NationStates Jolt Archive

As a citizen of the States who chooses not to depend completely upon corporate-owned media for my news, I live in disgust of our president...I really am so sick of trying to explain to the brainwashed fellows of my country why Dubya is an absolutely horrible leader that I won't even go into it here.

However, I find my ignorance is greater than I thought. While I thought it was internationally known that The States are led by corporate connected greedy warmongers with no concern for equal rights or a secure social welfare and therefore considered the most doomed of first world countries, as I scanned through the forums I have found evidence to the contrary. Not contrary to the corruption of America, but rather to us being the most doomed. Many citizens of the U.K. have plenty of viable complaints about their nation as well.

So, who is worse off...and why?

Us, the U.S.

Not only are we the most ignorant, we're quickly growing, our schools are becoming worse, it's become harder to live here, and the government wants to wage a war in some bloody Mid-East country and is whining to other nations to help them AFTER we do all the invasion!

The UK, they have to deal with that giant fuck-up known as the EU which is trashing it's individual countries economies bit by bit. Or at least, Germany's, Spains, and Italy's.

I think both countries are pretty sweet. Look at the rest of the world for Christ's sake.

Things are cyclical.

It's never as bad as people make it out to be, nor is it ever as good.

There is a lot of hysteria about the direction the US is taking, but at the end of the day things aren't all that different. Bush will be gone in four years and we'll have another asshat to yell about. (Probably a democrat).

Same with the UK. (Although Blair is a fascist, it is a well known fact).

Things are cyclical.

It's never as bad as people make it out to be, nor is it ever as good.

There is a lot of hysteria about the direction the US is taking, but at the end of the day things aren't all that different. Bush will be gone in four years and we'll have another asshat to yell about. (Probably a democrat).

Same with the UK. (Although Blair is a fascist, it is a well known fact).
Well put … asshat I will have to remember that :)

Parts of Africa, parts of Middle East, Indonesia.

you idiots he's asking only about these two countries not other countries or parts of the world, i'd say by the looks of it already and after Bush became president that this country has gone to shit. so i'd say the U.S. is fucked.

they seem to be on level pegging right about now - both pretty crap.
however the UK will win "worst country" in time; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3651498.stm is an endemic sociological problem just waiting to happen

The US. Bliar isn't good, but he's a whole lot better than Bush.

they seem to be on level pegging right about now - both pretty crap.
however the UK will win "worst country" in time; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3651498.stm is an endemic sociological problem just waiting to happen


Sure there might be some of the usual "this generation is more out of control" bs in the news, but then there always is. At least we're not drugging our kids up as much as the US. Hyperactive kid? Give it some Ritalin, it's cheaper than the attention that it might need.

I'd dispute the level pegging thing too, yes both countries aren't at their best at the moment, but at least in Britain if it all does fall to pieces for you then you have a social welfare safety net there to catch you when you fall and help you to get back on your feet again. I think that beats the US six weeks of welfare then you're on your own and don't think about getting ill ever mentality...

Both countries are being shafted by their leaders though at the moment, the difference being that I doubt Blair will get back power again after being seen to lie and ignore the public so much unlike Bush who it seemed to help.

All peoples complain about their own country - after all they know its faults better than any foreigner :)
No where is perfect. Not everyone hates the same things about their place.
For example I hate living in the UK because it is so anti european whereas the person above thinks the EU is the problem.

In regard to the question of whether the United States or the United Kingdom is "worse off," my vote is that both are equal in worse offness. I say this because each place has positive and negative attributes.

There are actual "yard sticks" (or meter poles, or whatever the term is for metric measuring sticks) that can be used to measure different aspects of the two places being considered.

As for me, I like living in Pinellas Park, Florida, right now. Of course, my vote for the best candidate did not prevail on the national front. Anyone with any common sense or decency knows Dubya Bush is evil and corrupt. As for Mr. Blair, my guess is that he simply lacks the intelligence to see that, and like others has fallen for the concept that war is justified somehow.

By the measuring device of weather, I am voting for my place of residence right now.

If there was a more specific question, like "Do you think there is greater freedom in a country where more people are so stupid that they vote for a man who launches a 'preemptive' strike using conventional weapons, in comparison with a country that joins such a country in a war for more control over oil prices?" then I would still have to vote that citizens in both countries are equally hurt by their ignorant leaders.

USA,
A politicians job is to lie, its whoever does it better. Bush is the least convincing liar I have ever seen. Lord knows how he's even been picked as leader of America. Not even looking at politics, Bush is an idiot, and is extremely unconvincing. Blair can convince people, he can talk to a higher standard than Bush and makes Britain seem much better off than it actually is. Bush does the exact opposite.

USA,
A politicians job is to lie, its whoever does it better. Bush is the least convincing liar I have ever seen. Lord knows how he's even been picked as leader of America. Not even looking at politics, Bush is an idiot, and is extremely unconvincing. Blair can convince people, he can talk to a higher standard than Bush and makes Britain seem much better off than it actually is. Bush does the exact opposite.
Its not so much that he convinces us as that we vote for parties more than for the individual. It makes a big difference as we vote based on what we feel the party represents more than on what the leader specifically says. When they then don't do what we expected we do get a bit miffed.
As to the UK being well off, we actually are, we have almost full employment and that at a time when the economy elsewhere is a little shaky. Might not last though as it is all based on credit.

The US. Bliar isn't good, but he's a whole lot better than Bush.

Yah, except for just about every civil rights issue.

Even bush hasn't suggested getting rid of the right to silence. The man's a fascist.

Yah, except for just about every civil rights issue.

Even bush hasn't suggested getting rid of the right to silence. The man's a fascist.
If you take into account the Patriot Act and the Guantanamo Bay detentions the two are pretty much on a par for civil rights.

If you take into account the Patriot Act and the Guantanamo Bay detentions the two are pretty much on a par for civil rights.

Well Blair is a skosh more considerate to non-citizens than Bush. But he's far worse to citizens.

(Right to silence, position on double jeopardy).

Plus the UK has seen enormous pull-backs in privacy rights etc. even pre 9/11.

I don't trust tony at all. Especially with that innocent "I just got dragged into it by the US" poodle act. Honestly TB is way smarter than Bush. He knows exactly what he's doing. (And if he's not blaming Bush, somehow he makes it look like Gordon Brown forced him to do it.)

The man's an evil genius.

The two countries are so alike in so many ways; the eating habits of the two countries mimic each other, but I think that both are being surpassed by other countries. I feel for the american people but I think the UK has it worse. I grew up in Bognor Regis on the south coast and I believe that although the US has bad spots, the UK has more consistently crap areas.

Well Blair is a skosh more considerate to non-citizens than Bush. But he's far worse to citizens.

(Right to silence, position on double jeopardy).

Plus the UK has seen enormous pull-backs in privacy rights etc. even pre 9/11.

I don't trust tony at all. Especially with that innocent "I just got dragged into it by the US" poodle act. Honestly TB is way smarter than Bush. He knows exactly what he's doing. (And if he's not blaming Bush, somehow he makes it look like Gordon Brown forced him to do it.)

The man's an evil genius.
LOL, well not so sure on the genius, egotist might be more apt. Got his eye on "his place in history" a little too much for my liking.

The UK.
1) High teenage pregnacy rates.
2) Poor health care.
3) High Crime.
4) EU.
5) Blair.
6) High taxes= No end product.
7) Chavs are everywhere!

:mp5: LOL, well not so sure on the genius, egotist might be more apt. Got his eye on "his place in history" a little too much for my liking.

i find this offensive. as a citizen of the shit country USA, i know he has got his eye on his place in history, not an egocentric ape. if you don't like this damn country, then go back from where you came.

The US may have it's problems but at least it is not being drawn into a european superstate by france and germany......(2 world wars failed so they do it politically).... It doesn't have the same problems with immegration, taxation is tiny compared to the UK and politically at least you have people that can politically oppose bush...In the UK we have no credable second party, Tony Blair has dismantled the second house of parlement so it cannot oppose his imperialism and unfortunately the queen being the only person with the power to stop him is bound by tradition and political restictions and won't ever remove his government even if he grows a short moustach and starts preaching about master race.

It is true that we have poor health care in the UK, but at least it is state run. I dont think that an insurance-based scheme would be any better for the UK.

The UK.
1) High teenage pregnacy rates.
2) Poor health care.
3) High Crime.
4) EU.
5) Blair.
6) High taxes= No end product.
7) Chavs are everywhere!
and despitew all that, you still think your crap little island is the best place in the world. when will you learn.

I think buttered rectums is mis-interpreting quotes.

It is true that we have poor health care in the UK, but at least it is state run. I dont think that an insurance-based scheme would be any better for the UK.
You probably haven't even been to Calcuatta. Why don't you run your own damn health service?

and despitew all that, you still think your crap little island is the best place in the world. when will you learn.

mmm... I think I was NOT endorsing my country when I wrote that.

I think buttered rectums is misquoting.
i have not mother fucker

i have not mother fucker

That kind of language is not acceptable. I meant only that you were interpreting what was written wrongly: that you were biting the wrong end of the stick.

What the UK has given my family over the last year is
a) A new Kidney for my father (FOR FREE!)
b) Fiscal support for my father and mother due to my fathers health
c) Free university education for me.

All in all not as bad as I first thought

:mp5:

i find this offensive. as a citizen of the shit country USA, i know he has got his eye on his place in history, not an egocentric ape. if you don't like this damn country, then go back from where you came.
I live where I came from. The UK. Are you reading this thread or just trying to provoke?

You probably haven't even been to Calcuatta. Why don't you run your own damn health service?

What are you on about?

Been to Calcutta, know what the health care situation is like there all too well. If you can afford it you can get fantastic treatment, if you can't you're free to die in the gutter. kinda similar to the USA isn't it?

The point being that whilst the National Health Service may not be ideal, it's a damn sight better than not having one, if you're not satisfied with it and can afford it you can always go private.

which one of you reported the bad post?

Buttered rectums has an important voice, and was making relevant points. I think that getting him banned from speaking on these threads is such an immature thing to do. For shame.

What the UK has given my family over the last year is
a) A new Kidney for my father (FOR FREE!)
b) Fiscal support for my father and mother due to my fathers health
c) Free university education for me.

All in all not as bad as I first thought

No offense, but your father sounds like an alcoholic. It's people like that who are wasting the health service's money. He's probably a smoker as well. For Shame.

No offense, but your father sounds like an alcoholic. It's people like that who are wasting the health service's money. He's probably a smoker as well. For Shame.

Fuck off you arshole and get some brains before you spout out your vile shit!

Which is worse off Britain or the U.S?
What's the point in asking that? The fact is the U.K and the U.S both have it great, look at all the developing countries in Africa etc. Both countries, here in the U.K and over the big pond in the U.S have it fine.
Worse-ff? Just forget it, we're both fine.

I am shamed by the language on this thread. Stop it now, Scipii and Urahol before I report you both.

No offense, but your father sounds like an alcoholic. It's people like that who are wasting the health service's money. He's probably a smoker as well. For Shame.

Heavy drinking + smoking = kidney failure.

Hmm, interesting reasoning. I think you might be thinking more about the liver and lungs.

I am shamed by the language on this thread. Stop it now, Scipii and Urahol before I report you both.
To be fair, I think Scipii could be excused on this occasion.

Buttered Rectums and Urahole have been deleted.

Everyone else, please calm down and continue to debate in the civil manner befitting the General Forum.

http://www.bigwig.net/~bbw10606/pwned.gif
Tactical Grace
Game Moderator

I think the pound should be scrapped and britain should use the euro, as I believe we need to ingratiate into some big conglomeration to raise our future prospects.

Bush-haters,
You can go to hell.
The US is worse off, because UK seems to beat us in all things rock, from Pink Floyd to the Sex Pistols.

Bush-haters,
You can go to hell.
The US is worse off, because UK seems to beat us in all things rock, from Pink Floyd to the Sex Pistols.

Ah, but wham and jesus jones cancells that out.

Ah, but wham and jesus jones cancells that out.
Coming from the nation that gave us BoyzIIMen

I think the pound should be scrapped and britain should use the euro, as I believe we need to ingratiate into some big conglomeration to raise our future prospects.

IMO we should have joined in with the Euro quite some time ago, rather than waiting to come in later.

As for the EU integration issues, I'm in favour of a stronger Europe. I spent many years of my life living in different countries in Europe and feel as much European as British, plus I think that united we stand to be much better off when dealing with USA, China etc...

Just compare the american way of life to the british way of life.
We may be slightly healthier in the UK, but that's only because we have to walk everywhere due to a lack of public transport, and the congestion in cities means that using your chevvy isn't going to be feasable.

Coming from the nation that gave us BoyzIIMen

Good point. Don't forget the invaluable contribution of N'Sync either.

But we do have Willy Nelson.

All I have to say is Spice Girls.

Damn the U.K.! :)

Yes, and the UK spawned that wretched Idol show as well. Thank you.

On the other hand, the british gave us excellent slang for testicles. like Bollocks and Yarbles. And Pills.

Kick im in the pils!

I say the US, and simply because it is SO DIVIDED at the moment. Also, given the exit-poll interviews on CNNi, BBC and EuroNews, I was pretty shocked at how ignorant of the facts voters were.

The US may have it's problems but at least it is not being drawn into a european superstate by france and germany......(2 world wars failed so they do it politically)....

That's one of the worst arguments against European Integration I've heard. Xenophobia is an ugly trait. Shame! As someone who has lived in Scotland, England and France I have an incite into how unions work. There are no real negatives to the UK union yet you fear a greater union with our the UK's strategic neighbours... The whole point of the EU (and its predecessors) was to prevent anything like WWI and II from happening again by tying us together. And I have to point out that the French (and Germans) aren't marauding through Europe trying to join us all at any cost... there are actually eurosceptics here too. Just thank your lucky stars we live in a Europe where internal wars are a thing of the past and you are free to speak your mind!

It doesn't have the same problems with immegration, taxation is tiny compared to the UK and politically at least you have people that can politically oppose bush...In the UK we have no credable second party, Tony Blair has dismantled the second house of parlement so it cannot oppose his imperialism and unfortunately the queen being the only person with the power to stop him is bound by tradition and political restictions and won't ever remove his government even if he grows a short moustach and starts preaching about master race.

Firstly, immigration is a good thing for the UK. We need more people to come in to pay YOUR pension! As it stands, with a falling birth rate, we will be in dire straights by our retirements. To this end the Scottish Executive is encouraging immigration. Open your mind and see the benefits. Don't believe the tabloids blindly.

I'd take UK democracy any day... we may not, at Westminster level, have a current credible opposition, but I hope one day the Liberal Democrats will be able to form the official opposition to oppose Labour. The Conservatives are dead to me for the foreseeable future. Blair gets a lot of stick but apart from this travesty of a war (which I think he truly regrets getting caught up in!) he/the party was actually doing ok! Reform of The House of Lords was NECESSARY (if you consider yourself in any way a democrat) and IMHO needs to be continued.

Reform of the House of Commons to introduce Proportional Representation is the only way to go at Westminster... otherwise this 2 party tennis game will go on for ever. Its working in the Scottish Parliament where Labour hasn't had an outright majority... ever! And that's labour land! Consensus politics works there so lets try it for the UK parliament (and England?) too!

As for the Queen "being the only person with the power to stop him" - well why doesn't she just ride to Westminster and chop off their 'eads! She can take complete power! I despair! The point of Parliamentary Convention is she cant, and wont. These same conventions tell us how our "constitution" (haha!) runs and holds the government (and Blair) to account.

My final words are... if you don't like it use your vote to change it. The LibDems are the only party to offer true constitutional change so vote for them if not Labour! You may have a problem with their "non xenophobic" policies towards Europe, immigrants and other human beings though...

Yes, and the UK spawned that wretched Idol show as well. Thank you.
Yes, we've been lobbying the Queen to apologise formally for that. Sorry. And for Simon Cowell.

IMO we should have joined in with the Euro quite some time ago, rather than waiting to come in later.

As for the EU integration issues, I'm in favour of a stronger Europe. I spent many years of my life living in different countries in Europe and feel as much European as British, plus I think that united we stand to be much better off when dealing with USA, China etc...
yes! More euro-integration... go federal Europe!

Yes, we've been lobbying the Queen to apologise formally for that. Sorry. And for Simon Cowell.


I don't blame the people of the UK personally. I do wish the government had stepped in though.

This is what I have to say to Scipii's post.
1) High teenage pregnacy rates. I accept that
2) Poor health care. That is a lie
3) High Crime. Was higher before 1997
4) EU. Nothing wrong with the EU
5) Blair. When Tony Blair came into power the UK was in a terrible state, things have now changed for the better.
6) High taxes= No end product. So more police, nurses, doctors and teachers isn't an end product? Better education and healthcare isn't an end product?
7) Chavs are everywhere! Sadly that is true.

UK gives us Questions to the Prime Minister, which is one of the few times that a major government gets to act like 5 year olds

I don't blame the people of the UK personally. I do wish the government had stepped in though.
I'm afraid they were too busy saving all those nice sweet cuddly foxes (one of which killed one my friends' chickens the other day).

I'm afraid they were too busy saving all those nice sweet cuddly foxes (one of which killed one my friends' chickens the other day).
That was probably one of the other sort, the nasty, viscious, chicken-hating genocidal foxes :)

That was probably one of the other sort, the nasty, viscious, chicken-hating genocidal foxes :)
Yes, the common fox, like Basil Brush, is nothing like that.

Yes, the common fox, like Basil Brush, is nothing like that.
Didn't think so ;)

Reasons I'm proud to be British:
1. Polls show that Brits would have voted Bush out 5:1.
2. Londoners went out of their way to hurl eggs and abuse at David Blaine.
3. The UK invented: the computer, the programmable computer, the jet engine, RADAR, powered flight, the telephone and radio (among other things).
The USA invented: McDonald's, hyper-obesity, decadence, jeans, fundamental Christianity, gospel music, Starbuck's and Texas.

This is what I have to say to Scipii's post.
1) High teenage pregnacy rates. I accept that
2) Poor health care. That is a lie
3) High Crime. Was higher before 1997
4) EU. Nothing wrong with the EU
5) Blair. When Tony Blair came into power the UK was in a terrible state, things have now changed for the better.
6) High taxes= No end product. So more police, nurses, doctors and teachers isn't an end product? Better education and healthcare isn't an end product?
7) Chavs are everywhere! Sadly that is true.

I disagree with 5). This country is not better off than when he first came to power. I'm horrified that he and his cronies continued with the privatisations that Thatcher refused at. His governments continual pushing of PFIs as a viable means of financing public works is also the biggest and most damaging scandal that has hit this country in years and unfortunately we'll all be suffering for it for years to come. Pretty much every bit of research into them says that they end up costing the tax payers and local government far more in the long run than just paying for the work in the first place and that the services delivered are inevitably late, massively over budget and inadequate in comparison to those that they replace. Big businesses involved in the PFI schemes never lose out though...

I disagree with 5). This country is not better off than when he first came to power. I'm horrified that he and his cronies continued with the privatisations that Thatcher refused at. His governments continual pushing of PFIs as a viable means of financing public works is also the biggest and most damaging scandal that has hit this country in years and unfortunately we'll all be suffering for it for years to come. Pretty much every bit of research into them says that they end up costing the tax payers and local government far more in the long run than just paying for the work in the first place and that the services delivered are inevitably late, massively over budget and inadequate in comparison to those that they replace. Big businesses involved in the PFI schemes never lose out though...
I agree with your PFI point and on the whole I do not like Blair but I think the UK is better off as we have high employment and generally more rights to and access to benefits and information. Also we are better off just cos we don't have a Tory government. Just a personal opinion of course ;)

Reasons I'm proud to be British:
1. Polls show that Brits would have voted Bush out 5:1.
2. Londoners went out of their way to hurl eggs and abuse at David Blaine.
3. The UK invented: the computer, the programmable computer, the jet engine, RADAR, powered flight, the telephone and radio (among other things).
The USA invented: McDonald's, hyper-obesity, decadence, jeans, fundamental Christianity, gospel music, Starbuck's and Texas.


The UK did not invent powered flight: http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/planetruth.html

It wasn't just Londoners who went out of their way to take the piss out of David Blaine. Also the US is not responsible for fundamentalist christianity, we Europeans have had an unfortunate hand in that, though we sought to expel the worst of them a while ago (founding fathers anybody?), still not managed to get rid of the Catholic church either :(

Modern day fundamentalist christianity is generally a US phenomenon though and is best described as mostly mentalist.

Like the jist of your post though, sorry if I'm being a picky bugger today. ;)

I think it comes down to Led Zeppelin vs. Lynyrd Skynyrd. Whomever you think is better is the nation that is better.

I think it comes down to Led Zeppelin vs. Lynyrd Skynyrd. Whomever you think is better is the nation that is better.
Zep. We win. :D

I think it comes down to Led Zeppelin vs. Lynyrd Skynyrd. Whomever you think is better is the nation that is better.

That militates heavily in the UKs favor.

But then again, Wings.

That militates heavily in the UKs favor.

But then again, Wings.

I don't know. I think it's the two best hard rock bands ever. I'm pretty torn, myself.

Zep. We win. :D

Definitely, but it should be noted that Led Zeppelin pillaged the history of american folk and blues music in order to make their own works. Lynyrd Skynyrd never, however, stooped to nicking Morris Dancing tunes or lifting middle-eights involving the words 'hey-nonny-nonny' from English folk music.

That militates heavily in the UKs favor.

But then again, Wings.

What do you call a dog with wings?

Definitely, but it should be noted that Led Zeppelin pillaged the history of american folk and blues music in order to make their own works. Lynyrd Skynyrd never, however, stooped to nicking Morris Dancing tunes or lifting middle-eights involving the words 'hey-nonny-nonny' from English folk music.

Now you see why it's such a debate.

Of course, you could easily do the Spice Girls vs. N'Sync comparisson....

Now you see why it's such a debate.

Of course, you could easily do the Spice Girls vs. N'Sync comparisson....

Spice Girls.


Well, that's that debate over.

Spice Girls.


Well, that's that debate over.

How can you say that?

Both make me wish I were deaf.

I don't know. I think it's the two best hard rock bands ever. I'm pretty torn, myself.

My point is, any good done by Zep, which is arguably one of the greatest bands ever, is undermined by paul mccartney and his bloody stupid wings.

If he had only had the decency to OD or something after the beatles split up.

My point is, any good done by Zep, which is arguably one of the greatest bands ever, is undermined by paul mccartney and his bloody stupid wings.

If he had only had the decency to OD or something after the beatles split up.

You know what's even sadder?

Ringo is most likely going to be the final living Beatle....

What do you call a dog with wings?


Linda, I would presume.

My point is, any good done by Zep, which is arguably one of the greatest bands ever, is undermined by paul mccartney and his bloody stupid wings.

If he had only had the decency to OD or something after the beatles split up.

Hey, you know what they say about the Beatles dying in the wrong order: we all know it should have been in this order -

McCartney
Starr
Harrison
Lennon

Linda, I would presume.

Correct.

How can you say that?

Both make me wish I were deaf.

Ah yes, but who here would shag N'Sync?

I can't decide whether Ringo or Paul should go next though.

On the one hand, Ringo is not the most talented, but the amount of damage he can do is limited.

On the other, we might see a re-release of mull of kyntire or something else equally hideous. :confused:

Wings is bad, because it took something good, and made it awful.

For that reason it is the worst band ever, in history.

The others are merely crap.

Ah yes, but who here would shag N'Sync?

I would definately have sex with Justin Timberlake over a few of those Spice Girls.

I would definately have sex with Justin Timberlake over a few of those Spice Girls.

What? sex with Justin with spice girls writhing underneath? :eek:

Could make for a top selling video ;)

I reckon you should :sniper: the bastards

Ah yes, but who here would shag N'Sync?
id shag britney spears... shes close to N'Sync right?

you know, only if i had to of course ;)

What? sex with Justin with spice girls writhing underneath? :eek:

Could make for a top selling video ;)

That would be hot. And might result in the suffocation of a Spice Girl or two, so I'm not really seeing a drawback here. I get to have sex with Justin Timberlake AND kill at least one Spice Girl.

I'm not keen on the current unnacountable UN where most of the descicions are made by unelected officials. There are some up-sides though. I like being able to hop over to France with relatively little bother. I'm pretty typically libertarian on most issues, but a shared enviromental policy makes sense to. If you fark up the air that others breathe, your commiting assault in my opinion.

Saying that, I'm against this smoking ban. If you don't want to go into a smoky pub, don't go to the pub.

And the hole foxhunting thing is hihjly irritating. It's just a way for that strange breed of liberal that's against everything that it's convinient to be against to feel like they've made a difference to the world. Do you think a fox has a pleasant death with all it's family bringing it grapes in the wild? It's dead within a mattewr of moments once the hounds get it.

I'm poor. I don't hunt. I don't smoke. But things shouldn't be made illegal just because theres no real point to them. We are not machines!

Don't get me started on ID cards.

And we had Sabbath... but America had Kyuss...

That would be hot. And might result in the suffocation of a Spice Girl or two, so I'm not really seeing a drawback here. I get to have sex with Justin Timberlake AND kill at least one Spice Girl.


Could be the biggest snuff movie of all time :D

What about making proceeds go to charity, that way nobody could object to it. ;)

Don't get me started on ID cards.



Thankyou again The Right Honourable David (no IDea) Blunkett for yet again bringing up this old, hairy, completely pointless, f@ckin' chestnut.

Oooh yes they'll help us battle terrorism, like they did much good in Spain (where ID cards are compulsory) when Al Qaeda peeps blew up trains.

All they will do is increase our tax bill and put in another layer of bureaucracy for no reason.

And the hole foxhunting thing is hihjly irritating. It's just a way for that strange breed of liberal that's against everything that it's convinient to be against to feel like they've made a difference to the world. Do you think a fox has a pleasant death with all it's family bringing it grapes in the wild? It's dead within a mattewr of moments once the hounds get it.

You know, I can't beleive they banned hare coursing, badger baiting, cock fighting, bare knuckle boxing. I mean, what're country folk going to do all day?

The UK, they have to deal with that giant fuck-up known as the EU which is trashing it's individual countries economies bit by bit. Or at least, Germany's, Spains, and Italy's.
I thought that free trade tended to be good for economies. EU membership has been great for my country.

You know, I can't beleive they banned hare coursing, badger baiting, cock fighting, bare knuckle boxing. I mean, what're country folk going to do all day?
theres a joke about cousins in here somewhere but I just can't bring myself to stoop that low...

Dammit! Too late :D

I thought that free trade tended to be good for economies. EU membership has been great for my country.
There is today a say in bigger countries that the EU is better for small countries than it is for bigger onces.
One reason: big countries already have got a big market. Small countries didn´t use to have one. Secondly: The Central European countries benefited from low interests rates, especially compared to the weak currency countries. This advantage is lost as well. Today all benefit from low interests.
And a country like Ireland benefited from the EU because it received a lot of funds from it. But now it would be the duty of the Republic of Ireland to pay to the EU more than it is receiving, since its GDP per capita exceeds the EU average. How is that going to influence the perception of the EU in the Republic of Ireland??

There is today a say in bigger countries that the EU is better for small countries than it is for bigger onces.
One reason: big countries already have got a big market. Small countries didn´t use to have one. Secondly: The Central European countries benefited from low interests rates, especially compared to the weak currency countries. This advantage is lost as well. Today all benefit from low interests.
And a country like Ireland benefited from the EU because it received a lot of funds from it. But now it would be the duty of the Republic of Ireland to pay to the EU more than it is receiving, since its GDP per capita exceeds the EU average. How is that going to influence the perception of the EU in the Republic of Ireland??
Up to recently Ireland was a net receiver of subsidies. Now it no longer needs them it takes a turn at being a provider. Quid pro quo.

You know, I can't beleive they banned hare coursing, badger baiting, cock fighting, bare knuckle boxing. I mean, what're country folk going to do all day?

Your probably being sarcy here, but how can anyone disagree with bare knuckled boxing? What two consenting adults get up to is nobody else's business.

A lot of Jobs in fox hunting and a few hundred hounds will die for no good reason.

Nothing wrong with hare coursing either in my book.

Cock fights last a bit longer and one animal might only suffer and not even perish. That's cruel.

Badgers are rare though, aren't they? I'd never condone wiping out a species.

I notice that veals still legal, though. That's definately cruelty. But middle englanders probably quite like it, so it gets overlooked.

Up to recently Ireland was a net receiver of subsidies. Now it no longer needs them it takes a turn at being a provider. Quid pro quo.
In principal that is right. But what do you like more: receive money or pay money. And to add something for that matter. In the late 1970s the British economy was not in good shape. The UK received a deduction of its pay for the EU in the 1980s. Today the British economy is in a better shape than in most countries in continental Europe. Although that is the case the net deduction still exists.
At the same time Britain is one major pusher for EU enlargement (especially pro-Turkey and maybe soon the Ukraine).
Those are countries who would undoubtebly net receivers from the EU.
And now who is going to pay for that?
Where is the willingness of the United Kingdom to pay more?
Lets be frank: It does not exist. Like in no other of the net payers for the EU budget.

U.K. vs U.S. Whose Country is Worse-off?
The UK. It's beeing ruled by it's former colony. Try and top that.

I don't trust tony at all. Especially with that innocent "I just got dragged into it by the US" poodle act. Honestly TB is way smarter than Bush. He knows exactly what he's doing. (And if he's not blaming Bush, somehow he makes it look like Gordon Brown forced him to do it.)


I always am amused by this idea of Britian as Americas lap dog/poodle/B-team call it what you will, basicly that Britain is subserviant to the will of Amreica. But if you look at the records, America has never won a war without Britain on its side. I know this because the only war they fought were we did not help them was Vietnam and look what happened there. Not to mention the fact that in Bagdad and many other places throught Iraq the British Royal marines and SAS went in first and freed up loads of briges and guarded roads etc to let the Americans in.

The UK. It's beeing ruled by it's former colony. Try and top that.
You are childish. Neither is the UK ruled by the US nor the Netherlands, Italy, Denmark, Poland, Japan, South Korea and the many other nations of the coalition of the willing.
You miss anti-americanism with sovereignity. That is nonsense.

You are childish. Neither is the UK ruled by the US nor the Netherlands, Italy, Denmark, Poland, Japan, South Korea and the many other nations of the coalition of the willing.
You miss anti-americanism with sovereignity. That is nonsense.
Oh look. Uncle Tom is back.

Oh look. Uncle Tom is back.
I know: it is the "spirit of the time" (Zeitgeist) to be anti-American.
But I don´t follow the spirit of the time. I chose to think for myself.
And I disagree with this "new" anti-americanism.
It is a reflex which is used to distract from domestic problems in Europe - especially in France and Germany.
And that is plainly wrong and irresponsible.
The only answer to the problems is to deal with them and not to distract from them by fuelling prejudice.

I think that Britain's domestic policy is brilliant, but our foreign policy is awful. Bush is weak on both fronts.

I know: it is the "spirit of the time" (Zeitgeist) to be anti-American.
I chose to think for myself.

Sure you do. And the rest of us are just trying to be fashionable. :rolleyes:
Cause we are not so willing to throw ourselves at your masters feet.

Sure you do. And the rest of us are just trying to be fashionable. :rolleyes:
Shure: European anti-americanism is a fashion since the 19 th century which is reappearing from time to time.
The matter of fact is: the US is the first country of the world which based itself on the idea of freedom.
And that before any nation in the world.
Europe was lacking behind - also France and even more Germany.
That is the truth.
And also today the US is the leading country of the world: technologically, militarily, scientifically and economically.
Europe is more and more lacking behind.
US 3,4% growth per year (1990-2001), France 1,9%, Germany 1,5%, Italy 1,6%.
That are the facts.
And the reason is that the United States gives its citizens more freedom - freedom to create, to start new things, to start a business, e.g.

I want Europe to be more like America - more flexible, more energetic, more hungry for success, more self-confident and more hard-working.
If Europe returns a bit more to values like self-responsibilty and discipline instead of delegation responsibilty to the government it would be more successful.
If people started thinking about what they could do for the country instead of what the country can do for them Europe would be more successful.
After World War II this attitude was much more common in our country for example. And with and only through this attitude it was possible to built a new state which developed into the third largest economy of the world.
But this drive for success is lost in the society. Instead of the will of taking risks the security thinking is absolutely dominant. But: no risk no gain.
Up until this atitude changes Old Europe is going to continue to decline as it does now.

Funny how in twenty years we'll fondly look back on how simple things were...

I think both places arn't that great off right now, but at least Robaria isn't invading them. I can't say I like either of the leaders, but there's nothing I can do about that. Just vote for a better candidate next election.

*snip*
We know your in love with America. So do us all a favor and move there. So you can kiss their feet 24/7 for real. And not just in cyberspace.

....
We know that you can only answer with insults and not with arguments.
So why don´t you do us all a favour and just shut up?

We know that you can only answer with insults and not with arguments.
So why don´t you do us all a favour and just shut up?
Yeah, your "arguments" are soooo convincing.... :rolleyes: We must follow and stay loyal...we must isolate France untill they fall in line....we must worship America....

Yeah, your "arguments" are soooo convincing.
Then present counter-arguments.
But you can´t deny facts. And those are that the United States are economically much more successful than Old Europe. And that not only in the last few years but almost in the last 20 years, especially in the last 10 years.
That is the truth.
So obviously the United States is doing something right and old Europe is doing many things wrong.
That is shown by the results of the policy.

I dont think its easy to say that any country is worse off than the other. While America is the biggest Imperialistic nation, England practically owns Canada and Australia, I like Canada and Australia, but its true that they show no spine, especially against England.

Then present counter-arguments.
But you can´t deny facts. And those are that the United States are economically much more successful than Old Europe. And that not only in the last few years but almost in the last 20 years, especially in the last 10 years.
That is the truth.
So obviously the United States is doing something right and old Europe is doing many things wrong.
That is shown by the results of the policy.
not that i like siding with Von Witzleben, but perhaps you are overlooking the institutional and structural advantages the US economy has over the economies of the individual states of Europe? Europe may not necissarily be doing anything "wrong" - just america is (was) doing things better.
Plus, the US economy has been growing faster than the European economies since before the turn of last century and finally overtook the UK in the early 1900s (im not gonna commit myself to a year cos im not 100% sure when). This is not a recent phenomenon; it has, however, accelerated even further ahead of the European economies in the last 10 years under the Clinton administration

Then present counter-arguments.
But you can´t deny facts. And those are that the United States are economically much more successful than Old Europe. And that not only in the last few years but almost in the last 20 years, especially in the last 10 years.
That is the truth.
So obviously the United States is doing something right and old Europe is doing many things wrong.
That is shown by the results of the policy.
And when have I ever denied that? In case you haven't noticed, and I'm 100% sure you haven't, I just don't lick US behind like you do. While you go on and on about how we all must throw ourselves at their feet and do whatever they want, I want us to distance ourselves and focus more on our own issues. And not follow them around like a poodle and go to war when they whistle. Of which you were very much in favor. Like you always advocate US leadership of the rest of us.

Couple of things:
First,
I dont think its easy to say that any country is worse off than the other. While America is the biggest Imperialistic nation, England practically owns Canada and Australia, I like Canada and Australia, but its true that they show no spine, especially against England.
Huh? Where do you get that from.

Second,
Then present counter-arguments.
But you can´t deny facts. And those are that the United States are economically much more successful than Old Europe. And that not only in the last few years but almost in the last 20 years, especially in the last 10 years.
That is the truth.
So obviously the United States is doing something right and old Europe is doing many things wrong.
That is shown by the results of the policy.
By "old Europe" I assume you mean western europe. These countries have recently made an enormous economic switch to the Euro. As with any such project there is a settling in time. The long term effects are likely to create a currency as strong, and if the current situation is anything to go by stonger, than the dollar. At the same time the new member countries are bringing an increased internal market and a massive increase in production capacity. At the same time the US economy is being run on a huge deficit and loans that are only sustainable if the dollar remains strong. The presure on the dollar to become weak, in order to keep US exports competitive is contradictory to this. The US manufacturing economy avoided carrying out the restructuring and modernising that EU country industries have gone through in the last ten years and are much more competitive. That was the reason for the US attempt to impose steel tariffs recently. As this sort of protective treaty is illegal according to treaties the US signed and helped write it finds itself unable to protect them in this way. Either the US economy can go for a strong dollar and hurt its manufacturing and therfore exports in order to be able to finance its huge loans or it can go for a weak dollar in order to support its industry in which case the loans become more and more unsustainable. There may well be a third option but hey, this is an analysis not a sugestion. In effect the US has bought its last ten years of prosperity in comparison with the european countries at the expense of future economic dominance. Of course nothing is fixed but if events continued on their current trends I think this is a reasonable scenario. The outcome will either be a second worldwide depression or the slack will be picked up by the EU and China in which case the effect will mainly be felt by the US. Two interesting side issues in this scenario is at which point the US has to reign in its military expenditure and whether it does what the British Empire did in its decline and start military adventures in order to bolster its economy (wait a minute, that sounds familiar, cheap oil anyone?)

The Empire of Presidency has 5lbs on U.K.

OK, first off, Gworge W. Bush is a way better leader than John Kerry ever COULD be. Anyway the wind went, that's where John Kerry went. He didn't even know what goddamn side he wanted to be on in the Iraq War. "I actually voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it." What an dumbass Liberal. This just goes to show you that Liberals flip-flop to the max and will never accomplish anything.
On the subject of which country is better off, it's pretty close. Both of our countries are OWNED by the UN (or should I say the Satanic New World Order) and are mainly capitalist. The U.S. is a little better off because we're not run by a fascist and don't have a stupid queen, thank God. Not to mention that the U.S. has a much better military. This probably puts the U.S. over the U.K.

Right Wing Power,
Metalheadom :sniper:

OK, first off, Gworge W. Bush is a way better leader than John Kerry ever COULD be. Anyway the wind went, that's where John Kerry went. He didn't even know what goddamn side he wanted to be on in the Iraq War. "I actually voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it." What an dumbass Liberal. This just goes to show you that Liberals flip-flop to the max and will never accomplish anything.
On the subject of which country is better off, it's pretty close. Both of our countries are OWNED by the UN (or should I say the Satanic New World Order) and are mainly capitalist. The U.S. is a little better off because we're not run by a fascist and don't have a stupid queen, thank God. Not to mention that the U.S. has a much better military. This probably puts the U.S. over the U.K.

Right Wing Power,
Metalheadom :sniper:
I'm sorry, did I just step into a parralel reality? I don't see what Bush/Kerry has to do with this or your tirade against "liberals" which seems to belong somewhere else. I think that the UN bit is also a little off topic too. Tony Blair whilst not exactly a parragon of democratic behaviour can hardly be called a facist, (kinda trivialises the word doing that) and I didn't know the queen was stupid, how interesting.

HAHAHAHHAHAHHAHA

Satanic New World Order.

hahaha

let me guess, Grand Dragon of the KKK, its all a jewish conspiracy to get rid of your war museum under your bed and stop you sleeping with your cousins.

hahaha.

i thought people like you were joke...hey wait , you are.

hahaha.

edit: Just saw "UK OWNZ AUSTRALIA!!!111" comment.

not true. do you know how much we have to do with England? we both spell gaol correctly.

not that i like siding with Von Witzleben, but perhaps you are overlooking the institutional and structural advantages the US economy has over the economies of the individual states of Europe? Europe may not necissarily be doing anything "wrong" - just america is (was) doing things better.
Plus, the US economy has been growing faster than the European economies since before the turn of last century and finally overtook the UK in the early 1900s (im not gonna commit myself to a year cos im not 100% sure when). This is not a recent phenomenon; it has, however, accelerated even further ahead of the European economies in the last 10 years under the Clinton administration
As a matter of fact we have a common market in Europe. In some areas there are even more differences between the states of the US (criminal justice system) or as much difference beetween US states (VAT, income tax, other taxes) than between the sovereingn EU nations.
So: obviously the to big welfare state - especially in continental Europe and the way it is financed (through a tax on labour) - is causing a development under which the continental European countries of the Old West Continental Europe are continually loosing jobs and growth.

And by the way: In 1989 the Federal Republic of Germany had a higher GDP per capita than the United States. Today it has a much less GDP per capita than the US - that is also the case if you only use the West German numbers.
The major continental powers of Europe are stagnating societis and economies: France (1,9% annual growth per year 1990-2001), Italy (1,6% (1990-2001)), Germany (1,5% (1990-2001)).
That was the case while the US had an annual growth rate of 3,4% (1990-2001).
In the 1950s, 60s and even 70s the Federal Republic of Germany for example had higher growth rates than the US and was still able to compete in the 1980s. But the downfall of the largest economy in Europe is weakening the entire continent. The former locomotive of growth has become to the sick man of Europe.
And this is a rather new phenomenon (since the 1990s), while the US has become more dynamic in the 1980s and 1990s, the former most dynamic economy has got less and less dynamic and has transformed into a stagnant economy and society.

By "old Europe" I assume you mean western europe.
By "Old Europe" I mean the Carolingian Europe (the Europe of the former Franc Empire of Charlemagne) - the six founding members of the EEC (today EU) (-France, Italy, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxemburg, Germany).


These countries have recently made an enormous economic switch to the Euro. As with any such project there is a settling in time. The long term effects are likely to create a currency as strong, and if the current situation is anything to go by stonger, than the dollar. At the same time the new member countries are bringing an increased internal market and a massive increase in production capacity. At the same time the US economy is being run on a huge deficit and loans that are only sustainable if the dollar remains strong.
The deficits in Europe are as high as in the US. The difference is: the US is a dynamic economy, Europe has a stagnating economy. The US has a growing population (which means that in the long run more taxpayers are going to have to pay for the deficits), Europe has a declining population tendency (which means that less people are going to have to pay for the enormous debts and the pension system. Whether the collapse of the entire social system is avoidable is an open question in my view. Most certainly the social standards are going to be much lower in thirty years than today.)


The presure on the dollar to become weak, in order to keep US exports competitive is contradictory to this. The US manufacturing economy avoided carrying out the restructuring and modernising that EU country industries have gone through in the last ten years and are much more competitive. That was the reason for the US attempt to impose steel tariffs recently. As this sort of protective treaty is illegal according to treaties the US signed and helped write it finds itself unable to protect them in this way. Either the US economy can go for a strong dollar and hurt its manufacturing and therfore exports in order to be able to finance its huge loans or it can go for a weak dollar in order to support its industry in which case the loans become more and more unsustainable. There may well be a third option but hey, this is an analysis not a sugestion. In effect the US has bought its last ten years of prosperity in comparison with the european countries at the expense of future economic dominance. Of course nothing is fixed but if events continued on their current trends I think this is a reasonable scenario. The outcome will either be a second worldwide depression or the slack will be picked up by the EU and China in which case the effect will mainly be felt by the US. Two interesting side issues in this scenario is at which point the US has to reign in its military expenditure and whether it does what the British Empire did in its decline and start military adventures in order to bolster its economy (wait a minute, that sounds familiar, cheap oil anyone?)
The US is so important that nobody can be interested in its weakening and in a weakening US economy. Europe is economically dependent on the US (US is the biggest trading partner).

In the long-run I see much better prospects for the US: Increasing population, increasing demand, lower debt per head (citizen), leading in science, technology and military. That is the basis for US leadership.
Europe is going to see a different scenario: Decreasing population, decreasing demand, higher debt per head (citizen), high pension burden on the shoulders of the young generation, brain-drain (intelligence may move away - Britain (probably), US, East Asia), outsorcing (of labour to Eastern Europe and other places due to the high labour cost), internal disputes between the nations and with the (muslim) migrants, clash of civilisations at the sides of Europe with the Arab and broader muslim world, destabilisation of Europe due to its geographic closeness to the Middle East and due to migration from that region, islamisation of Europe.

That is in my view a more realistic scenario than yours.

I say the US is the worst-off currently if you only include industrialized, developed nations. I would much rather be living in Europe, Canada, Japan, South Korea, or Australia right now. But if you include Latin America, Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, I still say we in the US have it better than them, even though our leader is much worse than in many of those countries.

I can't believe some people are so negative. I live in the UK and I think I'm really really lucky. I'm not starving in Africa. I'm not dying of some easily curable disease. I wont be tortured for speaking my mind.
I think instead of complaining and debating whose country is worse off, people should realise how bloody lucky they are!!!

No apologys given
4 four more years
Viva Bush.