Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search
hide menu

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Show:   Highest Rated Top Rated Newest
auto-refresh every 1 2 3 5 seconds

Per page:
Latest users (3): jewishcommunazi, schnizel, yourbed, anonymous(17).
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#50379 - pebar (11/03/2013) [-]
S&W's M&P series of guns stands for "military and police." Dianne Feinstein is using this to promote how the MP-15 that was used to kill the TSA agent was not designed for the civilian market.   
The M&P series of handguns, which rival Glocks, have the same name and the supreme court has already determined handgun bans to be unconstitutional.
S&W's M&P series of guns stands for "military and police." Dianne Feinstein is using this to promote how the MP-15 that was used to kill the TSA agent was not designed for the civilian market.
The M&P series of handguns, which rival Glocks, have the same name and the supreme court has already determined handgun bans to be unconstitutional.
User avatar #50469 to #50379 - schnizel (11/04/2013) [-]
>Dianne Feinstein
I'm not saying it's the jews but.......
User avatar #50387 to #50379 - CapnInterwebz (11/04/2013) [-]
>still acknowledging Dianne Feinstein's ramblings
User avatar #50374 - bypest (11/03/2013) [-]
Cutting food stamps: The ruthlessness of the American ruling class

What is involved here is a social counterrevolution, the aim of which is to uproot and destroy every social gain won by the working class over the past century—from pensions and health benefits to public education and child labor laws.


The corporations and banks must be taken out of private hands and transformed into public institutions under the democratic control of the working population. The ill-gotten wealth of the financial parasites must be expropriated and used to meet social needs.

This is why Socialists aren't taken seriously. It's not because of any "corporate media" as they would like you to believe. They manipulate events and then talk about wet-dreams such as worker control to top the cake. This is not how you will even win welfare negroes to your side, but I digress.

There exists no poverty in America as much of the world sees it. This "cut" in social-spending is not "draconian," nor an example of "austerity economics," which in fact the US is all but advocating currently, but a common-sense reversal of the early Obamunist welfare boom.

An $11 billion cut in social-spending over a decade hardly, however, reverses the $183 billion increase in welfare spending seen between 2008 and 2011.

B..but muh evil capitalists. Get out of here, socialist-weenies. You may have better luck with such retarded rhetoric in Bangladesh and other undeveloped nations.
User avatar #50410 to #50374 - Shiny (11/04/2013) [-]
I strongly doubt most people on this board are hardcore socialists. Also, objectively speaking, Obama's policies are still pretty far to the right.
User avatar #50396 to #50374 - infomorph (11/04/2013) [-]
Wait... Obamunist? Really?

I didn't know Obama was the one that started all welfare programs and switched over to the Communist Party
User avatar #50401 to #50396 - bypest (11/04/2013) [-]
He certainly expanded the welfare system to unprecedented heights.

You didn't hear?
You need to login to view this link
#50402 to #50401 - infomorph (11/04/2013) [-]
In ways they need to be expanded, and most importantly streamlined through a negative income tax. We're still stuck with high unemployment and underemployment, and welfare programs aren't where you want to look if you want to make cuts to the bloated budget.

And no matter how many comparisons you make, saying Obama is communist only shows you have no idea what Obama's policies are, what he communist policies are, or both.
User avatar #50404 to #50402 - bypest (11/04/2013) [-]
A negative income tax could not be properly implemented in the US. Such a tax system, how I see it, could only flourish in small, rich homogenous countries, of which the US does not apply. It would be too complicated and there is really no need for it in the practical sense given Obamunist welfare. Every single bum lives comfortably enough with his EBT.

MY EBT (NOW ON iTUNES) - By @MrEBT & @CaptnHook_Maine

However, let's stop speaking of abstractions such as a reform of the tax system which will never take place.

Obama's welfare policies have gone far and beyond anything seen in American history. There is more money dedicated to welfare junkies than recipients of social-security. You must agree that this is astounding. We certainly need to cut the welfare budget, at least to levels pre-Obama. It is not anything radical to have less people living off the government.

The premise that the economy expanded the welfare state is only true to a point. Obama's expansion certainly went far beyond it, however. I believe it rose near 40% and it has been noted that this was largely because of a liberalization of requirements to apply, thus encouraging the NEET lifestyle.

I was simply making a play with words when saying, "Obamunist."
User avatar #50408 to #50404 - infomorph (11/04/2013) [-]
> It would be too complicated

The entire point of a negative income tax is making it simpler and more efficient. You stop micromanaging peoples lives and simply provide enough to eek by.

>Every single bum lives comfortably enough with his EBT.

I can tell you as someone who grew up with the program as a kid that it was not "living the good life". There was no steak and lobster, and even with being thrifty and cutting coupons there usually wasn't enough to go around. The notion that people on welfare programs are living the high life is an outright lie.

>Obama's welfare policies have gone far and beyond anything seen in American history.

I'm far more concerned with the military expansion over the past decade than any increases in welfare programs.

>We certainly need to cut the welfare budget,

Sure, keep benefits the same and cut costs by increasing efficiency.
User avatar #50412 to #50408 - bypest (11/04/2013) [-]
>The entire point of a negative income tax is making it simpler and more efficient.

Streamlining it with our current welfare system? Simple? In theory, it would be a simple tax, but what does that mean in the political process? How do we define how much we should take from the rich to subsidize the poor? How do we know that the government will properly manage the extra taxes from the rich and not rape them like with Social Security?

>There was no steak and lobster, and even with being thrifty and cutting coupons there usually wasn't enough to go around.

My father grew up in the socialist paradise of Poland and ate potatoes until he was able to smuggle himself onto a train to Austria. Nobody said being poor is fun, but people being poor is inevitable. But there are differences between genuinely being poor, being a low-life bum with a dozen children, and being a NEET.

>military expansion being more important than welfare

They're two problems of the same source. At least one is justified; America is playing the role of a Great Power. The other is just government inefficiency.

>cut costs by increasing efficiency.

Absolutely. Welfare is not a big issue in theory. Just have it available, ideally, as a temporary safety net for those who need it. Unfortunately, this is not how society is going in America. Many leftists cry about mega-rich leechers, what about the bums who have dozens of children and live off the government their entire lives? The poisonous NEET lifestyle, especially, is the sign of a society in degeneration.
User avatar #50413 to #50412 - infomorph (11/04/2013) [-]
>Streamlining it with our current welfare system?...

From the looks of it you don't know just what a negative income tax is. Read up on what Milton Friedman said about the system. You abolish the current welfare programs and replace them with the said NIT, shifting funds from several discontinuous and inefficient programs to a single one.

> Nobody said being poor is fun

From the sound of your post poor people are swimming in welfare money with more cash on hand than they know what to do with. Protip: if a poor person is receiving EBT or a similar program and is driving out in a Mercedes or eating high quality food like steak and lobster often, then there's a lot of side-income on their end that isn't being reported.

> At least one is justified; America is playing the role of a Great Power
Except we don't need to be wasting trillions of dollars playing nation-builder to be a "Great Power". Our War on Terror is only successful on two fronts: filling terrorist organizations with new recruits and lining the pockets of private contractors working with the military. We should also be more concerned with cuts to military spending instead of welfare spending because the military-industrial complex soaks up a lot more tax money than the poor guy buying a hot dog.

>Many leftists cry about mega-rich leechers, what about the bums who have dozens of children and live off the government their entire lives?

In terms of the rich taking in direct government subsidies, favorable work contracts, and reaping the rewards of government infrastructure and education programs while at the same time hiding potential taxable income in offshore accounts, it's easy to see why people believe the rich can easily be a bigger drain than kids in the ghetto and countryside alike getting meals.
User avatar #50417 to #50413 - bypest (11/04/2013) [-]
>shifting funds from several discontinuous and inefficient programs to a single one.

I am skeptical of such theories but will do my research. I never knew it was a Friedman theory, I assumed it to be some impracticable system of combing high-welfare spending with increased government subsidy by taxing the rich; I was wrong.

Can government fix itself? Combining the welfare administration with that of the taxation administration is likely to have unintended consequences, even if done properly.

>swimming in welfare money

Many are taking advantage of a broken system. When welfare becomes an alternative to looking for work, that's a problem. Like I said, it's inevitable that a portion of society should be living on rice (or McDonalds, as many opt for).

> wasting trillions of dollars

To an outside spectator our interventions may seem unneeded, but we are not to judge. America has a relatively free hand to act in the world and will do so as it pleases. Never before in history has a single state military dominated all of the West, doing its imperial practices for it. Russia coming back to the stage will pose interesting questions in this respect, for since the fall of the USSR it has exited both European and Global politics.

>the military-industrial complex soaks up a lot more tax money than the poor guy buying a hot dog.

Social-spending as a whole constitutes more than military spending, which in itself has a social-spending aspect to it for veterans and such. Although I am not big on economic theory, I am in history. Periods of war always fluctuate with periods of peace for Great Powers with military industry, so it is inevitable that we will see a reduction of our arms in the future. How we will do this is not a controversy; social spending is a controversy. That is my main thesis. We must work to ensure domestic stability so that our military expenditure will not simply mean "piling debt on debt."
User avatar #50423 to #50417 - infomorph (11/04/2013) [-]
>Can government fix itself?

As a system no, only the people can do that. The government must always be an extension of the populace, not an entity in of itself.

>Combining the welfare administration with that of the taxation administration is likely to have unintended consequences, even if done properly. In our fight to attain security, we're digging ourselves in debt and creating more insecurity both domestically and abroad.

> We must work to ensure domestic stability

Which means we should stop giving the terrorists lines of recruits who now hate America because their family was blown to tiny bits. It means ending the war on drugs which hinders economic activity and gives us the highest incarceration rate in the first world. It means strengthening our welfare systems to reduce poverty, in turn also reducing crime and increasing consumer demand.

In effect the NIT would be the same as the guaranteed minimum income proposed in Switzerland.

>When welfare becomes an alternative to looking for work

Except that it's clearly not the case, as even people with jobs are relying on welfare programs to get by.

>but we are not to judge

We have every right to judge because we're the ones flipping the bill.
User avatar #50430 to #50423 - bypest (11/04/2013) [-]
>We have every right to judge because we're the ones flipping the bill.

I was speaking more in the scholarly perspective. The voters judging is a good thing. That's how war, in history, changes to peace, which I spoke of. The war party is voted out in favor of one that favors peace. So, yes, please do judge.
User avatar #50429 to #50423 - bypest (11/04/2013) [-]
>The government must always be an extension of the populace, not an entity in of itself.

And you would agree that today it is not? So before we must fix the tax system, we must fix the government. And how do we go about such a prospect?

>we should stop giving the terrorists lines of recruits who now hate America

Our presence in the Middle East cannot be said to be a humanitarian mission. Terrorism was our casus belli to try and take control of Afghanistan and kill a leader that had come to threaten our interests, much like the assassination of the Archduke was Austria-Hungary's to invade Serbia. It was not the assassination itself that fueled the drive for war, but a desire to put to an end south-slav nationalism. Similarly, the Middle East is the cradle of World Power ambition. It is not "terrorism" that fuels global interest in the Middle East. That is silly. Russia does not defend Syria because it despises Sunni terrorism or their alleged uses of chemical weapons.

>the NIT would be the same as the guaranteed minimum income proposed in Switzerland.

Switzerland is a rich, homogenous state that could certainly afford a minimum income. I don't know of the foundations of the NIT theory yet as I haven't read up on it, but you know that comparing Switzerland with the US raises questions of logistics.

> reduce poverty, in turn also reducing crime

I take with respect your theories listed as you do mine, but poverty does not cause crime as poverty does not cause lower intelligence, which was recently asserted. It is more true to look at it from the opposite angle.

>Except that it's clearly not the case

Except that it is clearly the case. Look at the OP. Welfare spending doubled not because we're giving more but because more people applied given Obama's liberalization of requirements. Again, more money goes to welfare than social-security. You're telling me we're a third world country that needs to spend more on unemployment than for our elderly?
User avatar #50434 to #50429 - infomorph (11/04/2013) [-]
>And you would agree that today it is not?

I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who believes we still have a government for the people by the people.

>And how do we go about such a prospect?

Preferably through the ballot. As has been shown throughout history, though, if people become desperate enough they will have their voice heard through the bullet instead. Unfortunately this often creates governments even worse than the ones they overthrew.

>Our presence in the Middle East...

Yes, we're waving our expensive dicks around when we shouldn't be. Playing nation-builder to try and prove we're relevant and making American assets bigger targets for terrorism in the meantime.

>Switzerland is a rich, homogenous state

A patch-work culture made up of German, Italian, and French peoples is homogeneous?

>but poverty does not cause crime

Several studies have shown correlations between crime and poverty. The guy with nothing to his name is more likely to mug you than the middle class suburbanite.

>You're telling me we're a third world country that needs to spend more on unemployment than for our elderly?

You're making the mistake of thinking welfare = unemployment. It covers those who are too young to work, too old to work (yes even elderly living on social security find themselves relying on welfare programs like EBT), people who are physically or mentally incapable of working, etc. Over 50 million people in America rely on the EBT program alone.
User avatar #50589 to #50434 - bypest (11/05/2013) [-]
>Preferably through the ballot.

I have come to believe that there is no hope of popular reform in the US any longer. The sign of a nation on its last legs was Reagan; after that, humpty dumpty had a great fall. That is why I am not a libertarian.

>A patch-work culture made up of German, Italian, and French peoples is homogeneous?

Not literally, but in the sense that Switzerland is more like a city-state than an actual country, it most definitely is in that ethnic conflict does not rise.

>The guy with nothing to his name is more likely to mug you than the middle class suburbanite.

Indeed, yet correlation does not mean causation. The White poor are much less likely to embrace criminality than the Black poor. When minority crime is controlled for poverty, the correlation is 0.78 (from 0.81). As such, when it comes to minority criminal behavior, which constitutes a national majority, there are other factors than just the immediate helplessness of being poor.

>You're making the mistake of thinking welfare = unemployment.

I am not. "Unemployment" refers to those who cannot manage to get a sustainable job for whatever reason, and are seen fit by the government to receive subsidy. I argue that the terms have become too liberal under Obama; you oppose this. That is the divide.

>Yes, we're waving our expensive dicks around when we shouldn't be.

Hopefully when we enter peacetime you will see the wastefulness of Obama, Clinton, etc. welfare. That is all I can say because I posted the numbers already. Do you agree with the Socialists that this $10 billion cut in welfare is the rich playing out their sexual fantasies?
#50588 to #50434 - bypest has deleted their comment [-]
#50590 to #50588 - infomorph (11/05/2013) [-]
> The sign of a nation on its last legs was Reagan

The man that increased taxes and government spending?

>Switzerland is more like a city-state

Confederacy, actually

> "Unemployment" refers to those who cannot manage to get a sustainable job for whatever reason

Those who are underemployed aren't considered unemployed for a reason, and in most reasonable metrics 5 year olds and people without any limbs aren't counted as unemployed either; they simply aren't a part of the potential work force, no matter what policies you enact.

>Do you agree with the Socialists that this $10 billion cut in welfare is the rich playing out their sexual fantasies?

Not everyone who is anywhere remotely to the left side of the political spectrum is a socialist. The reductions are caused by people who preach the gospel of cutting the government, but when it comes to a military budget there's no such thing as "too high".
User avatar #50592 to #50590 - bypest (11/05/2013) [-]
>increased taxes and government spending

In an environment much different from that of today. Increasing spending today and increasing taxes today fuels a reciprocal relationship. I believe Reagan represented the pinnacle of the American world post-WWII. We have only been falling since with the Bush's, Mr. Clinton, and Obama.

dat picture basically represents every common supporter of every president since universal enfranchisement. And it biased to the left. >muh death squads >muh worker's rights. Totally Radical.

>Confederacy, actually

Clever. I am speaking of "city-state" in the sense that it achieves legitimacy as a state only by being a financial center.

>and people without any limbs aren't counted as unemployed either; they simply aren't a part of the potential work force, no matter what policies you enact.

And they get disability.

>gospel of cutting the government

The Democratic-Senate passed the reduction, mind you, which amounts to virtually nothing. The Democratic-Senate has anything but limited government on their minds, and the deal was really a half-hearted "compromise." It neither decreases spending nor increases it.
User avatar #50407 to #50404 - bypest (11/04/2013) [-]
Scratch that, it's more above 50% at this point.
User avatar #50388 to #50374 - lulzforhiroshima (11/04/2013) [-]
you cant be more fucking right there bypest.

right as in not wrong
User avatar #50380 to #50374 - pebar (11/03/2013) [-]
wasn't the cut only around 5%, like $30 less per family per month?
User avatar #50382 to #50380 - bypest (11/03/2013) [-]
Very miniscule and far from austerity. It needs to be cut more, and would under a Conservative Congress/President duo, for it is unprecedented for unemployment benefits to constitute a higher amount of government spending than social security, especially with this aging population of America's.

If the Socialists are truly concerned with US poverty, let us dictate striker terms for unemployment benefits for certainly many people are receiving subsidy who don't need what they're getting. That way, this 5% loss of government income would not effect the poorest of the poor, and they would probably receive more.

"Obama Phone" Remix (parody song)
#50373 - jewishcommunazi ONLINE (11/03/2013) [-]
First social democrat and now this...
#50476 to #50373 - valeriya (11/04/2013) [-]
Are you sure you don't want to reconsider that?
Are you sure you don't want to reconsider that?
#50495 to #50476 - jewishcommunazi ONLINE (11/04/2013) [-]
I didn't choose the counterrevolutionary life, the test chose it for me.
User avatar #50395 to #50373 - bypest (11/04/2013) [-]
You need to login to view this link

My results compare fairly well with Stormfront and VNN.

User avatar #50406 to #50395 - pebar (11/04/2013) [-]
and how do you feel about that?
User avatar #50593 to #50406 - bypest (11/05/2013) [-]
Stormfront years ago held a great community. The election of 2008 lowered the common denominator, but it remains a good forum for discussion on racial issues, although I prefer VNN and am an active member there. VNN gained a lot of its popularity after a bunch of veteran users on Stormfront were banned for speaking of jews doing 9/11. Here was the great shitstorm:

You need to login to view this link
User avatar #50420 to #50406 - akkere ONLINE (11/04/2013) [-]
How do you think he feels?
#50393 to #50373 - bypest has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #50392 to #50373 - bypest (11/04/2013) [-]
It would be good for the public authorities to pay their debts no longer.

I never knew if I had the meaning of this down correctly. A disbanding of the bureaucracy?
#50381 to #50373 - pebar (11/03/2013) [-]
I hate how the democrats have bastardized liberalism.
User avatar #50383 to #50381 - jewishcommunazi ONLINE (11/03/2013) [-]
Not just democrats, many non-democrats refer to the democrats as liberals too, it seems.
#50367 - pebar (11/03/2013) [-]
"ask not what your country can do for you (social democracy),
but what you can do for your country (national socialism)."
User avatar #50368 to #50367 - feelythefeel (11/03/2013) [-]
That has to be the most obnoxious, advertisment-esque use of that picture concept I've ever seen.
User avatar #50366 - bypest (11/03/2013) [-]

Look at all that Lincoln praise in the comments. They call Obama a "fascist pig" in order to legitimize his decision not to attend the 150th anniversary of the Gettysburg address. What am I on, revleft? What is Lincoln if not a "fascist pig" when put side by side with such a figure as Obama?

It shows a severe lack of proper historical perspective, and faulty principles, that Conservatives have come to worship such a figure as Lincoln and yet continue to denounce Obama for being "autocratic." The "honest abe" myth is quite similar to "hope and change."
User avatar #50360 - schnizel (11/03/2013) [-]
>no black gf
What are you, a nazi?
User avatar #50389 to #50360 - lulzforhiroshima (11/04/2013) [-]
the left at its finest
User avatar #50338 - schnizel (11/03/2013) [-]
When do you think about me?
User avatar #50372 to #50338 - jewishcommunazi ONLINE (11/03/2013) [-]
When the circumstances make me.
User avatar #50370 to #50338 - feelythefeel (11/03/2013) [-]
Gonna have to go with undeadwill here, who are you again?
User avatar #50353 to #50338 - undeadwill (11/03/2013) [-]
I don't.
User avatar #50356 to #50353 - schnizel (11/03/2013) [-]
B-But I like you. B-Baka
#50358 to #50356 - undeadwill (11/03/2013) [-]
So very relevant
User avatar #50359 to #50358 - schnizel (11/03/2013) [-]
User avatar #50482 to #50481 - undeadwill (11/04/2013) [-]
User avatar #50484 to #50482 - schnizel (11/04/2013) [-]
Well it's all a jew hoax to get the gays to be on pol so that they fuck it up.
User avatar #50487 to #50484 - undeadwill (11/04/2013) [-]
Or maybe you have a bunch of conservative faggots?
User avatar #50488 to #50487 - schnizel (11/04/2013) [-]
#50354 to #50353 - valeriya (11/03/2013) [-]
It's not funny once the jokes out...
User avatar #50355 to #50354 - undeadwill (11/03/2013) [-]
I don't understand the joke.
#50357 to #50355 - valeriya (11/03/2013) [-]
don't worry scroll down homosexual
User avatar #50342 to #50338 - pebar (11/03/2013) [-]
take this and post the results
#50348 to #50342 - schnizel (11/03/2013) [-]
Here you go.
User avatar #50371 to #50348 - jewishcommunazi ONLINE (11/03/2013) [-]
I thought you were a little more to the right.
User avatar #50604 to #50371 - schnizel (11/05/2013) [-]
Well, in some cases.
#50344 to #50342 - valeriya (11/03/2013) [-]
why woudl that make you think about them?
User avatar #50345 to #50344 - pebar (11/03/2013) [-]
it doesn't, not really, I'm just curious
but he seems to be new to the board and it's nice to know everybody's positions
it's always nice to have new people come to the board
#50346 to #50345 - valeriya (11/03/2013) [-]
you over thought it, he asked when do you think about me, not what do you think about me
User avatar #50347 to #50346 - pebar (11/03/2013) [-]
User avatar #50349 to #50347 - schnizel (11/03/2013) [-]
You think about me in the shower, do you?
User avatar #50350 to #50349 - pebar (11/03/2013) [-]
Well, my favorite food is country fried steak and schnitzle is very close to that. I think about politics and economics all the time and that reminds me of this board.
I guess I think about you when I'm hungry.
User avatar #50351 to #50350 - schnizel (11/03/2013) [-]
Do you like me when I'm hot?
User avatar #50352 to #50351 - pebar (11/03/2013) [-]
you don't eat country fried steak cold
User avatar #50390 to #50352 - lulzforhiroshima (11/04/2013) [-]
think about me whenever someone talks about the sandyhook shooting, hiroshima or politics.
User avatar #50464 to #50390 - schnizel (11/04/2013) [-]
I think about you in the shower.
User avatar #50568 to #50464 - lulzforhiroshima (11/04/2013) [-]
you fucking better you goy-ish, poor as fuck dumbass.
User avatar #50343 to #50342 - schnizel (11/03/2013) [-]
I can't find my older result so I'll do it again.
Only for you.
User avatar #50334 - CapnInterwebz (11/03/2013) [-]
Well, it's been a few days and no one has brought up the recent drone strikes in Pakistan.

So what do you guys think of it? Do you think that it was an "infringement of Pakistani sovereignty", or a necessary action?
User avatar #50375 to #50334 - bypest (11/03/2013) [-]
Pakistan allows the operations to take place, no matter how much statesmen may denounce civilian deaths.
#50369 to #50334 - bypest has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #50341 to #50334 - undeadwill (11/03/2013) [-]
Since when have we cared what other countries think of our military action?
User avatar #50336 to #50334 - schnizel (11/03/2013) [-]
"mericans gona merican
User avatar #50331 - beatmasterz (11/03/2013) [-]
Weird topic but what do you think happened to Kennedy? I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist but there's no denying Lee Harvey Oswald was working with the Cia some powerful people.
User avatar #50391 to #50331 - lulzforhiroshima (11/04/2013) [-]
who cares now?
User avatar #50321 - pebar (11/02/2013) [-]
ITT: how do advances in technology influence the capitalist vs socialism vs welfare state debate.
User avatar #50330 to #50321 - beatmasterz (11/03/2013) [-]
Internet certainly makes people realize how shitty their circumstances are.
User avatar #50323 to #50321 - jewishcommunazi ONLINE (11/03/2013) [-]
I don't think it has that much influence. Socialists have always acknowledged the capabilities of capitalism regarding technological progress. Capitalism and welfare state are about the same in this matter because personal profit is the main motivator on both systems, I guess.
User avatar #50324 to #50323 - pebar (11/03/2013) [-]
I don't mean encouraging innovation, I mean current technology making a welfare state more of a possibility.
#50322 to #50321 - valeriya (11/03/2013) [-]
Labour saving technology is pretty much changing everything.
User avatar #50312 - lulzforhiroshima (11/02/2013) [-]
When Christians kill Muslims its a crusade, when Jews kill Muslims its a massacre, when Muslims kill Muslims its the weather channel
User avatar #50329 to #50312 - schnizel (11/03/2013) [-]
>top kek
Do you want a friendly copy pasta?
User avatar #50386 to #50329 - lulzforhiroshima (11/04/2013) [-]
no fuck off.
User avatar #50310 - lulzforhiroshima (11/02/2013) [-]
"if we get a nuclear weapon and drop it on israel, we will kill 3-5 million jews, they will drop it on iran and kill 5-10 million muslims AND the trade of will be worth it"
User avatar #50311 to #50310 - pebar (11/02/2013) [-]
like that would be the end of it...
#50306 - ubermench has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #50314 to #50306 - bypest (11/02/2013) [-]
The term "holocaust denial" is loaded. 9/11 truthers are not 9/11 denialists, although some may be, they put forth theories as to how everything happened.

It's not so much that it "didn't happen," because certainly Jews were killed, but it is about the Jews painting a picture very unlike that of reality. The Jews talk about "learning from history," but that will never happen as they continue to indoctrinate society with a prejudiced interpretation of events.

For instance, Poles can hardly takes these Jews seriously when they talk about "muh six gorrilian" and then start calling us anti-semites. There is a recent scandal in Poland about some Jewish film maker making a movie about Poles killing Jews upon the outbreak of the German-Polish war. What about the Stalin's Jewish secret Police butchers having a field day killing ethnic Poles? Indeed, Polish tension with the Jews had a lot to do with their Communist sympathies.

My grandfather was detained in Auschwitz and was never gassed. It was a work camp in which people died. Some executed, many more from natural causes. All that can be shown to the contrary in Auschwitz is a Soviet-constructed "gas chamber," which is paraded to the public, and a Soviet-constructed chimney which is not and was never connected to anything.

It is interesting looking at Holocaust claims. There is a HUGE gap especially in the Treblinka, Belzec camps. In the Nuremberg show-trials, they were barely even spoken of (read: 10-15 minutes) and they continue to be pushed into the shadows. When you look for "witness" accounts, you hear of electrified floors, steam chambers, underground railways, diesel engines from soviet tanks powering gas chambers, gas chambers being disguised as hair salons, etc.

Note that the above are not obscure camps. If you are to believe the Jews, 1,000,000 died at Treblinka and were all buried there. How one million bodies were buried in the small confines claimed is just another absurdity in the holocaust...
User avatar #50316 to #50314 - bypest (11/02/2013) [-]
It's actually not claimed that a million bodies were buried a Treblinka but a few hundred thousand before they were unburied and turned into ash. See the Himmler visit in the testimonies below. Even that amount is obscure.
User avatar #50315 to #50314 - bypest (11/02/2013) [-]
You need to login to view this link

Q. Where did the gas enter?

A. That is in the sketch. Here was the gas engine, the engine which forced the gas in. And there were pipes with valves. They would open the valve into the chamber where the people were. There was an engine of a Soviet tank standing there, and in this way the gas was introduced.

Q. What happened to the women?

A. Over here [he indicates] the hair was cut off. At the end, a small area was fenced off. Here their hair was cut off, and then they were taken to the gas chambers.

Q. Was it manufactured by an engine, from the exhaust of a diesel engine?

A. Yes. It was gas from an engine.

top kek..one of the other peculiarities that is raised is a visit from Himmler. I can write a paper on the logistical issues arising with digging up hundreds of thousands of bodies and burning them. There is a claim that these incinerators were outdoors...
#50313 to #50306 - bypest has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #50309 to #50306 - lulzforhiroshima (11/02/2013) [-]
I think its the opposite champ.
Your the one saying that a historic genocide of a people is a conspiracy. By that logic i think you should be the one giving the proof.
After all, my Dad's great grandparents were killed of during the holocaust (of course someone survived), he knows it, his father knew it, and his grandfather knew it. Are you saying they are all lying? Are you saying the other millions of people out there are lying to and there generations before them? To say that this is some kind of conspiracy is stupid because God knows how many people were involved. Its like fucking saying the moon landing was fake, it can't be fake when so many people were apart of it.
inb4 i use muh holocaust to advocate for a jewish state
User avatar #50337 to #50309 - schnizel (11/03/2013) [-]
Well, you guys deserved it. And jews were killed, only the selected ones. Mostly communists and degenerates. Not 6 brazzilion, much much less.
User avatar #50384 to #50337 - lulzforhiroshima (11/04/2013) [-]
1/10. leave the politics forum, all you do is attempt to troll...
User avatar #50463 to #50384 - schnizel (11/04/2013) [-]
Well, sometimes da sometimes 9
User avatar #50325 to #50309 - arisaka (11/03/2013) [-]
Peeps who deny genocide are slippery motherfuckers. A classmate of mine denies what happened in Bosnia (her dad fought for the serbs). My uncle died there in a peacekeeping mission. It's infuriating and at the time I never thought of asking her for proof that there WASN'T a genocide. It was always "They're lying" or "it was planted afterwards".
User avatar #50465 to #50325 - schnizel (11/04/2013) [-]
It was a genocide and it was planned. And Alija sacrificed Srebrenica so that NATO would come here.
User avatar #50385 to #50325 - lulzforhiroshima (11/04/2013) [-]
you bitch slap that broad and tell her your uncle died and see what kind of face she gives you.
User avatar #50467 to #50385 - schnizel (11/04/2013) [-]
Violence solves nothing you hook nosed kike.
#50599 to #50467 - arisaka has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #50597 to #50467 - arisaka (11/05/2013) [-]
That was absurdly rude. :I
User avatar #50603 to #50597 - schnizel (11/05/2013) [-]
But he kinda deserved it.
User avatar #50617 to #50603 - arisaka (11/05/2013) [-]
Calling him a hooked nosed kike wasn't very mature of you.
User avatar #50620 to #50619 - arisaka (11/05/2013) [-]
c'est trop edgy monsieur schnizel
User avatar #50621 to #50620 - schnizel (11/05/2013) [-]
User avatar #50405 to #50385 - arisaka (11/04/2013) [-]
I tried everything. I used to sneak newspaper clippings and shit into her locker. I had a screaming fit with her in front of an entire class.

I am going nuclear. Next time I am bringing my family friend's photo album from the war (he was in the tank with my uncle when he died). She can't deny that.
User avatar #50466 to #50405 - schnizel (11/04/2013) [-]
Just don't push it, everyone is the master of their fate.

User avatar #50598 to #50466 - arisaka (11/05/2013) [-]
Yeah, I've decided to take this route. It's really not worth harbouring such negative feelings. It's not healthy to do so.
User avatar #50308 to #50306 - pebar (11/02/2013) [-]
but muh hiztery teechor sed so
#50292 - feelythefeel (11/02/2013) [-]
ITT: If you had to choose one genocidal country of history to live in, what would it be and when? Note that you can only choose times where your country of choice was actually genocidal, so no being a smart-alek.
#50460 to #50292 - gtobirilsrelbxw **User deleted account** (11/04/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #50318 to #50292 - bypest (11/02/2013) [-]
Denikin's legions slaughtering commies and pillaging Jewish settlements (i.e. looting the looters)

#50317 to #50292 - bypest has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #50294 to #50293 - feelythefeel (11/02/2013) [-]
I'm not exactly enlightened on Serbian history, when and how was Serbia genocidal?
User avatar #50319 to #50294 - bypest (11/02/2013) [-]
Bosnian goat fuckers were genocidal, along with the Albanians.
#50300 to #50294 - valeriya (11/02/2013) [-]
90's yugoslav wars, basically good leader (tito) died and was replaced by 5 presidents for each republic, they seemed to remember how much they hated each other and a few tried to break away, Serbia (Yugoslavia in title, but not Yugoslavia) wasn't having it and when some of the republics tried to break away it tried to "restore" order to them, by which they meant kick the shit out of any non-serbian.


Also Das Spiel bad choice, either way you get bombed by Serbs or Croats, or Bosnians... Or bombed by nato later on.
User avatar #50295 to #50294 - DasSpiel (11/02/2013) [-]
I'm actually not too familiar with their history either.

The song just sorta came to mind.
User avatar #50297 to #50295 - feelythefeel (11/02/2013) [-]
Are you trying to say that you would choose to live in Serbia circa 1990s?
User avatar #50298 to #50297 - DasSpiel (11/02/2013) [-]
No, I was merely kidding. Sorry, I should have specified.
#50290 - lulzforhiroshima (11/02/2013) [-]
God dammit, I'm looking through the comment sections of different political documentaries on different documentary websites. Its always the same bull crap, "dont u get it maaiiin, the government and the corporations maiin, they lie to us, its all corruption maiin".
User avatar #50287 - pebar (11/02/2013) [-]
Understanding the National Debt and Budget Deficit
User avatar #50291 to #50287 - feelythefeel (11/02/2013) [-]
I love this guy, I've watched countless amounts of his videos.
User avatar #50266 - undeadwill (11/02/2013) [-]
You need to login to view this link

What do?

Also veganism, why is it political? Why does it sound so much like a faith? Did I make any good point?
User avatar #50288 to #50266 - lulzforhiroshima (11/02/2013) [-]
if i make a tumblr account, my cancer level will rise 50% but will i also have a button to allow me to comment on these posts?
User avatar #50270 to #50266 - pebar (11/02/2013) [-]
I would argue from an egoist perspective; that the only reason murder is socially immoral is because we don't want to deal with the chance of being murdered in return. Apart from that there is nothing immoral about murder because from an evolutionary standpoint, the best way to spread our superior genes is to kill our competitors. You can see this behavior in many other species.
User avatar #50326 to #50270 - arisaka (11/03/2013) [-]
Basic social contract theory in a nutshell.

However, being vegan, my main arguments are more towards the effects the meat/dairy industry have towards the environment and its effects on climate change, biodiversity, and sustainability, even if I am 100% in agreement with the propagation of animal rights.
User avatar #50272 to #50270 - undeadwill (11/02/2013) [-]
So how did I do?
User avatar #50274 to #50272 - pebar (11/02/2013) [-]
Meh - he's kinda got a point
but plants are organisms too, just like animals, so I think his logic is flawed
User avatar #50276 to #50274 - undeadwill (11/02/2013) [-]
I like my point that it is religious and that if they ever get a majority we will lose our rights.
User avatar #50278 to #50276 - pebar (11/02/2013) [-]
history in a nutshell
User avatar #50275 to #50274 - undeadwill (11/02/2013) [-]
User avatar #50277 to #50275 - pebar (11/02/2013) [-]
I do think you need to point out why morality only applies to humans and dogs because dogs are awesome and if you torture dogs I will hunt you down like the wild animal that you are but I don't think simply because we're more intelligent is the right approach
User avatar #50279 to #50277 - undeadwill (11/02/2013) [-]
I said it was because only we understand it and seek it therefore we would only be able to give them rights. Which they can not defend their rights in a court of law nor by organized force
User avatar #50271 to #50270 - undeadwill (11/02/2013) [-]
That's pretty good.
User avatar #50222 - sigcurtis **User deleted account** (11/01/2013) [-]
What do you guys think this Charter of Values bill that was proposed in Quebec?
User avatar #50327 to #50222 - arisaka (11/03/2013) [-]
Living in Quebec gives me an interesting perspective on the subject.

Firstly, our Primier was only elected to remove a corrupt and incompetent closet conservative from power in the midst of social unrest. Historically, her party was the product of a series of severe social reforms called the "Quiet Revolution", during which Quebec norms, culture & society was turned on it's head. We killed God (kinda), we killed the oppression of Francophones by Anglophones (kinda) and we killed sex-negativism (kinda).

Overall, it was pretty goddamn awesome. However, the Parti Quebecois are snakes and liars and they're basically the worst. They have the largest history of austerity the province has seen since the Quiet Revolution. Considering they're supposed to be a more left-leaning party, they've since abandon any ties their historical selves they may have ever had.

So, what does this have to do with the charter? The charter itself is a big ol' brick of baked shit. We had a public seminar/discussion about it at my CEGEP. Proponents of the bill were stating that it was supposed to promote a "common culture" and would somehow make everything more egalitarian, when all you're doing is bullying working, integrated minorities into adopting some sort of warped and old idea of Quebecois values. It actually contradicts what is written on the papers you need to sign in order to apply to become a citizen of this province.

Secondly, all this bill does is remove the image of religion from government, but it does not remove the religious character that may or may not be behind a specific civil servant's decision making process. Not only this, but considering most of our laws/morality is still based off of some kind of Abrahamic faith, this motion is inherently flawed and a waste of money if we are going to try and enforce it.

Lastly, I believe this is an attempt to draw attention away from all the other things the Parti Quebecois has done wrong since she was voted into power last year.
User avatar #50328 to #50327 - sigcurtis **User deleted account** (11/03/2013) [-]
I'm also from Quebec, and agree completely that the PQ are pretty much snakes and liars, and this charter is clearly meant to draw attention away from all theirin the past year.
User avatar #50332 to #50328 - arisaka (11/03/2013) [-]
I also strongly believe that this is also a plea to their historical roots.

I find it atrocious that they implemented some of the largest austerity measures in the history of their career as a party last year (despite being a more left leaning party) but then they have the nerve to propose policy that will cost a large sum of money as well.
User avatar #50258 to #50222 - jewishcommunazi ONLINE (11/01/2013) [-]
I kind of disagree with it, but it's not that much of a deal to be considered "controversial", in my opinion.
User avatar #50225 to #50222 - Shiny (11/01/2013) [-]
I fail to see why being a public employee means you should have to give up your rights, I couldn't possibly care less what the dude bringing me my mail is wearing in such respects.
User avatar #50220 - pebar (11/01/2013) [-]
ITT: prostitution

legalize or no?
User avatar #50451 to #50220 - undeadwill (11/04/2013) [-]
User avatar #50254 to #50220 - jewishcommunazi ONLINE (11/01/2013) [-]
Maybe only with strict rules.
User avatar #50239 to #50220 - akkere ONLINE (11/01/2013) [-]
In most circumstances; legalize.
In the circumstance where an STI epidemic, especially one consisting of a severe virus such as HIV, than temporarily illegalize.. Mostly because you'd have to amend that situation by introducing subsidized sexual protection or educational reform so children are aware of how to perform sex safely when they grow on to become adults (and soon, buy prostitutes). This is mostly relevant in places like India where prostitution has become a major spreader of HIV, and a mix between India's general populace not being able to afford condoms and not knowing how to wrap their willies are the reasons.
User avatar #50236 to #50220 - bypest (11/01/2013) [-]
Make official pornography production illegal with it. Oh, but what a degenerate society we have come to be. Our prostitution laws are deemed ironic because the government sanctions rich Jews to make porn in California. I was in California two years ago, walking around a rich sector of LA, and in an ally I saw an obvious Jewish cameraman, some male, and two porn stars not doing any sexual acts but likely preparing for it in a more secluded place.

As Church says, prostitution should not be an issue to begin with. Everybody should know that it is wrong. It breeds for the woman the abuse of drugs and that of her pimp, and for the male it spreads infectious diseases.
User avatar #50230 to #50220 - CapnInterwebz (11/01/2013) [-]
Criminalizing something insignificant in the name of morality is pointless. Legalize it, put restrictions on it (i.e. certifications like Shiny said), and tax it like any other business. Prostitutes and pimps aren't worth the jail space, anyhow.
User avatar #50229 to #50220 - lulzforhiroshima (11/01/2013) [-]
of course, why the fuck should the government take your right of having sex with someone else, for whatever reason. If they really wanna stop prostitution, they should go after these dish-rag whores who go into bars and fuck for a few beers.
User avatar #50224 to #50220 - Shiny (11/01/2013) [-]
Sure, but it should have a sort of certification program; this could be either publicly or privately done. That way, brothels could cash in on perverts and customers could know whether their hookers have some gross disease.
User avatar #50210 - jewishcommunazi ONLINE (11/01/2013) [-]
Should the children of illegal imigrants have the right to citizenship?
User avatar #50235 to #50210 - Shiny (11/01/2013) [-]
Sure, but under a simple condition: if an illegal immigrant is caught intentionally giving birth on American soil, only the child can be a citizen.
User avatar #50233 to #50210 - bypest (11/01/2013) [-]
No. And repeal the 14th amendment. That is the "immigration reform" that is needed.

If they will continue to live here, they will be lowest strata of peoples in America. Lower than negroids! They should never be capable of achieving American citizenship, because at that point, they will never leave.

The Hispanic onslaught needs to end. This is unprecedented in American history. When my father came to America to work as a menial laborer, there were not nearly as many Hispanics here.
User avatar #50237 to #50233 - Shiny (11/01/2013) [-]
Do you really, honestly think that the fourteenth amendment will ever be repealed? All it basically does is cite an original message of the Constitution and say "fuck you, this part isn't optional".
User avatar #50240 to #50237 - bypest (11/01/2013) [-]
It is not the first world standard to have an equation as such: being born in itself=automatic citizenship. The 14th amendment does this.

The 14th amendment was meant to free slaves and oppress the south, and the federal government has succeeded in these pursuits. Dixie is Africa-America today and there are no longer slaves, except the southern states who were forced by Lincoln to be part of a nation that did not represent them. But we have a new problem. America is becoming an extension of Mexico and this has to be dealt with, unfortunately probably never to be. America will die as all nations that get taken over by alien peoples do, but let's speak in the sense that it would be possible to reform.

The amendment needs to revised at the very least for it did not envision future issues with Mexico. It was beyond Lincoln and the Congress to think that Americans would ever allow Mexicans to pour into the US as they have been doing since Ted Kennedy's (burn in hell) law was passed as part of the diversity shuffle in the 1960s.
User avatar #50241 to #50240 - Shiny (11/01/2013) [-]
Even if we make it impossible for them to become legal....they will still come here, because the only work they take is the shit we don't want to do. This is simple economics.
User avatar #50243 to #50241 - bypest (11/01/2013) [-]
Of course, but the premise of giving them citizenship is too much. By doing that, you are telling their 20 cousins and their 9th month pregnant babies south of the border that you want them too!

Illegals and their children should forever live as Serfs. Allow businesses to exploit them and the state governments to regularly repress them, like the gypsies in Europe. Many won't go away, but their life will be hell. Perhaps Mexico will not seem so bad to them when they start getting lynched.

Again, giving them citizenship puts them at the level of Americans whose blood dates back centuries here. They are not Americans, despite what a piece of paper at a bankrupt hospital in New Mexico says.
User avatar #50244 to #50243 - Shiny (11/01/2013) [-]
You're trying to amend the law to fix an issue deeply rooted in America's socioeconomic state.

"Again, giving them citizenship puts them at the level of Americans whose blood dates back centuries here. They are not Americans, despite what a piece of paper at a bankrupt hospital in New Mexico says."

Are you serious? Everyone here that isn't a native American ethnicity is the descendant of an immigrant.
User avatar #50247 to #50244 - bypest (11/01/2013) [-]
Any claim these "Aztland" types have to the modern American nation comes from Spanish imperialism. The Indians had no conception of legitimacy, thus we took nothing away from the Mestizos or Indians when we expanded to the Pacific. The Mexicans are thinking the same today. They spit on our flag and raise theirs. This leads me to the next issue:

Speaking of immigration, what we are seeing today is very different from say, German immigration early on. Mexicans come here to work in their first generation. In their second generation they shoot eachother and collect welfare. German immigrants came here and lived together, but were forced by their economic positions to integrate themselves into Anglo society.

Nothing is forcing Hispanics to develop as did the Germans. The children of those who come here are content with being poor on government subsidy. Look at California. We are a nation of immigrants but not of criminals and freeloaders. We are not a nation of third worlders with no conception of civilization that take advantage of the law so that their mongrel children can attain American citizenship.

You don't think that this would be a step in the right direction? Even Canadians think so with their problem with Chinese immigration. They might have repealed their equivalent of the 14th amendment some time ago, I'm not sure.

The main point is that our immigration derived from Europe. We developed, as much as we would have liked to entertain ourselves notso, on European ideological thought. We did not see mass-immigration from a certain nation, and in fact took care until 1965 to make sure that no ethnicity took over our country. We took care to make sure that America had a common binding. Mexicans are incomparable to German immigrants of the past.
User avatar #50248 to #50247 - Shiny (11/01/2013) [-]
I never said we shouldn't do better to accomodate immigrants for everyone's benefit (why English isn't a national language baffles me). Was just poking fun at the "real Americans" bit.
User avatar #50250 to #50248 - bypest (11/01/2013) [-]
I think I disproved the "real Americans" bit in my post. Mexican immigrants are much different from past European immigrants culturally and speaking of conditions which they are subjected to domestically, it comes to be seen that they are a problem. We have never mass-immigration until 1965.

We are a nation of immigrants but a nation of immigrants which integrated. Hispanics are not integrating because they have no incentive to do so. They are coming in such numbers in such a short period so that nothing compels them to adapt, as did the Germans. Much of this derives from the liberal welfare state, hence California being Jose's #1 destination upon hopping the border. This is a problem, and the solution is to curb immigration from the Hispanic world. A change of the 14th amendment would be the first step.

You speak of socioeconomic status? Sure...let them stay and work, I am not advocating immediate mass-deportation because it is impracticable. Just keep them a lower strata of society...they and their children will be forever known as "dirty illegals" until they leave.

Is any of this going to happen? No, we are done for as a nation. Hispanics will not integrate as the Turkik peoples who flooded Athens upon the downfall of the Greek Empire never integrated.
User avatar #50253 to #50250 - Shiny (11/01/2013) [-]
When most illegals come to the States, they don't expect immediate equal treatment, since even as no-rights illegal aliens, they still have far better lives than in Mexico.

My original point was trying to amend a very old and concrete part of the constitution would be just as impractical as trying to evict every illegal immigrant, especially since the current political climate would undoubtedly fuck everything up.
User avatar #50257 to #50253 - bypest (11/01/2013) [-]
On your first point, which I ignored, do you see the audacity of them marching on our capital? Look at their signs: Amnesty NOW. They certainly want to force us to bow to them, not the other way around which would mean integration. That was my thesis these last posts.
User avatar #50260 to #50257 - Shiny (11/01/2013) [-]
First of all, people marching on the streets don't represent a whole group. And second of all, wanting amnesty doesn't necessarily mean that they want to completely avoid adapting to local cultures.
User avatar #50256 to #50253 - bypest (11/01/2013) [-]
The Founders did not embrace citizenship upon birth. They spoke of American citizenship, but not as to what constituted it. That would be left to posterity.

The 14th amendment was a result of the civil war and had immediate interests in mind. It was meant to free slaves; there are no longer slaves. It was meant to force the South into submission; Dixie is dead. It serves, in my opinion, nothing but symbolic importance to the scholar.

In a sane political climate, something would be done. That is one man's opinion.
User avatar #50261 to #50256 - Shiny (11/01/2013) [-]
And you're perfectly welcome to such an opinion, but I think the fourteenth still serves some useful purposes, since it's been the basis of a lot of legislation that has protected the rights of existing citizens--including national socialists persecuted for their political assembly.
User avatar #50213 to #50210 - pebar (11/01/2013) [-]
Yes if they are born inside the US, but if they are younger then 18 then they should be deported with their parents. When they turn 18 they should be given a free pass back into the country.
 Friends (0)