New Weapon - GAY GAS????

Hmmm. Giving this more thought... Hows about itching powder bombs? Or, itching powder bombs with slippery stuff so it can't be itched or washed off easily?

0 Replies

John Creasy wrote:

StSimon wrote:
John Creasy wrote:

Did you have to bring up the woman thing??? I'm not saying that women can't be brave, but the notion that they can physically compete with men in battle is ludicrous.

Talk about GAS!

You disagree????

Fervently! I'm confident that there are countless numbers of women that could kick your butt with very little sweat expended.

0 Replies

StSimon wrote:

John Creasy wrote:
StSimon wrote:
John Creasy wrote:

Did you have to bring up the woman thing??? I'm not saying that women can't be brave, but the notion that they can physically compete with men in battle is ludicrous.

Talk about GAS!

You disagree????

Fervently! I'm confident that there are countless numbers of women that could kick your butt with very little sweat expended.

If that statement wasn't so ignorant, I would find it cute. Very Happy

Women simply are not equal to men in physical strength. This is a fact. Of course there are exceptions to every rule. An exceptionally strong woman might be more powerful than an exceptionally weak man, but chances are, there won't be too many of them on a battlefield.

I remember seeing an interview with Muhammad Ali's daughter who is a professional boxer. The woman interviewing her asked if she would ever fight a man. This professional fighter who can kick some serious a$s, conceded that a male fighter would simply be too strong for her.

0 Replies

My statement is ignorant? That coming from you is hilarious!!

0 Replies

StSimon wrote:

My statement is ignorant? That coming from you is hilarious!!

It must be so funny that you forgot to refute what I stated.

0 Replies

squinney wrote:

Hmmm. Giving this more thought... Hows about itching powder bombs? Or, itching powder bombs with slippery stuff so it can't be itched or washed off easily?

I thought we already had some stuff like that Squinney. How's Bear doing?

0 Replies

We do? No, wait. I was thinking more of just making them itchy, not like burning them alive.

(Bear is well, Thank you.)

0 Replies

Creasy, in the days of "white weapons" (i.e., no black powder), the skill of your opponent with the weapon at hand determined your fate, not brute strength--it does no good to swing the biggest axe on the battlefield if you miss . . .

(insert appropriate rolly-eyed, "geeze, how dense can you get," emoticon here)

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Creasy, in the days of "white weapons" (i.e., no black powder), the skill of your opponent with the weapon at hand determined your fate, not brute strength--it does no good to swing the biggest axe on the battlefield if you miss . . .

(insert appropriate rolly-eyed, "geeze, how dense can you get," emoticon here)

Maybe so, but even in that case I think it's safe to say that women have never been dominant on any battlefield. I'm sure there is individual exceptions but on the whole, men have always been dominant throughout history. The woman would have to be extremely well trained and have an opponent with very little fighting skills IMO.

Just some food for thought, but why is it that men have always been the dominant sex throughout history??

0 Replies

Because we're biding our time.

0 Replies

I was thinking wimmins was already in charge

0 Replies

husker wrote:

I was thinking wimmins was already in charge

They are, but it's not because of their strenghth. Very Happy

0 Replies

Here we are a year and a half later and the "Gay Bomb" is making the TV news. They were just talking about it on MSNBC.

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

This is a ridiculous concept. Would you bugger another man if you had a raging hard on and there wasn't a woman in sight? Of course, not.

And Finn, trying to attack liberals in a post where they were just attacking the idiot that came up with the idea of the gas is quite frankly... I will leave other people to finish that last sentence, because I'm quite sure that whatever I think up of will pale in comparison to what other people can think up of.

Finn is perfectly willing to acknowledge that the idiot deserves attacking, (as his post evidences), but he cannot ignore the Liberal penchant for framing every attack in terms of bigotry. People do all sorts of stupid and reprehensible things in this world, but believe it or not they are not all founded in bigotry.

Wolfie's lame attempt to respond to Finn's post is quite frankly...feeble, but perhaps that pales in comparison to what others might think. In any case I'm content with the scope of my assessment.

0 Replies

the prince wrote:

This has to be a joke right ?

Iv'e been hit with Gay gas in Santa Monica Ca.

It aint no joke and it aint non-lethal.

0 Replies

@squinney,

Are you f&/'jding kidding me?!!!!! You cannot seriously believe that!

0 Replies

New Weapon - GAY GAS????

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know