Upload
Login or register

skeery

Last status update:
-
Gender: male
Date Signed Up:8/06/2010
Last Login:10/01/2016
Stats
Content Thumbs: 10198 total,  11197 ,  999
Comment Thumbs: 147 total,  212 ,  65
Content Level Progress: 99% (99/100)
Level 201 Content: Comedic Genius → Level 202 Content: Comedic Genius
Comment Level Progress: 0% (0/1)
Level 84 Comments: Srs Business → Level 85 Comments: Srs Business
Subscribers:1
Content Views:233136
Times Content Favorited:769 times
Total Comments Made:75
FJ Points:10338
Favorite Tags: no cheating (5) | emag ehT (2) | lol (2) | sucks to suck (2)

  • Views: 87919
    Thumbs Up 4568 Thumbs Down 175 Total: +4393
    Comments: 523
    Favorites: 196
    Uploaded: 06/14/12
    2006 2006
  • Views: 38648
    Thumbs Up 1775 Thumbs Down 314 Total: +1461
    Comments: 123
    Favorites: 82
    Uploaded: 06/12/12
    It Had To Happen It Had To Happen
  • Views: 35264
    Thumbs Up 1523 Thumbs Down 97 Total: +1426
    Comments: 25
    Favorites: 49
    Uploaded: 08/15/12
    title title
  • Views: 26824
    Thumbs Up 811 Thumbs Down 61 Total: +750
    Comments: 344
    Favorites: 170
    Uploaded: 10/30/10
    The True End The True End
  • Views: 26580
    Thumbs Up 708 Thumbs Down 81 Total: +627
    Comments: 43
    Favorites: 57
    Uploaded: 06/24/13
    One of the worst things ever One of the worst things ever
  • Views: 16072
    Thumbs Up 621 Thumbs Down 80 Total: +541
    Comments: 142
    Favorites: 73
    Uploaded: 06/12/12
    War War
  • Views: 362
    Thumbs Up 4 Thumbs Down 10 Total: -6
    Comments: 0
    Favorites: 0
    Uploaded: 11/13/12
    Holy Fuck Holy Fuck

latest user's comments

#34 - He led a country into war on false pretenses, he should be in jail  [+] (15 replies) 08/11/2015 on Thanks Obama 20 +3
User avatar
#51 - spaaceghoost (08/11/2015) [-]
Read up on all of the shit that went down before the invasion of Iraq. The UN was a huge part of it, the UK wanted in, and a whole shitload of other stuff. It wasnt a "hurr durr, lets invade because I said so." Even the UN thought they had a distinct possibility of chemical weapons.
#43 - rollfourexplain (08/11/2015) [-]
**rollfourexplain used "*roll 1, 0000-9999*"**
**rollfourexplain rolls 7,076**

To be fair the CIA really did think that dictator guy in Iraq had a nuclear bomb. Hussain... something or other was even bluffing somewhat.

They were false pretenses but they weren't lies is what I'm trying to say.
User avatar
#41 - dudeyouisnasty (08/11/2015) [-]
Truth be told, Obama has done the same thing as Bush started. One of the key differences is there was no national outcry for vengeance. Obama sent troops to foreign nations in the name of policing and aid. The difference is, there was no need to destroy another nation. Obama didnt push it because there was little to no resistance, as the primary exporter of unrest was already engaged with US forces sent in by Bush. Due to the little resistance, Obama was able to remove what little ground troops were sent There were only small threats, not all out attack on American soil and maintain a small presence of military training officers.

The problem with Iraq was 9/11, what is the leader of the US supposed to do when a terrorist group acts on its declaration of war? Let it go unpunished? Sure the way he went about it wasn't perfect, some say it was dead wrong. Problem is, we cant go back and try an alternative, maybe bombing the hell out of them and leaving would have worked better. But he could have made worse decisions, he could have done as a sect of Americans wanted to do, nuke the place. I'm serious, there was a statistically sizable amount of Americans who wanted to nuke the middle east. Some wanted to bomb it to hell and leave, some wanted to invade and take their country, others still wanted to do exactly what he did, some more wanted to send in troops to help the government, and some wanted to do nothing to them and instead focus on our selves.

He could have been far worse, and if the war is the worst thing he's done, thats fine with me. The only thing about the war that angers me, is the amount of dead Americans Remember though, it wasn't just America that invaded many European nations agreed to invade as well I would have rather bombed the hell out of that sand pit and warned them not to do it again or I wouldn't be as nice next time.

As for the argument about civilian casualties, civilian casualties are limited by rules of conventional warfare. However, these guerrillas dont care about civilian casualties. They used innocent families as bullet shields, the blood of those innocents inst on our heads, its on the heads of those who forced them into the line of fire, the terrorists.
You should just be happy I wasn't president, if there was a town that harbored terrorist commanders I would have wiped them from the map. There would have been a empty desert left behind once the bombers left. I dont take shit from anyone, someone breaks into my house, I shoot first and dont give a damn later. Those children poked the hornets nest.
User avatar
#53 - discobleach (08/11/2015) [-]
what did Iraq have to do with 9/11?
#62 - dudeyouisnasty (08/11/2015) [-]
Not sure if stupid, joking, or trying really bad to troll.
User avatar
#63 - discobleach (08/11/2015) [-]
there is no correlation between the two.
please provide evidence to the contrary.
#65 - dudeyouisnasty (08/11/2015) [-]
Anyone with functioning brain cells can understand the relation ship. I'll indulge you with one more thing.

9/11 > Public Outrage > Invasion of Iraq
User avatar
#66 - discobleach (08/11/2015) [-]
i assume the public outrage was directed at those responsible for 9/11.
not Iraq
User avatar
#67 - dudeyouisnasty (08/11/2015) [-]
As long as you are genuinely unsure of the reasons and not just trying for attention i'll keep chatting.

Yes, but those responsible harbored themselves in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, that is not the only reason, the US has had bad relations with Iraq since the 60's. In my opinion we involved ourselves way to much, 9/11 was the result. In a way the terror attack was inevitable since Islamic extremists have wanted to kill us all since their inception. However, our close involvement has had one of two effects, delaying the terror attack or bringing it about sooner. We will never know as we cannot change history, all we can do is look at our past mistakes and learn from them. The problem here is, there is no lesson that can be agreed upon by a majority, we also have no agreement on how to move on from here. We are continuing to receive threats from ISIS in the form of executions of Christians and other prisoners. Some want to sit down and try to reason with them, others want to bomb them to hell. In reality neither solution is a good one, these people are demented, they cannot reason, however bombing them wont solve anything. One of the only things that can be done now it to just fight them were there strongholds show up by training Iraqi security forces and providing air support.
User avatar
#68 - discobleach (08/11/2015) [-]
iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
following the attacks there was a mission in afghanistan. the one in iraq 2 years later was totally unrelated.
User avatar
#69 - dudeyouisnasty (08/11/2015) [-]
You dont seem to get it, Afghanistan was the first front, Iraq was just as much a problem as Afghanistan, they harbored the same terrorist groups, Al-Qaeda was stretched across the Arab nations, as well as ally terrorist groups. Iraq was two years later because it reduced the strain on US forces, could you imagine invading both nations at once. That would have required a huge portion of US forces, potentially leaving the mainland vulnerable on another front. Once Afghanistan was subdued the Iraqi campaign was opened. The time game does not negate the relation between the two.
User avatar
#70 - discobleach (08/11/2015) [-]
there were no allies to al qaeda in iraq before the war even started.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanzim_Qaidat_al-Jihad_fi_Bilad_al-Rafidayn#Origins

i repeat. at the time of the war, there was no correlation between iraq and al qaeda.
saddam hussein never had a connection with them.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda_link_allegations
User avatar
#71 - dudeyouisnasty (08/12/2015) [-]
Your own wiki article Such a reliable source anyway says that it is believed they only started five months after the invasion of Iraq. It could have been four or six, or even further than that. There was no connection between Saddam and Al-Qeada, I never said that Saddam was working with them, because he wasn't until the invasion. However, Iraq was a major exporter of militants, before the invasion they were sending troops to Afghanistan to fight US forces, it was partially determined that invading Iraq would slow the export of militants. However, Bush also had an interest to invade as a sort of revenge for his fathers failed campaign.

Long story short, even if we didnt invade Iraq Islamic extremists would have flocked to the safe harbor that was Iraq and continued attacks on western nations. During Afghanistan you better believe that Al-Qaeda was looking for allies, and Iraq was prime for recruitment.
#42 - dudeyouisnasty (08/11/2015) [-]
I feel better now.

Have a good day.
User avatar
#40 - herrokitteh (08/11/2015) [-]
Roosevelt did the same and people hail him as one of the best presidents, he just had way more charisma. A smiling snake is still a snake.
#17 - Industrial capitalism has destroyed an inconceivable amount of…  [+] (9 replies) 08/03/2015 on Fascinating photos from... -8
#41 - anon (08/03/2015) [-]
allahu akbar death to the kaffir my friend
User avatar
#33 - poem (08/03/2015) [-]
why are you defending them?
#27 - morebuckets (08/03/2015) [-]
The difference is there was a good reason to destroy dresden.

Keep in mind we didn't level the entire city. We left the centuries old monasteries and cathedrals as intact as we possible could
#19 - zenler (08/03/2015) [-]
yea but institutions surrounding us would try and preserve ancient artifacts

aand wasn't there an industrial presence of nazi stuff in that city too

User avatar
#22 - greyhoundfd (08/03/2015) [-]
A minor industrial presence does not justify 25,000 civilian deaths, especially when the Germans were already losing.
#46 - zenler (08/04/2015) [-]
yeah but the war was still going on. lets just not bomb anything because the enemy is losing, great idea mang
it still had targets such as a railway yard, factories and was apparently a significant military centre which had anti air stuff
it was the 7th largest german city
source: wikipedia

anywho the loss of life is regrettable but thats war for ya.
those isis fucks are doing that shit for no rational reason, this shit had reason behind it.
User avatar
#47 - greyhoundfd (08/04/2015) [-]
You're acting like they strategically picked out a few targets and only took those out.

They firebombed an entire fucking city.
User avatar
#48 - zenler (08/04/2015) [-]
lol damn then that was real bad

but apparently the industrial centre was primarily picked for bombing but dresden itself wasn't equipped or had any experience against bombing runs.
The buildings were old and made out of wood, and the conditions at the time exacerbated such fiery bombs' effects.
the city contained the industrial zone so it was collateral damage.

there was thing called terror bombing which was exercised by both sides. so revenge was a bitch ay lol
#25 - anon (08/03/2015) [-]
It definitely does... look at what the germans did to Coventry, get your head out of your arse. It was war not one of your Brony conventions.
#24 - Let me break it down. Let's say the two brackets are $100,000 …  [+] (6 replies) 07/09/2015 on how economy works +5
#62 - anon (07/10/2015) [-]
"There is no incentive to earn 'less' through the US income tax system." Except there is.

If your boss told you, "I'll pay you $7.50/hr up to 40 hrs/week. For overtime, I'll pay you $7.25/hr the next ten hrs. Then $7/hr the next ten. And so on." You'd eventually reach a point where return on your time investment is too low for it to be worth it to you. Same thing here.
User avatar
#67 - skeery (07/11/2015) [-]
Did you actually take the time to write that stupid of a comment?

I'm addressing a misunderstanding of the income tax system. Overtime earnings is a complex beast of its own. I do not claim any knowledge over it.
#60 - anon (07/09/2015) [-]
I have no way to verify it, but I'm op of that post and I'm an anarchist as well. That's how the tax system worked before the changes people currently call trickle down, so we have currently exactly what everyone is describing. So you're right, But I never said you were wrong. I don't understand why people are assuming I'm describing the current situation. But yeah, here come "muh infrastructure" posts. To answer all of the questions people ask about what the government does and how it will happen in a stateless society, see the gov't for what it is. A middle man. Everyone wants roads, but how will we get roads? well everyone fucking wants food and they seem to get that without violent wealth redistribution, I.e pay for it. And to everyone asking "well anarchy means no order!" No, it doesn't, violence is the least effective way to change people's behavior and both parties lose. Wow! you murdered someone? well no business/street/housing/utility owner wants to deal with murderers! You have an incentive not to murder people if you like buying food, housing, and power. The fear of NOT having what you want is the greatest motivator for behavior change unique to humans. while the fear of death is shared by all primitive creatures and historically ineffective at behavior change.
User avatar
#52 - emiyashirou (07/09/2015) [-]
One thing I still want to know. What the hell is your plan for public infrastructure if you want anarchy? If you pay no taxes, there's no one obligated to make public roads. So it logically follows that an anarchist's ideal is to have all roads privately owned, but that would be fucking terrible for efficiency.
User avatar
#40 - arreatface (07/09/2015) [-]
also how do you view an ideal anarchist society ?
if you were to become a dictator would you enforce anarchy and overthrow yourself ?
User avatar
#39 - arreatface (07/09/2015) [-]
person C approves of your comment
#22 - This is factually false and not how income tax works. You are …  [+] (8 replies) 07/09/2015 on how economy works +3
User avatar
#23 - alucardhell (07/09/2015) [-]
Take the 28% tax bracket and the next highest, 33%, if you are at the top of the 28%, you keep $134172 after tax, but the people in the low end of the 33% keep $122992. That is over a -10K difference for people who were officially paid more at end of the year,that is about 1 bedroom apartment in most cities for a year. How is this fair??? It isn't. but that is how taxes work. Higher taxes to the rich are as fair as those same taxes to the poor.
User avatar
#24 - skeery (07/09/2015) [-]
Let me break it down. Let's say the two brackets are $100,000 or less are taxed at 28% and $100,001 or more are taxed at 33%, in the system that I am outlining.

Person A makes $100,000 while person B make $101,000. Person A would be taxed 28% of his income for $28,000. Person B would have hs first $100,000 earned taxed at 28% and his next $1,000 earned taxed at 33%. So he would be taxed $28,330. Person A is earning $72,000 and person B is earning $72,670. There is no incentive to earn 'less' through the US' income tax system.

I am an anarchist so I do not believe in taxation...but I'm at least not totally ignorant
#62 - anon (07/10/2015) [-]
"There is no incentive to earn 'less' through the US income tax system." Except there is.

If your boss told you, "I'll pay you $7.50/hr up to 40 hrs/week. For overtime, I'll pay you $7.25/hr the next ten hrs. Then $7/hr the next ten. And so on." You'd eventually reach a point where return on your time investment is too low for it to be worth it to you. Same thing here.
User avatar
#67 - skeery (07/11/2015) [-]
Did you actually take the time to write that stupid of a comment?

I'm addressing a misunderstanding of the income tax system. Overtime earnings is a complex beast of its own. I do not claim any knowledge over it.
#60 - anon (07/09/2015) [-]
I have no way to verify it, but I'm op of that post and I'm an anarchist as well. That's how the tax system worked before the changes people currently call trickle down, so we have currently exactly what everyone is describing. So you're right, But I never said you were wrong. I don't understand why people are assuming I'm describing the current situation. But yeah, here come "muh infrastructure" posts. To answer all of the questions people ask about what the government does and how it will happen in a stateless society, see the gov't for what it is. A middle man. Everyone wants roads, but how will we get roads? well everyone fucking wants food and they seem to get that without violent wealth redistribution, I.e pay for it. And to everyone asking "well anarchy means no order!" No, it doesn't, violence is the least effective way to change people's behavior and both parties lose. Wow! you murdered someone? well no business/street/housing/utility owner wants to deal with murderers! You have an incentive not to murder people if you like buying food, housing, and power. The fear of NOT having what you want is the greatest motivator for behavior change unique to humans. while the fear of death is shared by all primitive creatures and historically ineffective at behavior change.
User avatar
#52 - emiyashirou (07/09/2015) [-]
One thing I still want to know. What the hell is your plan for public infrastructure if you want anarchy? If you pay no taxes, there's no one obligated to make public roads. So it logically follows that an anarchist's ideal is to have all roads privately owned, but that would be fucking terrible for efficiency.
User avatar
#40 - arreatface (07/09/2015) [-]
also how do you view an ideal anarchist society ?
if you were to become a dictator would you enforce anarchy and overthrow yourself ?
User avatar
#39 - arreatface (07/09/2015) [-]
person C approves of your comment
#808 - Picture 04/28/2015 on Skyrim giveaway +1
[ 75 Total ]