Rank #21739 on CommentsLevel 176 Content: Soldier Of Funnyjunk
OfflineSend mail to Mandible Block Mandible Invite Mandible to be your friend flag avatar
Mandible account v 2.0 HEE HEE
latest user's comments
|#1 - I know you think you're saying something profound but really y… [+] (4 new replies)||12/26/2013 on A cat's terminal velocity...||+6|
#7 - Mandible (12/26/2013) [-]
#8 - traelos (12/26/2013) [-]
Ground breaking? No. Valid? Yes.
Am I saying you can't hate someone for their intolerance? Of course not that would be hypocritical and inane. Am I saying you can't pretend you're a beacon of tolerance and understanding if your tolerance isn't universal? Of course, otherwise you're an inane hypocrite.
You see the problem is you go "I'm such a tolerant and open minded person" and then act completely intolerant and closed minded.
#9 - Mandible (12/27/2013) [-]
I don't go anything like that but let's just assume you meant 'you' as in 'one'.
And this supposed point, of the original post, might have a bit of validity as much as saying water is wet. It's redundant and pointless in any MEANINGFUL way.
The message it give is in effect to give validity to someone's hatred of someone's different lifestyle that is doing nothing to hurt anyone other than the hater's personal sensibilities, and often religious views, by saying that somehow it's "intolerant" to point out their batshit-ness is, again, just an excuse to be an turdbucket.
I am a very tolerant person, for the most part, as are the people I choose to surround myself with. Becoming more and more so. As far as I know, no one I know claims saint hood. And yes there are things I will not tolerate. No one is going to beat or molest a child around me as well as a number of other things but again to say that somehow negates my tolerance because someone completely doesn't understand how the concept of tolerance is applied is, as you would say, inane, and as I would say, ignorant.
|#107 - okay james [+] (1 new reply)||12/26/2013 on A FJ Christmas Carol||0|
|#64 - hahahahaha [+] (3 new replies)||12/25/2013 on A FJ Christmas Carol||+1|
|#63 - TL R [+] (4 new replies)||12/25/2013 on A FJ Christmas Carol||-1|
|#16 - Stupid||12/24/2013 on This reminds me of Spore||0|
|#82 - Picture||12/16/2013 on Cartoon Piano||0|
|#81 - Picture||12/16/2013 on Cartoon Piano||0|
|#74 - This kills the Man...dible||12/12/2013 on It's true!||0|
|#73 - Stupid nerves and their constant passing through. There goes …||12/12/2013 on It's true!||0|
|#72 - Get your nerve outta my Mandible||12/12/2013 on It's true!||0|
|#10 - XK DAMN CD||12/02/2013 on What did you see?||0|
|#4 - Picture||11/26/2013 on Mandible's profile||0|
|#235 - Nope. You really are retarded. [+] (2 new replies)||11/23/2013 on This would make the best...||0|
|#233 - Cool Story Bro [+] (4 new replies)||11/23/2013 on This would make the best...||+1|
|#231 - Deal||11/23/2013 on This would make the best...||0|
|#230 - ******* [+] (1 new reply)||11/23/2013 on This would make the best...||0|
|#229 - Big [+] (2 new replies)||11/23/2013 on This would make the best...||0|
|#227 - Who the **** is mad? [+] (4 new replies)||11/23/2013 on This would make the best...||0|
|#225 - Not in the ******* least. I stand by my comment.… [+] (6 new replies)||11/23/2013 on This would make the best...||-2|
|#198 - ******* idiot. You need to understand that you d…||11/23/2013 on Doge||0|
|#221 - Big ******* Deal [+] (14 new replies)||11/23/2013 on This would make the best...||-1|
|#14 - Nope. I call ******** [+] (25 new replies)||11/22/2013 on Doge||-19|
#104 - ruebezahl (11/22/2013) [-]
Except the war in Iraq was not about 9/11. Yes, 9/11 was employed as an emotional anchor to get people to support the war, and the sentiment surrounding 9/11 made the Iraq War more feasible for the Bush administration, but the main reasoning was the supposed existence of weapons of mass destruction. Remember Colin Powell holding up that vial of Anthrax?
The war in Afghanistan was a different story. It was an absolute certainty that Osama Bin Laden was operating out of Afghanistan with the support of the Afghan government. So that picture doesn't apply to Afghanistan.
And for the record: I am a pacifist, and I don't condone any war. I am just making a statement about the "reasoning" behind the wars and the fact that this picture does not really apply to either.
#51 - neoexdeath (11/22/2013) [-]
Look, you need to understand that Saddam was already in deep shit because of the whole Kuwait thing. Supporting terrorism and the Taliban was essentially the last straw for the USA. At the end of the Gulf War, we made a treaty with the fellow to end the war, and when it was violated, war started right back up again. It had less to do with 9/11, and more to do with Saddam being a total cocksucking asshole.
#162 - duudegladiator (11/22/2013) [-]
I don't think you understand, I'm American, born and raised Marylander, who has seen the Canadian military in the works. They can do some epic shit.
1812 was just the colonies attempt at taking the St. Lawrence river and all the lands around it to force the British to both back off, and to get more holdings.
#77 - anonymous (11/22/2013) [-]
Because that's the point of his message. retard.
#30 - goldsignet (11/22/2013) [-]
and is also part of nato. really, the only army on the planet that could occupy canada is the us, every other army would find themselves trying to invade over oceans and air space dominated by the worlds most powerful country, while taking it up the ass by the vast majority of the eu. i always say the first world is the first world because were watching each others backs when it counts, while the second and third world countries squabble amongst themselves needlessly
#47 - vincetacular (11/22/2013) [-]
And us first world countries also squabble needlessly but like you said we would most likely team up when it's necessary, a bit like these guys.
#49 - vincetacular (11/22/2013) [-]
Literally the rest of the world? I doubt that, they're the biggest by far but taking on the rest of the world is far fetched. I did not say the US wouldn't/couldn't win, I just said they would have a bad day if they underestimate some other countries. History also told us that a good strategy is worth far more than having the highest tonnage in combat vessels (see Pearl harbour and the entire pacific campaign of WW2, yes they won but I hardly think you could call pearl harbour a good day). Again I do realise the US navy is by far the biggest and will very likely be the victor against any other navy but at probably high costs if the enemy is smart and that was what I meant with ruining your day.
From wikipedia (pure numbers don't mean anything I know):
In aircraft the US is vastly superior but in ships they might have a hard time, even a ship with massive weapon capacities can get in trouble when it's swarmed by relatively weak ships.
#200 - anonymous (11/29/2013) [-]
I think he was talking about sneak attacks and ambushes and shit hence the reference to pearl harbour. Imagine multiple small strike forces of Chinese subs stalking our carriers from a safe distance and going all out kamikaze on them at the same time. They'll get killed for sure but if they hit the carriers first... Lets hope they don't try some shit like that but either way I'm pretty sure they wont be able to stalk all of our carriers.
#23 - anonymous (11/22/2013) [-]
Easily fight back an invasion? Canada? Have you even seen their army?
#24 - anonymous (11/22/2013) [-]
Canada has a decent military with combat experience more than capable of handling UAE
#22 - anonymous (11/22/2013) [-]
The point of the picture was to take the scenario that happened and apply it to a different case, to see it from a different perspective. I don't know man
|#6607369 - Sigh. You're dense because you think it's hyper-analyzing and…||11/12/2013 on SFW Random Board~||0|
|#6595979 - Unlike your retard blowout I'm simply going to say that you ar… [+] (2 new replies)||11/11/2013 on SFW Random Board~||0|
|#6586516 - LOL McVegan! Ahhhh that kills me every time!!! [+] (4 new replies)||11/11/2013 on SFW Random Board~||0|