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

hide menu

cabbagemayhem    

Rank #14894 on Comments
no avatar Level 240 Comments: Doinitrite
Offline
Send mail to cabbagemayhem Block cabbagemayhem Invite cabbagemayhem to be your friend
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: male
Age: 30
Date Signed Up:2/19/2011
Last Login:10/23/2014
Location:Central US
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#14894
Highest Content Rank:#1878
Highest Comment Rank:#1634
Content Thumbs: 6142 total,  6601 ,  459
Comment Thumbs: 4154 total,  6469 ,  2315
Content Level Progress: 9% (9/100)
Level 160 Content: Soldier Of Funnyjunk → Level 161 Content: Soldier Of Funnyjunk
Comment Level Progress: 58% (58/100)
Level 240 Comments: Doinitrite → Level 241 Comments: Doinitrite
Subscribers:1
Content Views:179052
Times Content Favorited:432 times
Total Comments Made:3824
FJ Points:10323
Favorite Tags: chan appendix (2)

latest user's comments

#17 - Classic 4chan 07/12/2014 on Morbid for Feminists +1
#55 - And, this is Laquisha. She's an African American. 07/12/2014 on those jews know how to make... +4
#54 - American is not a race, dumbass. Even Europeans have unique ph… 07/12/2014 on those jews know how to make... -1
#231 - This is the most depressing comment. FJ used to have much bett…  [+] (1 new reply) 07/12/2014 on Sarah Snippstank +1
#271 - xxxsonic fanxxx (07/12/2014) [-]
#370 - Picture 07/12/2014 on Pick Me Up +4
#167 - It doesn't matter where you got it. 07/09/2014 on How Harry should have... -1
#161 - You copied someone else's work word for word, and let everyone…  [+] (2 new replies) 07/09/2014 on How Harry should have... 0
User avatar #166 - jinxbomb (07/09/2014) [-]
huh. i actually got it from reddit.
#167 - cabbagemayhem (07/09/2014) [-]
It doesn't matter where you got it.
#799 - Typical liberal hatred of what they don't understand. 06/29/2014 on /pol explains ISIS 0
#782 - 1. Yes, it is. 2. Yes, it is. 3. You're full of … 06/28/2014 on /pol explains ISIS -2
#754 - 1, 2. It was right just to remove Saddam Hussein from power re…  [+] (6 new replies) 06/28/2014 on /pol explains ISIS -2
#783 - xxxsonic fanxxx (06/29/2014) [-]
You sound like a gigantic piece of puerile republican shit
#799 - cabbagemayhem (06/29/2014) [-]
Typical liberal hatred of what they don't understand.
User avatar #759 - snowshark (06/28/2014) [-]
2000 characters of vitriol:

Congress: Congress are a total sack of shit both now and throughout history. Congress have continually shot down any attempt to fix the massively corrupted system that they run on to the point where the US is being forced to take failsafe action that has never been taken before in US history just to fix the system. It is one of the worst democratic systems in the civilised world and it is filled with corrupt sacks of shit on both sides of the party line.

They should also never have agreed to a war with Iraq prior to UN sanctions.

Al-Qaeda: What fucking worthless sacks of douche these pricks are. They are gutless, spineless, and generally lacking anything beneath their filthy, murderous skin. They use their faith as an excuse to kill countless people and they are amongst the few people in the world that make me wish I weren't so fucking morally incorruptible on the whole 'Killing people' thing. But alas, I stand by my points and I can't even advocate killing them, though I respect it is probably unavoidable at this point in time.

Saddam: Good god this fucker was such a cunt. I might be outspoken about hating the Iraq war but I am outspoken about this shit-head too. He was a total fuckface murderer and I'm glad he got taken out of power. I detest how we did it but I'm glad he won't be hurting anyone anymore. Now, to deal with the immense mess that came afterwards.

Obama: Fuck this guy. I'm glad he has a green agenda but besides that this guy has done very little actual 'change'. He said he was going to change the corrupt system in the US but ended up reinforcing it and now, shock-horror, is suffering from it too and the US people have had to get off their arses and are currently working on fixing that one themselves. www.wolf-pac.com

They say Obama is black on the outside only and I can see why they say that because he is exactly the same as every other corrupt fuck there. Change on the surface but the core is as broken as ever
User avatar #756 - snowshark (06/28/2014) [-]
4) Agreed, the figures and estimates are all over the place. However in regards to Saddam, the solution wasn't to kill him, at least that was not the obvious and only solution. The UN advocates war only in cases of need and Saddam was showing that he was reacting and changing the way he dealt with his problems.

My contempt is not for the Iraq war happening in the first place it is for the grossly corrupt and retarded way it happened. It happened without the sanctions of our allies, it happened at great cost to all parties involved both in the case of money and lives, it has caused massive instability due to the way it was handled, and now the answer to fixing the problem we caused became leaving people on the front lines to die and pouring money we needed elsewhere into an endless war. If they had carved up the land and given it to countries that would have used it and governed it properly we would not be seeing this situation we're seeing right now.

Granted, it would probably just be a different situation but it would certainly not be as bad as the one we're seeing.

6: Fine, I'll provide 2000 words of hatred for all of those in relation to this after I'm done with this message.

7: Obamacare is much better designed than people imagine it is. They are swept up in baseless accusations and I've yet to see a single shred of evidence to support them. Obamacare is really shitty compared to the UK NHS, sure, but that's because the entire US healthcare system is fucking ridiculous, overpriced, and one of the worst systems in the developed world because of it.

And yes, it takes two to shut down Congress. But what the Republicans were saying is "No, we won't let the democratically elected president of the united states of America get what he wants to the degree that we are willing to cause a national crisis."

And the Republicans aren't defending US values. Like what? Anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-muslim, anti-regulation, anti-evolution, and basically anti-progress?
User avatar #755 - snowshark (06/28/2014) [-]
1) 9/11 is no reason to invade Iraq. The bombers came from all over the middle east and were allied with a terrorist cell not present in Iraq. Saddam was a sack of shit, for sure, but UN reports showed he was getting rid of the chemical weapons which is why they didn't invade, because the UN uses violence as a last resort, not a first response. This situation Iraq is in right now is precisely why they employ diplomacy.

2) No. The first hyperbole is the over-exagerated treatment of the prisoners that I made. Then you treated the hyperbole as genuine "You blame "Republicans" for the death of ISIS members and would put them in a hole spraying them with food, I suppose because it's somehow morally superior to killing them." That's not a hyperbole.

3) So you believe they cease being human the moment they take another person's life? That's awfully convenient, isn't it? We get to take the low road and remove the people we don't care for from the face of the earth. They don't deserve a second chance, they deserve the right to -earn- a second chance, which is why we aim to rehabilitate people.

Murder does not make a man evil. It is an evil act but, as in all things, there is no black and white. There are no good people and evil people, there is only 'people'. 7,000,000,000+ different ones. Each one of them is an unique case. Some might be able to be rehabilitated and others may not be. Some may have taken lives because they were under pressure or blackmail. Some may have taken lives because they did not understand the value of life or the weight of their actions.

As easy as it is to write them off as filth, the easy road is often the one least worth taking. If we aim to tell ISIS not to kill the people -they- disapprove of, why do we advocate the same in our own culture?
#782 - cabbagemayhem (06/28/2014) [-]
1. Yes, it is.
2. Yes, it is.
3. You're full of shit. Setting an example for ISIS isn't going to make them stop killing.
4. We were going to invade a terrorist-friendly country either way, and we weren't going to get a pat on the back from our allies for any of them. Deal with it.
5. N/A
6. No you won't, you're a republican hating liberal.
7. One of the worst healthcare systems? America dwarfs the rest of the world in medical science. We are one of the last bastions of a relatively free market healthcare system. Our healthcare system should be freer, but is perfectly fine the way it is. If ObamaCare can't beat Britian's healthcare system, that should have hinted you.
8. Those are all your opinions, that not everyone shares, and no they are not right just because you want them to be. Except anti-progress. Republicans are quite pro-progress, and not two-faced about it.
9. You have cynical view of what kind of people are actually in Congress.
10. Al-Qaeda were originally just a bunch of freedom fighters supported by America to help keep Afghanistan independent. They are human beings, and you shouldn't have to accede to an immature moral standard to decide their fate. The murderers amongst them shall be paid in death. Anything less is an act of mercy. That is all there is to it.
11. Yes.
12. You think a black guy on the inside would have done better? Or, that there's anything wrong with white politicians?

Do the size of your responses always grow exponentially until everyone with a job stops responding?
#708 - 1. The informant was a defector from Iraq who told German inte… 06/28/2014 on /pol explains ISIS 0
#684 - 1. "I blame "Republicans", yes. Because Bush w…  [+] (12 new replies) 06/28/2014 on /pol explains ISIS -2
User avatar #697 - snowshark (06/28/2014) [-]
8) It is deteriorating because Bush went in there in the first place and staying there just cost more and more lives and trillions of taxpayer dollars when the US was suffering from a recession where that money needed to go to helping the people who Obama was elected to protect. Governance doesn't mean 'Save the world' it means 'Save the people you represent' so Obama made the right choice. Plus, this was always going to happen. Iraq is just lines on a map to those people. 30,000 troops fled from 800 ISIS because the Sunni won't fight other Sunni, the Shia won't die for non-Shia territory, and the Kurds won't either. Iraq means nothing to them. They only care about their faiths. The best solution would have been to carve up Iraq a long time ago and stop pretending it can be fixed, because it was always broken and always will be broken until it disappears.

9) He is spineless because the Republican Party keeps manufacturing reasons to be outraged at him and his administration and in response Obama doesn't stand his ground. He fires people. Flees. He is in his second term in Office he should be balls-to-the-wall determined to carry out his beliefs and I'm glad of what he is doing with climate change (yet more bills that congress continue to shoot down) but he needs to do that with the things that matter too.

10) A lot of people warned about this. Of course the region would become destabilised. But there was nothing that could ever stabilise that region outside of ethnic cleansing, which we're against.

11) Don't confuse my compassion for passiveness. Right now there are no warmongers beating on the door and the ones who try to have no military capacity to bring war to the US. This is foreign affairs.

12) My ideologies are towards fair-treatment for all. It's an ideal for an ideal world that we don't live in and I make the necessary compromises but at the same time we should not stop reaching for that dream just because we can't reach it quite yet.
User avatar #691 - snowshark (06/28/2014) [-]
1) I've repeatedly made reference to my focus on certain individuals as opposed to the whole and you know it.

2) Neither the Taliban nor Al-Qaeda were in Iraq before the invasion. The invasion in Iraq destabilised the region, let them into Iraq, drove supporters to their side, and diverted funds away from the war in Afghanistan.

It would have taken a much, much shorter period of time.

3) No it wasn't. Stop trying to be smart. You're not very good at it.

4) Sentencing murders to death sends the wrong message too. They should be put in jail, like I said, until we're certain they're not a threat to people and if they never change they never get out of jail.

5) Of course I'm quick to jump on Bush. His lies threw the middle-east into turmoil and led to trillions of wasted dollars and thousands upon thousands of lost lives simply because he listened to the wrong people and took that 'decisive' action. What 'growing threat' was there? Another 9/11? Iraqi WMDs? Well we confirmed there were no Al-Qaida connections or WMDs in Iraq when we went in there so... yeah, yeah I think I will get pissed at Bush.

6) Bush's decision was simple. Go to war for all of the wrong reasons or don't. Right now Obama is faced with a problem 100 times worse. There are numerous dangerous forces involved in Iraq right now and one wrong move could end up throwing yet more lives onto the bonfire. Right now he needs to decide how to navigate the minefield that is the ISIS revolution in the best manner possible.

7) When you put "Republican Obstructionists" in quotation marks are you just quoting or are you expressing disbelief? Because they shut down the government just because they didn't want Obama to have his way and are shutting down every bit of legislation he is trying to pass. On top of that, pretty much everyone in Congress is corrupt to some degree or the other which is the cause of this whole Wolf Pac revolution happening in the States. www.wolf-pac.com
User avatar #707 - commontroll (06/28/2014) [-]
1) Yup, your focus on Bush. But why do you hate bush so much? Because they said there were WMD and/or terrorists in Iraq?

2) This is related to 1 as well. You're right, they weren't there because there was a power hungry and blood thirsty dictator who had enough chemical and biological weapons stored to kill the planet eight times over and used them to kill the people of his own country. Saddam needed to go big time.

3) What?

4) What wrong message is that, no toleration of heinous crimes?

5) Again, enough chemical and biological weapons to wipe out all human life on earth eight times. I count that as WMD. Also, he was not bypassing Congress by going to war in Iraq, Democrats and Republicans alike were all about it. Even if he had knowingly lied, he's far from the only President who has. You're just saying he's shitty because everybody else does.

6) Yes, handling it by arming them in Syria, which they are taking over. Way to go Obama. Well played there.

7) Obama shut down the government by bullying them into allowing his poorly designed health insurance that made insurance more expensive for tons of people and forced people to either buy insurance or pay massive taxes, or they would be jailed. Those are the issues they had with it, oh, and the sheer amount of money he was claiming it needs.

Seriously man, look up both sides of the conflict.
User avatar #716 - snowshark (06/28/2014) [-]
1) Because he went to war for the wrong reasons, has shown no remorse or penance for the catastrophe that his decisions wrought, and because the whole mess was his fault.

2) Prior to the war the Chemical Weapon situation was calming down big-time. Paragraphs 3 and 4. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

3) That wasn't hyperbole and if it was that's not how hyperbole is used. I figured you were just being snide. Not the case? If not then sorry, I got the wrong idea.

4) It says "We are okay with killing people." which is just not okay. We can never be 100% sure we have the facts straight in a case so there is always the chance that the man in the chair is innocent. We can't let that happen. Also, even the worst of criminals can turn their lives around and they deserve the right to earn that chance.

Michael Vick was convicted for animal abuse and has since reformed and worked to help fix the damage he has done and the damage that other animal abusers do. Who are we to deny that right to anyone?

5) The link says it all. And I never said he bypassed congress. He bypassed the UN but not congress. And his lie cost the lives of many people and different sources present different estimates ranging from tens of thousands to millions. I'm saying he's shitty because he's shitty.

6) I never said that wasn't a fucking retarded mistake on Obama's part. God damn I'd like to punch him in the face for that shit. However the ISIS situation is now even worse than it was prior to their insurgency in Iraq and a lot of very passionate people have their fingers dancing on their triggers right now. It is a minefield and the US people not only don't want more war, the US people can't afford it, or at least they shouldn't have to.

7) It wasn't poorly designed and all of the arguments against it are unfounded. The Republicans just want to make people hate Obama as much as they can and ended up making people hate them too.

I have looked up both sides.
#754 - cabbagemayhem (06/28/2014) [-]
1, 2. It was right just to remove Saddam Hussein from power regardless of whether Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. The bottom-line is we were going to invade someone over 9/11. We thought Iraq would kill the most birds with one stone, but either way, someone would have gotten invaded.

3. That was a perfectly legitimate hyperbole, and if yours was intended to be one, then so can mine. And, it's funny when you call someone stupid on the line you mess up the numbering. Still, that was a low blow.

4. How do they deserve the right? They took a life intentionally in cold blood without remorse or remotely justifiable cause. They don't have the right to breed, let alone live. In the name of defending murderers, they are allowed to continue killing other inmates. What about their rights?

5. Most estimates are closer to 100,000. Hussein killed at least a million while he was in power. It's messed up, you calling Bush shitty for removing Hussein. More people are killed by their own government than any war. Consider that while you're doling out your contempt.

6. Sure, but you were only blaming Bush. You didn't blame Al-Qaeda, congress, or Saddam Hussein, and you've shown nothing but favoritism toward Obama until now.

7. You think ObamaCare isn't poorly designed? It's legendarily poorly-designed compared to other health care systems. The entire thing should be rebuilt.

Anyway, it takes two shut down congress. While the House was rejecting ObamaCare, Obama was refusing to separate it from the bill, or even postpone the decision! The republicans didn't want to make people hate them, or take all of the blame, they wanted to lawfully represent the wishes of those who elected them, thankfully. Can Obama say the same?

Obama loves to blame republicans for everything, who are just trying to protecting the ideologies that made this country great, and avoid predictable consequences like what we have in Iraq, right now.
#783 - xxxsonic fanxxx (06/29/2014) [-]
You sound like a gigantic piece of puerile republican shit
#799 - cabbagemayhem (06/29/2014) [-]
Typical liberal hatred of what they don't understand.
User avatar #759 - snowshark (06/28/2014) [-]
2000 characters of vitriol:

Congress: Congress are a total sack of shit both now and throughout history. Congress have continually shot down any attempt to fix the massively corrupted system that they run on to the point where the US is being forced to take failsafe action that has never been taken before in US history just to fix the system. It is one of the worst democratic systems in the civilised world and it is filled with corrupt sacks of shit on both sides of the party line.

They should also never have agreed to a war with Iraq prior to UN sanctions.

Al-Qaeda: What fucking worthless sacks of douche these pricks are. They are gutless, spineless, and generally lacking anything beneath their filthy, murderous skin. They use their faith as an excuse to kill countless people and they are amongst the few people in the world that make me wish I weren't so fucking morally incorruptible on the whole 'Killing people' thing. But alas, I stand by my points and I can't even advocate killing them, though I respect it is probably unavoidable at this point in time.

Saddam: Good god this fucker was such a cunt. I might be outspoken about hating the Iraq war but I am outspoken about this shit-head too. He was a total fuckface murderer and I'm glad he got taken out of power. I detest how we did it but I'm glad he won't be hurting anyone anymore. Now, to deal with the immense mess that came afterwards.

Obama: Fuck this guy. I'm glad he has a green agenda but besides that this guy has done very little actual 'change'. He said he was going to change the corrupt system in the US but ended up reinforcing it and now, shock-horror, is suffering from it too and the US people have had to get off their arses and are currently working on fixing that one themselves. www.wolf-pac.com

They say Obama is black on the outside only and I can see why they say that because he is exactly the same as every other corrupt fuck there. Change on the surface but the core is as broken as ever
User avatar #756 - snowshark (06/28/2014) [-]
4) Agreed, the figures and estimates are all over the place. However in regards to Saddam, the solution wasn't to kill him, at least that was not the obvious and only solution. The UN advocates war only in cases of need and Saddam was showing that he was reacting and changing the way he dealt with his problems.

My contempt is not for the Iraq war happening in the first place it is for the grossly corrupt and retarded way it happened. It happened without the sanctions of our allies, it happened at great cost to all parties involved both in the case of money and lives, it has caused massive instability due to the way it was handled, and now the answer to fixing the problem we caused became leaving people on the front lines to die and pouring money we needed elsewhere into an endless war. If they had carved up the land and given it to countries that would have used it and governed it properly we would not be seeing this situation we're seeing right now.

Granted, it would probably just be a different situation but it would certainly not be as bad as the one we're seeing.

6: Fine, I'll provide 2000 words of hatred for all of those in relation to this after I'm done with this message.

7: Obamacare is much better designed than people imagine it is. They are swept up in baseless accusations and I've yet to see a single shred of evidence to support them. Obamacare is really shitty compared to the UK NHS, sure, but that's because the entire US healthcare system is fucking ridiculous, overpriced, and one of the worst systems in the developed world because of it.

And yes, it takes two to shut down Congress. But what the Republicans were saying is "No, we won't let the democratically elected president of the united states of America get what he wants to the degree that we are willing to cause a national crisis."

And the Republicans aren't defending US values. Like what? Anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-muslim, anti-regulation, anti-evolution, and basically anti-progress?
User avatar #755 - snowshark (06/28/2014) [-]
1) 9/11 is no reason to invade Iraq. The bombers came from all over the middle east and were allied with a terrorist cell not present in Iraq. Saddam was a sack of shit, for sure, but UN reports showed he was getting rid of the chemical weapons which is why they didn't invade, because the UN uses violence as a last resort, not a first response. This situation Iraq is in right now is precisely why they employ diplomacy.

2) No. The first hyperbole is the over-exagerated treatment of the prisoners that I made. Then you treated the hyperbole as genuine "You blame "Republicans" for the death of ISIS members and would put them in a hole spraying them with food, I suppose because it's somehow morally superior to killing them." That's not a hyperbole.

3) So you believe they cease being human the moment they take another person's life? That's awfully convenient, isn't it? We get to take the low road and remove the people we don't care for from the face of the earth. They don't deserve a second chance, they deserve the right to -earn- a second chance, which is why we aim to rehabilitate people.

Murder does not make a man evil. It is an evil act but, as in all things, there is no black and white. There are no good people and evil people, there is only 'people'. 7,000,000,000+ different ones. Each one of them is an unique case. Some might be able to be rehabilitated and others may not be. Some may have taken lives because they were under pressure or blackmail. Some may have taken lives because they did not understand the value of life or the weight of their actions.

As easy as it is to write them off as filth, the easy road is often the one least worth taking. If we aim to tell ISIS not to kill the people -they- disapprove of, why do we advocate the same in our own culture?
#782 - cabbagemayhem (06/28/2014) [-]
1. Yes, it is.
2. Yes, it is.
3. You're full of shit. Setting an example for ISIS isn't going to make them stop killing.
4. We were going to invade a terrorist-friendly country either way, and we weren't going to get a pat on the back from our allies for any of them. Deal with it.
5. N/A
6. No you won't, you're a republican hating liberal.
7. One of the worst healthcare systems? America dwarfs the rest of the world in medical science. We are one of the last bastions of a relatively free market healthcare system. Our healthcare system should be freer, but is perfectly fine the way it is. If ObamaCare can't beat Britian's healthcare system, that should have hinted you.
8. Those are all your opinions, that not everyone shares, and no they are not right just because you want them to be. Except anti-progress. Republicans are quite pro-progress, and not two-faced about it.
9. You have cynical view of what kind of people are actually in Congress.
10. Al-Qaeda were originally just a bunch of freedom fighters supported by America to help keep Afghanistan independent. They are human beings, and you shouldn't have to accede to an immature moral standard to decide their fate. The murderers amongst them shall be paid in death. Anything less is an act of mercy. That is all there is to it.
11. Yes.
12. You think a black guy on the inside would have done better? Or, that there's anything wrong with white politicians?

Do the size of your responses always grow exponentially until everyone with a job stops responding?
User avatar #736 - commontroll (06/28/2014) [-]
I'm not the guy you were arguing with man. I'm the guy who was discussing stuff with you until you were throwing all Republicans under the bus then I went to bed. I was just checking in the morning.

And they weren't calming down because he was gassing Kurd civilians even when we were invading. I've got somewhere to go, otherwise I'd respond to the other points.
#601 - Ouch. You got raped all the way over at Reddit. 06/28/2014 on /pol explains ISIS -1
#590 - Except now, nuclear weapons and other WMDs are on the table. W… 06/28/2014 on /pol explains ISIS 0
#581 - 1. Some lies were discovered after-the-fact, which was …  [+] (2 new replies) 06/28/2014 on /pol explains ISIS +2
#628 - xxxsonic fanxxx (06/28/2014) [-]
1. Ofcourse after the fact, as all lies, you created that informant as excuse, you don't have any responsibilities anywhere, you mean interests.
2. Yes you are, you are corrupt corporatocracy with war economy that uses military for your interests and profit.
3. Yes you did. That's definition of allies. U.S. even gave chemical weapons to them.
4. You don't need "support" from iraq, it's too far, you had enough bases in afghanistan right away. Plus carriers etc. It was just invasion for the sake of war, oil and israel, not "base". Red cross.
5. 9/11 was nothing strategically, economically, politically. NOTHING. Bee sting after which you decided to burn all hives in the woods, with woods, just to get honey.
#708 - cabbagemayhem (06/28/2014) [-]
1. The informant was a defector from Iraq who told German intelligence that Iraq had an active biological weapons program. He later admitted to lying because he wished Hussein removed from power. www.theguardian.com/world/2011/feb/15/curveball-iraqi-fantasist-cia-saddam
2. That's has no truth in it at all. Our economy is a Capitalistic free market to produce the most value. Our military budget is only high because we are responsible for the defense of several other nations such as Japan, Canada, Western Europe, etc., as well as moderating third world conflicts and ensuring the world doesn't collapse into WWIII.
3. We don't use nor provide chemical weapons. They are against the Geneva convention and unnecessary except for cruelty and massacres.
4. Bottom line, we were going to invade someone for 9/11, and we wanted to prevent the worst case scenario of terrorists acquiring WMDs. Sorry if we picked the wrong one.
5. 9/11 was well-planned. You can call it a bee sting if you want, but you shouldn't go poking bears. An event like that gets the attention of everyone in the Western world. What did you expect to happen? We didn't come for honey. We were mad.
#562 - Sarcasm doesn't carry over text. Do you even internet in your country? 06/28/2014 on /pol explains ISIS 0
#560 - Your sense of justice is disturbing. You blame "Republica…  [+] (16 new replies) 06/28/2014 on /pol explains ISIS -1
User avatar #616 - snowshark (06/28/2014) [-]
1) I blame "Republicans", yes. Because Bush was a Republican as were a lot of his supporters going into Iraq. There was no need for the quoatation marks.

2) " (Okay... I'm more moderate than that but you get the idea... I don't like the Republican Party members who are responsible for this mess.)" Exact quote of what comes next after that whole hose thing. What it translates out to is "I am not that cruel, but you understand the feeling I am trying to convey here, right?" I didn't think I needed to state any more clearly than that that what I said way hyperbole.

3) Yes, killing people for killing people is not how we should be doing things. In an ideal world that is how the world would run, people would do bad things and they would get punished, people would work with them to reform them and if they couldn't be reformed they would be kept secluded away from people until they were. Because everyone can earn a second chance and we don't have the right to deny them that.

4) I criticise their methods from the frontlines, actually. Not just republicans, Democrats too. I criticise anyone who does stupid shit, however this mess is mostly the fault of the Bush Administration. If Obama does stupid shit like be a spineless pansy and let the dumbass republican obstructionists demolish any good that he could do then yeah, I think he is also to blame for not having a freaking backbone. And as for the frontlines, yeah I do my part to try and fix this broken governmental system. Have you heard what Wolf Pac are up to? I'm doing my part.

5) So are the Democrats. I think it's clear that everyone sees this is a problem and that both sides are working to find a solution at this point.

6) How would my ideology do that?

7) I'm Atheist, sure, but I'm not crazy. Nor am I a Democrat. It just so happens that at this point in time there are only two viable political parties, neither of which I like all that much. Right now though, I think Obama is right to be cautious.
#695 - followtheworms (06/28/2014) [-]
You realize Obama was the one who ran arms to the rebels in the Syrian uprising, which was ISIS? Assad was a thug, yes, but we should not have aided the rebels/ISIS.
User avatar #698 - snowshark (06/28/2014) [-]
Oh god I couldn't agree more there. You don't depose someone who is bad at keeping order in favour for people who don't want to.

There was probably some kind of solution there but that wasn't the right one. I don't support Obama, I support his good decisions and I am ready to spit fire when he makes bad ones.
#684 - cabbagemayhem (06/28/2014) [-]
1. "I blame "Republicans", yes. Because Bush was a Republican as were a lot of his supporters going into Iraq"
You blame an entire ideology because of a few men's actions, and you would crucify them all even though they could have been right. How much longer would it have taken to suppress Al-Qaeda and the Taliban if we didn't have a strong presence in Iraq?

2. Mine was a hyperbole too, but you get the feeling I was trying to convey, right?

3. I'm a strong advocate of rehabilitation, but you're extreme. Sentencing murderers to counseling sends other would-be murderers the wrong message.

4. You're quick to jump on Bush for a couple lies and taking decisive action during a growing terror threat, but you're still mulling over whether Obama taking appropriate action? And, then only in the matter of allowing "Republican obstructionists" to stand in his way? The Middle East is deteriorating rapidly as a consequence of his premature departure, and you just think he might be spineless if he doesn't violate the constitution more and bypass congress enough to make into law your specious and dangerous ideologies? I don't think you are that bipartisan.

5. Yes, of course everyone's against it now that it's already happening, but who could have warned us that something like this could happen if we left too fast? Not Republicans, those warmongers belong in a hole.

6. Because you're too passive. You would hesitate to apply force so much that war would be at your front door before you realized you need to do something.

7. While your arguments have been fairly coherent this time, I still think you're crazy for subscribing to too many liberal ideologies, thinking negatively of conservatism, and ever believing Obama was going to fix anything.
User avatar #697 - snowshark (06/28/2014) [-]
8) It is deteriorating because Bush went in there in the first place and staying there just cost more and more lives and trillions of taxpayer dollars when the US was suffering from a recession where that money needed to go to helping the people who Obama was elected to protect. Governance doesn't mean 'Save the world' it means 'Save the people you represent' so Obama made the right choice. Plus, this was always going to happen. Iraq is just lines on a map to those people. 30,000 troops fled from 800 ISIS because the Sunni won't fight other Sunni, the Shia won't die for non-Shia territory, and the Kurds won't either. Iraq means nothing to them. They only care about their faiths. The best solution would have been to carve up Iraq a long time ago and stop pretending it can be fixed, because it was always broken and always will be broken until it disappears.

9) He is spineless because the Republican Party keeps manufacturing reasons to be outraged at him and his administration and in response Obama doesn't stand his ground. He fires people. Flees. He is in his second term in Office he should be balls-to-the-wall determined to carry out his beliefs and I'm glad of what he is doing with climate change (yet more bills that congress continue to shoot down) but he needs to do that with the things that matter too.

10) A lot of people warned about this. Of course the region would become destabilised. But there was nothing that could ever stabilise that region outside of ethnic cleansing, which we're against.

11) Don't confuse my compassion for passiveness. Right now there are no warmongers beating on the door and the ones who try to have no military capacity to bring war to the US. This is foreign affairs.

12) My ideologies are towards fair-treatment for all. It's an ideal for an ideal world that we don't live in and I make the necessary compromises but at the same time we should not stop reaching for that dream just because we can't reach it quite yet.
User avatar #691 - snowshark (06/28/2014) [-]
1) I've repeatedly made reference to my focus on certain individuals as opposed to the whole and you know it.

2) Neither the Taliban nor Al-Qaeda were in Iraq before the invasion. The invasion in Iraq destabilised the region, let them into Iraq, drove supporters to their side, and diverted funds away from the war in Afghanistan.

It would have taken a much, much shorter period of time.

3) No it wasn't. Stop trying to be smart. You're not very good at it.

4) Sentencing murders to death sends the wrong message too. They should be put in jail, like I said, until we're certain they're not a threat to people and if they never change they never get out of jail.

5) Of course I'm quick to jump on Bush. His lies threw the middle-east into turmoil and led to trillions of wasted dollars and thousands upon thousands of lost lives simply because he listened to the wrong people and took that 'decisive' action. What 'growing threat' was there? Another 9/11? Iraqi WMDs? Well we confirmed there were no Al-Qaida connections or WMDs in Iraq when we went in there so... yeah, yeah I think I will get pissed at Bush.

6) Bush's decision was simple. Go to war for all of the wrong reasons or don't. Right now Obama is faced with a problem 100 times worse. There are numerous dangerous forces involved in Iraq right now and one wrong move could end up throwing yet more lives onto the bonfire. Right now he needs to decide how to navigate the minefield that is the ISIS revolution in the best manner possible.

7) When you put "Republican Obstructionists" in quotation marks are you just quoting or are you expressing disbelief? Because they shut down the government just because they didn't want Obama to have his way and are shutting down every bit of legislation he is trying to pass. On top of that, pretty much everyone in Congress is corrupt to some degree or the other which is the cause of this whole Wolf Pac revolution happening in the States. www.wolf-pac.com
User avatar #707 - commontroll (06/28/2014) [-]
1) Yup, your focus on Bush. But why do you hate bush so much? Because they said there were WMD and/or terrorists in Iraq?

2) This is related to 1 as well. You're right, they weren't there because there was a power hungry and blood thirsty dictator who had enough chemical and biological weapons stored to kill the planet eight times over and used them to kill the people of his own country. Saddam needed to go big time.

3) What?

4) What wrong message is that, no toleration of heinous crimes?

5) Again, enough chemical and biological weapons to wipe out all human life on earth eight times. I count that as WMD. Also, he was not bypassing Congress by going to war in Iraq, Democrats and Republicans alike were all about it. Even if he had knowingly lied, he's far from the only President who has. You're just saying he's shitty because everybody else does.

6) Yes, handling it by arming them in Syria, which they are taking over. Way to go Obama. Well played there.

7) Obama shut down the government by bullying them into allowing his poorly designed health insurance that made insurance more expensive for tons of people and forced people to either buy insurance or pay massive taxes, or they would be jailed. Those are the issues they had with it, oh, and the sheer amount of money he was claiming it needs.

Seriously man, look up both sides of the conflict.
User avatar #716 - snowshark (06/28/2014) [-]
1) Because he went to war for the wrong reasons, has shown no remorse or penance for the catastrophe that his decisions wrought, and because the whole mess was his fault.

2) Prior to the war the Chemical Weapon situation was calming down big-time. Paragraphs 3 and 4. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

3) That wasn't hyperbole and if it was that's not how hyperbole is used. I figured you were just being snide. Not the case? If not then sorry, I got the wrong idea.

4) It says "We are okay with killing people." which is just not okay. We can never be 100% sure we have the facts straight in a case so there is always the chance that the man in the chair is innocent. We can't let that happen. Also, even the worst of criminals can turn their lives around and they deserve the right to earn that chance.

Michael Vick was convicted for animal abuse and has since reformed and worked to help fix the damage he has done and the damage that other animal abusers do. Who are we to deny that right to anyone?

5) The link says it all. And I never said he bypassed congress. He bypassed the UN but not congress. And his lie cost the lives of many people and different sources present different estimates ranging from tens of thousands to millions. I'm saying he's shitty because he's shitty.

6) I never said that wasn't a fucking retarded mistake on Obama's part. God damn I'd like to punch him in the face for that shit. However the ISIS situation is now even worse than it was prior to their insurgency in Iraq and a lot of very passionate people have their fingers dancing on their triggers right now. It is a minefield and the US people not only don't want more war, the US people can't afford it, or at least they shouldn't have to.

7) It wasn't poorly designed and all of the arguments against it are unfounded. The Republicans just want to make people hate Obama as much as they can and ended up making people hate them too.

I have looked up both sides.
#754 - cabbagemayhem (06/28/2014) [-]
1, 2. It was right just to remove Saddam Hussein from power regardless of whether Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. The bottom-line is we were going to invade someone over 9/11. We thought Iraq would kill the most birds with one stone, but either way, someone would have gotten invaded.

3. That was a perfectly legitimate hyperbole, and if yours was intended to be one, then so can mine. And, it's funny when you call someone stupid on the line you mess up the numbering. Still, that was a low blow.

4. How do they deserve the right? They took a life intentionally in cold blood without remorse or remotely justifiable cause. They don't have the right to breed, let alone live. In the name of defending murderers, they are allowed to continue killing other inmates. What about their rights?

5. Most estimates are closer to 100,000. Hussein killed at least a million while he was in power. It's messed up, you calling Bush shitty for removing Hussein. More people are killed by their own government than any war. Consider that while you're doling out your contempt.

6. Sure, but you were only blaming Bush. You didn't blame Al-Qaeda, congress, or Saddam Hussein, and you've shown nothing but favoritism toward Obama until now.

7. You think ObamaCare isn't poorly designed? It's legendarily poorly-designed compared to other health care systems. The entire thing should be rebuilt.

Anyway, it takes two shut down congress. While the House was rejecting ObamaCare, Obama was refusing to separate it from the bill, or even postpone the decision! The republicans didn't want to make people hate them, or take all of the blame, they wanted to lawfully represent the wishes of those who elected them, thankfully. Can Obama say the same?

Obama loves to blame republicans for everything, who are just trying to protecting the ideologies that made this country great, and avoid predictable consequences like what we have in Iraq, right now.
#783 - xxxsonic fanxxx (06/29/2014) [-]
You sound like a gigantic piece of puerile republican shit
#799 - cabbagemayhem (06/29/2014) [-]
Typical liberal hatred of what they don't understand.
User avatar #759 - snowshark (06/28/2014) [-]
2000 characters of vitriol:

Congress: Congress are a total sack of shit both now and throughout history. Congress have continually shot down any attempt to fix the massively corrupted system that they run on to the point where the US is being forced to take failsafe action that has never been taken before in US history just to fix the system. It is one of the worst democratic systems in the civilised world and it is filled with corrupt sacks of shit on both sides of the party line.

They should also never have agreed to a war with Iraq prior to UN sanctions.

Al-Qaeda: What fucking worthless sacks of douche these pricks are. They are gutless, spineless, and generally lacking anything beneath their filthy, murderous skin. They use their faith as an excuse to kill countless people and they are amongst the few people in the world that make me wish I weren't so fucking morally incorruptible on the whole 'Killing people' thing. But alas, I stand by my points and I can't even advocate killing them, though I respect it is probably unavoidable at this point in time.

Saddam: Good god this fucker was such a cunt. I might be outspoken about hating the Iraq war but I am outspoken about this shit-head too. He was a total fuckface murderer and I'm glad he got taken out of power. I detest how we did it but I'm glad he won't be hurting anyone anymore. Now, to deal with the immense mess that came afterwards.

Obama: Fuck this guy. I'm glad he has a green agenda but besides that this guy has done very little actual 'change'. He said he was going to change the corrupt system in the US but ended up reinforcing it and now, shock-horror, is suffering from it too and the US people have had to get off their arses and are currently working on fixing that one themselves. www.wolf-pac.com

They say Obama is black on the outside only and I can see why they say that because he is exactly the same as every other corrupt fuck there. Change on the surface but the core is as broken as ever
User avatar #756 - snowshark (06/28/2014) [-]
4) Agreed, the figures and estimates are all over the place. However in regards to Saddam, the solution wasn't to kill him, at least that was not the obvious and only solution. The UN advocates war only in cases of need and Saddam was showing that he was reacting and changing the way he dealt with his problems.

My contempt is not for the Iraq war happening in the first place it is for the grossly corrupt and retarded way it happened. It happened without the sanctions of our allies, it happened at great cost to all parties involved both in the case of money and lives, it has caused massive instability due to the way it was handled, and now the answer to fixing the problem we caused became leaving people on the front lines to die and pouring money we needed elsewhere into an endless war. If they had carved up the land and given it to countries that would have used it and governed it properly we would not be seeing this situation we're seeing right now.

Granted, it would probably just be a different situation but it would certainly not be as bad as the one we're seeing.

6: Fine, I'll provide 2000 words of hatred for all of those in relation to this after I'm done with this message.

7: Obamacare is much better designed than people imagine it is. They are swept up in baseless accusations and I've yet to see a single shred of evidence to support them. Obamacare is really shitty compared to the UK NHS, sure, but that's because the entire US healthcare system is fucking ridiculous, overpriced, and one of the worst systems in the developed world because of it.

And yes, it takes two to shut down Congress. But what the Republicans were saying is "No, we won't let the democratically elected president of the united states of America get what he wants to the degree that we are willing to cause a national crisis."

And the Republicans aren't defending US values. Like what? Anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-muslim, anti-regulation, anti-evolution, and basically anti-progress?
User avatar #755 - snowshark (06/28/2014) [-]
1) 9/11 is no reason to invade Iraq. The bombers came from all over the middle east and were allied with a terrorist cell not present in Iraq. Saddam was a sack of shit, for sure, but UN reports showed he was getting rid of the chemical weapons which is why they didn't invade, because the UN uses violence as a last resort, not a first response. This situation Iraq is in right now is precisely why they employ diplomacy.

2) No. The first hyperbole is the over-exagerated treatment of the prisoners that I made. Then you treated the hyperbole as genuine "You blame "Republicans" for the death of ISIS members and would put them in a hole spraying them with food, I suppose because it's somehow morally superior to killing them." That's not a hyperbole.

3) So you believe they cease being human the moment they take another person's life? That's awfully convenient, isn't it? We get to take the low road and remove the people we don't care for from the face of the earth. They don't deserve a second chance, they deserve the right to -earn- a second chance, which is why we aim to rehabilitate people.

Murder does not make a man evil. It is an evil act but, as in all things, there is no black and white. There are no good people and evil people, there is only 'people'. 7,000,000,000+ different ones. Each one of them is an unique case. Some might be able to be rehabilitated and others may not be. Some may have taken lives because they were under pressure or blackmail. Some may have taken lives because they did not understand the value of life or the weight of their actions.

As easy as it is to write them off as filth, the easy road is often the one least worth taking. If we aim to tell ISIS not to kill the people -they- disapprove of, why do we advocate the same in our own culture?
#782 - cabbagemayhem (06/28/2014) [-]
1. Yes, it is.
2. Yes, it is.
3. You're full of shit. Setting an example for ISIS isn't going to make them stop killing.
4. We were going to invade a terrorist-friendly country either way, and we weren't going to get a pat on the back from our allies for any of them. Deal with it.
5. N/A
6. No you won't, you're a republican hating liberal.
7. One of the worst healthcare systems? America dwarfs the rest of the world in medical science. We are one of the last bastions of a relatively free market healthcare system. Our healthcare system should be freer, but is perfectly fine the way it is. If ObamaCare can't beat Britian's healthcare system, that should have hinted you.
8. Those are all your opinions, that not everyone shares, and no they are not right just because you want them to be. Except anti-progress. Republicans are quite pro-progress, and not two-faced about it.
9. You have cynical view of what kind of people are actually in Congress.
10. Al-Qaeda were originally just a bunch of freedom fighters supported by America to help keep Afghanistan independent. They are human beings, and you shouldn't have to accede to an immature moral standard to decide their fate. The murderers amongst them shall be paid in death. Anything less is an act of mercy. That is all there is to it.
11. Yes.
12. You think a black guy on the inside would have done better? Or, that there's anything wrong with white politicians?

Do the size of your responses always grow exponentially until everyone with a job stops responding?
User avatar #736 - commontroll (06/28/2014) [-]
I'm not the guy you were arguing with man. I'm the guy who was discussing stuff with you until you were throwing all Republicans under the bus then I went to bed. I was just checking in the morning.

And they weren't calming down because he was gassing Kurd civilians even when we were invading. I've got somewhere to go, otherwise I'd respond to the other points.
#533 - We entered Iraq because of beliefs they were acquiring WMDs, a…  [+] (8 new replies) 06/28/2014 on /pol explains ISIS +7
#563 - xxxsonic fanxxx (06/28/2014) [-]
1. U.S. LIES that they have WMD.
2. U.S. don't allow UN in their weapons facilities, yet when other country does that, then OH MY GOD BASTARDS.
3. Check how many years Hussein was an ALLY of U.S.
4. So you invaded whole country (result: 1 MILLION DEAD) to attack al-qaeda (few hundred in iraq) . Bullcrap.
5. You needed to start wars because of your "war economy". Look it up. No morals, needs, "peacekeeping". MONEY.

You GREEDY american BANDITS.
User avatar #655 - freakyorange (06/28/2014) [-]
1. Did you just say that we don't have nukes? The fuck is wrong with you?
2. Why would we need the UN to be in our weapons facilites?
3. He wasn't always a bad guy, moron. He got corrupted.
4. Where did that number come from?
5. What? War COSTS money.
User avatar #611 - meganinja (06/28/2014) [-]
Wow that comment is so ignorant. Sure, you might have a point for your first 3 points, but 1 million is nowhere close to how many have been killed. Also to think that anybody would fight a war like that for money is incredibly stupid. Look at how much has been destroyed. Maintanance on aircraft, blown up tanks, killed soldiers, all that money in the hole, and you say there's profit involved? No, there isn't.
#631 - xxxsonic fanxxx (06/28/2014) [-]
Red cross. All that money is on bank accounts of owners of military industry, where do you think you get that equipment from?. Would you buy new ones if old ones we're stored somewhere doing nothing?. Ordinary american lost, they gained billions. Plus noone cares about some social trash that gets conscripted because they have no other options in life.
User avatar #634 - meganinja (06/28/2014) [-]
Yes but that only helps big business owners. Not only does it not provide profit as a whole, but it actually shrinks the tax base when you have people dying. WWII only did anything for the USA because it involved employment, and not actually creating money. Wars are always a money hole, unless you happen to conquer something more valueable than what you've lost.
#581 - cabbagemayhem (06/28/2014) [-]
1. Some lies were discovered after-the-fact, which was bullshit, but some information came from outside sources, such as an Iraqi defector informant. And, that didn't annul our responsibilities in the Middle East once we were already there, but we pulled out now, are you fucking happy?
2. We aren't an unstable regime likely to produce and release unnecessarily cruel WMDs on civilians.
3. Just because we had a common interest at one doesn't mean we ever supported all of his activities. What's your point?
4. It was an effective foundation to support operations in Afghanistan, and where do you get your figures? Most Iraqi casualty estimates are closer to 100,000.
5. That's just false, and completely ignores 9/11, Saddam Hussein, and other international dilemmas which I doubt you even consider.
#628 - xxxsonic fanxxx (06/28/2014) [-]
1. Ofcourse after the fact, as all lies, you created that informant as excuse, you don't have any responsibilities anywhere, you mean interests.
2. Yes you are, you are corrupt corporatocracy with war economy that uses military for your interests and profit.
3. Yes you did. That's definition of allies. U.S. even gave chemical weapons to them.
4. You don't need "support" from iraq, it's too far, you had enough bases in afghanistan right away. Plus carriers etc. It was just invasion for the sake of war, oil and israel, not "base". Red cross.
5. 9/11 was nothing strategically, economically, politically. NOTHING. Bee sting after which you decided to burn all hives in the woods, with woods, just to get honey.
#708 - cabbagemayhem (06/28/2014) [-]
1. The informant was a defector from Iraq who told German intelligence that Iraq had an active biological weapons program. He later admitted to lying because he wished Hussein removed from power. www.theguardian.com/world/2011/feb/15/curveball-iraqi-fantasist-cia-saddam
2. That's has no truth in it at all. Our economy is a Capitalistic free market to produce the most value. Our military budget is only high because we are responsible for the defense of several other nations such as Japan, Canada, Western Europe, etc., as well as moderating third world conflicts and ensuring the world doesn't collapse into WWIII.
3. We don't use nor provide chemical weapons. They are against the Geneva convention and unnecessary except for cruelty and massacres.
4. Bottom line, we were going to invade someone for 9/11, and we wanted to prevent the worst case scenario of terrorists acquiring WMDs. Sorry if we picked the wrong one.
5. 9/11 was well-planned. You can call it a bee sting if you want, but you shouldn't go poking bears. An event like that gets the attention of everyone in the Western world. What did you expect to happen? We didn't come for honey. We were mad.
#199 - Just because you guys are wankers doesn't mean you have to mak… 06/28/2014 on True Story -1
#193 - Yeah, well normal sucks. 06/28/2014 on True Story 0
#192 - No, but addiction to pornography is. 06/28/2014 on True Story -3
#202 - Yes, but they're distinguishable from ordinary FPSs. They're m… 06/28/2014 on Truth about PC gaming 0
#40 - After asking what you're doing out of **** , you h… 06/27/2014 on destismad's profile 0
#37 - Your mistake was in thinking atheism has anything to do with i…  [+] (3 new replies) 06/27/2014 on destismad's profile 0
#39 - destismad (06/27/2014) [-]
In addition: this was over a half a year ago, many people wouldn't even reply to someone who commented on something this old or older, or at least not seriously. I'm not saying it was somehow a bad or terribly stupid thing to do, but it was more likely to be pointless and a waste of time rather than this particular occasion. However, I like to reply to things I believe are or might be worth replying to, as in not being a fruitless endeavor or utter waste of time.
#38 - destismad (06/27/2014) [-]
Anyone can be arrogant, including religious and non-religious people, regardless of whether they agnostic or not. In order to truly and firmly deny religion, one must be able to think rationally and sensibly. Basically, the better one is with critical thinking, the more likely they will be non-religious. A higher IQ leads to a higher possibility of atheism, look it up (if you do decide to research it, make sure you find at least a single published site, but it'd be best to find 3).
What am I doing out of NSFW? Ummm, looking at funny/interesting content, like I am now. I hope you don't think FunnyJunk is a porn site with some comics on the side.
#40 - cabbagemayhem (06/27/2014) [-]
After asking what you're doing out of NSFW, you hope I don't think FJ is a porn site with comics on the side? I think you missed my point. That's what I hope you don't think.

There's that arrogance. You think a correlation between IQ and religious beliefs means something. High IQ people are often indistinguishable from the least. They succumb to the same faulty thinking and fail to see the forest for the trees, and in their complacence often lead a sad life. IQ is a weak indicator of intelligence, I'm sure you at least know that. Instead, look for a correlation between beliefs and well-adjusted people. If self-proclaimed intellectuals could see the way they act from someone else's point of view, most of them would slap themselves. So, go ahead tell me how smart they really are?

I have chosen this thread at the top of your profile to address your prejudice beliefs, it shall be written to.
#204 - If they were bandwagon hopping fags, they would be on Tumblr. … 06/27/2014 on Smokey the bear might be a... 0
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

items

Total unique items point value: 1050 / Total items point value: 1150

Comments(0):

 

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
No comments!
 Friends (0)