Click to expand
Latest users (3): economicfreedom, klowserpok, redandgreen, anonymous(15).
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #77693 - nadam (02/09/2015) [-]
I have to do some research on gun control for an essay. I've just been trying to find out about regulations already in place on weapon sales and ownership, but when I google it I'm flooded with a lot of the resources that seem very biased.

Does anyone here have some sort of database on current state and federal gun control laws?
User avatar #77694 to #77693 - lulzformalaysiaair (02/09/2015) [-]
And you're taking the pro-gun stance right m8?
User avatar #77695 to #77694 - nadam (02/09/2015) [-]
Pretty much.

As far as I'm aware, there are pretty effective procedures in place already. From what I hear when buying a gun at a store, there's a comprehensive FBI background check. If not already, this should be extended to purchases at gun shows if that's at all possible.

Violent crime in America has been falling steadily for 30 years as it is, and there are more effective ways to reduce it even more.
User avatar #77696 to #77695 - cabbagemayhem (02/09/2015) [-]
DO we have effective background check procedures already in place? Do your own independent research, but I believe it costs $20 million per person charged. 10% of people denied a gun are legitimate. You can be denied for unpaid parking tickets, and unpaid child support. And, we only catch 1-2% of the people who should be charged. Just about every attempt of gun control to free men is a waste of time, money, and lives.
#77685 - lulzformalaysiaair (02/08/2015) [-]
Is the U.S court system run by the "will of the people" (Jury) fair? Especially with Jury Nullification?
User avatar #77687 to #77685 - pebar (02/08/2015) [-]
I think so; I'm kinda glad jury nullification exists

The problem I think comes with bad laws or minimum sentencing
#77659 - anon (02/08/2015) [-]
Why are always Jews involved in everything bad

You need to login to view this link

Lulz, you should lynch some of your fellow Semites
User avatar #77689 to #77659 - ablueguy (02/09/2015) [-]
Yes gamergoys
Attack The ADL
The totally won't dismantle your movement for being "anti-semitic"
#77686 to #77659 - lulzformalaysiaair (02/08/2015) [-]
I agree, I wouldn't spare such left wingers no matter how Jewish or white.
User avatar #77653 - schnizel (02/08/2015) [-]
Dem liberal tears
#77636 - sekeido (02/08/2015) [-]
are you guys polititians
User avatar #77804 to #77636 - kingalaric (02/11/2015) [-]
Haven't sucked enough corporate cock yet.
User avatar #77806 to #77804 - corporate (02/11/2015) [-]
#77664 to #77636 - anon (02/08/2015) [-]
I'm not good enough at lying to be one.
User avatar #77647 to #77636 - youregaylol (02/08/2015) [-]
I was on the student council in high school.

The things I did to get my position are still spoken in whispers throughout the halls.
#77690 to #77647 - anon (02/09/2015) [-]
Everyone I've ever known on a student council/association was Jewish.
User avatar #77646 to #77636 - schnizel (02/08/2015) [-]
No, I don't have jewish friends.
User avatar #77642 to #77636 - pebar (02/08/2015) [-]
No, I know a politician personally and we talk often.
User avatar #77631 - drastronomy (02/08/2015) [-]
What should a society strive for? Why?

I think this is one of the most difficult questions i have asked myself...is happiness most important? Why? It is just a hormone that makes you feel good...it has no real purpose. And how to we categorize improvement? Having more people becoming happier? But if everyone is just as happy, wont everyone turn into miserable sods anyway due to human greed? Would that not be communism?

If everyone was to be happy, we would have to eliminate differences, yet create some as well... it seems so paradoxical. Can people even BE unfalteringly happy?

If it is not happiness, what is it? What would the effects of that be?
User avatar #77775 to #77631 - undeadwill (02/11/2015) [-]
Nothing because society is nonexistent. People stride for things but societies are not subcategories of people.

You are talking about creating happiness which one simply can not do. Happiness is a state of being, a level, when the level decreases we are sad but when we increase we are happy.

People seek their own interest, they seek their own happiness as well no person can seek out someone else's happiness.

It is like the matter of speaking can anyone speak for you? Of course not as they do not know your mind as you do.
User avatar #77666 to #77661 - drastronomy (02/08/2015) [-]
Valid point actually

reproduction and population control in a happy relationship.

As animals, is that not our only job?
#77674 to #77666 - dehumanizer ONLINE (02/08/2015) [-]
User avatar #77675 to #77674 - schnizel (02/08/2015) [-]
Stop being such a faggot.
#77676 to #77675 - dehumanizer ONLINE (02/08/2015) [-]
stop beeing such a cuckold
User avatar #77677 to #77676 - schnizel (02/08/2015) [-]
>said the virgin fag
#77678 to #77677 - dehumanizer ONLINE (02/08/2015) [-]
>said the confirmed cuckold
User avatar #77679 to #77678 - schnizel (02/08/2015) [-]
>dat butthurt
#77680 to #77679 - dehumanizer ONLINE (02/08/2015) [-]
i belive you as much as i would belive any holocoasut survivor
User avatar #77681 to #77680 - schnizel (02/08/2015) [-]
Then go away goy.
#77682 to #77681 - dehumanizer ONLINE (02/08/2015) [-]
go cry bout muh joos
User avatar #77683 to #77682 - schnizel (02/08/2015) [-]
top lel
User avatar #77645 to #77631 - schnizel (02/08/2015) [-]
>What should a society strive for? Why?
>I think this is one of the most difficult questions i have asked myself...is happiness most important? Why? It is just a hormone that makes you feel good...it has no real purpose. And how to we categorize improvement? Having more people becoming happier? But if everyone is just as happy, wont everyone turn into miserable sods anyway due to human greed? Would that not be communism?
>If everyone was to be happy, we would have to eliminate differences, yet create some as well... it seems so paradoxical. Can people even BE unfalteringly happy?
>If it is not happiness, what is it? What would the effects of that be?
Humans will achieve maximum happiness and cooperation in an ethno-centric society.
User avatar #77648 to #77645 - drastronomy (02/08/2015) [-]
Why is survival important?

You are dodging the second question. WHY do we need happiness?
User avatar #77649 to #77648 - schnizel (02/08/2015) [-]
How about I kill you right now and let you wonder why is it good to be alive?
Because we don't get depressed.
User avatar #77665 to #77649 - drastronomy (02/08/2015) [-]
It is good to be alive be hormones dictate it, but there is a difference between death and not surviving.

Being depressed is again just another hormone...and why does it matter what we feel? Cant we dictate WHAT makes us depressed? Furthermore, there is a grey area. You are not depressed if you are not happy. You can still be content
User avatar #77667 to #77665 - schnizel (02/08/2015) [-]
They say you die twice....
>Being depressed is again just another hormone...and why does it matter what we feel? Cant we dictate WHAT makes us depressed? Furthermore, there is a grey area. You are not depressed if you are not happy. You can still be content
So your country does not become Sweden 2.0
User avatar #77668 to #77667 - drastronomy (02/08/2015) [-]
Politics aside, what i am getting at is that our existance is a fucking joke...we can improve upon small things, but we will never achieve a utopia...
User avatar #77669 to #77668 - schnizel (02/08/2015) [-]
What did the cavemen achieve?
User avatar #77670 to #77669 - drastronomy (02/08/2015) [-]
acting as animals, but aided by tools
User avatar #77671 to #77670 - schnizel (02/08/2015) [-]
Stayed alive, so that we may live.
User avatar #77672 to #77671 - drastronomy (02/08/2015) [-]
But why is our existence objectively significant?

Also, #77666
User avatar #77673 to #77672 - schnizel (02/08/2015) [-]
Because the primary function of a being is to survive, and to ensure the survival of the next generation.
Don't worry, I have a gf.
User avatar #77637 to #77631 - marinepenguin ONLINE (02/08/2015) [-]
I'd agree that happiness and constant progress technologically and culturally is the ultimate purpose of society.

But I also think we have a subconscious need to create and to discover as intelligent beings, and society has given us the tools to do both. If it was centered completely around happiness, you'd see humanity falter and stagnate during times of prosperity, while it's quite the opposite. Our arts and sciences have been becoming more complex and intelligent at an exponential rate, in 50 years we went from inventing flight, to splitting the atom, to landing on the moon. We are a species that aims for happiness, yet we aren't happy if our curiousity and need for creativity is allowed to flourish.

So in the end I don't believe that society will ever have an end state, it will continue to evolve and change as our technology and knowledge expands.
User avatar #77643 to #77637 - drastronomy (02/08/2015) [-]
But WHAT does technology lead to?
User avatar #77651 to #77643 - marinepenguin ONLINE (02/08/2015) [-]
Technology constantly advances, it leads nowhere.
User avatar #77691 to #77651 - klowserpok ONLINE (02/09/2015) [-]
I agree that it doesn't really lead anywhere, but it doesn't advance constantly. Often, a society collapses and technologies are lost for a while.
User avatar #77692 to #77691 - marinepenguin ONLINE (02/09/2015) [-]
It doesn't advance in a linear line, no. Knowledge rises and falls, is lost and rediscovered. But it's always recovered and continued, and will likely continue to do so.
User avatar #77635 to #77631 - lulzformalaysiaair (02/08/2015) [-]
A balance of continuing progress and happiness.

As for the hormonal crap, look. Happiness is the best possible feeling one can have, we all obviously want it and it's the best possible measurement of enjoyment and satisfaction. There's no debate the goal for a society is happiness.
#77655 to #77635 - alimais ONLINE (02/08/2015) [-]
My life philosophy is :

"Everything and nothing is poison, it's about the dosage"

It reflects on consumption and feelings.

Too much or too less happiness/pleasure/wealth can make a person depressive which is rather poisonous to the mind.

There are stars/rich people who have everything duo money like Robin Williams but was he happy?
The stoner smokes non-stop his feelgood cannabis but is he happy ?
The drinker drowns his sorrows but are they going away after drinking and drinking and drinking ...?
The hedonist fucks and fucks and fucks but is he truly happy?
The gamer games and games all day all week all month all year but is he happy?

So on and so on.

Having too much made me never happy.
User avatar #77684 to #77655 - lulzformalaysiaair (02/08/2015) [-]
Well that is a philosophy that describes how to achieve the most happiness actually. The end goal is maximum satisfaction and enjoyment, you presented a way to reach that.
#77656 to #77655 - alimais ONLINE (02/08/2015) [-]
This one would have been better dehumanizer and his sad frog
#77654 to #77635 - alimais has deleted their comment [-]
#77630 - anon (02/08/2015) [-]
Do you think the media treats Michele Bachmann unfairly because she's insane?
User avatar #77627 - drastronomy (02/08/2015) [-]
I have a little idea about a new form of government - sort of like a combo of technocracy and democracy

So, people vote as usual, and their voice gets 40% of the say (with representatives as usual, although representatives should gather popular opinion instead of adhering to a party) . 60% should be a council of well educated people, all from different political backgrounds as to eliminate bias. The ratio could of course be decided by the most common political beliefs, etc. All positions of great power should be held by educated, intelligent people.

This means, the common people still maintain power, yet the country is controlled by the ones who are most likely to bring it success.

Any ideas?
User avatar #77752 to #77627 - garymotherfingoak (02/10/2015) [-]
sounds good actually.
User avatar #77757 to #77752 - drastronomy (02/10/2015) [-]
Well, i surely cant be the first to think of it. If it is good, it should be used, should it not? There must be a problem...
User avatar #77759 to #77757 - garymotherfingoak (02/10/2015) [-]
i suppose the addition of a system that properly measures the integrity of representatives wouldn't hurt.
User avatar #77760 to #77759 - drastronomy (02/10/2015) [-]
I have been reading a bit, and it appears to me that many questions that regard government and politics are not objective - one set of data can be interpereted different ways. Yet, that is only an issue in a 100% technocratic society...

And i agree, if the 40% could vote out one of the technocrats with a 75%+ majority, the integrity would be alright
User avatar #77644 to #77627 - schnizel (02/08/2015) [-]
User avatar #77624 - kanadetenshi (02/08/2015) [-]
Time for some economics talk (Marxists not allowed) which school of thought do you mostly subscribe to?

I support the Austrian view although i reject the praxeology of Mises. Keynesians and Monetarists have pretty much lost all credibility.
User avatar #77735 to #77624 - Shiny (02/10/2015) [-]
"My heterodox non-logic > your heterodox non-logic"
User avatar #77736 to #77735 - kanadetenshi (02/10/2015) [-]
"harr harr look at how superior i am by mocking both"
User avatar #77738 to #77736 - Shiny (02/10/2015) [-]
"Look at this faggot trying to have an informed opinion, he clearly thinks he's better than me, and therefore better than everyone else"
#77639 to #77624 - pebar (02/08/2015) [-]
>Keynesians and Monetarists have pretty much lost all credibility

At least they don't categorically reject empirical evidence and real world research, and they don't rely on pure conjecture alone like the Austrians do.
User avatar #77650 to #77639 - kanadetenshi (02/08/2015) [-]
False, you're using a strawman based on the views of Mises and lump it together with all austrian economics. Like i said i reject the a priori method of Mises. I recommend reading some Austrian stuff by Cato and GMU who use empirical methods.

As for Keynesians and monetarists, hows that economic boom from glorious government and bank spending going?
User avatar #77657 to #77650 - pebar (02/08/2015) [-]
David Friedman & Bob Murphy - The Chicago Vs. Austrian School Debate - PorcFest X If you have 90 mins
User avatar #77658 to #77657 - kanadetenshi (02/08/2015) [-]
Seen it, it's a pretty good discussion. I find it ironic though that Friedman as a Anarcho-Capitalist wants a big centralized state like bank.
User avatar #77662 to #77658 - pebar (02/08/2015) [-]

I found an article
If you think it's relevant, the author is an ancap
User avatar #77633 to #77624 - klowserpok ONLINE (02/08/2015) [-]
I'm honestly not sure at this point, though I know I'm definitely not a Marxist in any shape or form.
What I know is I'm against fractional reserve banking, for a freer market I think there should be some environmental regulations that should be enforced, though at this point I'm beginning to think municipal pollution is more of a problem than industrial pollution .
Keynesian policies only work when a nation is in a period of economic growth, otherwise it seems to begin to fall apart.
User avatar #77640 to #77633 - pebar (02/08/2015) [-]
Without fractional reserve banking, loans and thus business investments would be non-existent, or the interest rates would be so high that it wouldn't be profitable to invest.
User avatar #77652 to #77640 - kanadetenshi (02/08/2015) [-]
Problem with the modern reverse banking is that they're not loaning it's reserves but rather money they created themself. And well we all know how well printing money goes.
User avatar #77663 to #77652 - klowserpok ONLINE (02/08/2015) [-]
Thats what I meant.
User avatar #77625 to #77624 - drastronomy (02/08/2015) [-]
I tend to not categorize my beliefs, as it can lead to a sense of adherence to an ideology one would otherwise not fully support
User avatar #77626 to #77625 - kanadetenshi (02/08/2015) [-]
Economic schools of thoughts are not really beliefs. In the same fashion that Sociology and Evolutionary Psychology aren't. They're studies of the social science of economy.
User avatar #77641 to #77626 - pebar (02/08/2015) [-]
Economics has quite a bit of math to it though so it's not as soft as other social sciences.
#77597 - anon (02/07/2015) [-]
[url deleted]
#77586 - anon (02/07/2015) [-]
What's your preferred electoral system?
User avatar #77602 to #77586 - akkere ONLINE (02/07/2015) [-]
Trial by combat.
User avatar #77590 to #77586 - schnizel (02/07/2015) [-]
#77589 to #77586 - anon (02/07/2015) [-]
Appointment by the previous King.
User avatar #77583 - lulzformalaysiaair (02/07/2015) [-]
"Last I heard, radical Islamic terrorist group ISIS was calling on its members to attack Canada through whatever means available. According to the Liberals this is Harper's fault because he dares to stand up to these murderous cowards and call them by name. Sounds to me like the cowardly Islamic Jihadists aren't the only threat to Canada's security. I am sure that if elected, the timid & naive Liberals national security policy would consist of group hugs & banning the phrase "Radical Islam" because it is hurtful to the poor, misunderstood Islamic terrorists..."
#77584 to #77583 - lulzformalaysiaair (02/07/2015) [-]
I really hate MP Judy Sgro

" By contrast, Toronto Liberal MP Judy Sgro said last week that if Canada is a target of jihadis, it is the prime minister’s rhetoric that has made it so.

She insisted the PM’s willingness to identify radical Islam as a threat was simply fear mongering. “It’s all about building up and getting people frightened and fearful. ISIL, ISIL, ISIL, ISIL is coming here. If they’re coming here it’s because he put us in that position.”

Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau, who has long dithered over what to do about ISIL (or ISIS), refused to distance himself from Sgro’s accusations. "
User avatar #77621 to #77584 - kanadetenshi (02/07/2015) [-]
Who would you say is worse, NDP or Liberals?
User avatar #77622 to #77621 - lulzformalaysiaair (02/07/2015) [-]
Liberals because NDP never has a chance of winning.
#77628 to #77622 - anon (02/08/2015) [-]
Haven't the NDP taken a lot of seats from the Liberals?
User avatar #77634 to #77628 - lulzformalaysiaair (02/08/2015) [-]
Not sure, but if so that is highly worrisome since NDP are bat-shit crazy but at the same time it gives the Cons a bigger chance to win. Too bad voters are too stupid to vote together, if the NDP and Libs combined they would win every year.
#77581 - anon (02/07/2015) [-]
User avatar #77579 - lulzformalaysiaair (02/07/2015) [-]

What do you guys think about giving and teaching kids to use guns at such a young age? Is it morally correct to give them one or leave it lying around at home? Shouldn't it be at least hidden?

Also all those people got too short of prison sentences.
User avatar #77585 to #77579 - akkere ONLINE (02/07/2015) [-]
Giving a child a firearm as a present is rather unorthodox, and it's utterly incompetent to just leave a firearm about in your home with no intent of storing it properly in a gun safe.
However, teaching a child at the very least firearm safety and such shouldn't necessarily be out of the question, it's just a matter of what age should it be capped at. In the Boy Scouts of America for instance, there's a Shotgun Shooting merit badge that you could only go about acquiring at the age of fourteen (at least, that's how it was in my troop, though I never went about getting it until fifteen). The merit badge also required a great deal of recitation of some key things regarding the cleaning of a shotgun, the proper handling, capability of identifying the parts, and so on.
I think it'd ultimately be best if not necessary if the teaching was done with the supervision of an experienced and certified firearm instructor in the (relatively) controlled environment of a range, as well.
Most of the cases in this post could've been easily prevented through common sense storage of a gun safe, and I'm rather astonished that (at least for the modern cases) this was such a problem to a common degree.
#77580 to #77579 - schnizel (02/07/2015) [-]
Call the navy seals?
User avatar #77563 - radiserne (02/07/2015) [-]
Do you niggas believe in conspiracy theories, like Illuminati, 9/11 or the whole anti-vaxx stuff going on? And do you think its good or bad for people to be into it?
User avatar #77702 to #77563 - phtholognyrrh (02/09/2015) [-]
i suffer from severe apophenia, to the point where i isolate myself in real life and sleep armed. i actually find solace in conspiracy theories. im not an idiot, and i can see through most of the bullshit pretty quickly, but certain ones catch in my mind and force me to dig. the way i see it, if i can tell a conspiracy theory is fucking retarded, then im having a good day. if im losing sleep over one, then i need to talk to someone.

sometimes i dont know if i actually believe them, but im glad they exist. i refuse medication (fucks with my ability to function at any level) but having benchmarks helps.
User avatar #77623 to #77563 - lulzformalaysiaair (02/08/2015) [-]
No, if it sounds stupid and hard to do/involves many people. It didn't happen.
User avatar #77582 to #77563 - akkere ONLINE (02/07/2015) [-]
The problem with conspiracy theories is they not only abuse the concept of good skepticism, they also route public attention away from genuinely reasonable contradictory details, and point them to irrational conjecture.
This ends up producing a "Boy who Cried Wolf" scenario where people are more reluctant to believe that was ever anything of a lie regarding the news of an issue, and makes it that much more difficult to present any new findings that would further legitimate skeptcisim.
It's counter-intuitive, and most people who do conjecture-filled conspiracy theories do it less to "enlighten the public" and more to feed their egos and need for attention, or even profit from book deals.
User avatar #77577 to #77563 - mixednuts (02/07/2015) [-]
Of course it's always good to be skeptical of what you're told, research sources, and question your beliefs.

Though we all can be prone to confirmation bias or stubborn convictions, a lot of conspiracy theorists are not skeptics at all. They'll reject absolutely anything some sources say, due to them being governmental or mainstream. But take almost any other source at face value if they support their preconceived beliefs.
User avatar #77574 to #77563 - schnizel (02/07/2015) [-]
It has some truth in it but I don't like the mindset of the conspiracy fags. They seem to imagine that the "elite" get up every day and repeat that they are evil and always having some evil plan in mind. Most of the "secret clubs" are mostly filled with orgies and shitty rituals anyway.
#77567 to #77563 - anon (02/07/2015) [-]
It's good to question everything to some degree.

It's bad to let overactive imaginations hijack said questioning.
User avatar #77566 to #77563 - kanadetenshi (02/07/2015) [-]
It's good to be skeptical of powerful institutions but a lot of the conspiracy theorists are just complete nutcases and hard to even remotely take serious.
User avatar #77573 to #77566 - radiserne (02/07/2015) [-]
Agreed, I think its good to question things. My problem with conspiracy theories is that the whole idea of a "proof" has been twisted. Unlike in scientific communities, there are no skepticism to what "proof" people come up with. It's like a pseudo-science, and its creating confusion on what can be considered legitimate evidence, and what cannot.
Earlier all this conspiracy mumbo jumbo was kept to the nutheads themselves, but with all this anti-vaxx shit going on its starting to affect others too. And since anti-vaxxers are much better at using social media than for example health organisations, they also reach and affect a great deal of the population.
imo its a very dangerous path. If they think vaccines are harmful, who's to say they won't attack penicillin or other drugs are not as well? Suddenly a whole health industry based on pseudo-science, with healers and whatnot as doctors.
#77524 - anon (02/07/2015) [-]
Apparently the Canadian Court wants to get rid of the privatization of the Bank of Canada, which the previous Trudeau decided in '74.
You need to login to view this link

I really hope that this happens. By the way, our current Minister of Finance, Joe Oliver, is married to a Jewess, Golda Goldmann. Who'd have ever guessed that?
User avatar #77614 to #77524 - schnizel (02/07/2015) [-]
#77615 to #77614 - anon (02/07/2015) [-]
#77617 to #77616 - anon (02/07/2015) [-]
User avatar #77618 to #77617 - schnizel (02/07/2015) [-]
It's over, it's all over now.
#77619 to #77618 - anon (02/07/2015) [-]
No worries, I am a real hero, rite?
#77531 to #77524 - schnizel (02/07/2015) [-]
You filthy anti-semites!
You filthy anti-semites!
#77587 to #77531 - anon (02/07/2015) [-]
Oy vey!
Seriously though, Golda Goldmann. Could you even have a more jewish name?
Einstein Bergowitz?
Israel Nathaniel Schultz?
Abi Silverburg Goldstein?
User avatar #77588 to #77587 - schnizel (02/07/2015) [-]
Shlomo Bitcoinberg?
#77591 to #77588 - anon (02/07/2015) [-]
Chaim Goyimann?
#77592 to #77591 - schnizel (02/07/2015) [-]
Holocaust Winner?
#77593 to #77592 - anon (02/07/2015) [-]
Ezekiel Wellpoisonerwits Bookburnerburg?
User avatar #77594 to #77593 - schnizel (02/07/2015) [-]
Jewish Kikenberg?
David Zykloneberg?
#77595 to #77594 - anon (02/07/2015) [-]
Benjamin "Messhugah" Garrisonstein?
User avatar #77596 to #77595 - schnizel (02/07/2015) [-]
Chaim Circumsicionofsky?
#77598 to #77596 - anon (02/07/2015) [-]
Alex Schlomowitz Jonestein?
User avatar #77599 to #77598 - schnizel (02/07/2015) [-]
Christian Muslimberg?
#77600 to #77599 - anon (02/07/2015) [-]
Ahmed Mohamed Irfan Schnizel Piranavan Abdul Jihad?
User avatar #77601 to #77600 - schnizel (02/07/2015) [-]
Sherk Israel?
#77603 to #77601 - anon (02/07/2015) [-]
Annuda Shoah Shekelstein?
#77604 to #77603 - schnizel (02/07/2015) [-]
Speaking of shoahs....
#77605 to #77604 - anon (02/07/2015) [-]
Don't even know what shes saying.
Stomacheches are four?
User avatar #77612 to #77605 - schnizel (02/07/2015) [-]
*calls Mossad*
#77613 to #77612 - anon (02/07/2015) [-]
Oy vey, Mossad?
What are you, some kind of auntie semite racist?
User avatar #77606 to #77605 - schnizel (02/07/2015) [-]
The service in the camps were teeeribble.
#77607 to #77606 - anon (02/07/2015) [-]
Oy, vey, the services in the camps were just so teerible!
Those bastid germans gassed me over 6 times I'll have you know!
Oy gevalt, ignore the fact that Auschwitz had a pool and theatres!
Those were places where the Jewish people were gassed and made into lampshades!
Oy gevalt, just emembering it is like annuda shoah!
User avatar #77610 to #77607 - schnizel (02/07/2015) [-]
And give debt money goyim, my hamster got a cold during WW2.
#77611 to #77610 - anon (02/07/2015) [-]
Nu uh, I'm black, and you jews took us on slave ships to america!
DAS RITE, give ME repurashions!
#77608 to #77607 - schnizel (02/07/2015) [-]
But the gas chambers goy!
#77609 to #77608 - anon (02/07/2015) [-]
Remeber the== 400'000== 6million 7 gorilions!
User avatar #77523 - feelythefeel (02/07/2015) [-]
>people say that creationism, Christianity etc etc should be taught in public schools
>nobody can explain why I should be obligated to pay someone to convert my children
#77568 to #77523 - anon (02/07/2015) [-]
If religion is to be taught in school, then it should be it's own class and serve educational purposes only. You know, classes with names like "world religion" or "religious history." No attempt to convert anyone whatsoever.
#77569 to #77568 - anon (02/07/2015) [-]
And, and only have it as an elective class.
User avatar #77562 to #77523 - radiserne (02/07/2015) [-]
That is because nobody can explain anything logical about religion at all.
User avatar #77561 to #77523 - youregaylol (02/07/2015) [-]
and i dont want my taxes to pay for ridiculous welfare programs, do i have a choice?
#77532 to #77523 - dehumanizer ONLINE (02/07/2015) [-]
shut up and go pay for transgender operations and abortions instead
#77554 to #77532 - anon (02/07/2015) [-]
So you'd rather pay for welfare during a child's 18 years of upbringing than abortions?
#77571 to #77554 - dehumanizer ONLINE (02/07/2015) [-]
But after that the child will pay my pension taxes so it evens it out.

User avatar #77526 to #77523 - cabbagemayhem (02/07/2015) [-]
That's the point. They shouldn't have to pay for you to convert their children, either. Indoctrination through schooling shouldn't be forced on anyone, yet through government schooling, it is forced on all except the wealthy.
User avatar #77525 to #77523 - klowserpok ONLINE (02/07/2015) [-]
Even though I'm basically a fedora tipper, I'm fine with religion in schools as long as it doesn't try and spread creationism.
User avatar #77522 - lulzformalaysiaair (02/07/2015) [-]
Opinions on Alberto Nisman and what happened?

Iran behind it, they did the attack?
Argentina is so corrupt the president is in on it?

#77512 - anon (02/07/2015) [-]
What are Hillary Clinton's actual views?

I see her framed as Leftist a lot, but considering how Centrist Bill was, I kind of doubt it. I've also never seen the common quotes passed around, the one about women and war, and the free market being the most destructive force in history, cited.
User avatar #77565 to #77512 - kanadetenshi (02/07/2015) [-]
She's a big government crony in every single way imaginable from social, economic and foreign policy.
#77546 to #77512 - pebar (02/07/2015) [-]
Bill probably only seemed center because we had a republican congress during his presidency.
He'd be viewed as an obstructionist if he were to far left
User avatar #77518 to #77512 - akkere ONLINE (02/07/2015) [-]
This covers a pretty far range, but some of these points are really microsized up that might not give you a clear idea of the total attitude they have with the position and the degree they're applying it to. In any event, most of, if not all of these positions have been cited, so you can read further on and cross reference with other articles on the web.

As for the quotes she's made, they more or less get butchered from being copied and pasted but I wouldn't find it hard to believe she'd say something like the women and war (though I myself can't find the exact quote at the moment).
As for the free market, that comes from one of her own books called "It Takes A Village", which she has confirmed she believes in (the reason it had to be 'confirmed' is because the book was majorly written by a ghost writer named Barbara Feinman).
I haven't used this site in full force to get a feel for how it's data collection is, but votesmart may also provide some key resources; my favorite is the collection of votes for what bills a politician makes, as it's the go-to thing to see if their claimed policy and actual policy is in contradiction.

My personal evaluation is that she's much, much more ham-fisted than Bill Clinton was in both presentation and intent to act, a trait that would require her to be much more heavily-sided onto one side of the spectrum; in her case, the Left.
User avatar #77493 - zealotgold (02/06/2015) [-]
what do ya'll think about obama right now and what he is doing?
User avatar #77548 to #77493 - pebar (02/07/2015) [-]
>doing anything
#77533 to #77493 - dehumanizer ONLINE (02/07/2015) [-]
He belongs in a trash bin.
#77552 to #77533 - anon (02/07/2015) [-]
staged propaganda > candid pictures.

I'm not a big Obama fan. But this thread screams Conservative teenagers.
#77572 to #77552 - dehumanizer ONLINE (02/07/2015) [-]
Atleast Putin tries to look cool, Obama is a tool and he knows it.
User avatar #77560 to #77552 - youregaylol (02/07/2015) [-]
KGB agent with a reputation as a strong leader vs community organizer who will be remembered as one of the greatest lame ducks in history

omg those conservative teens how could they even think putin is tougher
User avatar #77535 to #77533 - zealotgold (02/07/2015) [-]
so true..
#77536 to #77535 - dehumanizer ONLINE (02/07/2015) [-]
I honestly dont belive he would have been elected president if his father were white.
#77537 to #77536 - zealotgold (02/07/2015) [-]
nope and cause people didnt want to seem raciest they voted for him and he is just a shit tier leader
#77553 to #77537 - anon (02/07/2015) [-]
Holy fuck, you're retarded.
User avatar #77555 to #77553 - zealotgold (02/07/2015) [-]
why did you vote for him? for his outstanding morals? his way with words?
#77556 to #77555 - anon (02/07/2015) [-]
I voted for Rocky Anderson.

I imagine you were too young to vote.
User avatar #77557 to #77556 - zealotgold (02/07/2015) [-]
voted Mitt Romney
#77629 to #77557 - anon (02/08/2015) [-]
>voting for a cult member
#77632 to #77629 - anon (02/08/2015) [-]
>voting for a muslim who wants to kill america
#77558 to #77557 - anon (02/07/2015) [-]
So you weren't worried about his religious beliefs?

Have you heard of the Whitehorse prophecy? Because it's about as likely as Obama being a crypto-Muslim.
User avatar #77559 to #77558 - zealotgold (02/07/2015) [-]
eh im okay with Mormons, they dont give a fuck what you believe and are pretty stand up people, deal with them on a daily bais
#77539 to #77537 - dehumanizer ONLINE (02/07/2015) [-]
"Look at us world we are so progressive and tolerant, our ppresident is half black! Never mind he could have been hunged publicly a hundred years ago for pritty much nothing."
#77540 to #77539 - zealotgold (02/07/2015) [-]
"lets vote for the guy who is in charge of the free world and bow down to 3rd world countrys, lets fuck our allies and help our enemy begging them to work out with deals and laughing at us"
#77541 to #77540 - dehumanizer ONLINE (02/07/2015) [-]
eh what are you talking about?
User avatar #77542 to #77541 - zealotgold (02/07/2015) [-]
did you hear what he said at the prayer breakfast?
#77543 to #77542 - dehumanizer ONLINE (02/07/2015) [-]
#77570 to #77544 - anon (02/07/2015) [-]
Typical of how he totally left out that the Crusades were a defensive war against the aggressive expansion of Islam.

If someone wants to bash Christianity, they should at the very least have the sense to use actual atrocities like the inquisitions or the witch hunts. Using the Crusades as an example only inflames the sense that Muslims were wronged (despite it being a defensive war) and emboldens the cause of the extremists.
#77545 to #77544 - dehumanizer ONLINE (02/07/2015) [-]
he isnt trying to hide it anymore
User avatar #77547 to #77545 - zealotgold (02/07/2015) [-]
he is scum mostly
#77550 to #77547 - dehumanizer ONLINE (02/07/2015) [-]
pritty much yeah, we'll see what other misfit they manage to elect, i hope its not the woman
User avatar #77551 to #77550 - zealotgold (02/07/2015) [-]
god save america if we vote Hillary
User avatar #77519 to #77493 - akkere ONLINE (02/07/2015) [-]
The one thing that's bothered me most about Barack Obama (other than the obvious reasons) lately is his heavy reliance on PR. He's become a lot more... "lax" with his self-presentation to the public and it especially showed with the State of the Union address. It's almost as if he's noticed that no matter what your terrible record was for action in presidency, as long as people recognize you as "the guy you'd have a beer with" by the end of office, you're in the clear.
It might just be me, as PR management is a perquisite of all politicians, but I feel he's been pushing it a lot more than usual, and I'm curious as to why.
User avatar #77534 to #77519 - zealotgold (02/07/2015) [-]
i think its more on what he has been saying mostly, im not a huge guy who likes poltics but he has really gotten me pissed off
User avatar #77496 to #77493 - lulzformalaysiaair (02/06/2015) [-]
He is shit tier, not surprising. It's not his fault but the american people.
User avatar #77507 to #77496 - garymotherfingoak (02/07/2015) [-]
how so, for voting for him?
User avatar #77508 to #77507 - lulzformalaysiaair (02/07/2015) [-]
of course. It's the people, they are stupid.
User avatar #77509 to #77508 - garymotherfingoak (02/07/2015) [-]
i have a hunch you'd be saying the same thing if they voted for romney/mccain. it's often picking a hopefully lesser of two shitheads.
User avatar #77520 to #77509 - lulzformalaysiaair (02/07/2015) [-]
No Romney is still shit-ish but definitely better then Obama. None fit my idea of an amazing president but one is clearly better.
User avatar #77510 to #77509 - garymotherfingoak (02/07/2015) [-]
on second thought, that's a bit of an exxageration, the only real business-pandering shithead in recent times was reagan.
#77513 to #77510 - anon (02/07/2015) [-]
>implying you know anything about anything you weeaboo faggot
#77517 to #77513 - garymotherfingoak (02/07/2015) [-]
>too mad to distinguish vidya characters from weeaboo icons

projection much?
#77516 to #77513 - garymotherfingoak has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #77495 to #77493 - kanadetenshi (02/06/2015) [-]
He's the left-wing George Bush.
#77494 to #77493 - anon (02/06/2015) [-]
Thanks, obama.
 Friends (0)