Time span

During the 3-1/2 years of World War 2 that started with the
Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor in December 1941
and ended with the Surrender of Germany and Japan in 1945,
"We the People of the U.S.A. " produced the following:
22 aircraft carriers,
8 battleships,
48 cruisers,
349 destroyers,
420 destroyer escorts,
203 submarines,
34 million tons of merchant ships,
100,000 fighter aircraft,
98,000 bombers,
24,000 transport aircraft,
58,000 training aircraft,
93,000 tanks,
257,000 artillery pieces,
105,000 mortars,
3,000,000 machine guns, and 2,500,000 military trucks.

We put 16.1 million men in uniform in the various armed services,
invaded Africa,
invaded Sicily and Italy,
won the battle for the Atlantic,
planned and executed D-Day,
marched across the Pacific and Europe,
developed the atomic bomb,
and ultimately conquered Japan and Germany.

It's worth noting,
that during the almost exact amount of time,
the obama Administration couldn't even build a web site that worked.
:)
 

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
How many presidents have you had since 1945?....somebody must have voted for them...
 

Attachments

  • hiroshima-detroit.jpg
    hiroshima-detroit.jpg
    76.4 KB · Views: 2,096

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
attachment.php


In the above 2 photos of Detroit, you can literally SEE what happens to an area that elects 40/50 years of continuous liberal govt 'rule'.
 

Terry Oxandale

Skinny Man
Well, it's certainly not apathy. It's more the fact that for every "failure" blamed for the reasons noted above, one could quickly grab any number of thriving "liberal" cities as a sign of success (but then, that wouldn't tell the whole picture either, would it). Understanding that made the point moot in my mind, and I faded to sleep mode.
 
"During the 3-1/2 years of World War 2 that started with the
Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor in December 1941"

My history book do not relate the same facts.....
WWII started on september 1st 1939 with the invasion of Poland by Germany.

For US people it started on December 7th 1941....(Almost 2 years after Europe)
 

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
Well, it's certainly not apathy. It's more the fact that for every "failure" blamed for the reasons noted above, one could quickly grab any number of thriving "liberal" cities as a sign of success (but then, that wouldn't tell the whole picture either, would it). Understanding that made the point moot in my mind, and I faded to sleep mode.

But, there's no denying, is there, that the top 10 poorest 'big' cities in the country are and have been run by Democrats for years...several decades, actually. The city that prompted you to "(fade) into sleep mode" (Detroit) is one of them. It's also one of the nation's most dangerous cities.

If memory serves, recent data (from 2012/13 or so I think?) reveiled the top 5 states in the country are run by Republicans and the bottom five are run by Democrats. So, if 'true, what should that tell you...especially when combined with the 'city' stats?

Thatcher was right.
 

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
Comparing Detroit to Hiroshima is the intellectual equivalent of saying you have shit for brains.

Your comment, although very 'p.c.' (Kudos on that), suggests you don't want to accept the reality of one of the main points being made by that comparison. Namely: Lousy govt can also level/destroy a city.
 

Keith

Moderator
Some very dubious comparisons going on here (which was also done to death a couple of years ago).

Needle stuck?
 

Terry Oxandale

Skinny Man
But, there's no denying, is there, that the top 10 poorest 'big' cities in the country are and have been run by Democrats for years...several decades, actually. The city that prompted you to "(fade) into sleep mode" (Detroit) is one of them. It's also one of the nation's most dangerous cities.

If memory serves, recent data (from 2012/13 or so I think?) reveiled the top 5 states in the country are run by Republicans and the bottom five are run by Democrats. So, if 'true, what should that tell you...especially when combined with the 'city' stats?

Thatcher was right.

Arkansas (where I live) is a bastion of conservatism, and I wouldn't say it is an example of that ideology's success story (or the south's in general).

Pete is so right, we get what we vote for. Thus, if I were cherry-picking facts to serve a narrow ideological bent (which seems to be done way too frequently for the vast intelligence in this group), I could make an argument that the reason the Arkansas social/economic structure is so far "behind" is simply because we vote conservative, but again that would only be a sliver of what is really going on. it may serve my argument, but it wouldn't enlighten or serve the better interest of seeing the big picture, which after all is what is really required before finding solutions to problems in this country.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top