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.

 whembly wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
What part of the constitution does it say anything about someone's mom?

National Born Citizen.

Constitution doesn't really define it, but it's accepted that those who meet the legal requirements for US citizenship is a 'natural born citizen'.

Cruz's mum is a citizen of US, ergo...when Cruz was born in Calgary, Canuckland he's a natural born citizen by virtue of his mum.

He's one of those rare people whose circumstances means that two different countries consider him a natural-born citizen.

It was just so god damned annoying to watch him renounce his Canadian citizenship because Americans can't comprehend that unusual circumstances can exist that result in unusual situations. And he did it for what amounted to nothing.

Also, if you're starting to have doubts about your potential Presidents fulfilling the literal requirements of the job, and it becomes a matter of public debate, why the hell don't you just have forms that any Presidential nominee has to fill out to prove the meet those kinds of requirements, providing all necessary documentation? Why the hell don't you have those forms anyways, have you only been assuming that people meet the criteria for President or something without ever requiring them to prove it?

 Pouncey wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
What part of the constitution does it say anything about someone's mom?

National Born Citizen.

Constitution doesn't really define it, but it's accepted that those who meet the legal requirements for US citizenship is a 'natural born citizen'.

Cruz's mum is a citizen of US, ergo...when Cruz was born in Calgary, Canuckland he's a natural born citizen by virtue of his mum.

He's one of those rare people whose circumstances means that two different countries consider him a natural-born citizen.

It was just so god damned annoying to watch him renounce his Canadian citizenship because Americans can't comprehend that unusual circumstances can exist that result in unusual situations. And he did it for what amounted to nothing.

Also, if you're starting to have doubts about your potential Presidents fulfilling the literal requirements of the job, and it becomes a matter of public debate, why the hell don't you just have forms that any Presidential nominee has to fill out to prove the meet those kinds of requirements, providing all necessary documentation? Why the hell don't you have those forms anyways, have you only been assuming that people meet the criteria for President or something without ever requiring them to prove it?

uh... Presidential candidates *does* have to file documentation for President.
Here's a good article (yes, I do read slate):
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2006/11/how_to_run_for_president.html
Here are the FEC declaration:
Cheeto Jesus.
The Clinton Machine.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It is interesting that it is all "white" working class, seemingly confirming that the racial divide in the USA is more important than the class divide.

A fun part of collecting demographic information from all over the world is learning things about minorities.

For example, I haven't actually checked the stats, but I'm pretty sure that in Canada, my skin color is one of the more common ones - I'm white.

However, if you expand the sample size from "Canada" to "The World" then I'm actually a minority for being white, because white people like myself are only like 10% of the planet's overall human population.

Doesn't really mean anything, since individual humans vary so wildly that there's no point in judging anything by how common your skin color is in any population size whatsoever, but it's still fun to think about. And occasionally people who put way too much emphasis on minorities try to justify white people like myself being a majority by providing an argument that attempts to explain why limiting the scope to a country instead of the entire human population makes sense, which is always entertaining. : D

I ESPECIALLY love breaking out the "White people are only 10% of the global human population, thus white people are in fact a minority, because that's how math works," against bigots who literally JUST finished railing against the idea of representing any minorities in games.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
What part of the constitution does it say anything about someone's mom?

National Born Citizen.

Constitution doesn't really define it, but it's accepted that those who meet the legal requirements for US citizenship is a 'natural born citizen'.

Cruz's mum is a citizen of US, ergo...when Cruz was born in Calgary, Canuckland he's a natural born citizen by virtue of his mum.

He's one of those rare people whose circumstances means that two different countries consider him a natural-born citizen.

It was just so god damned annoying to watch him renounce his Canadian citizenship because Americans can't comprehend that unusual circumstances can exist that result in unusual situations. And he did it for what amounted to nothing.

Also, if you're starting to have doubts about your potential Presidents fulfilling the literal requirements of the job, and it becomes a matter of public debate, why the hell don't you just have forms that any Presidential nominee has to fill out to prove the meet those kinds of requirements, providing all necessary documentation? Why the hell don't you have those forms anyways, have you only been assuming that people meet the criteria for President or something without ever requiring them to prove it?

uh... Presidential candidates *does* have to file documentation for President.
Here's a good article (yes, I do read slate):
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2006/11/how_to_run_for_president.html
Here are the FEC declaration:
Cheeto Jesus.
The Clinton Machine.

Then why the hell was the "Birther" stuff with Obama and Cruz even an issue? They'd have to prove it eventually, and if they couldn't, they'd never be allowed to become President.

 Pouncey wrote:


Then why the hell was the "Birther" stuff with Obama and Cruz even an issue?

Because some people are really fething dumb.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:


Then why the hell was the "Birther" stuff with Obama and Cruz even an issue?

Because some people are really fething dumb.

Because Truthiness is a real thing.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:


Then why the hell was the "Birther" stuff with Obama and Cruz even an issue?

Because some people are really fething dumb.

This.

General lack of understanding what 'natural born citizen' meant.

 whembly wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:


Then why the hell was the "Birther" stuff with Obama and Cruz even an issue?

Because some people are really fething dumb.

This.

General lack of understanding what 'natural born citizen' meant.

I don't think it's even that. They didn't care about what natural born citizen meant, all that mattered is what they were told by the right wing ideologues (like Donald Trump, Alex Jones etc.) who were their main source of political (mis)information. They were told that Obama was Kenyan so that is what they thought. They were told he was a muslim so that is what they thought. They were told he was going to take all their guns so that is what they thought.

Critical thinking about what constitutes a "natural born citizen" or any of the other issues never entered into it.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:


Then why the hell was the "Birther" stuff with Obama and Cruz even an issue?

Because some people are really fething dumb.

This.

General lack of understanding what 'natural born citizen' meant.

I don't think it's even that. They didn't care about what natural born citizen meant, all that mattered is what they were told by the right wing ideologues (like Donald Trump, Alex Jones etc.) who were their main source of political (mis)information. They were told that Obama was Kenyan so that is what they thought. They were told he was a muslim so that is what they thought. They were told he was going to take all their guns so that is what they thought.

Critical thinking about what constitutes a "natural born citizen" or any of the other issues never entered into it.

I've actually watched the more left-leaning American news channels like CNN on occasion. During the 2016 election, my mom flicked around to a variety of American and Canadian news channels covering it.

For years, I'd never been able to really put my finger on why I utterly hate all American news channels, regardless of affiliation. I normally can't stand watching them for long.

I did eventually realize one major difference. Americans on news channels talk over and interrupt each other constantly and they're very sensationalist about everything.

Canadian news channels have one person talking at a time, people wait for each other to finish talking, and they're much more interested in a factual description of the events taking place and disseminating information, than they are in things like fearmongering.

Yeah, Canada has sensationalist partisan "news" outlets too, but they're considered tabloids and they're not very mainstream.

 Pouncey wrote:

For years, I'd never been able to really put my finger on why I utterly hate all American news channels, regardless of affiliation. I normally can't stand watching them for long.

I did eventually realize one major difference. Americans on news channels talk over and interrupt each other constantly and they're very sensationalist about everything.

That is indeed a problem... Sean Hannity (when he comes out of Drumpf's ass) is one of the worst offenders in this regard, as is CNN's Toure and others.

One of the best is CNN's Jake Tapper/Anderson Cooper and (begrudgingly) Bill O'Reilly.

Canadian news channels have one person talking at a time, people wait for each other to finish talking, and they're much more interested in a factual description of the events taking place and disseminating information, than they are in things like fearmongering.

Yeah, Canada has sensationalist partisan "news" outlets too, but they're considered tabloids and they're not very mainstream.

That's because Canadians are too nice.

Unless... it's in a hockey ice rink... then 'nice guy' isn't in the vacabulary.

They are also dull as dishwater. I literally can't watch them when I am in Toronto, but then again I say that about most stations there.

BBC and Al Jazaera are much preferred.

 whembly wrote:
That's because Canadians are too nice.

Unless... it's in a hockey ice rink... then 'nice guy' isn't in the vacabulary.

Erm, during the Cold War, my dad was in the Canadian Reserves. He and some of his buddies in the military decided to do some tabletop gaming to figure out what might happen if Canada went Communist and the USA felt the need to invade us.

The people playing the American generals figured that the American people were too fond of their Canadian neighbours to support a protracted, bloody war that would undoubtedly result in many dead Canadian civilians getting caught in the crossfire, so they instead opted for a "show of force" strategy or something where they simply flew transport planes full of troops to sieze the airports on day 1 and prevent Canada from even thinking of offering any resistance since we wouldn't have access to our airforce, and we'd surrender quietly, avoiding the war.

The people playing the Canadian generals figured the Canadian generals would be bloodthirsty enough to just shoot down the transport planes before they could land at the Canadian airports.

Yeah, we're nice, we're polite, but that only lasts as long as we believe we have no reason to fight because no one's really getting hurt. I mean, if there's no reason to fight, why make an issue where there doesn't need to be one.

When we feel we need to fight though, we don't pull any punches.

My dad used to talk about how, many centuries (millennia? he was never specific and I can't ask him anymore) ago, there were pacifist nations on Earth. Their more war-hungry neighbours would occasionally try conquering them. Eventually they learned not to do that, because the pacifists were only pacifists because no one was bothering them and they didn't see any reason to start a fight when everyone's getting along. When their nations were invaded though, they temporarily abandoned their pacifistic ways, because now there was a reason to fight. They tended to be damned good at fighting as well, so eventually people learned to just let the pacifists do their own thing and to leave them alone, since they were never going to start a fight. The pacifists found this to be an agreeable solution, since they had no interest in conquering anyone and were content to remain within their own borders.

I kinda like to compare Canada to those pacifist nations. We aren't hungry for war, but when we have a reason to fight, we don't pull punches, and we keep ourselves ready.

I mean, you DO know that the average Canadian soldier is actually better trained than the average American soldier, right? Obviously the top-end American stuff like SEALs are better than most Canadian forces, but I'm just talking about the average across the entire military.

Pouncey, are you currently serving? Have you served on ops involving Americans?

Don't generalize. The Americans simply train differently because they have a very different military.

Erm, during the Cold War, my dad was in the Canadian Reserves. He and some of his buddies in the military decided to do some tabletop gaming to figure out what might happen if Canada went Communist and the USA felt the need to invade us.

The people playing the American generals figured that the American people were too fond of their Canadian neighbours to support a protracted, bloody war that would undoubtedly result in many dead Canadian civilians getting caught in the crossfire, so they instead opted for a "show of force" strategy or something where they simply flew transport planes full of troops to sieze the airports on day 1 and prevent Canada from even thinking of offering any resistance since we wouldn't have access to our airforce, and we'd surrender quietly, avoiding the war.

Just nuke Toronto and tell Quebec it is free to secede.

 Blacksails wrote:
Pouncey, are you currently serving? Have you served on ops involving Americans?

Don't generalize. The Americans simply train differently because they have a very different military.

No, my mental illness is one that means that no professional military would ever take me (it makes it so I can't really form bonds with people like military doctrine would require to form a cohesive force) and I'll admit it may be outdated information, but it was true at one point within the past few decades.

However, I want to ask... Have you served on ops involving Canadians?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

Erm, during the Cold War, my dad was in the Canadian Reserves. He and some of his buddies in the military decided to do some tabletop gaming to figure out what might happen if Canada went Communist and the USA felt the need to invade us.

The people playing the American generals figured that the American people were too fond of their Canadian neighbours to support a protracted, bloody war that would undoubtedly result in many dead Canadian civilians getting caught in the crossfire, so they instead opted for a "show of force" strategy or something where they simply flew transport planes full of troops to sieze the airports on day 1 and prevent Canada from even thinking of offering any resistance since we wouldn't have access to our airforce, and we'd surrender quietly, avoiding the war.

Just nuke Toronto and tell Quebec it is free to secede.

>.> Nuke? Are you serious?

Uhh, just in case you ARE serious, you DO know that nuclear weapons are a category of weapon that would be a war crime just to use them, right? They're one of the three categories of WMDs.

I've drank a lot of good British beer with Canadians, does that count.

>.> Nuke? Are you serious?

Uhh, just in case you ARE serious, you DO know that nuclear weapons are a category of weapon that would be a war crime just to use them, right? They're one of the three categories of WMDs.

You said it was a war game.

Its the easiest way to insure compliance, with no capital or central government at the cost of a Ferrari. Plus Quebec is free. As my ancestors said while ducking onto a boat (and later shooting at some guys in red here) Vive Le France!

EDIT: additionally it insures the strategic maple syrup reserves are safe and ripe for the picking. muahaha

 Pouncey wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
Pouncey, are you currently serving? Have you served on ops involving Americans?

Don't generalize. The Americans simply train differently because they have a very different military.

No, my mental illness is one that means that no professional military would ever take me (it makes it so I can't really form bonds with people like military doctrine would require to form a cohesive force) and I'll admit it may be outdated information, but it was true at one point within the past few decades.

However, I want to ask... Have you served on ops involving Canadians?

I am Canadian...so...yes.

Its not even outdated information, its just misinformation. Of course people in their own military are going to tell their own countrymen that they are the superior soldier, but we all know assessing the level of training and impact on the battlefield is too complex to simply state that Canada makes objectively better soldiers than Americans.

 Frazzled wrote:
I've drank a lot of good British beer with Canadians, does that count.

>.> Nuke? Are you serious?

Uhh, just in case you ARE serious, you DO know that nuclear weapons are a category of weapon that would be a war crime just to use them, right? They're one of the three categories of WMDs.

You said it was a war game.

Its the easiest way to insure compliance, with no capital or central government at the cost of a Ferrari. Plus Quebec is free. As my ancestors said while ducking onto a boat (and later shooting at some guys in red here) Vive Le France!

EDIT: additionally it insures the strategic maple syrup reserves are safe and ripe for the picking. muahaha

A war game in the context of soldiers in the military actually trying to figure out what would happen in real life in a situation that was possibly imminent. It was a simulation, not the kind we play for fun where there are no real consequences of the decisions therein.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blacksails wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
Pouncey, are you currently serving? Have you served on ops involving Americans?

Don't generalize. The Americans simply train differently because they have a very different military.

No, my mental illness is one that means that no professional military would ever take me (it makes it so I can't really form bonds with people like military doctrine would require to form a cohesive force) and I'll admit it may be outdated information, but it was true at one point within the past few decades.

However, I want to ask... Have you served on ops involving Canadians?

I am Canadian...so...yes.

Its not even outdated information, its just misinformation. Of course people in their own military are going to tell their own countrymen that they are the superior soldier, but we all know assessing the level of training and impact on the battlefield is too complex to simply state that Canada makes objectively better soldiers than Americans.

Erm, I'm just curious if you know what the word "average" refers to in mathematics. I'm getting the impression you might not understand what I actually meant because you're glossing over the word "average" when it was in fact a very key concept to the point I was trying to assert.

I also want to point out that you are a Canadian in the military telling a Canadian citizen not in the military the opposite of what you are saying you should be saying in this exact situation.

 whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It is interesting that it is all "white" working class, seemingly confirming that the racial divide in the USA is more important than the class divide.

It's more that the nature of how both parties engage in identity politics... the "white working class" started voting like an identity group.

However, Co'tor's is probably closer to the truth than that. Meaning that those working class whites were assumed to consistently vote democrats, such that they were neglected.

How were they neglected?

A war game in the context of soldiers in the military actually trying to figure out what would happen in real life in a situation that was possibly imminent. It was a simulation, not the kind we play for fun where there are no real consequences of the decisions therein.

Hardly. In the real world Canada goes down extremely hard and extremely fast. You're sitting next to the most powerful nation in the history of mankind. We could literally burn you stem to stern with nukes, napalm, chemical explosives, or just guys armed with Lucile and bad attitudes. Lets not go there. Seriously.


Not sure what this has to do with US Politics other than you're trying to slam the US in some manner for some reason. Can we go back to making fun of Trump's hair now?

 Pouncey wrote:


I mean, you DO know that the average Canadian soldier is actually better trained than the average American soldier, right? Obviously the top-end American stuff like SEALs are better than most Canadian forces, but I'm just talking about the average across the entire military.

Your support for such assertions? Canada's military budget is pretty woeful. The US military allocates twice as much money per service member as Canada does. Canadian combat deployments over the last 15 years has amounted to no more the 6% of active duty personnel at any given time. In comparison over that same time frame, US military involved in combat deployments has ranged from 10-15% of total active force.

The US spends more money per soldier on training, and it has more combat experience. So by what measurement do you say Canadian forces are better trained then our own? I will say that in my experience with dealing with Canadian service members, the one category that I know they beat us in is waistline size.

 Pouncey wrote:


Erm, I'm just curious if you know what the word "average" refers to in mathematics. I'm getting the impression you might not understand what I actually meant because you're glossing over the word "average" when it was in fact a very key concept to the point I was trying to assert.

I also want to point out that you are a Canadian in the military telling a Canadian citizen not in the military the opposite of what you are saying you should be saying in this exact situation.

I know quite well what average means, and no, I'm not glossing over it. I'm telling you that even with the word average in there, its still wrong for a multitude of reasons.

I also realize what I'm doing, because I've always hated baseless propaganda about how great our military is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:

I will say that in my experience with dealing with Canadian service members, the one category that I know they beat us in is waistline size.

Sad, but true.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It is interesting that it is all "white" working class, seemingly confirming that the racial divide in the USA is more important than the class divide.

It's more that the nature of how both parties engage in identity politics... the "white working class" started voting like an identity group.

However, Co'tor's is probably closer to the truth than that. Meaning that those working class whites were assumed to consistently vote democrats, such that they were neglected.

How were they neglected?

I can see where you're coming not being here and the media doesn't actually talk about flyover country.
Manufacturing jobs are gone. Think of the traditional manufacturing areas in Britain that are no longer there. Ireland's shipbuilding industry. Britain's steel and car industry, etc. Britain used to be the China of worldwide manufacturing (tea in Britain, tea in China, is there a connection???), not now. Same here but about thirty years later.
Most of the family farms are now corporate companies.
Many of the interior regions of the US are just dead now.

Why is it that this happened to white people and not to black people?

 djones520 wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:


I mean, you DO know that the average Canadian soldier is actually better trained than the average American soldier, right? Obviously the top-end American stuff like SEALs are better than most Canadian forces, but I'm just talking about the average across the entire military.

Your support for such assertions? Canada's military budget is pretty woeful. The US military allocates twice as much money per service member as Canada does. Canadian combat deployments over the last 15 years has amounted to no more the 6% of active duty personnel at any given time. In comparison over that same time frame, US military involved in combat deployments has ranged from 10-15% of total active force.

The US spends more money per soldier on training, and it has more combat experience. So by what measurement do you say Canadian forces are better trained then our own? I will say that in my experience with dealing with Canadian service members, the one category that I know they beat us in is waistline size.

In fairness, the Canadians at one point (late 90s/early 2000s) had better training in peace keeping type missions than we did. Unfortunately even so, their force generation capability at that point was a fraction of ours (we still had 10 or so active duty divisions and several separate brigades just in the land forces area).

Of course, I would venture to say anyone making the statement he did has never worked with the 'average' US combat arms troopers or the average Canadian troopers. I have. Been one. I've also worked with both Canadian exchange officers assigned to US units (some great guys!) and a couple Canadian units (BN level). They are different, not better.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Why is it that this happened to white people and not to black people?

It happened to the inner cities decades ago. Thats why they have such rampant crime. Detroit and Chicago are stark examples.

 djones520 wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:


I mean, you DO know that the average Canadian soldier is actually better trained than the average American soldier, right? Obviously the top-end American stuff like SEALs are better than most Canadian forces, but I'm just talking about the average across the entire military.

Your support for such assertions? Canada's military budget is pretty woeful. The US military allocates twice as much money per service member as Canada does. Canadian combat deployments over the last 15 years has amounted to no more the 6% of active duty personnel at any given time. In comparison over that same time frame, US military involved in combat deployments has ranged from 10-15% of total active force.

The US spends more money per soldier on training, and it has more combat experience. So by what measurement do you say Canadian forces are better trained then our own? I will say that in my experience with dealing with Canadian service members, the one category that I know they beat us in is waistline size.

I heard it from my dad. He was in the Canadian military from 1979-1981 as a radio technician in the Reserves. He's also the kind of guy who doesn't just take news articles' word for things, he actually goes and reads the studies or police reports themselves.

I would ask him for his source, as he retired last year, but unfortunately I don't believe I'll get a useful answer from the ashes located in the urn on the mantle.

I'm willing to admit I may have been mistaken, but if so, it's not because I make things up, it's because I was misinformed by a trusted source. Can we drop it and move on now that I've acknowledged I might be wrong and am not willing to push the subject further?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

A war game in the context of soldiers in the military actually trying to figure out what would happen in real life in a situation that was possibly imminent. It was a simulation, not the kind we play for fun where there are no real consequences of the decisions therein.

Hardly. In the real world Canada goes down extremely hard and extremely fast. You're sitting next to the most powerful nation in the history of mankind. We could literally burn you stem to stern with nukes, napalm, chemical explosives, or just guys armed with Lucile and bad attitudes. Lets not go there. Seriously.


Not sure what this has to do with US Politics other than you're trying to slam the US in some manner for some reason. Can we go back to making fun of Trump's hair now?

If I wanted to slam the US, I don't need to say anything about the troops themselves, I could just point out that you literally just suggested committing multiple war crimes by using banned weapons in a hypothetical takeover of Canada as though it were an acceptable way to fight a war.

Frankly, depending on how much of Canada you plan on nuking, you may also have suggested genocide.

 Pouncey wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:


I mean, you DO know that the average Canadian soldier is actually better trained than the average American soldier, right? Obviously the top-end American stuff like SEALs are better than most Canadian forces, but I'm just talking about the average across the entire military.

Your support for such assertions? Canada's military budget is pretty woeful. The US military allocates twice as much money per service member as Canada does. Canadian combat deployments over the last 15 years has amounted to no more the 6% of active duty personnel at any given time. In comparison over that same time frame, US military involved in combat deployments has ranged from 10-15% of total active force.

The US spends more money per soldier on training, and it has more combat experience. So by what measurement do you say Canadian forces are better trained then our own? I will say that in my experience with dealing with Canadian service members, the one category that I know they beat us in is waistline size.

I heard it from my dad. He was in the Canadian military from 1979-1981 as a radio technician in the Reserves. He's also the kind of guy who doesn't just take news articles' word for things, he actually goes and reads the studies or police reports themselves.

Sorry mate, but you can't point at a source from 35 years ago and speak on it from a position of authority. Especially when it's a reservist who served for 2 years. I am in no way detracting from your father's service, but 2 years as a radio tech in the reserves gives him as much credibility on such a topic as a 4 year infantryman acting like he's an expert on strategic doctrine.

 djones520 wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:


I mean, you DO know that the average Canadian soldier is actually better trained than the average American soldier, right? Obviously the top-end American stuff like SEALs are better than most Canadian forces, but I'm just talking about the average across the entire military.

Your support for such assertions? Canada's military budget is pretty woeful. The US military allocates twice as much money per service member as Canada does. Canadian combat deployments over the last 15 years has amounted to no more the 6% of active duty personnel at any given time. In comparison over that same time frame, US military involved in combat deployments has ranged from 10-15% of total active force.

The US spends more money per soldier on training, and it has more combat experience. So by what measurement do you say Canadian forces are better trained then our own? I will say that in my experience with dealing with Canadian service members, the one category that I know they beat us in is waistline size.

I heard it from my dad. He was in the Canadian military from 1979-1981 as a radio technician in the Reserves. He's also the kind of guy who doesn't just take news articles' word for things, he actually goes and reads the studies or police reports themselves.

Sorry mate, but you can't point at a source from 35 years ago and speak on it from a position of authority. Especially when it's a reservist who served for 2 years. I am in no way detracting from your father's service, but 2 years as a radio tech in the reserves gives him as much credibility on such a topic as a 4 year infantryman acting like he's an expert on strategic doctrine.

You could also have just, you know, read more than the first line before replying. That would've been a good option too.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:


Then why the hell was the "Birther" stuff with Obama and Cruz even an issue?

Because some people are really fething dumb.

I think it's a bit more than that. The birther thing existed because they wanted to paint Obama as an "Other" a "Not us". They couldn't, in polite society, come out and say "he's black!" so they had to show how he was not connected to "us". It was basically just race baiting.

Though the "natural born" clause is actually pretty interesting. It was also an issue when the elder romney ran. If you follow the thread sback it comes from english common law. It literally means to have been born within the sovereign territory. Not protectorates or colonies..the actually territorial lnd of the state. So, Cruz (by the oldest definitions) while not canadian was not "natural born" (he was actually hatched from an evil plant but that's an other issue). Mccain, born in the panama canal zone (us territory at the time) was natural born. Also, if you look back at the changes that happened to that particular clause, it was originally "natural citizen" and was changed to "natural born." It suggests a distinct difference between "ntural citizenship" (at the time "natural citizens" could have been "naturalized") and "natural born citizenhip."

ender502

 ender502 wrote:
I think it's a bit more than that. The birther thing existed because they wanted to paint Obama as an "Other" a "Not us". They couldn't, in polite society, come out and say "he's black!" so they had to show how he was not connected to "us". It was basically just race baiting.

And the Cruz "issue" was only raised to point out the hypocrisy of the people arguing against Obama's citizenship. I don't think very many people sincerely believed that Cruz is not a US citizen or eligible to be president, but it was a rather effective way of pointing out the insincerity of republican claims about "it's not about race" when the white guy with equally reasonable citizenship doubts is accepted without question as a legitimate candidate.