Upload
Login or register

bokkos

Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: male
Date Signed Up:4/04/2011
Last Login:5/25/2016
FunnyJunk Career Stats
Content Ranking:#6599
Comment Ranking:#6682
Highest Content Rank:#6580
Highest Comment Rank:#456
Content Thumbs: 522 total,  635 ,  113
Comment Thumbs: 16310 total,  19054 ,  2744
Content Level Progress: 80% (8/10)
Level 51 Content: Sammich eater → Level 52 Content: Sammich eater
Comment Level Progress: 56.49% (565/1000)
Level 315 Comments: Wizard → Level 316 Comments: Wizard
Subscribers:1
Content Views:37292
Times Content Favorited:44 times
Total Comments Made:3270
FJ Points:16490
Favorite Tags: a (2) | my (2)
Who the fuck writes in these things?

latest user's comments

#24 - >Clearly picks conservative sources by selection bias &…  [+] (21 new 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 new 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 new 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.
#6 - But... but capitalism and socialism aren't mutually exclusive.…  [+] (28 new replies) 02/07/2016 on Socialism +110
#206 - anon (02/08/2016) [-]
If the government owns the means of production, it isn't capitalist. And a capitalist system that has social programs isn't Socialist, especially if it's controlled by a republic.
User avatar
#9 - kanadetenshi (02/07/2016) [-]
"Utterly demonstrable failure"

Hong Kong and Singapore say hello.
#12 - bokkos (02/07/2016) [-]
Actually, Singapore's government is incredibly authoritarian and metes out economic and social policies that are strictly enforced and regulated. In fact, a quick review of Singapore's own economic authority demonstrates the many, many regulations Singapore has on it's economy; hardly a totally free market.
www.sgs.gov.sg/The-SGS-Market/The-Singapore-Economy.aspx

Hong Kong, now part of China proper, falls under the ostensibly communist nation's strict control of private industry (except foreign investors, such as Apple) and regular use of state-operated replacement industries in order to prevent (at this point, more likely slow) westernization such as their state-run media, building, manufacturing and internet. In fact, demonstrations in Hong Kong have become a lot more common due to the encroachment of the Chinese government on their formerly free-ish market (which was formerly run by the British, another state that incorporates socialist ideals into economic policy, usually). In fact, the Chinese government has gone so far as to call their reforms "Socialism with Chinese characteristics". The Wikipedia article on the subject is well sourced, I'd check it out.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_economic_reform

Additionally, if you think that the deregulation of Wall Street by Clinton's repeal of Glass-Steagall is not an example of attempting a laissez-faire banking system, and that the 2008 Great Recession was not a direct consequence i.e. failure of a laissez-faire system of that, I'll have to ask you to sit at the kids' table until you grow the fuck up.
#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.
#85 - y-you too 02/07/2016 on @Femfreq +1
#83 - Yo.  [+] (2 new replies) 02/07/2016 on @Femfreq +1
User avatar
#84 - colossusshadow (02/07/2016) [-]
t-thanks
User avatar
#85 - bokkos (02/07/2016) [-]
y-you too
#33 - Yeah the decreasing sub count has leveled off somewh…  [+] (5 new replies) 02/05/2016 on New attack plan +2
User avatar
#59 - mojusk (02/05/2016) [-]
the graph is misleading.

the y-axis starts at 13600k, not 0.
theyve "only" lost about 3.18% of their subs, not 93.23% as the graph makes it look like
#39 - anon (02/05/2016) [-]
ooh someone took high school calculus.
#63 - runescapewasgood has deleted their comment.
User avatar
#55 - chillybilly (02/05/2016) [-]
Not even calculus
That was straight up Algebra 1
User avatar
#66 - hurpfry (02/05/2016) [-]
nah its just 1 minute of google searching
#16 - It's a movie called Tekkonkinkreet; I know I'll be hunting dow…  [+] (2 new replies) 02/04/2016 on Oh you can change the title... +19
User avatar
#53 - betterguygreg (02/04/2016) [-]
tank u
#17 - tariv (02/04/2016) [-]
Thanks, guy. Have this.
#9 - Like a sad orgasm, better late than never; although maybe you'… 02/04/2016 on nonononononononononononnonono +4
#5 - Picture 02/04/2016 on How it's made 0
#6 - The content has literally 64 thumbs vs. 43 on the content (at …  [+] (4 new replies) 02/04/2016 on nonononononononononononnonono +19
#8 - amuzen (02/04/2016) [-]
this guy posted that 6 and a half hours before you got to it at least.
User avatar
#26 - Chizypuff (02/04/2016) [-]
He also posted it within an hour of the first comment
#27 - amuzen (02/04/2016) [-]
This is indeed also a fact. Wasn't justifying the original comment, just trying to explain it's thought process a bit because it took me awhile of looking at this to understand it initially.
User avatar
#9 - bokkos (02/04/2016) [-]
Like a sad orgasm, better late than never; although maybe you'd wish is never came at all.
#1 - Hey, want to post something that isn't currently on FJ you ***… 01/31/2016 on Animal abuse -3
#7 - It's grammatically and factually correct; maybe "dead wor… 01/31/2016 on Tropico 5's stance on Green... 0
#7 - Was this imagine significantly improved by the Tumblr commentary? 01/30/2016 on IE 0
#4 - So we're also going to ignore the massive change in ecological…  [+] (2 new replies) 01/30/2016 on Tropico 5's stance on Green... 0
User avatar
#6 - novus (01/31/2016) [-]
Did... you not read his comment all the way through? Check that last sentence.
User avatar
#7 - bokkos (01/31/2016) [-]
It's grammatically and factually correct; maybe "dead world" is an exaggeration, but the world is typically very dead after extinction events. Relatively, at least.
#6 - Or you're a sensationalizing sack of **** that can't even do b… 01/30/2016 on Fact comp +2
#5 - Oh and con't; no, the heat given off by the human body in thir…  [+] (1 new reply) 01/30/2016 on Fact comp 0
#20 - richardastley (01/31/2016) [-]
#4 - Yeah by the second image this post was clearly a ******* train…  [+] (2 new replies) 01/30/2016 on Fact comp 0
User avatar
#5 - bokkos (01/30/2016) [-]
Oh and con't; no, the heat given off by the human body in thirty minutes cannot bring water to boil even though the volume is never specified, but you just don't give a shit do you? , since we give off enough heat to power a 100W bulb if you had some way to concentrate it.

See this? This is how bullshit information spreads.
#20 - richardastley (01/31/2016) [-]
#2 - While I'm not surprised anon doesn't understand basic human re…  [+] (1 new reply) 01/30/2016 on MVP +12
User avatar
#12 - andimac (01/31/2016) [-]
I don't think thats excitement. It seems more to be a response to something cold. You'd do the same if you turned on a shower that ended up being freezing cold.
#23 - Comment deleted 01/30/2016 on Pay the Tab 0
#42 - You think I haven't already looked up "How to build an at…  [+] (1 new reply) 01/30/2016 on Now thats a Mjolnir I'd... +1
#110 - BsGGm (02/01/2016) [-]
Well... 1+1 is a good start for trying to build something...
#22 - Mohammed didn't even die in the fable; he goes to heaven on a …  [+] (1 new reply) 01/05/2016 on Straight Up Caught Comp. 8 +1
#50 - lean (01/06/2016) [-]
This isn't about Mohammad you nit. It's re-enacting the martyrdom of his grandson, which led to war between the caliphates. After mohammed's death, and the death of the previous leader of the Umayyad Caliphate. Husayn ibn Ali was bound by treaty to pledge allegiance to Yazid, and refused to do so at the battle of Karbala. This led to Abbasid revolution. Whichever way you want to spin it, the Biblical story of Jesus on the cross didn't lead to war. The martyrdom of Husayn did, intentionally.
#29 - Holy **** that was a *********** of bad science. Look up t… 12/31/2015 on Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing 0
#43 - You made a threat regarding said dog, over the internet. You t…  [+] (1 new reply) 12/22/2015 on 2 dogs trick a rat out of bed -2
User avatar
#45 - concetrationcamp (12/22/2015) [-]
as I said...if you feel offended by anything I said you can go fuck yourself...feel free to do that
#20 - You're trying too hard, and you're bad at trying too hard.  [+] (7 new replies) 12/21/2015 on 2 dogs trick a rat out of bed +4
User avatar
#26 - concetrationcamp (12/21/2015) [-]
I pointed out that I have dogs. If you feel offended by that, you can go fuck yourself. nigger
User avatar
#43 - bokkos (12/22/2015) [-]
You made a threat regarding said dog, over the internet. You think you're edgy, but you're silly.
User avatar
#45 - concetrationcamp (12/22/2015) [-]
as I said...if you feel offended by anything I said you can go fuck yourself...feel free to do that
User avatar
#27 - toosexyforyou (12/21/2015) [-]
You're pretty autistic, maybe you should tone it back a bit?
User avatar
#28 - concetrationcamp (12/21/2015) [-]
calling someone autistic on FJ is like calling someone chink is asia
#31 - anon (12/21/2015) [-]
How many people have you blocked for saying things you don't like. Im curious. You blocked me months ago (talldumbdork) and the only reason I found out was when I went to reply to something. Is this your safe space now? Blocking spam I understand, but different opinions bother you that much?
User avatar
#46 - concetrationcamp (12/22/2015) [-]
dear talldumbdork,

I'm simply not interested in a converstation or friendship with you. You have to accept that.
Now stop stalking me, please.
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (13)
Anonymous comments allowed.
13 comments displayed.
#12 - anon (05/30/2013) [-]
suck dick. you are an uncreative piece of ****.
#13 to #12 - bokkos (05/30/2013) [-]
#10 - anon (05/24/2013) [-]
Why isn't your name white? A lot of your comments suggest that this should be so...
#11 to #10 - bokkos (05/24/2013) [-]
I didn't get a comment in the top 150 or anything in the last two days.
#8 - tredbear (04/06/2013) [-]
why is your name blur instead of light blue?
#9 to #8 - bokkos (04/06/2013) [-]
I guess its for for people here over 2 years
#6 - anon (03/05/2013) [-]
sup fag
#7 to #6 - bokkos (03/05/2013) [-]
#4 - anon (03/04/2013) [-]
HEY FAGGOT GO DIE IN A FIRE YOU'RE A PIECE OF VIRGIN ****
#5 to #4 - bokkos (03/04/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#2 - someponynew (12/13/2012) [-]
Yahtzee is amazing.
#3 to #2 - bokkos (12/13/2012) [-]
Yes he is! By far one of the best shows on the internet I think.
#1 - rustyshakleford (04/14/2012) [-]
Hello There