Yee can't be serious. . WITH was. and drug lords support anti drug laws, because if pot or othert drugs were legal it would be bad for business, thats how political corruption works, the harder  Yee can't be serious WITH was and drug lords support anti laws because if pot or othert drugs were legal it would bad for business thats how political corruption works the harder
Upload
Login or register
Hide Comments
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (108)
[ 108 comments ]
> hey anon, wanna give your opinion?
asd
#104 - LocoJoe [OP]
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(05/21/2014) [-]
stickied by LocoJoe
Yee can't handle the freedom just like I can't handle the thumbs. Thanks to you all.
Yee can't handle the freedom just like I can't handle the thumbs. Thanks to you all.
#8 - feffog
Reply +258 123456789123345869
(05/21/2014) [-]
and drug lords support anti drug laws, because if pot or othert drugs were legal it would be bad for business, thats how political corruption works, the harder something is to get the more expensive you can charge for it
and drug lords support anti drug laws, because if pot or othert drugs were legal it would be bad for business, thats how political corruption works, the harder something is to get the more expensive you can charge for it
User avatar #101 to #8 - yuukoku
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/21/2014) [-]
It just goes to show why the U.S. government is allowed to outlaw drugs in the first place. The Commerce Clause of the Constitution is the only reason they can do that. If not for that, we could buy and sell virtually anything. The only reason the government gets involved is the control of money. There's also some moral aspects to it, but it's mostly about the money.
User avatar #95 to #8 - lininop
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(05/21/2014) [-]
It all makes sense now, the less violent video games there are the more organized crime he can commit!
#5 - shadowrated
Reply +112 123456789123345869
(05/21/2014) [-]
User avatar #12 - hargleblarg
Reply +50 123456789123345869
(05/21/2014) [-]
As I mention every time this **** shows up: Every video game has a recommended age. The age for "violent games"? 18 (or M for 'muricans). So, if a child has a game with a GIANT RED STICKER SAYING 18 ON IT, whose fault is it for that child owning that game?

The parent. You don't need to research it, no need to spend hours scouring the internet for information, just look at the ******* box of the game, because that red sticker comes with a list of things in the game. If it's too mature (swearing, sex etc.) then put it down and tell the child no. If it's something like "violence" then use your own ******* moral code as a parent to determine whether you trust your child to distinguish reality from fiction before handing them the game.
User avatar #29 to #12 - minorian
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/21/2014) [-]
I have never been stopped by cashiers, when buying violent games as a kid. Do they actually do that now?
User avatar #30 to #29 - hargleblarg
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/21/2014) [-]
Always did that for me and my ex. She wanted to buy Assassin's Creed for my birthday (this was about 6 years ago) and they wouldn't let her buy it. I also got denied a game because, despite me being 18 at the time, I didn't look 23 years old. Apparently that's their policy, if they look 23 then no questions asked but if not then demand ID. I had no ID on me at the time so I couldn't get the game.
#66 to #12 - viralkamina
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #90 to #66 - hargleblarg
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/21/2014) [-]
When did spanking get into this discussion?
#93 to #90 - viralkamina
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/21/2014) [-]
oh **** i replyed to a wrong comment!
User avatar #96 to #93 - hargleblarg
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/21/2014) [-]
Ah well, it happens. Enjoy your spanking.
User avatar #48 to #12 - sciencexplain
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(05/21/2014) [-]
Thank you for having a shred of understanding. I always wanted those games as a kid, but my mum always said it was illegal for me to play a ******* game. Of course it wasn't, I was too young to purchase it, but it was up to her as a parent to dictate my suitability for the game or of it for me.
#15 to #12 - steelplatypus
Reply +11 123456789123345869
(05/21/2014) [-]
I feel like I'm going to need to say that I play video games as much or more than most of the people on this website and have always been against the cockbites who're trying to ban them, there were a couple things in your argument that aren't 100% on.

First off, the age to buy an M rated game in America is 17, not 18. Also on American games its not a giant red sticker, its a much smaller label on the back that gives a very general summary of what it contains (ie. Violence, Sexual Themes, Mild Language). Then the age for "violent games" isn't M in America, there are violent games in all 3 of the major ratings (E, T, and M). The difference is E games will only have "Mild Violence" or "Fantasy Violence," and violence in T games will usually lack blood and gore. I remember playing the hell out of one of the Soul Caliber games when I was young and some of the attacks in that game were pretty brutal, like one character could literally stab someone twice in the chest, lift them into the air, then tear the swords sideways out of their body, in a T for teen game, all because it didn't show blood.

Also, so you know, a lot of the idiots going around screaming, "Ahhh violent video games are bad, we need to ban them *incoherent ramblings*" are only going after "violent video games like GTA, when studies have been conducted to show the games that have the most effect on younger kids might actually be those E and T games because when you kill someone in those games it's generally just they fall down and dissapear in a puff of smoke, no blood, no gore, no consequences. Supposedly that, more than any other game , can create a dissconection from reality, but likely some other mental issue has to be their prior anyway.

Anyway, once again, I still support video games completely, just wanted to toss you a correction or two for when you argue this in the future.

TLDR: 17 to buy M, E and T violent too, E and T possibly bigger psych problems than M, heres a wallpaper for your time
User avatar #16 to #15 - hargleblarg
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(05/21/2014) [-]
Thanks for the corrections, I'm from England so naturally I don't have a full grasp on the rating system over in 'murica. Here there are giant (and I mean giant, Dead Space 2 has an 18 sticker that takes up 1/4 of the whole box cover) red stickers that are impossible to miss, and you can't sell them to anyone below 18.
User avatar #103 to #15 - drldrl
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/21/2014) [-]
So you're saying kids need to be taught otherwise?
Gee, if only they had someone to do that...
#97 to #15 - kinginyellow
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#1 - doesthislookunsure
Reply -22 123456789123345869
(05/20/2014) [-]
Perhaps people should stop spitting about kids getting aggressiveness from video games and focus on the dumbass parents for not straightening them out in the first place.
<<action speaks louder than words
#6 to #1 - anon id: c27b66f6
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/21/2014) [-]
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONNRfflggBg

Educate yourself on the terrible consequences of spanking.
User avatar #53 to #6 - majordraco
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(05/21/2014) [-]
You know the last time I was disrespectful to my mother she took a belt to me, I hit her first, I was fourteen, she was a single mother doing the best she could since my abusive, child raping, drug addict of a father left her. If she didn't spank me I know I would have never learned respect for authority.

I thank her for correcting me with the best tools she had, and your video only shows correlation, not causation.
#60 to #1 - anon id: b029f1f5
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/21/2014) [-]
Strange, last I checked, the only thing being hit by somebody else instilled in me was a desire to strike them back, at least twice as hard, preferably to the point of crippling them so that they can't do it again.
User avatar #33 to #1 - atrocitustheking
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(05/21/2014) [-]
Well I agree with you. I was spanked ONCE. Just one pop on the ass, not one series of spanks. That was all it took.
#56 to #1 - dwarfman
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(05/21/2014) [-]
"Violence is the only solution, when I'm angry you're going to suffer." **** you, you're now a prick later in life. Worked so well broski.
User avatar #2 to #1 - tomahawkkit
Reply +31 123456789123345869
(05/21/2014) [-]
that picture is kind of ironic because you say you have respect for others but its implying disrespect to people who don't spank their kids
#9 to #2 - doesthislookunsure
Reply -8 123456789123345869
(05/21/2014) [-]
It's called learning the decency to respect people who actually have a role on Earth. Not let everything slide in hopes of success.
User avatar #76 to #9 - tomahawkkit
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(05/21/2014) [-]
so people who don't spank their kids don't have a role on earth?
#82 to #76 - doesthislookunsure
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/21/2014) [-]
I was tired when I made those comments
only "talking" to your child without taking any action increases the chance of your child being corrupt.
#18 - sirbrentcoe
Reply +24 123456789123345869
(05/21/2014) [-]
i'm serious.    
   
..and don't call me yee   
   
 racist ****
i'm serious.

..and don't call me yee

racist ****
User avatar #91 to #18 - nywrestler
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/21/2014) [-]
OK Shirley
#75 - nibbero
Reply +17 123456789123345869
(05/21/2014) [-]
User avatar #58 - pwnagraphy
Reply +12 123456789123345869
(05/21/2014) [-]
I can't tell which is worse, Yee, this cheeky **** or Feinstein Anti-Gun Senator Makes a Fool of Himself
User avatar #59 to #58 - huntergriff
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/21/2014) [-]
they both are.
#34 - swedishassassin
Reply +11 123456789123345869
(05/21/2014) [-]
#83 to #34 - anon id: e1dbf594
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/21/2014) [-]
The picture is relevant if you associate liberalism with forcing people to do or not do stuff, like forcing them to drive certain vehicles because of climate change or (more nutty) force restaurants from selling certain drink sizes. Forcing more taxes, forcing how they are spent, etc.
#84 to #34 - anon id: e1dbf594
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/21/2014) [-]
Oh, and forcing Obamacare on people who don't want it, of course.
User avatar #35 to #34 - Marker
Reply +9 123456789123345869
(05/21/2014) [-]
>implying wacknuts like this from any party represent that party
#37 to #35 - swedishassassin
Reply +9 123456789123345869
(05/21/2014) [-]
example 2
#38 to #37 - Marker
Reply +8 123456789123345869
(05/21/2014) [-]
Example 453
User avatar #41 to #38 - snipys
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/21/2014) [-]
User avatar #43 to #41 - Marker
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/21/2014) [-]
no ur a potato
User avatar #44 to #43 - snipys
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/21/2014) [-]
**snipys eats self**
User avatar #67 to #44 - Marker
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(05/21/2014) [-]
I guess dwarfman and jimmymolester are racist against potatoes
#107 to #67 - dwarfman
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/22/2014) [-]
Why am I being mentioned?
Why am I being mentioned?
User avatar #108 to #107 - Marker
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/22/2014) [-]
cuz you're a dirty potatoist
#109 to #108 - dwarfman
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/22/2014) [-]
I have nothing against the most delicious of spuds. That becomes the most amazing of liquors.
User avatar #80 to #67 - jimmymolester
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/21/2014) [-]
WHAT HAVE TATERS EVER DONE FOR ME
User avatar #39 to #38 - swedishassassin
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/21/2014) [-]
Crazy, but not selling abortions out of the back of her van to hypocratize herself.
User avatar #42 to #39 - Marker
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/21/2014) [-]
we can both sit here and rattle off names of the biggest morons in politics
none of them speak for the rest of their party, regardless of which
User avatar #45 to #42 - swedishassassin
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/21/2014) [-]
Agreed
User avatar #46 to #45 - Marker
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(05/21/2014) [-]
Just for ***** and giggkes let me cite a golden example
Fred Phelps - now deceased (and exommunicated) founder of t he Westboro Baptist Church

-Registered as a Kansas Democrat, supported Clinton in the initial stages of DOMA ("marriage is between one man and one woman" was probably really just a statement against polygamy at the time, not homosexuality)
-Ran in multiple state elections as a Democrat and lost (in like, the 90s)
-FOX called WBC a democratic group in an article about them picketing Sandy Hook funerals

No one outside the WBC actually wants to associate with them. Democrats nor Republicans.
User avatar #47 to #46 - swedishassassin
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/21/2014) [-]
Yes, your point is solid. The issue I've had with the Democratic party, though that isn't to exclude the Republican Party either, is that they are much more prone to having radicals control large parts of their party, which only results in radicalism that will be matched with the opposing side. That **** happened in Sweden, and now you've got Nazis and Commies throwing rocks and beating the crap out of each other during rallies over there.
User avatar #49 to #47 - Marker
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(05/21/2014) [-]
now in the US, I've noticed that more with the Republican Party, tbh. People like Bachmann and Palin and such are the loudest, so people start to think they speak for the majority. This, obviously, is a load of ********.

I think whichever party you don't often side with seems to have it more in your own eyes, but you're still aware of the ones in your own party.
User avatar #106 to #49 - swedishassassin
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/22/2014) [-]
That's what I'm saying though. One side supports radicals, so the other side retaliates with its own radicals (though McCain, Jeb Bush and leading Republicans seem to condemn the radical conservatives, but I digress), making the argument uglier.

Hence my example in Sweden. Check out VICE on Youtube to see it.
User avatar #62 to #37 - myjeren
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/21/2014) [-]
Diane Feinstein is pretty ********, except on gun control; where she dominates.
User avatar #26 - cryingchicken
Reply +11 123456789123345869
(05/21/2014) [-]
Purely human nature, you'll find that most politicians or people in power go to war against the very things they are guilty of. For example, in the UK, a politician trying to ban porn was found in possession of child porn. If you make it look like you hate something then most people will assume to don't sympathise with it. Like how some homophobes are actually gay and simply overcompensating to seem like they aren't.
#61 to #26 - anon id: 45e9d747
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/21/2014) [-]
I knew it. David Cameron wants/wanted I don't know if it worked or not being Canadian and all to block porn sites, because he's a chronic masturbator.
User avatar #72 to #61 - cryingchicken
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/21/2014) [-]
He tried for about a month with little success and thankfully it was abandoned as it didn't work. Although now they're trying to make the internet even worse because instead of just blocking the sites they don't like, they plan on blocking all sites except the ones they do like. Essentially creating an entirely censored internet. Basically the government have taken a completely authoritarian, fascist way of thinking. cunts.
User avatar #25 - mrwalkerfour
Reply +10 123456789123345869
(05/21/2014) [-]
genius
banning guns ups the black market price so he'd make more money