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

hide menu

turdfurguson    

turdfurguson Avatar Level 139 Comments: Respected Member Of Famiry
Offline
Send mail to turdfurguson Block turdfurguson Invite turdfurguson to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: male
Date Signed Up:2/05/2010
Last Login:6/22/2014
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Content Thumbs: 114 total,  153 ,  39
Comment Thumbs: 391 total,  598 ,  207
Content Level Progress: 40% (4/10)
Level 11 Content: New Here → Level 12 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 10% (1/10)
Level 139 Comments: Respected Member Of Famiry → Level 140 Comments: Faptastic
Subscribers:0
Content Views:2029
Times Content Favorited:23 times
Total Comments Made:340
FJ Points:317

Show:
Sort by:
Order:

funny pictures

  • Views: 879
    Thumbs Up 17 Thumbs Down 1 Total: +16
    Comments: 5
    Favorites: 1
    Uploaded: 02/13/11
    wrong person wrong person
  • Views: 1074
    Thumbs Up 12 Thumbs Down 0 Total: +12
    Comments: 1
    Favorites: 2
    Uploaded: 02/15/11
    Autocorrect Autocorrect
  • Views: 589
    Thumbs Up 10 Thumbs Down 0 Total: +10
    Comments: 2
    Favorites: 0
    Uploaded: 07/12/10
    Super Cat Super Cat
  • Views: 914
    Thumbs Up 7 Thumbs Down 0 Total: +7
    Comments: 0
    Favorites: 0
    Uploaded: 02/13/11
    just a panda just a panda
  • Views: 588
    Thumbs Up 12 Thumbs Down 6 Total: +6
    Comments: 30
    Favorites: 0
    Uploaded: 01/19/12
    Nukes Nukes
  • Views: 695
    Thumbs Up 8 Thumbs Down 2 Total: +6
    Comments: 1
    Favorites: 0
    Uploaded: 08/12/10
    dont turn around dont turn around
1 2 > [ 7 Funny Pictures Total ]
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

funny gifs

  • Views: 2995
    Thumbs Up 54 Thumbs Down 16 Total: +38
    Comments: 12
    Favorites: 17
    Uploaded: 07/24/10
    super dog super dog
  • Views: 620
    Thumbs Up 9 Thumbs Down 1 Total: +8
    Comments: 1
    Favorites: 2
    Uploaded: 07/11/10
    robbery fail robbery fail
  • Views: 713
    Thumbs Up 8 Thumbs Down 2 Total: +6
    Comments: 3
    Favorites: 0
    Uploaded: 07/23/10
    Pwnd Pwnd

latest user's comments

#479 - why is texas counted as a country? (number 57)  [+] (1 new reply) 04/23/2013 on FJ Demographic - Complete! 0
#490 - SnacksJr (04/23/2013) [-]
BECAUSE WE ARE TEXANS

DEALWITHIT.JPG
#158 - why the hell does like every person in Russia have a camera on… 02/16/2013 on Armageddon 0
#9 - hey asshole that's my line 10/18/2012 on Sean Connery is God +3
#669 - Picture 07/26/2012 on Idiot +1
#267 - it was shot down by some critics though. 07/24/2012 on Batman Jokes +8
#69 - Anyone know where i can get some of this? I live in southern c…  [+] (1 new reply) 07/15/2012 on A Comrade's Drink 0
#74 - cRaZyWhItEbOi (07/15/2012) [-]
bevmo
#68 - Comment deleted 07/15/2012 on A Comrade's Drink 0
#3244 - What I think you're forgetting is that there are two political…  [+] (2 new replies) 07/06/2012 on Politics - politics news,... 0
#3287 - anonymous (07/07/2012) [-]
Socialism is left-wing both economically and socially.

Lol whut. Socialism is an ECONOMIC philosophy. You can get liberal socialism, conservative socialism, marxist socialism... Even Arab socialism, which is socialist in the economic sense but very socially conservative.

As for the left-wing politics he did in fact pursue; they led to millions of jobs being created and the revival of the worst economy hit by the post-war depression.

Not exactly. Women and minorities weren't counted, and the massive unprofitable public works programs helped to push the country further into debt. Hitler's massive military spending created many jobs, but they would only have been sustained if the new military ended up being put to work. Quite a few historians have suggested that if Germany hadn't gone to war, its economy would have crashed horribly.

his left-wing policies created jobs and created a booming economy.

Big businesses, like IGF, Krupp and Degussa were allowed to remain in private hands so long as they followed government directives (which weren't always profitable). Any private company unable to meed orders were nationalized, but the executives would not be prosecuted unless they refused to obey. Hugo Junkers is a good example. In order to keep profits up, many industrialists used slave labour in order to keep up with the planned economy, rather than lose their business. Both Stalin and Hitler used slave labour to benefit their economy, but I wouldn't exactly called that "successful".

Plain and simple, the nazi's right-wing policies caused the Holocaust

And which "right wing" policies were these? Euthanasia? Anti-Zionism? Soviet-style deportation? I betcha most of the policies that created the Holocaust could be found in most Communist states as well.
User avatar #3281 - techketzer (07/07/2012) [-]
I do not care what they say in the slightest, their actions and policies speak for themselves. If you take an ideologists words for face value, you'll be decieved as soon as he opens his mouth. You are apparently very guilty of that mistake.

And no, these are not two fields, it is one single large one, connected in the middle by the mechanism of government. Seriously, what do you even know?

tl;dr: The means of production in nationalsocialist Germany were in the hands of the state, solidly classifying it as a socialist nation.
"left-wing" and "right-wing" is nothing but smoke and mirrors.
#3173 - You anarcho-communist, comrade?  [+] (21 new replies) 07/06/2012 on Politics - politics news,... -2
User avatar #3202 - ginginhunter (07/06/2012) [-]
Aye , mate
#3272 - anonymous (07/07/2012) [-]
anarchy fucking blows!
User avatar #3229 - techketzer (07/06/2012) [-]
How can an anarchist society be communist?

And how can a communist society be anarchist?
User avatar #3246 - ginginhunter (07/06/2012) [-]
read Peter Kropotkins and Mikhail Bakunins books and theory , than we shall speak
User avatar #3282 - techketzer (07/07/2012) [-]
Are you not capable of a short, concise answer?

How can a society that is communist, therefore abolishes the rights of property, be without a ruler enforcing that abolishment against those who claim that right?
How can a society that has no ruler, no institution allowe to exact force and violence on the people successfully abolish the right of private ownership?

In short, what prevents the people from using their anarchic freedom to turn the system into a capitalistic one?
User avatar #3366 - ginginhunter (07/08/2012) [-]
If you really want an explantion , there im gonna give you one : Communism (Stalininsm) origianlly stole the idea from us the Anarcho Communists originally Anarchists but we were forced to change the name because of stalin and lenin and mainly the USSR and China , now to live like that is pretty simple , lets say the US is Anarcho-Communist now lets take NYC and divide it to Kommuns*, every Kommun take care of its own matters , like food , homage , you see and theres no money people are getting food for FREE according to how much they need.

people have the freedom do whatever they want to till the moment they harm someone elses freedom (rape , murder , theft , etc..) now if they commit such things , they will be judged in a local matter , all people of the Kommun are gathering and give suggestions of what to do with the person , now if one does not agree with someones suggestin they have to give a valid explanation why not to take such actions

another thing people dont understand is that if a man* doesnt have bread but he has something that another man with bread needs , he gives him the thing he needs and gets bread ,

of course , there would be no fear of an economic crisis because there will be no currency of any kind

Kommun: it is called like that in russin i dont know if is called like that in english

this explantion is reffering to both genders



is it enough?
#3421 - anonymous (07/08/2012) [-]
now lets take NYC and divide it to Kommuns*, every Kommun take care of its own matters , like food , homage , you see and theres no money people are getting food for FREE according to how much they need.

That's one of the most regressive ideas I've ever heard of. People move about all the time. Under such a system we'll revert back to uneducated, uncommunicative clans. Lets take football games, for example: Whenever a championship event takes place in a particular area there is a rapid influx of people. Sometimes, the population is temporarily doubled. Companies which have people all over the country see this as an opportunity for profit and growth, and build more appartments, hotels, what have you. Under a Communist system, what motive would "Kommuns" have for providing for such an drastic increase in the population?
User avatar #3422 - ginginhunter (07/08/2012) [-]
Simple , if there are people in need of homage , there will be builders that know how to build and will do it to help the others , plus there couldnt be any other lazy people because it works like : give out what you can, take what you need , if he will sit at home all day we wont have a choice not to help him yet again will be judged by the Kommun
#3424 - anonymous (07/08/2012) [-]
if there are people need of homage , there will be builders that know how to build and will do it to help the others

But jobs are determined by what people want and need. In the aforementioned situation, there is going to be a sudden (but temporary) demand for builders. That means, the only way to build enough homes would be to get more builders... but the only way to get more builders would be by raising the prices for construction to pay for higher wages... But if everyone is paid the same why would people want to be builders? Sure, builders at that moment might be vital, but why bother doing a more difficult job for someone you've never met? But under Communism, there is no money, therefore no prices or wages. Prices determine and solve the availability of resources (both raw, and labour). If you abolish prices, how will you be able to get enough resources to accommodate a rapid influx of people?

give out what you can, take what you need , if he will sit at home all day we wont have a choice not to help him yet again will be judged by the Kommun

That opens the doors to racism and discrimination. There are many people who would have their reasons to not work a particular job and/or at a particular time. For example, say there was a massive building project on a saturday. Many Jewish people would not work on that day because saturday's a day of rest, but if there is anti-semitism in the Kommun then anti-semites will have the power to not give Jewish people any food because they aren't working.

The Communist system is too regressive too utopian to ever come into practice.
User avatar #3425 - ginginhunter (07/08/2012) [-]
Utopian you say , than please someone explain me why did spain live like that before WW2? here in israel there is places that live like that ? , in Anarchism the religious people would have to put theyre religion abit aside in order for the Kommun to grow better , and be a better place to live in. Anon you are always mistaking Anarcho -Communism and Socialist -Communism , Human is a kind of being that always wants to live in better conditions (except Uber religious people ) and they allways struggle to live better , and the people that know how to build will go building . look, a man has the freedom to beilieve in what he wants to , till the moment it ends up with not doing anything , or harming someone else.

and to finish , Utopia is the path of the Right wing Anarcho-Capitalists, , you see , they will still have currency of some sort , and it will cause equality to be broken , now thats utopia , Peter Krapotkin , Nester Mahno , Mikhail Bakunin and many more anarchists thru history have proven that Anarcho-Communism is the best way , and far from being Utopia

Any questions?
#3426 - anonymous (07/08/2012) [-]
Anarchism the religious people would have to put theyre religion abit aside in order for the Kommun to grow better , and be a better place to live in

That's why I support a free society: Where I determine how I live based on my choices, not other people determining how I live based on their opinions. Living in a "Kommun" would lead to absolute tyranny.

they allways struggle to live better , and the people that know how to build will go building

But that's Capitalist doctrine. People who want to live better will become builders because builders are paid more, because there is more of a demand for builders. People who can build will build, people who can cook but want to build will learn. Under your system, they are paid the same and people who want to live better won't become builders because it won't benefit them, only immigrants, so the number of builders will stay the same and there won't be enough builders to construct more homes.

Utopia is the path of the Right wing Anarcho-Capitalists

I agree. We need a state to protect private property. Anarcho Capitalism will deteriorate into chaos.

Anarcho-Communism is the best way

Anarcho Communism is too primitive to be applied on a large scale. Sure, small groups could live as Communes (IE the Kibbutz in your country), but if applied to on a massive scale will lead to production levels dropping and therefore the poor getting poorer.

Utopian you say , than please someone explain me why did spain live like that before WW2?

I assume you mean the Second Spanish Republic, which was before WW2. The leaders of the left wing regime started the Spanish Civil war by creating such a backlash of conservative opposition. They took away the rights of Catholics, murdered priests and destroyed churches, so when the Spanish people elected Conservative figures the elections were shut down by the socialists.

Also, the reds used a capitalist system to get more resources for the war.

User avatar #3427 - ginginhunter (07/08/2012) [-]
That would be tyranny because no one is going to forcefully make him work , but if he doesnt work for no reason , helping the Kommun for no reason would that be fair ? huh ?
again , there would be no type of currency , the supplies would be divided to every family/man according to theyre needs , if a man wont work he would get food homage water and other things mandatory for a living , but others wont find it fair , and they will call for a judgment and they will think how to help the man find his place in the Kommun , and if hes lazy they will simply kick him out , it always worked like that , even without anarchism , and if a cook would like to be a builder , fine go be a builder , just give your part for the Kommun
#3428 - anonymous (07/08/2012) [-]
That would be tyranny because no one is going to forcefully make him work , but if he doesnt work for no reason , helping the Kommun for no reason would that be fair ?

But that's just it. Under Capitalism people can save resources by working hard, and be able to live later with out working, having done their part. If someone doesn't work for a while due to their religion, but the Kommun don't accept, then he's forced to change his personal life to conform to mainstream society. Liberal Capitalism appreciates innovation and liberates minorities, under a system dictated by the "Kommun" the minority can be enslaved to the majority, and are forced to conform.

the supplies would be divided to every family/man according to theyre needs , if a man wont work he would get food homage water and other things mandatory for a living

No, you're ignoring the main point. Under you system, if you need to build 2 apartment buildings to accommodate the visitors, but you only have enough builders for apartment building, how are you going to get more builders? Under capitalism, you offer higher pay, so more people will want to be builders.

if hes lazy they will simply kick him out , it always worked like that

Again, we've already developed from such a backward system. When we were tribal, we lived like that because it was small-scale. As the population grew the system had to change.

User avatar #3429 - ginginhunter (07/08/2012) [-]
from what ive read of your comments , ive learnt that you are an Uber rightish person and theres no point in arguing any further , ive explained all i could

im Out
#3430 - anonymous (07/08/2012) [-]
from what ive read of your comments , ive learnt that you are an Uber rightish person

I'm a centrist. I believe in a social welfare net, private control of the means of production and tolerance of all different cultures. From what I understand of your system, you'd seek to reverse all progress. I'd call you an extreme right-wing reactionary, because you want to go back to the days before people traveled.

theres no point in arguing any further

That's because you've come across a problem your ideal society can't fix, hence you've resorted to the childish tactic of saying You're a <noun>, therefore I won't argue with you (because I can't)

ive explained all i could

Yes, you have. I understand your ideology, but you haven't explained to me how people will fix a large-scale problem without financial incentive.
#3431 - ginginhunter (07/08/2012) [-]
The thing is anon , i dont fully understand the deep anarchist ideology , therefore im not capable of arguing when it comes to deeper questions , im not right wing at any cost , only because being Right wing is being coopertive to the state ,

listen im only 14 , i cant fully understand the ideology and argue with very deep questions , im considered a newbie in the anarchist organization
#3432 - anonymous (07/08/2012) [-]
therefore im not capable of arguing when it comes to deeper questions

But it's not a deep question, it's a simple economic issue that plagues every country. If a country needs more builders, they offer a higher price for construction so builders are paid more, and more people will want to become builders because that means that they will have more money and a better life.
Under Communism, everyone's paid the same so if the Kommun need more builders, nothing can be done because less people will want to be builders because they won't be paid more.

im not right wing at any cost , only because being Right wing is being coopertive to the state

Actually, right wing is opposition to change, left wing is support of it. Far left is revolution, far right is reaction (going back to the days where...). Before we had a large population, we lived in tribes or communes that didn't have money, or private property, and people didn't travel. But we developed. To want to go back to a system where we don't have money or a state will be going back to the days we progressed from: a reactionary idea and therefore, right wing.

listen im only 14 , i cant fully understand the ideology and argue with very deep questions , im considered a newbie in the anarchist organization

Well you're smart for a 14-year-old, I'll give you that.
User avatar #3433 - ginginhunter (07/08/2012) [-]
thank you anon , i guess not all anons are assholes
i had a very good argument with you , if you had an account id give you a thumb
User avatar #3367 - ginginhunter (07/08/2012) [-]
Suggestion*
Russian*

sny other questions will be answered
User avatar #3307 - szymonf (07/07/2012) [-]
it is based on mutual aid and voluntary occupation. It focuses on the need for LOCAL production and organisation that is self-sufficient.
peter kropotkin explains it quite well and defends all of his points thoroughly
User avatar #3245 - szymonf (07/06/2012) [-]
Peter Kropotkin...
look him up
#3172 - there is no similarity between marxist socialism and nazi soc…  [+] (4 new replies) 07/06/2012 on Politics - politics news,... -1
User avatar #3208 - techketzer (07/06/2012) [-]
They are identical.

Read the article I've linked.
User avatar #3244 - turdfurguson (07/06/2012) [-]
What I think you're forgetting is that there are two political fields by which you can judge an ideology: social and economic. There has never been any doubt (by anyone sane) that Nazism is far-right socially; obviously because they believe in inferior races and what not. Socialism is left-wing both economically and socially. What youre trying to say is the nazis were left-wing economically as well, even though both communists, socialists, and nazis themselves say is completely false.

I'll admit a few policies of his, such as governmental monitoring of economic affairs, leaned left, but the entire system was not marxian socialist. As for the left-wing politics he did in fact pursue; they led to millions of jobs being created and the revival of the worst economy hit by the post-war depression.

Plain and simple, the nazi's right-wing policies caused the Holocaust, while his left-wing policies created jobs and created a booming economy.



#3287 - anonymous (07/07/2012) [-]
Socialism is left-wing both economically and socially.

Lol whut. Socialism is an ECONOMIC philosophy. You can get liberal socialism, conservative socialism, marxist socialism... Even Arab socialism, which is socialist in the economic sense but very socially conservative.

As for the left-wing politics he did in fact pursue; they led to millions of jobs being created and the revival of the worst economy hit by the post-war depression.

Not exactly. Women and minorities weren't counted, and the massive unprofitable public works programs helped to push the country further into debt. Hitler's massive military spending created many jobs, but they would only have been sustained if the new military ended up being put to work. Quite a few historians have suggested that if Germany hadn't gone to war, its economy would have crashed horribly.

his left-wing policies created jobs and created a booming economy.

Big businesses, like IGF, Krupp and Degussa were allowed to remain in private hands so long as they followed government directives (which weren't always profitable). Any private company unable to meed orders were nationalized, but the executives would not be prosecuted unless they refused to obey. Hugo Junkers is a good example. In order to keep profits up, many industrialists used slave labour in order to keep up with the planned economy, rather than lose their business. Both Stalin and Hitler used slave labour to benefit their economy, but I wouldn't exactly called that "successful".

Plain and simple, the nazi's right-wing policies caused the Holocaust

And which "right wing" policies were these? Euthanasia? Anti-Zionism? Soviet-style deportation? I betcha most of the policies that created the Holocaust could be found in most Communist states as well.
User avatar #3281 - techketzer (07/07/2012) [-]
I do not care what they say in the slightest, their actions and policies speak for themselves. If you take an ideologists words for face value, you'll be decieved as soon as he opens his mouth. You are apparently very guilty of that mistake.

And no, these are not two fields, it is one single large one, connected in the middle by the mechanism of government. Seriously, what do you even know?

tl;dr: The means of production in nationalsocialist Germany were in the hands of the state, solidly classifying it as a socialist nation.
"left-wing" and "right-wing" is nothing but smoke and mirrors.
[ 333 Total ]

user's friends

smidet
   

Comments(0):

 

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
No comments!
 Friends (0)