541
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 136:
Line 136: + + + + + + + + +
→Clinton and Gay Bomb?
:::I'll take that as a "Yes", then... --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 13:48, 8 October 2007 (EDT)
:::I'll take that as a "Yes", then... --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 13:48, 8 October 2007 (EDT)
::::*Am I right in assuming Bill Clinton was an imcometent idiot without a clue as to what was going on in his administration? particulalry as it pertains to national security? I though he was the smartest person to ever walk the planet? I thought having him as First Lady is our only hope of survival of the human species? Why, what you are saying tends to make me think we're being decieved..... [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:33, 8 October 2007 (EDT)
::::*Am I right in assuming Bill Clinton was an imcometent idiot without a clue as to what was going on in his administration? particulalry as it pertains to national security? I though he was the smartest person to ever walk the planet? I thought having him as First Lady is our only hope of survival of the human species? Why, what you are saying tends to make me think we're being decieved..... [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:33, 8 October 2007 (EDT)
::::::Well, at least you're focusing on the right person. That's a good start! Now, if you could focus a bit on why you included the Gay Bomb in the Clinton article, we'd make actual progress!
::::::Replying to your post in order:
::::::*I don't know if he is/was an idiot or not. That's not the issue here, though.
::::::*National Security ''might'' be a remote issue if there was proof that he had any influence here, but the articles only say that "the Defense Department" rejected it and that the interviewed officials called it a dumb idea, so it's reasonable to assume that it also would've been rejected without Clinton being President, I'd say. So unless you show that Clinton hired the guy who ended up rejecting it (which would be an indirect link and still not enough to merit being mentioned in the Clinton article in my eyes), it's not the issue here. It might become an issue if you managed to prove that the Gay Bomb (1) would have worked as advertised, (2) would have been ready by 2001, (3) would have been deployed to take out terror camps (Why didn't they just use a normal bomb, anyway?), and (4) would have successfully prevented 9/11. And if you ''somehow'' managed to do all that, here is my question: "Why didn't Bush pick up this project, which so obviously could prevent another 9/11 and magically solve tons of terror problems?" (Oh, wait, don't answer. I assume he did, and it's just Top Secret, and you'll have the last laugh once Bush gayifies dozens of terror camps, right?)
::::::*I don't know if Clinton is the smartest man on the planet - but if I had to guess, I'd say that he's not. Again: Not the issue.
::::::*This issue is also not about Hillary Clinton. At all.
::::::I might have felt some sort of sting if I was a Clinton fanboy. Apparently you think that anybody who disagrees with you about your Clinton edit must be a blind fanatic. How cute. Sorry, but I don't really care much about Clinton (and that goes for Bill and Hillary). I just care about your increasingly silly attempt to justify a completely off-topic edit that apparently aimed at simple smear-by-association (or, if you go through with your theory, smear-by-blaming-Clinton-for-9/11).
::::::Here, let me try this ''yet'' again: '''Where is the link that justifies the Gay Bomb being included in the Bill Clinton article? None of the sources mention him, and the request was simply turned down by somebody in the Defense Department.''' --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 15:10, 8 October 2007 (EDT)