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

hide menu

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Show:   Top Rated Controversial Best Lowest Rated Newest Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #136 - llpanic (11/04/2012) [-]
why people make so much fuzz about the president shouldn't be more important the senator election? i mean they are the ones that approve the laws and **** , the president only can suggest laws so even if your candidate is Jesus if the senators are cunts **** just won't happen
User avatar #147 to #136 - pukingrainbows (11/04/2012) [-]
The President appoints the Supreme Court justices. In the past they have appointed people they liked just to get rid of laws they don't like and enforce ones they do.
User avatar #160 to #147 - schmitty (11/04/2012) [-]
The President can appoint new ones if there is an opening, but the President can't just fire a Supreme Court judge. They're pretty much on the bench for life if they want.
0
#152 to #147 - whyisthissohard **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
0
#142 to #136 - whyisthissohard **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
-1
#137 to #136 - adxminisgay **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
0
#146 to #137 - whyisthissohard **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #144 to #137 - pandation (11/04/2012) [-]
Yes because that's what gives him power...the military is NOT at his disposal and the president can only act as commander in chief during wartime. Don't insult the intelligence of others when you lack your own
0
#247 to #144 - adxminisgay **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #275 to #247 - pandation (11/04/2012) [-]
And control over the military is more important than the social and economic issues? As a citizen who pays taxes, the military is in capable hands and I doubt a politician is truly capable commander in chief. Political campaigns focuses on issues, not military action. Thank God you're not voting
#201 to #144 - Lazaruz (11/04/2012) [-]
Serious question, does that require a formal declaration of war (I.E. WWII) or does stuff like Operation Enduring Freedom count as war time? If it's the latter, we have been at war for the last 11 years with no end in sight.
User avatar #219 to #201 - pandation (11/04/2012) [-]
Yes, Congress has to vote to go to war and only if in self-defense meaning that we can't initiate a war. (That's why many think 9/11 was a conspiracy in order for us to have an excuse to occupy the Middle East for oil) We have been at war for several years yes, but at this point it's not war anymore, it's simple occupation where we maintain a military presence in order to discourage further actions that may put us or others in danger. I personally don't think we should have a presence there but Congress and the president does.
0
#558 to #219 - adxminisgay **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #562 to #558 - pandation (11/05/2012) [-]
War was never declared? Congress unanimously agreed to engage a wartime crisis after 9/11. Are you even trying?
0
#563 to #562 - adxminisgay **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #564 to #563 - pandation (11/05/2012) [-]
whatever child, it was and I'm glad you're not old enough to vote since you have no idea about what the **** you're talking about
0
#566 to #564 - adxminisgay **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
0
#565 to #564 - adxminisgay **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #567 to #565 - pandation (11/05/2012) [-]
Afghanistan for harboring Al Qaeda for were responsible for the national crisis. You do realize that we aren't allowed to "declare" war ourselves whenever we feel like right? How it needs to be an act of retaliation? Congress unanimously agreed to go to war and war was declared through constitutional means.
0
#568 to #567 - adxminisgay **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #569 to #568 - pandation (11/05/2012) [-]
2001? Days after the attack happened if not sooner? Look, I'm not going to sit here and argue facts that are a google search away for a kid who can't pass his high school government class. Do some research on your own, you not knowing **** is not my problem. Don't vote, ever.
0
#570 to #569 - adxminisgay **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #572 to #570 - pandation (11/05/2012) [-]
Fine, give me source that Congress never declared war then.

he needs congress to "declare war" though
that's how Bush was able to send troops to Iraq and Afghanistan

According to you, Congress did "declare war"
0
#574 to #572 - adxminisgay **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #577 to #574 - pandation (11/05/2012) [-]
And who authorized it? Read more than the first sentence you dumb ****
0
#575 to #574 - adxminisgay **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
0
#571 to #570 - adxminisgay **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #573 to #571 - pandation (11/05/2012) [-]
Since you clearly don't know what google is either:
Source
www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RS22357.pdf
0
#576 to #573 - adxminisgay **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #578 to #576 - pandation (11/05/2012) [-]
If the authorization of military force in retaliation is not equivalent to war, you're absolutely retarded and I apologize for keeping you up past your bedtime. Another day of failing US Government tomorrow champ, go get it. Night kid, I'm done since there is no known cure for ignorance and stupidity to your caliber
0
#580 to #578 - adxminisgay **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
0
#579 to #578 - adxminisgay **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #588 to #579 - pandation (11/05/2012) [-]
Clearly we're done here. Nice try, hopefully we find a cure for you someday.
0
#589 to #588 - adxminisgay **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #586 to #579 - pandation (11/05/2012) [-]
Don't know what is making me come back here, I guess I have a fascination for stupid people. We ******* overthrew the Afghanistan government and are trying to help the people rebuild their government and society, the thing we have been doing for several years now...
0
#587 to #586 - adxminisgay **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #584 to #579 - pandation (11/05/2012) [-]
Can't believe you cannot continue a conversation without forgetting the origin of the entire thing...I'm done, I literally cannot comprehend how stupid your generation is anymore. Sorry Darwin, humans have stopped evolving and went back the way they came.
0
#585 to #584 - adxminisgay **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #582 to #579 - pandation (11/05/2012) [-]
Check mate. Put away your toys, I'm done playing with you haha. Again, night kid but nice try pulling **** out of your ass and using sources completely out of context.
User avatar #581 to #579 - pandation (11/05/2012) [-]
Read the ******* constitution you idiot. According to section 2 clause 1 of the consitution the President is "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States" and according to Section 8 clause 11, Congress has the power "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water".
To sum up, only the Congress can delcare war, but the President can use the military freely for a limited time, to responed to 9/11 for example. The Congress then check him with the power of the purse by not approving the money need to pay for long military actions.
Source? The ******* constitution, the ultimate law of our country since it's birth
0
#583 to #581 - adxminisgay **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #133 - chuckstein (11/04/2012) [-]
AH, but the Titanic can still back up, so we haven't sunk yet, have we?
#129 - anonymous (11/04/2012) [-]
Can someone explain why Obama would be able to fix the economical situation without mentioning romney??
User avatar #134 to #129 - mitchellking (11/04/2012) [-]
Well Mitt Romney.... ****
#128 - Jesusnipples (11/04/2012) [-]
<-- FJ about politics lately
#121 - ronniesan ONLINE (11/04/2012) [-]
The guy who warned everyone about icebergs.
#182 to #121 - JubJubJubJub (11/04/2012) [-]
Im usually pretty liberal but if Ron Paul was the Republican candidate I would be for him all the way over Obama
#119 - TheHon (11/04/2012) [-]
Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
#126 to #119 - ebperik (11/04/2012) [-]
Here you go
Here you go
#177 to #126 - anonymous (11/04/2012) [-]
What movie is this from now again?
User avatar #178 to #177 - ebperik (11/04/2012) [-]
The Big Lebowski
Do not disrespect the rug!
#240 to #178 - anonymous (11/04/2012) [-]
Alright, thanks mate. :)
User avatar #130 to #126 - TheHon (11/04/2012) [-]
cheers dude
#116 - kornadth (11/04/2012) [-]
**kornadth rolled a random image posted in comment #23 at New Minecraft Pixel Art ** MFW i dont give a **** because first of all im european and second of all CSA **** yeah.
User avatar #120 to #116 - zallaz (11/04/2012) [-]
The US government doesn't just affect the US.

But still, this post makes a good point, they're both pretty similar.
#114 - KungFuZerO (11/04/2012) [-]
ITT
People who think they know politics
There, I just saved you 20 minutes of "Holy **** these people are stupid"
You're welcome
#108 - xxxgnipsxxx (11/04/2012) [-]
The way I see it is, we can have another uneventful mediocre four years by re-electing Obama, and hoping the next candidate looks good, or we can vote for Romney, who will either **** **** up to where it's unrecognizable, or somehow do some good. So basically you can go with a zero risk get nothing done guy, or someone who will get **** done but God knows what will happen.
#317 to #103 - swalshy (11/04/2012) [-]
This image has expired
Obama
#322 to #321 - swalshy (11/04/2012) [-]
This image has expired
Dumbest
#169 to #103 - alexclement (11/04/2012) [-]
He never made any references to horses or bayonets during the debate. He only called for a slightly larger fleet of ships for the Navy so they could properly carry out their operations.

inb4 liberal *********
User avatar #222 to #169 - Ruspanic (11/04/2012) [-]
Obama made the reference to horses and bayonets, making fun of Romney.
User avatar #94 - hankhillofthe ONLINE (11/04/2012) [-]
You know, Obama tried to get a lot of **** passed that could've really helped a lot of **** , but the ******* republican congress set every record they possibly could for filibustering while he was in office this season.

I have nothing against republicans, but I think if we kicked all the ******* dickheads out of congress, things might be a bit better.

The republican/conservative members of congress are power hungry selfish bastards, and the democratic/liberal members of congress don't have any ******* idea how to fix the country, so they just argue with the republican members of congress.
User avatar #131 to #94 - durkadurka ONLINE (11/04/2012) [-]
His party had control of both houses for the first two years of his presidency. He DID pass legislation. The things he did not manage to pass in those two years was due to resistance from his own party.

You look at 1/2 of 1/3 of the federal government and say "THEM! it's all THEIR fault!"
User avatar #140 to #131 - hankhillofthe ONLINE (11/04/2012) [-]
I didn't say he didn't get anything passed, I said a lot of really helpful things didn't get passed.

So the assumption that Obama did hardly anything for the U.S. is to blame on congress for not even giving him a chance so many times.
User avatar #180 to #140 - durkadurka ONLINE (11/04/2012) [-]
Helpful things such as?

I'm not saying that Obama didn't do anything. I'm saying he had his chance, and people did not want any more of it. That's the reason the Democrats lost the house in 2010. The people opposing the president's policies were essentially elected to do so.

The record is clear; more debt, more war, more regulation, and almost nothing to show for it.
User avatar #104 to #94 - ishalltroll (11/04/2012) [-]
So we just round up all of FJ and assassinate every single congress member.
User avatar #109 to #104 - loomiss (11/04/2012) [-]
Be careful what you post. What if I am congress wut do then?
#112 to #109 - hankhillofthe ONLINE (11/04/2012) [-]
If you are congress,   
   
then who was phone?
If you are congress,

then who was phone?
User avatar #111 to #109 - ishalltroll (11/04/2012) [-]
where were you when congress dead

i was at home when obama called "congress is die"

"no"

"yes"
User avatar #113 to #111 - loomiss (11/04/2012) [-]
**** . You. I just spit water everywhere from laughing at that.
#106 to #104 - hankhillofthe ONLINE (11/04/2012) [-]
HELL YEA LETS KILL DEM ************* , YEEEHAAAWW
#107 to #106 - ishalltroll (11/04/2012) [-]
I'm german though.
Those ************* need some more concentration!
0
#102 to #94 - ishalltroll has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #100 to #94 - oregonsoupkitchn (11/04/2012) [-]
They reason they didn't vote for Obama's plans is because most of them involve giving money to his green energy friends. And contain zero ideas from the republicans yet he still expected them to vote for it.

What's worse is people talk like Obamacare is actually a good thing, we could have done all the good things from Obamacare and cost the country $0. Instead he makes this **** plan that cost us trillions.

Why the **** does the pre-existing conditions and increasing how long you can be on your parents insurance cost a dime? It shouldn't. We should have stuck with reform that cost $0 instead ot this crap he put through.
User avatar #105 to #100 - hankhillofthe ONLINE (11/04/2012) [-]
We will always have debt.

There's no ******* way that we're going to be able to just fix our debt, ESPECIALLY in 1 president's term.

We can make it better, but it will never go away.

Either we collapse as a country or another war breaks out.

And yes, I agree, Obamacare was a REALLY bad idea on Obama's part financially.

But you also have to remember that a President is also a person, and every president that has ever run in office has made some kind of stupid mistake.

It's not the amount of mistakes they make that matters, it's the severity of their mistakes and their success that makes them a good/bad president.
0
#98 to #94 - oregonsoupkitchn has deleted their comment [-]
#96 to #94 - anonymous (11/04/2012) [-]
Hurr durr Democrats are perfect it's all the Republicans' faults.
#99 to #96 - hankhillofthe ONLINE (11/04/2012) [-]
You completely missed the ******* point.

This isn't about Democrats being Better than the Republicans.

It's about the Republicans in congress being too stupid to do anything and the democrats in congress being too stupid to do anything about it.
User avatar #89 - dikslapping (11/04/2012) [-]
There are more than those two to vote for. You do not need to choose between two idiots when you have other options.
User avatar #88 - jedawg (11/04/2012) [-]
The way I see it, we're just picking which lube we want to get ****** with.
#84 - ninjawombat (11/04/2012) [-]
The sad truth is Americas economy was ****** by the first depression, the leaders at the time swept it under the rug and hoped it would fix its self, and we are now paying for it and will be for a while. No matter who gets elected president. Just have to wait it out.
#76 - anonymous (11/04/2012) [-]
Romney balanced the budget in Massachusetts. That has to amount to something.
-2
#78 to #76 - KungFuZerO has deleted their comment [-]
+9
#80 to #78 - whyisthissohard **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
-2
#86 to #80 - KungFuZerO has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #95 to #86 - oregonsoupkitchn (11/04/2012) [-]
The difference is Hitler was more directly in charge of his military operations. All the President does in the US is give the okay, Obama didn't plan or have anything to do with killing Osama Bin Laden besides tell the military sure go ahead.

Nobel Peace prize is a bunch of propaganda bull **** . Only Nobel prizes that mean **** is the science ones.
+2
#91 to #86 - whyisthissohard **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #83 to #80 - zakaizer (11/04/2012) [-]
Didn't he get the nobel prize for basically NOT being George Bush? Or have I been fed ******** news again?
+2
#87 to #83 - whyisthissohard **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #90 to #87 - zakaizer (11/04/2012) [-]
Ah, that makes a bit more sense, but how can you get a NP for peace by being a black president?
+1
#92 to #90 - whyisthissohard **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #82 to #80 - jedawg (11/04/2012) [-]
Yeah like I hate it when people say it wasn't Obama. If we're using that logic then Hitler never killed anyone either.
+1
#85 to #82 - whyisthissohard **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#70 - harryblazer (11/04/2012) [-]
this right here, is EXACTLY how i feel about the deabte. There have been hundreds of anti-Romney posts, which is ok i hate him too, but Obama is just as equally a **** up and nobody seems to give a ****
User avatar #72 to #70 - jickya (11/04/2012) [-]
The thing is, both candidates are just awful for the job. Now, we just got to choose who will **** up less. Personally, Obama will probably **** up less than romney cause romney is an idiot and has less of a clue than obama.
User avatar #79 to #72 - zzforrest (11/04/2012) [-]
Romney? An idiot? The thing is, he would not made it nearly this far if he was an idiot. Obama and Romney are both ******* smart, it's just that I think that Romneys policies are better than Obamas.
#77 to #72 - anonymous (11/04/2012) [-]
Romney is more of an idiot? Based on what? As a businessman he knows what it takes to reduce the debt and besides that Obama had his chance and he ****** it up. It's time to give somebody else a chance.
#67 - anonymous (11/04/2012) [-]
i really like how you guys think that they're the same.
and complain and whine.
and then offer no solutions.
**** you.
User avatar #71 to #67 - blergle (11/04/2012) [-]
Offer no solutions?! How incredibly thick headed and closed-minded do you have to be to not know who the other candidates are, their attempts to get into the debates, the third party debates (another is being held tomorrow and the first is on YT), etc!

SERIOUSLY!

Listen, look up Jill Stein, Rocky Anderson, Virgil Goode, and Gary Johnson. Until you know who they are and their platforms WELL you aren't a sufficiently informed voter.

I absolutely guarantee you'll find someone who represents you better.
#73 to #71 - anonymous (11/04/2012) [-]
you do realize that voting for a 3rd party is futile, people vote for republicans and democrats because its a step closer to what they want.. I am a socialist, even though the socialist party is the only 3rd party that has ever come close to being elected (with 30% of the vote after the Great Depression), they will never be elected. So I vote for the electable party that whose views are closer to mine. Otherwise, I'm wasting a vote, and maybe the party that i seriously dont want to win will do so. I will not vote for a third party until there is a huge movement for the one I want, because otherwise, there is no point.
User avatar #115 to #73 - Kajekillz (11/04/2012) [-]
Actually 3.4% of the vote is the closest a Social candidate has ever come to winning, that was Eugene Debs in 1920.
The US came much closer to a 3rd party system when Roosevelt created the progressive party and recieved 27% of the votes in 1912, beating the Rebulican canidate by 4%, however Wilson still won for the Democrats.

HISTORY
User avatar #74 to #73 - blergle (11/04/2012) [-]
The larger the third party vote is accumulated, the more it affects future major party platforms. Historically it has been shown that the larger the standing of the third party the more influence they have.

Wasting your vote would be voting for someone who doesn't represent you. And if everyone waits for a huge moment then it will never happen. People like you are the reason there is never any movement at all.

Vote your principles. I disagree with your principles, but that's another matter. I'd rather have a socialist with some principles in office than either of these two corporatist baffoons.
User avatar #62 - gotanypancakesmix (11/04/2012) [-]
yeah but see, we already know what to expect from obama's iceberg. we have no idea what size romnry's iceberg could be...
 Friends (0)