Question for the no nukes crowd.

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Thu Jun 04, 2009 11:26 am

Been listening to the teleprompter this morning on TV. It's going on and on about how fukked up the middle east is and it discussed nuke weapons.

It talked about how some think that it's not fair that some nations can have nukes while others can't. It said the solution was to well, uhh, I guess, just fukking uninvent them.

So, how exactly do we do this?

Do we wait until we get a handle on that warp drive dealio, climb into the enterprise, warp back to 19th century germany and shoot frau einstein in the head?

Or do we all just sign a little treaty thing and build a big ole A&M style bonfire out of nuke missles?

I'll bank on the former solution happening before the latter.

Why can't the prompter just be honest and say "Look, muthafukkas, we have nukes. Deal with it. You savages don't and we think it's a purty good idea that we keep it that way. Infact, we think it's such a good fukkin' idea that we are ready to bust a nuke cap or two into your ass to keep it that way. Allah Akshizzle, muthafukkas."

Why is it that when some fukker floats the idea that we can just bannish existing technology because it might hurt somebody, he isn't immediately laughed out of the room.

Weapon systems have come and gone throughout history. They do not go because somebody made them illegal. They go because the fukker across the way came up with another weapon system that buttfukked your's in the mouf.

So, perhaps nukes will go away, when some smart, prolly jewish, evil scientist comes up with a better way of making people dead and busting shit.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Thu Jun 04, 2009 2:44 pm

There's prolly plenty of room to collect them all in one place, shove them up your ass and seal it shut for 10,000 years.

That should take care of the problem.

Left Seater · Post by **Left Seater** » Thu Jun 04, 2009 3:02 pm

Granted it is a problem, but seriously uninvent them?

Long range delivery isn't near the issue that a suitcase bomb is.

We know how to deal with huge build-ups of them, we just build more and bankrupt the opposing nation. How do deal with a country with one or two and no long range delivery system is another matter. Pretty sure, being buddy buddy with them isn't going to work. Neither is paying them off.

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Thu Jun 04, 2009 3:34 pm

There is one way. You do everything you can to exterminate those that have them or you believe may aquire them.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Thu Jun 04, 2009 3:36 pm

smackaholic wrote:There is one way. You do everything you can to exterminate those that have them or you believe may aquire them.

I assume you would leave out the...uh...USA?

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Thu Jun 04, 2009 3:42 pm

smackaholic wrote: the prompter

Quick question. Have you ever had an original thought?

Van · Post by **Van** » Thu Jun 04, 2009 3:49 pm

"Hey, smackie, who's that guy beneath your name there?"

Sin,
Co-workers
Mother in law
Wifey
Children

"That guy? He's just my avatar."

"Duh! I know that! Who is he, and why'd you choose him to be your avatar?"

"Well, Muffy, it's, ummm, he's....

Okay, look. It's like this. See, up in the U&L...."

I'd love to hear how you answer. :D

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Thu Jun 04, 2009 4:31 pm

At least in the Cold War paradigm, the US and the Russkies generally agreed to prevent proliferation. Both sides ultimately failed in this...

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Thu Jun 04, 2009 4:40 pm

Oh, both sides failed?

I guess the US's failure was with Oppenheimer and the Rosenbergs - who were all spies for the USSR

the USSR proliferated to China, who proliferated to pretty much everyfuckingbody else except the French and the Jews.

STFU, PUS, you idiot.

Van · Post by **Van** » Thu Jun 04, 2009 7:27 pm

88 wrote:What will likely happen is that a breakthrough will be made in biological warfare

If attacked, would Cleveland even notice?

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Thu Jun 04, 2009 7:31 pm

Van wrote:
88 wrote:What will likely happen is that a breakthrough will be made in biological warfare
If attacked, would Cleveland even notice?

If Cleveland was attacked, would anybody else notice?

Van · Post by **Van** » Thu Jun 04, 2009 7:41 pm

Only if Drew Carey and LeBron were affected.

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Thu Jun 04, 2009 11:53 pm

Mikey wrote:There's prolly plenty of room to collect them all in one place, shove them up your ass and seal it shut for 10,000 years.

That should take care of the problem.

So, let's just assume we can do this.

What keeps everybody from making more? Do you admit that when Barry or anybody else rambles on about this pipe dream, they sound like a fukking moron?

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Thu Jun 04, 2009 11:59 pm

88 wrote:
smackaholic wrote:Been listening to the teleprompter this morning on TV. It's going on and on about how fukked up the middle east is and it discussed nuke weapons.

It talked about how some think that it's not fair that some nations can have nukes while others can't. It said the solution was to well, uhh, I guess, just fukking uninvent them.

So, how exactly do we do this?

Do we wait until we get a handle on that warp drive dealio, climb into the enterprise, warp back to 19th century germany and shoot frau einstein in the head?

Or do we all just sign a little treaty thing and build a big ole A&M style bonfire out of nuke missles?

I'll bank on the former solution happening before the latter.

Why can't the prompter just be honest and say "Look, muthafukkas, we have nukes. Deal with it. You savages don't and we think it's a purty good idea that we keep it that way. Infact, we think it's such a good fukkin' idea that we are ready to bust a nuke cap or two into your ass to keep it that way. Allah Akshizzle, muthafukkas."

Why is it that when some fukker floats the idea that we can just bannish existing technology because it might hurt somebody, he isn't immediately laughed out of the room.

Weapon systems have come and gone throughout history. They do not go because somebody made them illegal. They go because the fukker across the way came up with another weapon system that buttfukked your's in the mouf.

So, perhaps nukes will go away, when some smart, prolly jewish, evil scientist comes up with a better way of making people dead and busting shit.
I'm a member of the no nukes crowd. I hate them. I hate the use of nuclear technology for producing electricity and weapons. That being said, I recognize when the Genie is out of the bottle. If every nation on the planet signed an agreement to get rid of their nuclear weapons and weapons development programs, there would be very few who would keep their word. Plus, if the shit ever seriously hit the fan, and that is what shit does, those programs would be restarted in a heartbeat. What will likely happen is that a breakthrough will be made in biological warfare that makes nukes too expensive by comparison. That is how it goes.

So, you don't like them, but, realize that they aren't going away. Fair enough.

Personally, I'm glad we have them. They have made war among the big boys too horrible to contemplate. And man has done a lot more than just contemplate it over the centuries.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Fri Jun 05, 2009 12:08 am

smackaholic wrote: Do you admit that when Barry or anybody else rambles on about this pipe dream...

Dude, relax...he's lying....

Jeeeez, you people get worked up over so little.

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Fri Jun 05, 2009 12:11 am

Martyred wrote:
smackaholic wrote: Do you admit that when Barry or anybody else rambles on about this pipe dream...
Dude, relax...he's lying....

Jeeeez, you people get worked up over so little.

I know he's lying or is stupid. Actually, maybe a bit of both. I just don't understand how these fukks aren't called on such assinine statements.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:12 am

smackaholic wrote:
I know he's lying or is stupid. Actually, maybe a bit of both. I just don't understand how these fukks aren't called on such assinine statements.

Lying.

Now here's the kicker with nukes...

...you taxpayers fork over all this money, just so you never use them.

Ironic.

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:26 am

Martyred wrote:
Now here's the kicker with nukes...

...you taxpayers fork over all this money, just so you never use them.

Ironic.

True, but I haven't given up hope

Van · Post by **Van** » Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:36 am

Martyred wrote:
smackaholic wrote:
I know he's lying or is stupid. Actually, maybe a bit of both. I just don't understand how these fukks aren't called on such assinine statements.
Lying.

Now here's the kicker with nukes...

...you taxpayers fork over all this money, just so your enemies will never use their nukes. You guys really have one helluva strategic advantage, and we Canadians should be thankful that you guys do all the heavy lifting for us.

In any case, it's worked so far.

FTFY.

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Fri Jun 05, 2009 2:24 am

88 wrote:Cleveland would be missed. I'm sure after a couple of weeks, someone would call and ask "Has anyone seen Cleveland, lately?" And then someone would go check on us and find that we were gone. And then some other city would get bummed out because they now hold the second spot (behind Detoilet) as the worst place evah.

I don't think the Detroit River every spontaneously combusted. Nor have they had riots after 10 cent beer night. Detroit is also the birthplace of techno, Motown and the automobile. When is the last time Cleveland has contributed anything to society in general, except for Bone Thuggs-N-Harmony?

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Fri Jun 05, 2009 2:42 am

detoilet gets top billing because of how far it has fallen. cleveland was pretty much shit all along.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Fri Jun 05, 2009 3:21 am

smackaholic wrote:detoilet gets top billing because of how far it has fallen. cleveland was pretty much shit all along.

So essentially it's better to have been loved and now hated, than never to have been loved at all.

Detroit BODE over C-town

Van · Post by **Van** » Fri Jun 05, 2009 3:33 am

S_M wrote:Detroit is also the birthplace of techno

Game over. The verdict is in. Detroit is the worst, and their crime carries the "special circumstances" penalty.

Now, if someone wants to claim rap/hip-hop for Cleveland, okay, we'll reconvene the jury.

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Fri Jun 05, 2009 3:54 am

Iggy Pop is from Detroit, you ignorant fucktwat.

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Fri Jun 05, 2009 3:55 am

88 wrote: Cleveland is a giant seeping shit hole. But it is a shining city of light when compared to Detroit.

Please break down, in detail, your take. Take your time.

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Fri Jun 05, 2009 3:58 am

Van wrote:
S_M wrote:Detroit is also the birthplace of techno
Game over. The verdict is in. Detroit is the worst, and their crime carries the "special circumstances" penalty.

Now, if someone wants to claim rap/hip-hop for Cleveland, okay, we'll reconvene the jury.

I don't expect a geriatric, adult diaper-wearing fuck like you to ever understand, so I'll give you a pass for being a special needs fucktard.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Fri Jun 05, 2009 4:20 am

Hard to believe that there's actually somebody here "defending" Detroit.

Worst or second worst it's still way behind New Orleans. And Bakersfield.

Van · Post by **Van** » Fri Jun 05, 2009 4:22 am

Screw_Michigan wrote:Iggy Pop is from Detroit, you ignorant fucktwat.

Exactly. I forget about that. It just gets worse and worse. Definitely, add Iggy Pop to the techno charge.

Okay, Sprockets, exactly how musically lame are you, anyway? Techno?? Iggy fucking Pop?

Jesus, aren't you just an angst ridden fairy.

Anything else you wanna add? What about Madonna? Kiss? Eminem? The Edsel? The Pacer and the Gremlin? Wayne Fontes? 0-16?

Guilty. Guilty as sin. Put a bullet in Detroit, send the bill to Windsor and let Cleveland take a shot at it.

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Fri Jun 05, 2009 4:28 am

Mikey wrote:Hard to believe that there's actually somebody here "defending" Detroit.

Worst or second worst it's still way behind New Orleans. And Bakersfield.

'Twat I'm saying.

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Fri Jun 05, 2009 4:01 pm

Mikey wrote:Bakersfield sucks

It's not even a place that shitty things come from cause nothing comes from there but heat and dust and yuck.

Van · Post by **Van** » Fri Jun 05, 2009 4:15 pm

Bakersfield exists solely to give you hope that you're getting close to the Grapevine, during the interminable drive down from Sac to L.A.

Bakersfield is for stopping to let the dog take a shit.

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Fri Jun 05, 2009 4:18 pm

Since I actually like Cleebland, I'll have to look into visiting Detroit.

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Fri Jun 05, 2009 4:25 pm

PSUFAN wrote:Since I actually like Cleebland, I'll have to look into visiting Detroit.

I think you lose your Pittsburgh street cred for admitting that.

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Fri Jun 05, 2009 4:30 pm

Van wrote:Bakersfield exists solely to give you hope that you're getting close to the Grapevine, during the interminable drive down from Sac to L.A.

Bakersfield is for stopping to let the dog take a shit.

The old strip club's motto: 100 Beautiful girls and 3 ugly ones. Backwards assed fucks.

Van · Post by **Van** » Fri Jun 05, 2009 4:30 pm

PSUFAN wrote:Since I actually like Cleebland, I'll have to look into visiting Detroit.

I actually have no idea regarding either city, never having been to either one.

I'm just having fun with this debate, and S_M's horrible self-immolation music revelations.

Besides, I loved New Orleans, even post-Katrina. If New Orleans is supposed to be worse than Cleveland or Detroit then I'd probably enjoy Cleveland and Detroit too.

Somehow, though...nah. No way in hell I'd enjoy Cleveland or Detroit as much as I enjoyed New Orleans. I'd enjoy their new baseball parks, and their four days per year when it's neither too cold/gloomy/humid/freezing/plagued by locusts (how come every time the Yankees are in town and the game is on national tv it always look like a scene from the bible, out there on Cleveland's pitcher's mound?), but neither place has a French Quarter or a cool cajun/voodoo vibe.

Bakersfield? Bakersfield doesn't even count. It's a rest stop, not a major city. Merle Haggard is the only thing on Bakersfield's resume.

Sirfindafold · Post by **Sirfindafold** » Fri Jun 05, 2009 5:16 pm

Van wrote: Merle Haggard is the only thing on Bakersfield's resume.

and KORN.

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Fri Jun 05, 2009 5:55 pm

Screw_Michigan wrote:
PSUFAN wrote:Since I actually like Cleebland, I'll have to look into visiting Detroit.
I think you lose your Pittsburgh street cred for admitting that.

In some sectors. The sector that hates me now also hates to cross a bridge or exercise or crack a book. Fuck those Hunkies.

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Fri Jun 05, 2009 6:34 pm

PSUFAN wrote:The sector that hates me now also hates to cross a bridge or exercise or crack a book. Fuck those Hunkies.

Are you talking about The Crew? Did you just call The Crew Hunkies?

:swoon:

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Fri Jun 05, 2009 7:06 pm

My spreadsheet sucks. Who ARE ^^those^^ two cocknozzles?

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Fri Jun 05, 2009 7:32 pm

next you'll be wanting their phone numbers