Upload
Login or register

krobeles

Last status update:
-
Gender: male
Date Signed Up:8/08/2012
Last Login:12/04/2016
Location:Denmark
Stats
Comment Ranking:#1598
Highest Content Rank:#2711
Highest Comment Rank:#1051
Content Thumbs: 1633 total,  1920 ,  287
Comment Thumbs: 12008 total,  21278 ,  9270
Content Level Progress: 31% (31/100)
Level 116 Content: Funny Junkie → Level 117 Content: Funny Junkie
Comment Level Progress: 61% (61/100)
Level 297 Comments: Post Master → Level 298 Comments: Post Master
Subscribers:0
Content Views:101941
Times Content Favorited:73 times
Total Comments Made:6571
FJ Points:11050
Favorite Tags: fucking (2) | shit (2)

latest user's comments

#28 - You're joking, hopefully? You're going to use something t…  [+] (4 replies) 11/27/2016 on Britain's New Security Laws -2
User avatar
#29 - wertologist (11/27/2016) [-]
"We have actual empirical evidence to suggest, that an armed population changes nothing, and therefore, your point is wrong."

I proved that statement wrong. It doesn't matter how long ago it was. It will always be a prime example. You can't just dismiss history because it doesn't support your view. The revolution would never have succeeded without an armed populace.
User avatar
#30 - krobeles (11/27/2016) [-]
...Ok, I take that back. You might not be smarter than that after all.

Listen here, you cant apply the conclusion of that conflict to the pressent situation, because the players and parameters are vastly different. That war was won, largely because the gulf between violence-capability of the government and the populace wasn't that great back then. Also, the populace received significant aid from foreign governments, but thats another point altogether.
The main point is, that it the difference between the violence that the government was capable of and that which the populace was capable of, wasn't all that different back then. The populace had a fighting chance, if they were armed.

You're a fool of astronomical proportions, if you think the civil populace has a fighting chance against a modern military, even if they are armed.

That is why I can reject that historical scenario as inapplicable to the current situation. It isn't because it refutes my "view" its because its objectively incomparable. Its empirical fact, sure, but its a piece of empirical evidence that doesn't relate to the current situation what-so-ever.
User avatar
#35 - wertologist (11/27/2016) [-]
Except if an armed populace goes for another revolution, do you really think the military will fire on its own people? Sure a handful may, but many would refuse, leave, and take equipment with them to help fight. A revolution here wouldn't be as unbalanced as you claimed. You really think every single soldier or officer would wage war on its own people? They are the people. Most would fight with the people. So the vast majority of the US against corrupt leaders and their small army of whoever the fuck they could wrangle together(who would likely back out rather than sacrifice their lives to protect the corrupt against a whole country).

Without an armed populace, any would-be defectors in police/military would likely rethink defecting. That would be a massive gamble for one soldier to side with an unarmed populace in the hopes that others would do the same.

They gave us the right to bear arms for this very same purpose. Without them, we would have no leverage whatsoever. What would we do? Stand up with words? That's proven to not work as well.
User avatar
#60 - krobeles (11/28/2016) [-]
Theres more to a military than just trained soldiers and whatever arms they're carrying at any given moment.
Theres a huge level of coordination, infrastructure and intelligence gathering that is needed for a modern army to operate effectively, and thats also what makes it vastly superior a - by comparison - poorly organized, poorly trained and poorly equipped civilian uprising.
It would require a staggeringly vast fraction of the army to defect and in addition, for those people to steal some pretty heavy equipment, even to just give the civilians a fighting chance.

You're really rather naive, if you dont think the military would shoot on the civilians. Maybe they wouldn't at this precise moment, but theres an insidious method to brainwashing that you dont seem to appreciate. All it takes, is for the government to convince the military that the civilian uprising is actually a lethal threat to the country, democracy, decency and freedom and those military men will be just as ready to mow them down as they would any other enemy.
Given what we've seen recently, with how absolutely brainwashed a large portion of the American population is, do you sincerely think this untrue? Do you sincerely think that they couldn't brainwash those people? We've just seen it, during this election. They did almost this precise thing against Trump supports, brainwashing a large portion of the leftists into being ready to enact heinous violence against Trump supporters, and that wasn't even with the directed goal of getting them ready for violence. They just wanted to polarize them.

I agree that an armed population gives you a better fighting chance, in the same way that saying "No" to being raped slightly increases your chances of the rapist quitting or fighting back against a pack of hungry lions is a slightly better idea than doing nothing.
Not that either of those things will really save you or make a true difference, though...
#25 - Yes, but an armed population would have changed nothing, Ameri…  [+] (6 replies) 11/27/2016 on Britain's New Security Laws -5
User avatar
#26 - wertologist (11/27/2016) [-]
The American revolution begs to differ.
User avatar
#28 - krobeles (11/27/2016) [-]
You're joking, hopefully?
You're going to use something that happened well over 200 years ago as the basis to make your claim about contemporary issues?
I'm not even mad, I'm just kinda disappointed. Comeon man. You're smarter than this.
User avatar
#29 - wertologist (11/27/2016) [-]
"We have actual empirical evidence to suggest, that an armed population changes nothing, and therefore, your point is wrong."

I proved that statement wrong. It doesn't matter how long ago it was. It will always be a prime example. You can't just dismiss history because it doesn't support your view. The revolution would never have succeeded without an armed populace.
User avatar
#30 - krobeles (11/27/2016) [-]
...Ok, I take that back. You might not be smarter than that after all.

Listen here, you cant apply the conclusion of that conflict to the pressent situation, because the players and parameters are vastly different. That war was won, largely because the gulf between violence-capability of the government and the populace wasn't that great back then. Also, the populace received significant aid from foreign governments, but thats another point altogether.
The main point is, that it the difference between the violence that the government was capable of and that which the populace was capable of, wasn't all that different back then. The populace had a fighting chance, if they were armed.

You're a fool of astronomical proportions, if you think the civil populace has a fighting chance against a modern military, even if they are armed.

That is why I can reject that historical scenario as inapplicable to the current situation. It isn't because it refutes my "view" its because its objectively incomparable. Its empirical fact, sure, but its a piece of empirical evidence that doesn't relate to the current situation what-so-ever.
User avatar
#35 - wertologist (11/27/2016) [-]
Except if an armed populace goes for another revolution, do you really think the military will fire on its own people? Sure a handful may, but many would refuse, leave, and take equipment with them to help fight. A revolution here wouldn't be as unbalanced as you claimed. You really think every single soldier or officer would wage war on its own people? They are the people. Most would fight with the people. So the vast majority of the US against corrupt leaders and their small army of whoever the fuck they could wrangle together(who would likely back out rather than sacrifice their lives to protect the corrupt against a whole country).

Without an armed populace, any would-be defectors in police/military would likely rethink defecting. That would be a massive gamble for one soldier to side with an unarmed populace in the hopes that others would do the same.

They gave us the right to bear arms for this very same purpose. Without them, we would have no leverage whatsoever. What would we do? Stand up with words? That's proven to not work as well.
User avatar
#60 - krobeles (11/28/2016) [-]
Theres more to a military than just trained soldiers and whatever arms they're carrying at any given moment.
Theres a huge level of coordination, infrastructure and intelligence gathering that is needed for a modern army to operate effectively, and thats also what makes it vastly superior a - by comparison - poorly organized, poorly trained and poorly equipped civilian uprising.
It would require a staggeringly vast fraction of the army to defect and in addition, for those people to steal some pretty heavy equipment, even to just give the civilians a fighting chance.

You're really rather naive, if you dont think the military would shoot on the civilians. Maybe they wouldn't at this precise moment, but theres an insidious method to brainwashing that you dont seem to appreciate. All it takes, is for the government to convince the military that the civilian uprising is actually a lethal threat to the country, democracy, decency and freedom and those military men will be just as ready to mow them down as they would any other enemy.
Given what we've seen recently, with how absolutely brainwashed a large portion of the American population is, do you sincerely think this untrue? Do you sincerely think that they couldn't brainwash those people? We've just seen it, during this election. They did almost this precise thing against Trump supports, brainwashing a large portion of the leftists into being ready to enact heinous violence against Trump supporters, and that wasn't even with the directed goal of getting them ready for violence. They just wanted to polarize them.

I agree that an armed population gives you a better fighting chance, in the same way that saying "No" to being raped slightly increases your chances of the rapist quitting or fighting back against a pack of hungry lions is a slightly better idea than doing nothing.
Not that either of those things will really save you or make a true difference, though...
#23 - The NSA did basically the same thing, just on an international…  [+] (8 replies) 11/27/2016 on Britain's New Security Laws +2
User avatar
#24 - knightbean (11/27/2016) [-]
IT was an overall point, less to do with the US vs england, but fair enough.
User avatar
#25 - krobeles (11/27/2016) [-]
Yes, but an armed population would have changed nothing, America is a prime example that it didn't change anything. We have actual empirical evidence to suggest, that an armed population changes nothing, and therefore, your point is wrong.
User avatar
#26 - wertologist (11/27/2016) [-]
The American revolution begs to differ.
User avatar
#28 - krobeles (11/27/2016) [-]
You're joking, hopefully?
You're going to use something that happened well over 200 years ago as the basis to make your claim about contemporary issues?
I'm not even mad, I'm just kinda disappointed. Comeon man. You're smarter than this.
User avatar
#29 - wertologist (11/27/2016) [-]
"We have actual empirical evidence to suggest, that an armed population changes nothing, and therefore, your point is wrong."

I proved that statement wrong. It doesn't matter how long ago it was. It will always be a prime example. You can't just dismiss history because it doesn't support your view. The revolution would never have succeeded without an armed populace.
User avatar
#30 - krobeles (11/27/2016) [-]
...Ok, I take that back. You might not be smarter than that after all.

Listen here, you cant apply the conclusion of that conflict to the pressent situation, because the players and parameters are vastly different. That war was won, largely because the gulf between violence-capability of the government and the populace wasn't that great back then. Also, the populace received significant aid from foreign governments, but thats another point altogether.
The main point is, that it the difference between the violence that the government was capable of and that which the populace was capable of, wasn't all that different back then. The populace had a fighting chance, if they were armed.

You're a fool of astronomical proportions, if you think the civil populace has a fighting chance against a modern military, even if they are armed.

That is why I can reject that historical scenario as inapplicable to the current situation. It isn't because it refutes my "view" its because its objectively incomparable. Its empirical fact, sure, but its a piece of empirical evidence that doesn't relate to the current situation what-so-ever.
User avatar
#35 - wertologist (11/27/2016) [-]
Except if an armed populace goes for another revolution, do you really think the military will fire on its own people? Sure a handful may, but many would refuse, leave, and take equipment with them to help fight. A revolution here wouldn't be as unbalanced as you claimed. You really think every single soldier or officer would wage war on its own people? They are the people. Most would fight with the people. So the vast majority of the US against corrupt leaders and their small army of whoever the fuck they could wrangle together(who would likely back out rather than sacrifice their lives to protect the corrupt against a whole country).

Without an armed populace, any would-be defectors in police/military would likely rethink defecting. That would be a massive gamble for one soldier to side with an unarmed populace in the hopes that others would do the same.

They gave us the right to bear arms for this very same purpose. Without them, we would have no leverage whatsoever. What would we do? Stand up with words? That's proven to not work as well.
User avatar
#60 - krobeles (11/28/2016) [-]
Theres more to a military than just trained soldiers and whatever arms they're carrying at any given moment.
Theres a huge level of coordination, infrastructure and intelligence gathering that is needed for a modern army to operate effectively, and thats also what makes it vastly superior a - by comparison - poorly organized, poorly trained and poorly equipped civilian uprising.
It would require a staggeringly vast fraction of the army to defect and in addition, for those people to steal some pretty heavy equipment, even to just give the civilians a fighting chance.

You're really rather naive, if you dont think the military would shoot on the civilians. Maybe they wouldn't at this precise moment, but theres an insidious method to brainwashing that you dont seem to appreciate. All it takes, is for the government to convince the military that the civilian uprising is actually a lethal threat to the country, democracy, decency and freedom and those military men will be just as ready to mow them down as they would any other enemy.
Given what we've seen recently, with how absolutely brainwashed a large portion of the American population is, do you sincerely think this untrue? Do you sincerely think that they couldn't brainwash those people? We've just seen it, during this election. They did almost this precise thing against Trump supports, brainwashing a large portion of the leftists into being ready to enact heinous violence against Trump supporters, and that wasn't even with the directed goal of getting them ready for violence. They just wanted to polarize them.

I agree that an armed population gives you a better fighting chance, in the same way that saying "No" to being raped slightly increases your chances of the rapist quitting or fighting back against a pack of hungry lions is a slightly better idea than doing nothing.
Not that either of those things will really save you or make a true difference, though...
#65 - Technically speaking, no it isn't. I'm not advocating tha…  [+] (1 reply) 11/27/2016 on #Twittergate REVIVED +2
User avatar
#79 - skeptical (11/27/2016) [-]
Then reach out through their public means. "Reaching out" by an internet community to private contact is certain to result in what could be reflected as harassment.
#30 - Hey, infinitereaper. Somebody's probably already tried an…  [+] (3 replies) 11/26/2016 on #Twittergate REVIVED +9
#45 - skeptical (11/26/2016) [-]
Technically speaking that's witchhunting
Remember, don't let the cause stoop to their level
Especially not here right now
User avatar
#65 - krobeles (11/27/2016) [-]
Technically speaking, no it isn't.
I'm not advocating that we should assume these people are guilty without good evidence nor am I advocating for their harassment.
If they're innocent, reaching out to them is almost more important, since as it stands, they're basically implicated in a large scale pedophile ring.
If anything, it might be stretched as advocating for doxxing, but in this case, we're either dealing with innocent people implicated as monsters or actual monsters trying to hide themselves. In either case, knowing who these people are will be beneficial, either to clear their names or have a head for the hammer to fall upon.

In no way is this witchhunting. We're never going to make any headway, if this is whats considered "witchhunting". That notion is beyond ridiculous.
User avatar
#79 - skeptical (11/27/2016) [-]
Then reach out through their public means. "Reaching out" by an internet community to private contact is certain to result in what could be reflected as harassment.
#44 - Du har sikkert ret. EU i sig selv, er jo nærmest bare en hjer…  [+] (1 reply) 11/25/2016 on Erdoroach threatens to... -1
#45 - tinymidget (11/25/2016) [-]
**tinymidget used "*roll picture*"**
**tinymidget rolled image**Hvis du ikke følger Make Europe Great Again (MEGE) channel på FJ så meld dig til den, der er ikke så meget aktivitet endnu men det kommer måske
#32 - Det kan du bande på. Ved dog ikke rigtigt hvor ****** up…  [+] (4 replies) 11/25/2016 on Erdoroach threatens to... -1
#33 - tinymidget (11/25/2016) [-]
vi er udsat for det samme propaganda som de er i USA. Der er mange pro-immigration og anti-racism organisationer i danmark. højst sandsynligt oprettet og/eller støttet af de samme som står bag lignende organisationer (George Soros bla.).
#34 - tinymidget (11/25/2016) [-]
Tag fks. "SOS mod racisme" en organisation som deler addresse med DRC (Dokumentations- og Rådgivningscentret mod Racediskrimination). Som er funded af EU projecter.
User avatar
#44 - krobeles (11/25/2016) [-]
Du har sikkert ret. EU i sig selv, er jo nærmest bare en hjernedød selv destruktiv union af patetiske flagelanter, så det skulle ikke komme bag på mig om der er en handful fjolser der på Soros payroll i EU.
Dog virker det som sagt som om at vores regering ikke køber det der indvandre liderlige bullshit som Soros sælger.
#45 - tinymidget (11/25/2016) [-]
**tinymidget used "*roll picture*"**
**tinymidget rolled image**Hvis du ikke følger Make Europe Great Again (MEGE) channel på FJ så meld dig til den, der er ikke så meget aktivitet endnu men det kommer måske
#22 - Yes they can, but how do you propose they do that? The &q…  [+] (8 replies) 11/25/2016 on Erdoroach threatens to... +6
#71 - yamikun (11/26/2016) [-]
Actually a vast majority of them came over from Greece. They were crossing with smuglers via sea from turkey and sinking their own boats once close enough to coast or other boats. Thus they became castaways and the greek coast guard had to go get them according to internanional law. We couldn't just send the navy to bomb the fuck out of them because the greek debt combined with the populace voting for a retard (check out videos of obama's visit in greece and his meeting with the prime minister look at what we have over here. That guy is a master autist) so that autist after getting elected on promises to stand up to merkels policies went there and downright sucked her asshole dry of any shit she shoved down his throat..


And then they were legally crossing to bulgaria for a while until Bulgaria closed the borders and beat the fucking shit out of any smartass refugee trying to illegally cross. I wanted to give the highest of fives those bulgarian border patrol guys when i heard the story about the poor illegals getting beaten to shit and sent back packing..
#30 - tinymidget (11/25/2016) [-]
Vi må selv tag affære når staten bailer os
User avatar
#32 - krobeles (11/25/2016) [-]
Det kan du bande på.
Ved dog ikke rigtigt hvor fucked up vores befolkning er. Det virker som om vores regering er ret based, men mange af de folk jeg kender er borderline SJWs og herrer lyderlige for indvandre.
#33 - tinymidget (11/25/2016) [-]
vi er udsat for det samme propaganda som de er i USA. Der er mange pro-immigration og anti-racism organisationer i danmark. højst sandsynligt oprettet og/eller støttet af de samme som står bag lignende organisationer (George Soros bla.).
#34 - tinymidget (11/25/2016) [-]
Tag fks. "SOS mod racisme" en organisation som deler addresse med DRC (Dokumentations- og Rådgivningscentret mod Racediskrimination). Som er funded af EU projecter.
User avatar
#44 - krobeles (11/25/2016) [-]
Du har sikkert ret. EU i sig selv, er jo nærmest bare en hjernedød selv destruktiv union af patetiske flagelanter, så det skulle ikke komme bag på mig om der er en handful fjolser der på Soros payroll i EU.
Dog virker det som sagt som om at vores regering ikke køber det der indvandre liderlige bullshit som Soros sælger.
#45 - tinymidget (11/25/2016) [-]
**tinymidget used "*roll picture*"**
**tinymidget rolled image**Hvis du ikke følger Make Europe Great Again (MEGE) channel på FJ så meld dig til den, der er ikke så meget aktivitet endnu men det kommer måske
User avatar
#29 - stely (11/25/2016) [-]
Hungary's holding pretty well. Also, they could become as poor as Romania so that the migrants start crying when they figure out where they are and they want to go back by themselves.