Upload
Login or register

bokkos

Last status update:
-
Gender: male
Date Signed Up:4/04/2011
Last Login:9/18/2016
Stats
Comment Ranking:#30006
Highest Content Rank:#6551
Highest Comment Rank:#456
Content Thumbs: 522 total,  635 ,  113
Comment Thumbs: 16339 total,  19220 ,  2881
Content Level Progress: 80% (8/10)
Level 51 Content: Sammich eater → Level 52 Content: Sammich eater
Comment Level Progress: 57.4% (574/1000)
Level 315 Comments: Wizard → Level 316 Comments: Wizard
Subscribers:1
Content Views:37360
Times Content Favorited:44 times
Total Comments Made:3307
FJ Points:16505
Favorite Tags: a (2) | my (2)
Who the fuck writes in these things?

latest user's comments

#8 - You can be real and stupid at the same time. Really stupid.  [+] (2 replies) 02/28/2016 on Muslims for Trump -13
User avatar
#94 - bobtombobbob (02/29/2016) [-]
Super short beards.
Native American and Anglo features, one Russian..
#21 - anon (02/29/2016) [-]
Sums you up pretty well.
#73 - Because of course he does.  [+] (1 reply) 02/10/2016 on BvS 0
User avatar
#78 - megatrollinator (02/10/2016) [-]
Yeah, he does. It's part of the Kryptonian Mental Martial Art "Tor'quasm Vo" which also allows him to block telepathic invasion of his mind.
#266 - Conservative thinktanks exist. Seriously, you're going to wear…  [+] (1 reply) 02/09/2016 on Socialism 0
User avatar
#267 - kanadetenshi (02/09/2016) [-]
Are you just joking right now or are you just mentally retarded? I referred to thinktanks as a seperate fucking term from non-partisan sources, which i meant sites like factcheck.

Holy fucking shit you are a fucking idiot, goodbye and stop talking to me.
#264 - >Heritage Foundation >Not partisan Are you …  [+] (3 replies) 02/09/2016 on Socialism 0
User avatar
#265 - kanadetenshi (02/09/2016) [-]
non-partisan sources and well established thinktanks

Just fuck off anyway, you already refused to argue and acted like a little whiny bitch. I have no reason to talk to you anymore.
#266 - bokkos (02/09/2016) [-]
Conservative thinktanks exist. Seriously, you're going to wear out my internet riding-crop.
User avatar
#267 - kanadetenshi (02/09/2016) [-]
Are you just joking right now or are you just mentally retarded? I referred to thinktanks as a seperate fucking term from non-partisan sources, which i meant sites like factcheck.

Holy fucking shit you are a fucking idiot, goodbye and stop talking to me.
#455510 - I'm a socialist, I'm pretty sure I know what socialism is, at …  [+] (1 reply) 02/09/2016 on Hating - file complaints,... 0
#455512 - shibe (02/09/2016) [-]
Considering you said "capitalism and socialism aren't mutually exclusive." I'm gonna say you don't know what socialism is and by rejecting Marxism nor do you have any interest in it. Modern socialist theory very much developed out of Karl Marx. He is such an important figure for socialism I would say it's basically impossible to denounce him and still claim to be a socialist. Even if you don't take everything he says for truth, his critique of capitalist mode of production and his advancement of socialist theory was so important for socialism to develop and become an actual legitimate political system because I don't think anyone wanted to believe the Utopians.

What is socialism if not workers owning the means of production? Capitalism can not exist with workers owning the means of production, it is impossible as it is against the very core of capitalist ideology.

You're most likely a social democrat, and I'm not gonna hate you for it, but it's not socialist as is it still incorporates capitalism.
#24 - >Clearly picks conservative sources by selection bias &…  [+] (21 replies) 02/08/2016 on Socialism +22
#246 - anon (02/08/2016) [-]
Now explain how the sources are wrong one by one.
#212 - youregaylol (02/08/2016) [-]
Basically all you did was attack the sources and and claim bias without evidence.

Very sad, I don't think anyone thumbing you up and kanade down actually read the argument, because you clearly were out argued.
#261 - anon (02/09/2016) [-]
Homo gay boy seamen
User avatar
#62 - manza (02/08/2016) [-]
Your not adding anything useful either.

I'm not taking sides but your not contributing with that "dank greentext".
User avatar
#165 - rainbowrush (02/08/2016) [-]
While what you say is fair, I don't think it's needed.
"""
I think you're wrong because [this} and [this]

No, someone with a Millhouse avatar agrees with me

I don't think having Millhouse as an avatar makes you credible. It might even do the opposite.
"""


Of course it's not quite as black and white as I made it out, but I don't think anything more than bokkos' first comment was needed, and it didn't get disproved, according to him.
User avatar
#166 - rainbowrush (02/08/2016) [-]
By first comment I actually mean comment #12
#27 - kanadetenshi (02/08/2016) [-]
So after i spend all that time refuting your arguments one by one through citations and analysis you basically respond with a "muh ebil sources" excuse rather than even addressing the arguments i presented.

Suit yourself bro.
#102 - mewtastic (02/08/2016) [-]
It's like you in an argument and you're like:
"Racist Johnny! Come over here and settle this argument for us!"
When you're saying all blacks should be in prison as opposed to not! Of course he's gonna say you're right! I'd argue against him if I had a reason to but reading that wall of text on that link just isn't happening with my current brain power
User avatar
#128 - kanadetenshi (02/08/2016) [-]
That's the most lazy analogy i've ever heard to opt out of an argument you can't win.
#268 - mewtastic (02/09/2016) [-]
Eh.
#34 - plsremember (02/08/2016) [-]
If your sources are trash your argument has no base and thus is trash by extension
User avatar
#215 - youregaylol (02/08/2016) [-]
Explain why the sources are trash because right now it just seems like denial.

Fj can be really fucking stupid sometimes, you and bokkos are arguing like 12 year olds.
#262 - anon (02/09/2016) [-]
Gay sailor
#130 - anon (02/08/2016) [-]
>>#17, >>#27, BTFO
User avatar
#127 - kanadetenshi (02/08/2016) [-]
Except my sources come from non-partisan sources and well established thinktanks. If you think they're trash then feel free to debunk their methodology instead of making assertions like a little child.
User avatar
#264 - bokkos (02/09/2016) [-]
>Heritage Foundation
>Not partisan

Are you dense or just ignorant?
User avatar
#265 - kanadetenshi (02/09/2016) [-]
non-partisan sources and well established thinktanks

Just fuck off anyway, you already refused to argue and acted like a little whiny bitch. I have no reason to talk to you anymore.
#266 - bokkos (02/09/2016) [-]
Conservative thinktanks exist. Seriously, you're going to wear out my internet riding-crop.
User avatar
#267 - kanadetenshi (02/09/2016) [-]
Are you just joking right now or are you just mentally retarded? I referred to thinktanks as a seperate fucking term from non-partisan sources, which i meant sites like factcheck.

Holy fucking shit you are a fucking idiot, goodbye and stop talking to me.
#158 - anon (02/08/2016) [-]
Non-partisan according to who?
#136 - anon (02/08/2016) [-]
Says the weeb manchild.
#6 - Trump is a joke candidate who won't receive the nomination bec…  [+] (1 reply) 02/07/2016 on F*cking Hillary Logic -4
User avatar
#11 - voltkills (02/07/2016) [-]
I dunno man, trump lost the Iowa caucus but only be 3%, and Cruz did admittedly do some sneaky shit there, trump might not win but its looking like he might win a fair few delegates at least. Tuesday will reveal more, if he wins NH then he still has a chance.
#12 - Actually, Singapore's government is incredibly authoritarian a…  [+] (25 replies) 02/07/2016 on Socialism +48
#126 - anon (02/08/2016) [-]
Hong Kong is run by a board of directors without voting.

Not very "Free".
User avatar
#53 - leonhardt (02/08/2016) [-]
Shit man I don't come on FJ to learn
#17 - kanadetenshi (02/07/2016) [-]
Gees calm out, you're acting like a spastic with all these fallacies. Also thumbing me down doesn't make you right. Now calm down, breathe in, breathe out, and get lectured about motherfucking capitalism.

First of all if you think the US is a laissez Faire system but not Hong Kong or Singpore you're mentally retarded.

It's true that Singapore is very authoritarian...on a social level, it's not on an economic level however. As your own link even states the Singporean government does not regulate the economy, rather it supervises it, which are two completely different things. Reminder that Laissez Faire means that companies are largely free from government interference, which holds true in Singapore.

Fact is that in terms of economic freedom Singapore ranks 2nd where as the US ranks below the top 10. Are you saying that the US is socialist? www.heritage.org/index/country/singapore

"Now part of China proper" except that's something you literally pulled out of your ass. Hong Kong is still described as an autonomous region:

Section 3(2) of the Sino-British Joint Declaration states in part: "The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region will enjoy a high degree of autonomy, except in foreign and defence affairs which, are the responsibilities of the Central People's Government."


It's true that they protested again growing Chinese regulation because you know Hong Kong prefers a laissez faire system (GEE I WONDER WHY) but their economy still ranks number one in economic freedom.
www.heritage.org/index/country/hongkong

You do tend to have this thing of giving me sources that disprove your own made up shit. Just because it's called "socialist" doesn't mean the reforms are actually socialist. The economic reforms where cleaning up after Mao's socialist ideas murdered millions. The link literally mentions capitalist free market reforms such as decollectivisation, privatization, lifting price controls, promoting free trade, ect. This is stuff that when that happens in the UK or the US left-wingers flip their fucking shit over. It wasn't until the Hu-Wen Administration when they stopped and reversed their policies and we haven't seen such massive growth since.

But of course in your little fairy tale it's only capitalist when the US does it.

The Glass-Steagal act repeal was not based on attempting a laissez-faire banking system in the least, if that was even remotely done for that reason they would've repealed Bank Holding Company Act before Glass-Steagal

They wanted to reverse Glass-Steagal because they saw the law as an overreaction. Even fucking Glass himself wanted to repeal it for that reason.
www.investopedia.com/articles/03/071603.asp

The accusations that GLBA caused the 2008 crisis has been debunked a long time ago.
"The truth is, however, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act had little if anything to do with the current crisis. In fact, economists on both sides of the political spectrum have suggested that the act has probably made the crisis less severe than it might otherwise have been" - Factcheck

www.factcheck.org/2008/10/who-caused-the-economic-crisis/


So now that we got all your tired arguments out of the way, could you please stop acting as a kid because someone happens to disagree with you?
User avatar
#24 - bokkos (02/08/2016) [-]
>Clearly picks conservative sources by selection bias
>Trusts Wall Street Journal and Heritage Foundation for unbiased/strict research
>Lol the video on investopedia explains how GSA would have prevented the crash
>Sites one man's opinion on what caused the 2008 recession (although it was very clearly toxic mortgage packages forming a housing bubble which caused a cascade)

I think we're done here.
#246 - anon (02/08/2016) [-]
Now explain how the sources are wrong one by one.
#212 - youregaylol (02/08/2016) [-]
Basically all you did was attack the sources and and claim bias without evidence.

Very sad, I don't think anyone thumbing you up and kanade down actually read the argument, because you clearly were out argued.
#261 - anon (02/09/2016) [-]
Homo gay boy seamen
User avatar
#62 - manza (02/08/2016) [-]
Your not adding anything useful either.

I'm not taking sides but your not contributing with that "dank greentext".
User avatar
#165 - rainbowrush (02/08/2016) [-]
While what you say is fair, I don't think it's needed.
"""
I think you're wrong because [this} and [this]

No, someone with a Millhouse avatar agrees with me

I don't think having Millhouse as an avatar makes you credible. It might even do the opposite.
"""


Of course it's not quite as black and white as I made it out, but I don't think anything more than bokkos' first comment was needed, and it didn't get disproved, according to him.
User avatar
#166 - rainbowrush (02/08/2016) [-]
By first comment I actually mean comment #12
#27 - kanadetenshi (02/08/2016) [-]
So after i spend all that time refuting your arguments one by one through citations and analysis you basically respond with a "muh ebil sources" excuse rather than even addressing the arguments i presented.

Suit yourself bro.
#102 - mewtastic (02/08/2016) [-]
It's like you in an argument and you're like:
"Racist Johnny! Come over here and settle this argument for us!"
When you're saying all blacks should be in prison as opposed to not! Of course he's gonna say you're right! I'd argue against him if I had a reason to but reading that wall of text on that link just isn't happening with my current brain power
User avatar
#128 - kanadetenshi (02/08/2016) [-]
That's the most lazy analogy i've ever heard to opt out of an argument you can't win.
#268 - mewtastic (02/09/2016) [-]
Eh.
#34 - plsremember (02/08/2016) [-]
If your sources are trash your argument has no base and thus is trash by extension
User avatar
#215 - youregaylol (02/08/2016) [-]
Explain why the sources are trash because right now it just seems like denial.

Fj can be really fucking stupid sometimes, you and bokkos are arguing like 12 year olds.
#262 - anon (02/09/2016) [-]
Gay sailor
#130 - anon (02/08/2016) [-]
>>#17, >>#27, BTFO
User avatar
#127 - kanadetenshi (02/08/2016) [-]
Except my sources come from non-partisan sources and well established thinktanks. If you think they're trash then feel free to debunk their methodology instead of making assertions like a little child.
User avatar
#264 - bokkos (02/09/2016) [-]
>Heritage Foundation
>Not partisan

Are you dense or just ignorant?
User avatar
#265 - kanadetenshi (02/09/2016) [-]
non-partisan sources and well established thinktanks

Just fuck off anyway, you already refused to argue and acted like a little whiny bitch. I have no reason to talk to you anymore.
#266 - bokkos (02/09/2016) [-]
Conservative thinktanks exist. Seriously, you're going to wear out my internet riding-crop.
User avatar
#267 - kanadetenshi (02/09/2016) [-]
Are you just joking right now or are you just mentally retarded? I referred to thinktanks as a seperate fucking term from non-partisan sources, which i meant sites like factcheck.

Holy fucking shit you are a fucking idiot, goodbye and stop talking to me.
#158 - anon (02/08/2016) [-]
Non-partisan according to who?
#136 - anon (02/08/2016) [-]
Says the weeb manchild.