Stoner future. . You got a smoke? The United States is a nonsmoking nation. No smoking, no drinking, no drugs, no you' re married, No guns, no foul language, no Stoner future You got a smoke? The United States is nonsmoking nation No smoking no drinking drugs you' re married guns foul language
Upload
Login or register
Hide Comments
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (222)
[ 222 comments ]
> hey anon, wanna give your opinion?
asd
User avatar #4 - GhandisPimpCane
Reply +33 123456789123345869
(02/15/2012) [-]
Hmm kinda weird when we have anti marijuana laws yet can still do everything else. it'll be a cold day in hell when they take away guns and red meat from us
#5 to #4 - anon id: d9fb5008
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/15/2012) [-]
When you say "they" you're supposed to say "we."
User avatar #46 to #4 - thephantur
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(02/16/2012) [-]
If they ******* come for my red meat, I'll... curl up in a corner and cry.
#9 to #4 - killyojoy
Reply +11 123456789123345869
(02/15/2012) [-]
when they come for my steak or my guns Im am going out shooting......
#10 to #9 - killyojoy
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(02/15/2012) [-]
didnt know I didnt put that extra am
#24 to #9 - anon id: 92c8f71f
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/16/2012) [-]
You say that now, but that's what people said about the NDSAA passing. They will continue to slowly take away our rights until people decide to stand up and stop them. I say that day should be today. I say we should hang corrupt politicians in the streets. I say that we should demand the rights that our forefathers founded this country on. But who cares what an anon has to say?
User avatar #36 - wolverinebamf
Reply +28 123456789123345869
(02/16/2012) [-]
we can smoke, drink and have pre marital sex. We can have guns, which is our right protected by the 2nd amendment(for now) and of course we can eat red meat. Smoking weed is illegal but no one (cop or civilian) really gives a ****.
User avatar #38 to #36 - slone
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(02/16/2012) [-]
exactly, we have a few absurd laws, but they dont mean anything if no one enforces them

most cops care more about seatbelts than a casual marijuana smoker, but they do have some asshole cops who abuse their power but not nearly as much as the news says there are the cool cop/dick cop ratio varies from city to city and state to state
User avatar #61 to #38 - darkfuzion
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/16/2012) [-]
One thing I don't understand, why a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt??? It's your life you are putting in danger, sure seatbelts have saved me PLENTY of times from that random deer but getting a ticket for not having it on??
#84 to #61 - anon id: f39c9815
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/16/2012) [-]
If you're sitting in the back seat of a car you could potentially fly forward and hit another passenger.
I think that giving someone a ticket for not wearing one is a good thing. It saves their life and possibly others.

User avatar #206 to #84 - darkfuzion
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/16/2012) [-]
I agree with anon
User avatar #63 to #61 - slone
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/16/2012) [-]
yea i agree but there is no way that law is going to get repealed, its fiercely protected for no apparent reason
#25 - Serjical
Reply +23 123456789123345869
(02/16/2012) [-]
If they take my gun away, they'll have to pry it from my cold, uninsured hands.
User avatar #26 to #25 - dirtyshisno
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(02/16/2012) [-]
damn right boss
#30 - otakuranger
Reply +19 123456789123345869
(02/16/2012) [-]
#40 - thehornedking
Reply +18 123456789123345869
(02/16/2012) [-]
#42 to #40 - TheRedDragon **User deleted account**
+5 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#44 to #42 - skierunner
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(02/16/2012) [-]
Wait-what? xD
#91 - carlose
Reply +17 123456789123345869
(02/16/2012) [-]
#106 to #91 - anon id: 7464d9ae
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/16/2012) [-]
History goes to the victor.
User avatar #119 to #106 - datargumme
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/16/2012) [-]
No doubt it will, i wonder what people will think about america in 100 years when china is by far the top of the world.
#105 to #91 - mynameisderp **User deleted account**
+3 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#145 to #105 - anon id: 1512c513
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/16/2012) [-]
Judging by how amerifats aimed for a civillkian city kind of rules my opinion that the amerifats do kind of suck,not all of you but more than 50%.
#107 to #105 - thefunnylaughter
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/16/2012) [-]
nothing they did deserved two ******* nukes. so they killed alot of people and then the us detroyed two city's. fair trade?
#108 to #107 - mynameisderp **User deleted account**
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #109 to #108 - thefunnylaughter
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/16/2012) [-]
okay. im sorry i thought you meant they deserved it
User avatar #111 to #109 - derblastermaster
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/16/2012) [-]
Also, the war was not going to end until Japan surrendered, and it was either the nukes or conquering the entire country one town at a time.
User avatar #112 to #111 - thefunnylaughter
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/16/2012) [-]
yes and that would cost less civillian lives probably and thats the ones you should care about not the volunteering amry
User avatar #113 to #112 - derblastermaster
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/16/2012) [-]
No, Japan had a nasty habit of using civilian shields and street-to-street combat, which given that culturally most of them would rather die than surrender, means that civilian casualties would have run into the millions if not more. At the time, the US military command estimated more than five million Japanese casualties, versus an ultimate total of less than 250,000 in the bombings.
User avatar #114 to #113 - thefunnylaughter
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/16/2012) [-]
you do realize that the japanese army would ha been defeated a long time before the us even if they did not attack them
User avatar #117 to #114 - derblastermaster
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/16/2012) [-]
The Japanese army would hole up in civilian houses to the last man. On Okinawa, the army forced more than one hundred Japanese civilians to commit suicide by jumping off a cliff rather than surrender to the Americans. It would have been the most devastating war campaign in modern history to conquer Japan.
User avatar #123 to #117 - thefunnylaughter
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/16/2012) [-]
last argument i care to write down here.
it would have been worth it if you look att the bigger picture. whats worth the most: human lives or the enviroment wich suffered heavily from the nukes
User avatar #124 to #123 - derblastermaster
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/16/2012) [-]
Human lives are more important, hands down, and that is something that I will not compromise on.
User avatar #125 to #124 - thefunnylaughter
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/16/2012) [-]
why? they mean nothing realy
User avatar #208 to #125 - derblastermaster
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/16/2012) [-]
If human life means nothing, what does have meaning? I can't think of anything at all--certainly not nature by itself, meaning is not something that comes naturally. Also, as for the environmental impact, the bombs had no fallout or lasting radiation effects and they were collectively far smaller than the eruption of Mt. Saint Helens. The environment is pretty tough, and we did not dent it with those bombs.
#133 to #125 - anon id: 7590e93f
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/16/2012) [-]
Your argument went from less civilian casualties to who cares about casualties, save the whales. **** logic.
User avatar #218 to #133 - thefunnylaughter
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/16/2012) [-]
no i did not change i just pointed out that civillians are more important than the ppl in the armie, but since i look at the bigger picture i say kill a **** load of people it wont have any negative effect what so ever
#37 - mestroxant
Reply +17 123456789123345869
(02/16/2012) [-]
User avatar #48 to #37 - deathzor
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/16/2012) [-]
arkansas*

at least be specific
User avatar #66 to #37 - ThatFuckingGuy
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/16/2012) [-]
How is that bad?
User avatar #137 to #66 - tkfourtwoone
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(02/16/2012) [-]
Yet you're crying after Tupac

/thread
User avatar #162 to #137 - fluffymcnutter
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(02/16/2012) [-]
lmao who's crying over Tupac? You need a refresher course on U.S. pop culture because from what I've read so far your obsession with the U.S. exceeds your knowledge and tbh it's kind of pathetic
#96 - wtfisswagg
Reply +16 123456789123345869
(02/16/2012) [-]
#57 - spookiluis **User deleted account**
+16 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#72 to #57 - stygian
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/16/2012) [-]
>Movie made in the 80's based off of the original metal gear solid games for snes
lolwut?
#75 to #57 - mahaiz
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/16/2012) [-]
**mahaiz rolled a random image posted in comment #32 at Nigel Toxic **
#13 - anon id: 6228ebef
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/15/2012) [-]
he looks like that guy from billy and mandy
#34 to #13 - nizarut
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(02/16/2012) [-]
I've a pretty good feeling that they based his off of Snake..
#18 to #13 - freespeech
+4 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #17 to #13 - defesede
Reply +15 123456789123345869
(02/16/2012) [-]
the oposite way
that guy from billy and mandy looks like him