Lucky...

Please provide a source for your claim that the US government deliberately exposed US civilians in Nevada and Utah. So you ADMIT that it deliberately exposed US soldiers and sailors. I guess we're getting somewhere. Now you're making up lies? That's rich. I'm not surprised. The possibility that people conducting the tests thought the fallout would dissipate to non-toxic levels before reach citizens is not an option, eh? If what you assert is true wouldn't there have been tons of lawsuits for the US government intentionally (key word - intentionally) harming citizens. I know of government actions to compensate those harmed, but none where it was shown the harm was intentional. Give it up, perfessor. How about negligence? Does that make the US scum for that or not? Negligence with you car is one thing, negligence with a Nuclear weapon is quite anither.

"Hiroshima is the largest untouched target not on the 21st Bomber Command priority list. Consideration should be given to this city", Gen. Leslie Groves, memo on guidelines for target selection, Manhattan Project Target Committee, April 27, 1945 Bzzzzzz... Wrong answer! Being picked as a target because it was untouched is one thing, being intentionally left untouched for the purpose of studying the effects of an atomic blast is something entirely different. To difficult to understand? Try this... I drove my car in the left-hand lane this morning because it was empty. Does that mean it was empty just so I could drive there? I wish! Care to try again? Please pay attention. See the rest of the thread. Hiroshima was "reserved" by the targeting committee. He does that, he jumps in midstream, reads a post and replies with issues that have been established.

Where did I do that? Link, please. Oops My mistake. Lucky brought it up. I asked him about and you started chiming in from there. However, that doesn't change the fact that no one has shown that our government intentionally sent the people of the Marshall Islands and Bikinis back home so we could study the longterm effects of radiation. By proof, I'm talking about any evidence about our governments motivations in this little drama du jour. I posted it twice now, US Congressmen noted that we did so purposely and then studied them.

I sincerely hope I'm missing your sarcasm. MAD does not produce a stable equilibrium, and the more circus performers you add to the balancing act, the more likely it is someone falls off the tightrope and takes others nearby with them. More worrisome still, MAD is only an unstable equilibrium when all entities involved have 303M or 143M or perhaps even just 70M people sitting around unknowingly in large clumps, not if one entity is 10s of thousands scattered around an entire region. To put a slight spin on the old saying, 1,000 nuclear weapons is a statistic, 1 nuclear weapon is the end all be all of asymmetrical warfare. It's bad enough that we already have to rely on several countries to maintain security over a nuclear arsenal (ourselves included.) but five weapons each in the hands of two countries is twice as risky as ten weapons in the hands of one country. I'm speaking in ideology only, but what makes the US so responsible? We've misued our authority more than we've used it correctly, so what makes us so great with nuclea weapons?

Read my citations I posted at least twice now and refute something, anything about them.

Whoops Yea, whoops, we execute innocent Americans as well as perform experiments on islanders.

Hey, great points. As with most things, they are numerous and dynamic. One reaosn I just read was that 2 billion $$ was spent on the Mathattan Project and if Truman didn't use the bombs he could assume himself of an ousting next election. There are so many points and the dropping of the bombs were more political than military. We can transpose the same logic with Bush's war hobby in the M.E. Is it oil? Is it religion? s i general ideology? Is it due to him wanting to be a war president as oppsed to a president that served during peaceful times? Probably all of those and many, mnay more - just like WWII.

>>>>>>>Lucky, I expected more from you UNTIL I read your previous posts in this and other threads. You seem unwilling to discuss this in a civil, logical or rational manner (a few examples are quoted below), and I don't have any interest in engaging in that kind of discussion. Call it concession, acquiesence, or whatever you'd like, but I'm done. See, what I do is to throw in a little sarcasm so guys like you have an exit plan - I’m a little more organized than the guy you voted in - all you have to do is cry foul that your feelings are hurt, ignore all the facts and citations I post, then refuse to talk to that man anymore. Thx for playing - buh-bye. Oh, BTW, acquiescence noted.

"Hiroshima is the largest untouched target not on the 21st Bomber Command priority list. Consideration should be given to this city", Gen. Leslie Groves, memo on guidelines for target selection, Manhattan Project Target Committee, April 27, 1945 Said quote, however, does NOT provide proof the city was left untouched solely to provide a target for an atomic bomb. Sorry. Unless we pull FDR and Truman out of their graves to testify to you, Mikey, you won't believe what is reasonably established and substantiated by the very acts of the US at that time. If not, why did we bomb a city that we hadn't bombed all during the war and that had very little military importance?

>>>>>Do you have proof that our government intentionally sent the people of the Marshall Islands and Bikinis back home so we could study the longterm effects of radiation? *sigh* This was all posted by me very recently, why do I have to keep reposting this stuff? http://www.rmiembassyus.org/Nuclear%20Issues.htm 1994 July - U.S. Representatives George Miller and Ron de Lugo write to Dr. Ruth Faden, chairperson of the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments: "...There is no doubt that the AEC intentionally returned (Marshallese) to islands which it considered to be "by far the most contaminated places in the world,' but which it told the people were safe. Nor is there any doubt that the AEC, through the Brookhaven National Laboratory, then planned and conducted test after test on these people to study their bodies' reaction to life in that contaminated environment. " Have a nice day.

>>>>>Call it a "Good Ol' Boys Club" if you want, the fact remains that they are alive because the bomb was used. That is blatant speculation. Furthermore, it ignores the issue of whether we used Hiroshima, Nagasaki and many islands in the South Pacific as platforms for testing the potential of these weapons. >>>>>>I'm sure they couldn't care less what you think of that. What any of us think is irrelevant as to whether we used Hiroshima, Nagasaki and many islands in the South Pacific as platforms for testing the potential of these weapons. >>>>>>You remarked that Hiroshima was intentionally left untouched by conventional bombing. This is true. However, you assert the reason for this is so damage by a nuke could be measured. Care to share with us where you got this tidbit of info, or is it just speculation? What’s worse with having to spend sometimes hours researching data is when I do and I post it, then someone lags into the middle of a thread and asks questions that have been answered with said researched info that was recently posted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki The Target Committee at Los Alamos on May 10–11, 1945, recommended Kyoto, Hiroshima, Yokohama, and the arsenal at Kokura as possible targets. The committee rejected the use of the weapon against a strictly military objective because of the chance of missing a small target not surrounded by a larger urban area. The psychological effects on Japan were of great importance to the committee members. They also agreed that the initial use of the weapon should be sufficiently spectacular for its importance to be internationally recognized. Also, had you read this thread you would have known I heard this on Discovery Channel in I believe 95 or 2000 when they had an anniversary weekend special. >>>>>>>>>Many cities of known military value were left untouched and for many reasons, including strategic and tactical. Yes, read directly above and understand that they were left untouched so we could potentially bomb them if we needed to. That was the strategy and the tactic.

How does the saying go again about wishing in one hand and something else in the other? I gather you do a bit more than wish about such things, however, so here's to that. Here's a thought, since we will never see world disarmament, what if everyone had the same nuclear capability? Wouldn't we all tend to act with respect? An armed society is a polite society, so an armed world is a polte world.

1) >>>>>>...stopped a terrible war and resulted in a net reduction in deaths on both sides. *******Pure speculation, who knows what the deaths would have been in numbers? It certainly likely lowered teh numbers of the allied casualties, but the Japanese, that's arguable. I'm not going to bother researching it. The only thing important to me is that US and allied casualties were prevented. 1a) So you ask for research and I give plenty, then you relpy with the least empirical answer. What's that? This is YOUR opinion, not an answer. Basically says, "I don't care about facts or truth, as I can't impeach what you've posted, I just want it to be this way and not the way it realy is, so there." I really did expect more from you by reading your previous postings. As I wrote, if you need to concede, it's ok. 2) >>>>>>Oh yeah, we did warn them first, but unfortunately it took two to make the point. *******OK, they were already beaten down, especially in Tokyo, so further threats didn't matter to Hiro Hito. They were not close to surrendering, and even if they were, we had every right to use a new weapon. And as for warning, the leaflets, per the info I posted were dropped on Nagasaki the day after the bombing, not sure about Hiroshima. Furthermore, if you kill your neighbors but warn them first, is that absolving? 2a) Wait, wait, finish that statement, "...we had every right to use a new weapon on civilian communities that we intentionally avoided bombing so we wouldn't scatter the populous and so we could see the human damage of this bomb." Right out of the pages of Timothy McVeigh, huh? Wonder why he did the shit he did? HE was trained by the best murdeers in the world, huh? 3) >>>>>>It was not a science experiment to see what the weapon would do to people. *******Oh no? Then why did the US bomb a city not heavily or at all supporting the war? Hiroshima was not conventionally bombed during the war, as it wasn't a strategic point, so why atomically bomb an unmollested city? Discovery says it was to see what the casualties would be with a city that didn;t have people departing... The intent was to do major damage and kill as many people as possible. The Wiki page that you linked tells how the target was selected. If the city was intentionally left unmolested in an effort to gather data from the bombing, then good for us. 3a) Come on, I like mine with no sugar at all, lets clean it up, shall we? "The intent was to do major damage and kill as many innocent civilians not heavily engaged in the war as possible. So when others use warfare where they kill innocent civilins, they are murderers, but when we do we are just engaging in war. Be objective for a minute and undestand why other countries hate us. Your, we do what we want attitude brijgs upon us their version of the same. 4) *******...but Discovery is just a bunch of liberal, cum swilling faggots, right? Thoughts about their choice of beverage or sexual practices have never crossed my mind. 4a) Point is that most people will attack the source and say everyone but Fox and newsmax are all liberal and all intentionally lie to hate the US as all liberals must do. I do give you credit for not doing that, I wish you would try to impeach history as I posted or research your own and post it. You've essentially acquiesced.

That was a common theme for many... my father included. I probably would not be here now had the Marines made the expected landings. IT was a war...and a very bloody one at that in the Pacific. My father was a survivor of GuadalCanal, Peleliu, Okinawa, but he felt had we invaded Kyushu... most of those he knew would not have come home. Sure, but it's not responsible to decide world policy upon these folksy stories, that was my point. We DID use the citizenry of Hiroshima, somewhat Nagasaki and definitely the Marshall Islands, Bikinis, Kwajalein, etc as test subjsects. No wonder when we kill 100's of thousands or whatever the number of Iraqi civilians in our act to allegedly free them the citizenry of the US apathetically nods in agreement.

>>>>>>>Statistics, numbers, claims, counter-claims, suspicions, blah, blah, blah...... It don't mean shit. I know, facts ae worthless, we need to ALWAYS realize the US is ALWAYS right and never brutal. >>>>>>>>>I know two men, both good friends and respected elders in my community,... This defines the good ole boy club, I'm not interested in the credibility of anyone's good ole boy club, I defer to silly facts. >>>>>>>> know two men, both good friends and respected elders in my community, who were on an island in the Pacific getting ready to invade the Japanese mainland. Neither of them thought they would live through it. Neither did any of their fellow soldiers. They both said they felt the same thing when they learned the bomb had been used, that they felt like God had given them another chance at life. So as an autobiography, that's neat, but as anything relevant to the question of whether the US used the Japanese as test subjects and/or the US used other Pacific Islanders as test subjects post WWII it carries zero relevance. >>>>>>>Say what you want, what those men told me is all the proof I need to know that the decision to drop the bomb was the right one. Well that settles it then, I'm convinced. Could you at least cite thei names in bibliography format: Per Bob and Andy...they said.... You're not looking at this as anything but a microcosm of two guys who survived the war. I would probably feel the same way if I were them, just as I would feel good when this garbage in chief gets out of office and we get a Dem who will get us out of there, esp if I were a soldier over there. Thx for sharing that folksy story.

The nukes stopped a terrible war and resulted in a net reduction in deaths on both sides. Oh yeah, we did warn them first, but unfortunately it took two to make the point. It was not a science experiment to see what the weapon would do to people. We used animals for those tests. Note also that the US provided substantial support to our vanquished enemies in stabilizing/rebuilding their countries. Can you document your assertion that we were experimenting on the Pacific Islanders? >>>>>>...stopped a terrible war and resulted in a net reduction in deaths on both sides. Pure speculation, who knows what the deaths would have been in numbers? It certainly likely lowered teh numbers of the allied casualties, but the Japanese, that's arguable. >>>>>>Oh yeah, we did warn them first, but unfortunately it took two to make the point. OK, they were already beaten down, especially in Tokyo, so further threats didn't matter to Hiro Hito. >>>>>>It was not a science experiment to see what the weapon would do to people. Oh no? Then why did the US bomb a city not heavily or at all supporting the war? Hiroshima was not conventionally bombed during the war, as it wasn't a strategic point, so why atomically bomb an unmollested city? Discovery says it was to see what the casualties would be with a city that didn;t have people departing, but Discovery is just a bunch of liberal, cum swilling faggots, right? How about that, I found another source, but I'm sure you'll denounce it too. ______________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki At the time of its bombing, Hiroshima was a city of some industrial and military significance. A number of military camps were located nearby, including the headquarters of the Fifth Division and Field Marshal Shunroku Hata's 2nd General Army Headquarters, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan. Hiroshima was a minor supply and logistics base for the Japanese military. The city was a communications center, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops. It was one of several Japanese cities left deliberately untouched by American bombing, allowing an ideal environment to measure the damage caused by the atomic bomb. Another account stresses that after General Spaatz reported that Hiroshima was the only targeted city without prisoner of war (POW) camps, Washington decided to assign it highest priority. The center of the city contained several reinforced concrete buildings and lighter structures. Outside the center, the area was congested by a dense collection of small wooden workshops set among Japanese houses. A few larger industrial plants lay near the outskirts of the city. The houses were of wooden construction with tile roofs, and many of the industrial buildings also were of wood frame construction. The city as a whole was highly susceptible to fire damage. The population of Hiroshima had reached a peak of over 381,000 earlier in the war, but prior to the atomic bombing the population had steadily decreased because of a systematic evacuation ordered by the Japanese government. At the time of the attack the population was approximately 255,000. This figure is based on the registered population used by the Japanese in computing ration quantities, and the estimates of additional workers and troops who were brought into the city may be inaccurate. _____________________________________________ There's your evidence. As I wrote, Discovery channel said the same thing. I could probably find it elswhere is you're not convinced. Another reason was political; the Ruskies were getting ready to win the Pacific Theatre too, and the US didn't want them to get that satisfaction. Also, to use this weapon on people put the Russians on warning that we were #1 and not to fuck with us. Just like this joke in Iraq, the reason for the bombings were many. We DID bomb a city with limited military meaning when we bombed Hiroshima. We also intentionally bombed a city that had not been hit by convential weapons to hope that the population wouldn't spread, alas, a petri dish. >>>>>>Note also that the US provided substantial support to our vanquished enemies in stabilizing/rebuilding their countries. The Marshall Plan? OK< so we did, but that doesn't address nor mitigate our human experiments on the Japanese citizens or the other islanders post-WWII with our nuclear testing. Can you refute any of this with your data? >>>>>>>Can you document your assertion that we were experimenting on the Pacific Islanders? As for post WWII testing, the cites I posted with the excerpts pasted in my posts will be what you're looking for. Congressmen admitted we prematurely moved these islanders backhome before the radiation was at safe levels so we could watch the thyroid damage incurred. Please, ask for more info if you're not convinced, but be honest and perhaps concede if you objectivekly feel the evidence meets a reasonable standard.

yeah. and that's why when the Democrats were in power, everything got solved. 1) Apparently you agree, as you didn't reject any of what I wrote. 2) I am very critical of the Dems, do you want a lost of what I dislike that they have done? I haven't always voted that way. Eisenhower was a very ideal pres to me, but that was before the garbage yook over. I think GHW Bush would have been a great pres if detachtched from Reagan. I think Ford would have been diff had he been elected conventionally instead of dropped in and required to pardon Nixon. As for Dems soving everything, contemporarily, which is the only honest and inteligent way to look at this issue, we have had 8 years of Dem over the last 26 years and let's see what happened. - deficit was balanced to zero - Value of US currency was incr over the world - People we generally happier, world didn't hate us like this - Unemployement went under 4% while wages were up and inflation was under control - There were college tax credits and general tax andvantages for poor people / average joe Those were the good ole days and Hillary will be elected under those feelings; the people wanna getback to the way we felt then.

>>>>>>And you try to show that they knew all this (from reports that wouldn't come out for 27 years AFTER the fact) going into the Bikinis to do the testing and that it was malicious intent? Actually I didn’t use the words, “malicious intent” but I like them. Gross negligence to say the least. I mean, we just leveled Hiroshima and Nagasaki with bombs FAR inferior, up to 1,000 times inferior and we had no clue that there would be likely grave consequences? Remember, we still had black/white fountains and bathrooms here, so we looked at non-whites as non-people. To assume we didn’t think there would be a problem is inane. To understand now that congressmen revealed that we let the natives back on to these islands prematurely so we could use them as guinea pigs for thyroid issues, and to be apathetic to that is immensely uncompassionate. >>>>>>>*THAT* is what I'm calling bullshit on, your rhetoric, not the fact that the nuclear tests caused damage. But Mikey, my post is in response to this statement of yours: Lucky - nice spin as usual from you...and you wonder why people keep calling bullshit on you? Drop the rhetoric and just give the data and you make convince a few people of your points... So Mikey, do you interchange the issue that you are calling bullshit upon when it’s convenient? Kind of a flip-flopper aren’t you? Isn’t the statement immediately above with the arrows just a diversion from having to discuss the issues? Remember the issues that you asked for data; Little boy / fat man and post-WWII testing in the South Pacific? I gave you data, yet instead of addressing it, you vacate that and focus on your assertion of rhetoric, claiming now that that is the issue rather than the data and evidence you were looking for in regard to the nuclear testing. Let’s combine the two bits of joy from you here: >>>>>>>Lucky - nice spin as usual from you...and you wonder why people keep calling bullshit on you? Drop the rhetoric and just give the data and you make convince a few people of your points... *THAT* is what I'm calling bullshit on, your rhetoric, not the fact that the nuclear tests caused damage. Bahahahahahaha…… now that is funny. Previous to those gems was this: >>>>>>>"killing many of their people" Show your cite. I did, you ran from it. Mike, you can think I’m the worst SOB on earth, it won’t change the atrocities we committed to these people. Quit worrying about what you think of me and address some issues: ___________________________________________________________ As I wrote yesterday, you must have just skim-read it, as you are a great reader; that’s all I can do to explain you not reading that I would reply with more about this territory that the US exploited to test killing devices to thwart a pathetic USSR. Anyway, here it is: http://www.rmiembassyus.org/Nuclear%20Issues.htm 1973 AEC draft report, not publicly released, concludes that Bravo fallout may have contaminated as many as 18 atolls and islands, including Kwajalein and Majuro. It appears that all of the radiation-related deaths on Kwajalein resulted from fallout from bombs dropped over the Marshall Islands, Bikini’s, etc. That entire region, including the Kwajalein atoll were devastated by the country that brought us liberty and freedom. Is it like we didn’t know what would happen? I mean we used Hiroshima as our first petri dish, then used a bomb some 1,000 times as lethal and were surprised when the fallout caused leukemia, cancer and other deaths? Please Mike. 1976 July - The U.S. Congress approves $20 million and military logistic support for a nuclear cleanup of Enewetak Atoll. A Brookhaven National Laboratory report on Rongelap shows that 20 of 29, or 69 percent of the Rongelap children who were under 10 years old in 1954 have developed thyroid tumors. The people of Utrik, whose original exposure in 1954 of 14 rads of radiation was less than one-twelfth that of Rongelap, suddenly show a higher rate of thyroid cancer than the Rongelap people, indicating the long latency period before health problems develop from low level radiation exposure. 1994 July - U.S. Representatives George Miller and Ron de Lugo write to Dr. Ruth Faden, chairperson of the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments: "...There is no doubt that the AEC intentionally returned (Marshallese) to islands which it considered to be "by far the most contaminated places in the world,' but which it told the people were safe. Nor is there any doubt that the AEC, through the Brookhaven National Laboratory, then planned and conducted test after test on these people to study their bodies' reaction to life in that contaminated environment. " As I said, petri dish, just like Hiroshima. Look at the bottom of the site I gave you and you’ll see the chronology of 67 bomb tests from 1946 to 1958.…. I wonder why they don’t teach this stuff in school? http://robert-barclay.com/Preface.htm Do you know that jellyfish babies are babies born with no bones in their bodies? Sometimes they look transparent, inside-out. They happen because radioactive elements like cesium-137 and strontium-90—which once introduced into land or sea will not go away for hundreds of years—get into foods like crabs and coconuts and breadfruits and bananas and are absorbed into the human body as though they were calcium and potassium. Do you know that malignant transformation of human cells as a result of radiation exposure might take twenty or more years to occur? You might think you are headed for a comfortable old age, and then your thyroid goes haywire telling your body to sprout deadly tumors. Sometimes it does not take so long. Sometimes you acquire leukemia, or some other cancer, or your children are born retarded or freakishly deformed. Sometimes, if you are a woman, you give live birth to a jellyfish baby, or an octopus baby, an apple baby, a turtle baby, what some Marshallese women call monster babies. Here they call them, “jellyfish babies.” It’s the same thing, radiation causes babies to be born with no bone structure or otherwise deformed. Why is the right so tentative to admit what happened then and there? ___________________________________________________________________ >>>>>>Until the day you become a realist and quit trying to lay all the world's problems at the feet of a single political party, I'll call bullshit every time you try it. I’m not, perhaps if you spent a little more time thinking about this issue rather than repeatedly typing, “rhetoric” you would have thought of the fact that FDR started the Manhattan Project and that Truman pushed the buttons. These were Dems in case ya didn’t know. I liked FDR’s domestic policy and liked little about Truman, but the neo-con presidents are pathetic on all fronts. Not to mention that Lincoln, the first Republican pres, established the freedom of blacks. I’m not blaming one party for anything, but the current garbage Republicans are just that and I beg you to establish otherwise. So perhaps you shouldn’t paint me with a broad brush, as I’m critical of the Dems as well, just not the current Dems so much. >>>>>>>>Nice ad-hom on the 'true patriotic American' jab, sucks when you can't play the ball and have to resort to playing the player. No Mike, you are true patriot and if you could PM me to teach me to ignore the American Indian, Japanese American, African American, Iraqi and many other atrocities, not to mention the 9 trillion $ debt, I could also be a true American for which I long.

That's a fantastic quote ... love the latter part! Amazing and humbling document! VR/Marg I disagree; it's superficially clever but incorrect. O'R has completely forgotten about the US Code. Title 26 ALONE runs to 9,471 pages and over 7 million words. There are 49 other Titles and then some appendices. THEN there are the State documents. I agree, the US COnst is a document for those who decided not to go to college. It's essentially a doc for dummies to feel safe.

Well, actually the horns on your head are a dead giveaway from a good hundred yards. You look like Sean Hannity

good article. I agree with him, and I call it "liberalism" I'm a small-government liberal. However, he's only telling one side. The definition of conservative is : 1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change. (from dictionary.com) Unfortunately, many who call themselves conservatives will use big government to enforce those ideals. That's why so many conservatives want the government to police our bedrooms and other aspects of our personal lives, and to do so using expensive and aggressive government-run programs. One of the old institutions that SOME conservatives also want to preserve is the old principle of eternal warfare and imperialism. In fact, it seems that in the minds of many Conservatives, militarism and patriotism are the same thing. War is the most expensive big government program of all, and imperialism is big government on steroids. That's why I call myself a liberal, not a conservative. And yes, I would gladly do away with many of the big government economic safety nets if it would mean we could also do away with this whole World Policeman trip we're on. Libertarian = disgruntled Republican. Look at Paul, he goes back and forth. Reagan had Libertarian ties too. How do you make a liberal? Take a tight-ass conservative and put them in a position of great need. They make the biggest whiners, they call for all kinds of gov help, the same shit they denounced in the previous years. The Libertarians will get their 2-3% votes, and Paul acting like a Republican, a short jump, will get maybe 4%. The party is really a joke, take the biggest issue, healthcare and ignore it and call it fixed. It really is justified why they are thought of as a joke.

That's a fantastic quote ... love the latter part! Amazing and humbling document! VR/Marg >>>>>>Amazing and humbling document! Not so much. It is overstated and lacks much. For its time it was amazing, by today's standard it is poop. For example: 1) It was written by people who, after spending a dy guaranteeing freedom and liberty, went home to their slaves, often screwing them (rape). 2) Only the rich/land owners voted 3) At the writng, we were ~85 years away from abolishing slavery, which really wasn't abolished until the early 1900's, then racial oppression took over for another 60 years. Antimiscegenation (laws prohibiting white females to marry other than white males) werewitten post-Civil War. 4) Women were ~150 years from being able to vote. And in general, the constitution is a tool selectively used to enforce laws or enforce protections at the whim of who's in power. Also, the word, "privacy" is no where to be found in the Articles, Preamble, Amendments or anywhere in teh US Const. The document is like Paris Hilton; talked about too much for no good reason.

I wrote: Is that in reference to the Kwajalein comment? Sure, headin to work soon, but tonight I will post. In the meantime, Google, "Waterbabies" (babies born with no bone structure) and you will get a headstart on that, or wait and I will tonight. In the meantime, just keep believing we do no harm and that dissent was good then but not now, just like labor orgs. Mike, you ARE a true American, if only I could aspire to that. I will post later tonight. >>>>>>Lucky - nice spin as usual from you...and you wonder why people keep calling bullshit on you? Drop the rhetoric and just give the data and you make convince a few people of your points.. Don’t blow a vein….. On second thought…… As I wrote yesterday, you must have just skim-read it, as you are a great reader; that’s all I can do to explain you not reading that I would reply with more about this territory that the US exploited to test killing devices to thwart a pathetic USSR. Anyway, here it is: http://www.rmiembassyus.org/Nuclear%20Issues.htm 1973 AEC draft report, not publicly released, concludes that Bravo fallout may have contaminated as many as 18 atolls and islands, including Kwajalein and Majuro. It appears that all of the radiation-related deaths on Kwajalein resulted from fallout from bombs dropped over the Marshall Islands, Bikini’s, etc. That entire region, including the Kwajalein atoll were devastated by the country that brought us liberty and freedom. Is it like we didn’t know what would happen? I mean we used Hiroshima as our first petri dish, then used a bomb some 1,000 times as lethal and were surprised when the fallout caused leukemia, cancer and other deaths? Please Mike. 1976 July - The U.S. Congress approves $20 million and military logistic support for a nuclear cleanup of Enewetak Atoll. A Brookhaven National Laboratory report on Rongelap shows that 20 of 29, or 69 percent of the Rongelap children who were under 10 years old in 1954 have developed thyroid tumors. The people of Utrik, whose original exposure in 1954 of 14 rads of radiation was less than one-twelfth that of Rongelap, suddenly show a higher rate of thyroid cancer than the Rongelap people, indicating the long latency period before health problems develop from low level radiation exposure. 1994 July - U.S. Representatives George Miller and Ron de Lugo write to Dr. Ruth Faden, chairperson of the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments: "...There is no doubt that the AEC intentionally returned (Marshallese) to islands which it considered to be "by far the most contaminated places in the world,' but which it told the people were safe. Nor is there any doubt that the AEC, through the Brookhaven National Laboratory, then planned and conducted test after test on these people to study their bodies' reaction to life in that contaminated environment. " As I said, petri dish, just like Hiroshima. Look at the bottom of the site I gave you and you’ll see the chronology of 67 bomb tests from 1946 to 1958.…. I wonder why they don’t teach this stuff in school? http://robert-barclay.com/Preface.htm Do you know that jellyfish babies are babies born with no bones in their bodies? Sometimes they look transparent, inside-out. They happen because radioactive elements like cesium-137 and strontium-90—which once introduced into land or sea will not go away for hundreds of years—get into foods like crabs and coconuts and breadfruits and bananas and are absorbed into the human body as though they were calcium and potassium. Do you know that malignant transformation of human cells as a result of radiation exposure might take twenty or more years to occur? You might think you are headed for a comfortable old age, and then your thyroid goes haywire telling your body to sprout deadly tumors. Sometimes it does not take so long. Sometimes you acquire leukemia, or some other cancer, or your children are born retarded or freakishly deformed. Sometimes, if you are a woman, you give live birth to a jellyfish baby, or an octopus baby, an apple baby, a turtle baby, what some Marshallese women call monster babies. Here they call them, “jellyfish babies.” It’s the same thing, radiation causes babies to be born with no bone structure or otherwise deformed. Why is the right so tentative to admit what happened then and there? One day I’ll become a true patriotic American like you Mike and I will understand that this liberal propaganda is just hype. OH, BTW, Japanese-American internment is just BS too.

Is that similar to "you're the ones that don't want children to have health insurance" ? Uh, case/point. Yes I am, but how does that really play into this? Furthermore, you only want responsible 5-year olds having insurance, so your paraphrasaztion is obviously and typically exadgerated. Just proving the point that "your side" is equally as insulting and exaggerative...as your reply proves yet again, unless you can show me where someone actually said what you like to infer over and over and over again... >>>>>Just proving the point that "your side" is equally as insulting and exaggerative...as your reply proves yet again, unless you can show me where someone actually said what you like to infer over and over and over again... Nanny, Nanny, Boo, Boo….. Mike, the issues. Hang on, I will now answer these posts.

Yes: 1) Moral right - - kills stem cell research - hates gays - wants to use tax money to further forced Christianity in schools (vouchers) - Thinks the flag really matters - wants to remove choice from all people in the direction of tehir ives, reduce it to some broad scripture to be determined by whichever dictatorial mollestor is in charge - etc... 2) Fiscal right - wants to claim fiscal conservatism and live off Eisenhower's principals from 50 years ago, uses the Cart admni to describe the contemporary dems, and claims all of Clinton's successes were the doing of the right or just plain ignore them - wants to make your employers med insurance benefits taxable - wants to eliminate inheritance taxes - wants to deny kids in poverty any/most medical coverage - wants to continue to throw 100's of billions at a so-called war of corporate profit - wants to eliminate txes for the rich - thinks the debt is just a number, the recent mega-crash of the US dollar is just a slight trend and not associated with the booming Republican debt - thinks he commies are still a threat - thinks the voctims of Katrina were "lucky" so there is no need to help them too much - etc........ So exactly which element of the Republican Party do you find appealing? Honestly, err, I mean which relative do you adore so much that you would go Republican?