Fun:Clinton and the Gay Bomb: A play in two acts
|
This Conservapedia-related article is of largely historical interest and is no longer the focus of RationalWiki today. Conservapedia (and religious fundamentalism to an extent) was a major focal point in the early history of RationalWiki, but long ago ceased coming up with new ways to appall and amuse. Our energies are now spent debunking other, fresher examples of pseudoscientific claims, authoritarianism, and deceit. For RationalWiki's less ancient content, try the Best of RationalWiki. |
Dramatis personæ[edit]
ROB SMITH, an idiot and Conservapedian sysop
JENKINS, a RationalWikian
TK, an übertool and Conservapedian sysop
KARAJOU, a sea Captain petty officer 1st 2nd class and Conservapedian sysop
MAESTRO, a sock of Czolgosz
ABLE806, a soldier
BORU, a parodist
MATHERS, secret identity of RationalWikian Flippin
Act 1, Scene 1[edit]
Conservapedia. A talk page.
Enter JENKINS
JENKINS What does some unnamed researcher's denied request for funding for a ridiculous project have to do with an encyclopedia article about Clinton? Will we also include any silly idea spawned during the Bush era in the GWB article? Or do you honestly think that no researcher ever requested money for another silly project since Bush became President? This and the See also: Gay Bomb link will only make CP look foolish, I think.
Seriously, guys, the link between Clinton and the Gay Bomb is nothing more than Clinton happened to be in power while somebody way lower in the chain had a dumb idea that got rejected by the Defense Department. Chances are he never even saw this request.
Enter TK
TK See Also's may or may not have anything at all to do with the article subject, Jenkins. Think of them as further reading material, in the same general category. Like the Reagan article, see Conservative Links, which may or may not include links to personalities and/or organizations Reagan might well have detested.
JENKINS While I silently disagree with the driving logic, I'm willing to accept it and thus the existence of the See also: Gay Bomb part. However, the explicit paragraph in the article itself does look extremely out of place, with or without the See also section.
Enter ROB SMITH
ROB SMITH Right. Just as Reagan just happened to be in power when the AIDS epidemic hit; only in that case, I do not think funding was denied. Nonetheless, we never stop hearing the end of it.
[Aside] See Liberal hate speech, Gay Reagan is Dead.
JENKINS Erm... let's see... the term AIDS appears zero times in Ronald Reagan. Any of the words Acquired, Immune, Deficiency or Immunodeficiency, or Syndrome appear zero times in the article. HIV or virus appear zero times. Epidemic appears 0 times. Disease appears only in the Alzheimer context. Gay appears zero times, too. I also read over the article, and couldn't find any reference to it.
At the same time, our AIDS article makes no mention of Reagan, instead saying that it was first recognized in the early 1980s. Compare this with Gay Bomb, where you inserted the proposed during the Clinton era bit even though all linked sources/references simply say in 1994.
I'm not sure what point you wanted to make, but it looks a lot like mine: "It's just something that happened while the guy was President, but he was not directly involved. So what is this doing in his article?" In fact, this proposal most likely never made it all the way up to Clinton since it was rejected early on. So if anything, the Gay Bomb is even less connected to Clinton than AIDS is connected to Reagan.
ROB SMITH Yes, that's all very interesting. One wonders why, if AIDS is not exclusively a homosexual disease, why to this day are gay activists and gay activists organizations the only ones who criticize Reagan for not mentioning the term AIDS? And again, Reagan funded AIDS research, whereas Clinton promoted homosexual causes, and in doing so could have prevented the 9/11 attacks by dropping a gay bomb on Afghan terrorists camps. But he appears to have failed.
JENKINS You're dragging this discussion further and further away from the actual point, Rob. Please point out to me where Bill Clinton had any direct influence on the Gay Bomb ...and please tell me that your Gay Bomb could have prevented 9/11 thing is just a sick joke of yours.
Here is what the FOX News source says: "Air Force spokeswoman Lt. Col. Cathy Reardon said the idea was proposed by an Air Force researcher at a lab at Brooks Air Force Base in Texas, but it was rejected by the Defense Department. Officials noted that the Air Force constantly is considering funding proposals."
Funny, no mention of the President being involved in any way!
The Gay Bomb has absolutely no connection to Bill Clinton. Aside from your opinion about what he could have or should have done about it. It is completely off-topic in an article about Bill Clinton, and by now I almost assume it serves as some sort of smear-by-association by trying to link Clinton to an absolutely ridiculous proposal made by some researcher. Please prove me wrong and remove it.
ROB SMITH Similar to Venona project; Truman had no knowledge of it, yet it is integral to his Administration, the history of his times, and everything that resulted from his decision making thereafter, with or without his knowledge of Venona.
JENKINS In other words: Any decision made at any level in any department in the administration automatically is directly connected to the President in person and thus should be mentioned in his concise encyclopedia article?
I must also note your inability to stay focused on the here and now. I start discussing one issue connected to one person, and you immediately swerve to Reagan and Truman, citing things that had significantly more impact than one of undoubtedly countless silly proposals made while Clinton happened to be in charge.
Are you seriously basing your Clinton/Bomb connection on your unsourced and unprovable opinion that it could have prevented 9/11 and that thus, the refusal by the Defense Department becomes his failure as President?
And am I right in assuming that you'll continue to refuse addressing the points at hand and instead drag me across US History until I give up and leave you alone? If you answer only one question, please answer that last one. Then I could write this off as a lost cause and move on.
ROB SMITH In other words: Any decision made at any level in any department in the administration automatically is directly connected to the President in person
[Aside] Just like the Watergate breakin, (a) it wasn't even done by a government agency, and (b) Nixon had no prior knowledge. However I don't think we will ever undo the damage done to Nixon's reputation, then or now, by alleged scholarly, reputable, and journalistic sources who seem to ignore this fact.
JENKINS And am I right in assuming that you'll continue to refuse addressing the points at hand and instead drag me across US History until I give up and leave you alone?
I'll take that as a "Yes", then...
ROB SMITH 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.....
JENKINS 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.
ROB SMITH As I understand, Hillary Clinton was the Dick Cheney of the Clinton White House. While Bill Clinton & George W. Bush were just the idiot front men used to pose for pictures with Girl Scouts in the Rose Garden, Hillary, like Dick Cheney and even GWH Bush in the Reagan White House was the real power and brains behind the throne making policy and running the show.
So indeed Hillary Clinton has some questions to answer.....
JENKINS ...I give up. This discussion made me lose 20 IQ points, I think. Have fun, Rob.
JENKINS To the brave souls who managed to read all the way to here: I tried. I really did.
Act 2, Scene 1[edit]
Conservapedia. Another talk page.
Enter ROB SMITH
ROB SMITH Did the 9/11 Commission investigate this? Perhaps if it had been funded in the Clinton era and dropped on Terrorist training camps in Afghanistan, 9/11 could have been prevented.
I smell coverup.
Enter MAESTRO
MAESTRO Or the fact that the bomb didn't work.
ROB SMITH It would have to be field tested before being combat tested, this generally is how U.S. weapons development has traditionally operated.
Enter BORU
BORU That is interesting RobS. I wouldn't be surprised if that lech did cover up this. Its definately a tragedy anyway.
Enter KARJOU
KARAJOU I don't smell coverup at all...I smell stupid. If this "gay bomb" was a real intention, then it's another example of stupid ideas from certain elements of our armed forces, and they have done such in the past. Project Mogul was one, in which the theory was high-altitude balloons released in New Mexico could be devices to listen for Soviet stuff on the other side of the globe; the CIA's ESP experiments in the 1960's; the Sgt York anti-aircraft weapon (unlike the real York, this one couldn't aim!), and it goes on and on and on. And during this "gay bomb" thing, there was talk of loading bombs with pork fat and dropping them on the Moslem enemy; the theory behind that one would be that the Moslems would be ritually unclean as a result, lay down their arms, and immediately head for Mecca!
I think we should call the gay bomb for what it was: just another excercise in stupidity.
ROB SMITH We know that gays infiltrated the military on Clinton's watch under "don't ask don't tell;" it's not surprising this idea was floated shortly thereafter.
KARAJOU Then it could very well be an idea used as nothing more than a tool to discredit someone.
Enter ABLE806
ABLE806 There were gays in the Army before Clinton's watch. I was in the Army during the late 80's and I know there were gay service men then. Only thing was that back in the 70's and 80's there was much more violence in the military among soldiers so those that came out tended to have accidents.
MAESTRO According to my father, there were gays in the military in the 1960s. A guy he knew got caught and went to prison.
ROB SMITH Right, I forgot. Just like those socially progessive Nazi's had gays, like Ernst Rohm. Clinton guided America down the trail of social progress that Hitler blazed 50 years earlier.
MAESTRO Er, the Nazis weren't exactly kind to the general homosexual population. I've visited the holocaust museums in DC, St. Louis, and Jerusalem, and some of the things the Nazis did to gays would make you sick. Rohm was an exception.
Enter MATHERS
MATHERS Two things, then I'll go back to listening. First, have the gays really "infiltrated" the military? Seems like I would have heard a lot more about it if a majority became gay overnight. Secondly, how would this bomb work? I know it's not PC to say that being gay is a choice, but if the "we're queer and we're here" crowd is wrong, then how would a bomb make them choose gayness?
ROB SMITH These are questions for greater minds than us to ponder.