Upload
Login or register
x

Views on the War of 1812

 
Views on the War of 1812. r/polandball I predict this happening in the comments of this post as well as another one of the comics I posted.. you know the one..

r/polandball
I predict this happening in the comments of this post as well as another one of the comics I posted.. you know the one.

Goddamn Redcoat:!
I do what: I Want!
We won. They lost. That' s how it went. End of story.
Ah yes, 1812. Damn fail'' it?, year! We were devoting
ourselves to the battle against Oh, you
wanted to hear about that other war?
...
+1154
Views: 64344
Favorited: 90
Submitted: 11/02/2013
Share On Facebook
submit to reddit +Favorite Subscribe to sequel Subscribe to polandball

Comments(226):

Leave a comment Refresh Comments Show GIFs
123>
[ 226 comments ]
Top Rated Controversial Best Lowest Rated Newest
Anonymous comments allowed.
120 comments displayed.
Reply
+191
#24 - imonaboatman (11/03/2013) [-]
MFW the top panel is exactly like they taught us when I was in school.
Reply
0
User avatar #190 to #24 - nitsuan (11/03/2013) [-]
What school did you go to? I am in one of the worst states for education and we are taught we lost. They say it was more of a tie, but considering the repercussions it was pretty much a loss.
Reply
0
User avatar #278 to #190 - imonaboatman (11/04/2013) [-]
I went to a pretty good high school, actually. What my teacher said was something along the lines of 'The British kept ******* with America but America was like no **** you Britain and then they started fighting and **** and the British went to the white house and then we beat the living **** out of them in New Orleans after the treaty was signed." But in school-appropriate terms, of course.
Reply
0
User avatar #284 to #278 - nitsuan (11/04/2013) [-]
So basically they only mentioned good stuff? lol (minus the White House being burnt down by the British)
Reply
0
User avatar #287 to #284 - imonaboatman (11/04/2013) [-]
Pretty much. My teacher spent days going on about how Britain got beat in the Battle of New Orleans (after the war was over).
Reply
0
User avatar #195 to #190 - yologdog (11/03/2013) [-]
We never lost. We just made us more trouble then we were worth and they left.
Reply
0
#286 to #195 - anon (11/04/2013) [-]
Wrong war, you dumb beaver.
Reply
+12
#136 to #24 - bann (11/03/2013) [-]
I was taught it was when the British sacked the white house and some crazy bitch ran inside to save a painting of OG Wash
Reply
+3
User avatar #2 - dxninjaxo (11/02/2013) [-]
ive learned that canada won, is that not what other people learned?
Reply
0
User avatar #4 to #2 - sequel [OP](11/02/2013) [-]
I think people are still debating on who benefited more from the war, but we know for certain the US didn't win.

The main thing the internet is debating on is..
Who fought the US? Canada or the British Empire?
Reply
+1
User avatar #17 to #4 - DmOnZ (11/02/2013) [-]
I believe that if you Moved to Canada, regardless of whether it was a British colony, you were Canadian (unless you were a part of the British army). While the british did fight, most of those engaging the US forces were Canadian militia. While Canada wasn't an established independent country until 1867, it was still identified as Upper and Lower Canada, and those who moved there or were born there were identified by the British empire as Canadian Citizens living under British Rule. Think of it as any other British Colony. Those who were moved to or lived in Australia were Australians recognized as British Citizens.
Reply
-4
User avatar #56 to #2 - guywithafork (11/03/2013) [-]
America also thinks they won the Vietnam war.
Reply
-2
#3 to #2 - itsmedumbass ONLINE (11/02/2013) [-]
Canadian here, and I have no idea why the history is changed south of the border.
Canadian here, and I have no idea why the history is changed south of the border.
Reply
+2
User avatar #5 to #3 - emrakul (11/02/2013) [-]
You see, I was taught that we won (side effect of living near New Orleans) and then, in higher grades, that the war was basically inconclusive.
Reply
+4
User avatar #11 to #2 - DmOnZ (11/02/2013) [-]
Reply
+5
User avatar #21 to #2 - nervaaurelius (11/03/2013) [-]
Doesn't count. You guys were still apart of the British Empire.
Reply
+35
#6 to #2 - dodosareextinct (11/02/2013) [-]
I learned that no one won, is that not what other people learned?
Reply
+39
User avatar #7 to #6 - ishallsmiteyou (11/02/2013) [-]
Technically speaking, Canada won. The primary US objective was to capture the Canadas (Canada, in 1812, was divided into East and West Canada) and the americans failed to complete said objective. The Canadian's objective was to stand our ground, and they did.
Reply
0
#20 to #7 - anon (11/03/2013) [-]
>make objective - to lose
>lose
>win
>always win
>instant war victor
Reply
+2
User avatar #60 to #20 - zonryu (11/03/2013) [-]
but thats a paradox

>lose
>become winner my your lose
>fail objective by completing objective that made you win
>failing the objective makes you lose
>comleted objective again and wins
>fail again for same reason
Reply
0
#215 to #7 - anon (11/03/2013) [-]
How could a nation with a birthdate of 1867 win a war in 1812?


Didn't Canada try to take New Orleans during the war and failed?
Reply
0
User avatar #252 to #215 - ishallsmiteyou (11/03/2013) [-]
it was a colony, smartass. Just like America or the Falkland Islands.
Reply
+1
User avatar #279 to #7 - damping (11/04/2013) [-]
No, the US's primary objective was to stop England from harassing our trade routes with France and to stop them limiting our expansion west. The main reason we attacked Canada was so we had some negotiating power. Plus Canada didn't win, they were not a country. Either the US won or England won.
Reply
+1
User avatar #78 to #7 - srskate (11/03/2013) [-]
I was pretty sure the war of 1812 arose because the brtis were being douchebags by sinking our ships and impressing our soldiers.
Reply
0
#64 to #7 - anon (11/03/2013) [-]
upper and lower canada
Reply
0
User avatar #132 to #7 - ugottanked (11/03/2013) [-]
didnt the canadians burn down the white house? i have forgotten that one fact if they did or not
Reply
0
User avatar #354 to #132 - InflictorOfPain (12/01/2013) [-]
Burning down one building is still kind of irrelevant. The whole canadian city of toronto was torched by the US.
Reply
0
User avatar #182 to #132 - ishallsmiteyou (11/03/2013) [-]
the whitehouse was torched by actual british soldiers during the counter invasion.
Reply
0
User avatar #276 to #182 - ugottanked (11/03/2013) [-]
ah, my mistake. now i feel like a dumbass
Reply
0
User avatar #23 to #7 - dxninjaxo (11/03/2013) [-]
yeah i guess. if i think of it like in risk where if you get attacked and u survive, you've won the fight. Also from the comments i've sorta learned that by "inconclusive" it just means America doesn't want to admit they lost lol.
Reply
0
User avatar #19 to #7 - gilliam (11/03/2013) [-]
The invader is losing as long as the war is not won, the defender is winning as long as it is not lost.
Reply
0
User avatar #353 to #7 - InflictorOfPain (12/01/2013) [-]
How can canada win if it didn't exist as an independent country? That's BS, since you were part of the British empire. And the Brits invaded the US and they also failed. The whole war started because the Brits kept supplying native insurgents with weapons and they attacked US citizens.
Reply
0
#27 to #7 - anon (11/03/2013) [-]
If that's the case, than Poland attacked Russia, and not Germany.
Reply
0
User avatar #8 to #7 - datbear (11/02/2013) [-]
well the british had a war goal to take the Michigan area and make it a huge reserve for native americans
Reply
-1
User avatar #9 to #8 - ishallsmiteyou (11/02/2013) [-]
That was just one objective of many. Technically Canada still one, although the British counter invasion failed.
Reply
0
User avatar #16 to #9 - datbear (11/02/2013) [-]
well, I guess america with its 12000 army and its 17 ships were kinda destine to fail.
Reply
+18
User avatar #18 - killingsin (11/02/2013) [-]
In this post and comment section we have an exceptional example of one of the more unfortunate side effects of nationalism.(the original concept not any modern political view)

History is written by the survivors.
Reply
0
#31 - anon (11/03/2013) [-]
We burned down your White House...and this time...we weren't sorry.
Reply
0
#244 to #31 - anon (11/03/2013) [-]
¨We burned down your White House¨. No, ¨they¨did it, neither you or anyone in Canada today was a part of it.
I get being proud of you nationality, but don´t try and pretend that you had anything to do with your country's history. The accomplishments done throughout a country's history belong to those whose actions helped atchieve it, and in this case those people came and went before you were born.
Reply
+1
User avatar #75 to #31 - swagloon (11/03/2013) [-]
The British Navy burn down the white house; and no it's not the "Canadian" either, they were soldiers coming from Europe after beating the France in a big battle.
Reply
+15
#41 to #31 - bogdaneight ONLINE (11/03/2013) [-]
Great, and we kicked your ass at the Battle of the Thames, Fort McHenry and New Orleans. Besides D.C wasn't really settled yet anyway.
Great, and we kicked your ass at the Battle of the Thames, Fort McHenry and New Orleans. Besides D.C wasn't really settled yet anyway.
Reply
0
User avatar #69 to #41 - apatheticalcare **User deleted account** (11/03/2013) [-]
I was under the impression that those were British forces.
Reply
0
User avatar #71 to #69 - bogdaneight ONLINE (11/03/2013) [-]
It was a combination of the two at the Thames, but yeah it was bassiclly all Brits at New Orleans and Fort McHenry. I was just trying to make a point.
Reply
+1
User avatar #73 to #71 - apatheticalcare **User deleted account** (11/03/2013) [-]
I guess should've just said Battle of Thames and not include those two to avoid confusion. Sorry, I'm easily confused. I'm just a hoser.
Reply
+3
User avatar #76 to #31 - achimp (11/03/2013) [-]
Canadians didn't. The British did. BIg difference.
Reply
0
User avatar #123 to #76 - pseudobob **User deleted account** (11/03/2013) [-]
approximately 44 years of difference if math serves me right. and not much other than that.
0
#88 to #76 - Crusader has deleted their comment [-]
Reply
+3
User avatar #114 to #31 - xdeathspawnx (11/03/2013) [-]
actually you didn't. Brittish troops are responsible for the Burning of Washington, not Canadian ones. And even if it had been canadian troops you can't really say that Canada burned down the whitehouse because it wasn't even a country yet, it was still a Brittish colony.
Reply
0
#103 to #31 - anon (11/03/2013) [-]
Sorry you still were French and British controlled you have no glory Canada
Reply
+22
#160 - dtox (11/03/2013) [-]
so sick of all of these people having **** fits and waving their patriotic dicks around.

The war of 1812 shouldn't have even happened, it was a textbook example of how NOT to fight a war.

The US got ****** up, the british got ****** up, canada was still british, EVERYONE blundered around at almost every major point of the conflict.

There is NOTHING to be proud of from this fight.
Reply
-1
User avatar #221 to #160 - theshadowed (11/03/2013) [-]
Its not like Britain could do much, or Canada for that reason. We were bogged down in Europe.
Reply
+5
User avatar #62 - brobafett ONLINE (11/03/2013) [-]
America:
>The first white house is burnt down.
Canada:
Has Quebec.

Whose the real inner here?
Reply
+5
#63 to #62 - Greevon (11/03/2013) [-]
Yes... which one is Quebec?
Reply
+2
#96 to #63 - chuckbillrow (11/03/2013) [-]
i want you to understand that what you did to Canada is basically the same as what i just did to America
Reply
0
User avatar #128 to #96 - brobafett ONLINE (11/03/2013) [-]
But that's correct. Texas America is best America.
Reply
0
User avatar #105 to #96 - vatra (11/03/2013) [-]
Well yes. That was essentially the point, it has been a long standing joke that most of the world sees the US as Texas, California, and the south (not even named, just the south)
Reply
+4
#67 - superwheels (11/03/2013) [-]
I'm from Canada, and I can tell you that we didn't gain our independence until 1867. That means that in 1812, Canada and England were essentially the same thing. The British army was the one occupying and defending the Canadas at that point so Canada can't take a lot of credit for it.
I'm from Canada, and I can tell you that we didn't gain our independence until 1867. That means that in 1812, Canada and England were essentially the same thing. The British army was the one occupying and defending the Canadas at that point so Canada can't take a lot of credit for it.
Reply
0
User avatar #282 to #67 - damping (11/04/2013) [-]
Thank you, we got Canadian patriots here touting that they beat the US.
Reply
0
#349 to #67 - adanac (11/17/2013) [-]
actually there had already been a large "Canadien" national movement in Quebec and later the rest of Canada. Most of Canada identified itself separate from Britain but unlike america didnt really care of gaining independence due to the fact of economic trade, defenses etc... Due to Britain's other conflicts they couldn't afford to fully supply enough troops to defend all of Canada, that is why most of Canada's defenses were made up of militia forces with a with a mixture of British, French and Canadian leaders.
Reply
+4
User avatar #25 - mylazy ONLINE (11/03/2013) [-]
The way I see it is that there were 2 winners, one relatively unaffected party, and one loser in that war. The US won in the sense that the things that the war was started over ended. Canada won the war by preventing the US from invading. GB was relatively unaffected because that war meant virtually nothing to them. Finally, we have the Native Americans or Indians (whichever your prefer). They lost that war. In that war they lost much of the land that they had held onto in the area between the US and Canada as well as one of their greatest leaders. Just my views.
Reply
0
#28 to #25 - anon (11/03/2013) [-]
So, to summarize your comment, all the white people either won in some aspect or just didn't care enough, and the only losers were the non-whites caught up in a white conflict. Sounds about right
Reply
+8
#184 - EdwardNigma (11/03/2013) [-]
Everyone else is talking about America and Canada and **** .

And I'm sitting here thinking "Yeah the Napoleon thing was pretty cool."
Reply
0
User avatar #220 to #184 - theshadowed (11/03/2013) [-]
******* intense war. Nelson and Wellington best British leaders
Reply
+3
#254 - helenwheels (11/03/2013) [-]
The winner of the war writes the histrory.
The winner of the war writes the histrory.
Reply
0
User avatar #350 to #254 - jackirl (11/24/2013) [-]
That's one of the central problems with history. The issue with subjective vs objective interpretation, the fact you need to know the history of the historian to understand what's put in front of you is pretty ******* stupid.
Reply
+3
User avatar #26 - newdevyx (11/03/2013) [-]
Could someone enlighten me about this war in the USA? i might have missed it in the history class or we may have not been taught about it. i remember being taught about the war where Americans fought for their independence in the 1770's and the civil war in the 1880's if i remember correctly. in exchange i can share some information on Finland's history if you're interested. I like history and i like sharing history with some people who are interested in it.
Reply
-3
User avatar #29 to #26 - nyuORlucy ONLINE (11/03/2013) [-]
america literally wanted territory from canada. it was still until british control at that time so it was again brits vs patriots. it lasted i think 2 years and nothing happened
Reply
-1
#37 to #29 - turbanmasher (11/03/2013) [-]
"The most famous episode was a series of British raids on the shores of Chesapeake Bay, including an attack on Washington that resulted in the British burning of the White House, the Capitol, the Navy Yard, and other public buildings, in the "Burning of Washington"."
Reply
0
#32 to #26 - anon (11/03/2013) [-]
American war was 1860's, not 80's
just a heads up
Reply
0
User avatar #181 to #32 - newdevyx (11/03/2013) [-]
you're right. checked it. i remembered it was in the 1880's
Reply
-8
#39 to #26 - solarisofcelestia ONLINE (11/03/2013) [-]
The war of 1812 was an armed conflict between the United States and Canada, who at the time were still considered British colonies loyal to the empire. At the time the United States maintained a philosophy of "manifest destiny" a belief that all of the land in the North and South American continents (the "new world" as it was considered) was the soul property of their newly formed nation. Thus as pioneers expanded westward they sought to take the land from any who weren't recognized as citizen of the United States. This meant fighting and displacing aboriginal tribes to the west, Spanish Mexicans to the south, and Canadians in the north.
It is possible that from the perspective of the Americans, they considered this better for those they invaded. The aboriginals were considered uncivilized and destroying their culture was for their benefit. For the Canadians, the United States were previously English colonies and Canada was currently considered a union of English colonies. So invading them was thought to be removing the final remains of Imperial influence in North America, and showing the colonists their new non-imperial way of life. This invasion didn't sit well with the Canadians and they defended Canada along the boarder to the United States. During the war the American capital was attacked and burnt by Canadian forces. The war was bloody, as all are, but eventually peace was found.
The British Empire on the other hand had its own problems with Napoleon leading France. But that conflict was on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean, so most Canadian settlements didn't even know they were at war with the French. This lack of knowledge boosted tolerance between English and French Canadians.
Reply
0
User avatar #283 to #39 - damping (11/04/2013) [-]
Wow Canadian Educations must be awful.
Reply
+1
#135 - mkchillin (11/03/2013) [-]
The Brits burned down the white house and Andrew Jackson humiliated them and killed their Napoleonic war hero in New Orleans after the peace treaty was signed.We'll call it a draw__
The Brits burned down the white house and Andrew Jackson humiliated them and killed their Napoleonic war hero in New Orleans after the peace treaty was signed.We'll call it a draw__
Reply
+5
User avatar #138 to #135 - achillesengland (11/03/2013) [-]
That isn't humiliating, it just makes Andrew Jackson a coward for killing when a man believed they were at peace
Reply
0
User avatar #139 to #138 - mkchillin (11/03/2013) [-]
Well, I included that part for dramatic effect; it took a long time for info to be relayed across the Atlantic so as far as the brits and americans back on US shores went, the war continued to rage on so technically we we were not at peace
Reply
0
User avatar #140 to #139 - achillesengland (11/03/2013) [-]
Practically we were not at peace, but technically we were. But it's cool as long as Horatio Nelson and the Duke of Wellington survived we were still able to show the French who's boss
Reply
0
User avatar #142 to #140 - mkchillin (11/03/2013) [-]
Eh I'm not a huge fan of the french but I liked that they had their 15 minutes under Napoleon. Definitely badass how you guys halted their domination and put them back in their place though
Reply
-1
User avatar #143 to #142 - achillesengland (11/03/2013) [-]
They're a very badass country actually, they're just kind of stereotyped as not. When we had our great empire they also had one that rivaled it and they of course invaded and took England in 1066 AD
Reply
0
User avatar #155 to #143 - USSRviper ONLINE (11/03/2013) [-]
Actually the french never,Normans were vikings who were given parts of northern France as a reward for beating off invading tribes. So we were invaded and conquered by the vikings in 1066
Reply
-1
User avatar #193 to #155 - achillesengland (11/03/2013) [-]
True, but they were very influenced by French culture by the time they invaded England, as seen by their use of knights and other French tactics and customs. So they had basically left behind many of their viking/pagan roots.
Reply
0
#357 to #138 - anon (08/27/2014) [-]
Not really: by that logic, the British were cowards for invading a country they had just made peace with.

But it's inconsequential: nobody really knew about it at the time, anyway.
Reply
0
User avatar #226 to #138 - Logicaltightrope (11/03/2013) [-]
Neither side knew they were at peace. Word had not reached America from Europe, so both sides fought it out in New Orleans without knowing.
Reply
0
User avatar #225 to #138 - killergoo (11/03/2013) [-]
ARE YOU A ******* IDIOT. The peace treaty was signed before the battle, but news of the treaty had yet to cross the Atlantic to America. Andrew Jackson killed a man who he was fighting against not a man wanting peace.
Reply
0
User avatar #258 to #225 - achillesengland (11/03/2013) [-]
Not really, read the comment I was replying to and you will see how it is understandable that I was not aware of this fact. From the point of view I was seeing it from that is how it looked.
Reply
0
User avatar #266 to #258 - killergoo (11/03/2013) [-]
I now see how the comment looked and how it was written made America look worse. But I believe that you should read into a topic before arguing about it. I had the luxury of watching a whole movie about it just on Thursday in history class. So this whole post kind of rustled my jimmies by how inaccurate it is.
Reply
0
User avatar #223 to #138 - theshadowed (11/03/2013) [-]
If you're referring to Packenham, Wellingtons brother-in-law, then he was killed leading an attack.
Reply
+1
User avatar #91 - TheseChocodiles (11/03/2013) [-]
There's always the people who see these posts and even from the beginning of the post are formulating some sort of longwinded comment in their head.

You know who are.
Reply
+1
#84 - wobblesbeatbox (11/03/2013) [-]
As a Canadian we were taught that America could have steam rolled us, but seeing as though Canadian militia men and other british/native american forces held the US off long enough that considering they had pretty much only recently gained their independence, most were "losing interest" in fighting. It's been a while, so take that with a grain of salt.
Reply
+1
User avatar #89 to #84 - datbear (11/03/2013) [-]
not really america had 12000 men and 17 ships we were going to attack through new york but some dudes were like hey this war is useless so just go home so we attacked through Michigan and it failed because its hard to win wars against the worlds greatest power at that time
Reply
0
#92 to #89 - wobblesbeatbox (11/03/2013) [-]
Thats what I mean by losing interest, people began realizing how useless it was, but they could have mucked our barns if they had gone through with the attack. Either way, nothing happened and Quebec's still a thing, so no one wins
Reply
+1
User avatar #34 - fredthemilkman (11/03/2013) [-]
For a relatively unbiased history:
The War of 1812 - Crash Course US History #11
Reply
+1
#126 - konradkurze (11/03/2013) [-]
this thread
Reply
0
User avatar #147 to #126 - playerdous (11/03/2013) [-]
What? I find it funny but also confusing.
Reply
0
User avatar #150 to #147 - konradkurze (11/03/2013) [-]
canada's opinion is theyre bigger and america is their little bitch

kinda simple
Reply
0
User avatar #152 to #150 - playerdous (11/03/2013) [-]
Okay got it, the prison thing made think that it was some reference to our or their prison system. Thanks.
Reply
0
#205 - anon (11/03/2013) [-]
at first i was like this...
Reply
0
#207 to #205 - anon (11/03/2013) [-]
... but later i was like this.

War is always played by two players, US fags.
Reply
-2
#219 to #207 - dsrtpnk (11/03/2013) [-]
Typical keyboard warrior.
Reply
0
#231 to #219 - anon (11/03/2013) [-]
i guess i found a pic of ur dad m8
Reply
0
#234 to #231 - dsrtpnk (11/03/2013) [-]
I think you uploaded the wrong picture "m8".

Try again.
Reply
0
#239 to #234 - anon (11/03/2013) [-]
is this him by any chance, captured by a girl 1/2 the size?
Reply
-1
User avatar #241 to #239 - dsrtpnk (11/03/2013) [-]
Nice cropped photo.

But no, you're going to have to re-google it.

Do you have any pictures of your father? Did he stay around long enough for pictures?
Reply
0
#242 to #241 - anon (11/03/2013) [-]
at least i found your mom and your dad, kinda lol
i love murican "an hero" cemeteries. US foreign policy 4evar.
cya lil buddy.
Reply
-1
#247 to #242 - dsrtpnk (11/03/2013) [-]
I'm not black, lol. But I'm sure your father was, if we could ever find him. I hope you're not the product of rape. But it might explain your obsession with vintage photos and death.
I'm sorry your father wasn't around to hit you.

I'm glad you love "murican "an hero" cemeteries. All I can find are regular ones around here.
I'm sorry but I'm going to have to reject your blown kiss, you see I'm not attracted to cowardly anons, especially when they're too scared to comment without clicking the Anon box.
Good try though.
Reply
0
#158 - ramerez (11/03/2013) [-]
As a Scotsman all i can tell you about our wars is "FREEEDUUURRRRMMMM" and for some reason we really hate the English.
Reply
-1
User avatar #170 to #158 - mysticana (11/03/2013) [-]
There seems to be a lot of Scots on this website.
Reply
-1
User avatar #180 to #158 - namnori (11/03/2013) [-]
Is it true that, in Scotland, kids are taught that the movie Braveheart is 100% fact?

I spoke to a Scottish girl a while ago who seemed to think that was exactly how **** went down. Obviously I felt obliged to educate the poor child on how the movie was 75% ******** .

Also most English people have no problem with the Scottish, you just seem to hate us for no reason.
Reply
-1
User avatar #210 to #180 - ramerez (11/03/2013) [-]
I know brave heart is basically only like 22% historically correct. The whole English thing i have no idea why, thats why i am voting no on independence because people want to be "Free from England" which would end in our downfall.
Reply
-1
User avatar #211 to #210 - namnori (11/03/2013) [-]
Glad to finally meet someone who isn't all " WHAT?! YOU'RE ENGLISH?! I ******* HATE YOU! BLOCKED"
Reply
-1
User avatar #212 to #211 - ramerez (11/03/2013) [-]
I'm not racist , some of my best friends are English
Reply
-1
User avatar #213 to #212 - namnori (11/03/2013) [-]
Jolly good old chap
Reply
-1
User avatar #197 to #180 - shadowmaul (11/03/2013) [-]
Well Braveheart is not 100% fact it is based on a true story so I don't see how you get 75% ********
Reply
-1
User avatar #198 to #197 - namnori (11/03/2013) [-]
Well the battle at the start that he wins, yeah that bit is true. After that he was caught and hanged. That makes the rest of the movie ******** because he was dead.
Reply
-1
User avatar #201 to #198 - shadowmaul (11/03/2013) [-]
Just because he was in it doesn't make it ******** if it actually happened...there was no one famous person alive for the ENTIRE thing so they decided hey lets keep him around a little longer I would say the movie is 60% 40% ******** with a majority pass
Reply
-1
User avatar #202 to #201 - namnori (11/03/2013) [-]
Alright, I apologise. My estimate was a little bit off.
Reply
-4
#172 to #158 - cubonee (11/03/2013) [-]
Feelings Neutral
Feelings Neutral
Reply
0
User avatar #216 to #172 - ramerez (11/03/2013) [-]
but i like England :[
123>
[ 226 comments ]
Leave a comment
<
>
 Friends (0)