x
Click to expand

Rockaman

Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: male
Age: 23
Video Games Played: EVE Online, Total War series
Date Signed Up:9/04/2010
Last Login:4/27/2015
Location:New Eden
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Content Ranking:#10936
Comment Ranking:#3479
Highest Content Rank:#10723
Highest Comment Rank:#2286
Content Thumbs: 302 total,  370 ,  68
Comment Thumbs: 7649 total,  10402 ,  2753
Content Level Progress: 10% (1/10)
Level 30 Content: Peasant → Level 31 Content: Peasant
Comment Level Progress: 13% (13/100)
Level 270 Comments: Ninja Pirate → Level 271 Comments: Ninja Pirate
Subscribers:1
Content Views:15650
Times Content Favorited:49 times
Total Comments Made:2979
FJ Points:7323

Funny Text/Links

Funny Pictures

YouTube Videos

  • Views: 838
    Thumbs Up 8 Thumbs Down 3 Total: +5
    Comments: 3
    Favorites: 1
    Uploaded: 04/29/11
    Nyan Dubsteb Nyan Dubsteb
  • Views: 1179
    Thumbs Up 4 Thumbs Down 2 Total: +2
    Comments: 1
    Favorites: 0
    Uploaded: 04/26/15
    The Paid Mods Come The Paid Mods Come

latest user's comments

#46 - The other method though is Hypercapitalism. In Hong Kong, pret…  [+] (2 new replies) 1 hour ago on comic 0
User avatar #53 - hetzerdk (38 minutes ago) [-]
The idea of capitalism is not bad. The idea of communism is not bad. The problem is not that a capitalist society is bad as it is, the bad part is that when people are not moderate, they quickly only do it for profit, and as soon profit is the highest goal, only a few will have a proper life.

I am not against privatization, but there are these, and then there are those. The german railway (Deutsche Bahn) is privatized and owns the main railroads. Its service is shit, overprized etc., nut because it owns the main railroads it is still used by many, because not everyone has a car. Of course people started to take busses instead, but they are less known. Whith the smaller privatized train companies there are no problem.

I am not sure (i have no sources for it) but i think it works so well in Hong Kong because people are moderate. Maybe its a cultural difference, or the other side of the medaille isnt as easy to see.

The problem with communism is that the main idea is that everybody is more or less the same, which made sense when the manifest was written. The idea was that all workers had the same start. They had nothing. Therefore it was rather easy to say that everybody is the same. And there lays the main problem.

But many things else stated in the manifest is rather logic/modern. Marx idea was that a worker shouldnt work to survive, but to learn and develop him/herself. Which is partly taken over by today (work where you rather would work, not only to survive). Aother point was that he didnt only wrote negative about capitalism, no. He saw that capitalism has the force to revolutionize the production. Which also happened.

I dont think that pure communism would work, sadly, but people are not just made for it. Pure capitalism on the other hand (without moderation) would also not work because the lower class would start to riot, because everything was being tried to make as cheap as possible, which results in lower wages.

That what you call proper capitalism is a mixture of both sides. And it is propably also the only one which functions more or less in the modern western society. If it now should be more leftist, or more rightist is every mans own position.
#52 - fefe (54 minutes ago) [-]
Wow you have a REALLY optimistic view of Hong Kong.

That may be how it is for the middle and upper class, but for everybody else, it's hell on earth.
#44 - Still works a hell of a lot better than Communism/Socialism. Y…  [+] (4 new replies) 1 hour ago on comic 0
User avatar #45 - hetzerdk (1 hour ago) [-]
That what we commonly are calling communism, are dictatures with socialistic ideals. Other people are always the rules for the masses. America is even less democratic than europe, and even in europe most laws are made by the chosen politicans. In the US the laws are mostly made by two partys, who try to make them most appearable for the lobby.

See eventually this link:
www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/21/americas-oligarchy-not-democracy-or-republic-unive/

The free market is flexible, yes, but the uncontrolled market would also be a bad idea. We have a partly controlled free market, fx monopolies of a single product is widely forbidden. If it would be uncontrolled, the person with the monopol would make his own prices, and nobody could challenge him.

Thats therefore most countries have something (on german) called social market. The easiest way to explain it, is that it is a mixture of planeconomy and free market. Thereby the government makes it possible to control parts of the market to grant its people easy access to viable resources like water, food etc.
User avatar #46 - Rockaman (1 hour ago) [-]
The other method though is Hypercapitalism. In Hong Kong, pretty much everything is privately owned, and due to fierce competition, prices for the majority of products and services is very low, as well as the quality of service being very high.

As an example, the train system owned by the MTR corporation runs always on time, has phone/wifi signal even when traveling underground under the sea, and costs around 3 USD / 2 GBP to travel to a destination an hour away.

As contrast, in the UK, which is Capitalist with a lot of Socialism's aspects incorporated, a train journey from Leicester to Sheffield (I have done this a lot so I am using it as the example) will likely be delayed, rarely has phone signal outside of residential areas with the onboard wifi being costly, and costs around 40 USD / 26.30 GBP.

A strong Capitalistic society works as the competition between businesses keeps costs down. If one business starts to take over and raise it's prices, then another will pop up and undercut it. That's how proper Capitalism works.

User avatar #53 - hetzerdk (38 minutes ago) [-]
The idea of capitalism is not bad. The idea of communism is not bad. The problem is not that a capitalist society is bad as it is, the bad part is that when people are not moderate, they quickly only do it for profit, and as soon profit is the highest goal, only a few will have a proper life.

I am not against privatization, but there are these, and then there are those. The german railway (Deutsche Bahn) is privatized and owns the main railroads. Its service is shit, overprized etc., nut because it owns the main railroads it is still used by many, because not everyone has a car. Of course people started to take busses instead, but they are less known. Whith the smaller privatized train companies there are no problem.

I am not sure (i have no sources for it) but i think it works so well in Hong Kong because people are moderate. Maybe its a cultural difference, or the other side of the medaille isnt as easy to see.

The problem with communism is that the main idea is that everybody is more or less the same, which made sense when the manifest was written. The idea was that all workers had the same start. They had nothing. Therefore it was rather easy to say that everybody is the same. And there lays the main problem.

But many things else stated in the manifest is rather logic/modern. Marx idea was that a worker shouldnt work to survive, but to learn and develop him/herself. Which is partly taken over by today (work where you rather would work, not only to survive). Aother point was that he didnt only wrote negative about capitalism, no. He saw that capitalism has the force to revolutionize the production. Which also happened.

I dont think that pure communism would work, sadly, but people are not just made for it. Pure capitalism on the other hand (without moderation) would also not work because the lower class would start to riot, because everything was being tried to make as cheap as possible, which results in lower wages.

That what you call proper capitalism is a mixture of both sides. And it is propably also the only one which functions more or less in the modern western society. If it now should be more leftist, or more rightist is every mans own position.
#52 - fefe (54 minutes ago) [-]
Wow you have a REALLY optimistic view of Hong Kong.

That may be how it is for the middle and upper class, but for everybody else, it's hell on earth.
#41 - Workers will still be required, just look at modern society wh…  [+] (6 new replies) 1 hour ago on comic 0
User avatar #43 - hetzerdk (1 hour ago) [-]
But for unschooled workers the wage would always be minimal. If it is a totally capitalist society, something like unions, minimal wag etc. would never be invented. Unschooled workers would get enough to survive, but not to invest, because that would cost more than necessary to produce products. Thereby (i would guess everything would be commercialized) workers children would never have a possibility to get a higher education, unless the worker will destroy himself by working. Medical treatment would also be commercialized, which again leads to that workers will die faster, and thereby have even less time to earn money (worktime= money). If you will get successful in this system you need to have a wealthy start.

The big lie (which is in fact not a lie, but a misunderstanding) of capitalism is that everybody can be wealthy if they work for it. Its true, but not everybody can get wealthy because there are not enough resources for it. The more wealthy people, the less the quality of middle or lower class. Also, in a purely capitalist society the middleclass would slowly disappear, because you get rich, or you dont get rich, and thereby get to be a worker.

As soon as you raise the payment of the worker, so that the worker can contribute to the economic system (therefore becomes self a smaller capitalist) it wouldnt be a purely capitalist society, because a raise in the workers payment would mean that you use money on your product, which you dont need. Thereby payment for a industrialized work, which doesnt require much training (as most industrialized normal workers do today), would only rise if there would be inflation. Without any socialist ideas as fx unions, a better life for everyone wouldnt happen.
User avatar #44 - Rockaman (1 hour ago) [-]
Still works a hell of a lot better than Communism/Socialism. You only need to look at how many countries have failed down that route to realize that it just doesn't work. People are never equal whilst some people are making the rules for others, therefore it fails in it's primary objective immediately. A lot of Socialist countries didn't even last 10 years.

Capitalism is by no means perfect, but it's a lot better than the alternatives and a lot more flexible in doctrine, therefore making it more adaptive to the current social-political-economical climates.
User avatar #45 - hetzerdk (1 hour ago) [-]
That what we commonly are calling communism, are dictatures with socialistic ideals. Other people are always the rules for the masses. America is even less democratic than europe, and even in europe most laws are made by the chosen politicans. In the US the laws are mostly made by two partys, who try to make them most appearable for the lobby.

See eventually this link:
www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/21/americas-oligarchy-not-democracy-or-republic-unive/

The free market is flexible, yes, but the uncontrolled market would also be a bad idea. We have a partly controlled free market, fx monopolies of a single product is widely forbidden. If it would be uncontrolled, the person with the monopol would make his own prices, and nobody could challenge him.

Thats therefore most countries have something (on german) called social market. The easiest way to explain it, is that it is a mixture of planeconomy and free market. Thereby the government makes it possible to control parts of the market to grant its people easy access to viable resources like water, food etc.
User avatar #46 - Rockaman (1 hour ago) [-]
The other method though is Hypercapitalism. In Hong Kong, pretty much everything is privately owned, and due to fierce competition, prices for the majority of products and services is very low, as well as the quality of service being very high.

As an example, the train system owned by the MTR corporation runs always on time, has phone/wifi signal even when traveling underground under the sea, and costs around 3 USD / 2 GBP to travel to a destination an hour away.

As contrast, in the UK, which is Capitalist with a lot of Socialism's aspects incorporated, a train journey from Leicester to Sheffield (I have done this a lot so I am using it as the example) will likely be delayed, rarely has phone signal outside of residential areas with the onboard wifi being costly, and costs around 40 USD / 26.30 GBP.

A strong Capitalistic society works as the competition between businesses keeps costs down. If one business starts to take over and raise it's prices, then another will pop up and undercut it. That's how proper Capitalism works.

User avatar #53 - hetzerdk (38 minutes ago) [-]
The idea of capitalism is not bad. The idea of communism is not bad. The problem is not that a capitalist society is bad as it is, the bad part is that when people are not moderate, they quickly only do it for profit, and as soon profit is the highest goal, only a few will have a proper life.

I am not against privatization, but there are these, and then there are those. The german railway (Deutsche Bahn) is privatized and owns the main railroads. Its service is shit, overprized etc., nut because it owns the main railroads it is still used by many, because not everyone has a car. Of course people started to take busses instead, but they are less known. Whith the smaller privatized train companies there are no problem.

I am not sure (i have no sources for it) but i think it works so well in Hong Kong because people are moderate. Maybe its a cultural difference, or the other side of the medaille isnt as easy to see.

The problem with communism is that the main idea is that everybody is more or less the same, which made sense when the manifest was written. The idea was that all workers had the same start. They had nothing. Therefore it was rather easy to say that everybody is the same. And there lays the main problem.

But many things else stated in the manifest is rather logic/modern. Marx idea was that a worker shouldnt work to survive, but to learn and develop him/herself. Which is partly taken over by today (work where you rather would work, not only to survive). Aother point was that he didnt only wrote negative about capitalism, no. He saw that capitalism has the force to revolutionize the production. Which also happened.

I dont think that pure communism would work, sadly, but people are not just made for it. Pure capitalism on the other hand (without moderation) would also not work because the lower class would start to riot, because everything was being tried to make as cheap as possible, which results in lower wages.

That what you call proper capitalism is a mixture of both sides. And it is propably also the only one which functions more or less in the modern western society. If it now should be more leftist, or more rightist is every mans own position.
#52 - fefe (54 minutes ago) [-]
Wow you have a REALLY optimistic view of Hong Kong.

That may be how it is for the middle and upper class, but for everybody else, it's hell on earth.
#38 - Capitalist =/= Anarchist. There still would be laws.  [+] (8 new replies) 2 hours ago on comic 0
User avatar #39 - hetzerdk (1 hour ago) [-]
Yeah, but if you would have a pure capitalist society it would end with that a few (or just one) has all the money. Thereby others who werent fortunate enough to be born in this family would not have enough to survive properly (i suppose that workers will be replaced by robots, because of even cheaper workforce). Thereby the probability of survival will be extremely low and thereby only the rich people survive. But because of capitalism, the rich people would strive for more and thereby battling each other.
User avatar #41 - Rockaman (1 hour ago) [-]
Workers will still be required, just look at modern society where robots are used in industry - people are still required. When multiple businesses have to compete for staff, the wages will go up. People in the working classes will always be required one way or another in the process, and therefore will get payed.
User avatar #43 - hetzerdk (1 hour ago) [-]
But for unschooled workers the wage would always be minimal. If it is a totally capitalist society, something like unions, minimal wag etc. would never be invented. Unschooled workers would get enough to survive, but not to invest, because that would cost more than necessary to produce products. Thereby (i would guess everything would be commercialized) workers children would never have a possibility to get a higher education, unless the worker will destroy himself by working. Medical treatment would also be commercialized, which again leads to that workers will die faster, and thereby have even less time to earn money (worktime= money). If you will get successful in this system you need to have a wealthy start.

The big lie (which is in fact not a lie, but a misunderstanding) of capitalism is that everybody can be wealthy if they work for it. Its true, but not everybody can get wealthy because there are not enough resources for it. The more wealthy people, the less the quality of middle or lower class. Also, in a purely capitalist society the middleclass would slowly disappear, because you get rich, or you dont get rich, and thereby get to be a worker.

As soon as you raise the payment of the worker, so that the worker can contribute to the economic system (therefore becomes self a smaller capitalist) it wouldnt be a purely capitalist society, because a raise in the workers payment would mean that you use money on your product, which you dont need. Thereby payment for a industrialized work, which doesnt require much training (as most industrialized normal workers do today), would only rise if there would be inflation. Without any socialist ideas as fx unions, a better life for everyone wouldnt happen.
User avatar #44 - Rockaman (1 hour ago) [-]
Still works a hell of a lot better than Communism/Socialism. You only need to look at how many countries have failed down that route to realize that it just doesn't work. People are never equal whilst some people are making the rules for others, therefore it fails in it's primary objective immediately. A lot of Socialist countries didn't even last 10 years.

Capitalism is by no means perfect, but it's a lot better than the alternatives and a lot more flexible in doctrine, therefore making it more adaptive to the current social-political-economical climates.
User avatar #45 - hetzerdk (1 hour ago) [-]
That what we commonly are calling communism, are dictatures with socialistic ideals. Other people are always the rules for the masses. America is even less democratic than europe, and even in europe most laws are made by the chosen politicans. In the US the laws are mostly made by two partys, who try to make them most appearable for the lobby.

See eventually this link:
www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/21/americas-oligarchy-not-democracy-or-republic-unive/

The free market is flexible, yes, but the uncontrolled market would also be a bad idea. We have a partly controlled free market, fx monopolies of a single product is widely forbidden. If it would be uncontrolled, the person with the monopol would make his own prices, and nobody could challenge him.

Thats therefore most countries have something (on german) called social market. The easiest way to explain it, is that it is a mixture of planeconomy and free market. Thereby the government makes it possible to control parts of the market to grant its people easy access to viable resources like water, food etc.
User avatar #46 - Rockaman (1 hour ago) [-]
The other method though is Hypercapitalism. In Hong Kong, pretty much everything is privately owned, and due to fierce competition, prices for the majority of products and services is very low, as well as the quality of service being very high.

As an example, the train system owned by the MTR corporation runs always on time, has phone/wifi signal even when traveling underground under the sea, and costs around 3 USD / 2 GBP to travel to a destination an hour away.

As contrast, in the UK, which is Capitalist with a lot of Socialism's aspects incorporated, a train journey from Leicester to Sheffield (I have done this a lot so I am using it as the example) will likely be delayed, rarely has phone signal outside of residential areas with the onboard wifi being costly, and costs around 40 USD / 26.30 GBP.

A strong Capitalistic society works as the competition between businesses keeps costs down. If one business starts to take over and raise it's prices, then another will pop up and undercut it. That's how proper Capitalism works.

User avatar #53 - hetzerdk (38 minutes ago) [-]
The idea of capitalism is not bad. The idea of communism is not bad. The problem is not that a capitalist society is bad as it is, the bad part is that when people are not moderate, they quickly only do it for profit, and as soon profit is the highest goal, only a few will have a proper life.

I am not against privatization, but there are these, and then there are those. The german railway (Deutsche Bahn) is privatized and owns the main railroads. Its service is shit, overprized etc., nut because it owns the main railroads it is still used by many, because not everyone has a car. Of course people started to take busses instead, but they are less known. Whith the smaller privatized train companies there are no problem.

I am not sure (i have no sources for it) but i think it works so well in Hong Kong because people are moderate. Maybe its a cultural difference, or the other side of the medaille isnt as easy to see.

The problem with communism is that the main idea is that everybody is more or less the same, which made sense when the manifest was written. The idea was that all workers had the same start. They had nothing. Therefore it was rather easy to say that everybody is the same. And there lays the main problem.

But many things else stated in the manifest is rather logic/modern. Marx idea was that a worker shouldnt work to survive, but to learn and develop him/herself. Which is partly taken over by today (work where you rather would work, not only to survive). Aother point was that he didnt only wrote negative about capitalism, no. He saw that capitalism has the force to revolutionize the production. Which also happened.

I dont think that pure communism would work, sadly, but people are not just made for it. Pure capitalism on the other hand (without moderation) would also not work because the lower class would start to riot, because everything was being tried to make as cheap as possible, which results in lower wages.

That what you call proper capitalism is a mixture of both sides. And it is propably also the only one which functions more or less in the modern western society. If it now should be more leftist, or more rightist is every mans own position.
#52 - fefe (54 minutes ago) [-]
Wow you have a REALLY optimistic view of Hong Kong.

That may be how it is for the middle and upper class, but for everybody else, it's hell on earth.
#36 - I would create a Capitalist society, where riches are just wit…  [+] (10 new replies) 2 hours ago on comic 0
User avatar #37 - hetzerdk (2 hours ago) [-]
But that would just end in that there are at last one survivor and the entirety of humanity is gone.
User avatar #38 - Rockaman (2 hours ago) [-]
Capitalist =/= Anarchist. There still would be laws.
User avatar #39 - hetzerdk (1 hour ago) [-]
Yeah, but if you would have a pure capitalist society it would end with that a few (or just one) has all the money. Thereby others who werent fortunate enough to be born in this family would not have enough to survive properly (i suppose that workers will be replaced by robots, because of even cheaper workforce). Thereby the probability of survival will be extremely low and thereby only the rich people survive. But because of capitalism, the rich people would strive for more and thereby battling each other.
User avatar #41 - Rockaman (1 hour ago) [-]
Workers will still be required, just look at modern society where robots are used in industry - people are still required. When multiple businesses have to compete for staff, the wages will go up. People in the working classes will always be required one way or another in the process, and therefore will get payed.
User avatar #43 - hetzerdk (1 hour ago) [-]
But for unschooled workers the wage would always be minimal. If it is a totally capitalist society, something like unions, minimal wag etc. would never be invented. Unschooled workers would get enough to survive, but not to invest, because that would cost more than necessary to produce products. Thereby (i would guess everything would be commercialized) workers children would never have a possibility to get a higher education, unless the worker will destroy himself by working. Medical treatment would also be commercialized, which again leads to that workers will die faster, and thereby have even less time to earn money (worktime= money). If you will get successful in this system you need to have a wealthy start.

The big lie (which is in fact not a lie, but a misunderstanding) of capitalism is that everybody can be wealthy if they work for it. Its true, but not everybody can get wealthy because there are not enough resources for it. The more wealthy people, the less the quality of middle or lower class. Also, in a purely capitalist society the middleclass would slowly disappear, because you get rich, or you dont get rich, and thereby get to be a worker.

As soon as you raise the payment of the worker, so that the worker can contribute to the economic system (therefore becomes self a smaller capitalist) it wouldnt be a purely capitalist society, because a raise in the workers payment would mean that you use money on your product, which you dont need. Thereby payment for a industrialized work, which doesnt require much training (as most industrialized normal workers do today), would only rise if there would be inflation. Without any socialist ideas as fx unions, a better life for everyone wouldnt happen.
User avatar #44 - Rockaman (1 hour ago) [-]
Still works a hell of a lot better than Communism/Socialism. You only need to look at how many countries have failed down that route to realize that it just doesn't work. People are never equal whilst some people are making the rules for others, therefore it fails in it's primary objective immediately. A lot of Socialist countries didn't even last 10 years.

Capitalism is by no means perfect, but it's a lot better than the alternatives and a lot more flexible in doctrine, therefore making it more adaptive to the current social-political-economical climates.
User avatar #45 - hetzerdk (1 hour ago) [-]
That what we commonly are calling communism, are dictatures with socialistic ideals. Other people are always the rules for the masses. America is even less democratic than europe, and even in europe most laws are made by the chosen politicans. In the US the laws are mostly made by two partys, who try to make them most appearable for the lobby.

See eventually this link:
www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/21/americas-oligarchy-not-democracy-or-republic-unive/

The free market is flexible, yes, but the uncontrolled market would also be a bad idea. We have a partly controlled free market, fx monopolies of a single product is widely forbidden. If it would be uncontrolled, the person with the monopol would make his own prices, and nobody could challenge him.

Thats therefore most countries have something (on german) called social market. The easiest way to explain it, is that it is a mixture of planeconomy and free market. Thereby the government makes it possible to control parts of the market to grant its people easy access to viable resources like water, food etc.
User avatar #46 - Rockaman (1 hour ago) [-]
The other method though is Hypercapitalism. In Hong Kong, pretty much everything is privately owned, and due to fierce competition, prices for the majority of products and services is very low, as well as the quality of service being very high.

As an example, the train system owned by the MTR corporation runs always on time, has phone/wifi signal even when traveling underground under the sea, and costs around 3 USD / 2 GBP to travel to a destination an hour away.

As contrast, in the UK, which is Capitalist with a lot of Socialism's aspects incorporated, a train journey from Leicester to Sheffield (I have done this a lot so I am using it as the example) will likely be delayed, rarely has phone signal outside of residential areas with the onboard wifi being costly, and costs around 40 USD / 26.30 GBP.

A strong Capitalistic society works as the competition between businesses keeps costs down. If one business starts to take over and raise it's prices, then another will pop up and undercut it. That's how proper Capitalism works.

User avatar #53 - hetzerdk (38 minutes ago) [-]
The idea of capitalism is not bad. The idea of communism is not bad. The problem is not that a capitalist society is bad as it is, the bad part is that when people are not moderate, they quickly only do it for profit, and as soon profit is the highest goal, only a few will have a proper life.

I am not against privatization, but there are these, and then there are those. The german railway (Deutsche Bahn) is privatized and owns the main railroads. Its service is shit, overprized etc., nut because it owns the main railroads it is still used by many, because not everyone has a car. Of course people started to take busses instead, but they are less known. Whith the smaller privatized train companies there are no problem.

I am not sure (i have no sources for it) but i think it works so well in Hong Kong because people are moderate. Maybe its a cultural difference, or the other side of the medaille isnt as easy to see.

The problem with communism is that the main idea is that everybody is more or less the same, which made sense when the manifest was written. The idea was that all workers had the same start. They had nothing. Therefore it was rather easy to say that everybody is the same. And there lays the main problem.

But many things else stated in the manifest is rather logic/modern. Marx idea was that a worker shouldnt work to survive, but to learn and develop him/herself. Which is partly taken over by today (work where you rather would work, not only to survive). Aother point was that he didnt only wrote negative about capitalism, no. He saw that capitalism has the force to revolutionize the production. Which also happened.

I dont think that pure communism would work, sadly, but people are not just made for it. Pure capitalism on the other hand (without moderation) would also not work because the lower class would start to riot, because everything was being tried to make as cheap as possible, which results in lower wages.

That what you call proper capitalism is a mixture of both sides. And it is propably also the only one which functions more or less in the modern western society. If it now should be more leftist, or more rightist is every mans own position.
#52 - fefe (54 minutes ago) [-]
Wow you have a REALLY optimistic view of Hong Kong.

That may be how it is for the middle and upper class, but for everybody else, it's hell on earth.
#427 - Yeah, there are pros and cons to every system. I just think in… 2 hours ago on murica +3
#410 - America socially is completely ****** up. It's only Ame… 3 hours ago on murica 0
#404 - Shall I compare it to China then, which has 4.5 x the populati…  [+] (1 new reply) 3 hours ago on murica 0
User avatar #456 - marinepenguin (43 minutes ago) [-]
Yes and the GDP of China only recently surpassed the US. The average citizen makes very little.
#400 - Downside to insurance though is that insurance companies will … 3 hours ago on murica +1
#397 - Errrr, that kind of falls flat when China has extremely cheap …  [+] (2 new replies) 3 hours ago on murica 0
#420 - tuhuar (3 hours ago) [-]
Yeah, but you're also strongly encouraged to only have one kid there. Not saying I disagree, just saying there's pros and cons everywhere. And America's got $30k worth of negatives
User avatar #427 - Rockaman (2 hours ago) [-]
Yeah, there are pros and cons to every system. I just think in the USA, the cons outweigh the pros for the majority.

user's channels

Join Subscribe metal-time
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #21 - hotpost (01/22/2014) [-]
gay
#20 - Darkreview **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#8 - spior (08/28/2011) [-]
If you hate ponies so much, skip GLORIOUS FAGGOT content. The site isn't made only for you.
User avatar #9 to #8 - Rockaman (08/28/2011) [-]
problem is is that I wasn't expecting anything to do with ponies so I watched it and now the matrix feels ruined. Thats why I say **** PONIES.
User avatar #10 to #9 - spior (08/28/2011) [-]
-_-
1. See title
2. See it has something pony related
3. Skip
4. ????
5. Stop bitching
User avatar #11 to #10 - Rockaman (08/28/2011) [-]
Funnily enough I don't know ponies well and had no clue it was ponies from the title.
User avatar #12 to #11 - spior (08/28/2011) [-]
1. See ponies in the comments
2. ?????
3. Discover the internet
User avatar #13 to #12 - Rockaman (08/28/2011) [-]
like most people, I look at the content b4 the comments section. I normally skip MLP crap but this snuck up on me. Also every comments section has stupid ponies on it so that won't exactly work.
User avatar #14 to #13 - spior (08/28/2011) [-]
All you haters say that.
I, on the other hand, hardly ever see any ponies in the comments.
Also since I'm not a gigantic faggot, here's a list of the things to look out for:
Gay Pony
pinkie poo
Flutter Shy
Rarity
Luna
Equestria
Celestia
Twilight

^ see any of these, skip.
User avatar #16 to #14 - Rockaman (08/28/2011) [-]
Nice to know. Will do in the future. Think I get it when I see gay pony tho lol!
User avatar #17 to #16 - spior (08/28/2011) [-]
Heh yea probably :d
User avatar #15 to #14 - spior (08/28/2011) [-]
rawr damn ad­min
First was Rain­bow Dash and second was Pin­kie Pie
User avatar #18 to #15 - Rockaman (08/28/2011) [-]
lol, think Red Spy agrees that ponies are gay!
User avatar #19 to #18 - spior (08/28/2011) [-]
Nah, he just did it to mess around with us. A bro­nie made some video and well, we got new word filters.
User avatar #6 - KingOfLulz (05/02/2011) [-]
Thanks for the compliment on my profile bro.
User avatar #7 to #6 - Rockaman (05/03/2011) [-]
np, your genuinely funny!
User avatar #3 - ThankYouComeAgain (04/14/2011) [-]
bigger
User avatar #4 to #3 - ThankYouComeAgain (04/14/2011) [-]
haha whoops, silly me

don't take any offense to that "bigger" comment

i meant to say

******
User avatar #5 to #4 - Rockaman (04/14/2011) [-]
lol wut???
#1 - wolfiethepirate **User deleted account** (11/03/2010) [-]
I shall haunt your comment section
User avatar #2 to #1 - Rockaman (11/03/2010) [-]
lol
 Friends (0)