Login or register


Last status update:
Date Signed Up:3/07/2012
Last Login:8/20/2013
Content Thumbs: 114 total,  160 ,  46
Comment Thumbs: 1355 total,  2014 ,  659
Content Level Progress: 40% (4/10)
Level 11 Content: New Here → Level 12 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 51% (51/100)
Level 213 Comments: Comedic Genius → Level 214 Comments: Comedic Genius
Content Views:10757
Times Content Favorited:1 times
Total Comments Made:515
FJ Points:1457

latest user's comments

#185 - Obama is going to win just because of everything good he has a…  [+] (3 replies) 11/06/2012 on The next president? -6
User avatar
#235 - theaveragejoe (11/06/2012) [-]
good things? I can only think of one and that is the killing of Bin Laden. Sorry that is really not a valid talking point of success in office. Any president could and would authorize the mission if they had actionable intelligence.
#262 - supagreen (11/06/2012) [-]
Osama, dont ask dont tell, GM, offshore oil, Revival of the auto industry.
User avatar
#268 - theaveragejoe (11/06/2012) [-]
No to keystone pipeline, !6 trillion in debt.
#23 - I know the man was "an" hero lol but what I'm trying…  [+] (1 reply) 11/04/2012 on Good Guy Vasilli -8
User avatar
#24 - hoban (11/04/2012) [-]
Hitler might be a bad example seeing that he only killed himself because the Allies would have had him within 2 days anyway and he didnt want his body treated with the same disrespect as was show to Mussolini. This post just shows that 1 mans small action can make a world of difference. I dont really think they are blowing his actions out of proportion at all, without him saying no the world could be very different place.
#22 - No **** they had nuclear missiles. I'm saying that even if the…  [+] (2 replies) 11/04/2012 on Good Guy Vasilli -15
#59 - comradewinter (11/04/2012) [-]
Are you fucking retarded? By the time the Cuban Crisis happened, which was 12 years after the end of WW2, both the US and the USSR had enough nuclear power to eradicate the world several times over. Preventing a nuclear war is as hero as it gets.
#101 - longer (11/04/2012) [-]
Not the entire world then, and not even today.
#11 - Not bad 11/04/2012 on Bigfoot and Mom 0
#10 - Watched this show when the first 3 episodes were out. Stopped …  [+] (2 replies) 11/04/2012 on He KNOWS +2
User avatar
#12 - tropictheif (11/04/2012) [-]
if i never read the manga i whould also have stopped watching after that
User avatar
#11 - tropictheif (11/04/2012) [-]
read the manga i highly recomend it and coninue wathcing it gets muuuuuch better
#18 - Thanks to him we're here to talk about it? What in the actual …  [+] (39 replies) 11/04/2012 on Good Guy Vasilli -77
#109 - valve (11/04/2012) [-]
User avatar
#72 - necrogiant (11/04/2012) [-]
Says the 12 y.o. with a college degree in geopolitics and nuclear physics
#67 - longer (11/04/2012) [-]
In a nuclear war, both countries lose. Australia, Iceland, Brazil, Africa, and certain other countries would be completely safe though.
User avatar
#70 - Crusader (11/04/2012) [-]
Nope, they would have launched nukes at the enemy and any allies of the enemy.
Not to mention with enough nukes going off, it would only be a matter of time before it hits critical mass and nuclear fusion starts.
#75 - longer (11/04/2012) [-]
That's what I said...
User avatar
#77 - Crusader (11/04/2012) [-]
No, you said that other countries would be safe.
No one is safe because everyone has a side these days, and in nuclear fusion, the atmosphere ignites and kills EVERYTHING
#81 - longer (11/04/2012) [-]
This image has expired
Iceland couldn't give a shit, neither would Australia, Africa, or Brazil. Nuclear bombs would not reach neither of these countries. Nor would they waste time shooting at them.

Iceland has also been voted the worlds safest country because of this, only 320thousand people. And if a nuclear bomb hit them in the middle of Iceland it wouldn't even affect the people.
User avatar
#82 - Crusader (11/04/2012) [-]
Doesn't matter, they still have a side, if they don't take it, they are still then in the crossfire.
Both sides would take a scorched earth policy, which means if they die they would Nuke the world to make sure it wasn't bearable for anyone.


Critical mass
Nuclear Fusion
#84 - longer (11/04/2012) [-]

Iceland didn't have a side in ww2, and would not at all be affected in this world war except if they were invaded by one of the countries. Which they wouldn't.

Neither would Australia, Brazil, or Africa. Why? Because they don't have any weapons themselves, so they instead don't get involved.
User avatar
#85 - Crusader (11/04/2012) [-]
Is your brain short-circuiting?

Do you not understand what I said about Scorched Earth?

#87 - longer (11/04/2012) [-]
Not everybody would get nuked, and you don't exactly understand how nuclear warfare works, do you?
User avatar
#88 - Crusader (11/04/2012) [-]
Yes everyone.
Yes, if there is a nuclear war, everyone gets nuked, why?
Because it is scorched earth.
One side doesn't to go down without taking everyone else with them, so they nuke everything.

Not to mention
#89 - longer (11/04/2012) [-]
This image has expired
You are so hilariously wrong and uneducated on this. It's too stupid to even comprehend
User avatar
#92 - Crusader (11/04/2012) [-]
It's the same reason they have never used the H-bomb, because it will result in global fusion.

But none-the-less, it stands that if there is a nuclear war, the world will collapse.
#164 - impaledsandwich (11/04/2012) [-]
The H-bomb being used on the Bikini Atoll.
User avatar
#90 - Crusader (11/04/2012) [-]
Let's say that side A launches nukes at side B.
Side B knows they are going to lose, so they will destroy everything they can to make side A's victory as costly as possible.
Much like Russia did in WW2 during the retreat.
Side B destroys other countries, even if they only destroy a few, side A now looks like a villain for starting this all.
Therefore everyone loses.

Not to mention put of nukes in one area, it can reach critical mass, resulting in nuclear fusion, like a star, turning the earth into a burning star for a few seconds and destroying everything.

Therefore either the world is destroyed by scorched earth
Or it is destroyed by physics.
#96 - anon (11/04/2012) [-]
6/10, made me comment and probably pissed off a couple people. Still too obvious
#93 - longer (11/04/2012) [-]
This image has expired
>thinks the world could be ruined over nuclear bombs
>one volcano is more powerful than 1000 nuclear bombs

User avatar
#100 - Crusader (11/04/2012) [-]
Um, that is in straight force, not in heat.
#104 - longer (11/04/2012) [-]
This image has expired
Fail troll
User avatar
#106 - Crusader (11/04/2012) [-]
I'm just saying, the heat will build until critical mass is reached
#95 - anon (11/04/2012) [-]
Crusader is fairly obviously trolling, this is at a youtubers standard.
#97 - longer (11/04/2012) [-]
I fucking hope so, sheesh.
User avatar
#65 - OsamaBinLadenz (11/04/2012) [-]
Do you even nuke?
User avatar
#58 - synapse (11/04/2012) [-]
USSR VS USA+UK = Nuclear War = Nuclear Apocalypse. You are a retard and you can't even nuke.
#57 - anon (11/04/2012) [-]
imba american gorilla warfare.
User avatar
#56 - synapse (11/04/2012) [-]
Shut up, you are giving America a really bad name right now.
#37 - ksimajorkayden (11/04/2012) [-]
MFW that post
User avatar
#28 - jlyoung (11/04/2012) [-]
You don't get how nukes work.
User avatar
#26 - macaryh (11/04/2012) [-]
Mutualy Assured Destruction...nuff said.
#40 - Uranium (11/04/2012) [-]
MAD may or may not have been an issue the Russians didn't quite have a capable nuclear delivery method. They hadn't gotten their ICBM to work yet or their MIRV. The R-7 missile wasn't capable of carrying a nuclear payload from the USSR to US which was why they were being moved to Cuba. Also the Russian missiles being liquid fueled took hours to get prepared to launch while the United States had the Minute Man I which was more than capable of intercontinental deployment and could literally be fired at a minutes notice. Would of it been a blood bath? absolutely Europe would of been fucked because all Russian nukes were capable of deployment there but the United States would of been mostly intact.
User avatar
#21 - hoban (11/04/2012) [-]
I guess we never really know, if he didnt say no it could have sparked alot more off, If America and Russia started throwing nukes at each other every other country would have been on edge and thats not even taking into account what might happen to countries that stand beside either side. Then think of the fall out sort of effect like what happened with Chernobyl, the aftermath carries in the wind and that water, even if a country wasnt nuked it could still damage the people who just want to stay out of it the radiation from Chernobyl was felt as far away as northen Sweden. Not trying to lecture here just saying that when u take all of what could have happened, U might feel alot more respect for this man and even just standing up and saying no wasnt really done in the Russian Army from what i heard. Sorry for the shitty grammer...........hungover as fuck lol
#23 - supagreen (11/04/2012) [-]
I know the man was "an" hero lol but what I'm trying to say is people are blowing this mans deeds way out of proportion. If people used this logic they could even say Hitler saved the world by killing himself. The man saved lives but he didn't save the world.
User avatar
#24 - hoban (11/04/2012) [-]
Hitler might be a bad example seeing that he only killed himself because the Allies would have had him within 2 days anyway and he didnt want his body treated with the same disrespect as was show to Mussolini. This post just shows that 1 mans small action can make a world of difference. I dont really think they are blowing his actions out of proportion at all, without him saying no the world could be very different place.
User avatar
#20 - forasecond (11/04/2012) [-]
They still had nuclear missiles retard. And don't doubt both countries wouldn't have destroyed a large portion of each other.
#43 - Uranium (11/04/2012) [-]
The Russians didn't have a Missile capable of launching from any of their missile bases in Russia which is why they were trying to get some into Cuba.
#22 - supagreen (11/04/2012) [-]
No shit they had nuclear missiles. I'm saying that even if they had attacked the U.S there wouldn't have been a WW3 because everyone was well aware of the consequences of Nuclear War. JFK would've swooped in went to Moscow and ended that shit in days. The man saved hundreds of thousands of people but he DID NOT SAVE THE WORLD.

On top of that America+Britain vs. Economical Depression Russia. There's no contest.
#59 - comradewinter (11/04/2012) [-]
Are you fucking retarded? By the time the Cuban Crisis happened, which was 12 years after the end of WW2, both the US and the USSR had enough nuclear power to eradicate the world several times over. Preventing a nuclear war is as hero as it gets.
#101 - longer (11/04/2012) [-]
Not the entire world then, and not even today.
#20 - I'm still awestruck by the fact that Bethesda was working on D…  [+] (2 replies) 11/04/2012 on Dishonored Logic +1
User avatar
#38 - smurgle (11/04/2012) [-]
I agree. Fallout is in my opinion the greatest game series ever made. No other game gives me the tingles like New Vegas but Fallout 3 is my favorite. The first 2 are great too.
#21 - failwhaleftwtoo has deleted their comment.
#19 - Halo is way too predictable and the multiplayer is the most bo…  [+] (16 replies) 11/04/2012 on President's day -36
#91 - thesovietdude (11/04/2012) [-]
#80 - ryderjamesbudde has deleted their comment.
User avatar
#122 - Crusader (11/05/2012) [-]
I think it is because it has been 2 years(?) since Halo, so people are wanting a new game.
Whereas CoD is bought because it is the largest medium to play with people on.
#73 - misticalz (11/04/2012) [-]
MFW "I'd rather play Black ops 2."

Why would you play such a shitty game.

User avatar
#121 - Crusader (11/05/2012) [-]
From what I have seen (and I realize it is all chosen because it looks good) but it seems like this game will either make or break the series.
I feel it will be a while before someone finds the OMA-Nubetube, or the Ghost-Famas of BO2 because it is so complex.
I think that it will make it so people have fun because it will be a long time before they find the "best class"
Not to mention you don't really buy CoD to play CoD, but you buy the largest medium for playing with people.
Yes you can go on any other game and find people, but where else but the most recent CoD can you find around a million people at any given time in November/December.
User avatar
#78 - metajunky (11/04/2012) [-]
shitty games include star wars kinect, sonic '06, and medal of honor warfighter. if you think black ops 2 should be considered among those games you need to rethink how you view games
#37 - deadboyisalive has deleted their comment.
User avatar
#27 - LordZebedee (11/04/2012) [-]
Wait wait, you say Halo is too predictable and then you list Black Ops and Assassin's Creed? O_o Even though CoD games are incredibly similar and so are Assassin's Creed games! With both series it's like playing the same game each time. And how is Halo's campaign boring? So if you'd rather play Black Ops you'd rather camp in a corner and wait for someone (oh how fun) or run around spraying and praying? Even with Assassin's Creed it's usually just standing around and waiting for your target, the multiplayer barely even works on it! I'm sorry but what you said makes no sense
User avatar
#49 - Crusader (11/04/2012) [-]
Not even close about AC, I have never felt as if it is the same game each time I play, yes you do the same general thing each time, but that is kind of the point of a series, make the games similar to lessen the learning curve.
And CoD is popular because you are not necessarily paying for the game, but you are paying for the largest medium out there to meet gamers/play with you friends,
User avatar
#125 - revengeforfreeze (03/03/2014) [-]
Innit great?

it also feels kinda sad
User avatar
#68 - bensho (11/04/2012) [-]
I must admit that Assassin's Creed games are the same thing over and over (until AC3 that is). Don't get me wrong, Assassin's Creed is probably my favorite series of all time, but even I can recognize that the games play exactly the same each time.
(I honestly just play for the incredible story)
(multiplayer is nice too)
User avatar
#120 - Crusader (11/05/2012) [-]
But they aren't
in the first one you had to do hundreds of stupid info missions (collect these flags in 30 seconds and I will tell you what you need to know)
ACII had less of those and an economic system to make you person better, not to mention blending, not to mention customizability, plus you can swim
Brotherhood went from a bunch of cities to one big city, revamped the economic system and then added in the whole back-up and borgia tower system
Revelations added in Master Assassins, den defense and a whole plethora of new toys/moves

If you mean the gameplay is the same, you are an assassin you are meant to be sneaky, climb around and stab people. It's like getting and at GTA because they have the same basic gameplay in all of them.
User avatar
#32 - Johnnychristian (11/04/2012) [-]
If I were a troll, and I was talking shit about Halo, the first thing I would bring up is COD...I think he did that on purpose..
User avatar
#26 - masdercheef (11/04/2012) [-]
So, just because you dislike Halo, you get thumbed down? I, for one, don't see the basis of your opinions, but at least I can respectfully disagree... And personally (though Halo players are apparently expected to hate Call of Duty) I would likely buy Black Ops 2 if I knew that I would actually play it past the campaign, instead of letting it sit untouched for a year like I did with Black Ops.
User avatar
#28 - LordZebedee (11/04/2012) [-]
I doubt he got thumbed down for liking Halo, just no-one agrees with what he said. How is Halo "Predictable and Boring" when Assassin's Creed and CoD aren't?
User avatar
#81 - masdercheef (11/04/2012) [-]
That's actually a much better argument... Despite the core of the games remaining the same, there are always new elements being added to change it up, right? Like how the basis of CoD, Halo, and Assassin's Creed have always been "Go here, kill these guys, do this, and then finish the mission". It's just how that gets done that changes- more varied weapons, more intricate level designs, better cinematics, etc. It's a new game, but at the same time, it's an old game...What I am getting at is that what you're saying is right because everyone is expecting to go into Halo to wipe the Covenant off of some Forerunner installation or another, or going to some ancient city (not quite ancient city in AC III, but you get the point) in Assassin's Creed to covertly halt the process of the Templars, or blast your way into some historically important city or battleground in Call of Duty to stop the Russians, or the Germans, or whoever you may be fighting, from... doing whatever it is that the enemies in those games seek to do (like taking over America? Who would want this place?) But, yeah, it's practically impossible to have a completely fresh and new and exciting game these days- I guess developers just have to make do with what is known to be successful.