Free Republic 3rd Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $34,806
39%  
Woo hoo!! And the first 39% is in!! Thank you all very much!!

Posts by kabar

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Donald Trump is now leading with women and young people, GOPe in desperation mode

    08/04/2015 10:28:54 PM PDT · 13 of 31
    kabar to Democrat_media

    Legal immigration is destroying America.

  • What Would Have Happened if Germany Had Invaded the U.S. During World War II?

    08/04/2015 8:25:13 PM PDT · 223 of 224
    kabar to mountn man
    And all laudable, it's important to note that these new ships didn't arrive in the first 6 months or year. Like I stated earlier, the Essex, the first carrier built during the war wasn't ready until mid '43. 1-1/2 years after Pearl Harbor.

    The Essex (CV-9)was commissioned on 31 December 1942; the Yorktown (CV-10) on 15 April 1943; the Intrepid (CV-11) on 16 August 1943; the Hornet (CV-12) on 20 November 1943; and the Franklin (CV-13) on 31 January 1944. If our carriers had been wiped out at Pearl, you can bet these dates would have been moved up and the carriers put into service even earlier.

    While the mobilization of our war machine did take time, the production rate was incredible once up and running. If you want to hypothesize that our Pacific fleet carriers were wiped out, I can certainly with some factual basis believe that we would have accelerated production of new carriers even more. It is just a matter of priorities.

  • What Would Have Happened if Germany Had Invaded the U.S. During World War II?

    08/04/2015 8:08:26 PM PDT · 222 of 224
    kabar to mountn man
    First, the carriers. The US had seven at the time. NONE in mothballs. 3 were in the Pacific, though the Saratoga was in San Diego after drydock. The rest were in the Atlantic.

    How do you know what we had in moth balls? I didn't say we had carriers in mothballs, but there were other ships that could have been altered and put in service to serve as a carrier. The first US carrier was the USS Langley, which was a converted Proteus-class collier.

    As a logistics man, you should know that the carriers in the Atlantic were needed in the Atlantic. The Hornet was coming out of its shakedown cruise. The Ranger and Wasp were on ferry duty and patrol in the Atlantic.

    As a naval officer, I know we would have placed a higher priority on moving some of our forces to the West Coast if our carriers had been wiped out. Yes, Germany was always considered the higher priority theater of war, but we would not allow our West Coast to be left undefended.

    You mention mothballed ships being converted to carriers. Do you have ANY CLUE as to how long it would take to convert an old cruiser to a carrier, man her and perform a shakedown cruise???

    Do you know how long it would take to build 10 battleships, 27 aircraft carriers, 110 escort carriers, 211 submarines, 907 Cruisers/Destroyers/Escorts, 82,000 landing craft, 124,000 ships of all types, and 310,000 aircraft? Answer three and one-half years. Do you have clue about Americans when faced with a challenge, at least those formed in the crucible of the the Great Depression. We were a can-do people who could do wonderous things. How old are you?

    Without replacement, Midway wouldn't have happened. Remember, Lexington was lost a month earlier at Coral Sea.

    Those battles would not have happened, but the Japanese Imperial Navy would be destroyed regardless. It was a matter of time.

    Midway was a success because we had multiple carriers to form a trap.

    Without getting too far into the weeds, we were fortunate to achieve the outcome we did. There was some serendipity involved in just locating the Japanese plus they made some critical mistakes in how they armed their aircraft. Midway stopped the Japanese Navy's expansion to the East, but it was not an overwhelming victory. The Japanese still had a very formidable Navy.

    The US wouldn't have had carrier parity until early '44. That's not propaganda. That's not platitudes. Those are cold hard facts. Saying otherwise is just wishful thinking.

    As I said, you just underestimate what the US could do when faced with a challenge. I provided you with what we produced in 3 1/2 years.

    Ground was broken for construction of the Pentagon on September 11, 1941, and the building was dedicated on January 15, 1943. Do you think we could do that today?

    No matter what happened at Pearl Harbor, it didn't affect the production of the atomic bomb.

  • What Would Have Happened if Germany Had Invaded the U.S. During World War II?

    08/04/2015 6:05:39 PM PDT · 219 of 224
    kabar to SunkenCiv
    We were a different country populated by different people than now. They were tougher having gone thru the Depression, more patriotic, and totally committed to winning the war as a matter of survival. And we had the good fortune of having a country untouched by the war with our industrial capability intact and secure.

    My confidence in our ability to overcome any obstacle in our path is founded on what was done in just 3 and one-half years. We can hypothesize all we want, but the record is clear about what we did. It is mind-boggling and still hard to comprehend. I was born in 1943 and have some perspective and experience to place it in some context. It is remarkable. It is sad to see how this nation has declined in terms of our confidence and patriotism. Once more, here are some of the statistics:

    During the three and one half years of WWII, the US produced 10 battleships, 27 aircraft carriers, 110 escort carriers, 211 submarines, 907 Cruisers/Destroyers/Escorts, 82,000 landing craft, 124,000 ships of all types, and 310,000 aircraft. And this was done from virtually a standing start. Anyone who thinks that razing Pearl Harbor would have put it out for quite a while underestimates what happens when the US mobilizes its economy and industry along with 12 million under arms.

  • Trump: Shut Down the Government Over Planned Parenthood

    08/04/2015 10:56:02 AM PDT · 135 of 154
    kabar to LS
    It was on the Hugh Hewitt show on Monday, not during the debate in NH. Sorry, I attributed to the debate.

    Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina said Monday that Congress should shut down the government if necessary to defund Planned Parenthood. In an interview with conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt, the former Hewlett-Packard CEO agreed with a group of GOP senators, including fellow 2016 candidate Ted Cruz, that the abortion provider should lose its taxpayer funding.

    "If it comes down to closing the government down or funding Planned Parenthood, what should the Republicans in the Congress do?" Hewitt asked the presidential hopeful.

    "They should close the government down," Fiorina said flatly. "The point is this, however, we have a long way to go. And between now and then, beginning with this vote today, every single Republican out there, as well as I hope every media outlet, needs to ask the question that I have been asking for weeks: how does any Democrat justify the continued taxpayer funding of this organization?"

  • Trump: Shut Down the Government Over Planned Parenthood

    08/04/2015 8:41:38 AM PDT · 94 of 154
    kabar to LS

    Carly Fiorina said it last night. The 5th video is out today and it is even more gruesome than the other 4. I am disappointed with the lack of moral outrage and passion from our elected representatives. If they can’t get excited about infanticide, then we are finished as a nation. Forget the taxpayer funding issue, this is a moral outrage akin to the Nazis medical experiment. They should be putting these people in jail no matter where the money comes from.

  • Intact Fetuses "Just a Matter of Line Items" for Planned Parenthood TX Mega-Center

    08/04/2015 8:34:22 AM PDT · 38 of 73
    kabar to mlizzy

    IMO the one that allegedly involves race will be the blockbuster. It will tear apart the Dem coalition.

  • 14 No Trump — Grading the GOP Candidates

    08/04/2015 8:31:20 AM PDT · 12 of 16
    kabar to mykroar

    The author must be gay as well.

  • Trump/Kasich (vanity)

    08/03/2015 10:23:40 PM PDT · 34 of 67
    kabar to garjog

    Yeah like Ryan helped Romney win WI,

  • What Would Have Happened if Germany Had Invaded the U.S. During World War II?

    08/03/2015 10:20:33 PM PDT · 214 of 224
    kabar to mountn man
    You sir have no idea about logistics. As much as Japan was over extended (I agree with you on), Pearl was 2600 miles away from San Diego. IF the carriers were taken out, The US Navy would have sucked up tight and left Pearl for a later date. Kind of hard to mobilize The arsenal of democracy if the majority of your capital ships are underwater (and I don't mean subs).

    I know a hell of lot more about logistics than you do. First of all, you make up all of these hypotheticals to prove nothing. Why don't we just posit that the Japanese invaded San Diego and took over our naval facilities there. This is an exercise in how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.

    Are you saying the Japanese wiped out all of our carriers or just those in the Pacific Fleet? Or all of our capital ships in Pearl or our entire inventory worldwide? I hope you are aware that the entire US Navy was not based out of Pearl Harbor. We had carriers and capital ships in the Atlantic.

    The Essex was the first Carrier to enter in WWII. That wasn't until July of '43.

    Do you mean the Essex class of carriers? The USS Essex (CV-9) was launched 31 July 1942 and commissioned in December 1942. Construction was accelerated after Pearl Harbor as were two other Essex class carriers. A total of 24 Essex class carriers were built.

    There were other alternatives that could have been used if our Pacific carrier fleet had been wiped out. We could have transferred some carriers from the Atlantic to the Pacific, taken some ships out of mothballs and fitted flight decks on them, and accelerate carriers that were already under construction. The bottom line is that I have no doubt that we would have met the challenge. And there is no way we would have written off Hawaii. We certainly would reposition our naval forces to protect the West Coast.

    Again, Without the capital ships, everything else is just harassment. Without capital ships, convoys don't safely sail. Without convoy ships, Pearl doesn't get rebuilt. Without Pearl being rebuilt ships sunk in harbor stay there. Without Pearl active and viable, we can't project any force in the Pacific. Can't project in the Pacific and Japan keeps moving (and over extending) but still reinforcing.

    As I indicated, we had other ships on the West Coast and the East Coast. Wiping out Pearl Harbor did not wipe out the US Navy. Pearl Harbor would have been rebuilt because it was vital to our national security not to mention that close to half a million of our fellow citizens lived there and needed to be supplied with the necessities to live.

    First, there was a USS Yorktown carrier (CV-5) that was a Yorktown class sunk at the battle of Midway. The Essex class Yorktown (CV-10) was commissioned in 1943. It was not the first Essex class carrier. The USS Essex (CV-9) was.

    In other words, the little bit longer you talk about, would probably be about 1-1/2 years.

    Besides the fact that you are making it up as you go, I can just as authoritatively state that it would have only slowed us down by 6 months.

    In '45 we had 3 total nukes. One was popped in Alamogordo as a test. Then Hiroshima. Then Nagasaki. If Japan didn't surrender then, then we were going to have to go in. Change the timeline 1-1/2 years and Japan WOULD NOT have surrendered in '45 after Nagasaki.

    Japan was ready to surrender after the first one. We had more than three bombs. Groves expected to have another atomic bomb ready for use on August 19, with three more in September and a further three in October. On August 10, he sent a memorandum to Marshall in which he wrote that "the next bomb ... should be ready for delivery on the first suitable weather after 17 or 18 August." On the same day, Marshall endorsed the memo with the comment, "It is not to be released over Japan without express authority from the President." Truman had secretly requested this on August 10. This modified the previous order that the target cities were to be attacked with atomic bombs "as made ready"

    You can recite all the happy horsesh-t platitudes you want. The fact remains, change Japans 2 blunders and it changes the dynamics of the Pacific theater.

    LOL. You make up these scenarios out of whole cloth and reject any one else doing the same thing. At least mine are based on fact. The US provided two thirds of all the weapons used by the allies. In 3 and one-half years we had created the greatest war machine ever seen. At the end of the war we were turning out a Liberty ship a day. You can create whatever nonsense situation you want, but the America of 1941 was far different than what we have today. Americans were united and involved in the war effort with women doing many jobs heretofore done by men. Factories were converted to produce weapons and parts and ammo 24 hours a day. My "platitudes" are based on demonstrated performance.

    Now, what happens in 1-1/2 years in China, if the US isn't able to launch reasonable campaigns? At some point Japan goes from being over extended in areas, to conquerors able to make use of the resources and infrastructure.

    More fantasy.

  • ABORTION: Pro-Abortion Minority Blocks Senate Bill to Defund Planned Parenthood

    08/03/2015 6:41:57 PM PDT · 30 of 83
    kabar to Nextrush
    It is why we need to get these bastards out of leadership positions. If they continue to get reelected, then we get the government we deserve.

    PP is a moral issue of the highest order. If we can't get our side to show some passion and outrage about this, what do they need to have a spine. This is akin to knowing what the Nazis were doing in the concentration camps and not doing something about it. Shut the government down if that is what it takes to stop the slaughter of infants in the millions. Let the American people know what is at stake. We should go down fighting no matter what the consequences.

  • McConnell votes 'NO' to defunding Planned Parenthood!!!

    08/03/2015 6:33:42 PM PDT · 171 of 231
    kabar to CivilWarBrewing

    Procedural so he can bring it up again.

  • ABORTION: Pro-Abortion Minority Blocks Senate Bill to Defund Planned Parenthood

    08/03/2015 6:17:44 PM PDT · 15 of 83
    kabar to Nextrush

    The way to do it is to attach an amendment to an important bill and see what happens, even it means shutting down the government.

  • What Would Have Happened if Germany Had Invaded the U.S. During World War II?

    08/03/2015 6:10:13 PM PDT · 207 of 224
    kabar to mountn man
    Maybe the eventual outcome might have stayed the same, but the interim would have been different. Those 2 blunders could have actually saved 100's of thousands of lives.

    No maybes about it. The attack on Pearl Harbor marked the end of Imperial Japan. The outcome was never really in question.

    I don't agree that Japan could have put Pearl Harbor out of action for an extended period of time with a second and third wave. You can destroy the facilities, but the harbor itself would still be there and I have no doubt that we could have got the port back into operation quickly. The arsenal of democracy would be mobilized to make it happen.

    The Battle Of Midway was a game changer for both sides. BUT...IF Japan would have destroyed the bases at Hawaii and taken out the carriers, Midway would have fallen shortly after. NEVER allowing the trap to be set that sent 4 of Japans carriers to the bottom, so early in the war. The whole dynamic of the war would have changed.

    If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, what a fine world we would have. The US would still have defeated the Japanese Navy, albeit it would take a little longer. Our submarine force got better and better and did major damage by themselves to both combatant and merchant ships. Japan was overextended in China, the Philippines, and in the Pacific.

    During the three and one half years of WWII, the US produced 10 battleships, 27 aircraft carriers, 110 escort carriers, 211 submarines, 907 Cruisers/Destroyers/Escorts, 82,000 landing craft, 124,000 ships of all types, and 310,000 aircraft. And this was done from virtually a standing start. Anyone who thinks that razing Pearl Harbor would have put it out for quite a while underestimates what happens when the US mobilizes its economy and industry along with 12 million under arms.

    PS, I still have a ration book for me as a child during WWII.

  • What Would Have Happened if Germany Had Invaded the U.S. During World War II?

    08/03/2015 5:48:08 PM PDT · 205 of 224
    kabar to central_va
    They didn't occupy the Philippines, just key cities. And it cost them dearly despite their murderous treatment of the Filipinos. I have toured Manila and seen what the Japanese did. Again, take a look at the geography and the proximity of the Philippines to Japan. They invaded ten days after the attack on Pearl Harbor. 500,000 to a million Filipinos died during the three year occupation. The Japanese set up a puppet government, but the guerrilla resistance was strong and never defeated. The Japanese paid a major price for the occupation.

    Postwar investigations showed that about 260,000 people were in guerrilla organizations and that members of the anti-Japanese underground were even more numerous. Such was their effectiveness that by the end of the war, Japan controlled only twelve of the forty-eight provinces.

    U.S. casualties were 10,380 dead and 36,550 wounded; Japanese dead were 255,795. I wonder if the Japanese regretted their failed occupation of the Philippines. They paid a terrible price.

    And some great US naval victories occurred off of the Philippines as the Japanese struggled to resupply their troops. The battle of Leyte Gulf was the largest naval battle of WWII and perhaps, in the history of warfare. The Japanese lost 12,500 dead; 1 fleet carrier, 3 light carriers 3 battleships, 10 cruisers, 11 destroyers sunk and 300 planes.

    If you have ever attended a football game at the USNA, you will see the names of many of those battles around the stadium. The Japanese occupation of the Philippines became their graveyard.

  • What Would Have Happened if Germany Had Invaded the U.S. During World War II?

    08/03/2015 4:35:02 PM PDT · 201 of 224
    kabar to Paleo Conservative
    Getting over 100,000 2.5 ton Studebaker trucks from the US certainly improved the mobility of Soviet forces and allowed them to win the battle of Kursk.

    No doubt US aid helped the Soviets, but 100,000 trucks did not win the battle of Kursk. How many US provided trucks were involved in the battle?

    We give weapons and humvees to the Iraqis and they surrender them at the first shot. The Soviet soldier and the willingness to sacrifice huge numbers of people to achieve the objective won the battle of Kursk. The Soviets also had a superior battle plan.

    Militarily, Zhukov wielded a strength consisted of 1,300,000 men, 3,600 tanks, 20,000 pieces of artillery, and 2,400 aircraft. On the other side, the Germans were about to attack with over 800,000 men (including three Waffen SS divisions), 2,700 tanks, and 1,800 aircraft.

    At the end of the fighting in Kursk, the German forces had suffered 200,000 casualties and lost 500 tanks, while Soviet losses amounted to 860,000 casualties and 1,500 tanks. The Soviets lost 1,200 aircraft.

    When you see the size of these casualties and compare them against those on D-Day for all of the allies or the US total casualties for the entire war in both theaters, you can understand why the Soviets bristle when they hear Americans claiming credit for defeating the Germans or something silly about how 100,000 trucks won the day. Nonsense.

    We lost 407,000 KIA and 600,000 wounded for the entire war. The Soviets lost more than that in one battle.

  • What Would Have Happened if Germany Had Invaded the U.S. During World War II?

    08/03/2015 2:41:53 PM PDT · 196 of 224
    kabar to central_va
    Funny thing you didn't answer my question. Where did you get the three years from?

    If the roles were reversed The USA would not have made that mistake, they would have taken Hawaii while the taking is good.

    You mean if the US had conducted a surprise attack on Japan, a day that will live in infamy? Japan could never have held Hawaii and taking and occupying it would have required tens of thousands of troops. Hawaii had 422,000 people in 1940. It comprises hundreds of islands spread over 1,500 miles. It has 750 miles of coastline.

    How many people would it have taken to seize the island and occupy it? What naval force would be required to supply the occupying troops with bombs and bullets and beans? How would they protect their suppliy lines and what kind of naval assets would be required? The US was mobilizing its forces and still had carriers. The occupation of Hawaii would have been a military debacle.

  • What Would Have Happened if Germany Had Invaded the U.S. During World War II?

    08/03/2015 1:37:18 PM PDT · 193 of 224
    kabar to central_va
    I wasn't trying to impress you. My expertise is logistics, which wins wars. Were you in the US Navy or some other country's navy? Your comments don't reflect any real understanding of how nation's project power and the logistics required.

    The Japanese maintained logistics in the Aleutian Islands for 3 years EXPLAIN THAT?

    A small Japanese force occupied the islands of Attu and Kiska, but the remoteness of the islands and the difficulties of weather and terrain meant that it took nearly a year for a far larger U.S./Canadian force to eject them.

    A battle to reclaim Attu was launched on May 11, 1943 and completed following a final Japanese banzai charge on May 29th. On 15 August 1943, an invasion force landed on Kiska in the wake of a sustained three-week barrage, only to discover the Japanese had abandoned the island on July 29th.

    The Japanese occupied the islands beginning on 3 June 1942. They were pushed out in August 1943 How do you GET to three years?

    Do you realize how close Attu and Kiska are to Japan? It is no great feat for Japan to support a small contingent on these remote islands. It is only 2,571 miles from Japan. After the battle of the Komandorski Islands, the Japanese could only supply the small garrison using submarines. Occupying two remote islands in the Pacific is a far cry from invading Hawaii or the US mainland.

  • What Would Have Happened if Germany Had Invaded the U.S. During World War II?

    08/03/2015 10:15:40 AM PDT · 190 of 224
    kabar to central_va
    Wow, the fact that the USN would have had to operate out of California ESCAPES you. Thank God you are not a military tactician

    I spent 8 years as a naval officer including a year in Vietnam and 8 months off the coast aboard an LPH with Marines who launched attacks against the VC and NVA. I do understand how the military and the Navy operate in wartime.

    There was no way the Japanese could hold Hawaii even if our forces operated initially from the West Coast. They weren't capable of the logistics. And there would be no point doing it. US carriers and subs would make it impossible.

  • CNN/WSJ Poll Trump Leads Walker, Bush

    08/03/2015 9:04:35 AM PDT · 14 of 18
    kabar to deport

    Meaningless. The left used the same polls to prove that McCain was the best candidate against Obama. The GOP guns have yet to be trained on Hillary and she is still tanking.

  • What Would Have Happened if Germany Had Invaded the U.S. During World War II?

    08/03/2015 8:58:15 AM PDT · 170 of 224
    kabar to central_va
    The Japanese could never had held Pearl Harbor and for what purpose? They would have to establish a long logistical tail just to supply their forces and they would need to position a large naval force to defend against an American counterattack. The US submarine force would have had a field day. And there is no way the Japanese could have matched our industrial output. Hawaii was untenable for the Japanese and it was never their objective for attacking it.

    The fact that our carrier force escaped helped shorten the time it took to defeat the Japanese who overextended themselves.

  • What Would Have Happened if Germany Had Invaded the U.S. During World War II?

    08/03/2015 8:45:41 AM PDT · 167 of 224
    kabar to AppyPappy

    No doubt and it forced the Germans to move more forces to the Eastern front from the Western front and Germany.

  • What Would Have Happened if Germany Had Invaded the U.S. During World War II?

    08/03/2015 8:42:47 AM PDT · 165 of 224
    kabar to central_va
    The defenses in Hawaii at the time were 4 battalions of Marines (1,500) and one Army Division (10,000). That was not enough to stop an invasion.

    Do you understand the logistics of invading an island 4,000 miles away. First, you need a force that is probably three times at least of the defenders. Second, you need to be able to establish a logistical supply line to support those forces and then occupy the territory. Finally, you must be able to defend your gains.

    The Japanese were coordinating the attack of Pearl Harbor whiles they were moving against Southeast Asia and the Philippines. The objective of the attack was to cripple the US ability to intervene. They believed that the US would come to the negotiating table and sign an agreement given its weakened military state. Instead, they woke a sleeping giant.

    Despite the ignominious defeat on December 7, 1941, it is worth noting the speed of the US response.

    18 April 1942, The Doolittle raid, starting from Carrier "Hornet" with North American B-25B Mitchells, on Tokyo and Yokohama, Japan.

    4 May 1942, (till 8 May). Japanese and American navies clash in the Battle of the Coral Sea. Japanese lost carrier "Shoho" and heavily damage carrier "Shokaku"; American lost carrier "Lexington", a tanker and a destroyer.

    4 June 1942, (till 8 June) The Battle of Midway. Begin of the 4-day air-naval battle of Midway. In this battle of planes; Japanese lost carriers "Akagi", "Kaga" , "Soryu" and "Hiryu", American lost carrier "Yorktown", sank by a Japanese submarine.

    7 August 1942, U.S. Marines land at Guadalcanal, the Solomon Islands. The American begin landings in the Solomons, troops gain footholds on Guadalcanal, Tulagi and Gavutu.

    When the Guadalcanal campaign began, it was the first land offensive by the United States against any Axis power. It continued to be the only land offensive by the United States until the major Allied invasion of North Africa in November 1942.

    So, just after 6 months after Pearl Harbor the US had blunted the Japanese naval threat to the Homeland and had gone on the offensive 8 months latter in the Pacific. In fact, Dolittle's raid 4 months after Pearl Harbor inflicted damage on Japan proper including two of its largest cities.

  • What Would Have Happened if Germany Had Invaded the U.S. During World War II?

    08/03/2015 8:07:56 AM PDT · 150 of 224
    kabar to Cronos
    The Battle of Kursk, the greatest battle of WWII and perhaps in the history of warfare, marked the end of the German military. Despite suffering massive casualties, the Soviets chewed up the German war machine. By the time we opened up a second front, the die had already been cast on the fate of the German military.

    I don't think the German "soldier" was better or braver on average.

    Better trained, more disciplined, and better equipped. Their only problem was that there were too few of them, thankfully. They inflicted massive casualties on opposing armies. They just outran their supply lines and faced an enemy, the Soviets, who accepted an horrendous loss of life to achieve their objectives. It became a battle of attrition.

    Most Americans believe that D-Day was the pivotal battle of the war, but Kursk was the downfall of the German military. It should be noted that British intelligence was able to discover the German plans for Kursk and informed the Soviets prior to the battle. I still have difficulty comprehending the size and scope of Kursk. The statistics are mind-boggling.

  • What Would Have Happened if Germany Had Invaded the U.S. During World War II?

    08/03/2015 7:49:09 AM PDT · 140 of 224
    kabar to MuttTheHoople
    Compared to our Germans, they were. They spent years getting for war, while our guys learned on the fly. And we kicked their ass.

    Our Germans you mean like Patton? What percentage of our 12 million men under arms were German-Americans?

    The cream of the Germany Army and by far the most casualties were suffered at the hands of the Soviets. The greatest battle in terms of size, casualties, and significance was the Battle of Kursk, which dwarfed D-Day. The outnumbered German Army was chewed up by the Soviets who suffered over 20 million casualties during WWII. We didn't kick the German's ass, the Soviets did.

  • Immigration Bill: Landlords 'must evict' illegal immigrants

    08/03/2015 5:59:09 AM PDT · 2 of 25
    kabar to Oldeconomybuyer

    Except if you are Obama’s aunt.

  • DEMS DODGE DEBATES; NOTHING 'SCHEDULED'

    08/02/2015 9:04:51 PM PDT · 16 of 30
    kabar to UCANSEE2

    Hard to debate when you have already selected your nominee.

  • What Would Have Happened if Germany Had Invaded the U.S. During World War II?

    08/02/2015 8:57:09 PM PDT · 58 of 224
    kabar to driftless2
    The tragedy, of course, is that Hitler might have been stopped as late as 1938 if Britain had stood up to Hitler and supported France.

    Britain wasn't ready for war in 1938. Their military was in sad shape.

  • What Would Have Happened if Germany Had Invaded the U.S. During World War II?

    08/02/2015 8:54:44 PM PDT · 57 of 224
    kabar to MuttTheHoople
    The Germans who stayed in Europe were weak, timid, and easily led.

    Weak? Timid? Tell that to the Russians, British, French, Poles, et. al. The German soldier may have been the best ever fielded by any country. They were fighting against much greater forces and still almost succeeded. If they had obtained a nuclear weapon first, it would have been a much different story.

  • Sunday Morning Talk Show Thread 2 August 2015 (Trump on 2 shows!)

    08/02/2015 8:47:24 PM PDT · 253 of 257
    kabar to haircutter

    See my post #119. You are right. Hillary will be 69 in 2016.

  • Medicare's Birthday: A Failed Centralized Program Turns 50

    08/02/2015 4:23:18 PM PDT · 23 of 27
    kabar to nascarnation
    Read it. Forget the Death panels. The real impact will come thru the doubling of the population over 65 over the next 20 years. 10,000 baby boomers retire every day and will continue to do so thru 2030.

    Thew SSDI Trust Fund is exhausted next year, 2016. Funds will have to be transferred from the main SSTF urgently.

    Social Security’s Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Fund now faces an urgent threat of reserve depletion, requiring prompt corrective action by lawmakers if sudden reductions or interruptions in benefit payments are to be avoided. Beyond DI, Social Security as a whole as well as Medicare cannot sustain projected long-run program costs under currently scheduled financing. Lawmakers should take action sooner rather than later to address these structural shortfalls, so that the uncertainty now facing disability beneficiaries will not eventually be experienced by other programs’ participants, and so that a broader range of solutions can be considered and more time will be available to phase in changes while giving the public adequate time to prepare. Earlier action will also help elected officials minimize adverse impacts on vulnerable populations, including lower-income workers and people already dependent on program benefits.

    The DI program satisfies neither the Trustees’ long-range test of close actuarial balance nor our short-range test of financial adequacy and faces the most immediate financing shortfall of any of the separate trust funds. DI Trust Fund reserves expressed as a percent of annual cost (the trust fund ratio) declined to 40 percent at the beginning of 2015, and the Trustees project trust fund depletion late in 2016, the same year projected in the last Trustees Report. DI costs have exceeded non-interest income since 2005, and the trust fund ratio has declined in every year since peaking in 2003. While legislation is needed to address all of Social Security’s financial imbalances, the need has become urgent with respect to the program’s disability insurance component. Lawmakers need to act soon to avoid automatic reductions in payments to DI beneficiaries in late 2016.

    To summarize overall Social Security finances, the Trustees have traditionally emphasized the financial status of the hypothetical combined trust funds for DI and for Old Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI). The combined trust funds, and expenditures that can be financed in the context of the combined trust funds, are hypotheticals because there is no legal authority to finance one program’s expenditures with the other program’s taxes or reserves. Social Security’s total expenditures have exceeded non-interest income of its combined trust funds since 2010, and the Trustees estimate that Social Security cost will exceed non-interest income throughout the 75-year projection period. The Trustees project that this annual cash-flow deficit will average about $76 billion between 2015 and 2018 before rising steeply as income growth slows to its sustainable trend rate after the economic recovery is complete while the number of beneficiaries continues to grow at a substantially faster rate than the number of covered workers.

    Interest income and redemption of trust fund assets from the General Fund of the Treasury, will provide the resources needed to offset Social Security’s annual aggregate cash-flow deficits until 2034. Since the cash-flow deficit will be less than interest earnings through 2019, total income will exceed expenditures and reserves of the combined trust funds will continue to grow but not by enough to prevent the ratio of reserves to one year’s projected cost (the combined trust fund ratio) from declining. (This ratio peaked in 2008, declined through 2014, and is expected to decline steadily in future years.) After 2019, Treasury will redeem trust fund asset reserves to the extent that program cost exceeds tax revenue and interest earnings until depletion of total trust fund reserves in 2034, one year later than projected in last year’s Trustees Report. Thereafter, tax income is projected to be sufficient to pay about three-quarters of scheduled benefits through the end of the projection period in 2089.

  • Medicare's Birthday: A Failed Centralized Program Turns 50

    08/02/2015 4:12:58 PM PDT · 21 of 27
    kabar to sparklite2

    $18.4 trillion

  • Medicare's Birthday: A Failed Centralized Program Turns 50

    08/02/2015 4:10:13 PM PDT · 18 of 27
    kabar to nascarnation
  • Medicare's Birthday: A Failed Centralized Program Turns 50

    08/02/2015 4:03:40 PM PDT · 14 of 27
    kabar to EternalVigilance

    Sp Trump is really behind this effort and not Obama and the Dems?

  • Medicare's Birthday: A Failed Centralized Program Turns 50

    08/02/2015 3:50:56 PM PDT · 6 of 27
    kabar to Robert A. Cook, PE
    So, when will Social Security go broke?

    SS has been in the red since 2010. It will have to reduce payments in 2033, by law.

    When will Medicaid go broke - now that Obola is shredding it for his Obomacare subsidies and failures?

    Medicaid gets funded solely thru the General Fund. We borrow money now to pay for the benefits.

  • Medicare's Birthday: A Failed Centralized Program Turns 50

    08/02/2015 3:48:27 PM PDT · 5 of 27
    kabar to Jim 0216
    Perhaps next time, we might try market forces rather than another failed effort at centralized government programs.

    Next time it will be single payer. It is inevitable.

  • Sunday Morning Talk Show Thread 2 August 2015 (Trump on 2 shows!)

    08/02/2015 12:08:13 PM PDT · 217 of 257
    kabar to DanZ
    Now, Now, we watch these shows because the pundits are partisan. We only bitch when OUR representation is not AIRED

    Speak for yourself. It is not journalism when you have Stephy who worked for the Clintons and donated to their foundation to be the interviewer of the author who blew the whistle on their scam and influence peddling. He never lets the viewer know any of that.

    Rove worked for Bush 43 as a key member of his administration nd heads a PAC that can only be described as a GOPe organ. To have him out there again, without disclosing his connections to Jeb and the Bushes, with his white board doing an analysis of the candidates and the polls is dishonest.

    I don't want any of these former party operatives filtering our news. The so-called journalists do enough of that. I don't care if it is Tony Snow, Perrino, Stephy, Mathews, Rove, et. al. There should be a ban on them working for the MSM as "journalists" in much the same way that we have members of Congress working for interest groups that lobby Congress. The current rules are not tough enough.

    George Will is another example of the incestuousness of the MSM and partisan politics. The Obama administration cultivates the connections between the MSM and the familial relationships of Obamas staff.

  • What would a Trump administration look like?

    08/02/2015 11:32:00 AM PDT · 11 of 42
    kabar to conservative98

    Why are you directing that at me?

  • What would a Trump administration look like?

    08/02/2015 11:29:06 AM PDT · 8 of 42
    kabar to BenLurkin
    he and Trump are both from the business world, and should work together very well.

    What makes you think she is all that competent? She was a lousy political candidate running for the Senate and she did not endear herself to the staff who worked for her.

    In May 2015, Reuters followed up on a story initially broken by the San Francisco Chronicle, reporting that "for more than four years, Fiorina dodged her [2010 campaign staffers], some of whom were owed tens of thousands of dollars in back payments." But, "Ultimately, Fiorina paid them."

    Moreover, twelve former high-level campaign workers told a reporter they would "never go to work for her again, and a big reason for that being the fact that they didn't get paid for so long" and had concerns that "she may not be so good at handling budgets." One former high level staffer commented, "“I’d rather go to Iraq than work for Carly Fiorina again."

    Fiorina, who Reuters noted has an estimated wealth of up to $120 million dollars, did not personally respond to the report. However, the Carly for America presidential campaign spokesperson remarked that outstanding debts after a campaign are not unusual, and that her prior campaign debt had been paid in full.

  • What would a Trump administration look like?

    08/02/2015 11:20:39 AM PDT · 4 of 42
    kabar to BenLurkin
    Carly Fiorina would be an interesting choice.

    Loser

  • Donald Trump: No Black Presidents For A While Because Of Obama

    08/02/2015 11:08:10 AM PDT · 16 of 88
    kabar to dragonblustar

    There is no such thing as a black conservative. Once you become a conservative, you are no longer considered black by the liberals.

  • Sunday Morning Talk Show Thread 2 August 2015 (Trump on 2 shows!)

    08/02/2015 11:03:54 AM PDT · 210 of 257
    kabar to CDB
    The 'experts' (i.e., 'detail men') should be on tap NOT on top."

    Like it.

  • 'I'll win the Black AND Hispanic vote': Trump bashes Obama as 'doing absolutely nothing for blacks

    08/02/2015 10:54:56 AM PDT · 17 of 26
    kabar to 2ndDivisionVet

    Roughly half of all American Indian children (50 percent) and African-American children (48 percent) had no parent with full-time, year-round employment in 2013, compared with 37 percent of Latino children, 24 percent of non-Hispanic white children and 23 percent of Asian and Pacific Islander children."

    In 2013, three in 10 children (22.8 million) lived in families where no parent had full-time, year-round employment. Since 2008, the number of such children climbed by nearly 2.7 million.

  • 'I'll win the Black AND Hispanic vote': Trump bashes Obama as 'doing absolutely nothing for blacks

    08/02/2015 10:42:00 AM PDT · 14 of 26
    kabar to 2ndDivisionVet
    Blacks Lose Ground under Obama--And Republicans should remind them. by Delroy Murdock 4/10/2015

    The unemployment rate has fallen under Obama, from 7.8 percent when he was sworn in on January 20, 2009, to 5.5 percent last month. Though less dramatic, joblessness has dropped for black Americans (from 12.7 to 10.1 percent) and black teenagers (from 35.3 to 25.0 percent). From there, things get bleak.

    U.S. labor force participation has declined during that same period, from 65.7 to 62.7 percent. For blacks in general, the damage was a bit lighter, dipping from 63.2 to 61.0 percent of available employees in the work pool. For black teenagers, however, this number deteriorated — from 29.6 to 25.7 percent.

    The percentage of Americans below the poverty line inched up, the latest available Census Bureau data found, from 14.3 to 14.5 percent overall — between 2009 and 2013. For black Americans, that climb was steeper: The 25.8 percent in poverty rose to 27.2 percent.

    Real median household incomes across America retreated across those years, from $54,059 to $51,939. Though less pronounced, such finances also reversed for black Americans, from $35,387 to $34,598.

    Food Stamp recipients between 2009 and 2013, the most recent Department of Agriculture figures show, rose from 32.9 million to 47.1 million Americans. Meanwhile, the equivalent number of blacks soared from 7.4 million to 12.2 million.

    Home ownership slipped from 67.3 percent of Americans in the first quarter of 2009 to 64.0 in the fourth quarter of 2014. For blacks, that figure slid from 46.1 to 42.1 percent.

    Obama has betrayed blacks as a community, failed Americans as a people, and enfeebled the United States as a nation.

  • How to Do a Donald Trump Impression

    08/02/2015 9:40:43 AM PDT · 10 of 12
    kabar to PJ-Comix
    Alinsky's Rules for radicals:

    5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.

    13. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

  • How to Do a Donald Trump Impression

    08/02/2015 9:36:39 AM PDT · 9 of 12
    kabar to PJ-Comix
    Part of the left's strategy. You must ridicule the threat. Make it the laughingstock. The punchline of jokes. It has been used successfully many times.

    How many jokes are told about Hillary by the late-night comics. Very few and even those are really not directed at her or her intelligence.

  • Sunday Morning Talk Show Thread 2 August 2015 (Trump on 2 shows!)

    08/02/2015 8:30:05 AM PDT · 162 of 257
    kabar to rodguy911

    Saw that. Newt was echoing Trump. And Huckabee ended his interview almost repeating Trump’s “Make America great again.” Trump is seizing control of the narrative. I bet viewership on ABC and CBS increased because Trump was on.

  • Sunday Morning Talk Show Thread 2 August 2015 (Trump on 2 shows!)

    08/02/2015 8:13:00 AM PDT · 151 of 257
    kabar to rodguy911

    Forgot about Joe who will be 74 in 2016.

  • Sunday Morning Talk Show Thread 2 August 2015 (Trump on 2 shows!)

    08/02/2015 8:09:09 AM PDT · 147 of 257
    kabar to Morgan in Denver

    I suspect Trump is doing some debate prep. You know that the Murdoch’s Torquemadas will have some “gotcha questions” that will try to expose Trump’s lack of knowledge about a particular area, especially as it concerns some of his pronouncements about trade or immigration. For example, who is the PM of India or the head of China or President of Mexico?

  • Sunday Morning Talk Show Thread 2 August 2015 (Trump on 2 shows!)

    08/02/2015 7:59:33 AM PDT · 140 of 257
    kabar to rodguy911
    ...for three minutes splaining just how bad 0 was in that he did nothing for black people

    And Trump was right on target. Blacks are in far worse shape than they were 7 years ago. And all Obama wants to do is give amnesty to illegals who are taking black jobs and depressing wages. Obama is our first brown President.