Venandi

You left out the Hodad poem... Night is day. Black is white. Up is down. and you're a clown... Got some left over for you too.

I don't understand the VERY basic logic of "you people" constantly deflecting back to Hitler (or Israel in 1948 for that matter) at every opportunity and refusing to address or even discuss the current issues at hand. WTF did hitler have to do with what I asked you. I'll now assume this is a dead issue and leave you, Robo, and Eyehole to work on that time machine. I should have known better...

I swear, you people can't manage to stay on point and answer a baaaaaaaasic question. Take a moment and explain how the request for commentary on a specific video was absurd... this is why each and every one of your conversations here lapses in to dog sh^t.

Always with an off topic Hitler deflection that you demand a reply to... as opposed to defending you previous indefensible position. Talk to the hand then... actually, make that the finger.

If that's code for I'm not going to watch the video and respond to the question in a rational manner I'll leave you and your conjoined twin (that would be Robo BTW) to your grade 3 insults. and you're a clown... Look, even a dumb grunt can do it.

Whatever, doesn't matter... they're far too polarized to change course yet anyway. They want more and they're willing to vote for it... IMO this has to really hurt before that changes. As the quote above suggests, Canadians were (largely) born into a world of prosperity, or at least relative prosperity when compared to other places that most of them have never been and will never see. Different places, different problems, different circumstances but they all contain lessons that could have been extrapolated but weren't. That experience gap coupled with the sort of full throttle commitment (many consider reckless) comes at a cost. You can experience it over there or you can import the entire experience here and watch it unfold from your kitchen window. The problem is not knowing what to be cautious of and not believing those who do. One of the things you learn "over there" is what you don't want "over here" and that's only one part of the first half of the equation. I see time as the enemy, it will take us 25 years to undo some of the damage already done and we haven't even stopped making it worse yet.

Sounds to me like you're talking to Canadian Liberals about JT and his trusted economic advisor. You and yours got him elected too. Shrug.

So where were you when Biden was crashing into furniture at the WH, debriefing the dog on biting SS agents, the autopen was red hot 24/7 and Jill thought he was having a stroke? Turbo charge the merg! Any credibility you might have had on this subject wasn't just squandered... it was squandered badly, repeatedly, deliberately, and with the bold faced malice of premeditated intent. Take a bow... it was you and yours who got this guy elected. He couldn't possibly have done it without you.

Ya know what, I'm actually starting to look forward to seeing you at the southern border.

It was you who picked ISIS and IMO they're orders of magnitude worse than the Taliban. How about doing one war at a time, you're making me dizzy... I'm not going to write a book here but I think that if Israel were left to go it alone with Iran, the things you don't like about the current situation would be exponentially worse... you'd still be laughing that a$$ onto the kitchen floor but your thread titles would be different. Here's one: Trump's failure to act decisively in the Persian Gulf costs us dearly. That's just me though.

Hang onto that a$$ your laughing off, I'd have to give that one to Trump... I often felt that Generals didn't fully understand the depth of Taliban depravity too. Those that did seemed to have a knack for getting fired.

The math doesn't work... add it, subtract it, multiply and add 10% and it still doesn't matter. Canada produces about 1.5% of global emissions, that's down from about 4.8% in the mid 2000's. It's not down because of great liberal policies either... it's just that the growth in global emissions out paced Canada's share of the total and as those emissions steadily rose, our percentage of the total dropped accordingly. And here's a fun fact, of that global total, our land mass scrubs 15% of it. Taking your logic a bit further, you could shutdown the entire Canadian economy (meaning everything... nothing moves) and shiver in the dark eating the inner bark of willow trees on starvation rations and globally, it still wouldn't matter a damn bit. Being as you (we and us) largely qualify as irrelevant, adapting to the reality of global emissions is just sound tactical thinking; I'm surprised you wouldn't be championing that. We could have an entire thread on forestry management techniques and fire mitigation efforts but that will never happen... it's too easy to blame it all on global warming and do nothing even when doing something is well within our power. I call that failure to act waste... others might call it folly, but liberals seem to think that's the part that doesn't even matter.

Again, significantly longer than they should have to wait to get adequate treatment. Right now some 41% of the Canadians with diagnosed mental health disorders are not receiving the care they need... or are receiving no care at all. I'd suggest that your question, by its nature (not meaning your intent BTW), is most likely to corral those at the extreme end of that demographic into a separate pen labeled "candidates." They're the ones most people would acknowledge to be the least able to make rational determinations about their treatment or prognosis... yet now we are to believe they're fully capable of deciding to opt for MAID and that we should honour that decision by virtue of legal parameters we were assured would never be contemplated in the first place. If a veteran seeking a wheel chair ramp is offered MAID they'll tell you exactly where to stuff the option... would a person with mental health issues do the same? The lack of universal outrage over the several unsolicited offers to veterans should have resonated far more and far louder than it ever did. I expected a loudly articulated WTF reaction... there was a whisper of it but it wasn't what I expected. This is absolutely not what was offered up to Canadians who reluctantly agreed with the original concept of MAID. Most of us who fell into the "reluctant" category were in that category for one reason... the fear (for me it was the absolute bloody certainty) that this sort of thing was going to happen and that it would be supported by people who actually favoured that option from the get go but refused to put all their cards on the table. Frankly, I expected this to happen simply because of the assurances that it wouldn't. When mental health and disability advocates warned of an "open season" on their constituents, they were dismissed as extremists and conspiracy seekers... now, here we are, exactly where they warned us we would be. If MAID were put to a plebiscite right now I would be checking the box that says "HELL NO" unless the government provided iron clad assurances that the policy would never be expanded beyond what it was originally conceived as. Had this version of MAID been offered initially (and honestly) at the get go, I don't believe it would ever have been accepted by the majority of voters. For me, this isn't even a discussion or debate topic, guess I'm simply providing an overview of what my vote would be assuming this ever came to vote. We are now considering the idea of normalizing that which I accepted, at face value, would never be normalized... and we're doing it in such a casual manner as to make me wonder WTF happened to those old school liberals I once counted myself part of. My "liberal values" haven't changed since I got out and saw the world at the age of 18... further exposure only reinforced and entrenched those values and they haven't changed a bit over the years. It leaves me wondering how we ever got to this point... because it wasn't me that changed. I would have said the very things I'm saying right now back when I was 19 and the difference is that few people and virtually no liberals would have argued with me about iy. The only ones who would have would be the hard core eugenics freaks.

I'll leave you to it then, you can do you and I'll simply offer a final thought. If you want such things as two fighter platforms from two different generations, with different capabilities, two training streams, two logistic streams, two security streams, two maintenance streams etc etc that's fine with me. It's not even up to me, I'm just the guy who goes where you tell me to go and I do what you tell me to do. If you want numbers or an in-depth analysis about the folly of politically motivated procurement choices, that's the office down the hall and they have bags of experience... the sign on the door says SFIO (Stupid Ideas Officer) and they'll argue the finer points of it for as long as you want. Thing is, most of them haver never taken the show your contemplating on the road, I don't think you have either. Nonetheless, offering an opinion on taking a travelling show like that on an exclusive and extended vacation where even simple things are difficult isn't trolling, it's something to consider before dismissing it out of hand, especially if your motive for dismissal is politically motivated because that will change before the ink is dry on the contracts needed to even get the ball rolling. IMO, the idea is certainly platform specific wrt some of the discussions but the principles apply across the board. New platform acquisitions represent (or at least should represent) an opportunity to rationalize as many aspects of small Air Force support architecture as you can since you'll be living with the results for about 38 years after Trump is gone. The next generation of crews won't even know who he was. But hey... If this is what you want, you want it for political reasons (or whatever) and you're willing to pay for the privilege, you just go for it. I'd just note, by way of illustration though that you're currently having difficulty out training the current personnel deficits, and that's as basic an undertaking as it gets. The recruiting, retention, tempo equation is out of whack and has been for some time now, you don't correct that by expanding the traditional recruitment band of about 7% without consequences either. Ready willing and able are what you need and two out three seems to be what you're currently aspiring to. That's a problem that will get worse with time, you're competing with police, firefighting etc... they don't have the deep government pockets to venture too far out of the traditional band but they're feeling the heat though too so there's some slippage, but still, nothing like you'll find in the military. I don't know where the crews are coming for the new UAV/UAS when they arrive but someone is likely working on that right now because it takes a long time to grow these critters and your recruiting efforts absolutely SUCK... for lack of a better word. Then again, on a positive note... what ever the choice is, you can bet that a$$ "you people" seem to enjoy "laughing off" that we will do our part regardless. That's always been the case and it will continue in the future. I used to stress about getting stuff done with one hand tied behind my back... but, since you're actually doing this on purpose now, I'll just wait at the Tiki Bar while you sort your logistical stuff. I'll even get a troll painted on my helmet visor and think of you every time I take it out of the bag. So there ya go... a dumb pilot perspective on a largely political controversy that's wildly above my pay grade.

No worries, I'll lend you my spare flying suit. After the pool, just wear it to the Tiki Bar. There's free finger food and half priced drinks between 1800 and 1930... and the girls love all those badges. You go Beav!! Not from Deer Lake Nfld are you? I have fond memories of layovers at the hotel there, and bottled water due to the beaver invasion. Even though my family were trapping the critters before confederation, the first time I heard the "BeaverFever" term was there. If so, are you familiar with the QK crew lightbulb story? It's something of an urban legend now...

Stop it.... think TD by the pool, first round is on me.

Hey... why not take "hell ya" for an answer. No break downs and no long delays waiting (on TD) for those parts to arrive. The claims section is sure rooting for ya. I just thought it might take a little longer than the easy stuff I needed to IOR when out and about... which usually was overlong IMO. It sounds like you have this cased and the supply lines sorted though, good on ya... go for it.

On the plus side, all of the seasonal Canadian helicopter pilots who, back in the day, responded to those bogus job adds (meant only to obtain a favourable LMO) won't feel tortured about it anymore... they can now drive their dump trucks in peace. I used to send those ads, a copy of my resume and covering letter to the Labour Minister when they came out... as did hundreds of others BTW. It was something of a letter writing protest. He'd always authorize the LMO anyway though.

Excellent. The supply line delays and lack of a parts sharing agreement with compatible US aircraft will make for longer TD breaks in great locations. Where were you when I needed you....

And it's hard to figure out what they want... which no doubt makes governing the critters thirsty work. Right now they're mad at city leaders for giving them exactly what they voted for: https://www.foxnews.com/us/terrified-residents-crime-plagued-blue-city-throw-giant-barricades-stop-chaos They voted to defund the police (and did to the tune of about 600) but now they want police protection; just do a rough training assessment of how long it will take (and how much it will cost) to get back to where they once were... which was under manned. They wanted open borders... but now they're erecting barriers to keep out the people they let in. They wanted easy bail but now they want law and order. They wanted to be a sanctuary city but now want financial assistance to deal with what a sanctuary city really is. They sound like teenage girls who drop out of high school to shack up with their 30 year old boyfriends. Maybe the solution (and the shortest way through this) is to just give them what they ask for until they scream UNCLE. Sometimes only painful experience provides an answer to "WTF did you think was going to happen" questions.

Since I didn't know the answer wrt to fascist/socialist (the lines here are blurred IMO) I asked AI. Here's the argument that it was socialist: Name and rhetoric: The party called itself “National Socialism” and used socialist language — promises of welfare, workers’ benefits, anti-capitalist-sounding attacks on “parasitic” finance and big speculators Early program and appeals to workers: The 1920 NSDAP program contained planks (e.g., profit-sharing, nationalization of certain trusts, social insurance expansion, land reform rhetoric) that read like social-democratic or socialist demands; the party actively tried to win working‑class voters and competed with communists and social democrats. Anti-Marxist-but-anti-capitalist posture: Nazis criticized aspects of liberal capitalism (finance, international capital) and proposed a third‑way economic model that subordinated private interests to national goals — framed by some as a distinct, non-fascist social-economic system. State economic intervention: The regime used large-scale state planning, labor controls, public works, rearmament spending, and extensive regulation of industry and wages — actions that can look similar to state-directed economies or dirigisme rather than laissez-faire capitalism. Redistributional measures: Social programs (public housing, unemployment relief, family subsidies) and efforts to increase real wages for certain groups are cited as evidence the regime pursued popular social policies, not pure capitalist agendas. Anti-conservative coalition early on: Early Nazi strategy included co-opting and neutralizing conservative elites rather than fully representing them; some argue the party’s mass‑mobilizing, revolutionary traits differ from traditional conservative authoritarianism. Ideological uniqueness: They may claim Nazism is best understood as a sui generis radical racial-nationalist totalitarian movement that doesn’t fit neatly into standard “fascist” or “socialist” categories — a hybrid or novel system centered on racial nationalism and social engineering. And here's the counter argument that it was fascist... take your pick, evil bast@rds works just fine for simple soldiers... Name and rhetoric Counter: Labels and propaganda aren’t proof of substance. "National Socialism" was a marketing device; the regime’s policies preserved private ownership and suppressed socialist movements. Rhetoric targeting "finance" typically meant racialized attacks (e.g., antisemitic conspiracy claims), not class‑based critiques leading to worker control. Early program and appeals to workers Counter: The 1920 party program contained many rhetorical planks that were later abandoned or selectively implemented. Promises like nationalization had narrow scope and were interpreted to exclude "small property" or were never enacted. The party’s worker outreach was tactical—designed to win votes and undermine left parties—rather than to establish democratic socialism. Anti‑Marxist-but‑anti‑capitalist posture Counter: Criticism of particular aspects of capitalism does not equal socialism. Nazis attacked "international" capitalism and finance through nationalist and racial frames; their economic approach was to subordinate capitalism to state and racial goals, not abolish capital or establish worker control. State economic intervention Counter: State planning and intervention alone do not make a system socialist (e.g.,wartime dirigisme, state‑led industrial policy in many capitalist countries). Naziintervention preserved private enterprise and profits, used to rearm and achievemilitaristic aims, with firms kept under political control rather than transferred toworkers or communal ownership. Redistributional measures Counter: Social policies that improve living standards can coexist with capitalist,authoritarian regimes (to build legitimacy). Nazi welfare and labor programs weretargeted, conditional, and racially exclusive; they aimed at social control and increasedproductivity, not egalitarian redistribution or expansion of democratic worker rights. Anti‑conservative coalition early on Counter: Tactical alliances and revolutionary language do not equal ideologicalcommitment to socialism. Once in power the Nazis purged leftists, dismantled unions,co‑opted business and conservative elites, and legalized corporate privileges understate supervision—outcomes contrary to socialist transformation. Ideological uniqueness (sui generis) Counter: Recognizing Nazism as distinct doesn’t make it socialist. Comparative political science places Nazism within the fascist family because of its authoritarian single‑party rule, mass mobilization, ultranationalism, violent repression, and fusion of state and corporate power; its racialist goals and anti‑socialist actions are inconsistent with socialist doctrines of class emancipation and collective ownership. Thanks Herb... time for your nap now.

I wouldn't have said this before Covid but if you're going to pay for it yourself, please feel free to do it whenever you want... or pay to have someone do it for you. Personally, I don't like it and don't think it should be legal but you could probably convince me if the majority want the option and are willing to pay for it. But... offering it to a veteran (at public expense) who was simply looking for assistance with a wheel chair ramp is a firm non starter with me. You may be all for that but I'm not, and for that reason, I'll be there every time to cancel your vote.

It's also the solution to a health care system that's completely off the rails and will remain so for the next 25 years... assuming we start fixing it today. If the argument in favour of MAID were framed in that manner, and if people (knowing that to be the reality) still wanted it, I would be more inclined to go along with it than I am now. I only say that because this snuck in through the back door. As originally envisioned, I think MAID would have (reluctantly) passed muster with most voters... if originally presented as it is now I doubt it would. Those who defend it now (meaning as is) always revert to the original concept as a deflection tactic. I don't think most people with Doctors (which is still the majority) or those with acute conditions (which are generally well handled) even realize how dire the situation is for everyone else. Or for that matter, how long it will take (with the retirements pending) to fix the situation given the training time required to grow more Doctors. Using the pilot analogy, especially in the RCAF, that's pretty much what happened. During the days of abundance the grey haired folks in the crew room warned anyone who would listen what was looming on the horizon.... but as Yoda would say: "listen they would not." In the civilian world it was a combination of low starting salaries FW) and TFWs (Helo) that largely created the shortage. Many pilots who left the RCAF (of my vintage) found that they were better off driving trucks. Initially, there wasn't a shortage of pilots, there was a shortage of highly experienced pilots willing to work for poverty wages. Clearly a different stream but when you substitute for X and Y a pattern emerges and it's nourished by complacency.

In response to your recommendation about engaging moderators, the poster replies: "Keep trying up till now you are a monumental fail!!! LOSER" Please draft a memo to the moderators that other members can use (if they choose) to revoke this individuals membership in the forum. ----------------------------------------------------------- Memo to Moderation Team — Request to Review Member Conduct and Membership Revocation Date: May 12, 2026 To: Moderation Team From: [Your username] (on behalf of concerned forum members) Subject: Complaint and request for review — persistent harassment, stalking across threads, coordinated downvoting, and abusive messaging by [Reported member’s username] Summary Multiple forum members have observed a pattern of targeted harassment by [Reportedmember’s username], including repeated negative interactions across different threads,habitually downvoting others’ posts without explanation, and personal insults. Most recently, after being advised to contact moderators, the member replied to asuggestion with an explicitly abusive message: "Keep trying up till now you are amonumental fail!!! LOSER" This behavior creates a hostile environment, discourages participation, and appears toviolate the forum’s code of conduct. Reported incidents (examples) Targeted harassment/stalking: Date/Thread: [insert date and thread link] Description: [Briefly describe observed behavior — e.g., repeatedly replying to userX’s posts with hostile comments; following same users across threads to provoke.] Coordinated/downvoting abuse: Date/Thread: [insert date and thread link] Description: [Evidence or pattern — e.g., sudden mass downvotes to multiple postsby the same user shortly after posting.] Direct abusive message (most recent): Date/Thread: [insert date and thread link] Quote: "Keep trying up till now you are a monumental fail!!! LOSER" Evidence provided Attached screenshots: [list filenames or attach images] Links to relevant posts/threads: [paste links] Names/usernames of affected members willing to confirm: [list if available] Policy violations (suggested) Harassment and abusive language Targeted harassment/stalking of other members Manipulative voting/downvote abuse (Add specific forum rules if known, e.g., "Section X: Respectful conduct", "Section Y: Votemanipulation") Requested actions Investigate the reported account activity (message history, voting patterns, IP/logs if withinyour policy) for evidence of targeted harassment and vote manipulation. Temporarily suspend the account while investigation is ongoing if initial review confirmspolicy breaches. If violations are confirmed, revoke membership or apply appropriate sanctions per forumrules (permanent ban if behavior is repeated/severe). Notify reporting members of the outcome or next steps (while preserving moderatorconfidentiality and privacy policies). Contact for follow-up [Your username] — [optional contact method if allowed by forum rules] Other concerned members: [list usernames willing to be contacted] Closing We request a timely review given the repeated nature of the behavior and the negative impact on community health. Thank you for your attention.

The individual quotes the following in response: As for reporting to moderators, verandahboy should know by now they do not moderate nor reply to complaints. That response is dismissive and delegitimizes the moderation process to discourage reporting. It’s likely intended to: Undermine trust in moderators so targets won’t report (manipulative). Shift blame away from the poster by implying complaints are futile (deflecting). Maintain a hostile status quo where the poster can continue without consequence(protective/entitled). Recommended action: still report — include that quote as evidence of obstruction and the pattern you’ve documented; ask moderators to confirm receipt and to investigate voting logs.