this post was submitted on
1,145 points (53% like it)
8,743 up votes 7,598 down votes

funny

subscribe2,467,065 readers

6,673 users here now

PLEASE, No posts with their sole purpose being to communicate with another redditor. Click for an Example.


Welcome to r/Funny:

You may only post if you are funny.

Please No:

  • Screenshots of reddit comment threads. Post a link with context to /r/bestof or /r/defaultgems if from a default subreddit instead.

  • Posts for the specific point of it being your reddit birthday.

  • Politics - This includes the 2012 Presidential candidates or bills in congress.

  • Rage comics - Go to /fffffffuuuuuuuuuuuu instead.

  • Memes - Go to /r/AdviceAnimals or /r/Memes instead.

  • Demotivational posters - Go to /r/Demotivational instead.

  • Pictures of just text - Make a self post instead.

  • DAE posts - Go to /r/doesanybodyelse

  • eCards - the poll result was 55.02% in favor of removal. Please submit eCards to /r/ecards

  • URL shorteners - No link shorteners (or HugeURL) in either post links or comments. They will be deleted regardless of intent.

Rehosted webcomics will be removed. Please submit a link to the original comic's site and preferably an imgur link in the comments. Do not post a link to the comic image, it must be linked to the page of the comic. (*) (*)

Need more? Check out:

Still need more? See Reddit's best / worst and offensive joke collections (warning: some of those jokes are offensive / nsfw!).


Please DO NOT post personal information. This includes anything hosted on Facebook's servers, as they can be traced to the original account holder.


If your submission appears to be banned, please don't just delete it as that makes the filter hate you! Instead please send us a message with a link to the post. We'll unban it and it should get better. Please allow 10 minutes for the post to appear before messaging moderators


The moderators of /r/funny reserve the right to moderate posts and comments at their discretion, with regard to their perception of the suitability of said posts and comments for this subreddit. Thank you for your understanding.


CSS - BritishEnglishPolice ©2011

a community for

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own! learn more ›

top 200 commentsshow 500

[–]Ziggerton 1030 points1031 points ago

At least you stopped running to the right

[–]becausefahq[S] 13 points14 points ago

OP here, this is fan-god-damned tastic.

[–]bastard_thought 2 points3 points ago

OP here

Uh. Yes, it's clear.

[–]captainbozo 9 points10 points ago

God damn ytmnd

Haven't seen that in ages

[–]YourMusicalComment 8 points9 points ago

Hahahahaha you need to start doing this to more of my songs.

[–]John_um 5 points6 points ago

Best suggestion I've seen all day. I haven't done much today.

[–]yojay 2 points3 points ago

[–]Short_Amigo 1 point2 points ago

Seeing this, there should be a musical on Super Mario World displaying his epic adventure through the game with musical talent provided by YourMusicalComment.

[–]Ziggerton 130 points131 points ago

[–]g0tistt0t 21 points22 points ago

Holy shit. watch this gif while listening to the song. That was time well spent.

[–]blink_again_bitch 1 point2 points ago

Fucking ipad

[–]jannisjr 10 points11 points ago

Best. Novelty. Ever.

[–]Floofeh 2 points3 points ago

This is even better if you open several tabs of it at the same time.

[–]whats_chivalry 9 points10 points ago

I don't believe I met you yet. All I can say is that I enjoyed your work.

[–]WMDistraction 1 point2 points ago

I'm so glad I remembered to tag you. I wouldn't have clicked the link otherwise.

[–]fnargendargen 84 points85 points ago

bravo

[–]Killer_Killa_Tequila 3 points4 points ago

At least he didn't start going backwards...

[–]LordBahumat 17 points18 points ago

FLAWLESS VICTORY

[–]KCbizzy 5 points6 points ago

No possible way to one up this comment. I sat on the toilet for half an hour just staring at my screen

[–]MU_Ribflavin 152 points153 points ago

I think a lot of people on Reddit would find that they are conservative in certain aspects (shocking I know). It's almost impossible to say that you are truly completely conservative in all manners. Mainstream media likes to paint things black and white cause then it's just easier to point out the other side.

The truth is that most of our generation have different views pertaining to each individual issue. Like me personally I am extremely "liberal" when it comes to issues like religion and same sex marriage. On the other hand I'm much more conservative to monetary issues and believe you get what you work for and that the role of the government was never meant to bail anyone out.

I'm not saying that everyone feels the exact way I do, but I have talked to enough people of my generation to know that it's not as black and white that the republicans and democrats make it out to be.

[–]BloominFunyun 96 points97 points ago

I know that feel. I'm an atheist who is conservative. I'm a gun owner that supports gay rights. I'm weird.

[–]Tommer_man 61 points62 points ago

not really. Where I'm from there are plenty atheist gun-owners who endorse gay and reproductive rights. These lines are just constructs.

[–]ShapATAQ 14 points15 points ago

same boat here. Its called having your own normal views. Not rolling with the looney right, or getting sucked into the crazy left.

[–]UnfurledRelic 22 points23 points ago

OMG YOU CALLED THE LEFT CRAZY, YOU'RE A RACIST AND A HOMOPHOBE! OMG YOU CALLED THE RIGHT LOONEY, YOU'RE A COMMUNIST AND UNAMERICAN!

[–]ShapATAQ 5 points6 points ago

hahaha right?!!?!

[–]UnfurledRelic 7 points8 points ago

Insanity.

[–]Macz 19 points20 points ago

Yeah, well why don't you just pack up and go back to...wherever people like you are from.

[–]TheTVDB 54 points55 points ago

Texafornia.

[–]thebiggiewall 4 points5 points ago

Someone should get on a parody of Californication and call it Texafornication.

[–]aqualung09 16 points17 points ago

Narnia.

[–]BelugaTaquito 4 points5 points ago

Finland ought to do the trick.

[–]Veritasgear 1 point2 points ago

[–]kit_carlisle 2 points3 points ago

You are not alone!

[–]trollingconservative 2 points3 points ago

I think this really reflects a whole lot of conservatives. But this is a democracy so you have to appeal to the bottom feeding cousin fuckers to win elections.

[–]Epshot 5 points6 points ago

I'm pretty liberal, as well as most of my friends we all also fucking love guns! I really think its mostly the liberal politicians that have issues with guns, probably coming out of violence explosion from the 80's combined with police departments that want to disarm the general public and that its an easy wedge issue. At least was, as much as conservative politicians like to claim the democrats are just itching to take away everyone's guns, almost none have suggested it, in fact, the Democratic congress and Obama legalized concealed carry in national parks a couple years ago.

[–]Adria_Penguin 2 points3 points ago

Hell, I'm an atheist and I support gay and reproductive rights, and if it was legal here in Spain, I'd own a gun, just for the sake of it.

I mean, I don't see why it wouldn't be compatible.

[–]TheGreatSzalam 1 point2 points ago

I'm a gun owner who IS gay. :)

[–]CoolguyThePirate 1 point2 points ago

So, YOU are are my people. I've been looking for you.

[–]Andynym 7 points8 points ago

I'm also part of the common sense party

[–]Lpalani 2 points3 points ago

This needs to be a real party. Comprised of redditors capable of actual compromise, you know, like what we used to pride our politics on.

[–]DarkFlame7 6 points7 points ago

I think a lot of times someone will feel strongly liberal or conservative on some topics, then they feel compelled to have the same side in every way.

The best are the people who break this and simply believe what they believe.

[–]InsertName78XDD 36 points37 points ago

Libertarian

[–]aznscourge 23 points24 points ago

He never said he wasn't in favor of government regulation on businesses

[–]IIHURRlCANEII 2 points3 points ago

Are you my long lost brother?

[–]Macz 7 points8 points ago

I think you make a very valid point. I tend to lean liberal on most issues. However, I can understand the reasoning behind many fiscally conservative views, not that I agree with them, but I understand the logic. Conservative social issues are completely bewildering to me however.

[–]guynumberthree 29 points30 points ago

You're also white, male, and middle or upper-middle class. The government doesn't have to bail you out, your family and/or social standing have already done it.

Seriously, there are very few libertarians who grew up poor or otherwise significantly disadvantaged.

Edit: Rediquette. If you disagree, at least have the courtesy to argue. This guy made an objectively false statement ("You get what you work for") and I'm calling him out for it, without downvoting him. Have the decency to do the same.

[–]thelandsman55 26 points27 points ago

I grew up pretty wealthy but I walked passed some project buildings everyday on my way to school and I think this had a huge affect on me understanding how lucky I am and how unfair the world really is. I think if I'd never encountered real poverty I would never have been in favor of welfare, social programs etc, but poverty isn't just having less money, it's a social economic and psychological state that is extremely hard for people to break out of and which has a lot of people preying on those who can't. We should never reward failure, but by doing nothing for these people we would be punishing them and their children even though most of them were born into their state and did as much as most of us ever do to improve our quality of life just from a much lower starting point.

[–]ColumbineCatholic 30 points31 points ago

I was about to say this. I grew up really poor and I'm shocked by the "you get what you work for and that the role of the government was never meant to bail anyone out." school of thought I see on Reddit. Same with healthcare.

Then again, I think I'm pretty much a socialist at this point.

[–]guynumberthree 19 points20 points ago

I feel the same way. I'm definitely a social democrat. I'd love a libertarian system if everyone started from an equal starting point. However, that's not at all what happens, and thus I think the government has some role in trying to change things such that the maximum aggregate degree of opportunities exist for everyone.

[–]jasonlrush 1 point2 points ago

Wouldn't the system break in just one generation? I mean the children of the successful parents would start on unlevel playing ground, and then you would feel the need to level it again right?

[–]Beetlebum95 10 points11 points ago

Nothing wrong with socialism my friend, a lot of socialist programs have done quite well here in Europe. :)

[–]Ezyr 6 points7 points ago

I hold VERY libertarian views despite growing up under the poverty line. I identified as a Democrat until I actually got into the world and realized that it's not that difficult to work your way up. jm2c

Edit to responses: I am hispanic.

[–]ringfortheking99 1 point2 points ago

Most people are not able to break the cycle of poverty.

[–]MU_Ribflavin 10 points11 points ago

I upvoted you just so your reply wouldn't disappear as I totally agree that everyone has a right to their own opinion and I welcome yours.

To rebuttal your comment, I'm not saying that there shouldn't be something to help those that truly need help. My statement was that it's not the role of our government to do so. History lesson time! Grover Cleveland was president during a massive drought in Texas at that time (1887). A bill was proposed that would give Texan farmers in trouble $10,00.00 to be used to purchase seeds and other materials to help them out. Cleveland vetoed the bill and had this to say:

"I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution; and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadily resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the Government, the Government should not support the people.

The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood."

For those that need a translation, he basically said, "I can find nothing in the constitution that says this is something the government is responsible for. To do so is a abuse of power and could lead us down a slippery slope from which we will never recover. Federal assistance will only weaken what makes us as strong of a country that we currently are. Also, I believe what also makes us such a strong nation is that we don't need to ask the government for assistance and that our strong brother of nationality will help each other out in times of need such as this, only making us stronger."

By the way, local state and fellow US citizens ended up doing what he said and raised 10 times the amount of money that Texas was asking congress for. Cleveland (for being a very unpopular president sure knew what he was talking about) understood that it was a very bad road to go down to have the federal government start "handing out" help. He knew it needed to be on a city/state level and that the government didn't need to control power like that. Now, if your argument is based on federally funded social programs I'll be happy to debate. I just wanted to make sure we were on the same page before going further.

I wanted to reinforce my original comment and clarify slightly. I'm not opposed to helping others. I am against that help coming from the federal government.

Side note Yes I'm male, white and currently middle class. No, the government, my family or social standing hasn't bailed me out of anything. I've worked my ass off for what I've gotten in life. There are things I have sacrificed along the way to get there as well. Just clarifying that too.

[–]Catnips_Featherbeef 2 points3 points ago

I agree with what you've pointed out here. I know too many people who would rather complain about their circumstances than actually go out there and work to better themselves. People aren't born equal, but that doesn't mean you can't end up at a better place both socially and economically than where you started.

[–]guynumberthree 6 points7 points ago

It appears we have a general ideological disagreement. To clarify it before we go further, I'd like to ask two questions: 1) Did you earn everything you have? Before you answer, consider: If you had been born with essentially the same personality but poor, black, female, gay, and missing a leg because your mother drank while you were in the womb, would you have everything you have now? For simplicity's sake, do not consider the fact that your parents would not have encouraged you to seek an education, nor would you have seen many examples of people like you in the halls of power or even higher education to inspire you. Additionally, do not take into account the effect of the culture around this hypothetical you that would have denigrated any aspirations you had to seek education or betterment, or the many, many people who would have attempted to exploit your disadvantaged state.

And 2) Do you believe that private citizens really can and really will meet every need the federal government can?

I think the second question is honestly less important, because I suspect that our real disagreement is bigger-picture, and even more ideological in nature. I'm a young, white, male, heterosexual, college-educated, and employed individual raised in a wealthy family, and I realize that had I been born without any one of those advantages I would be in a dramatically sorrier state than I am now. I'm one of the laziest people I know, and yet thanks to family connections and the fact that people just believe me when I say things because of my education and whiteness/maleness, I have never been unemployed when I didn't want to be.

[–]MU_Ribflavin 5 points6 points ago

Thanks for the reply!

I would go even further to say that our disagreement isn't ideological, it's implementation.

To address your first question is a near impossibility and I think you know it. I'm not trying to sound like a jerk, but you compounded 7 hypotheticals into one instance and want a answer I simply cannot give. Would I like to think I could be in the same place as I am now? Sure. Do I know for a fact that I would be? No. It's a question that's not bound to any objectivity and is complete opinion. No answer is correct. If I say yes, I'm called out for being ignorant and "never walk in someones shoes" response. If I say no, I get told, "See, that's why I'm right". It's a trap question.

Keep in mind you are bringing social issues into account that have no bearing on what I'm talking about and shouldn't (even through you're telling me not to consider them). It's not the government's job to make parents "encourage" their kids to make a better life for themselves. That's simply being a responsible parent (which is another topic all together).

To your second question, you're damn right I think private citizens can not only meet the needs, but do a better job at it. If anything we have learned in the last 20 years, it's that our government knows how to waste money and just run things terribly. Lobbyist with their own agenda, politicians that want to get reelected so they push for bills and spending that make their constituents happy all lead to what we have today in Washington.

Here's where the differences really are (again, catch me if I'm wrong) You think everyone should get the exact same opportunities at life...and I say that's socialism. Our county is great because you can be a poor kid that grew up with a rough life but made a success out of yourself. Was it as easy as the silver spoon kid? Hell no. You had to work a hell of a lot harder to get there...but that's life. Life isn't fair.

[–]Jonnism 1 point2 points ago

You say you had a well-to-do up-bringing and worked your ass off, but that only means that those that have grown up in poverty have to work multiple times harder than you. It's discouraging, to say the least. Unfortunately, money talks too much in this country. Where are all of the privately funded programs NOT associated with a religion that will send impoverished children to college? Most of the time, it's the government they have to turn to and even then it's not enough. We'd rather allocate the money sending soldiers over to the third world than educate our youth. That's what gets me. I find it quite shameful.

[–]coolcool23 1 point2 points ago

Our political views seem to line up fairly well.

[–]Spartyon 1 point2 points ago

Fiscal conservative, social liberal.

[–]tnova 1 point2 points ago

That's the problem though, you're really only given black and white options. Even though I have some conservative economic ideas I would never want to identify as conservative because of all the crazy religious bullshit.

[–]rcktkng 1 point2 points ago

I've found (in my experience) that most people are socially liberals, but fiscally conservative. When you're young social life matters more, so you call yourself a liberal, but as you age your financial status matters more...and then you vote more conservatively. Just my experience at least.

[–]slawdawg 1 point2 points ago

I want to run for president on this campaign. I'm going to call it "not being a douche"

[–]hastalapasta666 6 points7 points ago

I am this completely. Lots of ignorant people (and quite a bit of redditors) tend to judge Conservative vs. Liberal on the gay marriage debate and abortion, which is completely and utterly wrong on so many levels.

1) "Conservative" and "Republican" are not synonymous with Bible-thumping bigot. According to a lot of r/worldnews and r/politics posts, however, this is apparently not the case.

2) Just because you are Conservative or Republican doesn't mean you are against gay marriage and abortion.

3) Gay marriage and abortion aren't even the issues right now. The issues in America, at least, are money and what we should do with it and the economy. And in those issues are where my views are quite right-wing.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points ago

3) Gay marriage and abortion aren't even the issues right now.

I would say those are 2 pretty big issues in the U.S.

[–]lostboyz 6 points7 points ago

Not that they aren't important, they most definitely are, they affect orders of magnitude less people. They just happen to be social issues that more people can relate to rather than foriegn relations and economic policy.

[–]TomSwirly 4 points5 points ago

These are fake issues that the political parties put up to distract you from the real issues - the endless wars, the looting of the Treasury by Wall Street, the surveillance state, the war on drugs, the claim that the President is above the law, the global financial crisis and the rights of the 1% over the 99%. There is no light between the two parties on any of these issues, so they simply don't bother to discuss them.

Consider what push and pull we've had between left and right in the last ten years. Now consider that the laws on abortion haven't significantly changed in thirty years.

As for gay rights, we aren't there yet, but it's been steady improvement - soon no one will care. Even right now, consider that openly gay males star in children's films and no one cares or even comments.

Again, these are just there to distract you from the real issues - the ones that both parties agree on. And even though the parties disagree on these token issues, there won't be actual change on them - because if there is no change, both sides can keep using them as rallying points forever...!

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

Still, I wouldn't say these issues are "fake" but I do see your point.

[–]UncleTogie 3 points4 points ago

I can understand that. I phrase it as "being a fiscal conservative, and a social liberal"...

[–]DesolationRow 20 points21 points ago

That is exactly how i feel being an Italian in a dungeon ...

[–][deleted] 28 points29 points ago

Conservative has become a euphemism for Glenn Beck/Rush Limbaugh/Sean Hannity/Bill O'Reilly zombie in many people's minds. That's your problem.

[–]GymIn26Minutes 7 points8 points ago

They are the most vocal of the conservatives, and more importantly the "moderate" conservatives do not disavow them.

Not only do they not disavow the crazies, they support politicians who follow the crazy script to a t. For example: Michelle Bachmann was strongly endorsed by republicans and conservative pundits nation wide for quite some time.

[–]chairmanmauer 4 points5 points ago

In all fairness the reason moderate conservatives don't disavow the crazies is because whether they like it or not - that's part of their electorate. Imagine what the Tea Party would do to them if they did? Its all about getting elected & GOP candidates need to pull in those psycho's votes.

At least until a sufficient portion of the party finds a path to elect-ability by openly running as fiscal conservative-social liberals.. which is what I hope for everyday. (I would vote my ass off for that party)

[–]GymIn26Minutes 1 point2 points ago

Its all about getting elected & GOP candidates need to pull in those psycho's votes.

That is exactly my point, rather than stand up for their values and lose during one election cycle (which may not even happen given that they may be able to re-attract all the moderates who have been scared away from the GOP by the crazies), they choose to support increasingly crazy and extreme politicians and policies.

By doing that, they are effectively saying that they value "beating the other guy" more than they value actually improving the nation. How can you muster even a smidge of respect for a party (or a politician) who behaves that way? If they are freely letting their party be hijacked by extremists, they are every bit as responsible for the problems as the extremists are.

[–]ezio420 7 points8 points ago

True. My dad watches fox news 24/7. Seriously, morning to night. I have to constantly remind myself that not all conservatives are horrible people. Fox has ruined peoples minds. MSNBC is shitty but fox takes the cake. Stay far away from any 24/7 news services. Speaking from hundreds of hours of Fox News, that shit is pure propaganda.

[–]ScottCarmichael 1 point2 points ago

Fox has ruined peoples minds.

To be fair, is there ANOTHER channel out there for anti-liberal viewpoints?

Fox News is only big because they are the only game in town, not because so many people love them.

I used to think CNN was pretty balanced, but they are pretty liberal in their coverage, guests, topics, etc. - Does that make them a bad network? No....but there's no real "center to not-crazy-right" channel to watch.

[–]pilotwings_64 12 points13 points ago

And liberalism on reddit screams pot-smoking, neckbearded male, between the ages of 22 and 35. Additionally this neckbeard may or may not actually work for a living, and yet he still remains seated behind a computer screen for 8+ hours a day.

[–]enchantrem 2 points3 points ago

.... I take offense to that. My employer pays me fairly well to sit behind a computer; how is that not valuable work?

[–]pilotwings_64 2 points3 points ago

No offense intended, I was referring to unemployed persons who sit behind their computer screens staring at photos of kittens, not people who use a computer for work. In either event I wasn't making a serious criticism, sorry for the confusion.

[–]Solkre 355 points356 points ago

There is nothing wrong with conservatism. It's obvious the GOP has been hijacked by crazies.

[–]taypuc31 239 points240 points ago

BTW, Conservatives are not the same as Republicans. Just as Liberals are not the same as Democrats. That's why we have plenty of liberal republicans and conservative democrats in the house.

[–]Kujo_A2 261 points262 points ago

This would be great if people didn't vote on party lines.

[–]UnoriginalMike 162 points163 points ago

I think you just broke politics

[–]like9mexicans 15 points16 points ago

I have been petitioning this for literally years. Party line voting should be done away with completely. As a Conservative, I don't agree with and will not vote for every Republican candidate on the ballot -- I don't think anyone with common sense can take a look at a ballot and agree with every politician on one side of the card.

Sense common sense cannot be fixed, we need to take the option away. Vote for a candidate you agree with or at least close to agree with. You shouldn't be able to press a button and vote for every candidate for one party or the other.

[–]ITworksGuys 12 points13 points ago

I have tried to do that.

As I read down the list and see some of the Repubs running I think "Shit, this guy is awful"

Then I look at the Dem side and think "Well shit, this guy is worse."

I typically vote the party line whether I mean to or not.

[–]oldrinb 29 points30 points ago

To be fair, what the fuck else is the point of a political party?

[–]t_j_k 73 points74 points ago

To make it easier to group and label ideas. Because fuck actually thinking, amirite?

[–]msterB 70 points71 points ago

To organize [money].

[–]paraprosDOPEan 12 points13 points ago

upvote due to factuallity. The only real purpose of political parties is to organize money. anything positive that's come out of political parties is an incidental biproduct.

[–]libertyfrog 17 points18 points ago

Yes that is the point. Even if you took parties out of politics, people would still label and group politicians. It is what people do.

If every local/state/and federal candidate had to re-explain their positions on every issue that would take up a tremendous amount of time.

People would just start labeling and grouping them to make it easier to "narrow down" candidates. IE "do they believe in restricting abortion?", "do they believe in evolution?" etc....

People will also start to realize that they have a certain set of core values and beliefs that thousands or millions of others have as well. They will form some kind of label for their collective beliefs and then essentially indirectly and directly lobby politicians.

Because of party labels I can assume that Mitt Romney is for less industry regulations and that Obama is willing to regulate industries.

I think the main problem is our two party system in America. Our system of voting, single-member district plurality, is literally designed through its set-up to punish 3rd party candidates and their voters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurality_voting_system#Disadvantages

Edit: My point is not that it wouldn't be better if everyone though for themselves but that it is very damn hard to change human nature. There is hardly no aspects of our life that humans don't have a label or group for and that labeling and grouping have a purpose.

[–]UncleTogie 7 points8 points ago

If every local/state/and federal candidate had to re-explain their positions on every issue that would take up a tremendous amount of time.

...and y'know what? I'm just fine with that. Our love of 15-second sound bites is part of the problem.

The jackasses in Congress have a lot to answer for. It'd be nice to see 'em squirm.

[–]sociomaladaptivist 9 points10 points ago

To convince the peasants that other peasants are the enemy, not the lords.

[–]LurkingAround 1 point2 points ago

To reach the crotch of the person next to you and jerk off while the guy on your other side jerks you off. To do all of this while sitting in a big circle.

[–]ScottCarmichael 1 point2 points ago

If only there was a name for this behavior...

[–]nothingpersnal 2 points3 points ago

Register Independent

[–]WhiskeyandWine 4 points5 points ago

But, if we didn't align ourselves with a party - then we would have to think for ourselves...

[–]mamamaMONSTERJAMMM 1 point2 points ago

Both parties want you so far in their camp, you cant even see the fence. let alone be on it.

[–]Preheat 26 points27 points ago

This. A Conservative would never want the government to regulate the internet more.

[–]Ariese 14 points15 points ago

Only a sith Fox News employee deals in absolutes.

... Wait, shit.

[–]Bama011 10 points11 points ago

He's a sith! Get him!

[–]thirdfounder 7 points8 points ago

a libertarian would never want the government to regulate the internet more.

a conservative would see the internet as a dangerous novelty in social dynamics that has some potential to destabilize society by introducing immoderate change, and would see that as ample reason to restrict its use among the plebs severely for the time being.

EDIT: and a bourgeois capitalist would see the internet as a means of providing services and facilitating trade which could be especially profitable if laws regarding it favored their business model, particularly if those same laws worked to the disadvantage of others -- meaning he would want it regulated, but only in a way tailored to suit his profitability.

the GOP is such an interesting amalgamation of competing and often contradictory interest groups.

[–][deleted] 16 points17 points ago

Hmm. A lot of you 'Merican Redditors haven't quite seen the light of politics yet and, though I get my daily fill of cute cats from here, Reddit is chock full of yippee 'libertarians' who don't really understand the true ideals of political conservatism.

One of the most poignant ideals of modern day conservatism is 'small government', AKA low/no regulation, both social and monetary. The less direct and unnecessary control a government has on its people and their businesses, the more the trust between government and people can be developed and the more democratic the nation can be. Think anti-Stalinism. Therefore true conservatives would NOT see the internet as a dangerous novelty in social dynamics (btw 10/10 for incredible, lefty verbal diarrhoea) mainly because they would not want to regulate people's access to such an amazing wealth of knowledge, but also, and if for no other reason, because it gives billions of people around the world the opportunity to get ahead in the world, through jobs, setting up businesses, making money and so on.

I can't speak for the US brand of GOP conservatism. They have many things in common with our British Conservative Party, but in many other ways they've gone completely off the reserve.

[–]F22Rapture 3 points4 points ago

Actually, that's not conservatism, that's classical liberalism. Conservatism is adherence to slow change as opposed to rapid change. This naturally works better with a less powerful government, however, conservatism itself has nothing to do with the power or size of government.

(Note that all of this is in the 'technical' sense. Nowadays people seem to conflate conservative with small government even though that's not really the case.)

[–]nullsucks 5 points6 points ago

liberal republicans ... in the house

Name 5 "liberal" elected Republicans.

[–]mundane1 11 points12 points ago

Where have all the liberal republicans gone? :(

[–]Cforq 11 points12 points ago

In the swing states. They normally vote republican in local elections and democrat in the national elections.

[–]mundane1 3 points4 points ago

I was referring to the ones in Congress but yes I agree with your statement regarding national vs local voting. I seem to see that as well.

[–]JoshSN 17 points18 points ago

There are no Republicans to the left of the rightmost Democrat. The reverse is, by definition, also true.

Here is the 109th Congress. I know it is a bit old, but the two newer reports by the same group don't show the D/R, so you can't see that there is no overlap.

There used to be liberal Republicans, and some crazily conservative Democrats (Southerners who didn't switch parties after 1964)

[–]Kalium 8 points9 points ago

There are still some fairly conservative Democrats. They're called the Blue Dogs. What's happened in the Tea Party went RINO hunting... and was very successful.

[–]JoshSN 3 points4 points ago

They [the Blue Dogs] are more conservative than the rest of the Democrats, just as there are groups of relatively conservative Republicans (the Republican Liberty Caucus, iirc) and relatively liberal Republicans (the Tuesday Group), but they are all more conservative than the most conservative Democrat (is it still Gene Taylor of Mississippi?)

[–]Kalium 9 points10 points ago

The liberal Republicans have been under pretty aggressive attack for quite some time now. I'm not sure there are any left.

[–]TopographicOceans 1 point2 points ago

Exactly. Now there are conservative Republicans and extremely conservative Republicans.

[–]StezzerLolz 6 points7 points ago

No, you have conservative democrats and conservative republicans. American politics is varying shades of grey...

[–]CompoundClover 13 points14 points ago

I have a theory that everything everywhere has been hijacked by crazies.

[–]enchantrem 5 points6 points ago

They just happen to be louder and more insistent than everyone else.

[–]gentlemandinosaur 2 points3 points ago

Bravo. Someone gets it.

[–]gentlemandinosaur 1 point2 points ago

I don't see why its not easy to see why?

It makes people talk about you. Makes you more money. May not win you the presidential candidacy. But, you make money on the way there.

The squeaky wheel gets the most grease. Look at how we watch TV and who is famous. Its obvious why the "crazies" are there. The people with the loudest voice are listened to first. Its tactics.

And brilliant one at that. Sadly.

Until humans stop being creatures of emotion and turn to logic it will continue this way.

[–]Gigathulu 8 points9 points ago

I am fiscally conservative. That actually puts me more solidly in the democratic camp though. If you're socially conservative that just means you hate change. Fair enough I suppose.

[–]vitojohn 4 points5 points ago

There's nothing wrong with economical conservatism, there is something wrong with many aspects of social conservatism. For example, I don't care if they don't like gays, they're human beings and get the same rights as us straight folk. It's not "okay" to think they deserve less even if it is "just their opinion".

[–]a216vcti 39 points40 points ago

It's kind of like a liberal on a gun forum. :( I think it's a good to have these two extremes. They balance each other out.

[–]sharthappens 99 points100 points ago

I'm a liberal an love guns. I just hate idiots with guns.

[–]BeenJamminMon 39 points40 points ago

No. You, like me, just hate idiots.

[–]BrainInAJar 22 points23 points ago

hate them enough, to kill, Kyle?

[–]NotSarcasticNooo 4 points5 points ago

Nooo!

[–]TheInternetHivemind 2 points3 points ago

With a burning passion.

[–]wegotpancakes 1 point2 points ago

Nah he specifically hates the ones who don't have guns. It's very arbitrary.

[–]stacecom 5 points6 points ago

I'm a left-leaning kinda guy, but people who like guns make me nervous.

I'm pro second amendment, just scared shitless of the people who exercise that right so enthusiastically.

[–]sharthappens 4 points5 points ago

I don't have a conceal and carry, and I can't stand people who have a mega raging hardon for it. I hunt and I occasionally target shoot. People that rave over them are a little off.

[–]miketdavis 10 points11 points ago

No, the two extremes aren't good. I'd say a good 80-90% of America is composed of moderates who lie somewhere between the far right and far left that we see in the media. Unfortunately both parties have chosen divisive moral imperitives to split us into two different groups, one against the other.

[–]oldrinb 14 points15 points ago

There's far left in the US media?

[–]TheTVDB 3 points4 points ago

There's far left in the US, but it's a very small group compared to the more moderate left. The US has people that span the full spectrum, as I'm sure most countries do.

[–]10tothe24th 8 points9 points ago

Here's something I just don't understand: why do conservatives still call themselves conservatives? I mean, conservative used to imply a certain level of personal, fiscal, social, and even geopolitical reservation. It doesn't mean that anymore. Modern-day conservatives are absolute radicals, dipping their fingers into everything, from people's bedrooms to their pocketbooks to the affairs of states on the other side of the planet.

That is the face of conservatism today.

Now, I realize that many conservatives don't agree with those policies... but why call yourself conservatives then?

"Oh, well I'm a fiscal conservative. I'm not like those hawk conservatives or social conservatives."

Fair enough. But again, why associate with them? Why even give the impression that you might be on the side of the Dick Cheneys, the Sarah Palins, or the Rick Santorums of the world?

I think this is why people are uncomfortable with conservatives in places like Reddit. Because those are the voices of the conservative movement. The Tea Party and the Republican Party are the voices of conservatism, and I hear barely a whisper of dissent from fellow conservatives... meanwhile the Democratic Party, the Occupy Movement, and various independent liberals are a comparative maelstrom of debate and disagreement... which makes me think that conservatives are actually, if only tacitly, supportive of the kind of insane social and military proposals that their advocates are making.

This isn't a question for the OP, because for all I know they're a conservative in every sense of the word, and those giant swinging balls of death are called "Truth", "Conscience", and "Karma", respectively. It's directed at the many Redditors who I frequently see in posts like this, declaring their conservative-with-the-following-exceptions allegiance.

[–]PatrickRand 7 points8 points ago

If you can defend your views with facts, you should be alright.

[–]4funsies 95 points96 points ago

The title could also be: "As a conservative who goes to college."

Even in the very conservative state that I live in where probably half of the students are conservative, I still don't feel comfortable about being open with my political beliefs. Not that I'm ashamed, I just don't feel like fighting every day and being scoffed at.

[–]Articunozard 50 points51 points ago

I'm completely open about my political beliefs because I feel like I can hold my own in a political discussion. That being said, I'm never the first one to bring up politics around any of my liberal friends simply because there are fundamental idealogical differences upon which we will never agree. I accept this fact because it changes nothing about our friendship if they do not let it.

[–]4funsies 27 points28 points ago

It's not that I can't hold my own either, it's just that like you said, they will never change their minds and like I mentioned, I'm not a fan of needless confrontation. If I'm brought into a political discussion, I'm more that happy to rebut the talking points I hear all day long, but I'm certainly not goIng to begin the conversation.

Tl:dr I agree with what you just said.

[–]hurler_jones 6 points7 points ago

I have to ask, is it fair for the other side to expect you to change your mind from a political discussion?

what you described is not a discussion but a conversion and before you even get started .... oh never mind.

[–]4funsies 10 points11 points ago

I believe it's totally fair to expect someone to change their mind if they have been proven wrong. This goes for both sides. If you can prove me wrong with logic and facts, not rhetoric, I'll be more than happy to change my opinion. My alliance is to reason, not party. The problem is, nobody likes to be wrong. So even when they know they are, they'll move the goal back to justify their misconceptions.

[–]cheapasfree24 9 points10 points ago

Logic and facts are part of rhetoric. In fact, if someone changes your mind it is probably because they used sound rhetoric. Rhetoric is not inherently tricky or manipulative, it is a tool used for argumentation.

[–]hurler_jones 3 points4 points ago

Well that is refreshing to hear. I would just caution not to enter the discussion with any assumptions other than a discussion is to be had. It makes it easier for everyone but alas, you can't make someone do what you want (within reason)

[–]4funsies 6 points7 points ago

Agreed. Also, it's not exactly wise to enter a conversation thinking that what you know is the 100% truth. Some facts are distorted and cooked. There's usually always another side to the story that people don't hear.

[–]hurler_jones 2 points3 points ago

I always say 3 sides to every story, my side, your side and the truth.

[–]4funsies 2 points3 points ago

Good point. There's usually a variable that both parties are missing or at least neglecting.

[–]roman_knights 1 point2 points ago

I've never met an adult who has changed their opinion about something in politics that they've believed in for years. They'll just tune you out and think that their way is the best way and the other side is stupid for thinking that way.

[–]why_not_agnosticism 1 point2 points ago

The sucky thing for me is I get into a conversation with somebody either to the left or the right, and then out come the talking points. People think of those things as gospel. I used to work for a Fortune 500 company for a while, and they actually sent employees monthly talking points to use in conversations. We're all isolated in these super specific bubbles, and we're uncomfortable talking to people outside of our bubble to form consensus.

I think that for too many people political discussion is about seeing if they can win an argument, not about seeing what the best path for the country is so that we can work together to accomplish it. It's like putting a Cubs fan and a White Sox fan in a room and seeing if they can decide who the best team is. Logic doesn't even enter into it. They've chosen their team, and the best you can hope for consensus is that there's a fist fight and one of them knocks the other one out.

[–]pyrocompulsive 2 points3 points ago

i went to Rutgers here in NJ. as a conservative, that was a damn good time arguing =)

[–]Dunkelz 4 points5 points ago

I am actually very pleased at how open minded a lot of reddit is on the whole right to bear arms. At first I was afraid that I'd get called a paranoid loony who only wants to shoot up baby hospitals just because I believe that people should have to right to own firearms and protect themselves if they are deemed responsible enough.

[–]mtmichael 3 points4 points ago

this works for a conservative in academia too

[–]AceConnors 3 points4 points ago

Being an actual conservative on reddit I learn it is just so much easier if i just don't say anything. Makes everybody happier

[–]LordSnuffykins 2 points3 points ago

Being a true Scottsman I wear a kilt and play the bagpipes.

[–]jvbites 28 points29 points ago

if reddit were your parents, upon seeing this post:

"have you tried...not...being a conservative??"

[–]Libertae 14 points15 points ago

"Mom...Dad...I'm just going to come out and say this. I'm a conservative."

[–]Macz 16 points17 points ago

I heard an interview with a lesbian Republican that was running for some office in San Diego and she said it was much harder for her to tell her parents that she was a Republican than gay.

[–]Stenzy 24 points25 points ago

Don't worry, you are not alone!

[–]Self-Defenestration 4 points5 points ago

Michael Jackson was right.

[–]Macz 1 point2 points ago

I cringe at every MJ "You are not Alone" reference just because of the video.

[–]RuneOclave 2 points3 points ago

The post was funny, but I think you've sparked a debate that makes me look at the /r/funny page and say "Hey, you got a little politics in my funny." Sorry if it's in German.

[–]DTX180 2 points3 points ago

not even the hardest level in super mario world......

[–]gentlemandinosaur 2 points3 points ago

Social or Financial?

Because I FEEL that if you took away the social issues... a lot of redditors would consider themselves conservatives as well.

EDIT: I guess I should have said "Fiscal" not Financial, no?

[–]ToLongDR 6 points7 points ago

I'm just fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

You can't compare apples and oranges but if you focus on one over the other for too long, this country will suffer.

[–]Skexin 30 points31 points ago

I feel your pain. Know that you are not alone, though it is probably a good idea to keep our heads down...lol

[–]4funsies 12 points13 points ago

Unless you don't care about thumbs... It's unfortunate that we have to keep our heads down when we're around liberals unless we want a confrontation.

[–]why_not_agnosticism 7 points8 points ago

To be fair, it works both ways. I was out with my extended family last weekend in Wisconsin and the Walker recall came up. Despite the fact that my dad and I are both known liberals, there was open discussion of how "fucking stupid" the liberals were, and that we were "unpatriotic" for supporting the recall. I had the same atmosphere in one of my last jobs, and my immediate supervisor made it known that he passed over me for a promotion because I was a liberal.

Reddit skews liberal, but there are plenty of times that this complaint cuts both ways. Both of those ways are pretty shitty.

[–]egamer01 18 points19 points ago

As long as your a rational conservative you will have no problems from rational liberals. Everyone else is a waste of time and should be ignored.

[–]4funsies 9 points10 points ago

Agreed. The problem comes one one's "rational" isn't the same as another's. Even a rational arguement usually ignites a heated debate when it comes to politics.

[–]crullah 2 points3 points ago

I've come to realize that anything can ignite a heated debate on the internet, regardless of subject. Read far enough down the comments of any forum or news site and it's pretty much inevitable. There will always be people to discuss things rationally but far more just want to voice their opinion in a vacuum and either scream down or ignore counter-opinions. Half the time the subject matter of the post is nothing more than a vehicle for the argument, being sparked from some minutiae or tangential response.

[–]armauld 3 points4 points ago

That's the same way most minorities feel living in America.

[–]thenewwazoo 9 points10 points ago

It's funny because the swinging spiky balls are logic.

[–]AlphaHotel_94 2 points3 points ago

Fiscal, or social? I'm just curious.

[–]PullOutBoy 7 points8 points ago

I'm a conservative atheist. I know that feeling!

[–]Tommer_man 3 points4 points ago

I've always wondered, what exactly IS conservatism? Because there are a decent amount of Libertarians that consider themselves conservatives when the idea seems inherently social.

[–]Kalium 12 points13 points ago

It means a lot of different things, depending on who you talk to. It can mean "small government", "less government in areas I care about", "government small enough to fit into your bedroom", or "the haunting feeling that the 1950s were a golden age" depending on who you ask.

In practice, it's an unholy combination of a few well-meaning libertarians, power-hungry neocons, and the evangelicals the neocons used to get to power. At this point, it's mostly the evangelicals.

[–]willscy 4 points5 points ago

I wish the Evangelicals weren't so damn crazy.... I hate having them in my party.

[–]Kalium 9 points10 points ago

Too late, friend. They're not in your party anymore. That changed almost thirty years ago. It's their party now. They run the show now. You're just along for the ride.

[–]asielen 2 points3 points ago

It is their party now.

[–]jellytime 1 point2 points ago

I'm sure there is a combination to get past those deadly contraptions.

[–]this_is_a_recording0 1 point2 points ago

that got me so horny to play that game

[–]rasonj 1 point2 points ago

If you are fiscally conservative, you really aren't alone here bro. It is the social conservatives that are not well received.

[–]ThatOneNuge 2 points3 points ago

Eh, not so. All of my small-government comments have been pretty much downvoted into oblivion.

[–]Carbon13 1 point2 points ago

[–]donumabdeo 1 point2 points ago

"conservative". conservatives used to not have a problem with drugs. they liked coke in their coca cola. that's what a real conservative is. Though I'm with you on the against homosexuality thing.

[–]redhawkxx 1 point2 points ago

I feel ya brutha

[–]grinr 1 point2 points ago

I lolled for truth.

[–]mcrmarine 1 point2 points ago

There are a lot of liberals on here.

[–]christopherawesome 1 point2 points ago

ITT: people arguing over the difference of definition between traditional conservativism and current day American conservativism.

[–]qwertyvibe 1 point2 points ago

At least you know your role

[–]arbitrary516 1 point2 points ago

[–]bored0087 1 point2 points ago

He moves at one point, I SWEAR! Just keep watching ....

[–]bgf97 5 points6 points ago

[–]Ragark 1 point2 points ago

I want something like that, although a gear encircling the hammer rather than a sickle, sans star.

[–]TheYeIIowDucK 14 points15 points ago

The circlejerk levels in this thread are beyond my scouter's reading abilities.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points ago

Does it make you think about why you are a conservative? or why labels are used at all?

[–]TheTVDB 5 points6 points ago

I sympathize completely. I'm a fiscal conservative, social moderate, and card carrying Republican. I even cast my vote for Scott Walker yesterday. I'm always surprised when I post something political here and it gets upvoted.

[–]Heimdall2061 2 points3 points ago

[–]courneliusjones 2 points3 points ago

"I became a conservative by being around liberals and I became a libertarian by being around conservatives. You realize that there’s something distinctly in common between the two groups, the left and the right; the worst part of each of them is the moralizing."-Greg Gutfeld

[–]DepletedUranium 5 points6 points ago

I feel the same way.