Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Nevada Convert

Convert vs. Walmart

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, smltwnrckr said:

Do you know what the word hindsight means?

Do you know what the word foresight means?  I think it is quite foreseeable that if you enter a war with no national interest in question, that you have soldiers die for no reason.

We already know you don't understand math and that is even simple math.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, bluerules009 said:

Do you know what the word foresight means?  I think it is quite foreseeable that if you enter a war with no national interest in question, that you have soldiers die for no reason.

We already know you don't understand math and that is even simple math.

No national interest...

hmmm

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, tspoke said:

I know we often get sidetracked in threads and threads get hijacked all the time. We often have several different topics being discussed at once in a thread.

 

But, this is my favorite dual discussion ever. We have feral cats and Walmart vs the causes of WW2. Great stuff. Haha.

I believe this thread is proof that every topic in this forum eventually devolves into a WWII discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, happycamper said:

No national interest...

hmmm

Other than being a europhile and our irrational need to join in and fight england's wars.

We had no economic or national defense issue that wasn't created by FDR to force our entrance into WWII.   

Germany was already beaten by Russia when we entered the war.   If we ended up with a european union with the russians as the leader or the Germans and french as the leader who really cares.   There is no chance of invasion of North America by either one.  Especially if we are a trading partner.

The same goes for Japan we had no interest in that part of the world at that time and it would have been economically beneficial to trade with them anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bluerules009 said:

Do you know what the word foresight means?  I think it is quite foreseeable that if you enter a war with no national interest in question, that you have soldiers die for no reason.

We already know you don't understand math and that is even simple math.

History shows that tyrants attack the weak or indecisive...and that same history shows leadership declaring a war to stay in power.  Roosevelt sped up the inevitable and he knew it.  With all that, the average American still correctly believed that the national interest was simply not fighting a war near/at home.  War was inevitable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright, I'll use my psychology 101 for a minute.  

There are people out there that have had a f'd up childhood where mommy didn't spend any time with them, there was no sensitive interaction and she was too mean. As a result, you see these people lash out at things that a typical mother would like or things he missed out on. Caring about animals is a huge opportunity for these folks to come off like hopelessly cathartic, supercharged hard asses. Blue Boy seems to be a perfect example of this. It really is too bad.  Or what I just wrote is total shit and he's just a plain simple a-hole. :) 

kat.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Update:

Monday I went down there just after dark too put food out and there was another nasty sign placed right where my food was. And of course they sucked up every little piece of cat food and ripped of my water bowl again. I have an endless supply of these plastic bowls and they were only like 90 cents per bowl. 

Anyway, I usually go into Walmart to grab a few things and then leave the food on my way out. As I walked to my car a cop pulls up and turns his lights off and just sat there. So I left for 20 minutes and came back...and the cop was gone. I think the camera watching people are totally on to me. 

Then last night I did my normal routine, came out and was starting to drive over there a cop pulls in, and he's staring me down, no doubt about it. So I stopped, and we both just sat there waiting to see who was going to make the next move. Finally he drove over to some stores bordering the east WM parking and just patrolled around them. When he couldn't see my car for a minute I said fvck it and went right over and did the deed. And I buried their sign with cat food, nice little touch. I took off with no problems.

Tonight I was tired of the games, so I went in and asked for the highest level manager there. Finally he arrived and boy did his eyes get big when I told him that I was the cat food bandit that they were looking for. I showed him a parcel map and proved that I wasn't on WM property like they thought.

I was trying to be reasonable, and I told him that I'd found a farm 2 hours south that wanted a bunch of cats. And of course I told him to stop stealing my shit!!! I did receive verbal permission from the city and animal control to do it. So he said he'd relay that to the day manager. He said that it's their policy to not allow feeding or trapping on their property, and I already knew about their ridiculous policy. But I also assured him that I don't need to do it on WM property. I left my card and then went out and buried the sign with cat food again. I just couldn't resist. ? I think it's going to work out now going forward. We'll see. 

kat.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, bluerules009 said:

Do you know what the word foresight means?  I think it is quite foreseeable that if you enter a war with no national interest in question, that you have soldiers die for no reason.

We already know you don't understand math and that is even simple math.

LOL. This is dumb, even for you. 

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jackrabbit said:

History shows that tyrants attack the weak or indecisive...and that same history shows leadership declaring a war to stay in power.  Roosevelt sped up the inevitable and he knew it.  With all that, the average American still correctly believed that the national interest was simply not fighting a war near/at home.  War was inevitable.

War was not inevitable for the United States.   If we have a sane trade policy and sell Japan oil and do not force them to attack us, we never enter the war.   The Russians eventually take out Germany and thank us for our industrial help.  No cold war ever happens.   The U.S. never becomes the only country to use nuclear weapons.  Our trade with Russia and China probably convert them to capitalism by the 50's not the 80 and 90's.

Maybe now we have a unified Europe under Russian control instead of German and French control but who really care.

Maybe now we have an Asia dominated by Japan, but again why do we care.

We trade with them all and instead of losing 100's of thousands of dead and wounded in a half dozen wars and the world's policeman and wasting Trillions on a defense budge.  Maybe we have an education and health care system that is so gold plated we can cure cancer.

Just a thought.

Peace and trade has always been more successful than war in getting our way over the last century.  There is no arguing this point unless maybe you are smltwnrckr who requires no basis in reality to take a position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/13/2017 at 4:45 PM, Jackrabbit said:

It's great you have a big heart....but do you consider the songbirds all cats kill? Do they have less rights than cats?  And by the way, an "outdoor" cat with a home is no different that a feral cat. Cats kill for fun.  Im sorry.... but homeless cats should be destroyed. Feeding feral cats will give you more cats than you can catch and find homes for.

Do you even read what I write before posting this stuff? I'm not creating more cats because the cats are fixed. There are lots of places feral cats are needed like I already explained. Yes, sadly some have to be put down. But that doesn't mean you can't save some. 

This whole thing about cats killing massive amounts of birds is such a fvcking myth. That research on it just doesn't pass the sanity check. I've had a lot of outdoor cats my whole life and I can only think of 5 or 6 times they've caught a bird and killed it. A couple times my cat had a bird in his mouth and brought it to me, and I got the bird out and it flew away. I've seen waaaaay more mice and rodents killed than birds. 

Young cats with the right personality are mostly your bird killers. But they end up slowing down and aren't as fast the older they get. All you have to do is put on a collar with a bell, and they'll never catch anything. But birds kill large amounts of earthworms, so do the worms have less rights than the birds? IMO yes. And cats have more rights than a typical bird, and there are gazillions of birds out there just like worms. 

Birds are most easily caught on very windy days. They stay low to the ground and there's so much noise and movement all around, it's hard for the birds to see them creeping up. But most of the time the birds are safe up in the trees, building roofs, you name it. Most cats I've seen just aren't good enough to catch them because they're older, overweight, just suck at it, etc. I've seen much more of the bigger birds killing the small birds than cats.

kat.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, SharkTanked said:

I believe this thread is proof that every topic in this forum eventually devolves into a WWII discussion.

Well, what the hell. The following link shows the cats of WWII. There's a bunch of great pics. Those Nazi's seem to be really into their battlefield cats:

http://worldwartwo.filminspector.com/2014/11/cats-in-world-war-ii.html

 

 

kat.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Nevada Convert said:

Do you even read what I write before posting this stuff? I'm not creating more cats because the cats are fixed. There are lots of places feral cats are needed like I already explained. Yes, sadly some have to be put down. But that doesn't mean you can't save some. 

This whole thing about cats killing massive amounts of birds is such a fvcking myth. That research on it just doesn't pass the sanity check. I've had a lot of outdoor cats my whole life and I can only think of 5 or 6 times they've caught a bird and killed it. A couple times my cat had a bird in his mouth and brought it to me, and I got the bird out and it flew away. I've seen waaaaay more mice and rodents killed than birds. 

Young cats with the right personality are mostly your bird killers. But they end up slowing down and aren't as fast the older they get. All you have to do is put on a collar with a bell, and they'll never catch anything. But birds kill large amounts of earthworms, so do the worms have less rights than the birds? IMO yes. And cats have more rights than a typical bird, and there are gazillions of birds out there just like worms. 

Birds are most easily caught on very windy days. They stay low to the ground and there's so much noise and movement all around, it's hard for the birds to see them creeping up. But most of the time the birds are safe up in the trees, building roofs, you name it. Most cats I've seen just aren't good enough to catch them because they're older, overweight, just suck at it, etc. I've seen much more of the bigger birds killing the small birds than cats.

I realize bringing up scientific literature with you is probably pointless, but you're completely wrong about the effect of outdoor cats on birds. Michael Soule is a Biology Professor at UCSD that specializes in population dynamics. He did a number of studies of bird population diversity in urban canyons in Socal. He found that in canyons connected to open space and where coyotes were present, the entire range of expected bird species were present. In circumscribed canyons where cats were the apex predator, virtually the only birds that remained were scrub jays and mockingbirds. Cats extirpated all the rest. He has continued to write about the subject and, as this thread suggests, has clashed with feral cat advocates. Cats are killing machines.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/moral-cost-of-cats-180960505/

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/feb/01/ethics-keeping-killer-cat

Thay Haif Said: Quhat Say Thay? Lat Thame Say

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Jackrabbit said:

History shows that tyrants attack the weak or indecisive...and that same history shows leadership declaring a war to stay in power.  Roosevelt sped up the inevitable and he knew it.  With all that, the average American still correctly believed that the national interest was simply not fighting a war near/at home.  War was inevitable.

Didn't Hitler have plans to invade the U.S., the so called "fourth war"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/13/2017 at 4:45 PM, bluerules009 said:

No we started the war when we denied them resources over an incident on another part of the globe that we had ZERO national interest in.

Yes it is a good idea to trade with nations that you are at odds with.  Over time that trade converts those nations to your way of thinking way more effectively than war.  There are numerous examples of this includig the biggest China but also vietnam and others.  There are also dozens of examples where war or embargo failed to create governments that we are able to feel comfortable with including Cuba, Russia ectl...

Trade works much better than war in stabilizing world affairs the way we want them.  You can't be dumb enough to think otherwise.

FDR was blockading it.  Which is what started the war.

Japan was forced to attack us or shut down their economy.

If someone cut off oil supplies to the United States and all electricity production was going to end in 30 days.  We would attack them too.

FDR forced Japan to attack us.  They had no choice.

Yep and what interferes with trade?  War, Japan's war with China was messing with U.S. trade with China.  What else was going on in China at the time?  An internal conflict between Mao and Chiang and their factions.  I would suggest looking at why Americans in 1940 cared enough about China to give Roosevelt (I am not his biggest fan by the way, but I don't fault him for this) the political clout to enact those embargoes.    

You are right trade works much better than war, but then consider what Japan was trying to establish through war with their east-asian "Co-prosperity" sphere.  If Japan had succeeded, the degree of trade between their sphere and the U.S. would have taken a hit.   

Japan had choices, their leadership and who had the ear of the emperor thought they could win against the U.K. and U.S. so they went for it.  If Japan had the same sort of leadership as they did in WW1, they could have come out of WW2 with some decent territorial gains.  Instead, they went for wars of conquest, and once wars start it is very hard to predict how it will go. 

As for someone cutting off U.S. oil supplies, I would prefer that our government doesn't start a war of conquest and that our army doesn't behave like Japan's Army did that would give another country a reason to place such an embargo that we were vulnerable to.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/14/2017 at 0:11 AM, Old_SD_Dude said:

Not a whole lot we could have done to help in 1940. I knew the Army was tiny then so I looked it up. When Marshall was sworn in as Army Secretary in late '39 the Army had only 174,000 soldiers. It was the 17th largest in the world at that point.

The Germans never had anywhere near half their forces on the Western Front. The Russians defeated the Germans at Stalingrad and Kursk before the Americans even landed at in Italy, and during the D-Day landings the Russians were destroying Army Group Center. In three months they inflicted 900k casualties on the Germans just in this central sector. This number is more than double the total number of German soldiers stationed along the Atlantic Wall. 

You're right about our military being in a horrific condition in 1939, but there's still plenty we could have done. Later I'll post the timeline and what I think we could have easily done. 

kat.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Joe from WY said:

No, not really. 

Yes, civilized societies will stick together and help each other in crisis and are stronger together. Ever hear of NATO? Ever hear of synergy? If we hadn't formed NATO and banded together against the Soviet Union, the Soviets would've rolled right into Europe the way Germany had done so earlier. They would've picked us off one by one. 

But because our leadership wasn't selfish, uncivilized and stupid, we won the Cold War and we helped our allies.  That stupid shit that you and boo-boo believe in.....it's hard to think about how anyone could be so clueless and morally corrupt. If you saw a kid drowning next door, would you ignore it and say it's not your problem? Where do you draw the line with who's worthy to save? The French weren't even that dumb because at least they joined NATO. Where have you guys been learning history, CAL Berzerkly? Didn't mommy and daddy teach you some morals about helping your neighbor and not be a selfish little twat?

We didn't even know about most of the atrocities until 1944 and 1945. If most Americans did know what was happening, it would've awoken the sleeping giant immediately and got us in gear faster.

kat.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Nevada Convert said:

Do you even read what I write before posting this stuff? I'm not creating more cats because the cats are fixed. There are lots of places feral cats are needed like I already explained. Yes, sadly some have to be put down. But that doesn't mean you can't save some. 

This whole thing about cats killing massive amounts of birds is such a fvcking myth. That research on it just doesn't pass the sanity check. I've had a lot of outdoor cats my whole life and I can only think of 5 or 6 times they've caught a bird and killed it. A couple times my cat had a bird in his mouth and brought it to me, and I got the bird out and it flew away. I've seen waaaaay more mice and rodents killed than birds. 

Young cats with the right personality are mostly your bird killers. But they end up slowing down and aren't as fast the older they get. All you have to do is put on a collar with a bell, and they'll never catch anything. But birds kill large amounts of earthworms, so do the worms have less rights than the birds? IMO yes. And cats have more rights than a typical bird, and there are gazillions of birds out there just like worms. 

Birds are most easily caught on very windy days. They stay low to the ground and there's so much noise and movement all around, it's hard for the birds to see them creeping up. But most of the time the birds are safe up in the trees, building roofs, you name it. Most cats I've seen just aren't good enough to catch them because they're older, overweight, just suck at it, etc. I've seen much more of the bigger birds killing the small birds than cats.

Complete and utter horseshit.

There are numerous studies showing not only the effect of feral cats but people's cat pets on birds.   In one study they put a camera on housecats.   One housecat would was let out during the day while the owner was at work was killing 200+ birds a day.   

Since housecats are not a native species and a relatively new introduction their impact on native species is tremendous.  Add to it the fact that housecats population has no relationship to the prey species because people are feeding them and you have a disaster for native bird species.   

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/cats-kill-more-one-billion-birds-each-year

America’s cats, including housecats that adventure outdoors and feral cats, kill between 1.3 billion and 4.0 billion birds in a year, says Peter Marra of the Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute in Washington, D.C., who led the team that performed the analysis. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Old_SD_Dude said:

I realize bringing up scientific literature with you is probably pointless, but you're completely wrong about the effect of outdoor cats on birds. Michael Soule is a Biology Professor at UCSD that specializes in population dynamics. He did a number of studies of bird population diversity in urban canyons in Socal. He found that in canyons connected to open space and where coyotes were present, the entire range of expected bird species were present. In circumscribed canyons where cats were the apex predator, virtually the only birds that remained were scrub jays and mockingbirds. Cats extirpated all the rest. He has continued to write about the subject and, as this thread suggests, has clashed with feral cat advocates. Cats are killing machines.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/moral-cost-of-cats-180960505/

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/feb/01/ethics-keeping-killer-cat

You do realize that posting a couple of links like that doesn't mean squat, don't you? I could say that HRT doesn't cause cancer, and you could counter with a couple of links backing up your opinion with the "I just boat raced your ass, son". But that means squat, because I could find 10 more proving I was right, and go back and forth. It really helps if you actually know a lot about the subject to wade your way through the studies and analysis. I don't think you're into this topic other than to just give yourself a woody for giving me a hard time. 

I'm not going to debate something where you're only interested in the piss contest part and not the issue. There's a lot of variables to cover. Here's an example where an animal organization takes a Wisconsin study and just rips it to shreds. You also have to remember that studies can have big agendas. Some studies are just done to scare the decision makers into granting them more money because of the alarming results. It happens right and left, but I'd wager much more left. I just love it when the drug companies hire a company to evaluate their product, and everyone knows that if they don't have good results, they're not getting anymore work. 

https://www.alleycat.org/resources/the-wisconsin-study-bad-science-costs-cats-lives/

kat.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...