Rage on the Right

[elvis]

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?

Bush said there was no connection between Saddam and Osama. Cheney went on meet the press and basically said they were connected. He did everything but say it, if I remember correctly. Afterwords, 70 percent of the country believed Saddam was responsible for 9/11. And yes, I have posted several links in the past on this.

 

[editec]

i disagree
you can kill a lot of people with chemicals

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.

 

[Annie]

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?

Rationale for Kennedy's Tax Cut - New York Times

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.''

 

[del]

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.

the 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.

 

[DiveCon]

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 duped

read the fucking reports(and i dont mean some fucked up editorial on the reports, i mean the REAL reports)




btw, since when did it matter if something killed thousands vs millions
man you guys are being really fucking stupid on this
you just have to stay on the "bush lied" bullshit
when it is YOU assholes doing the lying

 

[DiveCon]

the 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.

sheeesh, i actually had someone on this very forum tell me they were not nuke weapons

 

[Dante]

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.

modest? we think not. and twenty million in what NYC?

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.

At the outset of this year, the Clinton Administration
threatened military action if Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein did not
allow United Nations inspectors free and unfettered access to sites
thought to be harboring the remnants of Iraq’s weapons of mass
destruction programs. Members of Congress have also called for
strong actions against an Iraq that inspectors assert still possesses
stocks of chemical and biological weapons. Why, then, have the
Clinton Administration and Congress crippled the ability of
international inspectors to detect violations of a new international ban
on poison gas?

The 1997 Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) authorizes
routine and challenge inspections to monitor compliance with the
treaty’s prohibitions on the development, production, stockpiling,
and use of chemical weapons...

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.

it has always been my opinion that WMD was a bad argument for revisiting gulf war I on Saddam. There were a few other reasons that would've justified going in after Saddam, but they may not have been an easy sell to the American public. Legally we could have gone back in under the terms of signed treaties/documents that called for the cessation of hostilities of GWI.

but the question is not whether Saddam ever had WMD...it is what did he have and when did he have it?

we mix up 911 and Iraq and the invasion of Iraq with the occupation

 

[Dante]

everything involving Iraq is not black and white. nuance

 

[Dante]

Rationale for Kennedy's Tax Cut - New York Times

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:

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.

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?

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

 

[Modbert]

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.

I already posted a link that JFK had plans to leave Vietnam by 1965 in another thread.

There is a taped black and white conversation that Kennedy had in which he stated that this is their war, not ours.

JFK cut the top tax rate from the high rate during Ike's term to 48% which would be considered "socialist" by today's standards by plenty of people on this board. Least if they believe Obama's 39% tax rate is socialist, then JFK must be a card carrying commie.

 

[Annie]

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?

Listen here:

Speeches of John F. Kennedy - John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum

 

[strollingbones]

hmmm a chemical weapon...would a pathogen be considered that? and a pathogen released in a population center or an airport could kill a lot more....look at what polio did?

suggestions:

Q&A: Bob Graham On New WMD Terror Attack Threat | Newsweek Voices - Terror Watch | Newsweek.com



Biological

Bioterrorism, another deadly threat, is the deliberate dispersal of pathogens through food, air, water, or living organisms to cause disease and, potentially more devastating, trigger alarm in a population. If properly produced and released, biological agents can kill on a massive scale and, if terrorists use a pathogen that can be transmitted from person to person, the disease can quickly spread across oceans and continents through air travel before authorities realize their nations have been attacked.

Developing a bioterrorism capability presents some scientific and operational challenges. However, the required scientific capabilities are not beyond the expertise of motivated biologists with basic university-level training. And, unlike other types of WMD, the materials required to produce a weapon are widely available – some are even found in nature. Even a badly-designed weapon resulting in limited health impact can cause significant uncertainty. Even though a small-scale bioterrorism attack, such as the 2001 anthrax attacks in the United States, can produce a relatively small number of cases of the disease, the costs of decontamination, medical treatment for the “worried well,” decreased commercial activity, social distress, and lost productivity can be considerable. The terrorists can often meet their objective of creating disruption and fear without large numbers of casualties.

Among present-day terrorist organizations, AQ is believed to have made the greatest effort to acquire and develop a bioterrorism program. U.S. forces discovered a partially built biological weapons laboratory near Kandahar after expelling the Taliban from Afghanistan. Although it was not conclusive that AQ succeeded in obtaining a biological weapon, the discovery demonstrated a concerted effort to acquire a biological weapons capability

full article: Chapter 4 -- The Global Challenge of WMD Terrorism


always amazes me how simple something like this would be....to bring perhaps dengue fever to the us...you would not bring the fever but the carriers of it...

just how many viruses are kept alive for study?


smallpox, anthrax etc stockpile viruses in labs

 

[editec]

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?

 

[del]

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

 

[PeterS]

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.

Didn't you just answer your own question? People who are feed hate-hate. I don't see anything surprising in that...

 

[Annie]

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.

 

[Modbert]

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.

I've seen people on this board blaming Obama over and over for things happening in this country and he isn't even President yet.

I've seen him be called a card carrying commie for wanting to raise the tax % for the rich from 35 to 39%.

If that was the case, then I suppose every president in the last hundred or so years but Reagan and Dubya were card carrying commies.

There is a difference between not trusting and simply hating. There is a difference between loyal opposition and plain opposition. I've seen several Republicans on this board go as far as calling anyone not Republican not american and helping the terrorists. Then I see others hoping Obama is failed so they can be proven right while not realizing if he fails that this country fails.

That is why I never wanted Bush to fail, I wanted to see him out of office but not fail. He has failed as a president and look what has happened to this country. If ANYONE believes that this country as a whole is better off then it was eight years ago then I simply say stop drinking that kool-aid and wake the hell up.

Though I do find it ironic that people say "How dare you defend Obama" when they were the same ones defending Bush not so long ago. (Until it became clear that the best thing to do for the election was to turn their back after eight years and try to paint Bush as a democrat for the next cycle).

This is why I refuse to side with any one party come the time to register to vote. Every one of us should be an independent, free of outside influences and using our ability to make our own choices and conclusions. But many don't, rather using the media (whichever side they follow) to make their conclusions for them.

George Washington once wrote of political parties, "The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism."

Avalon Project - Washington's Farewell Address 1796

Feel free to be ignorant of the hatred stemming from your party, I choose not to. It does not matter what political affiliation a person has. If the person is a lying scumbag then at the end of the day the person is a lying scumbag. The only difference is a good portion of one fraction will defend that person and their actions because of political parties.

This is not a game in which one wins or one loses but rather a game where we all lose if a person with power fails.

 

[Dante]

Listen here:

Speeches of John F. Kennedy - John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum

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.

 

[Annie]

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.

Yah know, f off. Troll. You wondered about the speech, I give you a link. If you can't fuking put together dates,