Gromnir

dunno, but rifle skillz might not be the best measure o' character. HA! Good Fun! ps edited out image to reduce thread clutter

https://www.npr.org/2016/11/15/502032052/lots-of-people-voted-for-obama-and-trump-heres-where-in-3-charts "Donald Trump's surprise victory on Tuesday came largely due to his over-performance of expectations in the Midwest. His populist, anti-trade deal message was tailor-made for this region, but polling hadn't shown him pulling ahead of rival Hillary Clinton there. "But on Election Night, it was clear the surveys had missed a massive surge in some places and shifts in others of white, working-class voters in Iowa, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania that helped Donald Trump pull off the upset. "These maps show where the Trump surge happened and the places that flipped from supporting President Obama in 2012 to going for the Republican nominee and billionaire real-estate mogul just four years later." even in districts democrats continued to carry, there were, particular in the heartland, a significant number o' former democrat voters, o' which blue collar workers w/o college were o' particular note, who became exhausted by democrat promises and switched allegiance. if it makes you feel better, white, middle-class, suburban women is leaving trump and republicans in 2018. HA! Good Fun!

is why we specific noted the, "understandable and reasonable lack o' trust o' any traditional washington politician made a tough-talking outsider such as trump possible. sow. reap." we observed the problem weren't simple a rejection o' obama. tween bush and obama administrations, voter faith (democrat or republican) in any Washington politician were serious eroded to the point where fringe voices with less experience were actual deemed more attractive by voters. HA! Good Fun!

at the very least, am thinking obama is a poor standard bearer for any kinda bipartisan rejection o' trump. right or wrong, many o' the angry folks in middle america who elected trump, people who had actual voted for obama btw, put the orange one in the white house 'cause they felt obama had betrayed them and betrayed american values... or somesuch. a feeling don't need be legit to be real, and all those lower middle-class working joes and janes who became trump supporters after having voted obama is having the religious zeal o' converts. reasonable arguments, particular from obama, is gonna antagonize such people. am sure we have all seen the frothing and mindless idolatry trump enjoys from a few o' his more extreme converts, yes? ... and the thing is, gd is at least partial correct. is no single cause for how the election o' somebody as divisive, mendacious and erratic as trump were possible, but obama need shoulder some significant part o' the blame. we posted the pen and a phone nonsense from obama earlier in this thread, no? the former president did not want to endure the designed gridlock o' US federal system, and so he frequent took matters into his own hands. mccain voted against repeal o' obamacare, but he made clear he did so 'cause the republicans were perverting the system to force legislation through the senate which were not open debated and discussed bipartisan by committees and on the floor. democrats cheered mccain's resolve, right up until he pointed out how his rejection o' obamacare repeal were a legacy o' the unilateral and flawed manner in which obamacare were original passed by democrats and the president years previous. understandable and reasonable lack o' trust o' any traditional washington politician made a tough-talking outsider such as trump possible. sow. reap. obama use o' presidential powers to circumvent the Congress and Courts, and the complicit democrats in Congress, were a kinda well-intentioned tyranny. make clear, we don't mean tyranny in the sense o' cruelty or harshness, but rather in the limited denotative sense o' corrupting traditional American federal norms which rely on checks and balances, and instead placing power into the hands o' a single actor: the President. obama were trying to help America improve, in spite o' itself. in so doing, he undermined the trust and belief many americans had for federal institutions, and the faith Americans had in basic institutions were at least as important as the actual legal limits and powers contained within the US Constitution.... and is no single pen stroke or phone call which can repair lost faith. obama also created the means by which a successor President with less enlightened goals, could become a more connotative and denotative tyrant. the unheeded warnings o' a handful o' republicans and libertarians as democrats and the President used executive orders to bootstrap obamacare into functionality, or when senate rules for filibuster were erased, were as prophecies from cassandra. oh, and obama increase in fed's ability to engage in domestic spying o' American citizens should terrify all as such powers in the hands o' folks with anything other than saintly motives is gonna eventual be perverted for terrible purpose. the dangerous precedent being created by obama shoulda' been obvious and horrifying, but nobody would listen. so now we are stuck with trump, likely for another couple o' years. obama may lament the excesses and flaws he sees in his successor, but obama not only made trump's election possible by increasing American divisiveness, but the orange one's capacity to do harm were made possible, at least in part, by obama efforts... with only the remaining diminished institutional gridlock the obama administration left in tatters standing 'tween Americans and any number o' nightmare scenarios. HA! Good Fun!

Clearly I need to pay closer attention when I watch Law and Order, schooled by Grommie and GD. But as to this question, if I get killed accidentally by a motorist, or if I get murdered, it is still the same philosophical quandary. Why is one not as bad as the other? It doesn't matter to my family. am suspecting the difference would matter to most families. in the US, we typical do not criminal punish people for accidents. on the other hand, we got transferred intent and felony murder examples. classic examples includes situation such as when arson accidental results in death. david burned down a warehouse, but had no intent to hurt paul-- had no idea paul were even in the warehouse when he set it ablaze. paul dies and david is gonna get both arson and murder charge. conspiracy further complicates. david is driving a getaway car from a bank robbery. david didn't wield a gun or hurt anybody during robbery or subsequent police chase. the robbery were s'posed to be bloodless. unfortunate for paul, sandy, one o' his co-bankrobbers, pulls out a gun during the chase, leans out the window o' the car david is driving, and kills a cop. david gets the death penalty. there is also the reckless and depraved heart killer stuff. all the examples we gave so far involved defendants who had at least a moment o' bad intent-- david, in every example, intended to commit a crime, though not necessarily the crime he were ultimate charged with, yes? might david be charged with murder even if he never had intent to commit a crime? what if david were reckless and not mere negligent. what if david, who has a long history o' dui citations and is current having his license suspended, gets s-faced drunk and then kills another motorist while driving. is a good chance david gets murder charge. alternatively, what if david bets sandy that with his new crossbow he can shoot an apple off of paul's head, just like storybook william tell. david is an idiot and a toolbag, but he genuine believes he can safe shoot the apple off of paul's head and finder of fact is similar convinced. may still find david guilty o' murder 'cause his actions were so reckless. oh, and there is exceptions to need for intent. is statutory crimes which do not have any intent requirement. most common example is toxic waste dumping. a manufacturer might do everything in their power to make certain their waste is collected and disposed o' 'ccording to government regulations, but as a matter o' law, it genuine don't matter what the manufacturer were trying to do. if manufacturer waste ends up where it should not be, manufacturer is subject to criminal liability. 'course, am thinking you are able to see why such felony examples is limited. statutory rape is another such crime which don't require any mens rea. very few felonies. mens rea requirements is understandable confusing. going back to the original notion o' hurls family, please keep in mind we ain't yet discussed civil liability. if hurl dies and the motorist responsible for hurl's death were negligent, then is not as if the law ignores the wrong done to hurl and his family. if is an accident, then chances are the motorist who killed hurl will not be going to prison and they won't have the baggage o' a criminal record following 'em the rest o' their days, but chances are they is gonna need compensate hurl's family for the loss. honest, is more complicated than Gromnir has made it seem, and there is seeming exceptions for every exception. HA! Good Fun! ps minor misdemeanors typical do not have intent requirement. most traffic violations? don't matter if your speedometer were broken and you genuine thought you were driving 55. don't matter if the truck in front of you blocked the "no right turn on red" sign at a particular intersection. 'course there are exceptions... *shrug*

Nah, doubt the NYT or any organization would be that reckless. am gonna agree. this is a no-lose situation for the nytimes... just so long as they didn't alter the op-ed and assuming they were truthful 'bout the author being a "senior official in the Trump administration." HA! Good Fun!

well, to be fair, we do such all the time... in sentencing. once we decide there is a crime, then the finder o' fact considers motives to determine severity o' punishment. after suffering years o' physical and emotional abuse from her father, a girl, tried as an adult, knowing and premeditated kills her rapist father. converse, change the scenario and have the rapist father kill his daughter 'cause the chicken pot pie she served him burned his mouth. severity o' sentence is likely to be different for the two murderers, but the question as to whether or not a defendant is a murderer avoids questions o' quality o' motive. as to op-ed, am not doubting this administration, as misguided as they is, will try every angle to get fbi or secret service to investigate op-ed author. the secret service angle is actual not a bad ploy as they got extreme latitude when it comes to investigating threats to the executive branch. initial looks transparent, but you never know. no doubt the nytimes is frothing at the possibility o' an ss investigation. turn this into a drawn out court battle over freedom o' press and whatnot? this kinda thing puts otherwise obscure newspaper editors into history books. turn a bunch o' folks into martyrs? marginalize and investigate quiet? sure. the more the administration rails, the bigger they make the story... and end result, best case, is some senior white house official is paraded in front o' cameras and microphones where he then must explain, in scorching detail, all the reasons for his/her op-ed. @ hurl. motive is different than intent... except when they are not. am knowing it seems like a minor thing, but determining if a defendant has legal sufficient intent for manslaughter as posed to first degree murder (or second in some jurisdictions... can be confusing) is not actual same as determining motive. HA! Good Fun! ps evidence o' motive typical is gonna be relevant to proving intent. show david's motive for killing paul were for money and paul did in fact die by david's hand, has a tendency to prove david had sufficient intent for more than manslaughter. david were contemplating killing paul for some time and had a plan and whatnot? then intent is much easier to prove. proof o' intent, converse, doesn't necessarily show motive. show that david were out o' ammo and needed to go to walmart and purchase bullets before killing paul is likely gonna be enough to show requisite intent for more than manslaughter, but such doesn't inherent help determine motive, yes? am knowing we ain't clarifying well, but in this format...

HA! Good Fun!

I wasn't advocating for either, just thinking that treason wouldn't be the right charge. Thanks, I seemed to remember that sedition was scaled back, but couldn't find online how, so when thinking about it sedition seemed a 'better' fit to the actions if one were to charge anyone for such a thing than treason. if you are genuine interested... https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2385 major changes were made initial by Congress in 1921. Court clarified in 1957 and multiple times during vietnam era. sedition is one o' those weird crimes which, for the most part, is wholly unnecessary from a logic perspective. same fundamental objection many folks have for hate crimes applies equal to sedition and treason. if david beats up paul w/o cause, we charge him with assault and/or battery. if david beats up paul 'cause paul is from laos, then we charge david with a hate crime too. hate itself ain't a crime, but if you commit a crime with a particular frame o' mind, we enhance punishment. more than a few scholars and ordinary persons is disturbed by the notion the government is able to punish viewpoint o' a person. punish the crime, not the idea. works same for sedition in that there pretty much needs be an underlying crime. burn down a warehouse is likely gonna get you an arson charge. burn down a warehouse to hurt the government is sedition. unnecessary. charge folks with the underlying crime w/o all the viewpoint baggage. steal or destroy presidential documents is a crime. 'course the chief executive alleged destroys documents frequent, so might not be the best option. regardless, if you are genuine interested, you may now looks at the sedition sections o' the code. enjoy. HA! Good Fun!

claim treason requires a comical level o' buffoonery or ignorance. civilian sedition is more obscure, so am understanding confusion, but most provisions require attempts to interfere with government by force. however, thankfully, the US scaled back sedition provisions following the trials o' eugene debs and others. post 1921 sedition is a bit less broad and in almost all cases requires force or advocating force... and even advocating force ain't enough as actual use o' force would need be a predictable and immediate result o' the advocacy for there to be a crime. HA! Good Fun!

brady would be in our top ten. jim brown is an option for goat, but we would suggest walter payton were a more complete back and both barry sanders and gale sayers were more impressive pure runners. is tough for us to give brown goat vote when am thinking there is legit question as to whether or not he deserves #1 at his position. perhaps if he played a few more years before going hollywood? jerry rice deserves consideration for goat. is no other wr who deserves even a sniff o' our top ten much less goat. admitted, the wr position perhaps limits the appreciation o' such a superlative worthy player. no matter how good a kicker or punter, we would have a difficult time awarding such an athlete goat. sure, wr is different than specialist, but it is rational to handicap a player for goat status based on their position. even so, jerry rice legit argument for goat not withstanding, am gonna suggest goat should be clear, though am suspecting is a tougher call for anybody 40 or younger. lawrence taylor is our unquestioned goat. he redefined the position. for years, offensive coordinators designed game plans to limit lt impact, and they consistent failed. off-the-field has understandable diminished his legacy, but a decade o' complete and utter dominance at a position he revolutionized earns lt our goat... and such an admission pains us. HA! Good Fun!

fantastic version. HA! Good Fun!

so, to show us we didn't understand the material we were referencing (Maddox, Giangreco, Hasegawa and others) you quote Maddox... but it weren't actual Maddox you were quoting. we never used Asada as a source save that he showed up tangential in a kort quote-- while disagreeing with much o' hasegawa, Asada had common ground 'bout failures o' revisionism. use Asada disingenuous to refute our understanding o' Maddox? okie dokie. worse, you selective quote Asada, and scissor quotes, to try and make it seem as if the Japanese were serious 'bout peace efforts much earlier than august 1945, when in point o' fact Asada were unequivocal refuting such a position. again, "this essay suggests, given the intransigence of the japanese military, there were few missed opportunities for earlier peace and the alternatives available to president truman in the summer of 1945 were limited, fewer than we may imagine today. in the end, japan needed "external pressure" in the form of the atomic bombs for its government and military to decide to surrender." the Asada article you is quoting utter rejects your proposition and yet Gromnir doesn't understand the material... material which we never offered as supporting. … you are a serious piece o' work. lord only knows why you persist. then again, so too does Gromnir persist. following every massacre, somebody had to stay behind. for kp HA! Good Fun!

short of sanders being revealed as a skrull, then no. perhaps musk's fears 'bout ai has come to pass and skynet sent a t1000 to infiltrate the wh staff and exploit chaos? unlikely, so am gonna disagree and bet the field... not that we thought you were serious. apparent, trump has been telling folks he believes mcmaster and cohn were major contributors to woodward's book. am curious why trump would do so seeing as how mcmaster and cohn as the sources makes the information more credible as 'posed to less. both were senior guys with access, and mcmaster is 'bout as honorable and bipartisan respected as any who have served in the trump admin. am actual willing to change our pov regarding kelly and mattis quotes if they came from mcmaster notes as 'posed to some nameless junior staffer. HA! Good Fun!

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opinion/trump-white-house-anonymous-resistance.html and for those blocked https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/i-am-part-of-the-resistance-inside-the-trump-administration/ar-BBMVtbs crazytown indeed.

'cause stuff burning is strange compelling https://www.smithsonianmag.com/videos/category/history/how-napalm-bombs-intensified-us-attacks-du_1/ simpsons character with whom we most identify? ralphie wiggum HA! Good Fun!

the woodward book is gonna have zero impact on true believers and will quick become gospel for those who is already convinced the chief executive is not up to the tasks required for his job. US politics is polarized beyond the point o' reasonableness for either "side." *shrug* am skeptical o' the mattis and kelly quotes. am not doubting the generals believe such 'bout their boss, but is hard to imagine them uttering such where anybody could possible overhear. of all the claims we has seen thus far, the mattis and kelly quotes is the most difficult for us to accept. the dowd stuff is disturbing 'cause is believable. having seen deposition transcripts from the orange one, am understanding why his lawyers were, alleged, terrified o' the prospect o' an interview with mueller. http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/08/11/the_best_lies_from_donald_trump_s_2007_deposition.html the national security aspect regarding the inevitable leak o' the transcript from such an interview is a novel concern, but the fear is, we suspect, legit. aides purposeful hiding documents from the boss to avert disaster? *groan* am thankful for brexit. no matter how bad is our national buffoonery, we can always look to brexit and enjoy a bit o' guilty schadenfreude. HA! Good Fun!

not only low-energy, but deliberate misleading, eh? not maddox quote of asada. maddox were editor of the volume from which you selective lift quotes. not maddox quote. from the asada article you quote, "The emperor, who had already concluded in June 1945 that the war must end soon, was from this time forward Japan's foremost peace advocate, increasingly articulate and urgent in expressing his wish for peace" but immediate following is: "the first to take concrete action to terminate the war was foreign minister togo, a dour-faced, outspoken and resolute man. on the morning of august 8, with suzuki's approval, togo took it upon himself to visit the imperial palace and make a direct appeal to the emperor in his underground air raid shelter..." so 'ccording to asada, the first to do something tangible were togo, two days after the a-bomb drop on hiroshima. you convenient left out the immediate subsequent material, and false attributed as a maddox quote? naughty. *chuckle* your second quote is again from an essay by asada and the specific heading under which it appears is, The Vacillating Emperor. section covers how unreliable were the emperor as the main proponent o' the peace faction. third quote don't help you at all. not certain what you think you are reading. would japanese have surrendered, eventual, w/o use o' the bomb? sure doesn't suggest the japanese were serious considering surrender pre august 6,1945... seeing as how asada specific argues against such in the articles you link. oh, and 'course you left out relevant pages o' the conclusion, including: "this essay suggests, given the intransigence of the japanese military, there were few missed opportunities for earlier peace and the alternatives available to president truman in the summer of 1945 were limited, fewer than we may imagine today. in the end, japan needed "external pressure" in the form of the atomic bombs for its government and military to decide to surrender." however, asada does conclude that the moral question o' whether it were just to drop the bombs is another issue entire, but not the subject of his essay. as for actual maddox quotes... The Greatest Hoax In American History: Japan’s Alleged Willingness to Surrender During the Final Months of World War II particular relevant given your efforts to obfuscate, "the essays in the present volume reveal that hiroshima-revisionists have constructed a ramshackle structure founded on sand. if the historical record supports their theses, one must ask, why are the compelled to resort to dubious procedures such as scissoring documents to change their meaning, or relying on discredited sources such as the USSBS." indeed resort to such dishonest means serious undercuts the message. and yeah, resorting to strawman didn't help you either. giangreco, maddox and others weren't requiring insanity to explain japanese willingness to win through body count. trying to imagine into being some kinda moral transitive property and then attributing to giangreco and Gromnir doesn't help your argument. giangreco is the guy featured in agiel's video at ~50sec. the calculus for an American invasion o' kyushu had the japanese considering the possibility o' 20 million casualties (not dead). horrific, but not insane from the japanese pov. 1/4 of population o' main islands as casualties were considered acceptable up until at least august 8, 1945. atomic bombs and soviet declarations o' war changed the maths. point out eventual surrender doesn't change anything regarding japanese willingness to engage in "maximum bloodletting" to generate favorable terms o' eventual surrender. horrific, but not insane. the japanese preparations, continuing up until surrender, were beyond what were anticipated when the US crafted casualty estimates. casualty totals were likely underestimated given how extensive were the japanese plans for maximum bloodletting. explain the extreme defensive efforts if japanese were already planning to surrender months in advance o' bombs being dropped is requiring a whole different kinda willful insanity... or more likely, preternatural obtuseness from holdout revisionists. anyways, am thinking the genesis poster should have at least a point from which to start exploration o' the issues. would suggest focusing searches 'pon "atomic diplomacy" as such were the term used to describe the perceived motivation for truman to drop bombs as a warning to the soviets. "atomic diplomacy" has fallen on hard times given the revelation from Presidential missives which show truman were actual relieved the soviets declared war 'pon japan, but is more than a few scholars who advocate the notion the bombs were dropped as kinda the opening shots o' the cold war. HA! Good Fun!

a couple hours ago we got back from sierra buttes camping. overnight temps were in mid 30s (F) and daytime highs reached mid 80s. lotta smoke in the valley where we camped. relative spartan camping. did have a cellphone, but were only in tower range for 'bout an hour each day. our border collies is too old to make such trips anymore, but we did bring the little dogs and they appeared to enjoy themselves. had expected more people on a holiday weekend-- we never have gone sierra buttes on a holiday. our campsite were extreme no frills and perhaps the fires kept folks at home, but even so, were surprised not seeing many people enjoying natural splendor at elevation. anywho, had a great time. got home and took a hollywood shower and had soup for lunch. got the weird exhausted + refreshed feel we enjoy after camping. am looking forward to channel islands in the spring for our next trip. am feeling our age. gonna take a nap for 'bout a decade. HA! Good Fun!

this is straw man. lord knows Gromnir didn't claim such. the argument were that the the japanese, particular the military, had no intention of surrendering as of early august 1945. sure, there were a japanese peace faction (as mentioned in agiel's video) which had a genuine desire to find a way to end the war w/o an invasion o' the japanese mainland, but they were a negligible faction. discussions with moscow to intercede on behalf o' japan were little more than an attempt to delay an american invasion as long as possible. were never fanaticism. were calculated. "Most devastating to the revisionist case was Newman’s demolition of the USSBS assertion that Japan would have surrendered “certainly prior to December 31, 1945, and in all probability prior to November 1, 1945” absent the atomic attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the Soviet entry into the war. By reviewing the testimony of the Japanese officials the USSBS had interrogated in 1945, he demonstrated that it is impossible to read that testimony objectively and not deduce that the USSBS reached its conclusion of a Japanese surrender during 1945 by ignoring its own evidence." need us to reattribute to recognize? hope not. is low-energy 'cause is repeating... unnecessarily. maddox work provided actual statements/interrogations from japanese military commanders post surrender which revealed just how resolved were the military to continue a bloody fight even after bombs were dropped and following even the emperor's surrender. again, not fanaticism, but calculation. the goal were maximizing american bloodshed. and am genuine not certain what is your issues with the casualty estimates? given the US underestimations o' japanese defenses, the casualty projections by shockley and others were likely too optimistic. https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122591119 again, the numbers generated weren't based on some kinda fantastic extreme contemplated in light o' japanese intransigence. numbers were estimated to "functionally be a duplication of the casualty surge in Europe." and perhaps most devastating for #s belief in overestimation o' casualties and the fanciful notion o' japan desiring to surrender pre august 9, 1945 is the following observation: ""It's astounding," he says. "While we were looking at some of our own casualty estimates, the Japanese military was doing much the same thing, and the figure of 20 million appears again and again."Giangreco says just the number "20 million" is horrific — but he is most stunned by the casualness with which it was used by Japanese military leaders who felt that the loss of life was worth it." as to zor *chuckle* what did we say earlier 'bout (inaccurate) deflection? you are so predictable when you have no sources and are struggling. rich. as already noted, suszuki were already anticipating a soviet invasion o' hokkaido before japanese surrender. such a fear were not surprising as stalin had plans for invasion o' mainland japan as early as 1943 (at the very least, russian archival documents dated july 27, 1943 reveal the change from defensive plans to offensive planning for invasion o' japan had already taken place) and after revisions, by early 1945, soviets were intending to invade hokkaido two months previous to an American invasion. atomic bombings actual advanced soviet timetable; the japanese surrender did not stop the soviet plans to invade hokkaido, 'cause such plans were already being implemented. https://www.c-span.org/video/?327355-3/discussion-josef-stalin-soviet-unions-pacific-war-strategy another video zor won't watch as it undercuts his complete unsupported position. regardless, once soviets committed to the war, the japanese military were finally convinced they could not count on russian neutrality and their fears o' soviet predation sudden became very real. as agiel clips show, the japanese military were not particular afeared of atomic bombs, but a second front with the soviets made their plans for making an american invasion too bloody to endure became sudden less tenable. this is becoming repetitive. if #s got a complaint 'bout low-effort posting, he need look no further than zor and himself. sources please. HA! Good Fun!

is limits for in-n-out which current make east coast unlikely for a long time. the brand insists on daily fresh meat and produce deliveries which requires a substantial distribution hub. colorado will finally get in-n-out in a couple years, but only after the +20 acre distribution center is built, a center which is anticipated to support 'bout four dozen in-n-out restaurants. shady is gonna wake up one day and sudden there will be literal dozens o' in-n-outs in the state while months before there were none. takes some serious long-term planning. our personal current burger joint o' choice is: http://www.nerdytruck.com/ https://www.facebook.com/culinerdycruzer/videos/d41d8cd9/1591331627568841/ is all 'bout the ambiance, but am also liking the "Dammit Jim!" burger... am always liking the bleu cheese. HA! Good Fun!

fine. you are crazy. and is 10 lines we added. as we suspected, you didn't genuine bother to read even our reduction o' the article or you woulda' realized we added material-- a few more lines in the middle, eh? aside: we just tested. copied 1st sentence o' the QUOTED MATERIAL and added "Michael Kort" to a google search. took less than ten seconds to retrieve the article by such method. am betting maybe 1 person bothered to listen to our 1 hour hasegawa clip... clear not zor or #s. so we once again quoted michel kort and used relevant portions from a 15 page article to illustrate how multiple current authorities view revisionism. you are honest cheesed off 'cause we didn't link? ok. did we misattribute? did we alter the quoted material? did we edit the quoted material to mislead? no? that said, even hasegawa, who has been false described as a revisionist 'cause he appears to kinda blur lines by advocating Truman as pushing "atomic diplomacy," has done his part to beat the stuffing out o' the few lingering revisionist stragglers. giangreco, maddox, and in particular, frank's downfall is worthy reads and make hasegawa seem like a revisionist apologist by comparison. but please, read the whole article rather than the pasted quotes... which you clear didn't actual read entire anyway. in its entirety, michael kort's article does a much better job o' explaining why even the last vestiges o' revisionism has been... demolished. HA! Good Fun!

revisionist ain't Gromnir's term. look it up. is not pejorative. is simple the label for those who disagreed with orthodoxy which were popular up 'til 1970s. regardless, is a largely abandoned theory which does not survive intact anywhere intact 'cept the interweb. again: "Hasegawa fails to sustain his main arguments with the necessary evidence. At best, he leaves the revisionist case as he found it, in ruins. Indeed, he makes the rubble bounce by convincingly demonstrating that the Soviet Union very much was racing to get into the Pacific War in order to facilitate its expansionist policies in the Far East. Those who seek the definitive analysis on the end of the Pacific War will have to look elsewhere. A good place to begin is Frank’s Downfall." --prof. michael kort is ok if zor wanna ignore experts. can ignore quotes from japanese such as prime minister suzuki. can ignore and deflect. won't change that soviet not only had a plan to attack hokkaido as outlined in the fp articles, but that the japanese were aware o' such plans and took such serious. and to numbers, we put the darn thing in quotes and attributed to michael kort. what more did you want? if the Quotation Marks didn't give away that we were quoting, then use of capitalization would... not to mention pronoun usage. duh. HA! Good Fun!

such is demonstrable false, but even if it were true, whataburger can't even manage to be more popular than in-n-out in texas. https://www.delish.com/food-news/news/a56214/in-n-out-whataburger-texas/ however, we will conceded in-n-out minimalist menu will disappoint a few folks. for instance, am always ordering our in-n-out burgers "mustard grilled" although you will not see such an option on the menu. furthermore, in-n-out fries should never be ordered simple as an order of fries. lackluster. at the very least, one should always demand fries be "crispy." http://hackthemenu.com/in-n-out/secret-menu/ according to the link, "well done" is the option for receiving crispy fries, but am pretty sure we actual saw "crispy" as a button on the order register. regardless, am all in favor o' your efforts to be depolarizing in-n-out. am not a frequent fast food patron, but in-n-out is a notable exception and am always annoyed by the need to spend excessive time in drive-thru or waiting at counter to order at in-n-out. so if texans and silly cali democrats wanna opt-out o' in-n-out fandom, am applauding the efforts. to stay more close to thread topic https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/white-house-ethics-lawyer-leaving/ar-BBMFtBW?ocid=spartanntp HA! Good Fun!

am not certain where the curious support for the discredited revisionist theories is spawned. already gave a nod to michael kort earlier, but... "Revisionism’s heyday lasted through the 1980s and into the early 1990s. Then the historiographical ground began to shift. During the 1990s a new body of scholarly work emerged, often based on hitherto unavailable documents, that countered many of the revisionist arguments, among them the characterization of the atomic bomb as a diplomatic weapon in 1945, the claim that Japan would have surrendered before the planned U.S. invasion had the bomb not been used, and allegations that projected casualty figures for the expected invasion and ultimate defeat of Japan were lower than those cited by supporters of the decision to use the bomb. The historians who produced these new books and journal articles provided powerful validation for America’s use of atomic bombs against Japan. In the process, they destroyed the pillars that had supported the various versions of the revisionist case. "The first of these works was MacArthur’s ULTRA: Codebreaking and the War Against Japan, 1942-1945 (1992) by military historian Edward J. Drea, a scholar fluent in Japanese. Drea’s focus was not on the Hiroshima decision per se but on the U.S. Army’s codebreaking operation in the Pacific, called ULTRA, that beginning in 1944 provided General Douglas MacArthur invaluable information in his campaign against Japanese forces in the southwest Pacific theater. ULTRA reports––which were not declassified until the mid-1970s––were forwarded on a daily basis to top U.S. policy makers in Washington, including White House officials, along with diplomatic, or MAGIC, intercepts. What ULTRA showed during late June and throughout July was a massive Japanese buildup of unanticipated scale on the southernmost home island of Kyushu, precisely where the first stage of the two-stage invasion of Japan, called Olympic, was scheduled to take place on November 1. (The second stage, Coronet, was aimed at the Tokyo plain and scheduled for March 1946. The overall plan to invade Japan was designated Downfall.) Not only did the buildup testify to Japan’s determination to fight to the bitter end, but it invalidated any previous military estimates of the casualties such an invasion would cost. ULTRA showed that by early August the number of Japanese defenders on Kyushu was almost double what the U.S. had expected (ULTRA actually underestimated the number of Japanese troops by a third) and that Olympic would be “very costly indeed.” 11 Drea’s evidence thus undermined two key parts of the revisionist case: that Japan was seriously considering surrender in the summer of 1945 and that the lower casualty estimates cited by revisionists, all of which dated from before American military planners learned of the Japanese buildup on Kyushu, were the ones accepted by the top American decision makers in Washington. (as can be seen from our specific Shockley quote, he were basing numbers on predictable projected resistance rather than some kinda belief in particular intransigence o' the Japanese people. the high casualty totals were most direct attributed to US learning o' how extensive were Japanese preparations for a US invasion. regardless, is largely irrelevant as the question is what Truman believed would be casualty totals. after-the-fact debate as to what would be more accurate projections does not change information available to the ultimate decision makers. (a 1993 Smithsonian exhibit actual brief reinvigorated the revisionist debate, leading to revisionism's accepted demise by all save a few self-appointed pundits at the far corners o' the intra-web) … "Academic historians plunged into the fray on both sides. Revisionist scholars defending the exhibit insisted that the issue was scholarly research (their own) based on primary source documents versus the emotional reactions of their detractors, many of whom were elderly veterans. They complained that critics of NASM wanted to censor legitimate scholarship, a charge that ignored the existence of scholarship that contradicted what was in the NASM’s script. One academic who had served on NASM’s advisory group of scholars suggested the disagreement was between “memory and history,” the former flawed and faded as it emerged from the hearts and minds of aging, emotional veterans, and the latter reliable and reputable as it emerged from the research of unbiased, up-to-date scholars. Whatever its self-serving pretentiousness, the phrase caught on in revisionist circles. But the exhibit was mortally wounded. The Senate unanimously adopted a resolution critical of the exhibit and in January 1995 it was cancelled.12 Then, as if on cue, came a series of books and scholarly articles that demonstrated convincingly that those who had relied on “memory” during the NASM debate had not shown faulty recall after all. "The books included biographies of Truman by two leading scholars in the field, Robert H. Ferrell, whose Harry S. Truman: A Life appeared in 1994, and Alonzo L. Hamby, whose Man of the People: A Life of Harry S. Truman was published in 1995. Each included a detailed chapter on the Hiroshima decision that refuted the revisionist claims, from Japan’s presumed readiness to surrender prior to August 6 to Truman’s alleged use of the atomic bomb as a diplomatic weapon against the Soviet Union. Stanley Weintraub’s The Last Great Victory: The End of World War II, July/August 1945 (1995), a day-by-day chronicle of the last month of the Pacific War, provided the grim context that ultimately dictated the use of the bomb.13 "These wide-ranging works were accompanied by works that focused exclusively on the Hiroshima decision, or more narrowly on certain aspects of it, which collectively shattered the revisionist case. In Weapons for Victory: The Hiroshima Decision Fifty Years Later (1995), Robert James Maddox convincingly dismantled the atomic diplomacy thesis, demonstrating how that thesis rested not on the documentary record but on unsupported allegations and distortions of the historical record. Maddox documented how Truman, far from using the atomic bomb as a diplomatic weapon against the Soviet Union, attempted to maintain good relations with the Soviet Union before and during the Potsdam Conference. Maddox further showed how MAGIC intercepts––in particular the cables between Japan’s foreign minister in Tokyo and its ambassador in Moscow––and the ULTRA intercepts made it clear to American leaders that Japan was unwilling to surrender on terms remotely consistent with minimum Allied war aims and was instead preparing vigorously for the expected American invasion. Maddox also cited solid documentary evidence that Truman and his advisors saw casualty estimates for the anticipated American invasion of Japan of 500,000 or more and that the president feared staggering losses should the invasion take place. "Robert P. Newman’s Truman and the Hiroshima Cult approached the Hiroshima decision topic by topic, with individual chapters defending policies such as demanding unconditional surrender and not providing Japan with a demonstration of a nuclear explosion. Most devastating to the revisionist case was Newman’s demolition of the USSBS assertion that Japan would have surrendered “certainly prior to December 31, 1945, and in all probability prior to November 1, 1945” absent the atomic attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the Soviet entry into the war. By reviewing the testimony of the Japanese officials the USSBS had interrogated in 1945, he demonstrated that it is impossible to read that testimony objectively and not deduce that the USSBS reached its conclusion of a Japanese surrender during 1945 by ignoring its own evidence.14 "The claim that after the war Truman and some of his advisors exaggerated casualty projections of an invasion and final defeat of Japan––specifically that those projections reached 500,000 or more––for decades was one of the main pillars of the revisionist case.17 That pillar collapsed with the first thorough examination of the issue, “Casualty Projections for the U.S. Invasions of Japan, 1945-1946: Planning and Policy Implications” by military historian D. M. Giangreco. Writing in The Journal of Military History, Giangreco explained that in military hands these projections took three forms: medical estimates, manpower estimates, and strategic estimates. He then demonstrated that there was substantial documentation for high-end casualty projections–– which, to be sure, varied widely––from both military and civilian sources that reached upward of 500,000. Equally important, one estimate that reached Truman––from former president Herbert Hoover, who had high-level government contacts––led the president to convene an important meeting with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and top civilian advisors on June 18, 1945, to discuss the projected invasion of Japan. In short, as Giangreco stressed in a later article in the Pacific Historical Review, Truman both saw and was concerned about high-end casualty estimates prior to the scheduled invasion. His claims to that effect were not postwar concoctions. "Nor did the thesis that unconditional surrender was responsible for extending the war fare well in the light of new scholarship. In “Japan’s Delayed Surrender” (1995), Herbert Bix concluded that “it was not so much the Allied policy of unconditional surrender that prolonged the Pacific war, as it was the unrealistic and incompetent actions of Japan’s leaders.”19 The intransigence of Japan’s leaders prior to Hiroshima was further documented by Lawrence Freedman and Saki Dockrill in “Hiroshima: A Strategy of Shock” (1994) and, most thoroughly and convincingly, by Japanese historian Sadao Asada in “The Shock of the Atomic Bomb and Japan’s Decision to Surrender––A Reconsideration” (1998). Asada’s extensive use of Japanese-language sources convinced him the United States did not miss an opportunity to end the war before Hiroshima when it refused to modify its demand for unconditional surrender. Rather, if “any opportunity were missed, it may have been Japan’s failure to accept the Potsdam Declaration on July 26.”20" etc. revisionism only survives 'cause a few folks refuse to let it die in spite o' mountains o' scholarly work discrediting its dogma. HA! Good Fun!