Upload
Login or register

kingoshark

Last status update:
-
Date Signed Up:11/10/2011
Last Login:8/27/2016
FunnyJunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#8794
Highest Content Rank:#2380
Highest Comment Rank:#4403
Content Thumbs: 4633 total,  5230 ,  597
Comment Thumbs: 1567 total,  1679 ,  112
Content Level Progress: 3% (3/100)
Level 146 Content: Faptastic → Level 147 Content: Faptastic
Comment Level Progress: 21% (21/100)
Level 214 Comments: Comedic Genius → Level 215 Comments: Comedic Genius
Subscribers:0
Content Views:136960
Times Content Favorited:2 times
Total Comments Made:307
FJ Points:6087

latest user's comments

#12 - That statement makes it seem like only monotheistic cultures w…  [+] (1 new reply) 08/19/2016 on religion of piece +6
User avatar
#237 - ruderoody (08/19/2016) [-]
Rome and Greece but more Greece than Rome treated women like property.
#2 - The plot thickens...  [+] (2 new replies) 08/14/2016 on The Monster Under the Bed - 95 +2
User avatar
#3 - secretzx (08/14/2016) [-]
Did you say THICKENS?
User avatar
#8 - megaton (08/14/2016) [-]
thiccens.
#50 - And I was having such a nice day too... 07/03/2016 on Ready to get depressed? :D +2
#255 - So you say we should do exactly what Trump suggests, without t…  [+] (1 new reply) 07/02/2016 on Kormag Roscenovap Tevoksacki 0
User avatar
#256 - Ruspanic (07/02/2016) [-]
What do you mean exactly what Trump suggests? You can't have a blanket ban AND screen people the way we do currently, unless you're just screening them to see if they're Muslim or not.

The Orlando shooter was born in the US, so Trump's proposal wouldn't have stopped him.

As for refugees, the process that's currently in place is good enough. There have not been any terrorist attacks in the US committed by refugees or people posing as refugees.
#246 - Well you got me there, and you know, I would feel bad about ba…  [+] (3 new replies) 07/02/2016 on Kormag Roscenovap Tevoksacki 0
User avatar
#248 - Ruspanic (07/02/2016) [-]
Jimmy Carter temporarily stopped issuing visas to Iranian nationals and deported Iranians in the US who has expired visas. He did not ban all Muslims or all Shi'a Muslims from entering, and this was in direct response to the Iranian hostage crisis, a particular then-ongoing event.

What we need to do is what we're already doing - thoroughly screen people entering our country, especially from high-risk countries, with especially stringent restrictions for refugees and other migrants without proper identification. Perhaps we could close gaps in our security, but blanket bans are stupid and ignorant in the literal sense: they require no actual information beyond generalization.
Plus, how would you even determine if someone is a Muslim? What test could you apply?

The worst effect of a Trump-style blanket ban is that it would alienate the entire Muslim world and reinforce the terrorists' message that the West is anti-Islam. And that would jeopardize our national security tremendously, by harming our relationship with our most crucial allies in the fight against jihadism - which is to say, most Muslims. I don't deny that Islam itself has serious issues with violence, bigotry and general backwardness, but the fact remains that we cannot hope to defeat these global terrorist groups unless we can motivate Muslims in those countries to reject and fight against those groups, and weaken the recruiting capabilities of such terrorist groups.

As a side note, I don't see how you credited the US's failure in Libya with the rise of ISIS. ISIS may have operatives in Libya, but it's based in Iraq and Syria. "Iraq and Syria" is literally in the acronym.
User avatar
#255 - kingoshark (07/02/2016) [-]
So you say we should do exactly what Trump suggests, without the ban? Honestly with the track record of "what they say they'll give" vs "what they actually deliver" of previous presidents, I most likely suspect that the ban will only apply to high risk countries temporarily and a halt on the influx of refugees while we act to prevent shit like Orlando from happening again.
User avatar
#256 - Ruspanic (07/02/2016) [-]
What do you mean exactly what Trump suggests? You can't have a blanket ban AND screen people the way we do currently, unless you're just screening them to see if they're Muslim or not.

The Orlando shooter was born in the US, so Trump's proposal wouldn't have stopped him.

As for refugees, the process that's currently in place is good enough. There have not been any terrorist attacks in the US committed by refugees or people posing as refugees.
#243 - Link to clip of him saying that exactly please. Wouldn't want …  [+] (5 new replies) 07/02/2016 on Kormag Roscenovap Tevoksacki 0
User avatar
#244 - Ruspanic (07/02/2016) [-]
Donald Trump Ban all Muslims from entering USA

Right, it's not just Muslim immigration, it's all Muslims entering the US. Which would include tourists and students, I suppose.
User avatar
#246 - kingoshark (07/02/2016) [-]
Well you got me there, and you know, I would feel bad about banning Muslims temporarily if it weren't for the fact that we literally cannot go a day now without some news about some hostage situation, bombing, or shooting in first world countries by ISIS or Islamic terrorist affiliates.
This isn't the first time this has happened. Jimmy Carter did this back during the Iranian Hostage situation, and I would say that the current state of the world is much more dire than that was. Thanks to the actions of our dear Hillary Clinton and President in Libya, we are dealing with the most well funded and widespread terrorist organization the world has seen in a long time. How would you recommend we deal with it? Turn a blind eye to it and hope it goes away with hugs and kisses?
User avatar
#248 - Ruspanic (07/02/2016) [-]
Jimmy Carter temporarily stopped issuing visas to Iranian nationals and deported Iranians in the US who has expired visas. He did not ban all Muslims or all Shi'a Muslims from entering, and this was in direct response to the Iranian hostage crisis, a particular then-ongoing event.

What we need to do is what we're already doing - thoroughly screen people entering our country, especially from high-risk countries, with especially stringent restrictions for refugees and other migrants without proper identification. Perhaps we could close gaps in our security, but blanket bans are stupid and ignorant in the literal sense: they require no actual information beyond generalization.
Plus, how would you even determine if someone is a Muslim? What test could you apply?

The worst effect of a Trump-style blanket ban is that it would alienate the entire Muslim world and reinforce the terrorists' message that the West is anti-Islam. And that would jeopardize our national security tremendously, by harming our relationship with our most crucial allies in the fight against jihadism - which is to say, most Muslims. I don't deny that Islam itself has serious issues with violence, bigotry and general backwardness, but the fact remains that we cannot hope to defeat these global terrorist groups unless we can motivate Muslims in those countries to reject and fight against those groups, and weaken the recruiting capabilities of such terrorist groups.

As a side note, I don't see how you credited the US's failure in Libya with the rise of ISIS. ISIS may have operatives in Libya, but it's based in Iraq and Syria. "Iraq and Syria" is literally in the acronym.
User avatar
#255 - kingoshark (07/02/2016) [-]
So you say we should do exactly what Trump suggests, without the ban? Honestly with the track record of "what they say they'll give" vs "what they actually deliver" of previous presidents, I most likely suspect that the ban will only apply to high risk countries temporarily and a halt on the influx of refugees while we act to prevent shit like Orlando from happening again.
User avatar
#256 - Ruspanic (07/02/2016) [-]
What do you mean exactly what Trump suggests? You can't have a blanket ban AND screen people the way we do currently, unless you're just screening them to see if they're Muslim or not.

The Orlando shooter was born in the US, so Trump's proposal wouldn't have stopped him.

As for refugees, the process that's currently in place is good enough. There have not been any terrorist attacks in the US committed by refugees or people posing as refugees.
#53 - Man I don't know who this imaginary man you're creating to arg… 07/02/2016 on Kormag Roscenovap Tevoksacki +12
#50 - *Banning immigration from countries that knowingly support mus…  [+] (10 new replies) 07/02/2016 on Kormag Roscenovap Tevoksacki +9
User avatar
#217 - Ruspanic (07/02/2016) [-]
that's not what he said, he said all Muslims.
User avatar
#243 - kingoshark (07/02/2016) [-]
Link to clip of him saying that exactly please. Wouldn't want to be misinformed on the internet.
User avatar
#244 - Ruspanic (07/02/2016) [-]
Donald Trump Ban all Muslims from entering USA

Right, it's not just Muslim immigration, it's all Muslims entering the US. Which would include tourists and students, I suppose.
User avatar
#246 - kingoshark (07/02/2016) [-]
Well you got me there, and you know, I would feel bad about banning Muslims temporarily if it weren't for the fact that we literally cannot go a day now without some news about some hostage situation, bombing, or shooting in first world countries by ISIS or Islamic terrorist affiliates.
This isn't the first time this has happened. Jimmy Carter did this back during the Iranian Hostage situation, and I would say that the current state of the world is much more dire than that was. Thanks to the actions of our dear Hillary Clinton and President in Libya, we are dealing with the most well funded and widespread terrorist organization the world has seen in a long time. How would you recommend we deal with it? Turn a blind eye to it and hope it goes away with hugs and kisses?
User avatar
#248 - Ruspanic (07/02/2016) [-]
Jimmy Carter temporarily stopped issuing visas to Iranian nationals and deported Iranians in the US who has expired visas. He did not ban all Muslims or all Shi'a Muslims from entering, and this was in direct response to the Iranian hostage crisis, a particular then-ongoing event.

What we need to do is what we're already doing - thoroughly screen people entering our country, especially from high-risk countries, with especially stringent restrictions for refugees and other migrants without proper identification. Perhaps we could close gaps in our security, but blanket bans are stupid and ignorant in the literal sense: they require no actual information beyond generalization.
Plus, how would you even determine if someone is a Muslim? What test could you apply?

The worst effect of a Trump-style blanket ban is that it would alienate the entire Muslim world and reinforce the terrorists' message that the West is anti-Islam. And that would jeopardize our national security tremendously, by harming our relationship with our most crucial allies in the fight against jihadism - which is to say, most Muslims. I don't deny that Islam itself has serious issues with violence, bigotry and general backwardness, but the fact remains that we cannot hope to defeat these global terrorist groups unless we can motivate Muslims in those countries to reject and fight against those groups, and weaken the recruiting capabilities of such terrorist groups.

As a side note, I don't see how you credited the US's failure in Libya with the rise of ISIS. ISIS may have operatives in Libya, but it's based in Iraq and Syria. "Iraq and Syria" is literally in the acronym.
User avatar
#255 - kingoshark (07/02/2016) [-]
So you say we should do exactly what Trump suggests, without the ban? Honestly with the track record of "what they say they'll give" vs "what they actually deliver" of previous presidents, I most likely suspect that the ban will only apply to high risk countries temporarily and a halt on the influx of refugees while we act to prevent shit like Orlando from happening again.
User avatar
#256 - Ruspanic (07/02/2016) [-]
What do you mean exactly what Trump suggests? You can't have a blanket ban AND screen people the way we do currently, unless you're just screening them to see if they're Muslim or not.

The Orlando shooter was born in the US, so Trump's proposal wouldn't have stopped him.

As for refugees, the process that's currently in place is good enough. There have not been any terrorist attacks in the US committed by refugees or people posing as refugees.
User avatar
#52 - theism (07/02/2016) [-]
"All Muslim countries support terrorism"
#219 - anon (07/02/2016) [-]
When your strawman is revealed but you have nothing else so you hold on for dear life
User avatar
#53 - kingoshark (07/02/2016) [-]
Man I don't know who this imaginary man you're creating to argue with is, but he sounds like an ass.
#48 - He isn't hateful towards Muslims, he's hateful towards radical…  [+] (12 new replies) 07/02/2016 on Kormag Roscenovap Tevoksacki +4
User avatar
#49 - theism (07/02/2016) [-]
"Banning Muslim immigration isn't hateful at all"
User avatar
#50 - kingoshark (07/02/2016) [-]
*Banning immigration from countries that knowingly support muslim terrorism.
User avatar
#217 - Ruspanic (07/02/2016) [-]
that's not what he said, he said all Muslims.
User avatar
#243 - kingoshark (07/02/2016) [-]
Link to clip of him saying that exactly please. Wouldn't want to be misinformed on the internet.
User avatar
#244 - Ruspanic (07/02/2016) [-]
Donald Trump Ban all Muslims from entering USA

Right, it's not just Muslim immigration, it's all Muslims entering the US. Which would include tourists and students, I suppose.
User avatar
#246 - kingoshark (07/02/2016) [-]
Well you got me there, and you know, I would feel bad about banning Muslims temporarily if it weren't for the fact that we literally cannot go a day now without some news about some hostage situation, bombing, or shooting in first world countries by ISIS or Islamic terrorist affiliates.
This isn't the first time this has happened. Jimmy Carter did this back during the Iranian Hostage situation, and I would say that the current state of the world is much more dire than that was. Thanks to the actions of our dear Hillary Clinton and President in Libya, we are dealing with the most well funded and widespread terrorist organization the world has seen in a long time. How would you recommend we deal with it? Turn a blind eye to it and hope it goes away with hugs and kisses?
User avatar
#248 - Ruspanic (07/02/2016) [-]
Jimmy Carter temporarily stopped issuing visas to Iranian nationals and deported Iranians in the US who has expired visas. He did not ban all Muslims or all Shi'a Muslims from entering, and this was in direct response to the Iranian hostage crisis, a particular then-ongoing event.

What we need to do is what we're already doing - thoroughly screen people entering our country, especially from high-risk countries, with especially stringent restrictions for refugees and other migrants without proper identification. Perhaps we could close gaps in our security, but blanket bans are stupid and ignorant in the literal sense: they require no actual information beyond generalization.
Plus, how would you even determine if someone is a Muslim? What test could you apply?

The worst effect of a Trump-style blanket ban is that it would alienate the entire Muslim world and reinforce the terrorists' message that the West is anti-Islam. And that would jeopardize our national security tremendously, by harming our relationship with our most crucial allies in the fight against jihadism - which is to say, most Muslims. I don't deny that Islam itself has serious issues with violence, bigotry and general backwardness, but the fact remains that we cannot hope to defeat these global terrorist groups unless we can motivate Muslims in those countries to reject and fight against those groups, and weaken the recruiting capabilities of such terrorist groups.

As a side note, I don't see how you credited the US's failure in Libya with the rise of ISIS. ISIS may have operatives in Libya, but it's based in Iraq and Syria. "Iraq and Syria" is literally in the acronym.
User avatar
#255 - kingoshark (07/02/2016) [-]
So you say we should do exactly what Trump suggests, without the ban? Honestly with the track record of "what they say they'll give" vs "what they actually deliver" of previous presidents, I most likely suspect that the ban will only apply to high risk countries temporarily and a halt on the influx of refugees while we act to prevent shit like Orlando from happening again.
User avatar
#256 - Ruspanic (07/02/2016) [-]
What do you mean exactly what Trump suggests? You can't have a blanket ban AND screen people the way we do currently, unless you're just screening them to see if they're Muslim or not.

The Orlando shooter was born in the US, so Trump's proposal wouldn't have stopped him.

As for refugees, the process that's currently in place is good enough. There have not been any terrorist attacks in the US committed by refugees or people posing as refugees.
User avatar
#52 - theism (07/02/2016) [-]
"All Muslim countries support terrorism"
#219 - anon (07/02/2016) [-]
When your strawman is revealed but you have nothing else so you hold on for dear life
User avatar
#53 - kingoshark (07/02/2016) [-]
Man I don't know who this imaginary man you're creating to argue with is, but he sounds like an ass.
#4 - Ah, the best part of Sunday is here. 06/12/2016 on The Monster Under the Bed - 86 +45
[ 118 Total ]