The US Government has Made You Gay.

I can't believe this link even being drunk and dizzy. What will it seem like to me in the morning?

P.S: I recall "Half Past Dead" entertaining me while I was eating sandwiches some day. Hit the 'mute' button and Steven Seagal is actually quite OK.
 
No, no, Baboon; Colt obviously likes the scene with Erika Eleniak. Obviously the part where she takes off her cap and reveals her short-cut hair.

cap9.jpg
 
Yes!! It's now been at least 5 years since I watched Under Siege, and that scene is all I remember. It kind of makes the movie worth to watch.

Is it me or have Steven Segal movies just gotten worse and worse since then?
 
Steven Segal is moralistic rubbish. He reminds me of the ol' priest in my elementary school; constantly complaining how 'things should be better'! I can't stand people like that.
If he would get of his fucking arse and use some of the millions he makes by producing his shitty movies for a cause, then he'd be worth of some respect. Right now, he's just an annoying little fuckwit stirring up cliché's and thinking he's making the world better with it.
 
You DO realize such weapons would violate various international laws and make the US the prime threat to world peace (heh, as if it wasn't yet), right?

Chemicals that cause mental disorders (not homosexuality, but temporary insanity -- they don't suddenly "become" gay as far as I understand the concept, they just hump everything in sight) -- or simply psychological traumas (as result of temporary disorders) -- or permanent physical disorders (light sensitivity, etc) and can only be used on areas and not individual targets are no different from the traditional weapons of mass destruction.

Finding methods of tracing terrorists is an okay concept, but creating chemical weapons that can not be used discriminately is about as unethical as it gets, lethal or not.

Most weapons for reducing enemy morale had the opposite effect. Carpet bombing civilian areas has always turned the civilians against those who ordered the bombings, public executions have always increased the hate against the executioners, and so on.
You might demoralize a few people, but the majority will just get their beliefs strengthened and if the "demoralizing" actions affected civilians, you might even get MORE enemies (but hey, if the civilians are against you, you can just call them a new threat and justify wiping them out)
 
Jebus said:
Steven Segal is moralistic rubbish. He reminds me of the ol' priest in my elementary school; constantly complaining how 'things should be better'! I can't stand people like that.
If he would get of his fucking arse and use some of the millions he makes by producing his shitty movies for a cause, then he'd be worth of some respect. Right now, he's just an annoying little fuckwit stirring up cliché's and thinking he's making the world better with it.
Click to expand...

Ya it seems like the movie's he makes are either about the rich exploiting the poor through crime or native-american's being taken advantage of. I saw those years ago...never again.

Sincerely,
The Vault Dweller
 
Bradylama said:
no different from the traditional weapons of mass destruction.
Click to expand...

[nukes]

=

[homos]

Why you hate gays, Ashmo?
Click to expand...

If you think this has ANYTHING to do with homosexuality, you are honestly retarded.

Homosexuality is a sexual orientation. You can't make someone homosexual. You can make someone behave in ways that are not parallel with their sexual orientation with the help of drugs (chemicals), though

I seriously doubt the chem would only make them act (discriminately) homosexually, though. Extreme sexual arousal (especially when it's caused unnaturally) would probably lead to humping anything in sight rather than suddenly changing one's sexual orientation, the object being human or at least being alive would probably be no more than a slight bonus.

If you don't see how THAT could probably lead to psychological traumas or be called a case of temporary (drug-induced) insanity, you honestly need to mature a bit (and here I don't mean growing pubic hair but actually gaining some wisdom).

As for the "gayness" thing: sexual orientation consists of two things: what turns you on and who'd you have sex with. Many people get turned on by watching a guy whack off or whatever, yet they wouldn't neccessarily define theirselves as homo- or bisexual because they wouldn't actually consider having sex with them. It's hardly a binary system, even though many people like to claim it is (usually because they feel uncomfortable about being thought of as homosexual).
The majority of men has some "homosexual tendencies", yet the actual amount of homosexuals or bisexuals among them is quite small in comparison.
 
If you think this has ANYTHING to do with homosexuality, you are honestly retarded.
Click to expand...

You'll have to forgive me for finding an aphrodisiac on the same level as thermonuclear warheads a bit silly.

If you're going to make silly statements, I'm only going to respond in a silly manner.

I didn't ask for, nor did I need a lecture on sexual orientation.
 
Bradylama said:
You'll have to forgive me for finding an aphrodisiac on the same level as thermonuclear warheads a bit silly.

If you're going to make silly statements, I'm only going to respond in a silly manner.
.
Click to expand...

But he wasn't making silly statements was he? He was pointing out that because the weapons are designed to have the same style field effect rather than descriminatory targetting, then considering the effect they would be violating several laws and would be viewed as highly unethical.

Also he was talking about the style of weapons, not a specific one and mentioned weapons of mass-destruction, which if you listen to some leaders of certain countries encompasses more than just "thermo-nuclear warheads".

Unless I mis-understood his post, which is not improbable.
 
But he wasn't making silly statements was he? He was pointing out that because the weapons are designed to have the same style field effect rather than descriminatory targetting, then considering the effect they would be violating several laws and would be viewed as highly unethical.
Click to expand...

I'm not debating the morality of developing these chemicals, nor the indescriminate nature of their use. Only that comparing them to WMDs is taking it a little far. And no, WMDs aren't just thermonuclear warheads. However, I still wouldn't classify something like a Super Aphrodisiac in the same weapons category as Mustard Gas.

If anything, something like the beforementioned weapons are a class all their own.
 
Okay, that´s it, enough with the bullshit. The US has the most effective and powerful army in the world and they pass on budget for this crap?!

When in the name of Jesus H Christ are they going to stop spending millions in this kind of bullshit?!

THERE ARE MILLIONS OF PEOPLE STARVING TO DEATH OUT THERE!!!!

There are even thousand homeless people in the US (their own country) and they insist in spending millions in such weapons?!

What is wrong with you people?! This angers me to no avail!!

What is the problem? Don't you already have the most powerful military and the authorization and blind eye of other countries and international organisms to invade any nation you like? Do you people have shit for brains or something?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top