Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

valetparking    

Rank #22201 on Comments
valetparking Avatar Level 223 Comments: Mind Blower
Offline
Send mail to valetparking Block valetparking Invite valetparking to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:1/31/2012
Last Login:8/29/2014
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#22201
Highest Content Rank:#20138
Highest Comment Rank:#1701
Content Thumbs: 34 total,  50 ,  16
Comment Thumbs: 2361 total,  2662 ,  301
Content Level Progress: 64.4% (38/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 59% (59/100)
Level 223 Comments: Mind Blower → Level 224 Comments: Mind Blower
Subscribers:1
Content Views:4247
Times Content Favorited:4 times
Total Comments Made:725
FJ Points:2465

latest user's comments

#3 - you're quite welcome :D 03/10/2012 on JoshIsChuckNorris's profile 0
#1 - *rapes comment virginity* <<here, have a cake :D 03/10/2012 on JoshIsChuckNorris's profile 0
#142 - agreed 120% good sir. i've seen the show (albeit only the firs… 03/10/2012 on Ponies: Because I Can +4
#113 - he's "hopeless" because he wants what we want, and t…  [+] (1 new reply) 03/10/2012 on dick santorum. -1
User avatar #298 - Ruspanic (03/10/2012) [-]
I have tremendous respect for Ron Paul and I like him a lot more than I any of the other Presidential candidates - including Obama. And I support his efforts to spread the libertarian ideology. But I don't think he's fit to run this country. Sometimes leaders have to suspend their principles for the sake of pragmatism or compromise or the immediate interests of their country, and I fear Ron Paul won't be willing to do that.

Forgive me if I don't quite understand your paragraph on Iran. We aren't occupying Iran. As far as I'm aware, we have never occupied Iran. Paul often alludes to the 1953 coup in which we took down Mossadegh, and he's right in saying much of the anti-American sentiment in Iran stems from that event. But in recent times we've cut off most of our ties with Iran and imposed strict economic sanctions. We don't get any oil from Iran anymore, and Iran doesn't depend on American foreign aid at all. So although the Texas analogy may apply to Iraq or Afghanistan, or perhaps to America's Cold War-era foreign policy, it does not apply to Iran.

As I understand it, Paul's view is that our government should respect the sovereignty of other countries, including Iran, and focus more on domestic affairs. In his view, we shouldn't be policing the world, and we shouldn't be handing out aid because it 1) causes other countries to be reliant on us and 2) spends taxpayer money that should be used for the benefit of our own citizens.
#177 - my problem mainly lies in what to use and how to use it. i can… 03/10/2012 on math and fap 0
#172 - i need to take electricity and magnetism next semester... IF i…  [+] (2 new replies) 03/10/2012 on math and fap +1
#178 - chargedpking (03/10/2012) [-]
User avatar #177 - valetparking (03/10/2012) [-]
my problem mainly lies in what to use and how to use it. i can grind myself down to understanding a concept relatively easy, but putting it into practice is quite another.

to put it in a non-scholar's terms, it's like cutting down a tree with a sledgehammer.
#165 - i passed that in high school easily. it was basically a re-ite… 03/10/2012 on math and fap +1
#160 - lol yeah, when you have proofs that come out very irrationally… 03/10/2012 on math and fap +1
#155 - wat be Number Theory?i don't think i got to that yet... … 03/09/2012 on math and fap +1
#149 - huh, then your definition of Calc I classes are slightly diffe… 03/09/2012 on math and fap +1
#76 - they're obviously doing something because just about everyone …  [+] (5 new replies) 03/09/2012 on dick santorum. 0
User avatar #151 - schwarzenschwanz (03/10/2012) [-]
ya you're right, i just havent watched enough on ron paul since he seems to have fallen off recently. its all about romney and gingrich now, neither of them seem fully sensible in my mind to be presidents, but id chose romney over gingrich any day, gingrich says too many things that makes me say "are you that fucking stupid?" like his "ghetto" comment a while back. but ya, you're right on the marijuana thing, the reason its such a big deal is b/c its illegal, once its legalized it wont be such a cool amazing thing, no need to sneak around selling it to some crack head down the street when you can just buy it yourself, while helping out with our economy.
User avatar #299 - Ruspanic (03/10/2012) [-]
Actually it's Romney and Santorum right now. Gingrich won South Carolina and Georgia, but he's probably not going to win another state and is becoming largely irrelevant.
User avatar #96 - Ruspanic (03/10/2012) [-]
The problem with Ron Paul is that he's a hopeless idealist. Do you really trust that the free market will self-regulate without the burden of government regulation? Or that Iran will not develop nuclear weapons if left to its own devices? Ron Paul's a visionary who needs to continue spreading his message, but I just can't trust him in our highest office. He is all principle and no pragmatism.
User avatar #113 - valetparking (03/10/2012) [-]
he's "hopeless" because he wants what we want, and the current elected officials are dicks and don't want to give us our liberties - SOPA is a very obvious example of this. and yes, i agree: a truly free market would form something along the lines of monopolies, but i don't think Ron Paul would allow that...

and the thing about Iran, from what i've seen, is that no real conclusion can be drawn. Ron Paul makes a good point that a given country may not like being occupied, but we simply don't know if whether or not Iran's actions are true hate for us because we're Western, or because we're occupying the shit out of them - hard to tell because of the liberal media. basically, how Ron Paul views foreign policy is something along the lines of this: how would Texas like it if Chinese or Russian soldiers occupied Austin "for communism"? naturally, they'd fight back, and it becomes an infinite loop of bloodshed. that's pretty much what we're doing over there. also, think about this: if we cut foreign aid to Iran, where are they gonna get the extra money? oil can only bring in so much, you know...

even when Ron Paul doesn't get the nomination, he already said he's achieved his primary goal of getting the word out. can't really blame the guy for trying...
User avatar #298 - Ruspanic (03/10/2012) [-]
I have tremendous respect for Ron Paul and I like him a lot more than I any of the other Presidential candidates - including Obama. And I support his efforts to spread the libertarian ideology. But I don't think he's fit to run this country. Sometimes leaders have to suspend their principles for the sake of pragmatism or compromise or the immediate interests of their country, and I fear Ron Paul won't be willing to do that.

Forgive me if I don't quite understand your paragraph on Iran. We aren't occupying Iran. As far as I'm aware, we have never occupied Iran. Paul often alludes to the 1953 coup in which we took down Mossadegh, and he's right in saying much of the anti-American sentiment in Iran stems from that event. But in recent times we've cut off most of our ties with Iran and imposed strict economic sanctions. We don't get any oil from Iran anymore, and Iran doesn't depend on American foreign aid at all. So although the Texas analogy may apply to Iraq or Afghanistan, or perhaps to America's Cold War-era foreign policy, it does not apply to Iran.

As I understand it, Paul's view is that our government should respect the sovereignty of other countries, including Iran, and focus more on domestic affairs. In his view, we shouldn't be policing the world, and we shouldn't be handing out aid because it 1) causes other countries to be reliant on us and 2) spends taxpayer money that should be used for the benefit of our own citizens.
#146 - shell and disc/ring methods were covered in my Calc I class, a… 03/09/2012 on math and fap +1
#142 - quite a bit, actually. you'll soon be dealing with inverse fun… 03/09/2012 on math and fap +2
#42 - i'm personally rooting for Ron Paul (even though he won't get …  [+] (9 new replies) 03/09/2012 on dick santorum. -4
User avatar #50 - schwarzenschwanz (03/09/2012) [-]
they dont fix the polls, he wont win b/c of the things he's proposed that he will do if elected. he isnt capable of being the president and helping our country, he isnt in our best interest. just b/c he wants to legalize marijuana and seems laid back, doesnt make him the best fit. he wont win because he cant be in control of america.
User avatar #101 - glasgowrangers (03/10/2012) [-]
Switch off FOX news before it's too late for you!
User avatar #150 - schwarzenschwanz (03/10/2012) [-]
trust me i dont watch that shit i form my own opinions based on what i see, not what fox news drills into my head. i hate fox as much as anyone, its horse shit how that station literally has the power to brainwash everyone who watches it. they can edit and censor whatever they want, if they want you to hate Obama, they will achieve it. if they want you to hate certain candidates, they have the power to manipulate footage. its sick and really disturbing how they hide the truth from us, fuck fox news.
User avatar #76 - valetparking (03/09/2012) [-]
they're obviously doing something because just about everyone sensible i've met was voting for Ron Paul. whether or not that's actually true is debatable.

as for Ron Paul being "laid-back" or offering to "legalize" marijuana... to the former, he has NOT been laid-back; look up on Youtube the many predictions he got right. he speaks the cold, hard reality. to the latter, he said he'd leave that to the states to decide whether or not to make marijuana legal. let's face it: if it were legal, it could become a taxable substance, and therefore generate revenue. who doesn't want an extra buck or two?

go ahead and vote for whoever you want. i'm not going to stop you.
User avatar #151 - schwarzenschwanz (03/10/2012) [-]
ya you're right, i just havent watched enough on ron paul since he seems to have fallen off recently. its all about romney and gingrich now, neither of them seem fully sensible in my mind to be presidents, but id chose romney over gingrich any day, gingrich says too many things that makes me say "are you that fucking stupid?" like his "ghetto" comment a while back. but ya, you're right on the marijuana thing, the reason its such a big deal is b/c its illegal, once its legalized it wont be such a cool amazing thing, no need to sneak around selling it to some crack head down the street when you can just buy it yourself, while helping out with our economy.
User avatar #299 - Ruspanic (03/10/2012) [-]
Actually it's Romney and Santorum right now. Gingrich won South Carolina and Georgia, but he's probably not going to win another state and is becoming largely irrelevant.
User avatar #96 - Ruspanic (03/10/2012) [-]
The problem with Ron Paul is that he's a hopeless idealist. Do you really trust that the free market will self-regulate without the burden of government regulation? Or that Iran will not develop nuclear weapons if left to its own devices? Ron Paul's a visionary who needs to continue spreading his message, but I just can't trust him in our highest office. He is all principle and no pragmatism.
User avatar #113 - valetparking (03/10/2012) [-]
he's "hopeless" because he wants what we want, and the current elected officials are dicks and don't want to give us our liberties - SOPA is a very obvious example of this. and yes, i agree: a truly free market would form something along the lines of monopolies, but i don't think Ron Paul would allow that...

and the thing about Iran, from what i've seen, is that no real conclusion can be drawn. Ron Paul makes a good point that a given country may not like being occupied, but we simply don't know if whether or not Iran's actions are true hate for us because we're Western, or because we're occupying the shit out of them - hard to tell because of the liberal media. basically, how Ron Paul views foreign policy is something along the lines of this: how would Texas like it if Chinese or Russian soldiers occupied Austin "for communism"? naturally, they'd fight back, and it becomes an infinite loop of bloodshed. that's pretty much what we're doing over there. also, think about this: if we cut foreign aid to Iran, where are they gonna get the extra money? oil can only bring in so much, you know...

even when Ron Paul doesn't get the nomination, he already said he's achieved his primary goal of getting the word out. can't really blame the guy for trying...
User avatar #298 - Ruspanic (03/10/2012) [-]
I have tremendous respect for Ron Paul and I like him a lot more than I any of the other Presidential candidates - including Obama. And I support his efforts to spread the libertarian ideology. But I don't think he's fit to run this country. Sometimes leaders have to suspend their principles for the sake of pragmatism or compromise or the immediate interests of their country, and I fear Ron Paul won't be willing to do that.

Forgive me if I don't quite understand your paragraph on Iran. We aren't occupying Iran. As far as I'm aware, we have never occupied Iran. Paul often alludes to the 1953 coup in which we took down Mossadegh, and he's right in saying much of the anti-American sentiment in Iran stems from that event. But in recent times we've cut off most of our ties with Iran and imposed strict economic sanctions. We don't get any oil from Iran anymore, and Iran doesn't depend on American foreign aid at all. So although the Texas analogy may apply to Iraq or Afghanistan, or perhaps to America's Cold War-era foreign policy, it does not apply to Iran.

As I understand it, Paul's view is that our government should respect the sovereignty of other countries, including Iran, and focus more on domestic affairs. In his view, we shouldn't be policing the world, and we shouldn't be handing out aid because it 1) causes other countries to be reliant on us and 2) spends taxpayer money that should be used for the benefit of our own citizens.
#23 - Picture 03/09/2012 on Dog Equis +2
#25 - a highly relevant roll, good sir. 03/09/2012 on Hide This Post +2
#105 - congrats. you'll be going places. 03/09/2012 on math and fap +3
#95 - considering i'm in Calc II and college Physics right now... yeah...  [+] (3 new replies) 03/09/2012 on math and fap +4
#103 - casadue (03/09/2012) [-]
just passed Calc I with 30/30 in Italian University and engineering... ready for next semester's Calc II... :)


#105 - valetparking (03/09/2012) [-]
congrats. you'll be going places.
#104 - casadue has deleted their comment.
#82 - oh, it gets worse, trust me.  [+] (6 new replies) 03/09/2012 on math and fap +2
#88 - casadue (03/09/2012) [-]
Trust me...
iknowthatfeel.jpg
#110 - engine has deleted their comment.
#95 - valetparking (03/09/2012) [-]
considering i'm in Calc II and college Physics right now... yeah...
#103 - casadue (03/09/2012) [-]
just passed Calc I with 30/30 in Italian University and engineering... ready for next semester's Calc II... :)


#105 - valetparking (03/09/2012) [-]
congrats. you'll be going places.
#104 - casadue has deleted their comment.
#41 - Picture 03/09/2012 on Kony Bryant 0
#67 - wait until you get to Calculus  [+] (8 new replies) 03/09/2012 on math and fap +4
#81 - casadue (03/09/2012) [-]
integrals...
User avatar #82 - valetparking (03/09/2012) [-]
oh, it gets worse, trust me.
#88 - casadue (03/09/2012) [-]
Trust me...
iknowthatfeel.jpg
#110 - engine has deleted their comment.
#95 - valetparking (03/09/2012) [-]
considering i'm in Calc II and college Physics right now... yeah...
#103 - casadue (03/09/2012) [-]
just passed Calc I with 30/30 in Italian University and engineering... ready for next semester's Calc II... :)


#105 - valetparking (03/09/2012) [-]
congrats. you'll be going places.
#104 - casadue has deleted their comment.
#59 - Picture 03/09/2012 on Rupees +1
#188 - Picture 03/09/2012 on Hipster Piracy +2
#50 - that's "Send Link". i was referring to the suspiciou… 03/09/2012 on Clench those cheeks 0
#36 - <<mfw i see link in description  [+] (2 new replies) 03/08/2012 on Clench those cheeks +14
#42 - nuaden (03/09/2012) [-]
What about this one?
User avatar #50 - valetparking (03/09/2012) [-]
that's "Send Link". i was referring to the suspiciously-shortened URL; thus, the "suspicious link" pic.

oh well, it doesn't matter. it had something to do with Link...

Comments(1):

 

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
No comments!
 Friends (0)