Login or register


Last status update:
Date Signed Up:7/22/2011
Last Login:11/16/2016
Comment Ranking:#17270
Highest Content Rank:#8412
Highest Comment Rank:#8726
Content Thumbs: 19 total,  278 ,  259
Comment Thumbs: 820 total,  1057 ,  237
Content Level Progress: 38.98% (23/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 0% (0/10)
Level 170 Comments: Soldier Of Funnyjunk → Level 171 Comments: Soldier Of Funnyjunk
Content Views:18271
Total Comments Made:411
FJ Points:718

  • Views: 832
    Thumbs Up 3 Thumbs Down 1 Total: +2
    Comments: 1
    Favorites: 0
    Uploaded: 08/06/14
    Clarence Clarence

latest user's comments

#191 - I've met plenty of liberals in my life that are good people wi…  [+] (1 reply) 10/13/2016 on Jody +6
User avatar
#236 - infinitereaper (10/13/2016) [-]
A big problem with society is when people don't look at the big picture. Shits bad right now.
#60 - Yes and your point?  [+] (1 reply) 07/30/2016 on Chris Pratt is awesome 0
User avatar
#61 - lotengo (07/30/2016) [-]
That you should try being creative and not just take the easy road other people have walked already
#58 - Says the guy who worships Donald Trump  [+] (3 replies) 07/30/2016 on Chris Pratt is awesome 0
User avatar
#59 - lotengo (07/30/2016) [-]

Both did it in more fun/creative ways.
User avatar
#60 - ninjafaggots (07/30/2016) [-]
Yes and your point?
User avatar
#61 - lotengo (07/30/2016) [-]
That you should try being creative and not just take the easy road other people have walked already
#24 - You know I'm just so jaded when it comes to batman. I just can…  [+] (2 replies) 04/29/2016 on Batman +1
#28 - anon (04/29/2016) [-]
It's because, like the entire rest of FunnyJunk, you don't know what edgy means, but proceed to use the term as if you do.
User avatar
#32 - cthumoo (04/29/2016) [-]
most of FJ just use it ironically to shame people trying too hard to be different, so not really
#129 - I actually want to see sources.  [+] (7 replies) 03/06/2016 on Sanders is the lesser evil... +11
#157 - tapeboy (03/06/2016) [-]
shineycharizard compiled a list /Bernie+sanders+is+anti+war/text/5850607/
User avatar
#156 - GIJorge (03/06/2016) [-]
Unless you call his ass a source, you wont get any, because that's where he pulled most (if not all) of that from.
#159 - tapeboy (03/06/2016) [-]
Eat shit from my ass.

User avatar
#236 - ninjafaggots (03/07/2016) [-]
Why would I eat shit from your ass? I genuinely wanted sources, so thanks I guess. No need to be a cock gobbler about it
User avatar
#227 - GIJorge (03/06/2016) [-]
"During an interview, Pierre Sprey, a co-designer of the F-16, went into great detail about how the F-35 was a lemon aircraft. Sprey explained that the fighter is an excessively heavy gas guzzler with small wings, a low bomb-carry capacity, low loiter time, is incapable of slow flight, is detectable to World War II-era low-frequency radar, and costs $200 million apiece. And just a little over a week ago, the F-35 caught fire on a runway at Eglin Air Force Base."

As soon as you even mention Sprey as a source regarding any sort of military project, I just know you're a fucking idiot. So that one about the bad ties of Sanders to the F35 is gone out the window. and I actually agree with the old commie basterd: "No, and I’ll tell you why – it is essentially built. It is the airplane of the United States Air Force, Navy, and of NATO. It was a very controversial issue in Vermont. And my view was that given the fact that the F-35, which, by the way, has been incredibly wasteful, that’s a good question. But for better or worse, that is the plane of record right now, and it is not gonna be discarded. That’s the reality.”

And the other ones are so pulled out of context that I'm not even sure you read them. The only point I'll give you is his ties to Israel, but that's normal and honestly, to be expected of any american politician.
User avatar
#217 - abesimpson (03/06/2016) [-]
At first I was like "well atleast he actually has sources" until you actually.

For obvious reasons I couldn't read them all. But the first ones were awards for support healthcare for veterans or something.

The ones about drones are twisting his words. He says he would use drones if they were more selective and sure to kill only terrorist, because he's against how they target building without caring about civilian casualties.

You posted the votes of funding to go to war. And indeed the list had the name of Bernie Sanders. But did you see the date? September 14, 2001. It's almost as if something historically important happened 3 days before that.

I'll toss you a bone and agree that he indeed supports Israel. But in the end the US is an Israel ally and he's a jew and likely has family tied to the Holocaust. Even if one disagrees with Israel one can understand his stance.

If you're going to post a million links after googling "Bernard Sanders" and "war", atleast make sure you read them all.
#214 - anon (03/06/2016) [-]
You listed about 13 sources for military appropriations for wars that were already ongoing. All that tells me is that when the US is at war Bernie doesn't support sending troops empty handed. Which is totally reasonable and some of these are just support for programs to hep out troops. The first source just literally asking Chuck Hagel to review the Pay Our Military Act which wasn't working apparently.

The second one is just a vote for the Judge who allowed the drone strikes on Americans who were a part of terrorist organizations and acting for them overseas. Especially since the alleged memo was unknown to anyone up until about 9 days prior to the vote. But you know what I'll give you the drone strikes, they're in a weird grey area for me. I know personally that they're effective, but they also connotate a police state.

BTW Assad IS a dictator and impeaching Bush WOULD have been impractical. Like Cheney would have been better.

If you don't think America already leads the world milataristically, then you're retarded. So many countries and foreign interests depend on the American military status-quo that losing that WOULD have detrimental effects on a global scale.

I didn't see anything about supporting AL Queda or Saudi Arabia in there, but granted, maybe i missed it.

So far all I can see is you equating money with frantic support. All the NDAA and appropriations is for the military to keep doing its job. Some of your own sources are showing that it was money for extending veteran benefits.

> He's an imperialist
Just FYI if you're American, and you support our troops, then you're an imperialist in your own broad-ass definition. What does that even mean to you anyway? We send more military and financial aide to other countries by a wide margin, but we're the imperialists because other countries take it. Okay...