Robert_de_Sable

Yes. Who doesn't?

I've been here two years, and I still don't know what "[wagon]" censors.

Proper proof? Sadly, the US government's time machine isn't functional right now. We'll have to do this the old-fashioned way.

No, they are not. Certainly not compared to humans. To me, animals exist for only one reason: For us to do what we will with them.

I'm in for sure!

In Soviet Russia, clothes wear you! :(

unless his parents find out and they are against drugs and own a shotgun then its not. You are the funniest person alive. Your wit cuts me like the blade of a sword.

Bad news: Computer crashed, TIF Compass lost. I'm resuming it now, but this sets me back a good week at least.

Conficker Worm: It'll [bleep] the [bleep] out of you.

ok on topic then, Is it fair to say we have a general trend of slightly libertarian slightly liberal economic people on this board? Yes, it is.

I hate people who can't spell properly.

Absolutely fine with me. But can you stop the debate? Since it's just between the two of you, you can either take it to PM or start a debate thread.

The TIFcompass is coming along. Allowing for new entries, it should be right on schedule for next week.

I have a VERY quick temper and little problem with physical aggression.

Tourette's Syndrome? If you don't mind me asking, what is your tic?

Right-handed and quite tech savvy.

You could say I'm fairly popular. Really, a monkey with sporting talent would be.

Quite honestly, if you believe in spontaneous combustion, you're an idiot. There's nice nice way to put it.

I would respectfully disagree and say that it's more leaning towards libertarian. For example, its question about health care, "Those with the ability to pay should have the right to higher standards of medical care ," it's highly disingenuous. Of course those with the ability to pay should have the right to "higher" standards of care, but that doesn't mean I don't agree with Universal Health Care. This one as well, "Controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment." Only a libertarian would word it like this. Finally you said something I agree with!

Kill him. Barring that, ask the teacher for a new group or do all the work yourself. Or yell at him.

These arguments are obviously well and good, but it'd be great if people kept posting their compasses.

The offer for help came during Stalingrad. EDIT: I'm looking around the Internet for this now, and to this moment I am not able to figure out precisely when it was offered. I definitely remember it being at some point during Stalingrad. But oh [cabbage], we've taken up nearly a page with this. Back on topic.

No, but this is what you are saying: All I'm trying to tell you is that had Germany accepted Ukraine's assistance, they would have, for lack of a better word, captured Russia. Your response to this is that no, they wouldn't have, since they didn't. Please just understand the reasoning behind this. Well that's not a very good way to start off a political debate. I'd like to think of it as creative debating. 8-)

Read your original post again. This makes no sense. You're telling me that Germany accepting Ukraine's help would not have changed the war, because Germany didn't accept Ukraine's help and thus did not change the war. Please, can you try to understand before one of us dies?

In any case you're still wrong. Either that or you're seriously misunderstanding something. My situation is purely hypothetical: Hitler accepts the assistance of the Ukrainian forces and succeeds in forcing Russia to yield. Therefore the tide would not have "kept going" as you said.