USA vs Canada. New dad: www.crackedsorcerer.com/post/1605/New-dad. I In I habit' f re -uh. gun whiterice, - . In care system is , . mu guy! fel/ r, madrid I lea USA vs Canada New dad: www crackedsorcerer com/post/1605/New-dad I In habit' f re -uh gun whiterice - care system is mu guy! fel/ r madrid lea
Upload
Login or register
Hide Comments
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (241)
[ 241 comments ]
Anonymous comments allowed.
asd
#8 - economicfreedom
Reply +131 123456789123345869
(08/01/2014) [-]
Contrary to popular belief, crime DOES pay; that's why people do it. Maybe if the government stopped limiting competition and driving the price of drugs so high, then drug dealing wouldn't be so profitable and gangs would stop killing each other while trying to gain monopoly power over the market. You could easily cut the country's murder rate in half by legalizing drugs.

Our healthcare system is ****** partly because the American Medical Association is basically a cartel of doctors that limits entry into the field, and partly because people's use of insurance on pretty much everything stops people from going and and searching for the best prices (like every other thing in the economy) so there's no incentive for companies to lower prices. Furthermore, people using insurance for everything also contributes directly to the cost because of all the paperwork and arguing between hospitals and insurance companies.

I'm glad we're divided on every major issue because it means people don't just give in to ****** polices. The reason states exist is so that they can do their own thing and the federal government wouldn't have to force a single way on the entire population.
Though the last century, government has been the single most unstable part of the economy. Things are generally better during a deadlock except for the debt ceiling which is just retarded .
#24 to #8 - drdisrespect
-5 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #25 to #24 - economicfreedom
Reply +9 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
Milton Friedman - Why Drugs Should Be Legalized
Milton Friedman: The American Medical Association and Monopolization A nobel prize winning economist knows more than politicians who only care about getting reelected
User avatar #44 to #25 - turtletroll
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
You really love that guy
User avatar #47 to #44 - economicfreedom
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
I really do.
He had an opinion on everything and he could back up his views with economics.
#67 to #47 - anon id: 579880f3
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
you must like jehova witnesses, they too have opinion and can back it up
User avatar #48 to #47 - turtletroll
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
What about the conversation we were having before?

Some of the facts he were using were a bit off
User avatar #54 to #48 - economicfreedom
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
I'm not British so I have very little knowledge of the NHS.

However, even as a matter of principle, I would prefer we try to fix our broken system first so that people would have the option to choose which doctor is right for them, as well as making sure that one person's healthy behavior does not become a cost for someone else. Because in the UK, cigarettes are taxed to death and so is fast food. One of my core beliefs is that people should be allowed to live their lives as they see fit as they hurt anyone else. If healthcare were socialized, the government would then have an excuse to get involved with people's personal lives like they do in the UK.
User avatar #138 to #54 - turtletroll
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
I can pick what doctor I want.

And yeah we do tax it a lot but you can still get a burger and chips with a drink in Mcdonalds for like £1.50 so it's nothing bad there and the smoking thing I kind of agree but what has worked the most is that cigarette companies are not allowed to advertise and people can't smoke in public places aside from designated smoking areas.

#57 to #54 - anon id: 44c69ff1
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
unhealthy*
#173 to #57 - anon id: 44c69ff1
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
As long as they don't hurt*
#89 to #8 - anon id: 8aa10952
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
you need to make content like this.
User avatar #103 to #8 - jukuku
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
And for many issues there is an objectively superior method to employ. In economics, healthcare, etc. there is always a 'best option'.

Private payer is a god damned cancer which kills people by the tens of thousands in the US. It is estimated that 40 billion dollars is wasted on big brother administrative costs alone because there isn't a single payer system, which is public healthcare.
#117 to #8 - anon id: 80ab60a7
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
"and partly because people's use of insurance on pretty much everything stops people from going and and searching for the best prices"
This
+it's backed by the state
+if you don't have it it's going to become very ******* expensive not to have it
And nobody try blaming the left or the right for this corporatist ******** because both sides have blood on their hands.
#130 to #8 - anon id: 9e515dd5
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
My issue in politics is divisions over irrelevant topics seems as more of a divisionary/distraction tactic so we don't work towards solutions that benefit the population but puts more control elsewhere. Full on tin-foil I know... but really.. gay rights? Who cares whos ******* who. Abortion? It's not your offspring, who cares if they're going to be condemned accoridng to your religion. Quit making these back breaking topics of debate in politics which right now should be more concerned with the econcomy.
#182 to #8 - metalmind
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #191 to #8 - metalmind
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
Maybe there should be a maximum limit on the prices for health insurances?
Maybe the fault lies more with the insurance industry.
You know, here in Germany everybody has health insurance, the costs are much, much lower, both for the companies and for the customers, and almost all of them cover more than any of yours do.
The problem with the USAs' healthcare isn't not enough economic freedom, it's a complete and utter lack of regulation on medicine prices, since due to the specificity of a lot of drugs there can't be any real competition.
I mean get realistic.
You have less regulation in your healthcare system than pretty much all other developed countries, but in consequence, it's not better, it's far, far worse.

Plus, I know you couldn't give a **** about the well being of people, and about weather or not a cancerpatient dies, or is completely bankrupted, or if poor people can't afford a proper university.
But think about how much potential the US looses through that.

And you're just, frankly shamelessly and completely lying about the muder rate cutting in half if you solved gang violence.
All gang or cartell related murders only make up 12,48% (1.824 in total out of 14.612 in 2011) of your total muder rate.
Do the math, and don't just claim facts without looking them up.
Not close to 50%. Not by a long shot.

I agree with you though that decriminalising Drugs would reduce your crime rate over all, and think that deprivatising prisons would considerably lower you overall imprisonment rate, and save the government, and with that the people, quite a lot of money.
#90 to #8 - rankus
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
Ah, a fellow Milt fan =).

I really, really love that video of Friedman talking about his ideas regarding licensure. Such a cool thought! However the barriers to entry are in reality much less significant than you are making them appear to be, though technically yes, they are present. I just wouldn't bother mentioning it in a public forum. The public finds value in them (there is nothing wrong with that) and they seem to be here to stay. Your statement about insurance is absolutely true -there is little incentive to seek out a better price as a patient. Have you heard of reference pricing? It is a way that insurance companies can remedy this. CalPERS has been witnessing great success using this and I know many economists like Uwe Reinhardt/John Goodman are hoping for a wider implementation to help curb rising costs.

Also kudos, I agree wholeheartedly with you on the overuse of insurance in this country. Insurance is, at its core, at a transfer of risk. It really should be that people merely purchase catastrophic insurance and pay directly upfront with PRETAX dollars for predictable complications in something a la a HSA (tho thats not perfect either). Also get rid of the oddity that is employer-based insurance, expand retail based clinics, I could go on and on lol.

Btw you ever read that piece from the Freakonomics guys comparing being in a gang to a frycook at McDonalds? They paint a good picture of how crime only pays for those at the top. I think it was in their second book but I believe there was also a video.
#105 to #8 - guldknight
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
I don't agree with you, but i respect your opinion   
 Gif unrelated
I don't agree with you, but i respect your opinion
Gif unrelated
User avatar #175 to #8 - chrisoid
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
Vote Ron Paul 2014
#92 to #8 - hazelnutqt
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
On the "divided on every issue", I feel like America would benefit greatly from having more than a 2-party system.. Add some more parties to the mix, get a varied system in there y'know?
User avatar #95 to #92 - commontroll
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
It's not like you can only run as a democrat or republican. There's plenty of parties but the two main ones just have too much power and money so the people only think of the other parties as stupid hippies or brainwashed rednecks or naive college students.
#96 to #95 - hazelnutqt
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
Yeah that's the thing, and why I mention it.. Most countries that are more successful than America has more than two parties
User avatar #97 to #96 - commontroll
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
Most countries more successful in the European sense are far less varied in political spectrum though. And it makes sense because America has half the population as all of Europe combined. European nations have far less representing to do.
#98 to #97 - hazelnutqt
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
I'm not following
User avatar #99 to #98 - commontroll
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
I'm saying that while there may be several parties that are popular in these nations, these parties are incredibly similar and would almost all fit inside the American Democrats party.
#100 to #99 - hazelnutqt
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
Gonna need you to back up this claim with some facts, this doesn't seem right at all
User avatar #108 to #100 - commontroll
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
Compare gun rights, abortion, feminist and politically correct laws, immigration as well as social care systems of Europe, and they match up with the more extreme Democrats.
User avatar #113 to #100 - klaes
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
He means that pretty much every single party in Europe would be considered "liberal" in the United States. This is because on the political spectrum the US as a nation is far more to the right than most of Europe. Compare gun rights, prostitution, abortion, feminism, health care laws, etc.

Consider the fact that in the United States the word "socialist" is practically a curse while in Europe there are large numbers of politicians who identify themselves as exactly that. Commontroll is correct.
#114 to #113 - hazelnutqt
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
I'm aware of this, but how this makes a two-party system a good thing is beyond me.
User avatar #178 to #114 - commontroll
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
I never said it was a good thing. You misunderstood my first comment which was saying that we simply have the media only covering Democrats and Republicans. By doing that they then paint the green party, libertarians, tea party members, and others as crazy idiots, simply because they have different views than the big two.

Essentially it's just two groups trying to monopolize our politics. However, among the Democrats and the Republicans there are many varying degrees of intensity, and many who would be among other parties simply call themselves Republicans or Democrats because they are more right or left wing. Personally I don't mind so much though because quite plainly, it balances out our policies more.
User avatar #115 to #114 - klaes
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
Oh... neither do I. A two party system is never a good thing, it's just the ****** natural consequence of using a first past the post political system
#147 to #92 - anon id: 681ae7be
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
There are more than 2 parties in USA, unfortunately election zones are divided in such a way that it makes it impossible to win anything or have any impact. For example Wisconsin from time to time is won by Social-Democrats, and imho they did a very good job there...
#102 to #8 - jukuku
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
"I'm glad we're divided on every major issue because it means people don't just give in to ****** polices. The reason states exist is so that they can do their own thing and the federal government wouldn't have to force a single way on the entire population."


The difference of political opinions in the US isn't rational, it is blind adherence to party doctrine. They don't compromise, they will sooner wrench the entire ******* government than compromise to the other party. The people that buy into supporting an entire party's platform without questions should be hung by their eyelids and have their balls hit with a hammer until they blink.

In reality the 'difference in opinion' looks more like pic related when it comes to US politics.
User avatar #87 to #8 - dsgbiohazard
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
Except that if drugs were legalized, then we would also have a lot more people doing drugs. (aka bad for the country)
#145 to #87 - tranminh
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
Not much would change, non-users would remain non-users and drug users would have a safe and legit avenue to take the drugs they want. In other countries where they 100% legalized drugs there was a slight increase of use after the law was passed but soon after those numbers dropped way way low
User avatar #184 to #145 - dsgbiohazard
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
Yeah, you guys are absolutely right. Plus, I was really never much against drugs. The idea of how bad they are is so intense, that taking a sip of a beer to see if you like it or not has became an 'awkward peer pressuring situation'. I don't like beer, and I think it tastes AWFUL. But it's just a little ridiculous. But yeah, it would be best if drugs were just made legal.
User avatar #135 to #87 - KillinTime
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
you say that but many places that did legalize drugs got a significant drop in users.
#136 to #87 - anon id: a043fd23
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
maybe at first, but the reason alot of people do drugs is because its illegal, kinda like a **** you to society, when its legalized itll probably play out alot like colorado or portugal. there would be no secret drug society so drugs would lose alot of thier allure.
User avatar #104 to #8 - jukuku
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
"Though the last century, government has been the single most unstable part of the economy."

You cannot be ******* serious. The most unstable component in nearly every single 1st world nation has been the financial institutions.

"Hey, let's bet on housing market prices!"
"Let's use interest loans to create a bubble!"

The government failed to regulate them and they are failing to do so now.
User avatar #150 to #104 - economicfreedom
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
Thomas Sowell on the Housing Boom and Bust Government regulators could be directly blamed for the housing crisis. Banks are already regulated plenty.
User avatar #192 to #150 - metalmind
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
Now that is a good ******* joke.
#206 to #192 - anon id: e9eccccb
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
>Force banks to give out loans to people who have no business getting loans
>Guarantee banks will get their money back from the Federal Reserve when the ****** loans fall through
>Give CEOs bonuses for complying with policy
>Call it deregulation

top lel
#36 to #8 - madcoww
Reply +21 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
Whoa, that was ******* intense...
#76 to #36 - boomerpyro
Reply -5 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
it's like he flash fried my brain, damn he would make a good soccer coach.
#1 - usarmyexplain
Reply +83 123456789123345869
(08/01/2014) [-]
Lets not forget, they also speak French.
Lets not forget, they also speak French.
#186 to #1 - anon id: 4d54e96c
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
Only in America would speaking 2 languages be a bad thing.
User avatar #204 to #1 - SylverSlayer
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
Canadian here; Quebec french is pretty much only useful in Canada.
You try to speak that **** in france, you get laughed at.
User avatar #172 to #1 - buttholee
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
...by choice. While a lot of "Americans" are speaken Spanish. So yeah, take that I guess.
User avatar #39 to #1 - perform
Reply +10 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
Aside from Quebec (no seriously **** Quebec) not a lot of schools mandate you to take French beyond the eighth grade. My school requires Grade 9 French, but after that, you're free. Nobody here actually likes to speak French (except ******* Quebec), so not a lot of us actually speak it. Except Quebec. **** Quebec.
#119 to #39 - iamaniceperson
Reply +12 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
User avatar #158 to #119 - plasticcup
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
now i feel sorry for quebec.
#225 to #158 - geofffiftyfive
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
Don't feel bad for quebec. **** quebec
#198 to #158 - anon id: 3b68e607
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
It's pretty much like this everytime Quebec is mentionned
#232 to #119 - anon id: 0d2b0c5e
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
But... french people actually love Quebec, where did you heard we don't like them ?

See how many actual french there are in Quebec, I don't think this would be the case if we hated them so much. And also Canada is a big french dream, though we dissociate the two of them.

Sorry but it hurts my feelings. Let's go back to those snails.
#62 to #39 - incest
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
I like speaking french and I'm on the other side of the country.


I'm sorry.
User avatar #63 to #62 - perform
Reply +13 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
What a faguette.
#65 to #63 - incest
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #64 to #63 - perform
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
nah jk ily bro
#243 to #63 - faguette
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(08/05/2014) [-]
User avatar #244 to #243 - perform
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/05/2014) [-]
**** MY EARS
#43 to #39 - usarmyexplain
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
User avatar #134 to #39 - sciencexplain
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
I have a friend from Quebec. She's an absolute darling. What's the problem with Quebec? Are they like the Texas of America?
User avatar #239 to #134 - perform
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/04/2014) [-]
Well, Quebecians aren't exactly bad people. Think about it like this. You absolutely hate a person and you constantly fight with them. One day, during your fight, you kill them and they fatally wound you. Your only option is to adopt a part of their body so you survive. In essence, it's all Frances fault. **** France.

We just like to laugh at people in Quebec because they pretty much forced themselves into Canada.
User avatar #240 to #239 - sciencexplain
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/04/2014) [-]
Well, was it a smart idea to force Quebec into Canada as a French-speaking region? Like, was it beneficial to the French people in some way?
User avatar #242 to #240 - perform
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/05/2014) [-]
It was at first since it seemed like a "cultural invasion" but then Canadian nature came over and everything was peaceful.
#153 to #134 - ennemi
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
pretty much yeah. But with an even more different culture and naturally another language.
User avatar #156 to #153 - sciencexplain
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
The language part isn't much of the problem, according to my friend. She says that Canadians drive through Quebec and harrass and abuse the locals because they are French speaking and they don't conform or adopt the same attitudes as the rest of the Canada. That, and it's full of rapists and pedophiles who take photos of her from their cars whenever she goes outside.
#229 to #156 - ennemi
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
Language part is a very big part of the problem, because it's associated with Quebec culture and they are surrounded by 400 millions english speaking people.
User avatar #238 to #229 - perform
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/04/2014) [-]
There's like, 38 million people in Canada. The **** are you on?
#241 to #238 - ennemi
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/04/2014) [-]
plus the us population which have a very heavy influence on Canadian culture has a whole.
#185 to #39 - anon id: 4d54e96c
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
It's not Quebec's fault if you're too retarded to pass french class in high school.
User avatar #148 to #39 - WheresMyAccount
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
**** separatists in Quebec

But we're not all the same dicks
User avatar #84 to #39 - killerliquid
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
British Columbia and the maritime provinces speak french

less than Quebec but more than the others
User avatar #56 to #39 - mystacheisop
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
man **** french. hey you know whats a good idea? lets make the entire structure of a sentence different if theyre taking about themself, anothe person, a group of people, a group of people theyre in, if theyre a man, a woman, a ******* wolf with 2 legs.
#74 to #56 - anon id: 0f8710ed
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
you just suck at learning and you're probably not very smart
#68 - EdwardNigma
Reply +36 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
Yeah, but if my country is invaded, I would rather have the U.S helping over Canada.
User avatar #154 to #68 - fishandkids
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
I wouldn't. I live in Norway (oil central) so if we got invaded by a country, the only reason the US would help would be becasue they wanted all our oil for themselves.
User avatar #188 to #154 - gayboard
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
I seriously hope you don't believe that.
User avatar #181 to #154 - SteyrAUG
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
Seems like an awful lot of work considering the US has 30 billion barrels of proven onshore reserves and an estimated offshore reserve between 66 and 115 billion barrels. It's not that much, but if the war in afghanistan was driven by private oil companies don't you think they would be invading the gulf of mexico first?
User avatar #110 to #68 - Gandalfthewhite
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
canada might include other commonwealth countries however
User avatar #128 to #110 - skypatrol
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
still wouldnt be as effective, if the u.s. sent say, half of a carrier group over.
#162 to #128 - anon id: bfccb766
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
lol nope

give me the Australian defence force any day

User avatar #209 to #68 - megusters
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
Canada special forces and military are rated higher than US military forces, we just have numbers.
User avatar #212 to #209 - EdwardNigma
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
Much larger numbers, and America still has some ******* good technology and ****.
It doesn't matter much though, if my country is invaded, likely Canada will be forced to go anyway, just as America is obliged to do so.
User avatar #213 to #212 - megusters
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
True, I just wanna move to Belfast
User avatar #226 to #68 - adrilazzaro
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
But to be fair who's more likely to invade you, Canada or america?
User avatar #227 to #226 - EdwardNigma
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
Neither because they have no reason to invade ******* Australia.
User avatar #228 to #227 - adrilazzaro
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
of course its really unlikely but i can see america going all empire happy more than canada
#72 - lulzdealer
Reply +32 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
About the gun violence thing.

ets break down the numbers from the CDC

There are roughly 32,000 deaths a year is the US and declining from Gun Violence

60% Are suicides thats 19,200
3% are accidentals that's 960
4% are justified that's 1,280
33% are homicides that's 10,560
80% of homicides are gang related. That's 8,448
>That leaves 2,112 in a society of 312 million people.

>That leaves a 0.00010256410256 chance of death by gun.
>0.000009846153846 if you don't hang out in the hood, are not planning on committing suicide, and not planning a crime.

Again, these are numbers gathered by the CDC. Check it if you don't believe me.
User avatar #190 to #72 - metalmind
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
Actually, in 2011, my little republican firend, there were 14.612 homicides in the USA of any method.
Of those, exactly 1.824 were gang related.
That, to somebody who didn't flunk 3rd grade math, gives you a rate closer to 12,48%, not 80%.
www.nationalgangcenter.gov/survey-analysis/measuring-the-extent-of-gang-problems
#203 to #190 - chubbies
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
wow less than 15 people died from homicide!
#214 to #190 - anon id: 2bfcf745
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
Reading comprehension must be a republican thing too because you sure as hell didn't read or comprehend what he said.
#207 to #190 - anon id: e9eccccb
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
He's talking about Gun Violence. How dense can you be?
#77 to #72 - megayoming
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
And that's why its ******* Hilarius.
And that's why its ******* Hilarius.
User avatar #101 to #72 - sketchE
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
i mean gun control just isnt possible in the US. first off we have more guns than people. lets just start there. 30 million people and we could give each of them at least five guns no problem. then we look at the sheer size of the US. its safe to say california is one of our most populous states. ironicly it has one of the highest gun crime rates with strict laws but thats not the point im getting to. it take approximately 8 hours to drive across the entire country of germany according to a member of this site. it takes approximately 16 hours to drive across california. basicly what that means is theres lots of dead zones where maybe 3 or four people actually live. and these three or four people are about 30 minutes from the closest police officer at minimum. so if someone breaks into your house and you wont get a response for half an hour a gun will be greatly desired. now take into account our location. for the majoraty of anti gun european countries, how do your neighboring countries feel on the issue? the exact same. gun crime isnt a problem in europe because most of europe is fairly civilized without too much corruption and a crime rate that is at least reasonable. who does the US have nearby? ******* mexico. now one of my best friends is first generation form mexico but you guys are corrupt as ****. and thats why we need guns and cant just outlaw them. an ak comes in daily from our next door neighbor how are we gonna stop a simple handgun?

end rant beer is good
User avatar #177 to #101 - SteyrAUG
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
Britain has 3 times the violent crime rate the US does.
#131 to #72 - anon id: 404477d3
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
80% 60% 33%, righto
#168 to #131 - squidamon
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
80% of HOMICIDES
User avatar #176 to #72 - peterdivine
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
I get the sense that the total pool should be from all American gun-owners, not all Americans in general, but I like your reasoning regardless.
#2 - evilhomer
Reply +22 123456789123345869
(08/01/2014) [-]
Canadian Olympics
Canadian Olympics
#3 to #2 - evilhomer
Reply +11 123456789123345869
(08/01/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #133 - dafuqmang
Reply +15 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
Remember how the HAndgun Violence in America has actually gone DOWN in the past 20-30 years?

I do.
#40 - Nizmo
Reply +14 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
mfw Americans use freedom as an argument.
mfw Americans use freedom as an argument.
User avatar #41 to #40 - gatorade
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
Y'know that, that means when a citizen of the strongest country to have ever been on this green earth says freedom, they love the great US of A. I'd lay my life on the line and gladly die for this land and what it was built on. So freedom is a valid and just argument you pathetic citizen of some American puppet state.

USA USA USA USA USA USA USA!!!
#46 to #41 - Nizmo
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
Okay, calm down there bud. We all know that every other country is an American "puppet" state.
#143 to #40 - durkadurka
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
It's the only one we need
#49 to #40 - reaperriley
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
#69 to #40 - pebar
Reply +11 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
User avatar #91 - shadowoflife
Reply +13 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
>Perfect telling of the Canadian - US argument

You mean someone tries to make a joke about the other's country and then that person has to be a bitch and talk about why they're better?
#118 - stalini
Reply +11 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
>Your people are not drones and have different opinions

nice insult there
#121 to #118 - krobeles
Reply -11 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
**krobeles rolled image**

Thats kinda funny, since last I checked, most of the US population are religious, and they practically have laws forbidding you from being an Atheist.
Not drones at all, I see!
#122 to #121 - stalini
Reply +7 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
hahahaha, how can people get that dumb?
Religiophobic people need treatment, seek a psychologist
#132 to #122 - krobeles
Reply -8 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
You know, I was convinced you were an idiot. Now, I am convinced you're just a troll.
Aint gonna take dat bait.
User avatar #141 to #132 - hashtronaut
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
if stalini is bait for believing religion is some ******* type ****... call me a worm on a hook too because he's right
#139 to #121 - durkadurka
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
#140 to #139 - krobeles
Reply -6 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
You do realise that that law gets used as the metaphorical urinal by every religious group and their mother, and that that American government lets them, right?
#142 to #140 - durkadurka
Reply +8 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
You clearly do not know what you're talking about with that gem of a line "they practically have laws forbidding you from being an Atheist."

User avatar #157 to #142 - krobeles
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
Well, I was refering to the law that prohibits you from holding public office if you're a person without faith, or something along those lines.
America has "In god we trust" on their ******* currency and has god worked into everywhere he can fit. If you dont think Christianity gets preferable treatment based on these facts and more, then I honestly dont see how I can make it any clearer.
User avatar #166 to #157 - durkadurka
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
There is no such law. It'd be illegal. Of course Christianity is ingrained in our society. It's a society built on Judeo-Christian values.

But that's not what you were talking about. You were talking about being forbidden to be an Atheist, which is just not at all true.
User avatar #169 to #166 - krobeles
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
I feel like I'm having the same conversation with two different people right now...

Regardless, heres a link to an article that talks about the law I was refering to:
www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2009/12/15/which-states-ban-atheists-from-holding-public-office/

The article lists like seven states, in which you might have issues if you're an Atheist. And its no excuse that our current society is based on Christian ideas. So is Europes society, but our church is much more divorced from the state than the Americans are.
America wasn't even build on Christian teachings. Its been superimposed on the country in later years.
User avatar #146 to #121 - flemsdfer
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
I'm calling you out on that part. Name the laws that stop you from being atheist. It's too big of a claim to not back up.
User avatar #152 to #146 - krobeles
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
I am refering to that one law that says you cannot hold public office if you're an Atheist. Sure, it dosen't stop you from being an Atheist, but you're antagonised for it, and in a western civilisation, I feel like thats equally as bad as if they outright outlawed it.
User avatar #164 to #152 - flemsdfer
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
Keep going. You've already talked a pretty unbelievable pile of ********. You'll need sources.
User avatar #167 to #164 - krobeles
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
Well, here a link:
www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2009/12/15/which-states-ban-atheists-from-holding-public-office/

It lists like seven states in which this is the case.
User avatar #171 to #167 - flemsdfer
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
Well I see them there, but I can't help but feel these are old and forgotten (like how it's illegal to bounce a pickle in some states). They are definitely unconstitutional because of the separation of church and state.
User avatar #174 to #171 - krobeles
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
You may be right. But unlike the pickle thing (we have a simmilar one in Denmark, in which you're allowed to chase Swedes out of the country with knarled sticks, if you see them crossing the ice) these laws can be used to antagonistic effect by people who want to antagonise others.
Add this to the fact that religious groups are constantly trying to merge the church and state in anyway they can, recently, I heard that Louisiana tried to make the bible their state book for eksample, makes me very sceptical towards American christians.
User avatar #106 - Epicgetguy
Reply +11 123456789123345869
(08/02/2014) [-]
>US
>Highest in Handgun violence.

We have a problem with gun violence, sure, but we're not the highest, El Salvador is.