Have you ever considered getting facts from sober people?
erm, no.
The Army’s Chief of Staff, General George C. Marshall, anticipated that Britain would surrender following the collapse of France, and thus American supplies sent to the British would fall into German hands. Marshall and others therefore argued that U.S. national security would be better served by reserving military supplies for the defense of the Western Hemisphere. American public opinion also limited Roosevelt’s options. Many Americans opposed involving the United States in another war. Even though American public opinion generally supported the British rather than the Germans, President Roosevelt had to develop an initiative that was consistent with the legal prohibition against the granting of credit, satisfactory to military leadership, and acceptable to an American public that generally resisted involving the United States in the European conflict.
Roosevelt was under pressure, see the above. To impress the US, Churchill destroyed the sitting duck French fleet with a loss of 2,000 sailors less than 2 hours before an agreed deadline that (most commentators say) would have effectively assured the escape of the fleet to the US.
It paid off. Lend-lease resulted.
Most educated Britons are aware that this was a neck-and-neck situation.
I’m afraid you will have to do further research yourself…enough is enough and this thread has been highjacked.
sorry
That’s the one misspelling you’re keying on? Amazing. Also amazing is that you’re posting quotes and pretending they mean something they clearly do not. Seriously, man; grow up.
atruelove needs to get a life. He’s as obseesed on a single sublect as JOSH was.
Nonsense. My specific and limited participation in this thread was to supply brief facts re gratuitous refs to my son and me, and this has been completed to my satisfaction.
The obsession with some members of this kind of List is well-known for the last 30 years, the established genetic race-differences in IQ; the method of dealing with this is to refer to Jensen’s G-factor 30 page list of peer-reviewed uncontradicted research and subsequent updates. Anything else is a total waste of time, and all qualified experts totally avoid any kind of discussion with laymen. Count me in. This obsession is being replaced by an equally insidious one (both in the US and UK) that uncontrolled immigration of third-world ill-educated, diseased nationalities (see CDC reports) is anything less than disaster for the US. The same type of response may be applied - Detailed and factual web-sites (FAIR, NumbersUSA, Christians against Illegal Immigration etc ) are there for all to see. Byeee!
Insanity can be hereditary, the apple never falls far from the tree, etc.
(Quote edited because one of my compulsions is to fix spelling errors and typos.) :o
You must have an extremely low satisfaction level; you have yet to post any facts.
I’m pretty much on the left side of things, but the term “undocumented” has always sounded to me like the guy lost his wallet. Heck, “uninvited guest” works.
And, serious question here, why is it OK to call residents of all the “stan” countries by the short form (Kurds, Turkmen, etc.) except Pakistan where it suddenly becomes offensive?
The name Pakistan wasn’t formed the same way as the names of the other ‘-istan’ regions.
The ‘istan’ part means ‘Land’ or ‘Place’, and for the others, it’s the name of the dominant ethnic group within that country - Turkmens aren’t Turkmens because they come from Turkmenistan, Turkmenistan is Turkmenistan because somewhere around 90% of the population are Turkmens. Turkmenistan is the Land of the Turkmens.
Pakistan, to the contrary, was originally coined from the names of several (at the time) Indian regions, and modified to make a word meaning Land of the Pure. Also, even if it were derived the same way as the others, the proper ethnonym would be Pak, not Paki.
And, more importantly, even if ‘Paki’ were an etymologically defensible ethnonym for the people of Pakistan, it would be ruined by usage, as ‘Paki’ is used as a racial/ethnic slur against Pakistanis and Indians.
The other countries are (ostensibly) predominantly populated by Kurds, Turkmens, etc.; yet, Pakistan is predominantly populated by Muslims. “Paki” not being a religious group, ethnic group, or nationality, but rather an acronym:
So, basically, there is no such thing as the “Paki” people. Of course, there are Pakistanis (people whose national origin is Pakistan).
While I believe there are a few pubs that are still divided (I’ve been in at least one, ages ago), this is an exceedingly out-of-date pub model.
Heck, the current issue is that every traditional pub in the South East is being turned into a trendy gastropub. Do a bit of painting and nail some rusty farm implements to the wall, and you too can sell hamburgers for £12! But I digress.
My cat’s breath smells like cat food.
Back on topic - you know what IS a common view in the UK? That Americans are freaking INSANE about their love of guns. Every time there’s another mass shooting I get asked “What is it with Americans and guns?” Watching the US is what keeps the British from expanding private gun use.
I don’t like “undocumented” either, and no one would understand it if I said “impermissive immigrant” as suggested before. I’m fine with “illegal immigrant” because they immigrated illegally, but calling the person themself an “illegal” implies that everything about them is illegal, in addition to the essentializing going on that makes “chinese person” favored over “chinaman” and “democratic party” favored over “democrat party”. (I notice few people say “illegal alien” anymore, which is also just as well because it makes them sound like they came from outer space.)
Because the former isn’t intended or used as an insult, the latter is. Language doesn’t follow set rules.
Nothing suggests dry, factual reporting like the name Christians Against Illegal Immigration.
I have no burning desire to call anybody anything but the whole “ruined by usage” thing rubs me the wrong way. It’s like we’re letting the idiots (can I still say idiots?) define acceptability for the rest of us and I find it objectionable to give them that kind of power.
Linguistic changes happen quickly enough, I’m still trying to figure out why the “number” sign is suddenly being called a “hashtag” (a “word” so new that it still pings my computer’s spellcheck).
It’s been called the hash sign in the UK for pretty much ever. Hashtag was added to the OED in 2014.
Willard Espy had written a poem, (years before hashtag made it to the U.S. shore), giving the various names that the # character is given when it is used in a wide variety of applications:
Many offices encumber
My diurnal rounds;
1. Before a digit, I'm a #; **number**
2. After digits, #; **pound**
3. In a printer's proof, a #; **space**
While, if at the harp
You should pluck me from my place,
4. I would be a #. **sharp**
5. In one game, I'm #; **tic-tac-toe**
6. An # on phones; **octothorpe**
7. In business, I'm #, although **non-add**
8. A # when in bones. **fracture**
I seem to recall “hash” used in U.S. military correspondence during WWII, and he missed that and I have not been able to find a citation.
Came across this today. Man offers $25,000 to anyone who can prove that the Sandy Hook school shooting wasn’t a “liberal scam.”
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/08/14/conservative-gun-nut-offers-25000-to-anyone-who-can-prove-sandy-hook-shooting-wasnt-a-liberal-scam-video/
It’s an old, old scam. We’ve seen it from creationists for decades. “I’ll pay $40,000 if you can prove we evolved from apes.” The flat-earthers played that game, but were forced to pay up, because they were stupid enough to put the money in the escrow of an actual impartial judge. They don’t make that mistake any more.
“Prove that Jesus was not God. Protip; you can’t.” Some people don’t grow up.