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

hide menu

jasonthedragon    

Rank #11736 on Comments
jasonthedragon Avatar Level 251 Comments: Contaminated Win
Offline
Send mail to jasonthedragon Block jasonthedragon Invite jasonthedragon to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: male
Date Signed Up:7/20/2011
Last Login:7/30/2014
Location:Germany
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#11736
Highest Content Rank:#2278
Highest Comment Rank:#1351
Content Thumbs: 3494 total,  3950 ,  456
Comment Thumbs: 5166 total,  5990 ,  824
Content Level Progress: 29% (29/100)
Level 134 Content: Respected Member Of Famiry → Level 135 Content: Respected Member Of Famiry
Comment Level Progress: 18% (18/100)
Level 251 Comments: Contaminated Win → Level 252 Comments: Contaminated Win
Subscribers:2
Content Views:167233
Times Content Favorited:216 times
Total Comments Made:1064
FJ Points:8591

latest user's comments

#4 - why is it a felony?  [+] (47 new replies) 04/23/2014 on K humor +1
User avatar #5 - roliga (04/23/2014) [-]
It legally classify the weapon as an SBR (short barreled rifle). In the US a rifle must have a barrel length of 16 inches and an overall length of 26 inches or else it will require a $200 tax stamp, registration, photo ID, and several months of paperwork.

Stupid as fuck laws that are in place because of NFA bullshit, because apparently a rifle with a 15 inch barrel as apposed to a 16 inch barrel is ten billion times more dangerous...
User avatar #26 - monswine (04/24/2014) [-]
sure, so where should we draw the line? Going 66 mph isn't 10X more dangerous than 65 but, you know, laws n shit.
User avatar #41 - roliga (04/24/2014) [-]
Speed of a car is something that actually should be regulated, regulating barrel length doesnt make anyone safer, its just harassing law abiding gun owners.
User avatar #44 - monswine (04/24/2014) [-]
Well it sounds like the option is either you heavily regulate certain limits, regulate everything, or regulate nothing. I'd prefer option B but everyone who enjoys owning firearms seems to be clamoring for C as the only possible decent option.
User avatar #46 - roliga (04/24/2014) [-]
Probably because they tried C, it worked, then they tried A and B and they both made everything worse.
User avatar #48 - monswine (04/24/2014) [-]
When and where did they try C? B seems to work pretty well in places like Switz, Israel, and Australia.
User avatar #58 - roliga (04/24/2014) [-]
From the 40's to 1984, gun laws were extremely loose, gun crime was down, almost no gun violence, then gun laws started getting tighter, the tighter gun laws got the more gangs got guns, the less law abiding people could defend themselves.

Take a loot at Chicago, extremely tight gun laws, on par with a lot of European countries, it also is the state with the most gun violence in America. Then look at a place like Maine, loosest gun laws in America and was named the safest state to live in a few years ago.

The reason tight gun laws work in other countries is because guns were never popular there, in America firearms are an extremely cultural thing to most people, and were stated in our constitution that people can shall not be barred from ownership of a gun, be it to put food on the table for their family, defend themselves from a home intruder, or fight against a tyrannical government (and as crazy as that last one sounds, it recently happened in Nevada, armed civilians forced the federal government to back down and retreat when they tried to steal a mans land from him)
User avatar #81 - monswine (04/24/2014) [-]
woah, The constitution is pretty clear the right to bear arms is intended to secure a well-regulated militia. Your final statement is a gross misreading of the events in Nevada. You stop paying and stop obeying the law you are going to end up in trouble with authorities. It's ludicrous to expect otherwise unless, apparently, you reject the existence of the federal government yet worship the constitution and the american flag. If the countryside had stronger gun control laws illegal weapons wouldn't be smuggled into the city. I respect the rights of collectors and hunters and the people to seek protection but innocent bystanders and people who don't like guns and don't hunt have rights as well. The rise of gang violence and gang culture isn't the result of inner city gun control. It's the result of post-war increases in population and the mass incarceration of minorities faced with the aryan brotherhood and the cold war between the Hells Angels and the italian mob.
User avatar #134 - iamkagji (04/25/2014) [-]
Dude... A militia by definition cannot be regulated by the government. That would be an army, there's a difference. Self-regulating gun owners ARE a well-regulated militia.
#115 - funlovincannibal (04/25/2014) [-]
Seriously? What is this bullshit about cold wars and aryan brotherhood? The brotherhood is insignificantly small in comparison to the black pop. Not to mention that the ghetto fucks you so valiantly bend the truth to protect would be better off trying to build infrastructure and stability rather than leech off tax dollars, be general drug dealing stealing niggers, and then blaming the "oppressive slave regime" of the white man, which hasnt been in effect for years. The Irish and the Jews were oppressed in the US and they didnt cry and sit back on their social welfare checks they made something of themselves. TL;DR Fucking niggers...
#84 - roliga (04/24/2014) [-]
The second amendment gives militias and people the right to bare arms, as stated in the line "the right of the people to bare arms shall not be infringed." the supreme court has upheld several times that the "people" are average citizens. And that final statement is not a gross misreading of events. The feds were threatening to fire on civilians who were exercising their first, so they started to back up their first with the second. He stopped paying because of very clear corruption and greed, i.e. you're cattle are endangering this animal so you have to move, but if you pay us you can keep grazing here and endangering the animal. And if the problem is guns being smuggled into the city then why aren't places with loose gun laws like the wild west where everyone is getting shot? Why is it the only places in America that have gun problems are the places with the most gun control?
User avatar #88 - monswine (04/24/2014) [-]
Because there aren't congested disaffected populations in rural Maine. And, come on, the people you accuse of defending themselves are also the ones who are salivating at the prospect of an armed shootout with the federal government. I know this is going to seem like I'm weak or whatever but I'm putting an end to this thread because gun control debates just go round and round and frustrate everyone involved for multiple reasons. Feel free to have the final word.
#93 - doktorwhat (04/24/2014) [-]
I was born in rural Maine! Most people I knew that had guns were hunters. Most made damn sure that their ammo was locked up separately from their guns and practiced hunter safety and such. I did, however, recently hear of some old drunk crazy guy who killed the cousin of an old friend of mine near Christmas time last year or the year before because he parked in his spot. I'll respect your desire to end the thread although I'd tend to be on your side, anyway , but I just wanted to throw in a little "peace and love will solve all our problems" kinda thing. Happy people don't kill other people.

that is all.
User avatar #49 - monswine (04/24/2014) [-]
sorry for the cliché
User avatar #30 - ohhh (04/24/2014) [-]
To be fair, that may be the difference between life and death.
User avatar #32 - monswine (04/24/2014) [-]
absolutely. The risk of an accident increases exponentially with ever mile above the speed limit while the time of travel only decreases linearly.
User avatar #11 - thecomkiller (04/24/2014) [-]
you have to draw a line somewhere
#22 - LocoJoe (04/24/2014) [-]
Implying barrel length should even be regulated.
#42 - thecomkiller (04/24/2014) [-]
yes, because being able to have easily-concealable rifles is a good thing, and there's dozens of reasons you need a shorter barrel.
User avatar #64 - twofreegerbils (04/24/2014) [-]
You're fucking dumb dude. You know what's infinitely more concealable than any rifle, or short barreled rifle? A fucking handgun. But no, you're just not as scared of handguns as you are rifles, because you base your opinion of things on appearances.
>inb4 handguns aren't as DEADLY
A certain Mr. Cho would like to have a word with you on the lethality of handguns.

And the fact that you think there's no need for something more compact than a 16" barreled rifle tells me, without a doubt, you've never even fired a rifle, and probably have never held one.

roliga can you permaban this faggot please?
User avatar #116 - thecomkiller (04/25/2014) [-]
Ad hominem.
Handguns have specific laws because of their concealability.
Handguns are harder to aim and are usually a lower caliber than rifles.
I own several and use them often.
And you have to try and ban me? Isn't this the internet?
User avatar #117 - twofreegerbils (04/25/2014) [-]
Handguns have specific laws because of their concealability.
Uh.. Besides a higher age requirement, like what?

Handguns are harder to aim and are usually a lower caliber than rifles
See Virginia Tech.

If you can give me one reason why a 10" barreled rifle is inherently more dangerous than a 16" barreled rifle, I will concede to you.

...You do know that you can but "pistol" AR's and AK's that are even smaller than most short barreled rifles, right?
User avatar #118 - thecomkiller (04/25/2014) [-]
I'm not saying pistols and the like aren't any worse than a BB-gun I'm saying they're less deadly, even though they're still deadly

A 10" barrel would be easier to conceal than a 16". Yeah, there's an arbitrary dividing line, but it's not like there are set lengths that cannot be deviated from which would make any length they set it as arbitrary.

And I guarantee you, the minute someone uses those as a loophole and does something illegal, there will be a change in the laws towards them.

Plus, you try and make perfect laws for modern weapons when people drag their heels by citing laws made for flintlocks.
User avatar #120 - twofreegerbils (04/25/2014) [-]
Let me propose a hypothetical.

I am about to rob a bank. Even though it would make so much more sense for me to use a handgun, like 99% of criminals do, I have chosen to use a rifle for some dumbass reason. I notice that it's a little bit long for my taste, but the barrel is already at the legal limit of 16". Since I don't want to violate the law, I choose not to use a hacksaw to illegally shorten the barrel. Once again, the NFA has prevented me from DANGEROUSLY shortening my barrel beyond the legal length.

Does that seem very realistic to you?
User avatar #121 - thecomkiller (04/25/2014) [-]
So having meth on you should be legal too, since the law can't really stop you unless you're smoking it while walking down the street, just like they can't stop you from cutting that barrel down unless you're doing it while walking down the street.

But you know what? You're right, let's just cut the tangled knot that is over 200 years of evolving laws and ban guns altogether. Like Japan.
User avatar #122 - twofreegerbils (04/25/2014) [-]
Yeah, because it worked so well for Japan, right? Oh wait... Do you actually believe those falsified crime statistics? Typical weaboo.
User avatar #123 - thecomkiller (04/25/2014) [-]
Because of course you need to have guns to commit crimes.
And fuck japan and their fucking otaku or whatever they're called with a rusty fork, but they ban guns and thus don't have to appease people who want to go deer hunting with an uzi.
User avatar #124 - twofreegerbils (04/25/2014) [-]
Wait... WAIT. Don't tell me, you're one of the people who think that the 2nd Amendment is about hunting?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I can't believe I've been arguing with a retard!
User avatar #125 - thecomkiller (04/25/2014) [-]
The second amendment is about owning flintlock rifles 200 years ago.
What's your legitimate reason for owning guns other than for hunting, sport shooting, or defense (and unless you're going to actively fight in something other than the random trespasser there's no need for these types of guns)?
User avatar #126 - twofreegerbils (04/25/2014) [-]
No, it's fucking not.

If you actually read the federalist papers instead of being an ignorant cunt, you would realize that the 2nd Amendment is about being able to own any of the small arms that our standing military owned and used, so that the military would never be able to overpower the civilians on a man to man basis.

If the happening happened, your kind would be the first to die.
User avatar #127 - thecomkiller (04/25/2014) [-]
Wait... WAIT. Don't tell me, you're one of the people who think that the US government needs to be overthrown because they do their job of regulating things.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I can't believe I've been arguing with a inbred redneck!
#128 - twofreegerbils (04/25/2014) [-]
Go to hell.
#129 - thecomkiller (04/25/2014) [-]
You hear that? That is what you sound like?
#132 - twofreegerbils (04/25/2014) [-]
Euphoria? Bid me adieu? Where have I heard these phrases before..
User avatar #133 - thecomkiller (04/25/2014) [-]
Whatever helps you sleep at night.
User avatar #130 - twofreegerbils (04/25/2014) [-]
I can't believe people like you are allowed to breathe, much less vote.

Hopefully natural selection takes care of you before the next presidential term.
#131 - thecomkiller (04/25/2014) [-]
Oh, natural selection has kept very good care of me so far, but thank you. You know, after the last comment or two, I have had a sudden wave of euphoria it seems. Seeing as it was your vain attempts at argument that brought it on, I feel I must express my gratitude.
Thank you for the enjoyable evening, and I bid you adieu.
User avatar #119 - thecomkiller (04/25/2014) [-]
I now realized I phrased the first one wrong.
User avatar #65 - roliga (04/24/2014) [-]
Sadly ignorance isn ot a banable offense
User avatar #60 - roliga (04/24/2014) [-]
It is and there are.
#16 - coloredfolks (04/24/2014) [-]
#6 - tehnoblebean (04/23/2014) [-]
A rifle with a shorted barrel is way more concealable.
I.E Like in a school bad, a lunch box or a bag of doritoz
#86 - qwermy (04/24/2014) [-]
so is a pistol.
#71 - twofreegerbils (04/24/2014) [-]
Handguns are still more concealable than rifles.

Regulating barrel length is an exercise in futility. Short barreled rifle and shotgun laws are the dumbest fucking things I've ever heard of. A criminal can literally take a band saw and chop the barrel of his rifle or shotgun off minutes before he commits the crime with it. He's already breaking a law about using the gun illegally, do you think he's going to heed a law concerning the barrel length of the gun he's using? Hell no.

Barrel length is unregulated in fucking CANADA of all places, where they have 5 round magazine caps. It's almost, ALMOST as stupid as regulating suppressors. But not quite. Basically everything the NFA regulates is bullshit based on hollywood hype and FUD.
#8 - roliga (04/24/2014) [-]
Then people just build the receiver as a pistol and you get things like the Drako AK pistols that are completely legal, but if you put a stock on it that's a felony.
#13 - anonymous (04/24/2014) [-]
because if a few criminals are smart enough to find a way around a law it isn't worth making it at all.
#136 - anonymous (04/29/2014) [-]
I'm a firm believer that any law that does not achieve it's goal is pointless. Fucking EVERYBODY that knows 2 facts about guns know how to subvert the laws that are being talked about. Therefore they are pointless.

I'm not even talking about the Drako pistols, even though those are pretty common knowledge as well. Any restriction that can be defeated with common tools and resources such as a hand saw or duct tape in a way that you can't easily track is a failure.

My biggest gripe about weapon laws is that the majority seem to be there just to make people feel good and safe when they don't actually do anything.
#5 - Picture 04/22/2014 on Illuminati 0
#41 - can you give an example of a religion which started out as an …  [+] (1 new reply) 04/14/2014 on idiots 0
#42 - infinitereaper (04/14/2014) [-]
I think you don't understand he principle of it,

It's like hating a big dumb government, and responding by creating a big dumb government. As it is the thing is just one big atheistic circle jerk. Sure it was kind of funny at first, but you've got to realize there becomes a point where it becomes just as stupid if not worse.

It started off as a weapon to use against intelligent design, becuase the idea that our shitty universe somehow has proponents of design rather than random generation is just too farfetched, especially when we literally no nothing about nothing. And I'm being literal here. Sure sure, I get it, I'm an atheist myself, but we've just begun to scratch the surface of the universe, quantum entanglement, the uncertainty principle, reality is far more complicated than any of us could have imagined.

So really, the whole thing, just became overblown and retarded in my opinion.

It's now just a bunch of idiots cosplaying religion.
If that's not the most retarded thing you've ever heard, I don't know what is.
#33 - ok.... is op trying to be ironic in his description? because i…  [+] (3 new replies) 04/14/2014 on idiots +1
#39 - infinitereaper (04/14/2014) [-]
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/10757410/Pastafarianism-to-become-recognised-religion-in-Poland.html
Parody today, hail pasta tomorrow, this is how these things start, morons who take things too far.

I can't handle the euphoria in these comments
User avatar #41 - jasonthedragon (04/14/2014) [-]
can you give an example of a religion which started out as an outspoken parody and became a real religion?
#42 - infinitereaper (04/14/2014) [-]
I think you don't understand he principle of it,

It's like hating a big dumb government, and responding by creating a big dumb government. As it is the thing is just one big atheistic circle jerk. Sure it was kind of funny at first, but you've got to realize there becomes a point where it becomes just as stupid if not worse.

It started off as a weapon to use against intelligent design, becuase the idea that our shitty universe somehow has proponents of design rather than random generation is just too farfetched, especially when we literally no nothing about nothing. And I'm being literal here. Sure sure, I get it, I'm an atheist myself, but we've just begun to scratch the surface of the universe, quantum entanglement, the uncertainty principle, reality is far more complicated than any of us could have imagined.

So really, the whole thing, just became overblown and retarded in my opinion.

It's now just a bunch of idiots cosplaying religion.
If that's not the most retarded thing you've ever heard, I don't know what is.
#16 - the A-OK is no problem in Germany 04/10/2014 on rude hand gesture guide +1
#5 - Picture 03/26/2014 on GTA +1
#6 - how do you know.......? 03/18/2014 on Nice Family 0
#11 - i wish i had a video of my parents' english cocker-spaniel doi… 03/16/2014 on Corgi twerk is best twerk... 0
#696 - The Dark Lord!!!! 03/16/2014 on I don't see a problem here... 0
#5 - I think this is from "Weekly World News". They used … 03/15/2014 on whhot 0
#22 - Stoner Metal 03/12/2014 on but what about super black... 0
#72 - I really don't want anyone to become nervous but "pulling…  [+] (2 new replies) 03/06/2014 on I agree, your life sucks 0
#80 - anonymous (03/06/2014) [-]
No, I think the most stupid method is not pulling out because you think they're not ovulating
User avatar #79 - stifflimb (03/06/2014) [-]
He was drunk, people do stupid shit while being drunk, still a woman doing that should be charged with something xP
#283 - which kind of asshole thumbed that down? 02/26/2014 on Do you have more of these ? 0
#63 - btw: It is Ahriman or Aŋra Mainiiu or whatever, but not Ahraman. 02/25/2014 on Do you have more of these ? 0
#60 - We both agree, that there is no such thing as satan if i am no…  [+] (2 new replies) 02/25/2014 on Do you have more of these ? 0
User avatar #334 - ispn (02/27/2014) [-]
Again, you are mistaken, I do have a belief that Satan is real, and regardless of fiction or fact the source material is still the basis of the person/demon, so we must secede the original is the most accurate. You can hold whatever view you want, but John Milton's Paradise Lost is meant to be the imagine of Satan from the Bible, but unfortunately the bible does say quite clearly in fact that Satan is a prisoner in hell and not a ruler. Like whatever imagine you want, but that doesn't make it right. Pretty sure the Nazi's thought Hitler was a pretty great dude
User avatar #63 - jasonthedragon (02/25/2014) [-]
btw: It is Ahriman or Aŋra Mainiiu or whatever, but not Ahraman.
#47 - i think the image of satan as the lord of hell - which you won…  [+] (5 new replies) 02/25/2014 on Do you have more of these ? -1
User avatar #283 - jasonthedragon (02/26/2014) [-]
which kind of asshole thumbed that down?
User avatar #50 - ispn (02/25/2014) [-]
I don't see how what you're saying is relevant to the situation. perhaps if the quote spoke of Ahraman instead of Satan, then you could place the point and image as the Evil being a ruler, but the simple fact remains, which i already stated, the source material is the Christian bible, and thus following, Satan is not the ruler of hell.
User avatar #60 - jasonthedragon (02/25/2014) [-]
We both agree, that there is no such thing as satan if i am not mistaken. that means, that there are thousands of ways you can look and interpret this story - there is no right or wrong. so if someone wants to give the story a twist in this or that direction it is - fine! and correct as everything else. and i just like the perspective voiced in my quote better than the other one. and just to repeat what i have already written: there is no clearly defined Satan/ Devil in the bible. He is characterized in various ways and they are all as legitimate as any other.
User avatar #334 - ispn (02/27/2014) [-]
Again, you are mistaken, I do have a belief that Satan is real, and regardless of fiction or fact the source material is still the basis of the person/demon, so we must secede the original is the most accurate. You can hold whatever view you want, but John Milton's Paradise Lost is meant to be the imagine of Satan from the Bible, but unfortunately the bible does say quite clearly in fact that Satan is a prisoner in hell and not a ruler. Like whatever imagine you want, but that doesn't make it right. Pretty sure the Nazi's thought Hitler was a pretty great dude
User avatar #63 - jasonthedragon (02/25/2014) [-]
btw: It is Ahriman or Aŋra Mainiiu or whatever, but not Ahraman.
#45 - Depends on the fanfiction you are into  [+] (7 new replies) 02/25/2014 on Do you have more of these ? 0
User avatar #46 - ispn (02/25/2014) [-]
Even if you're referring to the Bible as fanfiction, it would still be the source material of all other branching literature and arts of the image of hell and heaven, thus making it prudent to point out that Satan is still bound in hell, and not the ruler. Besides the original post image is Mark Twain speaking directly about the Satan from the source material, so we must assume that is the basis of the facts.
User avatar #47 - jasonthedragon (02/25/2014) [-]
i think the image of satan as the lord of hell - which you won't find in the oldest parts of the bible - is rather influenced from zoroastrianism. and pointing to paradise lost for mine.
User avatar #283 - jasonthedragon (02/26/2014) [-]
which kind of asshole thumbed that down?
User avatar #50 - ispn (02/25/2014) [-]
I don't see how what you're saying is relevant to the situation. perhaps if the quote spoke of Ahraman instead of Satan, then you could place the point and image as the Evil being a ruler, but the simple fact remains, which i already stated, the source material is the Christian bible, and thus following, Satan is not the ruler of hell.
User avatar #60 - jasonthedragon (02/25/2014) [-]
We both agree, that there is no such thing as satan if i am not mistaken. that means, that there are thousands of ways you can look and interpret this story - there is no right or wrong. so if someone wants to give the story a twist in this or that direction it is - fine! and correct as everything else. and i just like the perspective voiced in my quote better than the other one. and just to repeat what i have already written: there is no clearly defined Satan/ Devil in the bible. He is characterized in various ways and they are all as legitimate as any other.
User avatar #334 - ispn (02/27/2014) [-]
Again, you are mistaken, I do have a belief that Satan is real, and regardless of fiction or fact the source material is still the basis of the person/demon, so we must secede the original is the most accurate. You can hold whatever view you want, but John Milton's Paradise Lost is meant to be the imagine of Satan from the Bible, but unfortunately the bible does say quite clearly in fact that Satan is a prisoner in hell and not a ruler. Like whatever imagine you want, but that doesn't make it right. Pretty sure the Nazi's thought Hitler was a pretty great dude
User avatar #63 - jasonthedragon (02/25/2014) [-]
btw: It is Ahriman or Aŋra Mainiiu or whatever, but not Ahraman.
#38 - "Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heaven" John…  [+] (9 new replies) 02/25/2014 on Do you have more of these ? 0
User avatar #44 - ispn (02/25/2014) [-]
But then again Satan doesn't reign in hell. Hell is a prison that he is trapped and bound in.
User avatar #45 - jasonthedragon (02/25/2014) [-]
Depends on the fanfiction you are into
User avatar #46 - ispn (02/25/2014) [-]
Even if you're referring to the Bible as fanfiction, it would still be the source material of all other branching literature and arts of the image of hell and heaven, thus making it prudent to point out that Satan is still bound in hell, and not the ruler. Besides the original post image is Mark Twain speaking directly about the Satan from the source material, so we must assume that is the basis of the facts.
User avatar #47 - jasonthedragon (02/25/2014) [-]
i think the image of satan as the lord of hell - which you won't find in the oldest parts of the bible - is rather influenced from zoroastrianism. and pointing to paradise lost for mine.
User avatar #283 - jasonthedragon (02/26/2014) [-]
which kind of asshole thumbed that down?
User avatar #50 - ispn (02/25/2014) [-]
I don't see how what you're saying is relevant to the situation. perhaps if the quote spoke of Ahraman instead of Satan, then you could place the point and image as the Evil being a ruler, but the simple fact remains, which i already stated, the source material is the Christian bible, and thus following, Satan is not the ruler of hell.
User avatar #60 - jasonthedragon (02/25/2014) [-]
We both agree, that there is no such thing as satan if i am not mistaken. that means, that there are thousands of ways you can look and interpret this story - there is no right or wrong. so if someone wants to give the story a twist in this or that direction it is - fine! and correct as everything else. and i just like the perspective voiced in my quote better than the other one. and just to repeat what i have already written: there is no clearly defined Satan/ Devil in the bible. He is characterized in various ways and they are all as legitimate as any other.
User avatar #334 - ispn (02/27/2014) [-]
Again, you are mistaken, I do have a belief that Satan is real, and regardless of fiction or fact the source material is still the basis of the person/demon, so we must secede the original is the most accurate. You can hold whatever view you want, but John Milton's Paradise Lost is meant to be the imagine of Satan from the Bible, but unfortunately the bible does say quite clearly in fact that Satan is a prisoner in hell and not a ruler. Like whatever imagine you want, but that doesn't make it right. Pretty sure the Nazi's thought Hitler was a pretty great dude
User avatar #63 - jasonthedragon (02/25/2014) [-]
btw: It is Ahriman or Aŋra Mainiiu or whatever, but not Ahraman.
#3 - the germany-thing is bullshit  [+] (1 new reply) 02/23/2014 on Country Political Parties -1
#51 - hereiamanonymous (02/24/2014) [-]
unfortunately, yes :/

Germany is a capitalist "democracy". Politicians dont even know what communism and socialism is(well, like most of all germans).
#55 - That is great!  [+] (1 new reply) 02/19/2014 on The Galactic empire +33
User avatar #173 - hammarhead (02/20/2014) [-]
shit thats right on
#20 - Picture 02/12/2014 on Jessica, u got 2 try dizzz!! +1
#139 - And still I am waiting for BF3....  [+] (2 new replies) 02/04/2014 on When I'm depressed +1
#147 - angelusprimus (02/04/2014) [-]
New Battlefront is coming but its a reboot not a sequel.
User avatar #152 - clyfon (02/04/2014) [-]
who cares a vamped up battlefront better than none WOOHOO
#7 - The last one is priceless. 02/03/2014 on Black People Tired Of Your... 0
#16 - I have so many questions.... 02/03/2014 on this glass.. -1
#3 - Picture  [+] (2 new replies) 01/30/2014 on Dammit Sheen +6
User avatar #5 - tonyredgrave (01/30/2014) [-]
He totally saved their asses in that Opera.
User avatar #4 - donttasemebro (01/30/2014) [-]
NO... IT'S " I DO CA CA CA CA CA CA COCAINE!"
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

items

Total unique items point value: 2050 / Total items point value: 2500

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#8 - anonymous (11/26/2013) [-]
Nigger
#4 - blartonfairweather (02/09/2013) [-]
Hey, dude, what's up?
Hey, dude, what's up?
User avatar #5 to #4 - jasonthedragon (02/10/2013) [-]
hi! not much! :D where are you from?
#6 to #5 - blartonfairweather (02/11/2013) [-]
Ah, well that is good c:   
   
And I'm from Connecticut, how bout you?
Ah, well that is good c:

And I'm from Connecticut, how bout you?
User avatar #7 to #6 - jasonthedragon (08/04/2013) [-]
oh sorry! I'm from Germany
 Friends (0)