| Home | RSS Feeds |
| Funny Pictures | Funny Videos |
| Funny GIFs | YouTube Videos |
| Text/Links | Comic Editor |
| User Rankings | Channels |
| Copyright Removal Request | |
| |
Comments(264):
#232 to #187
-
N. Korean citizen (01/27/2013) [-]
Are you kidding me?!?! your comparing pot to guns.... first off neither should be illegal, second off stop buying media products you see on tv because they are all poisons for us. they arnt bitching about it they are trying to help people not eat bad food
#178
-
N. Korean citizen (01/27/2013) [-]
Shes so beautiful ,Her ideas are gems, Her twisted hair style is fantastic. I love her from the bottom of my heart.
I choose hippies over tebaggers any fucking day. Peace, love and understanding, motherfakkahs!
#167
-
blacklite (01/27/2013) [-]
Yeah....I've never met any liberal who actually thought this.
In my opinion, both radical liberals and extremist conservatives are fucking stupid. No matter what side you're on you can still be wrong.
In my opinion, both radical liberals and extremist conservatives are fucking stupid. No matter what side you're on you can still be wrong.
People like Bloomberg who ban things like soda do so because they believe the people cannot make good choices for themselves. They believe they are better than the rest of us, for whatever reason, and therefore they have the right and obligation to tell others how to live. They think they know what's best for everyone else. The only solution is to vote them out of office.
#159
-
soggytomatoe (01/27/2013) [-]
Conservative Logic:
All Americans deserve to have rights and be free
Except gays, blacks, women, immigrants, and anyone who isn't a rich white guy
All Americans deserve to have rights and be free
Except gays, blacks, women, immigrants, and anyone who isn't a rich white guy
#169 to #159
-
harryblazer (01/27/2013) [-]
last time I checked, you could get a bunch of free shit no matter what race you are, so long as you are poor and lazy, and you get get money from the goverment for it. However, certain races( everyone thats not white) could, for instance, get a special scolarship for not being white and get money off their tution (appyling for colleges made me angry)
soooo....yeah
soooo....yeah
I'm saying that because of this movement, conservative logic has become that bad.
I'm not saying all Republicans are moronic bigots, but the Teabaggers sure have made them look like it.
Look at this "essay" for example, by Judson Philips, founder of the Tea Party Nation website.
www.teapartynation.com/forum/topics/mr-obama-release-your-records
This man uses this form of "logic" to assert that President Obama should prove that he is not gay and does not smoke crack. Philips also thinks that releasing medical records would prove that. The sad part is, people buy it. When dealing with the Tea Party, all logic and reasoning goes down the drain.
I'm not saying all Republicans are moronic bigots, but the Teabaggers sure have made them look like it.
Look at this "essay" for example, by Judson Philips, founder of the Tea Party Nation website.
www.teapartynation.com/forum/topics/mr-obama-release-your-records
This man uses this form of "logic" to assert that President Obama should prove that he is not gay and does not smoke crack. Philips also thinks that releasing medical records would prove that. The sad part is, people buy it. When dealing with the Tea Party, all logic and reasoning goes down the drain.
It should be no shocking revelation that there's always a fringe to every side. Naturally you'll get your crazies on any side of any issue, and I have no desire to defend them.
I don't think you quite grasp the nature of the tea party. There's no central organization, no one group or person to speak for all. I'm sure you're familiar with the concept of the "vocal minority." While the majority are more interested in issues like balancing the budget, unemployment, the economy, etc, there's always that portion that shriek and holler about irrelevant/erroneous issues.
The whole Occupy Wallstreet movement was of the same nature. It wasn't centrally organized and was without real leadership. And while most people involved were interested in fixing the things most of us are concerned about, there were the few anarchists and borderline-communists who got all of the media attention.
So in short, yeah there's going to be crazies. But they don't speak for the majority, and we don't have to validate them, nor should we.
Also, do you really need to use derogatory names? Not only does it come off as uninformed, it makes it seem as though you've made up your mind regardless of new things you may learn.
I don't think you quite grasp the nature of the tea party. There's no central organization, no one group or person to speak for all. I'm sure you're familiar with the concept of the "vocal minority." While the majority are more interested in issues like balancing the budget, unemployment, the economy, etc, there's always that portion that shriek and holler about irrelevant/erroneous issues.
The whole Occupy Wallstreet movement was of the same nature. It wasn't centrally organized and was without real leadership. And while most people involved were interested in fixing the things most of us are concerned about, there were the few anarchists and borderline-communists who got all of the media attention.
So in short, yeah there's going to be crazies. But they don't speak for the majority, and we don't have to validate them, nor should we.
Also, do you really need to use derogatory names? Not only does it come off as uninformed, it makes it seem as though you've made up your mind regardless of new things you may learn.
#153
-
Foltzie (01/27/2013) [-]
Look, I could deal with a lot of shit.
Take guns away
Eh, I don't really care
Censor the internet
Oh well
Take my soda away...
OH HELLL NO MOTHER FUCKER!!!!
Take guns away
Eh, I don't really care
Censor the internet
Oh well
Take my soda away...
OH HELLL NO MOTHER FUCKER!!!!
#185 to #148
-
N. Korean citizen (01/27/2013) [-]
Basically, Democrats were liberal for a long period (opposing federal powers and tariffs), but FDR got the country to switch its understanding of liberal and conservative. When running for office the first time, he actually criticized the Republican conservative Hoover for overspending, but after taking power he changed his goal to spending loads more to end the Great Depression (shockingly, it didn't end until he died over a decade later). However, the whole time he called himself a liberal and his opponents conservative, and everybody was willing to debate him on his own terms. We've been discussing politics in backwards terms ever since, much to Europe's chagrin.
#170 to #150
-
wheresthefudge (01/27/2013) [-]
The idea of classical liberalism is much closer to what we'd call libertarianism now.
There's also the idea of the political spectrum, where 'liberal' and 'conservative' on either extreme of the spectrum. By this way of thinking, a liberal want to have more freedoms, and a conservative wants to keep things the way they are. The far extremes (radical, reactionary) take these and push them further (a radical wants everything to be legal, a reactionary wants to go back to the laws of some point in the past).
Regardless, neither of these definitions has a liberal wanting to ban anything.
The problem comes when you try to say that the American Democrats are liberals and the American Republicans are conservatives. Each party is liberal in some ways and conservative in others. Even saying that one or the other is for 'small government' doesn't work, since each has policies that favor small government, and others which favor large government.
That was a very long reply, and thus, I don't have an adequate reaction gif to sum the whole thing up (not, at least, without seeming like a pretentious asshat); so please enjoy this magical helicopter.
There's also the idea of the political spectrum, where 'liberal' and 'conservative' on either extreme of the spectrum. By this way of thinking, a liberal want to have more freedoms, and a conservative wants to keep things the way they are. The far extremes (radical, reactionary) take these and push them further (a radical wants everything to be legal, a reactionary wants to go back to the laws of some point in the past).
Regardless, neither of these definitions has a liberal wanting to ban anything.
The problem comes when you try to say that the American Democrats are liberals and the American Republicans are conservatives. Each party is liberal in some ways and conservative in others. Even saying that one or the other is for 'small government' doesn't work, since each has policies that favor small government, and others which favor large government.
That was a very long reply, and thus, I don't have an adequate reaction gif to sum the whole thing up (not, at least, without seeming like a pretentious asshat); so please enjoy this magical helicopter.
#166 to #150
-
N. Korean citizen (01/27/2013) [-]
Good read about it. Or if you are too lazy just think of american liberalism as british conservatism. They are not the same but to make it simple for you they are the same enough. they believe in traditional right wing laissez faire society. Whereas every where else liberalism is generally about being a free, equal and progressive society.
#139
-
ohiowildman (01/27/2013) [-]
I fucking hate liberals. They are the cancer of today's society.
#137
-
N. Korean citizen (01/27/2013) [-]
If i wanna drink poison, it's my body and my right.
if you wanna have an abortion, go ahead.
but when i wanna go and rape people, all of a sudden we have a problem!
*grumble*
if you wanna have an abortion, go ahead.
but when i wanna go and rape people, all of a sudden we have a problem!
*grumble*
UGH! I hate that! I heard that NY banned 44oz mountain sodas! I understand that soda can be bad for you, but dammit if it doesn't taste delicious! You can take my guns BUT YOU CAN"T TAKE MY SODA DAMMIT!
#135
-
sphinxe (01/27/2013) [-]
**sphinxe rolled a random image posted in comment #2675027 at My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic ** Okay people, we all know soda has Aspartame in them. Do they really make you crave sweet/sugary foods? I need some science all up in this.
The point of this post isn't about sodas at all. It's simply an analogy trying to say that if a liberal doesn't agree with something, they think it should be banned. However, this is not what any real liberals think. That's nothing more than a biased rumor spread by the far right in order to make anyone who calls themselves a liberal look bad.