x
Click to expand

angryhornet

Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:12/06/2010
Last Login:5/11/2015
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#17094
Highest Content Rank:#4425
Highest Comment Rank:#2867
Content Thumbs: 1567 total,  1761 ,  194
Comment Thumbs: 840 total,  1100 ,  260
Content Level Progress: 67% (67/100)
Level 115 Content: Funny Junkie → Level 116 Content: Funny Junkie
Comment Level Progress: 80% (8/10)
Level 183 Comments: Anon Annihilator → Level 184 Comments: Anon Annihilator
Subscribers:0
Content Views:42392
Times Content Favorited:110 times
Total Comments Made:270
FJ Points:2482
Favorite Tags: i (4) | You (3) | a (2) | fuck (2) | will (2)

Funny Text/Links

Funny Pictures

  • Views: 10386
    Thumbs Up 300 Thumbs Down 10 Total: +290
    Comments: 46
    Favorites: 26
    Uploaded: 02/21/11
    dropped mah penis dropped mah penis
  • Views: 2262
    Thumbs Up 20 Thumbs Down 2 Total: +18
    Comments: 1
    Favorites: 0
    Uploaded: 12/07/12
    lolwut lolwut
  • Views: 738
    Thumbs Up 22 Thumbs Down 8 Total: +14
    Comments: 10
    Favorites: 0
    Uploaded: 03/15/11
    Laying Down Game u want? Laying Down Game u want?
  • Views: 615
    Thumbs Up 14 Thumbs Down 1 Total: +13
    Comments: 7
    Favorites: 0
    Uploaded: 06/08/11
    Rape Face Rape Face
  • Views: 886
    Thumbs Up 17 Thumbs Down 7 Total: +10
    Comments: 1
    Favorites: 0
    Uploaded: 03/09/11
    how does he know? how does he know?
  • Views: 650
    Thumbs Up 10 Thumbs Down 1 Total: +9
    Comments: 0
    Favorites: 1
    Uploaded: 02/22/11
    show em who's boss show em who's boss
1 2 > [ 11 ]

YouTube Videos

latest user's comments

#69 - You look like those long legged red robed monsters from brutal legend 04/29/2015 on Wow... 0
#366 - >payed >payed >payed >payed >payed >payed &g… 04/29/2015 on Fj Community Cup Event List* 0
#177 - Holy ******* **** you guys are racist. Like I la…  [+] (27 new replies) 04/29/2015 on jamal +20
#203 - phanactssonjoe (04/29/2015) [-]
its talking about the people attacking its own community, you have to go attack the ones causing the problem, not the family owned store a few blocks from your house
User avatar #193 - thatoneiranianguy (04/29/2015) [-]
1. Yeah, but most of them were black, so it's understandable why people would see it that way.
2. So? What does this have to do with anything?
3. Not all of them, there are still riots occurring, there's a reason the National Guard was deployed on standby.
4. That's great, but what's your point?
5. So both sides are at fault - the hero vs. anti-hero trope almost never applies to real life to begin with.
6. No shit, they're the media, not to mention riots are a bit more of an important coverage than a peaceful protest. It just proves the fact those that are rioting are doing a disservice to actual protesters, not to mention the parents of Gray that have been begging the rioters to stop.

"And that the actual rioters were much fewer in numbers and had nothing to do with the death?"

A lot of the rioters are from out of state. However, the local gangs have publicly stated they are targeting boys in blue now for revenge. Great to know the black panthers' reincarnate is back.

User avatar #269 - robinwilliamson (04/29/2015) [-]
1. No, it doesn't justify generalizations about entire races when there were more blacks being peaceful
2. It's about media hypocrisy
3. For the most part yes they have been dealt with
4. More media hypocrisy and invlaidation of generalizations
5. Both sides aren't equally at fault
6. Yes the peaceful protests are much more important because there's a serious national issue about the police and the poor. That's like letting Fox off the hook because we expect them to be assholes. That doesn't excuse anything.
User avatar #271 - thatoneiranianguy (04/29/2015) [-]
1. The fact is the majority of rioters were black, like I said, it's perfectly understandable why one would come to that general conclusion.
2. His #2 has no bearing effect on this topic at hand. It's like comparing a nuclear bomb to a GBU-12.
3. For the most part, yes, but that does not mean riots of any size still is not occuring.
4. The media is covering this, it's just not headlines. They're people doing what they should be doing - in comparison to violent protest, aka riots, which obviously is going to pick up more media attention. It's not hypocrisy, it's logic, fucking acquire some people.
5. How are both sides not equally at fault? In this particular case the cops and Gray both were in the wrong, perhaps you should follow hornet's suit and do some actual research.
6. Peaceful Protests < Violent outbreak will always triumph, it's not an issue of corruption of media, as the peaceful protests were mentioned, but the riots are of course more important because well, it's violent and needs to be addressed.
User avatar #278 - robinwilliamson (04/29/2015) [-]
1. People don't get generalizations about white people when their sports teams lose a big game and they riot, do they?
2. The media is definitely an important part of the Baltimore discussion
3. Only to the degree where it's a very very minor point with little weight
4. This is a broader social thing that you're not grasping
5. They aren't equal because the Baltimore police department has a much deeper history of overbearing and disproportionate policing much larger than this single case. Gray's alleged history with narcotics does not deserve what would be considered a violation of the 8th Amendment in the courtroom, but when the cope take the court into their own hands they get away with it and have been for years all across the country.
6. That begs the question, you're saying it's that way just because, and that's it. Even though that's a terrible point, under that narrowed logic, the protests were about violence by the police and that still counts. That's where the media should do its homework, but have become largely lazy in the past couple decades.
User avatar #299 - thatoneiranianguy (04/29/2015) [-]
1. Well, yes they do, I guess you haven't experienced that many Canadian jokes.
2. Yes, but his original point was comparing two entirely different situations. Always treat a case as is, stop making comparisons.
3. Yes, but he said that the riots are not happening anymore, that is false.
4. I am grasping it perfectly fine, I just understand how humans work especially in terms of mass media. Yellow Journalist principles have been around for quite some time now.
5. You just broke the cardinal rule of dealing with a case in terms of law. It does not matter the history of either parties on the grand scheme of things, always treat the case as is. Never treat the case like another case, because every case is different. That is a reality we need to accept.
6. It's that way because in part of two things: 1. our culture and 2. our human psyche. We're more attracted to harsh topics rather than informative culture. At least, the masses are.
User avatar #259 - thatoneiranianguy (04/29/2015) [-]
You all thumb me down yet I felt I made it really clear I agree with OP's sentiment, just disagree with his reasoning for it.

Mr Unsmiley, you seem to be correct in this regard, people on here are fucking dumb and reincarnates of tumblr.

#192 - sloot (04/29/2015) [-]
I don't care about race. Anyone who used this as an excuse to loot and destroy the city should have been shot on sight.

We do not need cancer like that in society.
User avatar #195 - questionableferret (04/29/2015) [-]
A valid opinion, I suppose. I believe anyone who thinks being shot on sight is a fitting punishment for -any- crime deserves to be locked up in a mental facility until they can grasp the basic notions of human decency.
#200 - sloot (04/29/2015) [-]
How hard is it to conduct yourself like a functional member of society?
Who has to suffer due to the actions of these people?

Non-Aggression Principle... If society didn't have the cancerous people at the bottom of the barrel we could all get along fine and not need the FED governing every single aspect of our lives.

So 99.9999998% of gun owners manage to be responsible and not kill anyone? Well, because of that .00000002% of fucktards now no one can have guns.

Understand the trend? You support the people who cause the whole punishment. Congrats...
User avatar #209 - questionableferret (04/29/2015) [-]
Y'know, I dunno why, but I think those statistics of yours might just be a little inaccurate. Only a little bit. Just a thought.

Now, to be fair, I've got a 4000 character limit here and I'm gonna find it really hard to convince you in this limit of just how astonishingly wrong what you just said was but if you'll be respectful and just assume that you might not be 100% correct on this matter it'd save us both a lot of time.

1) So, you think the government would be un-intrusive if there were no criminals? Because for a long time there were criminals and the feds managed to be pretty damn un-intrusive. It was only after 9/11 happened that we began to see a massive spike in federal power and militarisation of the police force. It's got nothing to do with the criminals, it's the culture of terror and power that has built up in the US since then. Heck, we went to war with a country we didn't need to go to war with and destabilised a whole region of the world because of 9/11.

(Well, also because military contractors pay a large amount of the running funds for the more war-hawkish of politicians, allowing them to run their campaigns because they end up pumping money into the military industry.)

2) You're saying we shoot the rioters. Then we shoot the cops too? The ones that kill black people? The ones that sparked this whole riot by beating the shit out of an innocent guy and then almost severed his spine in half once they'd thrown him, unsecured, into the back of their van?

Because that's what you're advocating for here. Killing all the criminals.

3) Crime's not so easily explainable. Criminals aren't just 'bad people', it comes from environmental factors, parentage, schooling, etc. A lot of poor black folks don't bother going to the police anymore because it so often ends up in brutality these days. They stick to themselves. Even before this started happening these guys didn't have much opportunity to rise up in the world. A black man that works in the Senate, doing the job of three people for minimum wage, has to live on the streets. That's not just a black-person problem, that's a poor person problem, and people of all colours commit crimes more often the poorer the area that they live in is.

They don't have the money for a proper education, so they can't get a proper job. The minimum wage is too low for them to live on. If they're a minority group it's even harder for them to get work outside of their own neighbourhoods. And even if that weren't enough the job market is growing more slowly than the population is increasing, so in some places there aren't even low-paying jobs.

To these people -everything- is against them. A lot of them don't get to have any dreams of their own. One of the reasons gangster rap took off was because it was one of the few ways for poor people to actually become successful these days. In a situation where the very government that is meant to be protecting them is killing them more than it is protecting them these people are understandably angry. Sure, it'd be better if they protested peacefully, but they've been doing that for decades and this is all it's gotten them.

They're rioting because it is the only option left open for them. Yes, they're stealing, because most of them can't afford shit even when they're pulling two jobs because they have kids or maybe medical needs etc. It doesn't excuse this kind of behaviour, but the people in the wrong aren't the rioters, it's the government for pushing these people into such a corner.

To say they should all be shot demonstrates that you don't understand their situation, nor do you understand the cause of all of this, nor the goal, because if you really gave a shit about stopping riots you'd not be going on about shooting them, you'd be demanding change and a breaking away from corporatist corruption, because all killing them ends up doing is making more people riot. It doesn't solve the problem.
#232 - sloot (04/29/2015) [-]
I appreciate you taking the time to express your views. It's always beneficial to learn how others feel about a topic.

First yes, my statistics where not researched (gasp). I was implying the millions of people own guns responsibly in America and every time the media picks up a school shooting people loose their minds and justify taking everyone's guns away (the actions of a few punishing the whole).

#1 Although I disagree with your line of logic (the Fed has always used the "boogeyman" in many different forms to get around the law), I was not referring to the government intruding our personal lives. I am speaking more along the line of government dependence. All of these insane entitlement programs are doing three things; making people dependent on the government, driving our national debt into the ground, and giving the government more and more power. For example if people had the ability to provide for themselves and save for their futures we would not need them. This perpetual dependance is the lead cause of poverty and ignorance (your two main influencing factors or this rioting).

#2 Personal responsibility. You should be prepared to accept the consequences of your actions. If I break into someone's house to rob them I am accepting the possibility that I may be shot and killed. The same line of logic should be applied to people who decide their own short term happiness is more important than others. So how is if fair some one could have worked their entire life to save money to start their own business just to have selfish people destroy everything they worked for and ruining the economic potential of the area? This is supported by the Castle Doctrine (In my state). If a riot were to ever happen here and looters started breaking windows and looting my business I could legally kill all of them. Getting back on topic, we now live in a reactive society. People always want to point fingers instead of asking why? Lets break down some helpful questions that might change your opinion. What was (insert any recent victim) doing? Why was (recent victim) stopped by police. Why didn't (recent victim) comply with law enforcement. How would things have been different if (recent victim) complied or avoided breaking the law in the first place?

#3 This is a painfully Liberal justification of behavior. You can't look at the circle of poverty and accept it.. You can't look at government corruption and accept it. It would be like justifying someone's racism because "thats how he was raised". You need to look at problems as something to be fixed. At times people think giving helps, but never teaching people how to provide for themselves is hurting their potential.

And yes I do understand. My Dad was poor growing up and put himself through school and went to to be a successful Engineer. He instilled the values of handwork and more importantly good morals upon me. Even when I have struggled only having a few dollars in my bank account I would never even consider stealing. It is just a pathetic sign of weakness and poor character. I understand where you are coming from, but I do not accept it. Maybe it is the willpower of people, maybe it is different expectations, but in the end if you want something bad enough and are willing to work for it you can achieve it.

User avatar #312 - questionableferret (04/29/2015) [-]
1) That's not actually the case. It's something of a libertarian myth. The only reason the 'entitlement' programs are causing a drain on resources is because of the state's unwillingness to properly tax the richest in society. See, over the last thirty/forty years the amount of money in the US has gone up, but it has become consolidated into the hands of fewer and fewer people to the point where the rest are just left scrabbling for what scraps are left.

Unless the people that actually have the money are properly taxed the money does not re-enter the economy until they spend it, and even then once they've spent it it usually just ends up in the pockets of other equally rich people. There is still enough money in the USA for every person to live comfortably, but the government is unwilling to tax the people that have it, thus the government gets less funds coming in.

It then also chooses to expend vast amounts of its income on military equipment, even in cases where the equipment is not needed, because the people that pay for the politicians to run their campaigns are usually the ones lobbying for them to lessen taxes, regulations, etc, and to put more spending into things that benefit the donors but not the people.

By the end the poorest in society have almost nothing left to share between them. In the UK the welfare state was fantastically effective for many, many decades, supporting those who were out of work or too infirmed to get a job until better opportunities came their way, however the climate at the moment in the UK has it where even if people did get one of the very rare job openings they would be doing the work of 2/3 people for the pay of half of one, so the job market itself is what is forcing people in the UK onto welfare, because the only other option is backbreaking overworking.

The same trends exist in the US, only they're worse over here and they are only going to get even worse unless businesses are regulated to pay their workers properly, treat them like human beings, and employ the right amount of people to do each job. If that was the case then that would buy the US about ten more years before the problem came round again, because the honest truth is the population is growing faster than the job-market is and with new technology on the horizon that job market is just gonna grow more and more slowly, and possibly even begin to shrink, as the largest industry in the US (the transport industry) is gonna be broken to pieces when self-driving cars/trucks come along, making the human element in the business smaller and smaller, costing jobs and saving on payroll (payroll is generally one-to-two thirds of a company's annual expenditure, hence why they want less people doing more work.)

So the problem is much, much more complicated than many give it credit for and high welfare costs is just a symptom of many, many other problems coming together now and they're gonna come together again further down the line unless you can keep the population of the USA equal with the number of places available in the job market and stop the continual process of mechanisation from lowering that overall jobs figure.

Also, fun fact, millennials that went to college will need a pension of about 7 Million dollars in order to be able to retire at the proper age with the current cost of living in the US, and most jobs just don't give people that kind of money, so even if they -were- employed that future they would be planning for is a pretty damn bleak one.

(Sorry, these are really big issues that take a lot of words to cover properly so I'm gonna need another post after this one.)
User avatar #314 - questionableferret (04/29/2015) [-]
2) Well, let's answer those questions.

What was the victim that started these riots doing? Nothing.
Why was he stopped by the police? He made eye-contact with them and ran away.
Why didn't he comply with law enforcement? He had a switchblade.
How would things have been different? If he hadn't have run away from the cops the cops might not have thought twice about him. But he did run, so the cops chased him and inflicted vicious wounds onto him before they found the switchblade. They then tossed him into the back of their van, didn't secure him down, and by the time he was at the precinct his spinal chord was nearly severed all the way through and he was in a coma.

The guy was no saint, he had been arrested on misdemeanour and drug offences beforehand, but the only thing the police had on him was he ran away from them, and that was enough for them to inflict criminal levels of brutality on the guy. What is more, he only had a switchblade. In a country where people are so proud of their firearms a switchblade is a fairly low-key weapon and he lived in a violent area, so the argument could be made it was for self-defence.

Point is, he made a stupid move and they killed him for it. Six people got suspended with full pay even after they lied about the brutality of the capture in their reports. This, coupled with the massive and unregulated violence, thuggish behaviour, and murderous abuse of power perpetrated by the police across the US of late incited a culture of oppressed people who are angry at the government to take that anger out on people that didn't deserve it.

The rioters are at fault, but so is the government for allowing the situation to get this far out of hand and for not doing what is necessary to stop this kind of violence from the police, the people who are meant to protect and serve people, not to brutalise them.

Only when you can really sympathise with the criminal can you understand how to fix the problems that made them into criminals in the first place. Just saying "Shoot all the criminals" doesn't solve those core problems, it just makes the criminals more violent.

3) And what happens where there is no work? When there is no honest rout to get those things they want? When the things they want are safety and happiness for their children but they know they can't provide? Your dad came from nothing but in a very, very different job market to today, and even you probably exist in a very different environment to these guys. They don't have the opportunities that you do so many never bother to be typically 'honest'. How strong can your character be if from the day you're born you and everyone else around you know what people call 'strength of character' will get you nothing.

Maybe if you're lucky you get born smart. Maybe you go to a school that gives a shit about you. Maybe you get a scholarship. But even then your name, your background, if anything smells like 'The Hood' you're going in at a disadvantage.

There have been a number of peaceful protests but just like you pick up on the media's sensationalism about gun violence I'm pointing out the media's sensationalism about violent protest. And y'know what? That violent protest is working. People are opening their eyes and starting to actually talk about all of these problems. Even you and I are talking about it here and now. It's still not justifiable behaviour, but it worked. It let them get their frustrations out and it got us talking about their societal issues.
#318 - sloot (04/29/2015) [-]
I now I have already stated this but it feels like you are justifying the behavior of people who have never known anything but poverty so they frankly have given up trying for a better life because they have been fed this logic their whole lives.

I have one major point I would like to get across. I live in Indiana. Gary Indiana is one of the poorest most violent ghettos in the country. We have social programs that allow people to receive HUD in 2 year increments. All they have to do is move out of state receive HUD from another state. Then come back and start over. I grew up in the same city as Purdue University (very prestigous engineering uni). Growing up in this city every year we would get students from Gary and Chicago. These students were given the opportunity to go to schools that actually tried to force them to educate themselves. Over the years West Lafayette Crime has been on the continual rise and gang activity has increased immensely due to fair housing laws the city had to literally build slums of government housing to accomodate all these people flooding in. And what have they done? Kept the same mindset and behaviour and applied it to a more lucrative city.

This is the flaw of the progressive mindset. You can't give someone something they don't want and don't know how to use and expect them to become successful you have to find a way to change the problem.
User avatar #320 - questionableferret (04/29/2015) [-]
And the way to solve that problem is through education. Why do those people you're talking about elevate themselves? Because they're being educated. Because they have had those chances. These other people that are coming in from elsewhere? They've not learned the values of education. They don't know any other life and worst of all they probably blame the government and the people who work for it for their problems, so when the government does come around they don't try to better themselves because it's too little too late for them.

We're talking about people who not only won't consider that sort of thing, but who don't know they're not considering it. It's hard-wired into their brains at that point and getting them to change requires them to trust someone the way that children trust their teachers. You can't just bring someone into a nice place and expect them to follow suit, we both agree on that, but the fact is that these people aren't even aware of how they're hampering themselves unconsciously.

But y'know what'd help? It'd help if the government wasn't viewed as some faceless organisation where everyone working for it has an agenda, where the cops are all violent murderous psychopaths. That's not what it's like, but that's what it -looks- like from out of the lens of that community.

If these people had faith in the government. If they trusted the government. If they had people they had invested in and cared about to help guild them out of their mindset and into a better, more productive one, then maybe the good people could be saved.

But that necessitates there is somewhere for them to go. Some jobs for them to have. Some wealth to earn. Minimum wage is so low there's no point. Jobs are so scarce finding them is very difficult and almost impossible to actually get if that's your background, wether you want to change or not.

The whole US is sick. It is sick and it needs to get some hella-good medicine. We can't just kill people. We can't just daemonise people. We have to be the bigger men and try to treat these people as we'd want to be treated. Guide them to the right path. Not because they're poor or because they're black, but because life has shat all over them and nobody deserves to live that way.

This is just one of many symptoms of the systematic ruination of what was once the American Dream. The rich have all the money. The middle-classes are left struggling for the scraps that are left, and the poor make do with what they can. It's something seen all over the world, regardless of race, regardless of gender, this whole mess is just disgusting and until we fix the political system nothing's gonna change. Luckily there are some modern-day heroes working on that front to get a new amendment into the government that should help matters immensely, but I think they'll win too late to curtail the disaster that is gonna be this next election cycle.
#322 - sloot (04/29/2015) [-]
I can agree with you that minimum wage is not set at a livable scale. This is not something that can be fixed by simply taxing the rich more. The top 1/3 or wage earners already cover nearly all incoming tax revenue. To put it in more surpising terms, if someone were making 150k a year it would take six people making 30k a year to equal what that one person making 150k a year makes. Now call me whatever you want, but in most instances one you start making 6 figures you typically have immense skill and have worked your ass off to get to that point. How is it fair to take so much money from people who have found succes in life? You are litteraly punishing success and rewarding failure. I don't not agree with that mindset. You can't put a gun to the head of citizens and demand they pay arbitrary taxes they do not agree with. If we are talking about criminals then let's talk about the Fed who are litterally stealing under the guise of taxes.
User avatar #324 - questionableferret (04/29/2015) [-]
Okay, real-talk time. That's part truth and part bullshit. The part that is truth is that up to about the point where people are earning about 150K a year more or less that's where the skill bottoms out (unless you're talking the creative industries where 'skill' doesn't earn you shit, but 'popularity' is king, how you become popular is your own choice.)

But then you start hitting the big questions like "Who the fuck needs more than 150K a year?" And the answer is nobody, but enough people are making significantly more than that that we should start taking notice. If someone is earning 300K a year I am absolutely fine with taking away 150K of that, just as I'm fine with taking away 50K from the guy earning 100K and 15K from the guy earning 75K. Nobody needs that fuck-off massive amount of money. Nobody's living expenses ever need to go that high. Past a point it is just wealth for the sake of wealth, and that's not necessary. The people who actually need that money are the poorest in society who can barely scrabble together what it takes to survive, let alone to have any degree of comfort.

And remember how a lot of these super-rich people manage to become super-rich. Many of them are born into wealth. Others are fine with cutting as many corners as possible in their businesses to save money, like making people redundant and making the guys who are still there do twice the workload to compensate whilst not paying them proportionally. Many people get vast sums of money on the stock exchange.

There are very few people that are actually so skilled in the world today that they merit 200K a year or higher.

I don't care about the few people that earn that much money and whatever right they think they have to hoard the money away from the people who need it most. Imagine if that money was all food. These people getting more food than they could ever reasonably eat whilst in the same country hundreds are struggling to get by with barely two plates a day, certainly not enough to live off of.

If you want to call it stealing then call it stealing, but regardless of how those people earned that money they don't deserve it more than the people and the country that is slowly devolving without it.

Do you know what caused the recession? You're gonna say the government enforcing sub-prime loans, yes? Well that was certainly a problem. But what really caused the recession was greed. Plain and simple greed. People taking what they didn't deserve. Those sub-prime loans were taken greedily by the people and the investment banks gambling with the money of other people whilst it's insured by the government was also and still is greedy.

So fine. You might call the government a criminal for stealing, I call it a hero. Because the belief that people deserve to live in over-abundant splendour whilst other people are stuck in crippling poverty isn't fair, it isn't right, and it also isn't sustainable.

The federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour. By the beginning of this year 29 states mandated minimum wages above the federal minimum. The rest are either at the federal minimum or are below it. $7.25 an hour. Eight hours a day (with a lunch break), nine 'til five, for five days a week only nets people $290 per week to live on. Good luck supporting kids on that wage. So people get a second job that eats into their personal lives, it makes them miserable, many people even then can't make ends meet.

We both know that THIS ^ shit shouldn't be happening. But even then, if the wage increases to something as high as $15 per hour that's still only netting people. Round about 28,000 a year. Now, that's enough to live on, but do the people that earn 150K work five times harder than these guys? Maybe than some of them, but probably not. I don't think that means they shouldn't get more money, because skillz pay bills, but whose bills are five times higher than that of regular families? Nobody's. Past that it's just greed.
#313 - sloot (04/29/2015) [-]
I guess I'll just respond to this post first.

Your hitting the key points of the classical Capitalism VS Socialism debate.

You will expect me to say Capitalism is proven to work the past, then I will bring up how today's Croney Capitalism by our corupt government is at fault. I Will also point out how socialism has not worked on any society in the past and it removes incentive to work... Ok let's agree to disagree on this issue. Everyone thinks they understand how to fix the economy but this digresses from the issue at hand. I should not have brought this up.

In short, riots happen in poor areas. Poor people receiving help (which they need in this poor economy ignoring how we me dissagree the economy is suffering). They never learn to provide for themselves this creating generation after generation of people acustomed to receiving welfare from the government. Until something changes and you can convince these people to value education and change their life styles Nothing will change.
#321 - sloot (04/29/2015) [-]
I can agree with you that minimum wage is not set at a livable scale. This is not something that can be fixed by simply taxing the rich more. The top 1/3 or wage earners already cover nearly all incoming tax revenue. To put it in more surpising terms, if someone were making 150k a year it would take six people making 30k a year to equal what that one person making 150k a year makes. Now call me whatever you want, but in most instances one you start making 6 figures you typically have immense skill and have worked your ass off to get to that point. How is it fair to take so much money from people who have found succes in life? You are litteraly punishing success and rewarding failure. I don't not agree with that mindset. You can't put a gun to the head of citizens and demand they pay arbitrary taxes they do not agree with. If we are talking about criminals then let's talk about the Fed who are litterally stealing under the guise of taxes.
User avatar #315 - questionableferret (04/29/2015) [-]
Y'know, you had me until that those last two sentences. It's not about them never learning to provide for themselves, it's a lot of other, more complicated factors to it. In the current climate there is no reason for them to value education because it offers them next to no value anyway since the jobs they'll end up getting are almost always entry-level, minimum-wage work.

But either way, I've posted the other half of my response so dig into that.
User avatar #182 - riotshieldman (04/29/2015) [-]
found the fucking nigger lurking our website
#179 - Mr Unsmiley (04/29/2015) [-]
Funnyjunk loves to be hypocrites, and crucifies you when you call them out on it. We're just as bad as Tumblr.
#245 - nigeltheoutlaw (04/29/2015) [-]
Pretty much. It's funny that the hypocritical tumblresque comments got greens, but this comment and the one your responded to did as well. Maybe the normal, rational people of FJ just shut their mouths most of the time?
#205 - imjared (04/29/2015) [-]
Then why is he being thumbed up?
#277 - anonymous (04/29/2015) [-]
Because FJ's AWARE of this and is willing to admit it.
User avatar #207 - Mr Unsmiley (04/29/2015) [-]
Because FJ is full of dumbasses. Would've thought that much was obvious.
#12 - Comment deleted 04/23/2015 on Female Nature Photo 0
#14 - There was one time I was visiting a college with my friend and… 04/16/2015 on (untitled) 0
#49 - Please tell me you can see the irony behind your comment 04/16/2015 on man's heart +1
#27 - During most college football games both schools will show at l…  [+] (1 new reply) 04/08/2015 on Bachelor's, Only 4 Easy... 0
User avatar #29 - fiveblackmen (04/08/2015) [-]
There are good schools with online programs but they don't advertise because they don't need to. I know a lot of state universities either already have or are starting up completely online campuses, and these are fully accredited. You pay the same rate as the traditional classes without the cost of living in the dorms. I am sure there are many private schools that at least offer some classes online. As far as colleges advertising during college games, I can understand that. Although they are already getting advertising just by having a team on the field.
#25 - No, then I'd be asking if you want fries with that, as you are 04/08/2015 on Bachelor's, Only 4 Easy... 0
#22 - Said the high school dropout  [+] (2 new replies) 04/08/2015 on Bachelor's, Only 4 Easy... 0
User avatar #24 - wotterpatch (04/08/2015) [-]
"I'm sitting here trying to justify my thousands of dollars of student loans for a degree in liberal arts"-angryhornet
User avatar #25 - angryhornet (04/08/2015) [-]
No, then I'd be asking if you want fries with that, as you are
#21 - If you watch sporting events you will see advertisements for r…  [+] (3 new replies) 04/08/2015 on Bachelor's, Only 4 Easy... 0
User avatar #26 - fiveblackmen (04/08/2015) [-]
I live in New Jersey and have never seen a legitimately good college advertise. Although I don't really watch any sports, so that may be why. Also, I wouldn't go as far as classifying DeVry, University of Phoenix and ITT Tech together. DeVry, for as shitty as it is, actually has accreditation, University of Phoenix was accredited but may not be anymore because they were on the verge of losing it a few years back and ITT Tech is not accredited at all so any credits or degrees you earn through them are pretty much worthless. Don't get me wrong, they are all shit, but varying degrees of shit.
User avatar #27 - angryhornet (04/08/2015) [-]
During most college football games both schools will show at least one advertisement nationally. Not so much during regular programming, so that's probably the difference. As for the online schools, I really don't know much about them so you're probably right
User avatar #29 - fiveblackmen (04/08/2015) [-]
There are good schools with online programs but they don't advertise because they don't need to. I know a lot of state universities either already have or are starting up completely online campuses, and these are fully accredited. You pay the same rate as the traditional classes without the cost of living in the dorms. I am sure there are many private schools that at least offer some classes online. As far as colleges advertising during college games, I can understand that. Although they are already getting advertising just by having a team on the field.
[ 265 Total ]

user's friends

User avatar brainstew    

Comments(0):

 
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
No comments!
 Friends (0)