Florida State Seminoles

[aTm]

Actually, I listened to a lecture from the Naval War College the other night that discussed Midway. The speaker explained that the sacrificial lamb theory is mostly bunk actually. I found that interesting.

In what way?

[innocentbystander]

Japan had no hope of ever using long range bombers on the US. Midway is over 3000 miles from California. The United States spent more money, personnel, effort in the B-29 project than what we put into the entire Manhattan Project just to build a long range bomber capable of bombing Japan from Tinian and Saipan which is half the distance from Japan ass Midway is to California. Japan had no prayer of ever having air superiority over the US because we would never run out of planes or pilots before they did, even if they solved all the technical problems just to get to the point to fly the mission. Just like ships, any bombers or carrier fighters they lost in such a mission could never come back, while any of our interceptors that they shot down would be replaced with 5 more in a month. The entire west coast would be filled with unsinkable carriers in the form of airstrips with fighters.

Agree, but we are talking about sheer industrial capacity and harassment of that capacity. Japan could never match that capacity but they would not have had to if they were constantly harassing us (at San Francisco) bombing our harbors and damaging our not even completed, ships. Put all 4 heavy CVs 100 miles off the coast of San Francsico and they could pretty much use tactical bombers (round the clock) against San Francisco. That would really have harmed our massive industrial capacity. I further agree that they didn't really want to do that, but win at Midway, then they COULD have done that. Where else could they use those carriers? They already had Manilla, Singapore, and Hong Kong. It was either Sydney, Calcutta, or San Francisco. You pick. You are Yamamoto, where would you send them?

Yeah, we had massive capacity. But not one of our factories was ever bombed, not one.

Germany had MASSIVE industrial capacity. And all they needed was cheap, small stuff (tanks, subs, and artillery.) We could never-EVER build enough to overcome the amount of submarines and tanks and artillery that they could build if allowed to build them un-harassed. Fortunately, we bombed them ROUND THE CLOCK (British bombers at night so that Nazis couldn't see them, US bombers by day for pure accuracy.) We did this to shut down their capacity to build anything. What Germany did not have was petroleum. The invasion of Russia was all about going into SOUTHERN RUSSIA to get at the Caucus oil fields and to come at Persia and Iraq from the North (east of Turkey.) They failed. The other direction was a head on path straight to Saudi Arabia and over the Suez Canal. Rommel failed, could never take Cairo. No oil. So they came straight at US in the Battle of the Bulge to seize our petrol dump. They failed their as well and what remaining material they had, ran out of gas.

Once again, thank God.

Japan had neither petroleum NOR industrial capacity. As you said, they could not replace what they lost. Maybe they could build more Zeros (those were pretty cheap and easy) but no CVs. I totally agree. But they needed oil. Where were they going to go to get it?

[eCat]

Gas under 4 bucks down here. Filled up last week. Might have to again later this week. Wonder how much I'll save this time?

you're celebrating $4 a gallon gas? and you think you're saving money?

its amazing you get up each day and think you're a functionally literate adult.

[eCat]

not that I know much about Maryland politics, but interesting note here that Trump just put a big dent in Hogan's presidential aspirations. While I think Trump's more influential days are behind him, clearly he isn't punch drunk yet.

[eCat]

I wonder how IB feels about this latest attempt to keep the man down?

Marco Rubio has introduced the Unborn Child Support Act creating child support obligations from conception (if the mother requests it).

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/356 ... onception/

Under the bill, mothers would be able to request child support from the month of conception onward, but would not be required to do so.

Mothers would also be able to choose whether to collect child support payments retroactively through the month of conception, including if paternity is only established after the birth of the child.

well, its stands to reason if they are going to make these women have children, then they should make the fathers more involved. On that same note, they should make contraception in multiple forms easily available and dirt cheap

hopefully the net result of all this nonsense is much more responsible sexual activity

[innocentbystander]

I wonder how IB feels about this latest attempt to keep the man down?

Marco Rubio has introduced the Unborn Child Support Act creating child support obligations from conception (if the mother requests it).

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/356 ... onception/

Under the bill, mothers would be able to request child support from the month of conception onward, but would not be required to do so.

Mothers would also be able to choose whether to collect child support payments retroactively through the month of conception, including if paternity is only established after the birth of the child.

well, its stands to reason if they are going to make these women have children, then they should make the fathers more involved. On that same note, they should make contraception in multiple forms easily available and dirt cheap

hopefully the net result of all this nonsense is much more responsible sexual activity

bingo

[Jungle Rat]

Gas under 4 bucks down here. Filled up last week. Might have to again later this week. Wonder how much I'll save this time?

you're celebrating $4 a gallon gas? and you think you're saving money?

its amazing you get up each day and think you're a functionally literate adult.

You make this game so much fun.

[innocentbystander]

Actually, I listened to a lecture from the Naval War College the other night that discussed Midway. The speaker explained that the sacrificial lamb theory is mostly bunk actually. I found that interesting.

In what way?

Yeah me too DS, in what way was it bunk?

[DooKSucks]

Actually, I listened to a lecture from the Naval War College the other night that discussed Midway. The speaker explained that the sacrificial lamb theory is mostly bunk actually. I found that interesting.

In what way?

[DooKSucks]

I set it at the exact time the speaker discusses that theory to save you the hassle.

[DooKSucks]

I wonder how IB feels about this latest attempt to keep the man down?

Marco Rubio has introduced the Unborn Child Support Act creating child support obligations from conception (if the mother requests it).

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/356 ... onception/

Under the bill, mothers would be able to request child support from the month of conception onward, but would not be required to do so.

Mothers would also be able to choose whether to collect child support payments retroactively through the month of conception, including if paternity is only established after the birth of the child.

well, its stands to reason if they are going to make these women have children, then they should make the fathers more involved. On that same note, they should make contraception in multiple forms easily available and dirt cheap

hopefully the net result of all this nonsense is much more responsible sexual activity

bingo

So, the government should compel participation?

[innocentbystander]

well, its stands to reason if they are going to make these women have children, then they should make the fathers more involved. On that same note, they should make contraception in multiple forms easily available and dirt cheap

hopefully the net result of all this nonsense is much more responsible sexual activity

bingo

So, the government should compel participation?

well DS, thanks to people like you ruining marriage (after all, since any of your female clients can divorce their husbands AT WILL just to collect cash and prizes because they really want to fuck alphamcstudlyunemployedrockbanddrummer but they still want ex-husband's money) the "marriage model" for raising and supporting children is vanishing from the United States. You are at least partially to blame for that.

Government is going to compel men to pay for children, like it or not. The "marriage model" worked for hundreds/thousands of years. But that is gone. To REPLACE the "marriage model" for raising and supporting children, government has come up with the "child support model." This is one that creates terms like "baby daddy" and "custody" and "child support payments." This is what we give unmarried women who are too irresponsible to keep their legs closed or swallow a tiny pill each day INSTEAD of marriage because people LIKE YOU have made life so dangerous for bachelors that they have no reason to "man up" and marry a slut. Women want husbands but have no choices.

Your fault DS.

[eCat]

well, its stands to reason if they are going to make these women have children, then they should make the fathers more involved. On that same note, they should make contraception in multiple forms easily available and dirt cheap

hopefully the net result of all this nonsense is much more responsible sexual activity

bingo

So, the government should compel participation?

I would say that should enforce obligation

[DooKSucks]

It was a throwaway “devil’s advocate” statement in full disclosure, and it made IB go on one of his rants. So, yeah…

[innocentbystander]

It was a throwaway “devil’s advocate” statement in full disclosure, and it made IB go on one of his rants. So, yeah…

and the best thing you did when I ranted is not argue with me. Counsellor, you played the "submissive" because we both know, I'm correct.

[DooKSucks]

No. I just know you're a fucking idiot who rants at the slightest provocation.

[innocentbystander]

No. I just know you're a fucking idiot who rants at the slightest provocation.

I know it must feel like shit for me to define your profession as just one step above an unborn baby murderer, but that IS your profession. You are a fucking leech, a tick with Lyme Disease, a vampire bat with rabies. You add no value to society, nothing. If a woman just wants cash and prizes (and has no real grounds for divorce) you will help her get one and leave her children and ex-husband, in ruin. And you get paid for that. That makes you a destroyer.

Never forget that counsellor. If you left the world tomorrow, the world would most likely be a better place. And when you die (and you will die someday) and on your judgment God the Father asks you why you destroyed His second greatest gift to man, what are you going to say? It was your job? Because you thought a woman's "gina-tingle" is more important than His laws?

[Jungle Rat]

Do we yet know what IB does for a job except preach to mexican freeloaders?

[hedge]

"Because you thought a woman's "gina-tingle" is more important than His laws?"

That's undoubtedly true...

[hedge]

McClusky!!