sgtmajjohnson
Rank #32 on Comments
Level 313 Comments: Wizard Offline
Send mail to sgtmajjohnson Block sgtmajjohnson Invite sgtmajjohnson to be your friend flag avatar
| Last status update: | -
|
| | |
| Personal Info | |
| Date Signed Up: | 11/29/2015 |
| Last Login: | 1/14/2016 |
| FunnyJunk Career Stats | |
| Comment Ranking: | #32 |
| Highest Comment Rank: | #32 |
| Comment Thumbs: | 18663 total,
19514 ,
851 |
| Content Level Progress: | 6.77% (4/59) Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here |
| Comment Level Progress: | 23.3% (233/1000) Level 313 Comments: Wizard → Level 314 Comments: Wizard |
| Subscribers: | 1 |
| Total Comments Made: | 2067 |
| FJ Points: | 13234 |
latest user's comments
| #11 - Why though? It's unwieldy and stupid, but doesn't seem exceedi… [+] (10 new replies) | 19 hours ago on Meanwhile in Arizona | 0 |
 I can only speak for the area I live in, but we have restrictions on blade length and on the mechanism for opening on knives that can be carried in public. Such laws were probably not written with the kind of knife shown above in mind, but it would be subject to regulation under those same laws. We have those here, too. I'm just wondering why he's saying it like it's somehow ridiculous to have that knife specifically be legal. Just because something doesn't have much of a purpose doesn't mean we should make it illegal.  The reason it's illegal in Australia To my understanding was that cops were getting killed because there was no time to react between "mildly aggravated unarmed drunk" and "Spring loaded knife in the gut". You can still get them, but you need a collectors license and a clean criminal record, and you show up as a potential suspect for violent crimes in your area. Similarly, you can actually just buy lockpicking sets and stuff here. You need a locksmiths license and you're automatically a suspect for break ins in your area, but still.  Holy shit, does your government really assume suspicion like that? That's kinda fucked up. I'm not talking about switchblades in general, just the one in the content. Besides, I'm pretty sure you're not worried about avoiding the police if you use that monstrosity in a crime. "Yeah, the guy was holding a switchblade 3 feet long." "Well, there are exactly 2 people in the country that own those, we just need to figure out which one it was."  It was made illegal because it was associated with gang violence. The popular image of a punk in a leather jacket with a switchblade and all that. | ||
| #24 - Russia's always dangerously close, especially considering thei… [+] (2 new replies) | 19 hours ago on Trying to be friendly | 0 |
| I don't have an issue with the descendants either, more with the fact that the Russian government thinks something belongs to them if they have ethnic citizens in that area. | ||
| #13 - You too, friend. [+] (5 new replies) | 19 hours ago on 7 long years as president | +2 |
| | ||
| #11 - Don't be ridiculous. He was shot in the back of the head. [+] (8 new replies) | 19 hours ago on 7 long years as president | +31 |
| | ||
| #9 - FDR after 12 goddamn years of Great Depression, World War 2, a… [+] (34 new replies) | 20 hours ago on 7 long years as president | +142 |
| #190 -
anon (6 hours ago) [-] There weren't neither 320 mil people in USA, nor 17 tr $ GDP back then. Gee, thanks anon. Why don't I just go correct my figures for every one of them to reflect population and GDP? I used present tense for a reason. My statement was meant to highlight the stress factors on the President in general. #70 -
anon (15 hours ago) [-] THIS. THIIIIS. Politically ignorant people (including the pseudo-intellectuals who know something but not enough) lay all the blame at one person's feet because he's the most visible, not giving a thought to what goes on when the cameras aren't rolling. I've seen more inane shit attributed to Obama than a President even has the power to DO. It's like FJ, but in real life, everyone jumps on the anonymous hate bandwagon and rides it around like a gaggle of idiots. The man wasn't perfect, but he sure wasn't the devil, and many of the problems we attribute to Obama's administration were leftover messes from the Bush administration, especially with the Patriot Act in play. People who know how politics are actually played will understand that no amount of power short of absolute tyrannical divine right will allow you to snap your fingers and fix shit, which would MAKE you responsible for everything. Meanwhile the shit-eating bastards responsible for most of our problems remain faceless and nameless to the rest of us, and even if consistently exposed would be defended by half the country in a fit of blind self-destructive small-minded loyalty. You kinda did the same thing when you attributed it to Bush, though. Obama isn't to blame for all of our problems, but it's been 8 years since Bush left office- you can't pin everything on him either. People do also attribute good shit to the president too, like the low gas prices under Obama, or the assignment of complete responsibility for America's recovery following the Depression to FDR.  I'd blame Bush's Cabinet and Congress, not Bush himself. I think people fail to realize that the president doesn't really have as much power as we think they do. Sure, If a president is capable of wielding the full power of the office (e.g. Andrew Jackson, both Roosevelts, JFK), then they can pretty much do anything they goddamn please (e.g. trail of tears, muckraking and regulation, WWII and fixing the economy, Marilyn Monroe). That usually only happens if the congress allows it to happen. Jackson got away with all of that terrible shit he did because there weren't so many limits to his power. In fact, Jackson is the reason there are so many limits to presidential power. Idk, there are a lot of things to consider. I think it's even worse when a congress refuses to work with the president on anything (like our current congress. Compromise is key, assholes) "Marilyn Monroe" took me a second. Funny as fuck; she wasn't the only one JFK was all up in either. FDR did try to dangerously expand executive power, though, and nearly destroyed the system of checks and balances. It seems to me that the way it's been until very recently is that Democrats dictated legislation, and in order to compromise Republicans would need to accept provisions that they opposed with no benefit to themselves. It's like saying: "These are my fries!" "Well, I want your fries!" "No, they're mine!" "Well, just give me half of them then." "No, they're all mine!" "Why aren't you ever willing to compromise? You're being irrational." It's a bit more complicated but that's what it feels like sometimes. Yeah, I understand that point of view. I look at Obamacare as a good example of how compromise doesn't always work, and how party politics gets in the way of progress. The original bill was written by a republican (Mitt Romney if I'm not mistaken), and the democrats liked the bill. But when Obama wants to adopt it and build on it, all of a sudden, the entire republican body in the House is no longer on board. And then they compromise and make all these bullshit ammendments that completely warp and twist this previously efficient and simple system, all because the democratic president said it was a good idea. I'll admit, it's more complicated than that, but that's the sparknotes version. What frustrates me the most is how a lot of republican congressmen will get chastised and ostracized because they worked with those on the other side of the aisle. Poeple take too much pride in their party affiliations and it pisses me off that we base our judgements of people by who they voted for. Sure you are. I forgot the president ran a human trafficking ring to balance the budget. #56 -
selfdenyingbeggar (15 hours ago) [-] Your journey to discover that will start by examining real close and with crystal-clear clarity, the nature of our financial system. #62 -
selfdenyingbeggar (15 hours ago) [-] the fact that you don't consider it necessary knowledge, when money (currently and probably) is the backbone of your survival in this planet, is testimony of your conditioning. Dude, I have no idea what you're on about. You're writing in extremely vague half-sentences, and you talk like a fucking guru or mystic of some sort. O wise selfdenyingbeggar, what insight will you grant me about the name of the U.S. and what currency is? What conditioning? Like indoctrination? What are you talking about? #65 -
selfdenyingbeggar (15 hours ago) [-] well, Im not here to change your opinion but to present you with reality because I kow there are chances you've been conditioned to have a particular worldview already, which might be very innaccurate, on purpose. The search is for you to do. For starters, I could tell you that you're looking at the debt relationship with money, basically, debt is money in our system (since we separated from the gold-standard) and the "rabbit hole2 goes so much deeper is crazy, but at least you can go and look at the cold hard facts and decide for yourself. All I'd ask you right know is to ask yourself and be honest about ow much you really know about how the world works, or just the financial system, and how much are assumptions based on "everybody else seems to be alright with it, must be something good"? #94 -
anon (14 hours ago) [-] >gold standard And you lost the last of your credibility there. Gold is no more inherently valuable than the paper money that we use today it's an excellent conductor, but it's used in such small amounts that that's barely worth mentioning . If you seriously think gold is a good thing to base your economy on, ask the Spanish how well it works. #101 -
anon (13 hours ago) [-] You have zero idea what you're talking about. I mentioned that gold is an extremely good conductor. It is not a superconductor as far as I know, at any temperature, and certainly not at remotely practical ones . The need for gold as a conductor is far outweighed by its abundance, with other materials being more practical for most applications. Gold is used for its conductivity, but measurable quantities are usually not. #163 -
innocentbabies (10 hours ago) [-] And between paper which money is most definitely not printed on and a conductor which has a handful of extremely niche uses, and which is, as a conductor, less effective than both silver and copper the only advantage it has over those two is unrivaled corrosion resistance , which do you think is more useful? Ok, Neo. Finances and governance are not all that complicated, but I appreciate the attempted redpilling. You do realize you sound exactly like the shpiders guy with your "read the facts" schtick, right? It's printed. But seriously. American currency is fiat money, which means it gets it's value from government decree. With fiat money, the central bank (in this case the Federal Reserve), introduces new money via the purchase of intangible assets (i.e. bonds/stocks and other forms of fairly liquid assets) or through moneylending. Through the use of fractional reserve lending, other banks increase the amount of currency beyond the base money from there. The Federal Reserve manages the overall money supply, expanding or contracting the assets available as needed. #137 -
selfdenyingbeggar (12 hours ago) [-] could it be that an unpayable interest is behind debt and inflation, amongst other things? #95 -
selfdenyingbeggar (14 hours ago) [-] Who prints the actual money. how much money can they print. Do the Federal Reserve (private corporation) charge governments interest on the money they print? You do realize that physical money in circulation accounts for less than 10% of total assets in the U.S. economy, right? Listen man, I don't want to do this all night so: 1. I already covered how much they are allowed to print (or rather, who regulates the printing of money). 2.The U.S. Bureau of Engraving and Printing. 3. Yes, the Federal Reserve does charge interest. I'm really not that interested, I'm sure you can find someone else to give your spiel to. That was why I wrote polio, although there actually is some dispute as to whether his ailments stem from polio. | ||
| #8 - Bush Jr. [+] (36 new replies) | 20 hours ago on 7 long years as president | +94 |
| #9 -
sgtmajjohnson (20 hours ago) [-]  #190 -
anon (6 hours ago) [-] There weren't neither 320 mil people in USA, nor 17 tr $ GDP back then. Gee, thanks anon. Why don't I just go correct my figures for every one of them to reflect population and GDP? I used present tense for a reason. My statement was meant to highlight the stress factors on the President in general. #70 -
anon (15 hours ago) [-] THIS. THIIIIS. Politically ignorant people (including the pseudo-intellectuals who know something but not enough) lay all the blame at one person's feet because he's the most visible, not giving a thought to what goes on when the cameras aren't rolling. I've seen more inane shit attributed to Obama than a President even has the power to DO. It's like FJ, but in real life, everyone jumps on the anonymous hate bandwagon and rides it around like a gaggle of idiots. The man wasn't perfect, but he sure wasn't the devil, and many of the problems we attribute to Obama's administration were leftover messes from the Bush administration, especially with the Patriot Act in play. People who know how politics are actually played will understand that no amount of power short of absolute tyrannical divine right will allow you to snap your fingers and fix shit, which would MAKE you responsible for everything. Meanwhile the shit-eating bastards responsible for most of our problems remain faceless and nameless to the rest of us, and even if consistently exposed would be defended by half the country in a fit of blind self-destructive small-minded loyalty. You kinda did the same thing when you attributed it to Bush, though. Obama isn't to blame for all of our problems, but it's been 8 years since Bush left office- you can't pin everything on him either. People do also attribute good shit to the president too, like the low gas prices under Obama, or the assignment of complete responsibility for America's recovery following the Depression to FDR. I'd blame Bush's Cabinet and Congress, not Bush himself. I think people fail to realize that the president doesn't really have as much power as we think they do. Sure, If a president is capable of wielding the full power of the office (e.g. Andrew Jackson, both Roosevelts, JFK), then they can pretty much do anything they goddamn please (e.g. trail of tears, muckraking and regulation, WWII and fixing the economy, Marilyn Monroe). That usually only happens if the congress allows it to happen. Jackson got away with all of that terrible shit he did because there weren't so many limits to his power. In fact, Jackson is the reason there are so many limits to presidential power. Idk, there are a lot of things to consider. I think it's even worse when a congress refuses to work with the president on anything (like our current congress. Compromise is key, assholes) "Marilyn Monroe" took me a second. Funny as fuck; she wasn't the only one JFK was all up in either. FDR did try to dangerously expand executive power, though, and nearly destroyed the system of checks and balances. It seems to me that the way it's been until very recently is that Democrats dictated legislation, and in order to compromise Republicans would need to accept provisions that they opposed with no benefit to themselves. It's like saying: "These are my fries!" "Well, I want your fries!" "No, they're mine!" "Well, just give me half of them then." "No, they're all mine!" "Why aren't you ever willing to compromise? You're being irrational." It's a bit more complicated but that's what it feels like sometimes. Yeah, I understand that point of view. I look at Obamacare as a good example of how compromise doesn't always work, and how party politics gets in the way of progress. The original bill was written by a republican (Mitt Romney if I'm not mistaken), and the democrats liked the bill. But when Obama wants to adopt it and build on it, all of a sudden, the entire republican body in the House is no longer on board. And then they compromise and make all these bullshit ammendments that completely warp and twist this previously efficient and simple system, all because the democratic president said it was a good idea. I'll admit, it's more complicated than that, but that's the sparknotes version. What frustrates me the most is how a lot of republican congressmen will get chastised and ostracized because they worked with those on the other side of the aisle. Poeple take too much pride in their party affiliations and it pisses me off that we base our judgements of people by who they voted for. Sure you are. I forgot the president ran a human trafficking ring to balance the budget. #56 -
selfdenyingbeggar (15 hours ago) [-] Your journey to discover that will start by examining real close and with crystal-clear clarity, the nature of our financial system. #62 -
selfdenyingbeggar (15 hours ago) [-] the fact that you don't consider it necessary knowledge, when money (currently and probably) is the backbone of your survival in this planet, is testimony of your conditioning. Dude, I have no idea what you're on about. You're writing in extremely vague half-sentences, and you talk like a fucking guru or mystic of some sort. O wise selfdenyingbeggar, what insight will you grant me about the name of the U.S. and what currency is? What conditioning? Like indoctrination? What are you talking about? #65 -
selfdenyingbeggar (15 hours ago) [-] well, Im not here to change your opinion but to present you with reality because I kow there are chances you've been conditioned to have a particular worldview already, which might be very innaccurate, on purpose. The search is for you to do. For starters, I could tell you that you're looking at the debt relationship with money, basically, debt is money in our system (since we separated from the gold-standard) and the "rabbit hole2 goes so much deeper is crazy, but at least you can go and look at the cold hard facts and decide for yourself. All I'd ask you right know is to ask yourself and be honest about ow much you really know about how the world works, or just the financial system, and how much are assumptions based on "everybody else seems to be alright with it, must be something good"? #94 -
anon (14 hours ago) [-] >gold standard And you lost the last of your credibility there. Gold is no more inherently valuable than the paper money that we use today it's an excellent conductor, but it's used in such small amounts that that's barely worth mentioning . If you seriously think gold is a good thing to base your economy on, ask the Spanish how well it works. #101 -
anon (13 hours ago) [-] You have zero idea what you're talking about. I mentioned that gold is an extremely good conductor. It is not a superconductor as far as I know, at any temperature, and certainly not at remotely practical ones . The need for gold as a conductor is far outweighed by its abundance, with other materials being more practical for most applications. Gold is used for its conductivity, but measurable quantities are usually not. #163 -
innocentbabies (10 hours ago) [-] And between paper which money is most definitely not printed on and a conductor which has a handful of extremely niche uses, and which is, as a conductor, less effective than both silver and copper the only advantage it has over those two is unrivaled corrosion resistance , which do you think is more useful? Ok, Neo. Finances and governance are not all that complicated, but I appreciate the attempted redpilling. You do realize you sound exactly like the shpiders guy with your "read the facts" schtick, right? It's printed. But seriously. American currency is fiat money, which means it gets it's value from government decree. With fiat money, the central bank (in this case the Federal Reserve), introduces new money via the purchase of intangible assets (i.e. bonds/stocks and other forms of fairly liquid assets) or through moneylending. Through the use of fractional reserve lending, other banks increase the amount of currency beyond the base money from there. The Federal Reserve manages the overall money supply, expanding or contracting the assets available as needed. #137 -
selfdenyingbeggar (12 hours ago) [-] could it be that an unpayable interest is behind debt and inflation, amongst other things? #95 -
selfdenyingbeggar (14 hours ago) [-] Who prints the actual money. how much money can they print. Do the Federal Reserve (private corporation) charge governments interest on the money they print? You do realize that physical money in circulation accounts for less than 10% of total assets in the U.S. economy, right? Listen man, I don't want to do this all night so: 1. I already covered how much they are allowed to print (or rather, who regulates the printing of money). 2.The U.S. Bureau of Engraving and Printing. 3. Yes, the Federal Reserve does charge interest. I'm really not that interested, I'm sure you can find someone else to give your spiel to. That was why I wrote polio, although there actually is some dispute as to whether his ailments stem from polio. | ||
| #7 - Comment deleted | 20 hours ago on 7 long years as president | 0 |
| #6 - Nixon. [+] (40 new replies) | 20 hours ago on 7 long years as president | +69 |
| #9 -
sgtmajjohnson (20 hours ago) [-] #190 -
anon (6 hours ago) [-] There weren't neither 320 mil people in USA, nor 17 tr $ GDP back then. Gee, thanks anon. Why don't I just go correct my figures for every one of them to reflect population and GDP? I used present tense for a reason. My statement was meant to highlight the stress factors on the President in general. #70 -
anon (15 hours ago) [-] THIS. THIIIIS. Politically ignorant people (including the pseudo-intellectuals who know something but not enough) lay all the blame at one person's feet because he's the most visible, not giving a thought to what goes on when the cameras aren't rolling. I've seen more inane shit attributed to Obama than a President even has the power to DO. It's like FJ, but in real life, everyone jumps on the anonymous hate bandwagon and rides it around like a gaggle of idiots. The man wasn't perfect, but he sure wasn't the devil, and many of the problems we attribute to Obama's administration were leftover messes from the Bush administration, especially with the Patriot Act in play. People who know how politics are actually played will understand that no amount of power short of absolute tyrannical divine right will allow you to snap your fingers and fix shit, which would MAKE you responsible for everything. Meanwhile the shit-eating bastards responsible for most of our problems remain faceless and nameless to the rest of us, and even if consistently exposed would be defended by half the country in a fit of blind self-destructive small-minded loyalty. You kinda did the same thing when you attributed it to Bush, though. Obama isn't to blame for all of our problems, but it's been 8 years since Bush left office- you can't pin everything on him either. People do also attribute good shit to the president too, like the low gas prices under Obama, or the assignment of complete responsibility for America's recovery following the Depression to FDR. I'd blame Bush's Cabinet and Congress, not Bush himself. I think people fail to realize that the president doesn't really have as much power as we think they do. Sure, If a president is capable of wielding the full power of the office (e.g. Andrew Jackson, both Roosevelts, JFK), then they can pretty much do anything they goddamn please (e.g. trail of tears, muckraking and regulation, WWII and fixing the economy, Marilyn Monroe). That usually only happens if the congress allows it to happen. Jackson got away with all of that terrible shit he did because there weren't so many limits to his power. In fact, Jackson is the reason there are so many limits to presidential power. Idk, there are a lot of things to consider. I think it's even worse when a congress refuses to work with the president on anything (like our current congress. Compromise is key, assholes) "Marilyn Monroe" took me a second. Funny as fuck; she wasn't the only one JFK was all up in either. FDR did try to dangerously expand executive power, though, and nearly destroyed the system of checks and balances. It seems to me that the way it's been until very recently is that Democrats dictated legislation, and in order to compromise Republicans would need to accept provisions that they opposed with no benefit to themselves. It's like saying: "These are my fries!" "Well, I want your fries!" "No, they're mine!" "Well, just give me half of them then." "No, they're all mine!" "Why aren't you ever willing to compromise? You're being irrational." It's a bit more complicated but that's what it feels like sometimes. Yeah, I understand that point of view. I look at Obamacare as a good example of how compromise doesn't always work, and how party politics gets in the way of progress. The original bill was written by a republican (Mitt Romney if I'm not mistaken), and the democrats liked the bill. But when Obama wants to adopt it and build on it, all of a sudden, the entire republican body in the House is no longer on board. And then they compromise and make all these bullshit ammendments that completely warp and twist this previously efficient and simple system, all because the democratic president said it was a good idea. I'll admit, it's more complicated than that, but that's the sparknotes version. What frustrates me the most is how a lot of republican congressmen will get chastised and ostracized because they worked with those on the other side of the aisle. Poeple take too much pride in their party affiliations and it pisses me off that we base our judgements of people by who they voted for. Sure you are. I forgot the president ran a human trafficking ring to balance the budget. #56 -
selfdenyingbeggar (15 hours ago) [-] Your journey to discover that will start by examining real close and with crystal-clear clarity, the nature of our financial system. #62 -
selfdenyingbeggar (15 hours ago) [-] the fact that you don't consider it necessary knowledge, when money (currently and probably) is the backbone of your survival in this planet, is testimony of your conditioning. Dude, I have no idea what you're on about. You're writing in extremely vague half-sentences, and you talk like a fucking guru or mystic of some sort. O wise selfdenyingbeggar, what insight will you grant me about the name of the U.S. and what currency is? What conditioning? Like indoctrination? What are you talking about? #65 -
selfdenyingbeggar (15 hours ago) [-] well, Im not here to change your opinion but to present you with reality because I kow there are chances you've been conditioned to have a particular worldview already, which might be very innaccurate, on purpose. The search is for you to do. For starters, I could tell you that you're looking at the debt relationship with money, basically, debt is money in our system (since we separated from the gold-standard) and the "rabbit hole2 goes so much deeper is crazy, but at least you can go and look at the cold hard facts and decide for yourself. All I'd ask you right know is to ask yourself and be honest about ow much you really know about how the world works, or just the financial system, and how much are assumptions based on "everybody else seems to be alright with it, must be something good"? #94 -
anon (14 hours ago) [-] >gold standard And you lost the last of your credibility there. Gold is no more inherently valuable than the paper money that we use today it's an excellent conductor, but it's used in such small amounts that that's barely worth mentioning . If you seriously think gold is a good thing to base your economy on, ask the Spanish how well it works. #101 -
anon (13 hours ago) [-] You have zero idea what you're talking about. I mentioned that gold is an extremely good conductor. It is not a superconductor as far as I know, at any temperature, and certainly not at remotely practical ones . The need for gold as a conductor is far outweighed by its abundance, with other materials being more practical for most applications. Gold is used for its conductivity, but measurable quantities are usually not. #163 -
innocentbabies (10 hours ago) [-] And between paper which money is most definitely not printed on and a conductor which has a handful of extremely niche uses, and which is, as a conductor, less effective than both silver and copper the only advantage it has over those two is unrivaled corrosion resistance , which do you think is more useful? Ok, Neo. Finances and governance are not all that complicated, but I appreciate the attempted redpilling. You do realize you sound exactly like the shpiders guy with your "read the facts" schtick, right? It's printed. But seriously. American currency is fiat money, which means it gets it's value from government decree. With fiat money, the central bank (in this case the Federal Reserve), introduces new money via the purchase of intangible assets (i.e. bonds/stocks and other forms of fairly liquid assets) or through moneylending. Through the use of fractional reserve lending, other banks increase the amount of currency beyond the base money from there. The Federal Reserve manages the overall money supply, expanding or contracting the assets available as needed. #137 -
selfdenyingbeggar (12 hours ago) [-] could it be that an unpayable interest is behind debt and inflation, amongst other things? #95 -
selfdenyingbeggar (14 hours ago) [-] Who prints the actual money. how much money can they print. Do the Federal Reserve (private corporation) charge governments interest on the money they print? You do realize that physical money in circulation accounts for less than 10% of total assets in the U.S. economy, right? Listen man, I don't want to do this all night so: 1. I already covered how much they are allowed to print (or rather, who regulates the printing of money). 2.The U.S. Bureau of Engraving and Printing. 3. Yes, the Federal Reserve does charge interest. I'm really not that interested, I'm sure you can find someone else to give your spiel to. That was why I wrote polio, although there actually is some dispute as to whether his ailments stem from polio. | ||
| #5 - Lincoln. [+] (61 new replies) | 20 hours ago on 7 long years as president | +115 |
| #196 -
bleeduntildeath (5 hours ago) [-] I bet if he knew how he would end his presidency in 1865, his mind would be blown!  I like how everytime you see a before and after president shot it's usually happy at first then completely miserable, whereas with Lincoln he's shitty at the beginning and at the end he's like, "aww yeah, can't wait to finish and go retire somewhere quiet" Yeah, that was the joke, expecting to go retire on a nice piece of land but not knowing what's around the corner Bill Nye is probably more beloved by Americans than Lincoln, tbh. #9 -
sgtmajjohnson (20 hours ago) [-] #190 -
anon (6 hours ago) [-] There weren't neither 320 mil people in USA, nor 17 tr $ GDP back then. Gee, thanks anon. Why don't I just go correct my figures for every one of them to reflect population and GDP? I used present tense for a reason. My statement was meant to highlight the stress factors on the President in general. #70 -
anon (15 hours ago) [-] THIS. THIIIIS. Politically ignorant people (including the pseudo-intellectuals who know something but not enough) lay all the blame at one person's feet because he's the most visible, not giving a thought to what goes on when the cameras aren't rolling. I've seen more inane shit attributed to Obama than a President even has the power to DO. It's like FJ, but in real life, everyone jumps on the anonymous hate bandwagon and rides it around like a gaggle of idiots. The man wasn't perfect, but he sure wasn't the devil, and many of the problems we attribute to Obama's administration were leftover messes from the Bush administration, especially with the Patriot Act in play. People who know how politics are actually played will understand that no amount of power short of absolute tyrannical divine right will allow you to snap your fingers and fix shit, which would MAKE you responsible for everything. Meanwhile the shit-eating bastards responsible for most of our problems remain faceless and nameless to the rest of us, and even if consistently exposed would be defended by half the country in a fit of blind self-destructive small-minded loyalty. You kinda did the same thing when you attributed it to Bush, though. Obama isn't to blame for all of our problems, but it's been 8 years since Bush left office- you can't pin everything on him either. People do also attribute good shit to the president too, like the low gas prices under Obama, or the assignment of complete responsibility for America's recovery following the Depression to FDR. I'd blame Bush's Cabinet and Congress, not Bush himself. I think people fail to realize that the president doesn't really have as much power as we think they do. Sure, If a president is capable of wielding the full power of the office (e.g. Andrew Jackson, both Roosevelts, JFK), then they can pretty much do anything they goddamn please (e.g. trail of tears, muckraking and regulation, WWII and fixing the economy, Marilyn Monroe). That usually only happens if the congress allows it to happen. Jackson got away with all of that terrible shit he did because there weren't so many limits to his power. In fact, Jackson is the reason there are so many limits to presidential power. Idk, there are a lot of things to consider. I think it's even worse when a congress refuses to work with the president on anything (like our current congress. Compromise is key, assholes) "Marilyn Monroe" took me a second. Funny as fuck; she wasn't the only one JFK was all up in either. FDR did try to dangerously expand executive power, though, and nearly destroyed the system of checks and balances. It seems to me that the way it's been until very recently is that Democrats dictated legislation, and in order to compromise Republicans would need to accept provisions that they opposed with no benefit to themselves. It's like saying: "These are my fries!" "Well, I want your fries!" "No, they're mine!" "Well, just give me half of them then." "No, they're all mine!" "Why aren't you ever willing to compromise? You're being irrational." It's a bit more complicated but that's what it feels like sometimes. Yeah, I understand that point of view. I look at Obamacare as a good example of how compromise doesn't always work, and how party politics gets in the way of progress. The original bill was written by a republican (Mitt Romney if I'm not mistaken), and the democrats liked the bill. But when Obama wants to adopt it and build on it, all of a sudden, the entire republican body in the House is no longer on board. And then they compromise and make all these bullshit ammendments that completely warp and twist this previously efficient and simple system, all because the democratic president said it was a good idea. I'll admit, it's more complicated than that, but that's the sparknotes version. What frustrates me the most is how a lot of republican congressmen will get chastised and ostracized because they worked with those on the other side of the aisle. Poeple take too much pride in their party affiliations and it pisses me off that we base our judgements of people by who they voted for. Sure you are. I forgot the president ran a human trafficking ring to balance the budget. #56 -
selfdenyingbeggar (15 hours ago) [-] Your journey to discover that will start by examining real close and with crystal-clear clarity, the nature of our financial system. #62 -
selfdenyingbeggar (15 hours ago) [-] the fact that you don't consider it necessary knowledge, when money (currently and probably) is the backbone of your survival in this planet, is testimony of your conditioning. Dude, I have no idea what you're on about. You're writing in extremely vague half-sentences, and you talk like a fucking guru or mystic of some sort. O wise selfdenyingbeggar, what insight will you grant me about the name of the U.S. and what currency is? What conditioning? Like indoctrination? What are you talking about? #65 -
selfdenyingbeggar (15 hours ago) [-] well, Im not here to change your opinion but to present you with reality because I kow there are chances you've been conditioned to have a particular worldview already, which might be very innaccurate, on purpose. The search is for you to do. For starters, I could tell you that you're looking at the debt relationship with money, basically, debt is money in our system (since we separated from the gold-standard) and the "rabbit hole2 goes so much deeper is crazy, but at least you can go and look at the cold hard facts and decide for yourself. All I'd ask you right know is to ask yourself and be honest about ow much you really know about how the world works, or just the financial system, and how much are assumptions based on "everybody else seems to be alright with it, must be something good"? #94 -
anon (14 hours ago) [-] >gold standard And you lost the last of your credibility there. Gold is no more inherently valuable than the paper money that we use today it's an excellent conductor, but it's used in such small amounts that that's barely worth mentioning . If you seriously think gold is a good thing to base your economy on, ask the Spanish how well it works. #101 -
anon (13 hours ago) [-] You have zero idea what you're talking about. I mentioned that gold is an extremely good conductor. It is not a superconductor as far as I know, at any temperature, and certainly not at remotely practical ones . The need for gold as a conductor is far outweighed by its abundance, with other materials being more practical for most applications. Gold is used for its conductivity, but measurable quantities are usually not. #163 -
innocentbabies (10 hours ago) [-] And between paper which money is most definitely not printed on and a conductor which has a handful of extremely niche uses, and which is, as a conductor, less effective than both silver and copper the only advantage it has over those two is unrivaled corrosion resistance , which do you think is more useful? Ok, Neo. Finances and governance are not all that complicated, but I appreciate the attempted redpilling. You do realize you sound exactly like the shpiders guy with your "read the facts" schtick, right? It's printed. But seriously. American currency is fiat money, which means it gets it's value from government decree. With fiat money, the central bank (in this case the Federal Reserve), introduces new money via the purchase of intangible assets (i.e. bonds/stocks and other forms of fairly liquid assets) or through moneylending. Through the use of fractional reserve lending, other banks increase the amount of currency beyond the base money from there. The Federal Reserve manages the overall money supply, expanding or contracting the assets available as needed. #137 -
selfdenyingbeggar (12 hours ago) [-] could it be that an unpayable interest is behind debt and inflation, amongst other things? #95 -
selfdenyingbeggar (14 hours ago) [-] Who prints the actual money. how much money can they print. Do the Federal Reserve (private corporation) charge governments interest on the money they print? You do realize that physical money in circulation accounts for less than 10% of total assets in the U.S. economy, right? Listen man, I don't want to do this all night so: 1. I already covered how much they are allowed to print (or rather, who regulates the printing of money). 2.The U.S. Bureau of Engraving and Printing. 3. Yes, the Federal Reserve does charge interest. I'm really not that interested, I'm sure you can find someone else to give your spiel to. That was why I wrote polio, although there actually is some dispute as to whether his ailments stem from polio. | ||
| #4 - This happens to most presidents. Clinton after 8 years. [+] (67 new replies) | 20 hours ago on 7 long years as president | +227 |
| #60 -
anon (15 hours ago) [-] How the hell is becoming president just to get laid easy? Bitch might as well be fort knox if thats what it takes. I meant that if he had the height of an Oompa Loompa, he could get right up a skirt. #196 -
bleeduntildeath (5 hours ago) [-] I bet if he knew how he would end his presidency in 1865, his mind would be blown! I like how everytime you see a before and after president shot it's usually happy at first then completely miserable, whereas with Lincoln he's shitty at the beginning and at the end he's like, "aww yeah, can't wait to finish and go retire somewhere quiet" Yeah, that was the joke, expecting to go retire on a nice piece of land but not knowing what's around the corner Bill Nye is probably more beloved by Americans than Lincoln, tbh. #9 -
sgtmajjohnson (20 hours ago) [-] #190 -
anon (6 hours ago) [-] There weren't neither 320 mil people in USA, nor 17 tr $ GDP back then. Gee, thanks anon. Why don't I just go correct my figures for every one of them to reflect population and GDP? I used present tense for a reason. My statement was meant to highlight the stress factors on the President in general. #70 -
anon (15 hours ago) [-] THIS. THIIIIS. Politically ignorant people (including the pseudo-intellectuals who know something but not enough) lay all the blame at one person's feet because he's the most visible, not giving a thought to what goes on when the cameras aren't rolling. I've seen more inane shit attributed to Obama than a President even has the power to DO. It's like FJ, but in real life, everyone jumps on the anonymous hate bandwagon and rides it around like a gaggle of idiots. The man wasn't perfect, but he sure wasn't the devil, and many of the problems we attribute to Obama's administration were leftover messes from the Bush administration, especially with the Patriot Act in play. People who know how politics are actually played will understand that no amount of power short of absolute tyrannical divine right will allow you to snap your fingers and fix shit, which would MAKE you responsible for everything. Meanwhile the shit-eating bastards responsible for most of our problems remain faceless and nameless to the rest of us, and even if consistently exposed would be defended by half the country in a fit of blind self-destructive small-minded loyalty. You kinda did the same thing when you attributed it to Bush, though. Obama isn't to blame for all of our problems, but it's been 8 years since Bush left office- you can't pin everything on him either. People do also attribute good shit to the president too, like the low gas prices under Obama, or the assignment of complete responsibility for America's recovery following the Depression to FDR. I'd blame Bush's Cabinet and Congress, not Bush himself. I think people fail to realize that the president doesn't really have as much power as we think they do. Sure, If a president is capable of wielding the full power of the office (e.g. Andrew Jackson, both Roosevelts, JFK), then they can pretty much do anything they goddamn please (e.g. trail of tears, muckraking and regulation, WWII and fixing the economy, Marilyn Monroe). That usually only happens if the congress allows it to happen. Jackson got away with all of that terrible shit he did because there weren't so many limits to his power. In fact, Jackson is the reason there are so many limits to presidential power. Idk, there are a lot of things to consider. I think it's even worse when a congress refuses to work with the president on anything (like our current congress. Compromise is key, assholes) "Marilyn Monroe" took me a second. Funny as fuck; she wasn't the only one JFK was all up in either. FDR did try to dangerously expand executive power, though, and nearly destroyed the system of checks and balances. It seems to me that the way it's been until very recently is that Democrats dictated legislation, and in order to compromise Republicans would need to accept provisions that they opposed with no benefit to themselves. It's like saying: "These are my fries!" "Well, I want your fries!" "No, they're mine!" "Well, just give me half of them then." "No, they're all mine!" "Why aren't you ever willing to compromise? You're being irrational." It's a bit more complicated but that's what it feels like sometimes. Yeah, I understand that point of view. I look at Obamacare as a good example of how compromise doesn't always work, and how party politics gets in the way of progress. The original bill was written by a republican (Mitt Romney if I'm not mistaken), and the democrats liked the bill. But when Obama wants to adopt it and build on it, all of a sudden, the entire republican body in the House is no longer on board. And then they compromise and make all these bullshit ammendments that completely warp and twist this previously efficient and simple system, all because the democratic president said it was a good idea. I'll admit, it's more complicated than that, but that's the sparknotes version. What frustrates me the most is how a lot of republican congressmen will get chastised and ostracized because they worked with those on the other side of the aisle. Poeple take too much pride in their party affiliations and it pisses me off that we base our judgements of people by who they voted for. Sure you are. I forgot the president ran a human trafficking ring to balance the budget. #56 -
selfdenyingbeggar (15 hours ago) [-] Your journey to discover that will start by examining real close and with crystal-clear clarity, the nature of our financial system. #62 -
selfdenyingbeggar (15 hours ago) [-] the fact that you don't consider it necessary knowledge, when money (currently and probably) is the backbone of your survival in this planet, is testimony of your conditioning. Dude, I have no idea what you're on about. You're writing in extremely vague half-sentences, and you talk like a fucking guru or mystic of some sort. O wise selfdenyingbeggar, what insight will you grant me about the name of the U.S. and what currency is? What conditioning? Like indoctrination? What are you talking about? #65 -
selfdenyingbeggar (15 hours ago) [-] well, Im not here to change your opinion but to present you with reality because I kow there are chances you've been conditioned to have a particular worldview already, which might be very innaccurate, on purpose. The search is for you to do. For starters, I could tell you that you're looking at the debt relationship with money, basically, debt is money in our system (since we separated from the gold-standard) and the "rabbit hole2 goes so much deeper is crazy, but at least you can go and look at the cold hard facts and decide for yourself. All I'd ask you right know is to ask yourself and be honest about ow much you really know about how the world works, or just the financial system, and how much are assumptions based on "everybody else seems to be alright with it, must be something good"? #94 -
anon (14 hours ago) [-] >gold standard And you lost the last of your credibility there. Gold is no more inherently valuable than the paper money that we use today it's an excellent conductor, but it's used in such small amounts that that's barely worth mentioning . If you seriously think gold is a good thing to base your economy on, ask the Spanish how well it works. #101 -
anon (13 hours ago) [-] You have zero idea what you're talking about. I mentioned that gold is an extremely good conductor. It is not a superconductor as far as I know, at any temperature, and certainly not at remotely practical ones . The need for gold as a conductor is far outweighed by its abundance, with other materials being more practical for most applications. Gold is used for its conductivity, but measurable quantities are usually not. #163 -
innocentbabies (10 hours ago) [-] And between paper which money is most definitely not printed on and a conductor which has a handful of extremely niche uses, and which is, as a conductor, less effective than both silver and copper the only advantage it has over those two is unrivaled corrosion resistance , which do you think is more useful? Ok, Neo. Finances and governance are not all that complicated, but I appreciate the attempted redpilling. You do realize you sound exactly like the shpiders guy with your "read the facts" schtick, right? It's printed. But seriously. American currency is fiat money, which means it gets it's value from government decree. With fiat money, the central bank (in this case the Federal Reserve), introduces new money via the purchase of intangible assets (i.e. bonds/stocks and other forms of fairly liquid assets) or through moneylending. Through the use of fractional reserve lending, other banks increase the amount of currency beyond the base money from there. The Federal Reserve manages the overall money supply, expanding or contracting the assets available as needed. #137 -
selfdenyingbeggar (12 hours ago) [-] could it be that an unpayable interest is behind debt and inflation, amongst other things? #95 -
selfdenyingbeggar (14 hours ago) [-] Who prints the actual money. how much money can they print. Do the Federal Reserve (private corporation) charge governments interest on the money they print? You do realize that physical money in circulation accounts for less than 10% of total assets in the U.S. economy, right? Listen man, I don't want to do this all night so: 1. I already covered how much they are allowed to print (or rather, who regulates the printing of money). 2.The U.S. Bureau of Engraving and Printing. 3. Yes, the Federal Reserve does charge interest. I'm really not that interested, I'm sure you can find someone else to give your spiel to. That was why I wrote polio, although there actually is some dispute as to whether his ailments stem from polio. | ||
| #109 - It was a nice animation, tho. Good work on it. [+] (1 new reply) | 20 hours ago on /mu/ discuss Bowie's death | 0 |
| #32 - I was playing on Exodus the other day, and I normally hold tha… | 20 hours ago on "I'm gonna be just like Dad" | 0 |
| #7 - These logos are goddamn everywhere; the poster picked the most… | 20 hours ago on Brands | 0 |
| #30 - They have to really suck if you win playing 1v5 and they're co… [+] (2 new replies) | 20 hours ago on "I'm gonna be just like Dad" | 0 |
 Well i was on top of my game back then and had easy time predicting enemy movements on the stages. Plus there were more of them so getting a couple kills before i died was easy I was playing on Exodus the other day, and I normally hold that hallway-shaped room in the middle of the map and fire out into the street. Someone with hardwired walked past my trip mine and started shooting my in the back with a Vesper. I managed to kill him with the Kuda because of how bad he was, then I heard footsteps, so I ran outside. I misjudged where the footsteps were, and ran straight into two people while badly wounded. I still killed both of them. Some people are just not good. | ||
| #105 - Sigur Ros did a rendition of one of my favorite songs from fic… | 20 hours ago on /mu/ discuss Bowie's death | 0 |
| #28 - That last thing really blows. Me and my little brother were in… [+] (4 new replies) | 20 hours ago on "I'm gonna be just like Dad" | 0 |
| Good god lol i won that 1v5 match only because they were a group who communicated. Id kill one, hear him call me out, then id move to a different area. They have to really suck if you win playing 1v5 and they're communicating. Holy shit. Well i was on top of my game back then and had easy time predicting enemy movements on the stages. Plus there were more of them so getting a couple kills before i died was easy I was playing on Exodus the other day, and I normally hold that hallway-shaped room in the middle of the map and fire out into the street. Someone with hardwired walked past my trip mine and started shooting my in the back with a Vesper. I managed to kill him with the Kuda because of how bad he was, then I heard footsteps, so I ran outside. I misjudged where the footsteps were, and ran straight into two people while badly wounded. I still killed both of them. Some people are just not good. | ||
| #26 - They've been using the same gameplay for 9 goddamn years, why … [+] (6 new replies) | 21 hours ago on "I'm gonna be just like Dad" | 0 |
| Like i said they rush it every year and dont improve because people still buy into it. Like i said though ps4 doesnt have that kind of problem often. Ive been in a few matches where its been 7v5 or like you said no extra mates come in. Hell once playin on ghost i got stuck in a 1v5 match as the 1 lol That last thing really blows. Me and my little brother were in a game where the enemy team was the worst I've ever seen. We were down 7 players to 4 (because for some reason they got more players than the max, while we got 2 less) and we still won 75-38. Good god lol i won that 1v5 match only because they were a group who communicated. Id kill one, hear him call me out, then id move to a different area. They have to really suck if you win playing 1v5 and they're communicating. Holy shit. Well i was on top of my game back then and had easy time predicting enemy movements on the stages. Plus there were more of them so getting a couple kills before i died was easy I was playing on Exodus the other day, and I normally hold that hallway-shaped room in the middle of the map and fire out into the street. Someone with hardwired walked past my trip mine and started shooting my in the back with a Vesper. I managed to kill him with the Kuda because of how bad he was, then I heard footsteps, so I ran outside. I misjudged where the footsteps were, and ran straight into two people while badly wounded. I still killed both of them. Some people are just not good. | ||
| #7 - Why shouldn't it be? How is it more dangerous than another kni… [+] (34 new replies) | 21 hours ago on Meanwhile in Arizona | +67 |
 It's about how our gun laws are. Everybody has weapons here. You don't need a permit to concealed or open carry. How is that ridiculous? You have a right to own the gun, but for some reason carrying it is dangerous?  Oh, so it's legal to carry a small-caliber, semi-auto rifle? Whoda thunk it. #33 -
anon (16 hours ago) [-] Well since you don't need a permit to carry a rifle(Or any firearm.) here in Arizona..... #30 -
anon (16 hours ago) [-] i can open carry my AR15 in Ohio without a permit. why are your laws stupid?  It is so fucking easy to legally kill open carriers. You people are no better than crackheads killing people over $20s worth of drugs. Legally? Nope. But there is the notion that open carriers are easier to target for obvious reasons. The advantages of a concealed carry is that potential shooters don't know you're armed and won't necessarily target you first in a shooting.  Yeah, but then again it's pretty easy to kill just about everyone. Unfortunately, that argument is the reason why people open carry... And there's this thing called the "21 foot rule". Basically, a suspect can close a 21 foot gap in the time it takes you to draw your weapon. So technically, knives are more dangerous... Killing people is easy illegally but legally killing some one is an art #83 -
firereadyaim (13 hours ago) [-] Hilarious. Just how are you going go about that in a way that doesnt end with a new hole your head besides the one you use for spewing shit (youre using the wrong hole for that btw) that doesnt also get you in jail you stupid faggot. youre threatening to kill people but im the crazy one for wanting to be able to defend myself from insane people like you? I'm pretty sure they're a troll or an edgy little kid. They made up this story about shooting some border patrol guys in February of last year, but no homicides of border vigilantes occurred in that time span. Apparently, they were dumb enough to think a triple homicide happening to a specified group in a short time frame wouldn't be something that you could fact-check. Ah well, some people aren't smart. Oh great. You again. Pls go, you total badass who's killed hundreds of thousands of people with your bare hands. Just fuck right off. Are you gonna go on my profile again and thumb down every comment I made for the last 3 days, like last time? Why though? It's unwieldy and stupid, but doesn't seem exceedingly dangerous. If you were going to kill people, you could do it far better with a steak knife. It's just like Cali banning the Barrett M82: sure, it's not very practical, but who gives a shit? It's less dangerous in the hands of a shooter than a regular hunting rifle. I can only speak for the area I live in, but we have restrictions on blade length and on the mechanism for opening on knives that can be carried in public. Such laws were probably not written with the kind of knife shown above in mind, but it would be subject to regulation under those same laws. We have those here, too. I'm just wondering why he's saying it like it's somehow ridiculous to have that knife specifically be legal. Just because something doesn't have much of a purpose doesn't mean we should make it illegal. The reason it's illegal in Australia To my understanding was that cops were getting killed because there was no time to react between "mildly aggravated unarmed drunk" and "Spring loaded knife in the gut". You can still get them, but you need a collectors license and a clean criminal record, and you show up as a potential suspect for violent crimes in your area. Similarly, you can actually just buy lockpicking sets and stuff here. You need a locksmiths license and you're automatically a suspect for break ins in your area, but still. Holy shit, does your government really assume suspicion like that? That's kinda fucked up. I'm not talking about switchblades in general, just the one in the content. Besides, I'm pretty sure you're not worried about avoiding the police if you use that monstrosity in a crime. "Yeah, the guy was holding a switchblade 3 feet long." "Well, there are exactly 2 people in the country that own those, we just need to figure out which one it was." It was made illegal because it was associated with gang violence. The popular image of a punk in a leather jacket with a switchblade and all that. | ||
| #24 - Xbox One. Every other game I play online works way better, eve… [+] (8 new replies) | 21 hours ago on "I'm gonna be just like Dad" | 0 |
| I play on ps4 and the biggest problem ive had is runnin a 6 man crew. It wont put us in a lobby but if it me an one other theres no issue. I dont get dropped from matches at all. Its all just a side effect of them rushing for a new CoD every year. They don't take time to do anything right, so the games are always lacking in some way shape or fashion. They've been using the same gameplay for 9 goddamn years, why can't they make functioning games? Also, another annoying problem I've had is having everyone or almost on one team get dropped, so you're just walking around bored for ten minutes or you quit (which is what I do, my win/loss ratio be damned, I'm not sitting there for ten minutes). It will occasionally put people in my party on opposite teams as well, which sucks. Like i said they rush it every year and dont improve because people still buy into it. Like i said though ps4 doesnt have that kind of problem often. Ive been in a few matches where its been 7v5 or like you said no extra mates come in. Hell once playin on ghost i got stuck in a 1v5 match as the 1 lol That last thing really blows. Me and my little brother were in a game where the enemy team was the worst I've ever seen. We were down 7 players to 4 (because for some reason they got more players than the max, while we got 2 less) and we still won 75-38. Good god lol i won that 1v5 match only because they were a group who communicated. Id kill one, hear him call me out, then id move to a different area. They have to really suck if you win playing 1v5 and they're communicating. Holy shit. Well i was on top of my game back then and had easy time predicting enemy movements on the stages. Plus there were more of them so getting a couple kills before i died was easy I was playing on Exodus the other day, and I normally hold that hallway-shaped room in the middle of the map and fire out into the street. Someone with hardwired walked past my trip mine and started shooting my in the back with a Vesper. I managed to kill him with the Kuda because of how bad he was, then I heard footsteps, so I ran outside. I misjudged where the footsteps were, and ran straight into two people while badly wounded. I still killed both of them. Some people are just not good. | ||
| #39 - HUMAN CELLS DON'T belong in our bodies. Your water also contai… [+] (2 new replies) | 21 hours ago on Anti-Vaxxer Cringe Comp | +36 |
| | ||
| #38 - Picture [+] (7 new replies) | 21 hours ago on Anti-Vaxxer Cringe Comp | +50 |
 Am I detecting heresy? Because it sure sounds like it's heresy | ||
| #22 - My two-year-old baby cousin imitates just about everything you… | 21 hours ago on "I'm gonna be just like Dad" | +13 |
| #21 - Playing coordinated can help take over certain areas. For exam… | 21 hours ago on "I'm gonna be just like Dad" | 0 |
| #20 - Ha, yeah. Spawning right near the person who killed you does s… | 21 hours ago on "I'm gonna be just like Dad" | 0 |
| #19 - **** the spawns, though those do suck, they need workin… [+] (10 new replies) | 21 hours ago on "I'm gonna be just like Dad" | 0 |
| Xbox One. Every other game I play online works way better, even the MCC at launch, and we all know how that was. I play on ps4 and the biggest problem ive had is runnin a 6 man crew. It wont put us in a lobby but if it me an one other theres no issue. I dont get dropped from matches at all. Its all just a side effect of them rushing for a new CoD every year. They don't take time to do anything right, so the games are always lacking in some way shape or fashion. They've been using the same gameplay for 9 goddamn years, why can't they make functioning games? Also, another annoying problem I've had is having everyone or almost on one team get dropped, so you're just walking around bored for ten minutes or you quit (which is what I do, my win/loss ratio be damned, I'm not sitting there for ten minutes). It will occasionally put people in my party on opposite teams as well, which sucks. Like i said they rush it every year and dont improve because people still buy into it. Like i said though ps4 doesnt have that kind of problem often. Ive been in a few matches where its been 7v5 or like you said no extra mates come in. Hell once playin on ghost i got stuck in a 1v5 match as the 1 lol That last thing really blows. Me and my little brother were in a game where the enemy team was the worst I've ever seen. We were down 7 players to 4 (because for some reason they got more players than the max, while we got 2 less) and we still won 75-38. Good god lol i won that 1v5 match only because they were a group who communicated. Id kill one, hear him call me out, then id move to a different area. They have to really suck if you win playing 1v5 and they're communicating. Holy shit. Well i was on top of my game back then and had easy time predicting enemy movements on the stages. Plus there were more of them so getting a couple kills before i died was easy I was playing on Exodus the other day, and I normally hold that hallway-shaped room in the middle of the map and fire out into the street. Someone with hardwired walked past my trip mine and started shooting my in the back with a Vesper. I managed to kill him with the Kuda because of how bad he was, then I heard footsteps, so I ran outside. I misjudged where the footsteps were, and ran straight into two people while badly wounded. I still killed both of them. Some people are just not good. | ||
Anonymous comments allowed.
11 comments displayed.
#13
-
admin (12/25/2015) [-] Merry Christmas you little bitch <3
Glad you're a part of FJ.
(You can now delete Admin comments on profiles so you can get rid of this if you want)
Glad you're a part of FJ.
(You can now delete Admin comments on profiles so you can get rid of this if you want)
#14 to #13
-
sgtmajjohnson (12/25/2015) [-] Did anyone get you a designated pissing sink for Christmas?
#10
-
concetrationcamp (12/24/2015) [-] Holy **** , did you really archieve your profile in one month? Are you online 24/7 or how is this possible?
#11 to #10
-
sgtmajjohnson (12/25/2015) [-] Huh? I don't know what you mean by that. If it has something to do with levels or thumbs, I mostly comment on posts with around 100 thumbs that will probably reach the front page, so I have several comments with hundreds of thumbs.
#12 to #11
-
concetrationcamp (12/25/2015) [-] I was just curious. You archieved in 1 month what I did in 5 years
#1
-
yugiohkris 
(11/29/2015) [-] Hello, and welcome to Funnyjunk! I'm yugiohkris, one of the site's mods(I swear I'm not a bot). Thanks for making an account at funnyjunk, please feel free to post content, comments, or just hang around the boards. If you have any questions please ask me or ask here: /askamod/
#2 to #1
-
sgtmajjohnson (11/29/2015) [-] Holy **** a mod. I actually had an account a few years ago, and I've been lurking for a long time, so I think I generally get everything. Never been on the boards, though.
#4 to #3
-
sgtmajjohnson (11/29/2015) [-] Sweet, thanks. What boards are actually on here? I might check them out.
#5 to #4
-
yugiohkris (11/29/2015) [-] I don't know I don't go on the boards very often, but you can still look through all of them.
