Developing Story: Obama Is Still A *****

[CASHAPP]

Yes I'm on my bipolar swag still

@Type Username Here

 

[Constantine]

What does ***** mean?

 

[CASHAPP]

What does ***** mean?

I don't know i was drunk when i made this thread

 

[Type Username Here]

Aside from politics, are some of you familiar with what JFK did in WWII? He commanded a PT Boat that was heavily damaged and he and his crew had to swim for survival.

All of the nearby large islands had Japanese camps on them. The survivors chose the tiny deserted Plum Pudding Island, southwest of Kolombangara island. They placed their lantern, shoes, and nonswimmers on one of the timbers used as a gun mount and began kicking together to propel it. It took four hours for the survivors to reach their destination, 3.5 miles (5.6 km) away, which they reached without interference by sharks or crocodiles. Kennedy, who had been on the Harvard University varsity swim team, used a life jacket strap clenched between his teeth to tow his badly-burned senior enlisted machinist mate, MM1 Patrick McMahon.The island was only 100 yards (90 m) in diameter, with no food or water. The crew had to hide from passing Japanese barges. Kennedy swam about 4 km more, to Naru and Olasana islands, in search of help and food. He then led his men to Olasana Island, which had coconut trees and drinkable water.

Motor Torpedo Boat PT-109 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That was a bad ass motherfukker.

 

[Broke Wave]

Aside from politics, are some of you familiar with what JFK did in WWII? He commanded a PT Boat that was heavily damaged and he and his crew had to swim for survival.



Motor Torpedo Boat PT-109 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That was a bad ass motherfukker.

To think there was a time where American soldiers were actually brave warriors. I think the entire crew of that PT boat would be disgusted if they saw how indiscriminately blowing up literal mud huts is being heralded on the same level of bravery as what they did in the pacific

 

[CASHAPP]

Aside from politics, are some of you familiar with what JFK did in WWII? He commanded a PT Boat that was heavily damaged and he and his crew had to swim for survival.



Motor Torpedo Boat PT-109 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That was a bad ass motherfukker.

Yeah I've already known about the story. You knew about that before already I hope? That's like basic JFK info breh

 

[CASHAPP]

To think there was a time where American soldiers were actually brave warriors. I think the entire crew of that PT boat would be disgusted if they saw how indiscriminately blowing up literal mud huts is being heralded on the same level of bravery as what they did in the pacific

I have to say though I wonder why people barely bring up what Truman did. I hope we don't have a "He only did it twice to help win the war" argument

 

[Type Username Here]

To think there was a time where American soldiers were actually brave warriors. I think the entire crew of that PT boat would be disgusted if they saw how indiscriminately blowing up literal mud huts is being heralded on the same level of bravery as what they did in the pacific

While I feel that some of us are still Brave, I see what you're saying and I agree somewhat.

I don't ever compare myself to those WWII guys. They were something else entirely. A lot of them came up during the Great Depression so they weren't soft. Went overseas for 3 years, bloody ass battles, then came home, got educated and built America into a superpower.

Every time I got the VA, I shake those fukkers hands.

 

[Type Username Here]

Yeah I've already known about the story. You knew about that before already I hope? That's like basic JFK info breh

Yes, I knew it. Just in case some haven't heard since it's not exactly something that is talked about often when it comes to JFK.

I have to say though I wonder why people barely bring up what Truman did. I hope we don't have a "He only did it twice to help win the war" argument

He dropped the Nuclear Weapons for two reasons:

1- The main reason was to scare the shyt out of the Soviets. They already knew half way into WWII that there would be future tensions with the Communists.

2- Invading the Main Island of Japan would have easily resulted in millions upon millions of deaths on both sides, including civilians. Now the consensus seems that Japan was going to surrender anyway, but the Americans didn't know (supposedly).

 

[CASHAPP]

Yes, I knew it. Just in case some haven't heard since it's not exactly something that is talked about often when it comes to JFK.



Keep up the posts on that topic here in Higher Learning because it does interest me and i would like to learn more like in terms of certain military bases.


He dropped the Nuclear Weapons for two reasons:

1- The main reason was to scare the shyt out of the Soviets. They already knew half way into WWII that there would be future tensions with the Communists.

2- Invading the Main Island of Japan would have easily resulted in millions upon millions of deaths on both sides, including civilians. Now the consensus seems that Japan was going to surrender anyway, but the Americans didn't know (supposedly).

For my age(21) I am pretty well versed in American history and the government, besides certain tweaks I can always update myself on. But I still consider my knowledge on foreign policy and war to be pretty average and pedastrian with the exception of WW2.

I understand that but with someone with a strong stance on drone attacks as yourself, I really thought you would be a dove like me. I kind of expected that response though(no offense). But shouldn't a life be considered a life?

A bit off topic but speaking of Japan, what are your feelings on that whole "Amelia Earhart was a POW of Japan" story?

 

[Broke Wave]

Yes, I knew it. Just in case some haven't heard since it's not exactly something that is talked about often when it comes to JFK.



He dropped the Nuclear Weapons for two reasons:

1- The main reason was to scare the shyt out of the Soviets. They already knew half way into WWII that there would be future tensions with the Communists.

2- Invading the Main Island of Japan would have easily resulted in millions upon millions of deaths on both sides, including civilians. Now the consensus seems that Japan was going to surrender anyway, but the Americans didn't know (supposedly).

I'd go with reason 1 more than any other reason. I took a course recently (makes me an expert) where there was more than enough evidence to support the hypothesis that a surrender was bound to occur. That doesn't mean that the Americans necessarily had consensus of this in 1945 however... different voices in the war room led to what happened.

For my age(21) I am pretty well versed in American history and the government, besides certain tweaks I can always update myself on. But I still consider my knowledge on foreign policy and war to be pretty average and pedastrian with the exception of WW2.

I understand that but with someone with a strong stance on drone attacks as yourself, I really thought you would be a dove like me. I kind of expected that response though(no offense). But shouldn't a life be considered a life?

A bit off topic but speaking of Japan, what are your feelings on that whole "Amelia Earhart was a POW of Japan" story?

I would consider dude a dove... I don't know if you can classify yourself that way if you are a supporter of Obama.
Saying "I support Obama, but I just don't support the most important and integral part of his foreign policy" Is not a logical defense.

That would be like saying "I support FDR, I just don't support the New Deal "

 

[CASHAPP]

I'd go with reason 1 more than any other reason. I took a course recently (makes me an expert) where there was more than enough evidence to support the hypothesis that a surrender was bound to occur. That doesn't mean that the Americans necessarily had consensus of this in 1945 however... different voices in the war room led to what happened.



I would consider dude a dove... I don't know if you can classify yourself that way if you are a supporter of Obama.
Saying "I support Obama, but I just don't support the most important and integral part of his foreign policy" Is not a logical defense.

That would be like saying "I support FDR, I just don't support the New Deal "

I know that sounds hard to believe but I really hate the disastrous effects of war not just in terms of life loss but how because of some fundamentalists, Muslims are being the same way the Japanese were being treated in the 40s from everything to propaganda in Looney Toons Cartoons to being placed in internment camps.

The idea of "excuse it for Obama" doesn't even cross my mind. I absolutely hate the whole thing. In my senior year of High School, in 2009, right after he got the Nobel Peace Prize, the research paper I was assigned I chose the topic to write about why he did not deserve the nobel peace prize in anyway.

I'm sure there were people who did not support "Fat Man" and "Little Boy" but liked it when Truman did the "Marshall Plan".

@Broke Wave I'm not being dishonest. I'm being straightup with you. I know its strange but that is my feeling I can't explain why

 

[No1]

I'd go with reason 1 more than any other reason. I took a course recently (makes me an expert) where there was more than enough evidence to support the hypothesis that a surrender was bound to occur. That doesn't mean that the Americans necessarily had consensus of this in 1945 however... different voices in the war room led to what happened.

Well, there was information of a surrender. In actuality, Japan had begun reaching out to the Soviets to talk of some sort of surrender. Initially, the US had been going to war against the Japanese without the Soviets because the Soviets and Japanese had signed some agreement (I forget) at the onset of the entire conflict. But Roosevelt and the USSR had quiet agreements about the USSR helping the US finish off Japan, which it was questionable if they could do alone, and agreements about stacking the deck in the USSR's favor in the Polish elections, etc. The thing is, FDR dies and Truman comes in who was not a party to any of these agreements, and at the time the US successfully tested it's nuclear technology so it no longer needed the USSR to finish off Japan. By dropping the bomb, they handled Japan without the USSR and kept Soviet influence out of the region because the surrender is then negotiated between the US and Japan and the Soviets are not a party to it. There is of course a bunch of other info that I'm not talking about, but yes, the US knew that Japan was going to fall back eventually. The means they used was just more expedient for them politically and economically (their Open Door policy).

I would consider dude a dove... I don't know if you can classify yourself that way if you are a supporter of Obama.
Saying "I support Obama, but I just don't support the most important and integral part of his foreign policy" Is not a logical defense.

That would be like saying "I support FDR, I just don't support the New Deal "

This is not logically sound, you're a guy who wants to go to the law schools that I've gotten into, you can make a stronger structural argument than this. Your analogy has a glaring flaw and only stands if we accept the principle that supporting an individual means that you support all of their actions, which is a highly contested stance and one that is nearly the antithesis of supporting a politician. You could alternatively argue that supporting someone means that you support most of their major policy proposals, but that too would need a lot of qualifying and more support.

(Yes, I have been watching the logic in your arguments ever since you told me you wanted to go to law school and I do watch how you structure them. Yeah, I am playing older law school head right now).

But, LegendNas is certainly more of a dove than TUH if you look at most of his stances. TUH is just perhaps more ideologically principled in his socialist-like stances.

 

[theworldismine13]

While I feel that some of us are still Brave, I see what you're saying and I agree somewhat.

I don't ever compare myself to those WWII guys. They were something else entirely. A lot of them came up during the Great Depression so they weren't soft. Went overseas for 3 years, bloody ass battles, then came home, got educated and built America into a superpower.

Every time I got the VA, I shake those fukkers hands.

Word, when I watch WWII shyt I'm always like

 

[Broke Wave]

Well, there was information of a surrender. In actuality, Japan had begun reaching out to the Soviets to talk of some sort of surrender. Initially, the US had been going to war against the Japanese without the Soviets because the Soviets and Japanese had signed some agreement (I forget) at the onset of the entire conflict. But Roosevelt and the USSR had quiet agreements about the USSR helping the US finish off Japan, which it was questionable if they could do alone, and agreements about stacking the deck in the USSR's favor in the Polish elections, etc. The thing is, FDR dies and Truman comes in who was not a party to any of these agreements, and at the time the US successfully tested it's nuclear technology so it no longer needed the USSR to finish off Japan. By dropping the bomb, they handled Japan without the USSR and kept Soviet influence out of the region because the surrender is then negotiated between the US and Japan and the Soviets are not a party to it. There is of course a bunch of other info that I'm not talking about, but yes, the US knew that Japan was going to fall back eventually. The means they used was just more expedient for them politically and economically (their Open Door policy).

This actually isn't what I'm talking about but it is interesting information. The Soviets actually did invade china and defeated much of Japans remaining land army which was a huge factor in their surrender, so they did use the Soviets in that respect. The argument I was making is that the bombs usage twice was more about politics than the reality on the ground about the war.

This is not logically sound, you're a guy who wants to go to the law schools that I've gotten into, you can make a stronger structural argument than this. Your analogy has a glaring flaw and only stands if we accept the principle that supporting an individual means that you support all of their actions, which is a highly contested stance and one that is nearly the antithesis of supporting a politician. You could alternatively argue that supporting someone means that you support most of their major policy proposals, but that too would need a lot of qualifying and more support.

(Yes, I have been watching the logic in your arguments ever since you told me you wanted to go to law school and I do watch how you structure them. Yeah, I am playing older law school head right now).

But, LegendNas is certainly more of a dove than TUH if you look at most of his stances. TUH is just perhaps more ideologically principled in his socialist-like stances.

It is totally logically sound. The train of thought involved in "supporting" a poltician is not "logical". That is why Legendnas said "I don't know why I cant explain it"

But I am comparing the New Deal as the integral part of FDR's administration to the Drone war as the integral part of Obama's administration, regardless as to what others think the consensus is. Maybe you may BELIEVE that Obama's "New Deal" in terms of significance is his 1994 Republican healthcare proposal... or maybe its his half assed tax cut based stimulus which had been done by previous presidents... or some other watered down corporatist distraction, but that is not the relationship I was making.

The "New Deal" is a legacy left by a president in FDR which is totally unprecedented in American history. Without even getting into the details about the scope and size of the New Deal, and whether I agree with it or not, we certainly agree that it was unprecedented and a more extreme version of wherever the idea had originated at the very least

If we consider Obama's 4 years, the only thing that he has done that is TOTALLY unprecedented is kill an American citizen without due cause, signature and double tap strikes, and worst of all give the military the right to detain an American citizen indefinitely without a trial.

So as far as your inference into my logic I would say that my question to @LegendNas was more of an emotional one... how can you support Obama but not his drone strikes? How could Django support his slavemaster but not his whip? How can I support the Lakers but not Kobe? It's not a logical reasoning question it's a question of rationalization