Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu

aabbccddeeffgghhii    

Rank #1134 on Comments
aabbccddeeffgghhii Avatar Level 265 Comments: Pure Win
Offline
Send mail to aabbccddeeffgghhii Block aabbccddeeffgghhii Invite aabbccddeeffgghhii to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:6/20/2012
Last Login:10/24/2014
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Content Ranking:#8397
Comment Ranking:#1134
Highest Content Rank:#6855
Highest Comment Rank:#481
Content Thumbs: 192 total,  252 ,  60
Comment Thumbs: 7944 total,  10006 ,  2062
Content Level Progress: 70% (7/10)
Level 17 Content: New Here → Level 18 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 0% (0/100)
Level 265 Comments: Pure Win → Level 266 Comments: Pure Win
Subscribers:0
Content Views:23146
Times Content Favorited:7 times
Total Comments Made:1874
FJ Points:6677

latest user's comments

#17 - The episode was just **** , retarded filler.… 09/06/2014 on Next time on Doctor Who 0
#8 - Manly tears. 09/06/2014 on Don't worry Yoshi I can... +2
#13 - As a fatty, i approve. We aren't protected. You can … 09/06/2014 on Fatty +1
#36 - I like how one is the stereotypical black and the other the st…  [+] (3 new replies) 09/06/2014 on (untitled) +15
#43 - fatbasturd (09/06/2014) [-]
Featuring.... Rob...Schneider as... The Stapler
User avatar #38 - englishtallybopper (09/06/2014) [-]
im probably the only one thinking they would make a good money from porn
#39 - aabbccddeeffgghhii (09/06/2014) [-]
Dat shit be gay.
#225 - Ok, giving anything to a child and expecting it to value its &…  [+] (1 new reply) 09/06/2014 on Fuck 'em 0
#235 - inomgod (09/06/2014) [-]
Wow, man you seem mad.

I didn't blame the tech, and I didn't say ponder life.
I even said parenting is the issue.
I said don't let them abuse it, and I said teach them to respect it.
Which is definitely possible. I agree on teaching them.
I just think there are many ways, and the best in my opinion is for them to earn the right to use it.
I seriously think you have an issue with understanding where I am disagreeing and agreeing.

but i'm done here, so don't hurt me. I don't want to see you lose you cool mister Alphbet
#211 - Toys have an age range just to let parents know at what age a …  [+] (3 new replies) 09/05/2014 on Fuck 'em 0
#220 - inomgod (09/06/2014) [-]
I mostly agree.
But I am not sure you understand my words clearly.
I said recommended age. That really means nothing if there is no danger to a child learning to use it.
So I really have no problem with it.
However, I also said responsibility. Will the kids use it responsibly? such as harassing other with it's features, such as with the internet?
That, and the rest of what I have to say is more of a parenting/policing/government issue, though.
The "kids shouldn't have phones because they are too young" is stupid. The problem is, you are handing an advanced piece of tech, one of the biggest on the planet, to a child who knows nothing about it.

It's value, it's origin, it's history. It took millennium to get here, and the children, who do not value it, will likely break and waste it. This tech was earned through a ridiculous amount of work of others. Unfortunately, even adults waste it. Age restrictions need not apply, but the cost and protection of resources do. The child should learn about it and earn it, as then they will understand it's value. And ther should be more focus toward preservation/repairing/recycling damaged tech.
Anyway, most of the people commenting misunderstand the Content. The children having the fire "phone" isn't the problem.

it's that, although they are educating uniformed adults about practical and important functions of an untapped technology, they do it in a manner of pompous superiority. They act as if they earned the right for any of it, and downright insult the adults for not knowing about this obscure technology. They are the jerks of the internet, who act better than everyone else, because they know one thing much better than anyone else around them. Worse, they act/dress like hipsters, but can't possibly know any sort of history. They are even considered engaged in the commercial, and the girls makes it obvious it's for the boys invested money. Still, it's not the kid's fault, just the writers for the commercials.
#225 - aabbccddeeffgghhii (09/06/2014) [-]
Ok, giving anything to a child and expecting it to value its "History, and origin." is a bullshit argument. Did you pick up a Gameboy as a child and just ponder life before you used it? No, so why do you expect children to do that now?

No one does that. No one. We may think about it once whilst using it, but it doesn't make us respect it more. So why do you expect a child to do that?

If you do read my original comment I do hint at monitoring the child by limiting what he/she can do on the internet and limiting the data they can use. The phone doesn't make the child do bad things on the internet, their friend group does. So as a responsible parent its your job to teach them correctly what to do and what not to do. You cant blame the phone for a human issue.

Cost and protection of resources? Get out of here, are you serious? Dude, whether you give a child a phone or fucking lego, thats resources their going to waste. Its just the difference of materials.

You are blaming technology a lot. Like its the gadget that makes the child a little shit which is not the case. Its the parenting that is the issue, not the technology.

"TIMMY! Stop swearing on the internet or i'll take your phone away!"

*Continues to do it*

"Right thats it, give it to me!"

*Wait an hour till he calms down*

"Now do you know why i did that?"

Its basic parenting. You teach your child right from wrong and don't blame it on the technology.
#235 - inomgod (09/06/2014) [-]
Wow, man you seem mad.

I didn't blame the tech, and I didn't say ponder life.
I even said parenting is the issue.
I said don't let them abuse it, and I said teach them to respect it.
Which is definitely possible. I agree on teaching them.
I just think there are many ways, and the best in my opinion is for them to earn the right to use it.
I seriously think you have an issue with understanding where I am disagreeing and agreeing.

but i'm done here, so don't hurt me. I don't want to see you lose you cool mister Alphbet
#51 - What would they do with a bit of a phone that is used, worn an…  [+] (1 new reply) 09/05/2014 on (untitled) 0
User avatar #55 - charlesanthony (09/05/2014) [-]
Hmmm, i see now. I'm not so well informed on these things. Thanks for the explanation .
#72 - Who says there not to be used by kids? That's right, …  [+] (5 new replies) 09/05/2014 on Fuck 'em -2
#173 - inomgod (09/05/2014) [-]
I agree with most of your argument, just not the first part

"Who says they are not for kids?... That's right, we do."

We shouldn't.

A) if all toys and tools have age ranges,
B) and all phones are tools and toys,
then they should all have age ranges

Therefore, like toy companies, phone manufacturers should have a recommended age range.

Not to mention that expensive technology made from rare/valuable/scarce/limited resources/materials are only for those with both the responsibility and knowledge to use and care for it, and the hard work to earn it, therefore children should not use it.
#211 - aabbccddeeffgghhii (09/05/2014) [-]
Toys have an age range just to let parents know at what age a child is most likely to enjoy, and understand how to play, they game.

A phone, especially iPhone because their so simple to use, can literally be used and enjoyed by any age.

My cousin picked up the iPad and literally taught himself how to use it. He opend apps, played around for a little while, and finally found a game. He grabbed the little birds, they flung and it entertained him. He realised then to go back to that specific app.

He was three and I watched him do it. No one helped him and it took im half an hour?

There IS no age range for phones (i know my cousin used an iPad but the idea is the same for phones) because any age can understand how to use it. Especially when you're 10 years old.

I mean, whats wrong with a 8-10 year old having a phone? Really, what is wrong with that? If anything i would want my child to have a phone so they could call me if they needed anything when they are out side playing, or in school or even out with family.

Really what this all boils down to, and even though its not out right said here, is "Kids shouldn't have phones because their young" which is stupid.
#220 - inomgod (09/06/2014) [-]
I mostly agree.
But I am not sure you understand my words clearly.
I said recommended age. That really means nothing if there is no danger to a child learning to use it.
So I really have no problem with it.
However, I also said responsibility. Will the kids use it responsibly? such as harassing other with it's features, such as with the internet?
That, and the rest of what I have to say is more of a parenting/policing/government issue, though.
The "kids shouldn't have phones because they are too young" is stupid. The problem is, you are handing an advanced piece of tech, one of the biggest on the planet, to a child who knows nothing about it.

It's value, it's origin, it's history. It took millennium to get here, and the children, who do not value it, will likely break and waste it. This tech was earned through a ridiculous amount of work of others. Unfortunately, even adults waste it. Age restrictions need not apply, but the cost and protection of resources do. The child should learn about it and earn it, as then they will understand it's value. And ther should be more focus toward preservation/repairing/recycling damaged tech.
Anyway, most of the people commenting misunderstand the Content. The children having the fire "phone" isn't the problem.

it's that, although they are educating uniformed adults about practical and important functions of an untapped technology, they do it in a manner of pompous superiority. They act as if they earned the right for any of it, and downright insult the adults for not knowing about this obscure technology. They are the jerks of the internet, who act better than everyone else, because they know one thing much better than anyone else around them. Worse, they act/dress like hipsters, but can't possibly know any sort of history. They are even considered engaged in the commercial, and the girls makes it obvious it's for the boys invested money. Still, it's not the kid's fault, just the writers for the commercials.
#225 - aabbccddeeffgghhii (09/06/2014) [-]
Ok, giving anything to a child and expecting it to value its "History, and origin." is a bullshit argument. Did you pick up a Gameboy as a child and just ponder life before you used it? No, so why do you expect children to do that now?

No one does that. No one. We may think about it once whilst using it, but it doesn't make us respect it more. So why do you expect a child to do that?

If you do read my original comment I do hint at monitoring the child by limiting what he/she can do on the internet and limiting the data they can use. The phone doesn't make the child do bad things on the internet, their friend group does. So as a responsible parent its your job to teach them correctly what to do and what not to do. You cant blame the phone for a human issue.

Cost and protection of resources? Get out of here, are you serious? Dude, whether you give a child a phone or fucking lego, thats resources their going to waste. Its just the difference of materials.

You are blaming technology a lot. Like its the gadget that makes the child a little shit which is not the case. Its the parenting that is the issue, not the technology.

"TIMMY! Stop swearing on the internet or i'll take your phone away!"

*Continues to do it*

"Right thats it, give it to me!"

*Wait an hour till he calms down*

"Now do you know why i did that?"

Its basic parenting. You teach your child right from wrong and don't blame it on the technology.
#235 - inomgod (09/06/2014) [-]
Wow, man you seem mad.

I didn't blame the tech, and I didn't say ponder life.
I even said parenting is the issue.
I said don't let them abuse it, and I said teach them to respect it.
Which is definitely possible. I agree on teaching them.
I just think there are many ways, and the best in my opinion is for them to earn the right to use it.
I seriously think you have an issue with understanding where I am disagreeing and agreeing.

but i'm done here, so don't hurt me. I don't want to see you lose you cool mister Alphbet
#43 - Yeah but the phone is thicker (much thicker), more expensive (…  [+] (3 new replies) 09/05/2014 on (untitled) +1
User avatar #45 - charlesanthony (09/05/2014) [-]
I don't think you just "throw away" parts that you change. You will probably have to hand it back to the provider who will reuse or recycle the component and give you a better/newer part for a smaller fee.
User avatar #51 - aabbccddeeffgghhii (09/05/2014) [-]
What would they do with a bit of a phone that is used, worn and (most importantly) obsolete part? Recycle it? Do you know how much they actually recycle out of these phones? Absolutely nothing except for the gold inside, and the phone manufacturers don't do it. Its not worth their time or money.

Its cheaper to ship old parts to Africa and give them to a dump than it is to recycle it themselves.

Reuse it? Who would want an old, refurbished part when you can buy the new, slightly more expensive, higher spect part? These parts are meant to be at most £100 ish. The time, effort and money they would have to sink in to make that part like new would leave too little a profit to make it viable.

Anyway, this phone is meant to be "You can buy new parts from the manufacturer when you want or need them and you don't have to throw away the phone!"

What provider would want to touch this!? They would lose the ability to sell you a phone which, although in the scheme of things would be a small amount to them, would cause them to lose Millions in profits per year! AND a new phone is basically they only way they can entire people into getting new contracts.

A new phone is the only way to get you to pay the equivalent of £900! If you already have a phone, at least in the UK, you can get a contract that's cheaper, with the same texts, minutes and data, when you don't buy the actual phone. So that's more money they would lose.

This phone is a pipe dream. Its a FANTASTIC idea and I love it, but it'll never work. At least these days it wont.
User avatar #55 - charlesanthony (09/05/2014) [-]
Hmmm, i see now. I'm not so well informed on these things. Thanks for the explanation .
#70 - Picture 09/05/2014 on 100% OC(NOT!) 0
#43 - I don't need to back them up, a quick five minute google searc…  [+] (1 new reply) 09/04/2014 on RIP in pieces 0
User avatar #44 - anoxz (09/05/2014) [-]
Well a five minute google search didn't confirm the precence of a Dutch fleet at the Battle of Copenhagen. It clearly show you don't know what you talk about.
#41 - A new field? My Friend, we are talking about wars of our past …  [+] (3 new replies) 09/04/2014 on RIP in pieces 0
User avatar #42 - anoxz (09/04/2014) [-]
What is really pathetic, is randomly tossing historical inaccuracies with no sources or confirmation... stating it as fact. But I already noted that earlier.

If however we are talking war, then why didn't you use your WWII argument at the beginning? Continue that, and I hope that you will back your sources up next time and try to be just little more objective.

User avatar #43 - aabbccddeeffgghhii (09/04/2014) [-]
I don't need to back them up, a quick five minute google search will confirm most of what I say.

If you're to lazy to go an look, thats fine. But that doesn't automatically mean i'm wrong. I know what i'm talking about, if you want to research it that is your prerogative.
User avatar #44 - anoxz (09/05/2014) [-]
Well a five minute google search didn't confirm the precence of a Dutch fleet at the Battle of Copenhagen. It clearly show you don't know what you talk about.
#8 - Its cool, I'm not Hungary anymore 09/04/2014 on Puns +2
#39 - Thats exactly what you have been doing. And the Hitle…  [+] (5 new replies) 09/04/2014 on RIP in pieces 0
User avatar #40 - anoxz (09/04/2014) [-]
No... I question what I read and what I hear.
You took the discussion out of its premissed and context, by drawing it into a new field, were you try to show of a anecdote, which you know nobody can mess with.

Call it Hitler-card, WWII-card or Churchill... I do not care.
User avatar #41 - aabbccddeeffgghhii (09/04/2014) [-]
A new field? My Friend, we are talking about wars of our past and, if I am not mistaken, World War 2 was, in fact, a war.

If we go down the "you took the discussion of out its premise and context" may i avert your attention to your previous comment where you, out of nowhere, brought up the Batavian Republic which had absolutely no connection with what we were talking about/no connection with the discussion.

Lets just get things straight before accusing one another (i.e. you accusing me) of taking things in the wrong direction.

Also, I love how defeated you are; "Call it Hitler Card, WW2 Card of Chirchil... I do not care." As soon as you have nothing to say its all "I don't care anyway!"

Pathetic.
User avatar #42 - anoxz (09/04/2014) [-]
What is really pathetic, is randomly tossing historical inaccuracies with no sources or confirmation... stating it as fact. But I already noted that earlier.

If however we are talking war, then why didn't you use your WWII argument at the beginning? Continue that, and I hope that you will back your sources up next time and try to be just little more objective.

User avatar #43 - aabbccddeeffgghhii (09/04/2014) [-]
I don't need to back them up, a quick five minute google search will confirm most of what I say.

If you're to lazy to go an look, thats fine. But that doesn't automatically mean i'm wrong. I know what i'm talking about, if you want to research it that is your prerogative.
User avatar #44 - anoxz (09/05/2014) [-]
Well a five minute google search didn't confirm the precence of a Dutch fleet at the Battle of Copenhagen. It clearly show you don't know what you talk about.
#35 - Yeah, i really don't think we should thank you for waterloo...…  [+] (8 new replies) 09/04/2014 on RIP in pieces 0
User avatar #38 - anoxz (09/04/2014) [-]
The Hitler-card... Really?

I couldn't give a single flying fuck about who and whoever is more powerfull than the other. It's in the past, and using ones past as justification for the present is silly. History is the mere study of the past and to give us a cultural understanding of our present.
One thing that rustles my jimmies though, are neckbeards who blindly throws out historical anecotes, without any confirmation or sources to back them up.

It's pathetic to see how people ignorantly blind themself from an objectiv view, to satisfy their own ideal imagination of the past.
User avatar #39 - aabbccddeeffgghhii (09/04/2014) [-]
Thats exactly what you have been doing.

And the Hitler card? I didn't pull the Hitler card. The Hitler card comes out when you compare someone with Hitler, WHERE did I do that?
User avatar #40 - anoxz (09/04/2014) [-]
No... I question what I read and what I hear.
You took the discussion out of its premissed and context, by drawing it into a new field, were you try to show of a anecdote, which you know nobody can mess with.

Call it Hitler-card, WWII-card or Churchill... I do not care.
User avatar #41 - aabbccddeeffgghhii (09/04/2014) [-]
A new field? My Friend, we are talking about wars of our past and, if I am not mistaken, World War 2 was, in fact, a war.

If we go down the "you took the discussion of out its premise and context" may i avert your attention to your previous comment where you, out of nowhere, brought up the Batavian Republic which had absolutely no connection with what we were talking about/no connection with the discussion.

Lets just get things straight before accusing one another (i.e. you accusing me) of taking things in the wrong direction.

Also, I love how defeated you are; "Call it Hitler Card, WW2 Card of Chirchil... I do not care." As soon as you have nothing to say its all "I don't care anyway!"

Pathetic.
User avatar #42 - anoxz (09/04/2014) [-]
What is really pathetic, is randomly tossing historical inaccuracies with no sources or confirmation... stating it as fact. But I already noted that earlier.

If however we are talking war, then why didn't you use your WWII argument at the beginning? Continue that, and I hope that you will back your sources up next time and try to be just little more objective.

User avatar #43 - aabbccddeeffgghhii (09/04/2014) [-]
I don't need to back them up, a quick five minute google search will confirm most of what I say.

If you're to lazy to go an look, thats fine. But that doesn't automatically mean i'm wrong. I know what i'm talking about, if you want to research it that is your prerogative.
User avatar #44 - anoxz (09/05/2014) [-]
Well a five minute google search didn't confirm the precence of a Dutch fleet at the Battle of Copenhagen. It clearly show you don't know what you talk about.
#37 - anoxz has deleted their comment.
#13 - And probaly still couldnt get any! Well, looking like…  [+] (1 new reply) 09/03/2014 on Respawn -2
#14 - meatygoodness (09/03/2014) [-]
Sloth? Man, did you fucking see that guy? He was built like a brick-shit house, I'm sure he could just take all the pussy he wanted :|
#32 - It was a Dutch fleet at Copenhagen. I'm getting the bulk of my…  [+] (10 new replies) 09/03/2014 on RIP in pieces 0
User avatar #34 - anoxz (09/03/2014) [-]
Funny, because in my history class, we were told it was the danish fleet at quarters at their main base in Copenhagen.

Popular opinion agrees:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Copenhagen

About the part of the Netherlands being, "a dirty douple corssing state...", it may be noted that it was the Batavian Republic, which was formed out of economic and political turmoil, afterwards being invaded by France and made into a yes-puppet.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batavian_Republic

Maybe the british should be more grateful to the dutch. Esspecially at the Battle of Waterloo.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Waterloo
User avatar #35 - aabbccddeeffgghhii (09/04/2014) [-]
Yeah, i really don't think we should thank you for waterloo... at all. Waterloo was a triumph for the British because of Wellington. We had less men and less equipment than Napoleon (even with all the extra soldiers from the Netherlands, Hannover and what not) and it was Wellingtons skill that won the day, not the fucking Dutch.

The Dutch involvement really does show the integrity of the Dutch people; "The French are about to win! Quick, attack the brittish!@

"Oh shit they defeated us! Now the French are about to lose! Quick, help the British!"

"We won! We truly are the best!"

Also, are you trying to defend your own country by passing blame onto a completely unrelated country? That doesn't change the fact that the Dutch have no integrity whatsoever and just want fucking trade routs.

Also, the Dutch should be thanking the British who, during WW2, housed the Dutch Royal family who fled. Where as the British Royal family refused to flee to Canada even though the Nazis were knocking down our door.

Also, before you say we weren't invaded, consider this; at the time they refused to flee our army was in tatters, Hitler was on the beaches of France with lust in his eyes and we were expecting an invasion any day. The British Royal Family refused to flee because they knew it wasn't the right thing for a Monarch to do. If Britain was going down, they were going down with the ship. But theres the Dutch Family, running away on a British ship.
User avatar #38 - anoxz (09/04/2014) [-]
The Hitler-card... Really?

I couldn't give a single flying fuck about who and whoever is more powerfull than the other. It's in the past, and using ones past as justification for the present is silly. History is the mere study of the past and to give us a cultural understanding of our present.
One thing that rustles my jimmies though, are neckbeards who blindly throws out historical anecotes, without any confirmation or sources to back them up.

It's pathetic to see how people ignorantly blind themself from an objectiv view, to satisfy their own ideal imagination of the past.
User avatar #39 - aabbccddeeffgghhii (09/04/2014) [-]
Thats exactly what you have been doing.

And the Hitler card? I didn't pull the Hitler card. The Hitler card comes out when you compare someone with Hitler, WHERE did I do that?
User avatar #40 - anoxz (09/04/2014) [-]
No... I question what I read and what I hear.
You took the discussion out of its premissed and context, by drawing it into a new field, were you try to show of a anecdote, which you know nobody can mess with.

Call it Hitler-card, WWII-card or Churchill... I do not care.
User avatar #41 - aabbccddeeffgghhii (09/04/2014) [-]
A new field? My Friend, we are talking about wars of our past and, if I am not mistaken, World War 2 was, in fact, a war.

If we go down the "you took the discussion of out its premise and context" may i avert your attention to your previous comment where you, out of nowhere, brought up the Batavian Republic which had absolutely no connection with what we were talking about/no connection with the discussion.

Lets just get things straight before accusing one another (i.e. you accusing me) of taking things in the wrong direction.

Also, I love how defeated you are; "Call it Hitler Card, WW2 Card of Chirchil... I do not care." As soon as you have nothing to say its all "I don't care anyway!"

Pathetic.
User avatar #42 - anoxz (09/04/2014) [-]
What is really pathetic, is randomly tossing historical inaccuracies with no sources or confirmation... stating it as fact. But I already noted that earlier.

If however we are talking war, then why didn't you use your WWII argument at the beginning? Continue that, and I hope that you will back your sources up next time and try to be just little more objective.

User avatar #43 - aabbccddeeffgghhii (09/04/2014) [-]
I don't need to back them up, a quick five minute google search will confirm most of what I say.

If you're to lazy to go an look, thats fine. But that doesn't automatically mean i'm wrong. I know what i'm talking about, if you want to research it that is your prerogative.
User avatar #44 - anoxz (09/05/2014) [-]
Well a five minute google search didn't confirm the precence of a Dutch fleet at the Battle of Copenhagen. It clearly show you don't know what you talk about.
#37 - anoxz has deleted their comment.
#26 - There would be losses on both sideds but Nelson was so BAD A… 09/03/2014 on RIP in pieces -1
#32 - Quite. 09/03/2014 on Kirito in the place he belongs -2
#11 - If a reporter doesn't know what the hell they are talking abou…  [+] (3 new replies) 09/03/2014 on investigative journalism +22
#236 - wtfduud (09/04/2014) [-]
One of the few times I'll thumb up someone who doesn't know They're/Their/There
#25 - xxxsonic fanxxx (09/03/2014) [-]
You're a moron.
#20 - ihearcolors has deleted their comment.
#22 - I don't ******* know, i'm not an Historical Artis…  [+] (3 new replies) 09/03/2014 on RIP in pieces 0
User avatar #24 - flybager (09/03/2014) [-]
That drawings probably not going for historical accuraty.
and neither's the first one. besides, what's that guy's problem anyways. Trying to show off.

I'd tell by how it's just a one-sided pure ass-whoopin'.
There'd be losses & damage on both sides, given the enemy fired back.
Though your picture's a fuck'n awesome show-off of naval stragety in large quantaties
User avatar #26 - aabbccddeeffgghhii (09/03/2014) [-]
There would be losses on both sideds but Nelson was so BAD ASS that he still destroyed the Dutch fleet (which i may add had superior numbers).

I just DESTROYED that guys National Pride and Achievements! FUCK YEAH BRITAIN


User avatar #25 - flybager (09/03/2014) [-]
*accuracy
*quantities
#16 - Well, chances are if you ask an Asian person where their from … 09/03/2014 on What race are you? 0
#11 - Just because one bad group refuses to acknowledge the actions …  [+] (3 new replies) 09/03/2014 on That awkward moment... -7
#17 - xxxsonic fanxxx (09/03/2014) [-]
Not the point, we just find it funny that the Westboro Baptist Church are such a pack of cunts that even the Ku Klux Klan hates them.
#18 - vladimirherzog (09/03/2014) [-]
well the KK hate real easily, so it shouldnt be any surprise that they would hate WBC
User avatar #39 - zarcos (09/04/2014) [-]
Yeah but the point is that the KKK is on the far Right of the political spectrum, but so is WBC. The fact that WBC is so far Right that not even the KKK supports them is significant.
#9 - The founder of Ferrari was a bit of an uggo.  [+] (8 new replies) 09/03/2014 on Respawn +29
#87 - xxxsonic fanxxx (09/04/2014) [-]
#12 - meatygoodness (09/03/2014) [-]
So he invented the pussy-magnet car
User avatar #18 - fuzzysixx (09/03/2014) [-]
Then after people realized their QC was shit, they started making their own cars. I.E. Lamborghini. Mercedes Benz master race Dat 560 SEC
#19 - meatygoodness (09/03/2014) [-]
I thought Lambo got shit-talked by a car manufacturer (Lambo used to make tractors) so the dude made his own cars to prove he could. And they were pretty sweet.

User avatar #33 - fuzzysixx (09/04/2014) [-]
It involved an argument between the two, and lambo was a tractor maker.
User avatar #27 - envinite (09/04/2014) [-]
It is.
#13 - aabbccddeeffgghhii (09/03/2014) [-]
And probaly still couldnt get any!

Well, looking like Sloth from the Goonies i cant say im surprised.
#14 - meatygoodness (09/03/2014) [-]
Sloth? Man, did you fucking see that guy? He was built like a brick-shit house, I'm sure he could just take all the pussy he wanted :|
#15 - Picture 09/03/2014 on Ya know what im sayin +11
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

items

Total unique items point value: 550 / Total items point value: 550

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #11 - joshlol (09/20/2014) [-]
interesting username
User avatar #7 - soundofwinter ONLINE (06/20/2014) [-]
**** you
User avatar #8 to #7 - aabbccddeeffgghhii (06/20/2014) [-]
Well thats not very nice.
User avatar #5 - haranaslicer (06/15/2014) [-]
Can i have your toast?
User avatar #6 to #5 - aabbccddeeffgghhii (06/15/2014) [-]
No. Get your own toast you bum!
User avatar #1 - andranadu (03/02/2014) [-]
nice name
User avatar #2 to #1 - aabbccddeeffgghhii (03/02/2014) [-]
Thanks! Took me ages to think of!
 Friends (0)