Sir, I already did that.. KIM JONG UN RAPES U.. MFW Obama spent more in 4 years than Bush did in 8 kim jong un rapes You
Upload
Login or register
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (347)
[ 347 comments ]
Anonymous comments allowed.
125 comments displayed.
#6 - zerogenocide **User deleted account**
Reply +118
(04/11/2013) [-]
MFW Obama spent more in 4 years than Bush did in 8
MFW Obama spent more in 4 years than Bush did in 8
#19 to #6 - metalmind
Reply -22
(04/11/2013) [-]
Thats a load of ********. He spent about 8 times what obama did. You are a disgrace.
#39 to #19 - facetiousrunner
Reply +6
(04/11/2013) [-]
obama- five trillion in four years. bush- three trillion in eight years.
#57 to #19 - randomathon
Reply -2
(04/11/2013) [-]
Oh man i bet you know so much about it before you even looked it up right?
#32 to #19 - tankthefrank
Reply -11
(04/11/2013) [-]
this is what some people actually believe
#50 to #6 - rhetoricalfunny
Reply -17
(04/11/2013) [-]
Yes. but where did the money go. The US economy took an extremely steep downard spiral under bush. (Or maybe it was Clinton... I think it may've been) In any case under Obama it hasn't gotten nearly as bad as it did under some of the others.
#10 to #6 - kovymast
Reply -14
(04/11/2013) [-]
Spending money is not a problem. The issue is where you spend that money. You need to spend money to come out of a crisis.
#13 to #10 - facetiousrunner
Reply +11
(04/11/2013) [-]
So you are telling me that if you went into debt, you'd spend more? No basic economics shows that to jump start the economy you do two things. One you lower taxes, the trickle down theory works. Two you cut spending. There are so many places you can cut spending. Department of education is unconstitutional and needs to go the state. Reform our freaking tax code to either a flat tax or fair tax. That will save so much money. Cut entitlement spending. If you have cable and AC you don't need food stamps. I'm stopping there before my head explodes.
#15 to #13 - kovymast
Reply +9
(04/11/2013) [-]
According to the Keynesian theory, yes, you need to spend more in crisis time. Even the conservative government of Canada understood that. That's what the US did after the crisis of 1929 with the New Deal. If you cut in social programs that will create more unemployment which could create an even greater crisis.
#16 to #15 - facetiousrunner
Reply +2
(04/11/2013) [-]
Taking down taxes, specifically on businesses, allows said businesses to grow. Growth equals more jobs needed. You then have these said employed people making money. They spend their money elsewhere. People very rarely save their money. And on the spending more in times of conflict, no. We have a cyclical economy in America. It has it's ups and downs but it corrects itself. When we get stuck in down cycles is when the government feels the need to spend money. The great depression lasted longer due to government polices. The great depression ended due to the economic surge of WW II.
#22 to #16 - kovymast
Reply +1
(04/11/2013) [-]
Indeed the great depression ended with WWII which involved high spending from the government.
#25 to #22 - facetiousrunner
Reply -2
(04/11/2013) [-]
no that was from the stimulus of the all businesses output increasing due to the war. FDR cut most of his new deal programs from before, acknowledging they weren't working. taxes were cut during ww II. spending went down in all fields minus defense. going back down after the war and the economy stabilized back to normal levels
#176 to #25 - anon
Reply 0
(04/12/2013) [-]
And where did you think the rise of business output came from? Go take a look at the absolute MASSIVE budget deficit starting in the early 40's, peaking at a budget 35% higher than GDP. This was paid for by raising taxes (..really dude?) and taking out peoples savings by having them buy bonds. The increase in gov. spending is what lowered the unemployment. Also it has been argued many, many times that FDR cut his social spending programs way too early in 38 and that more was needed, and these arguments are also being made concerning today. A lot of people don't realize that judging the right amount needed for a stimulus is a tricky business, as too much and you risk going into an inflationary gap.

Also, voodoo economics doesn't really work. The multipliers for government reductions in transfers and taxes are smaller and less advantageous than those for government spending. There really is no hard evidence to suggest that trickle down is effective. Take a econ course sometime!
#182 to #176 - facetiousrunner
Reply -1
(04/12/2013) [-]
I have taken my econ courses. Basic economic principle is if you want growth cut taxes. I'm going to sight Greece and Spain to show what happens when government spending goes crazy. Theory is a beautiful thing. You can find a side to argue anything. I'm of the mindset almost anything the government does, the private sector can do better. Social security is so well managed. Man the united states postal service kicks ass. Also stimulus bills are stupid, they don't work.
#192 to #182 - anon
Reply 0
(04/12/2013) [-]
Also PS: The US Postal service is one of the most efficient postal services in the world. Google that **** bro. If you want to know why its going bankrupt, look to the geniuses in Congress.
#196 to #192 - facetiousrunner
Reply 0
(04/12/2013) [-]
Thats their boss. It's a government run institute. Congress is their boss. Your leader ****** up and you have a business that is being out done by multiple private sector businesses. So p.s. its a horribly run business that is proving my point that the private sector does it better
#190 to #182 - anon
Reply 0
(04/12/2013) [-]
Greece and Spain are in the situation they are in because of the lack of fiscal responsibility in good times. Not the same as a fiscal stimulus in a recession..

And dude if your really 19.. you don't know ****. Come back when you've taken some high level university classes. But who knows maybe your right, and an entire social science is completely ************ wrong. Cheers.
#191 to #190 - facetiousrunner
Reply +1
(04/12/2013) [-]
First off if you're gonna bash someone because, hes only 19 man up and sign in. It's easy to be the big badass who knows all his **** when you have no accountability. Secondly I'm a third year college student. There are multiple schools of thought in every single subject field. Just because my ideas don't mesh with yours doesn't mean they are wrong. It's just different. If your classes have only taught you one way is right, you need to find some new classes dip ****. I believe lower taxes and cutting spending is the best way to foster economic growth. So get the **** off your horse.
#195 to #191 - anon
Reply 0
(04/12/2013) [-]
Or, ya know, just don't respond to what I just wrote. You've been wrong on a couple of points kid, and they were not a matter of "personal opinion". Also I don't have an account. Really should make one tho.
#206 to #195 - facetiousrunner
Reply 0
(04/12/2013) [-]
There wasn't much to respond to also. Your whole last thing was you puffing out your chest saying i definitely know more than that kid.
#202 to #195 - facetiousrunner
Reply 0
(04/12/2013) [-]
Keynesian economics. One thought process of economics. Second the one crudely named "Trickle Down Economics." You call what is going on now fiscally responsible? That is rich, so rich. Lets not make a budget and just throw money to make the problems go away! Genius! and go make an account. Do i know everything? No. Do I know more than the average person? Yes.
#300 to #16 - anon
Reply 0
(04/12/2013) [-]
you assume too much with that. You assume that a business WOULD grow and hire more people because of the less they have to pay. However, i may contend that bigger businesses would probably see that as an opportunity to fill thier pockets, by taking the extra revenue not going toward the gov and cutting back thier own costs for an unremarkable profit.



I'm a fan of raising taxes on everyone and using the tax money to build infrastructure
#330 to #300 - facetiousrunner
Reply 0
(04/12/2013) [-]
people always want more, so they will spend it one way or another. thats how i see it
#18 to #15 - czarredwall
Reply +1
(04/11/2013) [-]
Keynesian theory has been proven to be hit or miss. Just saying, although I am not disagreeing that it works.
#31 to #18 - facetiousrunner
Reply -2
(04/11/2013) [-]
with the system the U.S. has it is much more often a miss.
#17 to #15 - czarredwall
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#270 to #15 - shafmeister
Reply -1
(04/12/2013) [-]
The Keynesian theory of economics has been disproved so many times it's not even funny. Try again.
#218 to #13 - necroshiz **User deleted account**
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#219 to #218 - facetiousrunner
Reply +1
(04/12/2013) [-]
trickle down relies on the fact people are both selfish and unselfish at the same time. That they will both spend all their money but some people will use it for the greater good. Fair tax would get rid of irs and tax evasion. also it would make illegals pay their share. winning all around!
#222 to #219 - necroshiz **User deleted account**
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#224 to #222 - facetiousrunner
Reply +1
(04/12/2013) [-]
cause its to "radical" you break to big of norms with things people don't understand and they run off. See Ron Paul
#228 to #224 - necroshiz **User deleted account**
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#230 to #228 - facetiousrunner
Reply 0
(04/12/2013) [-]
I went Ron Paul, but im a crazy idiot.
#232 to #230 - necroshiz **User deleted account**
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#233 to #232 - facetiousrunner
Reply 0
(04/12/2013) [-]
Although i did vote johnson. Romeny was just to unrelatable to the common man to win For one I live in Alabama so the republican candidate will win easy. If a third party gets so many votes they get national funding. that was my thought process.
#235 to #233 - necroshiz **User deleted account**
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#238 to #235 - facetiousrunner
Reply 0
(04/12/2013) [-]
republican party started off as a third party, just throwing that out there.
#240 to #238 - necroshiz **User deleted account**
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#241 to #240 - facetiousrunner
Reply 0
(04/12/2013) [-]
fyi you are one of the few people to not scream at me and say stupid conservative, thanks for that. you can look down and see the **** storm i brewed.
#245 to #241 - necroshiz **User deleted account**
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#247 to #245 - facetiousrunner
Reply 0
(04/12/2013) [-]
to bad pathos is the most compelling argument.
#249 to #247 - necroshiz **User deleted account**
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#264 to #249 - facetiousrunner
Reply 0
(04/12/2013) [-]
well sir, thanks for the nice chat. I've got practice in five hours and probably should sleep. peace
#267 to #264 - necroshiz **User deleted account**
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#331 to #267 - facetiousrunner
0
(04/12/2013) [-]
i dreamt of skinny women!
#63 to #13 - psydoc
Reply 0
(04/11/2013) [-]
Nobody seemed to catch it, but I thought it was really funny when after Obama spent so much time criticizing "trickle down" economics he basically endorsed them to cover for his own lack of economic performance.

When the economy failed to recover in a timely fashion, his DJ 4DM1Nistration went on all the networks telling people that jobs are a lagging indicator. They said GDP has to rebound before jobs will rebound. In other words, things will get better for the have nots/unemployed after they get better for the people who are employed and have money.
#64 to #63 - facetiousrunner
Reply -2
(04/11/2013) [-]
ding ding ding! also unemployment isn't falling, people arent looking for work anymore lowering the rate.
#67 to #64 - psydoc
Reply +1
(04/11/2013) [-]
Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhush...

That's supposed to be a secret.

Besides, they say less people are looking for employment because Baby boomers are retiring. Never mind if that's not true and more older people are staying in the workforce.
#70 to #67 - facetiousrunner
Reply -1
(04/12/2013) [-]
i got your back bro
#36 to #13 - anon
Reply 0
(04/11/2013) [-]
so... you saying the new deal with ********?
#38 to #36 - facetiousrunner
Reply +1
(04/11/2013) [-]
yes, the new deal was freaking stupid
#153 to #38 - grandterskrasao
Reply 0
(04/12/2013) [-]
Forgive me for interjecting here, I can understand your viewpoint, and even agree with them some-what, however the new deal programs in what allowed the United States to be such a force during WWII. People were literally starving to death because they had no work. The New Deal did fail in regard to ending the depression, but it succeded in that it saved American lives, who turned around and saved the world from totaldictarion leaders such as Hitler and Mussolini who would have won had the U.S not been able to effectively respond to the war due to logistical issues, economic crises, and populous anger towards the government.
#159 to #153 - facetiousrunner
Reply +1
(04/12/2013) [-]
i will say i take a stronger view against government policies. In my mind the less government, the better. The government is there to regulate business and foreign policy/protection. They great depression happened due to the extreme hands off approach from the gilded age. If the new deal policies hadn't been enacted and taxes had been lowered, the economy would have rebounded quickly. All the thing that The New Deal tried to do, could have been done better privately. Just my ten cents, not trying to bash your views or be a dick.
#30 to #13 - anon
Reply 0
(04/11/2013) [-]
How is the Department of Education unconstitutional? Just curious.
#37 to #30 - facetiousrunner
Reply +4
(04/11/2013) [-]
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." tenth amendment
#105 to #6 - deezknuts
Reply -3
(04/12/2013) [-]
POLITICAL DEBATE BITCHUSSSSSS
#7 to #6 - anon
Reply 0
(04/11/2013) [-]
you're quite an idiot aren't you?
#14 to #7 - facetiousrunner
Reply +19
(04/11/2013) [-]
stupid anon is stupid
stupid anon is stupid
#23 to #14 - minnesotaids
Reply -17
(04/11/2013) [-]
#27 to #23 - facetiousrunner
Reply -10
(04/11/2013) [-]
i'll just put the fact out there im a facetious person =p
#103 to #6 - anon
Reply 0
(04/12/2013) [-]
Because I'm sure Obama was out buying **** personally. Everyone thinks the president automatically gets 100% control over the nations funds
#146 to #6 - anon
Reply 0
(04/12/2013) [-]
actually congress has the ultimate decision on our country's budget.
#183 to #146 - facetiousrunner
Reply +1
(04/12/2013) [-]
specifically the house of representatives. But they haven't passed a budget in so long, so spending goes crazy. Also the president can veto anything. Try to get a two thirds override.
#184 to #6 - facetiousrunner
Reply 0
(04/12/2013) [-]
there is so much red down there, so much
#333 to #6 - zerogenocide **User deleted account**
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#242 to #6 - stiffbeefyone
Reply +1
(04/12/2013) [-]
MFW you're too stupid to realize that the 6 trillion dollars that Bush spent on the military alone was deferred until Obama took office.
#312 to #6 - ompalomper
Reply +2
(04/12/2013) [-]
warning: pure ********* beyond this point
#130 to #6 - hasanaat
Reply +5
(04/12/2013) [-]
Here's proof of why you're 100% correct!
#135 to #6 - lordmoldywart
Reply +7
(04/12/2013) [-]
MFW the global economic crisis started just after Bush left office, and Obama's had to spend his way out of it to try and save America from seeing its biggest recession since the 30s
#231 to #135 - eiad
Reply 0
(04/12/2013) [-]
starting wars wasn't really helping now.. was it?
#324 to #231 - lordmoldywart
Reply -1
(04/12/2013) [-]
No it wasn't, but what's done is done
#149 to #135 - anon
Reply 0
(04/12/2013) [-]
that coon did nothing for us but give black people welfare
#151 to #149 - lordmoldywart
Reply +2
(04/12/2013) [-]
He also made healthcare more affordable for your sorry ass
#201 to #151 - anon
Reply 0
(04/12/2013) [-]
No. Obamacare is (hopefully) going to be a failure to launch scenario. The dems and libs are now saying it is the conservative sides' fault because they opposed it. Hospitals are refusing care to current medicare patients because of the spending cuts, and obamacare is not going to be in place until 2014.
#323 to #201 - lordmoldywart
Reply -1
(04/12/2013) [-]
The sooner the better I think
#147 to #135 - anon
Reply 0
(04/12/2013) [-]
Yeah because spending will fix your problem right?

And he did a pretty **** job 'saving' our country too right?
#154 to #147 - isolotop
Reply +1
(04/12/2013) [-]
spending is how both canada and the us got out of the great depression.... WW2 gave us somewhere to actually spend our money and revitalized the economy
#305 to #147 - bratfish
Reply 0
(04/12/2013) [-]
The option is to let millions lose their jobs while the rich wait out the civil unrest in bunkers...

The government have to spend to create jobs
#148 to #147 - lordmoldywart
Reply -2
(04/12/2013) [-]
You've been hovering around 2% growth for 3 years now, pretty stable if you ask me
#114 to #6 - seymourtets
Reply +17
(04/12/2013) [-]
#225 to #114 - cjasper
Reply +1
(04/12/2013) [-]
#4 - vanillasmoke
Reply +68
(04/11/2013) [-]
bush might not have been the best, but he didn't take **** from anyone
#124 to #4 - mrtwitty
Reply -4
(04/12/2013) [-]
Dick Cheney tho...
#34 - titsmcghee
Reply +62
(04/11/2013) [-]
are we still blaming bush for all the **** obama has ****** up?
#35 to #34 - anon
Reply 0
(04/11/2013) [-]
are you still blaming obama for things that both started before he was in office and he would have no control over if he was?
#41 to #35 - titsmcghee
Reply +4
(04/11/2013) [-]
like the national debt? or the continued economic slump?
#75 to #41 - swiftcashew
Reply +3
(04/12/2013) [-]
The economic slump that has been posting record high stock values and a steadily improving job market?
#289 to #75 - anon
Reply 0
(04/12/2013) [-]
and yet they keep firing people while the wealthy pocket the money
#78 to #35 - WoIverine
Reply +1
(04/12/2013) [-]
I'd say he was asking to take the blame, because he promised to fix it within 4 years.
#100 to #35 - mylazy
Reply -2
(04/12/2013) [-]
Tell me, do you blame the budget deficit on Bush, because if you do, go to these two sites and tell me if they are wrong.

www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-claim-that-90-percent-of-the-current-deficit-is-due-to-bush-policies/2012/09/26/e9bfbcd0-077e-11e2-a10c-fa5a255a9258_blog.html

www.forbes.com/sites/jamesglassman/2012/07/11/the-facts-about-budget-deficits-how-the-presidents-truly-rank/

For the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, do you think we shouldn't have gotten involved? If so why, because I would love to hear it. And don't give me any ******** about us going in for oil, because that is a stupid thought that far too many people make, and one that if anyone actually thinks about, they will realize it isn't true.

If you think the real estate bubble crash was due to bush, remember that the act that caused it was passed under Clinton, and the president has considerably less power than people think.

So, you know, Bush wasn't the greatest president, but he isn't half as bad as people want to make him out to be.
#316 to #34 - troublezone
Reply 0
(04/12/2013) [-]
How about you stop blaiming one individual for the misfortune of a whole nation
How can you seriously believe that one man or 2 men (bush) can ruin the economy for millions of people?!
#90 - hugora
Reply +49
(04/12/2013) [-]
#111 to #90 - anon
Reply 0
(04/12/2013) [-]
There is change, horrible horrible changes, the man's committed treason by giving something like 27 million to the Islam brotherhood that congress froze and said "no don't give this to them" He's the laziest president we've ever had and he's ****** up far worse then any before.
#112 to #90 - killyojoy
Reply +4
(04/12/2013) [-]
In all honesty I ******* hate Obama way more than bush...Bush was an Idiot but he was has had a **** ton of horrible things happen when he was president everything from 9-11 to Katrina....Obama is trying to take my rights and disarm me.
#215 to #112 - JuliusC
Reply +1
(04/12/2013) [-]
That bush went to prep-school, phillips acadamy, Graduated from Yale ith a Bachelors Degree, and earned his masters at Harvard.
#142 to #112 - yeorey
Reply 0
(04/12/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#125 to #112 - srskate
Reply -3
(04/12/2013) [-]
haha
yeah
totally

and the government has radios in your teeth
#127 to #112 - windmagevaati ONLINE
Reply -6
(04/12/2013) [-]
Cry me a river
#33 - xbigdaddyx
Reply +47
(04/11/2013) [-]
#45 - jedisquirrel
Reply +46
(04/11/2013) [-]
#55 to #45 - secretdestroyers ONLINE
Reply 0
(04/11/2013) [-]
I would say both icons should be on that center pole, because a vote for either of them is like crashing your car into one!
#141 to #45 - yeorey
Reply +3
(04/12/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#77 - juggalotank
Reply +41
(04/12/2013) [-]
#350 to #77 - gorginhanson
Reply 0
(04/17/2013) [-]
January 20 2009
So apparently it's 2014 already
#351 to #350 - juggalotank
Reply 0
(04/18/2013) [-]
Though you are technically correct, Obama was elected in 2008. That's the date I was using. when I made this image.
#352 to #351 - gorginhanson
Reply 0
(04/18/2013) [-]
Well firstly it says "took office", not "got elected", and secondly, even if it did say that, it's still several months short of 5 years.
Thirdly, it takes a lot of time to heal a country.
Fourthly, lol bro
#353 to #352 - juggalotank
Reply 0
(04/19/2013) [-]
Thank you, I know what it says. I made it.

The point is, he has had over a full presidential term to "fix" things, and all Obama has done is made things worse.
#137 - therealpeterw
Reply +29
(04/12/2013) [-]
Oh yeah, because Obama is doing such a great job
Oh yeah, because Obama is doing such a great job
#51 - beddeb
Reply +24
(04/11/2013) [-]
-insert raging political battle-              
Gosh whoever knew a bunch of teenagers on a computer knew more about politics than the people in office?
-insert raging political battle-
Gosh whoever knew a bunch of teenagers on a computer knew more about politics than the people in office?
#58 to #51 - secretdestroyers ONLINE
Reply 0
(04/11/2013) [-]
I'm in my early 20s and I've been very passionate about politics for years aaaand I'm still not contributing to these arguments.

Although, it makes sense why every 12 year old on this site is trying to defend Bush since he had the intelligence equal to or less than them!
#65 to #58 - Zailen ONLINE
Reply +2
(04/11/2013) [-]
Ahhh but good sir, I am also in my early twenties, and I was a Bush supporter! I suppose it all falls down to what your political beliefs are in the end. Unfortunately, things are going well for us right now, however i am sure that with some gold old American know how, we'll get out of this. Like we always have. Thats one thing nobody can deny about Americans when it comes to our economy, or anything else inparticular. Americans are quite creative, and have gotten out of tougher jams before. The important thing is to stick together and look ahead, instead of knitpicking and blaming eachother. Don't you agree?
#71 to #65 - secretdestroyers ONLINE
Reply 0
(04/12/2013) [-]
But, you are right about the American work ethic. Sometimes, I think it's borderline insane how motivated we are by money!
#69 to #65 - secretdestroyers ONLINE
Reply 0
(04/12/2013) [-]
Oh, yeah, we've gotten ourselves out of worse, true enough. As bad as the Recession is it still can't compare to what our grandparents/great-grandparents felt during the Depression.

But, I could not in good conscience support Bush. He wasn't completely responsible for the economy tanking, but there were a great many needless deaths thanks to the Iraq War.

Granted, I can't say I support anything Obama's done on the war front....but, that's an entirely different matter.
#83 to #69 - bazda
Reply +1
(04/12/2013) [-]
Bush had nothing to do with the economy tanking. The housing market crashed under his presidency, yes, but it was caused by the affordable housing legislation that was passed under Clinton.
#85 to #83 - secretdestroyers ONLINE
Reply -1
(04/12/2013) [-]
Not to mention a great deal of greedy corporations getting away with their ********....so, yeah, a lot of people to blame here!
#73 to #69 - Zailen ONLINE
Reply +1
(04/12/2013) [-]
A different matter entirely. I support different things about the war. I'm thinking less on the original intent, and instead on what it is now. we need to finish a job, and we need to finish it correctly. I support our soldiers (as well all do) and I'll be happy to see them return home when they complete their job. One of the biggest reasons I supported Bush was because of his support of our military. He was a guy who genuinely went above and beyond to show that he cared about them. I knew the decisions he made werent made lightly. I agree, I didnt agree with everything he did in his presidency, but do we ever agree with everything in the end? I respect the fact that he made the choices at all. I wouldn't be able to. BUT anyway. Thats all the political I can do for today, haha. Politics are a thing that nobody ever seems to win. It's all about changing minds, and sometimes, it doesn't pay to do that. *nods*
#79 to #73 - secretdestroyers ONLINE
Reply 0
(04/12/2013) [-]
Yeah, it's all a matter of opinion. I'm still a bit confused as to what out 'job' there is. Ousting Saddam was definitely a good thing, but we shouldn't have just fired the entire police force/army there.

I guess I'm more of a...I guess pragmatist in terms of war. Military intervention's fine when human rights are being violated, but spreading democracy's kind of unnecessary. Each country has their own opinion on how things should be run, they don't need our help there. Not to mention, taking out hostile dictators is one big game of Whack-a-Mole, they just keep popping up!
#66 to #65 - Zailen ONLINE
Reply 0
(04/11/2013) [-]
*Ahem. Typo. Things are NOT going well for us right now. I apologise for the confusion.
#60 to #58 - beddeb
Reply +1
(04/11/2013) [-]
excuse me, mostly teenagers.
#82 to #58 - anon
Reply 0
(04/12/2013) [-]
LOL neither one of you idiots know anything.
#107 to #58 - deezknuts
Reply -1
(04/12/2013) [-]
dude if my thumbs worked i would slap your ****

>fiucking exclamation mark after your ****** joke
>bitch be all "hey I'm a goddamn exclamation mark, that means it's a joke and you should laugh at my clever wit!"

that is all
have a good day sir
#345 to #51 - beddeb
Reply 0
(04/12/2013) [-]
I like how my sarcastic post about a political battle turned out to be a political battle
#53 to #51 - bitchplzzz
Reply +1
(04/11/2013) [-]
#2 - teranin ONLINE
Reply +18
(04/11/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#3 to #2 - anonymousiemoo
Reply +6
(04/11/2013) [-]
..
..