Retreat!. hahasofunny. Lila: -2 ' Share Unis: one white European (Christophe .5 , Tap Lemaitre) has ever run a race in under IO seconds. I, Christine Heatin MBI
x
Click to expand

Comments(122):

 
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#23 to #14 - Rascal (01/03/2014) [-]
#12 to #7 - Rascal (01/03/2014) [-]
Running away inefficiently because you're doing ******* flip
User avatar #51 to #12 - killerliquid (01/04/2014) [-]
Freerunning=/=Parkour

Freerunning is much flashier therefore less efficient than Parkour
User avatar #71 to #7 - herecomesjohnny (01/04/2014) [-]
french people fight with canes
User avatar #117 to #7 - dagreatmax (01/04/2014) [-]
Parkour wasn't invented in France.
#9 to #7 - Rascal (01/03/2014) [-]
Baseball, the sport when you spend most of the game sitting on the sidelines, watching your teammates do all the job.
User avatar #15 to #7 - tylermcall (01/03/2014) [-]
And then there is Wrasslin.
#100 to #15 - swagbot (01/04/2014) [-]










Razzlin
User avatar #108 to #7 - nibbero ONLINE (01/04/2014) [-]
Is that world-famous pugilist Tommy Ray Handley?!
#13 to #7 - angelclass (01/03/2014) [-]
i dunno man, haven't you ever heard of the kill french martial art Savate?
User avatar #32 to #7 - wotterpatch (01/04/2014) [-]
they also turned swordfighting into a sport in which no one gets hurt
User avatar #5 - wmpedo (01/03/2014) [-]
Well at least the people of norway are having fun
#31 to #5 - niggernazi (01/04/2014) [-]
until this guy shows up
#6 to #5 - razerdude (01/03/2014) [-]
yes we have
#20 to #6 - SuperSixONE (01/03/2014) [-]
More like
User avatar #8 to #6 - vexaton ONLINE (01/03/2014) [-]
It's not even that cold
#19 - rockerforlife (01/03/2014) [-]
Ha I get it, because france was forced to surrender after being unexpectedly flanked by one of the most powerful armies in all of history and gave up their country in exchange for it not being destroyed because it was one of the cultural centers of the world housing art and culture from all around the world and they didn't even completely give up, they rebelled any way they could.    
   
I get it.   
   
very funny.
Ha I get it, because france was forced to surrender after being unexpectedly flanked by one of the most powerful armies in all of history and gave up their country in exchange for it not being destroyed because it was one of the cultural centers of the world housing art and culture from all around the world and they didn't even completely give up, they rebelled any way they could.

I get it.

very funny.
0
#89 to #19 - xxbandwagonxx has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #118 to #19 - homebray (01/04/2014) [-]
Or its a joke
User avatar #83 to #45 - gongthehawkeye (01/04/2014) [-]
That's only 2 fingers, though.....
User avatar #104 to #83 - silverhellion (01/04/2014) [-]
exactly.
User avatar #115 to #19 - hydraetis (01/04/2014) [-]
Finally, someone with some ******* sense.
User avatar #22 to #19 - lazypaul (01/03/2014) [-]
Found the french
User avatar #28 to #22 - rockerforlife (01/03/2014) [-]
Cuban-American, descended from Spain, loves history.

it's just ******* retarded that france surrendering is still a thing when the U.S. is 8 million times more cowardly
User avatar #30 to #28 - arandomanon ONLINE (01/04/2014) [-]
"it's just ******* retarded that france surrendering is still a thing when the U.S. is 8 million times more cowardly"
Why?
User avatar #35 to #30 - zevran (01/04/2014) [-]
Well:

The US refused to enter WW1 until towards the very end despite numerous provocations even given that their mainland woul never have been threatened.

The US refused to enter WW2 until the Japanese bombed their pacific navy at Pearl Harbour despite Europe falling to the the nazis and the US being one of the few major democracies left.

After WW2 the US have never engaged an enemy of anywhere near their own size and have used their influence as a superpower to take down weak goverments they disliked, as well as incited wars and coups in a number of small nations. Mostly in order to maintain their leading possition. This could be excused during the cold war, but is really rather cowardly now.

Historically the US is not a nation to take large risks. Even when at war with Germany they could be secure in the knowledge that the combined British and US navy could easily prevent any major Axis offensive across the atlantic, and be fairly certain the Japanese would never reach the US mainland for the same reason.

France on the other hand is smaller than the US, it during those wars, sat next to the worlds most powerful, and aggressive nation. Yet that didn't keep them from honouring their alliances and rush to protect their friends even though Germany could field easily twice as many soldiers as them, had a superior air force and superior ground forces (and superior navy, though the Royal Navy across the canal negates that)

The US is cowardly because it has very rarely entered a war which they were not certain to win. Only their war of inderpencence and to some extent the war of 1812 were "brave" wars.
User avatar #52 to #35 - arandomanon ONLINE (01/04/2014) [-]
Historically the US is a very young nation, we can't use the same standards for both countries.

France is smaller than the US, indeed. That, however, doesn't mean **** . Historically France has been a really powerful country until WWI more or less when they went down a little.

France didn't really have alternative but to honor those alliances. They knew that if they didn't, they'd fall and they'll have absolutely no chance of surviving. It's easy to be "brave" when you have no chance left but to fight. The US's never been in that position. It's easy to judge, but not so easy to get all the **** together and thinking about the reasons and motivations.
User avatar #59 to #52 - zevran (01/04/2014) [-]
It's debatable whether France could have stayed neutral, true. But unlike certain other nations they've never been known to hesitate to help out their allies. It's simply a historical fact that France have been far from cowardly. Few Europen nations have had the option to be cowardly though.

Not saying the US should have just jumped on every war. But I get why some people think it's kind of idiotic to say the US is brave and call France a cowardly nation.
User avatar #61 to #59 - arandomanon ONLINE (01/04/2014) [-]
I concour with you on something: few European nations have had the option of being "cowards", specially in west Europe (maybe Italy after Roman Empire collapsed) even when I'm not entirelly agreed with calling a nation "coward" or "brave".
I never said France is a coward nation neither the US is a brave one, I just wanted to know why you said the US is a "coward" nation. In my opinion, nations aren't brave, people are.
User avatar #64 to #61 - zevran (01/04/2014) [-]
Well you're right on that last account. But goverments are run by people. And some goverments are more prone to take risks than others. The US has not historically been a nation to take great risks.
User avatar #72 to #64 - arandomanon ONLINE (01/04/2014) [-]
As I've said, the US isn't as old as France so it's hard to put them at the same level. France has a big military tradition (as well as other European nations) unlike the US untill the WW's. The US didn't need to enter on any war so they had no need to improve their military skills nor to take risks. It's all about perspectives and the conditions on the countries.
User avatar #73 to #72 - zevran (01/04/2014) [-]
That's true enough.
User avatar #74 to #73 - arandomanon ONLINE (01/04/2014) [-]
Man, I love history debates. Thanks for this.
User avatar #75 to #74 - zevran (01/04/2014) [-]
You're welcome.
User avatar #47 to #35 - luiselvergas (01/04/2014) [-]
>The US refused to enter WW1 until towards the very end despite numerous provocations even given that their mainland woul never have been threatened.

>The US refused to enter WW2 until the Japanese bombed their pacific navy at Pearl Harbour despite Europe falling to the the nazis and the US being one of the few major democracies left.

they did not intervine cuz it was non of their bushiness.

> After WW2 the US have never engaged an enemy of anywhere near their own size and have used their influence as a superpower to take down weak goverments they disliked, as well as incited wars and coups in a number of small nations. Mostly in order to maintain their leading possition. This could be excused during the cold war, but is really rather cowardly now.

neither did the soviets. regarding the french most of their military action was regarding colonialism so they were fighting ********** africans (no offence to the french i respect their warrior culture).

also read the art of war there is a difference between being a coward and being stupid.

User avatar #50 to #47 - zevran (01/04/2014) [-]
>The US refused to enter WW1 until towards the very end despite numerous provocations even given that their mainland woul never have been threatened.

>The US refused to enter WW2 until the Japanese bombed their pacific navy at Pearl Harbour despite Europe falling to the the nazis and the US being one of the few major democracies left.


It becomes your bussiness when the nations you regard as friends are attacked by power hungry genocidal dictatorships. WW1 I get, that was a european war that went global. But still based on territorial rivalries in europe. WW2 though... that was a war of ideologies, and as the perhaps strongest democracy in the world at the time, and an friend, if not ally of France and Britain, the US had strong reason to help out.

neither did the soviets. regarding the french most of their military action was regarding colonialism so they were fighting ********** africans (no offence to the french i respect their warrior culture).

As I said, it's understandable the US didn't undertake any (this is of course relative) major wars during the cold war. But still, they didn't exactly use noble means to get their way.

As for France, in the periode 1648 - 1871 they were the dominant power in continental europe. They didn't get there easily.
User avatar #57 to #50 - luiselvergas (01/04/2014) [-]
although the americans were actually helping the allies before even engaging in military programs with the lend lease program and economic sanctions.

>As I said, it's understandable the US didn't undertake any (this is of course relative) major wars during the cold war. But still, they didn't exactly use noble means to get their way.

war is nasty people still dont get that its not ment to be noble, its ment to be won.
User avatar #60 to #57 - zevran (01/04/2014) [-]
although the americans were actually helping the allies before even engaging in military programs with the lend lease program and economic sanctions.

Selling weapons and economic sanctions is just a way of saying "we won't commit to this, but if you win we were friends all along".

war is nasty people still dont get that its not ment to be noble, its ment to be won.

Not refering to wars here. I'm thinking of the US taking down goverments that they disagreed with in the second and third world through such means as coups, supporting rebels and assassinations. These are cowardly acts, especially when commited agains weak nations with no means of responding.
User avatar #65 to #60 - luiselvergas (01/04/2014) [-]
they had to real reason commit the axis powers had done nothing to them. remember the setting to america was going through a depression, wars are expensive.

>whats the KGB
every superpower was doing that during the cold war it's smart specially with a bunch of college hippies whining about piece and other horse **** . they called it the Cold War for a reason
User avatar #70 to #65 - zevran (01/04/2014) [-]
Wars are actually really good for the economy. They greate a huge amount of jobs. The second world war ended the depression you know. Led to an economic boom lasting well into the 60's.

Yes, I know the US may have felt it nessecary during the cold war. I'm not saying the US shouldn't have done these things (though obviously, given the consequenses maybe a few should have been better thought through... Perhaps a bit of consistency...). I'm just saying that the US has never been a nation of any kind of principle, nobility, bravery, or great foresight (except for that one time with the Germans).
#113 to #35 - Rascal (01/04/2014) [-]
Let us also remember if the US got into fights with other big countries now. It would be Armageddon. And I'm pretty sure no one wants the world to end. So I don't think they are too worried about the wars. I think they are more worried about ending the world. I don't think that's cowardly. More like common sense.
User avatar #123 to #113 - zevran (01/04/2014) [-]
Not saying that the US not picking fights with China and Russia is bad mind you. I'm just pointing out that the US does not come across as a nation that is willing to take any great risks.
#112 to #35 - derksuls (01/04/2014) [-]
ITT: Eurofags thinking that war is a game and that lives don't matter as long at it isnt their own
Seriously though America didnt want to join WW2 because it wasnt their ******* fight, even then we still sent a ******** of supplies before Japan bombed us
User avatar #124 to #112 - zevran (01/04/2014) [-]
WW2 was a war of ideologies, between facism and democracy at its very core. If Germany had been allowed to keep at it unchecked they would have presented a threat to the US at some point anyway. Besides, at the time Britain and France were cosidered friends of the US, if not allies. When friendly great powers are overrun by nasty genocidal nazis it's kind of cowardly to go: "nope, not getting involved. I'm sure this will not affect us at all."

And they sold the Allies supplies before they joined. So heroic.
#81 to #35 - swiggityswooty (01/04/2014) [-]
the us is cowardly for not entering a war they might not win
to me that sounds like common sense
the us stepped in to help because they finally realized how quickly germany could achieve world domination had they stayed on the sidelines
the us didnt step in because until then it wasnt thier fight, they believed that europe would handle it, its the same reason you dont step into the middle of a bar fight, it doesnt affect you


TL;DR, the us was letting europe settle its own **** , making a calculated risk to enter war=/=cowardice
User avatar #125 to #81 - zevran (01/04/2014) [-]
the us is cowardly for not entering a war they might not win
to me that sounds like common sense


Sometimes you have to fight wars where there is a possibility of defeat, or at least you very much should. Like when genocidal nazis try to achive continental supremacy.

the us stepped in to help because they finally realized how quickly germany could achieve world domination had they stayed on the sidelines

Phaw, the US stepped in when it became clear they could not stay out and save face. They could hardly ignore Japan after the attack on Pearl Harbour after all. While in WW1 the Germans broke their agreement with them and began sinking their ships again in 1917, killing hundreds of US citizens. By that time it was clear Germany was loosing, so the US saw fit to step in.

the us didnt step in because until then it wasnt thier fight, they believed that europe would handle it, its the same reason you dont step into the middle of a bar fight, it doesnt affect you

When european nations fight the war becomes global. This has been a rule since the 17th century. Staying out of that barfight is kind of stupid when all the participants are wielding flamethrowers and the door out is locked.
User avatar #43 to #35 - hanabro (01/04/2014) [-]
If you're entering a war you don't think you can win, you're doing war wrong.

For the first two, we had no real reason to enter the wars. Before WWII, we were very big on isolationism. We'll sort out our problems, the world can sort out their own. We didn't even join the League of Nations, which was our idea. After World War II, a couple things happened. For one, we saw the kind of ******** the rest of the world got up to, and we got more involved in International Politics to try and prevent ******** on a Holocaust/Rape of Nanking level happening again. Secondly, we were suddenly tied for the most powerful nation in the world, and had a massive target attached to our backs. After we dropped the bombs on Japan, we could have easily turned to everyone else and said, "You belong to us, or you're next." America could have dominated the world, but didn't because, surprise, we're NOT the warmongering ************ everyone makes us out to be. If you check our track records, we're one of the most non-violent, anti-expansionist countries around, especially compared to the likes of Britain, France, and Spain.
User avatar #48 to #43 - zevran (01/04/2014) [-]
Not saying one shoudl enter wars you can't win for fun. But the US has rarely entered a war with even a remote possibility of loosing.

Isolationism is really just cowardice, especially when you're a great power. It's a fair policy for small nations like Swizerland and Sweden, but for a country with a significant role to play saying that the world can handle itself is both stupid and cowardly. Not wanting to get involved doesn't work in the real world.

The US didn't join the LoN because Britain and France ****** up the peace treaty with Germany so badly that they just put the war on hold. Good forsight from the US, but stupid decision none the less.

The US got heavily involved after WW2 to maintain their possition on the very top. Not for any noble reasons.

Thinking the US could have dominated the world just after WW2 is idiocy. At the time the US barely possesed any nuclear weapons, Britain was cosidered the third superpower in the world, Soviet had its entire millitary mobilized, and the remains of nazi Germany was just sitting there, hoping the allies would turn on each other.

Trying to say the US is less warlike than Britain, France and Spain would be true to some extent. But the to compare the US to any European nation in that regard is stupid. The US doesn't border other great power, and the US doesn't have to try to maintain a powerbalance on their own continent.

And the US has no need for expansion. They already have all the land and resources they need. Besides, they weren't in any possition to expand by violence before well into the 18th century, and then they took every oppertunity.
User avatar #49 to #48 - hanabro (01/04/2014) [-]
You just explained, in those last couple paragraphs, why isolationism is a good idea for the US, and also why they haven't fought anyone with any significant military power.

Call it cowardice if you must, but I call it good diplomacy. There isn't a nation in the world that could 1v1 the United States, nukes off the table. There's no reason for us to fight, because nobody wants to fight us, and we don't want to fight anybody either. Our military is more or less a World Police Force nowadays, and the rest of the world has kind of proven to need it.

Murika. **** yeah.
User avatar #56 to #49 - zevran (01/04/2014) [-]
No, I've explained why the US has the option for isolationism. Few other nations truly do.

As for if the world needs the US and it's police force... That's another debate. Though if the US has some kind of goal of preventing wars, then they've failed spectacularly.

As for if anyone could take the US 1x1. That's a debatable topic. It would depend I suspect.
User avatar #62 to #56 - hanabro (01/04/2014) [-]
I'm not debating if we had an option to be isolationist. We had the option, and we took it, because it was a good idea, and there wasn't really any good reason to get involved in other country's affairs. Now, we're more involved in the world and no longer isolationist. And it's true that we haven't fought any other major countries since ending isolationism, but, to be fair, no other world power has fought another country on their own level since we ended isolationism either. Despite what Fallout has taught us, war has changed. Due to the shift in international politics toward diplomacy and peace over military strength, war is fought by small countries, backed by the world powers. We're not trying to prevent war. We're trying to prevent war that actually matters, a state of affairs the entire world agrees is for the best, because they go along with it.
User avatar #66 to #62 - zevran (01/04/2014) [-]
All I'm trying to get at here is that the US trying to get itself across as a "brave" country and this stereotype of France being "cowardly" is really quite mistaken. It's more the other way around. Whether the US has taken the correct political course is not what I'm debating.
#86 to #49 - Rascal (01/04/2014) [-]
World police my ass, can't ******* keep your government running let alone think you know any strategic places to put them.

"Uhh drop nuks, that wil defet teh enemes."

Brainwashed capitalist.
#85 to #49 - Rascal (01/04/2014) [-]
Russia, Britain, China.

Grow up.
User avatar #37 to #35 - dubslao (01/04/2014) [-]
"The US refused to enter WW2 until the Japanese bombed their pacific navy at Pearl Harbour despite Europe falling to the the nazis and the US being one of the few major democracies left. "

Hey
hey
hey
hey

google the word "isolationism"

that is my response to your first two statements
User avatar #38 to #37 - zevran (01/04/2014) [-]
Isolationalism is basicly just saying "Hey guys, eh, I see the world is kind of falling to those evil genocidal nazi guys, and I know that's kind of bad, I do, I really do. But see, since there is an ocean between us, and since we really don't want to mess with those nasty Germans, who do after all seem to be winning... I think we'll just stay here, you know. We're sure you can handle it... and if you can't... Well we're sure nothing bad can come of it right? Nothing about this situation can possibly affect us in any way. By the way, we're not afraid at all, really! This is all a logical course of action. Really!"
User avatar #39 to #38 - dubslao (01/04/2014) [-]
Isolationism back then was mostly, "Hey, we really don't want to get into a war right now, so we're just gonna send you food and supplies to help"
User avatar #40 to #39 - zevran (01/04/2014) [-]
I think you mean "Sell you food and supplies to help, because we feel bad, but I don't really want to loose the next election you know..."

WW1 made more sense, but you know. German subs did sink quite a number of US ships, and all the US said before 1917 (when it became sort of obvious Germany was running out of resources) was "please stop that or something bad will happen. Really!"
#36 - howyadurrr (01/04/2014) [-]
**howyadurrr rolled a random image posted in comment #19 at Mimi ** the fastest white person stars in
#116 to #36 - impaledsandwich ONLINE (01/04/2014) [-]
That makes me a saaaaad panda.
#42 to #36 - luiselvergas (01/04/2014) [-]
no offence but pandas are just meant to die. i mean they can only eat bamboo damn it
no offence but pandas are just meant to die. i mean they can only eat bamboo damn it
#106 to #42 - joelgrosso (01/04/2014) [-]
Brainbusted..
Brainbusted..
#103 to #42 - howyadurrr (01/04/2014) [-]
rethink what you just said realize how it made no sense then drink some bleach and die
User avatar #63 - jimli (01/04/2014) [-]
"According to the British historian Niall Ferguson, France has participated in 168 major European wars, out of which it won 109, drawn 10 and lost 49, making the country the most successful military power in European history."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_France
#69 to #63 - Rascal (01/04/2014) [-]
never trust a brit
User avatar #80 to #63 - thatoneiranianguy ONLINE (01/04/2014) [-]
**** , finally someone brought this up.
User avatar #77 to #63 - hockeycrazysteve (01/04/2014) [-]
Sounds like someones a fan of Stephan Fry.
+1
#88 to #63 - xxbandwagonxx has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #67 to #63 - zomgwaffle (01/04/2014) [-]
Sounds like French propaganda.
User avatar #44 - freakyorange ONLINE (01/04/2014) [-]
His last name litterally means "The Master"
#26 - groovierpoet (01/03/2014) [-]
this is what i keep thinking of when i hear about lemaitre
#34 - mzdave (01/04/2014) [-]
france is just off the coast of england.
User avatar #109 to #34 - thebestpieever (01/04/2014) [-]
"Fog in the channel, the continent cut off".
User avatar #16 - aabbccddeeffgghhii (01/03/2014) [-]
The one joke that i created that i am ******* proud of was about this guy. "The only white man that can run 100m in less than 10 seconds is french. What do you start a race with? A gun shot." Its not the best joke in the world but i was a proud when i made it.
#3 - Rascal (01/03/2014) [-]
it's a french flag ; but both look the same
Christophe Lemaitre is a french name
google and wikipedia agree : he's french
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christophe_Lemaitre
#1 - Rascal (01/03/2014) [-]
that's actually the netherlands flag. Jesus Christ i'm not even from europe, i'm american and even i know that.
User avatar #58 to #1 - wavad (01/04/2014) [-]
Then what is the french flag? Please enlighten me?
#99 to #1 - Rascal (01/04/2014) [-]
ima troll
#91 to #1 - robboneter (01/04/2014) [-]
French flag.
#111 to #91 - arokky (01/04/2014) [-]
Correction, this is the french flag.
#92 to #1 - robboneter (01/04/2014) [-]
Dutch flag. I'm Dutch
#102 to #92 - Rascal (01/04/2014) [-]
that's not dutch flag, that's netherlands you know right?
User avatar #114 to #102 - robboneter (01/04/2014) [-]
Same thing.
#24 to #11 - Rascal (01/03/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
#25 to #11 - Rascal (01/03/2014) [-]
umm... i, for one, did...
#21 to #1 - comradewinter ONLINE (01/03/2014) [-]
"Christophe Lemaitre[1] (French pronunciation: ​[kʁistɔf ləmɛtʁ]; born 11 June 1990 in Annecy, France) is a French sprinter, who specialises in the 100 and 200 metres. He is the current French 100 m outdoor and 200 m outdoor record holder with a time of 9.92 seconds and 19.80 seconds respectively. He was the first man purely of European descent to break the 10-second barrier in an officially timed 100 m event.[2]"
User avatar #2 to #1 - wertgf (01/03/2014) [-]
please say you're a troll
#33 to #2 - Rascal (01/04/2014) [-]
He is right France is a province of the Netherlands and they're provincial flag is the dutch flag turned sideways.
#93 to #33 - adrianoc (01/04/2014) [-]
He's right, I'm the Dutch flag and I can confirm this.
User avatar #41 to #33 - xorioz (01/04/2014) [-]
Simply NO.
#17 to #2 - ripgeckosncherios (01/03/2014) [-]
its vertical/horizontal stripes. Its an understandable mistake
but going so far as to say someone else is wrong when you ahve obviousyl no ida is disrespectful
User avatar #119 - bryceface (01/04/2014) [-]
My name is Bryce.
User avatar #120 to #119 - pickstar (01/04/2014) [-]
Hello bryce
-11
#90 - nortledrones has deleted their comment [-]
#122 to #90 - herbolifee (01/04/2014) [-]
HOW do you make a comment THIS dumb / stupid / retarded....
#110 to #90 - mckinkymcormic (01/04/2014) [-]
not sure if thumbdowns are for the pic or the comment...
not sure if thumbdowns are for the pic or the comment...
-1
#87 - iviagic has deleted their comment [-]
#84 - codyxvasco (01/04/2014) [-]
Why do we end up here?

Live in fire and feel so cold

Ooh oo oh!

...It....It's from a song..

You wanna hear it?! Really!?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVyS9hoQJiQ there ya go!
User avatar #94 to #84 - feelythefeel (01/04/2014) [-]
The **** is up with your link?
User avatar #96 to #94 - codyxvasco (01/04/2014) [-]
Oh my god it's impossible to click.

I apologize here
www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVyS9hoQJiQ

that should work.
User avatar #98 to #96 - feelythefeel (01/04/2014) [-]
Thanks. A bit too metal for me, though.
User avatar #101 to #98 - codyxvasco (01/04/2014) [-]
That's metal?
User avatar #107 to #101 - feelythefeel (01/04/2014) [-]
Yeah.
#82 - reican ONLINE (01/04/2014) [-]
**reican rolled a random image posted in comment #4650234 at Click an item and pick it up ** "Meanwhile in Norway **** yeah.
#78 - newdevyx (01/04/2014) [-]
**newdevyx rolled a random image posted in comment #7075578 at Safe For Work Random Board ** 14.9 seconds.
#79 to #78 - newdevyx (01/04/2014) [-]
this is somewhat relevant to that last picture.
#105 to #78 - joelgrosso (01/04/2014) [-]
Ultra K
Ultra K
#76 - impulsechallenges (01/04/2014) [-]
He was probably trying to run away from something. I think it was freedom.
User avatar #18 - bloomberg (01/03/2014) [-]
I have no idea what the joke is here...
 Friends (0)