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

hide menu

hydraetis    

Rank #2857 on Comments
hydraetis Avatar Level 258 Comments: Contaminated Win
Offline
Send mail to hydraetis Block hydraetis Invite hydraetis to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: male
Steam Profile: Hydraetis
X-box Gamertag: Azhaius
PSN: Hydraetis
Date Signed Up:12/07/2010
Last Login:10/30/2014
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Content Ranking:#7486
Comment Ranking:#2857
Highest Content Rank:#4038
Highest Comment Rank:#2379
Content Thumbs: 588 total,  735 ,  147
Comment Thumbs: 6342 total,  8515 ,  2173
Content Level Progress: 40% (4/10)
Level 51 Content: Sammich eater → Level 52 Content: Sammich eater
Comment Level Progress: 87% (87/100)
Level 258 Comments: Contaminated Win → Level 259 Comments: Contaminated Win
Subscribers:1
Content Views:65845
Times Content Favorited:39 times
Total Comments Made:4424
FJ Points:6507

latest user's comments

#30 - Kid looks more black to me, and I don't know if that is suppos… 09/27/2014 on Next time use the Deep Web,... 0
#232 - You wanna tell me where I said that Canada would win solo? …  [+] (4 new replies) 09/27/2014 on Canada on ISIS -2
#242 - apurpleliger (09/27/2014) [-]
Firstly, if it came do that nukes would be flying left and right. We may not win, but we'd be one of the last to lose. I was saying that it doesn't really matter if Canada's allies came to help. If the US decided to invade Canada, it would be over before the rest of the nations could respond. The original comment said Canada wouldn't stand a chance. You ignored that and said Canada's friends would help them out. So yes, Canada's only defense would be to call up their bigger friends. And no, Canada would absolutely not stand a chance against the US. So you're correct in the first part, and wrong about the second part.
#350 - anon (09/27/2014) [-]
You'd never get all of canada. It would be a war that lasted for years. Nukes would not be an option, you'd get some sent your way from Europe if you tried. So that's ruled out. You'd lose a lot of troops to the cold and some machines would break down from the cold. Canada would be on the defense, in huge forrests. It would be like Vietnam all over again, except they'd be better armed. Your losses would be much greater than Canada's, I imagine it would be something among the lines of Russia invading Finland.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War
#404 - apurpleliger (09/27/2014) [-]
The US doesn't need to get "all of Canada." Almost all of civilized Canada is close enough to the border that our ground troops could take them in a week. And even then, we wouldn't have to send in ground troops. We could just bomb Canada's major cities from within our own borders and Canada would have surrendered within a month. It wouldn't be like Vietnam. It would be more like Germany invading Poland.
User avatar #363 - commontroll (09/27/2014) [-]
Vietnam was only bad for Americans because of the sheer numbers. If Canada lost 2 million soldiers like the Viet Cong did, then they would have lost 6% of their population. Honestly, there wouldn't be tons of resistance because the border cities hold so many people and would be taken so quickly and with such overwhelming force.

Meanwhile, the nations that are under America in the firepower, the two immediately under, Russia and China wouldn't have much of a reason to attack America unless they thought Canadians could really prolong the invasion long enough for their own armies to take land. Which is honestly unlikely. They have no reason to defend Canada unless forced to. Hell, if they saw the US becoming as land grabby as they are, they'd probably congratulate us and welcome us to the bad guy club in the political realm.

Japan and South Korea make 9 and 10, and they would absolutely support us over Canada, as we highly support their armies and protect them from China and North Korea, while Canada don't do shit to help them.

I don't know where nations like India and Turkey would turn to, but my bet is they would probably not get tied up in it.

A war between Canada and the US is a war between 2.2 million and 109,000, with both nations' current active and reserve troops. That wouldn't last long enough for there to be a counter attack from allies before Canada surrendered. Even with Russia and China trying to help Canada, it wouldn't really matter with how much sheer firepower America has compared to every other nation.

www.globalfirepower.com/

For reference.
#228 - Lol, okay there buddy 09/27/2014 on Canada on ISIS -1
#221 - Lol so you're saying the US can easily hold off the next 10 st…  [+] (8 new replies) 09/27/2014 on Canada on ISIS -2
#226 - apurpleliger (09/27/2014) [-]
But way to go on reading into all of that and coming up with that. You'd make a great literature teacher.
User avatar #232 - hydraetis (09/27/2014) [-]
You wanna tell me where I said that Canada would win solo?

PRETTY fuckin sure what I said was far more along the lines of "the US wouldn't win in the long run because they'd be taken down by everyone else."

In other words, the same kind of idea as what you said in "No, I'm saying that Canada's only defense is getting everyone else to fight the US for them." Way to be thumbing down your own opinion, jackass
#242 - apurpleliger (09/27/2014) [-]
Firstly, if it came do that nukes would be flying left and right. We may not win, but we'd be one of the last to lose. I was saying that it doesn't really matter if Canada's allies came to help. If the US decided to invade Canada, it would be over before the rest of the nations could respond. The original comment said Canada wouldn't stand a chance. You ignored that and said Canada's friends would help them out. So yes, Canada's only defense would be to call up their bigger friends. And no, Canada would absolutely not stand a chance against the US. So you're correct in the first part, and wrong about the second part.
#350 - anon (09/27/2014) [-]
You'd never get all of canada. It would be a war that lasted for years. Nukes would not be an option, you'd get some sent your way from Europe if you tried. So that's ruled out. You'd lose a lot of troops to the cold and some machines would break down from the cold. Canada would be on the defense, in huge forrests. It would be like Vietnam all over again, except they'd be better armed. Your losses would be much greater than Canada's, I imagine it would be something among the lines of Russia invading Finland.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War
#404 - apurpleliger (09/27/2014) [-]
The US doesn't need to get "all of Canada." Almost all of civilized Canada is close enough to the border that our ground troops could take them in a week. And even then, we wouldn't have to send in ground troops. We could just bomb Canada's major cities from within our own borders and Canada would have surrendered within a month. It wouldn't be like Vietnam. It would be more like Germany invading Poland.
User avatar #363 - commontroll (09/27/2014) [-]
Vietnam was only bad for Americans because of the sheer numbers. If Canada lost 2 million soldiers like the Viet Cong did, then they would have lost 6% of their population. Honestly, there wouldn't be tons of resistance because the border cities hold so many people and would be taken so quickly and with such overwhelming force.

Meanwhile, the nations that are under America in the firepower, the two immediately under, Russia and China wouldn't have much of a reason to attack America unless they thought Canadians could really prolong the invasion long enough for their own armies to take land. Which is honestly unlikely. They have no reason to defend Canada unless forced to. Hell, if they saw the US becoming as land grabby as they are, they'd probably congratulate us and welcome us to the bad guy club in the political realm.

Japan and South Korea make 9 and 10, and they would absolutely support us over Canada, as we highly support their armies and protect them from China and North Korea, while Canada don't do shit to help them.

I don't know where nations like India and Turkey would turn to, but my bet is they would probably not get tied up in it.

A war between Canada and the US is a war between 2.2 million and 109,000, with both nations' current active and reserve troops. That wouldn't last long enough for there to be a counter attack from allies before Canada surrendered. Even with Russia and China trying to help Canada, it wouldn't really matter with how much sheer firepower America has compared to every other nation.

www.globalfirepower.com/

For reference.
User avatar #228 - hydraetis (09/27/2014) [-]
Lol, okay there buddy
#224 - apurpleliger (09/27/2014) [-]
No, I'm saying that Canada's only defense is getting everyone else to fight the US for them.
#213 - And you don't think the UK and all the other members of NATO w…  [+] (1 new reply) 09/27/2014 on Canada on ISIS -3
#216 - anon (09/27/2014) [-]
I think they would stand back for awhile to see what happens.
#212 - Sure but they'd still be fighting the US. 09/27/2014 on Canada on ISIS -2
#76 - Sure, but there isn't much profit in having your cities bombed… 09/26/2014 on Canada on ISIS 0
#71 - Russia would not be a fan of the US gaining more territory, an…  [+] (2 new replies) 09/26/2014 on Canada on ISIS 0
#72 - memenoob (09/26/2014) [-]
Russia would fight against the U.S in a heartbeat, but the U.S owes China so much money that they'd profit more from supporting the U.S then they would from opposing it, and we all know China values money more then it values good morals.
User avatar #76 - hydraetis (09/26/2014) [-]
Sure, but there isn't much profit in having your cities bombed by every other participant in the war. The only countries I could see possibly backing up the US are Japan and South Korea. There are also plenty of smaller countries and militant groups that would leap at the chance to be able to attack the US.
#13 - Picture 09/26/2014 on I like these +1
#64 - By the time the US took over Canada, they'd have already been …  [+] (14 new replies) 09/26/2014 on Canada on ISIS -6
#219 - apurpleliger (09/27/2014) [-]
This is akin to the "I've got another level 80 account" when someone asks calls you a noob because you're level 34.
User avatar #221 - hydraetis (09/27/2014) [-]
Lol so you're saying the US can easily hold off the next 10 strongest militaries attacking from all sides whilst also expanding to take another country?

Okay there buddy I guess I was horribly wrong about the universe, US wins the earth. GG
#226 - apurpleliger (09/27/2014) [-]
But way to go on reading into all of that and coming up with that. You'd make a great literature teacher.
User avatar #232 - hydraetis (09/27/2014) [-]
You wanna tell me where I said that Canada would win solo?

PRETTY fuckin sure what I said was far more along the lines of "the US wouldn't win in the long run because they'd be taken down by everyone else."

In other words, the same kind of idea as what you said in "No, I'm saying that Canada's only defense is getting everyone else to fight the US for them." Way to be thumbing down your own opinion, jackass
#242 - apurpleliger (09/27/2014) [-]
Firstly, if it came do that nukes would be flying left and right. We may not win, but we'd be one of the last to lose. I was saying that it doesn't really matter if Canada's allies came to help. If the US decided to invade Canada, it would be over before the rest of the nations could respond. The original comment said Canada wouldn't stand a chance. You ignored that and said Canada's friends would help them out. So yes, Canada's only defense would be to call up their bigger friends. And no, Canada would absolutely not stand a chance against the US. So you're correct in the first part, and wrong about the second part.
#350 - anon (09/27/2014) [-]
You'd never get all of canada. It would be a war that lasted for years. Nukes would not be an option, you'd get some sent your way from Europe if you tried. So that's ruled out. You'd lose a lot of troops to the cold and some machines would break down from the cold. Canada would be on the defense, in huge forrests. It would be like Vietnam all over again, except they'd be better armed. Your losses would be much greater than Canada's, I imagine it would be something among the lines of Russia invading Finland.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War
#404 - apurpleliger (09/27/2014) [-]
The US doesn't need to get "all of Canada." Almost all of civilized Canada is close enough to the border that our ground troops could take them in a week. And even then, we wouldn't have to send in ground troops. We could just bomb Canada's major cities from within our own borders and Canada would have surrendered within a month. It wouldn't be like Vietnam. It would be more like Germany invading Poland.
User avatar #363 - commontroll (09/27/2014) [-]
Vietnam was only bad for Americans because of the sheer numbers. If Canada lost 2 million soldiers like the Viet Cong did, then they would have lost 6% of their population. Honestly, there wouldn't be tons of resistance because the border cities hold so many people and would be taken so quickly and with such overwhelming force.

Meanwhile, the nations that are under America in the firepower, the two immediately under, Russia and China wouldn't have much of a reason to attack America unless they thought Canadians could really prolong the invasion long enough for their own armies to take land. Which is honestly unlikely. They have no reason to defend Canada unless forced to. Hell, if they saw the US becoming as land grabby as they are, they'd probably congratulate us and welcome us to the bad guy club in the political realm.

Japan and South Korea make 9 and 10, and they would absolutely support us over Canada, as we highly support their armies and protect them from China and North Korea, while Canada don't do shit to help them.

I don't know where nations like India and Turkey would turn to, but my bet is they would probably not get tied up in it.

A war between Canada and the US is a war between 2.2 million and 109,000, with both nations' current active and reserve troops. That wouldn't last long enough for there to be a counter attack from allies before Canada surrendered. Even with Russia and China trying to help Canada, it wouldn't really matter with how much sheer firepower America has compared to every other nation.

www.globalfirepower.com/

For reference.
User avatar #228 - hydraetis (09/27/2014) [-]
Lol, okay there buddy
#224 - apurpleliger (09/27/2014) [-]
No, I'm saying that Canada's only defense is getting everyone else to fight the US for them.
#200 - egoralexeev (09/27/2014) [-]
Nah, only Russia would react and they would just be using Canada as an excuse.
User avatar #213 - hydraetis (09/27/2014) [-]
And you don't think the UK and all the other members of NATO would come to help Canada?
#216 - anon (09/27/2014) [-]
I think they would stand back for awhile to see what happens.
User avatar #212 - hydraetis (09/27/2014) [-]
Sure but they'd still be fighting the US.
#62 - That's the biggest problem. If the US decided to scrap with Ca…  [+] (4 new replies) 09/26/2014 on Canada on ISIS -1
#69 - memenoob (09/26/2014) [-]
I don't think ALL those countries would fight the U.S. Of course allies of BOTH US and Canada would side with Canada in the situation but China and other countries owed large amounts of money by the U.S would probably have it in their best interest to support the U.S since it'd be the most profitable for them.
User avatar #71 - hydraetis (09/26/2014) [-]
Russia would not be a fan of the US gaining more territory, and with all the others in the fight there would be nothing to stop them from finally going to war with the US. Last I checked China is somewhat allied with Russia, so I figure if Russia came to fight the US China would either side with Canada as well, or it would stay neutral and not participate.
#72 - memenoob (09/26/2014) [-]
Russia would fight against the U.S in a heartbeat, but the U.S owes China so much money that they'd profit more from supporting the U.S then they would from opposing it, and we all know China values money more then it values good morals.
User avatar #76 - hydraetis (09/26/2014) [-]
Sure, but there isn't much profit in having your cities bombed by every other participant in the war. The only countries I could see possibly backing up the US are Japan and South Korea. There are also plenty of smaller countries and militant groups that would leap at the chance to be able to attack the US.
#8 - Yea. At least we still have the older seasons of pokemon. … 09/26/2014 on convenience 0
#65 - My greatest wish is for an open-world RPG like skyrim but with… 09/26/2014 on Dark Souls Architecture +3
#6 - I wish they turned the X/Y promo series into a full thing. Apa…  [+] (3 new replies) 09/26/2014 on convenience 0
User avatar #7 - aquaekk (09/26/2014) [-]
Precisely. Except they played it off as a "one-off 'cause it's the anniversary" thing.

Also would it hurt to actually add a little chemistry between Ash and Serena?

It wouldn't kill the kids to let them like eachother, goddamn.

Also Ash is no longer cool and actually striving to do anything, instead, he's an idiot who knows basically nothing about Pokémon...

I could go on, but basically the animé is a pile of rubbish now.
User avatar #18 - sociocat (10/12/2014) [-]
Its not making anything happen between them so people keep watching
Its called the every-sub-par-TV-show-tactic for getting people to keep watching a shit show
User avatar #8 - hydraetis (09/26/2014) [-]
Yea. At least we still have the older seasons of pokemon.

And Digimon. Can't forget about good 'ol Digimon.
#36 - Bonus best eeveelution points for shiny best eeveelution 09/26/2014 on pokefeels +2
#286 - 1, 11, 9 09/26/2014 on So you're being hunted for... +1
#283 - It's a ninjato. Like a katana, but typically completely straig… 09/26/2014 on So you're being hunted for... +1
#63 - So I'm a lesser human being for choosing not to believe in a god?  [+] (15 new replies) 09/26/2014 on Germans know how to... 0
#166 - popeflatus (09/27/2014) [-]
Of course not! Any one who suggests that is truly indoctrinated beyond reason.
User avatar #68 - bloodredspark (09/26/2014) [-]
No?

Anti-theism isn't atheism. Anti-theism is basically saying that "religion is evil, and it's bad to believe in a God."

But, I'm guessing if you're part of Anti-theism, you believe it makes you a lesser human being for believing in one.
#253 - macbookfan (09/27/2014) [-]
But it fucking is.
At least if we start with just the abrahamic religions - those are oppressive as fuck!

I don't think less of people, i think less of religion.
If you have a religion, i think that's a stupid move, but you can still be a cool/smart/whatever person.
User avatar #325 - bloodredspark (09/28/2014) [-]
I never got why it's okay to force your lack of religion, and preach about how bad religion is, but whenever somebody states something about religion in a good manner, it's normally bad.

Not talking about this in particular, but the general mindset.
#334 - macbookfan (09/30/2014) [-]
Well religion does its part of dumbing us down in this day and age, and that alone is bad if you ask me.

It usually creates this us/them mentality, "justifies" hate, + it gets into its country's politics.

Feel free to practice your own religion, but organised religion is simply shit.
Your religion doesn't suck. Your church and the people who run your religion most likely does.
User avatar #335 - bloodredspark (09/30/2014) [-]
Anti-theism as well dumbs a good deal of the population down. It literally only /is/ hate for religion, which tries it's best to justify in saying that "well, religion has done (x) so it's obvious all religion is evil".

No, saying "religion does this, but anti-theism doesn't!" is pretty silly.
#171 - popeflatus (09/27/2014) [-]
People who believe in religions are not lesser human beings but they are wrong. Like a person who believes the world is flat is not a lesser person but are totally wrong.
User avatar #258 - anonymoose (09/27/2014) [-]
But the earth has been proven to be round. Literally nothing in science to date has disproved the existence of a God.
#266 - popeflatus (09/27/2014) [-]
You are shifting the burden of proof here. You cannot prove a negative. But the burden of proof lies with the people that claim that there is a god. That is a positive claim that needs evidence to support it. There is no evidence for this claim yet the counter evidence that science has provided show that the claims made by religion are false.

We know that there was no Garden of Eden or global flood, we know there was no exodus of Israelites from Egypt and we have no evince to support the miraculous claims of Jesus in the bible.

When claims are made that have to be supported with evidence, and if they are not then they can be dismissed.
User avatar #268 - anonymoose (09/27/2014) [-]
Yes, the burden of proof lies on the people making the claim, but that's irrelevant here, given the context of what we're talking about.

You outright stated that religions ARE wrong, which implies proof they are wrong. All I said was that was a false statement as it hasn't been proven.
#271 - popeflatus (09/27/2014) [-]
You said that the statement hasn't been proven, and you are right. You can't prove a negative. I did claim religions are wrong. They are false. They make many claims that have been completely been debunked by science and history and so it is safe to conclude that they are irrevocably false.
User avatar #272 - anonymoose (09/27/2014) [-]
So you're telling me every single religion ever made has been debunked? A very bold claim.

P.S. You can disprove a negative. I can prove via induction that there is no such thing as a natural number less than 1.
#275 - popeflatus (09/27/2014) [-]
Every religion that makes positive claims has never been able to demonstrate their case. So yes, they have all been debunked.

If you make claims with no proof then they are 'naturally' debunked.

>does zero count? Numbers are different because they are logically constructed entities and are not claims made about phenomena in the universe.
#219 - anon (09/27/2014) [-]
The world was scientifically and completely proven to be round and not flat. Religion is based off faith, not science. The comparison isn't quite fair. Plenty of people believe in science and choose a religion of faith.
#222 - popeflatus (09/27/2014) [-]
Yes, but faith still means that you believe in something that has no evidence to support it. There are about 100 million or so people in the US that think the world is only 6000-10,000 years old yet that has been proven wrong by science: the actual age of the planet is about 4.6 billion years old.
#48 - I feel like these sites are being given way more credit than t… 09/26/2014 on Petition for change +5
#46 - Wouldn't things like E3 and Gamespot/IGN have vastly more infl…  [+] (3 new replies) 09/26/2014 on Petition for change 0
#79 - fresighto (09/27/2014) [-]
Actually yea. The monolithic sites have been pretty neutral. One writer from game informer actually left the email group in protest. Good on him.
#54 - subejio (09/26/2014) [-]
I applaud you for your choice in gaming news, but to believe that Kotaku, RockPaperShotgun, or Gamasutra have no real influence is incredibly naive. These (among the other big names in journalism at the moment) are the names that many, if not most, think of when they want to read up on gaming news. As such, they hold much power in the industry.

Even those aware of the possibility for skewed facts and want to compare sources will generally compare between multiple known sites, and the big names have a great deal of awareness. Comparing stories is a good habit to be in, of course, but it's useless when the big namers are ALL SAYING THE SAME THING, because they've all been bought (again, monetarily, through favors, through connections, or through bias).

Worse, when the small guys DO break the mold and give a different viewpoint, they have to get over the initial rejection by readers who are less inclined to believe the small guy because they're perceived as less reliable. That is why such a stance is being taken against corruption in games journalism.

I agree that Gamespot/IGN have a great deal of influence on their own, but E3 is a press-only event. The public is not allowed to attend, and can only get their E3 news second-hand, filtered through whatever site they visit. The journalists writing about the games will already be biased toward them, having just gone through a multi-day expo of booth babes, free handouts, and empty promises. It is extremely rare that a NEGATIVE review comes out of E3, and all of this falls back to my points above.
#57 - rollfourexplain (09/26/2014) [-]
**rollfourexplain rolls 8,830**

Actually these people are saying the same thing partly because they all agreed to say the same thing before hand. I was shocked myself. Someone should get this to the front page but I'm not good enough of a poster to do that.

www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/09/17/Exposed-the-secret-mailing-list-of-the-gaming-journalism-elite

For the anons who can't see links: www (.) breitbart (.) com/Breitbart-London/2014/09/17/Exposed-the-secret-mailing-list-of-the-gaming-jo urnalism-elite
#219 - Good idea. 09/26/2014 on fuck poachers 0
#17 - think "wigger" 09/26/2014 on chavs be like +2
#49 - Well it depends a little on where you cross the border. 09/26/2014 on Feeling loved. +1
#86 - lol I really do not understand your logic at all. Yo…  [+] (5 new replies) 09/26/2014 on fuck poachers +5
User avatar #137 - grogovic (09/26/2014) [-]
Let it go, he's retarded.
User avatar #219 - hydraetis (09/26/2014) [-]
Good idea.
User avatar #100 - captainprincess (09/26/2014) [-]
I don't honestly care
I'm not looking to push a genuine agenda and I don't give a flying fuck about the fate of an endangered rhino

Im spouting thoughts off the top of my head because I have thoughts
that's the long&short of it

that stick cannot be terribly comfortable all the way up your ass like that
#177 - anon (09/26/2014) [-]
Don't get butthurt just because someone called you out on having no argument
User avatar #192 - captainprincess (09/26/2014) [-]
I never had an argument to start with
people are acting like I do
#31 - Woman's Studies might net you a position in the UN with the ri…  [+] (1 new reply) 09/26/2014 on Faith in people +2
#33 - angelusprimus (09/26/2014) [-]
You are right. And in women's shelters and like, yeah. But most of those places need a backup diploma like in administration, sociology or psychology.
That's why I said close to useless, because it needs a backup to be of use.
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

items

Total unique items point value: 550 / Total items point value: 700

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #11 - revengeforfreeze (03/30/2014) [-]
are you from denmark or norway?
User avatar #10 - lolollo (01/14/2014) [-]
So were you hoping to get in on the conversation where you just went through a thumbed down all my comments or are you just looking for a petty victory? I'm not having much luck with the other guy, and seeing as how it's obvious you disagree with what I said. I just wanted to pinpoint which part it was.
User avatar #9 - revengeforfreeze (10/10/2013) [-]
ijustwanttobecool
User avatar #3 - someponynew (04/12/2013) [-]
Thanks for your help with that dude last night, he was probably the worst troll I've ever seen.
#1 - uGoTpWnD (11/03/2011) [-]
Hello, it's just your friendly neighbourhood spiderman. Dropping bye to steal your comment virginity!!!! EH!
 Friends (0)