Why Can't The USA Be Invaded By Red China Or Anyother Nation?

[BolshevikHunter]

The biggest problem with you Yamamoto quote is that it is just plain stupid. A great military mind like Yamamoto would consider a bunch of gun nuts to be just a nuisance A modern military force like the Japanese would roll through a bunch of gun owners taking pot shots.
They would quickly issue orders prohibiting stragglers and the isolated gun owners would be unable to take on a force larger than a Company
Yamamoto REALLY knew he could never land and support the million man army needed to invade the US

Man bro, you really are a ******* moron eh? Even though your gutless responses do irk me, I always thought you had atleast half a brain to play with.

You do nothing but contradict yourself in this response. I have noticed this tactic with a few of you weak minded sheople. Anyway, First your claiming that Americans couldn't take on anything larger than a Jpanese company (yeah, if it's another rebel company that the Japanese were facing), Then you go on to claim that Yamamoto would never have been able to supply himself? Bullshit bro. If they landed, which I never have believed they could have accomplished anyway, but let's pretend anyway. At that point, they would have been able to supply themselves just like we did ourselves all the way to Britain and then across the English channel to Germany. Think what you want, I disagree. ~BH

Let me explain how it works..

Yamamoto would have had to land an Army of a million men with all the related supplies, aircraft, tanks, fuel, food, communications, munitions and everything else an Army needs to survive. Japan did not have a Navy capable of sustaining a force of that size from 3000 miles away. That would be Yamamotos reason he could not invade

Now, lets look at your premise. That a bunch of randomly distributed gun owners behind every blade of grass could stop an Army of a million men by taking potshots at them. An invading Army would keep its forces bunched to keep gun nuts from taking pot shots. Random shooters could not take on a trained, modern Army of a size larger than a company. There was no "well organized militia" of gun owners in 1941. They could not fight a trained invading Army

You're so absorbed with politics that you see it in every subject, even when it's not there. Basically, I thought you were more intelligent than that. I guess not. ~BH

 

[BolshevikHunter]

I already provided my link showing that your Yamamoto quote was discredited. The burden of proof is now on you. A great man like Yamamoto has documented quotes. Show where and when he said it

Otherwise, it is just NRA bullshit justifying gun ownership

Nice try liar. My quote was from John Deane Potter, who wrote "Yamamato, The man who menaced America" Which was published in 1965. He spoke with many men who served with Yamamoto. All you did was provided us all with some recent red diaper doper baby link from some doped up left-wing dumb **** like yourself who specializes in historical revisionist, anti- War & anti-2nd Amendment propaganda.

Yuh know, We were having a nice historical discussion in this thread. However, Being the dumbshit that you are, you had to go and ruin it with your paranoid leftist anti-Gun loud mouth garbage. Not everything is a challenge to you lunatics. Sometimes folks just enjoy discussing a little history. And hey, we still did that. Even though you got everything wrong, atleast we got a little entertainment. Now continue on to the next thread where you can bash gun rights. You stupid sheople you. Don't you know that the things that come out of your filthy Liberal mouth were given to you by The gun? LMAO!!!!

Hey fuckO? LMAO!!! You wouldn't be able to say shiT! = Without the power & history of THE GUN. LOL!!! Your kind would have been wiped out long ago if not for it. I know your dumb ass doesn't get it, but if ever those of us who support the right to bear arms are gone, you wil be eradicated by those you support. Many of men have realized what your braindead head don't get, during their last hour while watching their own family raped and killed. You're nothing but a weak, spoiled, coward who shits on the very weapon that gave you the right to speak the crap that you do here everyday. You Poor dumb bastard you. ~BH

Simple enough.....YOU made the claim Yamamoto made that bogus quote. It should be easy enough for you to provide a link from John Deane Potter. You have been unable to do so leaving your quote as bogus

Simple enough, You're a ******* idiot bro. This thread isn't about what Yamamato said, or didn't say. Yet you have made it about Politics like a good little toad.

I own Potter's book. It's from 1965, it's not printed online. Go buy the ******* book if you care that much, it's in there. Hey dumbshit? You cannot prove that he never said it. ~BH

 

[rightwinger]

Nice try liar. My quote was from John Deane Potter, who wrote "Yamamato, The man who menaced America" Which was published in 1965. He spoke with many men who served with Yamamoto. All you did was provided us all with some recent red diaper doper baby link from some doped up left-wing dumb **** like yourself who specializes in historical revisionist, anti- War & anti-2nd Amendment propaganda.

Yuh know, We were having a nice historical discussion in this thread. However, Being the dumbshit that you are, you had to go and ruin it with your paranoid leftist anti-Gun loud mouth garbage. Not everything is a challenge to you lunatics. Sometimes folks just enjoy discussing a little history. And hey, we still did that. Even though you got everything wrong, atleast we got a little entertainment. Now continue on to the next thread where you can bash gun rights. You stupid sheople you. Don't you know that the things that come out of your filthy Liberal mouth were given to you by The gun? LMAO!!!!

Hey fuckO? LMAO!!! You wouldn't be able to say shiT! = Without the power & history of THE GUN. LOL!!! Your kind would have been wiped out long ago if not for it. I know your dumb ass doesn't get it, but if ever those of us who support the right to bear arms are gone, you wil be eradicated by those you support. Many of men have realized what your braindead head don't get, during their last hour while watching their own family raped and killed. You're nothing but a weak, spoiled, coward who shits on the very weapon that gave you the right to speak the crap that you do here everyday. You Poor dumb bastard you. ~BH

Simple enough.....YOU made the claim Yamamoto made that bogus quote. It should be easy enough for you to provide a link from John Deane Potter. You have been unable to do so leaving your quote as bogus

Simple enough, You're a ******* idiot bro. This thread isn't about what Yamamato said, or didn't say. Yet you have made it about Politics like a good little toad.

I own Potter's book. It's from 1965, it's not printed online. Go buy the ******* book if you care that much, it's in there. Hey dumbshit? You cannot prove that he never said it. ~BH

Yamamoto said millions of things in his life. I can't prove that he never said he likes to prance around in womens panties

However.....If I claimed that Yamamoto had said that he liked to prance around in womens panties....the burden of proof would be on me

 

[BolshevikHunter]

Simple enough.....YOU made the claim Yamamoto made that bogus quote. It should be easy enough for you to provide a link from John Deane Potter. You have been unable to do so leaving your quote as bogus

Simple enough, You're a ******* idiot bro. This thread isn't about what Yamamato said, or didn't say. Yet you have made it about Politics like a good little toad.

I own Potter's book. It's from 1965, it's not printed online. Go buy the ******* book if you care that much, it's in there. Hey dumbshit? You cannot prove that he never said it. ~BH

Yamamoto said millions of things in his life. I can't prove that he never said he likes to prance around in womens panties

However.....If I claimed that Yamamoto had said that he liked to prance around in womens panties....the burden of proof would be on me

Yeah, But the guy is deceased. As far as finding an online quote of Potter's book is impossible because it's so old. All that actually popped up on my search was this thread. I guess I could scan the page in my book where he said it, but then you will just say that Robert Deane Potter was a gun nut, and that was his motive instead of him hearing it from one of the Men who served with Yamamato. Also, I would have to locate that page in the book, which would not be an easy task. Then I would waste even more time scanning the page all for you to come back with some bullshit response.

Tell yuh what rw? I purchased this book for $1.25, I shit you not, from Bay Books used & rare books. I am sure that you have a used book store around you? I am willing to locate the exact page where Potter claims he said this, and then you can buy it and see for yourself. I have already spent alot of time looking for the page, so why not buy it and read it? It's a great book. You can't honestly believe that Potter was some gun nut and had Pro gun right intentions in 1965? If you truly believe that, then you're really a fool bro. ~BH

 

[Vargulf]

I seem to recall that Russia once said that because of the fact that so many citizens have firearms in the U. S., that an invasion would be too costly and that the only way to conquer the U. S., would be through nuclear destruction.
However, a new form of invasion is already underway. This is an invasion which doesn't require its soldiers to carry weapons and thus not shed blood. Simply send people across the border illegally and over time with enough people in place, take certain parts of the U. S. back under Mexican sovereignty.
Also, Bin Laden has stated that Islam will destroy the U. S. from within. Over time and with large birth numbers, they will gradually have more and more people in order to make political changes.
Lebanon used to be a largely Christian nation that opened its doors to Muslims and now look at it.
Everybody thinks an invasion comes from armed/uniformed troops; that tactic has changed.

 

[The Gadfly]

The biggest problem with you Yamamoto quote is that it is just plain stupid. A great military mind like Yamamoto would consider a bunch of gun nuts to be just a nuisance A modern military force like the Japanese would roll through a bunch of gun owners taking pot shots.
They would quickly issue orders prohibiting stragglers and the isolated gun owners would be unable to take on a force larger than a Company
Yamamoto REALLY knew he could never land and support the million man army needed to invade the US

Man bro, you really are a ******* moron eh? Even though your gutless responses do irk me, I always thought you had atleast half a brain to play with.

You do nothing but contradict yourself in this response. I have noticed this tactic with a few of you weak minded sheople. Anyway, First your claiming that Americans couldn't take on anything larger than a Jpanese company (yeah, if it's another rebel company that the Japanese were facing), Then you go on to claim that Yamamoto would never have been able to supply himself? Bullshit bro. If they landed, which I never have believed they could have accomplished anyway, but let's pretend anyway. At that point, they would have been able to supply themselves just like we did ourselves all the way to Britain and then across the English channel to Germany. Think what you want, I disagree. ~BH

Let me explain how it works..

Yamamoto would have had to land an Army of a million men with all the related supplies, aircraft, tanks, fuel, food, communications, munitions and everything else an Army needs to survive. Japan did not have a Navy capable of sustaining a force of that size from 3000 miles away. That would be Yamamotos reason he could not invade

Now, lets look at your premise. That a bunch of randomly distributed gun owners behind every blade of grass could stop an Army of a million men by taking potshots at them. An invading Army would keep its forces bunched to keep gun nuts from taking pot shots. Random shooters could not take on a trained, modern Army of a size larger than a company. There was no "well organized militia" of gun owners in 1941. They could not fight a trained invading Army

OK, RW, let me join in this little exercise. First, what you say is partially correct, as far as it goes, but it's not quite a complete analysis.Now, bearing in mind that Adm. Yamamoto was pretty familiar with America and Americans, having studied two years at Harvard, and serving two stints as Naval Attache in Washington, I'll try to analyze the problem as he might have, beginning before the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Japanese army strength in 1941, was roughly 1,700,000, in some 51 divisions. However, of those , some 27 divisions were deployed in occupied China, and another 13 on the Mongolian border, facing the Soviet Union. Factor in the troops needed for the Japanese to take and then control their objectives in Asia and the Pacific, and there's not much left for an invasion of the U.S. west coast (though these could have perhaps been raised, trained and equipped, given another year or two). However, (playing the role of Yamamoto) my first priorities have to be securing my objectives, especially in Southeast Asia, which will supply the strategic raw materials Japan needs, and securing the sea lanes through which these must move. To do that I have to at least neutralize the British Royal Navy in Southeast Asia, and more importantly the U.S. Pacific Fleet. I have the strength in my fleet, to counter the Royal Navy, since most of it is tied up fighting the Germans. The Americans are another matter entirely; their Pacific fleet is a primary threat to not only my logistical lines for the invasions I have planned, but also to my fleet.

To complicate matters further, I know the industrial capacity of America, and to make matters worse, most of it is beyond the reach of any bombers Japan has, and beyond the range of my carrier bombers as well. For the time being, there is nothing I can do about this, but I know Japan cannot win a war of attrition with America. I do have a window of opportunity, but it is closing, the Americans are beginning to mobilize and prepare for a war they know must come. Right now, they are still relatively weak, but in another year....I need to strike quickly and decisively, before they strengthen that fleet. I could try to bring them to a decisive engagement perhaps in the Philippine Sea; but they surely have planned for that, as we have. My greatest advantage is my carriers; if I can do as the British did at Taranto, and knock out the heavy units of their Pacific fleet, then I can buy time for the rest of my strategy to unfold without their interference. Once those gains are consolidated, I can hope the Americans are willing to negotiate a peace; then perhaps, retaking it all may prove a larger task than they are willing to attempt. I need a year, perhaps two, and with luck, I may get it.

Note any large scale invasion of the U.S. mainland is never seriously contemplated. I haven't got the troops, or the ability to supply them, and even with their Pacific Fleet out of the way, the logistics are a nightmare; besides, supplying the homeland is my first priority. By the time that is done and secured, the Americans will be fully mobilized, and have their production capacity on a war footing; I'd need an army twice the size we have now, even to attempt it.

That sums up the situation from Yamamoto's point of view. Japan in 1941 simply could not have mounted more than a threat-in-being of an invasion, EVEN IF they had gotten the American carriers at Pearl Harbor, even if they had won at Midway six months later. Their conquests in the Far East, and maintaining the sea lifelines of their island nation, HAD to be the first priority. It was a matter of exploiting a window of opportunity, and winning quickly, or not winning at all. That concept may have been lost on some other members of the Japanese General Staff; it was not lost on Yamamoto.

I'll try to throw some alternate scenarios in another post that would have permitted at least a Japanese attempt at invasion (which I think would have failed, IF they had the troops and the logistics capability in 1941 to try). In that, you'll see how, while it might not have had much effect initially, partisan warfare in the U.S. would have helped defeat any invasion, if it had come.

 

[BolshevikHunter]

Man bro, you really are a ******* moron eh? Even though your gutless responses do irk me, I always thought you had atleast half a brain to play with.

You do nothing but contradict yourself in this response. I have noticed this tactic with a few of you weak minded sheople. Anyway, First your claiming that Americans couldn't take on anything larger than a Jpanese company (yeah, if it's another rebel company that the Japanese were facing), Then you go on to claim that Yamamoto would never have been able to supply himself? Bullshit bro. If they landed, which I never have believed they could have accomplished anyway, but let's pretend anyway. At that point, they would have been able to supply themselves just like we did ourselves all the way to Britain and then across the English channel to Germany. Think what you want, I disagree. ~BH

Let me explain how it works..

Yamamoto would have had to land an Army of a million men with all the related supplies, aircraft, tanks, fuel, food, communications, munitions and everything else an Army needs to survive. Japan did not have a Navy capable of sustaining a force of that size from 3000 miles away. That would be Yamamotos reason he could not invade

Now, lets look at your premise. That a bunch of randomly distributed gun owners behind every blade of grass could stop an Army of a million men by taking potshots at them. An invading Army would keep its forces bunched to keep gun nuts from taking pot shots. Random shooters could not take on a trained, modern Army of a size larger than a company. There was no "well organized militia" of gun owners in 1941. They could not fight a trained invading Army

OK, RW, let me join in this little exercise. First, what you say is partially correct, as far as it goes, but it's not quite a complete analysis.Now, bearing in mind that Adm. Yamamoto was pretty familiar with America and Americans, having studied two years at Harvard, and serving two stints as Naval Attache in Washington, I'll try to analyze the problem as he might have, beginning before the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Japanese army strength in 1941, was roughly 1,700,000, in some 51 divisions. However, of those , some 27 divisions were deployed in occupied China, and another 13 on the Mongolian border, facing the Soviet Union. Factor in the troops needed for the Japanese to take and then control their objectives in Asia and the Pacific, and there's not much left for an invasion of the U.S. west coast (though these could have perhaps been raised, trained and equipped, given another year or two). However, (playing the role of Yamamoto) my first priorities have to be securing my objectives, especially in Southeast Asia, which will supply the strategic raw materials Japan needs, and securing the sea lanes through which these must move. To do that I have to at least neutralize the British Royal Navy in Southeast Asia, and more importantly the U.S. Pacific Fleet. I have the strength in my fleet, to counter the Royal Navy, since most of it is tied up fighting the Germans. The Americans are another matter entirely; their Pacific fleet is a primary threat to not only my logistical lines for the invasions I have planned, but also to my fleet.

To complicate matters further, I know the industrial capacity of America, and to make matters worse, most of it is beyond the reach of any bombers Japan has, and beyond the range of my carrier bombers as well. For the time being, there is nothing I can do about this, but I know Japan cannot win a war of attrition with America. I do have a window of opportunity, but it is closing, the Americans are beginning to mobilize and prepare for a war they know must come. Right now, they are still relatively weak, but in another year....I need to strike quickly and decisively, before they strengthen that fleet. I could try to bring them to a decisive engagement perhaps in the Philippine Sea; but they surely have planned for that, as we have. My greatest advantage is my carriers; if I can do as the British did at Taranto, and knock out the heavy units of their Pacific fleet, then I can buy time for the rest of my strategy to unfold without their interference. Once those gains are consolidated, I can hope the Americans are willing to negotiate a peace; then perhaps, retaking it all may prove a larger task than they are willing to attempt. I need a year, perhaps two, and with luck, I may get it.

Note any large scale invasion of the U.S. mainland is never seriously contemplated. I haven't got the troops, or the ability to supply them, and even with their Pacific Fleet out of the way, the logistics are a nightmare; besides, supplying the homeland is my first priority. By the time that is done and secured, the Americans will be fully mobilized, and have their production capacity on a war footing; I'd need an army twice the size we have now, even to attempt it.

That sums up the situation from Yamamoto's point of view. Japan in 1941 simply could not have mounted more than a threat-in-being of an invasion, EVEN IF they had gotten the American carriers at Pearl Harbor, even if they had won at Midway six months later. Their conquests in the Far East, and maintaining the sea lifelines of their island nation, HAD to be the first priority. It was a matter of exploiting a window of opportunity, and winning quickly, or not winning at all. That concept may have been lost on some other members of the Japanese General Staff; it was not lost on Yamamoto.

I'll try to throw some alternate scenarios in another post that would have permitted at least a Japanese attempt at invasion (which I think would have failed, IF they had the troops and the logistics capability in 1941 to try). In that, you'll see how, while it might not have had much effect initially, partisan warfare in the U.S. would have helped defeat any invasion, if it had come.

Love your post bro, but our friend rw's only arguement on this subject, which really has nothing to do with it, is that whether Yamamoto ever truly made the statement that "if Japan was to ever attack America, There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass" quote.

rw says that Isoroku never said this, however it's more than debatable. I own a book by Robert deane Potter (Yamamato 'the man who menaced America'), which was published in 1965. Potter interviewed many men who served with Yamamoto and a few of them validated the fact that he made that quote concerning the dangers of invading the USA west coast.

Now, for the good stuff concering our buddy "the so-called" rightwinger. This mentally confused, anti-2nd amendment nutjob seems to claim, and even suggest that those, including Potter back in 1965, were making these claims that Yamamoto's quote "If Japan were to invade America, there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass" was because they had a pro 2nd amendment agenda, and it was not that Potter actually varified these quotes from those who served with Isoroku Yamamoto, but that they were pro-gun activists!

Fact is, It's in Potter's book back in 1965 for anyone to see. Linking anything in this book with some pro 2nd amendment agenda is nothing short of a crystal clear liberal anti-gun mental illness. This right here my friends, just shows how unhinged some of these anti-Gun kooks are. What the hell does this have to do with anything to do with firearms? = Absolutely nothing. zERO! We were actually enjoying some World War 2 discussion up until this maniac highjacked the thread like a little pathetic troll. I actually liked rw, but like a brother on dope, at some point you gotta force him to sleep in a card board box for a few nights until he wakes up.

So he could have capitalized on an otherwise friendly historical discussion concering the second World War, but the brainwashed, mentally deranged, anti-gun leftist moron decided to pick a fight, where there was never a fight to begin with, only a mutual enjoyable, historical world war 2 discussion.

WoW! In One night, rw went from herO, To zerO! LMAO!!! ~BH

 

[rightwinger]

I read it in a book is not a valid substantiation

I believe you read the book and I believe you heard the Yamamoto quote in numerous rightwing blogs. I doubt you will find that quote in Potters book

 

[waltky]

Uncle Ferd says...

... if the Hispexicans can do it...

... don't see any reason for anybody else not to.

 

[rightwinger]

Man bro, you really are a ******* moron eh? Even though your gutless responses do irk me, I always thought you had atleast half a brain to play with.

You do nothing but contradict yourself in this response. I have noticed this tactic with a few of you weak minded sheople. Anyway, First your claiming that Americans couldn't take on anything larger than a Jpanese company (yeah, if it's another rebel company that the Japanese were facing), Then you go on to claim that Yamamoto would never have been able to supply himself? Bullshit bro. If they landed, which I never have believed they could have accomplished anyway, but let's pretend anyway. At that point, they would have been able to supply themselves just like we did ourselves all the way to Britain and then across the English channel to Germany. Think what you want, I disagree. ~BH

Let me explain how it works..

Yamamoto would have had to land an Army of a million men with all the related supplies, aircraft, tanks, fuel, food, communications, munitions and everything else an Army needs to survive. Japan did not have a Navy capable of sustaining a force of that size from 3000 miles away. That would be Yamamotos reason he could not invade

Now, lets look at your premise. That a bunch of randomly distributed gun owners behind every blade of grass could stop an Army of a million men by taking potshots at them. An invading Army would keep its forces bunched to keep gun nuts from taking pot shots. Random shooters could not take on a trained, modern Army of a size larger than a company. There was no "well organized militia" of gun owners in 1941. They could not fight a trained invading Army

OK, RW, let me join in this little exercise. First, what you say is partially correct, as far as it goes, but it's not quite a complete analysis.Now, bearing in mind that Adm. Yamamoto was pretty familiar with America and Americans, having studied two years at Harvard, and serving two stints as Naval Attache in Washington, I'll try to analyze the problem as he might have, beginning before the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Japanese army strength in 1941, was roughly 1,700,000, in some 51 divisions. However, of those , some 27 divisions were deployed in occupied China, and another 13 on the Mongolian border, facing the Soviet Union. Factor in the troops needed for the Japanese to take and then control their objectives in Asia and the Pacific, and there's not much left for an invasion of the U.S. west coast (though these could have perhaps been raised, trained and equipped, given another year or two). However, (playing the role of Yamamoto) my first priorities have to be securing my objectives, especially in Southeast Asia, which will supply the strategic raw materials Japan needs, and securing the sea lanes through which these must move. To do that I have to at least neutralize the British Royal Navy in Southeast Asia, and more importantly the U.S. Pacific Fleet. I have the strength in my fleet, to counter the Royal Navy, since most of it is tied up fighting the Germans. The Americans are another matter entirely; their Pacific fleet is a primary threat to not only my logistical lines for the invasions I have planned, but also to my fleet.

To complicate matters further, I know the industrial capacity of America, and to make matters worse, most of it is beyond the reach of any bombers Japan has, and beyond the range of my carrier bombers as well. For the time being, there is nothing I can do about this, but I know Japan cannot win a war of attrition with America. I do have a window of opportunity, but it is closing, the Americans are beginning to mobilize and prepare for a war they know must come. Right now, they are still relatively weak, but in another year....I need to strike quickly and decisively, before they strengthen that fleet. I could try to bring them to a decisive engagement perhaps in the Philippine Sea; but they surely have planned for that, as we have. My greatest advantage is my carriers; if I can do as the British did at Taranto, and knock out the heavy units of their Pacific fleet, then I can buy time for the rest of my strategy to unfold without their interference. Once those gains are consolidated, I can hope the Americans are willing to negotiate a peace; then perhaps, retaking it all may prove a larger task than they are willing to attempt. I need a year, perhaps two, and with luck, I may get it.

Note any large scale invasion of the U.S. mainland is never seriously contemplated. I haven't got the troops, or the ability to supply them, and even with their Pacific Fleet out of the way, the logistics are a nightmare; besides, supplying the homeland is my first priority. By the time that is done and secured, the Americans will be fully mobilized, and have their production capacity on a war footing; I'd need an army twice the size we have now, even to attempt it.

That sums up the situation from Yamamoto's point of view. Japan in 1941 simply could not have mounted more than a threat-in-being of an invasion, EVEN IF they had gotten the American carriers at Pearl Harbor, even if they had won at Midway six months later. Their conquests in the Far East, and maintaining the sea lifelines of their island nation, HAD to be the first priority. It was a matter of exploiting a window of opportunity, and winning quickly, or not winning at all. That concept may have been lost on some other members of the Japanese General Staff; it was not lost on Yamamoto.

I'll try to throw some alternate scenarios in another post that would have permitted at least a Japanese attempt at invasion (which I think would have failed, IF they had the troops and the logistics capability in 1941 to try). In that, you'll see how, while it might not have had much effect initially, partisan warfare in the U.S. would have helped defeat any invasion, if it had come.

Thanks...well stated

It supports the fact that the US could not have been invaded by Japan, Germany or any other nation. The logistics of supporting an invasion force of the magnitude needed make a US invasion impossible

Gun owners would not make a difference

 

[BolshevikHunter]

I read it in a book is not a valid substantiation

I believe you read the book and I believe you heard the Yamamoto quote in numerous rightwing blogs. I doubt you will find that quote in Potters book

You poor dumb ass you. You won't take my word for it? Read the ******* book already!

Ok then, I will find it and scan it for your paranoid anti-gun ass. A waste of time for me though you idiot. You have already been defeated, the proof of your defeat will take a little while while I re-read the ******* book, becaue you're too lazy and you won't take my word for it. Luckily, it's only 350 pages. LMAO! Still a headache though. ~BH

 

[rightwinger]

I read it in a book is not a valid substantiation

I believe you read the book and I believe you heard the Yamamoto quote in numerous rightwing blogs. I doubt you will find that quote in Potters book

You poor dumb ass you. You won't take my word for it? Read the ******* book already!

Ok then, I will find it and scan it for your paranoid anti-gun ass. A waste of time for me though you idiot. You have already been defeated, the proof of your defeat will take a little while while I re-read the ******* book, becaue you're too lazy and you won't take my word for it. Luckily, it's only 350 pages. LMAO! Still a headache though. ~BH

Much like factcheck.org has already told you. You will find you quote is not in there

Happy hunting

 

[BolshevikHunter]

I read it in a book is not a valid substantiation

I believe you read the book and I believe you heard the Yamamoto quote in numerous rightwing blogs. I doubt you will find that quote in Potters book

You poor dumb ass you. You won't take my word for it? Read the ******* book already!

Ok then, I will find it and scan it for your paranoid anti-gun ass. A waste of time for me though you idiot. You have already been defeated, the proof of your defeat will take a little while while I re-read the ******* book, becaue you're too lazy and you won't take my word for it. Luckily, it's only 350 pages. LMAO! Still a headache though. ~BH

Much like factcheck.org has already told you. You will find you quote is not in there

Happy hunting

No worries. Patience my dumb shit. ~BH

 

[BolshevikHunter]

I seem to recall that Russia once said that because of the fact that so many citizens have firearms in the U. S., that an invasion would be too costly and that the only way to conquer the U. S., would be through nuclear destruction.
However, a new form of invasion is already underway. This is an invasion which doesn't require its soldiers to carry weapons and thus not shed blood. Simply send people across the border illegally and over time with enough people in place, take certain parts of the U. S. back under Mexican sovereignty.
Also, Bin Laden has stated that Islam will destroy the U. S. from within. Over time and with large birth numbers, they will gradually have more and more people in order to make political changes.
Lebanon used to be a largely Christian nation that opened its doors to Muslims and now look at it.
Everybody thinks an invasion comes from armed/uniformed troops; that tactic has changed.

To address your first point about the Russians, If we take a look at that as dumb **** 'rightwinger' would, The Russians must be members of the NRA!

~BH

 

[rightwinger]

I seem to recall that Russia once said that because of the fact that so many citizens have firearms in the U. S., that an invasion would be too costly and that the only way to conquer the U. S., would be through nuclear destruction.
However, a new form of invasion is already underway. This is an invasion which doesn't require its soldiers to carry weapons and thus not shed blood. Simply send people across the border illegally and over time with enough people in place, take certain parts of the U. S. back under Mexican sovereignty.
Also, Bin Laden has stated that Islam will destroy the U. S. from within. Over time and with large birth numbers, they will gradually have more and more people in order to make political changes.
Lebanon used to be a largely Christian nation that opened its doors to Muslims and now look at it.
Everybody thinks an invasion comes from armed/uniformed troops; that tactic has changed.

To address your first point about the Russians, If we take a look at that as dumb **** 'rightwinger' would, The Russians must be members of the NRA!

~BH

I seem to recall?.....

Another bullshit quote. The NRA is quite prolific. Canada doesn't invade because of the guns either

 

[BolshevikHunter]

I seem to recall that Russia once said that because of the fact that so many citizens have firearms in the U. S., that an invasion would be too costly and that the only way to conquer the U. S., would be through nuclear destruction.
However, a new form of invasion is already underway. This is an invasion which doesn't require its soldiers to carry weapons and thus not shed blood. Simply send people across the border illegally and over time with enough people in place, take certain parts of the U. S. back under Mexican sovereignty.
Also, Bin Laden has stated that Islam will destroy the U. S. from within. Over time and with large birth numbers, they will gradually have more and more people in order to make political changes.
Lebanon used to be a largely Christian nation that opened its doors to Muslims and now look at it.
Everybody thinks an invasion comes from armed/uniformed troops; that tactic has changed.

To address your first point about the Russians, If we take a look at that as dumb **** 'rightwinger' would, The Russians must be members of the NRA!

~BH

I seem to recall?.....

Another bullshit quote. The NRA is quite prolific. Canada doesn't invade because of the guns either

The quote is in Potter's book! I am gonna find it, scan it, and then you're going to be exposed as the delusional, paranoid anti-Second Amendment clown that you are. It will be final proof that you have been defeated concerning this subject. You will suck it up and take your ass kicking like a Man. We will all see whether you have any honor or not, and if you're capable of admitting that you were wrong. It's in there bro. Patience my dumbshit. ~BH

 

[rightwinger]

To address your first point about the Russians, If we take a look at that as dumb **** 'rightwinger' would, The Russians must be members of the NRA!

~BH

I seem to recall?.....

Another bullshit quote. The NRA is quite prolific. Canada doesn't invade because of the guns either

The quote is in Potter's book! I am gonna find it, scan it, and then you're going to be exposed as the delusional, paranoid anti-Second Amendment clown that you are. It will be final proof that you have been defeated concerning this subject. You will suck it up and take your ass kicking like a Man. We will all see whether you have any honor or not, and if you're capable of admitting that you were wrong. It's in there bro. Patience my dumbshit. ~BH

You are on

One way to find a phony quote is the lack of context You need to know where it was said and in response to what issue. Good luck in your search

 

[BolshevikHunter]

I seem to recall?.....

Another bullshit quote. The NRA is quite prolific. Canada doesn't invade because of the guns either

The quote is in Potter's book! I am gonna find it, scan it, and then you're going to be exposed as the delusional, paranoid anti-Second Amendment clown that you are. It will be final proof that you have been defeated concerning this subject. You will suck it up and take your ass kicking like a Man. We will all see whether you have any honor or not, and if you're capable of admitting that you were wrong. It's in there bro. Patience my dumbshit. ~BH

You are on

One way to find a phony quote is the lack of context You need to know where it was said and in response to what issue. Good luck in your search

rw, I purchased the book over 10 years ago. I picked it up off my shelf a little over a month ago and read it again. It just so happen that I did, or I would not have been sure if I ever read it in Potter's book. How the **** would I remember what page it was quoted on even If I read it a week ago? Listen bro, I don't make shit up for political points. You should know that by now. You have already been defeated, only you have not been provided with the proof as of yet. No worries though, I never lose. Patience my dumbshit. ~BH

 

[rightwinger]

The quote is in Potter's book! I am gonna find it, scan it, and then you're going to be exposed as the delusional, paranoid anti-Second Amendment clown that you are. It will be final proof that you have been defeated concerning this subject. You will suck it up and take your ass kicking like a Man. We will all see whether you have any honor or not, and if you're capable of admitting that you were wrong. It's in there bro. Patience my dumbshit. ~BH

You are on

One way to find a phony quote is the lack of context You need to know where it was said and in response to what issue. Good luck in your search

rw, I purchased the book over 10 years ago. I picked it up off my shelf a little over a month ago and read it again. It just so happen that I did, or I would not have been sure if I ever read it in Potter's book. How the **** would I remember what page it was quoted on even If I read it a week ago? Listen bro, I don't make shit up for political points. You should know that by now. You have already been defeated, only you have not been provided with the proof as of yet. No worries though, I never lose. Patience my dumbshit. ~BH

Factcheck says you are wrong......

Doesn't take long to scan a book for what you are looking for. Unless it's not there

 

[BolshevikHunter]

You are on

One way to find a phony quote is the lack of context You need to know where it was said and in response to what issue. Good luck in your search

rw, I purchased the book over 10 years ago. I picked it up off my shelf a little over a month ago and read it again. It just so happen that I did, or I would not have been sure if I ever read it in Potter's book. How the **** would I remember what page it was quoted on even If I read it a week ago? Listen bro, I don't make shit up for political points. You should know that by now. You have already been defeated, only you have not been provided with the proof as of yet. No worries though, I never lose. Patience my dumbshit. ~BH

Factcheck says you are wrong......

Doesn't take long to scan a book for what you are looking for. Unless it's not there

I don't give a damn what Factcheck says bro! And yes it does take quite awhile to search through a 400 page book for one quote. I don't know what the **** you do during the day, but I gotta make a living for my family. I am sure I will locate it tonight or by tomorrow. Either way, Judgement day is coming for you buddy. Get ready to kiss the baby! ~BH