I answered your questions in my reply #70. I can not help it if you want to pretend they were not answered.
Also, you have not come up with an adequate response to the FACT that both Teller and Cohen agreed the Russian mini nuke was tested at Los Alamos when you earlier flatly claimed it could not be true. You are still pretending to not acknowledge the truth.
All I read from what you write are wild claims of BS and obfuscation you attribute to others-not a FACTUAL or substantive basis on you part, only just more wild claims and wild uninformed questions while ignoring concrete answers. Typical Repub and Democrat spin tactics and politics of personal destruction on your part.
I gave out Bill Jasper's contact info so others like you could convince yourselves rather than relying on what others write that you would ignore and would pretend do not give out concrete answers. You can pick up the phone and dial the phone number anytime. If you feel like you are working too hard these days, give it a rest and then dial later. It might be good for you. But will you give us a reliable report back as to what Jasper says, Hmm?
I suggest that you and the other historical apologists and revisionists go play with yourselves, play your delusional games of spin, of ignoring important concrete answers and of engaging in wild claims of BS or obfuscation.
There is another tactic others have tried that you might also like trying-"it must not be true because we can't find it." But if you try that tactic and someone does find "it" for you ,will you pretend it does not exist, ignore it or whine by pretending you did not get concrete answers? Go find "it " for yourself and the others if you are SO sure of what you wildly claim.
Tell me why is it that GW Bush ,Condi Rice, the Repubs and Democrats & Congress and American corporations continue to ignore China's terrorism and hold business as usual with China? Are they stupid enough to believe that unfair trade with China will reform CHina?
Why would Bush unilaterally disarm the US of its nuclear delivery systems in face of a belligerant nuke buildup of terror states (and China) by China with an already imposing nuke threat from Russia?
Why would Bush propose sharing US missle defense operational and possible development details with the Russians and CHinese?
I do not agree with GW Bush policies in these areas and I doubt his judgement and motives best serve America (no matter how bad Clinton's corrupt behavior and policies were). Are these Bush bad policies the fruits of Third Way and COmmunitarianism thinking that Bush advisors in the White House advocate?
And Bill Clinton answered Kenneth Starr's questions. Said answers were completely unsatisfactory--as your response #70 was.
Also, you have not come up with an adequate response to the FACT that both Teller and Cohen agreed the Russian mini nuke was tested at Los Alamos when you earlier flatly claimed it could not be true. You are still pretending to not acknowledge the truth.
OK, so let me get this straight: the Department of Energy (DoE) moved the numero uno Holy Grail for terrorists of all stripes, an easily pilferable device, via FedEx. That is what Sam Cohen claims. Now, either DoE's security has collapsed to the point where one hijacked FedEx truck (heck, make that one dishonest FedEx driver or shipping clerk) threatens Western Civilization, or Sam Cohen is full of fecal material. While the former appeals to the prejudices of many on Free Republic, the latter is far more likely to be true.
All I read from what you write are wild claims of BS and obfuscation you attribute to others-not a FACTUAL or substantive basis on you part, only just more wild claims and wild uninformed questions while ignoring concrete answers.
Oh, really? Asking for an explanation of how, for example, this compound can undergo such an massive upward shift in its enthalpy without a similar increase in its entropy, while simultaneously doing useful work, does NOT fit my definition of "wild uninformed questions."
Typical Repub and Democrat spin tactics and politics of personal destruction on your part.
In case no one told you this...lifting lines straight out of the Clinton Pity-Party Handbook is a non-starter here on FR. Deal with it.
I gave out Bill Jasper's contact info so others like you could convince yourselves rather than relying on what others write that you would ignore and would pretend do not give out concrete answers.
Let's get this straight: if you are making the assertion here on FR, it's incumbent on you to supply the evidence. That's the way reasoned debate works. Telling someone to call a buddy of yours is NOT supplying evidence, it's simply telling him to do YOUR work for you.
You can pick up the phone and dial the phone number anytime.
Please give me your calling card number, so I can bill the call to the guy who's SUPPOSED to make it.
If you feel like you are working too hard these days, give it a rest and then dial later.
Naw, I have a better idea: I charge $150 an hour for consulting services, with an 10-hour minimum. You want me to do your work for you, you can pony up the money.
It might be good for you.
Then again, it might good for you to do your own work instead of acting like a lazy bum. Fancy that...
But will you give us a reliable report back as to what Jasper says, Hmm?
Once again: there is a little rule in debate that says when you make an assertion, it is incumbent on YOU to provide the supporting evidence. The fact that you did not solidly address any of the questions I raised--and they are serious questions of basic physics and weapons surety--is YOUR problem, not mine.
I suggest that you and the other historical apologists and revisionists go play with yourselves,
Ooh, I must have hit a nerve there. Lots of class, dude. Lots of class. Too bad it's also a sign of complete intellectual bankruptcy.
play your delusional games of spin, of ignoring important concrete answers and of engaging in wild claims of BS or obfuscation.
Your answers were as complete and as factual as the sworn testimony offered by Billy-Jeff Clinton. I didn't give Bubba the Hutt a pass--I sure as heck won't give YOU one.
There is another tactic others have tried that you might also like trying-"it must not be true because we can't find it."
Well, believe it or not, it's actually a valid point. If these amazing super-duper weapons actually exist and are that cheap to make, then they will be used by the bad guys at some point. Instead, Osama bin Rotten--who supposedly has enough money to buy a gazillion "Red Mercury" mini-neutron bombs, and the contacts to obtain same--is forced to have his lads hijack 757 and 767 aircraft, and turn them into improvised cruise missiles. That is one very powerful argument against the existence of these weapons, or $400 EMP bombs, or whatever else exists in the active imaginations of people who go into the business of conjuring up boogeymen to scare people.
The real world is plenty scary enough, it doesn't need embellishment.
But if you try that tactic and someone does find "it" for you ,will you pretend it does not exist, ignore it or whine by pretending you did not get concrete answers?
What you have "found" is that someone is making a lot of statements about a substance that completely defies basic physics. That wouldn't be bad, in and of itself, except that this person somehow neglects to explain HOW this substance is able to do such amazing feats.
Go find "it " for yourself and the others if you are SO sure of what you wildly claim.
I don't claim a damn thing--I am asking you to provide positive evidence that this substance exists and performs as advertised. So far, I've gotten a lot of arm-waving, but no solid data.