Normally what I do is bring up the corresponding infobox in another tab and compare the two.
That's what I figured, and most references weren't that obscure this time, though I'm positively surprised if you got the hamburger one and the Caesar one.
Normally what I do is bring up the corresponding infobox in another tab and compare the two.
That's what I figured, and most references weren't that obscure this time, though I'm positively surprised if you got the hamburger one and the Caesar one.
If the hamburger one is Maldonado>Frsases, then yes. After a while, I actually did.
One of my finer works. Puns will be translated upon request.
August Von NATO
And Dolph Lundgren is like Arnold Schwarzenegger, correct?
He's Ivan Drago.
Yes, but whereas Ah-nold is a pretty shrewd guy, Dolph is actually an honest-to-God genius.I meant in that Jerry Brown succeeded him, and his being an actor-turned-politician.
I had to look Lundgren up, but I'd heard the name before.
Yes, but whereas Ah-nold is a pretty shrewd guy, Dolph is actually an honest-to-God genius.
I believe so, yes.I don't know enough about Mr. Lundgren to say, but I'll take your word for it.
He's chemical engineer, or something, right?
For a while now I've been planning a new infobox series. I've already fleshed it out a fair bit, and have done most of the infoboxes already, and I'm quite proud of the overall quality of the series, so I feel that I'm ready to start posting it:
The Populist Problem of Preston Manning
Given the fact that they almost looked to be headed to victory, it's remarkable how turbulent the 1988 Canadian election was for the Liberal party. It's been well documented how, midway through the election (around the time of the debates), the Liberal national executive seriously considered removing John Turner as leader in favour of Jean Chretien, who by this time had been out of politics for two years. It was thought that Chretien would be a significant improvement over Turner, who had been hadn't been all that impressive in Question Period and who had run a terrible campaign four years earlier. Indeed, at the time the Liberals looked to be at severe risk of being overtaken by the NDP. Ultimately, Turner was kept on as leader and managed to run a surprisingly good campaign, doubling the Liberals' seat count despite failing to form the government. Suppose, however, that Turner was replaced by Chretien. The result? In my mind, not good.
The chaos of the Liberal leadership, stories of infighting, Chretien's inexperience of running a national campaign (particularly one already underway), etc. all doom the party to opposition right from the moment Chretien assumes the leadership, with Ed Broadbent's NDP overtaking the Liberals to form the official opposition (winning a handful of seats in Quebec in the process, a first for the party) and Brian Mulroney's Progressive Conservatives winning a relatively easy re-election with a second majority, despite a brief scare over opposition to free trade - the opposition is too split to really put the government at risk. While the Liberals lose over five percent in the popular vote, they nevertheless manage to slightly increase their seat count due to PC losses. While many pressure him to resign, Chretien ultimately decides to stay on as Liberal leader to help rebuild the party.