Right Wing Radical. "The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing." -Socrates.. I think both sides are retarded and America is heading in the wrong direction because our government has lost its ability to compromise and is filled with corru You are still sp
Upload
Login or register
Hide Comments
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (692)
[ 692 comments ]
Anonymous comments allowed.
asd
#417 - dtcrawl
Reply +33 123456789123345869
(08/20/2012) [-]
I think both sides are retarded and America is heading in the wrong direction because our government has lost its ability to compromise and is filled with corruption on both parties   
   
   
Wait did I just put my opinion on the internet.    
   
oops
I think both sides are retarded and America is heading in the wrong direction because our government has lost its ability to compromise and is filled with corruption on both parties


Wait did I just put my opinion on the internet.

oops
#421 to #417 - CaveboyZero **User deleted account**
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#452 to #421 - anon id: 4a93bc49
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/20/2012) [-]
Its a little worse than that, actually. We spend the highest (either per capita or per GDP, not sure) on Health Care in the world, and have some of the lowest returns for our money. There are certain aspects that are not terrible, but overall our system is broke. When Republicans freak out about government health care, I wonder if they think "Oh no, they might actually fix the system. That means people will think they are smart! Quick, stop them from doing something!"
#462 to #452 - lifeisahighway
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/20/2012) [-]
No I'm a Republican and we honestly believe it will be bad for the health care industry and for the country as a whole.
User avatar #683 to #417 - azzaip
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/20/2012) [-]
both sides are retarded? so what are you? a completely perfect neutral that has no strong opinions either way in any matter?
User avatar #422 to #417 - buttgauges
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(08/20/2012) [-]
aw **** dawg, not your opinion.

but I agree with ya. as for me, i'm a conservative since they're aimed toward the old-style ways of the republican party.
however, I think we need a political revolution considering there's a massive gap between the people and the government. the people "representing us" as our senators aren't even in the same CLASS as the people they're supposed to be representing anymore.
#11 - HumbertoL
Reply +30 123456789123345869
(08/19/2012) [-]
>Muslim holiday sponsored by city/state

>Proof that religion is under attack in america
#13 to #11 - HumbertoL
Reply +15 123456789123345869
(08/19/2012) [-]
>You should have the right to have firearms

>You're collective bargaining rights are bad for society
#14 to #13 - HumbertoL
Reply +16 123456789123345869
(08/19/2012) [-]
>This new law will save thousands of lives

>You can't pass that, it's bad for the economy!
#15 to #14 - HumbertoL
Reply +25 123456789123345869
(08/19/2012) [-]
>Giving money to a corporation who really needs it is necessary for a thriving economy.

>Giving money to people who really need it is socialism and just downright wrong.
#21 to #15 - wheresthefudge
Reply +16 123456789123345869
(08/19/2012) [-]
>The wealthy shouldn't be taxed
>They worked hard for that trust fund.
#37 to #15 - anon id: 64782c7b
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/19/2012) [-]
WTF are you retarded? It's not conservatives that support "corporate welfare".
User avatar #43 to #37 - HumbertoL
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(08/19/2012) [-]
No one said anything about a typical conservative's views. This meme is supposed to reflect a radical. Someone on the extreme end of a spectrum. Just enjoy the joke or move on.
#36 to #13 - anon id: 64782c7b
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/19/2012) [-]
I think people only have problems with the collective bargaining rights of public workers. Personally I don't think public workers should have a union at all. They already have the ability to elect their own boss. The dynamic isn't a boss who tries to pay them as little as possible to increase profits vs a worker trying to make as much as they can. Too frequently it's a boss who was elected through union efforts who wants to get as much as they can for themselves and their workers at the expense of the taxpayer.
User avatar #389 to #36 - corkscrew
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/20/2012) [-]
the reason unions were created was because their bosses didn't pay them ****
that is why there are unions, because the bosses want to pay them less
#341 - trueraiderfan
Reply +22 123456789123345869
(08/20/2012) [-]
I'm a republican, but i don't believe in everything they believe in... as in i don't care if the same sex gets married, who am i to say you cant marry the person you love, not all republican are asshole thanks for the time
I'm a republican, but i don't believe in everything they believe in... as in i don't care if the same sex gets married, who am i to say you cant marry the person you love, not all republican are asshole thanks for the time
#353 to #341 - byposted
Reply -6 123456789123345869
(08/20/2012) [-]
>identifying yourself via political parties

Fundamentally, the Republican and Democratic parties are the same exact thing. They receive donations from the same sources and get promoted by the same medias.

The United States is a one partied country.
#370 to #341 - anon id: 64782c7b
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/20/2012) [-]
Nobody stops same sex couples from getting married. They can do so in any state in the union. People who say republicans are preventing same sex couples from getting married are lying. There are some issues as far as government recognition, and whether the term marriage should be legally redefined, but gay couples aren't breaking the law when they get married.
User avatar #345 to #341 - roninpenguin
Reply +9 123456789123345869
(08/20/2012) [-]
I used to call my self a Republican, but I have realized ever since the election in 2000 that the Republican party has changed and no longer follow what I believe my ideals are, so now I'm just an independent.
#351 to #345 - chezburgadominator
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(08/20/2012) [-]
I'm with you brother, this is the same reason I stopped being a (not saying what I am) because neither party has the same exact ideals I have brother. This is why the hulk had almost got in a full on wrestlemaniac argument with my mother because she's a republican brother.


(If you read this in his voice, ty for making my effort worth it)
User avatar #356 to #351 - thebeardguy
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(08/20/2012) [-]
I did read it in his voice.
User avatar #357 to #351 - roninpenguin
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/20/2012) [-]
I was taken over by Hulkamania and was compelled to thumb you.
#104 - CoolStoryBrosky
Reply +18 123456789123345869
(08/19/2012) [-]
The very nature of political parties cry out for the evil within our system. Being forced to choose between the lesser of two thieves isn't how it was supposed to be.
#105 to #104 - anon id: 5207b5c0
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/19/2012) [-]
The alternative to a 2 party system is even more retarded. If you had a ton of different viable parties, then you could get someone running the country that won with 7% of the vote. Let's face it, people barely know their candidate's politics as it is. If they didn't have a party aphiliation attached to their name giving them a hint, the majority of the voters would be playing bingo with the ballets.
#123 to #105 - CurlyGangster
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/20/2012) [-]
That is based on keeping First Past the Post (also known as Winner Takes All) for allocating seats in Elections. Take Germany for example, their people vote for several different Parties and based on how many votes they get, they get that number of seats in Congress (aka Proportional Representation). Say Party A gets 24% of the vote, they then get 24% of the seats in Parliament, while Party B got 32% and therefore 32% of seats. Following the election Parties A & B form a coalition to work together in Congress (as they form a Majority). And since the Party B got more votes, Party B's Leader becomes Chancellor (who is has many powers of the President in the US). While Parties C & D who both got 22% of the vote form the Opposition.

Considering that people are voting for specific Parties and have no choice in Individual Candidates, Parties tend to be more uniform in their views and more cohesive than Big Tent Parties like the Republicans and Democrats. They also have to make their Party goals cleat to the Public.
User avatar #112 to #105 - Crusader
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/20/2012) [-]
Us Canadians manage pretty well
#128 to #112 - CurlyGangster
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/20/2012) [-]
To be fair, you are moving away from a Three Party System and to a Two Party one considering that the Liberal Party is dying.
User avatar #132 to #128 - Crusader
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/20/2012) [-]
Not really, because all those parties are still there, sure there are still 3 major parties, but at the same point, about 10% of the country votes for other parties
#522 - walkingdisaster
Reply +17 123456789123345869
(08/20/2012) [-]
I've noticed whenever there's a political post, the number of Anons sky rocket.
User avatar #531 to #522 - I Am Monkey
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(08/20/2012) [-]
Nobody wants to get sucked into the **** storm. Political commenters on this site are as sane as they are informed. (they are neither)
#46 - cpthaze **User deleted account**
+16 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#67 to #46 - alanthewhite
Reply -5 123456789123345869
(08/19/2012) [-]
**alanthewhite rolls 411,924,443** HUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEH UEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUE
**alanthewhite rolls 411,924,443** HUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEH UEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUE
#579 - FirstSrMeme
Reply +15 123456789123345869
(08/20/2012) [-]
I don't understand this....
When there is a liberal bashing post
>tons of comments in support of liberals with many thumbs
When there is a conservative bashing post
>tons of comments in support of conservatives with many thumbs

same deal with atheism/Christianity
da **** is happening
#582 to #579 - anon id: 4599cdba
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/20/2012) [-]
Except when a christian speaks out to defend himself he only gets hate, but when athiests are douchebags and hypocrites "Omg lol, you so funny!"
#588 to #579 - funmanigro
Reply +8 123456789123345869
(08/20/2012) [-]
such is life on the internet
such is life on the internet
User avatar #505 - Hawke
Reply +11 123456789123345869
(08/20/2012) [-]
Capitalism: Unequal distribution of wealth

Socialism: Equal distribution of poverty
User avatar #556 to #505 - oxan
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/20/2012) [-]
>this is what lolbertarians actually believe

Whatever you say, bro.
#516 to #505 - creosote
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(08/20/2012) [-]
As you can see, there is a narrow but existent gap between the two... Finding that gap is rather difficult, though...
User avatar #532 to #505 - I Am Monkey
Reply +15 123456789123345869
(08/20/2012) [-]
It is the role of the government to guarantee equal opportunity, not equal results.
#534 to #532 - swagbot
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(08/20/2012) [-]
Yes! This cannot be said enough!!
User avatar #604 to #532 - vortexrain
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(08/20/2012) [-]
You just summed up American Capitalism.
User avatar #17 - bobsagget
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(08/19/2012) [-]
I think there's a difference between the bailout and socialism. I think they should have regulated the bailout money better, threw stipulations on what they could and could not do with it, but honestly if AIG went under, hundreds of millions would be unemployed, or lose all their benefits. that would be another depression. Giving a man who refuses to find a stable job money until he dies is kinda stupid IMO. giving him money won't ever help the economy.
User avatar #32 to #17 - upunkpunk
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/19/2012) [-]
One of the reasons AIG went bankrupt was because they knew they would of gotten bailed out so they practiced bad and inefficient business so the top people in it can get rich quickly. We need to get rid of bailouts completely, it weeds out the inefficient businesses and get rids of bad incentives.
User avatar #70 to #32 - bobsagget
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/19/2012) [-]
Exactly. and they distributed the money out in bonuses like pretentious grease pigs, hence the need for restrictions.
#50 to #32 - anon id: da946c9b
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/19/2012) [-]
"would of gotten"...
#18 to #17 - HumbertoL
Reply +15 123456789123345869
(08/19/2012) [-]
The bailout was socialism. But then again, so are our schools, police, firefighters, soldiers, highways, parks and anything else really that's owned or paid for collectively by taxpayers.

I have no idea why people are so scared of socialism. We have it now to a certain degree anyways.
#769 to #18 - socialism
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/02/2012) [-]
Thank you for clearing my bad name. I really do appreciate it.
#30 to #18 - upunkpunk
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/19/2012) [-]
Firefighters, police and schools are state run, and military and soldiers are constitutional. When it comes to it being STATE run, its not a problem because then you can leave the state , or vote on it but when it comes it it being FEDERAL you have about no choice.
Firefighters, police and schools are state run, and military and soldiers are constitutional. When it comes to it being STATE run, its not a problem because then you can leave the state , or vote on it but when it comes it it being FEDERAL you have about no choice.
User avatar #42 to #30 - HumbertoL
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/19/2012) [-]
You could leave the country too but no one wants to do that. You don't really have much of a choice with state things either. It's the same thing, just a different person in charge of them. Theoretically, socialist policies are for the greater good. Those who oppose them just don't want to do their part.
#110 to #42 - upunkpunk
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/20/2012) [-]
Driving across the state line from Pennsylvania to new jersey is not the same thing as moving from France to Sweden, there are many reasons why please think about it I don't think i need to explain. Not to mention it is WAY easier to pass and repeal a law in a state than the federal government, people also have more power when it comes to voting.   
   
> "socialist policies are for the greater good. Those who oppose them just don't want to do their part."   
   
No, just because it is for the greater good does not mean that it WILL actually help the greater good and not **** everything up.
Driving across the state line from Pennsylvania to new jersey is not the same thing as moving from France to Sweden, there are many reasons why please think about it I don't think i need to explain. Not to mention it is WAY easier to pass and repeal a law in a state than the federal government, people also have more power when it comes to voting.

> "socialist policies are for the greater good. Those who oppose them just don't want to do their part."

No, just because it is for the greater good does not mean that it WILL actually help the greater good and not **** everything up.
#98 to #18 - anon id: 5207b5c0
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/19/2012) [-]
Socialism isn't anything paid for by the government. Socialism is "spreading the wealth around" and taxing the rich to pay for the poor. By your definition, any form of government would be socialism. What saddens me is the fact that this is the 30th time I've seen a comment exactly like this...
#31 to #18 - anon id: 64782c7b
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/19/2012) [-]
Anyone who has every taking an economics class knows there are some things that lend themselves to being done/paid for by the state. Things such as highways, parks, police, firefighters, military and so on. I don't think that qualifies as "socialism". That's not the social ownership of the means of production, that's just sharing the expense of public goods. It's just having a government.

The government taking ownership in banks and car companies, and directing their efforts, can be considered socialism though.
User avatar #19 to #18 - bobsagget
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/19/2012) [-]
people aren't afraid of social policies, they are afraid of socialism, where the government gives a flat salary to everyone of a particular field, telling you exactly how much you are allowed to make, what you have to do at your job, what you can buy, how much you can spend etc.
User avatar #23 to #19 - HumbertoL
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(08/19/2012) [-]
You are describing communism under a dictator. That is COMPLETELY different from socialism.
User avatar #25 to #23 - sovereignsunkown
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(08/19/2012) [-]
THANK YOU
it seems like the majority of americans have no idea what socialism really is. just look at socialist countries like canada or finland for examples. THAT'S what socialism is like. it's much better living conditions, at least for middle class and lower. the upper class (who control most of america) hate socialism because it makes them pay more money (because the top one percent can't raise their taxes by 5% to give free healthcare to THE WHOLE DAMN COUNTRY, they need that 7th hummer and 15th TV too badly for that)
User avatar #75 to #25 - bobsagget
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/19/2012) [-]
the top 1% of americans wealthy donate 85% of the countries charity funds. how much do you pay for the people who go without?
#34 to #25 - anon id: 64782c7b
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/19/2012) [-]
Any country that has a positive net immigration from the US can start lecturing the US on their policies. People vote with their feet.
User avatar #35 to #34 - sovereignsunkown
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(08/19/2012) [-]
i don't see canada or finland agressively campaigning their nation as a great place to live where you can have a new life and the "american dream"
it's all public relations and politics of immigration, not necessarily where the best living conditions are.
#33 to #23 - anon id: 64782c7b
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/19/2012) [-]
Sure, but I'd like to add, that socialism lends itself to dictatorships, abuses of power, and corruption. The more power you take away from individuals and give to government the more likely that power is to be abused. When people complain about the abuses in our government they need not look any further than what powers they've given the government.
#24 to #23 - anon id: 324edaf2
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/19/2012) [-]
No country or people will ever truly be socialist. Human desire is a real thing, and is insurmountable. It will never happen, whether you believe that is unfortunate or God's gift to the world is up to you.
User avatar #26 to #19 - sovereignsunkown
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(08/19/2012) [-]
canada is a socialist nation. finland is a socialist nation. are either of those countries run like you described? i didn't think so. i suggest you research the difference between socialism and communism immediately
User avatar #63 to #26 - thee
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(08/19/2012) [-]
Well, Canada and Finland isn't exactly Socialist nations.
Pure socialism, as communism, relies on a strong government and the loss of personal possession.

You would describe Canada, Finland and the Scandinavian countries as Social Liberalist
User avatar #66 to #63 - sovereignsunkown
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/19/2012) [-]
well, if you want to nitpick, but in terms of an applied and practical sense in relation to western culture, that's the most "socialist" anyone would expect from a nation
User avatar #68 to #66 - thee
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/19/2012) [-]
Well, you are correct there. Though, there are some socialist parties in, for example, Denmark. We have a party, called Enhedslisten(I'm not gonna explain the system for parties). Their official policies are abolition of the police and military, raise the taxes, and give 130,000 kroner(around 20,000 Dollars) each year to a person without a job.
They have several other policies, which I can't remember.

Worst part is, they are gaining more and more voters, and they are talking about "revolution"
User avatar #69 to #68 - sovereignsunkown
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/19/2012) [-]
that seems a little far flung, and will probably end badly if they ever end up in power. people aren't ready for anything like that yet. personally, i think a healthy mix of systems with socialist leanings is the best way to go, but that's just me being canadian
User avatar #74 to #69 - thee
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/19/2012) [-]
Yes, socialism is good when balanced right. I think the only reason we have such an extreme party in Denmark, is due to the financial crisis, with people having no jobs, etc.

Hopefully it's just a phase...
User avatar #72 to #26 - bobsagget
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/19/2012) [-]
I understand full well the difference, but if you ask the north koreans, they will say they are socialist. Also, while we talk about socialists, americans already think they pay too much in taxes, if you go to a place like finland or the netherlands or any of the socialist european nations, they have to pay something to the tune of 35% for a flat rate tax, americans of the middle class bracket have to pay 12% and it's a ******* crisis. America is not a socialist nation. Nor should we ever be. Socialism exists elsewhere and that's fine. I want no part of it. I like deciding what liberties I want, If I want healthcare, I buy it. I should never be forced to buy anything because the government says so.
User avatar #20 to #18 - malific
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(08/19/2012) [-]
I said this to some one here on FJ like 3 years ago and it perfectly applies to your comment.

There is a HUGE difference between having socialist programs, and BEING socialist.