Upload
Login or register

ningyoaijin

Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: male
Age: 22
Consoles Owned: PS2, NDS, XBox360
Video Games Played: Final Fantasy, Tales of, League of Legends, NIII2
Interests: JRPGs, anime, shodo, science
Date Signed Up:8/11/2010
Location:England
FunnyJunk Career Stats
Content Ranking:#1956
Comment Ranking:#1567
Highest Content Rank:#765
Highest Comment Rank:#203
Content Thumbs: 5065 total,  6453 ,  1388
Comment Thumbs: 36738 total,  53544 ,  16806
Content Level Progress: 25% (25/100)
Level 149 Content: Faptastic → Level 150 Content: Faptastic
Comment Level Progress: 62.8% (628/1000)
Level 335 Comments: Practically Famous → Level 336 Comments: Practically Famous
Subscribers:11
Content Views:172253
Times Content Favorited:359 times
Total Comments Made:12671
FJ Points:40644
Favorite Tags: the (6) | a (4) | are (4) | i (4) | is (4) | and (3) | game (3) | at (2) | Cleverbot (2) | dead (2) | description (2) | do (2) | Dog (2) | facebook (2) | lulz (2) | Marsha (2) | meep (2) | no (2) | Not (2) | poonanji (2)
Maho.

  • Views: 2969
    Thumbs Up 22 Thumbs Down 3 Total: +19
    Comments: 3
    Favorites: 4
    Uploaded: 06/30/11
    I love Mr. Popo I love Mr. Popo
First2[ 8 ]

latest user's comments

#132 - Nignogs be nignogs. I didn't use my example as proof, merely a… 4 hours ago on Triggered Travis +1
#91 - Anon's saying it in a way that makes him seem like an absolute…  [+] (3 new replies) 6 hours ago on Triggered Travis +2
#128 - anon (4 hours ago) [-]
"My one secular, subjective experience with these people speaks an objective truth that said people are inferior."

Gett he fuck out of here with that. Your one experience does not speak for all of humanity. You Stupid Fuck.
User avatar
#132 - ningyoaijin (4 hours ago) [-]
Nignogs be nignogs. I didn't use my example as proof, merely as evidence. If you want proof, look at the average black income, literacy rates, inbreeding rates, incarceration rates all compared to white people, then come back and say with a straight face that they're not inferior.
#115 - anon (5 hours ago) [-]
Dude, that's being fucking poor. I fight the habit to suck the marrow to this day. Some things is just things.
#102 - Also the stuff about "heart healthy grains" really o…  [+] (2 new replies) 15 hours ago on " I'm not defined by my... 0
#151 - anon (12 hours ago) [-]
Oh, now I see this reply and realize you are completely uninformed. "Energy in vs energy out is what controls the amount of fat in the body" NO. Insulin controls how much fat is in your body. Elevated insulin prevents fat from being used for energy. This is not rocket science. Insulin's job is to drive calories into fat cells for storage. Your ability to lose weight is directly proportional to the amount of insulin in your blood.

You absolutely can lose weight with high insulin, it just won't be fat. It'll be muscle mass or bones or other parts of your body that you don't want to lose.
#153 - anon (12 hours ago) [-]
No way to edit. I mean "Your ability to lose weight is inversely proportional to the amount of insulin in your blood. "
#101 - You're wrong on a certain level, but you also raise valid poin…  [+] (2 new replies) 15 hours ago on " I'm not defined by my... +1
#148 - anon (12 hours ago) [-]
Out of the several replies, you come closest to being accurate. The human body has one primary fat storing hormone, insulin. As long as your insulin level is high, your body can't burn fat. If you maintain a high level of insulin, but decrease your calories, your body will burn your bones, muscles, organs and other parts in an attempt to find energy, but it cannot access fat. It is physiologically impossible for someone with high insulin to burn fat. The secret to weight-loss is low insulin. Is it possible for someone with a very strong insulin response to lose weight while eating a lot of carbohydrates? Sure. That's because their body responds to insulin well and their serum insulin drops while they are sleeping allowing for weight loss. Most obese people suffer from insulin resistance, meaning their body must produce copious amounts of insulin to deal with the least amount of sugar. A bagel in the morning would guarantee a whole day of high insulin and therefore no weight loss. It's very easy for people with good insulin sensitivity to scream about calories in vs calories out, it seems to work that way for them. For the obese, cutting calories means plummeting energy levels, uncontrollable cravings and brain fog. Their bodies scream that they are being starved and so they cave. Which is why dropping insulin, so that the fat can be used for energy is so important. For someone who is insulin resistant, like me, avoiding carbs is more important than any other step in weight loss. I was able to lose a pound a day for a couple months eating bacon and eggs every morning. Steak several times a week. Butter and coconut oil on my food. And more than 2,000 calories a day. When you go into ketosis, your body needs about 250 calories more a day. Add in walking or some other light exercise and weight loss is fast and easy. Insulin is the key to weight loss and if you don't have problems with your insulin, you don't know how hard weight loss can be following the advice of the uninformed.
User avatar
#219 - battlebrotherlayn (6 hours ago) [-]
Anon wasn't a fag today, thank you.
#55 - She has a Joker smile.  [+] (1 new reply) 05/24/2016 on bj +3
User avatar
#56 - elcreepo (05/24/2016) [-]
Wrinkles and botox tend to do that to you
#133 - But if taxes are lower for everyone, where does the government…  [+] (1 new reply) 05/23/2016 on /v/irgin sums up the movie... 0
User avatar
#134 - lean (05/23/2016) [-]
Shit son, the US federal government's spending last year, adjusted for inflation, is 2.5 times greater than the highest fiscal year cost of world war 2. 58% of that is means tested welfare programs. A further 15% is military, the rest is broken down to the various alphabet agency allotments.

One thing you may notice about government spending is that it is almost entirely mutually exclusive from government revenue. They do not operate like you and I, where we have to eat cracker crumbs and that old can of tuna until our next paycheck. They pass a vote to spend more money and simply raise the debt ceiling.

The federal budget could easily be cut in half with minimal impact on the citizens.

I'm not saying I agree with all of this, but here is a start: www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2013/11/19/how-to-cut-federal-spending-by-a-trillion-dollars-without-sequestration-or-serious-hardship/#1b16314a8c71
#130 - Imagine two people. One's a frail old lady, the other's a fit,… 05/23/2016 on /v/irgin sums up the movie... +2
#127 - And good luck being part of that enterprise when you start wit…  [+] (3 new replies) 05/23/2016 on /v/irgin sums up the movie... 0
#132 - lean (05/23/2016) [-]
Not if it's lower for everyone. If you believe that the government needs to spend the way if does for the results it gets, you are sorely mistaken. The wealthy not only pay a higher tax rate, but they are also subject to more taxes. The average person doesn't pay capitol gains tax, payroll tax, or corporate income taxes.
User avatar
#133 - ningyoaijin (05/23/2016) [-]
But if taxes are lower for everyone, where does the government's money come from?
User avatar
#134 - lean (05/23/2016) [-]
Shit son, the US federal government's spending last year, adjusted for inflation, is 2.5 times greater than the highest fiscal year cost of world war 2. 58% of that is means tested welfare programs. A further 15% is military, the rest is broken down to the various alphabet agency allotments.

One thing you may notice about government spending is that it is almost entirely mutually exclusive from government revenue. They do not operate like you and I, where we have to eat cracker crumbs and that old can of tuna until our next paycheck. They pass a vote to spend more money and simply raise the debt ceiling.

The federal budget could easily be cut in half with minimal impact on the citizens.

I'm not saying I agree with all of this, but here is a start: www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2013/11/19/how-to-cut-federal-spending-by-a-trillion-dollars-without-sequestration-or-serious-hardship/#1b16314a8c71
#125 - Different treatment under the law is indeed more fair, for the…  [+] (2 new replies) 05/23/2016 on /v/irgin sums up the movie... +1
User avatar
#128 - durkadurka (05/23/2016) [-]
>Different treatment under the law is indeed more fair
You're insane. If you want to talk about disgusting viewpoints, this is it. You literally think we can discriminate our way into fairness. This is exactly the kind of arguments that are made to promote the racial superiority of groups like BLM.

>believe that the rights one has should be proportional to the wealth they were born with
Actually this is more you than anyone else. I'm saying everyone should be treated exactly the same under the eyes of the law, and YOU are saying the opposite. The only distinction is that you're looking for an inverse proportionality.
I'm also saying that there should be no loopholes for the people using them to not pay taxes to begin with, but you're more than happy to overlook this.

If all men are equal, they must be treated as such. I'm not gonna buy into this notion that fairness is whatever feels [italic][italic]good to you.
User avatar
#130 - ningyoaijin (05/23/2016) [-]
Imagine two people. One's a frail old lady, the other's a fit, healthy young man. By your logic, you're saying both these people deserve the right to a chaperone to help them cross the street (economically, let's say it's equivalent to a lower tax percentage). Does that young man deserve or need this chaperone? No. Does the old woman? Yes. Without that chaperone, she get exposed to the risk of falling and getting stuck in traffic, but you (the young man with the chaperone) are stating that, as you both have a chaperone, you're somehow equal. Now, take that chaperone away from the fit, healthy young man and you now have two chaperones. One for the old lady trying to cross the road, and another to go to the disabled man across the road trying to cross the other way. You know what then happens? The young man, and both old people are happy, because equity gave them all what they needed to live happily.
#123 - The fact that 20% off of a poor person's income can result in …  [+] (4 new replies) 05/23/2016 on /v/irgin sums up the movie... +3
User avatar
#124 - durkadurka (05/23/2016) [-]
So are you saying different treatment under the law is somehow more fair?
To each according to their need, from each according to their ability?
Why are you basing your argument off of your feelings?
User avatar
#125 - ningyoaijin (05/23/2016) [-]
Different treatment under the law is indeed more fair, for the reasons previously stated. Some degree of equity is required to have a stable, functioning country, but America's so backwards and brainwashed that the citizens genuinely believe that the rights one has should be proportional to the wealth they were born with, which in my opinion is a disgusting viewpoint to have.
User avatar
#128 - durkadurka (05/23/2016) [-]
>Different treatment under the law is indeed more fair
You're insane. If you want to talk about disgusting viewpoints, this is it. You literally think we can discriminate our way into fairness. This is exactly the kind of arguments that are made to promote the racial superiority of groups like BLM.

>believe that the rights one has should be proportional to the wealth they were born with
Actually this is more you than anyone else. I'm saying everyone should be treated exactly the same under the eyes of the law, and YOU are saying the opposite. The only distinction is that you're looking for an inverse proportionality.
I'm also saying that there should be no loopholes for the people using them to not pay taxes to begin with, but you're more than happy to overlook this.

If all men are equal, they must be treated as such. I'm not gonna buy into this notion that fairness is whatever feels [italic][italic]good to you.
User avatar
#130 - ningyoaijin (05/23/2016) [-]
Imagine two people. One's a frail old lady, the other's a fit, healthy young man. By your logic, you're saying both these people deserve the right to a chaperone to help them cross the street (economically, let's say it's equivalent to a lower tax percentage). Does that young man deserve or need this chaperone? No. Does the old woman? Yes. Without that chaperone, she get exposed to the risk of falling and getting stuck in traffic, but you (the young man with the chaperone) are stating that, as you both have a chaperone, you're somehow equal. Now, take that chaperone away from the fit, healthy young man and you now have two chaperones. One for the old lady trying to cross the road, and another to go to the disabled man across the road trying to cross the other way. You know what then happens? The young man, and both old people are happy, because equity gave them all what they needed to live happily.

channels owned

Subscribe poonanji
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (79)
[ 79 comments ]
Anonymous comments allowed.
15 comments displayed.
#97 - venomousvalentine (11/25/2014) [-]
hi.
#96 - warioworldzooo (12/28/2013) [-]
read my next comment in my post that proves I'm not what you're thinking
#95 - CannonFodder (11/04/2012) [-]
Hey man, if you're no longer collecting items and FJ points, would you be happy to send them my way? I could put you in a comic or something, but if you're wanting to hold on to them then that's fine :D
#94 - anon (09/17/2012) [-]
I CHALLENGE YOU TO A DUEL
#93 - malistaticy
has deleted their comment [-]
#92 - screamsoftheundead (08/01/2012) [-]
cock in my butt
#89 - zameckis (06/28/2012) [-]
*sip
#90 to #93 - ningyoaijin (06/28/2012) [-]
wut?
#91 to #94 - zameckis (06/28/2012) [-]
wat
#82 - zameckis (03/22/2012) [-]
Thanks me later
You need to login to view this link

INB4 url deleted

http://www.xvideos(.)com/video1178345/tifaff7blow