If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(YouTube)   Footage of first F-35B nighttime take off and landing tests looks like something straight out of a sci-fi movie   (youtube.com) divider line 253
    More: Cool, F-35B, external fuel tank, goal post, F-18, nozzles, landing, hurling, sci-fi  
•       •       •

19978 clicks; posted to Video » on 06 Apr 2013 at 5:09 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



253 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-06 07:56:47 AM  

RockofAges: muck4doo: MrBallou: muck4doo: DrPainMD: Actually, it looks like a huge waste of money. We're bankrupt and we have the biggest, most technologically-advanced military the world's ever seen, and that military is a big part of why we're bankrupt. And no country is going to attack us (ignore the propaganda about NK that we're being flooded with); we have nuclear weapons. It's time to close all foreign bases, half the bases in this country, and cut military spending by 75%.

So, next conflict we get in just use nukes instead?

/Why is fark so full of stupid people?

Maybe we don't need to get in so many conflicts. Being the world's policeman is something we don't have to do.

Agreed. But it isn't reality, is it?

A) Perception shapes reality, and in many moments of our lives, IS reality.

B) You honestly don't believe that America is constantly involved in these conflicts due to "fate", do you? I mean, some of them are justified, but at least a majority of them are very tenuous indeed.


I never mentioned "Fate" or anything like that. I said "Reality". It's something you should try to grasp sometime.
 
2013-04-06 08:11:50 AM  

lewismarktwo: spawn73: Elegy: [i.imgur.com image 300x199]

Europe is a continent, not a country.

Anyway, I know Americans tend to have massive inferiority complexes. But, what the hell are you talking about?

No no no, (US) Americans have superiority complexes, it's Canadians that have the inferiority complex.


Canadians might display an inferiority comples towards Americans. However, Americans themselves have a massive inferiority comples towards old colonial powers in Europe.
 
2013-04-06 08:12:36 AM  

basemetal: I wonder what kind of fuel consumption that is when doing vertical landings or hovering.


My father used to fly Harriers, he always said during VTOL manoeuvres you could physically see the fuel gauge needle moving.

Which is why he always pisses himself laughing at the climax of True Lies. 4 full tanks, he reckons
 
2013-04-06 08:20:19 AM  

spawn73: lewismarktwo: spawn73: Elegy: [i.imgur.com image 300x199]

Europe is a continent, not a country.

Anyway, I know Americans tend to have massive inferiority complexes. But, what the hell are you talking about?

No no no, (US) Americans have superiority complexes, it's Canadians that have the inferiority complex.

Canadians might display an inferiority comples towards Americans. However, Americans themselves have a massive inferiority comples towards old colonial powers in Europe.


I think you might be using the common parlance.
 
2013-04-06 08:30:12 AM  

Elegy: [i.imgur.com image 300x199]


i49.tinypic.com
 
2013-04-06 08:32:39 AM  

Elegy: [i.imgur.com image 300x199]


Well, I guess it was awesome when gramps did it.

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-04-06 08:34:41 AM  
Cool.  But considering it was supposed to enter active service at the same time as the F-22... LOL.

Seriously it's made it's first night take off... so it'll be in service in what?  Another decade one testing and certification is done?
 
2013-04-06 08:42:17 AM  

randomjsa: In this thread...

Morons who have no idea what the world will be like 20-30 years from now think we should stop developing better air craft that first came in to wide use 10-20 years ago.

You jump up and down crying about every weapons system we develop and how much it costs. I'm just wondering precisely how long you think we should use the technology we have and not attempt to upgrade it because as you can see it takes more than a decade now to get a new system up and going.

If you waited for a world and a conflict that needed the F-35 and F-22 before you decided to make them you would never, ever, be able to develop them in time enough to use them.


You think you know whats coming in 20 years? If you think the deciders at the pentagon knows, they are as full of shiat. They only care about making their friends rich so they can have a cozy consulting job working for them when a scandal hits them.
30 years ago noone was thinking that wireless tech would evolve to the point that we could fly a plane remotely from the us. Or that computer tech would allow us to send it autonomously land. What happens in 20 years? Target seeking bullets might be the next step.

Punch in: Osama bin Laden, enter. Fire.
 
2013-04-06 08:49:07 AM  

czetie: If you think that spending public money to prop up the economy is bad unless it's spent on the military, you might be a Republican.


 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^ ^^^^
 
2013-04-06 08:49:19 AM  

Elegy: [What's that Europe?]


Some of us Europeans have actually contributed to the development:
While the United States is the primary customer and financial backer, the United Kingdom, Italy, the Netherlands, Canada, Turkey, Australia, Norway and Denmark have agreed to contribute US$4.375 billion toward the development costs of the program.[1] Total development costs are estimated at more than US$40 billion (underwritten largely by the United States), while the purchase of an estimated 2,400 planes is expected to cost an additional US$200 billion.[2] Norway has estimated that each of their planned 52 F-35 fighter jets will cost their country $769 million over their operational lifetime.[3] The nine major partner nations, including the U.S., plan to acquire over 3,100 F-35s through 2035,[4] which, if delivered will make the F-35 one of the most numerous jet fighters.
Wikipedia


DrPainMD: Actually, it looks like a huge waste of money.


It also looks a bit like an export product.

We're bankrupt and we have the biggest, most technologically-advanced military the world's ever seen, and that military is a big part of why we're bankrupt.

Perhaps, but it's also what makes you the world's biggest weapons exporter.
 
2013-04-06 08:57:32 AM  
Wouldn't it have been easier to just burn the money in a bonfire?
 
2013-04-06 08:57:47 AM  
the soviets are gonna shiat themselves!
 
2013-04-06 09:05:15 AM  
Although my rational brain thinks "what a boondoggle!", the little kid inside is screaming and cheering "That was AWESOME!!!"

We're in the pipe, five by five.

colonialmarines.wikispaces.com
 
2013-04-06 09:08:23 AM  
Sci-Fi is just stuff we haven't figured out how to do yet, right? I get what people say about the military industrial complex and how it costs too much, and I agree with them, but when I worked on the flightline at Ellsworth AFB and they spooled one of the B1-B engines up to full power it was hard not to stand up and salute.
 
2013-04-06 09:11:26 AM  

muck4doo: MurphyMurphy: muck4doo: So, next conflict we get in just use nukes instead?

/Why is fark so full of stupid people?

Apparently you aren't familiar with the finer points of nuclear deterrence strategy.

It not only has defined our role as a superpower in the 2nd half of the 20th century, today and will well into the future.... it's also responsible for the global power distribution we have today and is likely the only reason the U.N. didn't see the same fate as the League of Nations.

It's a minor topic probably not worth you looking into or understanding.

You're right. We should have just nuked Pakistan when we wanted to kill Bin Laden.


And yet somehow we managed to get Bin Laden without F-35's.

Gee you're dumb.
 
2013-04-06 09:16:01 AM  

Dinobot: What pisses me off is that for the price tag of a single one of these babies, you could fully fund an average school district for about two years!

Also, it doesnt turn on a dime


Neither does the average school district.
 
2013-04-06 09:19:30 AM  

Dansker: Elegy: [What's that Europe?]

Some of us Europeans have actually contributed to the development:
While the United States is the primary customer and financial backer, the United Kingdom, Italy, the Netherlands, Canada, Turkey, Australia, Norway and Denmark have agreed to contribute US$4.375 billion toward the development costs of the program.[1] Total development costs are estimated at more than US$40 billion (underwritten largely by the United States), while the purchase of an estimated 2,400 planes is expected to cost an additional US$200 billion.[2] Norway has estimated that each of their planned 52 F-35 fighter jets will cost their country $769 million over their operational lifetime.[3] The nine major partner nations, including the U.S., plan to acquire over 3,100 F-35s through 2035,[4] which, if delivered will make the F-35 one of the most numerous jet fighters.
Wikipedia

DrPainMD: Actually, it looks like a huge waste of money.

It also looks a bit like an export product.

We're bankrupt and we have the biggest, most technologically-advanced military the world's ever seen, and that military is a big part of why we're bankrupt.

Perhaps, but it's also what makes you the world's biggest weapons exporter.


It also keeps other nations from coming to collect their debts.
 
2013-04-06 09:21:08 AM  

DrPainMD: Actually, it looks like a huge waste of money. We're bankrupt and we have the biggest, most technologically-advanced military the world's ever seen, and that military is a big part of why we're bankrupt. And no country is going to attack us (ignore the propaganda about NK that we're being flooded with); we have nuclear weapons. It's time to close all foreign bases, half the bases in this country, and cut military spending by 75%.


Unfortunately, the cuts you propose are keeping half of our country employed (directly and indirectly). I'd love for nothing more than the 14 trillion spent the last few years on blowing shait up to be re-directed to other things. The road map to get that done without putting out country into an instant poverty tailspin is more complex than the whole of congress could manage to understand.
 
2013-04-06 09:24:41 AM  
Not bad, but it will never match the capabilities of the Raptor..
 
2013-04-06 09:32:54 AM  

jpo2269: Not bad, but it will never match the capabilities of the Raptor..


The F-22 and F-35 have different jobs. F-22s shoot down planes and sometimes drop bombs and F-35s drob bombs and sometimes shoot down planes, basically.
 
2013-04-06 09:35:54 AM  
There was a very good Nova episode called "Battle of the X-wing planes" that documented the competition between Boeing and Lockhead Martin to build the vertical lift off and landing joint fighter. Anybody interested in the joint fighter should look at it, it is very interesting.
 
2013-04-06 09:42:06 AM  
The F35 is an interesting aircraft but the kicker is the more stealthy, more maneuverable, faster, F22 is now cheaper to build and maintain.

Slap some bombing hard points on that thing (yes, that hurts the stealth) and be done with it while we work the busted F35.
 
2013-04-06 09:42:57 AM  

Newbaca: Wouldn't it have been easier to just burn the money in a bonfire?


There are two major flaws in your plan:
1) You can't sell a burnt out bonfire on the global market
2) Burning the cash would instantly and permanently remove that money from the US economy.

It's not like the money spent on a project like this just disappears with no further benefit to anyone.
Ultimately, a large portion is used to pay employees of subcontractors delivering thousands of components, and everyone else working on it, from engineers to test pilots. You know, members of the threatened middle class, who tend to use a lot of money on goods and services.
 
2013-04-06 09:45:08 AM  
And yes, I know its not that simple. They did, however, design the F22 to carry A2G weaponry just in case...
 
2013-04-06 09:50:55 AM  

MithrandirBooga: muck4doo: MurphyMurphy: muck4doo: So, next conflict we get in just use nukes instead?

/Why is fark so full of stupid people?

Apparently you aren't familiar with the finer points of nuclear deterrence strategy.

It not only has defined our role as a superpower in the 2nd half of the 20th century, today and will well into the future.... it's also responsible for the global power distribution we have today and is likely the only reason the U.N. didn't see the same fate as the League of Nations.

It's a minor topic probably not worth you looking into or understanding.

You're right. We should have just nuked Pakistan when we wanted to kill Bin Laden.

And yet somehow we managed to get Bin Laden without F-35's.

Gee you're dumb.


I see the point went right over your pointy head.
 
2013-04-06 09:54:03 AM  

Krymson Tyde: If this is what they're letting the world see I wonder what they really have.


I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.
 
2013-04-06 09:58:51 AM  
So that's why they've been loud as fark buzzing over my house all week after dark.  Figured it had to do with the f-35s.  The thing is, not only are they up flying around, but they always have a couple of f-18 escorts along to monitor the flight and capture test footage.

/lives right outside the back gate.
//always aware of when they are doing testing
 
2013-04-06 10:05:11 AM  

DrPainMD: Actually, it looks like a huge waste of money. We're bankrupt and we have the biggest, most technologically-advanced military the world's ever seen, and that military is a big part of why we're bankrupt. And no country is going to attack us (ignore the propaganda about NK that we're being flooded with); we have nuclear weapons. It's time to close all foreign bases, half the bases in this country, and cut military spending by 75%.


Well, I agree, emotionally. But the track record says that when we do that we have to play catchup after somebody gets delusions of grandeur and starts trying to conquer the world.

Also, the problem with military spending is that we have a firm doctrine of controlling both oceans that are approaches to the US. Well, we got aircraft carriers, right? Well, those would be big fat targets without more ships to guard them. Still, they would all be targets without air power.... And planes need land bases, too. And land bases need to be defended by troops... It snowballs. You dig down and there are logical arguments for a good deal of the stuff.
 
2013-04-06 10:07:28 AM  

muck4doo: REO-Weedwagon: There are estimates this thing will cost one trillion dollars after design, production, upgrades, and cleanups of the wreckage. It's such a pile of sh*t there are pilots refusing to fly it. Of course the real problem is PBS and welfare queens.

"America... just a nation of two hundred million used car salesmen with all the money we need to buy guns and no qualms about killing anybody else in the world who tries to make us uncomfortable." HST

Fine derp you have there.


That's 'cause he luvs 'murikkka.
 
2013-04-06 10:08:25 AM  

ongbok: There was a very good Nova episode called "Battle of the X-wing planes" that documented the competition between Boeing and Lockhead Martin to build the vertical lift off and landing joint fighter. Anybody interested in the joint fighter should look at it, it is very interesting.


This. Have it on the hard drive, great watch.

X-32 still looks funny to me. Even if Boeing had the better plane, I think aesthetics would have killed it for them anyway.

upload.wikimedia.org

//OMG! We're being attacked by flying guppies!
 
2013-04-06 10:08:37 AM  
Well filming that cost about a billion dollars
 
2013-04-06 10:14:00 AM  
Boon.

Doggle.
 
2013-04-06 10:14:02 AM  
Well, that was a trillion dollars well spent.

Compare that to the cost of the X-47 program which is a stepping stone to an air to air combat drone program, still under a billion dollars.
 
2013-04-06 10:16:02 AM  

italie: DrPainMD: Actually, it looks like a huge waste of money. We're bankrupt and we have the biggest, most technologically-advanced military the world's ever seen, and that military is a big part of why we're bankrupt. And no country is going to attack us (ignore the propaganda about NK that we're being flooded with); we have nuclear weapons. It's time to close all foreign bases, half the bases in this country, and cut military spending by 75%.

Unfortunately, the cuts you propose are keeping half of our country employed (directly and indirectly). I'd love for nothing more than the 14 trillion spent the last few years on blowing shait up to be re-directed to other things. The road map to get that done without putting out country into an instant poverty tailspin is more complex than the whole of congress could manage to understand.


It wouldn't really even be that hard.  A large chunk of that money goes into aerospace, so all we'd have to do is say "hey, aerospace contractors...I know we've been doing lots of stuff with making bombs and finding better ways to go faster and blow things up better, but we're thinking a change of pace.  Let's go to the moon, permanently.  Here's money, make it happen."  Then you would have all the same engineers doing essentially the same jobs but for a purpose not solely focused on war.
 
2013-04-06 10:16:16 AM  

muck4doo: DrPainMD: Actually, it looks like a huge waste of money. We're bankrupt and we have the biggest, most technologically-advanced military the world's ever seen, and that military is a big part of why we're bankrupt. And no country is going to attack us (ignore the propaganda about NK that we're being flooded with); we have nuclear weapons. It's time to close all foreign bases, half the bases in this country, and cut military spending by 75%.

So, next conflict we get in just use nukes instead?

/Why is fark so full of stupid people?

 img28.imageshack.us
 
2013-04-06 10:24:18 AM  

propasaurus: Well, that's worth $395 billion.


It takes that much money because Imaginary enemies are hard to fight.
 
2013-04-06 10:25:32 AM  
randomjsa: Morons who have no idea what the world will be like 20-30 years from now think we should stop developing better air craft

We SHOULD be developing better aircraft.  Unfortunately the F-35 ain't it.  The F-15 and F-16 have a better thrust/weight ratio, and the F-15 kicks its ass in combat radius and payload.  The F-35 is only stealthy from the front, and only when no external hard points are used (limiting it to internal fuel and 4 bombs or missiles).  For the cost of one F-35 you could fly away 5 F-15s.  The F-18 Super Hornet would also give it a run for the money.

If we really wanted better aircraft, we'd have chosen the Silent Eagle (a stealthed up F-15).  But that's not the point of the F-35.  The F-35 has been designed from the ground up to funnel tax dollars to various congressional districts.
 
2013-04-06 10:26:30 AM  
F-35 fighter panned by U.S. test pilots
www.cbc.ca


Long and short of the article, pilots can't see behind them because of a bad seating design. From what I gather from the article, it's death to a fighter pilot if they can't see behind them.
 
2013-04-06 10:27:19 AM  

NathanAllen: Well, that was a trillion dollars well spent.


Where are you people getting "a trillion dollars" from?
The most recent info I can find says $400 billion:
The Pentagon envisioned the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter as an affordable, state-of-the-art stealth jet serving three military branches and U.S. allies.
Instead, the Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT) aircraft has been plagued by a costly redesign, bulkhead cracks, too much weight, and delays to essential software that have helped put it seven years behind schedule and 70 percent over its initial cost estimate. At almost $400 billion, it's the most expensive weapons system in U.S. history.

It is also the defense project too big to kill. The F-35 funnels business to a global network of contractors that includes Northrop Grumman Corp. (NOC) and Kongsberg Gruppen ASA of Norway. It counts 1,300 suppliers in 45 states supporting 133,000 jobs -- and more in nine other countries, according to Lockheed. The F-35 is an example of how large weapons programs can plow ahead amid questions about their strategic necessity and their failure to arrive on time and on budget.
Bloomberg
 
2013-04-06 10:29:44 AM  

Publikwerks: randomjsa: In this thread...

Morons who have no idea what the world will be like 20-30 years from now think we should stop developing better air craft that first came in to wide use 10-20 years ago.

You jump up and down crying about every weapons system we develop and how much it costs. I'm just wondering precisely how long you think we should use the technology we have and not attempt to upgrade it because as you can see it takes more than a decade now to get a new system up and going.

If you waited for a world and a conflict that needed the F-35 and F-22 before you decided to make them you would never, ever, be able to develop them in time enough to use them.

To be fair, in 20-30 years, it's gonna be drones, drones and more drones. Why put a guy in a plane when a high performance drone will be able to pull more Gs, weight less, spend more time airborne  and require far less logistics and consideration(don't have to worry about rescuing a pilot, ect...)


It is just as likely that drones will end up going away in 20-30 years.  All the major powers are working hard on jamming technology.  If you can't tell a drone where to go and what to do its completely useless.  Sure it is possible we could have completely autonomous drones to combat that problem.  But the 1st time that a drone decides that a crane in downtown LA looks enough like a north Korean SCUD Launcher to take a shot people will put an end to that quick.  The military will never put all their eggs in one basket.  Pilots are expensive as hell, but we will have them for the foreseeable future.  No way they take the chance that they will have to tell the president one day, "China has figured out how to jam our drones. They are selling the technology to anyone willing to pay.  We have no airforce until we rebuild our manned aircraft program.  It should take 10-20 years."
 
2013-04-06 10:29:46 AM  

StrangeQ: italie: DrPainMD: Actually, it looks like a huge waste of money. We're bankrupt and we have the biggest, most technologically-advanced military the world's ever seen, and that military is a big part of why we're bankrupt. And no country is going to attack us (ignore the propaganda about NK that we're being flooded with); we have nuclear weapons. It's time to close all foreign bases, half the bases in this country, and cut military spending by 75%.

Unfortunately, the cuts you propose are keeping half of our country employed (directly and indirectly). I'd love for nothing more than the 14 trillion spent the last few years on blowing shait up to be re-directed to other things. The road map to get that done without putting out country into an instant poverty tailspin is more complex than the whole of congress could manage to understand.

It wouldn't really even be that hard.  A large chunk of that money goes into aerospace, so all we'd have to do is say "hey, aerospace contractors...I know we've been doing lots of stuff with making bombs and finding better ways to go faster and blow things up better, but we're thinking a change of pace.  Let's go to the moon, permanently.  Here's money, make it happen."  Then you would have all the same engineers doing essentially the same jobs but for a purpose not solely focused on war.


And what of the clerical, administrative, food service, janitorial, etc...

What of all the military who are there for the "3-squares and a bunk" but not prison aspect?

What of those that are there for the family housing?

What of the oil and munitions industries?

What of the linen industry?

What of the patch/medal industry?

Christ, the boot industry alone might implode.
 
2013-04-06 10:30:35 AM  

DrPainMD: we have nuclear weapons. It's time to close all foreign bases, half the bases in this country, and cut military spending by 75%


So you don't wonder where the nucs came from?
 
2013-04-06 10:34:58 AM  

indarwinsshadow:
Long and short of the article, pilots can't see behind them because of a bad seating design. From what I gather from the article, it's death to a fighter pilot if they can't see behind them.


From your article:"The head rest is too large and will impede aft [rear] visibility and survivability during surface and air engagements," one test pilot was quoted as saying

That doesn't sound like something that should be too difficult to redesign. Isn't finding flaws like that exactly what test flights are for?
 
2013-04-06 10:39:13 AM  

Lonestar: randomjsa: In this thread...

Morons who have no idea what the world will be like 20-30 years from now think we should stop developing better air craft that first came in to wide use 10-20 years ago.

You jump up and down crying about every weapons system we develop and how much it costs. I'm just wondering precisely how long you think we should use the technology we have and not attempt to upgrade it because as you can see it takes more than a decade now to get a new system up and going.

If you waited for a world and a conflict that needed the F-35 and F-22 before you decided to make them you would never, ever, be able to develop them in time enough to use them.

You think you know whats coming in 20 years? If you think the deciders at the pentagon knows, they are as full of shiat. They only care about making their friends rich so they can have a cozy consulting job working for them when a scandal hits them.
30 years ago noone was thinking that wireless tech would evolve to the point that we could fly a plane remotely from the us. Or that computer tech would allow us to send it autonomously land. What happens in 20 years? Target seeking bullets might be the next step.

Punch in: Osama bin Laden, enter. Fire.




58 second mark
 
2013-04-06 10:46:33 AM  
...When it comes to the F-35, my logic is....uncertain....but holy shiat, that video is farking awesome.
 
2013-04-06 10:46:37 AM  

lewismarktwo: spawn73: Elegy: [i.imgur.com image 300x199]

Europe is a continent, not a country.

Anyway, I know Americans tend to have massive inferiority complexes. But, what the hell are you talking about?

No no no, (US) Americans have superiority complexes, it's Canadians that have the inferiority complex.


Not in the slightest. It's a common misconception like saying the terrorists involved in 9/11 crossed the border from Canada into the United States. It was repeated over and over, and it's total bullsh*t. The average Canadian, like the average American, doesn't walk around saying "gee. I wish we had lots of military hardware and were just like Americans". Quite the opposite. Most Canadians don't trust Americans. We view you as openly hostile towards our country and trust you as far as we can throw you. We see your messed up economy, your messed up gun laws, your messed health care, welfare and retirement models as somethings to be avoided at all costs. Most of us think your politicians are antangonizing nut jobs who are out to screw the rest of the world out of anything they can get for personal gain. We see your war in Iraq as an illegal campaign and a war for oil that benefitted Cheney and Bush and friends. We see your bailout of the banks and car companies as enriching the rich and screwing the poor. The list is endless. And you and your fellow Americans are really seriously deluded if you think even for a fraction of a second we're jealous of anything (except maybe having warm weather in the winter in your southern states) you have....Dude. Do you get it? We're rich. You're poor in every sense of the word. Ever see anyone wishing they were poor? Actually, at best we tolerate you because we have too, not because we want too.
Is that clear enough? I'm sure there are millions of people who want to be Americans. They're just not from Canada.
Oh, and just for the hell of it. Your country is almost completely dependant on us for oil. You may not like it, but without us. Your economy would come to an end within 90 days.
Have a nice day pants.
 
2013-04-06 10:47:40 AM  

basemetal: I wonder what kind of fuel consumption that is when doing vertical landings or hovering.


A Harrier burns up to about 230 lbs/min in hovering flight for comparison.  I'll ask my F-35 buddies what they burn.

/Harrier pilot
 
2013-04-06 10:51:32 AM  
Health care for all Americans?:  Freedom: America, Bootstraps eleventy, libtard!

Billions wasted on the F35:  I got a chubby, get your purty mouth over here, libtard.
 
2013-04-06 10:53:41 AM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: Haven't the Brits been doing this for ages?


but the Harrier will burn the pavement
 
2013-04-06 10:55:24 AM  

indarwinsshadow: lewismarktwo: spawn73: Elegy: [i.imgur.com image 300x199]

Europe is a continent, not a country.

Anyway, I know Americans tend to have massive inferiority complexes. But, what the hell are you talking about?

No no no, (US) Americans have superiority complexes, it's Canadians that have the inferiority complex.

Not in the slightest. It's a common misconception like saying the terrorists involved in 9/11 crossed the border from Canada into the United States. It was repeated over and over, and it's total bullsh*t. The average Canadian, like the average American, doesn't walk around saying "gee. I wish we had lots of military hardware and were just like Americans". Quite the opposite. Most Canadians don't trust Americans. We view you as openly hostile towards our country and trust you as far as we can throw you. We see your messed up economy, your messed up gun laws, your messed health care, welfare and retirement models as somethings to be avoided at all costs. Most of us think your politicians are antangonizing nut jobs who are out to screw the rest of the world out of anything they can get for personal gain. We see your war in Iraq as an illegal campaign and a war for oil that benefitted Cheney and Bush and friends. We see your bailout of the banks and car companies as enriching the rich and screwing the poor. The list is endless. And you and your fellow Americans are really seriously deluded if you think even for a fraction of a second we're jealous of anything (except maybe having warm weather in the winter in your southern states) you have....Dude. Do you get it? We're rich. You're poor in every sense of the word. Ever see anyone wishing they were poor? Actually, at best we tolerate you because we have too, not because we want too.
Is that clear enough? I'm sure there are millions of people who want to be Americans. They're just not from Canada.
Oh, and just for the hell of it. Your country is almost completely dependant on us for oil. You may not like it, but w ...


you sound jelly
 
Displayed 50 of 253 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report