Welcome to Inkbunny...
Allowed ratings
To view member-only content, create an account. ( Hide )
<3 Tails
« older

Medium (920px wide max)
Wide - use max window width - scroll to see page ⇅
Fit all of image in window
set default image size: small | medium | wide
Download (new tab)
A little toon about some of the things I like in terms of politics.

Please consider supporting my Patreon, if ya like my stuff and you want to see me speak out more, to add more common sense to the fandom.

https://www.patreon.com/roareyraccoon

I also have a Ko-Fi page:

https://ko-fi.com/roareyraccoon

Or you can donate via paypal XP.

https://www.paypal.me/roareyraccoon

Keywords
assigned male 745,640, fox 158,200, m/m 31,135, raccoon 23,166, cartoon 11,152, politics 240, roarey 108
Details
Type: Picture/Pinup
Published: 2 months, 1 week ago
Rating: General

MD5 Hash for Page 1... Show Find Identical Posts [?]
Stats
850 views
48 favorites
52 comments

BBCode Tags Show [?]
 
Ashwyn
2 months, 1 week ago
Such horrible values. You surely are an unperson (was that what the posters were awhile back?)
BullseyeBronco
2 months, 1 week ago
Naaaaziiiiii!
CuriousLeo
2 months, 1 week ago
While I don't necessarily agree with everything, it's nice to finally have a list to reference in terms of what you actually like.
WhyteYote
2 months, 1 week ago
How dare you hold reasonable viewpoints!
MviluUatusun
2 months, 1 week ago
Since you love  your country, you're not just a Nazi but a Fascist as well.  After all, the libs say that nationalism is fascism because fascists were nationalists.  Right?  ROFLMAO.
Yiffox
2 months, 1 week ago
should have made him fucking the antifa person
BrotherPawden
2 months ago
I'd fap to that.
Yiffox
2 months ago
no...no...keep the mask on... heh
YIFFGOD
2 months, 1 week ago
D’aaawww you Luv Families. That’s cute (•^~^•)


I hate when people call you a Nazi when your clearly just a misunderstood Edgy Boi.

DarthJamaay
2 months, 1 week ago
Those are the best values I have ever seen.
Cuddleboy19
2 months ago
Let the record show that Roarey is not an inhuman bastard, he is just misunderstood and surrounded by morons.
BrotherPawden
2 months ago
that's about 49% of the fandom.
CaptainKenmason
2 months ago
FUCKIN KNOTSEIZE ALL OVER THE PLACE *swings fists around blindly while spewing gallons of froth*
GeneralGodzilla
2 months ago
And because of such pointless buzzwords from the leftists, we fucking won!
Masakados
2 months ago
>im pro welfare
>i despise socialism
🤔
UrianKitsune
2 months ago
He's a smart dude. Give him time and he'll figure it out
Calbeck
2 months ago
Socialism ruins welfare by making it unaffordable for all.
RoareyRaccoon
2 months ago
Socialism isn't welfare.
AsherTye
2 months ago
True.
Masakados
2 months ago
but welfare is socialism. not saying its good or bad, but recheck your definitions. the first thing socialism always does is create welfare so that those evil rich have to share their toys. its a slippery slope all the way down.

what they'll do with your "basic services" idea, is they will simply redefine luxuries as basic services, like they do with tampons and abortions and birth control, but not condoms because men use those, fuck men. and then you'll be paying for internet, transport, gas, food, education, and medical bills of the lazy and the stupid.
RoareyRaccoon
2 months ago
No, it isn't. The only sustainable and functioning welfare systems are in non-socialist countries. You need capitalism to fund it. Socialism applies to a whole economy, it isn't the concept of public funded services. Socialism is evil dogshit.
Masakados
2 months ago
how does needing capitalism to fund it make it not socialism? when you make welfare programs you are already past the gate of socialism and beyond the point of no return. just because you arbitrarily define a % amount of welfare to be required to be socialism doesnt mean that welfare before that threshold is OK and not socialism.
you're taking hard-earned resources from the strong and smart and giving it to the weak, dumb and the unfit. that is socialism. pay your own bills.
Wolfblade
2 months ago
One of the biggest complications/obstructions to discussion of socialism is that we lack necessary terminology to disambiguate "socialism" as the doomed-to-fail basic economic system, from things that are validly distinct from that, but still get referred to as "socialism." Things like taxes, roads, schools, basic public services, etc - things no modern developed society can function without - are not the same "socialism" as the economic systems people want to put into place thinking they're just in the same bucket as those things.

As for welfare: Any society that, as a general whole, does not believe it is acceptable to sit and watch someone die in the streets of an easily curable disease will always have to have SOME sort of welfare or safety net systems to care for the people at the very bottom who are most incapable of caring for themselves.

There's an extremely important distinction that must be maintained - one which the current spoiled, useless, helpless, weakness-is-strength generation wants to do away with - to restrict access to social safety net systems to the FEWEST people possible - to try and make sure that anyone who is capable of carrying their own weight does so, and to do as much as can be managed to DISincentivise capable people from just living off handouts.

We don't live in a society that accepts watching people die in the streets when there's enough excess wealth to keep that from happening. Well, not outside of major Democrat-controlled-for-generations urban centers, anyway.

When people aren't too busy upholding false narratives to actually address helping the people they claim to be seeking social justice for - the actual financial drain of simply caring for those who can't care for themselves is actually negligible to a nation as wealthy as ours - and is actually cheaper than the drain they cause when NOT cared for.

The inescapable necessary realities of a civilized society which require that the collective pool their resources for the benefit of all ARE NOT simply interchangeable with "socialism" as the ideology of mandatory philanthropy, tying the hands of those who could generate the most surplus, and making as many people as possible as dependent and minimally-contributing as possible.

The specific insidious evil that is inextricable from the toxic ideology of socialism beyond those minimum necessities is the component of mandatory virtue. They proclaim the ideology's virtue is founded on the notions of "but everything would be better if we all just took care of each other," but the childish perspective required to fall for this is one that's just blind to the realities that people don't usually choose to be that altruistic, and none of the proclaimed virtues of the ideology of socialism COUNT as virtues or good noble deeds when they are >governmentally enforced.<

No good deed is good when someone made you do it.

And forcing people to act against their will isn't less wrong just because you think it's a good thing you're making them do.

The extent to which compelled participation in supporting the societal collective is acceptable is the extent to which it is absolutely necessary. Once it's less-necessary things, and just... functioning and capable people wanting more things to be given to them without having to do anything to earn it... that's when it's just spoiled children demanding that you pay for their life because they just can't be bothered to do it for themselves, or to do the harder work of constructively improving the system to mitigate and reduce whatever factors are making things too hard for them.

It's kids picking "it's too hard, just do it FOR me" rather than "okay, I think this shouldn't be THIS taxing, how can we work to reduce the excess difficulty here."
Masakados
2 months ago
tl;dr

look, you and roarey boy here are just trying to spin socialism in a way that you can juuuuust get the parts of socialism that benefit you but not the ones where you put nonbelievers against the wall and shoot them. but thats not how it works. stage 1 cancer will always lead to stage 2/3/4. and thats why its better to let a few homeless people and a few low IQ/sick/bad genetics people die now than kill 70% of your population through mass starvation and guns in the future.

communism will always come back with a fury and you'll have to pay interests in blood. if you're worried about the people at the bottom go help them yourself, dont force others to. and pay for your own stuff.
kiwakiwa
2 months ago
if having ANY social programs is such a slippery slope for you, i bet you would be all for , for just ending things like police and fire departments, and full on privatise them..  i mean.. who cares if some houses or cities burn down killing everyone, as long as those gosh darn socialists don't get even the tiniest sliver of inkling of a hope to cease power, am i right mate ?

assume for a second that your house is on fire and need help putting it out ? better cough up cash before anyone does anything, it's not like you're supporting any god damn social programs..  need police to stop someone robbing you ? .. you may have to calculate if paying the cops would cost more than just allowing the person to rob what you have on you at the moment..
need to use a road ? .. better pay up someone to build it for your use, or pay to use private road someone else .. i bet you personally enjoy fully a lot of social programs funded by the government and tax payers, without you even realising it, but god forbid someone else benefited from such things, or that things like compassion or mercy would be taken in to consideration with these tax funded socially paid things.. your level of uncaring cruelty is very telling on what kind of a person you are..
very... very .. telling...
even bible encourages charity...
the fucking muslims have charity as one of the pillars of their faith .. (zakat)
even satanists "encourage benevolence and empathy among all people, reject tyrannical authority, advocate practical common sense and justice, and be directed by the human conscience to undertake noble pursuits guided by the individual will."
i'm anti religion very much, and you sir, are just plain worse than any basic muslim, christian or even satanist on this planet with your view on the world. take a deep hard look in the mirror and just let it sink in just what kind of a person you are and what your core values really are..
Masakados
2 months ago
tl;dr, but i'll reply to the police/fire dept. line.

if you have a community of people in your town, they can do the job of the police department and fire department themselves. you don't need a nanny state to come save you when you fuck up if you A) dont fuck up and B) are in good terms with your neighbors. you are aware that firemen are volunteers right? the police are there to stop criminals but having an armed population has the same effect.
freedom is the solution, always. welfare just makes you dependant on the government and when you're dependant on the government, the government grows, and when the government grows, you cease being free.
RoareyRaccoon
2 months ago
Look up the definition of socialism. This isn't hard. Welfare =/= socialism. You can't even be fucked learning what words mean, you joker.
Masakados
2 months ago
would you say UBI is socialism? if no, you're wrong. if yes, its just welfare with another name.

you can redefine the words all you want but taking money from people at the point of a gun and giving it to other people is socialism no matter how much you deny it. and it will lead to societal collapse each and every single time.
RoareyRaccoon
2 months ago
I wouldn't say it's socialism, no. I'm not in favour of UBI, incidentally. There's a lot you can do wrong with welfare as a concept, namely in the variables of whom you give money to, why and how much. Welfare has indeed been done badly all over the western world, chiefly by incentivising destructive behaviour like the funding of single parenthood. This isn't an argument against all welfare, however, because there will always be genuinely disabled people and unforseen circumstances fucking up someone's life. Having such safety nets that everybody pays into makes for a better society where people who would otherwise be completely fucked can have a life. Throwing out welfare as a concept because it can be detrimental, like everything in politics can be, or because you mistakenly attribute it wholesale to socialism, is not sensible, rational or useful.
Masakados
2 months ago
look, i know you want the good parts of socialism without the bad ones, its a noble thought, but its been proven time and time again throughout history that the good and the bad of socialism come in a single package.
the idea of welfare is socialist in nature, and it has a dysgenic effect on the population its applied to (see: native americans, africans) and thats why its bad no matter how you put it. people have to pay for their own shit, clean up after themselves, and if they're really really in a bad situation and cant help themselves, then there's always charity.

there is no net long-term positive to having welfare. you're only thinking short term and unidimensionally when you say we should have basic welfare.
RoareyRaccoon
2 months ago
Tripe, the widespread stability and utility of welfare systems throughout Europe is clear demonstration of its efficacy as a concept. All policies have pros and cons, sacrifices and advantages. Politics is a question of compromise. Socialism has nothing to do with welfare, it is a seizing of private property and a centralised control of industry. Not tax, not welfare. You are quite simply wrong.
Masakados
1 month, 4 weeks ago
yeah it works so well, welfare made europeans weak and complacent with the replacement of their genes and their culture. europe won't exist in 100 years thanks to the welfare conditioning.
their monuments are falling left and right, their people are being replaced, their history is being changed and erased. tell me again how benefitial socialism welfare is to the population.

" Socialism has nothing to do with welfare, it is a seizing of private property

welfare is paid by money (private property) that is taken from the citizen at the point of a gun. stop paying your taxes and see what happens. its the exact same thing. or do you not consider money to be private property because its not in the form of a plot of land?
i mean damn raccoon boi, you're being intentionally dense here. when people say private property they mean resources. resources can be physical like a car or a plot of land with a house on it or it can be just a number in a bank account or a bitcoin wallet. enough with your gymnastics.
RoareyRaccoon
1 month, 4 weeks ago
Rofl, that's mass migration. Welfare isn't taking people's money at the point of a gun, that melodramatic claptrap can be applied to tax in general, it's idiotic. Nobody knows what the future holds, illness and financial calamity can happen at any time, so welfare safety nets are a form of insurance. It shouldn't be given to non-citizens because they don't fund it, so that's the problem with it at present. I've already said it can be applied detrimentally, and it is in certain areas. I'm disabled, I can't work like a healthy person can, so welfare has saved my life. When my mother became too ill to work anymore the system she'd been paying into stepped in and supported her. That's what it is for. Your hyperbolic bollocks about genetic dilution and promoting dependency isn't an indictment of welfare as a concept, it frames welfare only in terms of its most negative aspects and ignores the rest of the picture. I've addressed the things that go wrong and it still isn't socialism, so you're going over old ground and pretending welfare is the main cause of other cultural issues. It's a weak argument.
Masakados
1 month, 4 weeks ago
" I'm disabled, I can't work like a healthy person can, so welfare has saved my life. When my mother became too ill to work anymore the system she'd been paying into stepped in and supported her.

well there you go, you cannot live without welfare so thats the reason you do all these mental gymnastics to pretend its good and not communistic in nature or that it doesn't make the population weak and dependant on a big government.

isn't it easier to say that in the first place instead of pretending its not socialism when it clearly is? i mean, i dont blame you or your mom, shit happens, but own up to it.
i got irreparable medical problems too and i dont go around pushing for communism. if there was no welfare, i'd just resort to charity, or donations, or savings, or my community, to help me afford my meds.
RoareyRaccoon
1 month, 4 weeks ago
Dumbass, there's no mental gymnastics involved in supporting something that means disabled people can live. You've asserted time and again that welfare is socialist and you know damn well it isn't.
Masakados
1 month, 3 weeks ago
you're doing all these mental gymnastics just for bloody semantics m8. its fine if you want to vote and support for a system that allows the disabled and downthroden to live better at the expense of the healthy and normal, but dont bullshit me, that is socialism. even if its just the part of socialism that you like, its still socialism.
RoareyRaccoon
1 month, 3 weeks ago
Haha, quit acting like me being disabled on welfare is some kind of gotcha; welfare can't even exist in socialism, it is an economic model that makes the nation completely broke. Welfare can only be maintained in a capitalist economy, which is why all the nations on earth with stable welfare systems are capitalist. You don't have a clue about political philosophy, evidently.
Masakados
1 month, 3 weeks ago
im not trying to gotcha you, you twat, im telling you welfare is by definition a socialist concept.
" b-b-b-but it needs capitalism to fund it!

yes, that doesn't make it not socialist. name me a single communist idea that can be funded without capitalist hard work.

did you miss the part where every western nation is turning slowly into a communist shithole? thats because of welfare. that didn't happen when there was no welfare and disabled people resorted to charity and community for their well-being.

but whatever, look, its fine, you just want your meds and you're afraid of the "what-if" scenario of no government. just dont act like you're a capitalist or right wing, just be left wing, take your meds, and own up to it. thats the only thing that irked me and made me go on for this long on this dumbass argument. i'll stop now. see you on your next politically charged furry picture my dude.
RoareyRaccoon
1 month, 3 weeks ago
No, every western country is not turning into a communist shithole, that's unsubstantiated tripe. And yes it isnt socialist because socialism isn't about welfare, as I have said. Welfare is national insurance, it isn't a socialist concept. Socialism deals with the nature of a nations economy, property laws and a government administration with complete power over everything, the "dictatorship of the proletariat". Pretending something sensible and humane must be socialist because it involves public funding is absolutely absurd and entirely wrong. It's no more socialist than taxes being used to maintain roads and public services. It is Socialists who like to pretend they have a monopoly on such things because they're good for society and thus Socialism looks better by being able to claim ownership of them. You are expanding the credit for socialism, which it does not deserve.

Welfare and national healthcare has its roots in liberalism and a sense of civic duty to one's fellow citizens, not socialism. Socialism is about dismantling capitalism to bring in a utopian new world order.
BrotherPawden
2 months ago
"Socialism" isn't "Welfare" in the sense that socialism doesn't make anyone "well".
ShadowUnleashed
2 months ago
This! ✅
UrianKitsune
2 months ago
I finally figured out what your style reminds me of. The Catillac Cats. Warms my heart.
TheRealLilPump
2 months ago
Considering how the furry fandom is full of leftist beta cucks, you are certainly a glutton for punishment.
goodolrainbowpet
2 months ago
you are from england? this whole time you seemed like an american to me
Sarakha
2 months ago
What do you consider to be traditional family values?

Should a migrant be allowed to have a legal method by which to become a citizen?
RoareyRaccoon
2 months ago
The quality of families leads to the quality of the nation. Kids do best with two parents, mother and father. Single parenthood shouldn't be incentivised or encouraged.

I'm all for a legal process whereby an immigrant can become a citizen, but it should be difficult and take several years.
Clockiel
2 months ago
If you think the law should apply equally to all, how can you reconcile that with the belief that things should only be given to citizens? Because such a policy would require a law, a law which would say that one group gets treated differently.
RoareyRaccoon
2 months ago
It was referring to criminal law, not all laws.
Lyserdigi
2 months ago
If you think the law should apply equally to all, how can you reconcile that with the belief that things should only be given to citizens?
silly notion to me..
i humbly do think that many services and benefits should only be offered free, only to actual citizens.. otherwise, for example free healthcare, could be misused harshly by "health tourists" who are suffering from detrimental or lethal illness, inconvenience etc.. and their only reason to come in to the country in the first place is to have a "medical emergency" while being there, and getting in the free healthcare system, getting highly expensive treatments for free they have not chipped in to with taxes etc.. things required from actual citizens.. same goes with social services like giving people money for food, housing and such. sure it is a "nice" and "humane" way to think that every person on this planet is equal and that anyone coming through countrys borders automatically have same rights for theses services as actual citizens do.

Refugees , just for example.. depending on how one defines what a refugee is..according to U.N.
"Refugees are people who have fled war, violence, conflict or persecution and have crossed an international border to find safety in another country. someone who is unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion.”
in broadest sense that definition could be applied in to a quarter (or more) population of africa. And the sad truth is, no matter how nice and humane it would be for europe or any single country to help them  survive, the economy,food production or health services of whole of europe could not handle influx of hundreds of millions of people flowing in.. that would collapse european economies as a whole, so we can't help everyone in need.. and if we just help "some"... well..

If we take only those who can get access to illegal smuggling rings and such, then we are basically taking in the "richest" and well of middle class portions of africans, and leave the poorest to fend for themselves.. basically leaving those who need the aid the most , out of it.. and we are playing favoritism, taking in only those who can afford to pay thousands of euros for the trip... and even at this moment, when the influx of refugees is only in few million people, europe is not handling it well, and tentcamps etc.. have arisen in major european cities. the strain on the economies from the refugees we already have is getting quite heavy..  and is in the long run unsustainable.

We in europe kinda have to face some really harsh truths, that it is sadly not our responsibility to help, nurture, doctor and feed the rest of the world, or to solve every war and conflict that is going on.  best we can do is try to offer help locally and support on site refugee camps and such, and not taking unnecessary refugees inside europe.. since we can't take them all, it would be extremely unfair to just take in the richest who can afford the journey, .. that is fully counter intuitive and goes against the purpose of said refugee programs.

i fully support things like, nordic european wellfare systems that keep the people off streets and fed, but i don't think those benefits should extend to any non citizen who is capable of crossing borders. To me, that is just common sense, not racism. in the long run, europe has to be able to take care of its own well enough, and keep up the economies and systems that are in place, so that europe stays in well enough shape that it is able to give help around the globe to those in actual need.

and what comes to the original question. national laws only apply to the citizens of the nation and people visiting that nation, like tourists. and even then it is mostly criminal law. wellfare laws were not ment to be applied to non citizens to begin with, it is not their intention.
AsherTye
2 months ago
It is an interesting look into how your mind works.
C1de
2 months ago
we know you did just for the salt 😗
FoxyCubLover
4 weeks ago
Let me guess: the one yelling "Nazi" is the one to whom the word "autism" applies?
New Comment:
Move reply box to top
Log in or create an account to comment.