The Pentagon looks into gay weapons

b.k. barunt · Post by **b.k. barunt** » Wed Jun 13, 2007 2:52 am

Serbia wrote:
b.k. barunt wrote:So the end result of this bomb would be more republicans?
I thought we Republicans are supposed to be homophobes, and therefore, by nature, anti-gays, and therefore, most likely to NEVER be gay?

Umm . . . if you were to read the post previous to mine, the meaning of my post could jump out at you.

Jenos Ridan · Post by **Jenos Ridan** » Wed Jun 13, 2007 2:57 am

Jenos Ridan wrote:
reverend_kyle wrote:Brings a whole new meaning to dont ask dont tell.
'Shell-shock' warps mens minds baddly enough, so this would make them catatonic.

What b.k. barunt was referring to.

AlgyTaylor · Post by **AlgyTaylor** » Wed Jun 13, 2007 5:24 am

cue guitars ...

"Let's start a war
a homosexual war
Let's start a war
I'm gonna hit you with my gay bomb, gay bomb, gay bomb!"

AlgyTaylor · Post by **AlgyTaylor** » Wed Jun 13, 2007 5:26 am

Serbia wrote:I thought we Republicans are supposed to be homophobes, and therefore, by nature, anti-gays, and therefore, most likely to NEVER be gay?

Nah, the ones who are most vehemently opposed to homosexuality are probably just repressed homosexuals themselves.

Serbia · Post by **Serbia** » Wed Jun 13, 2007 6:45 am

b.k. barunt wrote:
Serbia wrote:
b.k. barunt wrote:So the end result of this bomb would be more republicans?
I thought we Republicans are supposed to be homophobes, and therefore, by nature, anti-gays, and therefore, most likely to NEVER be gay?
Umm . . . if you were to read the post previous to mine, the meaning of my post could jump out at you.

Ok, NOW I get it!

heavycola · Post by **heavycola** » Wed Jun 13, 2007 8:31 am

I looked into a gay weapon once. Lost the sight in one eye.

MeDeFe · Post by **MeDeFe** » Wed Jun 13, 2007 8:51 am

no threadjacking! This isn't the bad jokes thread.

Jmey · Post by **Jmey** » Wed Jun 13, 2007 3:31 pm

I dont understand the chemistry of this...

is it possible to devise a gay bomb?

like as soon as you breath it in... it somehow alters your hormones... or something like that... is it like being drunk... you hit on anything...

would it only work on people who are supressing there sexuality...

would that mean that the soldiers fighting would just drop there sub-machineguns and start having sexual intercourse?

if so, how would it afect actual gays and bi's?

and is it like viagra but like 100x stronger so you actually have the urge to screw anything...

lol so many questions... so little time...

Jenos Ridan · Post by **Jenos Ridan** » Wed Jun 13, 2007 5:01 pm

Jmey wrote:I dont understand the chemistry of this...

is it possible to devise a gay bomb?

like as soon as you breath it in... it somehow alters your hormones... or something like that... is it like being drunk... you hit on anything...

would it only work on people who are supressing there sexuality...

would that mean that the soldiers fighting would just drop there sub-machineguns and start having sexual intercourse?

if so, how would it afect actual gays and bi's?

and is it like viagra but like 100x stronger so you actually have the urge to screw anything...

lol so many questions... so little time...

Not sure, don't really want to know either.

b.k. barunt · Post by **b.k. barunt** » Wed Jun 13, 2007 5:17 pm

When i was in grade school in the 50s, the government wanted us to be scared shitless of the commies (now replaced by terrorists), and everyone was building bomb shelters - you could see the air vents in their driveways. I'm expecting a repeat of that now.

Serbia · Post by **Serbia** » Wed Jun 13, 2007 6:45 pm

b.k. barunt wrote:When i was in grade school in the 50s, the government wanted us to be scared shitless of the commies (now replaced by terrorists), and everyone was building bomb shelters - you could see the air vents in their driveways. I'm expecting a repeat of that now.

This is much more serious than a simple nuclear attack... few people survive that, this, you'll have to live with!

Hitman079 · Post by **Hitman079** » Wed Jun 13, 2007 7:35 pm

are you sure US soldiers won't be laughing their asses off at the enemy soldiers chasing each other around with bulges in their pants?

b.k. barunt · Post by **b.k. barunt** » Thu Jun 14, 2007 12:28 am

Yea . . . laughing, heh heh . . . until they turn their bugles on us.

MeDeFe · Post by **MeDeFe** » Thu Jun 14, 2007 2:24 am

It'll still involve their asses, though. >:D

Jenos Ridan · Post by **Jenos Ridan** » Thu Jun 14, 2007 3:22 am

Serbia wrote:
b.k. barunt wrote:When i was in grade school in the 50s, the government wanted us to be scared shitless of the commies (now replaced by terrorists), and everyone was building bomb shelters - you could see the air vents in their driveways. I'm expecting a repeat of that now.
This is much more serious than a simple nuclear attack... few people survive that, this, you'll have to live with!

All it would take is the russian early-warning system to fail. Seriously, one software glitch, a faulty radar return or a old satelite and/or radar anteni failling at the wroug time and some under-trained, under-paid officer or NCO on the spot to make the wrong call and thirty minutes later, BOOM!Wake up, people, we're not out of the woods yet.

MeDeFe · Post by **MeDeFe** » Thu Jun 14, 2007 11:56 am

Have you seen Fail-Safe from 1964? Very good movie based on almost exactly that theme.

mr. incrediball · Post by **mr. incrediball** » Thu Jun 14, 2007 12:48 pm

gay bomb? i think considering the women in the army, i think bi-bomb would be more appropriate.

2dimes · Post by **2dimes** » Thu Jun 14, 2007 12:58 pm

mr. incrediball wrote:gay bomb? i think considering the women in the army, i think bi-bomb would be more appropriate.

It was being develped by the USA not for it.

Unless you're sneaking up on Canada but they're too libral to care. They'd have it off with each other then kill you.

b.k. barunt · Post by **b.k. barunt** » Thu Jun 14, 2007 4:47 pm

Didn't they drop one on The Stache once?

Jenos Ridan · Post by **Jenos Ridan** » Thu Jun 14, 2007 4:52 pm

MeDeFe wrote:Have you seen Fail-Safe from 1964? Very good movie based on almost exactly that theme.

Heard that it had no theme music. I don't think it needs one, though. Anyway, one more film I need to see.

2dimes · Post by **2dimes** » Thu Jun 14, 2007 6:44 pm

b.k. barunt wrote:Didn't they drop one on The Stache once?

The 'stache shack is built on the old testing grounds, but the tests were a failure and the chemicals left behind have not affected us in any way.

b.k. barunt · Post by **b.k. barunt** » Fri Jun 15, 2007 12:59 am

Hrm . . . yeah . . . i can see that.

mr. incrediball · Post by **mr. incrediball** » Fri Jun 15, 2007 1:01 am

2dimes wrote:
mr. incrediball wrote:gay bomb? i think considering the women in the army, i think bi-bomb would be more appropriate.
It was being develped by the USA not for it.

America isn't the only country with women in the army, idiot!!!

reverend_kyle · Post by **reverend_kyle** » Fri Jun 15, 2007 1:52 am

mr. incrediball wrote:
2dimes wrote:
mr. incrediball wrote:gay bomb? i think considering the women in the army, i think bi-bomb would be more appropriate.
It was being develped by the USA not for it.
America isn't the only country with women in the army, idiot!!!

hahaha.. girls being effective fighters.. HAHA! good one man.

MeDeFe · Post by **MeDeFe** » Fri Jun 15, 2007 3:05 am

Jenos Ridan wrote:
MeDeFe wrote:Have you seen Fail-Safe from 1964? Very good movie based on almost exactly that theme.
Heard that it had no theme music. I don't think it needs one, though. Anyway, one more film I need to see.

I didn't mean theme as in musical theme, I was referring to what you said about just one failure.

The Pentagon looks into gay weapons

hmmm...

Re: hmmm...