Rank #951 on ContentLevel 273 Comments: Ninja Pirate
OfflineSend mail to willysbilly Block willysbilly Invite willysbilly to be your friend
|Last status update:|| |
|Date Signed Up:||7/12/2011|
|FunnyJunk Career Stats|
|Highest Content Rank:||#693|
|Highest Comment Rank:||#887|
|Content Thumbs:||1944 total, 2554 , 610|
|Comment Thumbs:||8913 total, 10749 , 1836|
|Content Level Progress:|| 71% (71/100) |
Level 114 Content: Funny Junkie → Level 115 Content: Funny Junkie
|Comment Level Progress:|| 54% (54/100) |
Level 273 Comments: Ninja Pirate → Level 274 Comments: Ninja Pirate
|Times Content Favorited:||76 times|
|Total Comments Made:||716|
|Favorite Tags:||i (2) | jews (2)|
- Views: 24435People should say what they want...
1115 255 Total: +860
- Views: 31407Things you won't see on MSNBC
889 230 Total: +659
- Views: 10612Lotengo was right
208 28 Total: +180
- Views: 2721Admin come the server bills
28 3 Total: +25
- Views: 1582Destroyin the Scourge
23 4 Total: +19
- Views: 936Wiping out the Scourge
16 6 Total: +10
HD Gifs / WebMs
latest user's comments
|#90 - This is just further evidence that Trump will lie again and ag… [+] (7 new replies)||06/08/2016 on You'll never believe what...||+12|
#95 - anon (06/08/2016) [-]
You actually watch any of the videos or are you retarded? People were getting ambushed right out of the trump rally. Also this wasn't his twitter.
|#9 - A little rich when FJ "judges" black people by celeb… [+] (2 new replies)||05/22/2016 on Diversity Hire||+7|
#10 - knightbean (05/22/2016) [-]
|#11 - Yeah, Assad the dictator and Putin the journalist murderer. Wa… [+] (2 new replies)||05/20/2016 on Aid can be different||+14|
|#17 - You're refuting my interpretation of what he has done instead …||05/19/2016 on "Why do you hate Trump?"||0|
|#14 - I hate Trump because I think he's a boorish man who has flip f… [+] (2 new replies)||05/18/2016 on "Why do you hate Trump?"||0|
#16 - elvoz (05/18/2016) [-]
Let me clear up a few of the points you brought up. You got some things right so I won't comment on those, but you got some a bit wrong.
Trump flip-flopped on abortion, though this was over the course of ten years. Ten years ago he was for it and nobody asked him until recently where he isn't anymore. The Iraq War, however, he was against from the start. When questioned in 2003 he said he didn't support it and still to this day says he never supported it.
He hasn't actually filed hardly any lawsuits. He's threatened to sue, possibly jokingly, but he's very rarely gone through with it. On a side note that makes him better than like over half of the rich 1%.
His "collection of statements against women" are against very specific women that have instigated him. Rosie, Megyn, Elizabeth, they all fired shots at him and he returned fire. The implication you made is that he's somehow sexist for this when he did nothing different for those women than he does to the men that stir shit with him. He insults people that get on his nerves. He's been doing that since the 70's. No misogyny here.
He wants to improve relations with North Korea, which itself isn't a bad idea considering they've got nukes now and have a pretty intense hatred of the US. Any improvement is a good thing, short of let them off the hook for their crimes. On the subject of allies, Trump is not pro-Israel and has suggested multiple times to just ditch that region of the world and let Israel handle their own problems. He hasn't said anything about Palestine, but he has made it clear he doesn't think Israel is a great ally. And he knows that Russia is a great ally to have, being that Russia is still a global power. They aren't perfect and have a lot of problems, but making them our enemy won't solve their problems.
Trump has said that "in the old days guys like him would get a punch in the mouth... they got taken out on stretchers" about a specific obnoxious protester at one of his rallies. He didn't say he'd punch him himself nor did he say that the guy should be hurt, he just joked about how in "the old days" (I'm gonna assume the 80's) he would've been beaten for his behavior. Claiming he condones violence based on one joke is insanely misleading.
Aside from those points, the stuff you brought up is pretty much true. Donald is a dick and he plays the politician game, probably better at it than anyone else right now. But while you have some valid beefs with him I just deconstructed a lot of your problems as misinformation. I'm gonna guess you didn't research these things on your own but took them at face-value when you saw them on the news. I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that the news you get is actual news and not memes from Reddit or here or whatever.
The biggest ammunition people have against Trump are lies. Think about that for a moment. Not to say there is nothing wrong with him and that people don't have any valid issues, but when put under the microscope I consistently find that the issues are completely riddled with misinformation.
#17 - willysbilly (05/19/2016) [-]
You're refuting my interpretation of what he has done instead of refuting what he has done. It's such a silly putdown to say I don't look at the news, when you're interpreting his actions differently, I'm not incorrect on them. I do read the news, I follow his quotes and actions to form my opinions, not misinformation.
For example, you say I implicated he was sexist, when all I said was that yes, those comments against specific women are disgusting to me, I think a politician should show more restraint. Why is it fair for you to say I'm spreading misinformation when you are refuting my point based upon an argument you inferred? I never said misogyny, you did.
I never said he condoned violence, I said that those statements, which we both agree he said, are things that I don't believe a candidate should say. Again, you're saying I'm being misleading, when you are the one interpreting arguments that I didn't make.
I mean, here's a list of some of his lawsuits, some of them seem very petty. He's threatened to sue the new york times just this week.
In a speech before one of the country's largest pro-Israel lobbying groups, Trump proclaimed that, "the days of treating Israel like a second-class citizen will end on day one" of his presidency.
He told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee that "there is no moral equivalency" between Israel and the Palestinians,
You may disagree with me, but it's unfair to say I'm spreading misinformation. Its strange that you would misrepresent me when that has been Trump's complaint all along.
|#70 - There's a bulk of scientific evidence that would say what you …||05/13/2016 on forced||0|
|#65 - Why can't we instead have equilibrium? Why does any group have… [+] (3 new replies)||05/13/2016 on forced||0|
#67 - masanori (05/13/2016) [-]
Because that's irrational. There are general differences between sexes and races, and abandoning sound scientific fact because someone might find it offensive is ludicrous, especially when many of the people who do just that defend it as "progress", scientifically sound, and in opposition to ignorance, when it is itself propagation of ignorance in another form.
When it comes to individuals you're right; some men are going to be weaker leaders than the average woman, and some women are going to be stronger leaders than the average man, but exceptions do not eliminate the rule. Feeling that it is unfair and having good intentions does not eliminate the biological and social relevance of eons of evolution and hierarchical social interaction. Sure, you can't look at a woman and say "she's weak, has no leadership skills, and would be bad in STEM fields" because you might be wrong, but you can look at a group of women compared to a group of men and assume that on average the male group would outperform the female group. When it comes to enacting policies, laws, etc. the average must be considered. A fair society is not necessarily an equal society.
#70 - willysbilly (05/13/2016) [-]
There's a bulk of scientific evidence that would say what you claim is ignorant of the truth, and the fact that you define what I say as irrational based on some sort of self-proclaimed scientific consensus that doesn't exist seems irrational to me. It is the mainstream, though not the only view, among anthropologists and geneticists that general, meaningful differences between the races do not exist and that cultural and political factors have led to distinctions between different ethnic societies.
And can we stop with the "find this offensive" trope as if the other viewpoint is born simply out of a fear of offending others instead of a possible difference of opinion? Scientists for generations claimed things that racial theorists now have reversed upon because it doesn't fit the mold of global change (i.e. asians were lazy, violent brutes until suddenly in the last 50 years they've been elevated to a higher racial status, African Americans were described as a weak and sickly race of people in the early 1900s but now have been reclassified as physically strong, mentally weak race)
"Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that most physical variation, about 94%, lies within so-called racial groups. Conventional geographic "racial" groupings differ from one another only in about 6% of their genes. This means that there is greater variation within "racial" groups than between them. In neighboring populations there is much overlapping of genes and their phenotypic (physical) expressions. Throughout history whenever different groups have come into contact, they have interbred. The continued sharing of genetic materials has maintained all of humankind as a single species."
-American Anthropoligical association
The "rule" of race/gender, the limitations of women and different races has changed and shifted over time throughout world cultures. If these distinctions between the human races are so distinct, why have we been behaviorally modern for 50,000 years but organized societies didnt begin until 7,000 years ago? Why were we all globally groups of independent nomadic groups for the majority of our history, if some races were so significantly superior to one another?
You might disagree with me and say that that's all bullshit, but for the love of God don't present your argument as an uncomfortable, absolute proof instead of simply a position.
|#64 - Its one thing to criticize the "I'm strong, independent, …||05/13/2016 on forced||0|
|#62 - Mary Richards, Laura Roslin, Lucy Ricardo, Veronica Mars, Tami…||05/13/2016 on forced||0|
|#58 - Right, but not every female character is supposed to be a stro… [+] (2 new replies)||05/13/2016 on forced||0|
#61 - TehFunnyMan (05/13/2016) [-]
And you're totally allowed to. But everyone's (myself included) problem with it nowadays is that "strong female characters" just feel token in this age of forced equality and diversity. It's a real trick to pull them off and not have them fall into the boring stereotype described in the picture. It's ENTIRELY possible to write actual good characters that just happen to be chicks, and your list proves it. But that's something a lot of writers these days seem to have forgotten.
#64 - willysbilly (05/13/2016) [-]
Its one thing to criticize the "I'm strong, independent, that's my only character trait because the writer thinks this is empowering" women that populate shitty tv, its another thing to say that strong, independent female characters are usually shrill bitches.
And i guess I understand the forced diversity point, but I see that argument a lot when a contemporary show casts black/hispanic/asian characters instead of white characters when it makes no difference what their ethnicity is within the context of the show's universe. It's one thing to argue for historical authenticity, it's another to complain that casting non-white actors is forced diversity when its just trying to be representative. We live in a multicultural society (at least here in the United States), so its bizarre to me that people would complain about our tv shows having multicultural casts.