x
Click to expand

usafperson

Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:9/06/2011
Last Login:5/28/2015
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#7159
Highest Content Rank:#16394
Highest Comment Rank:#2987
Content Thumbs: 39 total,  69 ,  30
Comment Thumbs: 2293 total,  2718 ,  425
Content Level Progress: 72.88% (43/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 65% (65/100)
Level 219 Comments: Comedic Genius → Level 220 Comments: Mind Blower
Subscribers:1
Content Views:25623
Times Content Favorited:1 times
Total Comments Made:329
FJ Points:2285

latest user's comments

#82 - A matter of spelling? No. Was Jesus's name actually pronounced… 12/29/2014 on Cyanide & Happiness Title 0
#81 - As long as you admit it's edgy, that's good enough for me. Yea… 12/29/2014 on Cyanide & Happiness Title 0
#80 - I can see your point, but it doesn't quite make sense for the … 12/29/2014 on Cyanide & Happiness Title +1
#10236773 - ): 12/27/2014 on Autism Board 0
#65 - I disagree. From what I've seen, the "edgy" comments…  [+] (3 new replies) 12/24/2014 on Cyanide & Happiness Title 0
User avatar #76 - YllekNayr (12/24/2014) [-]
It's cyanide and happiness

That's their whole shtick.

They act this way about everything, but for some reason nobody says anything about being edgy when they make jokes about racism, murder, or pedophilia.

So yeah, that's exactly what it is.
User avatar #81 - usafperson (12/29/2014) [-]
As long as you admit it's edgy, that's good enough for me. Yeah, they do a lot of other edgy stuff too, but nobody on this website cares because we're on the internet outside of aol and yahoo.
#75 - YllekNayr has deleted their comment.
#56 - Well I'm arguing it and I don't think it's stupid. Edgy anti-r…  [+] (5 new replies) 12/23/2014 on Cyanide & Happiness Title 0
User avatar #58 - YllekNayr (12/23/2014) [-]
Somewhat popular. They make it to the mid level, or near the bottom of the front page, but the comments are always filled with people calling it edgy, even if it's just some quote from Marcus Aurelius. At some point, it becomes "anything not directly promoting religion is edgy" which is fucking stupid.
User avatar #65 - usafperson (12/24/2014) [-]
I disagree. From what I've seen, the "edgy" comments are more prevelant on posts that are directly and intentionally insulting religion. I don't really see many atheist posts that don't include religion-bashing, but they are out there. Funnyjunk is mostly-atheist community, so it makes sense that these posts are popular. We could argue over what kinds of posts are more common and what comments are commented more where, but without digging through the archives neither of us can really prove either way. But even if you are right, and the "edgy" comments are made and popular on all atheist posts, edgy or non-edgy, that doesn't matter in the case of this comment. This content was edgy and someone commented on that, to then be red-thumbed a ton and and completely misrepresented and wrongfully ridiculed by the comment saying "religion fags" always think anything non-believer is edgy.
User avatar #76 - YllekNayr (12/24/2014) [-]
It's cyanide and happiness

That's their whole shtick.

They act this way about everything, but for some reason nobody says anything about being edgy when they make jokes about racism, murder, or pedophilia.

So yeah, that's exactly what it is.
User avatar #81 - usafperson (12/29/2014) [-]
As long as you admit it's edgy, that's good enough for me. Yeah, they do a lot of other edgy stuff too, but nobody on this website cares because we're on the internet outside of aol and yahoo.
#75 - YllekNayr has deleted their comment.
#54 - One could also argue that "EVERY" time something lik…  [+] (7 new replies) 12/23/2014 on Cyanide & Happiness Title 0
User avatar #55 - YllekNayr (12/23/2014) [-]
One could argue that, though they'd be fucking stupid to do so.
User avatar #56 - usafperson (12/23/2014) [-]
Well I'm arguing it and I don't think it's stupid. Edgy anti-religion posts are somewhat popular on this website. If you've been here as long as I have (and judging by the color of your username, longer) it's pretty obvious.
User avatar #58 - YllekNayr (12/23/2014) [-]
Somewhat popular. They make it to the mid level, or near the bottom of the front page, but the comments are always filled with people calling it edgy, even if it's just some quote from Marcus Aurelius. At some point, it becomes "anything not directly promoting religion is edgy" which is fucking stupid.
User avatar #65 - usafperson (12/24/2014) [-]
I disagree. From what I've seen, the "edgy" comments are more prevelant on posts that are directly and intentionally insulting religion. I don't really see many atheist posts that don't include religion-bashing, but they are out there. Funnyjunk is mostly-atheist community, so it makes sense that these posts are popular. We could argue over what kinds of posts are more common and what comments are commented more where, but without digging through the archives neither of us can really prove either way. But even if you are right, and the "edgy" comments are made and popular on all atheist posts, edgy or non-edgy, that doesn't matter in the case of this comment. This content was edgy and someone commented on that, to then be red-thumbed a ton and and completely misrepresented and wrongfully ridiculed by the comment saying "religion fags" always think anything non-believer is edgy.
User avatar #76 - YllekNayr (12/24/2014) [-]
It's cyanide and happiness

That's their whole shtick.

They act this way about everything, but for some reason nobody says anything about being edgy when they make jokes about racism, murder, or pedophilia.

So yeah, that's exactly what it is.
User avatar #81 - usafperson (12/29/2014) [-]
As long as you admit it's edgy, that's good enough for me. Yeah, they do a lot of other edgy stuff too, but nobody on this website cares because we're on the internet outside of aol and yahoo.
#75 - YllekNayr has deleted their comment.
#47 - According to you. Yes, based off of. Jesus was not ba…  [+] (2 new replies) 12/23/2014 on Cyanide & Happiness Title +1
#66 - emotep (12/24/2014) [-]
That is just a matter of the spelling? You say Jesus was Jesus. I say the Jesus in the Bible was based of the historical Jesus, which according to a BBC documentary might have been a Buddhist monk named something along the lines of Isaf, I think.

So bible one could insert 'fictional', but that would be "edgy" wouldn't it? Jesus is based on Isaf (not that it really matter if he wasn't named Jesus)
And fictional Santa is based on St. Nicholas

I do however agree that religion is not some sinister scheme, but rather a result of human nature. It is not insanity, but rather childishness.
User avatar #82 - usafperson (12/29/2014) [-]
A matter of spelling? No. Was Jesus's name actually pronounced or spelled "Jesus"? I highly doubt it. The point is that Jesus WAS Jesus, with his miracles and godliness up for debate. St. Nick and Santa are entirely different people. Santa was based off of St. Nick, yes. That's all though. Jesus was not based off of Jesus, but rather was simply Jesus, whether you think he was also God or not.

Yes, it would be edgy because you'd simply be doing it to get a rise out of me. But aside from that, it would also be just simply untrue. You're talking about something that you obviously don't know about. The bible is a collection of books (or chapters, readings, sections, whatever you want to call them) that are all of different genres. Some are fiction that are meant to tell a true story symbolically. Some are poetry or stories that teach morals. Some are actual non-fiction accounts. There are even real non-fiction letters from the time.
You made a big jump from "which according to a BBC documentary might have been a Buddhist monk named something along to the lines of Isaf, I think." to "Jesus is based on Isaf". Again, regardless of name spelled and pronounced, Jesus was Jesus and no character was ever come up with based on him. He was who he was and whether you believe the religious portion is up to you. Santa on the other hand was a separate persona from St. Nick, and was only based on him.

Don't act childish yourself now. Religion is not childish. To think something is childish only because you don't agree/understand is childish.

Please be more open-minded and do some unbiased studying of history and the bible and the churches, particularly the Catholic church. I'm not asking you to suddenly become a Christian here. Just be open-minded and learn things and maybe change your view on religion, Christianity, and those who believe as a whole.
#42 - Well first off you do know that Jesus was at least a real pers…  [+] (4 new replies) 12/23/2014 on Cyanide & Happiness Title +1
User avatar #45 - capslockrage (12/23/2014) [-]
Except no religions make sense.

You know santa was based off a real person too right?

Besides, there is no actual proof that jesus ever existed as a human.

Really, Christianity was created as more of a scam than something to get adults to behave but regardless, it's still very very silly and believing in such things shows small signs of being insane.
User avatar #47 - usafperson (12/23/2014) [-]
According to you.

Yes, based off of. Jesus was not based off of Jesus. Jesus was Jesus. Santa is still a fictional character. The fact that he was based off a real person makes no difference.

Again, there is no actual proof that anybody from that long ago existed. All we have is historical evidence which you're choosing to ignore.

You have nothing at all to base that claim off of. If Christianity is untrue, it's more likely the result of the natural human need to know why they're here. And the idea of something existing beyond out current scientific understanding is not insane at all. It's small-minded for you to think so.
#66 - emotep (12/24/2014) [-]
That is just a matter of the spelling? You say Jesus was Jesus. I say the Jesus in the Bible was based of the historical Jesus, which according to a BBC documentary might have been a Buddhist monk named something along the lines of Isaf, I think.

So bible one could insert 'fictional', but that would be "edgy" wouldn't it? Jesus is based on Isaf (not that it really matter if he wasn't named Jesus)
And fictional Santa is based on St. Nicholas

I do however agree that religion is not some sinister scheme, but rather a result of human nature. It is not insanity, but rather childishness.
User avatar #82 - usafperson (12/29/2014) [-]
A matter of spelling? No. Was Jesus's name actually pronounced or spelled "Jesus"? I highly doubt it. The point is that Jesus WAS Jesus, with his miracles and godliness up for debate. St. Nick and Santa are entirely different people. Santa was based off of St. Nick, yes. That's all though. Jesus was not based off of Jesus, but rather was simply Jesus, whether you think he was also God or not.

Yes, it would be edgy because you'd simply be doing it to get a rise out of me. But aside from that, it would also be just simply untrue. You're talking about something that you obviously don't know about. The bible is a collection of books (or chapters, readings, sections, whatever you want to call them) that are all of different genres. Some are fiction that are meant to tell a true story symbolically. Some are poetry or stories that teach morals. Some are actual non-fiction accounts. There are even real non-fiction letters from the time.
You made a big jump from "which according to a BBC documentary might have been a Buddhist monk named something along to the lines of Isaf, I think." to "Jesus is based on Isaf". Again, regardless of name spelled and pronounced, Jesus was Jesus and no character was ever come up with based on him. He was who he was and whether you believe the religious portion is up to you. Santa on the other hand was a separate persona from St. Nick, and was only based on him.

Don't act childish yourself now. Religion is not childish. To think something is childish only because you don't agree/understand is childish.

Please be more open-minded and do some unbiased studying of history and the bible and the churches, particularly the Catholic church. I'm not asking you to suddenly become a Christian here. Just be open-minded and learn things and maybe change your view on religion, Christianity, and those who believe as a whole.
#36 - You know what, that comment was rude. I could have made my poi… 12/23/2014 on Cyanide & Happiness Title -1
#35 - You obviously have no idea how science or even critical thinki…  [+] (2 new replies) 12/23/2014 on Cyanide & Happiness Title -3
User avatar #39 - Eox (12/23/2014) [-]
k then
User avatar #36 - usafperson (12/23/2014) [-]
You know what, that comment was rude. I could have made my point more politely. I'm sorry for that. I need rest is all.
#30 - There's obviously no scientific evidence you might be looking …  [+] (4 new replies) 12/23/2014 on Cyanide & Happiness Title -1
User avatar #33 - Eox (12/23/2014) [-]
All scientific evidences don't come from laboratories and shiet.


You can scientifically prove the existence of people by using various methods:

For instance,
1. Find a shit ton of sources.
2. Identify the authors.
3. Make sure most of the authors didn't have the same agenda.
4. Make sure most of the authors didn't know eachother.

Source: getting my master's in religious studies this summer.

User avatar #35 - usafperson (12/23/2014) [-]
You obviously have no idea how science or even critical thinking works. See a shit ton of people can say the same thing and that doesn't make it right. A shit ton of people say that Jesus was a real person and they meet those criteria you gave but that doesn't prove shit and there isn't any scientific evidence. Scientific evidence and research evidence are different things. The fact that there are multiple historical texts referencing Jesus even outside of religious writings along with other evidence mulled over by historians show that Jesus existed with very little reasonable doubt, but that's not proof and it's not scientific evidence either.
User avatar #39 - Eox (12/23/2014) [-]
k then
User avatar #36 - usafperson (12/23/2014) [-]
You know what, that comment was rude. I could have made my point more politely. I'm sorry for that. I need rest is all.
#29 - While there's obviously not scientific proof of anyone who liv… 12/23/2014 on Cyanide & Happiness Title +5
#28 - Maybe they weren't addressing everyone that doesn't believe, b…  [+] (18 new replies) 12/23/2014 on Cyanide & Happiness Title +10
#64 - emotep (12/24/2014) [-]
I think it is important to distinguish the possible historical person Jesus, and the character from the bible Jesus.

The comparison between Jesus (from the bible anyway) and Santa Claus is more than fair, and to be quite honest it illustrates the point quite well that Santa is "a known and undisputed fairly tale" while a guy who is said to have be born of a virgin, walked on water and rose from the dead is apparently more than reasonable to believe in.

What is annoys me is that if people here actually had a proper arguments for religion in a context like this, they should resort to those instead of this ad hominem "edgy" "fedora" stereotype that they are trying to establish. Seriously I'm not fat, and I don't wear a fedora; even if I did, it wouldn't invalidate the point anyway.
User avatar #80 - usafperson (12/29/2014) [-]
I can see your point, but it doesn't quite make sense for the simple reason that St. Nicolas and Santa are by all accounts entirely different people. Nobody claims that St. Nick lived on the North Pole and brought presents all the children of the world on Christmas. That's Santa Clause, a character that was come up with to fool children. We KNOW the origin of it the same way we know the origin of any character out of a children's book.
In the case of Jesus, there is no difference between between the real guy and the "character" that you're referring to. I mean this in that they were the same person in the same place, and nobody claims otherwise. The only debate whether or not he really did perform miracles and if he is the son of the father as God. Yes, you could call him who did these things a character if you like, but he is still the same person.
Additionally, we don't know the origin the same way we know the origin of Santa. All we know for sure is that there's a book about him that says he did certain things, a church that originates from that time which claims he did those things, and there are non-religious historical texts about him that neither confirm nor deny the miracles and such.
But there was never a character thought up based on him who did these things. These claims were made from the beginning.

I do agree that the whole fedora thing is wrong and unfair. And I do agree that it's wrong to call anything atheist edgy even when it's not being edgy. I also agree that Christians on this website are pretty ill-equipped to argue for their religion.
User avatar #51 - YllekNayr (12/23/2014) [-]
"Maybe" stops being appropriate when EVERY time something like this is posted, the response is "EDGY"
User avatar #54 - usafperson (12/23/2014) [-]
One could also argue that "EVERY" time something like this is posted, it IS edgy. Thought about that? It makes sense, edgy can be funny.
User avatar #55 - YllekNayr (12/23/2014) [-]
One could argue that, though they'd be fucking stupid to do so.
User avatar #56 - usafperson (12/23/2014) [-]
Well I'm arguing it and I don't think it's stupid. Edgy anti-religion posts are somewhat popular on this website. If you've been here as long as I have (and judging by the color of your username, longer) it's pretty obvious.
User avatar #58 - YllekNayr (12/23/2014) [-]
Somewhat popular. They make it to the mid level, or near the bottom of the front page, but the comments are always filled with people calling it edgy, even if it's just some quote from Marcus Aurelius. At some point, it becomes "anything not directly promoting religion is edgy" which is fucking stupid.
User avatar #65 - usafperson (12/24/2014) [-]
I disagree. From what I've seen, the "edgy" comments are more prevelant on posts that are directly and intentionally insulting religion. I don't really see many atheist posts that don't include religion-bashing, but they are out there. Funnyjunk is mostly-atheist community, so it makes sense that these posts are popular. We could argue over what kinds of posts are more common and what comments are commented more where, but without digging through the archives neither of us can really prove either way. But even if you are right, and the "edgy" comments are made and popular on all atheist posts, edgy or non-edgy, that doesn't matter in the case of this comment. This content was edgy and someone commented on that, to then be red-thumbed a ton and and completely misrepresented and wrongfully ridiculed by the comment saying "religion fags" always think anything non-believer is edgy.
User avatar #76 - YllekNayr (12/24/2014) [-]
It's cyanide and happiness

That's their whole shtick.

They act this way about everything, but for some reason nobody says anything about being edgy when they make jokes about racism, murder, or pedophilia.

So yeah, that's exactly what it is.
User avatar #81 - usafperson (12/29/2014) [-]
As long as you admit it's edgy, that's good enough for me. Yeah, they do a lot of other edgy stuff too, but nobody on this website cares because we're on the internet outside of aol and yahoo.
#75 - YllekNayr has deleted their comment.
#50 - YllekNayr has deleted their comment.
User avatar #38 - capslockrage (12/23/2014) [-]
Yeah but if most people used common sense they would realize jesus was a fairytale too.

Why is magically giving presents to children all around the world any different than turning water into wine or coming back to life?
User avatar #42 - usafperson (12/23/2014) [-]
Well first off you do know that Jesus was at least a real person right? Historians agree, lots of historical texts and evidence point to it inside and outside of religious writings. As to whether or not he was the son of God, that's more disputed. And it's a lot more complex than a fairy tale that was made up with the purpose of fooling children. Maybe be a bit more open-minded and look at how different religions can make sense.
User avatar #45 - capslockrage (12/23/2014) [-]
Except no religions make sense.

You know santa was based off a real person too right?

Besides, there is no actual proof that jesus ever existed as a human.

Really, Christianity was created as more of a scam than something to get adults to behave but regardless, it's still very very silly and believing in such things shows small signs of being insane.
User avatar #47 - usafperson (12/23/2014) [-]
According to you.

Yes, based off of. Jesus was not based off of Jesus. Jesus was Jesus. Santa is still a fictional character. The fact that he was based off a real person makes no difference.

Again, there is no actual proof that anybody from that long ago existed. All we have is historical evidence which you're choosing to ignore.

You have nothing at all to base that claim off of. If Christianity is untrue, it's more likely the result of the natural human need to know why they're here. And the idea of something existing beyond out current scientific understanding is not insane at all. It's small-minded for you to think so.
#66 - emotep (12/24/2014) [-]
That is just a matter of the spelling? You say Jesus was Jesus. I say the Jesus in the Bible was based of the historical Jesus, which according to a BBC documentary might have been a Buddhist monk named something along the lines of Isaf, I think.

So bible one could insert 'fictional', but that would be "edgy" wouldn't it? Jesus is based on Isaf (not that it really matter if he wasn't named Jesus)
And fictional Santa is based on St. Nicholas

I do however agree that religion is not some sinister scheme, but rather a result of human nature. It is not insanity, but rather childishness.
User avatar #82 - usafperson (12/29/2014) [-]
A matter of spelling? No. Was Jesus's name actually pronounced or spelled "Jesus"? I highly doubt it. The point is that Jesus WAS Jesus, with his miracles and godliness up for debate. St. Nick and Santa are entirely different people. Santa was based off of St. Nick, yes. That's all though. Jesus was not based off of Jesus, but rather was simply Jesus, whether you think he was also God or not.

Yes, it would be edgy because you'd simply be doing it to get a rise out of me. But aside from that, it would also be just simply untrue. You're talking about something that you obviously don't know about. The bible is a collection of books (or chapters, readings, sections, whatever you want to call them) that are all of different genres. Some are fiction that are meant to tell a true story symbolically. Some are poetry or stories that teach morals. Some are actual non-fiction accounts. There are even real non-fiction letters from the time.
You made a big jump from "which according to a BBC documentary might have been a Buddhist monk named something along to the lines of Isaf, I think." to "Jesus is based on Isaf". Again, regardless of name spelled and pronounced, Jesus was Jesus and no character was ever come up with based on him. He was who he was and whether you believe the religious portion is up to you. Santa on the other hand was a separate persona from St. Nick, and was only based on him.

Don't act childish yourself now. Religion is not childish. To think something is childish only because you don't agree/understand is childish.

Please be more open-minded and do some unbiased studying of history and the bible and the churches, particularly the Catholic church. I'm not asking you to suddenly become a Christian here. Just be open-minded and learn things and maybe change your view on religion, Christianity, and those who believe as a whole.
#10 - As I read it I pictured the guy on his knee with the ring and … 12/22/2014 on Omegle in a nutshell +1
#75 - I wrestled 4 years in high school and our coach never once ask… 12/18/2014 on Eat shit kid +2
#727 - **usafperson used "*roll male privilege*"** **usafperson ro… 12/18/2014 on check your male privilege +1
#1690 - **usafperson used "*roll faggots*"** **usafperson rolls Phanact** 12/17/2014 on Did you check your... -1
#1687 - **usafperson used "*roll cis privilege*"** **usafperson rol… 12/17/2014 on Did you check your... -1
#36 - many* not man. That could have gone pretty wrong lol 12/16/2014 on Abortion +2
#35 - Regardless of your opinion on the matter, this is just awful l…  [+] (1 new reply) 12/16/2014 on Abortion +9
User avatar #36 - usafperson (12/16/2014) [-]
many* not man. That could have gone pretty wrong lol
#41 - Picture 12/14/2014 on Pc master race. -1
#81 - Well shoot, alright. But it's still illegal and is trumped by … 12/13/2014 on hold on to your butts -1
#8 - lolololololololololololololololololololololol citation needed  [+] (3 new replies) 12/13/2014 on hold on to your butts +1
User avatar #43 - nimba (12/13/2014) [-]
All none of the non-christian presidents
User avatar #81 - usafperson (12/13/2014) [-]
Well shoot, alright. But it's still illegal and is trumped by the constitution as it says there in the article. Interesting stuff though. Thanks.
#15 - That's awful. You'd think they'd be able to stop the elevator …  [+] (2 new replies) 12/07/2014 on I am a massive Maggot +1
#26 - calibratuner (12/08/2014) [-]
His lungs were apparently crushed.

Fuck i wish i never watched this.
#16 - Absolute Madman (12/07/2014) [-]
Yeah I feel ya, it's a horrible accident. No problem buddy
[ 328 Total ]

items

Total unique items point value: 2050 / Total items point value: 2250
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#18 - minibeep (04/23/2015) [-]
u a weeaboo ?
User avatar #19 to #18 - usafperson (04/28/2015) [-]
No, sorry. Why?
#11 - waffies ONLINE (04/20/2015) [-]
Hiya! You answered my Oedipus question, and I saw your username and felt compelled to ask my fellow FJer what his involvement with the USAF is! Are you actively enlisted, veteran, retired, or just a big fan?
Hiya! You answered my Oedipus question, and I saw your username and felt compelled to ask my fellow FJer what his involvement with the USAF is! Are you actively enlisted, veteran, retired, or just a big fan?
User avatar #13 to #11 - usafperson (04/20/2015) [-]
Also my grandfather was in the air force which is what originally got me interested.
#12 to #11 - usafperson (04/20/2015) [-]
I made this account a while ago while I was planning on going to the Air Force Academy. I wanted to be a pilot, and had been obsessed with military aircraft for a long time. I worked pretty hard for it, and even applied to the summer seminar there and was accepted and attended, which I'm very proud of. Unfortunately I won't ever know if I would have actually gotten in because I eventually decided that I, personally, could do more for my country in the private sector than as an air force pilot. I figure anyone skilled enough for the Air Force to let them into an F-22 will get the job done exceedingly well. So I'm currently at uni studying engineering. Still a huge fan though!
What about yourself?
#14 to #12 - waffies ONLINE (04/20/2015) [-]
I enlisted just this month, basic training in August. Been a long time dream to get airborne, so Loadmaster on an aircrew is a heck of a way to kick things off!    
   
Mind if i ask what you mean by the private sector? Like what you hope to do as a career?  I'm afraid I don't really have a concept of anything that means!
I enlisted just this month, basic training in August. Been a long time dream to get airborne, so Loadmaster on an aircrew is a heck of a way to kick things off!

Mind if i ask what you mean by the private sector? Like what you hope to do as a career? I'm afraid I don't really have a concept of anything that means!
#15 to #14 - usafperson (04/20/2015) [-]
Congratulations! Good luck to you, I'm sure you'll do great things.

Private sector as in anything in private business, not government-run, etc. And specifically mechanical engineering. So for example, if I'm lucky I might end up working at Boeing or Northrop Grumman developing the aircraft that the Air Force would put to use. Or even in non-military related industries, if I'm successful I would be driving the American economy and technology forward.
#16 to #15 - waffies ONLINE (04/20/2015) [-]
Thanks man, finally living up to some dreams, and I'm excited beyond reason. Your support means a lot too!   
   
Aaah, so Lockheed Martin developing the F-35 counts as private sector up until they start selling them to military forces? You wanna be where the real braniacs are at! Good on ya man, you have my utmost respect, and will likely have skills that I'd never dream of.   
   
Invent some jetpacks while you're at it eh?
Thanks man, finally living up to some dreams, and I'm excited beyond reason. Your support means a lot too!

Aaah, so Lockheed Martin developing the F-35 counts as private sector up until they start selling them to military forces? You wanna be where the real braniacs are at! Good on ya man, you have my utmost respect, and will likely have skills that I'd never dream of.

Invent some jetpacks while you're at it eh?
#17 to #16 - usafperson (04/20/2015) [-]
Glad to hear it man.

Yeah, Lockheed Martin is a private company that's contracted by the government to design and build the F-35 and other things. The F-35s are sold to the government for use.

Haha, we'll see what happens. Good luck, again. And thanks for your service.
#10 - datgrass (06/25/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #8 - physicsamurai (09/28/2012) [-]
Thank you.
User avatar #9 to #8 - usafperson (10/01/2012) [-]
You're welcome bro. I feel for you. Let me know how it works out.
#6 - Absolute Madman (05/18/2012) [-]
retard
User avatar #1 - jmezfm (04/07/2012) [-]
Why the add?
User avatar #2 to #1 - usafperson (04/07/2012) [-]
no reason, just thought i would add a a random person as a friend, clicked your username, saw you said you accept requests, added, you accepted, we are here. How do you do?

User avatar #3 to #2 - jmezfm (04/07/2012) [-]
Haha awesome. And I do fine, and yourself?
User avatar #4 to #3 - usafperson (04/07/2012) [-]
quite fine myself, thank you
#5 to #4 - jmezfm (04/07/2012) [-]
This image has expired
You're very welcome, fine sir.
 Friends (0)