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

hide menu

parttimezombie

parttimezombie Avatar Level 158 Comments: Faptastic
Offline
Send mail to parttimezombie Block parttimezombie Invite parttimezombie to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: male
Age: 22
Date Signed Up:7/06/2012
Last Login:6/12/2014
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Content Thumbs: 592 total,  791 ,  199
Comment Thumbs: 594 total,  823 ,  229
Content Level Progress: 20% (2/10)
Level 59 Content: Sammich eater → Level 60 Content: FJ Cultist
Comment Level Progress: 60% (6/10)
Level 158 Comments: Faptastic → Level 159 Comments: Faptastic
Subscribers:0
Content Views:75135
Times Content Favorited:54 times
Total Comments Made:335
FJ Points:1193
Favorite Tags: the walking dead (3) | twd (3) | dead (2) | governor (2) | the (2) | walking (2) | Walking dead (2) | Zombie (2)

latest user's comments

#9 - namaste 09/28/2013 on Did somebody say Yoga? +6
#400 - the best...with wheat thins 09/28/2013 on what would it be? 0
#398 - pringles and goobers... 09/28/2013 on what would it be? 0
#29 - phil defranco? 09/26/2013 on fucking todd 0
#26 - surprisingly texas seems to have the most anti gun carry polic…  [+] (2 new replies) 09/26/2013 on Texas, Fuck Yeah +2
User avatar #47 - commontroll (09/26/2013) [-]
It's because Californians are starting to move here and get scared by kids playing with Airsoft.

It's stupid, because the laws are very pro-gun and pro carry, yet the cops are so anti-carry.
User avatar #29 - TheLastNinja (09/26/2013) [-]
Actually, it depends on the city or county. My best friends dad is a cop, but at he precinct he patrols through, each individual has to supply their own pistol (approved of course)
#65 - Picture 09/25/2013 on Oh beer. +13
#13 - for the state of GA it was 18 until the govt offered a lot of …  [+] (2 new replies) 09/12/2013 on Fake id grave yard 0
User avatar #24 - weeping (09/13/2013) [-]
Where I live (Louisiana), we went against the drinking age of 21 and lowered it to 18 until the government started taking money away from infrastructure. The is one of the reasons our roads are so shitty.
User avatar #20 - trueraiderfan (09/13/2013) [-]
well fuck me, im 18 and live in georgia, i could be enjoying Guinness legally
#157 - itd be ignorant to think that our govt doesn't make chemical w…  [+] (1 new reply) 09/07/2013 on I'll save you a seat to hell +1
User avatar #176 - skeptical (09/07/2013) [-]
Apparently it's alright if it's supposedly being developed for the right purposes and/or gets approved by the UN.
#47 - honestly i feel there is no right answer. i don't see how bom…  [+] (6 new replies) 09/06/2013 on I'll save you a seat to hell +3
#108 - gerfox (09/07/2013) [-]
You know, there's other boundaries as well. Like the boundary of how pissed off you can make extremists. I think the US passed that line a long time ago, they are already the prime target of practically all Muslim extremists globally - and they can't become more in focus.

The problem is rather what the people of the US think. Since the government is, or is at least supposed to, represent the people - and the people is against a life-consuming and expensive war, then they shouldn't do it.

Other problems are of course the consequence of an intervention. Who will be put in charge? Will it be a democracy, or will it be transformed into a stronghold of Sharia law, and Muslim orthodoxy? Will minority rights be over held? (Not that are today)

Syria is a big problem, and a lot of countries also directly oppose an intervention. It's not because of the ethical reasons Russia doesn't want to get involved. They are allies, they have bases there - and Syria produce a shitload of oil the US would get their hands on.

It's hard to make an informed decision because all the facts are not out there, no one knows - the only thing that is certain that day by day more and more people die, more civilians die, and no one knows if chemical weapons will be utilized on a broader scale. If the US doesn't intercept now, does that mark the go-ahead for chemical warfare? Or would it cause the rebellion to die out? What would the consequences of that be? Genocide? Retaliation? Who knows.
User avatar #49 - skeptical (09/06/2013) [-]
I said action needed to be taken, not that the actions we're taking are right. Besides, again with the Geneva Convention, it's Syria that's pissed in the face of the UN.
#56 - majorkok (09/06/2013) [-]
You realize if this use of chemical weapons is not punished we can't ask Iran to stop their production, even of nukes because our word will just mean nothing to them. Not saying it currently does, but it'll show we stand for what we say.
User avatar #60 - skeptical (09/06/2013) [-]
The way the Convention works
1. Don't make chem/bio/nuke weapons
2. You DO NOT make chemical/bio/nuclear weapons
3. If you do, action will be taken to ensure you stop
4. If you fight back, there will be a combined effort/war and it will not be pretty for you
User avatar #157 - parttimezombie (09/07/2013) [-]
itd be ignorant to think that our govt doesn't make chemical weapons,
nevertheless, i hope everything works out the best it can
User avatar #176 - skeptical (09/07/2013) [-]
Apparently it's alright if it's supposedly being developed for the right purposes and/or gets approved by the UN.
#44 - ~1,000 killed from the chemical attack. THATS OUR RED LINE. OH…  [+] (17 new replies) 09/06/2013 on I'll save you a seat to hell +33
User avatar #164 - nitsuan (09/07/2013) [-]
Well, that's if you want to dumb everything down. The death toll is not what is important. They are having a full blown civil war, so that is expected. The use of Chemical weapons is the problems.
User avatar #163 - cudlefish (09/07/2013) [-]
Its the fact that they used chemical weapons dumb fuck.
User avatar #154 - RisenLichen (09/07/2013) [-]
Thats because in the view of most people/countries, Civil War is the countries problem. But using chemical weapons is in complete violation of the Geneva Protocol. For all the countries that signed it, it's pretty much a big F U to the face, so action has to be taken.
User avatar #117 - maxismahname (09/07/2013) [-]
but chemicals are fuckin scary
User avatar #96 - severepwner (09/06/2013) [-]
Because that is the line. This was already a problem before the weapons were used. And getting involved could have caused problems with Russia or China. You think we were just like "Oh it's just boys being boys, you know with guns and stuff" while all that was happening? No, we didn't want to cause a diplomatic incident in a civil war we weren't involved in. But using chemical weapons all of the sudden is very dangerous and is the red line.
#66 - anonymous (09/06/2013) [-]
We signed a treaty, a contract if you will, that we would not allow chemical weapons to be used. We don't care, but we have made a commitment and promise that should be upheld.
User avatar #63 - swagloon (09/06/2013) [-]
"A chemical weapon (CW) is a device that uses chemicals formulated to inflict death or harm to human beings. They may be classified as weapons of mass destruction though are separate from biological weapons (diseases), nuclear weapons and radiological weapons (which use radioactive decay of elements). "

weapons of mass destruction is not ok to use.
User avatar #55 - nightmarecorpse (09/06/2013) [-]
I find it interesting that because it's suspected there is chemical use, it's a huge deal and something needs to be done when:

www.policymic.com/articles/62023/10-chemical-weapons-attacks-washington-doesn-t-want-you-to-talk-about

Just saying. (and yes I know white phosphorous doesn't fall under the loose definition of 'Chemical Weapons', even though it is a chemical, and a weapon. Still doesn't make it's use against civilians any more justified.)

User avatar #46 - skeptical (09/06/2013) [-]
It's because there are a certain set of boundaries when it comes to war. If somebody shoots somebody--well, that's just crime or riot control. If somebody gasses somebody, that's a big problem, because it represents a far greater potential risk. We couldn't go charging into Syria and preventing this just because people were shot or even massacred by non-chemical/bio/nuclear weapons. This is the first chance we've had to stop all the rioting and repercussions in Syria. It's a matter of whether or not it's the US or Syria to blatantly disobey the Geneva Convention. Do you want a suppression in Syria or an overreaction/WWIII against the US, which represents a far greater threat if it ever turned against the UN?
User avatar #47 - parttimezombie (09/06/2013) [-]
honestly i feel there is no right answer. i don't see how bombing them will help. it could piss them off, piss of other nations, or extremist groups, and start a downward spiral. especially since it seems no one is willing to back us. and who are we to talk? we dropped a nuke!

and on top of everything, we the people, really dont know whats going on, what facts are true or not, who is who. we really dont know enough to make an educated decision on the matter.
#108 - gerfox (09/07/2013) [-]
You know, there's other boundaries as well. Like the boundary of how pissed off you can make extremists. I think the US passed that line a long time ago, they are already the prime target of practically all Muslim extremists globally - and they can't become more in focus.

The problem is rather what the people of the US think. Since the government is, or is at least supposed to, represent the people - and the people is against a life-consuming and expensive war, then they shouldn't do it.

Other problems are of course the consequence of an intervention. Who will be put in charge? Will it be a democracy, or will it be transformed into a stronghold of Sharia law, and Muslim orthodoxy? Will minority rights be over held? (Not that are today)

Syria is a big problem, and a lot of countries also directly oppose an intervention. It's not because of the ethical reasons Russia doesn't want to get involved. They are allies, they have bases there - and Syria produce a shitload of oil the US would get their hands on.

It's hard to make an informed decision because all the facts are not out there, no one knows - the only thing that is certain that day by day more and more people die, more civilians die, and no one knows if chemical weapons will be utilized on a broader scale. If the US doesn't intercept now, does that mark the go-ahead for chemical warfare? Or would it cause the rebellion to die out? What would the consequences of that be? Genocide? Retaliation? Who knows.
User avatar #49 - skeptical (09/06/2013) [-]
I said action needed to be taken, not that the actions we're taking are right. Besides, again with the Geneva Convention, it's Syria that's pissed in the face of the UN.
#56 - majorkok (09/06/2013) [-]
You realize if this use of chemical weapons is not punished we can't ask Iran to stop their production, even of nukes because our word will just mean nothing to them. Not saying it currently does, but it'll show we stand for what we say.
User avatar #60 - skeptical (09/06/2013) [-]
The way the Convention works
1. Don't make chem/bio/nuke weapons
2. You DO NOT make chemical/bio/nuclear weapons
3. If you do, action will be taken to ensure you stop
4. If you fight back, there will be a combined effort/war and it will not be pretty for you
User avatar #157 - parttimezombie (09/07/2013) [-]
itd be ignorant to think that our govt doesn't make chemical weapons,
nevertheless, i hope everything works out the best it can
User avatar #176 - skeptical (09/07/2013) [-]
Apparently it's alright if it's supposedly being developed for the right purposes and/or gets approved by the UN.
#69 - video game high school  [+] (1 new reply) 09/04/2013 on Videogame University: The... -1
User avatar #71 - JMF (09/04/2013) [-]
I got season one on bluray in the mail a few days ago.
#75 - youve got a gift my friend 09/03/2013 on Jim Gaffigan Comp 0
#6 - hoooooooooooooooot pockett  [+] (2 new replies) 09/03/2013 on Jim Gaffigan Comp +15
#30 - sofiesoflam (09/03/2013) [-]
But what do we run in Mexico? Uhh, caliente pocket.
User avatar #75 - parttimezombie (09/03/2013) [-]
youve got a gift my friend
#49 - Picture 09/03/2013 on Hank is a dick +1
#173 - what i am saying is. how the hell does a building (maybe not t…  [+] (2 new replies) 09/02/2013 on Did you know? 0
User avatar #176 - theluppijackal (09/02/2013) [-]
Because the outer collumns feel first
the dust/debry blocks the collumns that stood some time after
with out the outer suppoirt the collappsed there after
[alt theory, more likely]:
With the outer collumns destroyed, all upper levels of buildings weight fell onto the lower columns
with such strain and weight, the towers quickly fell. Not only that, but they only appeared to fall striahgt down debris scattered for blocks.
User avatar #177 - theluppijackal (09/02/2013) [-]
wow I garfunkled that quite a bit
#170 - lol no, deff not. just realistically having multiple buildings…  [+] (4 new replies) 09/02/2013 on Did you know? 0
User avatar #172 - theluppijackal (09/02/2013) [-]
Building also don't naturally have planes smashed into them...
User avatar #173 - parttimezombie (09/02/2013) [-]
what i am saying is. how the hell does a building (maybe not the twins) fall perfectly even, when one side has more damage. from the videos you linked, it looks like it should have collapsed on the corner and broke/fall over. not fall straight down on all sides equally.
User avatar #176 - theluppijackal (09/02/2013) [-]
Because the outer collumns feel first
the dust/debry blocks the collumns that stood some time after
with out the outer suppoirt the collappsed there after
[alt theory, more likely]:
With the outer collumns destroyed, all upper levels of buildings weight fell onto the lower columns
with such strain and weight, the towers quickly fell. Not only that, but they only appeared to fall striahgt down debris scattered for blocks.
User avatar #177 - theluppijackal (09/02/2013) [-]
wow I garfunkled that quite a bit
#144 - and thats why there is a video of it falling in the exact same…  [+] (7 new replies) 09/01/2013 on Did you know? 0
#156 - theluppijackal (09/02/2013) [-]
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afb7eUHr64U
www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLqGRv7CQlc
You're one of those tin foil hat wearers that think there was molten metal under the wtc right? Even though you don't even know the difference between molten [liquid] and red hot?
WTC collapsed because of poor structural design, heavy damage on the south side from falling debris from the twin towers, and a raging fire.
User avatar #170 - parttimezombie (09/02/2013) [-]
lol no, deff not. just realistically having multiple buildings all fall like they are being demoed is just plain weird. buildings dont naturally fall like that.
User avatar #172 - theluppijackal (09/02/2013) [-]
Building also don't naturally have planes smashed into them...
User avatar #173 - parttimezombie (09/02/2013) [-]
what i am saying is. how the hell does a building (maybe not the twins) fall perfectly even, when one side has more damage. from the videos you linked, it looks like it should have collapsed on the corner and broke/fall over. not fall straight down on all sides equally.
User avatar #176 - theluppijackal (09/02/2013) [-]
Because the outer collumns feel first
the dust/debry blocks the collumns that stood some time after
with out the outer suppoirt the collappsed there after
[alt theory, more likely]:
With the outer collumns destroyed, all upper levels of buildings weight fell onto the lower columns
with such strain and weight, the towers quickly fell. Not only that, but they only appeared to fall striahgt down debris scattered for blocks.
User avatar #177 - theluppijackal (09/02/2013) [-]
wow I garfunkled that quite a bit
User avatar #157 - theluppijackal (09/02/2013) [-]
wtc 7*
#8 - myself skydiving. recently got my license  [+] (1 new reply) 09/01/2013 on Skydiving for poor people 0
User avatar #9 - AbsentMinded (09/01/2013) [-]
That looked fun.
#87 - do you guys know that more than 2 buildings collapsed? look up…  [+] (10 new replies) 09/01/2013 on Did you know? 0
User avatar #106 - theluppijackal (09/01/2013) [-]
Yeah
It had a huge hole in it because of falling debris from WTC 2/1
User avatar #144 - parttimezombie (09/01/2013) [-]
and thats why there is a video of it falling in the exact same manor as the tall 2? straight down floor by floor?
#156 - theluppijackal (09/02/2013) [-]
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afb7eUHr64U
www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLqGRv7CQlc
You're one of those tin foil hat wearers that think there was molten metal under the wtc right? Even though you don't even know the difference between molten [liquid] and red hot?
WTC collapsed because of poor structural design, heavy damage on the south side from falling debris from the twin towers, and a raging fire.
User avatar #170 - parttimezombie (09/02/2013) [-]
lol no, deff not. just realistically having multiple buildings all fall like they are being demoed is just plain weird. buildings dont naturally fall like that.
User avatar #172 - theluppijackal (09/02/2013) [-]
Building also don't naturally have planes smashed into them...
User avatar #173 - parttimezombie (09/02/2013) [-]
what i am saying is. how the hell does a building (maybe not the twins) fall perfectly even, when one side has more damage. from the videos you linked, it looks like it should have collapsed on the corner and broke/fall over. not fall straight down on all sides equally.
User avatar #176 - theluppijackal (09/02/2013) [-]
Because the outer collumns feel first
the dust/debry blocks the collumns that stood some time after
with out the outer suppoirt the collappsed there after
[alt theory, more likely]:
With the outer collumns destroyed, all upper levels of buildings weight fell onto the lower columns
with such strain and weight, the towers quickly fell. Not only that, but they only appeared to fall striahgt down debris scattered for blocks.
User avatar #177 - theluppijackal (09/02/2013) [-]
wow I garfunkled that quite a bit
User avatar #157 - theluppijackal (09/02/2013) [-]
wtc 7*
User avatar #91 - srskate (09/01/2013) [-]
Ahh, so thats what WTC 7 is. Yeah Larry apparently helped develop the whole thing, and then gained the full lease shortly before 9/11
#47 - not bad 08/30/2013 on gotta breed fast! 0
#168 - Picture 08/25/2013 on Battlefield vs. Modern Warfare +4
#167 - Picture 08/25/2013 on Battlefield vs. Modern Warfare 0
#220 - >first time open carrying >get iced coffee at Starbu…  [+] (3 new replies) 08/23/2013 on Extremist +1
User avatar #278 - Onemanretardpack (08/23/2013) [-]
Carried my Steyr m9 into my local starbucks. Glockfags were jelly
User avatar #222 - drewbridge (08/23/2013) [-]
We have a Px4 in .45, they're nice.

9mm master race is better.
User avatar #245 - azumeow (08/23/2013) [-]
9mm master race.

Ummm...wut?
#225 - i wasn't saying it NEVER happens. you also switched from pot t…  [+] (1 new reply) 08/23/2013 on 'Murican Irony 0
User avatar #229 - patrickmiller (08/23/2013) [-]
Broad statments for a broad issue. And before you said you don't care what people put in there bodys so clearly you were referring to all drugs. And it's not the users that bring the violence it's the gangs then smuggle the drugs over bringing their violence with them. The dealers fighting each other for control of an area. And you say making them illegal only makes monetary gain for criminals, but it is not as if these people would not still be criminals if drugs were legal, these people are criminals by trade and do what eve is illegal for money because they have no place in the regular would because they have no proper education.
#219 - that is a very ignorant statement. ive never partaken, but alm…  [+] (3 new replies) 08/23/2013 on 'Murican Irony 0
User avatar #221 - patrickmiller (08/23/2013) [-]
Ignorant would be to say something like drugs are a victim less crime. Beause they are not victim less. And your persona experience does not create president, just because everyone you know is a certain way doesn't mean everyone else is the same way o think that way is very ignorant.
User avatar #225 - parttimezombie (08/23/2013) [-]
i wasn't saying it NEVER happens. you also switched from pot to drugs in general. shit like meth and crack, yeah that will screw someone up. and they should get help, not jail time. that's a health issue. unless they were in the act of hurting someone or driving under the influence.

you said drugs bring violence with them, but in my experiences all my friends have never partaken in violence because of it. i was simply using that as an example of your sweeping statement of "It's not a victim less crime, drugs bring violence with them. And as the high from pot isn't enough people move onto bigger and harder drugs"

you make too many broad statements. are all drug related incidents victim-less? no. but can we safely say that most pot related jailing were victim-less? yes.
making drugs illegal doesn't help either, that only creates a black market and induces violence and monetary gain for criminals.
User avatar #229 - patrickmiller (08/23/2013) [-]
Broad statments for a broad issue. And before you said you don't care what people put in there bodys so clearly you were referring to all drugs. And it's not the users that bring the violence it's the gangs then smuggle the drugs over bringing their violence with them. The dealers fighting each other for control of an area. And you say making them illegal only makes monetary gain for criminals, but it is not as if these people would not still be criminals if drugs were legal, these people are criminals by trade and do what eve is illegal for money because they have no place in the regular would because they have no proper education.
[ 335 Total ]
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

items

Total unique items point value: 1050 / Total items point value: 1050

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #8 - Nickdowgg (01/25/2014) [-]

I would like to know more about your role in The Walking Dead, if that's okay.
#7 - onkii ONLINE (01/23/2013) [-]
User avatar #3 - trollnot (01/18/2013) [-]
Meanwhile in the argument.

www.funnyjunk.com/funny_pictures/4374401/Thanks+Obama/733#733

He sent me a private message telling me to go **** myself.
User avatar #4 to #3 - parttimezombie (01/18/2013) [-]
i dont even own a gun... its all just common sense and not being closed minded >.>
i was hoping this would get more thumbs/views =( www.funnyjunk.com/youtube/4376673/Choose+Your+Own+Crime+Stats/
User avatar #5 to #4 - trollnot (01/18/2013) [-]
thumbed
User avatar #6 to #5 - parttimezombie (01/18/2013) [-]
thank you kind sir
#1 - trollnot (01/18/2013) [-]
I'm ******* freinding you I need someone on here who knows what they are ******* talking about.
User avatar #2 to #1 - parttimezombie (01/18/2013) [-]
haha ok, i appreciate that! its not too hard to jut look up things for yourself, but most people dont do that
 Friends (0)