anyone going to the inauguration?

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2924071
lol wow, if you buy that argument you can choose to ignore anything that is inconvenient to your believes.
Ever investigated a car wreck.

Reminds me of the joke we'd tell in high school when we were trying to act like a 5 year old. We'd ask our geography teacher, have you ever been to *the country we were studying* she'd say no. Then we'd ask then how do you know it exists, then go round and round, with completely stupid 5 year old level questions. Basically saying what you just said. It is kind of really funny.
That immature comment makes no sense, son. And yes, I can call you son. I have hairs in my shorts older than you.

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/2923976
Ok, I will try it again.
bionicarm, I have a question for you. Do you believe in the following statement? I mean truly believe.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Exactly what point are you trying to make?

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2924072
You're joking right? You are actually telling me the Japanese didn't purposely ram any of their planes into any of the targets at Pearl during the attack? You need to get you head out of those inaccurate books you read. They're clogging your mind with idiotic information.
My business has customers in both the private and government sectors. I charge my government contracts the same rates I charge the business down the street. I doubt very seriously the company you work for can claim the same. My rates are not inflated, nor am I taking advantage of the government system to make an extra buck. I have morals, unlike you.
You are blindly arguing here Bionic. You have no idea what I make yet you justify what you charge and condemn me. If you are morally against the War and Contractors you should not bid for a contract.
Kamakazis were not used at Pearl Harbor. I would recite to you how the Kamakazi came into use, but it would simply be brushed aside as "stupid facts".

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2924076
That immature comment makes no sense, son. And yes, I can call you son. I have hairs in my shorts older than you.
Hey, I'm just telling you a story

We'd use your same logic, (because it was so juvenile) as a joke.
You can't even see your own hypocrisy. You make money off of war just like journey. There is no differentiation based on price.
If you don't pay your employees a premium for the risk they put to their lives. And living out of this country you're a horrible boss.
And if you aren't smart enough to charge more to cover those additional costs, you're a horrible business owner.

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2924071
lol wow, if you buy that argument you can choose to ignore anything that is inconvenient to your believes.
Ever investigated a car wreck.

Reminds me of the joke we'd tell in high school when we were trying to act like a 5 year old. We'd ask our geography teacher, have you ever been to *the country we were studying* she'd say no. Then we'd ask then how do you know it exists, then go round and round, with completely stupid 5 year old level questions. Basically saying what you just said. It is kind of really funny.
Maybe if you stop acting like a 5 year old, you can comprehend what I'm trying to convey. Journey appears to want to refute my father's claim he shot down 2 Japanese planes by stating only 29 planes went down at Pearl. Journey is basing his facts on some book or report he read. I base my facts from someone who was ACTUALLY THERE WHEN IT HAPPENED. Which one would you believe?

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2924087
Maybe if you stop acting like a 5 year old, you can comprehend what I'm trying to convey. Journey appears to want to refute my father's claim he shot down 2 Japanese planes by stating only 29 planes went down at Pearl. Journey is basing his facts on some book or report he read. I base my facts from someone who was ACTUALLY THERE WHEN IT HAPPENED. Which one would you believe?
Bionic, that's not what I am doing at all. A single gunner on the Arizona shot down 4 himself. The destroyers at Pearl were among the first ships to get their AA guns operational. I said I hoped your father was awarded for such a feat.
What I am trying to do is point out your fallacy of condemning studying history, while using as a source a single eye witness. You attacked us for studying history. That's what I am pointing out makes no sense.

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2924080
You are blindly arguing here Bionic. You have no idea what I make yet you justify what you charge and condemn me. If you are morally against the War and Contractors you should not bid for a contract.
Kamakazis were not used at Pearl Harbor. I would recite to you how the Kamakazi came into use, but it would simply be brushed aside as "stupid facts".
Journey you're clueless. My father told us stories how he PHYSICALLY watched Japanese planes purposely fly into ships, buildings, grounded planes, pick one. The plane didn't look damaged, and wasn't spewing smoke. So what terminology besides KAMAKAZI would you use for that action?
You have no concept whatsoever regarding running a business apparently. I'm not going to sit here and argue with you what I charge ANY of my customers for the services I provide. I do what's best for my customers, and what's best for my employees. They get paid quite well for the work they do, and yes, they do get compensated for working overseas. Sorry journey, but I probably do have a good idea what you're making over there. I work closely with the government contracts, and I know what kind of money they pay contractors like yours for the work they do over there. I provide a service. I get paid for that service. I just don't charge 10 times the normal rate just because it's Uncle Sam footing the bill. Unfortunately, companies like yours don't follow the same rules.

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2924078
Exactly what point are you trying to make?
I asked a question. My point is I do not believe you believe in this statement. I come to this conclusion based off things you stated regarding certain actions and policies. So do you?

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2924106
Journey you're clueless. My father told us stories how he PHYSICALLY watched Japanese planes purposely fly into ships, buildings, grounded planes, pick one. The plane didn't look damaged, and wasn't spewing smoke. So what terminology besides KAMAKAZI would you use for that action?
You have no concept whatsoever regarding running a business apparently. I'm not going to sit here and argue with you what I charge ANY of my customers for the services I provide. I do what's best for my customers, and what's best for my employees. They get paid quite well for the work they do, and yes, they do get compensated for working overseas. Sorry journey, but I probably do have a good idea what you're making over there. I work closely with the government contracts, and I know what kind of money they pay contractors like yours for the work they do over there. I provide a service. I get paid for that service. I just don't charge 10 times the normal rate just because it's Uncle Sam footing the bill. Unfortunately, companies like yours don't follow the same rules.
You are a company like mine Bionic.... just like mine. Are you trying to argue you are the only ethical company doing contract work?
I'm sorry Bionic, but as I said the Kamakazi was not yet part of the Japanese arsenal in 1941. Again I point out the Japanese only lost 29 planes in the combat over Pearl (the seas were rough and several planes were damaged on recovery and were scuttled). Your father may have seen planes damaged and going down but they were not kamakazis. (a plane can be shot and not be spewing smoke... Obviously your father was busy manning an AA gun so I'm sure he didn't have a lot of time to study what he was seeing).
The point is, you can study history accurately. To condemn studying history is beyond my comprehension.

 

[hlcroghan]

Okay, that is not very nice. It also does not help in this discussion when you talk about killing someone's pets.
As for the banning of firearms, they are quite correct that cities and smaller areas are doing it. In the City of Chicago it is illegal to own a handgun. How is that for supporting the 2nd Amendment? In fact if they find you with one I believe it is a minimum of 5 years or something crazy like that.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2924087
Maybe if you stop acting like a 5 year old, you can comprehend what I'm trying to convey. Journey appears to want to refute my father's claim he shot down 2 Japanese planes by stating only 29 planes went down at Pearl. Journey is basing his facts on some book or report he read. I base my facts from someone who was ACTUALLY THERE WHEN IT HAPPENED. Which one would you believe?
I'm sorry, unless your dad claimed he shot down 30 aircraft, I don't see a problem. So you dad shot down 2 of the 29 planes. I'm not seeing where the problem is...
With the amount of ships in port, you think your dad was the only one shooting at those planes? It is very likely that 2 or 3 guns were pointed at those same aircraft. You could have 2 or 3 of those gunners saying they shot down the same aircraft.
That area was under US control after the battle, it should have been pretty easy to find those aircraft in the aftermath to get a very solid number.
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2924106
Journey you're clueless. My father told us stories how he PHYSICALLY watched Japanese planes purposely fly into ships, buildings, grounded planes, pick one. The plane didn't look damaged, and wasn't spewing smoke. So what terminology besides KAMAKAZI would you use for that action?
This is where you in fact are clueless. The term Kamakazi was coined much later in the war for planes specifically flown into ship. I would be suprised if planes didn't crash into a ship or two during that attack. But the actual Kamakazi strapped into a plane loaded with explosives, wasn't used in that battle.
And no, although first hand accounts are facinating, I wouldn't take a first hand account as complete fact. Once again, ever listened to accounts of a car wreck. The trauma is exponetially greater in a battle. There is no way you'd get a good version of the entire battle from one man, no matter how honest he is.

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2924115
You are a company like mine Bionic.... just like mine. Are you trying to argue you are the only ethical company doing contract work?
I'm sorry Bionic, but as I said the Kamakazi was not yet part of the Japanese arsenal in 1941. Again I point out the Japanese only lost 29 planes in the combat over Pearl (the seas were rough and several planes were damaged on recovery and were scuttled). Your father may have seen planes damaged and going down but they were not kamakazis. (a plane can be shot and not be spewing smoke... Obviously your father was busy manning an AA gun so I'm sure he didn't have a lot of time to study what he was seeing).
The point is, you can study history accurately. To condemn studying history is beyond my comprehension.
It's so frustrating trying to get a point across to you people. You seem to live in this world with blinders on. If you can't back it up with some document you find online or in a book, then it's obviously untrue? Sorry, but not everything is black and white. Not every event in our past has been documented to exact detail of what occurred. Specific points and events are missed. It laughable that you don't think first hand accounts are considered complete fact. If the individual is physically seeing the event occur, how can it not be fact? So if it's a traumatic event, no one can possibly provide accurate detail of what went on at the tiome it happened? If that's the case, how do you believe anything in your history books, and take that as factual? How do you think they got the information you read in your historical facts? BY FIRST HAND ACCOUNTS AND PEOPLE ACTUALLY SEEING THE EVENT OCCUR. So were some of the events of 9/11 not fact? Are the accounts many of the people who were physically there when the planes hit inaccurate or not factual because of the trauma they were experiencing due to seeing that horrific event?
You ever watch the movie Tora! Tora! Tora? You see those Japanese pilots who put the scarfs on their forehead with the Red Dot in the center? That movie was one of the better accurate accounts of the HISTORY of the attack on Pearl Harbor. I even used your art of searching and found this:
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1740.html
I particularly like this line from the document:
First attacks
Beginning with the Pearl Harbor Attack, Japanese suicide bombers sporadically crashed their planes into the enemy as a spur-of-the-moment decision.
from wikipedia on kamikaze:
Prior to the formation of kamikaze units, deliberate crashes had been used as a last effort when a pilot’s plane was severely damaged and he did not want to risk being captured — this was the case in both the Japanese and Allied air forces. According to Axell & Kase, these suicides “were individual, impromptu decisions by men who were mentally prepared to die.”[1] In most cases, there is little evidence that these hits were more than accidental collisions, of the kind likely to happen in intense sea-air battles. One example of this occurred on December 7, 1941 during the attack on Pearl Harbor. First Lieutenant Fusata Iida’s plane had been hit and was leaking fuel, when he apparently used it to make a suicide attack on Kaneohe Naval Air Station. Before taking off, he had told his men that if his plane was badly damaged he would crash it into a "worthy enemy target".[2]
So if you want to use semantics and say the deliberate crashes the Japanese pilots perform at Pearl Harbor are not actually termed 'kamikaze', go right ahead.

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/2924112
I asked a question. My point is I do not believe you believe in this statement. I come to this conclusion based off things you stated regarding certain actions and policies. So do you?
Do I believe all men are created equal? Sure. Should everyone be afforded the chance to have a life of liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Absolutely. The one word I find interesting in that line is the word 'Creator'. Even has it capitalized. Sounds like the Founding Fathers want you to believe that there is a God out there that grant's you these rights. So much for the separation of church and state...

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2923817
Obama couldn't ban single ply toilet paper. Of course if you had a clue about how the government works you would already know that.

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2924214
It's so frustrating trying to get a point across to you people. You seem to live in this world with blinders on. If you can't back it up with some document you find online or in a book, then it's obviously untrue? Sorry, but not everything is black and white. Not every event in our past has been documented to exact detail of what occurred. Specific points and events are missed. It laughable that you don't think first hand accounts are considered complete fact. If the individual is physically seeing the event occur, how can it not be fact? So if it's a traumatic event, no one can possibly provide accurate detail of what went on at the tiome it happened? If that's the case, how do you believe anything in your history books, and take that as factual? How do you think they got the information you read in your historical facts? BY FIRST HAND ACCOUNTS AND PEOPLE ACTUALLY SEEING THE EVENT OCCUR. So were some of the events of 9/11 not fact? Are the accounts many of the people who were physically there when the planes hit inaccurate or not factual because of the trauma they were experiencing due to seeing that horrific event?
You ever watch the movie Tora! Tora! Tora? You see those Japanese pilots who put the scarfs on their forehead with the Red Dot in the center? That movie was one of the better accurate accounts of the HISTORY of the attack on Pearl Harbor. I even used your art of searching and found this:
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1740.html
I particularly like this line from the document:
First attacks
Beginning with the Pearl Harbor Attack, Japanese suicide bombers sporadically crashed their planes into the enemy as a spur-of-the-moment decision.
from wikipedia on kamikaze:
Prior to the formation of kamikaze units, deliberate crashes had been used as a last effort when a pilot’s plane was severely damaged and he did not want to risk being captured — this was the case in both the Japanese and Allied air forces. According to Axell & Kase, these suicides “were individual, impromptu decisions by men who were mentally prepared to die.”[1] In most cases, there is little evidence that these hits were more than accidental collisions, of the kind likely to happen in intense sea-air battles. One example of this occurred on December 7, 1941 during the attack on Pearl Harbor. First Lieutenant Fusata Iida’s plane had been hit and was leaking fuel, when he apparently used it to make a suicide attack on Kaneohe Naval Air Station. Before taking off, he had told his men that if his plane was badly damaged he would crash it into a "worthy enemy target".[2]
So if you want to use semantics and say the deliberate crashes the Japanese pilots perform at Pearl Harbor are not actually termed 'kamikaze', go right ahead.
hmm, wiki?
the part you edited out.
“were individual, impromptu decisions by men who were mentally prepared to die.”<ref>Axell, pp. 34, 40-41</ref> In most cases, there is little evidence that these hits were more than accidental collisions, of the kind likely to happen in intense sea-air battles.
But come on, I can go on there right now and change that. you mock history then use wiki as proof?

 

[stdreb27]

which was basically the point that journey was making...

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2924221
Do I believe all men are created equal? Sure. Should everyone be afforded the chance to have a life of liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Absolutely. The one word I find interesting in that line is the word 'Creator'. Even has it capitalized. Sounds like the Founding Fathers want you to believe that there is a God out there that grant's you these rights. So much for the separation of church and state...

So if you support this statement you have to feel ALL people deserve the option of Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Tell me, Under Sadaam did the iraqi people have this option and do they now.
I know you are going to say we can't free everyone. I disagree, it just takes time. I am also one of the few that believes we should go in any country that does not afford their citizens the same rights.
Which religion does "Creator" imply. Couldn't your "Creator" just as easily be interpreted to be mom and dad? Do not deflect however and turn this into a religious discussion. I m addressing one topic and one topic only.

 

[1journeyman]

Bionic, I don't care what a Hollywood movie showed- Japan did not use Kamakazis at Pearl Harbor.
As I've repeatedly said, Japan's casualties are well documented. The attack on Pearl Harbor has been well studied. There were no flights of suicide bombers in Hawaii on December 7th, 1941. None.
Now, as is too often the case when arguing with a liberal mindset, you are trying to change the definition to fit your position; I never said a damaged plane didn't hit a target on the ground. If that is your definition of "kamakazi" then kamakazis existed in WW1.
This is exactly why studying history, from a variety of sources, is so important. I will not argue that your father, in between AA bursts, saw planes go down. I will not argue those planes hit targets. I will, however, firmly argue that those planes were not equipped and issued orders to deliberately crash into targets in defense of the home islands.

 

[darthtang aw]

Oh and not just "creator" is capitalized out of place. There are numerous words that do not require capitalization that are capitalized. The capitalization of these words is to show EMPHASIS on those words and convey a feeling of importance to each one. Not because of religious doctrine or what have you. Go back and read the declaration of Independence. life,,liberty, Assent, Happiness, government, are just a few words capitalized.

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2924262
Bionic, I don't care what a Hollywood movie showed- Japan did not use Kamakazis at Pearl Harbor.
As I've repeatedly said, Japan's casualties are well documented. The attack on Pearl Harbor has been well studied. There were no flights of suicide bombers in Hawaii on December 7th, 1941. None.
Now, as is too often the case when arguing with a liberal mindset, you are trying to change the definition to fit your position; I never said a damaged plane didn't hit a target on the ground. If that is your definition of "kamakazi" then kamakazis existed in WW1.
This is exactly why studying history, from a variety of sources, is so important. I will not argue that your father, in between AA bursts, saw planes go down. I will not argue those planes hit targets. I will, however, firmly argue that those planes were not equipped and issued orders to deliberately crash into targets in defense of the home islands.
Journey, you're the one trying to rewrite history, not me. It has been said time and time again by EXPERTS on Pearl Harbor, that Japanese pilots PURPOSELY flew their injured planes and hit any ground target that was available. Where exactly are you getting your expert sources on the subject? Is the "History Of The World According To Journey" available in paperback?
This is an excerpt from the book - Thunder Gods The Kamikaze Pilots Tell Their Story By Hatsuho Naito Translated by Mayumi Ichikawa. 215 pages. Illustrated. Kodansha International/Farrar, Straus & Giroux. $18.95.
Almost a year before Pearl Harbor, Gen. Hideki Tojo, the war minister, ordered the publication of a code called ''Ethics of Battle'' for the armed forces. Even without mentioning the divinity of the Japanese Emperor - whose name was frequently invoked to inspire soldiers and civilians to turn the war into a holy cause - the fanatical military code laid the groundwork for the kamikaze pilot program: It justified self-immolation, if necessary, in the name of personal and national honor.
''A sublime sense of self-sacrifice must guide you throughout life and death,'' the code said. ''Do not think of death as you use up every ounce of your strength to fulfill your duties. Make it your joy to use every last bit of your physical and spiritual strength in what you do. Do not fear to die for the cause of everlasting justice. Do not stay alive in dishonor. Do not die in such a way as to leave a bad name behind you!''
So I imagine that any honorable Japanese pilot that was damaged and still over Pearl Harbor, honored this code, knowing very well they would die. You call it what you want Mr. History.
I love it when anyone disputes the Word Of Journey, they are deemed liberals.
I find it amazing how one person can be the expert for any historic situation that arises. Do you just sit on the crapper with a history book at your side, trying to memorize interesting historical tidbits so you can completely annoy any person you talk to that really doesn't care what you know?

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/2924261
So if you support this statement you have to feel ALL people deserve the option of Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Tell me, Under Sadaam did the iraqi people have this option and do they now.
I know you are going to say we can't free everyone. I disagree, it just takes time. I am also one of the few that believes we should go in any country that does not afford their citizens the same rights.
Which religion does "Creator" imply. Couldn't your "Creator" just as easily be interpreted to be mom and dad? Do not deflect however and turn this into a religious discussion. I m addressing one topic and one topic only.
The Founding Fathers didn't write that line with the intention of the US being the freedom saviors of the world. It was a statement against the oppression of English rule. It afforded all American citizens the right to go out and make a life for themselves. It doesn't say We The American People Will Go Forth and Provide These Same Freedoms To Any Nation That Wants To Follow Them. We are not the Democracy Cops of the world. We don't have the right to push our beliefs on another society just because we think it would be better for them. So why not go invade the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark? Those are coutries run by a Monarchy aren't they? I'm sure they'd prefer the American-way of democracy over thiers. Shoot, I'm sure the Russians and Chinese would prefer our way of life as well. That's called World Domination. That's when the Big Red Button gets pushed and we all go see that Creator that's called out in that same line you quoted.
You people are the ones who keep saying our Constitution was based on the principles of christianity and religious beliefs. So please don't try and spin the 'creator' word some other way that we very well know what they intended it to mean.