Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Show:   Highest Rated Top Rated Newest
auto-refresh every 1 2 3 5 seconds

Per page:
Latest users (3): lulzformalaysiaair, minibeep, pebar, anonymous(16).
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#65141 - alimais (07/01/2014) [-]
Pebar, undeadwill

How does the market fix society ?
Because shit like thug culture is dangerously increasing leading to African Americans which are only a 1/9 of the US to commit 1/3 of its crimes.
Nope, I won't call out to lynch black people
#65144 to #65141 - pebar (07/01/2014) [-]
People commit so many crimes because it is profitable to commit crimes. For example gangs like to attack each other to maintain control over an area and have a monopoly. Monopolies by definition control the market and they tend to be very profitable. By allowing markets to work, you introduce competition which sucks away the profit of gangs. If major pharmaceutical companies, or even just gardeners, produce drugs, gangs no longer have an economic incentive to kill each other because they would have nothing to gain from it.
#65180 to #65144 - anonymous (07/04/2014) [-]
That quote is not a literal truth, it's an unintentional consequence, because the government hires people who shoot at the motherfuckers, even if they're too thick to realize the legalities that can eliminate their market. Another terribly worded quote from Friedman.
#65148 to #65144 - youregaylol (07/02/2014) [-]
You're assuming that degenerates only exist because of a vague profit motive.

In actuality it's a combination of poverty (which your market can never eliminate), environment (which your market can never improve), culture (which your market will never correct), genetics (which your market can never change), class tension (which your market encourages), and media (which your market profits from).

So really you can't do anything about it.
#65149 to #65148 - pebar (07/02/2014) [-]
Responsibility to the Poor regarding poverty
User avatar #65220 to #65149 - robinwilliamson (07/05/2014) [-]
I'm looking at- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_percentage_of_population_living_in_poverty

And you mean to tell me that all of these countries are more Milton Friedman than we are?
User avatar #65147 to #65144 - schnizel (07/02/2014) [-]
Pebar, pebar and pebar.
Why no just whip them, put them on the cross and spear them?
User avatar #65146 to #65144 - alimais (07/02/2014) [-]
Yeah that's the gang aspect but what's about random thugs ?

Thugs life won't end when gangs don't profit anymore
User avatar #65137 - jokeface (07/01/2014) [-]
So. Here's what I don't get about politics. It seems like there are some countries in the world that just manage better than others. France leads the world in healthcare. Finland is the best in education. Switzerland has the lowest crime rates. So my question is, if we can readily observe these countries that are more successful than anyone else, why isn't every country trying to emulate the same healthcare system as France, the same education as Finland, the same crime prevention as Switzerland, and so on? Why do we all insist on doing things differently when there are better solutions right in front of us?
User avatar #65143 to #65137 - akkere (07/01/2014) [-]
A couple reasons -
Plenty of nations are built up in different ways that simply copy and pasting legislatures would do more harm than good. Many nations have differently shaped economies dependent on the method of achieving industrialization or lack thereof, for instance.
The US, for instance, a nation that is built on independent businesses and industries with varying degrees of government impact, differs greatly to a nation such as Cuba which has a great deal of nationalized businesses directly controlled by their government.

That being said, sometimes copy and pasting legislatures WOULD work, but some politicians would prefer to write original ones that pander to some forces (including but not limited to; lobbyists). For instance, the US healthcare system was designed to pander to health insurance companies that were afraid they would be wiped off with a nationalized healthcare service, so rather than adopting the more popular, more safe and effective single-payer system, the current healthcare system was shaped in a peculiar manner that it is today; saving the health insurance businesses, but condemning others.

There's other examples I could probably cite, but I wouldn't want to bore you with them.
User avatar #65142 to #65137 - alimais (07/01/2014) [-]
Final solution ?
User avatar #65140 to #65137 - targaryren (07/01/2014) [-]
well...I suppose a solution for one place won't always work for another.
but they maybe should see if it will work
User avatar #65138 to #65137 - alimais (07/01/2014) [-]
Because there are people who don't like people having a good time on this planet.
#65123 - alimais (07/01/2014) [-]
Thank you USA for establishing another Islamic state

User avatar #65135 to #65123 - undeadwill (07/01/2014) [-]
I though you guys wanted them to destroy Israel?
User avatar #65136 to #65135 - alimais (07/01/2014) [-]
You take jokes too seriously also you shouldn't lump everyone down into one box,

Israel as it is now can't be so easily removed and their Zionist government, Zionist rabbis and everything else Zionist is the problem.
Israelis are included when it comes to manipulating the masses, look at the video I posted about Ernst Zündel getting interviewed by a Israeli Journalist.

User avatar #65116 - undeadwill (07/01/2014) [-]
Drug rights in the US. Yes or no?
User avatar #65185 to #65116 - liftplus ONLINE (07/04/2014) [-]
User avatar #65145 to #65116 - ablueguy (07/02/2014) [-]
Less funding for gangs/the mafia
And under proper regulation, addiction could become less of an issue
User avatar #65124 to #65116 - drastronomy (07/01/2014) [-]

natural selection
User avatar #65117 to #65116 - alimais (07/01/2014) [-]

this kills the mafia
#65112 - alimais (07/01/2014) [-]
Have some Ernst Zündel, do you know him schnizel ?


>pic is a book published by him
User avatar #65113 to #65112 - schnizel (07/01/2014) [-]
Hmm, no, but quite interesting.
User avatar #65118 to #65113 - alimais (07/01/2014) [-]
It's quite the interview
User avatar #65119 to #65118 - schnizel (07/01/2014) [-]
Yep. I think that jew was quite angry because 60000000000000000000000 didn't die.
User avatar #65120 to #65119 - alimais (07/01/2014) [-]
It's funny to think that today is the first time I've heard from that dude despite him being the "most famous" holocaust denier with a really big Wikipedia page.
User avatar #65122 to #65120 - schnizel (07/01/2014) [-]
Brave new world.....
User avatar #65121 to #65120 - schnizel (07/01/2014) [-]
Me 2.
User avatar #65089 - ogcj (07/01/2014) [-]
why we need a permanent smoking ban
User avatar #65108 to #65089 - alimais (07/01/2014) [-]
undeadwill, pebar

You don't have anything about smoking because it's the of a person to do everything with their body as they want.

But what about if people around smokers that have a problem with it ?
I don't want to ban it but I get major headaches and burning eyes when people smoke around me.
User avatar #65111 to #65108 - pebar (07/01/2014) [-]
Smoking Bans: Banning Freedom here's a viedo
User avatar #65110 to #65108 - pebar (07/01/2014) [-]
You have the right to smoke in your own house. You do not have the right to smoke in somebody else's house unless they say you can because it's their air. Likewise bars should not be forced to ban smoking because it's their bar. If you don't want to be around smokers, then don't. Nobody is forcing you to stay near a smoker. In today's society where smoking is seen as a health hazard, most companies have an economic incentive to ban it because they would lose customers, just like you said.

But when the government steps in and tells people what they can and cannot do with their own stuff, that crosses a line.

I don't have a problem with smoking being banned by the government in public places meaning publicly owned, not private places like stores where people tend to gather
User avatar #65109 to #65108 - alimais (07/01/2014) [-]
*.... the right of .....
User avatar #65101 to #65089 - undeadwill (07/01/2014) [-]
We don't need a smoking ban and any attempt to do so would be a means of social control and used to violate civil rights along with destroy industry and American history
#65104 to #65101 - byposted (07/01/2014) [-]
Science is on his side undeadwill, not yours. And it does not stop at nicotine; smoking has absolutely no benefits, and everybody from raspy-voiced old women to libertarian stoner degenerates need to be hanged, and will be, God willing, on the Day of the Rope.    
We can't just regress after progress as a society by having an about-face on weed so soon after cigarettes were made obsolete by way of public bans . It all needs to go.    
Science is on his side undeadwill, not yours. And it does not stop at nicotine; smoking has absolutely no benefits, and everybody from raspy-voiced old women to libertarian stoner degenerates need to be hanged, and will be, God willing, on the Day of the Rope.

We can't just regress after progress as a society by having an about-face on weed so soon after cigarettes were made obsolete by way of public bans . It all needs to go.

User avatar #65114 to #65104 - undeadwill (07/01/2014) [-]
#65106 to #65104 - youregaylol (07/01/2014) [-]
I can understand the need to regulate and ban mind altering substances like alcohol and weed, and I acknowledge the addictive properties of nicotine, but the modern stresses of society require some form of relief. Besides, being a smoker is hardly a death sentence. Studies on the subject consistently lump "smokers" with people who smoke a disgusting amount per day. Of course if you smoke a pack a day you're going to have a drastic increase in risk, but a half a pack a week or less? No, your chances of getting cancer are only slightly above non smokers. Of course smoking is unhealthy, but I feel that the stress relief is worth that risk.

If it's done moderately away from the public I see no harm in it.
User avatar #65139 to #65106 - byposted (07/01/2014) [-]
I agree with you. Spurdo signified the sarcasm.
#65093 to #65089 - youregaylol (07/01/2014) [-]
The audio was terrible and I don't feel like being lectured by a kid who looks like he's 14.

I smoke one or two cigars every week in my backyard. I'm not hurting anyone except myself, and even then I'm not hurting myself more than someone who consumes fast food and soda regularly.

I'm well within my rights. A society is nothing without some leisure.
#65103 to #65093 - byposted (07/01/2014) [-]
>Disrespecting based OG CJ   
>Disrespecting based OG CJ

#65100 to #65093 - byposted has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #65051 - schnizel (06/30/2014) [-]
Today we learned that an emperor was a dictator and that he was a tyrant.
User avatar #65081 to #65051 - beatmasterz ONLINE (06/30/2014) [-]
east, whatever, all the same.
User avatar #65082 to #65081 - schnizel (06/30/2014) [-]
If my time comes I shall live it.
User avatar #65083 to #65082 - beatmasterz ONLINE (06/30/2014) [-]
sure you will buddy
User avatar #65084 to #65083 - schnizel (06/30/2014) [-]
Thanks for the support mate.
User avatar #65061 to #65051 - akkere (06/30/2014) [-]
Emperors tend to have absolute power over their country, so I suppose most of them would be considered dictators. Did they teach you the word "dictator" as a derogatory term or a term of neutral classification?
User avatar #65062 to #65061 - schnizel (06/30/2014) [-]
The word monarch would be more fitting. It's like calling richard the lionheart a marshall.
User avatar #65058 to #65051 - teoragnar (06/30/2014) [-]
What emperor?
User avatar #65059 to #65058 - schnizel (06/30/2014) [-]
Nicholas II of Russia was an evil dictator. Did you know that?
#65056 to #65051 - anonymous (06/30/2014) [-]
User avatar #65053 to #65051 - jewishcommunazi (06/30/2014) [-]
Doesn't everyone know that?
User avatar #65055 to #65053 - schnizel (06/30/2014) [-]
Ok, be an emperor is a dictator.
Get it?
User avatar #65060 to #65055 - beatmasterz ONLINE (06/30/2014) [-]
They usually are.
User avatar #65063 to #65060 - schnizel (06/30/2014) [-]
Depends on who you are talking about but isn't it more fitting to call an emperor a monarch instead of calling him a dictators. It's more royal.
User avatar #65064 to #65063 - beatmasterz ONLINE (06/30/2014) [-]
A dictator is someone with absolute power, nothing more. Emperors hold absolute power, therefore.....
User avatar #65065 to #65064 - schnizel (06/30/2014) [-]
User avatar #65066 to #65065 - beatmasterz ONLINE (06/30/2014) [-]
User avatar #65067 to #65066 - schnizel (06/30/2014) [-]
User avatar #65068 to #65067 - beatmasterz ONLINE (06/30/2014) [-]
Saying it twice doesn't make it more true
User avatar #65069 to #65068 - schnizel (06/30/2014) [-]
It's more royal to call an emperor a monarch instead of calling him a dictator.
User avatar #65070 to #65069 - beatmasterz ONLINE (06/30/2014) [-]
#65071 to #65070 - schnizel (06/30/2014) [-]
You have been enriched.
You have been enriched.
User avatar #65072 to #65071 - beatmasterz ONLINE (06/30/2014) [-]
But who cares that it's more royal to call an emperor a dictator. First off all it's an opinion, second of all that doesn't change anything, third I will never meet and emperor so why would I care.
#65094 to #65072 - youregaylol (07/01/2014) [-]
I think the only emperor left in the world is the Japanese emperor, so unless you become a convincing geisha ya, you probably wont ever meet an emperor.
User avatar #65074 to #65072 - schnizel (06/30/2014) [-]
Nigger, I have royal blood in me so you are talking to one.
User avatar #65075 to #65074 - beatmasterz ONLINE (06/30/2014) [-]
Does that make you an emperor? Are you in any position of power right now?
User avatar #65076 to #65075 - schnizel (06/30/2014) [-]
Not yet.
User avatar #65077 to #65076 - beatmasterz ONLINE (06/30/2014) [-]
Exactly. Royal blood doesn't mean shit. Hierarchies that are not based on dominance are arbitrary and useless.
User avatar #65078 to #65077 - schnizel (06/30/2014) [-]
To you, but time will tell.
User avatar #65079 to #65078 - beatmasterz ONLINE (06/30/2014) [-]
You live in central europe right? No surprise that you're so oblivious about ruling a country.
User avatar #65080 to #65079 - schnizel (06/30/2014) [-]
I don't think Bosnia is in central Europe.
User avatar #65073 to #65072 - beatmasterz ONLINE (06/30/2014) [-]
*not to
User avatar #65099 to #65049 - byposted (07/01/2014) [-]
As claim unverifiable "twitter messages?"
User avatar #65090 to #65049 - aceofshadows (07/01/2014) [-]
Why can't ISIS just split up into different groups because of their beliefs and then start killing each other?
User avatar #65050 to #65049 - PopcornViking (06/30/2014) [-]
If ISIS were to draw Israel into the regional conflict it would make the region’s strange politics even stranger. In Iraq and Syria, Israel’s arch nemesis, Iran, is fighting ISIS. Israel, on the other hand, has used its air force from time to time to bomb Hezbollah positions in Syria and Lebanon, the Lebanese militia aligned with Iran. If Israel were to fight against ISIS in Jordan, it would become a de facto ally of Iran, a regime dedicated to its destruction.

But Jordan is also an important ally for Israel. It is one of two countries (along with Egypt) to have a peace treaty with the Jewish state. Jordanian security forces help patrol the east bank of the Jordan River that borders Israel and both countries share intelligence about terrorist groups in the region.
#65098 to #65050 - byposted (07/01/2014) [-]
>If Israel were to fight against ISIS in Jordan, it would become a de facto ally of Iran, a regime dedicated to its destruction.   
This is some great geopolitical analysis.  sarcasm  What kind of a doofus wrote this?
>If Israel were to fight against ISIS in Jordan, it would become a de facto ally of Iran, a regime dedicated to its destruction.

This is some great geopolitical analysis. sarcasm What kind of a doofus wrote this?
User avatar #65045 - robinwilliamson (06/30/2014) [-]
What on earth do people still give automatic applause to people who were in the military in Iraq for? Why do they continue to get away with the pretentious WWII mindset that they're the good guys who were protecting us? And why does the fucking military still feed our children propaganda that we're fighting good fights so join on in? What the hell is going on?
#65095 to #65045 - youregaylol (07/01/2014) [-]
It depends on your definition of protecting. If your definition is enemy troops burning your home down then I would argue that the WW2 troops weren't protecting you either, especially the ones on the european front. If you think about it the US could've simply made peace with japan and all immediate threats would have been taken care of.

But when you think about protecting the countries "interests" the WW2 soldiers could be labeled as "protectors" from a certain point of view. Likewise those who fought in Iraq could be thought of as protectors considering they fought for their nations (declared) interest. Besides, the military builds character in a society that is low on character. It provides opportunity for those seeking to benefit their nation. It mobilizes the people disenfranchised by the government. It opens up pathways to valuable experience that the young currently lack. You're getting pissy at people like me who have actually benefited society. Really dumb and extremely dangerous if you ask me. Veterans are 3 times more likely to find a job than civilians. We're proactive and we vote. We know how to organize and we know how and when to act. I'm a contributing member to 7 different veterans groups, 3 of them local. You don't want to upset us.

The military should always be respected if you want a nation to survive. And if you're worried about propaganda don't look at the fucking military, look at the media for fucks sake. The government bureaucracy, the corporations, the bought "news stations", they're the real problem. Look inside the barn instead of throwing tomatoes at the door.
User avatar #65217 to #65095 - robinwilliamson (07/05/2014) [-]
It's the ignorance of the people joining the army that gets me, and the people that have no idea what we do with the military. First, if I was going to serve, I'd want to know what I was putting my life on the line for. I'd damn sure like to know that I was going into an illegal war, or being the invader and not the protector, or going into fights that will just spawn more hate and more people to fight back, or that I was going into the wrong country. And the military boards do own media portions, and they just keep advertising the military as if joining will put you up against bad guys who are a threat to our home country.
There is a shit ton of military industrial complex power in all the things you listed, and I'm not saying that your wife's cousin that served in the Coast Guard is the guy who said he's absolutely certain there's WMD's in Iraq and that we definitely need to buy time slots on CNN and MSNBC to tell people we need to go there, but it's still military whether you're talkin guys who are tied into the money making part of military or the guys talking to the important press people or the guys who sign up having no idea why.
#65044 - alimais has deleted their comment [-]
#65043 - dubslao has deleted their comment [-]
#65039 - ribocoon has deleted their comment [-]
#65031 - anonymous (06/29/2014) [-]

Arizona holds hearings over chemtrails.
Basically a bunch of scared old people screaming "google it!"
User avatar #65042 to #65031 - dubslao (06/30/2014) [-]
chemtrails are real
i read it on a facebook page that uses its own website as sources
User avatar #65038 to #65026 - byposted (06/30/2014) [-]

I used to believe, after becoming acquainted with MRA literature, that the disconnect between the sexes could be solved in a liberal manner - through the same sort of "mutual understanding" as touted in that content - before I widened my view and saw that the problem was a derivation of egalitarianism.

It is clear that reciprocating the destruction of femininity is not the answer. OP is a tranny wuss who should grow a pair.
User avatar #65047 to #65038 - Shiny ONLINE (06/30/2014) [-]
Modern gender politics are so deeply embroiled in personal agendas that they no longer even have any particular idealistic leanings on the surface. The fact that the term "MRA" was coined when "masculist" already exists (and doesn't sound completely goddamn stupid) is an indicator of this; intentionally vague but catchy-sounding words that change definition on a whim.

I liked it better when kids at least pretended to understand things that actually mattered.
User avatar #65037 to #65026 - ablueguy (06/29/2014) [-]
#65034 to #65026 - anonymous (06/29/2014) [-]
I think boys should be bullied for being weak/womanly
User avatar #65033 to #65026 - schnizel (06/29/2014) [-]
User avatar #65027 to #65026 - pebar (06/29/2014) [-]
#65020 - youregaylol (06/29/2014) [-]
Despite my admiration of national socialism, and my belief that it would provide countless benefits to the world, I feel that in todays political climate it will never be applicable in its purest form. The world is to far gone and to susceptible to the powers that be.

I have always thought of national socialism as a sort of solution to societies problems, as opposed to a fervent belief system. If we can solve the problem of social decay, and combat the forces of marxism and corporate manipulation in a way that's possible in the current world, why wouldn't we pursue it.

I would imagine a system that while similar to the fascism that we know of, incorporates elements from the Roman Empire. Of course some things would remain the same. A strong executive body headed by a single powerful figure who embodies the state to it's greatest degree, a firm control of immigration and a suppression of destructive ideas, thats all a given.

But add into the equation a state guard that has one single purpose, to protect the ideology of the state, which will be manifested in an unalterable document that clearly outlines the beliefs of the state. This "constitutional" guard will also serve as the nations military. After all, it must be made clear that war is a manifestation of the beliefs of the people. The citizenry, if being of sound judgement and in accordance with the beliefs of the state, should police themselves through an armed peoples militia, with its members chosen by the community. This eliminates the threat of corporate police. To prevent corruption the people must be able to vote out those officials appointed by the head executive if they believe he is unfit.

The executive cannot be removed from power, but can be made powerless by the people if they continue to vote out his appointees. The citizenry should not be allowed to elect government officials, as this would make the state susceptible to profiteers and power mongers. In this way, merit decides the day.
#65022 to #65020 - anonymous (06/29/2014) [-]
#65023 to #65022 - youregaylol (06/29/2014) [-]
Hi valeriya
User avatar #65009 - jewishcommunazi (06/28/2014) [-]
Do you guys have a favourite political party? Tell also why, if you feel like it.
User avatar #65048 to #65009 - Shiny ONLINE (06/30/2014) [-]
Not really, since they're either the big two, extremist seat-grabbers and regional parties nobody even acknowledges the existence of. I do like Greens that aren't eco-nuts, though.
User avatar #65028 to #65009 - schnizel (06/29/2014) [-]
Foam party
User avatar #65035 to #65028 - jewishcommunazi (06/29/2014) [-]
Doesn't sound very political, but it sounds pretty fun.
#65019 to #65009 - alimais (06/29/2014) [-]
Freedom Party Austria
Freiheitliche Partei Österreich

The party leader always posts interesting stuff on his account on Facebook
User avatar #65017 to #65009 - jadewest (06/29/2014) [-]

these guys, they are neat
User avatar #65014 to #65009 - feelythefeel (06/29/2014) [-]
I don't know about foreign parties, but the ones we have are pretty shit (Our current administration has a strange fixation on banishing people at random).
#65011 to #65009 - greatphanacttwo (06/28/2014) [-]
I like the Farty Party.
#65007 - alimais (06/28/2014) [-]
If some is interested, I have a good political movie here.

We watch movies like this in our school
inside job.avi
User avatar #65005 - undeadwill (06/28/2014) [-]
This is much better. Thank you Alimais
User avatar #65006 to #65005 - alimais (06/28/2014) [-]
The problem is that there is low traffic here and there are mostly 2 parties interested in politics which are Libertarian & Nationalists

You see, it takes just one guy to improve this board but also only one guy can degrade it
#65002 - alimais (06/28/2014) [-]
What's your stance on the Ukraine conflict ?
What's your stance on the Ukraine conflict ?

#65054 to #65002 - anonymous (06/30/2014) [-]
Don't know to be honest.   
Russia illigally invaded Crimea, and is funding a bloody insurgency in the east.   
But Ukraine is ok with Nazi militias, ethnic cleansing and medival justice.
Don't know to be honest.

Russia illigally invaded Crimea, and is funding a bloody insurgency in the east.

But Ukraine is ok with Nazi militias, ethnic cleansing and medival justice.
#64989 - anonymous (06/28/2014) [-]
Where do Libertarians and the Tea Party differ the most?
User avatar #64990 to #64989 - pebar (06/28/2014) [-]
Social issues.
Libertarians support things like gay marriage and ending the drug war, but the TEA party is more like die hard no-compromise republican. In general, TEA party people focus more on economic issues so it's not that big a deal, mostly because they strongly favor the constitution and states' rights, but if you ask them about social issues like gay marriage, they'll still oppose them.
User avatar #65003 to #64990 - undeadwill (06/28/2014) [-]
I like them more than republicans however.
 Friends (0)