Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Well, there is really nothing else to do in this thread.

The people who are actually living under these evil useless socialist systems of health care and governments don't know what they are talking about. Maybe at some point the "government is evil" party will get the government it wants, and then we will see how great things work out. Glad I got a plan B that I can fall back on at any point.

Alfndrate wrote:Azazel, I went back to your post, and didn't see a semi-colon... It seems someone was sleeping in Language Arts as well

Then look harder. It's right there.

The US did not "win" WWII; at least not in Europe.

Seaward wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
Why would you think that I've never heard of lend-lease? Canada also had a similar program (though only about a tenth the size). I'm well aware that about 20% of the USSR planes were american made, and I think most trucks came from the US, along with food.

However, that is a small minority of services that were sent, and comprised a miniscule amount of the USSR's efforts. The vast majority of the US lend-lease program went to Britain. Please do not try to obscure the fact that the USSR broke Germany by way of contributing an insurmountable number of soldiers, wherein the USSR lost almost as many soldiers as the US had in its entire military at the time.

Pretty much the entire logistics train for the USSR was provided by the US. Now, I know I don't have your military acumen, but I'm still fairly sure logistics is an important part of a sustained campaign. Soldiers ain't good for much if they're stuck in Chelyabinsk the whole time.

And I'm fairly sure you're desperately trying to overstate the USA's importance to the USSR during WWII out of some weird sense of pride. There's no shame in admitting that you were incorrect about a historical point that is not likely taught in American schools and were then corrected by someone with a history degree.

d-usa wrote:Well, there is really nothing else to do in this thread.

The people who are actually living under these evil useless socialist systems of health care and governments don't know what they are talking about. Maybe at some point the "government is evil" party will get the government it wants, and then we will see how great things work out. Glad I got a plan B that I can fall back on at any point.

Is "plan B " moving to Canada? Because it's pretty good up here and you should try it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Seaward wrote:Seriously, guys, never move to northern Virginia and get into consulting.

This would still be true even without the bit about getting into consulting.


Yeah, I think things have run their course here.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Is "plan B " moving to Canada? Because it's pretty good up here and you should try it.

Well... It looks like we're either going to have to endure another round of Harper, or venture in the dark unknown that is Trudeau Jr.

It could be... better.

azazel the cat wrote:And I'm fairly sure you're desperately trying to overstate the USA's importance to the USSR during WWII out of some weird sense of pride. There's no shame in admitting that you were incorrect about a historical point that is not likely taught in American schools and were then corrected by someone with a history degree.

Now that you've called attention to it, there will be shame in admitting that he's wrong. Seaward can't compromise now; he has no choice but to disagree with you, and follow through to the bitter end.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Is "plan B " moving to Canada? Because it's pretty good up here and you should try it.

Well... It looks like we're either going to have to endure another round of Harper, or venture in the dark unknown that is Trudeau Jr.

It could be... better.

Actually Trudeau Jr. has gotten me excited for the liberal party again, even if it's just name recognition for me at this point.

 azazel the cat wrote:

d-usa wrote:Well, there is really nothing else to do in this thread.

The people who are actually living under these evil useless socialist systems of health care and governments don't know what they are talking about. Maybe at some point the "government is evil" party will get the government it wants, and then we will see how great things work out. Glad I got a plan B that I can fall back on at any point.

Is "plan B " moving to Canada? Because it's pretty good up here and you should try it.

It's not Canada .

But dual citizenship has benefits.

Cheesecat wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Is "plan B " moving to Canada? Because it's pretty good up here and you should try it.

Well... It looks like we're either going to have to endure another round of Harper, or venture in the dark unknown that is Trudeau Jr.

It could be... better.

Actually Trudeau Jr. has gotten me excited for the liberal party again, even if it's just name recognition for me at this point.

I'm really disappointed that Trudeau Jr is out there now. He represents a shift to the left for the Liberals, which I feel will split votes between them and the NDP, thus allowing Harper to get another run. Which irritates me, because Harper has fethed with our food, and that is unacceptable.

also: please keep in mind that the the BC Liberal Party is very different from the federal one.

 Cheesecat wrote:
Actually Trudeau Jr. has gotten me excited for the liberal party again, even if it's just name recognition for me at this point.

Please don't. The guy has about as much substance as... well... void, really. His rethoric is entirely predicated by which province he is in. We've (me and my friend who knows him) actually caught him having completely opposite discourse one week in Alberta, from the next week in Montreal. I understand that it's a common complaint about politicians, but usually it's better camouflaged, which speaks lenght of him not even being intelligent enough to be a good crook.

The best way to sum him up is something my friend said, and it stuck with me ; "Well, he sure like being photographed''. He doesn't have a platform, he will simply say what is necessary to get elected, then will cook up gak as he goes.

I'm really sad because it doesn't seem like Mulcair is going to be able to capitalize on the 'orange wave'. I find myself wanting the Bloc to disappear, so that the NDP can scoop up those votes, and well, that's a strange position for me. to say the least.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

The best way to sum him up is something my friend said, and it stuck with me ; "Well, he sure like being photographed''. He doesn't have a platform, he will simply say what is necessary to get elected, then will cook up gak as he goes.

Wait, Canada has a Romney

d-usa wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

The best way to sum him up is something my friend said, and it stuck with me ; "Well, he sure like being photographed''. He doesn't have a platform, he will simply say what is necessary to get elected, then will cook up gak as he goes.

Wait, Canada has a Romney

We actually have several.

 d-usa wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

The best way to sum him up is something my friend said, and it stuck with me ; "Well, he sure like being photographed''. He doesn't have a platform, he will simply say what is necessary to get elected, then will cook up gak as he goes.

Wait, Canada has a Romney

I dunno I'd say this is an excellent description of any politician with a pulse.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

The best way to sum him up is something my friend said, and it stuck with me ; "Well, he sure like being photographed''. He doesn't have a platform, he will simply say what is necessary to get elected, then will cook up gak as he goes.

Wait, Canada has a Romney

I dunno I'd say this is an excellent description of any politician with a pulse.

I can't say about down the border (well, I actually think I can) but up here we have many politicians who are honest and willing to stick to their position despite knowing that they cannot possibly be elected.

You're so young and innocent....

If they can't get elected, they aren't really politicians are they? They're just donkey caves with an opinion. The first key to being a politician is being elected.

It's a simple fact of our species that applies to leaders past and present. Politicians. Are. Scum.

KalashnikovMarine wrote:If they can't get elected, they aren't really politicians are they? They're just donkey caves with an opinion. The first key to being a politician is being elected.

It's a simple fact of our species that applies to leaders past and present. Politicians. Are. Scum.

"Can't get elected" is something if a stretch... unlikely to get elected is more apt. We actually do have a lot of politicians who stick to their guns, and sometimes do get elected. The higher up you get, the less likely this is, but it has happened before. In BC, we had a provincial government in the early 1970s that is more or less responsible for a lot (most of?) the really socially valuable things we currently enjoy out here. In their three years in office they drastically changed the province for the better. Then that government fell into some Aqe of Aquarius garbage or something and lost all sense that they still had to play politics to win elections, and lost the next very next one to a government that was basically Thatcher-esque.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
If they can't get elected, they aren't really politicians are they? They're just donkey caves with an opinion. The first key to being a politician is being elected.

It's a simple fact of our species that applies to leaders past and present. Politicians. Are. Scum.

And 'can't get elected' has a specific meaning in our parlimentary system. In Québec, for exemple, there's 3 parties that simply cannot hope to get either a majority or a minority government. All thogheter, they wring in about 8-12% of the votes each elections. Québec Solidaire, for exemple, is a left-wing socialist formation in a province where the political spectrum requires a party to be center-left or center-right to get elected. Because the QS leaders have a great reputation tho, they get elected in their own circumscription and obtain 1 to 4 seats. These people could easily be recruited by the PQ and each get a ministry. They don't, because PQ is center-left and their convictions put them at odds with many PQ positions.

Usually having less than 4 seats, they can't get commission grants nor question time during the parlimentary debates. Very often tho, other parties (mostly PQ) will give them some of their allocution time, because they at least respect them.

Hell, the Bloc couldn't possibly, mathematically get elected. They exists solely to represent Québec's interest at the Federal parliement.

 Frazzled wrote:
You're so young and innocent....

It's yours and Kalashnikov's view that is innocent and childish, if anything. Many politicians are honest about their goals and ideals. You'd find no less amount of corruption in the private sector.

Hell, even Trudeau isn't really a crook, or at least doesn't seem to be. He's just a kid dreaming about filling his dad's shoes without realizing that he lack his father's political clout.

So I'm naive because I accept that the "honest" goals and ideals of most politicians is screwing their constituents? I'm not saying the corporations are any better either. Our species sucks. Especially when you give any of us power. It's just how it goes.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
So I'm naive because I accept that the "honest" goals and ideals of most politicians is screwing their constituents? I'm not saying the corporations are any better either. Our species sucks. Especially when you give any of us power. It's just how it goes.

Well there you went from all to most, which is already an amelioration. But I would still think that most politicians I can think of aren't out there to screw us up.

Well, maybe not at the municipal level. My dad was an advisor o ou town's mayor, and the gak he saw...

Anyway, this is getting far OT.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
So I'm naive because I accept that the "honest" goals and ideals of most politicians is screwing their constituents? I'm not saying the corporations are any better either. Our species sucks. Especially when you give any of us power. It's just how it goes.

There are easier ways to get money than politics, particularly for people who are competent enough to be successful in politics. People go in with good intentions (from their perspective) and either become jaded and join the corrupt system, giving up their own ideals, or join in in order to stay afloat, while still pushing for their ideals. Genuine crooks go the corporate-ladder-climber route.