreen
Reply -1
(03/31/2016) [-]
It isn't as simple as 'left' and 'right'. Lots of Christian Democrats are economically on the left but anti-abortion.
#111945 to #111944 - marinepenguin ONLINE
Reply 0
(03/31/2016) [-]
That's usually the case though. I understand it's not black and white, but generally speaking, people on the right are pro-life and the people on the left are pro-choice.
#111875 to #111860 - pebar
Reply -1
(03/31/2016) [-]
I've never understood the rape exception....

if the reason abortion is bad to begin with is because a fetus is a person and has a right to live that the government must protect

why would it being conceived by rape change its that?
Is it not still alive?
Does it being created through rape mean a fetus doesn't have a right to life?

If it's a person, rape shouldn't matter
If it's a person, it having a disease wouldn't matter

if it's not a person, mind your own business
if you ever think there are exceptions to abortion, besides the life of the mother, then you obviously don't consider the fetus to be a person
#111871 to #111860 - mixednuts
Reply 0
(03/31/2016) [-]
"Anti-Choice" does have an emotional weight to it, as it's something I feel strongly about. In my opinion "anti-abortion" would probably be a more evenhanded phrase. I would rather not use "pro-life" as most people who apply the term to themselves could not give less of a shit after birth.

Though I strongly disagree with it, I can understand where people come from in opposing all abortions, or only making exceptions in cases where the mother's life could be at risk.

I don't get that point of view. I'd imagine that there's far more harm in hundreds of thousands or even millions of children being brought up by parents who consider them to be negative consequences than there is in allowing people to have relatively consequence free sex. (As the possibility of contracting STDs still exists). People appeal to personal responsibility, but it often feels to me like it comes from a negative view of sex.
#111886 to #111871 - unforgivensoul ONLINE
Reply 0
(03/31/2016) [-]
Actually I think the reason people oppose all abortion would be that they think the fetus is a baby, not sex. I thought that was pretty obvious.
#111955 to #111886 - mixednuts
Reply 0
(04/01/2016) [-]
That's what I'm saying. There's at least a logical consistency for people who oppose all abortions. But for people who make rape and disease exceptions, it's unusual. Though they argue for personal responsibility, I sometimes feel that it actually comes from a negative view of sex.

Pebar hits the nail on the head in his above comment.
#111876 to #111871 - pebar
Reply 0
(03/31/2016) [-]
>could not give less of a shit after birth.

negative rights vs positive rights
learn the difference
#111844 to #111837 - anon
Reply 0
(03/30/2016) [-]
Cruz Scandal Hillary on Debating Trump on Abortion Two Party System Declines Further
#111826 - pebar
Reply +1
(03/30/2016) [-]
FJ, Trump is shit cue the red thumbs
But Hillary is shit too

So let's talk about the spoiler effect
If you don't recognize the same, the spoiler effect is when a 3rd part splits the vote of the next closest main party which allows the most opposing party to gain the most votes. Right now, Gary Johnson is polling double digits in the general election, which is rare, and most of his votes are coming from the right because of the #nevertrump crowd. Some people like Milo are hoping that Trump will destroy the republican party so much a libertarian-ish party will rise up and take its place.

But back to the spoiler effect specifically, Ben Shapiro denies that a vote for a 3rd party is a vote for Hillary. But even if it were, he says moral lines need to be drawn with who people will not vote for. He says Trump crosses that line.

Thoughts?
#111864 to #111826 - theism ONLINE
Reply 0
(03/31/2016) [-]
How well is Gary Johnson polling? I haven't heard a single thing about him in the media, which is odd if he's polling well.
#111865 to #111864 - pebar
Reply 0
(03/31/2016) [-]
relatively well, for a 3rd party candidate
#111867 to #111865 - theism ONLINE
Reply 0
(03/31/2016) [-]
11% is pretty good for a liberterian candidate. That sound pretty good actually. Reading Gary Johnson's positions he sounds pretty good.
#111841 to #111826 - seniorawesomesauce
Reply +1
(03/30/2016) [-]
I think the "destruction" of the Republican Party is ridiculous, it's being turned on its head and it's going to be reshaped and there will be A LOT of fallout about it, but in some ways the same thing is happening in the Democratic Party as well. But "destruction" implies a complete disappearance which I can't see happening.

Ben Shapiro is too smart to know that a 3rd party vote ISN'T a vote for the "enemy". That's very clear and has always been, at least in America. I'm almost 100% confident that after Trump wins the nomination (he will, and he will do it by reaching 1,237 delegates), people will warm up to him. Very quickly. People like Chris Christie (who said Donald was "unfit' to be president) and Ben Carson (who doesn't necessarily defend that he ISN'T racist, but defends that he's best for the country) did the same thing. And once the general election arrives between Hillary and Trump occurs, and people see how Hillary reacts to the kind of pressure Trump puts on her, they will quickly change their tune. Once Donald steps up to the plate he'll hit a home run every single time and she really won't have too much dirt on him without him exposing a hell of a lot more on her. And this "moral lines" argument is nonsense because a lot of the "moral wrongdoings" Donald's committed have been over-exaggerated and almost lied about by the media.
#111829 to #111826 - marinepenguin ONLINE
Reply +1
(03/30/2016) [-]
I'm close by to the Milo camp. There are many things I like about trump, like more secured borders, stronger foreign policy, and a reinvigorated military. But there are many things I really really dislike.

I think that trump ultimately leads a movement that will be beneficial for American politics and the republicans.
#111833 to #111829 - pebar
Reply +1
(03/30/2016) [-]
How much military is enough military?
#111836 to #111833 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(03/30/2016) [-]
You can't have enough military.
#111834 to #111833 - marinepenguin ONLINE
Reply +1
(03/30/2016) [-]
Enough to defend ourselves and our nation's interests. This is obviously subjective depending on who you are talking to. Personally I don't think we need to spend more than what we are, we just need to spend more efficiently.
#111830 to #111829 - valeriya
Reply +2
(03/30/2016) [-]
Guns or Butter?
#111832 to #111830 - marinepenguin ONLINE
Reply 0
(03/30/2016) [-]
We can afford both guns and butter. Both are necessary.
#111835 to #111832 - valeriya
Reply 0
(03/30/2016) [-]
Yes you can afford both but think of it like this, you can't have more of one without sacrificing more of the other. Each dollar thrown into the military is a dollar not thrown into education, or infrastructure, or police etc and the military is an investment with very little returns. Strong Foreign policy costs money and alienates other nations, and I think it's a little bit of a real problem the US faces of figuring out it's balance in foreign policy. Iraq and Afgahnistan are pretty prominent in the press as an example of how not to foreign policy. Really I think Trump will be a disaster for the foreign policy stage.
#111838 to #111835 - marinepenguin ONLINE
Reply 0
(03/30/2016) [-]
Yes, that's common sense really. The military can indirectly contribute to economic gain through technological developments and a more stable diplomatic stage. Like I told Pebar, I'm not advocating an increase in military spending.

And Afghanistan has actually been going fairly well, but Iraq was a disaster from a premature removal of US forces. That's a pretty deep topic to get into.

I believe that personally foreign policy wise you can't get much worse than Obama, and I'll take a tough-talking salesman over him. I think he'll be an improvement at the very least.
#111840 to #111838 - valeriya
Reply 0
(03/30/2016) [-]
Understandable, but well frankly military need should not be a driving technological innovator, think is the government can fill that void quite easily. (We can argue about the effectiveness all day long)

Afghanistan is still a mess, it's still currently mired in corruption and a civil war to some extent, less of an extent then previously but it still is a breeding ground for extremism Iraq was going to be a mess, since the US and allies essentially ripped a state apart which they'd previously supported on a falsified pretext and three weeks later claimed mission accomplished and spent years trying to rebuild a state whilst not eradicating the previous regime fully (Most of the ISIS leadership is former ba'ath party of Iraq and Iraqi military), whilst fighting an insurgency... Yeah that was never going to end in the favour of the US...

I think Obamas foreign policy is best described as a stop-gap measure. He's not willing to invest into further wars, especially when you consider that wars no longer require lots of manpower, so much as they require lots of money. His though process seems to be "Do we need to place this other nation in check." "No." "Do nothing then" Which admittedly isn't necessarily the best way to approach things. I don't think a tough-salesman with the grace of an elephant at a tea party will be even remotely competent in the diplomatic world. He will make you a lot more enemies, and alienate a lot of your friends even further.
#111845 to #111840 - marinepenguin ONLINE
Reply 0
(03/30/2016) [-]
In a perfect world I would agree. But competition spurs innovation, and conflict is extremely competitive.

And Iraq wasn't based on a falsified pretext, there was serious reason to believe that Saddam was pursuing nuclear weapons, and he'd shown before that he was willing to use WMDs. UN representatives were sent to inspect Iraqi facilities many times and were turned away. Not to mention that there were stockpiles of WMDs found that we knew he had already that were ready to fire. Plus Saddam knew we were going to invade, and there were convoys moving from those facilities to areas in Syria for weeks, so while I doubt there were nukes on those convoys, there was something he didn't want us to find. Mission Accomplished was caked after the Saddam regime was toppled and the occupation began. It wasn't marking when the conflict was over.

I agree on this last one to an extent, but Obama's policies have further alienated us and in many ways shown us as weak. His recent dealings with Iran and Cuba come to mind.
#111847 to #111845 - valeriya
Reply 0
(03/31/2016) [-]
Don't need a perfect world for this one, just one where we are less keen on killing each other. Great inventions are often prestigious enough to warrant them on their own.

I've never read anything of post first gulf war armaments being found in Iraq en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1441#Aftermath I very much doubt he was stupid enough to go after nuclear armaments after the arse kicking he got for utilizing chemical weapons.

Depends on who you are, he originally was happy to play nice with Russia, after Bush 2 sided with Georgia over a Russian incursion following Georgian attacks on Peacekeepers. Then the wholke Ukraine thing happened and ruined that. Some of the US's allies are well, liabilities. eg, The Baltic states, not great economically, not strong military literally their only bonus is their geography. I know Obama is somewhat popular in the UK since Bush was near universally hated. He's not really rocked the boat. Thing with Cuba is, mostly trying to fix something that makes absolutely no sense from a pragmatic point of view, literally the shitty relations are solely because a revolution overthrew a US puppet. Iran... It's not bad but it's far from good. I think the idea is almost like the Munich agreement peace in our time... Provided one party keeps their word.
#111848 to #111847 - marinepenguin ONLINE
Reply 0
(03/31/2016) [-]
And we've been seeing that actually, the number of people dying due to warfare is at its lowest ever and still declining. Though like you mentioned before the fact that we use less manpower might be a contributor to that. But I think that as time goes on, we get further away from the cold war and nations like North Korea ultimately collapses, or China stabilizes or crashes, depending on how you view their mountains of debt and hazardous spending we'll see the military become less of a need, and we'll see private organizations that are interested in space development like Tesla/SpaceX become a leading innovator.

And I was referring to the Saren gas, that's what I've consistently read about. But my argument is more about looking at the situation before the invasion. In a Post 9/11 America where tensions are still running very high and you look at the interactions with Iraq before the war, you can see how we could justify it in my opinion. Knowing what we know now, it was obviously a bad idea. I'm mainly irked by the "Bush wanted the oil" people.

And without getting into the details, I don't think Cuba is anywhere near the forefront of Americans minds and Obama wanted to be the one to break the sanctions on Cuba to gain international prestige, same can go for Iran. And while trade is good and will aid those nations and help them become more developed, I don't think we should be helping those sorts of states, Iran especially. I 100% agree about some of our "allies" being liabilities too cough cough Saudi Arabia cough cough
#111851 to #111848 - valeriya
Reply 0
(03/31/2016) [-]
Dying is one thing surviving traumatic Medical sense injuries is at an all time high, mostly because emergency medicine, and battlefield medicine are getting more and more advanced. I've worked in both fields

Perceptions are confusing, and the ability to understand the legitimacy of other peoples narratives is key, something I think became a luxary.

It reflects well on the united states in general as well as Obama, whether they realize it is another matter. Trading with those nations isn't really the same as helping them, trade with Cuba isn't saying "We endorse everything your regime stands for" Otherwise you wouldn't trade with the sauds, or Syria pre-2011. And regime change has shown itself to be a bad foreign policy...
#111853 to #111851 - marinepenguin ONLINE
Reply 0
(03/31/2016) [-]
Good points all around. I enjoyed this discussion.

Could you elaborate on how you've worked in those medical and battlefield areas? I'm actually in training for military and have a decent chance of deploying to Afghanistan, Iraq we still have large numbers of people going there, whether or not we officially say so or whatever conflict they want to throw me into.
#111881 to #111853 - valeriya
Reply 0
(03/31/2016) [-]
I did as well.

Sure, served in the Russian Army to get money for university in the UK, served in the North Caucasus military district for the most part 2005-2009. But anyway, the main bulk of problems stem from being able to get people back to facilities. where you chances of living become a lot higher. My part was basically to make sure there was someone out with every patrol or go myself.So long as we were well supplied and had the necessary support, things would usually go fine iuf sometimes hilarious when things don't go to plan One of my guys once had his designed tourniquet fail so he had him lit down with his leg against a tree, with one end of cloth tied above his wound and the other end nailed to the tree... .

It's another story when your supplies aren't great and you have no means of removing wounded soldiers. Worst was working out of a hospital basement, with mrls firing at you meaning you can't even get more water, or when your pretty much scavenging around for paracetamol and codeine mixtures and bleach and hard choices have to be made. Yeah not great. Also not sure if this applies to the US armed forces, but don't piss off your medical attachment.
#111831 to #111830 - pebar
Reply +1
(03/30/2016) [-]
#111827 to #111826 - unforgivensoul ONLINE
Reply 0
(03/30/2016) [-]
I think this election is a win no matter what. Agents of chaos like Trump do more good than harm.

The republican party desperately NEEDS chaos to spice things up and make it better.

"Necessary Evil"
#111828 to #111827 - pebar
Reply 0
(03/30/2016) [-]
So you're in the Milo camp then?
#111839 to #111828 - unforgivensoul ONLINE
Reply 0
(03/30/2016) [-]
Of course!
#111815 - alimais
Reply +3
(03/30/2016) [-]
Now that weird campaign manager/female reporter thing got interesting

/Rape+on+cnn/youtube/5874544/
#111816 to #111815 - thumbfortrump
Reply +2
(03/30/2016) [-]
Nice someone uploaded it, so goddamn hilarious.
#111817 to #111816 - shekelnator
Reply +1
(03/30/2016) [-]
the man cant get stumped no matter how people try. how hard for some degenerates to see trump being US president?
#111819 to #111817 - unforgivensoul ONLINE
Reply +1
(03/30/2016) [-]
I remember a few months ago you were very anti-Trump, what changed?
#111820 to #111819 - shekelnator
Reply +1
(03/30/2016) [-]
thumbfortrump and 4chan red pilled me.
#111821 to #111820 - unforgivensoul ONLINE
Reply +1
(03/30/2016) [-]
Good goy.
#111823 to #111821 - shekelnator
Reply +3
(03/30/2016) [-]
im surprised the media doesnt show this
#111824 to #111823 - unforgivensoul ONLINE
Reply 0
(03/30/2016) [-]
What reason do they have to like Trump lol?
#111825 to #111824 - shekelnator
Reply 0
(03/30/2016) [-]
dey Americans n sheeit? you see, most Muslims are brainwashed by the corrupted media that trump will ban Muslims FOREVER! while he clearly said he will ban them temporary until he filters the good guys from the bad guys and who supports them and who dont.

and these muslim boys are the one who understood trump intention clearly and i supports him too.
#111818 to #111817 - thumbfortrump
Reply +1
(03/30/2016) [-]
Reality can be a real smack in the face when you've lived your whole life in an imaginary world.
#111822 to #111818 - shekelnator
Reply +1
(03/30/2016) [-]
i want him to win. i want to see the world reaction from USA to KSA. especially KSA. it wont be good news! but good news for us all : D
#111814 - shekelnator
Reply +1
(03/30/2016) [-]
r8 my modified meme. Syrian civil war explained in one pic.
#111799 - pebar
Reply +1
(03/30/2016) [-]