AngusThermopyle

A good one as far as comedy goes is Raising Arizona. The Coen brothers with a young Nicholas Cage. Its a great movie, every character is so well cast and Nicholas cage is excellent as the perpetually confused well meaning guy who just can't seem to get it right. Great dialogue as well, Cage's monologue combined with the other character interactions are really hilarious. From the first time I saw this movie its been one of my favourites. I only mention it because I just watched it with some friends last night, they're younger and had never seen it before. They thought it was one of the funniest things they'd ever seen.

Okay, I figure most people wont search for the Archer system so here are the links. Archer I This is the second part of the video. Archer Part II It really is an amazing gun.

Sure thing little fella, you just keep your blinders on, its so comfortable that way. And dont be swearing around the big fella's neither, you might get schooled. What a feeb!

Have you seen what the Archer can do? Its a 155 mm gun with a twenty mile range that is extremely mobile. It can set up in a matter of a few minutes with a two man crew who never have to leave the comfort and safety of their climate controlled crew compartment. The crew compartement is fully armoured with a remote controled MMG for close in defence. No one has to be outside in order to set the gun up, load it or fire it, the whole thing is controlled and operated by the two guys in the crew compartment. It can perform simultaneous strikes, multiple shells hitting at the same time, one of the most difficult things to do with artillery. The way it works depends on the guns superb reload time. As the forst shot is fired the gun tragectory is adjusted while the next shell is being loaded. The end result is that one Archer can fire multiple shells that will land simultaneously, then within a minute or two it can be mobile heading for a new location. Such is the state of western military technology.

When will you get it? I don't support any party. I support ideas and initiatives that are beneficial to myself and the majority of Canadians. Get it yet?

Actually PC I spent twenty years in the CAF before I retired in 01 and have always been interested in weaponry. Janes is an invaluable resource, expensive though. While I was still a member of the forces I used to get to use it for free. Another one that is good is the net, just about everything not classified as top secret is availlable on the net. A great one if you want to see whats in the pipeline and for sale is youtube, future weapons. The show is essentially an advertising forum. It shows what is currently availlable for purchase. I suggest you watch the Archer artillery peice in action. The gun is absolutely amazing. Edited to change Arrow to Archer, sometimes we all make pretty basic mistakes. Sorry.

Thats cool! It was made of steel, can you believe that! The fighters under the wings are very cool too. I didn't know about this plane, thanks for the link DoP.

I guess both of you missed this part eh? I don't give a sh*t what either of you think about "good men" or "childish". If someone wants to restrict me involuntarily without very good reason and I don't consider a song to be good reason, they're going to have a fight. I am not and will not be a clone deprived of my right of choice and free will. If both of you are cool with those restrictions then fill yer boots boys, just don't try to force me into your mold. I did not serve my country so I could be told when I could or could not have a piss because a song is playing. Is that why you served BC? So you could reinforce such freedoms as mandated bathroom privileges? Good for you man! There's nothing that speaks to freedom like restricting citizens natural bodily functions. Well done! Pssst. Nows the time you post some irrelevant comment about Canada. Don't miss the oportunity to be irrelevant, it just wouldn't be in character for you if you did.

Yes, all countries. All countries have their laws, they may seem unreasonable to us but they are their laws. If you don't agree with those laws then don't go there, its that simple. If you choose to go there then obey the laws of that country, its that simple. If you break the laws of that country then you should expect to face the judicial system of that country and its penalties, its that simple. As I said they may be unpalatable to us but they are the laws of the land. In this case its very clear cut. The guy is a murderer, he's not some guy who got drunk in an Islamic country. He's not a woman who will be stoned because he was raped and got pregnant out of wedlock. He's a murderer, and if I remember correctly he's actually a double murderer. I'm pretty sure that when he went down to the States he knew that many of those States have the death penalty for murder. Still he decided to murder two people, so why should he now avoid the penalty lawfully imposed upon him by the country in which he commited his crimes? Just because he's a Canadian scumbag and we don't have the death penalty? Sorry, I don't buy that line, I spent most of my life travelling to so many countries that I'm starting to forget them. Never once did I place myself in a position even remotely resembling the one this guy is in. He broke the law beyond any shadow of doubt and as such he should face the consequences of his actions. In this matter I do support the stance that Harper is takeing. You certainly are! You called me a Conservative supporter. Sure, can't disagree with most of that, except the traditionally part. Just because traditionally our government has done that does that make it unassailably right? Granted, in those countries where you can be sentenced to death for what appear to be innocuous acts or behaviours then our government should step in. However this is not such a case. This is clear and proven multiple murder aforethought. Do you really believe that this guy, after going to a place where they have the death penalty for murder should be allowed to murder and then escape the clearly proscribed punishment for this act just because he's Canadian?

Exactly. Thats why I dislike political partisanship so much, they're more concerned with affiliation than actual actions. I'm hoping this cancellation of the procurement process will be a positive one. As I said earlier I'm not really onboard with the concept of a do everything supply ship/troop ship/assault ship. Hopefully saner heads will prevail and instead of trying to build a Hienz 57 they just build superb fleet support ships, with some transport and landing capabilities, much as those possesed by our current AOR's. Before my remuster in the CAF I served seven years aboard the Preserver, I know that ship. She's a good ship but she's old, refits will only keep a ship going for so long. We need new AOR's, thats not open to debate. What I would like to see would be four new AOR's and two new transport/assault ships. That would be ideal, but we'll never get that, the Canadian public would never accept that. We could also use about ten new destroyers (ideally about twenty, plus ten new frigates), from what I understand those are coming. They'll be based on the present City class hulls of the frigates. Thats good, its a really nice hull, you wouldn't believe how it performes. The first time I saw one was when I was RAS communicator on the Preserver and the Halifax was coming alongside to refuel. She approached us at about 32 knots on about a 35 degree angle off our port bow. She was planeing, the forward part of the hull was clear of the water with only about the last 60% still in the water. As he approached the Captain kicked her into a tight turn and throttled back on the mains (normally he wouldn't have control of the yolk and throttles but she was new and he was playing), she listed moderately to port and turned sharp as her hull settled back into the water and she cruised alongside at a sedate 12 knots. It was a beautifful sight to behold. They're a very good blue water hull. Actually Canada has a reputation for building very good hulls that exhibit good traits in the heaviest of sea's. It's too bad our shipbuilding industry has been allowed to languish and die.

Hold on now! She wasn't the first or only, just the worst. Well... the best too, at some things.

I think it said they use chains to prevent people from leaving didn't it? If so then I'd say thats force. As for the respect factor. Well if you have to coerce respect then its not respect at all. One of the first things my platoon instructer at basic told us was that we had to show respect to the rank and the uniform, but not the man. The man has to earn respect not demand it. The same applies to countries. If you respect your country thats great, but if you have to force someone to respect that country then they don't respect it anyway. So whats the point? If the guy was just trying to go to the bathroom as he said then I disagree totally with the actions of the Police and the Stadium. I don't give a flying f*ck what others think, if I want to go to the bathroom no one is going to tell me I can't no matter what song was playing. It would have been polite of him to wait until the song was finished though, unless he couldn't. On the other hand if what the police say is true then by all means, toss his ass out. If the guy was being a dick, creating a disturbance, being a nuisance, then it would be understandable. However, I still don't like this practice of forcing people to stay. It smacks just a little too much of the propaganda tactics places like North Korea, the former USSR and China use for my taste. If they tried that in Canada I know that I for one would tell them where they could shove it. No one has the right to restrict anothers movement or free will to choose without a very good reason. Personally I don't consider any song to be a good enough reason to impose such restrictions on others.

Nonsense! Who told you that pile of crap! You go to another country and break their laws you are subject to their penalties. Simple, not rocket science. Why should a Canadian be able to go to another country, murder some one (or more than one) and not be subject to the laws of the land in which they commited the crime? Harper is doing the right thing, he's not exhibiting that peculiar conceit that many Canadians have. You know, the one that makes them think they're special, so special that the laws of another country shouldn't apply to them. He's using a realistic approach as opposed to an idealistic one. As for the Conservative supporter thing, sure I voted for Harper. They were the only ones worth voting for. If the Liberals got their sh*t together and actually came up with some workable ideas as opposed to their usual tax and steal to build a Utopian world approach I might vote for them. I don't give a damn about any party, its what they do that concerns me, what ideas and plans they have that will affect my world in a meaningfull and positive way. This is why I see your rabid partisanship as being childish, not because I'm a Conservative, NDP or any other "supporter" but because I believe the actions and workable ideas of a particular government are more important than blind "party support". Oh hey! Before I go, would you mind explaining why you think Canadians should not be subject to the laws of other countries they happen to be in? I'm really curious about that one.

Don't be too hard on him. After all he is one of those guys who come from that place where all the guys wear Howdy Doody outfits and the women are all called June Cleaver. Whoopee! This thread has morphed into the "how ignorant a stereotype can I spew" thread.

This is true, but then a carb is very far from being a gas turbine. One of which she used for her main engine. Once again I never said she was an aircraft, just that she had some very basic principles in common with them. Now some may not consider her to have flown, however many experts used exactly that word to describe what she did. If you think about it she did fly, the foils were wings and at speed her hull was completely divorced from the surface of the water. Of course it would be absurd to think she could cruise at an altitude of 35,000' but she did fly. Even Alexander Graham Bell ( the Hydrofoil pioneer) considered it to be flying. Just really close to the surface.

And I want to ask what a scourage is. Is that like a scourge of courage or something?

What stance? When have they ever said they favour the death penalty? Just another childish attempt at demonization from the usual one trick pony. Oh yeah. As for the scumbag, let him fry. He broke the laws of the USA therefore he should be subject to the penalty they lawfully impose upon him. Simple really.

Thanks for reminding me WB, I'd forgotten all about it. Now I want to see it again, its been years. I wonder if Amazon has that one. Anyway, no takers yet on the Queen Bitch Of The Universe thing? Am I going to have to just tell everyone?

Yeah yeah whatever. The above statement could fit you as easily as anyone else, so go ahead and answer it, after all you're never wrong. Speaking of which. Why is it that you do not possess the ability to admit when you're wrong. Or are you now going to seriously state that you are never wrong? Comming from you that wouldn't surprise me one little bit.

It is a good rifle in that its tough and cheap, thats about it. If you watch high speed footage of an AK firing you'll be amazed by the barrel flex, its not a very accurate rifle. In this day its becoming obsolete pretty fast, I'll look some stuff up for you. The new weapons are amazing, how about a .45 cal sub machine gun with almost no barrel drift on full auto. Or a full auto shotgun with almost no kick or climb, saw that one on Future Weapons, it was absolutely devastating. Or the P-90, a nice little sub machine gun accurate to about 300 yards, thats simply unheard of in sub machine guns. Simply put the Russians bring nothing new to the table and are far outclassed by modern western weapons.

Arrgghh!! Wilber, you're not getting it! This is the whole point. She wouldn't have "flown" at all if not for the most basic principle of aerodynamics, the lifting surface provided by a wing. Thats exactly what her foils were, wings adapted to use water as opposed to air to generate lift. I never said she was an airplane, just that she was something in between a ship and a plane using the basic principles of both in order to function. And yes, she was a beautifull ship, her hull lines were elegant and gracefull. It must have been something else to be aboard when she was hitting around 80 Mph in moderate seas.

Gotta say I agree with HisSelf on this one. As soon as I heard it for the first time I found it to be very juvenile and anti American. Also extremely extremely annoying. For me its the Apple commercials, they just lie through their teeth, pretty much the entire comercial is either an outright lie or a very liberal distortion of the truth.

Well you missed the boat on that one, pretty standard from what I've seen so far. So you don't like it when the criticism you level against others turns around and bites you in the ass. That goes hand in hand with your inability to admit you're wrong. The really interesting aspect to all this is the fact that I cannot recall one single time when I've seen you admit to being wrong, not one. That in itself speaks volumes as to your character, it also happens to be a very serious weakness. You should try to address that.

Where can I sign up for those guys! Thats my kind of party. All they'd have to do would be to promise every house hold in Canada a free four slice toaster (enhanced communication ya know) if elected and they'd be perfect.

Sure did, I've mentioned her before, The Queen Bitch Of The Universe. I'd say as a person she was the worst woman I've ever met, but she was smokin hot and her whole focus in life was sex. Now, trivia. Does any one know which movie the line "queen bitch of the universe" is from?