U.S. Army makes gun that fires lightning

[SaltwaterServr]

So the lightning gun is still awesome?

No. The lightening gun causes cancer because if we didn't build it we would've cured it and AIDS both. So there's that.

 

[casmith07]

No. The lightening gun causes cancer because if we didn't build it we would've cured it and AIDS both. So there's that.

Wait are we talking about the lightning gun or the lightening gun?

I'm kind of happy with my complexion...not sure lightening is what I really want.

 

[Kingsmith88]

No. The lightening gun causes cancer because if we didn't build it we would've cured it and AIDS both. So there's that.

Wait are we talking about the lightning gun or the lightening gun?

I'm kind of happy with my complexion...not sure lightening is what I really want.

Why to bring something to the conversation.

~flush~

I knew Gung-ho types in the military. The guys who were all "I'm going to be an Airborne Ranger". Those guys all dropped out or wanted to quit within a couple of weeks of starting basic. A lot of the bravado expressed in this thread reminds me of that. Just saying. Carry on with your chest thumping.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

Why to bring something to the conversation.

~flush~

I knew Gung-ho types in the military. The guys who were all "I'm going to be an Airborne Ranger". Those guys all dropped out or wanted to quit within a couple of weeks of starting basic. A lot of the bravado expressed in this thread reminds me of that. Just saying. Carry on with your chest thumping.

Um, yeah. I'm not seeing any chest thumping in that exchange.

 

[SaltwaterServr]

Why to bring something to the conversation.

~flush~

I knew Gung-ho types in the military. The guys who were all "I'm going to be an Airborne Ranger". Those guys all dropped out or wanted to quit within a couple of weeks of starting basic. A lot of the bravado expressed in this thread reminds me of that. Just saying. Carry on with your chest thumping.

What colour is the sky in your convoluted world? In lieu of an answer you may engage in an activity that rhymes with "duck cough".

 

[Kingsmith88]

Um, yeah. I'm not seeing any chest thumping in that exchange.

It's vague you have to look for it.

 

[Kingsmith88]

What colour is the sky in your convoluted world? In lieu of an answer you may engage in an activity that rhymes with "duck cough".

Wow you're doing great.

 

[casmith07]

Why to bring something to the conversation.

~flush~

I knew Gung-ho types in the military. The guys who were all "I'm going to be an Airborne Ranger". Those guys all dropped out or wanted to quit within a couple of weeks of starting basic. A lot of the bravado expressed in this thread reminds me of that. Just saying. Carry on with your chest thumping.

What if I actually am an Airborne Ranger? Mind = Blown.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

What if I actually am an Airborne Ranger? Mind = Blown.

Then I'd demand to know why you wasted your time becoming an Airborne Ranger when you could've been developing a cure for cancer and AIDS.

 

[Kingsmith88]

What if I actually am an Airborne Ranger? Mind = Blown.

Clearly you aren't one of those guys I met in basic, as far as we know. That doesn't mean that the bravado in topics like this doesn't exist.

I brought up a fair point that money spent on developing unneeded weapons could be used on something useful like medical research. The Macho men come out of the woodwork to express their disdain. It is fine, at least ScipioCowboy was participating in an honest exchange of ideas, even if he thought I was wrong. Same can't be said for you can it?

 

[Kingsmith88]

Then I'd demand to know why you wasted your time becoming an Airborne Ranger when you could've been developing a cure for cancer and AIDS.

That wasn't the point I made now was it?

 

[SaltwaterServr]

That wasn't the point I made now was it?

It's certainly as obtuse and equally inane as your original point, which was probably Scipio's point all along. You're not quick to catch on when you're being toyed with are you?

 

[Wimbo]

Ok... Impartial observer here.

Kingsmith88, you baited these responses somewhere around post 34 when you used the word, "asinine."

Everyone else posting: you took the bait.

My opinion: 1) The US military spending is out of control, but new developments that reduce the need/expense of current ammunition technology should most definitely be developed. 2) There is no correlation between the amount of money the USA spends on the military and/or healthcare research, so there is no point of contention to discuss. 3) the private sector has huge amounts of non-Federal money being used to develop new and better ways to treat sick people. There are not many legal ways to do this with military arms development outside of US military awareness/participation. So, again... the correlation is non-existent. 4) There have been many developments through the centuries that have re-defined the ability of a military power to stay on top... bronze, iron, steel, projectiles, explosives, flight, nuclear, etc. We take for granted that the USA's place of power is something that was not worked for. We can't expect to maintain our place as a world power & peace keeper if we don't stay ahead of the rest of the world on ways to protect ourselves and our interests. So, if we can figure out how to use the awesome power of electricity to neutralize enemies from great distances (and do it with the power of lightning)... why not be proud of this accomplishment? It has taken nothing away from any other form of research. Besides, it is not a stretch of the imagination to connect that the ability to harness and project an electrical charge for a short burst onto a specific target could eventually be used to target cancer cells, or any other malignant cells.

Just my $0.02.

 

[Kingsmith88]

It's certainly as obtuse and equally inane as your original point, which was probably Scipio's point all along. You're not quick to catch on when you're being toyed with are you?

My point, that all the money spent on needless weapons would be better spent on benefits to mankind like more research for Aids or cancer, was neither obtuse or inane. You may not agree, but it is a valid point.

Because no one has really made a valid point or counter argument in this discussion, that equates to me being toyed with? OK

 

[Kingsmith88]

Ok... Impartial observer here.

Kingsmith88, you baited these responses somewhere around post 34 when you used the word, "asinine."

Everyone else posting: you took the bait.

My opinion: 1) The US military spending is out of control, but new developments that reduce the need/expense of current ammunition technology should most definitely be developed. 2) There is no correlation between the amount of money the USA spends on the military and/or healthcare research, so there is no point of contention to discuss. 3) the private sector has huge amounts of non-Federal money being used to develop new and better ways to treat sick people. There are not many legal ways to do this with military arms development outside of US military awareness/participation. So, again... the correlation is non-existent. 4) There have been many developments through the centuries that have re-defined the ability of a military power to stay on top... bronze, iron, steel, projectiles, explosives, flight, nuclear, etc. We take for granted that the USA's place of power is something that was not worked for. We can't expect to maintain our place as a world power & peace keeper if we don't stay ahead of the rest of the world on ways to protect ourselves and our interests. So, if we can figure out how to use the awesome power of electricity to neutralize enemies from great distances (and do it with the power of lightning)... why not be proud of this accomplishment? It has taken nothing away from any other form of research. Besides, it is not a stretch of the imagination to connect that the ability to harness and project an electrical charge for a short burst onto a specific target could eventually be used to target cancer cells, or any other malignant cells.

Just my $0.02.

Fair point

I do believe as you said that defense spending is way out of control. Has been for quite some time, see Ronald Reagan. The government does fund medical research it could be more if less was spent on defense, but you have a good argument. I hadn't thought about possible medical applications. I wonder if that is even possible.

I am a pacifist, that tends to color my opinions on a lot of these topics.

 

[SaltwaterServr]

My point, that all the money spent on needless weapons would be better spent on benefits to mankind like more research for Aids or cancer, was neither obtuse or inane. You may not agree, but it is a valid point.

Because no one has really made a valid point or counter argument in this discussion, that equates to me being toyed with? OK

There's no counter point being attempted because you're being openly mocked for your original claim which had no merit. It was quickly discredited and now you're being trolled.

 

[tupperware]

Let's play a game. I'm gonna make a thread and it'll be a race to see who can get in to a little spat first.

Bonus points are awarded if you can make analogies from anything in my post to a real world issue. Double Bonus points if you can take something in the OP and make it an issue of America or some other country.

Get your fingers ready.

 

[wittenacious]

Let's play a game. I'm gonna make a thread and it'll be a race to see who can get in to a little spat first.

Bonus points are awarded if you can make analogies from anything in my post to a real world issue. Double Bonus points if you can take something in the OP and make it an issue of America or some other country.

Get your fingers ready.

:laugh2:

Easy. What's your thread topic... World Peace? I'll tear it all down and ramp up the anxiety level for all who follow in Post #2. Finger hovering over button. :

Reminds me of the old-time TV Game Show: "Name That Tune," where contestants would say, "I can name that tune in ___ notes." LOL.

 

[Kilyin]

It was the multi-player aspect to Quake that made it better than Doom. Doom single player was awesome Doom and you could play modem to modem, but Quake you could play with lots of people on the Net. That was the true birth of the FPS multi-player gameplay revolution that is still alive and well today in games like COD and BF3.

Pretty sure Doom worked with Kali, though you had to be kind of a nerd to know that.

 

[tupperware]

Pretty sure Doom worked with Kali, though you had to be kind of a nerd to know that.

Yeah I remember Kali. Funny how that worked. Tricking games that weren't online compatible in to thinking they were on a local network.