My Wife's Grandparents Were Hiroshima Survivors

There he goes again...



Someday when you grow up you may develop the ability to think for yourself, though I doubt you'll ever develop the interest.

If thinking for myself means thinking like you, give it up.
When I have agreeing with me since 1948 noted American historians and presidential experts I'd be a fool not to mention how they agree with my rating of the presidents. Smart cookies one and all. And recently another 238 of America's best historians, a whole new batch, agreed with my ratings of presidents. I also happen to think that America's best historians know more history than both you and I. Well maybe you.

Too funny....you believe the establishment statist historians, but think historians that disagree with those you like, are dunces.

That is most hypocritical. Why believe some historians and not others?

I believe there are levels of historians as there are levels of most professionals. I pefer to accept the history of those historians that other historians accept as good historians. When those top rated historians disagree with me I generally accept their conclusions as valid. But in this situation the top historians agree with me so what could be better? And if some poster disagrees with both me and the better historians, I gotta be honest, I go with the historians. What's a statist historian?
 
If thinking for myself means thinking like you, give it up.
When I have agreeing with me since 1948 noted American historians and presidential experts I'd be a fool not to mention how they agree with my rating of the presidents. Smart cookies one and all. And recently another 238 of America's best historians, a whole new batch, agreed with my ratings of presidents. I also happen to think that America's best historians know more history than both you and I. Well maybe you.

Too funny....you believe the establishment statist historians, but think historians that disagree with those you like, are dunces.

That is most hypocritical. Why believe some historians and not others?

I believe there are levels of historians as there are levels of most professionals. I pefer to accept the history of those historians that other historians accept as good historians. When those top rated historians disagree with me I generally accept their conclusions as valid. But in this situation the top historians agree with me so what could be better? And if some poster disagrees with both me and the better historians, I gotta be honest, I go with the historians. What's a statist historian?

I know many historians who disagree with establishment statist historians...and guess what? Those historians consider those like them, as 'good historians.' So, you make no sense.

A statist historian is one who promotes the lies of the state. For example, historians who write about how Lincoln or FDR are great presidents.
 
Too funny....you believe the establishment statist historians, but think historians that disagree with those you like, are dunces.

That is most hypocritical. Why believe some historians and not others?

I believe there are levels of historians as there are levels of most professionals. I pefer to accept the history of those historians that other historians accept as good historians. When those top rated historians disagree with me I generally accept their conclusions as valid. But in this situation the top historians agree with me so what could be better? And if some poster disagrees with both me and the better historians, I gotta be honest, I go with the historians. What's a statist historian?

I know many historians who disagree with establishment statist historians...and guess what? Those historians consider those like them, as 'good historians.' So, you make no sense.

A statist historian is one who promotes the lies of the state. For example, historians who write about how Lincoln or FDR are great presidents.

Do most universities offer degrees in statist-history? And what of historians that believe Lincoln was great but not FDR, what do we call them half-statist historians or what? And what of the citizens that voted for FDR four times-statist-citizens?
Parson Weems and his histories of George Washington are considered bad history, so how we we classify Weems, statist-historian or not? A whole new world of history has opened up.
 
The years of political control of the media are (almost) over. Now it is time to consider the propaganda that passed for news during the 2nd half of the 20th century. Thanks to the freedoms inherent in the Constitution the radical FDR left didn't get to burn all the history books. The truth is still out there if you have the courage to look for it. The radical Bushido crazies still controlled what was left of Tokyo which was bombed in daylight raids on a regular basis and they weren't so stupid that they had any thought of victory. Harry Truman was a freaking high school educated clothing store owner in Missouri who was elected to the senate and hand picked by democrats to run for VP when the corpse of FDR was running for his 4th term. Why would democrats pick an obscure senator to be president when they knew FDR was dying? Give 'em hell Harry could be counted on to sign the order to use the new toy.

A few of our presidents had a limited education, Washington, Lincoln and Truman come to mind. Today, Washington is rated by historians as fourth greatest American president, Lincoln as third, Truman as ninth. Maybe other qualities are as important in the presidency?
If Truman hadn't dropped the bombs and the invasion and war had continued how would Truman have been rated at the end of the war and how today?

Washington's education in the 1700's can't be an issue. Lincoln was a freaking lawyer and highly educated for his day in the rural frontier. Harry Truman was a WW1 Veteran and he went home to establish a comfortable business and dabble in politics. Who would have predicted that the little senator from Missouri would become president? He never campaigned for the job. Democrats dumped the current Vice President off the ticket while he was on vacation and hand picked the little clueless bean counter senator while the president was dying. Why would the democrat establishment drop their own Vice President for an unknown rube from Missouri?
 
The years of political control of the media are (almost) over. Now it is time to consider the propaganda that passed for news during the 2nd half of the 20th century. Thanks to the freedoms inherent in the Constitution the radical FDR left didn't get to burn all the history books. The truth is still out there if you have the courage to look for it. The radical Bushido crazies still controlled what was left of Tokyo which was bombed in daylight raids on a regular basis and they weren't so stupid that they had any thought of victory. Harry Truman was a freaking high school educated clothing store owner in Missouri who was elected to the senate and hand picked by democrats to run for VP when the corpse of FDR was running for his 4th term. Why would democrats pick an obscure senator to be president when they knew FDR was dying? Give 'em hell Harry could be counted on to sign the order to use the new toy.

A few of our presidents had a limited education, Washington, Lincoln and Truman come to mind. Today, Washington is rated by historians as fourth greatest American president, Lincoln as third, Truman as ninth. Maybe other qualities are as important in the presidency?
If Truman hadn't dropped the bombs and the invasion and war had continued how would Truman have been rated at the end of the war and how today?

Washington's education in the 1700's can't be an issue. Lincoln was a freaking lawyer and highly educated for his day in the rural frontier. Harry Truman was a WW1 Veteran and he went home to establish a comfortable business and dabble in politics. Who would have predicted that the little senator from Missouri would become president? He never campaigned for the job. Democrats dumped the current Vice President off the ticket while he was on vacation and hand picked the little clueless bean counter senator while the president was dying. Why would the democrat establishment drop their own Vice President for an unknown rube from Missouri?

Why can't Washington's education be an issue? In any case Truman undoubtedly had a better education than Lincoln. Lincoln did study law pretty much on his own, but he never pass a law exam, bar or otherwise. Both Lincoln and Truman took to politics and were on their way. In WWI Truman was a captain, and as Senator Truman headed the Senate committee called the Truman Committee. The committee was considered a success. In any case as I indicated Truman was considered an above average president by the historians that rate the presidents.
Do you consider a college education to be a requirement to be president?
 
A few of our presidents had a limited education, Washington, Lincoln and Truman come to mind. Today, Washington is rated by historians as fourth greatest American president, Lincoln as third, Truman as ninth. Maybe other qualities are as important in the presidency?
If Truman hadn't dropped the bombs and the invasion and war had continued how would Truman have been rated at the end of the war and how today?

Washington's education in the 1700's can't be an issue. Lincoln was a freaking lawyer and highly educated for his day in the rural frontier. Harry Truman was a WW1 Veteran and he went home to establish a comfortable business and dabble in politics. Who would have predicted that the little senator from Missouri would become president? He never campaigned for the job. Democrats dumped the current Vice President off the ticket while he was on vacation and hand picked the little clueless bean counter senator while the president was dying. Why would the democrat establishment drop their own Vice President for an unknown rube from Missouri?

Why can't Washington's education be an issue? In any case Truman undoubtedly had a better education than Lincoln. Lincoln did study law pretty much on his own, but he never pass a law exam, bar or otherwise. Both Lincoln and Truman took to politics and were on their way. In WWI Truman was a captain, and as Senator Truman headed the Senate committee called the Truman Committee. The committee was considered a success. In any case as I indicated Truman was considered an above average president by the historians that rate the presidents.
Do you consider a college education to be a requirement to be president?

I consider the lack of a college education in mid 20th century to be a detriment to picking the next president unless the next president didn't have to campaign. Truman proved himself to be an inept leader when he appointed another WW1 Vet to run his executive order that sent Troops to Korea. The liberal media pronounced the abject failure of the Korean adventure to be the "forgotten war" but Korean Vets didn't forget and "give'em hell Harry" couldn't even muster enough votes in his own party to withstand a primary challenge so he dropped out of politics instead of running for his full 2nd term.
 
Washington's education in the 1700's can't be an issue. Lincoln was a freaking lawyer and highly educated for his day in the rural frontier. Harry Truman was a WW1 Veteran and he went home to establish a comfortable business and dabble in politics. Who would have predicted that the little senator from Missouri would become president? He never campaigned for the job. Democrats dumped the current Vice President off the ticket while he was on vacation and hand picked the little clueless bean counter senator while the president was dying. Why would the democrat establishment drop their own Vice President for an unknown rube from Missouri?

Why can't Washington's education be an issue? In any case Truman undoubtedly had a better education than Lincoln. Lincoln did study law pretty much on his own, but he never pass a law exam, bar or otherwise. Both Lincoln and Truman took to politics and were on their way. In WWI Truman was a captain, and as Senator Truman headed the Senate committee called the Truman Committee. The committee was considered a success. In any case as I indicated Truman was considered an above average president by the historians that rate the presidents.
Do you consider a college education to be a requirement to be president?

I consider the lack of a college education in mid 20th century to be a detriment to picking the next president unless the next president didn't have to campaign. Truman proved himself to be an inept leader when he appointed another WW1 Vet to run his executive order that sent Troops to Korea. The liberal media pronounced the abject failure of the Korean adventure to be the "forgotten war" but Korean Vets didn't forget and "give'em hell Harry" couldn't even muster enough votes in his own party to withstand a primary challenge so he dropped out of politics instead of running for his full 2nd term.

Maybe in the next Constitution? But then what degree and what school? And remember the charge that most professors are liberal.
 
In an era when most people could not afford a college education, not having one isn't a handicap. Many people educated themselves and were well-read, and in many cases were far better read than a lot of college graduates. That is still true today, probably especially so, given the standards of today's education system. Mark Twain was self-educated, as were many others. It wasn't until the Great Society and GI Bill programs that we saw more universities and Jr. Colleges popping up seemingly everywhere, and the ones that already existed greatly expanding their capacities.

Of course, that also means a lot of idiots now get to go to college, and many get educated above their intellectual abilities, even becoming professors, but in the aggregate it's been beneficial, even as it creates a lot of overrated morons; see most 'Journalism', 'Media Studies', and 'Sociology' majors for over-representative examples, also the various La Raza, Womyns Studies types, etc., etc.

Also, many so-called 'Ivy League' schools are over-rated, and don't deserve their reputations, like Harvard, Yale, et al; George W. Bush got into Phillips-Andover, then one or both of the 'Ivy League' schools, this after getting tossed out of a private Christian school in Texas, then denied entrance to UT-Texas. Considering Texas schools are allegedly 'hicksville' and 'sub-standard', what does that say about some of the 'elite' schools, and what kind of graduates they put out? So ... yes, it obviously is going to be tough to prove which schools would be acceptable and whether non-college graduates are 'unqualified' or not. I could name several truck drivers and a couple of plumbers, as well as many others, who are better educated and far more qualified than the last five Presidents. 'Formal' education no longer has the credibility it once had, being too watered down to have much in the way of claiming 'distinctive intellectual achievement' any more, outside of engineering or hard sciences. Even criminal illegal aliens who don't even know the national language can get in a college these days.
 
Last edited:
Did your grandparents agree to surrendering or were they the fight-till-the-last-man kind of nip?
 
Did your grandparents agree to surrendering or were they the fight-till-the-last-man kind of nip?


Did you get a thrill out of using a racial epithet like that, you pathetic little punk? What a fucking clown.
 
Hey guise I don't mind the political discussion surrounding the Bombings, because that's the whole point of this thread really, but can we move the racial portion to the Flame Zone or something?

Thanks!
 
Did your grandparents agree to surrendering or were they the fight-till-the-last-man kind of nip?


Did you get a thrill out of using a racial epithet like that, you pathetic little punk? What a fucking clown.

It's called Nippon, so a nip would be like a Yank. Grow the fuck up.


It has been understood as a racial epithet for at least 60 years. Stop trying to be 'cute,' you no-class POS. "Grow the fuck up" indeed.
 
My oldest son was surprised to learn of the Rape of Nanking:

"Dad, did this really happen? Are these real pictures?".
I'm glad that Americans don't gloss over the bad things that we've done. Pretty shameful to do so, imo.

What comparible thing have we done in an official manner as Nanking or what the Nazis or Stalin did that we would even have to gloss over?... :dunno:

:)

peace...

You don't want me to list that up.
 
Personal Flame Fests belong in the Flame Zone. Let's get back to a discussion of history since this is, after all in History...
 
Well, I for one think it was ok to nuke Japan. We just stopped too soon.

Are you suggesting that the US gov should have dropped more a-bombs on Japan to exterminate the entire population? If so, you are a complete idiot...and you are also an idiot to think the bombs were ok....dunce....they were entirely unnecessary, as Japan was already defeated and defenseless...and ready to surrender before the war criminal Truman dropped those two horrific bombs.

What the American gov did in WWII is exactly the same thing as what the Germans and Japanese did with WWII. Atrocities abound...in total war...yet we Americans like to think we are different...we are, but our leaders are not.
 
Well, I for one think it was ok to nuke Japan. We just stopped too soon.

Are you suggesting that the US gov should have dropped more a-bombs on Japan to exterminate the entire population? If so, you are a complete idiot...and you are also an idiot to think the bombs were ok....dunce....they were entirely unnecessary, as Japan was already defeated and defenseless...and ready to surrender before the war criminal Truman dropped those two horrific bombs.

What the American gov did in WWII is exactly the same thing as what the Germans and Japanese did with WWII. Atrocities abound...in total war...yet we Americans like to think we are different...we are, but our leaders are not.

if the Japs didn't surrender yes. we were prepared to nuke em in the dark till they glowed.
 
Well, I for one think it was ok to nuke Japan. We just stopped too soon.

Are you suggesting that the US gov should have dropped more a-bombs on Japan to exterminate the entire population? If so, you are a complete idiot...and you are also an idiot to think the bombs were ok....dunce....they were entirely unnecessary, as Japan was already defeated and defenseless...and ready to surrender before the war criminal Truman dropped those two horrific bombs.

What the American gov did in WWII is exactly the same thing as what the Germans and Japanese did with WWII. Atrocities abound...in total war...yet we Americans like to think we are different...we are, but our leaders are not.

if the Japs didn't surrender yes. we were prepared to nuke em in the dark till they glowed.

If only you knew how disgusting you are.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top