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 (4): feelythefeel, jewishcommunazi, loomiss, lulzformalaysiaair, anonymous(11).
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#29874 - xxxsonic fanxxx (05/21/2013) [-]
Ask a North Korean Citizen anything.
User avatar #29893 to #29874 - feelythefeel ONLINE (05/21/2013) [-]
What is love?
User avatar #29878 to #29874 - CapnInterwebz (05/21/2013) [-]
Who did you have to kill to get your internet connection?
#29880 to #29878 - xxxsonic fanxxx (05/21/2013) [-]
I believe it is the one you American pigs call Nicki Minaj. Your Supreme Leader rewarded my efforts with internets.
User avatar #29881 to #29880 - CapnInterwebz (05/21/2013) [-]
You'd be rewarded for that over here too
#29879 to #29878 - repostsrepost has deleted their comment [-]
#29871 - xxxsonic fanxxx (05/21/2013) [-]
˙uɐılɐɹʇsn∀ ɹǝdoɹd ɐ ǝʞıl ʞɐǝds plnoɥs uɐxO
User avatar #29898 to #29871 - oxan (05/21/2013) [-]
True, mate?
#29869 - xxxsonic fanxxx (05/21/2013) [-]
I without was out is funny honey. "Then he to and" said I. Once in the climbed and sang a buzz! "Buzz! I am," said the that door making an eat the Poo.
#29832 - nigalthornberry has deleted their comment [-]
#29811 - xxxsonic fanxxx (05/20/2013) [-]
What is the true job of a government? To protect and ensure the growth of it's native people, or to protect or ensure the growth of the nation itself?

If <insert fictional nation here> deports homeless/jobless/unskilled native people and brings in quality personnel from another country in and grants them citizenship, is it acceptable to you?

Yes, I know that they can't simply "deport" people to other countries, but for the sake of this question, let's just assume they can.
User avatar #29851 to #29811 - pebar (05/20/2013) [-]
to maintain order without overstepping the authority it is given by society
User avatar #29843 to #29811 - oxan (05/20/2013) [-]
So long as it exist, it should be protecting its citizens from their common enemy (which includes hunger and the cold).
User avatar #29817 to #29811 - akamrhood (05/20/2013) [-]
To help protect, provide, pilot, and progress its people. I think it is both ensuring the growth and protection of its people and the strength and growth of the nation itself. If not both then the other cant prosper.

I don't think its acceptable to myself or the general populace of said nation. There are times where that would be awesome here in america. To "deport" the waste of the nation, the people that only take from the government and give nothing back to society but just more "in the way" people. It would a terrible thing to actually happen due to the lose of humanity in people and to just toss aside fellow citizens like that. But the benefits of getting those people out of said nation would be awesome!
#29808 - xxxsonic fanxxx (05/20/2013) [-]
#29761 - xxxsonic fanxxx (05/20/2013) [-]

why do you think communism is the best type of government?
User avatar #29836 to #29761 - oxan (05/20/2013) [-]
>Because he's a communist.

More or less.
#29809 to #29761 - xxxsonic fanxxx (05/20/2013) [-]
Because he's a communist.
User avatar #29793 to #29761 - lobsternewburg (05/20/2013) [-]
No because filthy commies.
#29783 to #29761 - xxxsonic fanxxx (05/20/2013) [-]
#29795 to #29783 - xxxsonic fanxxx (05/20/2013) [-]
#29815 to #29795 - xxxsonic fanxxx (05/20/2013) [-]
i know your name.
no one else here knows.
but i know. and that freaks you out.
#29856 to #29815 - xxxsonic fanxxx (05/20/2013) [-]

I don't think you hare the right person.
User avatar #29762 to #29761 - arisaka (05/20/2013) [-]
>form of government
#29764 to #29762 - xxxsonic fanxxx (05/20/2013) [-]
you know what I mean.
User avatar #29765 to #29764 - arisaka (05/20/2013) [-]
Okay then

Direct democracy is the political organization of communism. Supremacy of workers councils over parliament. Is that what you mean?

If so, it allows for more participation in decision making and empowers people to take control over their own lives. Life is not work, work is not life.
#29766 to #29765 - xxxsonic fanxxx (05/20/2013) [-]


can it work?
#29775 to #29766 - xxxsonic fanxxx (05/20/2013) [-]
communism fails because of human nature.
there will never be a true society were everyone shares wealth and everyone is happy.
this is why every communist government ends up as totalitarian.
people need to be forced to be equal.

capitalism works because it allows everything to work on it's own.
people work together by necessity. in order to be successful, you need to provide a service which is in demand.
people who are more successful gain more than others, and why is that such a bad thing?
User avatar #29837 to #29775 - oxan (05/20/2013) [-]
Human nature is not fixed, it changes. Governments lead by communists, just like those lead by capitalists, can become authoritarian when threatened.
User avatar #29767 to #29766 - arisaka (05/20/2013) [-]

Despite being very discriminatory as to who could participate, Ancient Greece had a form of a direct democracy that was pretty decent.

You just have to realize that with direct democracy, there is a much stronger feeling of regionalism over, say, federalism. Decisions being made in A are not the best for B because A is not B. Direct democracy has worked in the past, and new technological advancements will make it simpler. All representative democracy does is take democracy further away from the people; direct democracy brings it closer. That's all.
#29755 - xxxsonic fanxxx (05/20/2013) [-]
something new.

let's talk about global warming "climate change" and why it's fabricated bullshit.
#29805 to #29755 - xxxsonic fanxxx (05/20/2013) [-]
Climate change isn't fabricated bullshit.

Man-made climate change is fabricated bullshit.
#29814 to #29805 - xxxsonic fanxxx (05/20/2013) [-]
clearly, that's what i mean.
the earth is perfectly capable of killing itself without our help.
#29745 - levchenko (05/20/2013) [-]
This image has expired
ITT: What do you think the strongest country's are today?
#29866 to #29745 - repostsrepost ONLINE (05/20/2013) [-]
US: End of the world hysteria aside, the world's superpower isn't going anywhere.
Britain: former hegemon turned US lapdog, but still plays an important role
Germany:Backbone of the Eurozone. Held back by the EU and post WW2 shit
Japan: Most advanced country in Asia. Time to scrap the McArthur Constitution.
Russia: shell of its former self but still trying to flex whatever muscles it still has.
China: A legitimate power but is vastly overestimated. Still a ways to go before it isn't a third world country anymore. China doesn't "own" the US and never will.
User avatar #29840 to #29745 - oxan (05/20/2013) [-]
Australia strong.

But it depends what you mean by 'strong'. Regardless, probably China, the US, Germany and, maybe, Russia.
#29858 to #29840 - xxxsonic fanxxx (05/20/2013) [-]
Australia can become the world's strongest superpower. All they have to do is capture and breed the spiders there to use as weapons.
User avatar #29861 to #29858 - oxan (05/20/2013) [-]
At least I can sleep safe at night, knowing no one would ever invade a country where everything can kill you.
User avatar #29833 to #29745 - CapnInterwebz (05/20/2013) [-]
USA, China, Russia, Germany, Japan
User avatar #29818 to #29745 - akamrhood (05/20/2013) [-]
1. America - overall just a powerful country
2. China - but is slowing down due to government
3. Russia - Used to be better but now it isnt as good
4. Germany - It is rising but is limited by policies and location
5. Brazil - economy, tech, government are all becoming stronger
#29778 to #29745 - xxxsonic fanxxx (05/20/2013) [-]
For sure not Russia
#29770 to #29745 - xxxsonic fanxxx (05/20/2013) [-]
Not Russia.
#29759 to #29745 - xxxsonic fanxxx (05/20/2013) [-]
norf career

king young un is best leader
#29752 to #29745 - xxxsonic fanxxx (05/20/2013) [-]
china and US.
russia's a shadow of it's former self.
User avatar #29748 to #29745 - maddboiy ONLINE (05/20/2013) [-]
The EU, i class it as a country because the entire thing is practically controlled by Merkel.
Russia, mainly because of it's economy.
America, mainly because of it's military.
#29749 to #29748 - xxxsonic fanxxx (05/20/2013) [-]
what is china? a micronation?
User avatar #29756 to #29749 - maddboiy ONLINE (05/20/2013) [-]
good point
#29750 to #29744 - xxxsonic fanxxx (05/20/2013) [-]
User avatar #29841 to #29750 - oxan (05/20/2013) [-]
>yfw the US space program relied on Yugoslavia
#29758 to #29750 - levchenko (05/20/2013) [-]
This image has expired
Say thank you to Hitler and his men for getting you there!
#29776 to #29758 - xxxsonic fanxxx (05/20/2013) [-]
>implying the russians didn't use nazi scientists
#29779 to #29776 - levchenko (05/20/2013) [-]
This image has expired
never implyed we didn't
#29797 to #29779 - xxxsonic fanxxx (05/20/2013) [-]
#29781 to #29779 - xxxsonic fanxxx (05/20/2013) [-]
what's your point?
#29784 to #29781 - levchenko (05/20/2013) [-]
This image has expired
I not afraid to prove a point as an anon,

Because thumbs meen nothing to me...
User avatar #29747 to #29744 - maddboiy ONLINE (05/20/2013) [-]
and America's spacecraft were originally designed by captured Nazi scientist's
User avatar #29724 - cantfindausername (05/20/2013) [-]
Oh boy, people like their guns don't they?
#29828 to #29724 - xxxsonic fanxxx (05/20/2013) [-]
Oh boy, people really fear all gun owners don't they?
#29754 to #29724 - xxxsonic fanxxx (05/20/2013) [-]
is there a reason we shouldn't?
#29727 to #29724 - xxxsonic fanxxx (05/20/2013) [-]
The more personal freedoms, the better.
User avatar #29726 to #29724 - oxan (05/20/2013) [-]
>Come and take them
>Muh 2nd Amendment
>Right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
#29719 - xxxsonic fanxxx (05/20/2013) [-]
Controversial debate time!

How does the politics board feel about the recently flaring debate of race and intelligence, especially the claim that blacks are one standard deviation lower than whites on intelligence testing? How do you feel this should affect the legal status of minorities?

As a fair warning, please note that I am genuinely curious and not some edgy fascist.
#29735 to #29719 - kanade **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #29721 to #29719 - oxan (05/20/2013) [-]
Is this an actual topic of late, or are we just counting the internet?
#29810 to #29721 - xxxsonic fanxxx (05/20/2013) [-]
It is an actual topic. The head of the American Conservative recently caused a shitstormn of arguing over it.
User avatar #29712 - glasssmasher (05/20/2013) [-]
So why does everyone hate fox news?
#29753 to #29712 - xxxsonic fanxxx (05/20/2013) [-]
i only watch the blaze now.
User avatar #29725 to #29712 - cantfindausername (05/20/2013) [-]
Mainstream news isn't as good as other sources.
Fox is very right-wing'd, MSNBC is on the opposite end.
#29715 to #29712 - xxxsonic fanxxx (05/20/2013) [-]
Because it's an extremely nationalistic and corporatist spigot of broken sociopolitical discourse, and if you think they are a worthy representation of conservatism in American media, then you are probably too emotionally marred in partisan political drama to be reasonable and deserve to be brainwashed
#29717 to #29715 - xxxsonic fanxxx (05/20/2013) [-]

You want to talk about drama look at what you just typed.
#29718 to #29717 - xxxsonic fanxxx (05/20/2013) [-]
He asked a simple question, I gave a simple answer.
User avatar #29714 to #29712 - pebar (05/20/2013) [-]
Because FOX is a rightwing news agency and the popular leftwing news agencies told them they should hate it, therefore they do. It's very common for people to do what the mass media says; it's kind of sad.
#29689 - xxxsonic fanxxx (05/20/2013) [-]
I think it's funny when people talk down about one news station. ALL media hubs have their lip service and dick riding garbage. It's almost forbidden for someone to have a conscience of their own.
User avatar #29700 to #29689 - oxan (05/20/2013) [-]
What is media if not propaganda? There's nothing as a biased free source.

The only thing you can really do is make sure your source corroborates with others, a mixture of both mainstream and non-mainstream media.
#29682 - xxxsonic fanxxx (05/20/2013) [-]
I'm starting to feel the same way about guns rights as I do about marijuana legalization. I support it, but some of the vehement supporters are so obnoxious and condescending that I'm starting not to care either way.
#29683 to #29682 - xxxsonic fanxxx (05/20/2013) [-]

"the man is, like, trying to keep the peace down, man"
User avatar #29681 - pebar (05/20/2013) [-]
ITT: What do you think are the axiomatic differences in political views? Republican vs democrat, libertarian vs fascist, anarchist vs socialist, etc...

For example, I think the fundamental flaw of communism is that people are inherently self-centered and no changes in culture could ever change that and since capitalism is driven by greed, that system would work best (granted some regulation).
User avatar #29686 to #29681 - oxan (05/20/2013) [-]
I don't think you know how much culture and, subsequently, human instincts and nature have changed since primitive communism.

Capitalism, like feudalism, is just a mode of production that'll be changed. It's not an eternal system.

And you do realise that anarchism is a branch of socialism, just as communism is, right?
User avatar #29693 to #29686 - pebar (05/20/2013) [-]
The only way communism would work is if all people genuinely wanted to help one another which....... doesn't happen.

Even if that could potentially change with culture, it would take a long time to evolve because people are definitely not like that now.
User avatar #29695 to #29693 - oxan (05/20/2013) [-]
It's as if you've never heard of socialism as a transitionary stage...
User avatar #29696 to #29695 - pebar (05/20/2013) [-]
Growth would stagnate during that transition if it's not gradual enough.
But I think you like to go on about a revolution, which I think is the most counter productive thing for a communist to do...
User avatar #29698 to #29696 - oxan (05/20/2013) [-]
How is it counterproductive?
User avatar #29702 to #29698 - pebar (05/20/2013) [-]
Revolution is always an angry mob. If the reason for the revolution is because the elites are holding all the wealth, then the motivation is still greed because the mob wants that wealth. If people try to convert to communism, or the socialist transition, the selfish disposition would still be there and there would be no motivation to work because there's no sense of community. If people don't get more if they put in more, then people will have no desire to do more than they have to. If people are forced to work at gun point like under Stalin, that transition period would be hell.
User avatar #29705 to #29702 - oxan (05/20/2013) [-]
I think I've raised this before: socialism is based on 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution'. Even in the USSR, wages varied. Stalin, specifically - you had a quota, exceeding that quota earned you bonuses. Of course, Stalinism is a great example, all things considered.
User avatar #29707 to #29705 - pebar (05/20/2013) [-]
and then I said that was capitalism
then you said something about doctors being more useful than stock traders
then I said there's high demand and lower supply for good stock traders and that's why they get paid so much

Anyway, I'm pretty sure that quote goes "... to each according to their need"
In any case, if you exceeded your quota, they would learn what your ability is and your quota would be higher. You would then no longer get your bonus because your output would be normal.

Also, what's there to stop the economic planners from succumbing to their selfishness which at this point would still exist? It couldn't be threat of another revolution because the people would have to give up their weapons because crime would increase due to rampant poverty. Everyone would be poor because people would not be working hard. The people would be equal but they would be poor and miserable so people would resort to criminal actions.
What would you do with these people? If you send them to prison they are no longer contributing to the economy. If you send them to a force labor camp, the people would live in fear of their own government and it would be hell.
User avatar #29708 to #29707 - oxan (05/20/2013) [-]
'To each according to their need' is the maxim of communism. The maxim of socialism is 'to each according to his contribution.'

Quotas were set for occupations.

The last section of your post is based upon a false premise. But just while the topic of guns is here: weapons should be freely distributed to the proletariat, and the proletariat should act as the defender of the proletariat state. Weapons in the RSFSR were treated, in principle, the same way as post-revolutionary America.
User avatar #29710 to #29708 - pebar (05/20/2013) [-]
In that case, socialism is just a big government controlling everything in the economy. An inefficient government that has minimal ability to calculate the desires of the nation and how to distribute goods and services accordingly. Since this is a big government, it is the opposite of communism and anarchism which are supposed to be stateless.

Do you honestly trust these governments to disband themselves once this transition period is complete? While the proletariat is busy learning about the benefits of helping the community as a whole, the economic planners would be drunk with power because they would not have gone through this transition stage. This government would not just sit by and allow another revolution to take away their power.
User avatar #29722 to #29710 - oxan (05/20/2013) [-]
You realise that Lenin, towards the end of his life, continuously warned the Bolsheviks of the bureaucratic twist in the RSFSR? A Stalinist bureaucracy was never intended, and Lenin himself argued that Stalin should be removed from his position as General Secretary. In saying that, the ineffecient Stalinist government that had minimal ability to calculate anything was actually quite efficient (it's not every day you industrialise a country in a decade).

More importantly, I think you're confused. The state isn't abolished, it withers away. People don't just stand up and leave suddenly one day.
#29671 - kanade **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#29674 to #29671 - xxxsonic fanxxx (05/19/2013) [-]
Uneducated ad hominem responses to people you disagree with?
You sound like one of those typical bandwagon douche bags who can't think for themselves and thus can't argue for their views without help.
#29675 to #29674 - kanade **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#29666 - xxxsonic fanxxx (05/19/2013) [-]
#29663 - xxxsonic fanxxx (05/19/2013) [-]
Are you ready for a good time? Go to qq . com to have a good time!
#29658 - repostsrepost ONLINE (05/19/2013) [-]
Would you rather be a poor man in 2013 or a rich man in 1980? A rich man would have a million dollars whereas the poor man has has very little income but has access to things the rich man could only dream of, like high speed internet, cell phones with the computing power 10x or more of the rich man's home computer, and most modern luxuries that are commonplace even amongst the lower rungs of modern society?
User avatar #29692 to #29658 - feelythefeel ONLINE (05/20/2013) [-]
Considering what the eighties were like for some minorities, it could possibly depend on the circumstances of my birth, such as race, religion etc etc. Would I be the same person I am now?
#29677 to #29658 - xxxsonic fanxxx (05/19/2013) [-]
Even today, the most potent of personal technology is still a luxury of the wealthy. Poor people are rarely able to afford more than cheap eMachines shit-boxes from Walmart; not to mention the cost of software and maintenance, especially when a financially fucked fellow probably isn't knowledgeable in keeping his precious investment from getting wrecked by a Chinese worm.

In addition, Internet access in America fucking sucks. You'll be lucky to get more than dialup on a minimal budget.
#29664 to #29658 - xxxsonic fanxxx (05/19/2013) [-]
rich man of course, cocain has never been as accessible as it was in the 80`s. You should say like a middle class or lower middle class male in the 2000`s. But in all seriousness, i would definitely pick being a rich man, so what if the technology wasn`t quite as good, there is more to life than your computer screen.
#29661 to #29658 - akkere (05/19/2013) [-]
...What kind of poor man is that?   
A poor man would be someone who doesn't have time to enjoy high speed internet and probably couldn't afford internet access in the first place, nor could they afford a smart phone and only have a basic cell phone, which, although might have more computing power than an old computer, doesn't exactly make it as interesting in a more realistic perspective.   
Not to mention how a poor man might not be able to afford a car, will need to work a labor-intensive job that probably yields a close to minimum wage income (you couldn't exactly be in this kind of situation if you had a large salary, unless you're awful with managing your finance), and either live in an apartment or live in a house but behind mortgage payments. And probably has to constantly change their areas of living.   
A rich man would at least have a chance to live to 2013 and see all the technological advances, and still be able to afford every one.
...What kind of poor man is that?
A poor man would be someone who doesn't have time to enjoy high speed internet and probably couldn't afford internet access in the first place, nor could they afford a smart phone and only have a basic cell phone, which, although might have more computing power than an old computer, doesn't exactly make it as interesting in a more realistic perspective.
Not to mention how a poor man might not be able to afford a car, will need to work a labor-intensive job that probably yields a close to minimum wage income (you couldn't exactly be in this kind of situation if you had a large salary, unless you're awful with managing your finance), and either live in an apartment or live in a house but behind mortgage payments. And probably has to constantly change their areas of living.

A rich man would at least have a chance to live to 2013 and see all the technological advances, and still be able to afford every one.
 Friends (0)