McDonalds toys illegal in California

[DiebytheSword]

It probably takes a lot more imagination and creativity to play with a couple of blocks or a piece of paper, than it takes to play with some kind of robotic toy at that age. She's probably more intrigued by the possibilities of a simple object, than a complex object that dictates a certain way it was meant to be used. It has got to be great to see young children play with 'simple' objects and to see what kind of stuff they can do with them.

Not really, you'd be surprised to see how she handles complex objects. That said, having studied some developmental psychology, its incredible to watch the tiny human computer format itself and then run off with a personality that will be with him or her forever.

 

[Avenger]

1:

That sounds like a failure of communication between social services and the people involved. Either social serviecs did not believe them (which is a valid possibility), or it was never made clear to them.

3:

a) Being acquitted is in no way the same as not having done it. I very much doubt that your social services thought him innocent of that; and there's a good chance they went to his home when he wasn't around to talk to his wife.

b) If you've been charged with spousal abuse, it seems pretty stupid to not show up for family counceling.

c) You mean the anti-government organization that seems to oppose various things in your country that aren't 200 years old? Yeah, that doesn't make him seem crazy at all.

If I were the social services, and I knew a little bit more than this (odds are they knew more than you did and do, because you can't honestly claim that social services would do this voluntarily on as limited evidence as you presented), I would also keep that child away from the family. A family with an armed, violent man who ignores counceling - well, adding a child to this mix is dangerous.

You are falsely equating limited government with no government.

And you are purposefully not taking into account the entire paragraph I wrote on that subject. This is exactly the kind of rhetoric that makes me despise the tea party.

Do tell, since you are well versed in the tea party, what the party stands for, what its mission statment is. As you've pointed out, I'm part of the movement, I'm interested in what you think it stands for, and why its people are ignorant.

The organization bases its name on a terrorist act that started a long and bloody war which France had to bail you out of. This shows at least SOME kind of ignorance of either history or naming things, regardless of why the terrorism act was committed. At least back then, the act was committed due to "taxation without representation" - and you are being represented democratically now. It's basically a group of people upset that they're the minority, so they go with an extreme point of view that has no basis in reality.

There is nothing moderate or sane about the tea party. I mean, who brings guns to political rallies? I'd invoke Godwin's law, but you already did that.

Now, I can't say ALL members of the tea party are crazy extremists, but if you aren't, then the vocal minority certainly is. No organization endorsed by Glenn Beck can be considered sane.

You know hedgefunds exist because of subprime mortgages and the insurance on them right. Sub prime mortgages are a Dem creation, via Bill Clinton. Give people who can't afford mortgages, mortgages that cannot be afforded (ever do the math on an ARM? Holy ****!) because if you don't you are racist, seriously. Then the democrats blame it on wall street. The republicans share blame only in that they could not force Barney Frank (D) to do an audit of Freddie and Fannie. For not vetoing that bill, I blame Bush. For not doing anything with the bill in the first place, I blame Pelosi et al.

I don't support the democrats, so you are constructing a straw-man. To me, all your political parties are different sides of a coin (heads being the conservatives, screaming at people, tails being the cowardly democrats, and the rim being ... well, the tea party. I'll let you figure out why I called the tea party the rim.)

Giving people loans they can't handle is stupid, regardless of whose government does it. Like I said, I'm for sensible politics.

Healthcare is sensible (except the version you have was sabotaged by both the democrats and the conservatives for profit gain), as is welfare in general, as well as a mixed economy. It's also sensible to have social services intervene when parents don't treat their children right.


We will have to agree to disagree on the toy business. I just dislike the way it's done. I think toys should be sold in toystores, and fast food should be sold in fast food places.

 

[Zeonix]

The organization bases its name on a terrorist act that started a long and bloody war which France had to bail you out of. This shows at least SOME kind of ignorance of either history or naming things, regardless of why the terrorism act was committed. At least back then, the act was committed due to "taxation without representation" - and you are being represented democratically now. It's basically a group of people upset that they're the minority, so they go with an extreme point of view that has no basis in reality.

I'm just going to point out that the Boston Tea Party was no more a terrorist act than the French or English overturning cars and breaking windows during their respective political protests is a terrorist act. I'll also point out that it wasn't so much a matter of France "bailing" us out as it was a tactical decision to involve the French so that when the colonists did start acting out, they'd have the financial and military backing they required to succeed. What you stated would be the equivalent of me saying the US "bailed out" Europe during WW2 by funding and supplying the allies with cash and weapons. Clearly, a gross oversimplification and, even moreso, completely absurd.

As for the rest, my silence on the issue of the modern Tea Party should be construed as me having nothing good to say about them, and thus deciding not to speak at all.

 

[Avenger]

I'm just going to point out that the Boston Tea Party was no more a terrorist act than the French or English overturning cars and breaking windows during their respective political protests is a terrorist act.

Considering it was a covert operation involving dressing up as indians to skew blame, I'm pretty sure it's not the same as a riot.

I'll also point out that it wasn't so much a matter of France "bailing" us out as it was a tactical decision to involve the French so that when the colonists did start acting out, they'd have the financial and military backing they required to succeed. What you stated would be the equivalent of me saying the US "bailed out" Europe during WW2 by funding and supplying the allies with cash and weapons. Clearly, a gross oversimplification and, even moreso, completely absurd.

The US bailed capitalism out in WW2. If they hadn't interered, France would have fallen to the Soviets, and that did not go over well with America. France bailed your entire country out by interfering (though it was a ridiculous thing to do, and they only did it to spite the English). A simplification? Yes. Absurd? Only in your little rhetorical world, Zeo.

 

[DiebytheSword]

1:

That sounds like a failure of communication between social services and the people involved. Either social serviecs did not believe them (which is a valid possibility), or it was never made clear to them.

3:

a) Being acquitted is in no way the same as not having done it. I very much doubt that your social services thought him innocent of that; and there's a good chance they went to his home when he wasn't around to talk to his wife. Except for the part where she just gave birth eight hours before they took her baby away from her, your point is completely valid. They probably did think he was guilty of it, as they obviously pressed charges on him.

b) If you've been charged with spousal abuse, it seems pretty stupid to not show up for family counceling. Agreed, otherwise I wouldn't have gone through the steps to include this piece of information.

c) You mean the anti-government organization that seems to oppose various things in your country that aren't 200 years old? Yeah, that doesn't make him seem crazy at all.No, I mean the organization that promises to rise up against any tyranny that would arise from within the states. You confuse the Oathkeepers with the Tea Party. Not that democracy isn't oh, over a thousand years old.

If I were the social services, and I knew a little bit more than this (odds are they knew more than you did and do, because you can't honestly claim that social services would do this voluntarily on as limited evidence as you presented), I would also keep that child away from the family. A family with an armed, violent man who ignores counceling - well, adding a child to this mix is dangerous.


And you are purposefully not taking into account the entire paragraph I wrote on that subject. This is exactly the kind of rhetoric that makes me despise the tea party. I am not, you extended the tea party's principle of limited government to include no government, which a very small number of libertarians within the group want.

The organization bases its name on a terrorist act that started a long and bloody war which France had to bail you out of. This shows at least SOME kind of ignorance of either history or naming things, regardless of why the terrorism act was committed. At least back then, the act was committed due to "taxation without representation" - and you are being represented democratically now. It's basically a group of people upset that they're the minority, so they go with an extreme point of view that has no basis in reality.Nix covered this pretty well, so I'm going to go: yeah, what he said. The name choice was only symbolic and can be directly blamed on one man, Rick Santelli of CNBC who coined the phrase first. The first few tax protests after this public airing were called tea parties by the media. There was no sit down, pow wow, lets all hug and come up with a name moment. You people who detest the tea party are trying really hard to find a reason to hate the name, it was spontaneous, and mostly not of our making.

There is nothing moderate or sane about the tea party. I mean, who brings guns to political rallies? I'd invoke Godwin's law, but you already did that. By who's measure? Seriously Avenger, are you a licensed practitioner of psychology? Did you change your focus in school from enviromental sciences to phychological make up of political movements? The last I looked the party is comprised of only 50% Republicans (conservative and social conservative), the rest are a mix of Independents (of all political leanings), Libertarians, and yes even Democrats. I'll also caution you to remember that many people within the movement have written to their representation to oppose bailouts and the health care bill, neither of which government would listen to. Hence not being represented. Once our chance came to take back the house by election, we did. The guns were not used, and are again symbolic, not an open face threat. Being a european, I'm sure you do not have the same upbringing with guns that I do, to most people in rural areas, guns are a symbol of freedom. Now, all that being said, you still haven't told me what you think the movement stands for. Sure I know you think that they are radical and insane, but that doesn't tell me what it stands for.

Now, I can't say ALL members of the tea party are crazy extremists, but if you aren't, then the vocal minority certainly is. No organization endorsed by Glenn Beck can be considered sane. So we are all judged by hyperbole Beck? What does that say about the leftists and Kieth Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Ed Shultz? How about Dylan Ratigan who called for armed rebellion when dems lost these midterm elections? Your idea of the tea party is colored by your general dislike of Americans then, because the tea party is a fairly good cross section of America.

I don't support the democrats, so you are constructing a straw-man. To me, all your political parties are different sides of a coin (heads being the conservatives, screaming at people, tails being the cowardly democrats, and the rim being ... well, the tea party. I'll let you figure out why I called the tea party the rim.)So again, you have a general dislike of all Americans? I am constructing no straw man, you mentioned hedge funds, I mentioned what fueled their meltdown. Logical progression of the arguments in play.

Giving people loans they can't handle is stupid, regardless of whose government does it. Like I said, I'm for sensible politics.

Healthcare is sensible (except the version you have was sabotaged by both the democrats and the conservatives for profit gain), as is welfare in general, as well as a mixed economy. It's also sensible to have social services intervene when parents don't treat their children right.And you'd be hard pressed to find a Tea Party member who thinks that the status quo was a good thing concerning health care. It's cost were running way out of control due to mixed economy rules placed on it already. There is no problem with Social Services, as we have agreed, it is a tightrope walk. As for welfare, I agree, it is a good thing when used properly. There should be no such thing as career welfare, but sadly thats exactly what fuels our slums. For that, it needs reform, not abolishment.


We will have to agree to disagree on the toy business. I just dislike the way it's done. I think toys should be sold in toystores, and fast food should be sold in fast food places. Can't argue with that, I'm not happy that its done, but this is a free country. I similarly have the right to tell my daughter no when she asks for it.

Going to borrow Nix's method of quoting, makes it slightly easier.

I'm not trying to put you on the spot, I don't care if you research the answer. But its obvious that you hate Beck, you think we're insane, and you think that were radicals. So far, I see the lefts talking points. Tell me what the movement stands for in your mind. If it stands for radical insanity to you, let me know.

Edit: Dear god, we may have reached one of perhaps five theoretical coversations where I will actually argue on the same side as Nixanthros.

What is the purpose of Terrorism? Do you think that the Boston Tea Party somehow terrified King George and the Brittish lawmakers?

The French didn't just make a spiteful move, it was absolutely a tactical and strategic one. They applied the enemy of my enemy is my freind tactic, tied up the Brittish wealth in a costly long distance war, cut off a major supply of revenue and suddenly made all the hostile territory next to their colonies quite freindly. If you think it was a quagmire spun specifically to gratify the age old English vs. French hatred, you are only so very little correct without any other consideration to the brilliance of the plan.

 

[Zeonix]

Considering it was a covert operation involving dressing up as indians to skew blame, I'm pretty sure it's not the same as a riot.

Covert operation? Are you serious? If you're completely unaware of as important a fact as it was part of a protest movement, as defined by John Adams at the time, you need to give yourself a quick refresher course on the causes of the protest and who was involved. And hell, even if you were to somehow argue your way out of being an extension of the protest movement, you'd only find yourself in mob territory; not terrorism. Get your definitions straight. Then we'll talk.

The US bailed capitalism out in WW2. If they hadn't interered, France would have fallen to the Soviets, and that did not go over well with America. France bailed your entire country out by interfering (though it was a ridiculous thing to do, and they only did it to spite the English). A simplification? Yes. Absurd? Only in your little rhetorical world, Zeo.

France would have remained under Nazi command, the UK would have fallen without our economic and logistical support, and Germany could have focused all of their forces on, at the very least, repelling the Russians rather than fight on multiple fronts. Africa would have been completely overtaken, giving Germany many of the natural resources they so desired for the machine they called the Reich. But if America hadn't intervened, we'd have been completely fine, right? No, because as you stated, it was in our best interest, in much the same way it was in France's best interest to destabilize the English in any way possible. What better way to do that then cutting them off from a resource-rich continent slowly being populated by their countrymen? In cases of symbiosis, one can hardly state one party is bailing out the other, when to not aid an ally would ultimately put its very survival in question.

Cuc covered it before me. Check rog.

 

[Avenger]

I am not, you extended the tea party's principle of limited government to include no government, which a very small number of libertarians within the group want.

I didn't extend it to that, and I'm sorry if I gave off that impression. I was referring to this:

I'll say this again, because you have once more misunderstood me. I did not mean to infer that the tea party is an anarchistic group. My point was that I think certain things need to be regulated. Among them are economics, certain social affairs, infra-structure, and military. The tea party is for minimal control of economy as far as I know, and far lower taxes. Now, the consequences of this are far wider than you probably know.

On the Boston Tea Party:

I'm going to concede here. I admit that the Boston Tea Party was not a terrorist act. I was misinformed by my history teacher, who lead me to believe this was a violent episode where people got killed.

On France and WW2:

I was referring to Europe, not to the entire world. Not so sure exactly what the US did in Africa. I know that Hitler's faults caused him to lose there, though. He executed his best commander for a suspicion of treason. That man was an incredibly lucky idiot to have gotten so far.

The Soviets were so vastly more important than the US in Europe, that one might as well consider the end of the war there completely their doing. The Eastern Front was what, four times the magnitude of the western one? Face it, the Soviets would have crushed the Germans regardless of American intervention at the very end of the war. Sure, your support up to the point where you started involving yourselves in Europe was nice for the British. Yet it was Hitler's faults that caused him to lose almost every battle he lost. Battle of Britain? Retreating instead of attacking more heavily. Soviets? Should never have been attacked (he only did that because he thought he was Emperor Julian; completely insane). The Soviets, however, basically fared alone against an overwhelming force, and still held their own.

In the end, the Soviets pushed back the German forces, and were the first to get to Berlin. Churchill went into a panic about the Soviets, and actually suggested to go to war against the Soviets just after retaking France and half of Berlin. If they had, they still would have lost, as the allied numbers were still inferior to the Soviet numbers, not to mention that the Soviets had superior positioning.

The US was nice for support in WW2. Otherwise, you really didn't do much for Europe.

So again, you have a general dislike of all Americans? I am constructing no straw man, you mentioned hedge funds, I mentioned what fueled their meltdown. Logical progression of the arguments in play.

Okay. Let me get this straight. You're not only accusing me of saying something about the Republicans being responsible for hedgefunds (in the quote that follows):

As for the toys, this is an example of what I'd call sane regulation. Much like I think it'd be sane to ban hedgefunds all the other fancy financial things that made the US economy fall on its ass.

But also that I somehow said I disliked all Americans. Now, call me crazy, but those are two huge freaking straw-men. Look the term up if you like. I am for sane regulation. It's not sane to allow hedgefunds and subprime mortgages, and I never suggested that the Republicans were responsible for that. I suggested that American politics allowed it, and that doesn't just apply to Republicans. Mind you, the Republicans had power for 8 years, and still didn't change it, so they're just as much to blame as the Democrats.

By who's measure? Seriously Avenger, are you a licensed practitioner of psychology? Did you change your focus in school from enviromental sciences to phychological make up of political movements? The last I looked the party is comprised of only 50% Republicans (conservative and social conservative), the rest are a mix of Independents (of all political leanings), Libertarians, and yes even Democrats. I'll also caution you to remember that many people within the movement have written to their representation to oppose bailouts and the health care bill, neither of which government would listen to. Hence not being represented. Once our chance came to take back the house by election, we did. The guns were not used, and are again symbolic, not an open face threat. Being a european, I'm sure you do not have the same upbringing with guns that I do, to most people in rural areas, guns are a symbol of freedom. Now, all that being said, you still haven't told me what you think the movement stands for. Sure I know you think that they are radical and insane, but that doesn't tell me what it stands for.

I never studied environmental sciences. I study hard-science in multiple varieties. In any case, I apologise for my harsh and somewhat stupid statements about the tea party earlier. I used bad rhetoric in retaliation to your straw-man, and I regret that. I think the movement stands for lower taxes and less government. From my perspective, the US needs something entirely different. The US needs political and economical accountability, and a thorough reorganization of government that makes it harder for lobbyists and corporations to take control of bills. I also think you must be putting a lot of money into some kind of black hole, because a country as rich as yours should not be in the state that it is in.

Universal healthcare is not a bad thing, regardless of what you might think. It allows everyone to get medical treatment. I do, however, agree that the healthcare billed that passed should not have passed. I disagree with that bill because it gives power to the insurance companies, and no one should make money off of people getting ill.

That being said, if you're worried about a reduced standard of healthcare if you have universal healthcare: No worries. In Socialist Norway, rich people still get better treatment than poor people.

I also agree on the bailouts being a mistake. It was a short-term decision and not a long-term one. It's clear that Obama's administration has some form of corruption (that was present in the last three or four governments, too, if not all of them back to the eighteen hundreds) in terms of Goldman & Sachs. If a corporation can't sustain itself, tear it down. It shouldn't be babied under any circumstance, considering how such corporations usually end up getting in trouble (illegal activities, gambles).

I'm just a sucker for sensible regulation.

So we are all judged by hyperbole Beck? What does that say about the leftists and Kieth Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Ed Shultz? How about Dylan Ratigan who called for armed rebellion when dems lost these midterm elections? Your idea of the tea party is colored by your general dislike of Americans then, because the tea party is a fairly good cross section of America.

Oh, I'm not saying the left don't have crazy people. I'm saying I haven't heard of them, because they're not as vocal as the right-wing ones. See, if you let the crazies in your political party be its voices, that's the view people will have of it. I think all your political parties are stupid, so I'm not really biased in that sense. Hell, I think most of my country's political parties are stupid, even the one I subscribe to.

 

[Synth]

You gotta love a thread that goes from illegal plastic toys because the CDC is trying to attack obesity... to the Boston Tea Party and France in WW2.

 

[Avenger]

No, Synth. You 'gotta love yourself.

 

[DiebytheSword]

No, Synth. You 'gotta love yourself.

Okay, I read your post, but I'm not going to be able to respond to it tonight, at least not untill way later. Either way, I think we were misunderstanding eachother on a few key points, so I'll hit the debate up later.

 

[Zeonix]

On France and WW2:

I was referring to Europe, not to the entire world. Not so sure exactly what the US did in Africa. I know that Hitler's faults caused him to lose there, though. He executed his best commander for a suspicion of treason. That man was an incredibly lucky idiot to have gotten so far.

A narrow perspective to be sure. It was a world war; not a European/American war.

The Soviets were so vastly more important than the US in Europe, that one might as well consider the end of the war there completely their doing. The Eastern Front was what, four times the magnitude of the western one? Face it, the Soviets would have crushed the Germans regardless of American intervention at the very end of the war. Sure, your support up to the point where you started involving yourselves in Europe was nice for the British. Yet it was Hitler's faults that caused him to lose almost every battle he lost. Battle of Britain? Retreating instead of attacking more heavily. Soviets? Should never have been attacked (he only did that because he thought he was Emperor Julian; completely insane). The Soviets, however, basically fared alone against an overwhelming force, and still held their own.

Had the West fallen, as it would have without financial and logistical backing from the Americas, all of Germany's attention could have been focused on the East. Keep in mind that the Nazis rocked the **** out of Russia for quite some time. They held out long enough for winter to roll around and destroy Germany supply lines. Fantastic. But what would have happened if all the forces focused on fighting the west were allowed to bunker down on the Eastern front? Look at the number of Russian deaths required to take out a single Nazi/German soldier. Then take into consideration the number of people required to take on a completely defensive and fortified position. The Russians would have still probably pushed the Germans out of their territory, but to think for even a second they'd have been able to push into Berlin had the Nazis had the personnel and supplies that were wasted on the West on the Eastern front is foolish. The Soviets exploited German vulnerability brought about by full-scale war in the West and south.

As for Britain, why do you think they were able to hold out as long as they did, giving Hitler time to fumble his way into a retreat? And not even just holding out, but focusing Germany's attention and resources on an unattainable win. Were the British magicking ammunition and parts from thin air or did they have an incredibly sophisticated industrial powerhouse underground? Oh. Right. It wasn't underground. It was across the Atlantic. And while we funded and supplied them, they funded and supplied the French resistance.

You don't seem to understand how important admin and logistics is to any war effort. You can have the best troops in the world, but if they don't have the tools required to get the job done, then they're simply bullet sponges. Take a look at the Russian strategy for elaboration.

In the end, the Soviets pushed back the German forces, and were the first to get to Berlin. Churchill went into a panic about the Soviets, and actually suggested to go to war against the Soviets just after retaking France and half of Berlin. If they had, they still would have lost, as the allied numbers were still inferior to the Soviet numbers, not to mention that the Soviets had superior positioning.

Funny you should mention that. Hey, who was still strong enough to keep the Russians at bay at the end of the war? Who was the USSR's archnemesis for the entirety of the Cold War? Seems to me that the US was not only important to European survival from the Nazis, but also important to European survival from the Russians afterward, who had an eye on expanding as far as they could. But why didn't they? Oh. Right. Because the US decided to drop the bomb on Japan, sending a message. If you're going to argue that it didn't stop them in their tracks, you're only fooling yourself. Sure, it started an arms race and would lead to multiple proxy wars, but it also led to European resurgence.

The US was nice for support in WW2. Otherwise, you really didn't do much for Europe.

You are clearly unable to understand cause and effect.

Rewriting history to say America won the war by itself is pretty terrible. But so is saying everything would have been hunky dory without America. Not only is it revisionist, but it's also completely wrong.

 

[Avenger]

Uhm. I don't know if you're aware of this, but the West? It did fall. At least in Europe it did. Basically every country the Nazis wanted to take, had been taken. The only reason Britain didn't fall in the Battle of Britain was because Hitler decided to retreat and focus on the Eastern front, which still didn't ******* save him. He also used up a lot of resources on what any strategist would call blunders. I mean, who retreats when their enemy is virtually crushed? Britain was ripe for the taking, and they backed out. Mind you, I agree it would have been easier to take Britain without American support, but in the end, it doesn't really matter. Hitler still refocused on the Eastern front. Basically, it was only after the Invasion of Normandy that the Russians got any real relief, but even before that point, they were pushing the nazis out.

By the time that the Soviets were pushing the Nazis back, the full attention of the Third Reich was on the Soviets.

And I said it would have been impossible to take the Russians. I never said the Russians would win a war to take Britain and the rest of France after the Allies had already invaded.

In Europe, the US played a fairly insignificant role in terms of the actual victory. The US certainly helped Britain, but before D-Day, there was basically no point to it. And by then, Germany was being steamrolled by the Soviets.

There's a chance the US was significant in Africa. I don't know. But the involvement of the US in Europe's part of WW2 was mostly to boost the UK, and the UK only managed to survive because Russia was being such a pain in the ass that Hitler decided to throw basically everything he could at them.

I agree that the US was important for "survival" in terms of nations not becoming Soviet, but that's what I was arguing in the first place. That the only real point to the Allied invasion was to stop the Soviets from taking over Europe. Taking the Soviets would have been impossible, and thusly it was far wiser to take the Germans before the Soviets could.

Your poo-throwing leaves something to desired, by the way. You're saying I'm wrong based on ... nothing. Which is always a great rhetorical tool if you're five.

 

[Zeonix]

Uhm. I don't know if you're aware of this, but the West? It did fall. At least in Europe it did. Basically every country the Nazis wanted to take, had been taken. The only reason Britain didn't fall in the Battle of Britain was because Hitler decided to retreat and focus on the Eastern front, which still didn't ******* save him. He also used up a lot of resources on what any strategist would call blunders. I mean, who retreats when their enemy is virtually crushed? Britain was ripe for the taking, and they backed out. Mind you, I agree it would have been easier to take Britain without American support, but in the end, it doesn't really matter. Hitler still refocused on the Eastern front. Basically, it was only after the Invasion of Normandy that the Russians got any real relief, but even before that point, they were pushing the nazis out.

In a single paragraph, you've thrown away all the lives lost in France who were resisting Nazi occupation, minimized the importance of the UK's survival, and axed the only reason the Allies survived the German onslaught. Congrats. Revisionism complete. Why did Hitler decide to retreat, by the way? It definitely wasn't because the RAF was kicking the **** out of the Luftwaffe, who were able to fly as a result of a mysterious source of fuel and ammunition. It certainly wasn't the fact that the French resistance was supplying the Brits with intel, as a result of a certain someone's funding. Couldn't be. It must have been because the Germans got bored. Totally wasn't because they were losing far too many fighters, wasting too much in the way of time, supplies and personnel and accomplishing very little because of British resolve and American funding. You understand, of course, that the only reason the Allies continued to exist was because of American funding, right? There would have been no D-day without the morewesters and the USSR would have overtaken all of Europe because the West would have been too weak to hold out, thus losing WW2, not solely to the Germans, but to Russia as well. Again, why didn't Russia continue west? I forget.

By the time that the Soviets were pushing the Nazis back, the full attention of the Third Reich was on the Soviets.

And I said it would have been impossible to take the Russians. I never said the Russians would win a war to take Britain and the rest of France after the Allies had already invaded.

The Germans were doing a pretty good job of removing the Russian threat until the goal post was moved to Stalingrad, which, as you previously noted, was one of Hitler's many blunders.

The only reason the allies were able to invade was due to someone's intervention. So, let's remove that player and figure out how they'd have been able to amphibiously assault Normandy. They wouldn't have.

In Europe, the US played a fairly insignificant role in terms of the actual victory. The US certainly helped Britain, but before D-Day, there was basically no point to it. And by then, Germany was being steamrolled by the Soviets.

I guess you're right. American air superiority didn't help anyone, nor did an American-supplied RAF. See, the problem here isn't that I'm wrong. It's that you don't consider any of the countries to the west of Germany to be significant. That's fine, I guess. Absurd, but fine. It certainly wasn't the Soviets that removed entrenched Germans from those positions, but whatever.

There's a chance the US was significant in Africa. I don't know. But the involvement of the US in Europe's part of WW2 was mostly to boost the UK, and the UK only managed to survive because Russia was being such a pain in the ass that Hitler decided to throw basically everything he could at them.

The goal was to keep the UK alive so as to use it as a jump off point with which to mount a counter assault, which was completely ineffective according to you. As far as Africa's role in liberating Europe, it was important. If I remember correctly, it's how we got into Italy, which I can only assume was a little important. Just a little.

I agree that the US was important for "survival" in terms of nations not becoming Soviet, but that's what I was arguing in the first place. That the only real point to the Allied invasion was to stop the Soviets from taking over Europe. Taking the Soviets would have been impossible, and thusly it was far wiser to take the Germans before the Soviets could.

You're dismissing tons of funding and logistical support with no material backing whatsoever which makes the below irritating, but slightly hilarious.

Your poo-throwing leaves something to desired, by the way. You're saying I'm wrong based on ... nothing. Which is always a great rhetorical tool if you're five.

You're saying you're right based on....nothing.

Wow. Amazing how easily that worked.

 

[Grega]

Tell me again how we got from "Toys illegal in Cali" to "WW2 would have been different if"

 

[Prozac]

As for importance in the war. The role the states (& Canada's single canoe with a mounted water pistol, filled with semen that would impregnate our lovely girls after the war.. Thanks for that!) was played in the war was minor when compared the help we got from the Marshal plan! Thanks for the monies!

 

[-Origin]

******* Germans still have my grandfather's bicycle.

 

[DiebytheSword]

As for importance in the war. The role the states (& Canada's single canoe with a mounted water pistol, filled with semen that would impregnate our lovely girls after the war.. Thanks for that!) was played in the war was minor when compared the help we got from the Marshal plan! Thanks for the monies!

There's always a lot of joking about Canada's military, but I give their Snipers serious props.

 

[Damaera]

Tell me again how we got from "Toys illegal in Cali" to "WW2 would have been different if"

That's what I'm wondering lmfao

 

[Grega]

There's always a lot of joking about Canada's military