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

hide menu

UnoSkullmanx    

Rank #4081 on Comments
no avatar Level 218 Comments: Comedic Genius
Online
Send mail to UnoSkullmanx Block UnoSkullmanx Invite UnoSkullmanx to be your friend
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:8/08/2010
Last Login:10/24/2014
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#4081
Highest Content Rank:#5230
Highest Comment Rank:#3691
Content Thumbs: 499 total,  684 ,  185
Comment Thumbs: 2155 total,  4088 ,  1933
Content Level Progress: 80% (8/10)
Level 49 Content: Sammich eater → Level 50 Content: Sammich eater
Comment Level Progress: 23% (23/100)
Level 218 Comments: Comedic Genius → Level 219 Comments: Comedic Genius
Subscribers:5
Content Views:40848
Times Content Favorited:5 times
Total Comments Made:1209
FJ Points:2489

latest user's comments

#124 - paper mills replant the trees they cut down if it wer… 10/07/2013 on Ironic 0
#28 - That equation is completely wrong; 2[a-x] = 2a-2x whi…  [+] (1 new reply) 10/04/2013 on Good point.. 0
User avatar #29 - danielsturk (10/04/2013) [-]
Yeah it made sense up until the final statement
#43 - Nobody's saying that but you. This is clearly a joke. Lighten up. 10/03/2013 on Dem Liberals -1
#52 - Again, I never claimed to know more than a government scientis…  [+] (5 new replies) 09/30/2013 on This Week In Science (9/29/13) -4
User avatar #85 - gammajk (09/30/2013) [-]
No, you aren't "skeptical", you just deny everything that is clearly evident because you don't trust the government for asinine reasons. Literally all the research done on global warming is readily available, that's how science works. You can check ANY concerns you have using any amount of scientific data and analysis. Real skeptics actually make an attempt to find the truth. You don't.
User avatar #55 - thegamegestapo (09/30/2013) [-]
*Scientists, plural.

The evidence in favour of humanity being the primary cause of climate change is overwhelming, the evidence against is negligible. Denying it after the numerous independent studies conducted is on par with denying evolution in terms of sheer ignorance.

Based on current estimates we have sixty years to "wait and see" before we start causing irreversible damage. In the fight against pollution you're on pollution's side.

Please don't reproduce.
User avatar #58 - nervaaurelius (09/30/2013) [-]
thecontributor.com/why-climate-deniers-have-no-scientific-credibility-one-pie-chart

Most scientists on the subject already agree that climate change is happening and around the same percentage agree it's man made. It's not even a hot debate anymore. It's almost like intelligent design to biologists. At this point it's pretty much a political discussion. If humanity becomes devastated due to our inability to do anything about our affect on the environment then I say we deserve it cause we were to ignorant to stop our own downfall.
#253 - teenytinyspider (10/01/2013) [-]
WE ARE doing shit about it, but the alternatives are either still in development or are too expensive for most people to afford. Many first world nations have made great strives to reduce carbon emissions and pollutions from their factories. In fact, right now, China is the most pollutant country in the world, but they barely give a shit about themselves.

I think some of the pollution was caused by the industrial age and up towards maybe the 80's, and this is just a theory, because back in those times, they didn't give a shit about what they were emitting and what they dumped into rivers and streams and into the ground.
#59 - thegamegestapo (09/30/2013) [-]
Kind of sucks though, huh?

Here's hoping we pull our head out of our ass in time.
#50 - The problem is, coal is a lot cheaper than solar energy at the…  [+] (4 new replies) 09/30/2013 on This Week In Science (9/29/13) 0
User avatar #66 - lumpymandude (09/30/2013) [-]
Nuclear is the future
User avatar #71 - bigbonew (09/30/2013) [-]
User avatar #76 - lumpymandude (09/30/2013) [-]
I watched the vid, not bad. Do you know if anyone is using thorium yet and if it's been successful or not.
User avatar #78 - bigbonew (09/30/2013) [-]
This technology is now new. i the early 70's there where some of them around the world but they were surpassed by the other nuclear facilities. after Tschernobyl and the following anti-nuclear-movement there where no further studies to that.
Its a pity that because of these ignorant twats the real nuclear energy solution is pushed into a topic no politican wants to touch.
#48 - Government scientists* I distrust anything government…  [+] (9 new replies) 09/30/2013 on This Week In Science (9/29/13) -2
User avatar #51 - thegamegestapo (09/30/2013) [-]
>"I don't assume that I know everything"

Claims to be better informed than actual experts.

You do realise climate change is bad for governments. It costs them money, drives up oil prices, decreases popularity, and reduces market confidence.

If you're a troll then well done, my jimmies are rustled.
User avatar #194 - skypatrol (09/30/2013) [-]
Actually, it is good for governments. The U.S. Government stopped caring about funds awhile ago.
Climate change allows them to slowly dissolve what little is left of private enterprise, and regulate everything more thoroughly. It only decreases popularity in certain areas. It increases popularity in green technology, which isn't efficient enough, as of yet. This gets politicians re-elected.
The PEOPLE hate climate change, because it costs them money, drives up oil prices, etc.
#52 - UnoSkullmanx (09/30/2013) [-]
Again, I never claimed to know more than a government scientist (though the amount that he knows is suspect), I just said that based on what I know, I'm skeptical (not the user, the concept). Could be wrong, we'll just have to wait and see. If it turns out you are trolling, then it works out better for me because you're hurting the man made climate change faction by doing so which furthers my agenda
User avatar #85 - gammajk (09/30/2013) [-]
No, you aren't "skeptical", you just deny everything that is clearly evident because you don't trust the government for asinine reasons. Literally all the research done on global warming is readily available, that's how science works. You can check ANY concerns you have using any amount of scientific data and analysis. Real skeptics actually make an attempt to find the truth. You don't.
User avatar #55 - thegamegestapo (09/30/2013) [-]
*Scientists, plural.

The evidence in favour of humanity being the primary cause of climate change is overwhelming, the evidence against is negligible. Denying it after the numerous independent studies conducted is on par with denying evolution in terms of sheer ignorance.

Based on current estimates we have sixty years to "wait and see" before we start causing irreversible damage. In the fight against pollution you're on pollution's side.

Please don't reproduce.
User avatar #58 - nervaaurelius (09/30/2013) [-]
thecontributor.com/why-climate-deniers-have-no-scientific-credibility-one-pie-chart

Most scientists on the subject already agree that climate change is happening and around the same percentage agree it's man made. It's not even a hot debate anymore. It's almost like intelligent design to biologists. At this point it's pretty much a political discussion. If humanity becomes devastated due to our inability to do anything about our affect on the environment then I say we deserve it cause we were to ignorant to stop our own downfall.
#253 - teenytinyspider (10/01/2013) [-]
WE ARE doing shit about it, but the alternatives are either still in development or are too expensive for most people to afford. Many first world nations have made great strives to reduce carbon emissions and pollutions from their factories. In fact, right now, China is the most pollutant country in the world, but they barely give a shit about themselves.

I think some of the pollution was caused by the industrial age and up towards maybe the 80's, and this is just a theory, because back in those times, they didn't give a shit about what they were emitting and what they dumped into rivers and streams and into the ground.
#59 - thegamegestapo (09/30/2013) [-]
Kind of sucks though, huh?

Here's hoping we pull our head out of our ass in time.
User avatar #49 - skeptical (09/30/2013) [-]
No matter how hard you try none of you will ever be me
So stop it
#29 - The IPCC is a government body, so take what they say with a gr…  [+] (15 new replies) 09/30/2013 on This Week In Science (9/29/13) +9
#266 - popkornking (10/01/2013) [-]
I've heard this argument so many times, just because it has changed in the past doesn't mean the change now isn't more drastic, look at this graph (source:earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page3.php), we may be in a warm period, but this warm period is fucking j-curving higher than anything we've seen for a while. Now give me a reason for this that doesn't include the cliche "we can't trust government, etc.." please, this whole eco-phase the world is going through has done nothing for the government except provide campaigning tools and decrease gas sales.
#214 - tsaotermaster (09/30/2013) [-]
Please. Watch the Inconvenient Truth before you spew out bullcrap.
User avatar #120 - metalmind (09/30/2013) [-]
That is sadly unbased in reality.
The rise in Carbon in the atmosphere has never been so large in such a small amount of time in the earths history.
Periodical changes happen over millenia.
Significant changes happen over a few million or dozen million years.
But what is happening now is that in less than 200 years the amount of carbon in the atmosphere almost doubled and has now passed 400 ppm.
And the prognosticated rise of the ocean levels is about 3 feet, and if we stoped emmiting carbon and methane completely right now, it would still be about 1 feet.
Don't care? You should.
Either because it will destroy the environment and destabilize many costal cities,
or because 1/3 of the worlds population live less than 6 feet above the sea.
And think of the humanitarian crysis that will ensue, or at least the gigantic waves of immigrants. Or the rise in prices.
Whatever you care about, it will be effected.
And if yo live in Europe: Many parts of Europe will soon be reached by certain kinds of insects that can transmit tropical diseases, as the by now just "slight" temeratue increase has already made it possible for them to survive further north.

And the UN are impartial.

And the IPCC isn't the only one prognosticating it, it's more like the barometer of what scientists predict will happen.

I mean even the climate scientist hired by the coke brothers, who don't give a shit about the environment has come out and confirmed that it is happening, and that it is man made.
That was the guy hired to be against it.
(By the way: only 38 out of tens of thousands of climate scientists in the industrialized world disbelief human caused climate change.)
#46 - thegamegestapo (09/30/2013) [-]
>Conclusion drawn by a highly respected organisations of trained scientists, each an expert in his or her own field, based on years of scientific research and analysis
>Nah bro, I read this article on Wikipedia...
#48 - UnoSkullmanx (09/30/2013) [-]
Government scientists*

I distrust anything government related on principle. I could be wrong, bro; unlike you I don't assume that I know everything, but I'm extremely skeptical that global warming is manmade.
User avatar #51 - thegamegestapo (09/30/2013) [-]
>"I don't assume that I know everything"

Claims to be better informed than actual experts.

You do realise climate change is bad for governments. It costs them money, drives up oil prices, decreases popularity, and reduces market confidence.

If you're a troll then well done, my jimmies are rustled.
User avatar #194 - skypatrol (09/30/2013) [-]
Actually, it is good for governments. The U.S. Government stopped caring about funds awhile ago.
Climate change allows them to slowly dissolve what little is left of private enterprise, and regulate everything more thoroughly. It only decreases popularity in certain areas. It increases popularity in green technology, which isn't efficient enough, as of yet. This gets politicians re-elected.
The PEOPLE hate climate change, because it costs them money, drives up oil prices, etc.
#52 - UnoSkullmanx (09/30/2013) [-]
Again, I never claimed to know more than a government scientist (though the amount that he knows is suspect), I just said that based on what I know, I'm skeptical (not the user, the concept). Could be wrong, we'll just have to wait and see. If it turns out you are trolling, then it works out better for me because you're hurting the man made climate change faction by doing so which furthers my agenda
User avatar #85 - gammajk (09/30/2013) [-]
No, you aren't "skeptical", you just deny everything that is clearly evident because you don't trust the government for asinine reasons. Literally all the research done on global warming is readily available, that's how science works. You can check ANY concerns you have using any amount of scientific data and analysis. Real skeptics actually make an attempt to find the truth. You don't.
User avatar #55 - thegamegestapo (09/30/2013) [-]
*Scientists, plural.

The evidence in favour of humanity being the primary cause of climate change is overwhelming, the evidence against is negligible. Denying it after the numerous independent studies conducted is on par with denying evolution in terms of sheer ignorance.

Based on current estimates we have sixty years to "wait and see" before we start causing irreversible damage. In the fight against pollution you're on pollution's side.

Please don't reproduce.
User avatar #58 - nervaaurelius (09/30/2013) [-]
thecontributor.com/why-climate-deniers-have-no-scientific-credibility-one-pie-chart

Most scientists on the subject already agree that climate change is happening and around the same percentage agree it's man made. It's not even a hot debate anymore. It's almost like intelligent design to biologists. At this point it's pretty much a political discussion. If humanity becomes devastated due to our inability to do anything about our affect on the environment then I say we deserve it cause we were to ignorant to stop our own downfall.
#253 - teenytinyspider (10/01/2013) [-]
WE ARE doing shit about it, but the alternatives are either still in development or are too expensive for most people to afford. Many first world nations have made great strives to reduce carbon emissions and pollutions from their factories. In fact, right now, China is the most pollutant country in the world, but they barely give a shit about themselves.

I think some of the pollution was caused by the industrial age and up towards maybe the 80's, and this is just a theory, because back in those times, they didn't give a shit about what they were emitting and what they dumped into rivers and streams and into the ground.
#59 - thegamegestapo (09/30/2013) [-]
Kind of sucks though, huh?

Here's hoping we pull our head out of our ass in time.
User avatar #49 - skeptical (09/30/2013) [-]
No matter how hard you try none of you will ever be me
So stop it
User avatar #37 - Harkonnen (09/30/2013) [-]
You dumb-ass mother fucker
#21 - "The difference between mom is and dad is"? 09/27/2013 on The diffrence between mom's... -1
#65 - I don't get the joke  [+] (2 new replies) 09/27/2013 on Death +3
User avatar #69 - Willhelm (09/27/2013) [-]
It's probably better that you don't. But here you go anyway; I'm just that sort of person.

A pressing issue, and a terrible stereotype is that baby girls get aborted a lot in China.
This is in part due to their one-child policy, which is enforced by law. Many Chinese parents would rather have a boy then a girl (various reasons), and so they would rather abort a girl baby and try again.
#79 - xxxsonic fanxxx (09/27/2013) [-]
Oh wow. That's edgy.
#7 - and then it died 09/26/2013 on so tired of yer shit +3
#39 - less dense*  [+] (1 new reply) 09/26/2013 on enjoy 0
User avatar #48 - herecomesjohnny (09/26/2013) [-]
sure, but what's the big mindblow?
#51 - I see what you mean but you're using a bad example. So paramed… 09/25/2013 on Kinda true +1
#77 - What is? 09/24/2013 on Size Comparison 0
#76 - lolwhat? what's that gif from? 09/22/2013 on There has always been swag 0
#61 - He... doesn't (except in some movies, but those are non-cannon…  [+] (1 new reply) 09/22/2013 on nananana +1
User avatar #63 - trivdiego (09/22/2013) [-]
right like that imp guy mxyz or something you probably know what im talking about
#58 - He has supercomputer level intelligence. He'll remember exactl…  [+] (3 new replies) 09/22/2013 on nananana +1
User avatar #60 - Crusader (09/22/2013) [-]
If "Supes" is capable of all this, then why is it in every series, in every movie, he always gets his ass handed to him and at the last moment he comes back because the villain forgot something?
#61 - UnoSkullmanx (09/22/2013) [-]
He... doesn't (except in some movies, but those are non-cannon and don't count)? Superman is undefeated for the most part. When he is beaten, it's because the writer of said story is a fucking moron and has no business writing fanfiction (take Frank Miller, for example). He's probably been beaten by magic users before or some of the god tier villains (take Doomsday or Darkseid, for example), but a mere man has never beaten him without a lot of help.
User avatar #63 - trivdiego (09/22/2013) [-]
right like that imp guy mxyz or something you probably know what im talking about
#57 - Superman can move faster than the speed of light, has supercom… 09/22/2013 on nananana 0
#55 - Superman moves faster than the speed of light. A bullet flying…  [+] (6 new replies) 09/22/2013 on nananana +1
User avatar #56 - Crusader (09/22/2013) [-]
Since when is he faster than light, I know he beats sound, but if he goes faster than light, away from a light source, he is blind.
User avatar #62 - zaphrael (09/22/2013) [-]
dc.wikia.com/wiki/Superman_(Clark_Kent)
just go to the powers section
#58 - UnoSkullmanx (09/22/2013) [-]
He has supercomputer level intelligence. He'll remember exactly where Batman is within a single atom. You're drastically underestimating what Supes is capable of. The writers at DC made him overpowered on purpose.
User avatar #60 - Crusader (09/22/2013) [-]
If "Supes" is capable of all this, then why is it in every series, in every movie, he always gets his ass handed to him and at the last moment he comes back because the villain forgot something?
#61 - UnoSkullmanx (09/22/2013) [-]
He... doesn't (except in some movies, but those are non-cannon and don't count)? Superman is undefeated for the most part. When he is beaten, it's because the writer of said story is a fucking moron and has no business writing fanfiction (take Frank Miller, for example). He's probably been beaten by magic users before or some of the god tier villains (take Doomsday or Darkseid, for example), but a mere man has never beaten him without a lot of help.
User avatar #63 - trivdiego (09/22/2013) [-]
right like that imp guy mxyz or something you probably know what im talking about
#52 - Superman can see in every spectrum of light. A stealth suit wo…  [+] (8 new replies) 09/22/2013 on nananana +2
User avatar #53 - Crusader (09/22/2013) [-]
Ok then, Batman hires a thousand people to all fire machine guns with kryptonite bullets at Superman
#55 - UnoSkullmanx (09/22/2013) [-]
Superman moves faster than the speed of light. A bullet flying through the air is seems stationary to him.
User avatar #56 - Crusader (09/22/2013) [-]
Since when is he faster than light, I know he beats sound, but if he goes faster than light, away from a light source, he is blind.
User avatar #62 - zaphrael (09/22/2013) [-]
dc.wikia.com/wiki/Superman_(Clark_Kent)
just go to the powers section
#58 - UnoSkullmanx (09/22/2013) [-]
He has supercomputer level intelligence. He'll remember exactly where Batman is within a single atom. You're drastically underestimating what Supes is capable of. The writers at DC made him overpowered on purpose.
User avatar #60 - Crusader (09/22/2013) [-]
If "Supes" is capable of all this, then why is it in every series, in every movie, he always gets his ass handed to him and at the last moment he comes back because the villain forgot something?
#61 - UnoSkullmanx (09/22/2013) [-]
He... doesn't (except in some movies, but those are non-cannon and don't count)? Superman is undefeated for the most part. When he is beaten, it's because the writer of said story is a fucking moron and has no business writing fanfiction (take Frank Miller, for example). He's probably been beaten by magic users before or some of the god tier villains (take Doomsday or Darkseid, for example), but a mere man has never beaten him without a lot of help.
User avatar #63 - trivdiego (09/22/2013) [-]
right like that imp guy mxyz or something you probably know what im talking about
#50 - That was a non-cannon book written by someone who has no clue … 09/22/2013 on nananana +2
#22 - yes there are dozens of millions of americans who are…  [+] (6 new replies) 09/21/2013 on Oh no hi didn -2
User avatar #41 - TheExile (09/21/2013) [-]
Before I start disagreeing with you, I want to follow your logic. How do you think it would be "not that hard" to disable jets? Once they see you approaching (and they'll see it from miles away), those jets could be scrambled and 10-30k in the air, before you're anywhere near, raining hell. I'm not saying it's impossible. I understand civilians could use Cesna's to kamikaze the jets, but I am saying that civilians will run out of resources much faster than the government will.
#86 - xxxsonic fanxxx (09/21/2013) [-]
I don't know, it'd be pretty hard to scramble 10-30k fighter jets considering the United States only has 4399 combat aircraft (bombers, fighters, attack aircraft).
User avatar #181 - TheExile (09/21/2013) [-]
You should really read better. "those jets could be scrambled 10-30k in the air"

I was talking about altitude. Not individual aircraft.
User avatar #67 - jacklane (09/21/2013) [-]
I have an idea for that one You see, I was once on a carrier. We had these things called "FOD walkdowns" where about 70 people walked the entire hanger bay and flight deck to pick up an foreign object debris (FOD) You see, even one little 10mm nut can ground a jet due to damage to the fragile blades inside! There were also posters all over the ship about how it takes 30,000 screws, bolts and washers to build a jet, but all it takes is one nut to destroy it... or something very close to that.

So devise a plan to spread shrapnel all over their runway! If you have the means, just blow the runway up a bit and they can't take off. Also, you could get a bunch of snipers surrounding the fence of whatever base and start sniping the shit out of them.

Most people have the military on a pedestal thinking they are untouchable. Very untrue. There are so many tactics you could use! Every base is extremely vulnerable to a well thought out attack.

Also, remember that the military doesn't build those jets or tanks or weapons. Civilian contractors do. I'm not saying I have any ideas on arming ourselves with those items, but then again I have not brainstormed about it either.
User avatar #188 - TheExile (09/21/2013) [-]
Good points. However, I just can't really see the coordination happening. If something like this happened, I agree 100% that some bases would be lost, some areas held by civi's. However, planning and coordination on that level, if with the military who is used to doing this and has better tech. to support an Op of this size, would take days, or months.

During that time, two things could be happening.

1) Civilian uprising has started, and the military is more and more fortifying their bases, cutting down to more manageable/defendable areas, and learning the civilian tactics as they go. The military would definitely know how to use this strategy, and know how to defend against it. Obviously it's not as easy as it seems, or else OPFOR overseas would be doing it only a daily basis now. I haven't seen Naval/Army base flight lines, but I can tell you from the few AF ones I've been at; there is more than one runway. It's like an airport, with 3-4, sometimes even 5 different landing strips; even though they may only use 1-2, they still keep the others open and running.

2) They would open the initial uprising with a plan like this, and it would be devastating to them. They wouldn't have the resources to hit all bases simultaneously, as they couldn't tell their "millions" of supporters the plan. If they did, the military would know, and shit would be bad when they attempted it. Also to put it into effect perfectly, they would have to plan accordingly and hope to wipe out the entire military/government in 24-48 hours, if they were banking on this surprise attack.



Now, do I agree that there would be severe losses on both sides, and that the civilians would put up a hell of a fight? Yes. Do I think the military would have it's work cut out? Yes. Do I think the civilians would, in the end, be successful? Slim to no chance. Just my opinion, really.
User avatar #60 - smithforprez (09/21/2013) [-]
jets have to land and refuel somewhere, pilots have to sleep and fuel and parts need to be transported somehow. without fuel or ammo tanks and planes are just blocks of metal.
#107 - that'sthejoke.jpg 09/20/2013 on Chubby girls (don't) always... +7
#11 - No, you like the taste of sugar. Turns out that milk minus the… 09/18/2013 on Skin Milk... 0
#33 - He doesn't run an antique shop, he runs a pawn store. Don't br… 09/12/2013 on Better give me my full refund +5
#17 - You're funding criminals because it's illegal, lol. If it were… 09/12/2013 on makes total sense +3
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

items

Total unique items point value: 2050 / Total items point value: 2050

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #2 - GabeAsher (05/08/2013) [-]
Hey, I was just wondering, if you don't play items anymore, could I have yours?
I understand if you say no, just figured I would ask anyways :)
 Friends (0)