Government. .. MFW all you people do is bitch about the government
Home Funny Pictures YouTube Funny Videos Funny GIFs Text/Links Channels Search


Views: 50387
Favorited: 126
Submitted: 07/24/2013
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to antzell E-mail to friend submit to reddit
Share image on facebook Share on StumbleUpon Share on Tumblr Share on Pinterest Share on Google Plus E-mail to friend


Show:   Top Rated Controversial Best Lowest Rated Newest Per page:

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Anonymous commenting is allowed
#267 - doesthislookunsure ONLINE (08/04/2013) [-]
Chemtrails are used to manipulate weather, other say they are used for mind control and poisoning .
#268 to #267 - doesthislookunsure ONLINE (08/04/2013) [-]
Not saying this is true, but it is kinda strange
#226 - tmdarby (07/25/2013) [-]
#211 - pebar (07/25/2013) [-]
#208 - Cambro (07/25/2013) [-]
It doesn't matter the risk, we have an obligation to do right. if one person or people group does not have justice or their rights are not recognized, all of us have our justice limited. If the government can claim what is or is not a right (from marriage to what and what cannot be monitored) then the government can also take it away. Do not fight to have the government recognize what you believe is right legally--fight for the government to respect what rights are already yours.
User avatar #229 to #208 - cumbersome ONLINE (07/25/2013) [-]
You don't have rights, you have privileges that the government refers to as rights.
User avatar #234 to #229 - falloutfanatic ONLINE (07/25/2013) [-]
you must be great at parties
User avatar #230 to #229 - Cambro (07/25/2013) [-]
No, a privilege can be taken a way. A right cannot. I don't have a privilege to live, it is my right to not have my life in danger by any unnatural causes. I don't have the privilege of speaking against my government if I disapprove, it is my right to have my voice heard.
User avatar #258 to #230 - cumbersome ONLINE (07/25/2013) [-]
Those reasons are exactly why they are privileges and not rights. Right to live? Death penalty, so I guess that one's out. Right to free speech? TV and radio are pretty censored, especially when it comes to language. My point is, they can take it away if they want to. And you can say what you want, but they won't listen. If you live in America, your vote doesn't even make a difference because ultimately it's up to the electoral college
User avatar #259 to #258 - cumbersome ONLINE (07/25/2013) [-]
America is ****** , accept it.
#236 to #230 - anonymous (07/25/2013) [-]
Good luck with that.

#204 - infinitereaper (07/25/2013) [-]
I'm feeling extra edgy today.
#265 to #204 - thewisedane (07/30/2013) [-]
User avatar #266 to #265 - infinitereaper (07/31/2013) [-]
Ah thanks. You have excellent taste. Seems to be rare these days.
#269 to #266 - thewisedane (08/07/2013) [-]
Indeed, my dear.
Indeed, my dear.
#201 - kristovsky (07/25/2013) [-]
"Its dangerous to be right, when the government is left"

ill go now.
#203 to #201 - mckinkymcormic ONLINE (07/25/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#180 - anonymous (07/25/2013) [-]
As someone who was recently arrested for ********* posession I can confirm this
#212 to #180 - anonymous (07/25/2013) [-]
I dont really understand the red thumbs for this. If I can sit on my deck and enjoy a beer why cant I do the same with a joint? And dont give me the whole "hurr durr youre contributing to gang violence argument" because the high quality stuff you get around here is nearly always grown locally by normal, non violent people.
#222 to #212 - anonymous (07/25/2013) [-]
you must live in a nice neighborhood then, unlike big city people
User avatar #196 to #180 - pebar (07/25/2013) [-]
serves you right for fueling gang activity
User avatar #207 to #196 - lolfire (07/25/2013) [-]
The only reason gangs profit from cannabis is because it's illegal.

So it's the governments fault for keeping it illegal.
User avatar #209 to #207 - pebar (07/25/2013) [-]
I know, but it is not currently legal
User avatar #210 to #209 - lolfire (07/25/2013) [-]
But that's why a lot of moral people grow their own or only buy off home-growers.
I personally have a grower so I know where the money is going. Don't want to be funding organised crime.
But then again, look at the alcohol prohibition of the 20's. It effectively created the gangster. You'd think they'd have learned from that...
User avatar #214 to #210 - pebar (07/25/2013) [-]
I concur
But the idea of messing with my brain chemistry for kicks and giggles freaks me out, so although I wouldn't personally smoke, I think it should be legalized so the competition would destroy gangs' profits hopefully they would wither away. I doubt hard drugs like meth is enough to keep them going. Gang violence is a very serious issue; around 80% of gun violence in the US is gang related so instead of banning guns for everybody, it would be far more effective to actually go for the source of our problems instead of just burying them.
User avatar #235 to #214 - chickendinna (07/25/2013) [-]
meth is worth more to a street gang than weed is dude...
User avatar #245 to #235 - pebar (07/25/2013) [-]
but way more people smoke weed than meth
User avatar #246 to #245 - chickendinna (07/25/2013) [-]
so you know gang members and the people they sell to, and have asked them to enlighten you as to their preferences on drugs?
User avatar #248 to #247 - chickendinna (07/25/2013) [-]
so first you say way more people smoke weed compared to meth, and then bring up articles on mexican drug cartels selling weed to make money, trying to prove a point? that holds no relevance in this conversation...
User avatar #233 to #214 - annogram (07/25/2013) [-]
well your brain is a constant chemmical slurry! pretty much any interaction with the outside world causes some kind of chemical interaction, heck a bee sting is technically more deadly than cannabis. I understand some people don't see the need for it but I'd always do a joint over having a shot.
#218 to #214 - lolfire (07/25/2013) [-]
User avatar #216 to #214 - lolfire (07/25/2013) [-]
Well, we take a lot of things that **** with our brain chemistry, alcohol, paracetamol, caffeine, nicotine and a ton of other things. At least the human body has a endocannabanoid system built into it to receive the cannabanoids. But the effects of smoking on the developing brain are quite dangerous, so I didn't start smoking until I turned 19.

Exactly. Deal with the source not the symptoms.
#202 to #196 - anonymous (07/25/2013) [-]
The weed I would buy was never in the hands of a gang member, I knew the grower personally and would buy it directly off of him, we go to the same college actually.
#174 - lizardonfire (07/25/2013) [-]
am I doing this right?
User avatar #199 to #174 - thejokesonyou (07/25/2013) [-]
#173 - lolollo (07/25/2013) [-]
While going through MP training, I learned something surprising about how we're supposed to operate. First, we don't assume everyone is out to get us because we're paranoid ******** who are just looking to ruin your lives. We act paranoid, and a little bit dickish, because there are seriously people out there who will shoot us in the face to get out of a speeding ticket. Go to youtube and see for yourself. The second we drop our guard because we're supposed to assume you're the law abiding citizen you are based on **** all information about you, we get shot in the face. So when you're bitching and moaning about our "oppressive gov'ment!" because we stopped you for running a stop sign, we're mentally preparing ourselves for you to decide that some $100 ticket is worth taking us away from our families via a shot to the face.

So don't bitch that we act like hardasses in some instances, bitch that we have to because there's a good percentage of the human population that are garbage, complete ******* garbage...garbage we actively work to protect YOU from every damn day.
User avatar #220 to #173 - reconred (07/25/2013) [-]
Want some bacon?
User avatar #224 to #220 - lolollo (07/25/2013) [-]
With or without wings?
#185 to #173 - anonymous (07/25/2013) [-]
I have no problem with law enforcement for the most part, but when it comes to arresting people for victimless crimes such as drug possession I do. I have a friend who is now on house arrest for having slightly over the "felony amount" of weed, which is an ounce here. So yeah, I do think a government that tries to tell people what they can and cannot do with their own lives when it does not effect others is oppressive. Especially in regards to ********* , which all scientific studies have shown is far less harmful to the individual and society than alcohol.
User avatar #200 to #185 - lolollo (07/25/2013) [-]
Now, personally, I might risk falling on my sword for my own friends, because I already know they're not someone who would shoot me in the face over a ticket.

You, or your friend?

I'd throw you under the bus for a Klondike bar...
User avatar #195 to #185 - lolollo (07/25/2013) [-]
Then yell at the guy telling the police officer to arrest people for having an ounce of weed more than they should, not the police officer who has to make the arrest. It's the same principle behind yelling at the waitress for getting your order wrong. It's not her fault, yell at the cook. All you're going to do is piss off the guy who's just doing everything according to his SOP,

Yes, he can choose NOT to arrest you for holding a gallon of PCP, which could even be the decision he WANTS to make because he feels the same way you do, but if he doesn't, and his superiors find out, it's more than just his career, it's probably his own freedom on the line, because he automatically becomes an accessory to that crime.

Basically, work towards making that **** legal, not towards halting the messaging system.
User avatar #237 to #195 - annogram (07/25/2013) [-]
you're making a good point but police officers understand that what people want is for these kind of drugs to be legalized, if a police officer or someone in training comes out publicly saying that they should stop the war on drugs then people will start to agree, because they're the ones protecting us. If they say it's worse because it's illegal people will listen.
User avatar #240 to #237 - lolollo (07/25/2013) [-]
The city street cops you see arresting people for drug possession have about as much say on the status of law enforcement as privates do on the status of military standards.
User avatar #241 to #240 - annogram (07/25/2013) [-]
i don't mean talking to their superiors i mean going out and publicly stating that what their employer(soon to be ex-employer) is making things on the street worse. If the media was actually reporting on news instead of infotaimnent people would actually get really sick of the policies if the people enforcing them are themselves doing it reluctantly.
User avatar #244 to #241 - lolollo (07/25/2013) [-]
And what would happen is exactly what would happen if a private goes public with some misc. opinion about what the military is doing. They'd be discreditted by both their superiors, and any old ass veterans as being "just a private." Then they potentially get kicked out, which is potentially devastating for any job/career they were hoping to go through, especially if that career was to raise in the ranks and change those relevent standards.

City cops talk about how much they like/dislike a law, and the exact same thing would happen. Their supervisor will say "You don't have he authority to say such **** !" the cop will lose his job, and the pooulous will quickly lose interest the next time royalty has a baby, or some mexican shoots a black guy.

Your ideal plan would only work in a society where supervisors actually respect their subordinates, and the general populous don't have the attention span of a flea.

So I'll say to you what I say to my friend when he asks me about "So if you're a cop, will you have to arrest me just from what you know about my drugs?" Don't be a goddamn retard and learn the art of subtlety. Being gungho only does so much...
#206 to #195 - anonymous (07/25/2013) [-]
The policy makers that created our current system piss me off much more than the police, and its true that law enforcement officers are just doing their jobs. However they ARE willing joining an organization that, while protecting citizens, also contributes to actively oppressing their god given freedoms. And as for making it legal I vote and whatnot, but I am not a politician or a lawyer or famous so as of now my opinion really has no sway. Oh and why change the ounce of weed to a gallon of PCP in this story? (Do you watch WKUK?)
User avatar #223 to #206 - lolollo (07/25/2013) [-]
That's precisely the reference I was making broseph!

Also, people don't join the force to step on "ya freedumz!" they join the force to keep criminals from stepping on "ya freedumz!" Or would you rather nobody join the police force?
User avatar #178 to #173 - chiefrunnyjeans (07/25/2013) [-]
Well some of you are really good people and I appreciate that. What I don't appreciate is the bunch of you who are complete ******** and give all the good cops a bad name. The ones that actively break the laws they are supposed to enforce, the ones who use excessive force, and the ones who act like smartasses and think they automatically know the law even when they don't are the ******** . Unfortunately there are too many of them so many of you get a bad rap.
User avatar #181 to #178 - lolollo (07/25/2013) [-]'s exactly like I said.

A good chunk of the human population are complete garbage...garbage we try to protect you from every day. Even the soldier's creed includes facing threats both foreign and domestic. While there are the ******** who have no quarrel pushing around the local population, there are those who are a part of the system with the intent of proving the stereotypes wrong.
#205 to #181 - tremfan ONLINE (07/25/2013) [-]
There are too many cops trying to bleed people dry with traffic tickets, and not enough doing what they're supposed to be doing - Helping others. When I was a kid, I was the victim of domestic violence from my father. Even when my mother called the cops, it took them 45 minutes to get there... Oh yeah, and there is a speed trap practically at the end of my driveway almost every night.

I also do have a problem with victimless crimes. So I pulled out of a parking lot and wasn't wearing my seatbelt... Tell me again why I deserve a $140 ticket when the drug dealers who operate in the back of that same parking lot are never even questioned?

Cops need to get back to helping people in need, being role models for at risk kids, and start paying more attention to violent crimes instead of going after the general population. You say you don't assume we're law abiding citizens, well I also assume you're just another corrupt and lazy cop until proven otherwise. Since it takes you 45 minutes to get to a scene, I now have my own concealed carry permit to protect myself, but not everyone has access to that. Where was that gun when I was being beaten senseless by my father? Where were the cops when my mother was crying in the corner?

TL;DR Go do your job serving and protecting. Be someone that people look up to, so they don't cringe when the see a cop. Until then, you have none of my respect or compassion. Good day.
User avatar #228 to #205 - lolollo (07/25/2013) [-]
Precisely why I joined. Someone who isn't wearing their seatbelt will probably get a "Wear your ****** seat belt Vin Diesel!" and nothing else. I hate the way some policeman have become. You can assume the guy you're about to engage is going to shoot you in the face, but you don't have to act like it. I believe in being reactionary. If I get up to the window, and you're a're probably going to get a ticket...
#238 to #228 - tremfan ONLINE (07/25/2013) [-]
Well then, more power to you. Prove to the American people that more cops are interested in helping people and maintaining order than following the letter of the law, or stretching it to fit their needs, and I guarantee you that people will take notice.

If you really mean what you said, I truly hope you succeed.
User avatar #186 to #159 - Mahazama (07/25/2013) [-]
Yea, there's police brutality, and then there's regulations.
User avatar #194 to #186 - pebar (07/25/2013) [-]
boiling frog
User avatar #150 - Hreidmar (07/25/2013) [-]
It's also stupid to assume that the government is always wrong and that if you're against it, you're automatically right.
#261 to #150 - jvcjvc (07/26/2013) [-]
This post cured my cancer
User avatar #179 to #150 - chiefrunnyjeans (07/25/2013) [-]
The government is wrong most of the time though. Plus they serve us, so if they do something even if we don't like or want it, then they are automatically wrong.
User avatar #221 to #179 - Hreidmar (07/25/2013) [-]
Doing things that you don't see the point of or that you don't agree with doesn't mean they're wrong.
#190 to #179 - anonymous (07/25/2013) [-]
I prefer a government that serves the good of the people, not the whims of the people, even if that good is beyond the people's knowledge and desire.
User avatar #177 to #150 - acedce (07/25/2013) [-]
#149 - phippz (07/25/2013) [-]
Rich white people are exempt from this.
User avatar #168 to #149 - aserock (07/25/2013) [-]
Oh god, I thought that was his real hand for a second. What's wrong with me...
#143 - jvcjvc (07/25/2013) [-]
Grow the **** up, learn the ways of politics.
#136 - Happiness (07/25/2013) [-]
FJ is so edgy at the moment
#232 to #131 - wowewowe (07/25/2013) [-]
Why the **** is she holding it like that?
User avatar #192 to #131 - Mahazama (07/25/2013) [-]
No, it's because people (government or not) are ******* stupid, irrational, easily scared.
What if the citizens mistrust other citizens with guns? Because some of them are Timothy McVeigh's, Branch Davidians. Some of them are Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, some of them are Seung-Hui Cho and Adam Lanza.
User avatar #183 to #131 - chiefrunnyjeans (07/25/2013) [-]
I like the quote, but it doesn't look legit.
User avatar #175 to #131 - lolollo (07/25/2013) [-]
I wouldn't trust half you ******* with a potato peeler...
User avatar #225 to #175 - reconred (07/25/2013) [-]
Then I will be sure not to use my 2nd Amendment right to defend your life.
User avatar #231 to #225 - lolollo (07/25/2013) [-]
Well then it's a good thing I can exercise my own 2nd amendment rights to defend my own life.

Because all I said was that I wouldn't trust half of you ******* with a potato peeler, not that the 2nd amendment shouldn't exist.

Seriously, get the sand out of your panties.
#137 to #131 - ThaLuckyWilly (07/25/2013) [-]
I don't trust the majority of Americans with guns either.. pic semi related.
I don't trust the majority of Americans with guns either.. pic semi related.
#184 to #137 - chiefrunnyjeans (07/25/2013) [-]
Jelly because you didn't defend your rights and lost them?
User avatar #140 to #137 - Fagdust (07/25/2013) [-]
I think the majority of Americans understand the value of life and liberty and would be trusted with the possession and operation of a gun. The citizens should hold the power of America, not the government. Just because one is a police officer, or a soldier, or a government employee does not mean they are more trustworthy with a weapon. All Americans have the right to bear arms to defend themselves of any enemy foreign or domestic.
User avatar #142 to #140 - ThaLuckyWilly (07/25/2013) [-]
I agree with that but I believe citizens should be allowed a handgun for personal/home defense and several hunting rifles if they do in fact hunt. The need to own several high caliber assault rifles just doesn't make sense to me.
#169 to #142 - pebar (07/25/2013) [-]
most hand guns are a higher caliber than most rifles
it's the velocity that makes a difference

Also, the term "assault rifle" only refers to select fire (capable of full auto/burst fire) rifle. What a lot of people have are only semiautomatic weapons which means you have to pull the trigger one time to make one bullet come out. If you want to make a lot of bullets come out then you have to pull the trigger lots of times. But these types of rifles are not "assault rifles."

Also, pic related. Just like how there are checks and balances between the branches of government to stop one branch from gaining too much power. The civilian militia (2nd amendment) was originally meant to be a replacement to the standing army since the military would be the right hand of an abusive government (it was a very big concern at the time, and for good reason). But very early on, the founding fathers realized that they were going to need a real trained army. So the 2nd amendment evolved into a check against the people's own government.

"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property... Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
--Thomas Paine
User avatar #164 to #142 - pebar (07/25/2013) [-]
it would be more constitutional but still unconstitutional to ban handguns and leave semi-automatic rifles legal
#239 to #164 - anonymous (07/25/2013) [-]
Exactly, more people are killed by handguns than "assault rifles" as the media likes to call them but handguns arent all big and scary looking so they arent priority apparently
User avatar #163 to #142 - whiskeygunner (07/25/2013) [-]
What does the caliber matter? Dead is dead. If I shoot you with my .223, you are going to die. If I shoot you with my .300 winchester magnum, you are going to die a lot quicker. Take your pick.
User avatar #162 to #142 - roliga (07/25/2013) [-]
Assault rifles have been banned since 1986 and the semi-automatic rifles you mean are NOT high caliber... Majority of rifles used to hunt are much much much larger than most semi-automatic rifles. And even then you can use an AR-15 to hunt if you feel like it.
#146 to #142 - Fagdust (07/25/2013) [-]
I did say all enemies foreign and domestic. Domestic implies any enemy on the homeland that is a threat to the American public. Whether it be a common criminal or a corrupt government. Gun restriction is also inherently flawed. If a law abiding citizen will obey the law and give up the use of automatic weapons, that is not preventing further crimes with automatic weapons. Criminals will continue to commit crimes despite whatever law they put up, they have been doing it for thousands of years. If anything, gun control laws are taking power away from good citizens and not impeding the real criminal threat.
#126 - fistofpain ONLINE (07/25/2013) [-]
Anyone Got a 1920x1080 So I can make this a wall paper on my computer?
#121 - roliga (07/25/2013) [-]
Only relevant picture I have to this
#117 - anonymous (07/25/2013) [-]
Am I the only one who doesn't hate the government, and appreciate that despite all of its flaws that we are all far better off with it?
User avatar #112 - ctenop (07/25/2013) [-]
All this stuff puts me off, I'm going to uni to do PPE soon, and I want to get into politics. The general mistrust and hate really puts me off. In England (and other countries) I hate how politicians squabble, jeer and smear each other; when really they should be focusing their efforts on bettering the country. I also think we focus on new stuff too much, like this porn thing and other **** . Get the country settled first, then try and advance. We're trying to run on a broken leg. I just hope if I get into politics I can keep my "for the people attitude". I've never had much, been homeless in the eyes of the state before, and struggled a lot, so I know what it's like. I also know the rich shouldn't suffer, just because they are rich. I just think politicians should keep an open mind, and not be so focused on polls, more on the people. If you have good ideas, the polls will come easy. And honesty, I would love for a politician to just outright say we're in the **** atm, and it won't be good for a while, but once we all know whats happening, we can work towards a common goal. It still makes me dread losing friends going into politics, and being judged as a liar and cheat.
User avatar #130 to #112 - mrtrixreturned ONLINE (07/25/2013) [-]
Remember this place if you make it that far
Gl with that anyways, don't be dyed another colour
User avatar #132 to #130 - ctenop (07/25/2013) [-]
Wow, strong words. Always held a strong moral view, but I'm open to someone if they're right. I hate being wrong, but I hate doing the wrong thing more.
User avatar #138 to #132 - mrtrixreturned ONLINE (07/25/2013) [-]
The issue is that one mans wrong is anothers mans right |:

Me saying that the rich should be taxed more (Not soo much, but enough so one rich guy can't afford their 11th Ferrari and someone in working/middle class can afford their first car to get to work) is complete blasphemy to some people..
User avatar #148 to #138 - ctenop (07/25/2013) [-]
Too true. I believe tax on the rich should be lowered anyway, they're still going to be put back into the economy, and it'll filter into everyone's lives. I'm more of a lib dem, not left wing, not right, kinda middle. I think the main thing most countries need is stability, we're all striving for new things to try and win the people, but really you just need to put things right first. I still hate seeing how childish MP's act, jeering and shouting and launching smear campaigns. It's disgusting. Would much rather become a politician in America/canada.
User avatar #151 to #148 - mrtrixreturned ONLINE (07/25/2013) [-]
I consider myself Lib Dem myself aswell
Fence Sitters xD
User avatar #154 to #151 - ctenop (07/25/2013) [-]
Sitting on the fence you can see both sides ;) gotta love cleggy weggy haha. It was mainly for the manifesto of where I live (as well as the main one) in Northamptonshire. One party (conservative I believe), wanted to make a market bigger, get road access to it, and build loads of stuff to bring tourists in and increase pride. Lib dems wanted to make it so the job center would pay for people to get to interviews and their first weeks of work, more nurses and coppers on the beat, and some more streetlights turned on.
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)