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

hide menu

dawgfan

Rank #2174 on Content
dawgfan Avatar Level 270 Comments: Ninja Pirate
Offline
Send mail to dawgfan Block dawgfan Invite dawgfan to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: male
Age: 23
Date Signed Up:12/18/2009
Last Login:12/20/2014
Location:USA
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Content Ranking:#2174
Comment Ranking:#5274
Highest Content Rank:#1318
Highest Comment Rank:#2363
Content Thumbs: 7666 total,  9498 ,  1832
Comment Thumbs: 7296 total,  8573 ,  1277
Content Level Progress: 64% (64/100)
Level 171 Content: Soldier Of Funnyjunk → Level 172 Content: Soldier Of Funnyjunk
Comment Level Progress: 31% (31/100)
Level 270 Comments: Ninja Pirate → Level 271 Comments: Ninja Pirate
Subscribers:4
Content Views:333642
Times Content Favorited:701 times
Total Comments Made:1742
FJ Points:14273
Favorite Tags: Chuck Norris Wil (2) | divide by zero e (2) | fail epic going  (2) | well I just give (2)

latest user's comments

#220 - Way to show how little you know about US History there champ  [+] (19 new replies) 04/22/2013 on World War III explained 0
User avatar #307 - nerdrugger (04/22/2013) [-]
you joking right?
#310 - anonymous (04/22/2013) [-]
Not sure how you attack a fort you legally own.
User avatar #312 - nerdrugger (04/22/2013) [-]
when you are shooting cannons at people i think that is safe to say you are attacking someone
#316 - anonymous (04/22/2013) [-]
Attacking the forces inside that are illegally occupying a structure you own.
User avatar #323 - nerdrugger (04/22/2013) [-]
their act of succession itself was illegal
you cant just declared yourself a new country and then attack the troops that were station their to keep you safe
#326 - anonymous (04/22/2013) [-]
1.Secession was legal at the time, there was no laws against secession until after the civil war.
2.A sovereign nation has every right to forcibly remove a foreign force refusing to leave.
User avatar #334 - nerdrugger (04/22/2013) [-]
yahhhhhhhh that isnt trueeeeeeeee

well im pretty sure you're not an idiot with no understanding on how a country works and just tryin to "troll me" otherwise why would you be an anon posting here

#346 - anonymous (04/22/2013) [-]
Show me anywhere in the constitution before 1869 any mention of secession, maybe look into the laws a little bit next time you go off stating something as fact.
User avatar #257 - jlew (04/22/2013) [-]
No he's right. Fort Sumter was a Northern Fort, it was attacked by the South.
He was technically right but worded it wrong when he said the South seceded because of Lincoln's views on Slavery. The South believed that Lincoln was going to instantly abolish slavery when in reality he was going to completely leave the issue alone.
The North actually needed the South's cotton and other agricultural products due to its high level of Industrialization and low amounts of land capable of being used to grow food and other products. The South wasn't really even thinking about its economic disadvantages when it seceded and planned to win with the support of Britain by selling them a bunch of cotton for weapons and other supplies.
The South did secede because of social differences. i.e. Slavery. The North had already abolished slavery and was feverishly trying to do so in the south as well. They believed, as did the South, that Lincoln was going to abolish slavery, but he didn't. The Emancipation Proclamation was actually pointless as it abolished slavery in places that it didn't have the jurisdiction to.
Try to argue with me. I read my history book, cover to cover.
#260 - anonymous (04/22/2013) [-]
After the secession the union had no rights to Fort Sumter, since it was then in Confederate territory.
User avatar #280 - jlew (04/22/2013) [-]
Maybe now, but back then not so much. Britain still had forts in America until the 1800s.
Plus the fort was filled with union soldiers. The South could have at least given them a chance to leave, but it instead attacked while a supply ship was on its way down the river.
#285 - anonymous (04/22/2013) [-]
The union soldiers had no rights to be there past the date of secession. And if the US asked Britian to leave it would've been legally compelled to.
User avatar #291 - jlew (04/22/2013) [-]
The union soldiers didn't have a CHANCE to leave past the date that the land they were in had seceded. Boats aren't exactly the fastest things in the world you know, especially not back then. And the US did ask Britain to leave. When we started our own country and won the Revolution part of the terms of the Treaty was that Britain would renounce ALL landownership it had in the Americas.
Anyway secession occurred over a long period of time, each state seceded at its own time so saying "the date of secession" is a little bit idiotic.
#295 - anonymous (04/22/2013) [-]
The date of secession where the fort was located, and yes, South carolina ordered them to abandon the fort, they had knowledge of the secession and had plenty of time to prepare ships in case secession passed.
User avatar #300 - jlew (04/22/2013) [-]
Ships are still slow. The soldiers didn't actually pose a threat to the South. They could have been given more time, but the South was too trigger-happy and started the war.
No matter what the South is still responsible as they attacked first, the North had no plans or reasons to attack the South as they could have imported food as they had been doing even before secession.
#303 - anonymous (04/22/2013) [-]
Keeping troops in a sovereign nation against its will was considered an act of war at the time, so technically speaking, no the union started the war when it refused to leave SC.
User avatar #304 - jlew (04/22/2013) [-]
Well you just bring your reasons to the people who revise the history books and see if they take your case.
#305 - anonymous (04/22/2013) [-]
I've seen history books that state the south started the war and some that say the north did, I guess it comes down to perspective.
User avatar #239 - dawgfan (04/22/2013) [-]
Just realized I'm a dumbass at spelling
#340 - I have never heard of a child accidentally shooting themselves…  [+] (4 new replies) 04/21/2013 on Muricaaaa +2
User avatar #350 - bitchitroll (04/21/2013) [-]
couple years ago some kids in my state had been playing cops an robbers. the "cop" kid found his grandfathers revolver........ the other kid got shot in the throat.
User avatar #370 - bitchitroll (04/21/2013) [-]
not trying to argue for gun control just pointing out it does happen
User avatar #395 - dawgfan (04/22/2013) [-]
handguns yes but when it comes to guns such as AR-15s and AK-47s, the likely hood of a kid finding it and knowing how to use it is far less likely
#347 - anonymous (04/21/2013) [-]
happens all the time that a kid finds his parents' firearm and provokes an accident.
#333 - Who the **** would give a little kid an AR-15?  [+] (6 new replies) 04/21/2013 on Muricaaaa +2
#336 - anonymous (04/21/2013) [-]
happens all the time that a kid finds his parents' firearm and provokes an accident.
User avatar #340 - dawgfan (04/21/2013) [-]
I have never heard of a child accidentally shooting themselves with an AR-15.
Most people keep their guns locked up in a safe and keep them unloaded and on safety.
User avatar #350 - bitchitroll (04/21/2013) [-]
couple years ago some kids in my state had been playing cops an robbers. the "cop" kid found his grandfathers revolver........ the other kid got shot in the throat.
User avatar #370 - bitchitroll (04/21/2013) [-]
not trying to argue for gun control just pointing out it does happen
User avatar #395 - dawgfan (04/22/2013) [-]
handguns yes but when it comes to guns such as AR-15s and AK-47s, the likely hood of a kid finding it and knowing how to use it is far less likely
#347 - anonymous (04/21/2013) [-]
happens all the time that a kid finds his parents' firearm and provokes an accident.
#74 - Picture  [+] (1 new reply) 04/21/2013 on No comment +7
#77 - huntergriff (04/21/2013) [-]
Do u even lift, fite me irl fgt
#195 - Technically the Union started the US Civil War. The …  [+] (37 new replies) 04/21/2013 on World War III explained +3
User avatar #249 - Lulzilla (04/22/2013) [-]
I don't think you understand. An area cannot just go "Oh hey, We're going to be a completely different country now" without any ramifications. The south leaving destroys the norths economy. Plus having an area that is completely different and is known for it's violence is a complete threat. The moment they decided to succeed is the moment Civil war occurred. No shots need to be fired for a war to start.
User avatar #259 - jlew (04/22/2013) [-]
The Northern Economy actually exploded during the Civil War. It grew by about 90%.
The Southern Economy was the one that was destroyed.
#252 - anonymous (04/22/2013) [-]
Legally at the time, yes any state could leave if they voted on it.
User avatar #269 - Lulzilla (04/22/2013) [-]
Yeah it was legal for a state to leave when ever it wanted to but I'm pretty sure the people who created it had NO idea that half the country would become a different country. Regardless if they had the right in order for any country to survive and become anything they needed to stay together which the North understood. The north(Union)'s reason for civil war was to preserve the country. Ending slavery was just an additional thing.
#272 - anonymous (04/22/2013) [-]
The people who created it seceeded to create their own country, they knew full well it could happen. And the point still stands the south had every right to leave the union, regardless of the ramifications.
User avatar #279 - Lulzilla (04/22/2013) [-]
It's so much easier to say that when you look at yourself as a regular civilian. Think about if you were high up in the government. Imagine yourself as the president. Half of your country leaves and becomes a different country. HALF of it. Half of England didn't leave. Only a tiny bit. Also they became a different country. The north let the states succeed. When they attacked (Yes the south attacked first) the President had to do something.
#282 - anonymous (04/22/2013) [-]
The 13 colonies were what 3 times bigger than england? The south went to claim land within their boundaries northern troops refused to leave, taking back land on their jurisdiction was completely justified.
User avatar #287 - Lulzilla (04/22/2013) [-]
I'm sorry but that's just foolish. If there were 3 times more people in the colonies then in England it wouldn't be called a colony anymore. Hell they'd just call that England. The amount of people in the colonies during the war for Independence were 2 to almost 3 times LESS then in England.
#289 - anonymous (04/22/2013) [-]
The landmass was 3 times bigger.
User avatar #292 - Lulzilla (04/22/2013) [-]
That's something COMPLETELY different. Granted I said the land was as important or more important. Also regardless of what I said England invaded and tried to keep us from leaving. How is whatever your trying to tell me going towards not my opinion because it sounds like your backing MY opinion up.
#298 - anonymous (04/22/2013) [-]
My point was it wasn't a tiny bit of england that left as you stated.
User avatar #281 - jlew (04/22/2013) [-]
It wasn't really half. Most of the population was in the North at the time and a huge percentage of the southern population was slaves, who couldn't even fight until they were forced to towards the end of the war.
User avatar #283 - Lulzilla (04/22/2013) [-]
I'm not talking about population wise. Even to this day most of the population is in the North. I'm talking about land wise which itself is equally or more important.
User avatar #286 - jlew (04/22/2013) [-]
Ok then. It was still a bit under half though as not all of the landmass had been claimed yet. Almost all of the agricultural land was in the south however so it was a pretty big hit.
User avatar #205 - nerdrugger (04/21/2013) [-]
fort sumter was a union fort and the confederacy attacked it on april 12 1861

and the main social and economic difference between the north and the south was slavary
and the south succeeded because of lincoln's views on slavery
User avatar #220 - dawgfan (04/22/2013) [-]
Way to show how little you know about US History there champ
User avatar #307 - nerdrugger (04/22/2013) [-]
you joking right?
#310 - anonymous (04/22/2013) [-]
Not sure how you attack a fort you legally own.
User avatar #312 - nerdrugger (04/22/2013) [-]
when you are shooting cannons at people i think that is safe to say you are attacking someone
#316 - anonymous (04/22/2013) [-]
Attacking the forces inside that are illegally occupying a structure you own.
User avatar #323 - nerdrugger (04/22/2013) [-]
their act of succession itself was illegal
you cant just declared yourself a new country and then attack the troops that were station their to keep you safe
#326 - anonymous (04/22/2013) [-]
1.Secession was legal at the time, there was no laws against secession until after the civil war.
2.A sovereign nation has every right to forcibly remove a foreign force refusing to leave.
User avatar #334 - nerdrugger (04/22/2013) [-]
yahhhhhhhh that isnt trueeeeeeeee

well im pretty sure you're not an idiot with no understanding on how a country works and just tryin to "troll me" otherwise why would you be an anon posting here

#346 - anonymous (04/22/2013) [-]
Show me anywhere in the constitution before 1869 any mention of secession, maybe look into the laws a little bit next time you go off stating something as fact.
User avatar #257 - jlew (04/22/2013) [-]
No he's right. Fort Sumter was a Northern Fort, it was attacked by the South.
He was technically right but worded it wrong when he said the South seceded because of Lincoln's views on Slavery. The South believed that Lincoln was going to instantly abolish slavery when in reality he was going to completely leave the issue alone.
The North actually needed the South's cotton and other agricultural products due to its high level of Industrialization and low amounts of land capable of being used to grow food and other products. The South wasn't really even thinking about its economic disadvantages when it seceded and planned to win with the support of Britain by selling them a bunch of cotton for weapons and other supplies.
The South did secede because of social differences. i.e. Slavery. The North had already abolished slavery and was feverishly trying to do so in the south as well. They believed, as did the South, that Lincoln was going to abolish slavery, but he didn't. The Emancipation Proclamation was actually pointless as it abolished slavery in places that it didn't have the jurisdiction to.
Try to argue with me. I read my history book, cover to cover.
#260 - anonymous (04/22/2013) [-]
After the secession the union had no rights to Fort Sumter, since it was then in Confederate territory.
User avatar #280 - jlew (04/22/2013) [-]
Maybe now, but back then not so much. Britain still had forts in America until the 1800s.
Plus the fort was filled with union soldiers. The South could have at least given them a chance to leave, but it instead attacked while a supply ship was on its way down the river.
#285 - anonymous (04/22/2013) [-]
The union soldiers had no rights to be there past the date of secession. And if the US asked Britian to leave it would've been legally compelled to.
User avatar #291 - jlew (04/22/2013) [-]
The union soldiers didn't have a CHANCE to leave past the date that the land they were in had seceded. Boats aren't exactly the fastest things in the world you know, especially not back then. And the US did ask Britain to leave. When we started our own country and won the Revolution part of the terms of the Treaty was that Britain would renounce ALL landownership it had in the Americas.
Anyway secession occurred over a long period of time, each state seceded at its own time so saying "the date of secession" is a little bit idiotic.
#295 - anonymous (04/22/2013) [-]
The date of secession where the fort was located, and yes, South carolina ordered them to abandon the fort, they had knowledge of the secession and had plenty of time to prepare ships in case secession passed.
User avatar #300 - jlew (04/22/2013) [-]
Ships are still slow. The soldiers didn't actually pose a threat to the South. They could have been given more time, but the South was too trigger-happy and started the war.
No matter what the South is still responsible as they attacked first, the North had no plans or reasons to attack the South as they could have imported food as they had been doing even before secession.
#303 - anonymous (04/22/2013) [-]
Keeping troops in a sovereign nation against its will was considered an act of war at the time, so technically speaking, no the union started the war when it refused to leave SC.
User avatar #304 - jlew (04/22/2013) [-]
Well you just bring your reasons to the people who revise the history books and see if they take your case.
#305 - anonymous (04/22/2013) [-]
I've seen history books that state the south started the war and some that say the north did, I guess it comes down to perspective.
User avatar #239 - dawgfan (04/22/2013) [-]
Just realized I'm a dumbass at spelling
#207 - anonymous (04/21/2013) [-]
After the secession the Union had no claim to anything within confederate territory.
#197 - mulletmafia (04/21/2013) [-]
kinda related..

i guess
#200 - Nice try North Korea, but Japan has the best defense system in… 04/21/2013 on best of luck 0
#168 - I have no problem with women who have threesomes 04/16/2013 on something to ponder 0
#309 - Oh God Satan is here 04/16/2013 on This is a fucking 0
#14 - still inviting?  [+] (1 new reply) 04/15/2013 on Fucking shadows 0
#61 - anonymous (04/15/2013) [-]
#YOLO
#17 - Wrong She sleeps with Gary 04/15/2013 on Poke-incest -6
#20 - Picture  [+] (2 new replies) 04/15/2013 on Cool it down a bit Satan +180
#170 - jaggedherp (04/15/2013) [-]
#101 - fivewordminimum has deleted their comment.
#201 - And she won't tell us where that blood came from Scratch t… 04/14/2013 on Overly Attached +14
#46 - >Me 10 years old >All pokemon faint or poisoned …  [+] (2 new replies) 04/11/2013 on Poison -1
User avatar #60 - Mesmus (04/11/2013) [-]
Can still fly when pokemon have fainted im pretty sure cant remember exactly though
User avatar #68 - nanapopo (04/11/2013) [-]
that's not what he's saying. scyther can't learn fly.
#76 - I remember there was rumor that you could go to Bill's House a… 04/11/2013 on He Was Telling The Truth... 0
#193 - Boy bands  [+] (12 new replies) 04/11/2013 on 90's Bane 0
#196 - sakuranbokiss (04/11/2013) [-]
HANSON. Oh dear lord. The only thing worst in this world could be...Mmmbop. Burn it now.
User avatar #230 - craazhy (04/11/2013) [-]
ill take the Hansons back if they take today's pop music
User avatar #235 - sakuranbokiss (04/11/2013) [-]
On second thought, yes. Yes I agree with that. I'll trade Rebecca Black and Bieber and Minaj for that, thank you very much.
#223 - mrmamric (04/11/2013) [-]
I don't know about you, but boybands back in the day were the best. They got to touch ALL the boobies.

And yes. I was the kid that brought the Nsynce music video dance along to school and yes, after five ten minute dance jam lessons no one hung around me because I had no friends..
#228 - sakuranbokiss (04/11/2013) [-]
not Hanson. I'll take my Justin Timberlake over Justin Bieber gladly any day though. those curls though, 90s why.
also the 90s had that unfortunate trend of being c cup and never wearing a bra. Pebbled nipples are so awkward in my opinion.
#233 - mrmamric (04/11/2013) [-]
Why did we get so much wrong in the 90s? Was it just an experiement to see what kind of clothing we were to wear for the new millenia?
User avatar #236 - sakuranbokiss (04/11/2013) [-]
I think so. But seriously, 80s, 60s, 50s, 40s, 30s, 20s? Cute and creative. 70s? Eh, some of the gogo boots were hot. 90s? Wtf happened o_o Gel haired explosion.
#240 - mrmamric (04/11/2013) [-]
I think society had to boil off some of the excess awesome from all the the epic Saturday morning cartoons. So we had terrible clothing in order to keep society from getting so awesome it would blow up the universe.

Seriously, I loved those cartoons.
User avatar #241 - sakuranbokiss (04/11/2013) [-]
The 90s had the best cartoons. Now, with the exception of Adventure time and avatar, they're shit.
#244 - mrmamric (04/11/2013) [-]
I miss childhood. :( I just want five more minutes. Kids now adays how their Singing iIdol and their Jersey Shorts and their loud music and dancing with their hips. Bah!
User avatar #245 - sakuranbokiss (04/11/2013) [-]
totally agreed.
#250 - mrmamric (04/11/2013) [-]
Oh God, and the games...
#191 - Late 80's to early 90's 1987-1992 Those are the 9…  [+] (4 new replies) 04/11/2013 on 90's Bane +4
#227 - Dwarf (04/11/2013) [-]
**Dwarf rolled a random image posted in comment #3899064 at My Little Pony fanfiction, backgrounds, songs, lyrics, and GIFs. ** So sad. You were born in 1987 and did in 1992. You were only 5 years old. So young...
#201 - dandyhandy (04/11/2013) [-]
Agreed.

My brother was born in 1987, I was born in 1992, and so he remembers much more of the 90's than I do. I feel bad for him, because he remembers more of how my dad was abusive as fuck, but that's besides the point.
#197 - anonymous (04/11/2013) [-]
and if you think that makes you special then you're a fag

not you, just finishing your thought
#271 - onkii (04/11/2013) [-]
i agree with anon here


pic unrelated
#186 - I was born in 92 and remembered when the Godzilla movie came o… 04/11/2013 on 90's Bane 0
#14 - People say Togepi is cute but I just don't see it 04/09/2013 on Lazy punk ass bitch +9
#913 - Picture 04/09/2013 on DJ 4DM1N gives you bad life... 0
#875 - why is my name blue?  [+] (2 new replies) 04/09/2013 on DJ 4DM1N gives you bad life... +1
User avatar #884 - Deeticky (04/09/2013) [-]
You're an oldfag on FJ.

Congrats.
#913 - dawgfan (04/09/2013) [-]
#10 - I always thought it was this bad ass  [+] (2 new replies) 04/09/2013 on Never +9
#12 - equestriaman (04/09/2013) [-]
wouldn't that make ash and this guy brothers?
User avatar #14 - tittysugar (04/09/2013) [-]
Red* and no they are not brothers, it was just an idea that never came to fruition. He is Silvers dad though.
#12 - Picture 04/09/2013 on im done +5
#29 - Bush's face when North Korea starts to talk  [+] (4 new replies) 04/09/2013 on W. +62
#45 - usmcoorah has deleted their comment.
User avatar #31 - amishparadise (04/09/2013) [-]
idc what anyone says, I miss him .-.
User avatar #39 - vivapinatapro (04/09/2013) [-]
We all do, bro. We all do.
User avatar #36 - TheFixer (04/09/2013) [-]
i miss him because he gave me something to laugh at...
#22 - **** Bama 04/08/2013 on quite the imagination +2
#83 - I'm Super Cereal 04/07/2013 on Some people... +17

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#3 - ILoveAnette (02/17/2012) [-]
OH MY GOD.

YOUR AVATAR

YOU MAKE ME A HAPPY PERSON

<MFW
User avatar #2 - chofy ONLINE (09/17/2011) [-]
**chofy rolled user mrqoqlobo **
You have been murdered.
Kill the user rolled above by posting this on their page, and you will get your soul back and revive.
User avatar #1 - midgman (08/30/2010) [-]
you should do another one, but about the teenage mutant ninja turtles
 Friends (0)