x
Click to expand

wyldek

Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: male
Date Signed Up:4/21/2011
Last Login:2/27/2015
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#36183
Highest Content Rank:#7541
Highest Comment Rank:#7567
Content Thumbs: 333 total,  446 ,  113
Comment Thumbs: 847 total,  1392 ,  545
Content Level Progress: 10% (1/10)
Level 32 Content: Peasant → Level 33 Content: Peasant
Comment Level Progress: 60% (6/10)
Level 183 Comments: Anon Annihilator → Level 184 Comments: Anon Annihilator
Subscribers:0
Content Views:23092
Times Content Favorited:25 times
Total Comments Made:272
FJ Points:1183
Favorite Tags: ponies (2)

Funny Pictures

1 2 > [ 7 Funny Pictures Total ]

YouTube Videos

  • Views: 1160
    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

#17 - Anyone interested here's an interesting book with photos and i… 02/26/2015 on Cthulhu Bestiary-... +1
#4 - Woah! When did Fury in the comic become black?  [+] (5 new replies) 02/17/2015 on avengers-morphing-comic-cinema 0
#20 - angelusprimus (02/18/2015) [-]
In the comics Nick Fury became the new Watcher, and left earth.
His son Nicholas Fury jr. Who is black (Fury likes to dip in chocolate) is now working for the shield.
Nick Fury jr. is based on Ultimate Fury and movie Fury.
User avatar #16 - vampiricmalice (02/18/2015) [-]
He has been black since the Ultimate universe launched almost 15 years ago
User avatar #18 - cptcanada (02/18/2015) [-]
you are correct
User avatar #9 - kerfufflemachtwo (02/18/2015) [-]
He's black in the Ultimate universe, not the main one.

In fact, if I remember right, when they first did the ultimate universe, they modeled that Fury after Samuel.
#8 - anthonyhart (02/17/2015) [-]
i think these are from the updated comic that are based on the movies. idk for sure though so im pretty much talking out of my ass but it would make sense
#22 - It is if we insist on being "World Police" and pissi…  [+] (3 new replies) 02/17/2015 on rekt -1
#37 - bobfreakingdole (02/17/2015) [-]
I don't think we should be isolationist but neither can we be world police. In my opinion we should work with international organizations like the UN, EU, and NATO to try to promote stability and peace and stop unilateral incursions into other countries. Sending our military as part of an international peace keeping effort is justifiable, but acting like a unipolar hegemony is both unfeasible and damages our capability to support ourselves at home.

Our infrastructure is falling, our school systems are crap, we have the highest rate of incarceration in the world and we spend most of our discretionary budget on a military that is simply unnecessary in this day and age. The american people suffer as a result of our single minded pursuit of absolute military supremacy in a world where our only enemies left are religious fanatics hiding in caves and building bombs out of fertilizer. I do not advocate total disarmament but it is not and should not be our job to dictate domestic policy to other countries at the end of a gun.
User avatar #33 - donatelo (02/17/2015) [-]
damn mitt romney, took you a while to make a comeback
User avatar #29 - thegoblingamer (02/17/2015) [-]
I remember my history professor my sophomore year of college changed my view of the US foreign policy and how, because of it, something like 9/11 was bound to happen, and we only can really blame ourselves (don't misinterpret what I'm saying. Innocent people don't deserve to die, ever. It can never be justified, BUT something was bound to happen because of our "World Police" shit).
#16 - While certainly each individual ship is more powerful, war is …  [+] (10 new replies) 02/17/2015 on rekt -2
#186 - battletechmech (02/18/2015) [-]
Luckily we're not Batman trying to take with a plan to take on the entire Justice League at once, heh heh
#21 - bobfreakingdole (02/17/2015) [-]
we have 10 air craft carrier groups. Britain has the second most with 2 and france has the third most with 1 if i recall correctly. Compared to any other single country (or most of them combined) our navy dwarfs theirs. Also as you pointed out we aren't fighting any wars now or in the foreseeable future where we will need to project power across more than one theater, so a world-spanning navy just isn't neccesary
User avatar #23 - compared (02/17/2015) [-]
Thanks a lot for using a comparison, hope you are well.
#22 - wyldek (02/17/2015) [-]
It is if we insist on being "World Police" and pissing everyone off like we've been doing since the cold war. The world has become increasingly unstable in the last couple years or so, so our job as dumbass world police is going to get more difficult.

I'm all for a military reduction, but it would require a huge change in the way we view ourselves and the world. Not to mention NATO would have a shit-fit if we cut spending too much.

We can't have it both ways. Either leave people alone and have a smaller military, or piss people off and make sure you can back it up.
#37 - bobfreakingdole (02/17/2015) [-]
I don't think we should be isolationist but neither can we be world police. In my opinion we should work with international organizations like the UN, EU, and NATO to try to promote stability and peace and stop unilateral incursions into other countries. Sending our military as part of an international peace keeping effort is justifiable, but acting like a unipolar hegemony is both unfeasible and damages our capability to support ourselves at home.

Our infrastructure is falling, our school systems are crap, we have the highest rate of incarceration in the world and we spend most of our discretionary budget on a military that is simply unnecessary in this day and age. The american people suffer as a result of our single minded pursuit of absolute military supremacy in a world where our only enemies left are religious fanatics hiding in caves and building bombs out of fertilizer. I do not advocate total disarmament but it is not and should not be our job to dictate domestic policy to other countries at the end of a gun.
User avatar #33 - donatelo (02/17/2015) [-]
damn mitt romney, took you a while to make a comeback
User avatar #29 - thegoblingamer (02/17/2015) [-]
I remember my history professor my sophomore year of college changed my view of the US foreign policy and how, because of it, something like 9/11 was bound to happen, and we only can really blame ourselves (don't misinterpret what I'm saying. Innocent people don't deserve to die, ever. It can never be justified, BUT something was bound to happen because of our "World Police" shit).
#19 - anonexplains (02/17/2015) [-]
I dunno man. You seen them Apache helicopters? I hear they have machine guns AND missles.

Really though, you dont need that much stuff to cover the ground we need to cover when scouting is as easy as using a joystick from a base in america to control a drone flying higher than a person can see and our pilots fly at supersonic speeds. Know how much ground they can cover? A metric shit ton.
#27 - localbees (02/17/2015) [-]
User avatar #25 - magictheg (02/17/2015) [-]
Naw, man, they got fucking cannons, missiles AND rockets
#15 - Comment deleted 02/17/2015 on rekt 0
#11 - Obviously. But Romney didn't say a thing about bayonets. The c…  [+] (3 new replies) 02/17/2015 on rekt -5
User avatar #461 - anonymoose (02/18/2015) [-]
America has less ships but more strength and size. The largest American ship in 1917 weighed less than 1/3rd the largest American ship today.
User avatar #119 - mistafishy (02/18/2015) [-]
Bruh,

We don't need a bigger navy, we have the largest naval capacity of any nation on planet Earth. We also never played "world police," we just thinly veiled the fact that we were at war with communism.

As far as modern warfare goes, we haven't fought a symmetrical war in a long time, but, if we needed to, we are still very well equipped to do so. Russia and China are the most dangerous opponents we have at the moment, but we also have allies up our ass so it'd still be like fighting asymmetrical warfare against one or both of those nations.

And we fire missiles nowadays... so... bayonets are kind of obsolete....
#13 - ukulisti (02/17/2015) [-]
Did you miss the third picture?
#9 - I don't get it. Is Obama equating modern ships with horses and…  [+] (34 new replies) 02/17/2015 on rekt -135
User avatar #395 - greyhoundfd (02/18/2015) [-]
Previously, because sea combat was mainly between ships, sheer strength of numbers was incredibly critical. Now however, with the advent of air warfare and more advanced methods of fighting, sea superiority requires a lot fewer ships. Two aircraft carriers and maybe five destroyer-sized ships can enforce military power over an area for which 50 ships might have been required 100 years ago.

The image of the battleship, bristling with guns and ready to fire on anything nearby is a nice idea, but no longer really applicable. If inter-fleet warfare actually happens, it's conducted using long range anti-ship missiles. Battlefield and Call of Duty may be fun, but the inaccurate images occur for more than just the ground combat. Air and sea wars are fairly boring. You might have an hour of preparation, but the actual fight itself occurs between two aircraft kilometers away from each other, usually by firing a couple missiles and hoping that that does the job.
#351 - shigiddy (02/18/2015) [-]
Which would you rather have: ten Apache helicopter, or 5,000 cavalry?

Numbers don't equate to power.
#347 - anonexplains (02/18/2015) [-]
He is also pointing out the flaw in Romney's argument:

"Our Navy is smaller now than anytime since 1917."

So what? That doesn't mean that Obama's attention towards our national defense has decreased. Romney was grasping at rhetoric to make it seem like Obama is a bad president, but Obama used an actual answer that destroyed his.

Not saying that Obama is not guilty of using rhetoric. In fact, he uses it quite often, and so does every politician. Our country needs to learn to recognize it when we see it and learn to evaluate the core premises of any political argument.
#14 - bobfreakingdole (02/17/2015) [-]
The size of the navy has decreased but not its effective power. We need a lot fewer ships when we have monstrously sized air craft carriers powered by nuclear reactors. Our navy isn't any weaker its just different. He is pointing out that Mitt Romney has a poor working understanding of how our military has changed over time
User avatar #371 - amsel (02/18/2015) [-]
I'm almost certain he was actually trying to say the Navy is less important now, sort of like cavalry which is a stupid statement . If that isn't what he was trying to say, then he did a really bad job not saying that.
#373 - anonexplains (02/18/2015) [-]
Yea, not even close. Since you don't get it, he was saying that while our navy may be smaller, it's not weaker. The technology we've gotten has increased the power of our ships and made the older ones obsolete. Just like with horses and bayonets, you don't see them much anymore because they just wont work well in the current state of the military.
User avatar #386 - amsel (02/18/2015) [-]
But that's not the same at all. We have just as much (well actually far more) infantry and guns as we did back then, they just aren't bayonets and horses. Comparing the Navy to bayonets and horses is saying the Navy itself is outdated and has been replaced by other things.
User avatar #288 - hellomynameisbill (02/18/2015) [-]
That, and the fact that you don't drive a freighter straight into the Iraqi desert.
User avatar #428 - jaggedherp (02/18/2015) [-]
Don't tell me what to do
User avatar #271 - cerbearus (02/18/2015) [-]
Each SSBN is the world's third largest nuclear power.
User avatar #168 - slowshade (02/18/2015) [-]
A fair point if your just thinking about raw power, but if anything asymmetric warfare would demand more weaker ships not fewer more powerful ones. Obviously no one can go head to head with US but if your trying to stop hit and run attacks and intercept small fast strike forces wouldn't that be easier with a lot of smaller, faster, ships instead of one massive carrier?





User avatar #289 - Mortuus (02/18/2015) [-]
Carriers never sail alone. Ever. There's always a destroyer or cruiser escort.

That said, US carriers are capable of defending themselves, without their aircraft, against ships equaling the size of a frigate. Smaller ships are easily dealt with as well.
User avatar #217 - wrpen (02/18/2015) [-]
Not so when that massive carrier has thirty something flying metal contraptions that shoot 30,000 pounds of lead in your direction at speeds faster than any one human being could perceive while flying by at half that.
User avatar #161 - wotterpatch (02/18/2015) [-]
No it's way weaker, but that's for a different reason.
We focused our navy entirely on big aircraft carriers and long range missile cruisers...we have very little defensive ships.


Which is a problem because Russia's Navy is entirely submarines, and we have a very weak anti-submarine force right now...
#41 - anonexplains (02/17/2015) [-]
size and effective power of air force have changed I can tell you that from experience, more is demanded of our military with less provided to us and frankly it shows in our moral every general and commander that briefs us has to mention that fact and tell us that we have to be the best in order to meet the demands theyre putting on us... constant reminders that they are aiming to shrink our military while giving us more jobs to do and more missions, Im a technician so my job remains the same no matter what but my combat comm buddy has been fucked by the lowered number in our military
#340 - anonexplains (02/18/2015) [-]
marale*
#407 - ironsoul (02/18/2015) [-]
MORALE
#16 - wyldek (02/17/2015) [-]
While certainly each individual ship is more powerful, war is not a one-sided venture. So while our navy is more powerful with less ships than before, so is everybody elses.

Granted, the US is not in a conventional war, so force reduction is an obvious step to take. But we DO have a very aggressive foreign policy. We have less than 300 warships, and we have troops stationed in over 150 countries (thanks wikipedia). So we have a lot of ground to cover, and not much to cover it with.
#186 - battletechmech (02/18/2015) [-]
Luckily we're not Batman trying to take with a plan to take on the entire Justice League at once, heh heh
#21 - bobfreakingdole (02/17/2015) [-]
we have 10 air craft carrier groups. Britain has the second most with 2 and france has the third most with 1 if i recall correctly. Compared to any other single country (or most of them combined) our navy dwarfs theirs. Also as you pointed out we aren't fighting any wars now or in the foreseeable future where we will need to project power across more than one theater, so a world-spanning navy just isn't neccesary
User avatar #23 - compared (02/17/2015) [-]
Thanks a lot for using a comparison, hope you are well.
#22 - wyldek (02/17/2015) [-]
It is if we insist on being "World Police" and pissing everyone off like we've been doing since the cold war. The world has become increasingly unstable in the last couple years or so, so our job as dumbass world police is going to get more difficult.

I'm all for a military reduction, but it would require a huge change in the way we view ourselves and the world. Not to mention NATO would have a shit-fit if we cut spending too much.

We can't have it both ways. Either leave people alone and have a smaller military, or piss people off and make sure you can back it up.
#37 - bobfreakingdole (02/17/2015) [-]
I don't think we should be isolationist but neither can we be world police. In my opinion we should work with international organizations like the UN, EU, and NATO to try to promote stability and peace and stop unilateral incursions into other countries. Sending our military as part of an international peace keeping effort is justifiable, but acting like a unipolar hegemony is both unfeasible and damages our capability to support ourselves at home.

Our infrastructure is falling, our school systems are crap, we have the highest rate of incarceration in the world and we spend most of our discretionary budget on a military that is simply unnecessary in this day and age. The american people suffer as a result of our single minded pursuit of absolute military supremacy in a world where our only enemies left are religious fanatics hiding in caves and building bombs out of fertilizer. I do not advocate total disarmament but it is not and should not be our job to dictate domestic policy to other countries at the end of a gun.
User avatar #33 - donatelo (02/17/2015) [-]
damn mitt romney, took you a while to make a comeback
User avatar #29 - thegoblingamer (02/17/2015) [-]
I remember my history professor my sophomore year of college changed my view of the US foreign policy and how, because of it, something like 9/11 was bound to happen, and we only can really blame ourselves (don't misinterpret what I'm saying. Innocent people don't deserve to die, ever. It can never be justified, BUT something was bound to happen because of our "World Police" shit).
#19 - anonexplains (02/17/2015) [-]
I dunno man. You seen them Apache helicopters? I hear they have machine guns AND missles.

Really though, you dont need that much stuff to cover the ground we need to cover when scouting is as easy as using a joystick from a base in america to control a drone flying higher than a person can see and our pilots fly at supersonic speeds. Know how much ground they can cover? A metric shit ton.
#27 - localbees (02/17/2015) [-]
User avatar #25 - magictheg (02/17/2015) [-]
Naw, man, they got fucking cannons, missiles AND rockets
#15 - wyldek has deleted their comment.
#10 - anonexplains (02/17/2015) [-]
You're a dense lump of scheisse
There are less bayonets because there are other and more effective weapons

#11 - wyldek (02/17/2015) [-]
Obviously. But Romney didn't say a thing about bayonets. The comparison between a modern navy and bayonets doesn't make any sense. The two are entirely unrelated. Romney isn't talking about rowboats, he's talking about modern warships.

"Our modern navy is small."

"Silly Romney, bayonets don't work anymore."

How are the two even slightly related?
User avatar #461 - anonymoose (02/18/2015) [-]
America has less ships but more strength and size. The largest American ship in 1917 weighed less than 1/3rd the largest American ship today.
User avatar #119 - mistafishy (02/18/2015) [-]
Bruh,

We don't need a bigger navy, we have the largest naval capacity of any nation on planet Earth. We also never played "world police," we just thinly veiled the fact that we were at war with communism.

As far as modern warfare goes, we haven't fought a symmetrical war in a long time, but, if we needed to, we are still very well equipped to do so. Russia and China are the most dangerous opponents we have at the moment, but we also have allies up our ass so it'd still be like fighting asymmetrical warfare against one or both of those nations.

And we fire missiles nowadays... so... bayonets are kind of obsolete....
#13 - ukulisti (02/17/2015) [-]
Did you miss the third picture?
#396 - Except that in traditional Muslim societies, its enforced by m… 02/17/2015 on oppression 0
#11 - Hey lady, if you want to willingly wear a symbol of your gende…  [+] (22 new replies) 02/15/2015 on oppression -14
#315 - anonexplains (02/16/2015) [-]
To comment #39: Westerners don't kill women for not wearing a bikini....so there's that.
#61 - falbwuh (02/16/2015) [-]
In many cases previously oppressed people will flaunt the symbols of their past oppression as symbols of empowerment.

The most widespread example of this today is the word "nigger". Black people took the word and made it theirs.
#58 - explodingpenguins (02/16/2015) [-]
It's not a symbol of oppression. It's a symbol of faith.
In their culture, personal beauty is sacred and only to be shared with loved ones.
That's pretty fuckin beautiful compared to western culture's more skin = more attractive routine

It's only seen as oppression if the woman is forced to dress that way against her will. This woman is free.
#396 - wyldek (02/17/2015) [-]
Except that in traditional Muslim societies, its enforced by men. So it's less "My beauty is only for my loved ones" and more "Her beauty is only for me".
#371 - anonexplains (02/16/2015) [-]
Right I think it's only an issue in certain countries and cultures where women are arrested or even killed for refusing to wear cultural attire, and that is why many people here give it a bag stigma. When you hear or see the stories of actual oppression towards females over there, it is pretty fucked up.
User avatar #113 - compared (02/16/2015) [-]
Thanks a lot for using a comparison, hope you are well.
User avatar #389 - explodingpenguins (02/17/2015) [-]
I don't know why you're getting red thumbed here
I like you
User avatar #392 - compared (02/17/2015) [-]
Sadly some people don't. :/
User avatar #56 - sinonyx (02/16/2015) [-]
yeah! women shouldn't wear a hijab, it oppresses them! just like black people don't say 'nigger'


oh wait a second
#43 - masterboll (02/16/2015) [-]
its used to oppress women in some cultures which openly oppress women, but dont use that as an excuse to call every hijab a "symbol of gender oppression"

the hijab pisses many non-muslims off even when those women arent being oppressed. there are entire groups of non-muslims who desperately try to push the view that muslim women are being forced to wear the hijab, even when muslim women choose to wear it in well-developed, democratic societies.

as hard as it may be for you to believe, not everyone wants to live their lives the same way you do
#39 - anonexplains (02/16/2015) [-]
You could call bikinis a symbol of western gender oppression (hypersexualization of women as sex objects).
It's their culture just as much as being a whore is western culture.
So long as you're not hurting anyone else, it's your choice.
#312 - anonexplains (02/16/2015) [-]
Except westerners don't kill women for not wearing bikinis.....so yea there's that.
#311 - anonexplains (02/16/2015) [-]
Except westerners don't kill women for not wearing bikinis....so there's that too..
#288 - skaffanl (02/16/2015) [-]
#150 - anonexplains (02/16/2015) [-]
And if you're a man and don't wear underwear you get arrested too. All sexual organs of both genders are covered in the west, not because of a religion, but because most people don't want to see in during the day in public. Obviously bras are a grey area because while boobs can be argued to be sexual, they're not a sexual organ.
User avatar #134 - captainsweden (02/16/2015) [-]
Just thirty years ago it was regular for women in sweden to be bathing topless. Talk about being born in the wrong generation man. I have only seen two women topless at the beach and both where probably in their 40's and had small pointy and black nipples
#118 - anonexplains (02/16/2015) [-]
Except you don't get brutally murdered for not wearing a bikini, retardanon
User avatar #331 - yohado (02/16/2015) [-]
You don't get brutally murdered if you don't wear a hijab (or even told anything in most muslim countries I believe). Read before stating BS nigga.
User avatar #100 - thewilder (02/16/2015) [-]
Fucking nailed it Anon.
User avatar #108 - voltkills (02/16/2015) [-]
except no, a bikini is a choice, if you dont wear a hijab is saudi arabia you get fucking arrested.
#309 - anonexplains (02/16/2015) [-]
Except the content isn't about women who are forced to wear a hijab, it's about women who choose to wear one even when given the choice.
User avatar #126 - thewilder (02/16/2015) [-]
Oh absolutely. I was talking about women outside the "stuck in the middle age mentality" places. I totally agree that Hijab being forced on women in places like that is retarded. Anything being forced on anyone. It's opressive as fuck, that¨s pretty obvious, nothing to discuss there. But in 1st world countries, this comparsion is very fitting I feel.
#3 - That's really dumb. Not every woman benefits, just like not ev…  [+] (8 new replies) 02/15/2015 on How Fat Acceptance Works +75
User avatar #63 - Tusura (02/16/2015) [-]
Grade curve:

I got a 75%

The highest in the class got a 90%.
Highest in the class is bumped to 100%. All other grades are raised 10% due to the curve.

I just got an 85%! Woohoo.

EXAMPLE 2:
Everyone scores 0%. Highest grade gets raised to 100%. All others get bumped up by the difference between highest grade an 100%.

Everyone goes up 100%. Everyone gets 100.
User avatar #57 - derpthefifth (02/16/2015) [-]
But in this case, if you could actually force people to find fat chicks attractive than the standard would be lower and hot chicks would still look hot by that standard, even better in fact....
Personally i don't think i'll ever consider a fat chick average looking, that's just me though.
#11 - mpghbombsaway (02/16/2015) [-]
Well in theory if the "score" necessary for a C was lowered by people scoring incredibly low and thus changing the curve, the individual who had a C grade before might be bumped up to a B by the change in the curve.

Essentially, average women become hotter due to fat acceptance without having to change their appearance at all. But you are correct in saying it does not benefit every woman as those on the lower end of the curve are simply changing the curve and not benefitting from the change.
User avatar #4 - wotterpatch (02/16/2015) [-]
No, you misunderstand.
The example is if everyone hands in nothing. If nobody puts down a single answer, everyone will get 100%
User avatar #89 - yunoavailable (02/16/2015) [-]
yes, and if everyone get's 100% then the person who already got A+'s loses out because instead of being exceptional they are average
#55 - captnnorway (02/16/2015) [-]
If girl A usually scores 80 and girl B usually scores 40 and they both get set down to 0, girl A loses 80 points while B only loses 40. Girl A, while still "beautiful" loses whatever edge she had over her competitors. Clearly she's losing out here.
#13 - wraithguard (02/16/2015) [-]
The percentile system doesn't work when you reduce the score spread to zero.
#9 - anonexplains (02/16/2015) [-]
Nope.
[ 271 Total ]

Comments(0):

 
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
No comments!
 Friends (0)