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:
Order:
Latest users (1): akkere, anonymous(13).
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #49868 - feelythefeel (10/28/2013) [-]
The Internationale ITT: Opinions on "The Internationale". Opinions on any versions of the song are welcome, just make sure to mention which ones you're basing them off of.
User avatar #49878 to #49868 - bypest (10/28/2013) [-]
ahahaha more like "socialism in one country" worthless marxian socialists top lel

The fate of Red Army soldiers in Polish captivity
>top lel

Bitwa warszawska 1920
>top lel

Wojsko Polskie  - Maszerują Strzelcy
>top lel
User avatar #49879 to #49878 - feelythefeel (10/28/2013) [-]
I presume you don't like it?
User avatar #49880 to #49879 - bypest (10/28/2013) [-]
The Internationale once served practical importance in bettering the condition of workers through unity but that changed when adopted by commies as they took the "international" part a bit too seriously.
User avatar #49891 to #49880 - jewishcommunazi (10/29/2013) [-]
Yeah, commies totally neglected the conditions of workers. It's not like employment was almost 100% guaranteed under most notorious socialist countries until the revisionists came to power fucked it all up.
User avatar #49983 to #49891 - bypest (10/29/2013) [-]
The economics of full employment was not anything secluded to Communist theory. For example, Germany had such a system as did Russia. The difference was that Germany was a much better place to live and work.

"Revisionists" like Khrushchev actually took pity for the workers instead of killing them off with "five year plans." Khrushchev wished to be remembered by his housing projects which made it so that workers no longer had to live in slums. They are not pretty today of course, but like policies made him very popular amongst the people.
User avatar #49991 to #49983 - jewishcommunazi (10/29/2013) [-]
Five year plans were still somewhat used under Khrushchev, he simply made it more "simple" for his sucessors to get rid of them.
User avatar #49992 to #49991 - bypest (10/29/2013) [-]
I am speaking of the nature. Stalin stressed increasing manufacturing power while Khrushchev wished for the betterment of living standards.
User avatar #49996 to #49992 - jewishcommunazi (10/29/2013) [-]
When I refer to the employment in my comment, I don't mean it as the state making a good job at making the citizens productive, but more as in they almost completely having their right to work fulfilled as it's not seen on most countries. There's nothing wrong with sacrificing manufacturing power with better living conditions, although Stalin did increase living conditions aswell.
0
#49978 to #49891 - bypest has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #49881 to #49880 - feelythefeel (10/28/2013) [-]
I'm not a communist myself, just a democratic socialist.
User avatar #49882 to #49881 - bypest (10/28/2013) [-]
The communists stained the anthem as Hitler apparently did the Roman salute.
User avatar #49883 to #49882 - feelythefeel (10/28/2013) [-]
Wont stop me from liking it.
User avatar #49871 to #49868 - jewishcommunazi (10/28/2013) [-]
I like them all, but if I had to pick one, I'd probably choose Tang Dynasty's version.
User avatar #49872 to #49871 - feelythefeel (10/28/2013) [-]
the internationale I like the sound of this one.
User avatar #49873 to #49872 - jewishcommunazi (10/28/2013) [-]
Me too. I also like the estonian version because it sounds different from other versions.
Internationale Estonian
User avatar #49874 to #49873 - feelythefeel (10/28/2013) [-]
I'm more into the classic versions myself.
User avatar #49865 - pebar (10/28/2013) [-]
I've changed my mind on the death penalty. I don't think the government should have the authority to take someone's life as punishment for a crime. I don't care if it is a deterrent or not.
User avatar #49985 to #49865 - akkere ONLINE (10/29/2013) [-]
Should the government also have the authority to hold someone prisoner for crimes, especially when people exist within the governing positions that would have performed acts deemed... immoral, unethical, and perhaps even illegal?
Personally, I advocate the death penalty, but I think there needs to be a slew of things reformed into the justice system before it becomes viable.
First off, there needs to be a system of evaluation to whether someone's eligible for the death penalty - this includes one that evaluates the degree of certainty towards the victim performing the crime that would yield it. Someone who was witnessed raping and murdering a group of children, for instance, will have a heavy degree of certainty and therefore would be easily put to death. Someone who's conviction is hinged on forensics and factors that have margins for error might simply get the life sentence. Bottom line is a "one size fits all" policy can't coexist with something this severe.
Of course, you'd need to establish more judiciary departments that revolve around the evaluation of evidence, and this might even stir controversies with the legitimacy of a court (admitting that someone is not viable for the death penalty could be seen as saying the same thing as they were never guilty to begin with), but the death penalty's opposition is primarily geared towards fear of putting an innocent to death, and these are necessities in annihilating that fear.

Once you've implemented that, get rid of the lethal injection. It's too expensive, and once you've held people on a platform of certainty, more practical methods can be used (I wouldn't really advocate this, but one thing China supposedly does is have a firing line in use to execute the con, and then they send the family the bill for the round).
User avatar #49930 to #49865 - delphine (10/29/2013) [-]
I used to be against it, but I do think there should be harsher punishments. Murderers and gang leaders get better accommodations than I do and I have to work my ass off to earn my keep and to pay taxes that are going towards providing prisoners with cable TV and free health care.
User avatar #49907 to #49865 - azumeow (10/29/2013) [-]
I oppose the death penalty in 98% of cases. Because mainly I think life in prison with ABSOLUTE ZERO chance of parole is a far worse crime. You get to watch the entire world advance while rotting in a jail cell for up to 60-70 years depending on how long you live to and when you're sentenced.
User avatar #49885 to #49865 - lulzforhiroshima (10/28/2013) [-]
Yeah so we should spent more tax dollars keeping some douchebags alive, no thanks. The death penalty should be used on the worst of crimes (murder, serial raping, ect) which have too much evidence to be unfully certain of. And dont bring up that argument that it takes more money to get lawyers for the person to try to remove his penalty because we should remove that crap altogether if the crime is 100% certainly provable and brutal in nature.
User avatar #49892 to #49885 - Shiny ONLINE (10/29/2013) [-]
The death penalty actually costs a fortune to implement since convicts spend millions of tax dollars on appeals. And if they couldn't do that, we'd basically be flushing the entire concept of a justice system down the shitter.
User avatar #49894 to #49892 - lulzforhiroshima (10/29/2013) [-]
i just fucking mentioned how these appeals are stupid when death penalties account for absolute provable crimes. (100% no doubt)
User avatar #49895 to #49894 - Shiny ONLINE (10/29/2013) [-]
So what? You can't just make exceptions to peoples' rights.
User avatar #49897 to #49895 - lulzforhiroshima (10/29/2013) [-]
fuck people's rights, you kill someone else on purpose, i believe the same can be done to you.
User avatar #49898 to #49897 - Shiny ONLINE (10/29/2013) [-]
Two wrongs do not make a right, lest you bring yourself to their level.

If you think the justice system is failing, feel free to hit the gun store and take matters into your own hands. I'm sure that well go just dandy.
User avatar #49899 to #49898 - lulzforhiroshima (10/29/2013) [-]
i never talked about taking justice in my own hands, im just stating my belief. Frankly i coudnt give too much a shit i just think it'll cost the government a bit less money if some of these prisons quickly reduced their populations.
User avatar #49900 to #49899 - Shiny ONLINE (10/29/2013) [-]
If you want to save money on incarceration, then support reforming the childish "harsh punishment" policies we're dealing with.
User avatar #49884 to #49865 - Shiny ONLINE (10/28/2013) [-]
Euthanasia may be necessary in cases of high treason, where his very existence may put the lives of theaters of citizens in serious risk. However, I think punishing killing someone with killing someone is petty, hypocritical and ultimately counterproductive.

"we ned 2 hab justis"
User avatar #49886 to #49884 - lulzforhiroshima (10/28/2013) [-]
nah i dont want to keep some douchebag alive
User avatar #49877 to #49865 - bypest (10/28/2013) [-]
Because it gives the government too much power? I would assume, in a libertarian mindset, that this argument is flawed in the sense that it is not the government which is killing the convicted criminal.

The local judicial system is separated from the government. Juries are not government agents nor are judges. Judges are the ones who kill criminals, and they are not appointed by the government. Thus government theoretically has no say in the death penalty, except to make clear whether it is legal or not. And that is an issue of state's rights.

You can contradict by speaking of the "prison-industrial complex" and a good point would be made. Execution, as a process, is too expensive. Let's take the example of illegal immigrant Jose. Jose decides to rape some little chica and dismember her body, dumping the pieces in some forest. He gets caught, and it costs the government thousands of dollars to kill his worthless self. How about a bullet to the head outside the courthouse after the worthless spic's last appeal is over with?
User avatar #49870 to #49865 - jewishcommunazi (10/28/2013) [-]
If the crime is really serious and there's certainty on the one responsible, euthanizing him should be considered. And the government could go softer on taxes, which you people dislike so much.
User avatar #49862 - pebar (10/28/2013) [-]
Keynesianism Part I - It's All About Spending Thoughts?
User avatar #49863 to #49862 - noblexfenrir (10/28/2013) [-]
On keynesian economics or just the video?

It's an innocent idea but it's only applicable under two very specific conditions, The economic fall is predictably controllable and therefor the spending can be seen as more of an investment in the future than simply throwing money blindly at a gamble, and the economy is static. The first of which could be true, except when the second premise is false, due to that we can only make very limited predictions about the market.

Give the free market all the hell you want about it being too fluid with rises and falls, it still has the most adaptable structure to bounce back from such things.
User avatar #49864 to #49863 - Shiny ONLINE (10/28/2013) [-]
Either way, you're choosing between long term or short term trouble, and you basically have to, since people view transition between economic policies as a lack of integrity from their politicians.
#49843 - pebar (10/27/2013) [-]
5 dead is mass stabbing
#49853 to #49843 - CapnInterwebz (10/27/2013) [-]
Ban assault knives and limit knife length.
Ban assault knives and limit knife length.
User avatar #49855 to #49853 - jewishcommunazi (10/27/2013) [-]
And ban high capacity grips.
User avatar #49847 to #49846 - noblexfenrir (10/27/2013) [-]
"But...but...but...it could have been alot worse if the killer had a gun!"

In all seriousness, this a prime example of why people gun control advocates are fighting a symptom and not the problem.
User avatar #49851 to #49847 - Shiny ONLINE (10/27/2013) [-]
Well, technically, it could have been worse with a gun, considering all possible circumstances. That's just not relevant. America's issues with violence are convoluted and deeply rooted in our culture, but long, gradualistic change that benefits everyone doesn't get you reelected.
#49841 - fatbenreloaded (10/27/2013) [-]
www.neontommy.com/news/2013/10/pedophilia-sexual-orientation

THE SLIPPERY-SLOPERS WERE RIGHT! IT'S HAPPENING!
User avatar #49852 to #49841 - Shiny ONLINE (10/27/2013) [-]
So what? That doesn't mean fucking kids will become legal, since the scientific consensus is that children lack the maturity to partake in sexual behavior.
User avatar #49844 to #49841 - noblexfenrir (10/27/2013) [-]
Okay, does anyone actually research the sources they're using?

The "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders" is generally seen as not being reliable in the sense of how they categorize and apply guidelines for specific mental health problems. There are many cases brought up against them for unreliability, corruption in the sense of advocating medication more often than not when therapy is shown to be a better method, etc etc.

The "International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems" is a much more reliable source and is the general rule of thumb for diseases in the US and the UK.

Also, so fucking what? Some people fantasize about kids, who gives a fuck? As long as they aren't committing a crime, it doesn't matter. I am perfectly fine with non-child molesting pedophiles, who stick to nothing but their fantasies.

And please don't make the slippery slope argument like anyone would actually think someone would make a pedophilia relationship legal since the reason we have an age of consent isn't based on an arbitrary ruling of "muh feelings" like with gay marriage, it's based on brain development of children.
#49849 to #49844 - fatbenreloaded (10/27/2013) [-]
DOESN'T MATTER, STILL HAPPENING. BUCKLE UP AND GIVE IT TEN YEARS. THERE ARE NO BRAKES ON MICHAEL JACKSON'S WILD RIDE.
User avatar #49837 - casuals (10/27/2013) [-]
Why does Rush Limbaugh make up so many portmanteaus involving Nazis or Fascists for people he disagrees with?

For example, Feminazi, Ecofacist, Homofacist.
User avatar #49827 - Shiny ONLINE (10/26/2013) [-]
So, my old man gave me some interesting news today: his employer, United Healthcare, is one of the contractors charged with remaking the healthcare.gov website. He's not directly involved, but says he's familiar with the team in charge of the project and feels that they'll do a nice job (he's there to help develop software, and like a proper programmer, he's extremely arrogant about what constitutes good code). Apparently the reason it was such shit before is because the government initially contracted some fucktarded Canadian company with a very poor track record exclusively because it was cheap...heh, bureaucracy.

Funny story, though, apparently something both major parties agree on is that they automatically know everthing because they were elected; supposedly, the political officials that gave demands about how the site should work had seemingly no idea how a website works.
#49819 - feelythefeel (10/26/2013) [-]
Anyone else kinda attracted to 23 year old Stalin?
User avatar #49866 to #49819 - undeadwill (10/28/2013) [-]
No.
He looks nice sure but its more in the style that the face. The face feels off.
Yes certain parts look good but as a whole its so very meh.
User avatar #49840 to #49819 - caocao (10/27/2013) [-]
No. His hair reminds me of John Dorian.
User avatar #49839 to #49819 - azumeow (10/27/2013) [-]
I saw that tumblr post too....

Only a little.
#49820 to #49819 - valeriya (10/26/2013) [-]
No... We all know where this goes Stalin Watching You s.

User avatar #49811 - pebar (10/26/2013) [-]
User avatar #49803 to #49801 - pebar (10/26/2013) [-]
..... are you an anarchist?
User avatar #49804 to #49803 - undeadwill (10/26/2013) [-]
I'm very meh to it. I don't directly support it but not entirely against it. I am more for a natural creation of it rather than a forced one.
User avatar #49800 - pebar (10/25/2013) [-]
John Stossel: Insurance Makes Healthcare Far More Expensive
User avatar #49806 to #49800 - Shiny ONLINE (10/26/2013) [-]
Insurance isn't supposed to be cheap, it's supposed to be there for when you need it.
User avatar #49762 - pebar (10/25/2013) [-]
Why Facts Won't Help You Win Arguments
User avatar #49832 to #49754 - doublicious (10/26/2013) [-]
holy fuck the comments
User avatar #49767 to #49754 - oxan (10/25/2013) [-]
Is there even a friggin' difference between the male and female 'old' caps?

Plus, the new ones don't like anything like kepis.
User avatar #49808 to #49767 - bypest (10/26/2013) [-]
They are too big for the wymyn's tiny heads. Why are women even in the marines is the question that is important.
User avatar #49809 to #49808 - Ruspanic (10/26/2013) [-]
If they pass the training, why does it matter?
User avatar #49848 to #49809 - bypest (10/27/2013) [-]
As is pointed out below, women are incapable of enduring the same training.

The Marines, in history, was created as an elite sect of the armed forces in order to protect American cargo trade. An old nickname for those in the Marines was "leathernecks." Only the toughest men around were suited for the job.

Going back to the hat debacle, if women aren't capable of having combat-roles, why should they be pandered to? Having girly-looking unisex hats for the Marines is very degrading.
User avatar #49854 to #49848 - Ruspanic (10/27/2013) [-]
You can't pretend that all women are incapable of enduring the same training. The training requirement - provided it remains unchanged for everyone - should be enough to prevent physically inadequate people from joining the Marines. There's no need for a blanket ban on women in the armed forces.

And I don't really give a shit about the hats, it's a very minor issue.
User avatar #49876 to #49854 - bypest (10/28/2013) [-]
To expand where I was cut off, I believe women should not be allowed in combat-roles for the reason that they provide too many difficulties. Only a small fraction of females can live up to the male standard, and they, by virtue of biology, are inferior to their male counterparts. Women are not equal even if they do pass the same training as men, in other words, and this impedes the performance of a division, let's say, in combat.

For example, infection. Women are not built to spend much time in the wilderness. This is why in the Colonial Era of the Americas women stayed on the ships, along with the children, while the men got the settlements started. It was not oppression. Is circumcision or the what happened to the men on the Titanic male oppression? It was the workable relationship of the male/female which existed then and does not now.

There is no precedent for a modern military using women in combat, even if they can live up to standard. It would be considered in a pre-feminist, post-barbarian society as inhumane. Afterall, imagine what an enemy would do to captured female prisoners.

There is no problem with female participation in the Chair Force, as far as I see it, but how large of a military bureaucracy do you need?

And let's get real, to use negroid slang. Females will never accept heightened standards for themselves in the military due to a contradiction in liberal feminist ideology. They want "equality" so long as it benefits them. The solution to this loophole is to just tell them to fuck off. America is the greatest military power on earth and the administration has not time for political games in the form of unisex hats and such.
User avatar #49875 to #49854 - bypest (10/28/2013) [-]
Women able to pass Male Marine training are anomalies. I can find you a few African geniuses from the Congo but does that do a good job of depicting Negro intelligence? Of course not. Similarly, women are built very differently than men.

Only the strongest 1% of women would be able to live up to the same standard of men in the Marines. This is not an exaggeration as it would be hard even for me, and I am not fat or unfit, to pass the training. The Marines is, again, an elite sect of the armed forces. In other words, no pussy shit (unless you are a womyn, in which case you can pass with lower standards).

Women comprise a very small amount of the Marines to begin with. That is why the hat issue is important. It is egalitarianism out of control. This is akin to Finnish students learning about the "oppression" of Australian aboriginals but not their own history with Bolshevism.

It is a different story with the regular Army of course, where most of the women are. Even there, they have trouble passing standard training and must opt for the minimum required by their gender. Even there, a majority of them are members of the Chair Force; pencil-pushers.

I know a guy in the Navy and he entertained me of the differences in Male/Female training. A male must lift another male up a staircase. A womyn only has to drag him by his foot up the staircase. Which one would you trust with your life?

If you agree that men and women should live up to the same standards, then we must send home 90-95% of women. And then, why let the meager amount left stay? There is apparently a rape epidemic in the Army, afterall. I doubt it would be fun for them.

But there is a difference between women having non-combat roles and having combat-roles. The only nations that let women have combat-roles are militaristically-speaking irrelevancies. Sweden, for instance. Israel was an exception but they reversed their decision after they saw how it was failure.
0
#49799 to #49767 - bypest has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #49763 to #49754 - feelythefeel (10/25/2013) [-]
Under normal circumstances (IE an acceptable economy) I would be indifferent. On a modern government level, eight million really isn't that much and the counter arguments given by the soldiers are shaky at best. Yet given the fact that America's military is already the most over funded program on the planet and there really is no suitable economy to support it as it is, it's shit like this that really pronounces the wastefulness of the current political system. Eight million still isn't a lot, but it makes it pretty clear that America has no intentions of taking the obvious route of looking to military cuts to alleviate economic stress.
User avatar #49749 - casuals (10/25/2013) [-]
I believe, as a whole, society if oppressing itself. The entirety of society has folded in on itself to disadvantage itself. The human race is flawed, and how we operate is flawed, and that is simply why problems exist.

I am part of the movementism movement. I believe that by correcting the flaws of Societocraty we will overcome all issues had by society.

movementism is simply combating bad things. If you think bad things should happen, you are an anti-movementist. If you believe things should be good for people, you are a movementist. Once everyone subscribes to the ideal of movementism, we will have a perfect utopia.

If you say “I believe movementism is unnecessary”, that is further proof that we need movementism.
User avatar #49792 to #49749 - jewishcommunazi (10/25/2013) [-]
Can I be a movementist? Remember, you shouldn't say no because it would be bad for me and a movementist doesn't want bad things to happen.
User avatar #49753 to #49749 - pebar (10/25/2013) [-]
Care to be more specific?
What are some of the problems? What do you think are the causes of those problems? What do you plan to fix those problems?
User avatar #49768 to #49753 - oxan (10/25/2013) [-]
It's an obvious joke 'critique' of privilege, feminism, etc.
User avatar #49752 to #49749 - CapnInterwebz (10/25/2013) [-]
No one wants bad things to happen. People just have different views on what is bad and what is good.
User avatar #49747 - kokanum (10/25/2013) [-]
Abortion
User avatar #49755 to #49747 - bypest (10/25/2013) [-]
"The thing to be done about the Jews is to kill them, exterminate them, get rid of them. You don't argue or reason with a cockroach; you step on it." - Ben Garrison
User avatar #49816 to #49755 - lulzforhiroshima (10/26/2013) [-]
thanks bypest.
User avatar #49757 to #49755 - bypest (10/25/2013) [-]
"The thing to be done about the fetus is to kill it, exterminate it, get rid of it. You don't argue or reason with parasites; you cleanse them." - Empowered Womyn
User avatar #49750 to #49747 - pebar (10/25/2013) [-]
what about it
#49744 - feelythefeel (10/24/2013) [-]
Guys, what if Mein Kampf was actually Hitler's really sassy prison diary, and the Nazis secretly edited it afterwards to use as propaganda and avoid a scandal?
User avatar #49769 to #49744 - oxan (10/25/2013) [-]
'and the Nazis secretly edited it afterwards'

They did. But mainly because it was incoherent, because Hitler was a bit self-conscious and liked to use big words.
User avatar #49783 to #49769 - maddboiy (10/25/2013) [-]
even the edited version is incomprehensible, half of it doesn't make sense
User avatar #49817 to #49783 - arisaka (10/26/2013) [-]
It's really just comedic literature. Hitler was, deep down, a stupid fuck with a decent vocabulary so he made his insanity sound smart. (fascists of this board plz take this with a grain or teaspoon of salt)
User avatar #49719 - pebar (10/24/2013) [-]
John Stossel - Fracking Thoughts on fracking?
User avatar #49785 to #49719 - undeadwill (10/25/2013) [-]
For it, it will solve our energy crisis
User avatar #49724 to #49719 - Shiny ONLINE (10/24/2013) [-]
Will probably be fine from a scientific standpoint, but oil companies get so much political leeway that they even get away with incidents we absolutely cannot reasonably expect.
 Friends (0)