Upload
Login or register
x

icouldgetsome

Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:3/18/2012
Last Login:1/12/2016
FunnyJunk Career Stats
Content Ranking:#1122
Comment Ranking:#6532
Highest Content Rank:#1122
Highest Comment Rank:#3485
Content Thumbs: 4245 total,  4624 ,  379
Comment Thumbs: 2925 total,  3400 ,  475
Content Level Progress: 88% (88/100)
Level 136 Content: Respected Member Of Famiry → Level 137 Content: Respected Member Of Famiry
Comment Level Progress: 62% (62/100)
Level 226 Comments: Mind Blower → Level 227 Comments: Mind Blower
Subscribers:1
Content Views:152969
Times Content Favorited:354 times
Total Comments Made:489
FJ Points:6407
Favorite Tags: jews (3) | yea (2)

  • Views: 34346
    Thumbs Up 1261 Thumbs Down 25 Total: +1236
    Comments: 512
    Favorites: 249
    Uploaded: 10/20/15
    Wikipedia Album Game Wikipedia Album Game
  • Views: 27258
    Thumbs Up 1145 Thumbs Down 80 Total: +1065
    Comments: 121
    Favorites: 32
    Uploaded: 07/30/12
    Feeling rapey? Feeling rapey?
  • Views: 46292
    Thumbs Up 1145 Thumbs Down 90 Total: +1055
    Comments: 304
    Favorites: 47
    Uploaded: 01/07/14
    This Week In (Pseudo)Science This Week In (Pseudo)Science
  • Views: 14507
    Thumbs Up 716 Thumbs Down 39 Total: +677
    Comments: 13
    Favorites: 18
    Uploaded: 05/19/12
    WHAT IF WHAT IF
  • Views: 5687
    Thumbs Up 89 Thumbs Down 8 Total: +81
    Comments: 5
    Favorites: 2
    Uploaded: 03/20/14
    (untitled) (untitled)
  • Views: 4510
    Thumbs Up 43 Thumbs Down 11 Total: +32
    Comments: 6
    Favorites: 1
    Uploaded: 07/11/14
    A jew did this A jew did this
1 2 3 4 > [ 24 ]

latest user's comments

#62 - When Republicans get extreme, they invade other countries and …  [+] (4 new replies) 01/11/2016 on lil' kid 4 Prez 0
#64 - brainbug (01/11/2016) [-]
When Democrats get extreme, they invade other countries and kills thousands of people.
#66 - anon (01/11/2016) [-]
*When Democrats get extreme, they make you buy health insurance.
It seems that our fellow repoobligan forgot to get his eyes checked
#68 - brainbug (01/11/2016) [-]
No no I was correcting him.
#67 - brainbug has deleted their comment.
#21 - Picture 12/12/2015 on Richard at Taco Bell +19
#47 - Yes, you're right. So is the guy below about the tank surplus.…  [+] (1 new reply) 12/11/2015 on #endthefuckery 0
User avatar
#48 - brobathehutt (12/11/2015) [-]
Yeah, unfortunately the only way to do so is to reform the government, but on top of that we must also change the way people think both about the environment and science as a whole.
#37 - "The military budget is high because the military pays a …  [+] (4 new replies) 12/11/2015 on #endthefuckery 0
User avatar
#45 - brobathehutt (12/11/2015) [-]
I'm telling you exactly what the senate would do, they would argue to cut the cost of veterans. It's what they already do. Cutting the military budget always leads to this, and truth be told the best solution is get a new government but that takes a long time. As it stands the military does create a job and don't forget for every single tank produced someone on many many levels got paid from the ceo all the way down to the factory workers. It's not like this money vanishes, although I'll grant a fair amount does indeed go into politicians pockets and of course the CEOs pockets but to be honest that is what has always, ALWAYS happened ever since the countries foundation and it will not change without fundamentally changing the government.
So basically we're fucked as far as budget goes because its always going to be a bit too high because we will always do dumb shit because politicians are corrupt fucks and would rather take away the salaries and other important stuff than to lose money making sensible cuts to overproduction. Because they're corrupt.
#47 - icouldgetsome (12/11/2015) [-]
Yes, you're right. So is the guy below about the tank surplus. But it's not just the politicians' faults. An entire community would be destroyed if the defense dollars stopped flowing to that town, that's why they have to keep spending this ridiculous amount. What we need to do is replace defense industry (and coal mining, and whatever other undesirable industries we have) with manufacturing and clean energy jobs. Let those trillions of dollars go to something that's actually useful for the taxpayers. For me, killing jihadis in Syria and Afghanistan isn't giving me a very good return on my taxes. In this day and age of nukes we don't need vast conventional forces. To paraphrase a comedian (I forget who), "we don't need a star wars missile defense system, we need a box-cutter defense system."
User avatar
#48 - brobathehutt (12/11/2015) [-]
Yeah, unfortunately the only way to do so is to reform the government, but on top of that we must also change the way people think both about the environment and science as a whole.
#42 - anon (12/11/2015) [-]
not to mention the 2000+ surplus M1-Abrams' sitting in the nevada desert, never to be used, while yet more are produced daily, at a cost of ~20m each, DESPITE the Army specifically requesting the government to stop supplying them with M1's as they already have "five times more tanks than crews"

Interestingly, the company that produces these vehicles' CEO is "very friendly" with a large portion of senators. And "offers support" to even more's campaigns.

Just to re-iterate, 2000x20,000,000 (and climbing) in wasted taxpayer dollars. You wanna cut spending? cleanse your fucking senate.
#131 - No, this is one of Adam Carolla's pet peeves. It's dogs on fli… 12/11/2015 on Road Hard 0
#95 - You make some great points. For the sake of continuing this go…  [+] (1 new reply) 12/10/2015 on Libtards 101 0
User avatar
#98 - WutsAtroll (12/10/2015) [-]
I genuinely believe that we can. Looking to WW2 for an example, it's definitely possible to fight an ideology like this. An ideology where the other side believes they are in the right, they are the chosen ones, and they will do everything it takes to ensure their rightful place. We were able to defeat the Nazis and militarized Japan, and then were able to occupy and rebuild their territory and help them match to our standards for nations.

We were successful because, like Muslims, the majority of Germans and Japanese were good people who wanted peace. That's why I believe that even though a war would be extremely violent and brutal, if properly done, we can eliminate the threat and help the Middle East rebuild and truly become democratic.

Losing to them means failing in their ultimate goal to establish a caliphate.

I think containment is only going to be an option until the next big terror attack in the US. After that, people are going to want war. Home grown terrorism can be defeated, just like home grown communist revolutionaries. All it takes is time and winning the ideological battle
#89 - eh, I'm still not convinced that avoiding calling them "I…  [+] (3 new replies) 12/10/2015 on Libtards 101 +1
User avatar
#93 - WutsAtroll (12/10/2015) [-]
Well firstly if having Islam being associated with terrorism causes Muslims to want to join up with ISIS and kill the West, rather than want to perform serious introspection into their religion and work with the West to get rid of terrorists, they're not good people and deserve it. Secondly, even if their goal is to turn Muslims against non-Muslims, the Muslims would lose. I'm sure most of them know that. You are right that they are not necessarily representative of the views that the majority of Muslims share, but they do interpret Islam in the way that they believe is best, and are by definition, Islamic. Doesn't make them any less of fucking faggot extremists tho
#95 - icouldgetsome (12/10/2015) [-]
You make some great points. For the sake of continuing this good conversation, let me just pose one question: what does "losing" mean to them? They believe they are martyrs that will get to bone 72 virgins in heaven. There are no material goals for their war (e.g., territory or money). The better question is, "can we win?" If we engage them and kill them all, yet spend trillions in blood and treasure like we have so far, have we truly won?

Personally, I think Obama's strategy of containment in the Middle East is good, that is, I would prefer not to have boots on the ground. As far as stopping home grown terrorists and foreign cells, who knows? It just becomes the classic dilemma of, "how much privacy and freedom do we want to trade for security?"
User avatar
#98 - WutsAtroll (12/10/2015) [-]
I genuinely believe that we can. Looking to WW2 for an example, it's definitely possible to fight an ideology like this. An ideology where the other side believes they are in the right, they are the chosen ones, and they will do everything it takes to ensure their rightful place. We were able to defeat the Nazis and militarized Japan, and then were able to occupy and rebuild their territory and help them match to our standards for nations.

We were successful because, like Muslims, the majority of Germans and Japanese were good people who wanted peace. That's why I believe that even though a war would be extremely violent and brutal, if properly done, we can eliminate the threat and help the Middle East rebuild and truly become democratic.

Losing to them means failing in their ultimate goal to establish a caliphate.

I think containment is only going to be an option until the next big terror attack in the US. After that, people are going to want war. Home grown terrorism can be defeated, just like home grown communist revolutionaries. All it takes is time and winning the ideological battle
#65 - Why is the right so insistent on this "call terrorism isl…  [+] (5 new replies) 12/10/2015 on Libtards 101 +1
User avatar
#86 - WutsAtroll (12/10/2015) [-]
because Islamic extremism is the most accurate term and most people avoid using it to avoid offending Muslims, which is retarded
#89 - icouldgetsome (12/10/2015) [-]
eh, I'm still not convinced that avoiding calling them "Islamic" is "retarded." ISIS wants to drive a wedge between the Islamic world and the West because they want to trigger an end times holy war. I would rather avoid giving them that legitimacy by calling them "Islamic." That would be letting the terrorists win, giving them what they want. There are tens of millions of muslims that reject terrorism and Islamism. I'll stick to calling ISIS "massive fucking faggot extremists."
User avatar
#93 - WutsAtroll (12/10/2015) [-]
Well firstly if having Islam being associated with terrorism causes Muslims to want to join up with ISIS and kill the West, rather than want to perform serious introspection into their religion and work with the West to get rid of terrorists, they're not good people and deserve it. Secondly, even if their goal is to turn Muslims against non-Muslims, the Muslims would lose. I'm sure most of them know that. You are right that they are not necessarily representative of the views that the majority of Muslims share, but they do interpret Islam in the way that they believe is best, and are by definition, Islamic. Doesn't make them any less of fucking faggot extremists tho
#95 - icouldgetsome (12/10/2015) [-]
You make some great points. For the sake of continuing this good conversation, let me just pose one question: what does "losing" mean to them? They believe they are martyrs that will get to bone 72 virgins in heaven. There are no material goals for their war (e.g., territory or money). The better question is, "can we win?" If we engage them and kill them all, yet spend trillions in blood and treasure like we have so far, have we truly won?

Personally, I think Obama's strategy of containment in the Middle East is good, that is, I would prefer not to have boots on the ground. As far as stopping home grown terrorists and foreign cells, who knows? It just becomes the classic dilemma of, "how much privacy and freedom do we want to trade for security?"
User avatar
#98 - WutsAtroll (12/10/2015) [-]
I genuinely believe that we can. Looking to WW2 for an example, it's definitely possible to fight an ideology like this. An ideology where the other side believes they are in the right, they are the chosen ones, and they will do everything it takes to ensure their rightful place. We were able to defeat the Nazis and militarized Japan, and then were able to occupy and rebuild their territory and help them match to our standards for nations.

We were successful because, like Muslims, the majority of Germans and Japanese were good people who wanted peace. That's why I believe that even though a war would be extremely violent and brutal, if properly done, we can eliminate the threat and help the Middle East rebuild and truly become democratic.

Losing to them means failing in their ultimate goal to establish a caliphate.

I think containment is only going to be an option until the next big terror attack in the US. After that, people are going to want war. Home grown terrorism can be defeated, just like home grown communist revolutionaries. All it takes is time and winning the ideological battle
#67 - "Press charges" is a layterm. it's more useful to th… 12/09/2015 on lucky 0
#194 - Picture 12/02/2015 on Murica skit. 0

Comments(1):

Leave a comment Refresh Comments Show GIFs
Anonymous comments allowed.
1 comments displayed.
User avatar #1 - soundofwinter (06/19/2014) [-]
**** you
 Friends (0)