x

gingerowne

Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: male
Age: 24
Date Signed Up:3/09/2011
Last Login:8/30/2015
Location:calgary
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#14100
Highest Content Rank:#6321
Highest Comment Rank:#11892
Content Thumbs: 194 total,  267 ,  73
Comment Thumbs: 564 total,  673 ,  109
Content Level Progress: 90% (9/10)
Level 17 Content: New Here → Level 18 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 30% (3/10)
Level 152 Comments: Faptastic → Level 153 Comments: Faptastic
Subscribers:2
Content Views:13951
Times Content Favorited:4 times
Total Comments Made:325
FJ Points:729

Funny Pictures

YouTube Videos

  • Views: 1792
    Thumbs Up 13 Thumbs Down 3 Total: +10
    Comments: 4
    Favorites: 4
    Uploaded: 03/03/13
    worth the watch worth the watch

latest user's comments

#192 - typical, America saves Frances ass yet again 08/22/2015 on America Wins Again +6
#354 - lol it usually ends in thousands of lost jobs lower production…  [+] (1 new reply) 08/13/2015 on Guys.. This is important 0
User avatar #356 - taniv (08/13/2015) [-]
haha I forgot his pro-weed stance. I find him two faced though; says one thing to one newspaper, another in the debate, and inconsistent with his actual votes and his promises

Personally, I think we need more investment in the clean energy parts of the energy sector; it wouldn't just create more meaningful jobs, it would start work on a long-term solution to our energy problem. Oil doesn't need to "go", it needs to be slowly phased down to a minimum so that oil prices alone don't have such a catastrophic effect on our country; not to mention environmental points of view. Renewable energy is a long term investment, that's expensive, but we need to build upon because it's a more stable economic standpoint than oil itself. For me, that's going to be one of the central issues in the debate; who's got the best long term solution for our energy needs, not one that treats oil like the devil's sperm, but one that can create alternatives that function.
#350 - the wage hike is one of the dumbest things they are doing righ…  [+] (4 new replies) 08/13/2015 on Guys.. This is important 0
User avatar #355 - taniv (08/13/2015) [-]
I'm more worried about small businesses getting the shaft, and large businesses using loopholes or reducing jobs. A larger minimum wage can be associated with an economic boost, but only if it's done responsibly.

I honestly don't know if I like any of the options laid before me. Trudeau would have a good platform if it was consistent.
User avatar #352 - taniv (08/13/2015) [-]
I'm more worried about small businesses getting the shaft, and large businesses using loopholes or reducing jobs. A larger minimum wage can be associated with an economic boost, but only if it's done responsibly.

I honestly don't know if I like any of the options laid before me. Trudeau would have a good platform if it was consistent.
#354 - gingerowne (08/13/2015) [-]
lol it usually ends in thousands of lost jobs lower production rates and lots of bankruptcy tho because theyre never done responsibly. the only real good thing trudeau would bring is lots of tax dollars from legalizing weed, canada has the largest percentage of marijuana smokers than any other country even Amsterdam lol but i dont see anyone besides him legalizing it in the next 20 years
User avatar #356 - taniv (08/13/2015) [-]
haha I forgot his pro-weed stance. I find him two faced though; says one thing to one newspaper, another in the debate, and inconsistent with his actual votes and his promises

Personally, I think we need more investment in the clean energy parts of the energy sector; it wouldn't just create more meaningful jobs, it would start work on a long-term solution to our energy problem. Oil doesn't need to "go", it needs to be slowly phased down to a minimum so that oil prices alone don't have such a catastrophic effect on our country; not to mention environmental points of view. Renewable energy is a long term investment, that's expensive, but we need to build upon because it's a more stable economic standpoint than oil itself. For me, that's going to be one of the central issues in the debate; who's got the best long term solution for our energy needs, not one that treats oil like the devil's sperm, but one that can create alternatives that function.
#347 - id prefer Harper over any other party leaders by faaar, especi… 08/13/2015 on Guys.. This is important 0
#346 - lol youll see the differences in government styles when they e…  [+] (7 new replies) 08/13/2015 on Guys.. This is important 0
User avatar #348 - taniv (08/13/2015) [-]
I wouldn't mind NDP if Notley wasn't disappointing me. People should get a living wage, but you can't just force a 50% wage hike overnight, it's gotta happen gradually. I'd want Trudeau but I don't know how much I can trust him.

The thing is, while we've seen some success under Harper, a lot of that is due more to technological progress and University funding separate from his government. A lot of our successes and failures are often attributable to the current political leader. I just don't like his "anti-terror" policies that aren't warranted to be as invasive as they are, and I don't like the deal he made with China.

I might have voted Green, due to her economic policy actually making sense and being something I can support, if the lady had a chance, or if she didn't believe WiFi signals were bad for your health.
#350 - gingerowne (08/13/2015) [-]
the wage hike is one of the dumbest things they are doing right now with oil and gas the way it is. the rising minimum wage means a lot of people already making that wage will want more so eeeeeveryone will be getting payed more and prices will skyrocket especially the oil and gas prices. if we get to a point where people no longer buy our oil because its expensive and Saudi Arabia's oil is dirt cheap. when that happens we are royally fucked
User avatar #355 - taniv (08/13/2015) [-]
I'm more worried about small businesses getting the shaft, and large businesses using loopholes or reducing jobs. A larger minimum wage can be associated with an economic boost, but only if it's done responsibly.

I honestly don't know if I like any of the options laid before me. Trudeau would have a good platform if it was consistent.
User avatar #352 - taniv (08/13/2015) [-]
I'm more worried about small businesses getting the shaft, and large businesses using loopholes or reducing jobs. A larger minimum wage can be associated with an economic boost, but only if it's done responsibly.

I honestly don't know if I like any of the options laid before me. Trudeau would have a good platform if it was consistent.
#354 - gingerowne (08/13/2015) [-]
lol it usually ends in thousands of lost jobs lower production rates and lots of bankruptcy tho because theyre never done responsibly. the only real good thing trudeau would bring is lots of tax dollars from legalizing weed, canada has the largest percentage of marijuana smokers than any other country even Amsterdam lol but i dont see anyone besides him legalizing it in the next 20 years
User avatar #356 - taniv (08/13/2015) [-]
haha I forgot his pro-weed stance. I find him two faced though; says one thing to one newspaper, another in the debate, and inconsistent with his actual votes and his promises

Personally, I think we need more investment in the clean energy parts of the energy sector; it wouldn't just create more meaningful jobs, it would start work on a long-term solution to our energy problem. Oil doesn't need to "go", it needs to be slowly phased down to a minimum so that oil prices alone don't have such a catastrophic effect on our country; not to mention environmental points of view. Renewable energy is a long term investment, that's expensive, but we need to build upon because it's a more stable economic standpoint than oil itself. For me, that's going to be one of the central issues in the debate; who's got the best long term solution for our energy needs, not one that treats oil like the devil's sperm, but one that can create alternatives that function.
User avatar #349 - taniv (08/13/2015) [-]
are often not attributable*
#14 - a socialist must have made this because a lot of those claims …  [+] (10 new replies) 08/12/2015 on Guys.. This is important +7
User avatar #345 - taniv (08/13/2015) [-]
Harper's to the left of the American democrats. We're a "socialist" country by American standards. The party leaders really aren't all that different, except on certain key issues. While the post is sprinkled with bullshit, it's made on a pie crust of truth. Even a lot of Conservatives are sick of Harper's shit.
#347 - gingerowne (08/13/2015) [-]
id prefer Harper over any other party leaders by faaar, especially with the NDP running Alberta. wed be mighty fucked if the NDP got into federal office
#346 - gingerowne (08/13/2015) [-]
lol youll see the differences in government styles when they elect the NDP and we go bankrupt . id say the democrats in america are equal to or a little more left that our conservatives, they still have a lot more leftist ideals than our conservatives. were a pretty balanced country in relation to the political spectrum, id say if the us was conservative and sweden was socialist canada would be liberals.
User avatar #348 - taniv (08/13/2015) [-]
I wouldn't mind NDP if Notley wasn't disappointing me. People should get a living wage, but you can't just force a 50% wage hike overnight, it's gotta happen gradually. I'd want Trudeau but I don't know how much I can trust him.

The thing is, while we've seen some success under Harper, a lot of that is due more to technological progress and University funding separate from his government. A lot of our successes and failures are often attributable to the current political leader. I just don't like his "anti-terror" policies that aren't warranted to be as invasive as they are, and I don't like the deal he made with China.

I might have voted Green, due to her economic policy actually making sense and being something I can support, if the lady had a chance, or if she didn't believe WiFi signals were bad for your health.
#350 - gingerowne (08/13/2015) [-]
the wage hike is one of the dumbest things they are doing right now with oil and gas the way it is. the rising minimum wage means a lot of people already making that wage will want more so eeeeeveryone will be getting payed more and prices will skyrocket especially the oil and gas prices. if we get to a point where people no longer buy our oil because its expensive and Saudi Arabia's oil is dirt cheap. when that happens we are royally fucked
User avatar #355 - taniv (08/13/2015) [-]
I'm more worried about small businesses getting the shaft, and large businesses using loopholes or reducing jobs. A larger minimum wage can be associated with an economic boost, but only if it's done responsibly.

I honestly don't know if I like any of the options laid before me. Trudeau would have a good platform if it was consistent.
User avatar #352 - taniv (08/13/2015) [-]
I'm more worried about small businesses getting the shaft, and large businesses using loopholes or reducing jobs. A larger minimum wage can be associated with an economic boost, but only if it's done responsibly.

I honestly don't know if I like any of the options laid before me. Trudeau would have a good platform if it was consistent.
#354 - gingerowne (08/13/2015) [-]
lol it usually ends in thousands of lost jobs lower production rates and lots of bankruptcy tho because theyre never done responsibly. the only real good thing trudeau would bring is lots of tax dollars from legalizing weed, canada has the largest percentage of marijuana smokers than any other country even Amsterdam lol but i dont see anyone besides him legalizing it in the next 20 years
User avatar #356 - taniv (08/13/2015) [-]
haha I forgot his pro-weed stance. I find him two faced though; says one thing to one newspaper, another in the debate, and inconsistent with his actual votes and his promises

Personally, I think we need more investment in the clean energy parts of the energy sector; it wouldn't just create more meaningful jobs, it would start work on a long-term solution to our energy problem. Oil doesn't need to "go", it needs to be slowly phased down to a minimum so that oil prices alone don't have such a catastrophic effect on our country; not to mention environmental points of view. Renewable energy is a long term investment, that's expensive, but we need to build upon because it's a more stable economic standpoint than oil itself. For me, that's going to be one of the central issues in the debate; who's got the best long term solution for our energy needs, not one that treats oil like the devil's sperm, but one that can create alternatives that function.
User avatar #349 - taniv (08/13/2015) [-]
are often not attributable*
#44 - i might be wrong but i think its just kinda saying Russia has …  [+] (39 new replies) 07/25/2015 on Who will save Ukraine? +2
User avatar #65 - scowler (07/25/2015) [-]
That's 400 more warheads. To my understanding most warheads carry a minimum of five individual nuclear devices, each intended for a single target. That's TWO THOUSAND INDIVIDUAL NUCLEAR DEVICES.

Not to mention Russian and Chinese missiles and their payloads are likely more modern and consequently more destructive. Whereas the United States has been stuck with the Minuteman II, which is arguably obsolete...

Anybody with firsthand experience care to verify that last bit for me?
#129 - anon (07/25/2015) [-]
where did you get your info? I know for a fact that US dismantled most of its nukes a way back and those included all the small and old ones. they dismantled more nukes than what russia has in total
User avatar #118 - angelious (07/25/2015) [-]
nah...russia actually has rather outdated military as of now.. well actually as off since 1990 or so...i would fathom their nukes are also pretty obsolete by this point as well.
User avatar #138 - scowler (07/26/2015) [-]
But their nukes probably see more intensive maintenance than the Minuteman II's that haven't been dismantled...
User avatar #140 - angelious (07/26/2015) [-]
most likely not.

russia isnt as rich and powerful as they claim.


also i doubt it is that only one side has continued developing nukes. its either they both stopped or both continued.


the balance of terror theory. as they say
User avatar #141 - scowler (07/26/2015) [-]
You don't need money, only materiel.
User avatar #142 - angelious (07/26/2015) [-]
you still need money to transport the material,hire scientist and engineers to work on it. AND TO KEEP US SPIES OUT.

because if us or any of the western worlds found out someone was breaking the balance of power.


we would be right back in nuclear arms race.


and the reason this was stopped WAS because everybody was running out of money with their constant building of nukes.
User avatar #143 - scowler (07/26/2015) [-]
What does it matter when you run out of something that's not worth anything to begin with?
User avatar #144 - angelious (07/26/2015) [-]
money makes the world go around.

the only god i pray is the all mighty american dollar.

mo money mo problems.

and all the other money related things.


the cruel fact is. world is run by money.and lack of money is the leading problem in not being able to do all the things you want to do.
ยจ

while it might seem like a piece of paper to a common man. in the world of politics and business. money has become irreplaceable.
User avatar #145 - scowler (07/26/2015) [-]
The world isn't run by money, it's run by faith in the money.

That faith will run out soon, as all faith does. When that happens, they will see the error of their ways. See that they've gone too far this time...
User avatar #146 - angelious (07/26/2015) [-]
wrong. while i know the theory you are talking about. the fact is that money was inserted in the world to make trading and commerce easier. without it we fall back in times to a day when everything was done via trading. this will slow transactions to a halt,split humanity into smaller groups. and generally create chaos.

specially since money has become so integral to how our society works. meaning world would fall into utter chaos if money was suddenly taken out of equation.


just think about it. nearly everything you do uses money in one way or another. now imagine if there was no money.

no more grocery stores.

no more running water

no more electricity

no more traffic laws,or laws in general

nobody enforcing law,

nobody taking care of basic waste disposal or running hospitals,


just utter chaos.
User avatar #147 - scowler (07/26/2015) [-]
That same chaos is spawned through inflation and debt. People lose faith in the money, they take it out on the system.

If they wanted to make things easier they'd try a single, currency backed by the most valuable mineral at the time (or just gold).

Now you're going to denounce that idea, defend their ability to create chaos.
Fiat currency is chaos waiting to happen. Mark my words!
User avatar #148 - angelious (07/26/2015) [-]
inflation of money IS money losing its value.

and debt is caused by people using money THAT THEY DONT HAVE.

and if you want to go back in time to being a peasant ruled over by a landlord with gold, then go ahead.




and what you are preaching is the basics of both communism and anarchy. both have been proven to be a pipe dream in large scale, and both have admitted that unless humanity goes through a "miraculous" redesign in the way they work. neither of them will ever become reality.
User avatar #149 - scowler (07/26/2015) [-]
Communism is the abolition of currency. Anarchy supplies the basis for Communism.

Neither are welcome.

Either you take the concept of currency and insulate it from abuse or failure, or descend into madness.
User avatar #150 - angelious (07/26/2015) [-]
insulating it from abuse and failure is impossible.

its too big of a thing with too big importance to be restrained far enough for insulation to work.

and its nearly as bad alternative as trying to get rid of currency as whole.

or replacing fiat money with gold or other trades of good.
User avatar #151 - scowler (07/26/2015) [-]
Nothing is impossible. Faith is worthless. Serving only to feed the Engine of Stagnation.

For as long as currency is backed by faith, it can be abused. The entire system can be brought down on the whim of a few....
User avatar #152 - angelious (07/26/2015) [-]
despite what shia lebuff said.

some things are impossible. and its not backed by faith. its backed by a large armed force that guarantee the value of their currency. and while it can be brought down by a chosen few, its not going to happen to them. since it would be counter profit for them and goverments that are backing money, would flip their shit at them and stop them on their tracks.
User avatar #153 - scowler (07/26/2015) [-]
And what does that large armed force run on? FAITH. FAITH CAN BE INFLUENCED.

Don't you get it? We'll all be in danger if there is general consensus among the elite to bring it down in favor of a "Year Zero" solution. I don't know about you, but I'd rather live as I see fit, than have to go to the trouble of hunting down a bunch of walking corpses before they can groom their proteges, keep this lie going...
User avatar #174 - angelious (07/27/2015) [-]
and as long as society in general needs it to keep the world going.


we need materials to keep energy and food production up. to get these materials quick and easy we use money.


we need workers to keep our production up. to get these workers to work we give them money.



without money. trading for materials would become difficult,costy,and all around slow. electricity,food production,quality of life. all would go down.

without money you would need other incensitives to get people to work. mainly:food. but to get food you would need workers. meaning every industry of production would go down: people would leave back to tend to their own gated community,world would regress back into the dark ages.

end of story.
User avatar #172 - angelious (07/27/2015) [-]
and its the only way you can HOPE to get world domination.

as i said before: money isnt about faith anymore. its integrated into the society in a way that removing it is impossible, and removing it would bring in anarchy.


and would world fall back to anarchy. the best you can hope is to become a warlord who controls like a dozen of slaves and maybe some raiders. thats it.
User avatar #173 - scowler (07/27/2015) [-]
It's only as integrated for as long as the greater whole allows it.
User avatar #170 - angelious (07/27/2015) [-]
money IS power motherfucker i got tons of thugs on my salary you can hate me now...but i wont stop now good song
User avatar #171 - scowler (07/27/2015) [-]
No, it's the current way to secure power. As long as the world holds faith in it, anyways.
User avatar #168 - angelious (07/27/2015) [-]
money IS the way to take over the world.

User avatar #169 - scowler (07/27/2015) [-]
But you need power to dominate it.
User avatar #165 - angelious (07/27/2015) [-]
contrary to popular opinion: becoming rich and powerful in this world requires you to HAVE MORE THAN LUCK.they know a bad venture when they see one.

heck even i see this as a bad venture. you really think people who make millions for living dont?
User avatar #167 - scowler (07/27/2015) [-]
These people make more than millions, friend.

What's money when you can take over the world?
User avatar #161 - angelious (07/26/2015) [-]
because there are too many people on global scale that realizes its a bad idea.'


and while the idea is disturbing. its the same type of disturbing as lovecraft stories.


not real.just playing with possibilities.a pipe fiction.
User avatar #163 - scowler (07/27/2015) [-]
How do you think they've become so powerful? Playing with the possibilities.
User avatar #159 - angelious (07/26/2015) [-]
which goes to show how badly this year zero solution would work in practice.
User avatar #166 - angelious (07/27/2015) [-]
now thats going into pseudo intelligent bullcrap. and i wont touch that.


there are multiple of choices. sure communism in lenist quality has the goverment assigning you to a work place and where to live + provides you with the qualities you need/want in life. but outside of that its free. and lenist approach to communism is faulty.aka not true communism.

capitalism gives everyone the chance to shine. but it doesnt pander to anybody nor does it ensure everybody gets the same starting position or opportunities. aka a dog eat dog world. its one of the free-est type of governing style there is thanks to it., but also the harshest.


anarchy. is just about what you want. a society where goverment has collapsed and people are free to do what they see fit.
User avatar #160 - scowler (07/26/2015) [-]
But it's never been executed on a grand scale.

Globalism provides them the means to do such a thing. It's disturbing.
User avatar #157 - angelious (07/26/2015) [-]
and you know whats common with tall of these examples?


second and third world countries where diseases,pollution,human right violations and crime are rampant.


and in chinas case, the most succesful of the trio you namened., they are adopting more capitalistic ideas. wich is great and all but since they are also trying to stay communist, they are practically running out of resources to burn. and then their currency and market goes crashing down into the dirt



User avatar #164 - scowler (07/27/2015) [-]
You know what's common with Capitalism, Communism, and Anarchy?

The illusion of choice or the complete lack of said choice.
User avatar #158 - scowler (07/26/2015) [-]
Either way, they've contributed to the corruption of yet another generation of humans.
User avatar #154 - angelious (07/26/2015) [-]
the money that they are backing.

aka if you want to make your own currency. then you only need to get it backed by strong people, and merchants. .




and year zero solution is even more of a work of fiction than bush did 9/11 and illuminati controls the world. not only that its largely stupid.
User avatar #156 - scowler (07/26/2015) [-]
*And

Whoops.
User avatar #155 - scowler (07/26/2015) [-]
Work of fiction? It nearly succeeded in Cambodia under Pol Pot, the Chinese and both Koreas are ever so slowly marching toward it. An those Muslim bandits in Iraq are setting the goddamned table for it.

Work of fiction? Think again!
#64 - wraithguard (07/25/2015) [-]
Honestly, even if we each only used 20, would it really matter beyond that?
#62 - same bro its an endless struggle , im allergic to nature and … 07/22/2015 on Push the button 0
#19 - finally being allergic to peanuts has an upside  [+] (3 new replies) 07/22/2015 on Push the button +17
#106 - anon (07/22/2015) [-]
Don't you fucking dare.
User avatar #24 - nemecyst (07/22/2015) [-]
The strugglebus is real. I also have that shellfish strugglebus.
#62 - gingerowne (07/22/2015) [-]
same bro its an endless struggle , im allergic to nature and cats and dogs aswell lololol. im not supposed to be alive.
#145 - it would techincally be "the Americas" , google Amer… 07/02/2015 on Wurl Coop 2014 0
[ 285 Total ]

items

Total unique items point value: 2050 / Total items point value: 2050

Comments(16):

 
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #2 - gingeredhead (06/09/2014) [-]
Hello.
#3 to #2 - gingerowne (06/27/2014) [-]
hi there sorry for the late reply
User avatar #4 to #3 - gingeredhead (06/27/2014) [-]
It's ok.
How r u?
#5 to #4 - gingerowne (06/27/2014) [-]
not too bad hby
User avatar #6 to #5 - gingeredhead (06/28/2014) [-]
Great. ;) We both have red hair.
#8 to #6 - gingerowne (06/28/2014) [-]
yeah its great isnt it ! too bad were dieing out

User avatar #9 to #8 - gingeredhead (06/28/2014) [-]
Yeah. ._.
#10 to #9 - gingerowne (06/28/2014) [-]
just means more ginger sex to keep us alive and well haha
User avatar #11 to #10 - gingeredhead (06/28/2014) [-]
Yep
#12 to #11 - gingerowne (06/28/2014) [-]
are you going to do your part and have ginger babies ?
User avatar #13 to #12 - gingeredhead (06/28/2014) [-]
Yes!! :3
User avatar #14 to #13 - gingeredhead (06/28/2014) [-]
Wait. If you mean end up with a ginger girl and have babies then yes.
#15 to #14 - gingerowne (06/29/2014) [-]
lol yes i do and excellent we need more people llike you
User avatar #16 to #15 - gingeredhead (06/29/2014) [-]
Yep
User avatar #7 to #6 - gingeredhead (06/28/2014) [-]
*
#1 - robox (05/29/2012) [-]
AYO WADDUP?
AYO WADDUP?
 
 Friends (0)