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

hide menu

xheavymetalx    

no avatar Level 224 Comments: Mind Blower
Offline
Send mail to xheavymetalx Block xheavymetalx Invite xheavymetalx to be your friend
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:4/08/2011
Last Login:11/23/2014
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Content Thumbs: 231 total,  287 ,  56
Comment Thumbs: 2487 total,  3429 ,  942
Content Level Progress: 10% (1/10)
Level 23 Content: Peasant → Level 24 Content: Peasant
Comment Level Progress: 35% (35/100)
Level 224 Comments: Mind Blower → Level 225 Comments: Mind Blower
Subscribers:0
Content Views:6729
Times Content Favorited:12 times
Total Comments Made:943
FJ Points:2694
Favorite Tags: Cleverbot (3) | stalker (2)

latest user's comments

#90 - Comment deleted  [+] (6 new replies) 09/28/2013 on I +9
#125 - teenytinyspider Comment deleted by xheavymetalx
#93 - Womens Study Major Comment deleted by xheavymetalx
#99 - xheavymetalx Comment deleted by xheavymetalx
#160 - thradrenaa Comment deleted by xheavymetalx
#127 - feyhu Comment deleted by xheavymetalx
#109 - kmichel Comment deleted by xheavymetalx
#88 - Comment deleted  [+] (8 new replies) 09/28/2013 on I 0
#215 - BlaiseGrimm Comment deleted by xheavymetalx
#213 - BlaiseGrimm Comment deleted by xheavymetalx
#142 - dethane Comment deleted by xheavymetalx
#106 - kmichel Comment deleted by xheavymetalx
#111 - xheavymetalx Comment deleted by xheavymetalx
#216 - BlaiseGrimm Comment deleted by xheavymetalx
#228 - xheavymetalx Comment deleted by xheavymetalx
#112 - kmichel Comment deleted by xheavymetalx
#150 - *sigh* It's not about the money, people. Some people … 09/28/2013 on Makes sense...Kind of.. 0
#143 - Sure, some people are irrational about it. But my point about … 09/24/2013 on Murdered 0
#114 - The difference is that EVERYONE agreed that whoever killed tho…  [+] (8 new replies) 09/24/2013 on Murdered +23
#198 - Womens Study Major (09/24/2013) [-]
^FUCKING YES

What dumbasses don't understand is that this case got a lot of attention because it's controversial on whether the murder was justified or not.

Then white racist assholes came and said "hurrr durrr ppl care coz victim ez blck and kiler is wheet" (hispanic actually, but you get the point)

Many black kids get killed by white criminals throughout the year, so why don't they ALL get their cases publicized nationally for months like the Martin kid?!!

Reason is, for all the other murders by white criminals against black people, EVERYONE (except hardcore racists) agrees that what the white person has done, is NOT justified.
User avatar #124 - noblexfenrir (09/24/2013) [-]
Well while I agree, I think this kind of thing shows the insane methods by which certain advocates further their position.

Take Jesse Jackson as an example, he's up in arms at any given chance to show that authority figures are the problem, or government is the problem (Don't get me wrong, alot of the time they are, I'm not disputing that.), or he pops up during cases such as the Trayvon murder, to further perpetuate that racism is still as much an issue as it used to be when he was actually making a difference.

But when things like this happen? We don't hear a peep out of him, he barely ever has a single word to say on the subject. He preaches pro-black and nothing else, when they should be advocating non-violence and to abhor situations like this as examples of what not to let ourselves degrade But no, it doesn't fit his agenda.

Sorry, long rant, and got way off topic.
#143 - xheavymetalx (09/24/2013) [-]
Sure, some people are irrational about it. But my point about the Martin case was that if Zimmerman was definitely going to jail like the murderers OP posted about, there wouldn't be protests saying "Justice for Trayvon" because he would have already gotten it.

People will use any situation to further their position if it suits them.
User avatar #129 - musicmantrice (09/24/2013) [-]
That's because Jesse Jackson is only worried about how much money
he can make off of the ignorant masses following his incitement of attempted
race wars.
User avatar #130 - noblexfenrir (09/24/2013) [-]
Agreed.

and unfortunately even though I hate pointing out specific groups, liberals eat this shit up. It's not entirely their fault, but they have this strange obsession with catering to problems and stressing them, but that doesn't fix anything. I'm not saying forget racism existed heavily not even 100 years ago, I'm saying move past it. If you keep acting like it's still as bad as it was, then you are making gullible and impressionable people think it still is.
User avatar #132 - musicmantrice (09/24/2013) [-]
Liberals cater to the ignorant portion of the black population in an attempt
to keep their vote and hold themselves in the power position to continue pushing their
agenda. Barack Obama really wasn't chosen as a candidate for the democratic party
based on any political ability, they knew they would pull the black vote easy with a black
man in office and could pool their resources on making up the small difference with the
white and latino vote. Simple facts, make people feel like their entitled to be spoon fed and of course they'll continue running back to you.
#211 - Womens Study Major (09/25/2013) [-]
"hurrr durrr blk ppl vote bama coz he's blk"

-You

Your dumbass point goes down the toilet when you realize the fact that Bill Clinton (who is white if you have forgotten) got a higher vote percentage from blacks than Obama.

Black people always vote for Democrat, whether it be a black candidate or not. Which seems logical since most of the racists and black haters are Republicans (Note: most Republicans are NOT racists, but most racists are Republican)
Look at the numbers for Obama, John Kerry, Al Gore, Clinton... and so forth. All are Democrat candidates, all got over 90% of vote from the black population, ONLY 1 of them is actually black.

Thus your point is worthless.
User avatar #215 - musicmantrice (09/25/2013) [-]
1) You're angry, you should check your attitude.
2) Regardless of past voting from blacks towards the democratic party, him being
black gave them instant insurance from the black population for ensuring their vote.
And I enjoy how you didn't address any other point I made, namely how the democratic
party caters to them in order to consistently receive their vote. You spoon feed someone
then you'll never have to worry about them supporting you. Politics on both sides are
just a shitty way of manipulating people in order to press their own selfish agenda.
#112 - Comment deleted 09/24/2013 on Murdered 0
#20 - Yea but evidently she's not even trying herself. At least the … 09/23/2013 on Girlfriend logic +3
#33 - Comment deleted 09/21/2013 on Guns 0
#149 - Why the **** do people have to make this a race t… 09/21/2013 on A Good Black Guy +10
#126 - It would really help if you realized that not all Muslims are … 09/10/2013 on Our dear new countrymen +2
#78 - Since when did I say that men are less responsible? Please hel…  [+] (1 new reply) 09/10/2013 on Factual Falcon -1
User avatar #79 - charagrin (09/11/2013) [-]
"MEN occupy more dangerous jobs, and are therefore MORE LIKELY to get injured." Then you brought up your gender in an attempt to justify your statement. You then implied that raising kids RIGHT is one of the most difficult and important jobs in society, and made reference to women being the ones to do it. Then you clarrified it by stating it openly in your last comment. That IS sexism.
#76 - Since when did I use sexism? I'm merely saying that more men o…  [+] (3 new replies) 09/09/2013 on Factual Falcon -1
User avatar #77 - charagrin (09/10/2013) [-]
So you are saying men hold more dangerous jobs, are less responsible, women raise kids better, and that your gender is relevant to your opinion, but your NOT being sexist? My friend, whether positive or negative in connotation, sexism, racism, stereotyping, and bigotry ARE forms of discrimination.
#78 - xheavymetalx (09/10/2013) [-]
Since when did I say that men are less responsible? Please help me find where I stated that. The only thing I implied is that women, in general, have been raising children for decades, centuries even. That is important work. Stop trying to make it seem less important than it is. I'm not saying men CAN'T raise kids. I'm sure a LOT of men are responsible enough to raise kids and do a damn good job at it. But they are LESS LIKELY to raise children. That trend can change, but that's not the way it stands at this moment.

Can you at least argue against points I ACTUALLY made?
User avatar #79 - charagrin (09/11/2013) [-]
"MEN occupy more dangerous jobs, and are therefore MORE LIKELY to get injured." Then you brought up your gender in an attempt to justify your statement. You then implied that raising kids RIGHT is one of the most difficult and important jobs in society, and made reference to women being the ones to do it. Then you clarrified it by stating it openly in your last comment. That IS sexism.
#66 - I swear you ******* that bitch about feminism are…  [+] (5 new replies) 09/05/2013 on Factual Falcon 0
User avatar #75 - charagrin (09/09/2013) [-]
Ah yes, counter sexism WITH sexism. Well played, well played.
#76 - xheavymetalx (09/09/2013) [-]
Since when did I use sexism? I'm merely saying that more men occupy dangerous jobs, and are therefore more likely to get injured.

Now, if you're refering to the "work that women do may be more important" segment, consider that raising kids RIGHT may be one of the most difficult and the most important job in any society.

I'm not even a woman, but I have to give credit where it's due.
User avatar #77 - charagrin (09/10/2013) [-]
So you are saying men hold more dangerous jobs, are less responsible, women raise kids better, and that your gender is relevant to your opinion, but your NOT being sexist? My friend, whether positive or negative in connotation, sexism, racism, stereotyping, and bigotry ARE forms of discrimination.
#78 - xheavymetalx (09/10/2013) [-]
Since when did I say that men are less responsible? Please help me find where I stated that. The only thing I implied is that women, in general, have been raising children for decades, centuries even. That is important work. Stop trying to make it seem less important than it is. I'm not saying men CAN'T raise kids. I'm sure a LOT of men are responsible enough to raise kids and do a damn good job at it. But they are LESS LIKELY to raise children. That trend can change, but that's not the way it stands at this moment.

Can you at least argue against points I ACTUALLY made?
User avatar #79 - charagrin (09/11/2013) [-]
"MEN occupy more dangerous jobs, and are therefore MORE LIKELY to get injured." Then you brought up your gender in an attempt to justify your statement. You then implied that raising kids RIGHT is one of the most difficult and important jobs in society, and made reference to women being the ones to do it. Then you clarrified it by stating it openly in your last comment. That IS sexism.
#68 - That's the joke. You were paying attention to the red square t…  [+] (1 new reply) 09/05/2013 on Blending +1
User avatar #71 - zytherman (09/05/2013) [-]
Yeah, I know now, but id seen the image before, just without the square, I thought the square was highlighting that there was a guy dressing in drag 'blending' in.

My bad n.n
#100 - What is it with this site and bashing women? And it's not even… 08/31/2013 on Feminists in 3, 2....... +2
#47 - If he was African American, he would be Blacklemore. 08/25/2013 on Macklemore.. 0
#44 - Comment deleted 08/25/2013 on Macklemore.. 0
#93 - Here's my take on this: It's easy for you to say because you w…  [+] (4 new replies) 08/25/2013 on Adolf 0
#103 - AnimalChupicabra (08/25/2013) [-]
People also forget about Mao, who dwarfs both Stalin and Hitlers numbers.
User avatar #106 - eight (08/25/2013) [-]
And of course, God dwarfs them all...combined.

There seems to be a trend here. People with great power do shitty things. Even supposedly supremely, moral beings.
#125 - Womens Study Major (08/25/2013) [-]
God doesn't exist.

User avatar #97 - hadzibg (08/25/2013) [-]
Yes, people too often forget the atrocities committed by Stalin, because well... He won the war.
#129 - >implying the president can just flip a switch that makes t… 08/24/2013 on goddamnit shinji 0
#160 - It's because those phrases are said on EVERY SINGLE POST perta… 08/21/2013 on Best Cosplay Ever 0
#119 - Eh. Fair enough. To me, though, that seems more liberal. I, fo…  [+] (2 new replies) 08/16/2013 on Liberals.... +2
#178 - yeorey (08/16/2013) [-]
You want government for unethical business practices? Don't we have that now? Because every time a major corporation does something wrong, they get fines, which doesn't really hurt them that much. The idea of a philosophical libertarian society is that all of that would be self-regulated within the free market. People would stop buying products and services from that bad business, while the competition would be competitive by offering better services at better prices. Government would only fine them. And depending how much that corporation is lobbying for the government, the fines they receive may not be very hefty.
User avatar #120 - soulstealerr (08/16/2013) [-]
I agree. Social engineering can be lefts to the states as it was meant to be. If you do not like the way the state is run, you can move and give your tax money to a state you want to support.
#107 - Tbh I was just trying to make light of the situation with a bi…  [+] (3 new replies) 08/16/2013 on Liberals.... +1
User avatar #114 - soulstealerr (08/16/2013) [-]
I don't know any Libertarians that believe in not having a government. Government is needed for infrastructure and public works. We just don't believe that the government should regulate every faucet of our lives. Social engineering, nanny states, these are not needed. Personal responsibility above all else.
#134 - angelusprimus (08/16/2013) [-]
Look, I'm ok with moderate libertarians, like you seem to be.
Problem is libertarian party is not led by moderates, and republican libertarians are neither moderate nor libertarian (how someone dares to call themselves libertarian and think that government has a right to regulate sexuality is beyond me).
If you check the libertarian party program they want to completely cut federal funding for education and put it on states.
Except most states can't afford it. So tremendous cuts would have to be done, which would fuck our education for those that can't afford private schools to standards enjoyed by such educational superpowers like Cameroon or Congo.
I very much support idea of a smaller more efficient government, but i think that agenda that Objectivist libertarians, who are running the movement at the moment, are trying to push would bring us back to 19th century, without settlement of the west as an economic safety valve.
User avatar #110 - pebar (08/16/2013) [-]
Still, only the anarchist factions would want to get rid of the police and fire department, etc... Tax funded things like that and roads would still exist under a libertarian government.
#102 - K then, stop using public services and paying taxes altogether…  [+] (10 new replies) 08/16/2013 on Liberals.... -4
User avatar #112 - soulstealerr (08/16/2013) [-]
Libertarians are not anti-government. We believe in less government. Schools, roads, infrastructure are all things that a centralized government provides and oversees. You do not need the government to regulate every part of you life. Whether you can have a big soda, or what kind of car you can drive. These decisions should be made by you.
#119 - xheavymetalx (08/16/2013) [-]
Eh. Fair enough. To me, though, that seems more liberal. I, for one, don't want the government interfering with abortion, same sex marriage, etc. The only type of government regulation I really support is regulation on unethical business practice.
#178 - yeorey (08/16/2013) [-]
You want government for unethical business practices? Don't we have that now? Because every time a major corporation does something wrong, they get fines, which doesn't really hurt them that much. The idea of a philosophical libertarian society is that all of that would be self-regulated within the free market. People would stop buying products and services from that bad business, while the competition would be competitive by offering better services at better prices. Government would only fine them. And depending how much that corporation is lobbying for the government, the fines they receive may not be very hefty.
User avatar #120 - soulstealerr (08/16/2013) [-]
I agree. Social engineering can be lefts to the states as it was meant to be. If you do not like the way the state is run, you can move and give your tax money to a state you want to support.
#105 - pebar has deleted their comment.
#107 - xheavymetalx (08/16/2013) [-]
Tbh I was just trying to make light of the situation with a bit of humor (hell, I can take a joke about my political beliefs). But most libertarians that actually think that Ayn Rand is a genius are basically saying they don't need society and that government should stay out of their lives. And that should include public services like the fire department, police, education, etc, shouldn't it? It seems unfair to pick and choose.

I'm not saying all libertarians are Ayn Rand supporters or that all of them think like that, but I get the impression that a lot do. Correct me if I'm wrong, though. I'd be glad to hear things from a different point of view.
User avatar #114 - soulstealerr (08/16/2013) [-]
I don't know any Libertarians that believe in not having a government. Government is needed for infrastructure and public works. We just don't believe that the government should regulate every faucet of our lives. Social engineering, nanny states, these are not needed. Personal responsibility above all else.
#134 - angelusprimus (08/16/2013) [-]
Look, I'm ok with moderate libertarians, like you seem to be.
Problem is libertarian party is not led by moderates, and republican libertarians are neither moderate nor libertarian (how someone dares to call themselves libertarian and think that government has a right to regulate sexuality is beyond me).
If you check the libertarian party program they want to completely cut federal funding for education and put it on states.
Except most states can't afford it. So tremendous cuts would have to be done, which would fuck our education for those that can't afford private schools to standards enjoyed by such educational superpowers like Cameroon or Congo.
I very much support idea of a smaller more efficient government, but i think that agenda that Objectivist libertarians, who are running the movement at the moment, are trying to push would bring us back to 19th century, without settlement of the west as an economic safety valve.
User avatar #110 - pebar (08/16/2013) [-]
Still, only the anarchist factions would want to get rid of the police and fire department, etc... Tax funded things like that and roads would still exist under a libertarian government.
#106 - pebar has deleted their comment.
#98 - Did you really just compare 9/11 to centuries of slavery? …  [+] (2 new replies) 08/16/2013 on Liberals.... -3
User avatar #142 - dudeyouisnasty (08/16/2013) [-]
We found our liberal.
#109 - disturbedmaster (08/16/2013) [-]
he didn't but feminazi's do
#16 - That's the most retarded logic I've ever heard. So if someone …  [+] (1 new reply) 08/16/2013 on alpha -6
User avatar #22 - Nihatclodra (08/16/2013) [-]
Most people who respond to "You're beautiful" negatively are just attention whores. That's why we responded like that. If she was insecure about herself, she would have likely responded in a manner more like "You don't mean that".

Of course, this is not always the case, but considering that the 2 people in the content know each other well enough to be texting each-other: he would have likely also known her well enough to know which it was.
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

items

Total unique items point value: 2050 / Total items point value: 2350

Comments(0):

 

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