Upload
Login or register

scantoz

Last status update:
-
Date Signed Up:4/22/2010
Last Login:11/08/2015
Stats
Content Thumbs: 34598 total,  40520 ,  5922
Comment Thumbs: 2865 total,  4916 ,  2051
Content Level Progress: 59.2% (592/1000)
Level 234 Content: Ambassador Of Lulz → Level 235 Content: Ambassador Of Lulz
Comment Level Progress: 45% (45/100)
Level 228 Comments: Mind Blower → Level 229 Comments: Mind Blower
Subscribers:3
Content Views:971026
Times Content Favorited:1869 times
Total Comments Made:1466
FJ Points:34302

latest user's comments

#6 - Except if you ever actually had sex youd know that ******* a g…  [+] (5 replies) 10/22/2013 on Gotta catch em all -11
User avatar
#8 - pippysfleas (10/22/2013) [-]
lol what?
#12 - scantoz (10/22/2013) [-]
I dont know about you but I cant cum with a condom on. I still feel it but its not intense enough for me to cum, thats why i said its a waste.
#17 - anon (10/22/2013) [-]
Buy a couple boxes and wear them while you masturbate. You will get used to them.
User avatar
#15 - cubicalpayload (10/22/2013) [-]
This guy is talking like he actually had sex.
#21 - scantoz (10/22/2013) [-]
Getting dissed by a Fjer is like getting punched by a toddler. It Means nothing.
#1 - Thats what id do Lmfao, thats the only reason i dont buy hooke…  [+] (8 replies) 10/21/2013 on Gotta catch em all -24
#2 - haqq (10/21/2013) [-]
i heard of this AMAZING new invention called condoms.
try em
User avatar
#18 - teleamachus (10/22/2013) [-]
HE DOESN'T NEED TO ATTEMPT TO REPRODUCE.
#6 - scantoz (10/22/2013) [-]
Except if you ever actually had sex youd know that fucking a girl with a condom is a waste of time, especially a hooker with a stretched pussy.
User avatar
#8 - pippysfleas (10/22/2013) [-]
lol what?
#12 - scantoz (10/22/2013) [-]
I dont know about you but I cant cum with a condom on. I still feel it but its not intense enough for me to cum, thats why i said its a waste.
#17 - anon (10/22/2013) [-]
Buy a couple boxes and wear them while you masturbate. You will get used to them.
User avatar
#15 - cubicalpayload (10/22/2013) [-]
This guy is talking like he actually had sex.
#21 - scantoz (10/22/2013) [-]
Getting dissed by a Fjer is like getting punched by a toddler. It Means nothing.
#65 - Sometimes i think he just took the Jewish thing too far, what …  [+] (9 replies) 10/21/2013 on Goddamn it Johann 0
User avatar
#79 - whiteblob (10/22/2013) [-]
Actually it was the Jews that were screwing Germany, before the Jews got to Germany other countries had kicked them out or not accepted them at all, he didn't want to kill Jews, he was just planning on getting them out of the country they were destroying it all went to hell when enemy countries started cutting their way to get resources.
User avatar
#90 - enkmaster (10/22/2013) [-]
What? The Jews werent some roving gang of economy destroyers. The ones in Germany were Germans. Just like any other Germans.

And yes, he did plan on killing them. It was outlined in the Hunger Plan that Jews, Russians and Eastern Europeans would be killed in death and work camps, their assets taken and their land seized to be used by German families to feed Germany's horribly inefficient system of food production. He wanted to kill them from the moment he gained power. It was the people who generally just wanted them kicked out.
User avatar
#91 - whiteblob (10/22/2013) [-]
Well fuck, must've researched in the wrong places.
User avatar
#93 - enkmaster (10/22/2013) [-]
Well, its not exactly hard to get messed up when it comes to WW2. There were so many records destroyed by the gestapo, SS and Allied raids that we will probably never know exactly what happened.
User avatar
#94 - whiteblob (10/22/2013) [-]
I don't remember source right now, I'm at work. When i get home I'll give the place where I read it. If you like.
User avatar
#95 - enkmaster (10/22/2013) [-]
Good, id love to read it. More is better.
User avatar
#96 - whiteblob (10/22/2013) [-]
Ok. Get off in a couple of hours, talk to you then.
User avatar
#97 - enkmaster (10/22/2013) [-]
It's actually past 10:00 pm here, so I wont be on again till tomorrow.
User avatar
#100 - whiteblob (10/22/2013) [-]
Oh, ok so then talk to you tomorrow.
#30 - The Chinese have just as many bruh, thats who you owe those tr…  [+] (36 replies) 10/21/2013 on Oy vey +2
User avatar
#63 - MikedelScorcho (10/22/2013) [-]
Head counts dont matter nearly as much on today's battlefield
User avatar
#199 - raverr (10/22/2013) [-]
Consider the following:
No matter how many bullets you may have, or guns you may carry, for every china man you shoot, another is right behind him.
Your gun would overheat and fall apart within one battle, and the chinese could just charge at you. the only way we could win a war with the chinese would be to have air superiority flying 100% of the time, and tank divisions EVERYWHERE. Not to mention their allies.
#64 - scantoz (10/22/2013) [-]
It does unless either side is planning on exterminating life on earth.
User avatar
#68 - MikedelScorcho (10/22/2013) [-]
I disagree. Just look at how our military was held up in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have far superior numbers but have been unable to attain complete victory against a smaller force. While it's true that we might win individual conflicts decisively, the larger conflict perpetuates. In a head to head confrontation between us and China, the army with the superior communications, air power, and unmanned combat capability would win, which Im pretty sure is us. it doesn't matter how many bodies you throw at a force with superior technology, theyll just be ground up systematically. Not saying our military wouldn't sustain large casualties in the process, but I'm sure we could achieve victory without resorting to the nuclear option.
#72 - scantoz (10/22/2013) [-]
Doubtful because the problem in Afghanistan and Iraq is that they were fight gorilla warfare and couldnt tell which were civilians and which are the actual taliban/rebels making it difficult to actually kill forces but if China and America went at it, it would be soldiers in uniform.
And Im pretty sure China would be able to mass produce tanks, planes, helicopters, warships etc faster than America due to all the factories the currently have and that abundance of man power does help. In all honesty I don't really care who wins because if it starts, we're all fucked.
User avatar
#75 - MikedelScorcho (10/22/2013) [-]
There's some merit to the mass-production strategy, just look at the armored warfare between the US and Germany in WWII. we made 4 Shermans for every Tiger or Panzer and overwhelmed them with sheer numbers. however, I think on today's battle field the technology gap in the air and in unmanned drones with combat capability would have the US coming out on top. These days I think the force with better communications and rapid deployment capability wins, which is us.
#77 - scantoz (10/22/2013) [-]
Most of our communications is made in China and who really knows what they have up their little sleeves and the Chinese are more disciplined and organised.
Lets just hope shit doesnt pop off..
User avatar
#80 - MikedelScorcho (10/22/2013) [-]
I disagree about the discipline and organization, but youre right, having most of our comm equipment made in China would present problems, unless the American people would be willing to work for as low wages to produce the same product, which I can't see happening
User avatar
#55 - anonymouzx (10/22/2013) [-]
Nope. The U.S has more bombs.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons

China has more people, but America is equipped better.
#58 - scantoz (10/22/2013) [-]
No one is using nukes bro. No President ever will be stupid enough to nuke any super power because it doesn't matter how many you have, just a few with destroy our planet.
User avatar
#85 - thelastamerican (10/22/2013) [-]
Oh, come on. No one is going to use conventional nukes, because they're old technology, not because they're too scary. Neutron bombs are far cleaner, and far deadlier. With blasts in the kiloton instead of the megaton range you don't destroy as much infrastructure, but the neutron blast kills everyone for miles around.
Failing this you've still got the rods from god technology, witch I kind of refuse to believe isn't already in place.
#87 - scantoz (10/22/2013) [-]
Regardless of old technology or new. NO ONE in their right fucking mind is going to use that shit. and nukes may be old but one will still fuck up a country. Lets not forget 98% of the nuke dropped on Hiroshima was a dud.
User avatar
#89 - thelastamerican (10/22/2013) [-]
I'm not following you. The weapons used in Japan both worked fine.
Also, the rods technology is 100% clean. A bar the size of a crowbar would work just fine to annihilate a building, and it's absolutely undetectable. There's no launch plume, no heat signature, just all of the sudden you find yourself standing in line for the afterlife.
#96 - scantoz (10/22/2013) [-]
"When 1 pound (0.45 kg) of uranium-235 undergoes complete fission, the yield is 8 kilotons. The 16 kiloton yield of the Little Boy bomb was therefore produced by the fission no more than 2 pounds (0.91 kg) of uranium-235, out of the 141 pounds (64 kg) in the pit. The remaining 139 pounds (63 kg), 98.5% of the total, contributed nothing to the energy yield.[20]"
User avatar
#102 - thelastamerican (10/22/2013) [-]
I got you now, I thought you were saying that there were lots of bombs dropped and only a couple actually worked. I was so confused...
#105 - scantoz (10/22/2013) [-]
No worries. I wasn't completely sure myself.
User avatar
#106 - thelastamerican (10/22/2013) [-]
I just sat here for a couple minutes thinking, no one is this dumb. Then I got your reply, and it turns out I was right. You aren't dumb.
#110 - scantoz (10/22/2013) [-]
haha that actually made me laugh. Its all good. Half the time I say dumb shit that only makes sense in my head.
User avatar
#112 - thelastamerican (10/22/2013) [-]
Welp, I've got to go to work. Nice chatting.
#94 - scantoz (10/22/2013) [-]
98% or so of the uranium didn't fuse properly. (I dont know if its 98% but i remember hearing this before its in the 90%'s)
User avatar
#98 - thelastamerican (10/22/2013) [-]
Those were some antequated weapons using a terrible trigger mechanism. Now instead of using the old gun style detonator we have new methods. The detonator looks like a football, but the faces are made of tritonal. Inside the soccer ball is a piece of whatever it is you're trying to fuse. When the faces explode they produce pressures that are sufficient to fuse the material. The numbers aren't made public, but there is speculation that the amount of fused material is somewhere close to 70 or 80%.
But yeah, the old bombs were lucky to get 15% efficiency.
User avatar
#59 - anonymouzx (10/22/2013) [-]
I know. It's just that you said China has just as much.
#61 - scantoz (10/22/2013) [-]
I wasn't referring to nukes
User avatar
#66 - anonymouzx (10/22/2013) [-]
Oh.

Anyways, the amount of infantry doesn't really matter anymore in modern warfare. USA spends the most on the military, so it wouldn't be that easy to "annihilate" America.
User avatar
#38 - manofbeardliness (10/22/2013) [-]
Let me explain why you're wrong, and why there's not going to be war between the US, Russia, or China for a long time. In economics a free market is a good market. China is a rising power and as they're slowly becoming more democratic it's allowing more open trade. Since we trade so much and outsource different jobs to China they're getting more rich faster. Also with specialization of labor it's better for both countries. If china does what they're good at (doing jobs we don't want to) and we continue doing what we're good at (selling high revenue goods) than everyone is happy. Same principle applies to Russia and just about everywhere else that allows trade.
#41 - scantoz (10/22/2013) [-]
This is all hypothetical of course, im just saying if America wanted to bomb China because they cant pay their debts it wouldnt work out well for anyone.
User avatar
#46 - manofbeardliness (10/22/2013) [-]
Hypothetical?, your comment seemed more like an immature assumption to me. Don't think I'm trying to start an argument. Just look at your comment and tell me that doesn't look like the work of someone on the bandwagon "I don't like Americans" train.
#48 - scantoz (10/22/2013) [-]
I like Americans, not all but most seem like good people. How am I on a bandwagon of hate towards Americans? You don't like the truth? Its simple. China has enough bombs and people to destroy almost any country it just so happens that the person who I replied to is American. Lol just lol.
User avatar
#49 - manofbeardliness (10/22/2013) [-]
I don't like the truth? No shit, any global super-power or medium-power (whatever) can blow each other off the face of the earth, that's a given. Your comment made you look like one of those kids that think world war three is about to happen just because everyone's becoming more equal.
#53 - scantoz (10/22/2013) [-]
Yea thats exactly what I said... Or MAYBE JUST MAYBE I said that America wouldn't and couldn't fuck China over.
User avatar
#69 - manofbeardliness (10/22/2013) [-]
Why're you so bent on having this senseless argument? Neither country would benefit from fucking with each other. It has nothing to do with which country has the bigger dick (bombs in this case). Your comment made you look stupid. If I'm wrong, then why did three other people feel the need to comment. But sorry I hurt your feelings!, and you're completely right, China would "completely annihilate America" if we did whatever that guy jokingly said we'd do.
#78 - scantoz (10/22/2013) [-]
Thanks for agreeing.
User avatar
#81 - manofbeardliness (10/22/2013) [-]
You're fucking welcome. Now have a nice night because I'm going to sleep.
User avatar
#35 - lurg (10/21/2013) [-]
you see what you did there? you took a joke and made it serious. WHY DID YOU DO THAT?
User avatar
#32 - flemsdfer (10/21/2013) [-]
They won't do that. We keep their economy thriving by buying all of their cheap shit in bulk. They lend us money sometimes and we just keep buying all of their goods. They know better than to fuck that deal up.
#42 - scantoz (10/22/2013) [-]
Yes of course you don't knock the guy who owes you money in the head with a hammer, this is all hypothetical, threatening china with bombs is like threatening a slut with cock.
#13 - I think cancer is more important since you know, someone with …  [+] (1 reply) 10/21/2013 on Mental Health..... 0
#22 - kingpongthedon (10/21/2013) [-]
Yeah, but cancer patients also tend to not eat other people's faces. Also, let's not forget about suicides, murders, rapes, thefts, assaults, arsons, etc. attributable to mental illness.
#22 - Lion dog?!  [+] (1 reply) 10/21/2013 on So much want 0
User avatar
#23 - heartlessrobot (10/21/2013) [-]
Russian Bear Hunting Dog. Chases lions like a regular dog chases cats.
#92 - Lmfao you ******* douche packer. Obviously not but thats what …  [+] (11 replies) 10/21/2013 on PvP as level one -4
User avatar
#109 - traelos (10/21/2013) [-]
Nigga you ain't know shit.

50,000 shermans and 50,000 T-34's were produced vs 10,000 panzer iv's, 6,000 panthers, 1,500 tigers and 500 tiger 2's.

That means even if it took 100 shermans to take down a panzer VII they still had the advantage.
#117 - scantoz (10/22/2013) [-]
We aint talking about numbers here NYYYYGAAAH , we're talking about a 1 on 1 fight.
Panzer dominates.
User avatar
#118 - traelos (10/22/2013) [-]
1 on 1 doesn't mean shit.

1 railway gun can obliterate any single thing on the battlefield in a 1v1.

It was still a useless piece of shit.
#119 - scantoz (10/22/2013) [-]
Are you fucking retarded? I dont see 100 of the tanks in the gif that got blown to shit against that one tank. Theres 1 verse 1.
User avatar
#122 - traelos (10/22/2013) [-]
If we're talking about the tanks in the gif then it's a Maus, which never passed trials, vs a b1 which is the shittiest french tank ever made.

And the french make shit tanks.

So you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
#123 - scantoz (10/22/2013) [-]
Dude the joke went right over your head the moment you first commented.
User avatar
#126 - traelos (10/22/2013) [-]
Wasn't much of a joke.
User avatar
#113 - smokerocks (10/21/2013) [-]
But put 10 Shermans vs 10 Panzers or if it was 10 T34s vs 10 Panzers, the Panzers would dominate. Do some research on tank warfare in WWII. The Panzers were superior. This isn't because I'm some guy with a Wehrmacht boner, its fact.

The tank warfare only shifted the other way when panzers were greatly outnumbered.
User avatar
#114 - traelos (10/21/2013) [-]
10 T-34's > 10 Panzer IV's > 10 Shermans

$1,000,000 worth of T-34's > $1,000,000 worth of Shermans >$1,000,000 worth of any panzer.

Cost matters bro.

If Panzer are so much better than everything else than explain Kursk.
User avatar
#115 - smokerocks (10/21/2013) [-]
Kursk? Russians had nearly 2 million men, 5000 tanks.

Germans had about half of that. Yes, they lost. Russians just about all of their tanks, Germans lost about 700 of theirs.

Numbers will always win a fight, I'm not denying that. I said evenly matched, Panzers were clear winners. Kursk was not a case of even numbers.
User avatar
#116 - traelos (10/22/2013) [-]
You're right.

The Germans spent 40 times as much money on their tanks and equipment as the Russians did.

Cost is a performance parameter.

In fact, in many ways, cost effectiveness is the only relevant performance parameter.