Login or register
Login or register
Stay logged in
Log in/Sign up using Facebook.
Log in/Sign up using Gmail/Google+.
CREATE A NEW ACCOUNT
Email is optional and is used for password recovery purposes.
Have the FunnyJunk newsletter e-mailed to you
Rank #19097 on Subscribers
Level 213 Comments: Comedic Genius
Send mail to sbgfuzzers
Invite sbgfuzzers to be your friend
Last status update:
Date Signed Up:
West Grove PA
Highest Content Rank:
Highest Comment Rank:
Content Level Progress:
Level 147 Content: Faptastic → Level 148 Content: Faptastic
Comment Level Progress:
Level 213 Comments: Comedic Genius → Level 214 Comments: Comedic Genius
Times Content Favorited:
Total Comments Made:
You Slut (48)
I love you.
What people say about sbgfuzzers
latest user's comments
- privyet brat, where in the us are you from? I speak, …
Moved to /gayretards/
- ily grayfourtyfive
TV For Sale
Th-thanks. y-you too.
are you winning against anon?
From what i've seen. At least 5 anons doing it. This may be a tough battle
- **sbgfuzzers used "*roll picture*"** **sbgfuzzers rolled image **
realtime comment roll test
- I just wanted to add something to your enery argument. The U.S…
Ted Cruz weighs in
Except the US economy is not even remotely oil based. We are not Russia or Saudi Arabia which export large quantities of oil. In fact, we are the largest importer of oil in the world, which is a direct drag on our GDP. Solar, wind, nuclear, or hydroelectric are cannot be imported meaning that theoretically switching away from oil would be a huge boon to our economy as long as the price of energy didn't dramatically increase. This process has already begun in the US and has been proven effective on a smaller scale in other countries. The transition may be trying at times but our consumption of energy isn't going anywhere and the companies filling that need will continue to make up a significant part of the economy regardless of whether they are based on oil or sustainable energy. Converting sooner rather than later is a positive as long as we are not overly aggressive, which so far we certainly haven't.
The thing about replacing oil and gas is exactly that, it would be replaced by something else. Oil companies will be around for a long time even if we switch over to other sources.
The suggestion is simply build more nuclear plants and hydroelectric dams. The two main benefits of this are increase the number of domestic jobs
you need to get the nuclear material and refine it not to mention the construction of nuclear plants and dams would create thousands of jobs
and second is to reduce energy costs and stabilize the prices of energy
as we've seen with oil the prices for non-renewable energy can easily skyrocket, we can expect this with gas/coal as the demand outpaces production
Long term big oil is a dying beast and we all know it in the next few decades oil/gas/coal prices will only increase and as we advance and require more and more energy....fossil fuels simply won't be able to keep up.
The reason I said to keep solar/wind as supplementary is because there aren't many places where these can be useful. Solar farms require large areas with a lot of sun to be viable and wind can be hit or miss. Hydroelectric on the other hand is fairly adaptive, it isn't just limited to dams its possible to use waves . Nuclear is pretty much as stable as you can get with power, if you can manage the waste.
- buttkickerboy? More like buttlickerboy hahahahaha **** you.
Black tweets 9
had a guy call me buttfuckerboy once
- You, I really like you
American marketing at its...
- *roll 6, Pokémon*
- Ah, ragefaces
is this still relevant?
- **sbgfuzzers used "*roll 1, 000-999*"** **sbgfuzzers rolls 018**
Trips and Admin leaves FJ
Show Comments (17)