Login or register


Last status update:
Date Signed Up:2/23/2012
Last Login:10/23/2016
Content Ranking:#5712
Comment Ranking:#10486
Highest Content Rank:#1890
Highest Comment Rank:#2689
Content Thumbs: 5250 total,  5989 ,  739
Comment Thumbs: 2553 total,  3421 ,  868
Content Level Progress: 62% (62/100)
Level 145 Content: Faptastic → Level 146 Content: Faptastic
Comment Level Progress: 0% (0/100)
Level 221 Comments: Mind Blower → Level 222 Comments: Mind Blower
Content Views:197491
Times Content Favorited:388 times
Total Comments Made:955
FJ Points:6680
Favorite Tags: clever (2) | tags (2)

latest user's comments

#4 - Isolationism. We have tried it.  [+] (15 replies) 08/20/2015 on Murca +21
#12 - anon (08/20/2015) [-]
No one said you have to isolate yourself. Just don't conquer countries and topple their governments to sell tonnes of weapons, did you try that?
#15 - schneidend (08/20/2015) [-]
But, we're not conquering anybody. Oh my god, the joys and fruits of life if we were, to be the United Empire of America.
User avatar
#11 - historybuff (08/20/2015) [-]
And it was great
#16 - anon (08/20/2015) [-]
the world wars happened....
User avatar
#17 - historybuff (08/20/2015) [-]
not cause of us, and guess who came out richer and stronger because of it?
#19 - anon (08/20/2015) [-]
The world wars didn't happen because of America, but they weren't prevented because of America either. Isolationism means that you are blind (or at least inactive) to the rest of the world's doings. America's current position in the UN security council is to moderate the world's conflict like it or not.
Simply put, the world needs policing to prevent another world war, which is why after ww1 the League of Nations was formed to prevent another world war. All they did was ask nations politely to stop fighting, and elected to concede land to a warmongering Nazi Germany.
So after ww2 the UN was formed with the five most powerful nations forming the security council to police the world's conflicts and fuck up the shit of any nation in the wrong.
(queue Team America: World Police theme song)
User avatar
#20 - historybuff (08/20/2015) [-]
We were not and should not be the world police. We have no duty to anyone but American Citizens. To waste American taxpayer dollars on pointless fruitless wars in the Middle East, Balkans, Ukraine, etc. is a total waste of our time and has done nothing to prevent any World Wars. In fact, the US acting as the worlds police has instead polarized the world into pro-us and anti-us blocs.

#21 - anon (08/20/2015) [-]
I agree that I dislike the responsibility of sinking American resources into foreign affairs with little benefit guaranteed to return to America. It sucks and I'd prefer not to do it, but that is the duty of the nations in the security council, and somebody has to do it. America as quite clearly the leading world power (militarily at least), and if we drop out of the council then we leave the responsibility in other nation's hands.
America isn't starting wars in the middle east, they're preventing worse wars...
In theory at least
I think the issue isn't that we shouldn't be doing it, but maybe that we should be doing it better. e.g stop fucking funding up and coming terrorist organizations and overthrowing anti-American democracies in favor of pro-American dictatorships.
User avatar
#22 - historybuff (08/20/2015) [-]
Except for the fact that the US is the only nation on the security council that regularly deploys troops, meanwhile the PRC and Russian Federation are the ones actively causing problems.

And good luck trying to do it better. The best way to have the world get fixed is to make it fix itself. Fuck everyone else that cries when we intervene and whines when we don't, they can all go fuck themselves and I'll just sit here sipping on my jack and coke.
#23 - anon (08/20/2015) [-]
A nice little exchange between batman and (soon to be) Commissioner Gordon at the end of Batman Begins
Gordon: "What about escalation? We start carrying semi-automatics, they buy automatics. We start wearing Kevlar, they buy armor piercing rounds."
Just because the bad guys are upping their game doesn't mean Batman (USA) can just stop and let them. Batman's fighting the underlings and small time crime has created a power vacuum where the powerful can grow, and if he stops now then only they will remain. Very Al-Qaeda / ISIS esque. Stopping now (as the US did by pulling out so many troops) is much worse than never having done anything to begin with.

And the end of this scene is of course relevant to your comment as well.
G-Dawg: "I never said thank you."
The Big B: "And you'll never have to."
User avatar
#24 - historybuff (08/20/2015) [-]
Are you literally quoting a comic book

about thugs

when we're talking about international politics

No thank you, we're done here, I admit to being lowkey trolled, gg
#26 - anon (08/20/2015) [-]
If you're not pumped about the USA being an international Batman and stopping wars worldwide then you have no soul.
And the Christopher Nolan movie presented excellent allegorical connection to the paradox of US intervention in the middle east.
If you want to stop the conversation that's fine, but I think its clear from our formal debate structure that that I am not trolling you.
I hope to part on good terms.
User avatar
#27 - historybuff (08/20/2015) [-]
Yeah actually, the idea of the US being an international batman is retarded. We could spend billions upon billions on pointless wars or we could throw that money at developing countries so they can get better educations n such

or even better we could take care of our own poor.

But yeah I'm done cause we've both made our points and are dealing in semantics at this point
#8 - anon (08/20/2015) [-]
There's a reason the founding fathers warned of getting involved in global conflicts. It leads to war profiteering
#18 - anon (08/20/2015) [-]
the founding fathers didn't want America involved in foreign affairs was because America was a young country at the time that required imports and exports in order to prosper. the population was a fraction of what it is today, and America had no powerful alliances besides a tacit friendship with France, until we fucked them over by abandoning them during their revolution due to the very isolationist policy we are discussing.

furthermore, war profiteering is a relatively recent invention. The military industrial complex is only possible when the military can be industrialized (duh) and mass produced. few modern countries are capable of profiting off of war (the foremost being modern USA), and no country during the founding fathers' could have managed it due to the less sophisticated nature of war at the time. At the time, a war between two countries was always detrimental to both countries. The victor may have netted positive by winning resources or what have you, but the war itself was always a recourse sink. Modern wars (the way America does them) are actually good for America's economy due to all the production jobs created. Casualties are at an all time low and most enlistees never even see combat (think maintenance and production of vehicles and arms).

With that in mind, war profiteering is a good thing for the profiteers. Engaging in war is good for America economically. Now is he only time in history that this has been done or is even possible. If war profiteering is good for America, why would the founding fathers oppose it?
#25 - There is something called " the good samaritan law" …  [+] (15 replies) 08/19/2015 on #Feminism +45
User avatar
#71 - badsamaritan (08/20/2015) [-]
Never heard of it
#59 - reginleif (08/20/2015) [-]
**reginleif used "*roll picture*"**
**reginleif rolled image** I think those are strongest in Europe, in the US you help at your own risk in some states.


Actually in Europe, there is a duty to assist depending on what country you are from.
#88 - anon (08/20/2015) [-]
Wait! Some countries don't have a duty to help?! So your could just watch someone drown and laugh at it? That can't be legal. I mean if you see someone dying and could easily save him without endangering youself but don't, you basically just killed that person yourself.
User avatar
#109 - reginleif (08/20/2015) [-]
Anon, as one lawyer famous put it, I could watch someone choke on chicken, dance around them and sing "Chicken bone, Chicken bone choking on a Chicken bone!" and be free from the law.

Europe believes in "doing the right thing" and so makes laws with no problem, in the US the concept of personal liberty is strong and so they err on that side. There's advantages and disadvantages to both ideas.

But if it makes you feel any better citizens are required to at the very least report murders, and the molestation of children.
#104 - skebaba (08/20/2015) [-]
Not really. You just let the water kill him without intervening more likely.
#67 - anon (08/20/2015) [-]
Colorado where I'm from has pretty solid Good Samaritan laws currently no one has ever been successfully sued for helping in good faith as far as I know.(They like to point that out every time you take CPR lol.)
#31 - anon (08/19/2015) [-]
So if you finger someone while saving them, it's perfectly okay?
#66 - anon (08/20/2015) [-]
You can't be sued over anything done in good faith(like giving CPR the wrong way by mistake), you can still be sued for things not done in good faith.

The term is pretty vague so you could get away with a fair number of fuck ups but that would likely be hard to prove you believed it would save them.....
#44 - BloodyTurds (08/20/2015) [-]
If it can reasonably be said that it you believed it was somehow required to do so, or it was unintentional. Then yes...
(For example if they were shot in the vagina, and you had to stick your fingers in to plug up the bleeding)
#42 - tripleskit (08/20/2015) [-]
#36 - jewfrosdsd (08/19/2015) [-]
Well they wouldn't be able to sue over saving what I would assume her life, but you could sue them for sexual harassment.
#34 - anon (08/19/2015) [-]
No, because then it's considered "gross misconduct".
User avatar
#28 - Yukimaru (08/19/2015) [-]
Not in most countries. Canada has it but I don't think the US does for example. I know in the US if you aren't emergency personnel and you try and save someone they can sue you.
User avatar
#35 - nywrestler (08/19/2015) [-]
Didn't you ever see the finale of Seinfeld?
#32 - anon (08/19/2015) [-]
In the US, it depends on a state by state basis. For example, the 2000 Federal Cardiac Arrest Survival Act grants those who administer CPR or use an AED immunity from civil charges, except in instances of willful misconduct or gross negligence. If someone cannot answer you when you ask if they need assistance, consent is implied because they unable to speak for themselves due to the life threatening event taking place.
#134 - Cocker Spaniel Masterrace.  [+] (2 replies) 08/18/2015 on 100 Years of Breed... 0
User avatar
#236 - tankeruber (08/18/2015) [-]
All about the English Springer Spaniel / Russian Spaniel.
User avatar
#199 - therealfell (08/18/2015) [-]
they're prone to a lot of health problems, too
#11 - Picture 08/17/2015 on jewfrosdsd's profile 0