Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Some of the people who had the most knowledge -THE FRIGGING WEAPONS INSPECTORS - said that there were no more weapons of any significance left.
Cheney has consistently put forth the connection between Iraq and 9-11. To deny that is to deny reality.
We were warned of Mushroom Clouds by Condi. They weren't talking peyote.
Saddam was pushed as an immediate threat to the US. That's they way demogogues get wars approved. And no matter what you say, Congress does not get the same intelligence the president does.
But the point still is, are the righties attacking Obama afraid of what he might accomplish? If we try and destroy his ability to get anything accomplished, are we good conservatives?
i disagree
you can kill a lot of people with chemicals
I am embarrassed of this public display of your ignorance...embarrassed enough for both of us. Please read the links I posted and get back to us with your head out of the sand?
JFK, was not the equivalent of a supply sider.
please, stop scratching at the open sores in your mind?
September 18, 1984
Rationale for Kennedy's Tax Cut
Tax-cutting policies with a supply-side flavor were put forward two decades ago by the Democratic Administration of John F. Kennedy.
In a speech before the Economic Club of New York on Dec. 14, 1962, President Kennedy gave what could stand today as an eloquent statement of the supply- side case, particularly as it relates to budget deficits and tax rates.
He said:
''Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that, no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenue to balance the budget - just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits.
''In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low - and the soundest way to raise revenues in the long run is to cut rates now.''
How big a bomb of Chemical weapons do you suppose you'd have to use to kill twenty million people?
You'd need one fairly modest nuclear weapon landing on New York to do that.
You'd need to land tens of thousands of posion gas cannisters to achieve the same thing.
You can disagree with a definition, because after all a definition is either something agree to or not. But you cannot disagee with the reality of the above.
Poison gas is a tactical weapon, not a weapons capable of creating MASS DESTRucTION.
Saddam had NO WMDs, just as the weapons inspectors TOLD us.
You can quibble, you can play word games, you can lie, you can insult people, you can try to play every fucking stupid dishonest game that you boy BUSH II and his army of liars played, but the reality is that we were lied to repeatedly by this Republican administration.
Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction.
Be a man, for change, DC, and just acknowledge that your boy lied to you.
Being duped by professional liars is no crime.
you are the one being dupedHow big a bomb of Chemical weapons do you suppose you'd have to use to kill twenty million people?
You'd need one fairly modest nuclear weapon landing on New York to do that.
You'd need to land tens of thousands of posion gas cannisters to achieve the same thing.
You can disagree with a definition, because after all a definition is either something agree to or not. But you cannot disagee with the reality of the above.
Poison gas is a tactical weapon, not a weapons capable of creating MASS DESTRucTION.
Saddam had NO WMDs, just as the weapons inspectors TOLD us.
You can quibble, you can play word games, you can lie, you can insult people, you can try to play every fucking stupid dishonest game that you boy BUSH II and his army of liars played, but the reality is that we were lied to repeatedly by this Republican administration.
Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction.
Be a man, for change, DC, and just acknowledge that your boy lied to you.
Being duped by professional liars is no crime.
sheeesh, i actually had someone on this very forum tell me they were not nuke weaponsthe US has always considered chem/bio weapons to be WMD. when did 20MM people become the threshold for mass destruction? i must have missed it. far fewer than 20MM died at hiroshima and nagasaki, are you going to argue that fat boy and little man were not WMD?
as you said, you can quibble and play word games, you can even play fucking stupid dishonest games about what a WMD is, but to what avail?
if you ever feel the urge to accuse someone of intellectual dishonesty, i suggest you reread what you've posted here before doing so.
modest? we think not. and twenty million in what NYC?How big a bomb of Chemical weapons do you suppose you'd have to use to kill twenty million people?
You'd need one fairly modest nuclear weapon landing on New York to do that.
You'd need to land tens of thousands of posion gas cannisters to achieve the same thing.
You can disagree with a definition, because after all a definition is either something agree to or not. But you cannot disagee with the reality of the above.
Poison gas is a tactical weapon, not a weapons capable of creating MASS DESTRucTION.
Saddam had NO WMDs, just as the weapons inspectors TOLD us.
You can quibble, you can play word games, you can lie, you can insult people, you can try to play every fucking stupid dishonest game that you boy BUSH II and his army of liars played, but the reality is that we were lied to repeatedly by this Republican administration.
Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction.
Be a man, for change, DC, and just acknowledge that your boy lied to you.
Being duped by professional liars is no crime.
So, was Kennedy really a forerunner to Reagan and Bush? Or are supply-siders just cynically appropriating his aura? The Republicans are right, up to a point. Kennedy did push tax cuts, and his plan, which passed in February 1964, three months after his death, did help spur economic growth. But they're wrong to see the tax reduction as a supply-side cut, like Reagan's and Bush's; it was a demand-side cut. "The Revenue Act of 1964 was aimed at the demand, rather than the supply, side of the economy," said Arthur Okun, one of Kennedy's economic advisers.
This distinction, taught in Economics 101, seldom makes it into the Washington sound-bite wars. A demand-side cut rests on the Keynesian theory that public consumption spurs economic activity. Government puts money in people's hands, as a temporary measure, so that they'll spend it. A supply-side cut sees business investment as the key to growth. Government gives money to businesses and wealthy individuals to invest, ultimately benefiting all Americans. Back in the early 1960s, tax cutting was as contentious as it is today, but it was liberal demand-siders who were calling for the cuts and generating the controversy.
As i said he was further right than GW Bush not that being further right than GW Buah is actually much of an accomplishment by the way.
JFK cut tax rates from Eisenhowers seventy percent top rate down to 48% in an across the board tax cut fo the same sort that you and yours called tax cuts for the rich when Bush did it. He largely defeated Nixon on the sole issue of a percieved missle gap in the favor of the Russians. He more than quintupled the number of troops we had in Viet Nam.
Ain't real history better than ideological B.S.? JFK couldn't be elected dog catcher in the Democratic party while espousing the principals by which he governed in the modern Democratic party.
Good. Then let's go back to JFK's tax number for the top 2%. That would aid a great deal with the deficit.
Well, yes, he had 30,000 there when he was assinated. And was considering pulling them all out.
Annie, you have linked to a page on the NYT web site that is unattributable and it is unclear if it is a lte or some other inane piece of rubbish.
maybe you glossed over (I am sure you did not purposefully ignore) the main point of the post that was in quotes:
now how you can argue with an economic advisor to JFK at the time, coming equipped with an unattributable piece of rubbish is beyond me. what happened? did you not read anything or did you have a comprehension problem?
the US has always considered chem/bio weapons to be WMD.Well...did it? I don't think so. They didn't call them WMD back in the 70s. They called them unconventional weapons which is what they basically are.
FWIS, you can call a molehill the Rockey mountains, too, if you want ,but that does not make a molehill a mountain.
when did 20MM people become the threshold for mass destruction?
I merely gave you an illustration to make my point. Let me try again without numbers.
Let us presume we can deliver an atomic weapon weighting 10,000 lbs on manhatten.
Let us also presume we can deliver 10,000 lbs of chemical weapons on the same spot.
Now certainly both would kills thousands of people but which one would deliver MASSIVE destruction?
The nuclear weapon would kill millions of people instantly, tens of millions within days of the bomb.
The chemical weapons would kill thousands and that would be the end of it.
MASS implies something truly massive.
Comparing the destructive capacity of nuclear weapon to poison gas is merely making an enormous mistake in scale.
But okay, I'll play...what is the "killing potentiaL threshold" to become a weapon of mass destruction, in your opinion, del?
Where AND HOW do YOU draw the line in what constitutes a weapon of MASS destruction?
the US has always considered chem/bio weapons to be WMD.Well...did it? I don't think so. They didn't call them WMD back in the 70s. They called them unconventional weapons which is what they basically are.
FWIS, you can call a molehill the Rockey mountains, too, if you want ,but that does not make a molehill a mountain.
I merely gave you an illustration to make my point. Let me try again without numbers.
Let us presume we can deliver an atomic weapon weighting 10,000 lbs on manhatten.
Let us also presume we can deliver 10,000 lbs of chemical weapons on the same spot.
Now certainly both would kills thousands of people but which one would deliver MASSIVE destruction?
The nuclear weapon would kill millions of people instantly, tens of millions within days of the bomb.
The chemical weapons would kill thousands and that would be the end of it.
MASS implies something truly massive.
Comparing the destructive capacity of nuclear weapon to poison gas is merely making an enormous mistake in scale.
But okay, I'll play...what is the "killing potentiaL threshold" to become a weapon of mass destruction, in your opinion, del?
Where AND HOW do YOU draw the line in what constitutes a weapon of MASS destruction?
a properly handled M2 is a weapon of mass destruction, IMO, but generally speaking nuclear, bio,chemical and radiation weapons are what now are considered to be covered under the rubric WMD.
of course, you may disagree so here's a few other definitions for your perusal.
A weapon of mass destruction (WMD) is a weapon that can kill large numbers of humans and/or cause great damage to man-made structures (e.g. buildings), natural structures (e.g. mountains), or the biosphere in general.
The term is often used to cover several weapon types, including nuclear, biological, chemical (NBC), and radiological weapons. Additional terms used in a military context include atomic, biological, and chemical (ABC) warfare and chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) warfare.
Weapon of mass destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
he most widely used definition of "weapons of mass destruction" in official U.S. documents is "nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons."
NTI: WMD411
"The Weapons of Mass Destruction Branch provides substantive support for the activities of the United Nations in the area of weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, chemical and biological weapons), including the threat of use of weapons of mass destruction in terrorist acts, as well as missiles."
Weapons of Mass Destruction
.
US Military Dictionary: weapons of mass destruction
Home > Library > History, Politics & Society > US Military Dictionary
"In arms control usage, weapons that are capable of a high order of destruction and/or of being used in such a manner as to destroy large numbers of people. The term can be applied to nuclear, chemical, biological, and radiological weapons, but excludes the means of transporting or propelling the weapon where such means is a separable and divisible part of the weapon."
Britannica Concise Encyclopedia: weapon of mass destruction
Home > Library > Miscellaneous > Britannica Concise Encyclopedia
"Weapon with the capacity to inflict death and destruction indiscriminately and on a massive scale. The term has been in currency since at least 1937, when it was used to describe massed formations of bomber aircraft. Today WMDs are nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons frequently referred to collectively as NBC weapons. Efforts to control the spread of WMDs are enshrined in international agreements such as the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty of 1968, the Biological Weapons Convention of 1972, and the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993. See nuclear weapon; chemical warfare; biological warfare"
weapons of mass destruction: Definition from Answers.com
What's the real reason for this almostpathological rage that is being expressed by some on the right to Obama's election?
This from a man who makes his money selling hate of other Americans.
What I fail to see is all the 'rage' those from the left keep raging about. I see nothing on the right that comes close to the nonsense we've all been privy to for the past 8 years. If not liking, trusting Obama is 'rage', get over it. They didn't vote for him for reasons that had nothing to do with race.
yeah, is there a particular speech you wanted to link to and had problems doing so? if that is the case maybe I can help.
