Emanuel goes after Chick-fil-A for boss’ anti-gay views

[gnadfly]

Wait till Emanuel finds out about Muslim business owners views on gays and gay marriage.

[WTF]

Any of you think you might have eaten a gay chicken? ...besides COG.

[CuteOldGuy]

Again with the anti-homosexual epithets. You really do need some help, WTF.

[WTF]

What is anti homo about eating a gay chicken?

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by WTF

What is anti homo about eating a gay chicken?

WTF, are you cock fighting again? And look at you, you without a cock!

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

Omg I can tell you're not a Norwegian.

That stupid museum is like all such idiotic places you'll find in Europe - it's mission is to give the public the impression that there were no German collaborators or Norwegians running the Quisling government.

The men and women I met in Norway were largely of a different opinion.

Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

The fact is that in France 100% of the resistance fighters were members of the communist party, and it was the same in Norway. The Norwegian resistance was funded and took their instructions from Stalin, and were traitorous third columnists who's real nature has been distorted.

In Operation Grouse, the British (not Soviet) Special Operations Executive (SOE) successfully placed four Norwegian nationals as an advance team in the region of the Hardanger Plateau above the plant. . . . In 1943, a team of SOE-trained Norwegian commandos succeeded in destroying the production facility with a second attempt, Operation Gunnerside. Operation Gunnerside was later evaluated by SOE as the most successful act of sabotage in all of World War II. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegi...water_sabotage

Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

As far as the Sherman vs. the German tanks, you're "analysis" is yet more distortions and un-truths.

The figure of 17 tanks killed versus 1 encompases ALL AMERICAN VS. GERMAN TANK ENGAGMENTS IN THE WAR, not only one particular American tank versus German tanks. Also, the real ratio of Sherman vs. German tanks is much more than five to one in the Germans favor because it excludes the German "tank destroyers" which functioned identically to tanks but were not technically classified as such. The Germans had as many tracked, armoured "tank destoyers" as regular tanks, and they were equal to tanks in every way but they didn't need movable turrets.

Please stop selectively using numbers to try to prove the un-provable.

After entering Germany, the enemy [the Nazis] was able to take up previously prepared defensive positions and his field of fire, coupled with his high muzzle velocity, made his tank far superior to our destroyers. This battalion [the 702nd Tank Destroyer Battalion] destroyed twenty-eight enemy tanks and suffered the loss of sixteen tank destroyers. Here the bulk of the enemy tanks destroyed were engaged at ranges of six hundred to three thousand yards, usually in the outskirts of the towns west of the Roer which the enemy stubbornly defended.

During the fighting in the Ardennes, the battalion destroyed a total of twenty-five enemy tanks with the loss of only three tank destroyers. Here again is borne out the fact that the tank destroyer is better adapted for fighting in terrain where the best cover and hull defilade positions can be obtained, and where the enemy can be engaged at ranges from two hundred to six hundred yards; the enemy again losing the advantages of his gun over ours due to poor visibility and the close proximity in which he had to engage his tanks with ours. Excerpted from a 702nd Tank Destroyer Battalion After Action Report (AAR).

You still haven’t proved a source or citation to support your ratio.

Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

The Sherman Firefly had a comparable gun to the German medium tanks like the Panther, but it's armour was still so inferior that it wasn't survivable unless it got off the first shot AND they were in close range.

Ballistically, the Firefly was almost the equivalent of the Mk V and VI, even at range, and you ignore how the traverse rate on German tanks was slower than that on U.S. tanks. So, in probability, the Firefly would have two shots before the German could acquire a target.

Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

Otherwise all the other Shermans which were not Fireflies had a much inferior gun in addtion to very poor armour, and these terrible tanks not only were no match for any of the German heavy tanks but any German medium tanks as well.

That’s why the P47s Thunderbolts were so important. Or, as Patton so eloquently put it, the Shermans could “Hold them by the nose and [the P47s could] kick them in the pants.”

Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

The allies fielded no heavy tanks until the war was almost over, while the Germans were able to field the Tiger and Tiger II in addition to the medium tanks such as the Panther. The Panther was rushed into production because of the inferiority of the German Panzers relative to the Russian T-34.

You are correct in that the Panzer 2, 3 and 4 were equal to the sherman, and were definitely inferior to the Soviet T-34 and earlier Soviet heavy tanks, but by the time of Normandy these German tanks were not being produced any more.

The U.S. introduced the M26 Pershing in 1945, it saw very little action against German tanks because, by February 1945, German tanks on the Western Front were as rare as hen’s teeth.

Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

As for the merit of German trucks versus the American ones, well....I don't think that bears on the issue at hand, which is....

1.The American army was 60% draftees with very low morale. Except for the all-volunteer units like the marines and the airborne divisions the combat power of US units was lower than anyone else except maybe the Italians. Most American soldiers didn't want to be there, tried to get out of combat duty if they could, and often didn't even fire their weapons unless their commanders were pushing them to do so.

If I would have been drafted into that war, which was not America's war, I would have done the same things.

2.The American tanks were deathtraps.

Logistics matter, and U.S. manufactured trucks contributed to Nazi defeat. You dismiss British and U.S. contribution to the war effort and give the U.S.S.R. most of the credit for the final victory. Yes, the Soviets did develop the best, mass-production combat tank, the T-34, during the war, and yes, the Soviet sacrifices on the Eastern Front were tremendous and the Soviets engaged the preponderance of Hitler's forces.

But the Soviets also employed hundreds of thousands of U.S. manufactured trucks to keep their tanks supplied with ammunition and fuel. “The Soviet Union was only able to produce 343,624 cars and lorries due to the heavy commitment of major automobile factories like GAZ to armoured vehicle production. The USA alone provided the Soviets with 501,660 tactical wheeled and tracked vehicles, including 77,972 jeeps, 151,053 1-1/2-ton trucks, and 200,622 2-1/2-ton trucks.” The Soviets also flew U.S. manufactured P39s and employed over 7,000 U.S. manufactured tanks, mostly M4A2 Shermans, and nearly 16,000 pieces of heavy artillery in its fight against Nazi Germany.
http://ww2total.com/WW2/History/Production/Russia/Lend-Lease.htm

Furthermore, Hitler reintroduced general conscription in 1935. Afterwards, in Germany, all men received their Stellungsbefehl (order to report for induction) and were mustered into service, if able bodied. The feeble minded and institutionalized were “euthanized”

As the Nazis conquered other nations, a portion of those populations was declared “racially German” and granted provisional citizenship; thus, making them subject to induction. Only Jews and Gypsies were proscribed from military service. As the war intensified, even the Waffen SS was forced to augment its numbers by mandatory transfers of “volunteers” from the Luftwaffe and navy to keep the illusion that all had “volunteered” for service in the Waffen SS.

Read Cross of Iron by Willi Heinrich and The Forgotten Soldier by Guy Sajer. Both authors marked not only the heroic, but also the cowards and the sadists; thus, noting that not every German soldier was a Sergeant Steiner. While it’s true that not every American soldier may have served heroically, you are being dishonest when you discount the accomplishments U.S. servicemen men like Thomas Baker, Audie Murphy, Ysmael R. Villegas, John Basilone and Daniel K. Inouye.

Finally, Nazi U-Boats were underwater coffins.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

WTF, are you cock fighting again? And look at you, you without a cock!

COGay is always looking for a cock fight!

My gf has my cock

btw Who cares what the owner of a chicken joint thinks about gay marriage? I do not agree with him but he can think wtf ever he wants...

[theaustinescorts]

Originally Posted by essence

Here we go again. You have an amazing ability to even out ridicule yourself.

http://www.lawzone.com/half-nor/haukelid.htm

http://suite101.com/article/max-manu...brutes-a221520

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Manus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegi...tance_movement

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunnar_S%C3%B8nsteby

What is your point?

There's nothing in any of these links denying that the Norwegian resistance were all communists.

If you look in the same stupid, un-sholarly sources about the French resistance you'll find the same nonesense - that they were all patriotic nationalists, blah blah blah....

Try reading some real history books by real historians and you will find that in France, Norway, Italy, Belgium, Yougoslavia and Holland that the armed resistance were all pro-Soviet communists.

This is of course why the CIA rigged the elections in Italy and France after the war - because the resistance were heros after the German defeat, and much of the public were preparing to vote them into office as communists.

Read some history about the rise of the communist parties in France and Italy after the war. Or read about the takeover in Yougoslavia by the communists after the war. All resistance in Yougoslavia were also communists, but the US didn't have the ability to keep them from taking over. That's how the government of Tito came into being.

In Norway the communists weren't heros after the war because the resistance in Norway was very lame and tepid at best. The reason for this was because the Germans treated the Norwegians with great respect, as opposed to the harsh treatments in Italy and France.
Most Norwegians felt no relief when the Germans left, and gave their resistance no heroic status.

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by WTF

COGay is always looking for a cock fight!

My gf has my cock

Hmmm . . . Calls me another gay name. Then has to reassure himself that he is not gay.

Dude. Serious sexual identity issues you have WDF. See a therapist, you'll feel better. Your symptoms are classic. I'm starting to figure out your overreaction to the Paterno story.

[essence]

Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

What is your point?

There's nothing in any of these links denying that the Norwegian resistance were all communists.

There's nothing in those links denying that you are insane, doesn't mean you are not insane. They didn't deny they were communists because nobody accused them of being communists. geddit?

Strange that the heros mentioned worked with the US and British military, yet you say they were all communists who were working for Stalin.

Care to explain?

Of course, in those times (30's) it was very fashionable to be a communist, but reality soon brought a change of view.

On the other hand, don't bother, everybody (except Bukkake) has long ago made up their minds about you.

[TexTushHog]

Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

I'm for equal treatment of everyone by the government, under the law, but I oppose special priviledges for any group and I'm opposed to marriage between people of the same sex.

He's a conservative who thinks that the government ought to be able to tell him who he can and can't marry!! You know, a keep the government out of people's business type!!!

Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

But people who cannot procreate and make a family thereby cannot enter into marriage.

So women who have had a hysterectomy, or men who have had a vasectomy shouldn't be allowed to marry?

[CuteOldGuy]

Another good point by TTH. God, I need a shower! But the idea that women who have had hysterectomies or men with vasectomies shouldn't be allowed to marry makes a good point. How is that different, if marriage is only for procreation?

[theaustinescorts]

Originally Posted by essence

There's nothing in those links denying that you are insane, doesn't mean you are not insane. They didn't deny they were communists because nobody accused them of being communists. geddit?

Strange that the heros mentioned worked with the US and British military, yet you say they were all communists who were working for Stalin.

Care to explain?

All resistance fighters in Norway, France, Italy, Belgium, Holland, Yougoslavia, and other places were members of communist parties which took their orders from the Soviet Union.

It was the Soviet Union which instructed them who to work with and who not to work with.

In many cases the Soviet Union approved that resistance fighters work with other allies on particular missions, as in the heavy water facility attacked by SOE, or even to actually base with the SOE.

The reason for the collaboration with SOE was because the Scottland and England are geographically close, and the British had mantained a huge presence, with many covert actions, in Norway since the beginning of war in 1939. Many of these actions were without the approval of the Norwegian government, which feared a German response. It was because of British activity in Norway that the Germans moved into it in 1940.

[theaustinescorts]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The men and women I met in Norway were largely of a different opinion.

In Operation Grouse, the British (not Soviet) Special Operations Executive (SOE) successfully placed four Norwegian nationals as an advance team in the region of the Hardanger Plateau above the plant. . . . In 1943, a team of SOE-trained Norwegian commandos succeeded in destroying the production facility with a second attempt, Operation Gunnerside. Operation Gunnerside was later evaluated by SOE as the most successful act of sabotage in all of World War II. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegi...water_sabotage

My reply......

The Soviets didn't direct any operations of the resistance in any occupied country, however the resistance in Norway, France, Italy, Yougoslavia, Holland and Belgium were all members of communist parties that took direction from the Communist Party of the Soviet Union [CPSU]. Obviously the Russians didn't have the presence in these countries that the British and US had, so the CPSU approved from resistance/communist party members to work hand-in-glove with the covert action services of other allies, in particular the Special Operations Executive of MI-6, and the Office of Strategic Services.

I can't speak for the opinions of Norwegians you may have met, but my family members, who were Labor party members and officials, told me that the occupation was not malicious. They told me that they got along well with German soldiers, and that the Germans treated them respectfully. This is why there were so many sexual liasons between Norwegian girls and Germans, and some Norwegian girls even volunteered to have "Aryan babies" out of wedlock in Nazi-operated programs.

The US tank engagement you cite in the forest is only one engagement.. Of course there were a few outstanding engagments where the Americans held the upper hand. One such tank engagement ended the life of legendary German tanker Michael Wittman, who's tank was hit from behind by a Sherman Firefly. This particular German had destroyed well over a hundred Russian tanks before his SS unit was sent to France, where he was killed by American tankers.

You still haven’t proved a source or citation to support your ratio.

Ballistically, the Firefly was almost the equivalent of the Mk V and VI, even at range, and you ignore how the traverse rate on German tanks was slower than that on U.S. tanks. So, in probability, the Firefly would have two shots before the German could acquire a target.

That’s why the P47s Thunderbolts were so important. Or, as Patton so eloquently put it, the Shermans could “Hold them by the nose and [the P47s could] kick them in the pants.”

The U.S. introduced the M26 Pershing in 1945, it saw very little action against German tanks because, by February 1945, German tanks on the Western Front were as rare as hen’s teeth.

Logistics matter, and U.S. manufactured trucks contributed to Nazi defeat. You dismiss British and U.S. contribution to the war effort and give the U.S.S.R. most of the credit for the final victory. Yes, the Soviets did develop the best, mass-production combat tank, the T-34, during the war, and yes, the Soviet sacrifices on the Eastern Front were tremendous and the Soviets engaged the preponderance of Hitler's forces.

But the Soviets also employed hundreds of thousands of U.S. manufactured trucks to keep their tanks supplied with ammunition and fuel. “The Soviet Union was only able to produce 343,624 cars and lorries due to the heavy commitment of major automobile factories like GAZ to armoured vehicle production. The USA alone provided the Soviets with 501,660 tactical wheeled and tracked vehicles, including 77,972 jeeps, 151,053 1-1/2-ton trucks, and 200,622 2-1/2-ton trucks.” The Soviets also flew U.S. manufactured P39s and employed over 7,000 U.S. manufactured tanks, mostly M4A2 Shermans, and nearly 16,000 pieces of heavy artillery in its fight against Nazi Germany.
http://ww2total.com/WW2/History/Production/Russia/Lend-Lease.htm

Furthermore, Hitler reintroduced general conscription in 1935. Afterwards, in Germany, all men received their Stellungsbefehl (order to report for induction) and were mustered into service, if able bodied. The feeble minded and institutionalized were “euthanized”

As the Nazis conquered other nations, a portion of those populations was declared “racially German” and granted provisional citizenship; thus, making them subject to induction. Only Jews and Gypsies were proscribed from military service. As the war intensified, even the Waffen SS was forced to augment its numbers by mandatory transfers of “volunteers” from the Luftwaffe and navy to keep the illusion that all had “volunteered” for service in the Waffen SS.

Read Cross of Iron by Willi Heinrich and The Forgotten Soldier by Guy Sajer. Both authors marked not only the heroic, but also the cowards and the sadists; thus, noting that not every German soldier was a Sergeant Steiner. While it’s true that not every American soldier may have served heroically, you are being dishonest when you discount the accomplishments U.S. servicemen men like Thomas Baker, Audie Murphy, Ysmael R. Villegas, John Basilone and Daniel K. Inouye.

Finally, Nazi U-Boats were underwater coffins.

I do not quarrell with much of what you cite above, but I really can't measure the worth of an army by the superiority of their trucks any more than I can by how clean their messkits might be.

As far as Patton's statements, he was of course a notorious braggart and exaggerater. He privately cursed bitterly about the shortcomings of the American tanks.

I'm sorry I can't recall the exact place over the many years where the ratio I cite is to be found, but I really don't see how you can put forward a 5 to 1 ratio in favor of the Germans as countering my argument. 5 to 1 is pretty terrible performace on the part of the American tanks.

German U-boats were very survivable for the first half of the war, but by 1943 all submarines, whether they were German, American, British or Japanese, were all "underwater coffins" because anti-submarine warfare had advanced, not because there was anything wrong with the U-boats per se.

In terms of the low morale of American draftees, their poor performance was documented in study after study by the war department, and these studies became de-classified and available beginning in the 1960s.

Contrary to what one sees in "Saving Private Ryan" or "Band of Brothers," most US draftees didn't want to sacrifice their lives for far away soil and didn't believe that the Germans or Japanese were ever going to actually invade the United States. Added to this was the expectation by the American public after Pearl Harbor that the aim of the war was to bring about a peace, like the first war had ended with an armistice. All this was shattered when Roosevelt, Stalin and Churchill later announced that the aim of the war was the conquest of Japan and Germany, and that the fight wouldn't be over until their capitals were occupied and their governments overthrown. That's when a lot of Americans lost their zeal for the "crusade."

Toward the end of the war this sentiment resulted in a lot of American military dicisions that favored Stalin. The American command didn't want to ask their soldiers to sacrifice for capturing Berlin, or any particular advance, when they could see that the Russias could accomplish it if the Americans just held back and waited. It's also the reason why the Russians were allowed to take so much ground in Asia from the Japanese.

As for John Basilone, I stated before that the Marines and other all-volunteer US units had high morale.

Basilone distinguished himself when he held off a Japanese wave on Guadalcanal. Basilone burned his arm because he had to hold a .30 calibre machine gun on his arm while he used it to rake the on-coming Japanese. He and his men on that occassion had no where to go but into the sea if they let the Japanese drive them back.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

He's a conservative who thinks that the government ought to be able to tell him who he can and can't marry!! You know, a keep the government out of people's business type!!!



?

Classic but they will not understand their hypocrisy.