What was the last thing you did for your country?


As AS continues to re-edit his post…

For someone who doesn’t care who I think I am, I do seem to have caused him a shortage of goats…


And as you missed the part where I actually did explain why your figures for the F-15C don’t match the F-15E…

Utilizing one of your own sources no less for Combat radius.

I don’t seem to have ever mentioned a specific range for the F-16, other than that the roughly 1,000 miles between Aviano and Benghazi was too much for it to cross without tankers.

So just keeping track here:

I do admit when I’m wrong (did it several times, even when it concerned the F-16)

You have a history of making accusations based on faulty memory. Like you did here.

And I actually did what you said I didn’t. You just seemed to have missed the last post in that thread.

The only part I didn’t answer was the F-18, which was a rough average of the combat radius Global Security gave for it.

Even if their figures are “low” according to you— so what? Even a best case scenario of +600 NM, doesn’t overcome the +3000 nm they had to cross to reach Benghazi. They were even further away than the F-15Es, which also lacked the range.

We simply came back to: No assets were in range.


Whoa . . . whoa . . . whoa, dude. Back up a second.

This is the second time you’ve made one of these incredibly huge leaps, this one concluding in unrelated melodrama. The first time was here: President Trump carries through with America First immigration policy

My simple ‘yes’ did not cast doubt upon your character, nor on your Mother (that’s not my style) . . . nor do I know anything . . . zilch, zip, nada . . . about F-16’s, 18’s, range, etc. You and FC can argue all you want about that stuff, and for all I know, the range of those things could be a gazillion miles. I have no idea.

Once again, I have no idea how you made the pole vault to issues about “honor”, 9/11, “16 years of people telling me that my Mother is a traitor” (that one was particularly melodramatic), Benghazi, your “buttons”, etc., from my simple ‘yes’.

So, what was my ‘yes’ actually regarding? I was agreeing with FC that you project “an air of superiority in your arguments” to the point of being obnoxious.

I can’t put my finger on it, but there’s something about your approach to “debate” that just rubs me the wrong way.

Am I calling your baby ugly? Yes . . . this is the Internet . . . big deal. I’m sure that’s happened before . . . and it’s certainly happened to me plenty of times. Just as you do for me, I myself rub some people the wrong way too. Again . . . big wup.

I do not hold your arguments, nor your method of making them, in high regard. To be fair, some of what you say may hold water, but I’ve long since written you off as not credible, so anything you say now is tainted by that opinion.

If I had to choose a person to represent my arguments, it would NOT be you. If I had to choose a person to repel others . . . it would be YOU.

I would not have made a post such as this if it hadn’t been for your “calling foul”.


Does it make ANY sense to anyone else to base fighters over 1000+ miles away from a likely area of conflict WITHOUT also basing tanker support nearby?


How about you go look at your post in the very thread you’ve linked here ,and ask yourself “what was I [Bobjam] contributing to this thread?” “What was my tone?”

You weren’t contributing to the already on-going discussion. You also weren’t answering what immigration policy should be.

You were balking at libertarians for having a principle, by chaining immigration policy to a popularity poll.

Ad hominem, for the sake of ad populum. Two fallacies in one go, and it was both meant to attack me personally. This we can see, by how you were quoting me while you “made your point”.

You attacked me, so how am I going to respond back Bobjam? What tone will I take in response to your shot across my bow?

If you want geniality, then offer it. It’s that simple. If you attack me, I will respond in kind. I’m reflecting the tone you gave me. If you don’t like it, then don’t use it. That should be common sense.

Notice I didn’t name you. Even though you did join into that conspiracy theory on another thread I wasn’t apart of.


If the area is of lower priority… yes. The State Department has to tell the military where they’re most vulnerable. The Pentagon offered to keep more assets near to Benghazi, AFRICOM even offered to station some returning Specops teams as guards. The State Department said no.

AFRICOM has other places it needs to put these resources, so what is it supposed to do?

All they knew was that the CIA and DoS were doing something in Libya, and that they were supposed to steer clear of their operation.

So they stuck to a standard contingency plan that, surprise, wasn’t enough, because the State Department overestimated their own mission’s security.


To the previous summarization of your positions I can add:

  • Not only broken family and psychological damage is an after-effect, but also eternity in hell.
  • People should not be free in deciding to be in contact / or not with porn because of
    a) the aspect of manipulation (by pornographers)
    b) the circumstance that they do not fully realize porn consequences

I was wondering why anyone should ever want to forbid anything that people could decide to do voluntarily. But you are referring to a) and b) here. You see a kind of involuntariness although people are acting – at least assessed from a superficial perspective – voluntarily. That’s what you mean when you say: Voluntariness is not Consensus.
Your argument is: People need to be protected even if they act voluntarily (from a legal perspective), because in porn-situations they do not really understand what they are doing. Either they are manipulated so drastically that they are doing things (acting in porn) that they actually do not want to do from the deepest part of their hearts or they do it because they can’t see or realize or recognize or comprehend the full situation and its consequences (threats by porn).

O.K. This is not how I see it, but I think I can understand your perspective. I’m able to reconstruct your position at the most when I compare porn with heroine. As I said before, I do not support the position of some ultra-libertarians to legalize heroine – because the threat is too high and damage inevitable. This case is very similar. In this case I also would say people do not know what they are doing even if they take heroine voluntarily.
If I would find an objective and cogent prove that porn is at least as problematic as heroine, I would maybe agree that porn should be forbidden.

Eternity in hell as a threat

I want to live in a Judeo-Christian society too, but for me the motivation is different: I do not want to be surrounded by Moslems. Reasons are cultural issues. But I accept it, if someone is agnostic or moderate in Christianity. And I accept it, if they do not follow Christian rules. The last point is the difference between you and me.

You do not see a conflict when you

  • say: “I don’t tell people they have to believe” but at the same time
  • insist that everyone should follow certain Christian rules.

For me there is a conflict. I think, if someone does not believe to hellfire, government should not dictate him to follow rules to avoid hellfire. If someone would force me to follow rules derived from a doctrine I do not totally believe in, I would feel other-dictated.
Wouldn’t this transform the USA from the land of the free and the home of the brave into the land of the other-directed and the home of religious paternalism?

I know this is in competition with your manipulation-argument summarized above – but:
I still think religion should be private matter – totally.
Everyone has the freedom to follow strict religious rules. Everyone has the freedom to join an orthodox church. But I think nobody should be forced by government to follow these rules. Why should he be – he can do it freely?


I don’t know about you, but my religion cannot be “totally private.” My religion commands me to “go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.” Besides, if it doesn’t permeate my entire life, it’s not worth much.


Every society HAS to live according to SOME ethic. OURS is based on the Judeo-Christian ethic and always HAS been as long as we’ve existed as a nation. Don’t like it? Fine by me, but you WILL adhere to it our find yourself somewhere “better” to live, and good luck with that. We will NOT sit still while you strive to impose YOUR sense of right and wrong on everyone else. We will fight you tooth and nail to keep you from turning this nation into another “if it feels good–do it” socialist “utopia.” I want a nation in which our kids can play outdoors without worrying that some pervert will snatch them. I want a nation in which such perverts are ELIMINATED from society–permanently, and I don’t care if that means locking them up for their lifetime or executing them. Either works for me.


About what perverts are you actually talking? Did you even read our whole conversation?
You pick out one, two sentences and make inferences fully out of the context.
Which perverts that snatch any kids did I defend?

Did I impose MY sense of right and wrong on anyone else?
Is questioning a standpoint and taking another the same than imposing something?
Is taking a Libertarian position so unusual?

The best way to strengthen your own standpoint is to scrutinize it! If your position is good – its truth will shine even brighter if others tried to refute it and you defended it successfully. But if you avoid or eschew people with different opinions, you will not be prepared for offenses in the future. Do you think that I am the only person that takes the position that government and religion should be separated? And isn’t it better if you here these positions from another conservative (like me) than from a left-wing democrat?

I showed more than one time that my preferred perspective is not a “socialist utopia” but instead conservative/libertarian. Instead of constantly insinuating that I said things I never said (or even implied), I would recommend you to take this conversation as a chance to enhance your ability to question and defend your own position. If you want to live in a society that bases on your ideas, you don’t have to convince me, you rather have to convince hundred millions left-wing Americans.

And think about this: They will take these positions and use it to try to transform America into a “socialist utopia”. When I discuss here, my effort is to help YOU avoiding this - sadly you do not realizes this.


That’s a wonderful idea. But wouldn’t this be possible, even if religion and government would be separated?
When I said: Religion should be private – I did not mean that you shouldn’t act it out with other people or in your community. I meant I should be detached from judiciary resp. government.


When I was 6 years old, I sang 1st soprano in an all-male choir at Christ’s Cathedral–the central church of the Central Indiana Episcopal Diocese–which was (and still is) located on Monument Circle in downtown Indianapolis. For 5 years, I took the trolley from our neighborhood in West Indianapolis every evening after school and on Sunday mornings (and on other special days), often returning home after dark for services and choir practice. At the end of each month, the church would reimburse me for the carfare dependent upon how many trips I’d made. (It was generally 20 cents each round trip in those days) All this was done on my own–without adult accompaniment on either trip, downtown or back. Not once was I accosted or bothered by anyone. Can you IMAGINE allowing a 6 to 11-year-old do that in ANY large city today. You’d be locked up for child endangerment if you tried. THAT’S how badly things have deteriorated in this country just in my lifetime.


One thing is very important to say: If you would forbid porn – or issue other strict religious laws – it would not hurt me. I never watched porn and I do not need it. So because of me you could enact this forbiddance. But the problem would be: The majority is not as conservative as I am. And if you want to establish a law within a democratic society you first have to convince at least 50% of its citizen, that this law would be a good idea. That’s how democracy works!

I am ~35 and at university. What I see are students that have sex ten times a week with fife different persons belonging to three different genders. If you look at the average person, especially younger people: Do you think it is realistic to convince them of discussed issues?
It would be no problem to live in an ultra-conservative society for me. Believe me: I would love it! But I fear many other people don’t. So how would you convince them?


But we don’t live in a democratic society; we live in a representative constitutional republic.

I’ll try to answer your response to my earlier post tomorrow (I have to write it up offline, because I’m limited on internet time, and I forgot to do it this morning before I connected).


BS, Phillipp. There are TWO “genders”…not three. Accepting this LGBTQ nonsense doesn’t make you seem “enlightened.” It makes you seem ignorant of basic biology. Humans have two genders–male and female…just like every other mammal on the planet. Some lower forms of life have the ability to change their “gender”, but it’s from male TO female, or vice versa, STILL leaving us with only TWO. Genetalia don’t determine one’s sex. Chromosomes do. XX and you’re female. XY and you’re male…period. How one “feels” about one’s sexuality doesn’t have anything whatsoever to do with what sex one IS. “Chaz” Bono is STILL female, no matter how much surgery she’s undergone or how many hormones she takes.

Porn “desensitizes” people to their sexuality. It starts out with people viewing simple nudity merely for “stimulation” and progresses to more and more erotic images to achieve the same effect. Very often, porn winds up SUPPLANTING the normal intimacy between loving partners to the detriment of the relationship.


Two sexes; gender is a different matter.


The only difference between “sex” and “gender” in common usage is with regard to Latin or Romance LANGUAGES. WORDS have “genders”…not “sexes.” Plants and animals have sexes, but commonly, people use the words interchangeably.


I intend to change sex on my license from M to X because I am non-binary and sexually identify as a chocolate bar.

On the Oregon driver’s license, we can now change “sex” to reflect our non-binary gender. That distinction is silly. The LGTBWIHG political movement clearly doesn’t recognize the difference.

I can’t wait for the first time the police are seeking a suspect whose sex is “non-binary.” Do they list the suspect as male or female and face a lawsuit for their misgendering in a press release?

Here’s an image showing what the license says:


“Gender roles” is in common usage, and it’s not interchangeable with “sex roles”.

Gender can be defined by Masculine and feminine, but not simply male and female, as a male or female can have masculine and feminine components to their personality.

I’d also argue that there is more than one sex. You have Intersex; people born with both parts, and historically Eunuchs were considered a “3rd sex”. Castrating boys at a young age leaves them not just physically, but biologically different than other males, due to not having their body be conditioned by testosterone as they age.

They also tended to live longer ( go figure).


Nonsense. Your sex is determined genetically…not by what body parts you possess and there are only TWO choices…male and female. Eunuchs are still genetic males and girls who grow beards are still FEMALE.

BTW, hermaphroditism is EXTREMELY rare and those so afflicted STILL have chromosomes that are either XX or XY and most doctors perform surgery to correct the condition BASED on their genetic makeup.