Login or register


Last status update:
Gender: male
Age: 19
Date Signed Up:9/17/2011
Last Login:7/24/2016
Location:yo mama
FunnyJunk Career Stats
Content Ranking:#5339
Comment Ranking:#11070
Highest Content Rank:#824
Highest Comment Rank:#2715
Content Thumbs: 8310 total,  9820 ,  1510
Comment Thumbs: 3659 total,  5543 ,  1884
Content Level Progress: 37% (37/100)
Level 173 Content: Soldier Of Funnyjunk → Level 174 Content: Soldier Of Funnyjunk
Comment Level Progress: 96% (96/100)
Level 230 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz → Level 231 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz
Content Views:486959
Times Content Favorited:1272 times
Total Comments Made:2533
FJ Points:10490

latest user's comments

#3 - why did i think that said squidward with guns 09/05/2015 on Squids with Guns 0
#7 - chill..... 09/05/2015 on Best scene by far +1
#18 - its cas they grew up 09/05/2015 on Brutal execution 0
#11 - du-du,du-diou-du, diou -du d- JOHN CENA DA DA DA DAAAAAAAAA DA… 09/05/2015 on Dank webm -1
#33 - well my teacher today told us about a time a man asked him if … 09/04/2015 on Weird teachers 0
#1 - Picture 09/02/2015 on Fried Prawn +5
#8 - no john cena? 09/02/2015 on A pretty awesome animation 0
#56 - someone just assassinate him before it's too late  [+] (20 new replies) 08/30/2015 on Simpsons Predicted It -1
User avatar
#58 - heartlessrobot (08/30/2015) [-]
Hillary Cunton and Bernie Socialist too plz.
User avatar
#66 - bronybox (08/30/2015) [-]
Implying Bernie isn't a damn fine human being just with a different opinion than you on how a country should be.
User avatar
#111 - thatoneiranianguy (08/30/2015) [-]
Bernie Sander's too much of an idealist, he lives in a reality that the basic principles of economics does not exist.

He seems to forget that money can't be made out of thin air. It doesn't matter if he's a nice guy or "has a plan," the reality is - he's not a good candidate for presidency. Neither are the others, really.
User avatar
#67 - heartlessrobot (08/30/2015) [-]
I'm sorry if I'm concerned about my country's economy.
User avatar
#74 - bronybox (08/30/2015) [-]
Now you're implying that Bernie Sanders is somehow a terrible politician and doesn't have a plan in place, which he does, and we won't know for sure how it turns out until the radical changes actually take place.

It's also almost like you believe that the President even has some supreme power to fuck over or improve the economy. Congress still plays THE pivotal role because the president can't unilaterally raise or lower taxes and tariffs. Congress ultimately controls the purse strings of the federal government, so whether the government has a balanced budget or not is an area of congressional authority.
User avatar
#75 - heartlessrobot (08/30/2015) [-]
Right, but he has the power to shoot down any plans he doesn't approve of, which could fuck over the country.
User avatar
#85 - bronybox (08/30/2015) [-]
I still don't see why you think his plans would fuck over the entire country when all he's doing is trying to establish an economic system that's already been proven to work in some of the most economically prosperous countries in the world?

The only issue I see is scale, seeing as how America has far more residents than a majority of those countries.
User avatar
#110 - youregaylol (08/30/2015) [-]
its also been proven to fail in some of the least successful countries in the world.

to imply that socialism or pseduo socialism is some magical fix all is something an ignorant socialist would say.

the fact is the countries you put on a pedestal as being socialist paradises have always been successful, before socialism and under capitalism.

pleb tier argument is pleb
User avatar
#113 - thatoneiranianguy (08/30/2015) [-]
I would actually like to touch on the latter part of your argument.

A classic example of this is the late 1800's and early 1900's aggressive and stable industrialization that was taking place in the Russian Empire. Russia was developing a transition from agrarianism to industrialism naturally at a obtainable speed.

Whereas, in comparison to the rapid and unstable industrialization in Russia under the the Soviet Union and Stalin's repeatedly failed 5 year plans during the 1930's and early 40's which was only brought about not by government encouragement but government collectivization to prepare for the eventual invasion of Western Europe, which was halted when the Germans invaded, of course.

Russia was already doing "fine" economically on procedural growth of its industry until it was halted by the Red revolution and the following Civil War between the Whites and Reds, then 10 years of organizational chaos in the government.

Government subsidization of industry is dangerous because it forces the economy to formulate on the basis of what they want rather than treating the economy as a living creature to naturally grow where it's needed. Plus it doesn't encourage innovation, there's a reason the Soviet Union fell because our economy was independent of the Government whereas theirs was not - we out spent them and were able to handle the cost.
User avatar
#155 - bronybox (08/31/2015) [-]
Well, we're not having a revolution, we're having steady implementation of reforms.
He's not going to turn America into a socialist country over the span of 8 years even.

Besides, I never said that America should go socialist, just like the other successful countries, we would be social capitalists, which promote private business while providing a wealth of services to the public through high taxation.
User avatar
#87 - heartlessrobot (08/30/2015) [-]
There's a lot of things that work in other countries that would be disastrous in other countries. The economy is already suffering from social programs, adding more would only make it worse.
User avatar
#93 - bronybox (08/30/2015) [-]
You argue it's suffering from Social Programs, I argue (and Bernie argues) that it's suffering from a lack of demand.

People are not doing well enough for themselves, they don't have enough money, they don't have enough funds to supply the economy. The reality is that we're hollowing out the middle class by wiping out well-paid jobs with benefits and replacing them with low-wage ones that often lack them.

At which point in time I may agree with some Republican policy, because yes, I can't deny that immigrant workers are employed almost solely for the reason that they will work harder than any American would ever dream to, and that they will work for less money. My issue with this is that many more immigrants do jobs that no Americans are even willing to do, the ones that they have too much "pride" to do, but somehow thinking begging on the street is better (I've seriously never seen a Mexican begger here, makes me wonder.)

With the promotion of attending college (and then leaving people in debt for doing so) rather than employing some people straight into the job market, where they belong, because let's face it, college isn't for everyone, there's an almost 50% drop rate after the first year, and then they have to pay that debt off. However, because nobody is being trained in the skilled market, and instead going to college, they simply go the easiest thing: McJobs, fast food work, department stores, etc. These are low-wage, part time, low skill, low-benefit jobs, and NOT the kind that we need.

Want my opinion? Don't push people to college, and if they do decide to follow that path, don't leave them in debt when they ultimately decide it's not for them, and then end up having to pay it off while they're working a shitty job.

Now, I said it somewhere before, $15 minimum wage is ridiculous, it won't be approved, but if it's at least raised to a decent $9.50 - $11.00 an hour, and the high-intensity and skilled job wages are increased, and people don't have crippling debts and bills to pay off, that's when we'll start seeing the economic boom.

Still really questioning our massive military spending, always will. If any economist or businessman claims it's a good idea, they're blowing hot air. War machines and weapons stay in stockpile: they don't earn revenue, they don't earn money, they don't create jobs, they do not stimulate the economy, unless someone's pining for another major war.
User avatar
#95 - heartlessrobot (08/30/2015) [-]
We certainly do need middle class jobs with benefits. What we don't need is more benefits for people without jobs.
And at this point in time, it would be suicide to cut military spending, especially since Russia made a move to expand.
User avatar
#97 - bronybox (08/30/2015) [-]
That's like saying it would be suicide for Bill Gates to give away 50% of his fortune when it's gotten to the point that 50% is an almost inconsequential amount because even one billion dollars can sustain a person's entire family for 3 generations or more.

Maybe a little bit of a false comparison, but my point is that we're spending so much on the military right now and already have so much stockpiled, that cutting military spending, even by 50% or maybe that's a bit radical, we would still be spending three times as much as Russian and China, and I doubt it will have an effect the actual military might of the nation, it does seem that way, right?
User avatar
#99 - heartlessrobot (08/30/2015) [-]
If anything, the military spending needs adjusted, not lowered. Like ditching the M16s, they're shit, and there's far better alternatives without increasing price.
User avatar
#101 - bronybox (08/30/2015) [-]
I mean, perhaps. I'm not an economist or a politician, I'm pretty much out of knowledge/things to say here.

Let opinions be opinions. I still think you're undermining Sanders's ability as a politician, he's no Ron Paul. We'll see.
User avatar
#82 - bronybox (08/30/2015) [-]
I think you've got that backwards.

The President has the job of preparing the United States budget, the process of which is guided by congress and advisers, and then it must be approved and revised by Congress, which comes back to President once again. Even if he vetoes it, then it goes back to the congress for revision once again. You also have to remember that Bernie is an intelligent man and a well-meaning politician; he is very unlikely to want to repeat the Government Shutdown when bipartisan politics took a turn for the worst. I doubt he would push his agenda so fervently and so against the will of congress to repeat the same mistake, it would be incredibly unwise for his political career and public approval.

You also have to remember that while we still have a predominantly Republican House and an almost evenly split Congress (at least last time I checked), so it's very unlikely that Bernie can do anything excessively radical, at least for his first few years in office.

User avatar
#83 - bronybox (08/30/2015) [-]
evenly split Senate*
User avatar
#80 - spaghettivase (08/30/2015) [-]
Which is what every president has done???
User avatar
#81 - heartlessrobot (08/30/2015) [-]
Exactly. But what the president approves of determines whether the country suffers or benefits. If Bernie has any integrity, the country will suffer.
#195375 - what do i do when i've looked at everything on funnyjunk?  [+] (2 new replies) 08/29/2015 on Advice - love advice,... 0
#195402 - anon (08/29/2015) [-]
look at it again
User avatar
#195376 - dingdongsingsong (08/29/2015) [-]
talk to me
#17 - you know i found out that the flying spaghetti monster is a fish 08/28/2015 on Flying spaghetti monster 0