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

hide menu

wyldek    

Rank #9499 on Comments
no avatar Level 188 Comments: Anon Annihilator
Offline
Send mail to wyldek Block wyldek Invite wyldek to be your friend
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: male
Date Signed Up:4/21/2011
Last Login:10/21/2014
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#9499
Highest Content Rank:#7541
Highest Comment Rank:#7567
Content Thumbs: 332 total,  445 ,  113
Comment Thumbs: 923 total,  1217 ,  294
Content Level Progress: 10% (1/10)
Level 32 Content: Peasant → Level 33 Content: Peasant
Comment Level Progress: 10% (1/10)
Level 188 Comments: Anon Annihilator → Level 189 Comments: Anon Annihilator
Subscribers:0
Content Views:22296
Times Content Favorited:25 times
Total Comments Made:248
FJ Points:1228
Favorite Tags: ponies (2)

Show:
Sort by:
Order:

funny pictures

1 2 > [ 7 Funny Pictures Total ]
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

youtube videos

  • Views: 1094
    Thumbs Up 10 Thumbs Down 3 Total: +7
    Comments: 0
    Favorites: 1
    Uploaded: 01/14/12
    Ron Paul 2012 Ron Paul 2012

latest user's comments

#25 - ... yeah that would make a lot more sense. Grammar is hard.  [+] (1 new reply) 10/11/2014 on 3/5 compromise +1
User avatar #26 - infernalinsolence (10/11/2014) [-]
So am I.
#21 - goddamit. TL : DR. Not a damn smiley.  [+] (6 new replies) 10/11/2014 on 3/5 compromise +7
User avatar #47 - manwithmanynames (10/11/2014) [-]
what does TL;DR mean I've seen it so many times, but never found it out
User avatar #49 - almaster (10/11/2014) [-]
to long didn't read
User avatar #50 - manwithmanynames (10/11/2014) [-]
Fuck me... I am dumb as shit for not getting that. Thank you
User avatar #24 - infernalinsolence (10/11/2014) [-]
and that's why it's a semi colon and not a colon.
#25 - wyldek (10/11/2014) [-]
... yeah that would make a lot more sense. Grammar is hard.
User avatar #26 - infernalinsolence (10/11/2014) [-]
So am I.
#20 - The 3/5ths of a person thing gets thrown around a lot, but I f…  [+] (7 new replies) 10/11/2014 on 3/5 compromise +19
#21 - wyldek (10/11/2014) [-]
goddamit. TL : DR. Not a damn smiley.
User avatar #47 - manwithmanynames (10/11/2014) [-]
what does TL;DR mean I've seen it so many times, but never found it out
User avatar #49 - almaster (10/11/2014) [-]
to long didn't read
User avatar #50 - manwithmanynames (10/11/2014) [-]
Fuck me... I am dumb as shit for not getting that. Thank you
User avatar #24 - infernalinsolence (10/11/2014) [-]
and that's why it's a semi colon and not a colon.
#25 - wyldek (10/11/2014) [-]
... yeah that would make a lot more sense. Grammar is hard.
User avatar #26 - infernalinsolence (10/11/2014) [-]
So am I.
#71 - And we know it's never going to happen again how? WW1 was call… 09/25/2014 on You cheeky cunt 0
#58 - Dude, this isn't civ. It's not like we have nuclear subs and t…  [+] (2 new replies) 09/25/2014 on You cheeky cunt 0
User avatar #67 - bigredthunder (09/25/2014) [-]
First off Romney was explicitly talking about number of ships not funding. Secondly, there has only been 5 naval "battles" since 2000 and during all of those only 3 ships were sunk. Massive naval battles with huge fleets slugging it out is never going to happen again. What we need now is a streamlined quick response navy that can assist ground units more effectively. This means a smaller navy. Fact is we simply don't need a huge ass navy and having one would be horrific waste of money that could be put to better use in other areas.
#71 - wyldek (09/25/2014) [-]
And we know it's never going to happen again how? WW1 was called "The war to end all wars". I'm sure they thought everything was going to be fine after that too. WW2 showed us that all it takes is one charismatic crazy to start a big ass fight. I can think of several crazies in positions of power RIGHT NOW.

And if we're scattered all over the globe like the dumbass world police we're trying to be, we WILL need more ships to support the troops all over the damn planet. Best way to have a quick response is to be in a lot of places at once. Smaller ships maybe, but more of them in strategic places to support troops. We have less warships than countries we have troops in right now.

#51 - Yeah, there are instances of technology being very important t… 09/25/2014 on You cheeky cunt 0
#47 - That doesn't change the fact that we don't want a small navy. …  [+] (6 new replies) 09/25/2014 on You cheeky cunt -3
#54 - bigredthunder (09/25/2014) [-]
Wrong again. Today a smaller navy is exactly what we want. We don't need giant battleships anymore because guided missiles obsoleted them. Modern ships have smaller crews because more systems are automated. Guess what technology is the only thing that should be talked about in concern to navy, because today we can handle threats with one sub that would have taken a whole fleet in 1917.
#58 - wyldek (09/25/2014) [-]
Dude, this isn't civ. It's not like we have nuclear subs and they're rocking triremes. Yeah, one of our subs could take a whole 1917 fleet. But guess about how many other modern subs it can take? Im guessing the number is somewhere around 1(±1). Which means if it DOES come to that, yeah, the bigger navy with the most subs will probably win.

And all the funding to develop and install and maintain those automated systems cost money. Money they gave to the navy. Increasing the navy budget and size.

Come on guys, this isn't crazy.
User avatar #67 - bigredthunder (09/25/2014) [-]
First off Romney was explicitly talking about number of ships not funding. Secondly, there has only been 5 naval "battles" since 2000 and during all of those only 3 ships were sunk. Massive naval battles with huge fleets slugging it out is never going to happen again. What we need now is a streamlined quick response navy that can assist ground units more effectively. This means a smaller navy. Fact is we simply don't need a huge ass navy and having one would be horrific waste of money that could be put to better use in other areas.
#71 - wyldek (09/25/2014) [-]
And we know it's never going to happen again how? WW1 was called "The war to end all wars". I'm sure they thought everything was going to be fine after that too. WW2 showed us that all it takes is one charismatic crazy to start a big ass fight. I can think of several crazies in positions of power RIGHT NOW.

And if we're scattered all over the globe like the dumbass world police we're trying to be, we WILL need more ships to support the troops all over the damn planet. Best way to have a quick response is to be in a lot of places at once. Smaller ships maybe, but more of them in strategic places to support troops. We have less warships than countries we have troops in right now.

User avatar #49 - whitie (09/25/2014) [-]
Technology isnt relevant when discussing military size? Tell that to 135,000 japanese, or 80 million ( estimated ) native americans,
#51 - wyldek (09/25/2014) [-]
Yeah, there are instances of technology being very important to victories, but there are also cases where it counted for jack shit (Isandlwana anyone?), but that's not the point.

We don't have a navy for any unruly natives anymore. And the nuke was a military project funded by military money. We wouldn't have been able to develop it without the large wartime infrastructure and funding we had. One might call that a big military.

We have large a large military because there's a chance some crazy is gonna start a conventional war, which we haven't REALLY seen in decades (although Gulf War 2 counts, it was kinda short). And in a conventional war, excepting some CRAZY technological advantage, the larger military with the most resources and best logistics (all of which cost money that you're using on the military) has the advantage.

And holy shit, how did this get so off topic. I'm not even agreeing with Romney that we need a big navy. Im just saying the presidents analogy was shit.
#32 - I don't think we've evolved beyond the use of having a navy. A…  [+] (14 new replies) 09/25/2014 on You cheeky cunt -5
#50 - angelusprimus (09/25/2014) [-]
No, we have evolved beyond use of battleships (last decomissioned in 1996) and huge amounts of relatively smaller ships who's main weapons were rifled cannons, like in ww1.
Instead of muskets we have assault rifles, so we no longer need a large battle lines, we have skirmish groups. Instead of horses we have tanks, APCs and helicopters.
Instead of a huge navy filled with small ships each with relatively small amount of power, we have fewer ships each more powerful then entire navies in 1917. Carriers, nuclear submarines and guided missile destroyers changed the nature of naval war, just like better rifles and transportation changed the ground war.
#36 - theruinedsage (09/25/2014) [-]
Cruisers and carriers are much more effective at supporting a land operation than destroyers and battleships, meaning you need far less for the same amount of effectiveness. The US doesn't really need a strong naval fighting force, you need a strong naval supporting force, which you didn't have during ww1, but which you have now.

If you can't understand how the role of a navy has changed during a hundred years of political and technological progress/change, you should probably shut up instead of yapping your mouth.
#35 - bigredthunder (09/25/2014) [-]
Except thats not true at all. Want to know what we didn't have in 1917? Aircraft carriers, you know those huge ass floating runnways? We also didn't have any submarines which is a huge part of our navy now. Times change.
#47 - wyldek (09/25/2014) [-]
That doesn't change the fact that we don't want a small navy. The sizes of the military can be judged many different ways. My guess is that Romney was referring to budget and personnel.

So sure, we don't need as many $7B Aircraft Carriers as we need $3M (1906) Dreadnaughts, but we do still need the ~7000 people to crew each one, and the resources to produce and maintain them. Which you can't do with a "small" navy.

Now, whether we NEED a big military is a different discussion. But that would have nothing to do with technology and everything to do with the political climate.

The point is, when talking about the size of a military branch, technology is irrelevant. Having a big army in the 1800s and having a big army now means different things. That doesn't mean that a small army is better than a big one.
#54 - bigredthunder (09/25/2014) [-]
Wrong again. Today a smaller navy is exactly what we want. We don't need giant battleships anymore because guided missiles obsoleted them. Modern ships have smaller crews because more systems are automated. Guess what technology is the only thing that should be talked about in concern to navy, because today we can handle threats with one sub that would have taken a whole fleet in 1917.
#58 - wyldek (09/25/2014) [-]
Dude, this isn't civ. It's not like we have nuclear subs and they're rocking triremes. Yeah, one of our subs could take a whole 1917 fleet. But guess about how many other modern subs it can take? Im guessing the number is somewhere around 1(±1). Which means if it DOES come to that, yeah, the bigger navy with the most subs will probably win.

And all the funding to develop and install and maintain those automated systems cost money. Money they gave to the navy. Increasing the navy budget and size.

Come on guys, this isn't crazy.
User avatar #67 - bigredthunder (09/25/2014) [-]
First off Romney was explicitly talking about number of ships not funding. Secondly, there has only been 5 naval "battles" since 2000 and during all of those only 3 ships were sunk. Massive naval battles with huge fleets slugging it out is never going to happen again. What we need now is a streamlined quick response navy that can assist ground units more effectively. This means a smaller navy. Fact is we simply don't need a huge ass navy and having one would be horrific waste of money that could be put to better use in other areas.
#71 - wyldek (09/25/2014) [-]
And we know it's never going to happen again how? WW1 was called "The war to end all wars". I'm sure they thought everything was going to be fine after that too. WW2 showed us that all it takes is one charismatic crazy to start a big ass fight. I can think of several crazies in positions of power RIGHT NOW.

And if we're scattered all over the globe like the dumbass world police we're trying to be, we WILL need more ships to support the troops all over the damn planet. Best way to have a quick response is to be in a lot of places at once. Smaller ships maybe, but more of them in strategic places to support troops. We have less warships than countries we have troops in right now.

User avatar #49 - whitie (09/25/2014) [-]
Technology isnt relevant when discussing military size? Tell that to 135,000 japanese, or 80 million ( estimated ) native americans,
#51 - wyldek (09/25/2014) [-]
Yeah, there are instances of technology being very important to victories, but there are also cases where it counted for jack shit (Isandlwana anyone?), but that's not the point.

We don't have a navy for any unruly natives anymore. And the nuke was a military project funded by military money. We wouldn't have been able to develop it without the large wartime infrastructure and funding we had. One might call that a big military.

We have large a large military because there's a chance some crazy is gonna start a conventional war, which we haven't REALLY seen in decades (although Gulf War 2 counts, it was kinda short). And in a conventional war, excepting some CRAZY technological advantage, the larger military with the most resources and best logistics (all of which cost money that you're using on the military) has the advantage.

And holy shit, how did this get so off topic. I'm not even agreeing with Romney that we need a big navy. Im just saying the presidents analogy was shit.
User avatar #37 - theruinedsage (09/25/2014) [-]
Actually, you did have submarines.
www.naval-history.net/WW1NavyUS.htm
User avatar #38 - bigredthunder (09/25/2014) [-]
guess you learn something new everyday. Allow me to correct myself, we had no nuclear subs at the time
User avatar #39 - theruinedsage (09/25/2014) [-]
Now that is very true, and those present a very VERY different role from normal subs.
User avatar #33 - slenderwolf (09/25/2014) [-]
Our navy may have shrunk over the years, but it's still nothing to sneeze at.
#6 - There are more poor white people than there are black people, …  [+] (1 new reply) 09/24/2014 on pls stop 0
#22 - gtfomylawnbish (09/24/2014) [-]
Yes, because they're not niggers.
#9 - To prove defamation of character, Zoe is going to have to prov…  [+] (16 new replies) 09/24/2014 on ZQ's Ex is being sued by... +105
User avatar #26 - ldnelson (09/24/2014) [-]
Even on top of that she'd have to prove that he knew the statements were false when he made them. You can only really be guilty of liable (which this would be since it's something written rather than slander) if you knowingly make a false statement with malicious intent. Basically you're only guilty if you purposefully disregard the truth to harm another's character.
#58 - rainyeyes (09/25/2014) [-]
is that true for US civil law? that can't be right, it's too logical and pragmatic
User avatar #77 - schneidend (09/25/2014) [-]
I think you're taken the "you can sue anybody for anything in America" myth too literally.
#79 - rainyeyes (09/25/2014) [-]
no because i've heard some really weird decisions and case law made in the US

like how at drug raids they'll weigh the pot and the soil of a marijuana plant as part of the trafficked drug... not sure how the logic goes.
User avatar #84 - itembox (09/25/2014) [-]
The main point in those cases is to give the criminal the longest sentence possible. Personally don't give two shits what people do with weed but if someones dealing meth or cocaine I won't them gone for good.
User avatar #65 - ldnelson (09/25/2014) [-]
Libel and slander laws in the US are actually really though for anyone making the allegation. It comes from the New York Times v. Sullivan case in the 60s. The Court didn't want civil litigation to be used as a way to attack the 1st Amendment right to free speech/press. Since the fines themselves can have a chilling effect on people writing stories on contentious issues the Court made it hard to win a judgment.
#21 - blerdegerb (09/24/2014) [-]
well thats comforting considering that SJW are widely known for their ability to prove their points to be true and their opposition's points as false
#27 - gameshredder (09/24/2014) [-]
"Your honor, this man has tainted my reputation and promoted hate speech against women!"

"Alright, show us the evidence."

"I SHOULDN'T HAVE TO PROVE MYSELF TO YOU!"
User avatar #133 - RiflemanFunny (09/25/2014) [-]
If this is a civil case in front of a jury, the poor fuck is doomed. Because Juries are fucking retarded.
User avatar #85 - glorinar (09/25/2014) [-]
Tell the judge to check his privilege. I bet he's a CIS White Male.
#64 - databutt (09/25/2014) [-]
#22 - chimi (09/24/2014) [-]
wait what?
#23 - blerdegerb (09/24/2014) [-]
thats my sarcasm through text, my point is that SJW are not known for using logic and the like to legitimately support, let alone, prove their claims
User avatar #81 - raynagrimm (09/25/2014) [-]
what #34 said, and if you must sarcasm us the /s at the end for sarcasm font
#34 - xxxsonic fanxxx (09/25/2014) [-]
Please do not attempt sarcasm though the internet, it's always hit and miss.
#10 - reginleif Comment deleted by wyldek
[ 247 Total ]

Comments(0):

 

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
No comments!
 Friends (0)