Click to expand


Last status update:
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:3/15/2010
Last Login:5/27/2015
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#7662
Highest Content Rank:#4947
Highest Comment Rank:#1541
Content Thumbs: 676 total,  963 ,  287
Comment Thumbs: 6714 total,  8537 ,  1823
Content Level Progress: 30% (3/10)
Level 66 Content: FJ Cultist → Level 67 Content: FJ Cultist
Comment Level Progress: 83% (83/100)
Level 261 Comments: Pure Win → Level 262 Comments: Pure Win
Content Views:34413
Times Content Favorited:37 times
Total Comments Made:2004
FJ Points:3112
Favorite Tags: giggity (24) | funny (4) | sexy (4) | win (4) | epic (3) | giggty (3) | i (3) | Babies (2) | black (2) | derp (2) | dolan (2) | oh yeah (2) | pig (2) | the (2) | troll (2)

latest user's comments

#148 - I seriously want the pants one 09/26/2014 on I compiled 4chan shirt... +1
#20 - the marines also eat less apples than ever before wow romney d…  [+] (19 new replies) 09/25/2014 on You cheeky cunt -14
#23 - rapathazar (09/25/2014) [-]
Amazing inability to get it. Romney was claiming our military is getting weak because we have the fewest ships we have ever had in our Navy since 1917. Obama countered that we also have fewer Horses and Bayonets in our military than we did in 1917. The parallel being drawn here is that the fact we have fewer ships is not the product of a weaker military, but one that has changed, and thus requires fewer ships in the same way our military is not weaker for having fewer horses or bayonets, but that it has simply evolved beyond the large scale use of either utility.

It was a sick burn because it A.) Effectively countered Romney's attempt at saying Obama was weak. B.) Flipped it on Romney by insinuating his talking point was not only incorrect but derivative of an outdated mentality on warfare. and C.) It was a smooth instant reply that seemed almost hand crafted to discredit Governor Romney's point.
#32 - wyldek (09/25/2014) [-]
I don't think we've evolved beyond the use of having a navy. And if you still need a navy, you should have a strong one. And a strong navy has more ships. Obama's analogy about warfighting technology makes no sense.
#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.
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.
User avatar #27 - severepwner (09/25/2014) [-]
So lacking in naval power is fine as long as you can counter with a sick burn?

User avatar #30 - deadnanners (09/25/2014) [-]
the only severe thing is your lack of pwning anything but yourself
#26 - flipped (09/25/2014) [-]
#10 - my favorite is when 40-year-olds without a college education t…  [+] (5 new replies) 09/25/2014 on MFW republicans and... +35
#26 - siden (09/25/2014) [-]
what difference would a college degree make if they talked down 2 u
#35 - broswagonist (09/25/2014) [-]
#29 - anonymous (09/25/2014) [-]
Lack of higher education?
User avatar #12 - Kairyuka (09/25/2014) [-]
And young people who have been taught those antiquated ideologies
User avatar #11 - hairysmellyanus (09/25/2014) [-]
It really is. My dad thinks glenn back knows everything. It's fucking pathetic.
#10 - bitch that grip is awful who the **** taught you to pla… 09/25/2014 on not amused +1
#232 - or maybe somebody who actually DOES something you ******* …  [+] (1 new reply) 09/25/2014 on SJW takedown 0
User avatar #242 - noblexfenrir (09/25/2014) [-]
Yes let's vote for the assistant of the Virtual boy 2.0.

Livingston is the only worthwhile person to vote for since he's one of the few with credentials to bother with. Yoshida maybe, but I think Microsoft boosted the PS4 sales more than any action taken by Sony.

Pewdiepie is only being propped up because you really don't have to convince anyone to, they just will out of pure fanboyism which is basically what we want to make sure Anita doesn't have a chance. Considering the fact that their can be hordes of SJW's and white knights who will blindly vote for her, I just don't think asking people to vote out of pure basis of merit and self-worth in the gaming community is going to cut it.
#40 - my favorite part is when it takes them 20 seconds to transform…  [+] (1 new reply) 09/24/2014 on Transformer Porn +1
#57 - dangosevenonethree (09/24/2014) [-]
I've always just assumed that they transform based on how fast they need to move. Like if you're really relaxed, you take your time getting out of your seat, but if you're in a hurry, you jump right the hell up in a hurry.
#186 - how is pewdiepie a step up  [+] (1 new reply) 09/24/2014 on Guess Who's Nominated 0
#228 - trollofhalo (09/24/2014) [-]
He's not gonna force the 12 year olds of the world to scream at their parents for buying them non SJW games
#12 - "omg the accuracy I mean I've never left my stepdad's b… 09/24/2014 on Robin Williams on Canada +65
#23 - despite the unnecessary use of the word retarded you're co… 09/23/2014 on It was written by people 0
#31 - I call it a pound sign  [+] (2 new replies) 09/23/2014 on American Keyboards +38
#35 - Jowi (09/23/2014) [-]
or just a hash. Hence hashtag
User avatar #32 - truesmokewolf (09/23/2014) [-]
Not quite as old, but fucking close enough.
#90 - this is funny but not for the reason you wanted it to be 09/22/2014 on Leaked chatlog +1
#81 - yes 09/22/2014 on These stastics are surprising +11
#124 - do any of you ever step back and really look at what you're … 09/22/2014 on For the Gamegate +1
#26 - "you smoke?" "yeah, and it's not working." 09/20/2014 on Science: Graphical... 0
#39 - "game journalist" just the words are hilarious,… 09/20/2014 on Keep your friends close.... 0
#9 - >bailout >irresponsible spending  [+] (2 new replies) 09/20/2014 on Politics around the internet -1
User avatar #38 - itembox (09/21/2014) [-]
Analyst and financial advisers studied the affects of going with a bailout or without. After a lot of deliberation they decided that although a bailout is harmful in most cases that to not allow for a bailout would be worse.
They basically had the same choice voters have at every election. The lesser of two evils.
User avatar #19 - bloodredspark (09/20/2014) [-]
Bailouts aren't always the best idea a lot of times.

#44 - but all the science/engineering types I know have no *****…  [+] (1 new reply) 09/16/2014 on Fuck yeah technocracy! +4
#72 - anonymous (09/16/2014) [-]
There is a science called economics. There is also the science of international business.
#13 - ******* poles  [+] (1 new reply) 09/16/2014 on it's not rocket science 0
User avatar #41 - matrixone (09/16/2014) [-]
ye we're shit
#20 - do you guys actually care about this, or is this some sort of … 09/15/2014 on really feeling that... 0
#21 - ******* sociopaths 09/15/2014 on damn... 0
#13 - (also the chinese characters at the bottom right)  [+] (1 new reply) 09/12/2014 on Teamwork 0
User avatar #14 - masdercheef (09/12/2014) [-]
I just figured those were a result of 4gifs.com, but I do suppose that makes a whole lot of sense
#165 - are you 12 09/12/2014 on United we stand -1
#19 - which episode was this  [+] (1 new reply) 09/11/2014 on 30 Rock 0
#20 - somenights (09/11/2014) [-]
Pretty sure this was season 3 episode 14 "The Funcooker" They were trying to come up with a name for the tiny microwave in the post.
#35 - this shtick of his got boring about 3 years ago, but he's in t… 09/09/2014 on The Quote Machine 0
#28 - omg it's 2 late go 2 bed ur crazy lol so randumb ;;;;)))))) 09/06/2014 on Heavy Stuff +1


Total unique items point value: 550 / Total items point value: 700
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #5 to #4 - lazorman (05/19/2012) [-]
User avatar #6 to #5 - lazorman (05/19/2012) [-]
User avatar #7 to #6 - lazorman (05/19/2012) [-]
User avatar #2 - Natelawl (09/15/2011) [-]
So, i payed attention to your comment on my content.
You said you produced music? I'd like to hear a bit! Link please? :D
User avatar #3 to #2 - lazorman (09/15/2011) [-]
haha sweet!

the newest track i've made is for a remix contest... if you like it, you can vote for it on the 16th <3 lol
User avatar #1 - BobTheDestroyer (12/30/2010) [-]
why wont you love me?
User avatar #9 to #1 - lazorman (11/12/2012) [-]
yo idk gucci mang
 Friends (0)