Rank #33188 on SubscribersLevel 178 Comments: Soldier Of Funnyjunk
OfflineSend mail to Poolee Block Poolee Invite Poolee to be your friend
|Last status update:|| |
|Date Signed Up:||8/06/2010|
|FunnyJunk Career Stats|
|Content Thumbs:||987 total, 1226 , 239|
|Comment Thumbs:||803 total, 1010 , 207|
|Content Level Progress:|| 10% (1/10) |
Level 97 Content: Srs Business → Level 98 Content: Srs Business
|Comment Level Progress:|| 80% (8/10) |
Level 178 Comments: Soldier Of Funnyjunk → Level 179 Comments: Soldier Of Funnyjunk
|Times Content Favorited:||57 times|
|Total Comments Made:||371|
|Favorite Tags:||Google (2) | mewtwo (2) | Pokemon (2)|
- Views: 18117Google
626 85 Total: +541
- Views: 4979Joke
170 33 Total: +137
- Views: 3477Hope for them yet
65 20 Total: +45
- Views: 1223My messed up dream
22 1 Total: +21
- Views: 775GTFO
19 1 Total: +18
- Views: 1057An alternate ending
15 1 Total: +14
- Views: 916The Original "Deal with...
19 2 Total: +17
- Views: 1137Mine Craft TNT
6 2 Total: +4
- Views: 618Funny every time
5 1 Total: +4
- Views: 1672Here Comes Santa Claus
4 3 Total: +1
latest user's comments
|#203 - I wasn't saying you were contradicting it, I was just trying t…||12/22/2015 on Hermionegate||0|
|#200 - Well, in Sorcerer's Stone, he's described wearing purple robes… [+] (3 new replies)||12/22/2015 on Hermionegate||0|
#202 - europe (12/22/2015) [-]
One last time, so read this very carefully.
I'm saying nothing in the book contradicts that Dumbledore might be gay.
To contradict means to oppose directly oppose a certain assertion.
I'm saying that it's perfectly well possible that Dumbledore was gay. Do you understand?
#204 - anon (12/22/2015) [-]
No dude seriously its ok for Dumbledore to be gay
|#131 - He was trying to say how the way we speak now would have been … [+] (2 new replies)||12/08/2015 on Assorted Internets #45||+1|
#143 - hanabro (12/08/2015) [-]
Which is bullshit, by the way. Do I need to bust out the list of words that Shakespeare fucking MADE UP? It's absurd. We have so many different words for so many different things that they didn't, English is WAY better now than it used to be. Plus, Shakespeare's plays were written for the common folk, so they were basically written in the back-then equivalent of ghetto niggerspeak.
|#76 - I don't think Leela can process 3-D space. No depth perception||10/14/2015 on uh oh||0|
|#93 - Mankind - Knee hurts? We have the technology. We don't let a…||09/30/2015 on How to Fix Chronic Knee Pain||0|
|#94 - Yeah, exactly. I assumed what they did to me was what the did…||09/25/2015 on Wisdom Tooth Removal||+1|
|#76 - Whenever I got mine out, they were already exposed above the g… [+] (4 new replies)||09/25/2015 on Wisdom Tooth Removal||+1|
#93 - kcits (09/25/2015) [-]
**kcits used "*roll picture*"**
**kcits rolled image** Same here. I had my wisdom teeth out when I was no longer a teenager. Holy fuck.
Despite my best brushing and flossing, it turned out one was slightly impacted/had a huge cavity. It also turns out that it's better to have wisdom teeth removed when you're younger, because once the teeth "sprout" or whatever, their roots can get deeper.
So, what they literally did to me, after the needles, which really aren't all that bad, is they gripped it with pliers. One dentist held my head, while the other kept wiggling it back and forth and pulling. There was no sharp pain, but there was massive pressure as they were literally ripping a bone from my jaw.
Worst part was that they had to take the other wisdom tooth on the same side, so that one wouldn't go into the empty hole. It wasn't the most painful thing that's happened to me, but it really was the most uncomfortable/weird/fucking felt like that Martel dude in Jame of Thrones, in danger of getting his head crushed.
Actually, the worst part is they don't let you keep the tooth. It's apparently not cute, if it's not baby teeth and considered a bio hazard.
So, nah, you're not alone. Call me ignorant, but I never knew they could get them below the gum like that.
|#6 - No, the skateboarder clearly does not loop||07/26/2015 on This gif does not loop||0|
|#45 - The thing that confuses me the most about this, is that regard… [+] (24 new replies)||07/26/2015 on -_-'||-3|
#105 - anon (07/26/2015) [-]
Was giving up their flag part of the treaty? I doubt it.
#49 - Tyranitar (07/26/2015) [-]
Because the southern states couldn't accept that they lost, and they just clinged to the Confederacy for years after it's failure. Then they told their kids about it, and so on, until eventually it just became a symbol for the south.
And they think it's a warning that the south can secede and fight America again, like they wouldn't get completely stomped within like a week.
#106 - anon (07/26/2015) [-]
If the South seceded as a unit, who would fight them? Would you murder people to keep them under your control? If you're not that kind of person, then who is?
#83 - youregaylol (07/26/2015) [-]
northerners dont have the will to fight wars anymore, it's not really surprising considering the amount of emasculation they've been propogating these past years
even during the civil war the north outnumbered the south 2 to 1 and still had 100,000 more causalities
#56 - ByeliVolk (07/26/2015) [-]
Depends on how you look at it. Do you think that the soldiers are going to want to fight them if they know it is their families or what not. A good chunk of your modern military comes from them and majority of prominent military bases are based in the South. So what you are saying is that America is willingly going to repeat another Civil War and watch bloodshed happen on its soil again. Just think of the majority population and where their location is and realize the amount of causalities it would cost to maintain or regain control. So it would not be over in a week just like in the first Civil War the North though it would be over in a day.
#91 - Deeticky (07/26/2015) [-]
1: You're making the assumption that all those military bases in the South would stop being loyal to the United States the second another Civil War happened. I figure that many of those military bases would probably fight the southern rebels while they waited for reinforcements from the North.
2: If the United States government were in any danger of losing this Second Civil War, the U.S. military forces stationed all over the world would be recalled to defend their country. I bet they would come up through Mexico, forcing the Rebels into a two-front war.
3: The U.S.' NATO allies would send reinforcements as well.
4: The Death Star will ensure the Rebel Alliance's complete and utter destruction.
#108 - anon (07/26/2015) [-]
1) You're making the assumption that only a small portion of the population would support seceding from the North. If that wasn't the case, then who would the military bases in the South support, their friends and families, or the people who want to kill their friends and families?
2) Who would rush to kill people in the South in order to keep them under the control of the Federal government?
3) NATO wouldn't likely get involved in a US civil war.
4) If the Southern rebels got control of 1 nuclear weapon (of the many in the South which are manned by Southerners), the North would be forced to abandon reconquering the South.
#125 - Deeticky (07/26/2015) [-]
1: I think as it stands right now, only a very small portion does support Southern rebellion.
2: The President and military high command would order soldiers stationed abroad to come back to the U.S. to fight the rebels. That's pretty straightforward.
3: Depends. For one thing, NATO has invested interest in helping the U.S. maintain the status quo. The U.S.A.'s massive military is one of the things that makes NATO so powerful. In addition, I think most NATO countries would relish the opportunity to place the U.S. in their debt by helping with the war effort.
4: I will say that yes, if the rebels gained control of nukes, it would make things a lot harder for the North. However, the North still has plenty of Nukes of its own, as well as plenty of submarines carrying nuclear missiles. Mutually Assured Destruction would still be at play, and I think that neither the South nor the North wants to see the entire country become a nuclear wasteland.
5: You're forgetting about the DEATH STAR.
#128 - ByeliVolk (07/26/2015) [-]
Depends on how you look at it. If there was a Second Civil war you would have to admit there would be a majority of the people wanting to secede from the United States to do so just like the first one. The second point is that the soldiers aboard are probably not going to be willing to attack and kill possible family members and would try to sabotage a majority of the missions. NATO countries would try to sell to the Rebels while sending them old military surplus if there was any and after the Civil War would strike and gain control of the land. Also if a Nuke was involved it would possibly launch WW3 because of retaliation effect if used which would be the last thing we would want.
#130 - Deeticky (07/27/2015) [-]
1: A second Civil War could happen many different ways. I suppose we can't know for sure exactly how many people would have to want to secede in order for it to actually happen.
2: Civil wars happen all over the world. While soldiers being ordered to fight their own countrymen is always hard, it hasn't stopped governmental forces from winning civil wars in the past. I will say, we would probably see a number of southerners desert the military, but I think northern recruits would make up for it.
3: I don't think NATO would be likely to aid with the rebels in a Second Civil War in any way. First, Article 5 of the Nato treaty requires all member states to come to the aid of any other member state which is subject to an armed attack. If they did not help the USA, they would be breaking the treaty, which in the current state of global affairs, would be a very bad thing to do. I don't see why NATO would try and strike to gain control of the land. None of the current NATO governments seem particularly expansionist.
4: Yes, launching nuclear weapons always carries the potential to start WW3. However, in this case, I think it would be unlikely. The rebels would have no State allies. Both WW1 and WW2 took place between 2 groups of allied countries (Allied Powers vs. Central Powers in WW1, and the Allies vs. the Axis in WW2). I'll say it again, the Rebels would have no allies. Even the USA's rivals, like China, are to economically interconnected with the US to justify supporting the rebels.
#131 - ByeliVolk (07/27/2015) [-]
Civil wars do happen in the world all the time but usually in third world / developing countries, they very rarely ever happen in modern first world countries and a forced conscription as known as the Draft would have many negative consequences that would result in a backlash and lowering the popularity of current holding president in term at that time and would be more infamous then Zachary Taylor. I know of maybe one country that would sell to the South Rebels in the case of it happening and that would be the French for they really do not give a shit since they have sold to our enemies before they will sell to them again and they would repeat their sells like the did in the First American Civil War. The Rebels would have allies but it would be in countries that oppose us or no longer care for us. China would definitely do it and so would Russia if it meant they could claim American Soil.
You bring up good points but what I am pointing out here is that in the current situation if a Civil War was to break out now in modern times the amount of casualties would be high and the amount of backlash and problems would be too high.
Your second point I think I want to point out is that unless you put out a forceful Draft the idea of making up enough recruits to replace defectors would be astronomical. And to win a war that you enemy has forcefully captured your assets that you have garnered and use the same tech as you it becomes hard to field enough assets to cover the deficit. Also the same State in the past would be the most valuable state again in the case of the Secession which is Virgina since it has closet proximity to the Capital and fastest access to the leader.
#132 - Deeticky (07/27/2015) [-]
In the event of another Civil War, I think the draft would not be as unpopular as you think. The reason for this is that the rebels would be an immediate threat to the American people and would be actively trying to take over American land. During WW2, the draft was not especially unpopular due to the fact that soldiers viewed themselves as defending America against the Japanese and the Nazis. The Vietnam War, which saw an extremely unpopular draft, was not a defensive war. Our soldiers were not being viewed as defending America in that war. Instead, people just saw young men getting shipped off to die in a far away land.
I will say that I would not be surprised if China and Russia sold weapons to both the U.S. government and the rebels. Both of those countries have historically been very willing to make money off of others' wars (much like the U.S.). However, I don't see any basis to assume that either China or Russia would be interested in trying to take U.S. territory for themselves. First, both China and Russia are located on the other side of the planet. It would be extremely difficult for either country to transport the sheer volume of troops and supplies across the Pacific Ocean required to conquer America. Second, both China and Russia have their own local territorial disputes already. I think if they were to gain any territory from a U.S. civil war, it would only be within their own continents. Third, the U.S. has nukes stationed all over the world, which makes invasion an extremely bad idea. If either China or Russia were to invade, they could probably count on being nuked at some point.
Also, what are you referring to when you say France has sold to our enemies before? I'm not talking about the previous Civil War, because that was before NATO. If the French government were to do that openly nowadays, it would be a breach of the NATO treaty like I mentioned before.
I think it is important to point out that while the rebels would have many of the same assets as the U.S. government, they would be missing a very important piece. The Navy. The U.S. has a massive navy. The rebels would quickly see their ports blockaded and would be subject to airstrikes and landing parties from the sea.
I will definitely say that I agree with you in terms of the potential for casualties. They would definitely be massive and catastrophic for both sides.
#46 - anon (07/26/2015) [-]
its like flying the mexican flag in texas
#133 - Deeticky (07/27/2015) [-]
I think the important thing to note is that they are not flying the Mexican flag outside of government buildings. Most liberals that I know might assume people who fly the confederate flag are racist, but do not want to see it banned from being flown the private property of private citizens. Liberals care about the First Amendment just as much as everybody else.
#135 - Deeticky (07/27/2015) [-]
What laws are you referring to? There are laws against hate speech in Europe, but most American Liberals I know are vehemently against many of them.
Threats of violence are illegal. But those are not protected under Free Speech anyway. The Supreme Court ruled on that long ago.
#137 - Deeticky (07/27/2015) [-]
Those are not laws. Even the Wikipedia page states that these codes are being implemented in the workplace, Universities, and private institutions. These codes are not being implemented by the Legislative, Executive, or Judicial branches (Which are all bound by the Constitution). They are being implemented by the governing bodies of Universities and private institutions, which are not bound by the same constitutional limits as the government is.
Long story short, hate speech codes are not the same as hate speech laws. I say this as a liberal who is generally against hate speech codes.
#139 - Deeticky (07/27/2015) [-]
Notice how I said I was against hate-speech codes. I am against them for the very same reason that you are, because they are taking place at public universities using public funds. I think they'll end up at the Supreme Court some day. It will be an interesting case to watch. At the same time, it is important to remember that universities are allowed to set their own codes of conduct (within limits as dictated by the courts). Again, these are codes, not laws. It is very important to differentiate between the two.
I attend one of the more Liberal Universities in the country (University of Minnesota, Twin-Cities). I am a liberal. I have a lot of liberal friends and classmates. I am an active volunteer in the DFL (Minnesota's version of the Democratic party). I have definitely met a few people who want to see hate speech laws expanded, but they are definitely in the minority. The majority of us do support laws that make it illegal to threaten people with violence. That has been the law of the land for a long time though.
All I'm trying to show is that most liberals, just like most conservatives, love and value the First Amendment.
#140 - youregaylol (07/27/2015) [-]
I've seen too many liberal pundits justify racial violence by saying that the offenders were provoked by the victims (muh institutionalized racism, muh confederate flag, muh police brutality) to trust that liberals care about speech or violence anymore.
The democratic party is filled with radical progressives who drive the agenda, my father was a democrat for many years until he realized that they were chastising Christians for refusing to serve gay weddings, justifying race riots and inflaming racial violence, making terrorists look like freedom fighters or sympathetic, dickriding muslims while blasting anything christian, refusing to defend the border with mexico and calling anyone who wanted to a racist, demonisizing the american police force while idolizing thugs, supporting gay pride parades that have half naked men running around in public making out, forcing people to give money to planned parenthood, the bullshit list goes on and on and on.
It's not the working mans party anymore, its just bullshit progressive dogma over and over again.
#141 - Deeticky (07/28/2015) [-]
You're from Texas, right? Perhaps the Democratic party in Texas is far different from the party here in Minnesota? I have seen people become upset at businesses who refuse to serve gays, but it had nothing to do with the fact that they were Christians. These people would be just as upset if it were a Muslim business refusing to serve gays, etc. I also have not seen any liberals call terrorists freedom fighters. I'm sure that there are probably liberal bloggers online who do that. It's no different from conservative bloggers who support the KKK. There are extremists on both sides.
While I have seen a lot of people complaining about police brutality (Which I would say is a justified complaint at this point in time), I have never seen a single person "idolize thugs." I'm not even 100% sure what that means.
Also, I think it's unfair to pretend that liberal pundits speak for all liberals. The media always takes things to the extreme because rage always generates revenue. The right has just as many pundits of its own (Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, etc).
Overall, I feel like you seem to be lumping liberals into one big stereotype. The reason I don't like that is because it hurts our ability to work together and get things done. We need to be able to have an open and honest dialogue. I get equally frustrated whenever I hear people make stereotypes about conservatives (they're racists, bigots, greedy, etc). I believe that most conservatives, just like most liberals, love this country and just want the best for it.
|#57 - Comment deleted||07/18/2015 on Kiss her!||0|