Merged Roosevelt's Rotten Record:Communism, Treachery, Betrayal

[aggle-rithm]

Hey, genius, this isn't a court of law. This isn't a trial.

You guys can't be this dense, can you?

It's a forum that promotes skepticism, which generally uses the scientific standard of proof...more strict than legal proof.

 

[Dancing David]

FDR couldn’t have done that since he went to such an effort to organize a "surprise attack".

Yeah he ordered the Japanese Navy to do it....

 

[Dancing David]

The government truther ignorance with regard to Pearl Harbor is truly fascinating to behold. It's like watching a train wreck in slow motion.

Your inability to provide evidence and then spin is much more amazing.

 

[Dancing David]

What good would it do you? It's like trying to explain calculus to a brick wall in here.

Uh huh, you have no evidence, that is your problem. I have a unicorn in my garage that poops out diamonds.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Hey, genius, this isn't a court of law. This isn't a trial.

It's also not a trusting relationship where we have no reason to doubt the things you say to us.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

It's also not a trusting relationship where we have no reason to doubt the things you say to us.

He's just announcing his dismissal of concern for credibility.

 

[Cleon]

I always learn a lot about WWII history from threads like this. Many thanks to those of you posting actual information.

(I'm not talking to you, SHC.)

 

[Corsair 115]

One Iowa ...

Six Iowa class battleships were started; four were completed. The Kentucky (BB 66) was originally laid down on March 7, 1942. Only a small section had been completed before the slip was needed for other work; the work was restarted later and the ship was laid down again on December 6, 1944. The Illinois (BB 65) was laid down on January 15, 1945. Its start had been delayed by more pressing work.

... and an entire class of BBs meant to outclass the Yamatos ...

Ah, yes, the Montana class. 70,000 tons full load, 925 feel long, 28 knots, twelve 16" main guns. Interestingly, its armour was designed to protect against the 'heavy' 2,700 lb. 16" shell. The ships would have been too wide for the Panama canal locks then in existence.

 

[Craig4]

I've never ever put anyone on ignore. But I'm wavering, as this could be a really fascinating thread, only spoiled by the "All your facts are lies so nyaaah nyaaah I win" remarks.

I put him on ignore and have not lost any enjoyment or education from this thread. It's funny, when you don't have the option to respond you're sort of out side looking in and see the post for the absurdity they are. When I see what he writes now, I can't imagine why I ever lowered myself by interacting with him.

 

[Mudcat]

It's a forum that promotes skepticism, which generally uses the scientific standard of proof...more strict than legal proof.

Indeed, which is why I tried the legal standard of proof in order to make it easier for SHC to provide any kind of evidence so we can move this argument forward.

But SHC isn't looking for anything rational. He can't be bought, reasoned, educated or negotiated with. He just wants to shot himself in the foot.

In video gaming parliance he's the equivalent of a player who insists on playing on easy mode, with God mode on, infinate ammo, aim asist, a full (idiot proof) walk-through... and still loses to an NPC that isn't even firing back.

 

[Hans]

I'm currently working on "USN Fleet Problem XX, 1939". The author of this work thinks CVs will be so threatened by heavy land-based bombers as to be of no use in the coming war. The last section is "Well Aircraft Carriers Survive".

Interesting, will this piece be put on line? Did you ever play the War in Pacific game?

 

[carlitos]

I always learn a lot about WWII history from threads like this. Many thanks to those of you posting actual information.

(I'm not talking to you, SHC.)

Same here on both counts.

 

[SpringHallConvert]

You still need to provide evidence. Hint: essentially saying 'nuh-uh!' is not evidence.

Well, where is your evidence? When are you going to prove that the concentration camp president was truly surprised?

Saying 'nuh-uh' isn't going to cut it here, pal.

 

[Hans]

Well, where is your evidence? When are you going to prove that the concentration camp president was truly surprised?

Saying 'nuh-uh' isn't going to cut it here, pal.

Interesting an 'echo' troll he just says back what others say

Welcome to ignore Troll

 

[SpringHallConvert]

It's a forum that promotes skepticism, which generally uses the scientific standard of proof...more strict than legal proof.

That's great. So when are you going to provide proof that Roosevelt was truly surprised by the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor?

 

[SpringHallConvert]

Interesting an 'echo' troll he just says back what others say

Welcome to ignore Troll

You guys have been echoing me through the entire thread.

I say: Where's your evidence?

You say: Where's your evidence?

I say: I asked first.

You say: You hurt my little feelings! I'm putting you on ignore! Whhhaaa!

 

[332nd]

You guys have been echoing me through the entire thread.

I say: Where's your evidence?

You say: Where's your evidence?

I say: I asked first.

You say: You hurt my little feelings! I'm putting you on ignore! Whhhaaa!

Then you won't have any problem pointing out the post in which you asked for evidence first. Go.

 

[SpringHallConvert]

Then you won't have any problem pointing out the post in which you asked for evidence first. Go.

See what I mean?

You guys will do anything to get out of trying to prove Roosevelt was truly surprised by the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Interesting, will this piece be put on line? Did you ever play the War in Pacific game?

Yeah, it will be at Hyperwar when I'm finished with it. It's a very old copy, and I have to type it in directly, OCR is out of the question.

And no, not played that.

 

[SpringHallConvert]

I always learn a lot about WWII history from threads like this. Many thanks to those of you posting actual information.

(I'm not talking to you, SHC.)

Well, I'm not surprised you'd find these people informative.

You are quoting an empty-suit scumbag like Newt Gingrich in your signature, after all.