The tax had to do with every person of voting age paying a tax. It did not have to do directly with voting.
Funny thing about your only source: When you click on the header to try to get to a home page, there isn't one. "Encyclopedia of the New American Nation" defaults to "Encyclopedia of the [sic.] American Foreign Relations." There's no home page, no About Us, no masthead, just a list of topics and a sidebar of "Ads by Google." So who are they when they're at home?
Have your ever heard the term poll used in regard to something that isn't an election, say, a counting of people? Do you know that a head count is sometimes called a poll? Although the term poll tax has been used in the United States to mean charging people to vote, elsewhere it more typically means charging people because they were counted. Thatcher's poll tax was this other variety, and the term was correctly used.
Typical example of intellectual bankruptcy. Attack the messenger and not the message. I gave you a source, either refute it or concede the point about Eisenhower and his nuclear policies.
Is this any better? I suggest you read down a bit. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/421797/nuclear-strategy/52987/Massive-retaliation
Well, yes, but I thought I'd give you the benefit of the doubt anyway. I'm asking you who the messenger is. If you don't know, just say so. It's a series of opinion pieces. One can dispute an opinion, but not refute it.
I'm not that interested in this argument, but feel compelled to point out that you are both wrong. Our nuclear policy evolved and matured during the 50s. There were many differing strategies proposed with varying acceptance as events unfolded. It took a while for official policy to settle on a combination of M.A.D. and restraint from use against non-nuclear powers.
I thought they did not abandon "massive retaliation" until after the Cuban Missile Crisis. Any way, the fact remains that Eisenhower's solution to cutting the defense budget and defending U.S. interests was to threaten to nuke them till they glow. Once again, I do not think this type of strategy ever made sense because it assumes a level of staggeringly murderous brutality on the part of U.S. decision makers that would never have existed.
There was never a consensus on that strategy the way there would be on M.A.D. Just because some high placed foreign policy staffers suggested it, doesn't mean it was ever a settled matter.
It was a simple tax paid by everyone above a certain age. It was fair because those paying rates were paying more because they owned some property even though they may be using none of the services. Her enemies made out to be a voting thing and that was the spin an it was wrong.
Margaret disagrees: Why? Paging Black Dove, paging Black Dove! We have paranormal activity in the Red Room!
all the MAD stuff was based on someone who had no knowledge of Nuclear explosions. It would make the earth uninhabitable, blah blah blah. There was 0 advantage for any country to explode a bomb that created fallout. Fallout comes from a ground burst. A ground burst does not take out a big enough area. You want it to explode at a high altitude to affect the biggest area you can get and at those levels there is no dust to get sucked up and create fallout. Look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki today. There are people living at ground zero because it was an air burst and there was little to no fallout. All the killing happens in the explosion but fallout and nuclear winter, etc. is just made up. Nukes do not explode on impact.
Don't worry Volp, you're already known as the king of the dumbasses. You don't need to rub one out for Dayton to tell us this.
Jealous I see. Of course "Chad" IIRC you were one of the "members" here who can't seem to get enough of posting about me which is obviously more about your latent (or not so latent) homosexuality than anything else. You don't see me starting threads about you, Black Dove, gul, Rick Deckard, or anyone else do you???
And what happened when you didn't pay the poll tax? Do you think it effected one's ability to vote? Let's walk you through it.
Clearly those figures are on a chart showing exactly how much of that $1 trillion has been spent on the ACA, and you'll be happy to present that chart here.
They will wake up about the time they realize they are run by the powers of Europe and not by their parliament.
Vaya Con Dios Maggie, you will be missed even more now. And the north of Britan spent the day in a drunken stupor? Must have been a day that ended in a Y then.