|Funny Pictures||Funny Videos|
|Funny GIFs||YouTube Videos|
Rank #8571 on CommentsLevel 238 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz
OfflineSend mail to Soviet Savior Block Soviet Savior Invite Soviet Savior to be your friend flag avatar
- Views: 42873Meeting your GF's father for the...
1242 63 Total: +1179
- Views: 20394look at dem tags
322 29 Total: +293
- Views: 3900Thanks NBC
44 3 Total: +41
- Views: 2716ouch
25 5 Total: +20
- Views: 1742Wherever I may Roam
20 3 Total: +17
- Views: 770Walking Vaders Dog
13 1 Total: +12
latest user's comments
|#11 - For when the Feds decide that you don't need any weapons and c…||12/10/2014 on Facts||+5|
|#2 - Fun fact: part of the reason for the development of the barret… [+] (23 new replies)||12/10/2014 on Facts||+38|
#101 - questionableferret (12/10/2014) [-]
Fun Fact: The repeal of guns is not a liberal law, it is in fact a right-wing law. Liberalism is essentially about allowing people freedoms (though it is a more complex political standpoint than 'just' that and has elements I don't agree with so I don't subscribe to it) meaning the repeal of guns is no in-keeping with what is traditionally seen as liberal and is certainly not a left-wing policy because it is a form of regulation.
Not saying that's a good or a bad thing or that that really changes anything, just that it's not actually a 'liberal' law.
#118 - anonymous (12/10/2014) [-]
You're talking about Classical Liberalism, which is pretty much the ideology that absolutizes freedoms (such as the "property rights" that John Locke outlined, "property rights" including being able to own and do whatever you please with your property - "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" were based off of John Locke's work).
In modern day usage, the political meaning of the words "conservative" and "liberal" more readily define the amount of power a government has (also its size) rather than the amount of freedoms that are granted to the individual.
An easy way to remember the function of the politically charged adjectives is to remember their nonpolitical meaning and apply it to the "power and size" of the government.
Liberal Politics = More Liberal government = Bigger government, often with less individual freedoms.
Conservative Politics = More Conservative government = smaller government, often with more individual freedoms.
#349 - anonymous (12/10/2014) [-]
Because ban on gay marriage defines individual freedoms. Yeah, no.
Also, a strong government does not necessarily mean less individual freedoms. The social democracies (while not liberal) of Europe shows us that it is enitrely possible to maintain individual rights in a left-wing society. And there are societies where the Democrats are seen as far-right.
#417 - anonymous (12/11/2014) [-]
A person that would like the government to stop defining what marriage is would be considered more conservative. It's not the government's right or purpose to do so, and therefore the government should not have the power to regulate what is or isn't a marriage any more than they should have the power to regulate what is or isn't a Bar Mitzvah.
The more power that a government is given to exercise, the less freedoms that the people will generally have.
A government that plays a hand in regulating businesses, supplying services (education, healthcare, food, what-have-you), creating and maintaining laws that don't specifically deal with people infringing on other people's rights (such as zoning laws, seatbelt laws, drug laws, etc.) cannot do so without limiting the freedoms of its people.
Can you maintain some rights or at least make people FEEL like they're not having their rights taken from them? Easily. But the more powerful government is, the less rights the people will have.
#140 - questionableferret (12/10/2014) [-]
Which I view as patently absurd because:
1) The term 'Liberal' changing from referring to 'Liberal freedoms' to 'Liberal regulations' (which is an absolute 180º twist on the idea akin to having a group of Nazis whose key goals were licking the undersides of the feet of Jews) the
2) Many who campaign as 'Conservatives' are fine with preserving the values of the Christian faith but completely throw out all other traditional values and it was under a government run by a supposedly conservative man that the Patriot act (the single most brazen law of governmental-power in recent US history) was put into place.
So neither of these 'modern' terms make sense and should really have entirely different names because this is akin to the whole "literally = figuratively" debacle.
#184 - anonymous (12/10/2014) [-]
I think we'll be okay so long as we can distinguish between the classical and modern interpretations of the term, and since there's only a few people who still know what the classical definition is [which is sad :'( ] I typically use the modern definition and try inform others when they misuse the word.
Such as when people say that it's the "conservative" thing to illegalize drugs, enforce Christianity in the public, have the government define what marriage is, etc.
I understand being upset that the original definition pretty much got flip-turned upside-down, but there's not much to do about it anymore, I think, and the best we can do is just use the "current" definition (because in the very least, it DOES make sense, it just isn't quite as nice as the original definition - because it makes more sense to talk about freedoms rather than restrictions, at least to me, but whateves).
#178 - anonymous (12/10/2014) [-]
Whether the reversal in definitions was absurd or not, at least it makes sense to think about the terms that way, and there's a slight semantic benefit to being able to differentiate clearly between ideas being more or less conservative/liberal than others.
History is filled with examples of words/symbols being completely flipped in meaning (The swastika is a perfectly good example of that, speaking of the Nazis).
Any true conservative should want less government, and unfortunately the GOP isn't really all that conservative any more. (It would be pushing it to call Bush Jr. a "conservative man", I think. He was more conservative than Gore, but that's like calling ice "hot" because it's hotter than dry ice).
Being both a Christian and a radical conservative, it disheartens me to see so many "religious liberals" (a term I made up) that happen to play to some of the same issues that conservatives do and therefore take the same name.
#159 - lean (12/10/2014) [-]
Yeah, you and me both buddy. It chaps my ass that the left wing US politicians stole the term liberal and bastardized it. One of the biggest reasons the rest of the world doesn't understand US politics. We tend to throw dictionaries out the window and use terms to suit our own purposes here. 90% of our elected officials fall dead center and vote only on party lines instead of using what little bitty brains they have. There is a reason the best and brightest in the world don't bother with politics, most because it is a fuckin joke.
#179 - keitheespieces (12/10/2014) [-]
In that case, no civilian should be allowed to own a car that can travel faster than 85 miles per hour, since that is the maximum speed limit in the country. It doesn't matter if it's not a good car or not, that shit will obliterate anything it hits when it's going that fast.
Don't tell me what I can and cannot own.
#75 - anonymous (12/10/2014) [-]
#16 - SteyrAUG (12/10/2014) [-]
It'll actually obliterate anything it hits out to 1.5 miles. Beyond that it's only accurate enough to hit large targets like vehicles. Not to say it isn't still lethal though.
If you're gonna argue against firearms, at least be informed about the firearms you're gonna argue against so you don't look like a total idiot.
#5 - anonymous (12/10/2014) [-]
I wonder why a civilian would need such a weapon?
#375 - anonymous (12/10/2014) [-]
#376 - anonymous (12/10/2014) [-]
#17 - masdercheef (12/10/2014) [-]
A very large amount of people who own guns do not need them for any practical purpose. A very large amount of people who own gaming consoles do not need them for any practical purpose, either. The two are generally used by these people for the same reason; a hobby.
|#131 - **Soviet Savior rolled image ** my fav. Hentai...||12/09/2014 on Excellent Taste||+48|
|#32087 - **Soviet Savior rolled image **||12/09/2014 on how to *roll* on funnyjunk!||0|
|#18 - This one is inside the car but old suburbans and blazers have … [+] (1 new reply)||12/07/2014 on There are people who dont...||0|
|#17 - Riddle me this: why do we still say "roll the window up&q… [+] (1 new reply)||12/07/2014 on There are people who dont...||0|
#29 - anonymous (12/07/2014) [-]
For the same reason we say "rewind", even though we no longer use tape such as cassettes and vhs.
We're just too lazy to come up with something new.
|#59 - Tell how useless the .223 is to the 300lb hog I killed with it… [+] (1 new reply)||12/01/2014 on Oh my god||0|
|#43 - I assume you own one like I do, but incase you don't I'll fil… [+] (5 new replies)||12/01/2014 on Oh my god||0|
#51 - anonymous (12/01/2014) [-]
|#7 - Kel Tec plr16. Best of both worlds [+] (12 new replies)||12/01/2014 on Oh my god||+39|
#49 - anonymous (12/01/2014) [-]
#43 - Soviet Savior (12/01/2014) [-]
I assume you own one like I do, but incase you don't I'll fill you in. The gun is mostly composite and doesn't weigh much if you stick with a 10 or 20 round mag. It's pretty accurate for a handgun, I get 2" groups at 15 meters because it's chambered in .223 and that round takes off like a rocket. I use one with soft points as my site arm when I hunt hog.
#51 - anonymous (12/01/2014) [-]
|#22 - The Brits did something like this in North Africa in ww2. They… [+] (3 new replies)||11/24/2014 on Well.... ok then||+6|
#31 - lordsnow (11/24/2014) [-]
Well; the US did try to create remote-controlled "bombers" that were actually just filled with explosives and flown by a conventional crew near a target, then the crew would bail and a second bomber would use a radio-control setup to guide the plane into a target like one huge missile. The idea was to make a way they could hit a specific target without wasting resources on huge bombing raids that might not cause that much damage to the intended target. Unfortunately, two slow low-flying bombers are pretty easy to shoot and the planes had a tendency of blowing up in mid-air so the plan was scrapped. (Fun fact: JFK's brother was one of the test pilots, he volunteered and was killed in one such explosion, he was also the Kennedy family's initial pick to be groomed for president.)
If that's too long for you; I've never played a game where I nuked Japan.