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

hide menu

captainreposty

Rank #38192 on Subscribers
no avatar Level 216 Comments: Comedic Genius
Offline
Send mail to captainreposty Block captainreposty Invite captainreposty to be your friend
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:2/13/2013
Last Login:1/11/2014
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Content Thumbs: 882 total,  1127 ,  245
Comment Thumbs: 1664 total,  3069 ,  1405
Content Level Progress: 20% (2/10)
Level 88 Content: Srs Business → Level 89 Content: Srs Business
Comment Level Progress: 82% (82/100)
Level 216 Comments: Comedic Genius → Level 217 Comments: Comedic Genius
Subscribers:1
Content Views:82795
Times Content Favorited:249 times
Total Comments Made:856
FJ Points:2573

latest user's comments

#37 - It's hard to say when exactly our Empire was at its greatest, … 08/15/2013 on Britain 0
#19 - 18thC Britain; everyone thought that the Atlantic Slave Trade …  [+] (6 new replies) 08/15/2013 on Britain -1
#38 - foxfoot (08/15/2013) [-]
Your two comments are insultingly incorrect. Firstly, the picture in the post is a map of the second British Empire. That is the empire as it was during most of the 19th century, when the empire was at its height. We didn't start the Scramble for Africa because we'd lost a major source of financial power or really because we'd lost a political foothold. The scramble for Africa did take place in the period when British power was starting to decline but France was not our biggest rival, Germany was. It was the only real threat to our industrial might and some of Frances most prosperous land had been lost to Germany earlier, in the Franco-Prussian war. Secondly we weren't hunting land in Africa because we needed to replace America for economic reasons, we had India or the "crown jewel" in the imperial crown. India was our most prosperous colony and made up the loss of america and more. In fact the implication that we started the scramble of Africa is wrong, after the rest of Africa (the north and west had previously been open to colonization) was open to European imperialism by no-one other than Belgium countries started claiming lands. Eventually due to disputes and tensions a conference was called in Berlin which laid out the ground rules for officially claiming territory the major powers raced to claim land in the name of their country just in case that area turned out to be economically significant.

"The Colonies were more important financially than you seem to realize, but that's ok. We essentially had an economical triangle between us (Britain), the Colonies (including Australia, Canada, the 13, the Caribbean colonies), and India.
." - what is this crap? When we had the 13 no-one knew of Australia, we had roughly half of canada and we owned practically a port in Bengal. and the system you describe is the mercantile system which isnt how we conducted our economic affairs at the time of the map in the post. What shitty uni taught you this bull?
#40 - captainreposty (08/16/2013) [-]
We NEVER had America and any of Africa at the same time.
We used the mercantile system as a function of the Atlantic Slave Trade, and before other states caught up with us economically and militarily, essentially before America wanted "Free Trade".
Read a fucking book before lambasting others with insults.
#41 - foxfoot (08/16/2013) [-]
i never said we had America at the same time as we had Africa, every European state used the mercantile system of economy for all matters of trade, that's why empires happened in the 18th century, to create new markets and America was not the pioneer of free trade, Britain was because free trade meant that we always dominated markets as our products were the cheapest. i have read a book, several actually, and i dont klnow whether your trolling or you are just generally this ignorant. You clearly havent read any books on the topic, because if you did you'd know that you painfully wrong, so i would like to know what books you have read.
#42 - captainreposty (08/16/2013) [-]
"I have read a book".
I studied this for fuck sake, so I read book upon book, was taught by professors who studied this for decades.
Britain didn't WANT to implement free trade, but as a situation of circumstance, they HAD to. Free trade wasn't to create new markets, but to maintain existing ones with the colonies, after they gained their political independence (in the case of Canada/Australia/], on account that they would have cut themselves off from us if we continued our [not as in we invented it] mercantile system.

You did say we had America and Africa at the same time, as you claimed the first picture was "at the height of our power". How could it be when we didn't own colonies in the two continents at the same time?
I suppose the best way to teach someone isn't to get aggressive with them.
I am certainly not trolling you as my "opinions" were worth a high 2:1 on this particular credit. That isn't "boasting", that's simply me backing up my case. Have a re-read of what you've said before kid.
#43 - foxfoot (08/16/2013) [-]
I've studied it as well, at a-level i did British foreign policy from 1851 to 1914 and got full marks on the paper. I'm not at uni yet but i don't think you are either, because I've read countless books such as Niall Ferguson's "Empire: How Britain made the modern world", Simon C Smiths "British Imperialism: 1750 - 1970" and Jeremy Paxman's "Empire: what ruling the world did to the British" and i recommend you look these ones up because they seem to disagree with you are they're a fairly easy read, so right up your street. Britain did want to implement Fair Trade, look it up. They wanted fair trade in countries because there would be no tariffs on foreign products and so since Britain was the china of the era its products would be the cheapest available. I never said fair trade was to create new markets, i said the mercantile system created new markets. And by the time Canada and Australia gained independence no-one used the mercantile system. Other countries used protectionist tariffs but every used the same, modern economic system.

Ah okay, i see, you've misinterpreted what i said, which is fair enough its completely my fault. When i said we didn't have America and Africa at the same time, i was talking about the 13 colonies that would later become the USA, i can see how you would read that wrong. But we did have Canada at the same we had colonies in Africa because Canada didn't gain independence until 1931 or 1982, depending on your view. The only way you could think that Canada was independent while we participated in the scramble for Africa is if you think that being a dominion is to be independent, which it isn't and that's like British Imperialism 101. I never used the word opinion, because this certainly your opinion, your just plain and simple wrong. Your facts are not true, and i don't believe you got 2:1 on this particular credit, i don't even believe you go to uni, or you have been and i certainly don't believe you've ever read around the topic
User avatar #21 - thebigoddone (08/15/2013) [-]
hahahaha I bet that was interesting!

But yeah, it is all fun!
#7 - Comment deleted 08/15/2013 on Hotelicopter 0
#17 - Because OP flunked History.  [+] (2 new replies) 08/15/2013 on Britain 0
User avatar #36 - thatsnotmyname (08/15/2013) [-]
because this shows the british empire at the height of her powers, ~1922, we lost the 13 colonies 140 years before that
#37 - captainreposty (08/15/2013) [-]
It's hard to say when exactly our Empire was at its greatest, but scholarly consent tends to points to after we lost America, as we enforced our indirect rule onto more countries (especially in Africa) and we were more heavy handed with rivals.
Also, if it was at our "height", then it must be historically correct. It's a tangible timeline, not an accumulation.
Either way you look at it, OP failed on all historical accounts. Even the bottom picture is wrong.
#16 - Technically, the "United States of America" (as a co… 08/15/2013 on Britain -2
#15 - Well, for starters, we didn't own America at the same time as …  [+] (8 new replies) 08/15/2013 on Britain -2
User avatar #18 - thebigoddone (08/15/2013) [-]
Yes, the East coast of America was lost, but not British Canada which was controlled by the British Empire up until 1867. Britain had certainly colonised Africa by then. Also the Thirteen Colonies were not a exactly major source of financial power yet. The reason for the loss of the Thirteen Colonies, is mainly due to the fact that the Parliament in Great Britain wanted to get more out of the Thirteen Colonies, eventually resulting in the American Revolution. "Shortly after we lost America public opinion on the slave trade turned against it" don't entirely understand this sentance, but it was the British people who wanted it banned, if that is what you're saying. But yeah this is interesting though, I am reading a book on it at the moment also
#19 - captainreposty (08/15/2013) [-]
18thC Britain; everyone thought that the Atlantic Slave Trade was a good thing, an essential element of imperial expansion. We justified this via pseudo-sciences that legitimized the view that Africans were (to quote Kipling) "Half beast, half child", and that we were on a civilizing mission.
19thC Britain; explorer's consciences and Christian "morals" turned against the above opinion. Due to our philosophers and intellectuals (also with a massive boost from Rousseau and the French Revolution) that all men are equal, and that we couldn't be the most advanced nation in the world if we maintained primitive values.
(That's what I meant by "Shortly after...")

The Colonies were more important financially than you seem to realize, but that's ok. We essentially had an economical triangle between us (Britain), the Colonies (including Australia, Canada, the 13, the Caribbean colonies), and India.
We grew crops in the Caribbean (or India), sent them over to England to be made into the final product, and then sold them to the 13. This made sure we were involved in every step of the process (as we shipped them on British ships obvs. ).

I just finished Colonial History last uni year, and it's pretty damn interesting, so good luck on your venture through time you scholar.
#38 - foxfoot (08/15/2013) [-]
Your two comments are insultingly incorrect. Firstly, the picture in the post is a map of the second British Empire. That is the empire as it was during most of the 19th century, when the empire was at its height. We didn't start the Scramble for Africa because we'd lost a major source of financial power or really because we'd lost a political foothold. The scramble for Africa did take place in the period when British power was starting to decline but France was not our biggest rival, Germany was. It was the only real threat to our industrial might and some of Frances most prosperous land had been lost to Germany earlier, in the Franco-Prussian war. Secondly we weren't hunting land in Africa because we needed to replace America for economic reasons, we had India or the "crown jewel" in the imperial crown. India was our most prosperous colony and made up the loss of america and more. In fact the implication that we started the scramble of Africa is wrong, after the rest of Africa (the north and west had previously been open to colonization) was open to European imperialism by no-one other than Belgium countries started claiming lands. Eventually due to disputes and tensions a conference was called in Berlin which laid out the ground rules for officially claiming territory the major powers raced to claim land in the name of their country just in case that area turned out to be economically significant.

"The Colonies were more important financially than you seem to realize, but that's ok. We essentially had an economical triangle between us (Britain), the Colonies (including Australia, Canada, the 13, the Caribbean colonies), and India.
." - what is this crap? When we had the 13 no-one knew of Australia, we had roughly half of canada and we owned practically a port in Bengal. and the system you describe is the mercantile system which isnt how we conducted our economic affairs at the time of the map in the post. What shitty uni taught you this bull?
#40 - captainreposty (08/16/2013) [-]
We NEVER had America and any of Africa at the same time.
We used the mercantile system as a function of the Atlantic Slave Trade, and before other states caught up with us economically and militarily, essentially before America wanted "Free Trade".
Read a fucking book before lambasting others with insults.
#41 - foxfoot (08/16/2013) [-]
i never said we had America at the same time as we had Africa, every European state used the mercantile system of economy for all matters of trade, that's why empires happened in the 18th century, to create new markets and America was not the pioneer of free trade, Britain was because free trade meant that we always dominated markets as our products were the cheapest. i have read a book, several actually, and i dont klnow whether your trolling or you are just generally this ignorant. You clearly havent read any books on the topic, because if you did you'd know that you painfully wrong, so i would like to know what books you have read.
#42 - captainreposty (08/16/2013) [-]
"I have read a book".
I studied this for fuck sake, so I read book upon book, was taught by professors who studied this for decades.
Britain didn't WANT to implement free trade, but as a situation of circumstance, they HAD to. Free trade wasn't to create new markets, but to maintain existing ones with the colonies, after they gained their political independence (in the case of Canada/Australia/], on account that they would have cut themselves off from us if we continued our [not as in we invented it] mercantile system.

You did say we had America and Africa at the same time, as you claimed the first picture was "at the height of our power". How could it be when we didn't own colonies in the two continents at the same time?
I suppose the best way to teach someone isn't to get aggressive with them.
I am certainly not trolling you as my "opinions" were worth a high 2:1 on this particular credit. That isn't "boasting", that's simply me backing up my case. Have a re-read of what you've said before kid.
#43 - foxfoot (08/16/2013) [-]
I've studied it as well, at a-level i did British foreign policy from 1851 to 1914 and got full marks on the paper. I'm not at uni yet but i don't think you are either, because I've read countless books such as Niall Ferguson's "Empire: How Britain made the modern world", Simon C Smiths "British Imperialism: 1750 - 1970" and Jeremy Paxman's "Empire: what ruling the world did to the British" and i recommend you look these ones up because they seem to disagree with you are they're a fairly easy read, so right up your street. Britain did want to implement Fair Trade, look it up. They wanted fair trade in countries because there would be no tariffs on foreign products and so since Britain was the china of the era its products would be the cheapest available. I never said fair trade was to create new markets, i said the mercantile system created new markets. And by the time Canada and Australia gained independence no-one used the mercantile system. Other countries used protectionist tariffs but every used the same, modern economic system.

Ah okay, i see, you've misinterpreted what i said, which is fair enough its completely my fault. When i said we didn't have America and Africa at the same time, i was talking about the 13 colonies that would later become the USA, i can see how you would read that wrong. But we did have Canada at the same we had colonies in Africa because Canada didn't gain independence until 1931 or 1982, depending on your view. The only way you could think that Canada was independent while we participated in the scramble for Africa is if you think that being a dominion is to be independent, which it isn't and that's like British Imperialism 101. I never used the word opinion, because this certainly your opinion, your just plain and simple wrong. Your facts are not true, and i don't believe you got 2:1 on this particular credit, i don't even believe you go to uni, or you have been and i certainly don't believe you've ever read around the topic
User avatar #21 - thebigoddone (08/15/2013) [-]
hahahaha I bet that was interesting!

But yeah, it is all fun!
#34 - I called my mum straight after watching Requiem to tell her I … 08/15/2013 on learn some knowledge +1
#106 - Ah, someone educated to debate with. However, you hav…  [+] (8 new replies) 08/15/2013 on Henry Rollins. +2
User avatar #258 - thatguyontheright (08/21/2013) [-]
Wolves, wolves want to live in a country of uneducated people.

I did not have the privilege to go to private school, I was stuck in a public school, a class D one at that, so it got the minimum amount of funding. Teachers had to take on several roles around the school. My Sociology teacher was employed part time as a teacher and part time at the same school as the custodian. The art teacher doubled as the World History teacher. They had no LD and AP courses as they did not have the money to do it.


Funding is not the only problem with schools, it is also the determination of teachers (Some just come in for the paycheck) and the parents as well need to get involved somehow. Education alone is not a right in our civilization, a GOOD education is a right. Education is the cure for poverty.
User avatar #121 - slugnugget (08/15/2013) [-]
Your opening line makes you sound like a huge prestigious asshole.


Apparently your parents managed to pay for something important but failed to teach you something just as if not even more important. Dont act above people because it make you out to be a prick and despite your education no one wants to hire a prick.
User avatar #160 - articulate (08/15/2013) [-]
Ah, slugnugget, someone uneducated to debate with.

i fuk ur mom u mad bro?
User avatar #162 - slugnugget (08/15/2013) [-]
Uneducated? I can program in 6 different computer languages. I speak 2 languages fluently. While having a master degree in Mathematics.

Don't act smart on the internet kid. Especially when you can't back it up in person.

I'm sorry your parents beat you every night after realizing their daughter was a cunt.
User avatar #164 - articulate (08/15/2013) [-]
just cuz u hav an fancy degree dont mean u can talk shit like that. u the 1 soundin like a huge prestigus asshole now.
User avatar #166 - slugnugget (08/15/2013) [-]
I'm only a pretentious ass hole when provoked.

It doesn't come out naturally for me like it does you.
#174 - anonymous (08/15/2013) [-]
LOL NURD. GO MICRO YOUR 200000 ZERGLINGS
User avatar #168 - articulate (08/15/2013) [-]
im never a asshole*
#242 - Those who ended the Czar's reign didn't bring in the Totalitar…  [+] (2 new replies) 08/15/2013 on Civilization +4
User avatar #248 - jewishcommunazi (08/15/2013) [-]
He was at some extent, but not as much as others. I think he was in the central commitee and that.
User avatar #251 - jewishcommunazi (08/15/2013) [-]
Wow, sorry for knowing stuff, I guess.
#240 - I understand why Britain was included, but you can't put two d… 08/15/2013 on Civilization +1
#60 - Some of it is very fascinating. However, it's oppressive as … 08/15/2013 on جعلها المطر 0
#40 - You're chatting absolute **** son.  [+] (1 new reply) 08/15/2013 on $600 -1
#45 - coolcalx (08/15/2013) [-]
I'm talking about contract phones, buddy.
the phones, by themselves, can be expensive, but if you're on a major carrier like AT&T or TMobile, they are much cheaper, and rarely go over $200
#39 - ******* . 08/15/2013 on $600 +2
#74 - Listen, Fox News, shut. the. **** . up. 08/14/2013 on Banks get a taste of their... +4
#51 - Yeah, but I heard you touch kids. 08/14/2013 on Found Phanacts Bike -3
#84 - Vibrating through walls n'such.  [+] (1 new reply) 08/14/2013 on . +1
User avatar #85 - robbiemcbiscuit (08/14/2013) [-]
also can tunnel underground.
#109 - Why? As a human, I'd just like, step on it y'know. 08/14/2013 on Snail as a predator attacks 0
#80 - Radical Larry.  [+] (3 new replies) 08/14/2013 on . +3
User avatar #82 - robbiemcbiscuit (08/14/2013) [-]
he's all business all the time.
#84 - captainreposty (08/14/2013) [-]
Vibrating through walls n'such.
User avatar #85 - robbiemcbiscuit (08/14/2013) [-]
also can tunnel underground.
#47 - He probably would have been given it. Either that, or his … 08/14/2013 on Fells (description) +60
#110 - Life, eh? 08/14/2013 on How to win life +1
#11 - I'm so glad I'm English, at least when it comes to educational… 08/14/2013 on Evolution in the Butt 0
#1 - If I've learnt anything from FJ, it's that people don't give a… 08/13/2013 on Massive American troop... 0
#7 - It's from The Onion....  [+] (1 new reply) 08/13/2013 on Evolution in the Butt +1
User avatar #8 - schnizel (08/13/2013) [-]
But I only read from Carrot.
#96 - How so? 08/13/2013 on bottle bear 0
#2 - Picture  [+] (1 new reply) 08/13/2013 on Evolution in the Butt +3
#3 - schnizel (08/13/2013) [-]
Mittens rolls with the Katze SS admin.
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

items

Total unique items point value: 2050 / Total items point value: 2300

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#1 - anonymous (04/30/2013) [-]
I love how you think you're above and morally superior to what seems to be most of the world when any really moral person would find you and your views disgusting.
#2 to #1 - captainreposty (05/01/2013) [-]
You could have signed in.
But I bet you're as spineless as the next Jew. Yes I am indeed morally superior to all those who negate responsibility to a "higher being", and I've never lent anyone money and then asked them for "interest", because that is simply the dirtiest way of making money.
I don't know who you are, nor do I care who you are. All I know is, that 4 Jewish families control the Federal Reserve, and all American taxes go not to the American government, but to the privately owned Federal Reserve (something unconstitutional).
User avatar #5 to #2 - alfjnn ONLINE (05/04/2013) [-]
>Rothschild
>Jewish.
Ok.jpg
#4 to #2 - spineless (05/01/2013) [-]
No, I am as spineless as the next Jew!
#3 to #2 - rieskimo has deleted their comment [-]
 Friends (0)