Tuesday, February 7, 2012


previous post: LEttingGO



  1. hahahahahahahhxbahbshxba.. Fuckin’ stupid duck face. Oh, and firrrrrst!!!

  2. vaginalroundhouse

    Yeah I agree snap

  3. She’s a little old to be doing the duck face, too. Grow up, bitch.

  4. This isn’t a duckface, it’s a duckass — too much pucker and not enough pooch.

  5. Yeah, that’s not a duckface at all. She’s just puckered up.
    That guy was probably sitting on that joke awhile and then jumped the gun, no pun intended.

  6. Duckface…pucker….cum catch…. false hairlip… call it what you want… she’s still a douche….

  7. Please make this a response fad. XD

  8. I certainly hope no girls makes such an awful face while catching cum. Open mouth is definitely the way to go.
    Who the fuck convinced stupid women this face looked good on anyone in the first place?

  9. Codename Dutchess

    She has a definite ‘trout pout’ but the guy who self submitted this is an even bigger doucher. Keep your dick in your pants, dude. If your post is *that* funny someone will take the liberty of posting it for you.

  10. she’s compelling me to rip up bread and throw it at my monitor.

  11. But he’s wrong. It’s wabbit season!

  12. Nothing is as lame as a self-submitter.

  13. Why do you idiots think that whether something is funny depends upon who submits it? Whether a thing is funny doesn’t depend upon whether it is submitted by its author.
    If you dislike self-submitters, do you similarly dislike people who tell jokes in public, or comedians? Ok, granted, most comedians are not funny, but in principle they could be.

  14. Codename Dutchess

    mad- You’re making a false equivalency, this isn’t the same as a comedian or someone who makes jokes in public. This is akin to a person who talks about how they told a joke in public. The equivalent of, “Oh hey, guys! LOOGIT me and the razor sharp quip that I made on this person’s Facebook!” For all we know this girl immediately owned this dude after he made this comment.

    And also, fuck you for calling me/us idiots you pompous ass.

  15. Yeah, I would’ve been fine with “us idiots.” But I think it’s “trout pout” FTW.

  16. Obviously I’m reading too much into this. I thought the shooting reference was to do with 25 mm caliber ammunition, as used in the M242 Bushmaster chain fed auto cannon, which I’m sure you’ll agree is aptly named given that she was sitting on it.

    Turns out its a song by a gentleman with an absurdly straight hairline. I’m quite out of touch with the pop music these days.

  17. definitely self-submitted.. and definitely lame. PEACE..

  18. Are you guys really deciding what kind of face this is, the fact is : its stupid either way. Also, ‘most comedians aren’t funny’ ?? The fuck kind of lonely world do you live in.

  19. he’s a fucking liar, or has lousy aim.
    that bitch wasn’t shot.

  20. ^Sometimes ya gotta shoot a bitch..

  21. @Anne your skills of deduction are amazing.

  22. @MarioLizard your skills of sarcasm are shit.

  23. @Both of you Your skills of fighting are leveling up

  24. mad is a self submitter…tis okay mad, we forgive you. This time.

  25. ^Speak for yourself.. I dont forgive you!

  26. Dutchess, you are nonetheless missing the point. Whether something is funny does not depend upon whether the submitter was also the author.
    Also, it is possible that the last line’s author was later ‘owned’ regardless of who submits it or how long they wait.
    Thus, you idiots should stop caring about who submits.

  27. Actually I’ve never submitted anything one way or the other. Nor have I got a FB account to find things to submit.

  28. *pats mad on head* no fb account?? Now we know why you are so angry..you’re disconnected from the world!!

  29. Codename Dutchess

    mad- Your argument undermines the entire point of this site; its about funny things that people find online, not a site dedicated to people who wish to capture their own burns and post them for the world to see. You should stop being a self righteous asshat who fails to see anything other than your own dick. When people submit their own material it makes them look like self obsessed fucktards. You might not give a shit where the content comes from but you are in the minority.

  30. Technically all the comments are people submitting their own material. So yeah… I guess the point about looking like self-obsessed fucktards stands.

    But the question remains unanswered. How does the submitter looking like a self-obsessed fucktard affect in anyway the humour (or lack thereof) inherent in the substance of their post?

  31. I think you should stop being a hairy necrophiliac with warts on his penis and a blue waffle in his ass. And while you’re at it, stop being a 42-year-old, dried-semen-crusted, front-assed loner who dresses in Star Trek expendable crew member uniforms.

    That’s not directed at anyone, I’m just adding useless insults.

  32. Codename Dutchess

    Cruntox– Technically, if I emailed my buddies telling them about my comments or posted them on a site in the hopes that others would comment on my remarks you would have a point. As it stands, you’re making another false equivalencey. I assume the majority of people post on here for self amusement.

    But I made my point pretty clear,self submitting is the equivalent of choosing to tell people about your joke rather than having someone acknowledge your joke. One involves and individual choosing to publicize their own self righteous humor and the other is people saying, “hey this is funny.” Fake posts and self submit posts are one in the same; they both come off as staged and unauthentic.

  33. The fact that you are dense enough to not understand the question despite it having been rephrased three different ways speaks volumes. Either a post is funny, or it isn’t. The relationship between the submitter and the submitted material has no bearing on it.

    But… Far be it from me to stand in the way of your incessant whining.

  34. Codename Dutchess

    Cruntox/mad– Your question has an obvious answer, the only person who is whining is you. If you don’t understand the difference between drawing attention to yourself and other drawing attention to you there is no point in trying to explain the difference.

  35. No-one said I failed to see the difference between drawing attention to myself and having someone else draw attention to me. That’s another completely irrelevant concept that you have introduced into the discussion in an attempt to avoid answering the actual question – namely:
    “How does the relationship of the submitter to the content affect the inherent humour of the content itself?”

    It may have an obvious answer. But you a) haven’t come close to addressing it, b) are unlikely to develop the requisite cognitive skills to do so in the near future, and c) considering this, will ultimately feed your compulsive need to have the last word by posting yet more unrelated drivel.

  36. When you post to FB, your friends see it. When you send that to Lamebook, not only do your friends see it, but a small number of cantankerous puppy petters do as well. So you broaden your audience.
    I would argue that this site is for showing funny things on social networking sites. It doesn’t matter if the submission came to the attention of the site via some third party or via the original author.
    In general, in fact, how funny something is depends only upon the thing itself, not who brings it to our attention. Indeed, I’m not asking a question so much as making a statement: ‘It is obviously the case that the identity of the submitter does not affect, either positively or negatively, the hilarity content of the submission itself.’

    You may argue that self-submissions lack the ‘third party screening’ process, and so are less LIKELY to be funny (I concur), you may argue that self-submitting is in bad taste (I disagree), but a submission being self-submitted cannot itself affect how funny it is.

  37. I guess it is the same as not laughing at a joke coz you dont like the person who made it. If you had heard the joke from someone else. You may have been rolling on the floor with laughter. The joke in itself is hilarious, but it was brought to you in the wrong manner. So ya I agree wit mad, if you bother yourself with technicalities, you will lead one sad, humourless life.

  38. Fuck up #Isaythatalot … Oh sorry, wrong site.

  39. Glad mad2pysicist completely misses the point. I never said it wasn’t funny, I said self-submitting is lame, which it is. He sat there with his little joke, waiting for her to reply so he could screen-cap it a few seconds after posting his ‘burn’, just to post on here – most likely giving himself a high five in the process. Lame.

  40. ^ What’s wrong with giving yourself a high five?

  41. It’s impossible unless it’s an upside down hi five.

  42. ^ That makes no sense.

  43. ^unless you have one of those fucked-up genetic deformities.

  44. I got high five times today

  45. Wait, how many times did you get high-fived?

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.