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

hide menu

mirrorsmirrors    

mirrorsmirrors Avatar Level 214 Comments: Comedic Genius
Offline
Send mail to mirrorsmirrors Block mirrorsmirrors Invite mirrorsmirrors to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: male
Date Signed Up:11/10/2011
Last Login:7/12/2013
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Content Thumbs: 833 total,  993 ,  160
Comment Thumbs: 1406 total,  1655 ,  249
Content Level Progress: 30% (3/10)
Level 83 Content: Srs Business → Level 84 Content: Srs Business
Comment Level Progress: 6% (6/100)
Level 214 Comments: Comedic Genius → Level 215 Comments: Comedic Genius
Subscribers:0
Content Views:41930
Times Content Favorited:20 times
Total Comments Made:311
FJ Points:2269

latest user's comments

#72 - I think the funniest part of this picture is that the paper to…  [+] (2 new replies) 04/13/2013 on Bad Luck Brian: 2060 +1
User avatar #80 - pixy (04/13/2013) [-]
...if you read the headlines it's all quotes from the song "ironic" by Alanis Morsette
User avatar #74 - mindsculptorjace (04/13/2013) [-]
You say that like everyone knows what "meme format" is.

maybe it just how they decided the information would be best presented?
#76 - > Implying scaring a paper bag would be easy 04/13/2013 on How we treat haters +31
#75 - Agreed, life is pretty ******* awesome here. I'm …  [+] (1 new reply) 04/11/2013 on Les Canadians +1
User avatar #156 - tylertuesday (04/11/2013) [-]
i've been to vancouver. lot of asians there
#304 - I think the biggest problem in all of these conversations you'… 04/11/2013 on Gay marriage 0
#240 - In addition to what everyone else said, starving these people … 04/11/2013 on today's world 0
#17 - Two weekends ago, I got to spend a solid 24 hours with Matthew… 04/11/2013 on Library Books +2
#16 - Comment deleted 04/11/2013 on Library Books 0
#144 - Picture 04/11/2013 on Gold And Silver Pawn +14
#298 - It wasn't.  [+] (2 new replies) 04/11/2013 on Gay marriage 0
User avatar #303 - drewbridge (04/11/2013) [-]
I still think it's a good idea. I didn't know everyone would shit their pants over gays getting rights.
User avatar #304 - mirrorsmirrors (04/11/2013) [-]
I think the biggest problem in all of these conversations you're having here is:

You think you're being an advocate for good.

You think that gay people would be thankful that straight people gave them the privilege to have the same rights as them under the condition that they called it something else for one reason, and one reason only: because straight people think that gay people don't deserve to share the same title as them. Yes, as you mentioned in a different conversation, it would be segregation for straight people as well. A segregation where with no doubt the minority group is viewed as lesser, and the more traditional "pure" way is widely accepted. This hypothetical is entirely relatable to the segregation of "coloured folk" in the way it serves no purpose except for to avoid "spoiling" or "tainting" white culture, or in this case, marriage.

You would be giving gay people more rights than they do currently by the definition of the government, but you wouldn't be granting their rights as human beings to be viewed by their actions and not their sexual orientation.

Also, I don't know how many times I've already said this and you've ignored it, but: The government will never, ever do this. Creating an entirely new definition in law simply because some neanderthals think it's icky otherwise would be a global embarrassment among other forward-thinking countries, it would be gigantic waste of time and money, and it would require that the government be run by homophobic 12-year-olds.

tl;dr
Telling gays they're gross but they can still have rights as long as they join another group isn't a step forward, it's a step backward.
#293 - I already addressed this literally in my last response: …  [+] (4 new replies) 04/10/2013 on Gay marriage 0
User avatar #294 - drewbridge (04/11/2013) [-]
I just thought it was a good idea.
#298 - mirrorsmirrors (04/11/2013) [-]
It wasn't.
User avatar #303 - drewbridge (04/11/2013) [-]
I still think it's a good idea. I didn't know everyone would shit their pants over gays getting rights.
User avatar #304 - mirrorsmirrors (04/11/2013) [-]
I think the biggest problem in all of these conversations you're having here is:

You think you're being an advocate for good.

You think that gay people would be thankful that straight people gave them the privilege to have the same rights as them under the condition that they called it something else for one reason, and one reason only: because straight people think that gay people don't deserve to share the same title as them. Yes, as you mentioned in a different conversation, it would be segregation for straight people as well. A segregation where with no doubt the minority group is viewed as lesser, and the more traditional "pure" way is widely accepted. This hypothetical is entirely relatable to the segregation of "coloured folk" in the way it serves no purpose except for to avoid "spoiling" or "tainting" white culture, or in this case, marriage.

You would be giving gay people more rights than they do currently by the definition of the government, but you wouldn't be granting their rights as human beings to be viewed by their actions and not their sexual orientation.

Also, I don't know how many times I've already said this and you've ignored it, but: The government will never, ever do this. Creating an entirely new definition in law simply because some neanderthals think it's icky otherwise would be a global embarrassment among other forward-thinking countries, it would be gigantic waste of time and money, and it would require that the government be run by homophobic 12-year-olds.

tl;dr
Telling gays they're gross but they can still have rights as long as they join another group isn't a step forward, it's a step backward.
#108 - YFW Contrary to popular belief: On the internet, peop… 04/10/2013 on How Texans see the United... 0
#107 - Picture 04/10/2013 on How Texans see the United... +1
#261 - Anyway, back on topic. Although believing that groups of peopl…  [+] (1 new reply) 04/10/2013 on Gay marriage +1
User avatar #272 - exarzero (04/10/2013) [-]
Thanks, that is pretty much what I meant yeah.
#260 - Dude, I am aware that you have different opinions than me. We …  [+] (8 new replies) 04/10/2013 on Gay marriage +1
User avatar #282 - drewbridge (04/10/2013) [-]
Then why is everyone else concerned with "the sound of words coming out of your mouth"?

Jesus fucking Christ. What is so complicated about this? It's like no-one can wrap there head around the idea of gays getting equal rights under a different name. That's awful, I know, gays getting rights. Terrible. Why are you people against this? It makes no sense.


This is an idea that maybe other religious people could agree with. This could give gays the ability to adopt, tax benefits, healthcare, and spend their lives with their partners and bypass people who don't want it.

Why are you people so fucking adamantly against this?
User avatar #293 - mirrorsmirrors (04/10/2013) [-]
I already addressed this literally in my last response:

"There are a few reasons gay people don't grow up and do that.
1st off, because we're human beings and it's normal for oppressed people to fight for equality and nothing less.
2nd, because the government wouldn't ever do that. There's no technical difference between straight couples and gay couples that warrants an entirely new definition and further complication of the law. The only reason for a new definition is to protect the rights of the straight master race who can't handle the thought of mistakenly being associated with such filth. In an alternate universe the government might do this, but fortunately it isn't 2 years old. "

I'm sure there are plenty of people who would love the idea of the separate name, if it were on their terms, and not because of the rejection of people who can't take a hit to their egos. It's prejudice to segregate a group of people for no good reason without their agreement. Should they choose to leave and a form a new group, fine. But to not welcome them sucks. And like I said, the government would never go through with it.
User avatar #294 - drewbridge (04/11/2013) [-]
I just thought it was a good idea.
#298 - mirrorsmirrors (04/11/2013) [-]
It wasn't.
User avatar #303 - drewbridge (04/11/2013) [-]
I still think it's a good idea. I didn't know everyone would shit their pants over gays getting rights.
User avatar #304 - mirrorsmirrors (04/11/2013) [-]
I think the biggest problem in all of these conversations you're having here is:

You think you're being an advocate for good.

You think that gay people would be thankful that straight people gave them the privilege to have the same rights as them under the condition that they called it something else for one reason, and one reason only: because straight people think that gay people don't deserve to share the same title as them. Yes, as you mentioned in a different conversation, it would be segregation for straight people as well. A segregation where with no doubt the minority group is viewed as lesser, and the more traditional "pure" way is widely accepted. This hypothetical is entirely relatable to the segregation of "coloured folk" in the way it serves no purpose except for to avoid "spoiling" or "tainting" white culture, or in this case, marriage.

You would be giving gay people more rights than they do currently by the definition of the government, but you wouldn't be granting their rights as human beings to be viewed by their actions and not their sexual orientation.

Also, I don't know how many times I've already said this and you've ignored it, but: The government will never, ever do this. Creating an entirely new definition in law simply because some neanderthals think it's icky otherwise would be a global embarrassment among other forward-thinking countries, it would be gigantic waste of time and money, and it would require that the government be run by homophobic 12-year-olds.

tl;dr
Telling gays they're gross but they can still have rights as long as they join another group isn't a step forward, it's a step backward.
#261 - mirrorsmirrors (04/10/2013) [-]
Anyway, back on topic. Although believing that groups of people are too gross to be associated with you shows some behavioral traits of the Nazi, it doesn't make you one. It just makes you a piece of shit.
User avatar #272 - exarzero (04/10/2013) [-]
Thanks, that is pretty much what I meant yeah.
#256 - Marriage isn't a useless legal title. It has many benefits ove… 04/10/2013 on Gay marriage +2
#254 - Oh, so you're butthurt because you're religious and marriage w…  [+] (12 new replies) 04/10/2013 on Gay marriage 0
#255 - drewbridge (04/10/2013) [-]
WARNING: WRONG OPINIONS AHEAD


Nope. My religious beliefs have nothing to do with my political beliefs. I don't believe Jesus made mountain dew and M16's so 'Merica could free the world.


If I'm a little baby because I don't want gays to be under the title of marriage, why can't they "grow the fuck up" and live under something else?

Or, you're right. I should just hate gays no matter what and support nothing instead! Thanks, you really opened my eyes! pun not intended
User avatar #267 - capslockrage (04/10/2013) [-]
stop being so stupid like "wah I guess I'm a nazi maybe I should support burning jews too"
You sound like a fucking moron, you're singling out gay people saying they don't deserve the right to marry because of your twisted views.

(by the way, you're somehow more of an idiot for believing that just for political reasons, because there is NO good reason)
User avatar #279 - drewbridge (04/10/2013) [-]
Says the people that compared me to racist, facist genocidal maniacs because I don't support two men being under a title.
#260 - mirrorsmirrors (04/10/2013) [-]
Dude, I am aware that you have different opinions than me. We both feel that eachother's opinions are the wrong way to think, obviously, or else we would agree. Now we're talking about it. This is called an argument. Don't stir up shit then victimize yourself when people think you're stupid.

I really don't understand your standpoint. You 100% honestly feel that gay people deserve the same human rights as you, but the only condition is that it be a different word? The difference is that it sounds different coming out of someone's mouth? So that when you and your wife tell people you're married, they don't accidentally assume one of you is almost transexual and you got a...gay marriage? I can just imagine all the possible hardships of simply using the same title for everybody.

There are a few reasons gay people don't grow up and do that.
1st off, because we're human beings and it's normal for oppressed people to fight for equality and nothing less.
2nd, because the government wouldn't ever do that. There's no technical difference between straight couples and gay couples that warrants an entirely new definition and further complication of the law. The only reason for a new definition is to protect the rights of the straight master race who can't handle the thought of mistakenly being associated with such filth. In an alternate universe the government might do this, but fortunately it isn't 2 years old.

I've been working for days on it, but I simply can't figure out where the fuck in my response you conjured this shit out of "Or, you're right. I should just hate gays no matter what and support nothing instead! Thanks, you really opened my eyes! pun not intended"

I think it's pretty clear that I don't feel you should do any of those things.
User avatar #282 - drewbridge (04/10/2013) [-]
Then why is everyone else concerned with "the sound of words coming out of your mouth"?

Jesus fucking Christ. What is so complicated about this? It's like no-one can wrap there head around the idea of gays getting equal rights under a different name. That's awful, I know, gays getting rights. Terrible. Why are you people against this? It makes no sense.


This is an idea that maybe other religious people could agree with. This could give gays the ability to adopt, tax benefits, healthcare, and spend their lives with their partners and bypass people who don't want it.

Why are you people so fucking adamantly against this?
User avatar #293 - mirrorsmirrors (04/10/2013) [-]
I already addressed this literally in my last response:

"There are a few reasons gay people don't grow up and do that.
1st off, because we're human beings and it's normal for oppressed people to fight for equality and nothing less.
2nd, because the government wouldn't ever do that. There's no technical difference between straight couples and gay couples that warrants an entirely new definition and further complication of the law. The only reason for a new definition is to protect the rights of the straight master race who can't handle the thought of mistakenly being associated with such filth. In an alternate universe the government might do this, but fortunately it isn't 2 years old. "

I'm sure there are plenty of people who would love the idea of the separate name, if it were on their terms, and not because of the rejection of people who can't take a hit to their egos. It's prejudice to segregate a group of people for no good reason without their agreement. Should they choose to leave and a form a new group, fine. But to not welcome them sucks. And like I said, the government would never go through with it.
User avatar #294 - drewbridge (04/11/2013) [-]
I just thought it was a good idea.
#298 - mirrorsmirrors (04/11/2013) [-]
It wasn't.
User avatar #303 - drewbridge (04/11/2013) [-]
I still think it's a good idea. I didn't know everyone would shit their pants over gays getting rights.
User avatar #304 - mirrorsmirrors (04/11/2013) [-]
I think the biggest problem in all of these conversations you're having here is:

You think you're being an advocate for good.

You think that gay people would be thankful that straight people gave them the privilege to have the same rights as them under the condition that they called it something else for one reason, and one reason only: because straight people think that gay people don't deserve to share the same title as them. Yes, as you mentioned in a different conversation, it would be segregation for straight people as well. A segregation where with no doubt the minority group is viewed as lesser, and the more traditional "pure" way is widely accepted. This hypothetical is entirely relatable to the segregation of "coloured folk" in the way it serves no purpose except for to avoid "spoiling" or "tainting" white culture, or in this case, marriage.

You would be giving gay people more rights than they do currently by the definition of the government, but you wouldn't be granting their rights as human beings to be viewed by their actions and not their sexual orientation.

Also, I don't know how many times I've already said this and you've ignored it, but: The government will never, ever do this. Creating an entirely new definition in law simply because some neanderthals think it's icky otherwise would be a global embarrassment among other forward-thinking countries, it would be gigantic waste of time and money, and it would require that the government be run by homophobic 12-year-olds.

tl;dr
Telling gays they're gross but they can still have rights as long as they join another group isn't a step forward, it's a step backward.
#261 - mirrorsmirrors (04/10/2013) [-]
Anyway, back on topic. Although believing that groups of people are too gross to be associated with you shows some behavioral traits of the Nazi, it doesn't make you one. It just makes you a piece of shit.
User avatar #272 - exarzero (04/10/2013) [-]
Thanks, that is pretty much what I meant yeah.
#238 - 10/10 well executed. But alas, you still think gay …  [+] (26 new replies) 04/10/2013 on Gay marriage 0
User avatar #246 - drewbridge (04/10/2013) [-]
I think marriage should be for men and women only. I would be alright with gays having equal rights under a different title. So go fuck yourself.

User avatar #266 - capslockrage (04/10/2013) [-]
that's not equal rights if it has to be under a different title, and nothing other than the worthless piece of shit bible says that marriage is for men and women only.
User avatar #280 - drewbridge (04/10/2013) [-]
Ah, I forgot you know my opinions and thoughts better than I do. I'm sorry.

I do not support gay marriage because I believe it is for men and women. Boo hoo. If there is nothing in the bible that says gays cannot get married, why would I use the bible as a premise? I don't support it because I don't want it, you fucking idiot.
User avatar #284 - capslockrage (04/10/2013) [-]
But the point, you fucking idiot, is that you have no legitimate reason for why you don't want it.

Is it one of those "just because" things?

Other than religion there is NO legitimate reasoning to not wanting gays to get married.

There is no good reason to why it should be just for men and women.
User avatar #285 - drewbridge (04/10/2013) [-]
Because I think it should be preserved for men and women?

inb4 divorce rates are high, marriage is no longer sacred, tv killed the radio star, etc, not the point.
User avatar #286 - capslockrage (04/10/2013) [-]
But that's not my point, I'm asking WHY do you think it should be preserved for men and women?

Do gay people not love each other as much as a straight couple?
Would they not be as good of parents?
User avatar #287 - drewbridge (04/10/2013) [-]
#246 to #238 drewbridge: I would be alright with gays having equal rights under a different title"

Oh, I didn't know you couldn't read. Get the fuck out of here you illiterate child.


Marriage has been around for thousands of years between men and women (save some people who love cars, animals, and anime characters a little too much) and has been. I just think it should be saved like that.

There. Feel free to keep putting down the idea of me supporting gays getting rights. It's like watching someone shoot themself in the leg while robbing a store.
User avatar #288 - capslockrage (04/10/2013) [-]
You make absolutely no sense, and you call me the illiterate child, got it.

You still didn't really give a reason that matters in today's society.

And once again, if gays had to marry under a different title, that's still not equal rights.

That's like having separate bathrooms for minorities.
User avatar #289 - drewbridge (04/10/2013) [-]
Give you a reason why it matters...hmm.

I don't know, why does gay marriage (a name) matter in todays society?

I wonder how actual gays feel about my idea. I wonder if they'll greet me with the extreme hostility and bantering that you guys have, or be accepting.
User avatar #290 - capslockrage (04/10/2013) [-]
This is funnyjunk, everyone is hostile to people that have the uncommon (stupid) opinion.

Actual gays think your idea is stupid, why don't you go ask a black guy how he would feel if they brought back separate bathrooms that he had to use?
User avatar #292 - drewbridge (04/10/2013) [-]
Infact, I'm going to quote you on that.
I'll be putting this on my profile, thanks.

"everyone is hostile to people that have the uncommon (stupid) opinion."
-capslockrage, 4/10/2013, when discussing opinions on gay marriage.
User avatar #291 - drewbridge (04/10/2013) [-]
Oh, bullocks. Uncommon opinions are stupid? What about anti-war people, and the ones in Nazi Germany that spoke out against their government? That's the stupidest most oppressive thing I've ever heard. Unless you're part of the mod/hive mentality, you're wrong. The Klan did the same thing, probably when burning blacks, gays, and jews.


How do you know they'll think it's dumb? It's a one time thing and only under a name, and preferably have the same prestige as a straight marriage. It would be segregating straight marriages, too.
#254 - mirrorsmirrors (04/10/2013) [-]
Oh, so you're butthurt because you're religious and marriage was once a holy word? I guess if you're so worried about the integrity of the bible and marriage, you won't have any problems stoning your wife to death when she cheats on you. Granted, I'm just assuming you're not a classic cherry picker.

If it isn't about religion and it's just about you feeling icky about sharing the same title with gay people, grow the fuck up.
#255 - drewbridge (04/10/2013) [-]
WARNING: WRONG OPINIONS AHEAD


Nope. My religious beliefs have nothing to do with my political beliefs. I don't believe Jesus made mountain dew and M16's so 'Merica could free the world.


If I'm a little baby because I don't want gays to be under the title of marriage, why can't they "grow the fuck up" and live under something else?

Or, you're right. I should just hate gays no matter what and support nothing instead! Thanks, you really opened my eyes! pun not intended
User avatar #267 - capslockrage (04/10/2013) [-]
stop being so stupid like "wah I guess I'm a nazi maybe I should support burning jews too"
You sound like a fucking moron, you're singling out gay people saying they don't deserve the right to marry because of your twisted views.

(by the way, you're somehow more of an idiot for believing that just for political reasons, because there is NO good reason)
User avatar #279 - drewbridge (04/10/2013) [-]
Says the people that compared me to racist, facist genocidal maniacs because I don't support two men being under a title.
#260 - mirrorsmirrors (04/10/2013) [-]
Dude, I am aware that you have different opinions than me. We both feel that eachother's opinions are the wrong way to think, obviously, or else we would agree. Now we're talking about it. This is called an argument. Don't stir up shit then victimize yourself when people think you're stupid.

I really don't understand your standpoint. You 100% honestly feel that gay people deserve the same human rights as you, but the only condition is that it be a different word? The difference is that it sounds different coming out of someone's mouth? So that when you and your wife tell people you're married, they don't accidentally assume one of you is almost transexual and you got a...gay marriage? I can just imagine all the possible hardships of simply using the same title for everybody.

There are a few reasons gay people don't grow up and do that.
1st off, because we're human beings and it's normal for oppressed people to fight for equality and nothing less.
2nd, because the government wouldn't ever do that. There's no technical difference between straight couples and gay couples that warrants an entirely new definition and further complication of the law. The only reason for a new definition is to protect the rights of the straight master race who can't handle the thought of mistakenly being associated with such filth. In an alternate universe the government might do this, but fortunately it isn't 2 years old.

I've been working for days on it, but I simply can't figure out where the fuck in my response you conjured this shit out of "Or, you're right. I should just hate gays no matter what and support nothing instead! Thanks, you really opened my eyes! pun not intended"

I think it's pretty clear that I don't feel you should do any of those things.
User avatar #282 - drewbridge (04/10/2013) [-]
Then why is everyone else concerned with "the sound of words coming out of your mouth"?

Jesus fucking Christ. What is so complicated about this? It's like no-one can wrap there head around the idea of gays getting equal rights under a different name. That's awful, I know, gays getting rights. Terrible. Why are you people against this? It makes no sense.


This is an idea that maybe other religious people could agree with. This could give gays the ability to adopt, tax benefits, healthcare, and spend their lives with their partners and bypass people who don't want it.

Why are you people so fucking adamantly against this?
User avatar #293 - mirrorsmirrors (04/10/2013) [-]
I already addressed this literally in my last response:

"There are a few reasons gay people don't grow up and do that.
1st off, because we're human beings and it's normal for oppressed people to fight for equality and nothing less.
2nd, because the government wouldn't ever do that. There's no technical difference between straight couples and gay couples that warrants an entirely new definition and further complication of the law. The only reason for a new definition is to protect the rights of the straight master race who can't handle the thought of mistakenly being associated with such filth. In an alternate universe the government might do this, but fortunately it isn't 2 years old. "

I'm sure there are plenty of people who would love the idea of the separate name, if it were on their terms, and not because of the rejection of people who can't take a hit to their egos. It's prejudice to segregate a group of people for no good reason without their agreement. Should they choose to leave and a form a new group, fine. But to not welcome them sucks. And like I said, the government would never go through with it.
User avatar #294 - drewbridge (04/11/2013) [-]
I just thought it was a good idea.
#298 - mirrorsmirrors (04/11/2013) [-]
It wasn't.
User avatar #303 - drewbridge (04/11/2013) [-]
I still think it's a good idea. I didn't know everyone would shit their pants over gays getting rights.
User avatar #304 - mirrorsmirrors (04/11/2013) [-]
I think the biggest problem in all of these conversations you're having here is:

You think you're being an advocate for good.

You think that gay people would be thankful that straight people gave them the privilege to have the same rights as them under the condition that they called it something else for one reason, and one reason only: because straight people think that gay people don't deserve to share the same title as them. Yes, as you mentioned in a different conversation, it would be segregation for straight people as well. A segregation where with no doubt the minority group is viewed as lesser, and the more traditional "pure" way is widely accepted. This hypothetical is entirely relatable to the segregation of "coloured folk" in the way it serves no purpose except for to avoid "spoiling" or "tainting" white culture, or in this case, marriage.

You would be giving gay people more rights than they do currently by the definition of the government, but you wouldn't be granting their rights as human beings to be viewed by their actions and not their sexual orientation.

Also, I don't know how many times I've already said this and you've ignored it, but: The government will never, ever do this. Creating an entirely new definition in law simply because some neanderthals think it's icky otherwise would be a global embarrassment among other forward-thinking countries, it would be gigantic waste of time and money, and it would require that the government be run by homophobic 12-year-olds.

tl;dr
Telling gays they're gross but they can still have rights as long as they join another group isn't a step forward, it's a step backward.
#261 - mirrorsmirrors (04/10/2013) [-]
Anyway, back on topic. Although believing that groups of people are too gross to be associated with you shows some behavioral traits of the Nazi, it doesn't make you one. It just makes you a piece of shit.
User avatar #272 - exarzero (04/10/2013) [-]
Thanks, that is pretty much what I meant yeah.
#251 - mattdoggy (04/10/2013) [-]
you have an opinion and you're going to state it regardless of others opinions or red thumbs
kudos to you sir
#71 - Epic and beautiful artwork ruined by broken english/bad gramma… 04/08/2013 on Another great adventure +1
#47 - MY HONOUR! 04/08/2013 on The origin +45
#45 - You're both silly ***** . License or licence as a … 04/08/2013 on Faith in humanity restored +1
#160 - Also, remove the comma. You've redeemed yourself with you…  [+] (1 new reply) 04/08/2013 on Title +1
User avatar #172 - pinkiedash (04/08/2013) [-]
Thanks. Just realized, this quote is different in the original version. "You're about as useful as a cock-flavoured lollipop" Well, german dubs.
#40 - I dunno. Obviously this didn't happen, but if you're…  [+] (3 new replies) 04/08/2013 on McDonlads +6
User avatar #71 - coolioplasm (04/08/2013) [-]
She was fat. Who cares?
User avatar #54 - tubbymeatball (04/08/2013) [-]
As an employee that works at McDonald's, FUCKING THANK YOU. If you haven't worked in fast food you have no clue how fucking bad it is.
User avatar #48 - bambambaby (04/08/2013) [-]
Thank you, sir.

Seriously, people treat you like you're a high school drop-out if you work at McDonald's. It pisses me off.
#17 - Picture 04/08/2013 on Chase...stalk...chase.... 0
#90 - Picture 04/08/2013 on No red circle 0
#154 - Picture 04/08/2013 on Title +2
[ 310 Total ]

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#1 - whitewallsofalaska (05/20/2012) [-]
**whitewallsofalaska rolls 54,579** MY life is now cplete i made it into a meme
 Friends (0)