Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu

reaganomix

Rank #10362 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,  8918 ,  1510
Comment Thumbs: 2884 total,  3930 ,  1046
Content Level Progress: 8% (8/100)
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:262313
Times Content Favorited:693 times
Total Comments Made:1025
FJ Points:10311
Favorite Tags: all (2) | the (2)

latest user's comments

#3910072 - *No frogs were harmed in the screen capping of this post* 04/11/2012 on FJ Pony Thread +1
#3909880 - You Yes, I am talking to you Read this  [+] (2 new replies) 04/11/2012 on FJ Pony Thread +1
#3909891 - ultrablue (04/11/2012) [-]
#3910094 - reaganomix (04/11/2012) [-]
#305 - inb4 Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Post Office, Tariffs… 04/11/2012 on The Obama +12
#285 - Take a look at the Republican party right now, it is completel…  [+] (3 new replies) 04/11/2012 on The Obama +6
User avatar #533 - xxane (04/12/2012) [-]
Ok first of all we have billions of gallons of oil in the U.S. And by 2020 your democrats passed a law 2 years ago that will have to make all automobiles 40 mpg. Sea weed as gas??? GTFO. And its good the Republicans are separated, it gives more categories for people to pick from. And I say fuck your contraception, our taxes should not have to go to you fucking up cause you forgot to pull out. And women have every fucking right already. If you rape a girl, your going to jail. If a girl rapes you and gets pregnant, your going to jail and you have to pay for the child.

Now if you believe Democrats are right for doing all the above then you got your head FAR up ur rectum. And the economy has only gotten worse since obama stepped in, gas prices have risen since he stepped in. HES no good. And EVERY fucking republican wants Romney, who the fuck is leading the polls right now??? Yea exactly. And you just explained my fucking point, you democrats look at the news for 5 minutes and make your final presidential vote, like Obama.

Romney seems fake??? Well Obama didn't seem fake to you now did he? But meanwhile your in denial of wtf Obama is doing to our economy and your simply looking at is a dust blowing in the wind. And atleast he goes over the issues, all I heard Osama, excuse me *Obama talk about was CHANGE. CHANGE THIS CHANGE THAT. But did you ever stand to think what fucking change he was gonna make???? Oh no cause you fucking democrats are stupid and hard headed, you will watch the news for 5 minutes and make your final choice. And SPEAKING OF CHANGING STANCE...Look at Obama, he went from Changing his shit stained underpants to 'IDK WHAT THE FUCK IM DOING IN OFFICE HURR DERR.'
#556 - reaganomix (04/12/2012) [-]
That 's not how politics works, a separated Republican party will not go anywhere. Any true conservative will see the Republican party as it really is, a authoritarian party that is as big government as the Democrats. Nutters in a party will drive away the independents. Both parties have their faults, I don't like the dems and I don't like the republicans.

You are using quite a bite of hyperbole when you are talking about the economy, It has not gotten worse, it has stabilized, the problem is that we are not seeing healthy growth in the economy. The president is not able to control how much gas is worth, that is simply the economy and the speculators at work. If you reference the Keystone Pipeline I will laugh. The Keystone Pipeline was for foreign markets, not ours, so it would not have done anything.

www.thenation.com/blog/167313/its-romney-gop-candidate-opposed-59-percent-republicans

Article from yesterday. He may be winning Primaries, that doesn't mean people like him.

It is a fact that the majority of Americans do not really care about politics. This is fact

I know what Obama is doing to the economy, It's called Keynesianism. Deficit Spending when the economy is bad and high taxes when the economy is good. And I already said it's retarded
C + I + G + X - E = Y
(Consumption)+(Investment)+(Government Spending)+(Exports-Imports)=(Gross Domestic Product)

I love how you call me a democrat, I am neither Democrat of Republican. I'm a Classical Liberal (today referred to as a Libertarian), before the term got stolen by the left.

Obama is just a Bush 2.0 (Back in Black edition)
User avatar #561 - xxane (04/12/2012) [-]
Ok I agree with most of what you said but ONE thing...America has fucking billions of gallons of oil under our asses and all we do is say 'DERP' and act like nothing is there. If we started drilling tomorrow then gas prices would decline to below 90 cents. Im not gonna even start to say Alaska's oil but North Dakota has a shit ton of oil.


www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/11/crude-output-north-dakota-idUSL2E8FBA3U20120411
#262 - >April >Still think Rmoney can win LOL …  [+] (11 new replies) 04/11/2012 on The Obama -1
User avatar #534 - xxane (04/12/2012) [-]
With your username I would think your not hard headed but obviously you are. Romney is gonna win, Obama sucks. Hoo Raa, suck my dick.
User avatar #542 - reaganomix (04/12/2012) [-]
First of all I do agree with the ideas of supply-side economics. Secondly, I do hate Obama, only idiots believe Keynesian economics works. However, I am not delusional. The Republican party got taken over by the religious right and I no longer want to associate myself with them. Romney is not going to win because the majority of Americans are completely apathetic when it comes to politics. An average American will look at the republican party and say "they're bat shit crazy, take away contraception, no more porn, etc"

Also LOL if you think any of the republican candidates are actual free market candidates. They will go out of their way to bailout large corporations (not laissez-faire), especially Romney, He took bailout money from the government when he was part of Bain Capital, That is not free market.
User avatar #545 - xxane (04/12/2012) [-]
Ok listen though, contraception is not good for us. Democrats want tax payers to give money to those who forgot to pull out and now need a abortion. The tax payers shouldn't have to pay for your fuck up. And all of America is fucking brain washed in that case cause all Democrats want to do is fucking scribble out the constitution and fill it in with 'CHANGE'.

And they bail out large corporations for a reason. Would you trust buying a brand new car at the Ford Dealership or Mr.John's dealership down the street?
User avatar #550 - reaganomix (04/12/2012) [-]
Fuck your contraception, I don't give a flying fuck about contraception, but as long as hospitals are taking government funding (this will not change), They need to make sure people are healthy I don't care if the church is religious or not. The government is suppose to enforce separation of church and state. Also you talk about the constitution, but what party signed in Patriot act?

Also what the fuck are you talking about. First of all, Obama is the one who bailed out the Big three Auto companies, someone you hate. Good job fuck yourself on that one. And bailouts completely go against the free market, businesses rise and fall all the time.

The dealerships would be selling foreign cars instead of home made ones. You cannot prop up failing businesses, that is Keynesian fallacy. If the economy is going to grow, it requires the production of goods people want, not some shitty American car that only stays afloat because it is owned by the government.
User avatar #557 - xxane (04/12/2012) [-]
As in government funding that is key word for Tax Payers Money. I don't know if you pay taxes yet but my money is going to teenagers fuckup's thanks to Obama care. Health isn't about being pregnant. AND if you were in George Bush's shoes and 9/11 just happened what would you do? Bush needed to protect you and me and he had no choice but to do so or if he didn't the citizens would of created a shit storm. And Obama signed a 4 year extension on the Patriot Act so go cry to his dumbass.

YOU JUST CONTRADICTED YOURSELF. You said bailing out big businesses was bad and now ur admitting Obama did it so its good, your a hypocrite at its finesse.

Ford dealerships sell new Toyotas and Mercedes,Bmw and other foreign cars? Since when? Am I living in a fantasy world here.

I Do agree on one point you made that stands out that Americas cars suck dick now a days. In the 70's thats when it was American cars at its best. I do give credit for the Chevrolet Corvette though, that car is a machine. And Hummer H2 but of course the US discontinued it. And its funny cause my dad owns a Corvette and Hummer H2 lol.
#574 - reaganomix (04/12/2012) [-]
"Anyone that sacrifices liberty for security deserves neither" -Benjamin Franklin

Obama and Bush are the same people.

I never said bailing out companies was good. Care to point out where I said this? Read the last sentences I wrote.
If Ford was not bailed out by the government, Ford Dealerships would be shut down because Ford would be unable to sustain itself. Then another successful company will pick up what Ford left behind like factories and dealerships. The reason American car companies failed was because they had terrible business practices, making cars only last a few years, making people pay for attachments for cars when foreign companies were including them in the whole package, the constant production of Hummers when the people were demanding fuel efficient vehicles.

Also, why do you think I like Obama? I don't, but I do not distance myself from facts. As for the contraception thing, there are plenty of things that we have to pay for even do we don't like. We need to focus on the larger picture rather than something as insignificant as contraception. We need to focus on larger problems before we can actually discuss social issues. Yes I think it is retarded that we have to pay for stuff like this, but really there are far more important things to worry about.
User avatar #272 - xxane (04/11/2012) [-]
ok how much u wanna bet romney is gonna win?
#285 - reaganomix (04/11/2012) [-]
Take a look at the Republican party right now, it is completely divided. You have republican politicians that are doing things that give republicans a bad name like the whole ordeal with contraception, woman's rights, and big oil.

Even though the economy is still terrible, it is not enough to remove Obama from office. Less than half of the republicans actually like Mittens Romney and that doesn't bode will when it comes to the general election. Very few people actually constantly keep up with politics so they just take a quick look at the news and they see all the stupid shit Republicans are doing and they are going to vote the other way.

Also, personally, Romney seems very fake to me. All he does is flip flop on the issues, he may run for something completely different during the general election and if he gets elected he would completely change his stance. Trust me, I am no fan of Obama, but in reality, he is going to win.
User avatar #533 - xxane (04/12/2012) [-]
Ok first of all we have billions of gallons of oil in the U.S. And by 2020 your democrats passed a law 2 years ago that will have to make all automobiles 40 mpg. Sea weed as gas??? GTFO. And its good the Republicans are separated, it gives more categories for people to pick from. And I say fuck your contraception, our taxes should not have to go to you fucking up cause you forgot to pull out. And women have every fucking right already. If you rape a girl, your going to jail. If a girl rapes you and gets pregnant, your going to jail and you have to pay for the child.

Now if you believe Democrats are right for doing all the above then you got your head FAR up ur rectum. And the economy has only gotten worse since obama stepped in, gas prices have risen since he stepped in. HES no good. And EVERY fucking republican wants Romney, who the fuck is leading the polls right now??? Yea exactly. And you just explained my fucking point, you democrats look at the news for 5 minutes and make your final presidential vote, like Obama.

Romney seems fake??? Well Obama didn't seem fake to you now did he? But meanwhile your in denial of wtf Obama is doing to our economy and your simply looking at is a dust blowing in the wind. And atleast he goes over the issues, all I heard Osama, excuse me *Obama talk about was CHANGE. CHANGE THIS CHANGE THAT. But did you ever stand to think what fucking change he was gonna make???? Oh no cause you fucking democrats are stupid and hard headed, you will watch the news for 5 minutes and make your final choice. And SPEAKING OF CHANGING STANCE...Look at Obama, he went from Changing his shit stained underpants to 'IDK WHAT THE FUCK IM DOING IN OFFICE HURR DERR.'
#556 - reaganomix (04/12/2012) [-]
That 's not how politics works, a separated Republican party will not go anywhere. Any true conservative will see the Republican party as it really is, a authoritarian party that is as big government as the Democrats. Nutters in a party will drive away the independents. Both parties have their faults, I don't like the dems and I don't like the republicans.

You are using quite a bite of hyperbole when you are talking about the economy, It has not gotten worse, it has stabilized, the problem is that we are not seeing healthy growth in the economy. The president is not able to control how much gas is worth, that is simply the economy and the speculators at work. If you reference the Keystone Pipeline I will laugh. The Keystone Pipeline was for foreign markets, not ours, so it would not have done anything.

www.thenation.com/blog/167313/its-romney-gop-candidate-opposed-59-percent-republicans

Article from yesterday. He may be winning Primaries, that doesn't mean people like him.

It is a fact that the majority of Americans do not really care about politics. This is fact

I know what Obama is doing to the economy, It's called Keynesianism. Deficit Spending when the economy is bad and high taxes when the economy is good. And I already said it's retarded
C + I + G + X - E = Y
(Consumption)+(Investment)+(Government Spending)+(Exports-Imports)=(Gross Domestic Product)

I love how you call me a democrat, I am neither Democrat of Republican. I'm a Classical Liberal (today referred to as a Libertarian), before the term got stolen by the left.

Obama is just a Bush 2.0 (Back in Black edition)
User avatar #561 - xxane (04/12/2012) [-]
Ok I agree with most of what you said but ONE thing...America has fucking billions of gallons of oil under our asses and all we do is say 'DERP' and act like nothing is there. If we started drilling tomorrow then gas prices would decline to below 90 cents. Im not gonna even start to say Alaska's oil but North Dakota has a shit ton of oil.


www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/11/crude-output-north-dakota-idUSL2E8FBA3U20120411
#528 - Picture  [+] (5 new replies) 04/11/2012 on just germans.. +5
#531 - feelythefeel (04/11/2012) [-]
MFW I'm Canadian.
#736 - qworta (04/11/2012) [-]
Dem hands...
User avatar #843 - feelythefeel (04/11/2012) [-]
You jelly?.jpeg (Can't get the .jpeg, my cpu is acting up.)
#929 - qworta (04/12/2012) [-]
Almost forgot.
fukkensaved.jpg
User avatar #946 - feelythefeel (04/12/2012) [-]
No problem.
#512 - Picture  [+] (7 new replies) 04/11/2012 on just germans.. +3
#515 - feelythefeel (04/11/2012) [-]
<-- How American congress works for Republicans.
#528 - reaganomix (04/11/2012) [-]
#531 - feelythefeel (04/11/2012) [-]
MFW I'm Canadian.
#736 - qworta (04/11/2012) [-]
Dem hands...
User avatar #843 - feelythefeel (04/11/2012) [-]
You jelly?.jpeg (Can't get the .jpeg, my cpu is acting up.)
#929 - qworta (04/12/2012) [-]
Almost forgot.
fukkensaved.jpg
User avatar #946 - feelythefeel (04/12/2012) [-]
No problem.
#322 - Citation - A quotation from or reference to a book, paper, or …  [+] (1 new reply) 04/09/2012 on Marijuna Commercials 0
User avatar #360 - tie (04/09/2012) [-]
as it turns out im canadian and what is this? however i will say, everything you say is correct except in regards to the tobacco industry. im not disputing how economics work, im saying that the need to ban tobacco ads was based on its influence on people as a carcinogen, and therefore the FDA and government acted, it was simply also in the interest of tobacco companies to just switch advertising tactics instead. im not even talking about weed. im talking about the reason the ads were banned. it wasnt because the tobacco companies asked for it.
#264 - Listen to man, he smart, he make you smart. &quo…  [+] (4 new replies) 04/09/2012 on Marijuna Commercials +1
User avatar #353 - bmran (04/09/2012) [-]
i watch the video...
he said nothing about the companies going under because of over advertisement.
he simply described a situation that cancel the dominating strategies of both companies and forced them into a outcome that was somewhat beneficial for both of them.
the fact remains that you are still making out facts.
he even claim that if both companies use advertisement their profit will remain huge.
ps. i have a decent amount of knowledge about game theory so don't be so condescending.
User avatar #285 - tie (04/09/2012) [-]
you just sent me to a link with 3,000 views about a guy who has his degree in math and teaches computor sciences. besides you're being defensive. im not a stupid person, everything we've said so far lacks citations, including the video you just sent me to. the tobacco industries fought many lawsuits about advertising and when the FDA finally won and the ad ban was made, the tobacco industries merely just shifted tactics and advertised through other ways. (like movies and celebrity endorsements). its not like the tobacco companies sat in their boardrooms and manipulated the government into placing a ban on their advertising. Think.
User avatar #322 - reaganomix (04/09/2012) [-]
Citation - A quotation from or reference to a book, paper, or author, esp. in a scholarly work.

This whole thing has been about commercials and TV advertisements. Look at the content, it is not referring to celebrity endorsements or movies and it is talking about marijuana. There are already movies and actors that 'advertise' weed. Pineapple Express and Cheech and Chong

"its not like the tobacco companies sat in their boardrooms and manipulated the government into placing a ban on their advertising."
So when corporations lobby the government and shove money into Pacs they do it just to waste money? No, they use it as a means to an end. They can manipulate government because it is really big.
This is one of the reasons conservatives want to take away things like regulations and some want to make the government smaller so corporations can't manipulate government. Companies use the strength of the government to implement things like tariffs and taxes on foreign goods to reduce competition with outsiders.

The last thing a large corporation wants is competition and capitalism because it implies that they have to compete with others to provide goods cheaper and better. The banning of commercials was a mean to meet this end. Think.

Also why the does view count even matter? www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6GWm0GW7gk

This is an Noble prize winning Economist and it only has 550 views. Think
User avatar #360 - tie (04/09/2012) [-]
as it turns out im canadian and what is this? however i will say, everything you say is correct except in regards to the tobacco industry. im not disputing how economics work, im saying that the need to ban tobacco ads was based on its influence on people as a carcinogen, and therefore the FDA and government acted, it was simply also in the interest of tobacco companies to just switch advertising tactics instead. im not even talking about weed. im talking about the reason the ads were banned. it wasnt because the tobacco companies asked for it.
#243 - Are you retarded? Read the post I made before. I am h…  [+] (6 new replies) 04/09/2012 on Marijuna Commercials 0
User avatar #252 - tie (04/09/2012) [-]
your problem is that you think the cigarette companies just mutually decided to stop advertising. that was stopped by the government. i have no love for government but people becoming aware that smoking was bad was not through word of mouth, it was done by government funded ads bringing awareness. Absolutely peer pressure was the cause on a case by case level, but social media (AND NOT JUST ONES FROM COMMERCIALS) but also endorsements in movies and celebrities shaped smoking as a societal norm. thats why baseball players got fined for chewing tobacco on television. because they were being payed by tobacco industries to do it. and thus influencing the kids who idolized them.
User avatar #264 - reaganomix (04/09/2012) [-]
www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsAeRwU6OJs
Listen to man, he smart, he make you smart.

"Also government funded ads" Citation needed
User avatar #353 - bmran (04/09/2012) [-]
i watch the video...
he said nothing about the companies going under because of over advertisement.
he simply described a situation that cancel the dominating strategies of both companies and forced them into a outcome that was somewhat beneficial for both of them.
the fact remains that you are still making out facts.
he even claim that if both companies use advertisement their profit will remain huge.
ps. i have a decent amount of knowledge about game theory so don't be so condescending.
User avatar #285 - tie (04/09/2012) [-]
you just sent me to a link with 3,000 views about a guy who has his degree in math and teaches computor sciences. besides you're being defensive. im not a stupid person, everything we've said so far lacks citations, including the video you just sent me to. the tobacco industries fought many lawsuits about advertising and when the FDA finally won and the ad ban was made, the tobacco industries merely just shifted tactics and advertised through other ways. (like movies and celebrity endorsements). its not like the tobacco companies sat in their boardrooms and manipulated the government into placing a ban on their advertising. Think.
User avatar #322 - reaganomix (04/09/2012) [-]
Citation - A quotation from or reference to a book, paper, or author, esp. in a scholarly work.

This whole thing has been about commercials and TV advertisements. Look at the content, it is not referring to celebrity endorsements or movies and it is talking about marijuana. There are already movies and actors that 'advertise' weed. Pineapple Express and Cheech and Chong

"its not like the tobacco companies sat in their boardrooms and manipulated the government into placing a ban on their advertising."
So when corporations lobby the government and shove money into Pacs they do it just to waste money? No, they use it as a means to an end. They can manipulate government because it is really big.
This is one of the reasons conservatives want to take away things like regulations and some want to make the government smaller so corporations can't manipulate government. Companies use the strength of the government to implement things like tariffs and taxes on foreign goods to reduce competition with outsiders.

The last thing a large corporation wants is competition and capitalism because it implies that they have to compete with others to provide goods cheaper and better. The banning of commercials was a mean to meet this end. Think.

Also why the does view count even matter? www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6GWm0GW7gk

This is an Noble prize winning Economist and it only has 550 views. Think
User avatar #360 - tie (04/09/2012) [-]
as it turns out im canadian and what is this? however i will say, everything you say is correct except in regards to the tobacco industry. im not disputing how economics work, im saying that the need to ban tobacco ads was based on its influence on people as a carcinogen, and therefore the FDA and government acted, it was simply also in the interest of tobacco companies to just switch advertising tactics instead. im not even talking about weed. im talking about the reason the ads were banned. it wasnt because the tobacco companies asked for it.
#183 - Utter nonsense The introduction of the Public Health …  [+] (8 new replies) 04/09/2012 on Marijuna Commercials 0
#231 - tie (04/09/2012) [-]
stfu? basically all you just said through something i bet you compy pasted was, Cigarette companies were banned by the government from advertising and they were OK with that because their advertising wasnt misleading kids into smoking but was trying to win over smokers from other brands? so thats why smoking rates increased so much with people and then declined after advertising was banned and the government campaigned against it? are you retarded?
User avatar #243 - reaganomix (04/09/2012) [-]
Are you retarded? Read the post I made before.

I am having a hard time understand what you are saying because it is so poorly written. The Cigarette companies were okay after the ban because they were not funneling so much money into TV commercials. Smoking rates did not take a massive hit because it was not their goal to bring in new smokers with TV adverts. Their goal was to make smokers choose their brand rather than their competitors. All the major cigarette companies would spend more and more money in hopes of canceling out the money of their competition.

Government didn't decrease decrease the amount of smokers today. Even thinking government can accomplish many things is folly. It was the general public that became aware that smoking was bad. Besides, what is more likely to make someone smoke? Some stupid commercial on TV or peer pressure.

If you don't choose the latter you are retarded
User avatar #252 - tie (04/09/2012) [-]
your problem is that you think the cigarette companies just mutually decided to stop advertising. that was stopped by the government. i have no love for government but people becoming aware that smoking was bad was not through word of mouth, it was done by government funded ads bringing awareness. Absolutely peer pressure was the cause on a case by case level, but social media (AND NOT JUST ONES FROM COMMERCIALS) but also endorsements in movies and celebrities shaped smoking as a societal norm. thats why baseball players got fined for chewing tobacco on television. because they were being payed by tobacco industries to do it. and thus influencing the kids who idolized them.
User avatar #264 - reaganomix (04/09/2012) [-]
www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsAeRwU6OJs
Listen to man, he smart, he make you smart.

"Also government funded ads" Citation needed
User avatar #353 - bmran (04/09/2012) [-]
i watch the video...
he said nothing about the companies going under because of over advertisement.
he simply described a situation that cancel the dominating strategies of both companies and forced them into a outcome that was somewhat beneficial for both of them.
the fact remains that you are still making out facts.
he even claim that if both companies use advertisement their profit will remain huge.
ps. i have a decent amount of knowledge about game theory so don't be so condescending.
User avatar #285 - tie (04/09/2012) [-]
you just sent me to a link with 3,000 views about a guy who has his degree in math and teaches computor sciences. besides you're being defensive. im not a stupid person, everything we've said so far lacks citations, including the video you just sent me to. the tobacco industries fought many lawsuits about advertising and when the FDA finally won and the ad ban was made, the tobacco industries merely just shifted tactics and advertised through other ways. (like movies and celebrity endorsements). its not like the tobacco companies sat in their boardrooms and manipulated the government into placing a ban on their advertising. Think.
User avatar #322 - reaganomix (04/09/2012) [-]
Citation - A quotation from or reference to a book, paper, or author, esp. in a scholarly work.

This whole thing has been about commercials and TV advertisements. Look at the content, it is not referring to celebrity endorsements or movies and it is talking about marijuana. There are already movies and actors that 'advertise' weed. Pineapple Express and Cheech and Chong

"its not like the tobacco companies sat in their boardrooms and manipulated the government into placing a ban on their advertising."
So when corporations lobby the government and shove money into Pacs they do it just to waste money? No, they use it as a means to an end. They can manipulate government because it is really big.
This is one of the reasons conservatives want to take away things like regulations and some want to make the government smaller so corporations can't manipulate government. Companies use the strength of the government to implement things like tariffs and taxes on foreign goods to reduce competition with outsiders.

The last thing a large corporation wants is competition and capitalism because it implies that they have to compete with others to provide goods cheaper and better. The banning of commercials was a mean to meet this end. Think.

Also why the does view count even matter? www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6GWm0GW7gk

This is an Noble prize winning Economist and it only has 550 views. Think
User avatar #360 - tie (04/09/2012) [-]
as it turns out im canadian and what is this? however i will say, everything you say is correct except in regards to the tobacco industry. im not disputing how economics work, im saying that the need to ban tobacco ads was based on its influence on people as a carcinogen, and therefore the FDA and government acted, it was simply also in the interest of tobacco companies to just switch advertising tactics instead. im not even talking about weed. im talking about the reason the ads were banned. it wasnt because the tobacco companies asked for it.
#166 - Look up Game Theory 04/09/2012 on Marijuna Commercials 0
#27 - Cigarette companies are not allowed to advertise to kids becau…  [+] (12 new replies) 04/09/2012 on Marijuna Commercials +4
User avatar #94 - deltadeltadelta (04/09/2012) [-]
That's complete nonsense. Cigarette companies were banned from advertising to prevent them from influencing the younger generation with their cancer sticks.
#183 - reaganomix (04/09/2012) [-]
Utter nonsense

The introduction of the Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act in 1970 to ban tobacco advertising cut the costs they would have been spending on advertising. As a result tobacco advertising is an often cited example in Economic Game Theory to demonstrate a practical application of the Prisoner's Dilemma. Companies were not effectively expanding the customer base by advertising on television so much as they were simply trying to attract higher portions of the market of already smoking customers.

We all know that smoking is bad, but what I said is completely true.
#231 - tie (04/09/2012) [-]
stfu? basically all you just said through something i bet you compy pasted was, Cigarette companies were banned by the government from advertising and they were OK with that because their advertising wasnt misleading kids into smoking but was trying to win over smokers from other brands? so thats why smoking rates increased so much with people and then declined after advertising was banned and the government campaigned against it? are you retarded?
User avatar #243 - reaganomix (04/09/2012) [-]
Are you retarded? Read the post I made before.

I am having a hard time understand what you are saying because it is so poorly written. The Cigarette companies were okay after the ban because they were not funneling so much money into TV commercials. Smoking rates did not take a massive hit because it was not their goal to bring in new smokers with TV adverts. Their goal was to make smokers choose their brand rather than their competitors. All the major cigarette companies would spend more and more money in hopes of canceling out the money of their competition.

Government didn't decrease decrease the amount of smokers today. Even thinking government can accomplish many things is folly. It was the general public that became aware that smoking was bad. Besides, what is more likely to make someone smoke? Some stupid commercial on TV or peer pressure.

If you don't choose the latter you are retarded
User avatar #252 - tie (04/09/2012) [-]
your problem is that you think the cigarette companies just mutually decided to stop advertising. that was stopped by the government. i have no love for government but people becoming aware that smoking was bad was not through word of mouth, it was done by government funded ads bringing awareness. Absolutely peer pressure was the cause on a case by case level, but social media (AND NOT JUST ONES FROM COMMERCIALS) but also endorsements in movies and celebrities shaped smoking as a societal norm. thats why baseball players got fined for chewing tobacco on television. because they were being payed by tobacco industries to do it. and thus influencing the kids who idolized them.
User avatar #264 - reaganomix (04/09/2012) [-]
www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsAeRwU6OJs
Listen to man, he smart, he make you smart.

"Also government funded ads" Citation needed
User avatar #353 - bmran (04/09/2012) [-]
i watch the video...
he said nothing about the companies going under because of over advertisement.
he simply described a situation that cancel the dominating strategies of both companies and forced them into a outcome that was somewhat beneficial for both of them.
the fact remains that you are still making out facts.
he even claim that if both companies use advertisement their profit will remain huge.
ps. i have a decent amount of knowledge about game theory so don't be so condescending.
User avatar #285 - tie (04/09/2012) [-]
you just sent me to a link with 3,000 views about a guy who has his degree in math and teaches computor sciences. besides you're being defensive. im not a stupid person, everything we've said so far lacks citations, including the video you just sent me to. the tobacco industries fought many lawsuits about advertising and when the FDA finally won and the ad ban was made, the tobacco industries merely just shifted tactics and advertised through other ways. (like movies and celebrity endorsements). its not like the tobacco companies sat in their boardrooms and manipulated the government into placing a ban on their advertising. Think.
User avatar #322 - reaganomix (04/09/2012) [-]
Citation - A quotation from or reference to a book, paper, or author, esp. in a scholarly work.

This whole thing has been about commercials and TV advertisements. Look at the content, it is not referring to celebrity endorsements or movies and it is talking about marijuana. There are already movies and actors that 'advertise' weed. Pineapple Express and Cheech and Chong

"its not like the tobacco companies sat in their boardrooms and manipulated the government into placing a ban on their advertising."
So when corporations lobby the government and shove money into Pacs they do it just to waste money? No, they use it as a means to an end. They can manipulate government because it is really big.
This is one of the reasons conservatives want to take away things like regulations and some want to make the government smaller so corporations can't manipulate government. Companies use the strength of the government to implement things like tariffs and taxes on foreign goods to reduce competition with outsiders.

The last thing a large corporation wants is competition and capitalism because it implies that they have to compete with others to provide goods cheaper and better. The banning of commercials was a mean to meet this end. Think.

Also why the does view count even matter? www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6GWm0GW7gk

This is an Noble prize winning Economist and it only has 550 views. Think
User avatar #360 - tie (04/09/2012) [-]
as it turns out im canadian and what is this? however i will say, everything you say is correct except in regards to the tobacco industry. im not disputing how economics work, im saying that the need to ban tobacco ads was based on its influence on people as a carcinogen, and therefore the FDA and government acted, it was simply also in the interest of tobacco companies to just switch advertising tactics instead. im not even talking about weed. im talking about the reason the ads were banned. it wasnt because the tobacco companies asked for it.
User avatar #43 - bmran (04/09/2012) [-]
by this logic every company who use advertisement would spend itself into the ground...
User avatar #166 - reaganomix (04/09/2012) [-]
Look up Game Theory
#465 - "I just made this" Dick move OP Dick move 04/08/2012 on Funnyjunk Logic 0
#3815575 - Interesting read  [+] (1 new reply) 04/08/2012 on FJ Pony Thread +1
#3815657 - zeruaargi (04/08/2012) [-]
I'm learning.....
#52 - Looks like a racing game to me, but I understand what you are … 04/08/2012 on PC 0
#209 - This is my corpse. There are many like it but this one is mine… 04/08/2012 on Funnyjunk Logic +52
#201 - Comment deleted 04/08/2012 on Funnyjunk Logic 0
#228 - Good read if you have the time.  [+] (1 new reply) 04/08/2012 on Annoying Facebook Girl +4
User avatar #259 - subaqueousreach (04/09/2012) [-]
That was indeed a good read.
#470 - This is true, it is not considered normal for people of the sa… 04/08/2012 on Pro Gay Marriage Comp +5
#107 - Picture 04/08/2012 on People 0
#73 - I wouldn't solely blame Obama. The only thing Obama did was li… 04/05/2012 on Rick Santorum +3
#57 - Picture 04/05/2012 on Rick Santorum +2
#627 - np =D 04/04/2012 on Love and Tolerance you say? +2
#8 - Picture 04/03/2012 on bad idea +5

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 (04/11/2012) [-]
Comment virginity taken my good man.
Comment virginity taken my good man.
 Friends (0)