Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search
Had a small DDOS. We're back now after I nulled some IPs.

hide menu

reaganomix    

Rank #10123 on Subscribers
reaganomix Avatar Level 228 Comments: Mind Blower
Offline
Send mail to reaganomix Block reaganomix Invite reaganomix to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:8/31/2011
Last Login:7/23/2013
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Content Thumbs: 7408 total,  8917 ,  1509
Comment Thumbs: 2884 total,  3930 ,  1046
Content Level Progress: 7% (7/100)
Level 174 Content: Soldier Of Funnyjunk → Level 175 Content: Soldier Of Funnyjunk
Comment Level Progress: 84% (84/100)
Level 228 Comments: Mind Blower → Level 229 Comments: Mind Blower
Subscribers:7
Content Views:261938
Times Content Favorited:694 times
Total Comments Made:1025
FJ Points:10310
Favorite Tags: all (2) | the (2)

latest user's comments

#127 - No, our rules and codes of law came from the Enlightenment tha… 05/25/2012 on Canadian Money -1
#111 - Picture  [+] (2 new replies) 05/25/2012 on Canadian Money +14
User avatar #116 - xxsleepxx (05/25/2012) [-]
Kay my wording was horrible, but what i meant was most of the laws we have were around Christianity because that was what was the majority religion in Europe, when our Country was founded and Developing. Therefore, we founded our laws by this. However, i do admit that we are now slowly trying to get rid of this to make it so no religion is offended and taking these laws away. But, Canada is far more into the process as us..


Im not good at explaining D: nor can i spell x.x im sorry.
User avatar #127 - reaganomix (05/25/2012) [-]
No, our rules and codes of law came from the Enlightenment that occurred in Europe. The ideas of Montesquieu, John Locke, Adam Smith etc., established a Balance of Power, natural rights, and free markets came from these philosophers.

Just because Christianity was the major religions does not mean it was a significant force in the creation of our country. In fact, the Church had lost much of its clout by the end of the Thirty Years War that ended around 1645.
#1102 - 48% of the population can't pay taxes because they don't quali… 05/22/2012 on socialism sucks +8
#1093 - No, because the population of other countries far exceeds that…  [+] (1 new reply) 05/22/2012 on socialism sucks 0
User avatar #1530 - manlyfucker (05/23/2012) [-]
Yeah, but you could have a Scandinavian model in certain american states, so it doesnt have to be run by the federal government, because I agree, implementing a "full welfare state" on a federal level would take too much time and meet to much resistance especially in the conservative states, and could probably fail on the federal level, but some smaller liberal states could and should really try for it.
#799 - "The socialist believe in two things which are absolutely… 05/22/2012 on socialism sucks -2
#662 - The reason the Scandinavian model works in Scandinavia is beca…  [+] (4 new replies) 05/22/2012 on socialism sucks +2
#1021 - manlyfucker (05/22/2012) [-]
We blend capitalism and socialism very well, and I live in Norway.
And I don't think it is that hard. Unemployment here is around 4 percent. I think you can do the same in many places. But of course, it will take time
#1093 - reaganomix (05/22/2012) [-]
No, because the population of other countries far exceeds that of Norway. There is no feasible way the Scandinavian model could fit in any other country that has a large population. It is not difficult to for 9 million people to become employed so of course a developed nation should be able to provide employment for a small population.
America 300 million
England 51 million
France 64 million
Germany 81 million
User avatar #1530 - manlyfucker (05/23/2012) [-]
Yeah, but you could have a Scandinavian model in certain american states, so it doesnt have to be run by the federal government, because I agree, implementing a "full welfare state" on a federal level would take too much time and meet to much resistance especially in the conservative states, and could probably fail on the federal level, but some smaller liberal states could and should really try for it.
User avatar #675 - fredds (05/22/2012) [-]
"Also, nothing is free, someone else is required to pick up the cost."

Yes, that "someone else" is called EVERYONE
#76 - This was a scene in the movie IOUSA , a movie about the U.S. … 05/21/2012 on Debt no more! 0
#178 - Well I think that is your problem. If you believe that then yo…  [+] (3 new replies) 05/19/2012 on Atheism strikes again! +4
#180 - jslut has deleted their comment.
#906 - twilightdusk (05/19/2012) [-]
One thing you should keep in mind though is that it's not like Christian beliefs come without any consequence. If Christians truly did just keep to themselves about their beliefs, then you would be right, however, look at the debates going on in the US government right now. At least two of them, the issue of Gay Marriage and Abortion, have one side which is nearly entirely fueled by "According to my religion this is wrong! Therefore it should be illegal!!!" Which fuels this hostility toward religion, as people on the other side of the debate see religion as a barrier to change and advancement of society. Some of these people develop the idea that they should challenge religion at any turn they encounter it as though doing so will somehow weaken the religious side of such debates, but again, the only reason they get this impression in the first place is because of people using religious ideals as a basis of law.

tl;dr Religion isn't harmless, that's why atheists get militant.
#1014 - jslut has deleted their comment.
#167 - I agree with this completely, but it is the postmodern mind se…  [+] (7 new replies) 05/19/2012 on Atheism strikes again! +5
User avatar #609 - Cambro (05/19/2012) [-]
I greatly appreciated your post and put this forward for you: Everything we know is thro our senses, correct? Scientific tests are worth nothing if the results were not tangible by sight, smell, touch, heard, or so on. Even abstract data can be seen an observed. Consider now that our senses are determined by placements and connections of organs to, we'll say, the brain. Should these organs be scrambled, it is possible (and has happened in rare medical cases) that people have seen sound and heard color. It is a new beauty to their senses and their universe has been changed. Therefore, what we see as Reality is a likewise illusion produced by our evolved (or created) brains. It may or may not be real, we are only perceiving what we can at this current time of our outside universe. Should simple organs change or evolve, we experience an ENTIRELY new universe (or at least aspect of a new universe). Science, then, is our best guess at the illusion our brains create for us. Science and romanticism are dancing together. Science solves our romantic adventures of our widely mysterious and unknown universe. Should we further evolve, perhaps science itself becomes obsolete. I tell you this: as long as science relies on our senses, romantic ideals can always and will always persist.
User avatar #623 - theexo (05/19/2012) [-]
I must say that that was a beautifully crafted argument.
#172 - jslut has deleted their comment.
User avatar #178 - reaganomix (05/19/2012) [-]
Well I think that is your problem. If you believe that then you are being hypocritical. An atheist should be able to feel passionate about their beliefs just like a religious person. I think it starts getting bad when they become hostile. Religious and Atheist fanatics are equally terrible.
#180 - jslut has deleted their comment.
#906 - twilightdusk (05/19/2012) [-]
One thing you should keep in mind though is that it's not like Christian beliefs come without any consequence. If Christians truly did just keep to themselves about their beliefs, then you would be right, however, look at the debates going on in the US government right now. At least two of them, the issue of Gay Marriage and Abortion, have one side which is nearly entirely fueled by "According to my religion this is wrong! Therefore it should be illegal!!!" Which fuels this hostility toward religion, as people on the other side of the debate see religion as a barrier to change and advancement of society. Some of these people develop the idea that they should challenge religion at any turn they encounter it as though doing so will somehow weaken the religious side of such debates, but again, the only reason they get this impression in the first place is because of people using religious ideals as a basis of law.

tl;dr Religion isn't harmless, that's why atheists get militant.
#1014 - jslut has deleted their comment.
#28 - Sorry, I meant to say Republican (Modern Day Democrat) … 05/19/2012 on Bin Laden 0
#26 - To me it seems like presidents who exceeded the powers granted…  [+] (2 new replies) 05/19/2012 on Bin Laden 0
User avatar #27 - mrgoodbunny (05/19/2012) [-]
Most of the founding fathers, and the early presidents that made this country great were republican. Back when republicans were the liberal ones. Most of the democratic party were pro-slavery, and yes, Lincoln was a republican.
But if they could see what the republican party has become today, they would vomit.

And i don't think obama is truly stepping on the constitution (which btw is a document written 200+ years ago).
User avatar #28 - reaganomix (05/19/2012) [-]
Sorry, I meant to say Republican (Modern Day Democrat)

Also, I got into an argument with my Liberal government teacher over the limits of that the constitution calls for. (I've had the misfortune of being forced to debate against gay adoption in his class)

To me it seems pretty blatant that Obama is stepping on the constitution and the presidents that did similar are the ones applauding. The constitution is a document that gives the federal government specific powers and it contains a Bill of Rights

In the Bill of Rights there is a 10th Amendment that says all powers not given to the Federal Government will be given to state governments. The reason for this is because it is very difficult to change federal policy quickly without breaking the balance of powers, and rightly so. The Federal government is suppose to work slowly so the best we can have the best bipartisan outcome. Having this separation of powers in America is essential.

As things become more localized, the average person had a larger voice over legislation. If you write a letter to the President, chances are it will not make a difference. If you write a letter to the governor, their constituents are far more important because there are fewer of them.
#25 - Essentially what LOLinternet said. One the left side … 05/19/2012 on Bin Laden 0
#14 - Picture  [+] (4 new replies) 05/18/2012 on Bin Laden +2
User avatar #24 - mrgoodbunny (05/19/2012) [-]
THis is so obviously right wing propaganda.
All the democratic presidents are clapping, but the founding fathers are upset.
User avatar #26 - reaganomix (05/19/2012) [-]
To me it seems like presidents who exceeded the powers granted by the constitution and presidents adhered to the constitution. George W. Bush is standing behind Barack Obama looking towards the left side, while most of the presidents that followed the constitution are looking towards Obama and the Right side.

Also Abraham Lincoln was part of the Republican party and he is on the Left side.
User avatar #27 - mrgoodbunny (05/19/2012) [-]
Most of the founding fathers, and the early presidents that made this country great were republican. Back when republicans were the liberal ones. Most of the democratic party were pro-slavery, and yes, Lincoln was a republican.
But if they could see what the republican party has become today, they would vomit.

And i don't think obama is truly stepping on the constitution (which btw is a document written 200+ years ago).
User avatar #28 - reaganomix (05/19/2012) [-]
Sorry, I meant to say Republican (Modern Day Democrat)

Also, I got into an argument with my Liberal government teacher over the limits of that the constitution calls for. (I've had the misfortune of being forced to debate against gay adoption in his class)

To me it seems pretty blatant that Obama is stepping on the constitution and the presidents that did similar are the ones applauding. The constitution is a document that gives the federal government specific powers and it contains a Bill of Rights

In the Bill of Rights there is a 10th Amendment that says all powers not given to the Federal Government will be given to state governments. The reason for this is because it is very difficult to change federal policy quickly without breaking the balance of powers, and rightly so. The Federal government is suppose to work slowly so the best we can have the best bipartisan outcome. Having this separation of powers in America is essential.

As things become more localized, the average person had a larger voice over legislation. If you write a letter to the President, chances are it will not make a difference. If you write a letter to the governor, their constituents are far more important because there are fewer of them.
#242 - Socialist 05/14/2012 on CONGRATS ON YOUR NEW... -3
#23 - Konyfags  [+] (2 new replies) 05/12/2012 on KONY 0
User avatar #36 - darthblam (05/12/2012) [-]
The only reason the "world" is outraged is because of that one guy that made that big campaign to have him noticed.. if it wasn't for that people outside of Africa probably still wouldn't know about it or care.
#28 - miaandvinny (05/12/2012) [-]
On hte top you say kills a couple thousand people, that makes it sounds like it's no big deal.

#245 - The Dark Ages was not caused by Christianity. Christianity was… 05/12/2012 on Christian Dark Ages +2
#233 - Figure you might enjoy this So many gifs an… 05/12/2012 on Christian Dark Ages 0
#224 - >The hole left by the Christian Dark Ages >Left by t…  [+] (5 new replies) 05/12/2012 on Christian Dark Ages +9
#240 - nissfwa (05/12/2012) [-]
Fukken saved. Thumb for you. Doger is awesome.
#238 - theoriginaltyson has deleted their comment.
User avatar #245 - reaganomix (05/12/2012) [-]
The Dark Ages was not caused by Christianity. Christianity was the only pillar to survive the fall of the Roman Empire.
#227 - squidgirl (05/12/2012) [-]
HOLY JESUS FUCK MICK TITTY BALLS ITS DODGER FROM GTS
#233 - reaganomix (05/12/2012) [-]
Figure you might enjoy this

coxinyoface.tumblr.com/

So many gifs and pictures
#469 - No, he really believes this. The reason a stronger st… 05/12/2012 on Ron Paul +2
#95 - Because it is far more likely that guns used for criminal acti… 05/11/2012 on Gun shop owner's response... +1
#9 - Them being poor farmers does not make anything better and thei… 05/09/2012 on The Truth inb4 Shitstorm +1
#7 - God, you must be a retard. This has nothing to do about the ho…  [+] (2 new replies) 05/09/2012 on The Truth inb4 Shitstorm 0
User avatar #8 - Daeiros (05/09/2012) [-]
yes and those people are downtrodden because the mega corporations that the OWS people are protesting came in and snatched the land they were using for agriculture. those poor people were not poor until wall street got a hold of them.
corrupt backroom government deals and predatory loans lead to exxon and nike owning most of africa, and american law does not apply in africa, and african law won't dare bite the hand that feeds, so now people who were quite well off have been forced from their homes and given deadly jobs making less then enough money to afford less food then they were easily able to get before "progress" came and "developed" their nation.
so yes, while in comparison to those in third world countries, OWS people do have it pretty good, but still not as good as they should have it. i hate people who say it could always be worse, it makes me want to punch them in the stomach, shrug and say hey, be happy it wasnt your face, right? there is no real excuse for poverty, it is artificially created out of pure unadulterated greed for the sake of greed. when my parents were my age, they made half the wages i do, but paid 1/8th the rent i do. one step closer to slavery and it's only getting worse.
those in the middle of the food chain are best suited to bring down the parasites at the top because they have the resources to not be entirely consumed with the challenges of day to day survival, and can stop to think and recognize the source of the problem and do something about it.
#9 - reaganomix (05/09/2012) [-]
Them being poor farmers does not make anything better and their poverty extends farther than 'mega corporations'. The poor people were given jobs that provide a wage, just like during the industrial revolution, they were paid low wages, just like during the Industrial Revolution, and just like the industrial revolution, their standard of living will increase because of the benefits this industries have.

I am valiantly opposed to corporate influence in government, but these industries will lead to the rise of their standard of living. The problems in Africa extend farther than just some corporations. Personally, I blame European imperialism because they effectively destroyed progress in Africa.

Also no one really cares about what happens to the Africans, it is just a facade. If we really cared, instead of handing Africans clothes--effectively ruining a profitable business in Africa, we should teach them how to make and run businesses. Capitalism is the best way to take a country out of poverty, no country has ever become wealthy from socialistic ideology.

Every society has a 'poor' class, it is not just greed, every country runs on greed. Soviet Russia ran on greed, Communist China runs on greed, Cuba runs on greed. Pure capitalism with no corporate influence is the best way to take people out of poverty.

China's military patrol the boarder in Hong Kong because many Chinese were running away into Hong Kong, a true free market. They run to Hong Kong because they know that their standard of living will increase. Of course, I want the 'poor' to live better, but I feel a capitalistic model with little influence from large corporations is ideal.

To me, Occupy Wall St seems very socialistic and many of them want a larger government. What they fail to realize is that Corporations will use the large government to fuck over the common man. The real parasite is a large government.
#6 - What is the world's population? 05/09/2012 on The Truth inb4 Shitstorm -1
#3 - How large is the earth?  [+] (5 new replies) 05/09/2012 on The Truth inb4 Shitstorm -1
#5 - slamweiss (05/09/2012) [-]
Not even relevant man. If you dont trust a well know paper get ready cause youre gonna become a conspiracy theorist when you grow up... just saying.
#7 - reaganomix (05/09/2012) [-]
God, you must be a retard. This has nothing to do about the household income in America. The world's population is 6.8 billion. That is a very large number.

Now take into account all the poor and down trodden people around the world that don't live in America. There are a shitload of them.

China, India, Africa, Asia, Central America, etc.

The people in the Occupy movements look like the 1 percent to those people because unlike Third World countries, we are far better of than they are.

Also, the Times thinks Americans are idiots, which is true of course if someone like you is not able to notice what the image actually means.
User avatar #8 - Daeiros (05/09/2012) [-]
yes and those people are downtrodden because the mega corporations that the OWS people are protesting came in and snatched the land they were using for agriculture. those poor people were not poor until wall street got a hold of them.
corrupt backroom government deals and predatory loans lead to exxon and nike owning most of africa, and american law does not apply in africa, and african law won't dare bite the hand that feeds, so now people who were quite well off have been forced from their homes and given deadly jobs making less then enough money to afford less food then they were easily able to get before "progress" came and "developed" their nation.
so yes, while in comparison to those in third world countries, OWS people do have it pretty good, but still not as good as they should have it. i hate people who say it could always be worse, it makes me want to punch them in the stomach, shrug and say hey, be happy it wasnt your face, right? there is no real excuse for poverty, it is artificially created out of pure unadulterated greed for the sake of greed. when my parents were my age, they made half the wages i do, but paid 1/8th the rent i do. one step closer to slavery and it's only getting worse.
those in the middle of the food chain are best suited to bring down the parasites at the top because they have the resources to not be entirely consumed with the challenges of day to day survival, and can stop to think and recognize the source of the problem and do something about it.
#9 - reaganomix (05/09/2012) [-]
Them being poor farmers does not make anything better and their poverty extends farther than 'mega corporations'. The poor people were given jobs that provide a wage, just like during the industrial revolution, they were paid low wages, just like during the Industrial Revolution, and just like the industrial revolution, their standard of living will increase because of the benefits this industries have.

I am valiantly opposed to corporate influence in government, but these industries will lead to the rise of their standard of living. The problems in Africa extend farther than just some corporations. Personally, I blame European imperialism because they effectively destroyed progress in Africa.

Also no one really cares about what happens to the Africans, it is just a facade. If we really cared, instead of handing Africans clothes--effectively ruining a profitable business in Africa, we should teach them how to make and run businesses. Capitalism is the best way to take a country out of poverty, no country has ever become wealthy from socialistic ideology.

Every society has a 'poor' class, it is not just greed, every country runs on greed. Soviet Russia ran on greed, Communist China runs on greed, Cuba runs on greed. Pure capitalism with no corporate influence is the best way to take people out of poverty.

China's military patrol the boarder in Hong Kong because many Chinese were running away into Hong Kong, a true free market. They run to Hong Kong because they know that their standard of living will increase. Of course, I want the 'poor' to live better, but I feel a capitalistic model with little influence from large corporations is ideal.

To me, Occupy Wall St seems very socialistic and many of them want a larger government. What they fail to realize is that Corporations will use the large government to fuck over the common man. The real parasite is a large government.
User avatar #6 - reaganomix (05/09/2012) [-]
What is the world's population?
#2 - Let's play a game  [+] (1 new reply) 05/09/2012 on The Truth inb4 Shitstorm -1
#4 - slamweiss (05/09/2012) [-]
Wtf

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#12 - AreyouSerious (07/17/2012) [-]
A brony that can put up a political argument is a friend in my book.
#1 - feelythefeel ONLINE (04/11/2012) [-]
Comment virginity taken my good man.
Comment virginity taken my good man.
 Friends (0)