sephirothpwnz
Rank #998 on Content
Level 232 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz Offline
Send mail to sephirothpwnz Block sephirothpwnz Invite sephirothpwnz to be your friend flag avatar
| Last status update: | -
|
| | |
| Personal Info | |
| Date Signed Up: | 5/29/2012 |
| Last Login: | 1/14/2016 |
| FunnyJunk Career Stats | |
| Content Ranking: | #998 |
| Comment Ranking: | #6477 |
| Highest Content Rank: | #106 |
| Highest Comment Rank: | #1546 |
| Content Thumbs: | 32006 total,
35196 ,
3190 |
| Comment Thumbs: | 4018 total,
4915 ,
897 |
| Content Level Progress: | 34.39% (344/1000) Level 224 Content: Mind Blower → Level 225 Content: Mind Blower |
| Comment Level Progress: | 22% (22/100) Level 232 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz → Level 233 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz |
| Subscribers: | 32 |
| Content Views: | 1574330 |
| Times Content Favorited: | 5721 times |
| Total Comments Made: | 1174 |
| FJ Points: | 27576 |
| Favorite Tags: | 40k (4) | warhammer (2) |
Pictures
- Views: 74043
1935 52
Total: +1883
Comments: 134
Favorites: 149
Uploaded: 08/07/15
Based mom strikes again - Views: 46844
1509 66
Total: +1443
Comments: 187
Favorites: 128
Uploaded: 03/05/15
based mom - Views: 47091
1576 134
Total: +1442
Comments: 189
Favorites: 82
Uploaded: 03/15/15
police the fuck - Views: 45778
1256 107
Total: +1149
Comments: 218
Favorites: 135
Uploaded: 03/06/15
Based mom VS LW - Views: 27695
824 80
Total: +744
Comments: 34
Favorites: 59
Uploaded: 03/10/15
(untitled) - Views: 33347
673 87
Total: +586
Comments: 86
Favorites: 118
Uploaded: 03/21/15
Ed Boy
Videos
- Views: 49193
1609 74
Total: +1535
Comments: 99
Favorites: 243
Uploaded: 08/31/15
When han Isn't home - Views: 42542
1456 40
Total: +1416
Comments: 197
Favorites: 339
Uploaded: 06/10/15
how to piano into pussy - Views: 44119
1437 103
Total: +1334
Comments: 180
Favorites: 191
Uploaded: 03/06/15
when mom isn't home 2, the revenge - Views: 47495
1370 80
Total: +1290
Comments: 164
Favorites: 383
Uploaded: 06/30/15
that's rude - Views: 39775
1307 85
Total: +1222
Comments: 231
Favorites: 381
Uploaded: 07/01/15
One-Word - Views: 32683
1204 25
Total: +1179
Comments: 174
Favorites: 159
Uploaded: 08/31/15
This is how you advertise
GIFs
- Views: 3491
35 4
Total: +31
Comments: 8
Favorites: 1
Uploaded: 03/25/15
120 - Views: 1304
14 2
Total: +12
Comments: 2
Favorites: 1
Uploaded: 02/01/15
(untitled)
user favorites
Alex and the Demon
Scrap & Topheavy
I Don't Want This...
Cooking on a...
SJW gets shut down.
cant tell if its...
Spooky Scary...
share your thoughts
want to rage?
the fucking newslatest user's comments
| #126 - the threat of violence is in fact a form a terrorism, as it is… [+] (1 new reply) | 1 hour ago on Tactical Dildos | 0 |
 Then a police officer is a terrorist every time he threatens to shoot someone. They said they would defend themselves if they were attacked. This is clear media semantics meant to push a partisan agenda. | ||
| #122 - The problem is, the militia has performed what is in fact a tr… [+] (3 new replies) | 1 hour ago on Tactical Dildos | 0 |
| Nobody was terrorized, so there was no terrorism. Just a bunch of dudes sitting in a building with guns, asking for non violence, away from any bystanders, not threatening anyone. Breaking the law? Sure. Terrorists? Nope. No amount of busswords or media sensationalism will change the fact that these men are being peaceful. the threat of violence is in fact a form a terrorism, as it is using the fear of said violence as a weapon hence terrorism, they claimed that they would fight if the building was advanced upon. it is the active threat of violence which makes it terrorism, just like if I threatened to blow up a building to advance my own political agenda it would be considered terrorism. Then a police officer is a terrorist every time he threatens to shoot someone. They said they would defend themselves if they were attacked. This is clear media semantics meant to push a partisan agenda. | ||
| #119 - the "peaceful" militia, and the bureau of land manag… [+] (5 new replies) | 1 hour ago on Tactical Dildos | 0 |
| Well thats what happens when you play the political buzzword game, if you go throwing around the word "terrorist" casually against your opponents then terrorist can be applied casually by your opponents. The problem is, the militia has performed what is in fact a true act of domestic terroism, they took a piece of government property forcibly in order to try to affect a change due to political motivation. 1. their motivation is already demonstrably weak, they want to fight the BLM, when the BLM's actions are well within legal areas. 2.instead of protesting in a normal way they decided to take government property 3. they state that they are protesting the court case with the hammonds, when the hammonds themselves don't wish to be associated with the militia. instead of asking to see if there could be a pardon made for the minimum sentancing issue they decided to commit an illegal act. and otherwise, the hammonds were poaching anyways and used the arson to cover it up. Nobody was terrorized, so there was no terrorism. Just a bunch of dudes sitting in a building with guns, asking for non violence, away from any bystanders, not threatening anyone. Breaking the law? Sure. Terrorists? Nope. No amount of busswords or media sensationalism will change the fact that these men are being peaceful. the threat of violence is in fact a form a terrorism, as it is using the fear of said violence as a weapon hence terrorism, they claimed that they would fight if the building was advanced upon. it is the active threat of violence which makes it terrorism, just like if I threatened to blow up a building to advance my own political agenda it would be considered terrorism. Then a police officer is a terrorist every time he threatens to shoot someone. They said they would defend themselves if they were attacked. This is clear media semantics meant to push a partisan agenda. | ||
| #117 - are talking about the same groups? [+] (7 new replies) | 1 hour ago on Tactical Dildos | 0 |
| The peaceful militiamen, the violent Black Lives Matter, and the muslims calling for violence. Who are you talking about? the "peaceful" militia, and the bureau of land management. and there are a lot of muslim groups some are violent some aren't shouldn't lump em all together. Well thats what happens when you play the political buzzword game, if you go throwing around the word "terrorist" casually against your opponents then terrorist can be applied casually by your opponents. The problem is, the militia has performed what is in fact a true act of domestic terroism, they took a piece of government property forcibly in order to try to affect a change due to political motivation. 1. their motivation is already demonstrably weak, they want to fight the BLM, when the BLM's actions are well within legal areas. 2.instead of protesting in a normal way they decided to take government property 3. they state that they are protesting the court case with the hammonds, when the hammonds themselves don't wish to be associated with the militia. instead of asking to see if there could be a pardon made for the minimum sentancing issue they decided to commit an illegal act. and otherwise, the hammonds were poaching anyways and used the arson to cover it up. Nobody was terrorized, so there was no terrorism. Just a bunch of dudes sitting in a building with guns, asking for non violence, away from any bystanders, not threatening anyone. Breaking the law? Sure. Terrorists? Nope. No amount of busswords or media sensationalism will change the fact that these men are being peaceful. the threat of violence is in fact a form a terrorism, as it is using the fear of said violence as a weapon hence terrorism, they claimed that they would fight if the building was advanced upon. it is the active threat of violence which makes it terrorism, just like if I threatened to blow up a building to advance my own political agenda it would be considered terrorism. Then a police officer is a terrorist every time he threatens to shoot someone. They said they would defend themselves if they were attacked. This is clear media semantics meant to push a partisan agenda. | ||
| #115 - of the three only one group actively broke the law. [+] (9 new replies) | 1 hour ago on Tactical Dildos | 0 |
| #116 -
youregaylol (1 hour ago) [-]  Really only one group hasn't been violent or has called on others to do violence. And it's not your dindu nuffins, chief. Also breaking the law isn't automatically terrorism. Do you want to try again, you seem to be struggling. The peaceful militiamen, the violent Black Lives Matter, and the muslims calling for violence. Who are you talking about? the "peaceful" militia, and the bureau of land management. and there are a lot of muslim groups some are violent some aren't shouldn't lump em all together. Well thats what happens when you play the political buzzword game, if you go throwing around the word "terrorist" casually against your opponents then terrorist can be applied casually by your opponents. The problem is, the militia has performed what is in fact a true act of domestic terroism, they took a piece of government property forcibly in order to try to affect a change due to political motivation. 1. their motivation is already demonstrably weak, they want to fight the BLM, when the BLM's actions are well within legal areas. 2.instead of protesting in a normal way they decided to take government property 3. they state that they are protesting the court case with the hammonds, when the hammonds themselves don't wish to be associated with the militia. instead of asking to see if there could be a pardon made for the minimum sentancing issue they decided to commit an illegal act. and otherwise, the hammonds were poaching anyways and used the arson to cover it up. Nobody was terrorized, so there was no terrorism. Just a bunch of dudes sitting in a building with guns, asking for non violence, away from any bystanders, not threatening anyone. Breaking the law? Sure. Terrorists? Nope. No amount of busswords or media sensationalism will change the fact that these men are being peaceful. the threat of violence is in fact a form a terrorism, as it is using the fear of said violence as a weapon hence terrorism, they claimed that they would fight if the building was advanced upon. it is the active threat of violence which makes it terrorism, just like if I threatened to blow up a building to advance my own political agenda it would be considered terrorism. Then a police officer is a terrorist every time he threatens to shoot someone. They said they would defend themselves if they were attacked. This is clear media semantics meant to push a partisan agenda. | ||
| #112 - set forth in the USA PATRIOT Act, acts of domestic terrorism a… [+] (11 new replies) | 1 hour ago on Tactical Dildos | +1 |
| Wow. Leftists are quoting the patriot act as a source on terrorism. I guess the horshoe theory wins out again, kek. Also I'd just like to point out that those very loose definitions could very well be applied to BLM and muslim activists calling for sharia law. Cheers. #116 -
youregaylol (1 hour ago) [-] Really only one group hasn't been violent or has called on others to do violence. And it's not your dindu nuffins, chief. Also breaking the law isn't automatically terrorism. Do you want to try again, you seem to be struggling. The peaceful militiamen, the violent Black Lives Matter, and the muslims calling for violence. Who are you talking about? the "peaceful" militia, and the bureau of land management. and there are a lot of muslim groups some are violent some aren't shouldn't lump em all together. Well thats what happens when you play the political buzzword game, if you go throwing around the word "terrorist" casually against your opponents then terrorist can be applied casually by your opponents. The problem is, the militia has performed what is in fact a true act of domestic terroism, they took a piece of government property forcibly in order to try to affect a change due to political motivation. 1. their motivation is already demonstrably weak, they want to fight the BLM, when the BLM's actions are well within legal areas. 2.instead of protesting in a normal way they decided to take government property 3. they state that they are protesting the court case with the hammonds, when the hammonds themselves don't wish to be associated with the militia. instead of asking to see if there could be a pardon made for the minimum sentancing issue they decided to commit an illegal act. and otherwise, the hammonds were poaching anyways and used the arson to cover it up. Nobody was terrorized, so there was no terrorism. Just a bunch of dudes sitting in a building with guns, asking for non violence, away from any bystanders, not threatening anyone. Breaking the law? Sure. Terrorists? Nope. No amount of busswords or media sensationalism will change the fact that these men are being peaceful. the threat of violence is in fact a form a terrorism, as it is using the fear of said violence as a weapon hence terrorism, they claimed that they would fight if the building was advanced upon. it is the active threat of violence which makes it terrorism, just like if I threatened to blow up a building to advance my own political agenda it would be considered terrorism. Then a police officer is a terrorist every time he threatens to shoot someone. They said they would defend themselves if they were attacked. This is clear media semantics meant to push a partisan agenda. | ||
| #110 - took me a minute [+] (13 new replies) | 2 hours ago on Tactical Dildos | +1 |
| #111 -
youregaylol (1 hour ago) [-]  Just to hammer the point home. Terrorism requires terrorizing people No terrorizing people, no terrorism set forth in the USA PATRIOT Act, acts of domestic terrorism are those which: "(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States." Wow. Leftists are quoting the patriot act as a source on terrorism. I guess the horshoe theory wins out again, kek. Also I'd just like to point out that those very loose definitions could very well be applied to BLM and muslim activists calling for sharia law. Cheers. #116 -
youregaylol (1 hour ago) [-] Really only one group hasn't been violent or has called on others to do violence. And it's not your dindu nuffins, chief. Also breaking the law isn't automatically terrorism. Do you want to try again, you seem to be struggling. The peaceful militiamen, the violent Black Lives Matter, and the muslims calling for violence. Who are you talking about? the "peaceful" militia, and the bureau of land management. and there are a lot of muslim groups some are violent some aren't shouldn't lump em all together. Well thats what happens when you play the political buzzword game, if you go throwing around the word "terrorist" casually against your opponents then terrorist can be applied casually by your opponents. The problem is, the militia has performed what is in fact a true act of domestic terroism, they took a piece of government property forcibly in order to try to affect a change due to political motivation. 1. their motivation is already demonstrably weak, they want to fight the BLM, when the BLM's actions are well within legal areas. 2.instead of protesting in a normal way they decided to take government property 3. they state that they are protesting the court case with the hammonds, when the hammonds themselves don't wish to be associated with the militia. instead of asking to see if there could be a pardon made for the minimum sentancing issue they decided to commit an illegal act. and otherwise, the hammonds were poaching anyways and used the arson to cover it up. Nobody was terrorized, so there was no terrorism. Just a bunch of dudes sitting in a building with guns, asking for non violence, away from any bystanders, not threatening anyone. Breaking the law? Sure. Terrorists? Nope. No amount of busswords or media sensationalism will change the fact that these men are being peaceful. the threat of violence is in fact a form a terrorism, as it is using the fear of said violence as a weapon hence terrorism, they claimed that they would fight if the building was advanced upon. it is the active threat of violence which makes it terrorism, just like if I threatened to blow up a building to advance my own political agenda it would be considered terrorism. Then a police officer is a terrorist every time he threatens to shoot someone. They said they would defend themselves if they were attacked. This is clear media semantics meant to push a partisan agenda. | ||
| #107 - >armed militia >"asking" I love being… [+] (15 new replies) | 2 hours ago on Tactical Dildos | +1 |
| #109 -
youregaylol (2 hours ago) [-] "muslim activists are following protest laws" Yes, inciting people to violence isn't terrorizing people at all. The real terrorists are the people that break laws while harming nobody. Because that makes sense. "Terrorist" means you broke the law, totally. Just like the BLM terrorists, right? Sorry, to be a terrorist requires terrorizing people. I don't care how much sjws are triggered by these evil white males, they're not being terrorized because some white dudes are sitting in a building far \away from other people while holding guns. No terrorizing, no terrorism. End of. #111 -
youregaylol (1 hour ago) [-] Just to hammer the point home. Terrorism requires terrorizing people No terrorizing people, no terrorism set forth in the USA PATRIOT Act, acts of domestic terrorism are those which: "(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States." Wow. Leftists are quoting the patriot act as a source on terrorism. I guess the horshoe theory wins out again, kek. Also I'd just like to point out that those very loose definitions could very well be applied to BLM and muslim activists calling for sharia law. Cheers. #116 -
youregaylol (1 hour ago) [-] Really only one group hasn't been violent or has called on others to do violence. And it's not your dindu nuffins, chief. Also breaking the law isn't automatically terrorism. Do you want to try again, you seem to be struggling. The peaceful militiamen, the violent Black Lives Matter, and the muslims calling for violence. Who are you talking about? the "peaceful" militia, and the bureau of land management. and there are a lot of muslim groups some are violent some aren't shouldn't lump em all together. Well thats what happens when you play the political buzzword game, if you go throwing around the word "terrorist" casually against your opponents then terrorist can be applied casually by your opponents. The problem is, the militia has performed what is in fact a true act of domestic terroism, they took a piece of government property forcibly in order to try to affect a change due to political motivation. 1. their motivation is already demonstrably weak, they want to fight the BLM, when the BLM's actions are well within legal areas. 2.instead of protesting in a normal way they decided to take government property 3. they state that they are protesting the court case with the hammonds, when the hammonds themselves don't wish to be associated with the militia. instead of asking to see if there could be a pardon made for the minimum sentancing issue they decided to commit an illegal act. and otherwise, the hammonds were poaching anyways and used the arson to cover it up. Nobody was terrorized, so there was no terrorism. Just a bunch of dudes sitting in a building with guns, asking for non violence, away from any bystanders, not threatening anyone. Breaking the law? Sure. Terrorists? Nope. No amount of busswords or media sensationalism will change the fact that these men are being peaceful. the threat of violence is in fact a form a terrorism, as it is using the fear of said violence as a weapon hence terrorism, they claimed that they would fight if the building was advanced upon. it is the active threat of violence which makes it terrorism, just like if I threatened to blow up a building to advance my own political agenda it would be considered terrorism. Then a police officer is a terrorist every time he threatens to shoot someone. They said they would defend themselves if they were attacked. This is clear media semantics meant to push a partisan agenda. | ||
| #100 - It's the united states policy to not negotiate with terrorists… [+] (17 new replies) | 2 hours ago on Tactical Dildos | +1 |
| It's cute that liberals were going out of their way to avoid the word "terrorist" when describing muslim "activists" calling for the implementation of sharia law yet now are the foremost authority on what terrorism is. Because when I think terrorism, I think people sitting in a building asking for non violent resolution not terrorizing anyone at all. Progressives shouldn't be allowed to vote. #107 -
sephirothpwnz (2 hours ago) [-]  >"asking" I love being lumped into categories, like liberal and leftist. broad generalizations tend to be common on this sight these days. muslim activists are following protest laws, not taking government owned property for their "protest" The "militia" are protesting a court sentencing decision claiming "double jeopordy" when it isn't. when the two involved agreed to go back to serve the time. Saying the land belongs to the farmers. It seems that they don't understand the Homestead act. the government is leasing the land to them, it can be taken back. >progressives shouldn't be allowed to vote how progressiveness has anything to do with this I'll never know. #109 -
youregaylol (2 hours ago) [-] "muslim activists are following protest laws" Yes, inciting people to violence isn't terrorizing people at all. The real terrorists are the people that break laws while harming nobody. Because that makes sense. "Terrorist" means you broke the law, totally. Just like the BLM terrorists, right? Sorry, to be a terrorist requires terrorizing people. I don't care how much sjws are triggered by these evil white males, they're not being terrorized because some white dudes are sitting in a building far \away from other people while holding guns. No terrorizing, no terrorism. End of. #111 -
youregaylol (1 hour ago) [-] Just to hammer the point home. Terrorism requires terrorizing people No terrorizing people, no terrorism set forth in the USA PATRIOT Act, acts of domestic terrorism are those which: "(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States." Wow. Leftists are quoting the patriot act as a source on terrorism. I guess the horshoe theory wins out again, kek. Also I'd just like to point out that those very loose definitions could very well be applied to BLM and muslim activists calling for sharia law. Cheers. #116 -
youregaylol (1 hour ago) [-] Really only one group hasn't been violent or has called on others to do violence. And it's not your dindu nuffins, chief. Also breaking the law isn't automatically terrorism. Do you want to try again, you seem to be struggling. The peaceful militiamen, the violent Black Lives Matter, and the muslims calling for violence. Who are you talking about? the "peaceful" militia, and the bureau of land management. and there are a lot of muslim groups some are violent some aren't shouldn't lump em all together. Well thats what happens when you play the political buzzword game, if you go throwing around the word "terrorist" casually against your opponents then terrorist can be applied casually by your opponents. The problem is, the militia has performed what is in fact a true act of domestic terroism, they took a piece of government property forcibly in order to try to affect a change due to political motivation. 1. their motivation is already demonstrably weak, they want to fight the BLM, when the BLM's actions are well within legal areas. 2.instead of protesting in a normal way they decided to take government property 3. they state that they are protesting the court case with the hammonds, when the hammonds themselves don't wish to be associated with the militia. instead of asking to see if there could be a pardon made for the minimum sentancing issue they decided to commit an illegal act. and otherwise, the hammonds were poaching anyways and used the arson to cover it up. Nobody was terrorized, so there was no terrorism. Just a bunch of dudes sitting in a building with guns, asking for non violence, away from any bystanders, not threatening anyone. Breaking the law? Sure. Terrorists? Nope. No amount of busswords or media sensationalism will change the fact that these men are being peaceful. the threat of violence is in fact a form a terrorism, as it is using the fear of said violence as a weapon hence terrorism, they claimed that they would fight if the building was advanced upon. it is the active threat of violence which makes it terrorism, just like if I threatened to blow up a building to advance my own political agenda it would be considered terrorism. Then a police officer is a terrorist every time he threatens to shoot someone. They said they would defend themselves if they were attacked. This is clear media semantics meant to push a partisan agenda. | ||
| #5 - sauce is himegoto | 01/05/2016 on the cutest trap (admin mercy) | 0 |
user's channels
user's friends
animekami
connorusinvictus
fooby
itachisama
jackmaccone
razamuliel
sebring
themarineeliteAnonymous comments allowed.
24 comments displayed.
#6
-
sebring (03/11/2015) [-] Sasuke-sama let's do it on sephirothpwns' profile,
Sakura-tan no we must leave here
Sakura-tan no we must leave here
#4
-
captainwow (03/01/2015) [-] Any plans on doing a Tyranid comp? I've actually thought about doing one for a while, but I'm not really in the comp business.
#5 to #4
-
sephirothpwnz (03/05/2015) [-] gotta finish the space marines first but yeah
if you want to do it then just do it?
if you want to do it then just do it?
#1
-
themarineelite (09/26/2014) [-] You have the chance to become thelizardlord of Warhammer 40k. PLEASE DO IT FOR THE EMPEROR!
