NationStates Jolt Archive

It's been said many times that USians use too much fuels, and I wonder, are they to blame for global warming?

If not, who is?

It's been said many times that USians use too much fuels, and I wonder, are they to blame for global warming?

If not, who is?

:rolleyes:

Of course we Americans are to blame for global warming. Don't you know, we are the only country in the world that releases greenhouse gases into the air.[/sarcasm]

It's been said many times that USians use too much fuels, and I wonder, are they to blame for global warming?

If not, who is?

You know, I'm all for respect of the dead and such, but it's been several million years so I don't think I will offend anyone when I say this: it's those stupid, chemically converting, dinosaurs to blame for the large amounts of coal and petroleum in the world. They're called "fossil fuels" for a reason!

USians?

You mean Americans?

Every developed nation does it; you can'y blame just one for the whole thing.

I suspect this is Paraguay's doing. They've been unusually quiet during this whole situation.

*eyes them suspiciously*

Blame Canada.

It's a catchy song :)

I suspect this is Paraguay's doing. They've been unusually quiet during this whole situation.

*eyes them suspiciously*

Yeah, and you know who once lived in Paraguay? Señor Tyranosaur!
http://its.guilford.k12.nc.us/webquests/dino/dinosaur.gif

Its not like GW exists.

Even if it did.

You cant blame it all on the US of A.

You know, its not like were the only people who emit C02.

China has to be at the top of the list.
http://www.dailyreckoning.co.uk/economic-forecasts/pollution-in-china-a-torrent-of-darkness.html
With the US and India coming in 2nd and 3rd.

China has to be at the top of the list.
http://www.dailyreckoning.co.uk/economic-forecasts/pollution-in-china-a-torrent-of-darkness.html
With the US and India coming in 2nd and 3rd.
As a whole maybe ... as individuals (at least on average) though it is a different story

"We have no one to blame, but blame itself." - Me, just now.

It actually makes sense, in a way. If we keep playing the blame game, instead of doing something, then things are going to keep getting worse.

So, it is the fault of the scapegoats themselves. And who raises goats? SCOTLAND!

Thus, ultimately, it's Scotlands fault.

I refuse to acknowledge a group of people called "USians" and so cannot answer this question. I understand that "America" covers a very large area, but you could do us the courtesy of calling us "US Americans". Or even yanks, I don't particularly care if you call us yanks. It does not sound half so retarded as USians.

To my fellow yanks: USA, please. The song isn't "Born in the US of A."

USians?

You mean Americans?


I think he didn't mean Guatemala.

All 1st world countries are to blame IMO. But most of them apart from the USA (or better: their current gov't) accept that.

There is no doubt in my mind that Ruffy is to blame.

If not, who is?
oh... I dunno...

how about everyone?

Blame Canada.

It's a catchy song :)

DAMMIT!!! Now I got that stupid song stuck in my head! :headbang::headbang::headbang:

While china and india are very large polluters we must accept that they are industrializing and that shouldn't be stopped, where as the USA has been industrialized for much longer and is more capable of saving energy.

There is no doubt in my mind that Ruffy is to blame.
:fluffle::fluffle:
DAMMIT!!! Now I got that stupid song stuck in my head! :headbang::headbang::headbang:

Muhaha! :D


It seems like everything has gone wrong
since Canada came along...

I refuse to acknowledge a group of people called "USians"

I know it does not fully fit, but ...
you don't acknowledge being called USian....
but will you call any Greek that doesn't acknowledge how you label him unless you use greek letters and call him Hellenic (or whatever the proper greek form would be?)

Just a thought. I might insist that you call me Deutsch and of course you must use the proper declination of the different cases ...

I suspect this is Paraguay's doing. They've been unusually quiet during this whole situation.

*eyes them suspiciously*

No, no, no.

See, that's what they want you to think. The real culprits are Uruguay, Burkina Faso, and Andorra.

There is no doubt in my mind that Ruffy is to blame.

I did notice that he mysteriously left that option out of the poll. Hmmmm.

Usians? Are trying to say Asians?

It's been said many times that USians use too much fuels, and I wonder, are they to blame for global warming?

If not, who is?

Partially to blame. China and India use a lot too. The USA's emissions and fossil fuel use have dropped over recent years. Americans are working to develop alternative fuel sources.

I blame the cows. And people who make up and use ridiculously unwieldy PC phrases/words like 'USians.' That just looks retarded. Plus, it makes people think you've misspelled 'Asian.'

it would be nice to blame USians but we have only ourselves to blame for not building a massive dome around western Europe :(

I refuse to acknowledge a group of people called "USians" and so cannot answer this question. I understand that "America" covers a very large area, but you could do us the courtesy of calling us "US Americans". Or even yanks, I don't particularly care if you call us yanks. It does not sound half so retarded as USians.

1) the terms yanks and limes (or whatever you call us) tend to get looked at with disdain by the rest of the planet :p

2) USian now stays much like Top Gears ratings because USians don't like it

The USA's emissions and fossil fuel use have dropped over recent years. Americans are working to develop alternative fuel sources.

no

While china and india are very large polluters we must accept that they are industrializing and that shouldn't be stopped, where as the USA has been industrialized for much longer and is more capable of saving energy.

So it's really not that desperate then.

1) the terms yanks and limes (or whatever you call us) tend to get looked at with disdain by the rest of the planet :p


Limey.

Yeah, and you know who once lived in Paraguay? Señor Tyranosaur!
http://its.guilford.k12.nc.us/webquests/dino/dinosaur.gif
:p

Since the U.S. is the most powerful and richest nation on earth, we are naturally to blame for everything that is wrong with the world. Including global warming. I, especially, am to blame. I like to barbecue old tires and rape small children on the weekends.

Limey.

*calls MI5 for hate speech*

Since the U.S. is the most powerful and richest nation on earth.

in what way? *throws pounds on the floor so I can watch USians scramble for the stability*

Oy vey. Guys, could we maybe possibly not have the ten millionth discussion of the term "USian" today? It's gotten so boring.

Anyway, of course the US is partially to blame for global climate change, given how irresponsible we as a country have been with our energy policy, but there's certainly plenty of blame to go around. I believe I've seen stats suggesting that the US is the worst offender per capita, but I think China may have beaten us out for worst overall. Either way, the US is certainly one of several countries that need to get their butts in gear and start planning ahead better.

No, we are only responsible for making the situation worse. There's still China, the russians, etc. contributing.

doesn't remove our share of the blame, but there's no way its all our fault.

in what way? *throws pounds on the floor so I can watch USians scramble for the stability*

GDP, what else? And I believe more new technology come out of the U.S. every year than any other country, but I dunno how you measure that.

There is no group known as USians. We are Americans. We are from the United States of America.

If you want to call us USians, you'll have to call Mexicans EUMians, Germans FRians, the Chinese, PRCians, North Koreans will be DPRKians, the people of the British Isles will be UKians, Irish will be the RIians ect, ect.

GDP, what else?

*waves E.U flag*

And I believe more new technology come out of the U.S. every year than any other country, but I dunno how you measure that.

well you would expect to see growth in sectors like automotive and such...

There is no group known as USians. We are Americans. We are from the United States of America.

it would be considered obnoxious if I referred to Britain as Eurasia

Oy vey. Guys, could we maybe possibly not have the ten millionth discussion of the term "USian" today? It's gotten so boring.

Anyway, of course the US is partially to blame for global climate change, given how irresponsible we as a country have been with our energy policy, but there's certainly plenty of blame to go around. I believe I've seen stats suggesting that the US is the worst offender per capita, but I think China may have beaten us out for worst overall. Either way, the US is certainly one of several countries that need to get their butts in gear and start planning ahead better.

I reject your notion of an "energy policy." The idea of the government stepping in and telling every America what he/she can and cannot do when consuming energy is a fascist fallacy. I only trust the invisible hand when it comes to energy consumption. nods.

well you would expect to see growth in sectors like automotive and such...


yes! GM is the largest car maker and their cars have recently gotten better since they bought all those engineers from Opel (but I still wouldn't buy one). And the computer industry has been booming since the 90's. So has the Pharmaceutical industry.

*waves E.U flag*



well you would expect to see growth in sectors like automotive and such...



it would be considered obnoxious if I referred to Britain as Eurasia

I consider calling an American a "USian", no different than calling a Chinese person a chink.

it would be considered obnoxious if I referred to Britain as Eurasia

I don't know about obnoxious, you would just sound weird. Like, "oh? Was that supposed to be a joke or something. I don't get it."

I consider calling an American a "USian", no different than calling a Chinese person a Chink.

only it doesn't have all the racist connections but I won't let that get in the way of your tantrum over not being able to claim two continents

I don't know about obnoxious, you would just sound weird. Like, "oh? Was that supposed to be a joke or something. I don't get it."

exactly and its time to stop so we can have Brazil steal it

only it doesn't have all the racist connections but I won't let that get in the way of your tantrum over not being able to claim two continents

I am not claiming two continents.

You call people from the United Mexican States, Mexicans, you call people from the Republic of Cuba, Cubans, so whats wrong with calling people of the United states of America, Americans?

only it doesn't have all the racist connections but I won't let that get in the way of your tantrum over not being able to claim two continents



exactly and its time to stop so we can have Brazil steal it

What the? Are you just trying to pick a fight with all the Americans on this forum who don't see eye to eye with you? Whats your beef with us, huh? Hubby?

I much prefer to called a Yankee/Yank than a USian, it just sounds.. odd

I am not claiming two continents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americas

You call people from the United Mexican States, Mexicans, you call people from the Republic of Cuba, Cubans, so whats wrong with calling people of the United states of America, Americans?

because you don't hold political domination over the Western hemisphere and thus unlike say Cuba you do not control the regions that make up America

*waves E.U flag*



well you would expect to see growth in sectors like automotive and such...



it would be considered obnoxious if I referred to Britain as Eurasia

Jesus Christ, folks. The continent and the country have the same name. We refer to ourselves as Americans because that is the name of our country. If it causes a monmentary predicament for other inhabitants of the New World when describing their continentiality, then "Oh well". Get the fuck over it, everyone.

Jesus Christ, folks. The continent and the country have the same name. We refer to ourselves as Americans because that is the name of our country. If it causes a monmentary predicament for other inhabitants of the New World when describing their continentiality, then "Oh well". Get the fuck over it, everyone.

If it causes your a mo(n)mentary predicament to be called USian ....
"Oh well" ... Get the fuck over it

Nah, I think that we´re all to blame for the increasing fuel shortage. It´s a worldwide thing.

What the? Are you just trying to pick a fight with all the Americans on this forum who don't see eye to eye with you? Whats your beef with us, huh? Hubby?

its fun because I'm actually right and your position basically consists of "screw the rest of the continents inhabitants I get to be American"

I much prefer to called a Yankee/Yank than a USian, it just sounds.. odd

I sense that yank has a vastly different term in the US than to what context it is used in the rest of the world

Jesus Christ, folks. The continent and the country have the same name. We refer to ourselves as Americans because that is the name of our country. If it causes a monmentary predicament for other inhabitants of the New World when describing their continentiality, then "Oh well". Get the fuck over it, everyone.

History Lesson 1:

The United States was created during the turbulent time of 1776 onward and still exists albeit in a much larger form

I think Yank is a good compromise, and will only call people who want to be called Americans USians :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americas



because you don't hold political domination over the Western hemisphere and thus unlike say Cuba you do not control the regions that make up America

They all have their own names for themselves. Mexicans, Cubas, Haitians, Colombians, Bolivians, ect, ect.

its fun because I'm actually right and your position basically consists of "screw the rest of the continents I get to be American"


Excuse me, I see I have spent too much time debating nonsense with you.

Yes, we're to blame, because no one on Earth has ever used fossil fuels of any kind.

Heck, there's plenty of coal in Newcastle, because the Brits never burned it.

No one in Europe has any lights on except the French (they're nuclear - boo hiss).

No one in Europe has any lights on except the French (they're nuclear - boo hiss).

Yeah France really got ahead of everyone on that one. Interesting thing I heard once but have never really researched it: The U.S. has about the same number of nuclear power plants as France, but it only provides about 20% of the power here.

They all have their own names for themselves. Mexicans, Cubas, Haitians, Colombians, Bolivians, ect, ect.

and all are American

No one in Europe has any lights on except the French (they're nuclear - boo hiss).

well it is bedtime ;)

Yeah France really got ahead of everyone on that one. Interesting thing I heard once but have never really researched it: The U.S. has about the same number of nuclear power plants as France, but it only provides about 20% of the power here.

Makes sense when you think there are five times as many people in the US.

and all are American


They will be soon.

I give up, its like trying to convince the Klan to stop using the word "niger".

Makes sense when you think there are five times as many people in the US.

Yeah, And the Canadians recently built those new reactors with heavy water coolant. Totally badass. I just like to talk about nuclear power when I get the chance. Sorry.

They will be soon.

heeheehee:D

Yeah, And the Canadians recently built those new reactors with heavy water coolant. Totally badass. I just like to talk about nuclear power when I get the chance. Sorry.

Fair enough. I think that if people in the US want to maintain anything close to the standard of living they have now, people better start building nuclear power plants right now. (Actually, I thought that about five years ago).

I gather a lot of people don't actually believe in reality however.

Yeah, And the Canadians recently built those new reactors with heavy water coolant. Totally badass. I just like to talk about nuclear power when I get the chance. Sorry.

Talk about the Integral Fast Breeder that doesn't use the standard nuclear fuel cycle, burns its own waste, and uses 95% of the latent power in the fuel instead of 5%.

Fair enough. I think that if people in the US want to maintain anything close to the standard of living they have now, people better start building nuclear power plants right now. (Actually, I thought that about five years ago).

I gather a lot of people don't actually believe in reality however.

ditto, I've been saying that for years too.

McCain says he wants to build a lot of nuclear reactors quickly.

Obama is definitely anti-nuclear.

I guess we'll be doing the best we can with stone knives and bear skins.

Ethanol is going to save us. We don't need nuclear power. Pooy. Don;t you know anything. /sarcasm.

Fair enough. I think that if people in the US want to maintain anything close to the standard of living they have now, people better start building nuclear power plants right now. (Actually, I thought that about five years ago).

I gather a lot of people don't actually believe in reality however.

McCain says he wants to build a lot of nuclear reactors quickly.

Obama is definitely anti-nuclear.

I guess we'll be doing the best we can with stone knives and bear skins.

McCain says he wants to build a lot of nuclear reactors quickly.

Obama is definitely anti-nuclear.

I guess we'll be doing the best we can with stone knives and bear skins.

I like camping. And I'm long lead. So either way for me.

And while I do enjoy my creature comforts, it would almost be worth it to see all those self righteous punks who twitter on about 'yuman rites' and 'clean renewable energy' spending twelve hours a day in the fields.

I mean, if you are really against nuclear energy, at least have the common sense to learn blacksmithing or something.

I like camping. And I'm long lead. So either way for me.

And while I do enjoy my creature comforts, it would almost be worth it to see all those self righteous punks who twitter on about 'yuman rites' and 'clean renewable energy' spending twelve hours a day in the fields.

I mean, if you are really against nuclear energy, at least have the common sense to learn blacksmithing or something.

I can build structures out of scrap wood.

I like camping. And I'm long lead. So either way for me.

And while I do enjoy my creature comforts, it would almost be worth it to see all those self righteous punks who twitter on about 'yuman rites' and 'clean renewable energy' spending twelve hours a day in the fields.

I mean, if you are really against nuclear energy, at least have the common sense to learn blacksmithing or something.

My thoughts exactly.

USians?

That's annoying to look at, spell, say, and hear.

It is also offensive to Americans.

USians?

That's annoying to look at, spell, say, and hear.

USians?

That's annoying to look at, spell, say, and hear.

It's the NSG way. Most are either self-loathing Americans, or Europeans who hate America.

There are a few exceptions, but I think this picture is typical of most NSG posters.

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b360/--was--/poster3.jpg

I can build structures out of scrap wood.

See, now if you can live in them, that's useful. So you'll be okay. Provided you like doing that sort of thing.

It's the NSG way. Most are either self-loathing Americans, or Europeans who hate America.

There are a few exceptions, but I think this picture is typical of most NSG posters.

<snip>

Love the carseat with the little girl in it.

That's what makes the picture funny.

See, now if you can live in them, that's useful. So you'll be okay. Provided you like doing that sort of thing.

I made a fort out of random shit I found at a construction dump one time. But I really like things like my hot water heater, my electric stove and my A/C. Not to mention some people cannot live without electricity. The elderly, the sick and the hospital patients.

I mean, if you are really against nuclear energy, at least have the common sense to learn blacksmithing or something.

Right. Because you either have to fully support nuclear energy, or you have to want human society to go back to preindustrial times. This is called a false dichotomy, isn't it?

I find the most interesting thing about these energy resource debates is taht everyone picks their favourite fuel source (USian conservatives always choose nukular, for some reason) , and then defends it as being the only solution possible.

The trouble with that is that it assumes that one solution will fit all possible situations. Different contexts require different solutions. Places that have lots of waterfalls can use hydroelectric turbines. Bays with large difference in tidal sea levels could use tidal energy. Deserts can use solar power. Coastlines can use wind power. Should Quebec tear down all its hydroelectric dams and start building nuclear reactors?

Another problem is that we haven't really studied the different sytems in terms of life cycle assessments. Nuclear waste has a long shelf life, and is very hazardous. Mind you , the same could be said for the chemicals in a photovoltaic cell. I don't know which is better, but I would like to see people looking at these assessments when discussing alternatives.

Personally, i don't think any fuel source is going to satsify all our needs, nor do I think it would be a good idea to have a single source of energy for everything, as we would be utterly fuct if things went wrong with that technology. Every community should have at least two methods of providing energy to its inhabitants for basic needs such as heating, electricity and basic transport. And these methods should reflect the environmental needs and resources available. Nuclear power is definitely the solution for some situations. I do not believe it is the best for all situations.

It is also offensive to Americans.

I think it is only offensive to a small number of US Americans. Most Americans do not find it insulting because it simply does not apply to them. Me, for example. I'm an American, but I'm not from the USA, so the term USian does not even apply. I don't see why I would find it offensive.

I would say that the majority of greenhouse gasses produced come from airlines. The 3 days after 9/11 in the US when all the planes were grounded proved some of that, as the global (yes global, not national) temps dropped 3-4 degrees on average. You don't have to take my word for it, but before you call me a conspiracy freak please consult archived weather maps and view the information for yourself.

The second cause is going to be energy plants, factories, and the like. Unless statistics are wrong (which they frequently are, so spare me) the main reason against electric cars was the fact that they consumed more energy from a power outlet, causing more emissions from power plants, than they would have had they been fossil fuel/petroleum based vehicles.

Lastly, it's no secret that america uses more fossil fuels than most any other country in the world, we are drastically more spread out and have a better economy than those larger and more spread out than us. This means longer commutes to work, which means more gas consumption. Hence the reason our gas is so cheap compared to other countries. We use more, and rely more on gas, therefore it's cheaper. It's simple economics. The average commute in Europe for example is 15 minutes, while the average commute in america is closer to 1 hour. So our cars are averaging 45 minutes more per trip than they are in other countries, and we burn more gas because of it. However, this is why we have emissions laws in a lot of places. Our cars for the most part produce less greenhouse gasses on average than cars in other countries, but it's not enough to compensate for the 90 minutes per day more usage than other countries.

This is why I voted "Kind Of" It's not as simple as yes or no, many factors effect greenhouse gases, but I think all countries are doing their part to produce less of them.

Right. Because you either have to fully support nuclear energy, or you have to want human society to go back to preindustrial times. This is called a false dichotomy, isn't it?


It would be, if it was false. Solar, wind, tide, all that shit just don't produce enough energy to support a fully industrial society. And since they are the products of a fully industrial society........

So yeah, eighteenth century here we come. After all, most of the easy coal has been dug.

Saying that there's blame is merely an attempt to try to pass the buck, with most everyone trying to tack it on to someone else.

Further, the term is "American". It's a common, and acceptable, synechdoche. If you insist on being overly technical, it's a "Citizen of the United States" or a "US Citizen". "USian" is entirely unacceptable. "US" is not a word, it's an acronym, and as such, cannot be attached to "ian". Have you ever heard of a "NASAian", a "EUian" or a "SDFer"? No, no you haven't.

It would be, if it was false. Solar, wind, tide, all that shit just don't produce enough energy to support a fully industrial society. And since they are the products of a fully industrial society........

So yeah, eighteenth century here we come. After all, most of the easy coal has been dug.

The only solar power that can provide power at industrial levels is an orbital solar power station - and that would be the equivalent of a 5 GW ground based powerplant.

Solar and wind are fine for modest support for residential use. Office use if a small town.

Hydro is limited - most of the good spots are already taken and used. You can't suddenly build 150 dams - there are no locations.

We need to build nuclear fission plants, preferably the Integral Fast Breeder design - or our society literally grinds to a halt.

And don't forget that a lower technology level will translate into a lower population very, very rapidly.

See, now if you can live in them, that's useful. So you'll be okay. Provided you like doing that sort of thing.

They're inhabitable, but the actual size of said structures depends on the materials available.

And yes, I do like building these things.

The only solar power that can provide power at industrial levels is an orbital solar power station - and that would be the equivalent of a 5 GW ground based powerplant.

Solar and wind are fine for modest support for residential use. Office use if a small town.

Hydro is limited - most of the good spots are already taken and used. You can't suddenly build 150 dams - there are no locations.

We need to build nuclear fission plants, preferably the Integral Fast Breeder design - or our society literally grinds to a halt.

And don't forget that a lower technology level will translate into a lower population very, very rapidly.

You know, the ocean is basically an unlimited source of Uranium. If we used uranium for 100% of all the power on earth, the ocean would still be replenishing it faster than we could use it. And it would last longer than the lifetime of the Sun(like 6 billion years). Although, no efficient process for extracting uranium out of ocean water exists. And I don't think it will be feasible soon either. Plus it would take something like 134 million metric tons of ocean water to get 1 imperial pound of uranium assuming 100% efficiency. So, I don't really know why I decided to mention this.

It would be, if it was false. Solar, wind, tide, all that shit just don't produce enough energy to support a fully industrial society. And since they are the products of a fully industrial society........

So yeah, eighteenth century here we come. After all, most of the easy coal has been dug.

Now, I don't know about that. Solar, wind and tide are all pretty pathetic right now, but lets not discount the fact that necessity is the mother of invention. You saw that post about oil pooping bacteria right? Besides, solar cells have been getting a lot cheaper and more efficient over the past few decades. I am more concerned about the government outlawing or taxing future technology than I am about our ability to make due without oil.

It's been said many times that USians use too much fuels, and I wonder, are they to blame for global warming?

If not, who is?

I'm an american and I use exactly zero fuel.

Therefore we should blame Il Ruffino instead. >_>

It is also offensive to Americans.

not really, you would rather we call you yanks with the connection that its a slur?

I think it is only offensive to a small number of US Americans. Most Americans do not find it insulting because it simply does not apply to them. Me, for example. I'm an American, but I'm not from the USA, so the term USian does not even apply. I don't see why I would find it offensive.

stop being racist!! :mad:

Further, the term is "American". It's a common, and acceptable, synechdoche. If you insist on being overly technical, it's a "Citizen of the United States" or a "US Citizen". "USian" is entirely unacceptable. "US" is not a word, it's an acronym, and as such, cannot be attached to "ian". Have you ever heard of a "NASAian", a "EUian" or a "SDFer"? No, no you haven't.

1) its not really acceptable if say a USian applies for work overseas and gives a broad geographic area
2) Usian
3) have heard EUian come up in conversation

It would be, if it was false. Solar, wind, tide, all that shit just don't produce enough energy to support a fully industrial society. And since they are the products of a fully industrial society........

biomass is actually making leaps and bounds in this area and is especially useful in terms of both recycling (in the case of incineration plants and gas produced from waste bacteria) and forest growth (in the case of general biomass)

WTF is a Usian? Is it meant to say United Statesian? Regardless then go on that stupid argument again I will say no to the original question. It is interesting to note that a few years ago China took over the USA as the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases. Of course we don't see people attacking them now do we, I suppose it is because it isn't in vogue to attack China over environmental concerns but attacking the US over anything is the 'in thing' to do at the moment maybe if China had a company similar to McDonald's.

I know it does not fully fit, but ...
you don't acknowledge being called USian....
but will you call any Greek that doesn't acknowledge how you label him unless you use greek letters and call him Hellenic (or whatever the proper greek form would be?)

Just a thought. I might insist that you call me Deutsch and of course you must use the proper declination of the different cases ...

Should any Greek have a preferred word for nationality, I will do my utmost to pronounce it. I usually do calling Germans Deutsch (being of Deutsch grandparents myself). I hardly think this is unreasonable. Especially since "US American" or even "yank" doesn't require any special keyboards or characters. The latter is only four letters, and the last two are right next to each other.

1) the terms yanks and limes (or whatever you call us) tend to get looked at with disdain by the rest of the planet :p

2) USian now stays much like Top Gears ratings because USians don't like it.

1. Limeies. You don't even bother to learn our patronizing pet names! *cries* I don't know that I've ever even used the word limey, actually. I usually call you Brits, and if that is offensive, I apologize and will use a term of your choosing.

2. I apologize; I thought the purpose was to be more PC and not neglect the rest of the Americas. I did not realize it was just to be petty. Mission accomplished then! With a big banner and everything. ;)

Should any Greek have a preferred word for nationality, I will do my utmost to pronounce it. I usually do calling Germans Deutsch (being of Deutsch grandparents myself). I hardly think this is unreasonable. Especially since "US American" or even "yank" doesn't require any special keyboards or characters. The latter is only four letters, and the last two are right next to each other.

Well, Deutsch is German for "German", so calling them Germans is actually spot-on.

1) its not really acceptable if say a USian applies for work overseas and gives a broad geographic area

Which is why the proper term is used. Citizen of the United States, or United States Citizen. In conversation, the short synecdoche "American" is appropriate and acceptable. Far more so than "USian".

2) Usian

Ah, so for pettiness sake it is, then?


3) have heard EUian come up in conversation

Likely a created attempt at a save. And it sounds entirely ludicrous.

I refuse to acknowledge a group of people called "USians" and so cannot answer this question. I understand that "America" covers a very large area, but you could do us the courtesy of calling us "US Americans". Or even yanks, I don't particularly care if you call us yanks. It does not sound half so retarded as USians.

To my fellow yanks: USA, please. The song isn't "Born in the US of A."

Yeah. And Bruce Springsteen gets to decide how I say my own nation's name? I don't think so. "U.S. of A." is fine 'cause the "of" is in the full name already. And as for USians? I agree. It IS stupid. It should be USan (pronounced "you essence") -- cleaner, easier to say, avoids the annoying "i". Personally, I don't care what we're called. And those who are genuinely chafing at anything other than "Americans" really need something better to do with their ire.

Since the U.S. is the most powerful and richest nation on earth, we are naturally to blame for everything that is wrong with the world. Including global warming. I, especially, am to blame. I like to barbecue old tires and rape small children on the weekends.

Richest? Really? Well, if you count debt as an asset, then sure.

Uh, okay, but that contributes to global warming exactly how?

I reject your notion of an "energy policy." The idea of the government stepping in and telling every America what he/she can and cannot do when consuming energy is a fascist fallacy. I only trust the invisible hand when it comes to energy consumption. nods.

"Fascist fallacy"? Okay, no. If the government can step in an do things that PROMOTE "energy policy" that benefits oil companies and ignores the peak in US/World oil production that was first forecast in 1956 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil)(!), then guess what, my capitalist-humping friend, "energy policy" will be the only way we get ourselves out of the hole we've dug.

The hole was dug using cheap oil to rationalize the creation and continued existence of Suburbia (long commutes, big houses, big yards, the 3000-mile Caesar salad). A very informative film on the subject is The End of Suburbia (http://www.fandango.com/theendofsuburbia:oildepletionandthecollapseoftheamericandream_v313268/summary).

yes! GM is the largest car maker and their cars have recently gotten better since they bought all those engineers from Opel (but I still wouldn't buy one). And the [B]computer industry has been booming since the 90's. So has the Pharmaceutical industry.

Tell me, where are all these computers being made?

I give up, its like trying to convince the Klan to stop using the word "niger".

Why would the Klan have any use for the name of a river or country in Africa? You're weird.

It is also offensive to some Americans.

Fixed.

its fun because I'm actually right and your position basically consists of "screw the rest of the continents inhabitants I get to be American"

Okay. Let's try to be reasonable (I said try). If someone from, oh, Bolivia, wants to call me a "USian" because they, too, are an American without benefit of the name, I will grit my teeth and bear it. You, however, are not from any part of America, so I will not politely bear it, because it's clear you're only trying to be irksome , and I find that... well, to be honest, disappointing.

Should any Greek have a preferred word for nationality, I will do my utmost to pronounce it. I usually do calling Germans Deutsch (being of Deutsch grandparents myself). I hardly think this is unreasonable. Especially since "US American" or even "yank" doesn't require any special keyboards or characters. The latter is only four letters, and the last two are right next to each other.

What keyboard are you using? Mine has the 'n' on the bottom row of letters with the 'b' and 'm' either side of it.

What keyboard are you using? Mine has the 'n' on the bottom row of letters with the 'b' and 'm' either side of it.

Oh, for god's---it's up one and over! Okay, that's it, it's far too hot for this.

What keyboard are you using? Mine has the 'n' on the bottom row of letters with the 'b' and 'm' either side of it.

next row up.

Okay. Let's try to be reasonable (I said try). If someone from, oh, Bolivia, wants to call me a "USian" because they, too, are an American without benefit of the name, I will grit my teeth and bear it. You, however, are not from any part of America, so I will not politely bear it, because it's clear you're only trying to be irksome , and I find that... well, to be honest, disappointing.

Which is the one thing, perhaps, that Muslim fundamentalists and USans have in common -- no sense of humor about themselves, and the inability to take a little (deserved) ribbing.

Oh, for god's---it's up one and over! Okay, that's it, it's far too hot for this.

Well, you did say "right next". That kinda means adjacent, and not with either a J or M key in between. Don't blame the kid when he can see that the emperor's naked.

Okay. Let's try to be reasonable (I said try). If someone from, oh, Bolivia, wants to call me a "USian" because they, too, are an American without benefit of the name, I will grit my teeth and bear it. You, however, are not from any part of America, so I will not politely bear it, because it's clear you're only trying to be irksome , and I find that... well, to be honest, disappointing.

You wouldn't have to grit your teeth and bear it, period. The United States of America is the name of the country, and as was said before, we call ourselves (and are referred to as) Americans because, simply, it's logical.

We don't call Germans "Federal Republicans" or "FRians", nor do we call Britons "GBians". Yes, the continents are called the Americas, we get it. Everyone living on them is American, yet our country still bears the name America.

Canadians don't call themselves Americans, nor do Mexicans or Brazilians. This is really fucking stupid and petty.

Well, you did say "right next". That kinda means adjacent, and not with either a J or M key in between. Don't blame the kid when he can see that the emperor's naked.

Yeah, but does the emperor ever shave?

You wouldn't have to grit your teeth and bear it, period. The United States of America is the name of the country, and as was said before, we call ourselves (and are referred to as) Americans because, simply, it's logical.

We don't call Germans "Federal Republicans" or "FRians", nor do we call Britons "GBians". Yes, the continents are called the Americas, we get it. Everyone living on them is American, yet our country still bears the name America.

Canadians don't call themselves Americans, nor do Mexicans or Brazilians. This is really fucking stupid and petty.

If it's so petty, why are you paying it any mind?

If "American" is too long then please use "USan" (which I actually have done so before...) not "USian". Or nation is techically the USA (United States of America), so "USian" introduces a silly letter where there shouldn't be one, much like "Friench", "Germian", and "Swiass".

Yeah, but does the emperor ever shave?

Dunno. Never had an emperor.

USians are not innocent when it comes to pollution. Neither are many other industrialized nations. Germany is probably the country headed fastest into a new age of earth friendly energy economics.

I bet we'll see them make a killing off of green technology and grow their economy enormously if the rest of the world keeps such a slow pace on heading toward clean renewable energy.

There is a trend in the right direction though in countries that are the worst offenders. I am not too worried.

USians will really see tough times ahead, as will most people around the world, if they keep courting the dirty polluting industries. It's the fault of the consumers who do not demand better from the corporations that pollute.

There are a lot of companies going green these days. Support them and send a message to those fat cats in Washington! :P

Dunno. Never had an emperor.

Well, my friend, you simply haven't lived.

If "American" is too long then please use "USan" (which I actually have done so before...) not "USian". Or nation is techically the USA (United States of America), so "USian" introduces a silly letter where there shouldn't be one, much like "Friench", "Germian", and "Swiass".

Agreed (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13783631&postcount=90).

Oh, for god's---it's up one and over! Okay, that's it, it's far too hot for this.

LMAO Yes I knew what you meant, just joshing with ya.

its fun because I'm actually right and your position basically consists of "screw the rest of the continents inhabitants I get to be American"




You should ask a Canadian or Mexican if they would rather be called American. You already know the answer as a UKian. The term American is used by others. Commonly used as Central American and South American. North American isn't used so much for the obvious reasons I stated at the start of this comment.

Well, my friend, you simply haven't lived.

So I've been told.

Which is the one thing, perhaps, that Muslim fundamentalists and USans have in common -- no sense of humor about themselves, and the inability to take a little (deserved) ribbing.

Dude, you didn't even spell your own pet name right. C'mon.

Oh, please. I wouldn't have lasted a day here if I didn't have a sense of humor aimed squarely at myself. Much of my country is currently caught between horror movie and circus show, and I will point it out as much as anyone. This is actually the only thing that bothers me. I mean, I have a lot of laughs at the expense of my screwed-up family, too, but that doesn't mean you can call my sister a whore (I don't have a sister, but if I did, I imagine she would be).

I'd say the Muslim fundamentalist thing was uncalled for, but "Muslim fundamentalist" just doesn't push my buttons--despite being an American. I know! Wacky!

Hence forth I refuse to be referred to as any nationality other than Californian.

As a USian, I can call myself and my fellow countrymen USians all I wish. I don't see it as an insult if USians say it to each other, but if you dirty foreigners call me a USian you are being nationalist and I won't stand for it.

Does a USian gotta slap a ho?

So I've been told.

You're making it very difficult to make an interesting comeback.

When referring to some one from the United States of America I would call them American, when referring to someone from the United States of Mexico I would call them Mexican. If I was referring to someone from either North or South America or even someone living on the land bridge I would refer to them as from the Americas especially as I may not know which country they are from.

As a USian, I can call myself and my fellow countrymen USians all I wish. I don't see it as an insult if USians say it to each other, but if you dirty foreigners call me a USian you are being nationalist and I won't stand for it.

Does a USian gotta slap a ho?

*kicks you square in the nuts and rips off your wristwatch piercing*

Har.

Which is the one thing, perhaps, that Muslim fundamentalists and USans have in common -- no sense of humor about themselves, and the inability to take a little (deserved) ribbing.

I don't really care if you want to call me a USian, even though its not a correct term. But why is the term American so bad? The name of our country is The United States of America. The etymology of this has been settled for some time now. An American lives in North America, a Bolivian lives in South America. So on. I am beginning to gather that the point of this thread is to pigeonhole Americans as more arrogant and unwise than their worldly counterparts. And now someone is comparing our sense of humor to that of a Muslim fundamentalist? Has anyone here actually sat down with a Muslim fundamentalist and knocked a few jokes around? I don't understand what the point of all this anti-American sentiment is other than a way for people to argue about things that really don't matter.

*kicks you square in the nuts and rips off your wristwatch piercing*

Har.


ouch!

How'd you get out of the closet? Big Ted was supposed to be keeping you company and I had the door locked too.

Dude, you didn't even spell your own pet name right. C'mon.

Quoi? "My own pet name?" Dude, I already explained that USan makes more sense. If that wasn't what you were talking about, then I'm at a loss (not the first time, I assure you).

Oh, please. I wouldn't have lasted a day here if I didn't have a sense of humor aimed squarely at myself. Much of my country is currently caught between horror movie and circus show, and I will point it out as much as anyone.

Good for you. We need more of that.

This is actually the only thing that bothers me.

Really? That? I'm sorry.

I mean, I have a lot of laughs at the expense of my screwed-up family, too, but that doesn't mean you can call my sister a whore (I don't have a sister, but if I did, I imagine she would be).

If you can POSSIBLY explain how impugning your sister's virtue and using an alternate shortening of a nationality are even REMOTELY related, I'll be very surprised. Shit fire and save matches, man.

I'd say the Muslim fundamentalist thing was uncalled for, but "Muslim fundamentalist" just doesn't push my buttons--despite being an American. I know! Wacky!

It was a fair comparison, and I stand by it. Neither Muslim fundamentalists nor rabid US patriots have anything approaching the ability to take a joke at their own expense.

Henceforth I refuse to be referred to as any nationality other than Californian.

Right on.

since The U.s. Is The Most Powerful And Richest Nation On Earth, We Are Naturally To Blame For Everything That Is Wrong With The World. Including Global Warming. I, Especially, Am To Blame. I Like To Barbecue Old Tires And Rape Small Children On The Weekends.

Wtf? That was just bad.....

You're making it very difficult to make an interesting comeback.

Sorry.

I don't really care if you want to call me a USian, even though its not a correct term. But why is the term American so bad?

I don't recall saying it was.

The name of our country is The United States of America. The etymology of this has been settled for some time now.

Etymology? No.

An American lives in North America, a Bolivian lives in South America. So on. I am beginning to gather that the point of this thread is to pigeonhole Americans as more arrogant and unwise than their worldly counterparts.

So far, so good, on average.

And now someone is comparing our sense of humor to that of a Muslim fundamentalist? Has anyone here actually sat down with a Muslim fundamentalist and knocked a few jokes around? I don't understand what the point of all this anti-American sentiment is other than a way for people to argue about things that really don't matter.[/QUOTE]

Exactly.

I find it completely irresistible to poke fun at those who bristle at something as incredibly petty as USan (or whatever). So yeah, that means that -- like Muslim fundies who bristle at cartoons of their relligious figures and demand the death of those who drew them -- those who are yammering about how "offensive" USan is simply cannot take a joke. I can't explain that any clearer.

Are the Americans to blame?

Partly.

Will they try to make excuses?

Certainly.

Are the Americans to blame?

Partly.

Will they try to make excuses?

Certainly.


Just like many others like to make America as the excuse for their problems. ;)


post 7000

Of course we're to blame. We're to blame for everthing. Dur.

For starters, GW is a myth. The Earth is just going through a cycle that is repeated every 20-30 thousand years. The only thing that CO2 emmisions does is bring it forward by a couple of hundred years. It is all associated with the fact that the earths magnetic field is weakening, ready to do one of its flips, nothing can be done to prevent it, so stop worrying.

Sorry.



I don't recall saying it was.



Etymology? No.



So far, so good, on average.

And now someone is comparing our sense of humor to that of a Muslim fundamentalist? Has anyone here actually sat down with a Muslim fundamentalist and knocked a few jokes around? I don't understand what the point of all this anti-American sentiment is other than a way for people to argue about things that really don't matter.

Exactly.

I find it completely irresistible to poke fun at those who bristle at something as incredibly petty as USan (or whatever). So yeah, that means that -- like Muslim fundies who bristle at cartoons of their relligious figures and demand the death of those who drew them -- those who are yammering about how "offensive" USan is simply cannot take a joke. I can't explain that any clearer.[/QUOTE]

Sorry, Intangelon. I wasn't directing everything I said at you. I shouldn't have quoted you. My bad.

Everyone seems to be missing one key element here:

While the USA is still bigger than Mexico we should burn it for fuel. End of immigration debate, end of border problems, end of fuel crisis.

It's simple people: human bodies are all full of calories. Calories are a measure of energy release. Burn people.

When we're done with all of South America (so as to end the problem of who's an American and who's a USian) we can burn our poor and elderly. If we still have problems after that then the rich and industrious survivors of what I like to call "The Great Purging" will be able to, I don't know, invent something else. Not something I have to worry about, as I will probably be burned much earlier.

Everyone seems to be missing one key element here:

While the USA is still bigger than Mexico we should burn it for fuel. End of immigration debate, end of border problems, end of fuel crisis.

It's simple people: human bodies are all full of calories. Calories are a measure of energy release. Burn people.

When we're done with all of South America (so as to end the problem of who's an American and who's a USian) we can burn our poor and elderly. If we still have problems after that then the rich and industrious survivors of what I like to call "The Great Purging" will be able to, I don't know, invent something else. Not something I have to worry about, as I will probably be burned much earlier.

Ladies and gentlemen, Jonathan Swift!

Swift had it all wrong.

He wanted food. We can economically convince other countries to grow our food. That way we can use all our grain for ethanol (which is the only thing keeping us from the Purging... but it'll come, mark my words. And y'all will be the first against the wall, ya hear?)

Everyone seems to be missing one key element here:

While the USA is still bigger than Mexico we should burn it for fuel. End of immigration debate, end of border problems, end of fuel crisis.

It's simple people: human bodies are all full of calories. Calories are a measure of energy release. Burn people.

When we're done with all of South America (so as to end the problem of who's an American and who's a USian) we can burn our poor and elderly. If we still have problems after that then the rich and industrious survivors of what I like to call "The Great Purging" will be able to, I don't know, invent something else. Not something I have to worry about, as I will probably be burned much earlier.


hahaha yeah.... this quote here may seem insane and all but i agree with it in all seriousness. not only will we be getting free energy but less people= less pollution just think about it.....

Well if I remember my history lessons correctly then Briton is to blame for kick-starting the whole Industrial Revolution thing. To which American businesses subscribed too durring and afterwards.

(now for random emoticons to draw attention):eek::p:(

It may be hard for US Americans to believe but people here in Latin America DO call themselves American when they want to speak about themselves in general. In history the biggest colonial powers here would refer to their citizens from their many provinces in America as Americans; Modern culture changed the trend of use, but American is still used by many people around Latin America (I don't like this incorrect term, but whatever ¬¬).

By that they don't want to take the meaning of US Citizen from the denonym American (even if estadounidense is often used instead of American on the hispanic countries). Most people where I live see two meanings for it: Americano from the States, and Americano from the whole continent. One use doesn't exclude the other.

USian is sort of a specification, which is not that specific: it has in itself the same error made by those who call Americans the citizens from those lands between Canada and Mexico: it doesn't specify which United States (as the term Americans doesn't specify whose Americans, continent or country). USian can be used to avoid someone from raising the American continent issue, and allows someone to raise the other United States issue (which I never saw anyone do before, only to deride usage of the USian term).

Oh yeah, and global warming is bad. I hope they get it fixed soon.:p

(I don't like this incorrect term, but whatever ¬¬).

How exactly is it incorrect?

How about US American?

How about US American?

Sounds like currency.

Sounds like currency.

Peso
Dollar
Eruodollar
Simolean
Franc
Mark

THOSE sound like currency

How exactly is it incorrect?

Often I see it opposed to Anglo-Saxon America, but if you use Latin America to describe american countries other than the US and Canada, you're saying that all those nations speak a latin-derived (romanic languages), which isn't true; countries like Guiana, Suriname, Jamaica, to name a few, are excluded of Latin America. By the same critter, Quebec would be included (when they separate, if ever)

How about US American?

That does the trick. I am not fond of the USian word either, but I disagree that the word American should be restricted to one single group when it can have more than one meaning.

Of course we're to blame. We're to blame for everthing. Dur.

Yep. You guys killed all the dinosaurs by driving too many SUVs... Evil...

Jesus Christ, folks. The continent and the country have the same name. We refer to ourselves as Americans because that is the name of our country.

But see the thing is "United States of America" refer to American states that are united, not a set of united states referred to as America, of has more than one use in a title like that.

If "American" is too long then please use "USan" (which I actually have done so before...) not "USian". Or nation is techically the USA (United States of America), so "USian" introduces a silly letter where there shouldn't be one, much like "Friench", "Germian", and "Swiass".

But then it's United Statesan, it would make more sense to captialise the A and have the n purely to distuingish "United States of American" from "United States of America".

It's been said many times that USians use too much fuels, and I wonder, are they to blame for global warming?

First affordable car (Ford T): Invented by a USian
Building a country such that it's impossible to live without a car: US
Inventing the muscle car (a non-sporty car with big engine, that wastes more fuel than a sports car, but goes slower): Invented by USians
Refusing to ratify Kyoto Protocol: US
Cheapest gas in the world: US

Well, it would be unfair to say that US isn't the key factor in increasing greenhouse gas emissions.

I suspect this is Paraguay's doing. They've been unusually quiet during this whole situation.

*eyes them suspiciously*

We've already been through this, it's the Dutch.

Yes, the United States is partly to blame for global warming. However, we also must take into account the effects of industrialization worldwide and the increasing demand for fossil fuels from India and China. It's my belief that, if the demand for fossil fuels worldwide isn't checked soon, we're all screwed. We may all be screwed anyway.

No, because there is no such thing as a "USian."

Americans are somewhat to blame, though.

First affordable car (Ford T): Invented by a USian
Building a country such that it's impossible to live without a car: US
Inventing the muscle car (a non-sporty car with big engine, that wastes more fuel than a sports car, but goes slower): Invented by USians
Refusing to ratify Kyoto Protocol: US

True, but I find it hard to believe that cars wouldn't have been made affordable eventually without the United States, or that the Europeans, Japanese, or Koreans haven't and wouldn't have invented gas-guzzling status-symbol cars like muscle cars and SUVs.

Cheapest gas in the world: US


Your other points are good ones, AFAIK, but this one isn't. The cheapest gas is in countries that produce and export the stuff.

No, because there is no such thing as a "USian."

Not in English, but the Spanish demonym for "American" is "Estadounidense," which might be directly translated as "United Statesian." If the latter weren't so awkward-sounding, I might use it instead of "American" to denote citizens of the US.

All my nit-pickery aside, sure global warming is partially the fault of the US, just as it's partially the fault of every industrialized or developing country that burns fossil fuels. Of course, doing things like not ratifying Kyoto, or complaining about China's fuel emissions instead of limiting our own have certainly increased our culpability and exacerbated the situation.

More so than the Canadians, no.
More so than lots of others, yes. Bit stupid to blame it just on you Yanks, though.

It's been said many times that USians use too much fuels, and I wonder, are they to blame for global warming?

If not, who is?

Perhaps China, where environmental laws are an unknown concept. Or perhaps the blame should be on western europe, since last time I checked they had cars and factories too.

They certainly play a fair part.

There's no such thing as a USian.
There's no such thing as man-made global warming.

Before i continue with a reply, note that i was too lazy to read the 100+ posts so far, so here is my 2 cents.

US uses allot, but the other countries use it too.

we are all even, exept the US is more to balme for using more than every one else.

Look, for the last time.

It's United Statesman, not USian. USian is silly because it has two capital letters.

Peso
Dollar
Eruodollar
Simolean
Franc
Mark

THOSE sound like currency

Hey, as long as idiots like you call the

EURO

Eurodollar,

I will call you USian!

Hey, as long as idiots like you call the

EURO

Eurodollar,

I will call you USian!

The Euro is different to the Eurodollar.

Hell, I could care less if they call me USian. But I'm going to sit back and laugh the next time a Scot gets his knickers in a twist about being called English by some USian.

And, yeah, the US deserves the lion's share of the blame. We use the lion's share of fossil fuels. But before any other western nations start to feel smug, remember you're right behind us. If you had equal money and space I bet you'd be neck and neck.

Yea, not a single set of numbers in this entire thread, imma have to call you all out on bullshit right now.

It's the Dutch. They have the most to gain from Global Warming. Only the Dutch are capable of surviving after the ice-caps melt: I mean, they invented an inflatable dam. Once the waters recede they will take over the world from all its drowned inhabitants.

We've already been through this, it's the Dutch.

The Dutch (http://www.gotwavs.com/php/sounds/?id=gog&media=WAVS&type=Movies&movie=Austin_Powers_In_Goldmember&quote=thedutch.txt&file=thedutch.wav) :D

1) The climate has been changing for all of recorded history, and will likely continue to do so.

2) Human industry may have tipped it to change faster, but things like volcanos going off are natural and are just as climate changing of an event.

3) Regardless of *why* it's changing, what makes *anyone* think we can stop what is in progress by killing ourselves at a personal/national/international level?

Making plans to help reduce waste is a good idea, but breaking yourself to do it is prohibitive. In order for "green" anything to take off, it will also have to be cheaper or offer better performance (or both). Otherwise the only people who will use it are the rich that can afford it, or the ideologue who will hate themselves if they don't and break themselves to do it.

I think our resources and efforts could be better spent figuring out ways to adapt to climate change rather than stop or control processes that have been going on since the beginning of time. Never in all of recorded history has mankind been able to change the climate at will. Mankind has had to adapt throughout history, and I don't think it's going to be any different this time. If you'll notice, it's the peoples that failed to adapt that were overcome by it.

I wouldn't be against trying to invent some technology that would allow us to control the climate, but something like that would be a two-edged blade. Imagine how such technology could be utilized as a weapon. I don't know about you, but I won't be holding my breath waiting for such technology.

I've realized that the green loonies cannot be persuaded out of their untenable position by logic. So I've given up.

Mind you, the panic these people engender is a fine opportunity to make money.

First affordable car (Ford T): Invented by a USian
Building a country such that it's impossible to live without a car: US
Inventing the muscle car (a non-sporty car with big engine, that wastes more fuel than a sports car, but goes slower): Invented by USians
Refusing to ratify Kyoto Protocol: US
Cheapest gas in the world: US

Well, it would be unfair to say that US isn't the key factor in increasing greenhouse gas emissions.

First car: Debatable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_automobile), but not the US
Industrial Revolution: began in Great Britain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_revolution#Causes)
And let's not overlook Britain's involvement in the creation of the US in the first place.

Not that I'm defending the US, per se, I just can't resist correcting your flawed logic. If you're going to blame anyone, do it correctly. I blame the Dutch. (I'd like to think I do it correctly.)

And for the record:
Highest international CO2 emissions: China (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#United_States).

President Bush who else, he is blamed for everything.

It's the United States of America, gorramit.

It's the United States of America, gorramit.

Yes, but like the Lesbians from Lesbos, Canadians, Mexicans, and South Americans are not necessarily pleased that the US seems to have taken the word "American" away from them. Not that anyone can actually do anything about it. The US is the most influential country in the Americas, American is less awkward than USian or similar, and all the other American countries have names that lend themselves easily to describing their citizens so they don't need "American".

Here's an easy way to distinguish: American refers to the US, South or North American refers to all of the countries therein.

I know it does not fully fit, but ...
you don't acknowledge being called USian....
but will you call any Greek that doesn't acknowledge how you label him unless you use greek letters and call him Hellenic (or whatever the proper greek form would be?)

Just a thought. I might insist that you call me Deutsch and of course you must use the proper declination of the different cases ...

DUDE. WHAT????? no....we are Americans.....no other country has the word "america" in it.....therefore we are Americans.... united states of AMERICA....:upyours:

This is such a touchy topic that there are only two ways to answer it... one can joke around and pretend that they don't really have an opinion or they can answer honestly and piss someone off... anyways. i think it's not just the U.S. to blame when you consider places like Japan, China, and India. People in the U.S. are not the only ones driving cars! I'm not making any sense... oh, well.

Its not like GW exists.

Ah, hahahahahahahohohoho! *snort*
Good times, good times, you silly card. pshaw.

President Bush who else, he is blamed for everything.

Not intelligence. No joke there.

Yea, not a single set of numbers in this entire thread, imma have to call you all out on bullshit right now.
Numbers are just an abstract representation, which is all they'll ever be. Like pi.

DUDE. WHAT????? no....we are Americans.....no other country has the word "america" in it.....therefore we are Americans.... united states of AMERICA....:upyours:

*shameless self-quote*

But see the thing is "United States of America" refer to American states that are united, not a set of united states referred to as America, of has more than one use in a title like that.

DUDE. WHAT????? no....we are Americans.....no other country has the word "america" in it.....therefore we are Americans.... united states of AMERICA....:upyours:

He's got a good point. The little angry flippy-off smiley really convinced me.

As for global warming: it's all of our faults. We should have tamed the dinosaurs instead of killing them (which we coexisted with at one point, no arguing) and allowing them to become fuels which we love to burn. Then we could all ride dinosaurs around like those primativists want to.

That'd be awesome.

RhynoDD;13786194']Yes, but like the Lesbians from Lesbos, Canadians, Mexicans, and South Americans are not necessarily pleased that the US seems to have taken the word "American" away from them. Not that anyone can actually do anything about it. The US is the most influential country in the Americas, American is less awkward than USian or similar, and all the other American countries have names that lend themselves easily to describing their citizens so they don't need "American".

Here's an easy way to distinguish: American refers to the US, South or North American refers to all of the countries therein.

Yes, while the word "American" could be used to describe someone from The Americas (there is, after all, no single continent known as "America"), the need for using it in such a way is tiny in comparison to its usefulness for referring to citizens of the United States of America. Saying "North American" or "South American" is sufficient, and technically more correct anyway since they are two continents, not one. Plus, as the first New World colony to break away from after colonization and form a country, one could say "the early bird gets the worm."

Also, Mexico's full title includes the phrase "United States" (in Spanish of course) in addition to the name we commonly know the country by. Yet I've never heard of anyone referring to its people as anything but Mexicans. Well, except for racists who use other, very impolite and mean-spirited words for them.

As far as i am conserned all of the planet is to blame, and instead of complaining about it do something. I have to admit America is high to blame, being a large country. Since i dont live in America i dont know what is really going on over there. From what i can see my theory is....instead of throwing that empty can into the rubbish, recycle it and if you have to travel a k or two to work ride or walk, at least that way you stay healthy and lose weight, kill two brids with one stone, this worlds GW problem and the obesity problem too.

Since the U.S. is the most powerful and richest nation on earth, we are naturally to blame for everything that is wrong with the world. Including global warming. I, especially, am to blame. I like to barbecue old tires and rape small children on the weekends.

That's pretty much what's going on over here.

San Blanco;13784722']True, but I find it hard to believe that cars wouldn't have been made affordable eventually without the United States, or that the Europeans, Japanese, or Koreans haven't and wouldn't have invented gas-guzzling status-symbol cars like muscle cars and SUVs.
Different culture. The top status-symbol cars in Japan, as well as the rest of Asia, are Toyota Century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Century#2nd_Generation) and Nissan President (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_President).

Both are moderate, sensibly sized cars, with 280hp engines. SUV and muscle cars don't count there.


Your other points are good ones, AFAIK, but this one isn't. The cheapest gas is in countries that produce and export the stuff. Yeah, you'd think so.
But not really - not always, at least. In some, like Russia, gasoline is more expensive than in US, in some, like UAE, not, but UAE is subsidizing cheap gas for showoff.

---

First car: Debatable, but not the US First affordable car. There's nothing wrong with cars themselves - the harm is caused by the "One full-size 4-door saloon or SUV per person" ideology.

And for the record:
Highest international CO2 emissions: China.
Don't forget China has like 1.2 billion people, and half of these emissions are from producing of goods exported to US and Europe.

And let's not overlook Britain's involvement in the creation of the US in the first place. True. But then add Spain and Germany, too. Actually Britain was the only one trying to stop the creation of US. ;)

The Euro is different to the Eurodollar.

Eurodollars are no currency. He talked of currencies and mentioned Eurodollars in the same sentence as Mark, Pesos, Dollar etc. The currency is called Euro. Thus my answer in this way.
Before you try to correct me, please check if your fact (although correct in its sense) fits to the question in the first place.

Different culture. The top status-symbol cars in Japan, as well as the rest of Asia, are Toyota Century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Century#2nd_Generation) and Nissan President (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_President).

Both are moderate, sensibly sized cars, with 280hp engines. SUV and muscle cars don't count there.

SUVs and muscle cars count everywhere. Or else am I allowed to say that, oh, farm equipment doesn't count in America because America has a large amount of farmland?

Once again, your logic is a-skew.

First affordable car. There's nothing wrong with cars themselves - the harm is caused by the "One full-size 4-door saloon or SUV per person" ideology.

Fair enough. However, citing the "One full-size 4-door saloon or SUV per person" ideology as a reason for America's responsibility for GW is completely different than citing the Model T as a reason for America's responsibility for GW. If affordable cars are the reason for GW, then Japan is to blame. If it's the ...ideology, then creating a method for manufacturing affordable cars is not the problem: misusing the affordable cars is. Un-a-skew your logic.

Don't forget China has like 1.2 billion people, and half of these emissions are from producing of goods exported to US and Europe.

And? None of that changes the fact that they produce more CO2. There are any number of ways to justify the US' affordable cars, muscle cars, and low gas prices. However, if you are going to say that they are serious problems that need to addressed, than it is equally valid to cite China's place as the largest producer of CO2 as a problem. The question is not which country is morally superior in its contribution to GW, the question is whether or not the US is primarily responsible for GW. To that end, if China is producing more carbon emissions, then I would have to say no, the US is not, and China is.

You say that the US is at fault for creating a society and economy that relies so heavily on commuting. I counter that by saying China is at fault for creating a society and economy that relies so heavily on the US' consumption of goods that it forces them to produce even more carbon emissions than the US. My example of a-skew logic is as valid as yours.

To make it simpler: if China wasn't selling, the US wouldn't be buying (from China, anyways; possibly no one, since it's possible no one else would be able to create the same sort of economy, but that's neither here nor there).

True. But then add Spain and Germany, too. Actually Britain was the only one trying to stop the creation of US. ;)

You're missing the point. If it's the US' fault that China produces CO2, then it's Britain's fault for creating the kind of US that requires China to produce CO2. If the US is responsible for China's actions, then why shouldn't Britain (Germany, Spain, Portugal, etc...) be held responsible for the US' actions?

RhynoDD;13787386']SUVs and muscle cars count everywhere. Not really. In many places, including Japan, there's nothing cool about them.

If affordable cars are the reason for GW, then Japan is to blame. Japan is the country that put quality into the car. Including into affordable car. Nothing else. Their cars are far from cheapest.


And? None of that changes the fact that they produce more CO2. It changes. The fact that their products are made for US means that they effectively undertake emissions that otherwise would be released by US.

And the number of people does as well. Surely you won't consider two families of 20 total that carpool a minibus with 8mpg less responsible than a single dude that owns a 9mpg SUV?
And if China split in ten, this would be a lot of improvement, right? Because each would release 1/10th of current release.

The thing is, US has the highest (or nearly the highest) per capita environmental damage - not in small part owing to government's policy "We're the boss here, laws don't apply to us!".


To make it simpler: if China wasn't selling, the US wouldn't be buying Of course it would. Where's a buyer, are two sellers.

I know it does not fully fit, but ...
you don't acknowledge being called USian....
but will you call any Greek that doesn't acknowledge how you label him unless you use greek letters and call him Hellenic (or whatever the proper greek form would be?)

Just a thought. I might insist that you call me Deutsch and of course you must use the proper declination of the different cases ...

Are we using English?

Yes. Then we use English delineation and terminology.
In English, you are referred to as German, not Deutsch.

In English, American refers to someone of the United States of America.
North and South America are continents, not nationalities.

The use of USian is nothing more than trollish behavior on the part of otherwise respected anonymous individuals.

Not really. In many places, including Japan, there's nothing cool about them.

Nonetheless, if they exist in Japan, they still count.

Japan is the country that put quality into the car. Including into affordable car. Nothing else. Their cars are far from cheapest.

Their cars may not be the cheapest, but they are the cheapest that are still of good quality. So, they make it possible for Americans to buy three nice cars per family member. So blame the US for buying them if you think that argument will work, but you certainly can't blame the US for being the first to make it possible for a family to own a single car (as opposed to only wealthy families owning a single car).

It changes. The fact that their products are made for US means that they effectively undertake emissions that otherwise would be released by US.

No one is forcing China to make those products. They are free to stop selling goods to the US any time they want.
Now I'm guessing your response is that this is not possible for China, because its economy would fall apart. My response to that is that it is not possible for the US to stop using so many cars because the US' economy would fall apart. So, once again: if the US is to blame for "Building a country such that it's impossible to live without a car", then China is to blame for building a country such that it's impossible to live without selling things to the US.

And the number of people does as well. Surely you won't consider two families of 20 total that carpool a minibus with 8mpg less responsible than a single dude that owns a 9mpg SUV?

Which, once again, has nothing to do with making affordable cars. You said cars are not to blame. So stop quoting the creation of cars as being a problem.

And if China split in ten, this would be a lot of improvement, right? Because each would release 1/10th of current release.

And if the US kicked New York City, Chicago, LA, Atlanta, and DC out of the union, then its emissions would improve, too. That's still not a valid argument. China is China, and is responsible for China. The US is the US, and responsible for the US. Either way, China, as it exists now, produces more carbon emissions than the US. China, therefore, is primarily responsible for Global Warming. Justifiably so, perhaps, but that is not the question at hand.

The thing is, US has the highest (or nearly the highest) per capita environmental damage - not in small part owing to government's policy "We're the boss here, laws don't apply to us!".

Fair enough. You should have said that in the first place.

Of course it would. Where's a buyer, are two sellers.

RhynoDD;13787386']To make it simpler: if China wasn't selling, the US wouldn't be buying (from China, anyways...)

Once again, you are missing the point. It is not the US' fault that China is selling things to them. It may be the US' fault for buying from China, but that does not exonerate China.

Also, way to ignore like, half of my post.

Its not like GW exists.

Even if it did.

You cant blame it all on the US of A.

You know, its not like were the only people who emit C02.
That was amusing... for a moment I thought you were referring to this GW.
http://www.wayodd.com/funny-pictures2/funny-pictures-dubya-busted-19k.jpg

Then I graduated onto pity once realisation set in.

yes, Americans are to blame for all of your problems :rolleyes:

USia USia USia!

USia USia USia!

Which is the southern neighbor to Canadia.

I'd rather be an Idahoan, Minnesotan, New Yorker, or Kentuckian than a "USian", and it seems silly to try to invent a term for something that is already well established as "American" - I know many from Mexico and points further southward refer to themselves as "Americans", but they aren't typically referred to as such by residents of the US OF A (:p), Canada, or by those who live in Europe, Asia, or Africa. It sounds like an absurd extreme of political correctness when you demand that a common term be changed just in case someone gets offended.

It sounds like an absurd extreme of political correctness when you demand that a common term be changed just in case someone gets offended.
http://kaiser.dreamhost.com/OT_stuff/bloom_offensensitivity.jpg
*winks at LG*

In English, American refers to someone of the United States of America.
North and South America are continents, not nationalities.


And yet we say Asian, African, European etc.


Yes, while the word "American" could be used to describe someone from The Americas (there is, after all, no single continent known as "America"), the need for using it in such a way is tiny in comparison to its usefulness for referring to citizens of the United States of America. Saying "North American" or "South American" is sufficient, and technically more correct anyway since they are two continents, not one. Plus, as the first New World colony to break away from after colonization and form a country, one could say "the early bird gets the worm."
The concept of continents is entirely fluid and there's no one accepted definition of what or where they are.

It would be, if it was false. Solar, wind, tide, all that shit just don't produce enough energy to support a fully industrial society. And since they are the products of a fully industrial society........

So yeah, eighteenth century here we come. After all, most of the easy coal has been dug.

You are correct, provided we only use one of these for all our energy needs. Which is exactly what I was arguing against in my last post. So, your dilemma is still a false one. But it was nice of you to provide an example of the blinkered thinking that I dsicussed in my post.

You should ask a Canadian or Mexican if they would rather be called American. You already know the answer as a UKian. The term American is used by others. Commonly used as Central American and South American. North American isn't used so much for the obvious reasons I stated at the start of this comment.

I would rather be called an American, because I have lived, worked in, studied in, and become a citizen of many nations in the Americas, and I speak English, French and Spanish, the three most commonly used languages in the Americas. I also have travelled extensively throughout the Americas, and studied native American cultures. So, I prefer to call myself 'american', rather than latino/franco/hispanophone/anglo/métis/canadian.

Mind you, I think this was merely a ploy on Ruffy's part to ruffle some (American) feathers.

It sounds like an absurd extreme of political correctness when you demand that a common term be changed just in case someone gets offended.

You are saying I shouldn't change from USan or USian, just because a USian gets offended? Ok, done :fluffle:

Edit, in response to "not enough solar energy to keep the world running":
What I found:
# 5.67×10^19 J, the *yearly* electricity consumption of the world as of 2005
# 6.25×10^19 J, the yearly electricity generation of the world as of 2005

#1.5×10^22J, the total energy from the Sun that strikes the face of the Earth *each day*

So, if we get about 0.001% of that energy, we are served.

You are saying I shouldn't change from USan or USian, just because a USian gets offended? Ok, done :fluffle:

Edit, in response to "not enough solar energy to keep the world running":
What I found:
# 5.67×10^19 J, the *yearly* electricity consumption of the world as of 2005
# 6.25×10^19 J, the yearly electricity generation of the world as of 2005

#1.5×10^22J, the total energy from the Sun that strikes the face of the Earth *each day*

So, if we get about 0.001% of that energy, we are served.

But solar panels are only 8%ish effective, divided by the available surface area for solar panels, divided by the number of daylight hours, divided by the likelihood of inclement weather...And then there's the cost...

Not saying it'd doable, or not. Just pointing out that it's not quite as simple as that.

But solar panels are only 8%ish effective, divided by the available surface area for solar panels, divided by the number of daylight hours, divided by the likelihood of inclement weather...And then there's the cost...

Not saying it'd doable, or not. Just pointing out that it's not quite as simple as that.

It would be doable in arid regions, such as the US southwest and the Sahara. Lots of sun. Not a lot of clouds. But I wouldn't suggest them for places like Scotland or Oregon, which are rainy for months on end.

Blame China and the other overpopulated nations that don't give a smeg about environmental protection.

The concept of continents is entirely fluid and there's no one accepted definition of what or where they are.

I'm afraid you're mistaken. Under every definition I've heard of, North and South America are separate continents.

The major dispute has always seemed to be over whether Europe gets to be its own continent or just part of "Eurasia."

RhynoDD;13787703']Which is the southern neighbor to Canadia.

Yes, and the northern neighbor to Mexicia.

Yes, and the northern neighbor to Mexicia.

And in the Southern continent is Brazilia, the place where they grow peppers, and the capital of the US.

The major dispute has always seemed to be over whether Europe gets to be its own continent or just part of "Eurasia."

It has never been a dispute in science. Europe is a part of Eurasia, period.

The "dispute" is only in the politician's mouths - everyone wants his own continent.

It has never been a dispute in science. Europe is a part of Eurasia, period.

The "dispute" is only in the politician's mouths - everyone wants his own continent.

The reason Europe and Asia are still usually labeled as separate continents is purely cultural and political, yes.

However, North and South America, if we're going by science, ARE separate continents.

The reason Europe and Asia are still usually labeled as separate continents is purely cultural and political, yes.

However, North and South America, if we're going by science, ARE separate continents.

What do you mean by 'by science'?

What do you mean by 'by science'?

If you don't know, you're a moron.

It has never been a dispute in science. Europe is a part of Eurasia, period.

The "dispute" is only in the politician's mouths - everyone wants his own continent.

The dispute exists because the people of Europe and the people of Asia are so different historically, linguistically, and culturally. The difference between Europe and Asia is not insignificant. While I'm sure geologists and similar scientists consider Eurasia to be a single continent, I imagine any number of archaeologists, anthropologists, historians, political scientists, and the like all consider Europe and Asia to be separate continents.

That is all besides the point, though. The difference between Europe, Asia, and Eurasia hardly makes the word "continent" fluid. And the relevant discussion here is the difference between North and South America, and to my knowledge there has never been any ambiguity in calling them separate continents.

If you don't know, you're a moron.

It's a valid question: I think he (she it they) meant to ask which science.

If you don't know, you're a moron.

And if you can't answer a simple question without resorting to insults, then I think you may be unable to answer the question.

You could have said plate tectonics. That is one scientific method of dividing up the world into continents, though one runs into problems. Another is land masses, though this leaves archipelagic nations as continentless. There are also other methods which can be described as scientific.

Now, which one are you using?

The dispute exists because the people of Europe and the people of Asia are so different historically, linguistically, and culturally. The difference between Europe and Asia is not insignificant. While I'm sure geologists and similar scientists consider Eurasia to be a single continent, I imagine any number of archaeologists, anthropologists, historians, political scientists, and the like all consider Europe and Asia to be separate continents.
There's a term "part of the world" for them.

Continents are a geological distinction - not political or cultural. Otherwise we'd need to separate Mexico, Russia, Israel, and Native-American reservations into separate continents.

There's a term "part of the world" for them.

Continents are a geological distinction - not political or cultural. Otherwise we'd need to separate Mexico, Russia, Israel, and Native-American reservations into separate continents.

Obviously the word "continent" is not just a geological distinction, or else Europe and Asia would never be described as "continents" by anyone. You are mistaken in how you think the definition of a word is created: the root of "continent" is not scientific, and science does not have a monopoly on defining words, especially this one. The word "continent" means many things, and you can't choose not to acknowledge one or several of those meanings simply because it doesn't conform to your understanding of the word.

As for Russia, Mexico, etc. etc. etc.: Continents are not only cultural, they are both cultural and geological. North and South America are so defined because they are (respectively) continuous land masses, but easily separable from each other and the other major land masses of the world. Europe and Asia are separated by many scholars because they are very different culturally and because the Ural mountains and various seas easily create a physical distinction between them, which is matched by the cultural distinction (which makes sense: the Ural mountains and the myriad small seas kept people apart, isolating the respective cultures). Russia, Mexico, etc. are not distinguished as a separate continent because they are not culturally and/or physically distinct enough to warrant being defined as continents.

And if you can't answer a simple question without resorting to insults, then I think you may be unable to answer the question.

You could have said plate tectonics. That is one scientific method of dividing up the world into continents, though one runs into problems. Another is land masses, though this leaves archipelagic nations as continentless. There are also other methods which can be described as scientific.

Now, which one are you using?

The most obvious one, plate tectonics. I thought you'd naturally assume that unless you were unaware of such, in which case I'd consider you a moron, but I guess not. Land masses is a bit more ambiguous, because how big does a piece of dirt have to be to be a land mass big enough to be called a continent? Plates are easy to see, though there are problems, like Kamchatka being on the North American plate, not the Eurasian one.

I agree. The US is a big contributer, but by no means the only one.

The most obvious one, plate tectonics. I thought you'd naturally assume that unless you were unaware of such, in which case I'd consider you a moron, but I guess not. Land masses is a bit more ambiguous, because how big does a piece of dirt have to be to be a land mass big enough to be called a continent? Plates are easy to see, though there are problems, like Kamchatka being on the North American plate, not the Eurasian one.

I can't speak for everyone, but my experience has been that most people are most familiar with the political definitions, which define 7 continents (N. America, S. America, Africa, Asia, Australia, Europe, and Antarctica)...

Another problem I see is that Hawaii is on the Pacific plate, eh? So it's part of the US and its own continent? Awesome. Mind, I'm a) making a joke, that is based on b) my limited knowledge of exactly where the tectonic lines are and what all is on each plate...

I can't speak for everyone, but my experience has been that most people are most familiar with the political definitions, which define 7 continents (N. America, S. America, Africa, Asia, Australia, Europe, and Antarctica)...

Another problem I see is that Hawaii is on the Pacific plate, eh? So it's part of the US and its own continent? Awesome. Mind, I'm a) making a joke, that is based on b) my limited knowledge of exactly where the tectonic lines are and what all is on each plate...

As I said, the term "American" sounds silly to me to describe someone other than a person from the USA because there is no such continent, by any common definition, known simply as "America," as under the most common definitions, North America and South America are entirely separate.

However, I do see the term "US American" as a good compromise.

As I said, the term "American" sounds silly to me to describe someone other than a person from the USA because there is no such continent, by any common definition, known simply as "America," as under the most common definitions, North America and South America are entirely separate.

However, I do see the term "US American" as a good compromise.

Eh, sounds less awkward than USian. Either way. North or South American always distinguishes it for me, but there's nothing wrong with USAmerican.

The reason for using the term "USian" is that it sounds like "You asian!", and that is funny.

I can't speak for everyone, but my experience has been that most people are most familiar with the political definitions, which define 7 continents (N. America, S. America, Africa, Asia, Australia, Europe, and Antarctica)...

Another problem I see is that Hawaii is on the Pacific plate, eh? So it's part of the US and its own continent? Awesome. Mind, I'm a) making a joke, that is based on b) my limited knowledge of exactly where the tectonic lines are and what all is on each plate...

I'm familiar with it, (or rather Oceania ahead of Australia) but I've heard Eurasia, Australasia, and others. The uncited wiki article suggests that there are multiple definitions from various sources rather than one definitive system.

Eh, sounds less awkward than USian. Either way. North or South American always distinguishes it for me, but there's nothing wrong with USAmerican.

Try saying "USian" aloud. It sounds retarded. Plus, everybody already knows "American," and adding "US" in front of that if you want to, I don't know why, but if you do, doesn't really alter how the word sounds and so the term is still just as recognizable.

It's been said many times that USians use too much fuels, and I wonder, are they to blame for global warming?

If not, who is?

Yes, the USians and the Europeans, as the current and past-200-years main users of fossile fules, are to blame. And we might include Australia, NZ, Argentina, South Africa, Brazil, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea... - that is, the so-called "industrial world".

Anyway, looks like China and India are going the same way right now: the problem are the policies of States and corporations, not the individuals.

Its not like GW exists.

Does, though. Proof: this year the ice at North Pole has melted.

I can't speak for everyone, but my experience has been that most people are most familiar with the political definitions, which define 7 continents (N. America, S. America, Africa, Asia, Australia, Europe, and Antarctica)...

...most people here in Italy divide the Americas in Northern, Central and Southern. Also Oceania (Australia+NZ+Southern Pacific islands) is quite commonly used.

Another problem I see is that Hawaii is on the Pacific plate, eh? So it's part of the US and its own continent? Awesome.

Yes.
Also Island is its own continent. And political boundaries of EU stretch over quite a bundle of tectonically-different continents: Eurasia, Africa (Malta!), Southern America, the Azores (a microcontinent iirc), Oceania...

I'd rather be an Idahoan, Minnesotan, New Yorker, or Kentuckian than a "USian", and it seems silly to try to invent a term for something that is already well established as "American" - I know many from Mexico and points further southward refer to themselves as "Americans", but they aren't typically referred to as such by residents of the US OF A (:p), Canada, or by those who live in Europe, Asia, or Africa. It sounds like an absurd extreme of political correctness when you demand that a common term be changed just in case someone gets offended.

I can never say the bold part too many times /\


American, Americano , is used to define people from the Americas! In Spanish it can be often used, maybe not on an everyday basis, but it is used. In Brazil's national anthem (not in spanish, fer chrissakes...), Brazil is referred to as the "garland of America". Not a common usage, but an obvious indication that there is, at least on Iberian America, the idea of a continent and not a Southern one. South America is as good a denomination as Southern Europe, because it takes a portion of the continent and separates it in a cultural level. It is a REGIONAL, not a continental denomination. Saying that people there see themselves as South American on a maximum continental level is incorrect. Europeans are as diverse as Americans, yet they are referred as a whole, and in America we don't see the same happening. Which doesn't exclude the usage of American for the continent in general.


Neither Culture nor Geography is appliable to the denomination of the American continent. It is History itself; the New World was seen as a whole by the colonizers who could rightfully call each and every part of it America. That denomination remained in the minds of the independent nations who weren't called United States of America (excluding Canada who boggles my mind many times). It waned with the spreading of American Culture worldwide, but it remains mostly in academic usage, news, politics, culture (without having to specify which America)

No one is asking to supplant American for USian, that would be silly. Calling the Americans Americans may offend a few "fundamentalists", but not most of the people (these who think rationally about it). All that is asked is to acknowledge the usage of American ALSO as someone from the continent, despite it's own low usage in English (which is not the case in Spanish/Porutguese). That's it. American from the continent and from the US aren't mutually exclusive.

I can't speak for everyone, but my experience has been that most people are most familiar with the political definitions, which define 7 continents (N. America, S. America, Africa, Asia, Australia, Europe, and Antarctica)...

...most people here in Italy divide the Americas in Northern, Central and Southern. Also Oceania (Australia+NZ+Southern Pacific islands) is quite commonly used.


Such happens more in Romance language countries it would seem (IDK about Romenia though). Here (S America) everyone is taught (and carries this idea to his life) of the continents as 5 (America, Europe, Asia, Africa, Oceania) plus Antarctica. I would never suggest 7 continents here, as South/North/Central would be subdivisions of America in the same way that Northern/Southern/Western/Eastern are of Europe, or Far/Middle/Near East are used for Asia (IDK if closer is used in English). Also, the Olympics logo came to mind to me. Not as a definite proof, but as another indication there is an identification of the continent. Five interlaced rings, representing America, Europe, Asia, Africa, Oceania. Was it a French who invented it?

I have this " theory " that this classical separation of the continents is more used in Latin-derived Language countries than in Anglo-Saxon countries.

No one is asking to supplant American for USian, that would be silly. Calling the Americans Americans may offend a few "fundamentalists", but not most of the people (these who think rationally about it). All that is asked is to acknowledge the usage of American ALSO as someone from the continent, despite it's own low usage in English (which is not the case in Spanish/Porutguese). That's it. American from the continent and from the US aren't mutually exclusive.

Yes. Why can't more people be this reasonable?

Such happens more in Romance language countries it would seem (IDK about Romenia though). Here (S America) everyone is taught (and carries this idea to his life) of the continents as 5 (America, Europe, Asia, Africa, Oceania) plus Antarctica. I would never suggest 7 continents here, as South/North/Central would be subdivisions of America in the same way that Northern/Southern/Western/Eastern are of Europe, or Far/Middle/Near East are used for Asia (IDK if closer is used in English). Also, the Olympics logo came to mind to me. Not as a definite proof, but as another indication there is an identification of the continent. Five interlaced rings, representing America, Europe, Asia, Africa, Oceania. Was it a French who invented it?

I have this " theory " that this classical separation of the continents is more used in Latin-derived Language countries than in Anglo-Saxon countries.

geez if you are going to engage in continent reduction surely it would be eurasia, america, africa and antartica with "oceania" not possibly qualifying as a continent since it is islands (although i am personally fine with considering australia a continent to itself)

They all have their own names for themselves. Mexicans, Cubas, Haitians, Colombians, Bolivians, ect, ect.

How come USians don't have their own name for themselves then? :p

Its not like GW exists.

Oh come on, you people are supposed to be through that phase by now. It's AGW you're claiming doesn't exist these days.

Global Warming is a natural process that would happen regardless, See Little Ice Age, Renaissance, etc....

what we're guilty of is making it worse, and messing up the natural process, but, its not just us, hell, we're not even number one, i mean, the Average American may use more fuel than the average, say, Chinamen, but, with a Quarter of the Worlds population Sheer numbers more than make up for it, then there's India, Europe...its everyone with a 'Developed' Economy...

How come USians don't have their own name for themselves then? :p




We do, its Americans, we incorporated the continent in our Country name, so we claim its Nationality, lol...

All others are imitators...

We do, its Americans, we incorporated the continent in our Country name, so we claim its Nationality, lol...

Heh. They're like guest countries.

I've always thought it was kind of stupid for South America to be named that in the first place. I mean, look at all the other continents' names:

Asia, Australia/Oceania, Antarctica, Africa, Europe.

Suddenly the western hemisphere is not good enough to have two separate and distinct continents get two separate and distinct names? I say the South Americans get together and have a re-naming contest. North America gets "America" and South America gets whatever it chooses by consensus. Or the other way around, I don't care. I just think it's stupid for two of seven huge land masses to have directional adjectives in their names. Especially given that their named after the Italian who "discovered" them (Amerigo Vespucci). I mean, was there a guy named "Australicus Jones" who "discovered" Australia? No. Did Afrika Bombaataa "discover" Africa? No.

Hell, while we're at it, rename BOTH continents.

Hell, while we're at it, rename BOTH continents.

What do you suggest?

What do you suggest?

I never said I had suggestions other than the renaming itself. However, we could examine how the other continents' names were chosen/given and look into a similar process.

Europe, IIRC, is named for a Greek legend about Europa and Zeus. Perhaps we might consult the First Nations of the current N/S America and adopt a consensus name in that way. I just think that using the "north" and "south" designations for one name is A) uncreative, and B) gives too much credit to a guy who was beat out by Leif Erickson with regard to "discoverers" and centuries of human habitation with regard to those who might already have had a name long before the honkies arrived.

Realistically, I know it'll never happen.

USia USia USia!

Its not like GW exists.

Even if it did.

You cant blame it all on the US of A.

You know, its not like were the only people who emit C02.

global warming DOES exists, think of new orleans and the increase in dam-costs in the NL, and the US IS one if not the biggest producer of pollution, AND the US refuses to even TALK about a global resolution, if your not killing the rich in their undeservt wealth leaching of the rest of the word:mp5:, your going to heck, TO HECK I TELL YOU!!!

The Dutch (http://www.gotwavs.com/php/sounds/?id=gog&media=WAVS&type=Movies&movie=Austin_Powers_In_Goldmember&quote=thedutch.txt&file=thedutch.wav) :D



you blame us, of course wedd survive, weve survived US sitcoms form the nineteys for almost 10 years, were like jezus, killed whithouth a fight but always back for more:cool:.

if the water raises by a few meters, were dead and raising the dykes isn cheap, wy do you think Bush dindt make any for NO! but then again, WE are able to breathe underwater(in your face, logics:p)

Okay. Let's try to be reasonable (I said try). If someone from, oh, Bolivia, wants to call me a "USian" because they, too, are an American without benefit of the name, I will grit my teeth and bear it. You, however, are not from any part of America, so I will not politely bear it, because it's clear you're only trying to be irksome , and I find that... well, to be honest, disappointing.

So it is OK then if I call you a USian, I am in Brazil, but not OK if CTP does so, despite us using the same language, referring to the same concept, and as far as is discernible, with the same connotations. Care to explain how that is supposed to work?

you blame us, of course wedd survive, weve survived US sitcoms form the nineteys for almost 10 years, were like jezus, killed whithouth a fight but always back for more:cool:.

if the water raises by a few meters, were dead and raising the dykes isn cheap, wy do you think Bush dindt make any for NO! but then again, WE are able to breathe underwater(in your face, logics:p)

Damn Dutch and their secret projects. And here I thought an inflatable dam was the pinnacle of your aquatic technology.

geez if you are going to engage in continent reduction surely it would be eurasia, america, africa and antartica with "oceania" not possibly qualifying as a continent since it is islands (although i am personally fine with considering australia a continent to itself)

I am familiar with that 5 continent model, and it's no reduction. Continent definition varies, and this 5-continent model is from an european historical point of view, which ignores partly geography and culture. Europe was classically characterized as the christian lands on the Old World (very diverse), Africa and Asia were names inherited from the Romans, America was given to the New World, vast lands mostly with European population, and varying degrees of natives and blacks. Oceania may be dubious but this denomination is already too common worldwide. I think of Oceania as the lands colonized/"discovered" by the European on the Newest world. To be honest I didn't even know about this Oceania polemic.

N/S America are too ithsmatic to be one continent. A bit more global warming, and they'll be genuinely separate.

I still say they need better names, given the naming convention of the other continents.

N/S America are too ithsmatic to be one continent. A bit more global warming, and they'll be genuinely separate.

Technically, there is the Panama Canal...

You know, I'm all for respect of the dead and such, but it's been several million years so I don't think I will offend anyone when I say this: it's those stupid, chemically converting, dinosaurs to blame for the large amounts of coal and petroleum in the world. They're called "fossil fuels" for a reason!

I know, who did they think they are, dying and lying in the dirt like that? Also, if we can blame the dinosaurs, can we also blame the meteor that killed them? :confused:

I think it is only offensive to a small number of US Americans. Most Americans do not find it insulting because it simply does not apply to them. Me, for example. I'm an American, but I'm not from the USA, so the term USian does not even apply. I don't see why I would find it offensive.

Well, thats because youre a Canadian, so neither term applies...

Glad i could clear that up, lol...

Damn Dutch and their secret projects. And here I thought an inflatable dam was the pinnacle of your aquatic technology.

HOW DO YOU KNOW ABOUT PROJECT ''OPBLAAS DAM'' ONLY I, THE QUEEN AND THE BLUE RABOBANK LION ARE TO KNOW ABOUT THAT you report to our HQ for questioning, just go throug A dam and at the second coffeshop on your left, in the backrooms the stoned harry poter lookalike, THATS OUR GRAND LEADER YOU INFIDEL

N/S America are too ithsmatic to be one continent. A bit more global warming, and they'll be genuinely separate.

I still say they need better names, given the naming convention of the other continents.
Geographically, yes. But by that geographical definition, Europe is in Eurasia (You can't say Europe is too isthmatic to be a continent on its own can you?) Culture and historical development are forming a continent here, not geography (though very technically America still is a continent on geography). America is a continent on an european historical perspective, like Oceania; though people are free to disagree, that's only one definition, and definitions vary among countries as we've seen. Besides, the continent was named before the country. If any place needs to change its name... (jk :D)

But even if they ever become separated, don't you think you'll get Mexico without a fight! :sniper: :D
We'll sew it back on Panama if needed!

HOW DO YOU KNOW ABOUT PROJECT ''OPBLAAS DAM''

Discovery Channel.

Discovery Channel.

...video came complete with Bloodhound Gang soundtrack.

...video came complete with Bloodhound Gang soundtrack.

Sweat, baby, sweat, baby....

Every developed nation does it; you can'y blame just one for the whole thing.

Every developed nation is the U.S.A. ;)