This one has to go in the Clinton column, I guess...

[j2k4]

...really, this could only have happened under, um...well, then. :huh:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,281217,00.html

[Snee]

Yeah, that's just wrong.

Bomb the fuck out of them, I say.

[j2k4]

Yeah, that's just wrong.

Bomb the fuck out of them, I say.

Rather than into them, eh? :)

[vidcc]

...really, this could only have happened under, um...well, then. :huh:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,281217,00.html


Air Force spokeswoman Lt. Col. Cathy Reardon said the idea was proposed by an Air Force researcher at a lab at Brooks Air Force Base in Texas, but it was rejected by the Defense Department. Officials noted that the Air Force constantly is considering funding proposals.

No money was spent, Reardon said, and no such weapons are being considered. The goal was to create a non-lethal weapon to be used against enemy troops.

So what exactly could "only have happened under, um...well, then" ? :huh:

The rejection of the idea and no money being spent on it?

Such a comment could lead one to think you believe it would have been taken up under any other administration :rolleyes:

[j2k4]

Air Force spokeswoman Lt. Col. Cathy Reardon said the idea was proposed by an Air Force researcher at a lab at Brooks Air Force Base in Texas, but it was rejected by the Defense Department. Officials noted that the Air Force constantly is considering funding proposals.

No money was spent, Reardon said, and no such weapons are being considered. The goal was to create a non-lethal weapon to be used against enemy troops.

So what exactly could "only have happened under, um...well, then" ? :huh:

The rejection of the idea and no money being spent on it?

Such a comment could lead one to think you believe it would have been taken up under any other administration :rolleyes:

So what do you think I took away from the story, Nigel?

The only sure fact that may be fairly derived from it is that no story, issue, complaint, rumor, or what-have-you (and you must admit at this point there has been plenty of everything) about the Bush administration quite resembles this.

Has the pointing up of such factoids driven you totally moon-batty after a mere 200-odd days of Democrat "control" at all (at all).

Why so touchy, Nigel?

Outside of you and Busyman, the rest of us are having a blast.

BTW-

How do you feel about defending your point, which (no matter how you view things) reduces to:

See? Your brand of incompetence is completely inferior to Ours...":ermm:

Also-

Have you the question I requisitioned from Headquarters.

[bigboab]

The rumours were rife about this when it was suggested years ago.

I have nothing against a gay method of stopping wars as long as it is not Enola Gay.:(

[Busyman™]

So what exactly could "only have happened under, um...well, then" ? :huh:

The rejection of the idea and no money being spent on it?

Such a comment could lead one to think you believe it would have been taken up under any other administration :rolleyes:

So what do you think I took away from the story, Nigel?

The only sure fact that may be fairly derived from it is that no story, issue, complaint, rumor, or what-have-you (and you must admit at this point there has been plenty of everything) about the Bush administration quite resembles this.

Has the pointing up of such factoids driven you totally moon-batty after a mere 200-odd days of Democrat "control" at all (at all).

Why so touchy, Nigel?

Outside of you and Busyman, the rest of us are having a blast.

BTW-

How do you feel about defending your point, which (no matter how you view things) reduces to:

See? Your brand of incompetence is completely inferior to Ours...":ermm:

Also-

Have you the question I requisitioned from Headquarters.

I thought it was quite funny.

Do you think vid would have said anything if

1) it wasn't you posting the thread coupled with

2) mentioning this goes in the Clinton column

Tbh, my first thought when seeing the thread title was, "Oh here we go again".

Then I thought the article was quite funny then...

I thought, "Wtf does this have to do with the Clinton column?"

Then I go, "Oh it's just j2, again."

Your line about the Bush admin is quite funny too. Are you trying to be ironic?

[Busyman™]

The rumours were rife about this when it was suggested years ago.

I have nothing against a gay method of stopping wars as long as it is not Enola Gay.:(

Yeah I heard something about this awhile ago.

[vidcc]

The only sure fact that may be fairly derived from it is that no story, issue, complaint, rumor, or what-have-you (and you must admit at this point there has been plenty of everything) about the Bush administration quite resembles this.

You are right there, because this story points to a silly idea being turned away, Bush would no doubt embrace it.

Please explain what exactly some inventor proposing something has to do with the Clinton administration. If the story was that it was proposed and accepted then it would have an attachment.

It's a funny story worth posting, I just wonder what kind of obsession (apart from the mantra "everything was Clinton's fault" ) led you to say it could only have happened under Clinton.

You remind me of British tabloid headlines like "Queen in gun scare shocker".

The headline might make one think someone had actually planned something or got near to the queen with a gun. The story would turn out to be a gun was found in a trash can the day before and two miles away from somewhere the queen was visiting.


Officials noted that the Air Force constantly is considering funding proposals. perhaps you should concentrate on what actually got through instead of what didn't

I'm not being touchy, what I'm asking is one of those questions that you never seem to answer but instead pose another question.

I asked a question and you answered with another question then asked me when I am going to ask you a question :rolleyes:

[j2k4]

The rumours were rife about this when it was suggested years ago.

I have nothing against a gay method of stopping wars as long as it is not Enola Gay.:(

I don't like your, um...innuendo. :blink:

[j2k4]

So what do you think I took away from the story, Nigel?

The only sure fact that may be fairly derived from it is that no story, issue, complaint, rumor, or what-have-you (and you must admit at this point there has been plenty of everything) about the Bush administration quite resembles this.

Has the pointing up of such factoids driven you totally moon-batty after a mere 200-odd days of Democrat "control" at all (at all).

Why so touchy, Nigel?

Outside of you and Busyman, the rest of us are having a blast.

BTW-

How do you feel about defending your point, which (no matter how you view things) reduces to:

See? Your brand of incompetence is completely inferior to Ours...":ermm:

Also-

Have you the question I requisitioned from Headquarters.

I thought it was quite funny.

Do you think vid would have said anything if

1) it wasn't you posting the thread coupled with

2) mentioning this goes in the Clinton column

Tbh, my first thought when seeing the thread title was, "Oh here we go again".

Then I thought the article was quite funny then...

I thought, "Wtf does this have to do with the Clinton column?"

Then I go, "Oh it's just j2, again."

Your line about the Bush admin is quite funny too. Are you trying to be ironic?

Actually, yes...I wouldn't have thought you capable of noticing, given the sum of your leanings, but even a blind blind pig finds a truffle now and again. :)

My hat's off to you.

[j2k4]

You are right there, because this story points to a silly idea being turned away, Bush would no doubt embrace it.

Please explain what exactly some inventor proposing something has to do with the Clinton administration. If the story was that it was proposed and accepted then it would have an attachment.

It's a funny story worth posting, I just wonder what kind of obsession (apart from the mantra "everything was Clinton's fault" ) led you to say it could only have happened under Clinton.

You remind me of British tabloid headlines like "Queen in gun scare shocker".

The headline might make one think someone had actually planned something or got near to the queen with a gun. The story would turn out to be a gun was found in a trash can the day before and two miles away from somewhere the queen was visiting.


Officials noted that the Air Force constantly is considering funding proposals. perhaps you should concentrate on what actually got through instead of what didn't

I'm not being touchy, what I'm asking is one of those questions that you never seem to answer but instead pose another question.

I asked a question and you answered with another question then asked me when I am going to ask you a question :rolleyes:

My, you are chafed, aren't you.

Off to the chemist for an ointment...:whistling

[Busyman™]

I thought it was quite funny.

Do you think vid would have said anything if

1) it wasn't you posting the thread coupled with

2) mentioning this goes in the Clinton column

Tbh, my first thought when seeing the thread title was, "Oh here we go again".

Then I thought the article was quite funny then...

I thought, "Wtf does this have to do with the Clinton column?"

Then I go, "Oh it's just j2, again."

Your line about the Bush admin is quite funny too. Are you trying to be ironic?

Actually, yes...I wouldn't have thought you capable of noticing, given the sum of your leanings, but even a blind blind pig finds a truffle now and again. :)

My hat's off to you.

I don't post all of my leanings, twasshole.

[Busyman™]

You are right there, because this story points to a silly idea being turned away, Bush would no doubt embrace it.

Please explain what exactly some inventor proposing something has to do with the Clinton administration. If the story was that it was proposed and accepted then it would have an attachment.

It's a funny story worth posting, I just wonder what kind of obsession (apart from the mantra "everything was Clinton's fault" ) led you to say it could only have happened under Clinton.

You remind me of British tabloid headlines like "Queen in gun scare shocker".

The headline might make one think someone had actually planned something or got near to the queen with a gun. The story would turn out to be a gun was found in a trash can the day before and two miles away from somewhere the queen was visiting.

perhaps you should concentrate on what actually got through instead of what didn't

I'm not being touchy, what I'm asking is one of those questions that you never seem to answer but instead pose another question.

I asked a question and you answered with another question then asked me when I am going to ask you a question :rolleyes:

My, you are chafed, aren't you.

Off to the chemist for an ointment...:whistling

/moved to the Lounge.:no:

[j2k4]

My, you are chafed, aren't you.

Off to the chemist for an ointment...:whistling

/moved to the Lounge.:no:

It's okay.

I said so. ;)

[Busyman™]

/moved to the Lounge.:no:

It's okay.

I said so. ;)

Ya don't sayyyy since you started the thread here. DUH! :1eye:

[bigboab]

At the time that this was suggested there was talk of a chemical bomb that would kill only people with the Mongol gene. It was reckoned that this would eliminate most of the USSR and other eastern countries. A bit like the ideas of Hitler.:ph34r: Eliminating a class of people.

When you think about it, the USA was where most of Hitlers scientists fled to after WWII. The rest were captured by Russia.

A bit like the old joke;

A Russian and an American spaceship with scientists on board land on the Moon at the same time. The occupants meet up, shake hands and start talking in German.:rolleyes: