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

hide menu

crilleballe

no avatar Level 243 Comments: Doinitrite
Offline
Send mail to crilleballe Block crilleballe Invite crilleballe to be your friend
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:4/10/2011
Last Login:12/18/2014
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Content Thumbs: 40 total,  112 ,  72
Comment Thumbs: 4383 total,  5511 ,  1128
Content Level Progress: 74.57% (44/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 56% (56/100)
Level 243 Comments: Doinitrite → Level 244 Comments: Doinitrite
Subscribers:0
Content Views:8070
Times Content Favorited:5 times
Total Comments Made:1578
FJ Points:703

latest user's comments

#13 - Picture 12/06/2012 on Babs +12
#12 - Picture  [+] (1 new reply) 12/06/2012 on Babs +4
#13 - crilleballe (12/06/2012) [-]
#11 - Picture  [+] (2 new replies) 12/06/2012 on Babs +4
#12 - crilleballe (12/06/2012) [-]
#13 - crilleballe (12/06/2012) [-]
#179 - Q and Q: Unconsciously eat pizza? 12/03/2012 on Name Game 0
#107 - But Count Dooku was the apprentice of Lord Sidious and Dooku h…  [+] (1 new reply) 12/03/2012 on which one better 0
User avatar #109 - notahuman (12/05/2012) [-]
I think dooku was trying to do the same thing vader was trying to do with starkiller.. which is use an apprentice to overpower the emporer
#252 - Now, this is just a theory, but! I believe the bread is ma… 12/03/2012 on Now, that's a good trick +4
#104 - I don't know really. Maybe you're only a lord if you have…  [+] (3 new replies) 12/02/2012 on which one better 0
User avatar #106 - notahuman (12/03/2012) [-]
I read up on it... there is this rule of the two for the Sith meaning there can be only two Sith, Master and apprentice. If there were more than one apprentices then the apprentices would gang up on the master to kill him and gain the title master. then they would in-fight to see the most powerful and the Sith would get weaker and weaker. Both of the Sith are considered lords though.
#107 - crilleballe (12/03/2012) [-]
But Count Dooku was the apprentice of Lord Sidious and Dooku had several apprentices, sometimes at once. Asajj being one of them.
Although they acted more as spies, assassins and saboteurs, Dooku still called them 'His apprentice'.
User avatar #109 - notahuman (12/05/2012) [-]
I think dooku was trying to do the same thing vader was trying to do with starkiller.. which is use an apprentice to overpower the emporer
#75 - He chopped Darth Maul in half, but Maul survived and became a …  [+] (5 new replies) 12/02/2012 on which one better +1
User avatar #103 - notahuman (12/02/2012) [-]
i didn't think Darth Maul was a lord
#104 - crilleballe (12/02/2012) [-]
I don't know really.
Maybe you're only a lord if you have an apprentice; that means only Sidious and Dooku are sith lords.
Then again, maybe the only lord is lord Sidious.
User avatar #106 - notahuman (12/03/2012) [-]
I read up on it... there is this rule of the two for the Sith meaning there can be only two Sith, Master and apprentice. If there were more than one apprentices then the apprentices would gang up on the master to kill him and gain the title master. then they would in-fight to see the most powerful and the Sith would get weaker and weaker. Both of the Sith are considered lords though.
#107 - crilleballe (12/03/2012) [-]
But Count Dooku was the apprentice of Lord Sidious and Dooku had several apprentices, sometimes at once. Asajj being one of them.
Although they acted more as spies, assassins and saboteurs, Dooku still called them 'His apprentice'.
User avatar #109 - notahuman (12/05/2012) [-]
I think dooku was trying to do the same thing vader was trying to do with starkiller.. which is use an apprentice to overpower the emporer
#395 - 1. If the UN haven't fought back the terrorists yet, how did y…  [+] (1 new reply) 12/01/2012 on Opposite day 0
#399 - bigrog (12/02/2012) [-]
multiple other middle eastern countries agreed. All we asked was that they not harbor them they refused. The day of the attack there people celebrated in the streets. It wasnt that they couldnt, its that they refused because of there own animosity toward us. There goverment even allowed some terrorist to enter public schools and teach there kids how to make bombs. There people were as hostile toward us as the terrorist. And we did start with a land invasion. We only bombed after we had thousands of soilders that we proceeded to bomb, and the only reason we bombed is because they refused to fight us in direct combat. they would either lay out traps, ieds, or ambushes, or suicide bomb our bases. If there people hadnt happily harbored them we wouldnt of had to bomb them. They were inviting them into there houses and lying to soilders saying they were relatives. And its not like we bombed them, fucked up there country and left. We stayed for years helping them rebuild and trying to fight of terrorist groups from taking control. I cant recall which but either afgan or iraq recently held there first free election thanks to our protection, there were multiple attempts to attack the polls. Ive personally met a soilder who saved a family who saved a Afgan family, He was a sniper and took the terrorist's head off while he was using the family as a human shield. One of the biggest hot button issues right now is should we stay over there, many say we have done enough. And by the way, I do memorialize the tragic events each year. Every year i pray for those who lost there lives, for those overseas, and for the misguided souls who were corrupted into doing those horrible deeds, and shed a few tears, and im proud to say i do. And tell me how we force a memorial upon you, becuase if your country does a memorial that seems more like your government trying to get good PR than us forcing something upon you
#392 - Exactly. You are at war with Al-Queda. If you expect that yo…  [+] (4 new replies) 12/01/2012 on Opposite day 0
#394 - bigrog (12/01/2012) [-]
and to your point if the goverment refuesed our request to not harbor the terrorist then they are responsible and there people are partly responsible
#393 - bigrog (12/01/2012) [-]
when the fuck did anyone ever come to europe whining about 9 11. If you hear about it on the internet people have a right to post what they want. And once again, we are at war, one which we didnt start. You say the bombing was wrong. How the hell should we have handled it. Crop dust them with glitter. Maybe a paintball fight. A land invasion would have killed millions more soldiers. Not to mention we gave the afgan goverment a chance to help. There were terrorist in multiple other countries as well. We talked to there goverments and asked that they not harbor them. Most agreed, afgan did not, they gave us not choice. And unrelated, you people where dicks about 9 11 even before we took action. The day of the 911 you guys had russell brand on MTV dressed as osama bin ladin saying we derserved it
#395 - crilleballe (12/01/2012) [-]
1. If the UN haven't fought back the terrorists yet, how did you expect the Afghan government to do so? These governments are corrupted, poor and have terrible control of their country. They CANNOT repel a rebel group like Al-Queda.
2. Many people of the USA whine about 9/11 all the time, not only, but especially in your own country. You have a large memorial every year that you have politically forced upon Europe, so that we have to make a memorial as well.
If you don't whine or 'celebrate' the memory, then i do not mean any offense. But there are a lot of these people out there.
3. You didn't start the war in Afghanistan/Iraq/Iran, but you joined it, willingly.
> "You say the bombing was wrong. How the hell should we have handled it?"
By valuing the lives of the people whom you killed. Your government decided that it was better to bomb 18.000 civilians, just to be sure that a few hundred terrorists among them died. Instead, you could have faced them in combat. Sure, you'd lose some soldiers, possibly even a hundred soldiers, but if you really value 100 soldiers lives over 18.000 civilians lives, then you are psychopathic.
#399 - bigrog (12/02/2012) [-]
multiple other middle eastern countries agreed. All we asked was that they not harbor them they refused. The day of the attack there people celebrated in the streets. It wasnt that they couldnt, its that they refused because of there own animosity toward us. There goverment even allowed some terrorist to enter public schools and teach there kids how to make bombs. There people were as hostile toward us as the terrorist. And we did start with a land invasion. We only bombed after we had thousands of soilders that we proceeded to bomb, and the only reason we bombed is because they refused to fight us in direct combat. they would either lay out traps, ieds, or ambushes, or suicide bomb our bases. If there people hadnt happily harbored them we wouldnt of had to bomb them. They were inviting them into there houses and lying to soilders saying they were relatives. And its not like we bombed them, fucked up there country and left. We stayed for years helping them rebuild and trying to fight of terrorist groups from taking control. I cant recall which but either afgan or iraq recently held there first free election thanks to our protection, there were multiple attempts to attack the polls. Ive personally met a soilder who saved a family who saved a Afgan family, He was a sniper and took the terrorist's head off while he was using the family as a human shield. One of the biggest hot button issues right now is should we stay over there, many say we have done enough. And by the way, I do memorialize the tragic events each year. Every year i pray for those who lost there lives, for those overseas, and for the misguided souls who were corrupted into doing those horrible deeds, and shed a few tears, and im proud to say i do. And tell me how we force a memorial upon you, becuase if your country does a memorial that seems more like your government trying to get good PR than us forcing something upon you
#390 - And 9/11 was not an act of war then?  [+] (6 new replies) 12/01/2012 on Opposite day 0
#391 - bigrog (12/01/2012) [-]
how the fuck is killing 3000 civilians not an act of war
#392 - crilleballe (12/01/2012) [-]
Exactly. You are at war with Al-Queda. If you expect that you can just invade their home country and not bring the war to the USA, then you have severely underestimated Al-Queda
Do the 3.000 dead at 9/11 mean more to you then 18.000 dead in Afghanistan?
Yes, probably, and that's because it's close to you. It could have been you. But don't come to Europe whining about 9/11, because some of us care just as much about the afghans as we care about you. And the bombing of 18.000 people was a governmental decision. Your government, and therefore also partly you, are responsible for it. The 9/11 only have a few responsible rebels to blame.
#394 - bigrog (12/01/2012) [-]
and to your point if the goverment refuesed our request to not harbor the terrorist then they are responsible and there people are partly responsible
#393 - bigrog (12/01/2012) [-]
when the fuck did anyone ever come to europe whining about 9 11. If you hear about it on the internet people have a right to post what they want. And once again, we are at war, one which we didnt start. You say the bombing was wrong. How the hell should we have handled it. Crop dust them with glitter. Maybe a paintball fight. A land invasion would have killed millions more soldiers. Not to mention we gave the afgan goverment a chance to help. There were terrorist in multiple other countries as well. We talked to there goverments and asked that they not harbor them. Most agreed, afgan did not, they gave us not choice. And unrelated, you people where dicks about 9 11 even before we took action. The day of the 911 you guys had russell brand on MTV dressed as osama bin ladin saying we derserved it
#395 - crilleballe (12/01/2012) [-]
1. If the UN haven't fought back the terrorists yet, how did you expect the Afghan government to do so? These governments are corrupted, poor and have terrible control of their country. They CANNOT repel a rebel group like Al-Queda.
2. Many people of the USA whine about 9/11 all the time, not only, but especially in your own country. You have a large memorial every year that you have politically forced upon Europe, so that we have to make a memorial as well.
If you don't whine or 'celebrate' the memory, then i do not mean any offense. But there are a lot of these people out there.
3. You didn't start the war in Afghanistan/Iraq/Iran, but you joined it, willingly.
> "You say the bombing was wrong. How the hell should we have handled it?"
By valuing the lives of the people whom you killed. Your government decided that it was better to bomb 18.000 civilians, just to be sure that a few hundred terrorists among them died. Instead, you could have faced them in combat. Sure, you'd lose some soldiers, possibly even a hundred soldiers, but if you really value 100 soldiers lives over 18.000 civilians lives, then you are psychopathic.
#399 - bigrog (12/02/2012) [-]
multiple other middle eastern countries agreed. All we asked was that they not harbor them they refused. The day of the attack there people celebrated in the streets. It wasnt that they couldnt, its that they refused because of there own animosity toward us. There goverment even allowed some terrorist to enter public schools and teach there kids how to make bombs. There people were as hostile toward us as the terrorist. And we did start with a land invasion. We only bombed after we had thousands of soilders that we proceeded to bomb, and the only reason we bombed is because they refused to fight us in direct combat. they would either lay out traps, ieds, or ambushes, or suicide bomb our bases. If there people hadnt happily harbored them we wouldnt of had to bomb them. They were inviting them into there houses and lying to soilders saying they were relatives. And its not like we bombed them, fucked up there country and left. We stayed for years helping them rebuild and trying to fight of terrorist groups from taking control. I cant recall which but either afgan or iraq recently held there first free election thanks to our protection, there were multiple attempts to attack the polls. Ive personally met a soilder who saved a family who saved a Afgan family, He was a sniper and took the terrorist's head off while he was using the family as a human shield. One of the biggest hot button issues right now is should we stay over there, many say we have done enough. And by the way, I do memorialize the tragic events each year. Every year i pray for those who lost there lives, for those overseas, and for the misguided souls who were corrupted into doing those horrible deeds, and shed a few tears, and im proud to say i do. And tell me how we force a memorial upon you, becuase if your country does a memorial that seems more like your government trying to get good PR than us forcing something upon you
#181 - Well, then all is not lost :D 12/01/2012 on Opposite day 0
#17 - I don't know why, but the word "WanKnob" is hilarious.  [+] (1 new reply) 12/01/2012 on Sleipnir 0
#18 - thestalkystalker (12/01/2012) [-]
it sounds like a nickname for your penis, because its a nob that you wank
#167 - Yeah, it was a national travesty. But so was the death of …  [+] (11 new replies) 12/01/2012 on Opposite day +4
#260 - bigrog (12/01/2012) [-]
do you know how war works, what would you want us to do, go over and plant flowers. War isn't pretty. I ugly, its brutal, and its bloody. War is hell, but it was necessary. They commited an act of war and we responded. Wars are won through the blood of civilians, not soilders. Thats how it has always been.
#390 - crilleballe (12/01/2012) [-]
And 9/11 was not an act of war then?
#391 - bigrog (12/01/2012) [-]
how the fuck is killing 3000 civilians not an act of war
#392 - crilleballe (12/01/2012) [-]
Exactly. You are at war with Al-Queda. If you expect that you can just invade their home country and not bring the war to the USA, then you have severely underestimated Al-Queda
Do the 3.000 dead at 9/11 mean more to you then 18.000 dead in Afghanistan?
Yes, probably, and that's because it's close to you. It could have been you. But don't come to Europe whining about 9/11, because some of us care just as much about the afghans as we care about you. And the bombing of 18.000 people was a governmental decision. Your government, and therefore also partly you, are responsible for it. The 9/11 only have a few responsible rebels to blame.
#394 - bigrog (12/01/2012) [-]
and to your point if the goverment refuesed our request to not harbor the terrorist then they are responsible and there people are partly responsible
#393 - bigrog (12/01/2012) [-]
when the fuck did anyone ever come to europe whining about 9 11. If you hear about it on the internet people have a right to post what they want. And once again, we are at war, one which we didnt start. You say the bombing was wrong. How the hell should we have handled it. Crop dust them with glitter. Maybe a paintball fight. A land invasion would have killed millions more soldiers. Not to mention we gave the afgan goverment a chance to help. There were terrorist in multiple other countries as well. We talked to there goverments and asked that they not harbor them. Most agreed, afgan did not, they gave us not choice. And unrelated, you people where dicks about 9 11 even before we took action. The day of the 911 you guys had russell brand on MTV dressed as osama bin ladin saying we derserved it
#395 - crilleballe (12/01/2012) [-]
1. If the UN haven't fought back the terrorists yet, how did you expect the Afghan government to do so? These governments are corrupted, poor and have terrible control of their country. They CANNOT repel a rebel group like Al-Queda.
2. Many people of the USA whine about 9/11 all the time, not only, but especially in your own country. You have a large memorial every year that you have politically forced upon Europe, so that we have to make a memorial as well.
If you don't whine or 'celebrate' the memory, then i do not mean any offense. But there are a lot of these people out there.
3. You didn't start the war in Afghanistan/Iraq/Iran, but you joined it, willingly.
> "You say the bombing was wrong. How the hell should we have handled it?"
By valuing the lives of the people whom you killed. Your government decided that it was better to bomb 18.000 civilians, just to be sure that a few hundred terrorists among them died. Instead, you could have faced them in combat. Sure, you'd lose some soldiers, possibly even a hundred soldiers, but if you really value 100 soldiers lives over 18.000 civilians lives, then you are psychopathic.
#399 - bigrog (12/02/2012) [-]
multiple other middle eastern countries agreed. All we asked was that they not harbor them they refused. The day of the attack there people celebrated in the streets. It wasnt that they couldnt, its that they refused because of there own animosity toward us. There goverment even allowed some terrorist to enter public schools and teach there kids how to make bombs. There people were as hostile toward us as the terrorist. And we did start with a land invasion. We only bombed after we had thousands of soilders that we proceeded to bomb, and the only reason we bombed is because they refused to fight us in direct combat. they would either lay out traps, ieds, or ambushes, or suicide bomb our bases. If there people hadnt happily harbored them we wouldnt of had to bomb them. They were inviting them into there houses and lying to soilders saying they were relatives. And its not like we bombed them, fucked up there country and left. We stayed for years helping them rebuild and trying to fight of terrorist groups from taking control. I cant recall which but either afgan or iraq recently held there first free election thanks to our protection, there were multiple attempts to attack the polls. Ive personally met a soilder who saved a family who saved a Afgan family, He was a sniper and took the terrorist's head off while he was using the family as a human shield. One of the biggest hot button issues right now is should we stay over there, many say we have done enough. And by the way, I do memorialize the tragic events each year. Every year i pray for those who lost there lives, for those overseas, and for the misguided souls who were corrupted into doing those horrible deeds, and shed a few tears, and im proud to say i do. And tell me how we force a memorial upon you, becuase if your country does a memorial that seems more like your government trying to get good PR than us forcing something upon you
#212 - anonymous (12/01/2012) [-]
The rag-heads called it upon themselves
User avatar #178 - thedarkestrogue (12/01/2012) [-]
I am american and I completely agree with you.
#181 - crilleballe (12/01/2012) [-]
Well, then all is not lost :D
#33 - MFW you have no face 11/30/2012 on Columbian crossing +8
#22 - Then why didn't he correct it? 11/29/2012 on December 21st 0
#4 - > They don't know how to deal with women Good, you don'… 11/29/2012 on Warning: cancer. 0
#15 - I'm pretty sure it's actually: December 21st alternati…  [+] (2 new replies) 11/29/2012 on December 21st 0
User avatar #20 - micota (11/29/2012) [-]
yes....he is pointing out the mistake...
#22 - crilleballe (11/29/2012) [-]
Then why didn't he correct it?
#3 - Walker Texas Ranger  [+] (1 new reply) 11/29/2012 on 4chan +1
#5 - mattdoggy (11/29/2012) [-]
Walker Black Label
#31 - "You wanna buy some death sticks?" "You don… 11/29/2012 on Kids these days +4
#47 - > Cat > Loyal Wut. 11/29/2012 on Game companies as friends +4
#759 - Agreed. 11/29/2012 on I would like a president... +1
#739 - While you are right that the world would do alot better if the…  [+] (2 new replies) 11/29/2012 on I would like a president... 0
#744 - bados (11/29/2012) [-]
See I agree with where you are at all the way, like I lost my faith in being christian a fair bit because of personal reasons but I still say I am one if I am asked. Anyway to where I was getting at is, I find it stupid how people pay money to the church as an "offering" where like you said, it could go towards poverty. Atheists could stop preaching so much about it, and Christians can stop being dicks to others is what I think should happen.
#759 - crilleballe (11/29/2012) [-]
Agreed.
#731 - Oh, well i have never met a whole lot of theists on the intern…  [+] (4 new replies) 11/29/2012 on I would like a president... 0
#736 - bados (11/29/2012) [-]
Like I said in one of my lower comments, I just find it pathetic how one side tries to shit on the other yet maybe if everyone stopped being ignorant dicks and leave the other side alone, everyone could get along better then they do now.
#739 - crilleballe (11/29/2012) [-]
While you are right that the world would do alot better if theists/atheists stopped arguing and cooperated, the world would also do A LOT better without using time and money on religious affairs like church-taxes, construction of churches, masses etc.
Imagine if people worked instead of going to mass, and then gave the extra money they earned to poverty? It would be gone in an instant.
I don't mind regular religious people at all, but spending time and money going to mass, is pretty stupid.
To me, religion is a hobby. The church is a clubhouse.
I'm atheist, yet i have to pay taxes to the church until i turn 18. I'm basically funding someones freetime hobby, so they can waste their time.
Of course, time wasted doing something you like, is not wasted time. But make a free choice. If you like going to church and mass, go ahead, but don't take my money to build your clubhouse.
#744 - bados (11/29/2012) [-]
See I agree with where you are at all the way, like I lost my faith in being christian a fair bit because of personal reasons but I still say I am one if I am asked. Anyway to where I was getting at is, I find it stupid how people pay money to the church as an "offering" where like you said, it could go towards poverty. Atheists could stop preaching so much about it, and Christians can stop being dicks to others is what I think should happen.
#759 - crilleballe (11/29/2012) [-]
Agreed.
#722 - They don't. The people who preach about religion just doesn't …  [+] (6 new replies) 11/29/2012 on I would like a president... 0
#725 - bados (11/29/2012) [-]
But from going through the comments I see preaching from both sides, all over facebook I see half of my friends preach about how shit it is, I even get shit of atheists for being christian when I've even explained what my exact beliefs are. Yeah the internet would be a good place to start to "remove religion" but all I see when people try is atheists preaching.
#731 - crilleballe (11/29/2012) [-]
Oh, well i have never met a whole lot of theists on the internet before.
Also, i guess that if two people are of similar opinion and interest, they can enjoy discussing the topic together, even tho they're both of same belief.
#736 - bados (11/29/2012) [-]
Like I said in one of my lower comments, I just find it pathetic how one side tries to shit on the other yet maybe if everyone stopped being ignorant dicks and leave the other side alone, everyone could get along better then they do now.
#739 - crilleballe (11/29/2012) [-]
While you are right that the world would do alot better if theists/atheists stopped arguing and cooperated, the world would also do A LOT better without using time and money on religious affairs like church-taxes, construction of churches, masses etc.
Imagine if people worked instead of going to mass, and then gave the extra money they earned to poverty? It would be gone in an instant.
I don't mind regular religious people at all, but spending time and money going to mass, is pretty stupid.
To me, religion is a hobby. The church is a clubhouse.
I'm atheist, yet i have to pay taxes to the church until i turn 18. I'm basically funding someones freetime hobby, so they can waste their time.
Of course, time wasted doing something you like, is not wasted time. But make a free choice. If you like going to church and mass, go ahead, but don't take my money to build your clubhouse.
#744 - bados (11/29/2012) [-]
See I agree with where you are at all the way, like I lost my faith in being christian a fair bit because of personal reasons but I still say I am one if I am asked. Anyway to where I was getting at is, I find it stupid how people pay money to the church as an "offering" where like you said, it could go towards poverty. Atheists could stop preaching so much about it, and Christians can stop being dicks to others is what I think should happen.
#759 - crilleballe (11/29/2012) [-]
Agreed.

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #19 - revengeforfreeze (02/06/2014) [-]
snel kat
sita i kne
gosa me
#9 - fishyxander **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#11 to #12 - fishyxander **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #5 - rustyshakleford (03/18/2012) [-]
Re....removed? :(
#6 to #7 - crilleballe (03/18/2012) [-]
Yea, no hate intended. But i don't know you bro :/
#7 to #8 - rustyshakleford (03/18/2012) [-]
But it's me, the amazing rusty shakleford!
#8 to #9 - crilleballe (03/18/2012) [-]
I see..
Still i'm not really interested in talking to anyone unless it's about the topic of a post...
User avatar #3 - NiNJAz (06/28/2011) [-]
you can delete all this **** if you want lol,
i commented on the wrong person sorry.
#4 to #4 - crilleballe (06/28/2011) [-]
No problem.
#2 - NiNJAz has deleted their comment [-]
#1 - NiNJAz has deleted their comment [-]
 Friends (0)