Upload
Login or register
Anonymous comments allowed.
asd
#206 - ohsean
Reply +7
(11/04/2012) [-]
#205 - kaycie
Reply +2
(11/04/2012) [-]
i want a president who is not against abortion or gay marriage
#229 to #205 - xxkosukexx
Reply 0
(11/04/2012) [-]
Obama
#207 to #205 - ubergoatman
Reply 0
(11/04/2012) [-]
I think it's time we have a president that is pro-abortion!

Kill the stupids!
#216 to #207 - kaycie
Reply +1
(11/04/2012) [-]
isnt obama pro-choice
#242 to #216 - ubergoatman
Reply 0
(11/04/2012) [-]
You and I don't mean the same thing with our Pro-statements.
#198 - MRfunnyFACE ONLINE
Reply +10
(11/04/2012) [-]
#196 - dameseif
Reply +4
(11/04/2012) [-]
#185 - anon
Reply 0
(11/04/2012) [-]
I am amazed how the majority of the open american population in the internet states "I hate politics" meaning they involve themselves very little in finding out about the facts yet they are the guros of what is right and wrong... tell you the truth those "****** politicians" are eons smarted than the vast majority of you! grow up, learn politics and contribute, the reason why your country fails is when the population lack vision for change and points towards a scapegoat.
#230 to #185 - derfthedishwasher
Reply 0
(11/04/2012) [-]
"It all crashes down,
and you break your crown
and you point your fingers but theres no one around"
#231 to #230 - derfthedishwasher
Reply 0
(11/04/2012) [-]
All I could think of whilst reading.
Kudos anon, for once...I agree with you.
#223 to #185 - dabrackens
Reply 0
(11/04/2012) [-]
We would like to see change. The only problem is whether we vote or not does not matter. We basically make a choice and if the electoral college decides that we made the wrong choice (based on their vote) they will tip the scales accordingly. Anyway if you really paid attention to politics like you say we should you would know that both candidates are businessmen and do/say whatever will spark the interest of the american people and the members of the electoral college. We basically vote for the person that would look best in the oval office because in the end the day congress still has authority over the president..
also.. not sure if you meant to say *gurus
#264 to #223 - anon
Reply 0
(11/04/2012) [-]
You're the cancer this anon is talking about.
#553 to #264 - dabrackens
Reply 0
(11/04/2012) [-]
yet you choose to speak to me anonymously. My statements are real and these are things i know and have studied. Do you really think Americans have any voice? Do you really think that we actually voted for someone like bush? he's borderline retarded but yet he managed to be president.. No he was hired as a puppet because he looked good in a suit and congress could tell him what to do with little to no opposition
#200 to #185 - thebritishguy
Reply +1
(11/04/2012) [-]
anon is pretty smart
#199 to #185 - mads
Reply 0
(11/04/2012) [-]
Or, as in the case of 90% of the world, politics is used as a focus of comedy. Yah no that thing you laugh at. Nearly all comedians make jokes about politics, does that mean that they know nothing o the subject? No. Just becasue you make jokes on a subject doesn't mean you know nothing of it.
#214 to #199 - pariahlol
Reply 0
(11/04/2012) [-]
there's a difference between "I hate politics" and making a joke about it. Calm yourself, anon is pretty damn intelligent today
#224 to #214 - mads
Reply 0
(11/04/2012) [-]
I'm not that annoyed. I am in a kinda bad mood today. But I just find what anon said a bit preachy and it sounds as if he wants to make himself feel intelligent without actually understanding the subject he is talking about, the jokes not polotics. For all we know the person who posted this might completely understand politics as much as most other people
#184 - imagnetsux
Reply 0
(11/04/2012) [-]
rocky anderson, bitch. who doesn't want a president named rocky?
#187 to #184 - therealxjayxb
Reply 0
(11/04/2012) [-]
Gary Johnson has a better chance at reaching the 5%. Rocky Anderson want's a universal healthcare system and do your research on that and you'll find out that it would not work. In an Idealistic world it would work but realistically universal healthcare can not work.
#238 to #187 - lollytool
Reply 0
(11/04/2012) [-]
Universal healthcare wouldn't work? We Norwegians seem to be able to pull it off just fine.
#189 to #187 - imagnetsux
Reply 0
(11/04/2012) [-]
why not?
#181 - therealxjayxb
Reply 0
(11/04/2012) [-]
Well for those who don't know, there is such thing as third parties. Gary Johnson from the libertarian party is the most popular and if he receives 5% of votes this year in 2016 it would no longer be a two party system and instead would be Republican vs Democrat vs Libertarian.
#179 - ryanminkoff
Reply -1
(11/04/2012) [-]
and this is why ron paul should be up for election
#221 to #179 - Ruspanic
Reply 0
(11/04/2012) [-]
Ron Paul has the right idea, but he is far too idealistic and inflexible to make a good President.
#173 - anon
Reply 0
(11/04/2012) [-]
that's why I'm voting third party.
#170 - hammerfell
Reply +5
(11/04/2012) [-]
#213 to #170 - anon
Reply 0
(11/04/2012) [-]
this is not ******* slenderman
#167 - mahavir
Reply +4
(11/04/2012) [-]
U say, vote for Obama. The Devil you know
#165 - pedobearson
Reply -1
(11/04/2012) [-]
completely agree.
#161 - shazmothree
Reply 0
(11/04/2012) [-]
I like the black one
#158 - drfranky
Reply +1
(11/04/2012) [-]
The only good thing about this election is Chris Rock's video and the rap spoof
The only good thing about this election is Chris Rock's video and the rap spoof
#157 - haggle
Reply 0
(11/04/2012) [-]
Vote Jill Stein - Green Party.
#183 to #157 - therealxjayxb
Reply 0
(11/04/2012) [-]
I prefer Gary Johnson he has a better chance at reaching the 5% and Jill Stein believes we should have free colleges and there is no such thing as free.
#197 to #183 - haggle
Reply 0
(11/04/2012) [-]
Free colleges are an excellent idea.

Plus Gary Johnson has some crazy beliefs:

Cutting medicare and medicaid by 43% immediately.
No government involvement in healthcare.
Anti-union.
Little/no gun control.

Having said that, there are a number of things I agree with him on, but too many are ridiculous.
#217 to #197 - Ruspanic
Reply +1
(11/04/2012) [-]
"Free" colleges are not free. They're paid for by higher taxes, and the more you tax people, the more you take away their economic freedom to choose how to spend their own money. Alternatively you could just borrow all the money to fund "free" colleges, but that would drastically increase the debt and consequently the interest we have to pay on that debt - even if we never pay back the debt in full.
And if we want our "free" education to be high-quality, that would cost massive amounts of money - plus we'd have to accommodate all those new college students who can suddenly afford to go to college. So- no.

Also if public universities received all their money from the federal government, consider how much power that would give the government over higher education. Currently nearly all public universities are funded by state governments, as are public schools in general. If all public universities depended on the federal government for funding, the government could set federal standards for higher education and enforce them by giving universities more or less funding depending on their performance. Affordable education is a noble cause, but it should not be achieved by a federal takeover.
#192 to #183 - gammajk
Reply +1
(11/04/2012) [-]
Denmark has free colleges at the cost of higher taxes. I don't like Johnson because he thinks that government should have no hand in health care whatsoever, which I completely disagree with.
#166 to #157 - gammajk
Reply +1
(11/04/2012) [-]
She's the only logical choice in this election, but third-party candidates will NEVER get elected when americans can't comprehend anything more complex than a two-party system.
#171 to #166 - haggle
Reply 0
(11/04/2012) [-]
Not just an American problem. It afflicts loads of Western Countries.

Completely agree about the only logical choice.
#156 - WastingTime
Reply +5
(11/04/2012) [-]
MFW Political debates erupt
MFW Political debates erupt
#151 - capslockrage
Reply 0
(11/04/2012) [-]
www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9L9A1IMTQo
Want to literally die laughing?
#162 to #151 - pedobearson
Reply +1
(11/04/2012) [-]
Want to literally use literally wrong?
#163 to #162 - capslockrage
Reply +2
(11/04/2012) [-]
I didn't use it wrong, you moron.
When i said "want to literally die laughing" i was overstating how funny the video was, literally means word for word, or to translate in the literal sense, i was saying you would actually die laughing if you watched it, did i make an overstatement? sure, but that was on purpose. I didn't use it incorrectly, and you just made yourself look like a complete idiot.
#164 to #163 - pedobearson
Reply 0
(11/04/2012) [-]
****** you just went full retard.

Taking words in their usual or most basic sense_ without metaphor or allegory_: "dreadful in its literal sense, full of dread".
#168 to #164 - capslockrage
Reply 0
(11/04/2012) [-]
You're an idiot.
saying "i will literally punch you in the face right now" would not be incorrect.
If someone said "i will punch you in the face right now" somebody might not believe them, or think they are just saying it to scare them, but if you put literally in there, you are saying that you will actually do it.
#172 to #168 - pedobearson
Reply 0
(11/04/2012) [-]
It wouldn't be incorrect if you actually punched them in the face. Here. Take my examples.

"I will literally die laughing" Possible if you actually die laughing, something nearly impossible.

"I will punch you in the face" Possible if you actually punch them in their face.
#174 to #172 - capslockrage
Reply 0
(11/04/2012) [-]
Yes, i meant it as to literally die laughing, like i said i may have made an overstatement, but that was on purpose.
I didn't use literally incorrectly.
#176 to #174 - pedobearson
Reply 0
(11/04/2012) [-]
Yes you did! Unless you are using it sarcastically (Hurr I am literally dead) it is incorrect.
#186 to #176 - capslockrage
Reply -1
(11/04/2012) [-]
That is exactly what i have been trying to explain.......
#211 to #186 - wacemindu
Reply 0
(11/04/2012) [-]
What pedo is trying to say is that whilst yes you may think you're using the word correctly it is incorrect because it is almost in the same vein as a double negative.

By using literally in an exaggerated way you're in essence saying

you will die laughing but not die laughing but will die laughing... if you get what I'm saying.

You can't use "literally" in a exaggerated sentence without using it incorrectly.
#190 to #186 - pedobearson
Reply +1
(11/04/2012) [-]
I'm done. I give up.
#148 - capslockrage
Reply 0
(11/04/2012) [-]
Obama is like knowing about hitting the iceberg and preparing the hull to take it's blow, Romney is like sinking the ship all over again.
#145 - lookatmyhouseofwax
Reply 0
(11/04/2012) [-]
********* inbou..
It's already here.

**** you, OP
#138 - bun
Reply -7
(11/04/2012) [-]
Electing Romney is like hitting an ice-cube.

INB4 ********* from opinion
#141 to #138 - detrek
Reply -2
(11/04/2012) [-]
Watch out, everywhere on FJ will thumb you down for being conservative.

Except the political board. They will either support you or make you feel retarded.
#150 to #141 - capslockrage
Reply +2
(11/04/2012) [-]
For being conservative?
No, just for being stupid.
#143 to #141 - bun
Reply -4
(11/04/2012) [-]
Yep. It's already started.