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

hide menu

Orangepeel

Rank #4178 on Content
Orangepeel Avatar Level 240 Comments: Doinitrite
Offline
Send mail to Orangepeel Block Orangepeel Invite Orangepeel to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: male
Date Signed Up:10/23/2010
Last Login:12/15/2014
Location:New Zealand
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Content Ranking:#4178
Comment Ranking:#17766
Highest Content Rank:#1864
Highest Comment Rank:#1080
Content Thumbs: 11087 total,  12741 ,  1654
Comment Thumbs: 4102 total,  5266 ,  1164
Content Level Progress: 25% (25/100)
Level 209 Content: Comedic Genius → Level 210 Content: Comedic Genius
Comment Level Progress: 67% (67/100)
Level 240 Comments: Doinitrite → Level 241 Comments: Doinitrite
Subscribers:6
Content Views:347359
Times Content Favorited:689 times
Total Comments Made:1044
FJ Points:15578

latest user's comments

#275 - Haha I ******* saved the .jpg one. THAT one actua… 07/10/2012 on Jewelry in the night +1
#273 - Already done :D But **** I'd be so mad if that ha…  [+] (2 new replies) 07/10/2012 on Jewelry in the night +1
#274 - dalemc (07/10/2012) [-]
I know i went on it mate, i'm still laughing at it, its fucking awesome man.
#275 - Orangepeel (07/10/2012) [-]
Haha I fuckin' saved the .jpg one. THAT one actually made me lol
#271 - I will post it then!  [+] (4 new replies) 07/10/2012 on Jewelry in the night +1
#272 - dalemc (07/10/2012) [-]
Awesome man, quick though, someone might steal it dude! I posted a cat touching a watermellon in a comment day later someone posts it and has 4000 thumbs, i was raging xD.
#273 - Orangepeel (07/10/2012) [-]
Already done :D But fuck I'd be so mad if that happened to me ae.
#274 - dalemc (07/10/2012) [-]
I know i went on it mate, i'm still laughing at it, its fucking awesome man.
#275 - Orangepeel (07/10/2012) [-]
Haha I fuckin' saved the .jpg one. THAT one actually made me lol
#270 - Picture 07/10/2012 on Jewelry in the night +2
#266 - Picture  [+] (8 new replies) 07/10/2012 on Jewelry in the night 0
User avatar #269 - dalemc (07/10/2012) [-]
Still fucking laughing man xD bet if you uploaded that you'd get front page aw thats so funny.
User avatar #271 - Orangepeel (07/10/2012) [-]
I will post it then!
#272 - dalemc (07/10/2012) [-]
Awesome man, quick though, someone might steal it dude! I posted a cat touching a watermellon in a comment day later someone posts it and has 4000 thumbs, i was raging xD.
#273 - Orangepeel (07/10/2012) [-]
Already done :D But fuck I'd be so mad if that happened to me ae.
#274 - dalemc (07/10/2012) [-]
I know i went on it mate, i'm still laughing at it, its fucking awesome man.
#275 - Orangepeel (07/10/2012) [-]
Haha I fuckin' saved the .jpg one. THAT one actually made me lol
#268 - dalemc (07/10/2012) [-]
#270 - Orangepeel (07/10/2012) [-]
#245 - I read this as "Jewry in the night" :)  [+] (3 new replies) 07/10/2012 on Jewelry in the night +4
#253 - stretchedvagina (07/10/2012) [-]
I read it as "Strangers in the Night"
#247 - anonymous (07/10/2012) [-]
not me.
User avatar #290 - tauh (07/11/2012) [-]
¡Qué inyustisia!
#3765 - Picture  [+] (1 new reply) 07/10/2012 on Politics - politics news,... +5
User avatar #3771 - reaganomix (07/10/2012) [-]
I love you
#3763 - Picture 07/10/2012 on Politics - politics news,... +1
#956 - This is one of my favourite Penn Jillette quotes. 07/09/2012 on Science and religion +5
#3686 - That's a good point, but libertarianism is characterized by it… 07/09/2012 on Politics - politics news,... 0
#3678 - Libertarians are not socially liberal. Social liberal includes…  [+] (4 new replies) 07/09/2012 on Politics - politics news,... 0
User avatar #3679 - EventHorizon (07/09/2012) [-]
Socially liberal is far more accurate than socially conservative. The extremes of liberalism are so moderate compared to the thresholds of conservatism.
#3683 - anonymous (07/09/2012) [-]
I see where you're coming from, but I still disagree. A liberal may claim to support gay marriage whereas a libertarian would just want the government out of marriage altogether.
User avatar #3684 - EventHorizon (07/09/2012) [-]
True enough, I'd certainly agree with you there. The problem is though that you can't really use the term "libertarian" to describe "libertarians". It's like explaining what red looks like to someone by saying "well it looks red, but it certainly isn't blue or green".
User avatar #3686 - Orangepeel (07/09/2012) [-]
That's a good point, but libertarianism is characterized by its support of limited government. Neither Social Conservatism or Social Liberalism supports limited government. To describe libertarianism to someone who only knows about liberalism and conservatism it's not accurate to say "economically conservative, socially liberal" because there are too many areas where libertarianism comes into conflict with both, particularly social liberalism.

For example, a libertarian might disagree with economic conservative in areas such as protectionism, central banking, military spending and corporate welfare.
A libertarian would disagree with a social liberal in areas such as centralization (Liberarians oppose a large federal goverment), marriage, guns, free speech, etc.

tl;dr "economic conservative, social liberal" is an over-simplification. Liberarianism should be classified as an entirely different ideology rather than a mixture of several IMO.
#81 - It even used "you're" correctly... 07/09/2012 on YAY +2
#3635 - Picture  [+] (16 new replies) 07/09/2012 on Politics - politics news,... +6
User avatar #3642 - szymonf (07/09/2012) [-]
well there is a major difference
#3646 - anonymous (07/09/2012) [-]
The US has no right to interfere with the affairs of another nation that don't threaten US security.

User avatar #3649 - szymonf (07/09/2012) [-]
i hated kony 2012 and i believe that the wars in afghanistan and iraq were both illegal

I also agree with you statemtn

I also dont believe that the US should interfere in the congo

However there is a major difference between the two
#3698 - acaciastrain (07/09/2012) [-]
So let me guess. You believe that Obama is doing better than Bush in this area. Am I right?
User avatar #3706 - szymonf (07/10/2012) [-]
in what area?
#3708 - acaciastrain (07/10/2012) [-]
War in the Middle East.
User avatar #3710 - szymonf (07/10/2012) [-]
welllllllllllllllllllllllllll
i disagree with what obama has done
and i view the us involvement in iraq as a total failure mainly because of obama

but i hate bush
primarily for starting two illegal wars

so i believe both are equally terrible
#3712 - acaciastrain (07/10/2012) [-]
Ok well at least you're consistent. I'm so sick of the idiots who think Bush was a monster but will praise all Obama does even though he's just as bad. I think the wars were necessary but there is obviously a better way we could have went about it. I also believe that ultimately these wars have helped America.
User avatar #3715 - szymonf (07/10/2012) [-]
except fascistsoldier
he is not allowed to have an opinion
User avatar #3714 - szymonf (07/10/2012) [-]
mehhh...
destroyed what ever good image america had
racked up massive debt with china
but everyone is entitled to their opinions and that is my opinion
#3716 - acaciastrain (07/10/2012) [-]
Told terrorists if you fuck with us we will find you and put a bullet in your head. Took down a number of dictators. Now America is virtually untouchable.
#3651 - anonymous (07/09/2012) [-]
How? The US claimed to "Liberate" Iraq from Hussein the same way the Kony scam calls for US "liberation" from Joseph Kony.

Oh yeah, both Uganda and Iraq have oil.

Where's the major difference?
User avatar #3666 - szymonf (07/09/2012) [-]
you also forgot that the us invaded for "WMD's"
I know central africa has oil, one of the reasons as to why i am against us involvement

and they were not planning on liberating uganda since kony isnt the leader of the nation
#3667 - anonymous (07/09/2012) [-]
But US involvement in say, Libya, had nothing to do with WMDs, same with involvement in Kuwait. Even the claim for Afghanistan threatening US security was unconvincing.

To be fair the US wasn't planning on invading Uganda in the first place, the Kony campaign and all its sheep were just telling the US to.
User avatar #3743 - szymonf (07/10/2012) [-]
the US (under Obama) had sent military advisor's to Uganda where they continue to train the Ugandan army.
An army that has committed as many, if not more atrocities as Joseph Kony.
Most of them in the name of Western Capitalism
#3762 - anonymous (07/10/2012) [-]
the US (under Obama) had sent military advisor's to Uganda where they continue to train the Ugandan army.
That's not what the military is for. Helping the Ugandan government is a job for the UN, not American National Defence.

Most of them in the name of Western Capitalism
The atrocities committed in the name of Capitalism are dwarfed by the genocide committed in the name of socialism.
#3531 - No, according to Marx the state is only necessary for the tran…  [+] (2 new replies) 07/08/2012 on Politics - politics news,... +1
User avatar #3585 - arisaka (07/09/2012) [-]
I applaud you.
#3763 - Orangepeel (07/10/2012) [-]
#3530 - That's called the "Consensus model", but it was drop…  [+] (2 new replies) 07/08/2012 on Politics - politics news,... +1
User avatar #3587 - arisaka (07/09/2012) [-]
Just bootleg 'em.
#3532 - feelythefeel (07/08/2012) [-]
Well, you've got me beat. Thanks for making me think.
#3525 - And isn't the goal of communism a classless STATELESS society?…  [+] (6 new replies) 07/08/2012 on Politics - politics news,... +1
User avatar #3527 - feelythefeel (07/08/2012) [-]
I think that's Anarchist Communism, seen here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism
User avatar #3586 - arisaka (07/09/2012) [-]
You are a fruit.
#3593 - feelythefeel (07/09/2012) [-]
User avatar #3531 - Orangepeel (07/08/2012) [-]
No, according to Marx the state is only necessary for the transition of Capitalism to socialism. Pure communism is "A classless, stateless society where the means of production are communally owned". Pure Communism abolishes the State, hence the USSR and other "communist" states were not really communist, they were just socialist.
User avatar #3585 - arisaka (07/09/2012) [-]
I applaud you.
#3763 - Orangepeel (07/10/2012) [-]
#3524 - My question was how does the government determine demand? Unde…  [+] (4 new replies) 07/08/2012 on Politics - politics news,... +1
User avatar #3526 - feelythefeel (07/08/2012) [-]
Depends on how the resources are dispersed.

For example, there may be some sort of form that a family/living group would fill out that would decide what the family/living group would want, with a minimum and maximum value based on nutritional value and other aspects of importance. The more people that, say, request oranges, the stronger the initiative for producing oranges.

This is just an example, though.
User avatar #3530 - Orangepeel (07/08/2012) [-]
That's called the "Consensus model", but it was dropped by Khrushchev when he took office because it wasn't working.

So what if I want 10 000 copies of a particular DVD, but there's only enough resources give everyone one copy? Under capitalism, I can get that 10000 copies so long as I can pay for it, and that money spent will in turn increase production of said product and lower prices for everyone. But under Communism, will I still be free to choose what I want?
User avatar #3587 - arisaka (07/09/2012) [-]
Just bootleg 'em.
#3532 - feelythefeel (07/08/2012) [-]
Well, you've got me beat. Thanks for making me think.
#3522 - But how will the producers know how much to make? Under Capita…  [+] (13 new replies) 07/08/2012 on Politics - politics news,... +1
User avatar #3523 - feelythefeel (07/08/2012) [-]
The idea of Communism is high regulation. In an ideal Communistic country, the state would be keeping track of demand, and produce resources accordingly. For example, if there was a higher demand for apples, the state would make an initiative to produce more apples.
User avatar #3525 - Orangepeel (07/08/2012) [-]
And isn't the goal of communism a classless STATELESS society? Under pure communism, who's going to monitor resources if the state's been abolished?
User avatar #3527 - feelythefeel (07/08/2012) [-]
I think that's Anarchist Communism, seen here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism
User avatar #3586 - arisaka (07/09/2012) [-]
You are a fruit.
#3593 - feelythefeel (07/09/2012) [-]
User avatar #3531 - Orangepeel (07/08/2012) [-]
No, according to Marx the state is only necessary for the transition of Capitalism to socialism. Pure communism is "A classless, stateless society where the means of production are communally owned". Pure Communism abolishes the State, hence the USSR and other "communist" states were not really communist, they were just socialist.
User avatar #3585 - arisaka (07/09/2012) [-]
I applaud you.
#3763 - Orangepeel (07/10/2012) [-]
User avatar #3524 - Orangepeel (07/08/2012) [-]
My question was how does the government determine demand? Under capitalism, price indicates demand. But what indicates demand under communism?
User avatar #3526 - feelythefeel (07/08/2012) [-]
Depends on how the resources are dispersed.

For example, there may be some sort of form that a family/living group would fill out that would decide what the family/living group would want, with a minimum and maximum value based on nutritional value and other aspects of importance. The more people that, say, request oranges, the stronger the initiative for producing oranges.

This is just an example, though.
User avatar #3530 - Orangepeel (07/08/2012) [-]
That's called the "Consensus model", but it was dropped by Khrushchev when he took office because it wasn't working.

So what if I want 10 000 copies of a particular DVD, but there's only enough resources give everyone one copy? Under capitalism, I can get that 10000 copies so long as I can pay for it, and that money spent will in turn increase production of said product and lower prices for everyone. But under Communism, will I still be free to choose what I want?
User avatar #3587 - arisaka (07/09/2012) [-]
Just bootleg 'em.
#3532 - feelythefeel (07/08/2012) [-]
Well, you've got me beat. Thanks for making me think.
#3519 - owns*  [+] (16 new replies) 07/08/2012 on Politics - politics news,... +1
User avatar #3521 - feelythefeel (07/08/2012) [-]
It depends on the case. In the USSR, the goods where dispersed to the people by the state. In modern China, the goods can be bought freely.

I believe that the state should fairly assess many variables such as lifestyle, employment, circumstance etc etc, and disperse resources fairly based on that information.

Sorry, had to make an edit.
User avatar #3522 - Orangepeel (07/08/2012) [-]
But how will the producers know how much to make? Under Capitalism, the price tells the producers the demand and therefore the supply required (supply and demand equilibrium, you know).

But under Communism, there are no prices as there is no currency. Lets take the film industry for example. Seeing as how people have different tastes in movies, obviously the producer would need to know how many copies of a particular film to make in order to satisfy those who want it. How will the producers know how many DVD's of a particular movie to make if there's no price to indicate how many people want this particular film? And how will the film industry get the money to produce copies of a particular film?
User avatar #3523 - feelythefeel (07/08/2012) [-]
The idea of Communism is high regulation. In an ideal Communistic country, the state would be keeping track of demand, and produce resources accordingly. For example, if there was a higher demand for apples, the state would make an initiative to produce more apples.
User avatar #3525 - Orangepeel (07/08/2012) [-]
And isn't the goal of communism a classless STATELESS society? Under pure communism, who's going to monitor resources if the state's been abolished?
User avatar #3527 - feelythefeel (07/08/2012) [-]
I think that's Anarchist Communism, seen here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism
User avatar #3586 - arisaka (07/09/2012) [-]
You are a fruit.
#3593 - feelythefeel (07/09/2012) [-]
User avatar #3531 - Orangepeel (07/08/2012) [-]
No, according to Marx the state is only necessary for the transition of Capitalism to socialism. Pure communism is "A classless, stateless society where the means of production are communally owned". Pure Communism abolishes the State, hence the USSR and other "communist" states were not really communist, they were just socialist.
User avatar #3585 - arisaka (07/09/2012) [-]
I applaud you.
#3763 - Orangepeel (07/10/2012) [-]
User avatar #3524 - Orangepeel (07/08/2012) [-]
My question was how does the government determine demand? Under capitalism, price indicates demand. But what indicates demand under communism?
User avatar #3526 - feelythefeel (07/08/2012) [-]
Depends on how the resources are dispersed.

For example, there may be some sort of form that a family/living group would fill out that would decide what the family/living group would want, with a minimum and maximum value based on nutritional value and other aspects of importance. The more people that, say, request oranges, the stronger the initiative for producing oranges.

This is just an example, though.
User avatar #3530 - Orangepeel (07/08/2012) [-]
That's called the "Consensus model", but it was dropped by Khrushchev when he took office because it wasn't working.

So what if I want 10 000 copies of a particular DVD, but there's only enough resources give everyone one copy? Under capitalism, I can get that 10000 copies so long as I can pay for it, and that money spent will in turn increase production of said product and lower prices for everyone. But under Communism, will I still be free to choose what I want?
User avatar #3587 - arisaka (07/09/2012) [-]
Just bootleg 'em.
#3532 - feelythefeel (07/08/2012) [-]
Well, you've got me beat. Thanks for making me think.
#3520 - feelythefeel has deleted their comment.
#3518 - What becomes of consumer goods? Under communism, who ownes the…  [+] (17 new replies) 07/08/2012 on Politics - politics news,... 0
User avatar #3519 - Orangepeel (07/08/2012) [-]
owns*
User avatar #3521 - feelythefeel (07/08/2012) [-]
It depends on the case. In the USSR, the goods where dispersed to the people by the state. In modern China, the goods can be bought freely.

I believe that the state should fairly assess many variables such as lifestyle, employment, circumstance etc etc, and disperse resources fairly based on that information.

Sorry, had to make an edit.
User avatar #3522 - Orangepeel (07/08/2012) [-]
But how will the producers know how much to make? Under Capitalism, the price tells the producers the demand and therefore the supply required (supply and demand equilibrium, you know).

But under Communism, there are no prices as there is no currency. Lets take the film industry for example. Seeing as how people have different tastes in movies, obviously the producer would need to know how many copies of a particular film to make in order to satisfy those who want it. How will the producers know how many DVD's of a particular movie to make if there's no price to indicate how many people want this particular film? And how will the film industry get the money to produce copies of a particular film?
User avatar #3523 - feelythefeel (07/08/2012) [-]
The idea of Communism is high regulation. In an ideal Communistic country, the state would be keeping track of demand, and produce resources accordingly. For example, if there was a higher demand for apples, the state would make an initiative to produce more apples.
User avatar #3525 - Orangepeel (07/08/2012) [-]
And isn't the goal of communism a classless STATELESS society? Under pure communism, who's going to monitor resources if the state's been abolished?
User avatar #3527 - feelythefeel (07/08/2012) [-]
I think that's Anarchist Communism, seen here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism
User avatar #3586 - arisaka (07/09/2012) [-]
You are a fruit.
#3593 - feelythefeel (07/09/2012) [-]
User avatar #3531 - Orangepeel (07/08/2012) [-]
No, according to Marx the state is only necessary for the transition of Capitalism to socialism. Pure communism is "A classless, stateless society where the means of production are communally owned". Pure Communism abolishes the State, hence the USSR and other "communist" states were not really communist, they were just socialist.
User avatar #3585 - arisaka (07/09/2012) [-]
I applaud you.
#3763 - Orangepeel (07/10/2012) [-]
User avatar #3524 - Orangepeel (07/08/2012) [-]
My question was how does the government determine demand? Under capitalism, price indicates demand. But what indicates demand under communism?
User avatar #3526 - feelythefeel (07/08/2012) [-]
Depends on how the resources are dispersed.

For example, there may be some sort of form that a family/living group would fill out that would decide what the family/living group would want, with a minimum and maximum value based on nutritional value and other aspects of importance. The more people that, say, request oranges, the stronger the initiative for producing oranges.

This is just an example, though.
User avatar #3530 - Orangepeel (07/08/2012) [-]
That's called the "Consensus model", but it was dropped by Khrushchev when he took office because it wasn't working.

So what if I want 10 000 copies of a particular DVD, but there's only enough resources give everyone one copy? Under capitalism, I can get that 10000 copies so long as I can pay for it, and that money spent will in turn increase production of said product and lower prices for everyone. But under Communism, will I still be free to choose what I want?
User avatar #3587 - arisaka (07/09/2012) [-]
Just bootleg 'em.
#3532 - feelythefeel (07/08/2012) [-]
Well, you've got me beat. Thanks for making me think.
#3520 - feelythefeel has deleted their comment.
#20 - Just for you, here is one of my favourite liberal douche contr…  [+] (1 new reply) 07/08/2012 on techketzer's profile 0
User avatar #21 - techketzer (07/08/2012) [-]
Hahaha, I am always amazed at how stereotypes can be so accurate. xD
#35 - Just doing my part in the war against leftards.  [+] (1 new reply) 07/08/2012 on Orangepeel's profile 0
#36 - techketzer (07/08/2012) [-]
#19 - Anon, please register so I can add you to my friend-list. … 07/08/2012 on techketzer's profile 0
#68 - 啊好了,我明白 :)  [+] (2 new replies) 07/07/2012 on Money well spent! +3
User avatar #114 - krizzah (07/07/2012) [-]
我的裤子全是螃蟹
#116 - anonymous (07/08/2012) [-]
哈哈哈哈这样可怕的中文... 你用过谷歌翻译吧?
#65 - 只一点? 这么, 你为什么说了你 流利 的四语言? 07/07/2012 on Money well spent! +3

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #44 - robobloxx (11/10/2013) [-]
Oh **** ****** what are you doing
User avatar #45 to #44 - Orangepeel (11/20/2013) [-]
Do I know you?
User avatar #46 to #45 - robobloxx (11/21/2013) [-]
You kept thumbing up something called blueberry boy or something and I wanted to know why.
User avatar #47 to #46 - Orangepeel (11/22/2013) [-]
I don't recall... when would this have been?
#38 - petal (07/27/2012) [-]
You're an idiot. Please go educate yourself.
You're an idiot. Please go educate yourself.
User avatar #39 to #38 - Orangepeel (07/27/2012) [-]
That's quite an accusation you're making. You don't come across as very intelligent... are you a liberal, by any chance?
User avatar #40 to #39 - petal (07/27/2012) [-]
I'm not labeled.
User avatar #41 to #40 - Orangepeel (08/02/2012) [-]
Well you've labeled yourself as an idiot, clearly, seeing as how you've gone and made statements without explaining or even backing them up.
User avatar #42 to #41 - petal (08/02/2012) [-]
Right.
User avatar #43 to #42 - Orangepeel (08/02/2012) [-]
You're an idiot.
#37 - anonymous (07/15/2012) [-]
u racist bro???
#34 - techketzer (07/08/2012) [-]
You are awesome.   
And you should feel awesome.
You are awesome.
And you should feel awesome.
#35 to #34 - Orangepeel (07/08/2012) [-]
Just doing my part in the war against leftards.
User avatar #33 - satyrn (02/16/2012) [-]
I
User avatar #31 - satyrn (02/16/2012) [-]
AM
User avatar #30 - satyrn (02/16/2012) [-]
IN
User avatar #29 - satyrn (02/16/2012) [-]
YOUR
User avatar #28 - satyrn (02/16/2012) [-]
PROFILE

User avatar #32 to #28 - Orangepeel (02/16/2012) [-]
What about it????
User avatar #26 - satyrn (02/15/2012) [-]
You look like an Ari to me...
User avatar #27 to #26 - Orangepeel (02/16/2012) [-]
Well done ;)
User avatar #21 - FoonyJoonk (01/04/2011) [-]
Seriously dude,your a douchebag,you can ****** burn in hell
#25 to #21 - ahhnothankyou (05/23/2011) [-]
ahh no thank you, none of that on here please.
User avatar #24 to #21 - Orangepeel (01/13/2011) [-]
Hahaha, I didn't think so.
#23 to #21 - Orangepeel (01/04/2011) [-]
Also, allow me to correct your grammar:

"Seriously dude, you're a douchebag. You can ******* burn in Hell."

There we go.
User avatar #22 to #21 - Orangepeel (01/04/2011) [-]
O RLY? May I as why? Or do you need to go back under a bridge?
#20 - cockadoodie (01/02/2011) [-]
talk to me!!!
User avatar #16 - cRookie (12/29/2010) [-]
"C'mon let's get this to the front page!"

And I'm the thumbwhore :) Nice one!
User avatar #17 to #16 - Orangepeel (12/29/2010) [-]
What can I say? Encouraging people to thumb your content is different from spamming pages with retoasts...
User avatar #18 to #17 - cRookie (12/29/2010) [-]
What was the retoast? I did the Christmas Time comic from scratch and I didn't get the idea from anywhere. Clearly you don't know what you're talking about and I won't continue this anymore under the given circumstances.
User avatar #19 to #18 - Orangepeel (12/29/2010) [-]
Most of your 'OC' is just well known ideas.
I know exactly what you are referring to, and I'd just like to point out your hypocrisy of even thinking you can slam me for supposedly 'thumb - whoring' when you yourself lose thumbs due to petty adverts.
Were you trolling or something? You DO realize you lose a tremendous amount of thumbs when you spam adverts for crap content...
User avatar #8 - luxrizzle (12/04/2010) [-]
I'm pretty sure we have had this talk before Mr J.
You're the Nazi, I am your little Turkish helper.
User avatar #9 to #8 - Orangepeel (12/04/2010) [-]
That's better :3
User avatar #10 to #9 - luxrizzle (12/04/2010) [-]
DAMN STRAIGHT
User avatar #11 to #10 - Orangepeel (12/04/2010) [-]
Our Theocracy is advancing.
User avatar #12 to #11 - luxrizzle (12/04/2010) [-]
Is it really? How many new recruits do we have?
Am I still leader of the military and also foreign affairs?
User avatar #13 to #12 - Orangepeel (12/04/2010) [-]
You are, and we're on TEH move for MOAR recruits.
User avatar #14 to #13 - luxrizzle (12/04/2010) [-]
are you being serial?
thats awesome.
User avatar #15 to #14 - Orangepeel (12/04/2010) [-]
FAH kyeh!
User avatar #6 - luxrizzle (12/04/2010) [-]
dont forget what I told you to ponder jewboy.
#7 to #6 - Orangepeel (12/04/2010) [-]
Don't you dare mix me with Jews, you ******* Nazi.
By the way, 'jewboy' is two words.
#1 - earthquake **User deleted account** (10/26/2010) [-]
you're a great person i wish you the best in life, live it to the full just know everyone loves you :) have a nice day
User avatar #2 to #1 - Orangepeel (10/26/2010) [-]
I LOVE YOU.
#3 to #2 - earthquake **User deleted account** (10/26/2010) [-]
i love you too <3 :D
User avatar #4 to #3 - Orangepeel (10/26/2010) [-]
Hahaha ;)
Well... this is a little... spontaneous?
#5 to #4 - earthquake **User deleted account** (10/26/2010) [-]
haha :p
 Friends (0)