(1885). . OK SO IN ENGLAND THIS IS WHAT A RUBBER AND SOMEONE ON MY DASH JUST MENTIONED PUTTING A 'RUBBER' ON YOUR PENIS AND I GOT REALLY REALLY CONFUSED THIS IS (1885) OK SO IN ENGLAND THIS IS WHAT A RUBBER AND SOMEONE ON MY DASH JUST MENTIONED PUTTING 'RUBBER' YOUR PENIS I GOT REALLY CONFUSED
Upload
Login or register

(1885)

Click to block a category:GamingPoliticsNewsComicsAnimeOther
OK SO IN ENGLAND THIS IS WHAT A RUBBER
AND SOMEONE ON MY DASH JUST
MENTIONED PUTTING A 'RUBBER' ON YOUR
PENIS AND
I GOT REALLY REALLY CONFUSED
THIS IS WHAT WE CALL A RUBBER IN AUSTRALIA
TOC). WE FEEL YOUR PAIN.
SAME WITH NEW ZEALAND.
We ' America bbecause we teon' t malte
mistakes.
THAT WAS ONE TIME
HE WAS ELECTED TWICE.
...
+1012
Views: 47803 Submitted: 10/11/2013
Hide Comments
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (167)
[ 167 comments ]
Anonymous comments allowed.
asd
#2 - scaratel
Reply -196 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
These are also sometimes called rubbers.
#43 to #2 - Stansnowman
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
#52 to #2 - smellmyfaceforswag
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
ZOMG!! THANKYOU FOR EXPLAINIG THE JOKE!!!111 i GET IT NOW!!
#96 to #2 - seizure
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
seriously, where are all these retards coming from?
#151 to #2 - linktheherooftime
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
#130 to #2 - isiupick
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#88 to #2 - hurblurb
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
dear god i have never seen so many red thumbs
dear god i have never seen so many red thumbs
User avatar #129 to #88 - newforomador
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
You might wanna take a look at this comment. www.funnyjunk.com/funny_pictures/200731/Stewie%20/1#1
#27 to #2 - vikingesnumerouno
Reply +9 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #41 to #27 - vikingesnumerouno
Reply +7 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
no idea why people are thumbing this down, Im just applauding his stupidity
User avatar #50 to #41 - animedudej
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
explaining the joke ruins the joke (and stating the obvious)
User avatar #53 to #50 - vikingesnumerouno
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
I know that, but people were thumbing my first comment down because they didn't understand that I was applauding his stupidity. Now, after I explained it, it went for -4 to +2
User avatar #54 to #53 - animedudej
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
ooh right... didnt know you meant that... (kindof buzzed now as it is) but thats good ^_^
#4 to #2 - tender
Reply +203 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
#6 - shadowhorn
-50 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#8 to #6 - mondprinzessin
Reply +92 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
we do have erasers, but we call them erasers
#1 - kottonmouthed
-63 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#81 to #1 - splargh
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
****** mistake sorry
#99 to #81 - anon id: 177d2748
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
Why does it have to be about race? If you think he's a ****** president, explain how. Using racism makes everybody who disagrees with the Obama Administration look like a white-trash piece of ****.
User avatar #7 to #1 - heroofkvatch
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
how?
#23 to #7 - turdofdoom
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
creates moar war
moar nsa
moar debt
moar false flag attacks
#9 to #7 - lordaurion
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
>didn't just increase, but MULTIPLIED our national debt several times
>obamacare
>focuses more on public appearance than being a ******* president
>oversteps his bounds
>refuses to work with the house and senate
Need I go on?
#16 to #9 - macbookfan
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
I might be out of line here, but didn't the debt rise such because of the economical crisis?
User avatar #93 to #9 - militarybus
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
a). don't say he multiplied because you can multiply some ting by a decimal and it would become less
b). only 0.2% of businesses nationwide have more than 50 employees that don’t already offer health insurance to full-time workers, so only that .2% will be the ones mostly affected by obamacare
c). a president is called head of state for a reason, he is supposed to be what represents us, so its a good thing he works more on his public image, because, frankly, the president alone doesn't have that much power
d). no president has ever not overstep the boundary placed before them
e).congress refuses to work with congress.
so yes, please go on.
User avatar #12 to #9 - thedarkestrogue
Reply -5 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
you forgot obamacare.
it deserves more hate.
#18 to #12 - zeedeveel
Reply +7 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
I work in the federal health insurance program and you're wrong.
User avatar #137 to #18 - thedarkestrogue
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
Really? You want to owe so much more money that our country basically goes defunct?
The idea is good. But the cost is out of our reach. We've done ok without it so far, i think we can do without it a bit longer.
User avatar #164 to #137 - hudis
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
You've done okay. 50 million Americans haven't. If the problem is so persistently unsolvable for the country as a whole, maybe it's time to split up the U.S. into separate nations with separate economies.
User avatar #169 to #164 - thedarkestrogue
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/13/2013) [-]
This country is due for a downfall soon anyway.
#22 to #9 - zeedeveel
Reply -6 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
>The federal debt increased during his term, not because of him, The first four years of any president's term is cleaning up the mistakes of their predecessor and Bush put us in an irreparable state.
>The Affordable Care Act, or as you inbred hicks call it, Obamacare is actually a step in the right direction to make a more sociologically correct structural hierarchy.
>He focuses on public appearances because that is his job. He is more or less just a figurehead for the U.S.
>He didn't refuse to work with the House and Senate, in fact he offered compromise. What happened was that they attempted to put a three year extension on the bill dragging it into the next presidents term who would likely be a republican who would shoot it down.
>Do explain how he oversteps his boundaries though, I love the **** that spews from the mouths of the uninformed.
User avatar #35 to #22 - achimp
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
Then we can conceivably blame Clinton for 9/11?

Of course not, because only Republicans can be bad presidents, right? My bad.
Bush had a stable economy for the FIRST 6 to 7 years of his presidency.
Not only that, but the housing bubble only collapsed after the Democratically controlled Senate and House passed a bill forcing banks to provide loans to people who could not pay them back.

So in an industry already laden with thousands upon thousands of pages of laws and rules, you think adding another thousand (that not ONE member of congress read completely) is going to solve the problem? Oh, I envy your ignorance.

Yes, he has refused to work with the House and Senate MANY times. The House proposed a bill to fund EVERYTHING but "the affordable care act" so there could be further discussion on it - specifically, on the fact that so many people have been given exemptions, and that's not something that's in the law.

Oversteps his bounds? How about this, ******** elitist? "If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon." You don't think commenting on an unresolved murder case in FLORIDA isn't overstepping his bounds?

Essentially, you're a dumb cunt who took a poli sci class, sucked the professors dick, and now thinks he knows everything about American politics. Not only that, but because you were the best dick-sucker in the class, you seem to think that you know better than everyone else, making you an elitist. You're an egotistical douchebag who seems to only be able to have a conversation via hostilities and name-calling, which is just a defense mechanism; you know you're wrong.
User avatar #37 to #35 - hudis
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
"Essentially, you're a dumb cunt who took a poli sci class, sucked the professors dick, and now thinks he knows everything about American politics. Not only that, but because you were the best dick-sucker in the class, you seem to think that you know better than everyone else, making you an elitist. You're an egotistical douchebag who seems to only be able to have a conversation via hostilities and name-calling, which is just a defense mechanism; you know you're wrong."

I'm just saying, this seems to apply to your own post way more than the one you replied
User avatar #38 to #37 - achimp
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
He was being a douchebag. I'm treating him like a douchebag.

It'd be different if he had be respectful in his replies, but he hasn't been. I'm just going down to his level.

I've had many nice, intelligent conversations on FJ, regarding politics and other ****.

Zee was hostile right off the bat, I'm just responding in kind. You'll notice, I didn't claim that I knew better than anyone else (but him).

It's also fun to see what sort of insults you can come up with.
User avatar #39 to #38 - hudis
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
I don't agree with that attitude at all, lowering yourself to someone else's level to prove a point isn't really effective in this environment, but okay.
User avatar #40 to #39 - achimp
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
To each their own.
For me, it's fun. I used to do this all the time.

You'll notice that I didn't begin to insult him until the very end - that was intentional.
User avatar #68 to #22 - Ruspanic
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
Obama himself has called it Obamacare.
User avatar #104 to #1 - guymandude
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
I'm a little surprised, I thought everyone would be feeling like Obama is ******* up pretty bad by now. And yeah, he did come into office with a **** hand, but he hasn't done a good job of fixing issues he said he would/should have (and in fact has renewed and strengthened a few policies of GWB's term that he said he would get rid of), and has made a few of his own bad decisions as well.

I WANT to think of him as an awesome president - I mean how great would it be for this country to have finally elected a man of any minority and he ended up being one of our best presidents? - but I just can't.
User avatar #106 to #104 - kottonmouthed
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
Why does his ethnicity matter?
User avatar #114 to #106 - guymandude
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
I didn't mean to say it as if I wouldn't want a white guy who was a good president to be elected - I don't know if that is how it came off, so I wanna get that out of the way now.

It only matters because if he were a great president, then there's no chance that it would matter from here on out. There would be no reason for bigoted people to doubt a person's presidential capabilities due to their minority status because there would have already been evidence to the contrary. But if the first minority president isn't great, then assholes and racists can say "we shouldn't elect anyone who isn't white - look what happened when we tried to elect one of them [insert dun dun dun here]"
I realize that would only affect a small group of people who could even be swayed by that kind of logic, but there are still people who fit into that category.

Then again, there will always be racists, so it maybe wouldn't change much either way.
User avatar #92 to #1 - trollmobile
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
nah, george was worse
obama just seems worse, because he's stuck trying to clean up the **** george left behind.
he's not doing a good job at it, but he's at least not making it terribly worse.

and hey, the choice was obama and romney, i'm pretty damned sure obama was the less worse choice.
User avatar #98 to #92 - yuukoku
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
He says that he's trying to clean up what the Bush administration did, but he's not. He just likes to say that he is. One of the biggest problems of the Bush administration was the invasion of the people's personal property and information, and just look at how well he's done in that field (i.e. the NSA's spying thing).

Honestly, Romney wasn't great. We've had real ****** choices for presidency in recent elections.
User avatar #103 to #98 - trollmobile
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
as i said, he's not doing a good job at it.
User avatar #105 to #103 - yuukoku
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
Alright. That's evident. However, that does make him a hypocrite (which doesn't necessarily make him better or worse than Bush or any other politician nowadays. Everybody's a damn hypocrite.).
User avatar #141 to #105 - cmilanes
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
Yeah but until he invades some foreign country unecessarily Syria , he can't be as bad, if not worse than Bush.
User avatar #100 to #92 - kottonmouthed
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
Bush has been out of office since 2008. Quit blaming him
User avatar #102 to #100 - trollmobile
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
it sometimes takes decades to pull a country out of the dirt
one president, can easily run a country so far into ****, that it takes 3 other presidents to pull it back up

obama isn't doing a good job at it though, he's not pulling it out of the dirt, he's just not pushing it farther down into it.
User avatar #108 to #102 - yuukoku
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
That's the same argument that people use to blame Hoover for the Great Depression. It wasn't only his fault; things were heading that way for a LONG time.
#20 to #1 - turdofdoom
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
most americans dont really know politics very well
they also dont really know any history
so its natural that this gets a couple of red thumbs
User avatar #3 to #1 - joekooldash
Reply +77 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
he, too, was elected twice.
#25 - Gewdaism
Reply +27 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
More people voted for Al Gore but because of a retarded entity known as the electoral college, George Bush became president. Also, the supreme court (9 unelected judges who serve for life) ruled that it was unconstitutional to recount votes in Florida when the race was a dead heat and several machines were reported to be misreading ballots. Our country's system is dumb.
User avatar #48 to #25 - neonnurse
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
Well the electoral college is a good thing. Do you honestly believe that every vote should count, because I sure as hell don't. Should the redneck who has no idea about either candidates opinion on any issues vote count? Should the person who goes "I'm voting for Obama because he's black" vote count? Should the person who is new to america and has no idea about the candidates but wants to vote because it's the american thing to do vote count? The reason the electoral college exists is so that people who are 100% informed on the issues and each candidates stance on them can make one of the most important decisions for america. I'm not saying they never make mistakes, I'm just saying that they're there for a reason.
User avatar #97 to #48 - reginleif
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
Thing is that thanks to the electoral college that redneck's vote counts for 3-4 of mine because he lives in a small state.

All we're doing with the electoral college is making unequal values in ignorance in which politicians plan on which "idiots" to pander
#67 to #48 - anon id: bdbbda4f
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
EVERY vote counts.
User avatar #78 to #25 - schneidend
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
The "majority" making all the decisions is potentially hazardous to our way of life. It's one of the principles the Founding Fathers built the country on.
User avatar #95 to #78 - reginleif
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
How is taking decisions from the minority any better?

Didn't Florida deciding the elections not kill Americans in those ******** wars?

Don't get me wrong I understand the reasoning why the electoral college is there (to prevent Candidates from flying to large cities), but can you honestly tell me that flying to the middle of nowhere (Iowa) is somehow better?
#165 to #95 - noschool
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
actually the electoral college doesn't really prevent biased campaigning ( in my opinion it enhances it), if you think about it a lot of states are completely ignored in campaign period because everyone knows California, New England and most of the Midwest will be democratic, and the great plains and the majority of the southeast will be republican. the only states that are every focused on by the candidates are swing states like Ohio and Florida. if it was based off popular vote, leaving aside the fact that urban cities are generally more democratic, even if a person got every vote in the top ten cities they would receive 20-30 million votes, which is not even close to the halfway mark.
User avatar #123 to #95 - schneidend
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
It would be easier for a majority to take over the decision making process if it was purely popular. If a minority ends up changing a decision, it's happenstance.
User avatar #134 to #123 - reginleif
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
except it isn't... there are so many functions that the government can't perform because we end up giving overrepresentation to these smaller states in Congress.


Every four years, conservatives in Blue states get the shaft because their choices in Candidates are limited by how well their preferred candidate does in a handful of politically irrelevant states. It's not happenstance as much as it is innate in the system. We can't go do what's best for the country without bribing these small state hicks with pork, or compromising with states with a population less than one of our cities.


I just believe that if we're given the choice between majority or minority rule, then we ought to give the majority a chance, it's bull to say "we ought to weigh the opinions of 50 thousand, and give their votes more say than a voter that comes from a population of 5 million.
User avatar #168 to #134 - schneidend
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
Where are you getting that smaller states are getting more representatives? Population determines representatives. The state with more people has more House representatives, and everybody has two senators. If a smaller state has more representatives, then it's because there is a lot of people there. So, in a way, the popular vote is still very important, but its potency is checked by a second system to keep it from being the only determining factor. Limiting any one portion of government from having too much power is part of the reason the U.S. was founded at all.
#124 to #25 - nedaulk
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
The supreme court is much better not elected. If they were elected they would have to campaign and gain endorsements, making them much more likely to show favor to certain groups or people that helped them out.
User avatar #166 to #124 - reginleif
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
In theory that is correct, and that has been my position throughout my edgy teenage years.

But does it really matter when they are nominated by a President and Congress beholden by special interests themselves?

It's not like a political SC nomination is unheard of.

These are thoughts going through my head, I have no better system in mind.
#171 to #166 - nedaulk
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(10/13/2013) [-]
I get what you're saying and it is logical and definitely true to some degree, but there have been a decent number of times in history when judges elected to the supreme court do the opposite of what the party that nominated them wants. They have no obligation to anyone after they're nominated, so you get some judges that do what they feel is just and some that may be influenced by nomination like you said. The current system is better for allowing some judges to stick to their beliefs rather than them all changing their beliefs based on campaigning.
User avatar #5 - justadude
Reply -13 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
At least the nation was intact when when he was done.
#17 to #5 - zeedeveel
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
Not any moreso than it is now...
User avatar #19 to #5 - ParallelDuck
Reply +23 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
The economy began to collapse in September 2008.. I'd say he had more to do with it than people make out.
User avatar #45 to #19 - stenchschleifs
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
Le chain of events strikes again.
User avatar #115 to #19 - YoursTruley
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
you do know...bill Clinton ****** us over right? housing bubble and all that...k
User avatar #152 to #115 - jakecrafted
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
Bill Clinton was the last president to have a budget surplus....
User avatar #173 to #152 - YoursTruley
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/13/2013) [-]
do you even know how that happened??
User avatar #154 to #152 - crimsontyyde
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
Clinton didn't do ****. He fought AGAINST the things that gave the budget the surplus.
User avatar #162 to #154 - jakecrafted
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
That's not true at all, going into the presidency his economic plan was to raise taxes so that there would be a budget surplus, and to eventually lower the national debt.
User avatar #167 to #162 - crimsontyyde
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
Most of what was passed that ended up with the surplus were things he openly fought against.
#44 - lolstardom
Reply +12 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
Its a big Liberal vs. Conservative fight down there, get out while you can.
Its a big Liberal vs. Conservative fight down there, get out while you can.
#46 to #44 - doctorprofessornv
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
mfw
#94 to #44 - trollmobile
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
they're all the same.
mcdonalds owns the country, regardless of who you elect.
#109 to #44 - elcreepo
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
You're not lying, it really is a warzone down there.
You're not lying, it really is a warzone down there.
User avatar #156 to #44 - crimsontyyde
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
And then there's the independents just sparking arguments here and there for ***** and giggles.
#34 - unncommon
Reply +12 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
>MFW these comments

I don't feel like arguing right now. I'm stuck in some house, alone with random people (it's not my fault, I ******* woke up here...) and I don't even know if they know I'm here.
Post your hate below and I'll get to it when my ride shows up
User avatar #42 to #34 - mustlol
Reply -4 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
"I don't feel like arguing right now"
"Post your hate below"
Pick one
User avatar #131 to #42 - newforomador
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
"And I'll get to it when my ride shows up"
That means he will answer them later, when he does feel like arguing.
#107 to #34 - elcreepo
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
Bush looks like a chimp.
#47 to #34 - thasmackdown **User deleted account**
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
Minorities!
Especially those ones with the big noses and curly hair, I think hitler did nothing wrong!
wait, you said post your hate right?
#55 to #34 - leponylover
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
>its not my fault
>I woke up here
so you go to sleep and wake up in different places?
User avatar #56 to #55 - unncommon
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
Have you ever drank before?
#57 to #56 - leponylover
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
So its not your fault that you drank?
User avatar #90 to #57 - capslockrage
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
Shut the **** up.
User avatar #58 to #57 - unncommon
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
It is. However under the circumstances (in which I wasn't complaining btw, which I seen to be inferring from your argument that you think that I am) it is not directly (no matter how indirectly) my conscious fault.
#60 to #58 - leponylover
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
so you didn't consciously decide to drink?
I fail to see how it is anyone elses fault that you drank you fell asleep and you woke up there
User avatar #62 to #60 - unncommon
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
It was my conscious decision to drink, granted. But are you implying that I consciously fell asleep where I woke up?
#64 to #62 - leponylover
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
I'm implying that you fell asleep where you woke up as a result of your drinking, which was your conscious decision.
User avatar #65 to #64 - unncommon
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
Who's to say that I feel asleep there and not somewhere else? Who's to say that I wasn't moved there?
Furthermore, if you do something subconsciously is it still your fault? If I had the intent to wake up at my friends house I then it would have been my fault. And until you can tell me in exactly what sense it was my conscious decision to do something (or that I even did it upon my own initiative in the first place, because frankly I'm not sure) then you literally have no case in stating that it's my fault that I woke up there.
The only thing that you've proven thus-far is that I drank, which I admitted
#139 to #65 - crowsnest
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
I'm really enjoying this conversation
I'm really enjoying this conversation
#51 - helenwheels
Reply -10 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
MFW the first part was funny and the rest was ******* cancer.
#74 to #51 - schneidend
Reply +8 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
MFW you said "cancer" as though that isn't the most cancerous thing anybody can ever say when not actually talking about the disease.
#28 - itemsonly
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
He was elected once, and "elected" another time.
User avatar #85 to #28 - beemil
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
That's what happens when we use something as confusing and unnecessary as the Electoral College
#71 - prontato
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
WHY ARE THEY ALL YELLING?
WHY ARE THEY ALL YELLING?
User avatar #73 to #71 - warzon
Reply -5 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
BECAUSE YELLING IS AMERICAN
User avatar #75 to #73 - darnhaz
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
LOUD NOISES!
User avatar #77 to #75 - warzon
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
FIRE WORKS
CANDY
SEX
HUGS
User avatar #112 to #73 - elcreepo
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
NATIVE AMERICANS ARE AMERICAN TOO

WHAT ARE YOU
User avatar #110 to #71 - elcreepo
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
DISRESPECT YOUR ENVIRONMENT BY YELLING
#147 to #110 - meuk
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
Comment Picture