NationStates Jolt Archive

I see none of you can show that any place on earth is superior to the Marianas Trench. I'm not surprised.

The Marianas Trench is p. sweet.

The Marianas Trench is p. sweet.

That's profound. And deep. Very deep.

I like the way you think. However, no one can make that claim who hasn't been everywhere in the world, so a true comparison can be made.

The Canadian? Aye...

Stephen Colbert is not Canadian. We do at least get to claim him. :tongue:

It's because of smugness and arrogance like that displayed here (i.e. America is the greatest) that very well may spell its end. Not that that's a good thing, it's just a possibility.

America-centristists are the worst. I'm Canadian and happen to think we live in a pretty damn great place, but I don't go around saying it's better or greater than anything or anyone. Eh.

Despite all of the bad-mouthing on this forum, America is, by far, the greatest place on Earth.

Bu what about Disneyland? :'(

Economically, America is the best nation. Our GDP is through the roof even though Japan and China are catching up. Japan is catching up because of all their high tech stuff, but China is only catching up because they have more people than insects. Japan's GDP per person is actually higer than Americas i believe but Chinas GDP per person is crap. Per year, the average american makes 20,000+ but the Chinese only make...what, 1,000 if their lucky? I'm not saying thats bad, but the fact of the matter is America is the greatest at making money lol.

And on other topics, America-centristists as you call them are only massive patriots. Other countries (such as Canada) are great places to live and I actually may end up moving up there someday if my Grandma has anything to say about it and the same is true for other countries (minus the moving part). They are all 'great' in their own way, but America is one of the best places to be able to actually move up in the ranks of society if one knows how to work. You can live off of a Fast-Food job if you're smart about your money and from there you can work up. Why do you think we had so many immigrants from Europe we had to start turning them away back in the early times of the country? We were considered the land of opportunity.

Now i'm not saying America is the best at everything, i know everyone has their own faults, but we still do a pretty damn good job of it.

Bu what about Disneyland? :'(

That's the HAPPIEST place on earth, and it's a small world after all... So not the greatest :wink:

Stephen Colbert is not Canadian. We do at least get to claim him. :tongue:

In my heart he'll always be Canadian http://generalitemafia.ipbfree.com/html/emoticons/sleep.gif

That's the HAPPIEST place on earth, and it's a small world after all... So not the greatest :wink:

Once more I discover that I live in a shallow lie!

Per Capita, Belgium is the greatest place on Earth, America is mediocre.

Patriotism (as a percentage), Gibraltar kick everyones' rear (6 in 32,000 are unpatriotic according to the ballot)

Climate, Finland are the greatest (hot sunny summer and beautiful snow in the winter, only downside are the mosquitoes out in the country).

Food, again Belgium are the best. Chocolate and Waffles, man.

Health, New York alone has more McDonalds restaurants than most countries. That's just horrible.

Happiness, I've never met, seen or heard of a Canadian who isn't happy (or funny). They've got to be amongst my favourite people on Earth.

War, when it comes to this Switzerland will come out on top. Not because they will take over the world, but because no one will successfully invade them, not even through attrition. Everyone has to do at least two or three (can't remember) years military service and there is a gun in almost every building in the country. And, why would you want to invade them.

Pride, Great Britain. We've got tea and the Queen. We may not be the richest, or the most powerful, but we've got pride, and brilliant comedians.

What does the USA have, rigid indoctrination at a young age to salute the flag (even if they are foreign). You're two-party system of democracy is stream-lined to remove anyone intelligent. I'm not saying American people are bad (the majority I've met have been polite, considerate, friendly people who will try to do their best at anything, which I think is really good), but you're country isn't as good. It's not the worst, but think before you say you're greatest place on Earth.



btw I'm British (born in England with heritage mostly from Scotland though partly Wales and Ireland) and live In Gibraltar and Spain.

EDIT-I forgot to add my most important point. you can't accurately measure how great a nation is. So don't try to.

War, when it comes to this Switzerland will come out on top. Not because they will take over the world, but because no one will successfully invade them, not even through attrition. Everyone has to do at least two or three (can't remember) years military service and there is a gun in almost every building in the country. And, why would you want to invade them.

Because I want to corner the market on Coocoo Clocks, banking, and Cough Drops!

I think that Hong Kong probably has the most Disneyland per capita.

since 1997 Hong kong is part of China. China has the least Disney land percapita.
Do you know what it is like to wait behind 1.2 billion people for the log ride ???

no country can be voted as the greatest (not as a a fact)
however, if it is in your opinion (or for your own little reasons/ needs) then you can say that it is the greatest

I'm the only one? Really? Jeez, I was already the only person you'd ever heard say that they found black people attractive. I think you need to talk to more people.

Thank you for mentioning that.

Psh. Haven't you looked at my post count title? I'm a goddess and I live in Canada.

Therefore Canada wins.

No argument there, on any count.

Hold up Junior...Phelps is awesome, but I believe America IS the greatest place on Earth, and I will continue to hold this belief.

Fred Phelps? :eek2::eek:



I know you meant Michael.

Have to disagree with the OP. I lived in CA and NJ for a while. Both of them failed compared to the urban areas of most southern European cities in actual quality of life.

Also, is anyone seriously suggesting that the birth of popular culture in America is actually some kind of endorsement?

no country can be voted as the greatest (not as a a fact)
however, if it is in your opinion (or for your own little reasons/ needs) then you can say that it is the greatest

actually there is a vote and China always wins with a plurality of 1.3 billion.

Also, is anyone seriously suggesting that the birth of popular culture in America is actually some kind of endorsement?

It would stand to reason that it is, since said culture is popular, which means endorsed by a great many people. Including yourself, no doubt, except when you submit to the temptation to appear somehow better, somehow distant and aloof from popular culture.

Have to disagree with the OP. I lived in CA and NJ for a while. Both of them failed compared to the urban areas of most southern European cities in actual quality of life.

Also, is anyone seriously suggesting that the birth of popular culture in America is actually some kind of endorsement?

You better believe it. Unless you listen to nothing other than European classical...you probably enjoy American music (not to mention movies, television, literature, etc.).

You better believe it. Unless you listen to nothing other than European classical...you probably enjoy American music (not to mention movies, television, literature, etc.).

Europe's produced far more music than just classical.

Europe's produced far more music than just classical.

Yes they have. Honestly, I adore a lot of European music; Rammstein is BA. Yet, when push comes to shove, the majority (VAST majority) of popular music is American. I've spent tons of time abroad; you can't walk down a street in Western Europe without hearing American music.

Everyone thinks they live in the best place in the world. People are designed that way. You get used to how the world around you works and you enjoy it. You go some place else and it will make post people feel uncomfortable in some way (minor as it may be). And for those of you who don't think you live in the best place in the world then get off your arse and do something about it. That is: move; or get more involved in trying to change your community.

Everyone thinks they live in the best place in the world. People are designed that way. You get used to how the world around you works and you enjoy it. You go some place else and it will make post people feel uncomfortable in some way (minor as it may be). And for those of you who don't think you live in the best place in the world then get off your arse and do something about it. That is: move; or get more involved in trying to change your community.

I totally disagree. A friend of mine used to live in Louisiana and he HATED it there.

That said, Louisiana is still part of the world's greatest nation : )

I'm pretty sure Russia, Canada, and China are all, by definition, greater.

Louisiana is part of the Marianas Trench? I think you need to brush up on your geography.

I totally disagree. A friend of mine used to live in Louisiana and he HATED it there.Hmm, I was going to qualify my statement with a few 'almosts' and such stuff, but I was too lazy. Like I said though. If you really don't like it then move or attempt to change your area.

Louisiana is part of the Marianas Trench? I think you need to brush up on your geography.I got what you were aiming at, but I didn't really get it... Mainly I was trying to figure out what made the Marianas Trench so great...

I got what you were aiming at, but I didn't really get it... Mainly I was trying to figure out what made the Marianas Trench so great...

Everything.

Everything.Wow, that was in depth.

*cringes*

Croatia > U.S.

Not as prissy.

Food, again Belgium are the best. Chocolate and Waffles, man.

You forgot the beer. mmm...

Happiness, I've never met, seen or heard of a Canadian who isn't happy (or funny). They've got to be amongst my favourite people on Earth.

Happy to be held in such high esteem. :)

Word !!! US #1

You better believe it. Unless you listen to nothing other than European classical...you probably enjoy American music (not to mention movies, television, literature, etc.).

America controls the global entertainment industry but it's slightly misleading to call it American. The reason for America's control of the global market in movies and television is that America is the largest domestic market (amongst rich, free countries) and that Americans - by and large - won't watch something made outside of America. The Dark Knight is filled to bursting point with British input but is "American", Hitchcock films are "American" but the United States can't take the credit for producing the talent. I'm not exactly sure but I think you were to persue the list of the top grossing films of all time, you'd get to something like Spiderman 3 before you found a film that didn't have a non-American director or star. Yes, America keeps the profits but that doesn't matter much if we're talking culture

I got what you were aiming at, but I didn't really get it... Mainly I was trying to figure out what made the Marianas Trench so great...

Some good shopping centres there...

*ahem*

The term "greatest" is a bit too lose really. I'd say USA is the only superpower in the world (for now) and so by a military definition, the USA is the greatest country. But the size or significance of a country has no bearing whatsoever on the happiness of the population.

Also, someone mentioned the queen taking up a lot of money in "benefits"... To be honest, the amount of money the monachy brings in from American tourists alone is proberly enough to sustain itself.

The term "greatest" is a bit too lose really. I'd say USA is the only superpower in the world (for now) and so by a military definition, the USA is the greatest country. But the size or significance of a country has no bearing whatsoever on the happiness of the population.

The USA is not the only superpower in the world. That is rubbish. Several other nations hold enough political weight to be considered superpowers as well, though admittedly America is one of the highest.

Anyways,

@AMERICAN POP CULTURE-it purely comes from money. Back in the 60's and 70's (when the market was dominated by British, and to a lesser extent European, music it took hard work and actual talent to get anywhere in the music industry. These days it takes a bit of cash and a couple of TV appearances. As such you cannot say Pop Culture is a factor in this.

@MARIANAS TRENCH-It's a horrible place. for one, you can't see down there as the water blocks out the light, the fish will all eat you and the pressure is so immense you'll be crushed. Therefore, it is not the greatest place on Earth. None of those things happen in the UK, Canada, Belgium, Switzerland or Finland.

.
@MARINAS TRENCH-It's a horrible place. for one, you can't see down there as the water blocks out the light, the fish will all eat you and the pressure is so immense you'll be crushed. Therefore, it is not the greatest place on Earth. None of those things happen in the UK, Canada, Belgium, Switzerland or Finland.

yay,Finland!it's an awesome place!

The only thing I really know about Finland is they managed to defeat botht he Germans AND the Russians in WWII...

The only thing I really know about Finland is they managed to defeat botht he Germans AND the Russians in WWII...

we won two wars and lost one:won the Winter War and the Lapland War,lost the Continuation War and after that lost Karelia

Finland was where the sauna was invented. That makes it the second greatest country on Earth.

Finland was where the sauna was invented. That makes it the second greatest country on Earth.

plus,a lot of the candy eaten is salt licorice

plus,a lot of the candy eaten is salt licorice

Yes. Salmiakki is quite good, although I don't know many people here that like it.

Yes. Salmiakki is quite good, although I don't know many people here that like it.

yeah,not eaten outside scandinavia,northern Germany and Netherlands

plus,a lot of the candy eaten is salt licorice

Are the rumors that Huck Finn was an immigrant?

Are the rumors that Huck Finn was an immigrant?

no.why?

no.why?

Because I'm at stupid o'clock and it sounded funny to me...

yeah,not eaten outside scandinavia,northern Germany and Netherlands

Yep, I don't live in any of those countries so I have to go to import stores to find it. Much like I have to do with finding Ribena.

See, that's why US is not greatest country on earth: lack of Ribena. Seriously.

Yep, I don't live in any of those countries so I have to go to import stores to find it. Much like I have to do with finding Ribena.

See, that's why US is not greatest country on earth: lack of Ribena. Seriously.

what's Ribena?

C'mon, who can't agree that a nation who spent billions of dollars into researching technology to make the world's best frozen pizzas isn't the greatest? USA ALL THE WAY!

About all I know about Finland is many, many Yoopers are of Finnish ancestry and their dialect is influenced by the Finnish language.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_Peninsula_of_Michigan#Culture

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

See, that's why US is not greatest country on earth: lack of Ribena. Seriously.

you mean that horrible juice stuff?

what's Ribena?

Blackcurrant juice, commonly found in the UK.

you mean that horrible juice stuff?

Yes; I quite like it. :p

Despite all of the bad-mouthing on this forum, America is, by far, the greatest place on Earth.

Using superlatives makes you look irrational, ya know.

"Greatest Country in the World" -- isn't that kinda like being valedictorian at summer school?

@MARIANAS TRENCH-It's a horrible place. for one, you can't see down there as the water blocks out the light, the fish will all eat you and the pressure is so immense you'll be crushed. Therefore, it is not the greatest place on Earth. None of those things happen in the UK, Canada, Belgium, Switzerland or Finland.

That's why the UK, Canada, Belgium, Switzerland, and Finland all suck. Kids these days, thinking that they're too good for the dark, cold depths where nameless things crawl and fat sea worms feast on the world's dead.

That's why the UK, Canada, Belgium, Switzerland, and Finland all suck. Kids these days, thinking that they're too good for the dark, cold depths where nameless things crawl and fat sea worms feast on the world's dead.

Finland doesn't suck!nor the UK!

Obviously the only people who are actually saying good things about America only live in the rich areas, or purposely avoid bad areas of the city when driving to deny social problems to themselves. America is a dump, seriously, it's a decaying mess, their is the massive glitz and lights of the rich cities, and then the rest is a rundown dump of abandoned stores and manufacturing industry left to rot away it went overseas. The countries is full of crime and gangsterism.

Obviously the only people who are actually saying good things about America only live in the rich areas, or purposely avoid bad areas of the city when driving to deny social problems to themselves. America is a dump, seriously, it's a decaying mess, their is the massive glitz and lights of the rich cities, and then the rest is a rundown dump of abandoned stores and manufacturing industry left to rot away it went overseas. The countries is full of crime and gangsterism.

you mean like in GTA?

you mean like in GTA?

Maybe you should pull your head out of your pampered middle-class world for a change.

Maybe you should pull your head out of your pampered middle-class world for a change.

hey,i live in Finland.think about that,and then think do i know anything about american cities

hey,i live in Finland.think about that,and then think do i know anything about american cities

Depending on one's definition of "city" you probably know about as much about them as I do.

Despite all of the bad-mouthing on this forum, America is, by far, the greatest place on Earth.

It's a great place, just hard to tell when it's being run by the worst bunch of morons and assholes in the country's history at the moment.

Depending on one's definition of "city" you probably know about as much about them as I do.

biggest city in Finland is the capital,Helsinki.it's population is about 500 thousand.ain't any slums.

It's a great place, just hard to tell when it's being run by the worst bunch of morons and assholes in the country's history at the moment.

Ahhh, the old 'blame the politicians' routine, heard it a thousand times, never gets old, a great escape route. What you fail to realize however is that politics is but the extension of it's economic base. Economic power is the power behind the throne of any government, so therefore electing a new bunch of politicians will never change anything, the only way to solve problems is to deal with capitalists.

biggest city in Finland is the capital,Helsinki.it's population is about 500 thousand.ain't any slums.

The largest American city I've ever lived in had about 30.000 inhabitants, around 50.000 if one includes students who leave during the summer. My experience with large American cities is quite limited, I visited Denver twice and Detroit a half dozen times, staying no longer than a few hours in each city.

I've lived in a bigger city, about 300.000 inhabitants, but that was in France.

Ahhh, the old 'blame the politicians' routine, heard it a thousand times, never gets old, a great escape route. What you fail to realize however is that politics is but the extension of it's economic base. Economic power is the power behind the throne of any government, so therefore electing a new bunch of politicians will never change anything, the only way to solve problems is to deal with capitalists.

Good to see you again too Andaras. So how's our Favorite Angry Internet Stalinist doing?

The largest American city I've ever lived in had about 30.000 inhabitants, around 50.000 if one includes students who leave during the summer. My experience with large American cities is quite limited, I visited Denver twice and Detroit a half dozen times, staying no longer than a few hours in each city.

I've lived in a bigger city, about 300.000 inhabitants, but that was in France.

wonder how big this is,järvenpää is aout 38.000

Obviously the only people who are actually saying good things about America only live in the rich areas, or purposely avoid bad areas of the city when driving to deny social problems to themselves. America is a dump, seriously, it's a decaying mess, their is the massive glitz and lights of the rich cities, and then the rest is a rundown dump of abandoned stores and manufacturing industry left to rot away it went overseas. The countries is full of crime and gangsterism.

Do you even live in America? If not, then you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. And even if you do live in America, you obviously have a very small view point. Maybe you're from one of the 'slums' or whatever you want to call it, but that is not what America is. The VAST majority of people ARE middle class and live in normal homes and go to normal schools. Not in some "rundown dump of abandoned stores and manufacturing industry left to rot away". Not poverty stricken, nor insanely rich. There are the few who are rich and many of them went from poverty to millionaire. I'd like to see someone try to do that in China or some place like that. Even in Russia you can't do that. Canada...maybe. lol. Never been there so i wouldn't know.

So in otherwords, don't throw shit out when you have no idea what you're talking about. Check the statistics. And not the stats of one area, try all America next time. And the reason some people stay in 'poverty' in America is because America is fucking rich enough and nice enough to pay them to do so. It's called wellfare and some people don't feel like working if they don't have to.

And the reason some people stay in 'poverty' in America is because America is fucking rich enough and nice enough to pay them to do so. It's called wellfare and some people don't feel like working if they don't have to.

How nice of the middle class people in America to let poor people be poor. That kind of generosity really warms the heart. Those brave middle class people, having nicer lives than poor people just to bankroll the crap lives of poor people. I bet the middle class would love to have worse lives and be poor but they're so responsible they know that someone has got to finance the shit lives and they bravely take up the role of the people having nice lives. HEROES.

So in otherwords, don't throw shit out when you have no idea what you're talking about. Check the statistics. And not the stats of one area, try all America next time. And the reason some people stay in 'poverty' in America is because America is fucking rich enough and nice enough to pay them to do so. It's called wellfare and some people don't feel like working if they don't have to.

I'm guessing you're....14?

How nice of the middle class people in America to let poor people be poor. That kind of generosity really warms the heart. Those brave middle class people, having nicer lives than poor people just to bankroll the crap lives of poor people. I bet the middle class would love to have worse lives and be poor but they're so responsible they know that someone has got to finance the shit lives and they bravely take up the role of the people having nice lives. HEROES.

Very funny dumbass. But i couldn't find a point in that entire paragraph. Something about the middle-class being willing to help and trying but the poor not always willing to cooperate i would assume seeing as how that is the truth.

There are ofcourse those who end up in poverty due to crisis in their life and as such welfare really helps them.

I'm guessing you're....14?

Once again, very funny but absolutly no point detected. You just feel like throwing random insults out at people?

To both of you: If you want to be an effective debater, I would suggest you avoid the childish insults. They don' t work to well.

Very funny dumbass. But i couldn't find a point in that entire paragraph. Something about the middle-class being willing to help and trying but the poor not always willing to cooperate i would assume seeing as how that is the truth.

There are ofcourse those who end up in poverty due to crisis in their life and as such welfare really helps them.



Once again, very funny but absolutly no point detected. You just feel like throwing random insults out at people?

To both of you: If you want to be an effective debater, I would suggest you avoid the childish insults. They don' t work to well.

Juxtaposition works quite well. Usually the other person doesn't do it for you though.

Once again, very funny but absolutly no point detected. You just feel like throwing random insults out at people?

So then...yes.

To both of you: If you want to be an effective debater, I would suggest you avoid the childish insults. They don' t work to well.

Very funny dumbass.

Fail.

Of course, I'm obviously outmatched, how could I ever hope to defeat an intellectual great who posts such things as ur currently getting you're ass pummeled by Artillery and bombs. lol

Obviously the only people who are actually saying good things about America only live in the rich areas, or purposely avoid bad areas of the city when driving to deny social problems to themselves. America is a dump, seriously, it's a decaying mess, their is the massive glitz and lights of the rich cities, and then the rest is a rundown dump of abandoned stores and manufacturing industry left to rot away it went overseas. The countries is full of crime and gangsterism.

Ahhh, the old 'blame the politicians' routine, heard it a thousand times, never gets old, a great escape route. What you fail to realize however is that politics is but the extension of it's economic base. Economic power is the power behind the throne of any government, so therefore electing a new bunch of politicians will never change anything, the only way to solve problems is to deal with capitalists.

Hello, Andaras, and goodbye. *listens to the resounding echo of the banhammer*

Very funny dumbass. But i couldn't find a point in that entire paragraph. Something about the middle-class being willing to help and trying but the poor not always willing to cooperate i would assume seeing as how that is the truth.

There are ofcourse those who end up in poverty due to crisis in their life and as such welfare really helps them.



Once again, very funny but absolutly no point detected. You just feel like throwing random insults out at people?

To both of you: If you want to be an effective debater, I would suggest you avoid the childish insults. They don' t work to well.

Did you really just post that combination?

Normally I'd warn you about flaming, but you pissing all over your own point kinda renders the idea moot. *applauds* That was some inspired self-contradiction, there, chum.

the reason some people stay in 'poverty' in America is because America is fucking rich enough and nice enough to pay them to do so.

Putting 'poverty' in 'quotes' is your way of implying that 'poverty' doesn't really 'exist' and is probably just something of a 'myth?'

You're wrong if so.

You're wrong even if not, though. Government spending - welfare included - is not now, nor in the past, nor ever will be about being nice. There is a reason for having welfare, and that reason is the existence of poverty and the rational realization that leaving a wound untreated is stupid.

Lastly, using welfare as an example of the US being "fucking rich" is piss-poor. Plenty of countries with lower GDP have higher welfare. Having a welfare program doesn't correlate to being "rich."

I stand by my initial statement in this thread. "Greatest nation on Earth" is akin to being valedictorian at summer school.

The US has the 9th highest rapes-per-capita rate in the world.

About 1 in 6 women will be sexually assaulted during their life. There are at least 17.7 million sexually assaulted women living in the US.

In comparison to the Nanking Massacre (the Rape of Nanking), in which an estimated 20,000 women were raped. The United States has about 10 Rape of Nankings - every single year. There's a sexual assault every 2 minutes.

That means that in the time since the OP began waxing nostalgiac about how the US is the greatest place on Earth, about 1,440 women have been sexually assaulted.

Of course, only 40% of these sexual assaults will be reported to the police, because our culture indoctrinates an attitude of blame-the-victim and she-was-asking-for-it.

And, only about 6% of rapists will ever spend a day in jail. This is despite the fact that the US has the highest prison population in the world, even more than China. And in fact, the US prison population is higher than the national populations of at least 82 countries in the world.

America, the greatest place on earth - for rapists. Why, we can even send our soldiers to overseas nations where they can rape and murder children. We have so much rape we're exporting it.

Speaking of war crimes and massacres, the United States is also the only nation in the world to have ever used nuclear weapons on people, and specifically on hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. America, fuck yeah!


Yeah you know, if I was the OP, I would have shut up by now too.

America? Greatest country in the world? What drink have you been drinking too much of? You moan at anything, and if you don't believe me, watch Top Gear where the American's nearly killed the presenters because they said Man Love Rules, Hillary Clinton for President and NASCAR sucks. Come to Britain, best country in the world.

America? Greatest country in the world? What drink have you been drinking too much of? You moan at anything, and if you don't believe me, watch Top Gear where the American's nearly killed the presenters because they said Man Love Rules, Hillary Clinton for President and NASCAR sucks. Come to Britain, best country in the world.

Long as you're not brown in the wrong part of town, right? Or was This is England a fantasy film?

Long as you're not brown in the wrong part of town, right? Or was This is England a fantasy film?

*Nods*

The director's cut has a twenty-minute dance-off with a dragon.

Despite all of the bad-mouthing on this forum, America is, by far, the greatest place on Earth.
Nope.
The greatest place on earth is, in fact, my shiny things room.
COME ONE! COME ALL! LOOK AT THE SHINY SHINY! :eek:

*Nods*

The director's cut has a twenty-minute dance-off with a dragon.

Must've been after the scene where the newly-minted skinhead participates in robbing and vandalizing a store backed by a bloke with a machete merely because the store is run by a "Paki".

Gentlemen, I wash my hands of this flamebait.

Must've been after the scene where the newly-minted skinhead participates in robbing and vandalizing a store backed by a bloke with a machete merely because the store is run by a "Paki".

do you mind if I just point out that 'This is England' was set in the past. Crime has been going down since 1995 so it stands to reason that racial crime must be going down too. And don't believe everything you see on TV.

And for anyone who just watched the Olympic Closing Ceremony, the US can't be the greatest place in the world. Jimmy Page wasn't born there.

And for anyone who just watched the Olympic Closing Ceremony, the US can't be the greatest place in the world. Jimmy Page wasn't born there.

Clearly, the greatest place in the world is an unfolding double-decker bus containing a privet-hedge, a footballer, a reality-tv star and an ageing rock-star.

*hangs head in shame at prospect of 2012*

Also, is anyone seriously suggesting that the birth of popular culture in America is actually some kind of endorsement?

It would stand to reason that it is, since said culture is popular, which means endorsed by a great many people. Including yourself, no doubt, except when you submit to the temptation to appear somehow better, somehow distant and aloof from popular culture.

So because something is popular automatically gives it credibility?

You better believe it. Unless you listen to nothing other than European classical...you probably enjoy American music (not to mention movies, television, literature, etc.).

So except for European classical, and American, there is no other kind of music, TV, movies or literature anywhere in the world? May I take the opportunity to point out that the US has only existed since the late 18th century. I'm not an expert, but I do believe that literature, art, plays and music all existed before this point.

Secondly, if you believe the only literature, music, art, theatre and screen arts currently in existence constitute American types, or European classical music, then I would recommend you take up travel as a hobby, starting with a visit to your local library.

Clearly, the greatest place in the world is an unfolding double-decker bus containing a privet-hedge, a footballer, a reality-tv star and an ageing rock-star.

*hangs head in shame at prospect of 2012*

Hey, cheer up. It could have been a bendy bus...

Intangelon
Long as you're not brown in the wrong part of town, right?
I think Intangelon touches an important subject here. Depending on who you are, often in the most physical sense, the definition of the greatest place on Earth would differ wildly. For instance, if you're brown, you might indeed not like a place where you would be unwelcome in the wrong part of town. On the other hand, if you're not, you might like a place where browns are unwelcome and view such lack of multiculturalism as something positive. That applies to practically every aspect of human life.

do you mind if I just point out that 'This is England' was set in the past. Crime has been going down since 1995 so it stands to reason that racial crime must be going down too. And don't believe everything you see on TV.

And for anyone who just watched the Olympic Closing Ceremony, the US can't be the greatest place in the world. Jimmy Page wasn't born there.

Oh, I know when the film was set. I also know not to judge a nation of people based on its filmed entertainment. However, is it not possible that people such as those exist in the UK despite statistical evidence of decrease? I hope to come to the UK at some point and see for myself (longtime Anglophile). There are assholes in any large-enough group of people.

And Jimmy Page got his ideas from where? Oh yeah, the US and the raft of blues guitarists that every English guitar hero worships. Only the once-enslaved in the US could have turned such a heinous tragedy into such amazing music. Nothing against Page, but if you're correcting me on a technicality, the least I can do is repay the compliment.

And Jimmy Page got his ideas from where? Oh yeah, the US and the raft of blues guitarists that every English guitar hero worships. Only the once-enslaved in the US could have turned such a heinous tragedy into such amazing music. Nothing against Page, but if you're correcting me on a technicality, the least I can do is repay the compliment.

And the US got them from Africa and other influences before that etc etc. You can't pin down culture and cultural influences to an individual country or culture. Culture doesn't respect national boundaries and such, it's all a fusion of influences as you go back.

Oh, I know when the film was set. I also know not to judge a nation of people based on its filmed entertainment. However, is it not possible that people such as those exist in the UK despite statistical evidence of decrease? I hope to come to the UK at some point and see for myself (longtime Anglophile). There are assholes in any large-enough group of people.

I don't deny there are arseholes everywhere, and the statistics do not say that racist crime is non-existent, nor did I say that. I merely pointed out a decrease. Also, our smaller population does mean that we have produced less arseholes, thus we are a nicer place.


And Jimmy Page got his ideas from where? Oh yeah, the US and the raft of blues guitarists that every English guitar hero worships. Only the once-enslaved in the US could have turned such a heinous tragedy into such amazing music. Nothing against Page, but if you're correcting me on a technicality, the least I can do is repay the compliment.

May I point out that it was the 50's Jazz scene which brought over Blues Artists from America to Britain, thus building the foundations for Rock as we know it. The music may have it's origins mostly in the US, but as the following quote from Wikipedia shows, it takes Brits to get it right.

Much of what has made rock music unique, in its ability to unite audiences and adapt new influences, came from British bands in the late 50s and rock groups in the early 60s.


And finally, Led Zeppelin are considered to have influenced the genre of Rock as a whole, it's sub-genres (such as Blues Rock and Heavy Metal) and the individual bands and artists themselves. A lot of major acts cite Jimmy Page as one of their inspirations. To even think of saying that Jimmy Page took his ideas from the US is ludicrous, considering he was at the forefront of inventing the genre. It would be like saying Da Vinci got his idea for the Mona Lisa off other contemporary artists at the time.


[/rant]

And the US got them from Africa and other influences before that etc etc. You can't pin down culture and cultural influences to an individual country or culture. Culture doesn't respect national boundaries and such, it's all a fusion of influences as you go back.

Absolutely agreed. However, where else, when Africans were introduced as immigrants or slaves, did their music -- COULD their music -- (have) evolve(d) and explode(d) into the amazing array we enjoy now?

I don't deny there are arseholes everywhere, and the statistics do not say that racist crime is non-existent, nor did I say that. I merely pointed out a decrease. Also, our smaller population does mean that we have produced fewer arseholes, thus we are a nicer place.

Fair enough, though the logic is unsound. Smaller population =/= produces fewer assholes.

(The bolded bit's a pet peeve, sorry.)


May I point out that it was the 50's Jazz scene which brought over Blues Artists from America to Britain, thus building the foundations for Rock as we know it. The music may have it's origins mostly in the US, but as the following quote from Wikipedia shows, it takes Brits to get it right.

*sigh*

And where did 50's jazz come from? And it takes Hendrix to get it even righter. Both sides of the pond have their masters, mate.

And finally, Led Zeppelin are considered to have influenced the genre of Rock as a whole, it's sub-genres (such as Blues Rock and Heavy Metal) and the individual bands and artists themselves. A lot of major acts cite Jimmy Page as one of their inspirations. To even think of saying that Jimmy Page took his ideas from the US is ludicrous, considering he was at the forefront of inventing the genre. It would be like saying Da Vinci got his idea for the Mona Lisa off other contemporary artists at the time.

Without hearing US blues artists, where would Page have been? And of course Leonardo DaVinci drew from contemporary movements as well as the art and influences of his present and past, even if only to use them as launching points. Every artist stands on the shoulders of giants. My point is, as it always seems to be here, that crowing about "the best" artist is like determining the best lover. It's extremely and prohibitively subjective, and each person will have their own take. You can certainly make the case for more people citing certain artists as influences meaning that they were better. I'd say all that means is that they had more influence (due to more exposure or any number of other factors).

Absolutely agreed. However, where else, when Africans were introduced as immigrants or slaves, did their music -- COULD their music -- (have) evolve(d) and explode(d) into the amazing array we enjoy now?
The Carribbean for a start

1. Without hearing US blues artists, where would Page have been? And of course Leonardo DaVinci drew from contemporary movements as well as the art and influences of his present and past, even if only to use them as launching points. 2. Every artist stands on the shoulders of giants. My point is, as it always seems to be here, that crowing about "the best" artist is like determining the best lover. It's extremely and prohibitively subjective, and each person will have their own take. You can certainly make the case for more people citing certain artists as influences meaning that they were better. 3. I'd say all that means is that they had more influence (due to more exposure or any number of other factors).


1. Page would've have been at some meeting point between Folk, Jazz and Elvis Presley. It would have a similar sound to what we know but there would be very noticeable change all the same. I'm not saying there was no influence from American Blues artists, but it accounts for less than half.

2. The very first cave paintings, what was their influence (if they had one)?And even if they did, where would that have come from?

3. Exposure, no. Back then it took hard work to get somewhere (if anywhere). Exposure wasn't as possible as it is now. Also, people were more intelligent then than they are now. Back then people would only listen to good music, these days people will listen to whatever TV tells them to.

The Carribbean for a start

Swing and a miss. "Amazing array" would not accurately describe the difference between Reggae, SoCa, Calypso and steel drum music.

Compare that to the absorption and assimilation of cultures the US is rightly famous for and realize that the original fusion of Western harmony and African rhythm that produced blues and jazz went on to produce everything from stride piano (leading to barrelhouse and boogie-woogie which lead directly to rock 'n roll), to country/western, to the permutations taking off from the 50s and beyond including pop, soul, new wave, hip-hop, new Romantic, punk, R&B, funk, metal, and even the singer-songwriters (Dylan, both Guthries, Paul Simon, Harry Chapin, Elton John, Billy Joel, Joni Mitchell, and on and on). The Caribbean didn't and couldn't have produce(d) such an array.

Swing and a miss. "Amazing array" would not accurately describe the difference between Reggae, SoCa, Calypso and steel drum music.

Compare that to the absorption and assimilation of cultures the US is rightly famous for and realize that the original fusion of Western harmony and African rhythm that produced blues and jazz went on to produce everything from stride piano (leading to barrelhouse and boogie-woogie which lead directly to rock 'n roll), to country/western, to the permutations taking off from the 50s and beyond including pop, soul, new wave, hip-hop, new Romantic, punk, R&B, funk, metal, and even the singer-songwriters (Dylan, both Guthries, Paul Simon, Harry Chapin, Elton John, Billy Joel, Joni Mitchell, and on and on). The Caribbean didn't and couldn't have produce(d) such an array.


If you can't find rythm in Western Operas (and other pre-US tunes) and harmony in African music then you're tone-deaf/deaf (delete as inappropriate).

Swing and a miss. "Amazing array" would not accurately describe the difference between Reggae, SoCa, Calypso and steel drum music.

Compare that to the absorption and assimilation of cultures the US is rightly famous for and realize that the original fusion of Western harmony and African rhythm that produced blues and jazz went on to produce everything from stride piano (leading to barrelhouse and boogie-woogie which lead directly to rock 'n roll), to country/western, to the permutations taking off from the 50s and beyond including pop, soul, new wave, hip-hop, new Romantic, punk, R&B, funk, metal, and even the singer-songwriters (Dylan, both Guthries, Paul Simon, Harry Chapin, Elton John, Billy Joel, Joni Mitchell, and on and on). The Caribbean didn't and couldn't have produce(d) such an array.

You said 'could'. If the US had not been defining music then the Caribbean could've developed music in a different way, or latin america might've etc etc.

This is an impossible argument to have in any case. Alternative history is inexact speculation at best, alternative cultural history is wandering blindfolded through fog.

1. Page would've have been at some meeting point between Folk, Jazz and Elvis Presley. It would have a similar sound to what we know but there would be very noticeable change all the same. I'm not saying there was no influence from American Blues artists, but it accounts for less than half.

This is so inaccurate as to be laughable. Page would never have had the edge that race music gave Presley without the US blues influence. I'd say that counts for at least half. I'm not saying Page is talentless or uninfluential, just that he is a channel for his own influences, as all artists are.

2. The very first cave paintings, what was their influence (if they had one)?And even if they did, where would that have come from?

They painted what they saw. Their influence was the world around them combined with the developing mind and developing time to exercise it in ways that didn't involve establishing and defending survival. Not sure where you were going with that premise. All artists borrow from the past. In fact, talent borrows -- genius steals.

3. Exposure, no. Back then it took hard work to get somewhere (if anywhere). Exposure wasn't as possible as it is now. Also, people were more intelligent then than they are now. Back then people would only listen to good music, these days people will listen to whatever TV tells them to.

I'm not disagreeing, but you've not addressed the point. Page and the like benefitted from the exposure they got. Both from performance opportunities (the best way back before mass media was invented and then conquered by popular culture) to influence others and the recordings they heard that influenced them. I don't debate the "hard work" part.

Exposure wasn't nearly as globally possible, but the more you gigged, the more your name got out.

As far as "more intelligent", have you heard the music from the 50s before the Invasion/Revolution? English-speaking nations were coming out of the big-band era and into what? Pat Boone? And even when the explosion occurred, trite drivel was still quote popular. As late as 1960, you're still hearing crap like "Itsy Bitsy Teeny Weeny Yellow Polka-dot Bikini", and that segment of the musical landscape never really went away, it just became a smaller segment that made room for the Beatles, LZ, The Stones and everyone else on drugs (though to like the bikini tune, drugs would have to be involved, even if the drug is suburbanism). Granted that's a novelty song (and I apologize wholeheartedly for ear-worming it into the especially sensitive), but bobbysox led to bubblegum and the mainstream has only rarely looked back (Aqua's "Barbie Girl", anyone?).

Oh yeah, USA is so great

even Rammstein has made a song about how great the USA is, how they love Coca cola, wonderbra, and sometimes going to war

So because something is popular automatically gives it credibility?

"Credibility?" How does that even apply to what I was saying? It doesn't. And the idea of a genre of music having "credibility" is a nonsense concept anyway. A person has credibility, music just is and you either like it or you don't.

What you questioned was whether popularity was "some kind of endorsement." And it is, by definition - an endorsement by a large body of people.

As far as "more intelligent", have you heard the music from the 50s before the Invasion/Revolution? English-speaking nations were coming out of the big-band era and into what? Pat Boone? And even when the explosion occurred, trite drivel was still quote popular. As late as 1960, you're still hearing crap like "Itsy Bitsy Teeny Weeny Yellow Polka-dot Bikini", and that segment of the musical landscape never really went away, it just became a smaller segment that made room for the Beatles, LZ, The Stones and everyone else on drugs (though to like the bikini tune, drugs would have to be involved, even if the drug is suburbanism). Granted that's a novelty song (and I apologize wholeheartedly for ear-worming it into the especially sensitive), but bobbysox led to bubblegum and the mainstream has only rarely looked back (Aqua's "Barbie Girl", anyone?).


I was referring, at that point, to the period of the British Invasion, not the 50's.

And would you like to explain yourself on the topic I commented on at the start of Page 24?


Oh yeah, USA is so great

even Rammstein has made a song about how great the USA is, how they love Coca cola, wonderbra, and sometimes going to war

And what would make Rammstein the authority on where's nice and where's not? If they love going to war then they're clearly heartless thickos, not what I'd call nice. If they're not nice, how can they judge nice. Clearly there's only one band who can judge nice...

If you can't find rythm in Western Operas (and other pre-US tunes) and harmony in African music then you're tone-deaf/deaf (delete as inappropriate).

Okay, now you're just deliberately not reading everything I write. I said the "fusion of Western Harmony and African rhythm THAT LED TO..." -- please don't attempt to buoy your argument by intentionally misrepresenting mine.

Of course Western music had rhythm, but look at it before about 1845. This is roughly the time that African rhythms were being experienced by enough open-minded people like composer Louis Moreau Gottschalk, whose composition "The Banjo" was a direct result of his excusrions to New Orleans' Congo Square. That piece is cited by Scott Joplin as a direct inspiration for the invention of Ragtime, and the rest is music history.

African harmony prior to Western colonization was not anything like what you hear in modern African groups (such as Ladysmith and others). Missionaries brought simple church hymns and their harmonies to Africa, and where allowed, Africans wedded them to their syncopated rhythms.

Syncopation existed in Western music before about 1845, but nothing as emotionally rooted as that expressed by African drummers.

You said 'could'. If the US had not been defining music then the Caribbean could've developed music in a different way, or latin america might've etc etc.

This is an impossible argument to have in any case. Alternative history is inexact speculation at best, alternative cultural history is wandering blindfolded through fog.

Agreed. All I'm saying is that if other places were ripe for the ability to fuse various cultural elements into a synergistic whole such as jazz, then jazz-like music would have arisen elsewhere. In some ways, it did. Think of the Samba and other Latin American dance music. The basic formula is Western harmony + African syncopation. However, nothing from the Caribbean or South America ever developed into the plethora of styles we enjoy all over the world now as a result of the "melting pot" unique to the US.

Of course, I'm obviously outmatched, how could I ever hope to defeat an intellectual great who posts such things as:
ur currently getting you're ass pummeled by Artillery and bombs. lol


*sigh* This is why I originally avoided this section of the forumns. Looks like I'm going to go back to that plan. People bring pointless crap to throw. Wtf does what I RPed have to do with this forumn? Pure genius.

Okay, now you're just deliberately not reading everything I write. I said the "fusion of Western Harmony and African rhythm THAT LED TO..." -- please don't attempt to buoy your argument by intentionally misrepresenting mine.

Just to be pedantic, you've now misrepresented it.

Of course Western music had rhythm, but look at it before about 1845.

So when most European music was done, considering that the increase of composers, from the US, led to a demise in European compositions as they had lost a lot of territory in the Americas.

This is roughly the time that African rhythms were being experienced by enough open-minded people like composer Louis Moreau Gottschalk, whose composition "The Banjo" was a direct result of his excusrions to New Orleans' Congo Square. That piece is cited by Scott Joplin as a direct inspiration for the invention of Ragtime, and the rest is music history.

Fair enough, I'll give you that.

African harmony prior to Western colonization was not anything like what you hear in modern African groups (such as Ladysmith and others). Missionaries brought simple church hymns and their harmonies to Africa, and where allowed, Africans wedded them to their syncopated rhythms.

Harmony is where different notes are played together at the same time. You're telling me that didn't happen before the Hymns hit Africa? I know the use and style changed with the arrival of Europe, but the foundations were already there. One Belgian explorer in the Congo once noted that he'd been surprised by how civilised the Africans were before his arrival. African languages quite often already had their own words for musical styles of play that existed in Europe.

*sigh* This is why I originally avoided this section of the forumns. Looks like I'm going to go back to that plan. People bring pointless crap to throw. Wtf does what I RPed have to do with this forumn? Pure genius.

Because it shows a different, and more childish, you. I agree with him on you being roughly 14 years old.

Because it shows a different, and more childish, you. I agree with him on you roughly 14 years old.
Believe what you want, bud. I honestly don't care. I can just sit over here at my own home and laugh my ass off at some of you people when I read what you post. Whats funny is that as soon as a different opinion appears that dosn't agree with yours, you jump on the person with the opinion and start insulting them personally, not their opinion. Its almost like you have no other way of thinking. Pretty funny, you know? Granted I did insult some of the others, but I also put a point in my message. Not just mud-slinging.

Believe what you want, bud. I honestly don't care. I can just sit over here at my own home and laugh my ass off at some of you people when I read what you post. Whats funny is that as soon as a different opinion appears that dosn't agree with yours, you jump on them and start insulting them personally, not their opinion. Its almost like you have no other way of thinking. Pretty funny know? Granted I did insult some of the others, but I also put a point in my message. Not just mud-slinging.

As that appears to be targetted at me, would you mind telling me who I insulted? It certainly isn't Intangelon, as I don't insult people I respect.

As that appears to be targetted at me, would you mind telling me who I insulted? It certainly isn't Intangelon, as I don't insult people I respect.

It was actually aimed at whoever first called me 14, and then you because you agreed with it. Make sense now?

But in the spirit of avoiding further conflict, i will withdraw from this topic just because it is pointless. It is obvious world hate for America is too strong to oppose, even if it isn't entirely justified.

But in the spirit of avoiding further conflict, i will withdraw from this topic just because it is pointless. It is obvious world hate for America is too strong to oppose, even if it isn't entirely justified.


I wouldn't say this thread demonstrated 'World hate for America', Just 'Forum Hate for Ignorant Nationalistic Patriots'

And no, I am not accusing you of being one.

But in the spirit of avoiding further conflict, i will withdraw from this topic just because it is pointless. It is obvious world hate for America is too strong to oppose, even if it isn't entirely justified.

Consumed in his own ignorance as the whole point non-Americans have been putting across is that they don't hate America, but it's not the greatest place on Earth.

EDIT-Damn, Holy Cheese (???) got there first.

Sorry, it was just so damned obvious I had to post. It was the forum equivalent of someone dangling heroin in front of a junkie.

I was referring, at that point, to the period of the British Invasion, not the 50's.

Yes you were, and I was adding to that the fact that bubblegum and bobbysoxer songs continued to have a strong share of the mainstream's attention through the Invasion and still to this day.

And would you like to explain yourself on the topic I commented on at the start of Page 24?

What a friend you have in the quote button -- I've no idea what you mean specifically until you show me. Also, I have my pages reversed because I view threads newest-post-first. My "page 24" is way the hell back there.

Just to be pedantic, you've now misrepresented it.

By quoting it? Sorry, you've lost me.

So when most European music was done, considering that the increase of composers, from the US, led to a demise in European compositions as they had lost a lot of territory in the Americas.

European music was never "done" and isn't now. I'm not sure where you got that idea, but I'm afraid it's false. There are more US composers now, but that (nor the advent of amazing talents from Latin America, Africa, Asia and Australia) hasn't diminished the compositional strength of Europeans.

Harmony is where different notes are played together at the same time. You're telling me that didn't happen before the Hymns hit Africa? I know the use and style changed with the arrival of Europe, but the foundations were already there. One Belgian explorer in the Congo once noted that he'd been surprised by how civilised the Africans were before his arrival. African languages quite often already had their own words for musical styles of play that existed in Europe.

I must resist the urge to lash out at that first sentence because I know you don't mean to be antagonistic, but realize I'm a music professor. I know what harmony is. What didn't happen in Africa before colonization was major/minor tonality and the playing of more than one sounding pitch together with any kind of intentional or theoretical construction scheme in mind. Of course they had simultaneous pitched instances, but they didn't have chordal structure. That's not implying any superiority, just a fact.

Having words in Khoisan or Bantu for different kinds of music doesn't make the music harmonically sophisticated or organized. This is (of course) an ethnocentric point of view, but it's also largely inescapable.

Ok, you do make a good point. Not about america haters, atleast not all of it. But please refrain from the pointless insults, allright? I'm just posting an opinion. Besides, if i had a penny for everytime i was insulted on a forumn, i'd be rich. So it is really quite useless.

I must resist the urge to lash out at that first sentence because I know you don't mean to be antagonistic, but realize I'm a music professor. I know what harmony is. What didn't happen in Africa before colonization was major/minor tonality and the playing of more than one sounding pitch together with any kind of intentional or theoretical construction scheme in mind. Of course they had simultaneous pitched instances, but they didn't have chordal structure. That's not implying any superiority, just a fact.

Having words in Khoisan or Bantu for different kinds of music doesn't make the music harmonically sophisticated or organized. This is (of course) an ethnocentric point of view, but it's also largely inescapable.

It's not even that ethnocentric, really. You're not saying it's not as advanced or of equal value because it doesn't have Western musical organization, you're just saying it has it. I couldn't pick up any sense cultural superiority in your post.

'sides, I like the more "tribal" (for lack of a better word) music and feel better. But I'm a percussionist, so there may be bias. <.<

Ok, you do make a good point. Not about america haters, atleast not all of it. But please refrain from the pointless insults, allright? I'm just posting an opinion. Besides, if i had a penny for everytime i was insulted on a forumn, i'd be rich. So it is really quite useless.

Forgive me, but if it's really such a problem, why did you continue posting at all? Seems to me you're spoiling for a confrontation if you persist despite getting yourself into a situation you claim to dislike. You made your point (such as it was) and were met with NSG replies along a fairly standard range. If it blows so much, why not leave the thread to those who you feel so superior to and find another?

It's not even that ethnocentric, really. You're not saying it's not as advanced or of equal value because it doesn't have Western musical organization, you're just saying it has it. I couldn't pick up any sense cultural superiority in your post.

Well, I'm glad of that. Thank you.

'sides, I like the more "tribal" (for lack of a better word) music and feel better. But I'm a percussionist, so there may be bias. <.<

Ya think?

lol

The world of popular music, from rock 'n roll to techno, owes its soul to the melange that was cooked up in 18th & 19th century New Orleans from the unique set of circumstances there. That's my basic point.

Because i don't feel superior to anyone. I may sound like i do, but honestly I don't. I just get pissed when people pick on America and blame us for everything or make us something we're not. Besides, it only "blows" as you said because I let my anger get ahead of my brain when I was typing.

Because i don't feel superior to anyone. I may sound like i do, but honestly I don't. I just get pissed when people pick on America and blame us for everything or make us something we're not. Besides, it only "blows" as you said because I let my anger get ahead of my brain when I was typing.

Fair enough.

I don't think anyone blames America for everything. We were taught exploitation by some of the best examples in history, the English and the French (among others). What I blame my country for is the relentless pursuit of perfecting exploitation at the expense of just about anything else. That has a lot of sub-headings to it and can be perceived as a large blanket to hang over one nation. But when a whole nation's viewpoint seems to be superiority and consumption with only token attempts at conservation and recognition of any problem at all, it's easy to go overboard in criticizing it. Especially if one lives in a nation where many steps have been taken to ameliorate mankind's effect on nature.

Despite all of the bad-mouthing on this forum, America is, by far, the greatest place on Earth.

Close, so close, but wrong answer.

Fair enough.

I don't think anyone blames America for everything. We were taught exploitation by some of the best examples in history, the English and the French (among others). What I blame my country for is the relentless pursuit of perfecting exploitation at the expense of just about anything else. That has a lot of sub-headings to it and can be perceived as a large blanket to hang over one nation. But when a whole nation's viewpoint seems to be superiority and consumption with only token attempts at conservation and recognition of any problem at all, it's easy to go overboard in criticizing it. Especially if one lives in a nation where many steps have been taken to ameliorate mankind's effect on nature.

America isn't all about exploitation. Granted, there are quite a few of the richer people in society who do their darndest to take what they can get and there are always the con artists who hang around (I got conned not to long ago or would have if I hadn't noticed something strange), but most people are just average citizens who go about their daily lives. And you usually can't blame an entire country for what only a minority do. Not to mention the fact that "rational self-interest" is a human nature, not just an American one.
And the government has been trying to conserve what it can, its just that under the protection of free enterprise the government is limited in what it can legally do. Pretty funny, getting tied up in its own red tape.

Because i don't feel superior to anyone. I may sound like i do, but honestly I don't. I just get pissed when people pick on America and blame us for everything or make us something we're not. Besides, it only "blows" as you said because I let my anger get ahead of my brain when I was typing.


Fair enough. Always double check when reading someone's post as it's easy to misread them and the poster his/herself may have made a mistake.

Fair enough. Always double check when reading someone's post as it's easy to misread them and the poster his/herself may have made a mistake.

Yeah...sometimes i start typing without really knowing what i'm typing about. And then I go back and look at what I typed and its like ":eek: Holy crap, that's what I said?" lol

Besides, it only "blows" as you said because I let my anger get ahead of my brain when I was typing.

Yeah...sometimes i start typing without really knowing what i'm typing about. And then I go back and look at what I typed and its like ":eek: Holy crap, that's what I said?" lol

And you wonder why people think you're young? What you just said is perhaps the very definition of immaturity, the inability to think before doing. It's a very child like thing to do, and one that's very obvious when it's shown. Thus it makes you, very obviously, look like a child.

America isn't all about exploitation. Granted, there are quite a few of the richer people in society who do their darndest to take what they can get and there are always the con artists who hang around (I got conned not to long ago or would have if I hadn't noticed something strange), but most people are just average citizens who go about their daily lives. And you usually can't blame an entire country for what only a minority do. Not to mention the fact that "rational self-interest" is a human nature, not just an American one.
And the government has been trying to conserve what it can, its just that under the protection of free enterprise the government is limited in what it can legally do. Pretty funny, getting tied up in its own red tape.

You've missed the point. The vast majority of US culture is geared toward exploitation. Those "richer people" you mention are merely the ones making the most profit. I'm talking about rampant consumerism that produces things we don't need at prices too low to have anyone but the poorest around the world able to live off what it costs to produce them. I'm talking about rampant waste and rations of bitching whenever anything, no matter how simple or unintrusive (say, recycling) suggests that we back off the overuse of things plastic bags or wrapping...or gasoline.

The economy is predicated on constant growth, regardless of sustainability or what it means to the rest of the world. It bespeaks a destructive ignorance at best and a horrid arrogance and presumption at worst. You'll have to do some extensive traveling to really see perceptions of the US from afar up close and personal.

And you wonder why people think you're young? What you just said is perhaps the very definition of immaturity, the inability to think before doing. It's a very child like thing to do, and one that's very obvious when it's shown. Thus it makes you, very obviously, look like a child.

Actually, I don't wonder why. That's the whole point I just interated, incase you missed it. I said I sometimes let my anger get ahead of my brain. That just happens. Sorry if it makes me sound a little young to you. But dredging up a post I made in RP is just really unneccesary.

You've missed the point. The vast majority of US culture is geared toward exploitation. Those "richer people" you mention are merely the ones making the most profit. I'm talking about rampant consumerism that produces things we don't need at prices too low to have anyone but the poorest around the world able to live off what it costs to produce them. I'm talking about rampant waste and rations of bitching whenever anything, no matter how simple or unintrusive (say, recycling) suggests that we back off the overuse of things plastic bags or wrapping...or gasoline.

The economy is predicated on constant growth, regardless of sustainability or what it means to the rest of the world. It bespeaks a destructive ignorance at best and a horrid arrogance and presumption at worst. You'll have to do some extensive traveling to really see perceptions of the US from afar up close and personal.

Like I said, human nature is "rational self-interest". Its just that America seems to have enough of expendable wealth to do what they want but their problem is that they do it without thinking about the consequences. Why do you think many americans are $1,000+ in debt? lol

You are all wrong.
Marcabia is the greatest place on earth.
GLORY MARCABIA
GLORY XENU

Y'know, Americans are among Earth's most generous people.

Y'know, Americans are among Earth's most generous people.

http://www.ooblick.com/weblog/files/mouse_that_roared.jpg

Indeed!

Generous like the Saudi king gave millions to China out of his own pocket during the Sichuan earthquake?

Generous like the Saudi king gave millions to China out of his own pocket during the Sichuan earthquake?

Good for him. I'm not saying that ONLY Americans show generosity, I'm just stating that Americans seem to be a very generous people overall.

Just like most other people on the planet?

Just like most other people on the planet?

Perhaps. The point I'm making is this: despite all of the cynicism that exists concerning American 'consumerism,' our wealth has also had a very positive influence on Earth.

Your wealth has had a very positive influence? Just like the wars in the Middle East you're fuelling?

Perhaps. The point I'm making is this: despite all of the cynicism that exists concerning American 'consumerism,' our wealth has also had a very positive influence on Earth.

Yeah, I'm gonna need some kind of example that's unique to the US. Try the Marshall Plan, for example.

America is somewhere near the top. Personally i would say my own country first (Australia). But when comparing America to the rest of the world I would have to instantly put any country that is a dictatorship, communist, or a kingdom (where the royalty actually have power) below.

Sure America has done some things wrong but reserve your criticism for countries that are far more deserving such as, China, Iraq, Iran, Russia, South Africa, North Korea, Suadi Arabia, Afghanistan, Palestine, Indonesia, Cuba etc etc

If you are really think America sucks so much name the country that you believe is the best in the world. Im sure it wont take long for me to criticize that with just as much arrogance as your one liners

Yeah, I'm gonna need some kind of example that's unique to the US. Try the Marshall Plan, for example.
Your wealth has had a very positive influence? Just like the wars in the Middle East you're fuelling?

Sure America has done some things wrong but reserve your criticism for countries that are far more deserving such as, China, Iraq, Iran, Russia, South Africa, North Korea, Suadi Arabia, Afghanistan, Palestine, Indonesia, Cuba etc etc

When was the last time China, Iraq, Iran, Russia, South Africa, North Korea, Suadi Arabia, Afghanistan, Palestine, Indonesia or Cuba invented nuclear weapons and used them on civilian populations?

Oh that's right. Never.

I'm not going to "reserve" my criticism. Sorry.

So you place all those countries above America

So Ill attack North Korea then

North Korea doesn’t allow any outside communication, America has the internet
North Korea has a dictator who owns the world’s largest movie collection yet its people don’t get electricity all day. America with its 24 hour power sounds great
North Koreans starve to death. Yet the homeless in America get fed
North Korea kills all citizens’ people who make a mobile phone call. Yet Americans can phone anywhere in the world.
North Korea is believed to spend more on its military than everything else combined. American education sounds terrific
North Korean soldiers get preferential treatment (i.e. they get fed) while others scrounge for food
Oh yeah North Korea did a nuclear weapons test too. Did you forget about that one? The one underground. The one that is only known via satellite images. The one whose people in the surrounding areas we can only hope were evacuated.

But I will also offer this statement in support of American use of nuclear weapons. Japan didn’t stop the war after one city had the bomb dropped they continued. They were willing to die to push forward their cause. It was called the kamikaze bomber. They didn’t keep prisoners. They ignored the Geneva convection

Why should the military of so many other countries been killed as well as the Japanese troops and people? The fight was too the end. America just did it quickly instead of drawn out over another year... or two... or four

This whole thread is phenominally retarded. Although I highly doubt that America is the greatest place on Earth, I'll never be able to provide any conclusive evidence to that end, and neither will anyone claiming that it is. All this topic can consist of is an endless stream of "Yes it is" "No it isn't" "Yes it is" "No it isn't".
People really need to think before they start threads.

Does America have chavs?

Yes, but we don't call them that.

So you place all those countries above America

So Ill attack North Korea then

North Korea doesn’t allow any outside communication, America has the internet
North Korea has a dictator who owns the world’s largest movie collection yet its people don’t get electricity all day. America with its 24 hour power sounds great
North Koreans starve to death. Yet the homeless in America get fed
North Korea kills all citizens’ people who make a mobile phone call. Yet Americans can phone anywhere in the world.
North Korea is believed to spend more on its military than everything else combined. American education sounds terrific
North Korean soldiers get preferential treatment (i.e. they get fed) while others scrounge for food
Oh yeah North Korea did a nuclear weapons test too. Did you forget about that one? The one underground. The one that is only known via satellite images. The one whose people in the surrounding areas we can only hope were evacuated.

But I will also offer this statement in support of American use of nuclear weapons. Japan didn’t stop the war after one city had the bomb dropped they continued. They were willing to die to push forward their cause. It was called the kamikaze bomber. They didn’t keep prisoners. They ignored the Geneva convection

Why should the military of so many other countries been killed as well as the Japanese troops and people? The fight was too the end. America just did it quickly instead of drawn out over another year... or two... or four


You're telling me that the North Koreans spend over 100 trillion dollars on their military?


And to the person who mentioned Cuba, Fidel Castro spent a lot of the Soviet Subsidies on Healthcare. It might not be a nice place, but it's run by a nice guy who does try.

So you place all those countries above America

So Ill attack North Korea then


You see what you just did there? That's part of your problem: Americans are always attacking other countries in the feeble guise of defending themselves.

Sorry, it won't wash.

the greatest place on earth is anyplace trees outnumber humans and there isn't anyone with a gun anywhere telling you how to live. trees might still outnumber humans where i live, but you'd hardly know it by the numbers and their ignorance of anything else then humans, their relationships to each other, and to the dynamics of symbolic value.

yes the place where america is now, probably WAS the 'greatest place on earth', several thousand years ago, before the terrorist invasion of 1492. or might have been. or everyplace might have been, before the motivations that drove that invasion, that created the conditions that motivated it. conditions which, a few short centuries later, that invasion seems to have brought with it.

americo, was the name of a map maker who never saw the western hemisphere with his own eyes.

what is greatness? why does it matter? what is this big deal people keep talking about.

if i can't build and live in, as my perminent regular address, the kind of shelter i can build with my own hands from what i can find in nature and what other people throw away, if i have to be told what to think by corporate media, what greatness, what even freedom, is that?

if i have to be ashaimed, and i do, of how the government that claims the territory i'm surrounded by treats the rest of the world, and the environments people in the rest of the world have to depend upon for their own lives, how can anyone, with even the least shred of conscouse, ever, 'take pride' in that?

no, there is no COUNTRY that is the greatest place on this or any other planet. but there are PLACES that are great. the hidden seldom traverset grottos of nature, out beyond the stain and polution of human society. THOSE are the greatest places on this or any planet.

Japan didn’t stop the war after one city had the bomb dropped they continued.

.... They didn’t keep prisoners.

Tell that to my frandfather. If the Japanese didn't keep prisoners what the hell was he doing building the Burma Railroad?

yes the place where america is now, probably WAS the 'greatest place on earth', several thousand years ago, before the terrorist invasion of 1492. or might have been. or everyplace might have been, before the motivations that drove that invasion, that created the conditions that motivated it. conditions which, a few short centuries later, that invasion seems to have brought with it.
Terrorist invasion, eh?

Terrorist invasion, eh?

Us semi-Europeans with Scandinavian origins are regarded so highly elsewhere.

Us semi-Europeans with Scandinavian origins are regarded so highly elsewhere.
Pardon?

Do you know something? You can love your country without disrespecting the rest of the nations in the globe.

You could say "The United States of America is a great place to live, I wouldn't prefer any other", and I would agree. Comparative crap like "My country is better than any other, being the greatest on Earth", is just trolling to get some snotty arguments from anyone else who doesn't live in the US.

I love the selective filter of what is trolling and what's not in these forums.

Agreed with Aelosia.

That, and too many people take themselves way too seriously. Those Americafappers deflect criticism by saying that "omg udder nashuns do it 2," but at the same time, others seem perfectly willing to say that the US is one of the most dangerous entities on the planet. Neither are genuinely true. America is just like any other nation, and acts just like any other nation with power.

Does the US deserve plentiful criticism? Most certainly. But pinning the evils of the world on the US is just as futile and dangerous as refusing to criticise it.

Do you know something? You can love your country without disrespecting the rest of the nations in the globe.

You could say "The United States of America is a great place to live, I wouldn't prefer any other", and I would agree. Comparative crap like "My country is better than any other, being the greatest on Earth", is just trolling to get some snotty arguments from anyone else who doesn't live in the US.

I love the selective filter of what is trolling and what's not in these forums.

^ What she said

Agreed with Aelosia.

That, and too many people take themselves way too seriously. Those Americafappers deflect criticism by saying that "omg udder nashuns do it 2," but at the same time, others seem perfectly willing to say that the US is one of the most dangerous entities on the planet. Neither are genuinely true. America is just like any other nation, and acts just like any other nation with power.

Does the US deserve plentiful criticism? Most certainly. But pinning the evils of the world on the US is just as futile and dangerous as refusing to criticise it.

^ What he said

If you are really think America sucks so much name the country that you believe is the best in the world. Im sure it wont take long for me to criticize that with just as much arrogance as your one liners

Sealand. No known cases of oppression of its people. No known taxes. Fairly benevolent rule. A foreign policy that can best be described as passive. The place is a bit run down, but I hear the government has put new infrastructure and public works on the agenda. :p

But for the best place, IIRC, Bhutan probably tops the list with the highest rating of citizen happiness. Being mega-rich and having lots of toys may be nice in your skyscraper, but it doesn't mean you, or everyone else, is happy, especially if you're caught in the trap of constant consumption in which case, you'll never be happy.

The criteria for greatest nation on earth should be very simple. Populace happiness. Everything else is just fluff.

The USA is not the only superpower in the world. That is rubbish. Several other nations hold enough political weight to be considered superpowers as well, though admittedly America is one of the highest.

A few other nations perhaps come close - China, Russia?

But I still think the USA is the only "superpower".

Sealand. No known cases of oppression of its people. No known taxes. Fairly benevolent rule. A foreign policy that can best be described as passive. The place is a bit run down, but I hear the government has put new infrastructure and public works on the agenda. :p

But for the best place, IIRC, Bhutan probably tops the list with the highest rating of citizen happiness. Being mega-rich and having lots of toys may be nice in your skyscraper, but it doesn't mean you, or everyone else, is happy, especially if you're caught in the trap of constant consumption in which case, you'll never be happy.

The criteria for greatest nation on earth should be very simple. Populace happiness. Everything else is just fluff.


Sealand is awesome. It is obviously a real country!

^ What she said



^ What he said

y tank u :fluffle:

Sealand. No known cases of oppression of its people. No known taxes. Fairly benevolent rule. A foreign policy that can best be described as passive. The place is a bit run down, but I hear the government has put new infrastructure and public works on the agenda. :p

:D

But for the best place, IIRC, Bhutan probably tops the list with the highest rating of citizen happiness. Being mega-rich and having lots of toys may be nice in your skyscraper, but it doesn't mean you, or everyone else, is happy, especially if you're caught in the trap of constant consumption in which case, you'll never be happy.

The criteria for greatest nation on earth should be very simple. Populace happiness. Everything else is just fluff.

I'd agree with you, if there was an objective way to define happiness.

Sealand is awesome. It is obviously a real country!

It's not a proper country though. Know other country recognises it (and don't say Germany does).

y tank u :fluffle:

You're welcome.

I'd agree with you, if there was an objective way to define happiness.

I believe Bhutan is attempting to do that, by defining a "Gross National Happiness" quotient. (I might be wrong, though)

Actually I remember reading about an international survey recently asking people from a gigantic selection of countries if they were truly happy. In the End, Denmark won. The US ranked as 23rd. Oh, and for what its worth, Bhutan is number 8.

I also think that a population deluded enough to call itself the greatest on earth can't be far from the fall. Look at every single other group that has ever claimed predominance over all others, yeah they collapsed due to their own decadence or ignorance.

You're welcome.



I believe Bhutan is attempting to do that, by defining a "Gross National Happiness" quotient. (I might be wrong, though)

But that's still not necessarily objective and all-encompassing. And don't you dare say it's objective just because the government is doing it.

It's not a proper country though. Know other country recognises it (and don't say Germany does).Germany does

boy...trolling never got so dumb...and I try hard.

its . . .really not that good. Economy dieing, Run by a religious institution, one of the most ridiculous election arrangements ever, If your poor its terrible, If your sick its worse, terrible international relationship, Involved in a war with a population less than half of its own and still unable to win or even get out.

Germany does

The Germans say they don't, the Sealanders say they do.

I think the Germans would know better than a Pirate Radio Broadcaster.

Actually I remember reading about an international survey recently asking people from a gigantic selection of countries if they were truly happy. In the End, Denmark won. The US ranked as 23rd. Oh, and for what its worth, Bhutan is number 8.

I also think that a population deluded enough to call itself the greatest on earth can't be far from the fall. Look at every single other group that has ever claimed predominance over all others, yeah they collapsed due to their own decadence or ignorance.

Expressing one's beliefs isn't 'ignorant' or 'deluded.' I'll thank you to refrain from personal attacks.

The Germans say they don't, the Sealanders say they do.

I think the Germans would know better than a Pirate Radio Broadcaster.

I neither know nor care. I was only saying "Germany does" because you said not to. =P

Mmmm America is the greatest place on earth because:
1)Its entire populataion is baisicly an imagrent from another country (uk, spain, prettymuch any country you can think off)
2)At the last poll i read 50% of its population was over weight/ obese
3)over 1/3 of the country is nuclear launch sites
4) thier generaly trigerhapy
5)More often than not they shoot thier own troops or thier allys troops
6)they are led by an idiot. A man that many regard as an idiot with scaresly enugh inteligance to make a slinky fall down the stairs. And he was elected by the american people.
7) they are one of the heavyest poluters on the planet
8) guns are leagal, meaning there are waaay more gun crimes and deaths as a result.
9) there are some realy stupid 'sports' such as Nes cars (ftw is that all about?)
10) a fair few are more racist than most of us brits
11)they hacen't developed thier own language like most indiopendant countrys, they mutated the english language.

Im sure there are sooooo many more reasons that america is great but letys face it, id be going for a few years trying to list them all

After reading this whole topic, Im just glad to see NSG hasnt changed in my absence.

Mmmm America is the greatest place on earth because:
1)Its entire populataion is baisicly an imagrent from another country (uk, spain, prettymuch any country you can think off)
2)At the last poll i read 50% of its population was over weight/ obese
3)over 1/3 of the country is nuclear launch sites
4) thier generaly trigerhapy
5)More often than not they shoot thier own troops or thier allys troops
6)they are led by an idiot. A man that many regard as an idiot with scaresly enugh inteligance to make a slinky fall down the stairs. And he was elected by the american people.
7) they are one of the heavyest poluters on the planet
8) guns are leagal, meaning there are waaay more gun crimes and deaths as a result.
9) there are some realy stupid 'sports' such as Nes cars (ftw is that all about?)
10) a fair few are more racist than most of us brits
11)they hacen't developed thier own language like most indiopendant countrys, they mutated the english language.

Im sure there are sooooo many more reasons that america is great but letys face it, id be going for a few years trying to list them all


My response:
1) Our entire population WERE immigrants at one point (even Native Americans crossed the Bering Straits during the ice age). However, with the exception of Central Africa, the citizens of every nation came from somewhere else at one point. I would argue that America's diversity is one of its greatest attributes.

2) Perhaps Americans have a problem with obesity, but no one's perfect. Overall, I still believe it's a wonderful land.

3) I'm not quite sure what you were trying to say here. Nevertheless, the development of nuclear weapons by the United States has helped to prevent conventional war between industrialized nations. Not to mention, the UK has nuclear weapons, so I'm not sure what you're arguing.

4) We're trigger happy? I'm an American citizen, and I don't even OWN a gun.

5) This point is just absurd. The United States of America DOES NOT advocate killing its own troops (or those of its allies) by way of 'friendly fire.'

6) That's a matter of opinion. George W. Bush isn't the brightest president that's ever served, but he is hardly the stupidest man to be given power in the history of mankind. While a lot of Americans voted FOR Bush, millions also voted AGAINST him. Oh, on that note, didn't the British people vote for Tony Blair? If I'm not mistaken, he mirrored Bush's foreign policy.

7) Granted, the US is a major source of pollution, but that's largely a result of POPULATION. The two top polluters are, incidentally, China and India. Coincidence? They are the two most populous nations.

8) Actually, studies have shown that the majority of violent crimes (committed with guns) are carried out with illegally acquired fire arms. With the exception of lunatics, no one uses a gun that can be traced back to them to commit a homicide. Therefore, the fact that guns are legal has nothing to do with violent crime. Additionally, nations such as Switzerland have legalized gun ownership, and Switzerland has a famously LOW homicide rate.

9) That's entirely a matter of personal preference. I don't watch NASCAR, but who cares if someone else does? It isn't hurting you, is it? I don't find Cricket interesting, but I don't want people to stop playing it.

10) I resent you bringing up this point. First of all, how would you know? I'm assuming (because of some of the statements you've made) that you've never lived in the US (let alone visited). Likewise, I can't judge the level of racism in the UK. I would like to believe that, even though human beings have their shortcomings, we are improving. Heck, one of the presidential candidates is a racial minority.

11) With all due respect, YOU'VE mutilated the English language more than I have. Past that, your point is founded on fallacy. So, do you think English just appeared out of thin air one day? Of course it didn't, it evolved from earlier (non-native) languages...for instance, English belongs to the Germanic language group. If you're refering to pop-culture when you mention our desecration of the language, I have one thing to say: Where was Da Ali G Show created? That's right, in the UK. America is home to many of the world's greatest Universities: Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc. We value education.

I was only on page 7 but hopefully you guys have realised that the "mock debating" still doesn't make this thread interesting or funny.

Edit: I see you're now onto serious debate, the thread still sucks.

I was only on page 7 but hopefully you guys have realised that the "mock debating" still doesn't make this thread interesting or funny.

Edit: I see you're now onto serious debate, the thread still sucks.

Start your own thread, buddy.

Oh, on that note, didn't the British people vote for Tony Blair? If I'm not mistaken, he mirrored Bush's foreign policy.

No one I associate myself with did. And thats because he was a spineless imbecile.
http://sub2change.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/the_more_you_know2.jpg

No one I associate myself with did. And thats because he was a spineless imbecile.
http://sub2change.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/the_more_you_know2.jpg


How do you like Brown?

My response:

6) That's a matter of opinion. George W. Bush isn't the brightest president that's ever served, but he is hardly the stupidest man to be given power in the history of mankind. While a lot of Americans voted FOR Bush, millions also voted AGAINST him. Oh, on that note, didn't the British people vote for Tony Blair? If I'm not mistaken, he mirrored Bush's foreign policy.

Technically not, due to the Paliamentary system only a few tens of thousands actually voted for Blair.

Technically not, due to the Paliamentary system only a few tens of thousands actually voted for Blair.

That's quite the indictment, then. I'll take popular suffrage over that type of system anyday.

That's quite the indictment, then. I'll take popular suffrage over that type of system anyday.

It's due to the fact that there is no president in the UK. It's like Congress without a president. The Prime Minister is the person most likely to persuade the majority of MPs to agree with him. No more, no less.

Mmmm America is the greatest place on earth because:
1)Its entire populataion is baisicly an imagrent from another country (uk, spain, prettymuch any country you can think off)
2)At the last poll i read 50% of its population was over weight/ obese
3)over 1/3 of the country is nuclear launch sites
4) thier generaly trigerhapy
5)More often than not they shoot thier own troops or thier allys troops
6)they are led by an idiot. A man that many regard as an idiot with scaresly enugh inteligance to make a slinky fall down the stairs. And he was elected by the american people.
7) they are one of the heavyest poluters on the planet
8) guns are leagal, meaning there are waaay more gun crimes and deaths as a result.
9) there are some realy stupid 'sports' such as Nes cars (ftw is that all about?)
10) a fair few are more racist than most of us brits
11)they hacen't developed thier own language like most indiopendant countrys, they mutated the english language.

Im sure there are sooooo many more reasons that america is great but letys face it, id be going for a few years trying to list them all

1) Like it was previously mentioned, most of our population were immigrants. And guess what? The reason they immigrated was because they thought that in America they could do better than where they were.

2)Just because people are fat dosn't make the country bad. sheesh.

3)I highly doubt that there are 3,023,434 square kilometers of launch sites in America. Thats more area than some states. I think we might run into issues with that such as rapidly running out of land to farm (which we're not, by the way).

4)Uh...since when? Americans do own most of the worlds weapons (and not just the military) but we use them for hunting or such. Not just randomly blowing off shots as "trigger happy" implies. You would have to go into some really deep redneck country to find that. Atleast in modern times.

5) Uh...you're getting this from where?

6) As a matter of fact, George W. Bush's IQ is pretty high. His decisions may not show it, but he isn't an idiot. Plus, history has shown that if a president has too high of intellegence, he gets stalled in the decision making process constantly weighing the pros and cons and never deciding leading to a bad president.

7) Like it was mentioned, large population=large pollution. I'll also admit that Americans aren't the most environmentally concious when it comes to recycling, but we're slowly working on it.

8) Even if guns were illegal, if someone wanted a gun bad enough, they could get one. They could even make one themselves if they wanted to bad enough.

9) Its NASCAR btw. And do you consider foot racing a stupid sport? What's the difference between that and doing it in a car where you go 200 mph? Sounds more fun to me. Besides, like previously said, Cricket isn't all that interesting to me, but i'm not trying to take any cracks at it.

10) Personal opinion unless you can back that up with some statistics. And to be honest, if we are a so rascist nation, why does every once in a while a perfectly normal person(usually a politicion) get in trouble for saying something that could be construed as rascist and get in trouble? The american people are against racists and do their best to not be rascist.

11) HAHAH. Good one man. Want to guess why we use English? Its because the brits colonized america and so the colonists WERE british. So they just kept their native toungue. Why would they make their own language? And technically, the brits didn't make their own language either. It evolved from older languages. I think Germanic but i'm not sure...

It's due to the fact that there is no president in the UK. It's like Congress without a president. The Prime Minister is the person most likely to persuade the majority of MPs to agree with him. No more, no less.

Understood. I still prefer the American political system, it has a formidable 'check and balance' method (though I'm aware that the MP's can boot the Prime Minister if things get bad).

Understood. I still prefer the American political system, it has a formidable 'check and balance' method (though I'm aware that the MP's can boot the Prime Minister if things get bad).

The American one is a bit too popularity contest for my taste (though the British one is going that way sadly). Plus even with the 'checks and balances' the Presidential Veto and Signing Statements put to much power in one man imho.

The American one is a bit too popularity contest for my taste (though the British one is going that way sadly). Plus even with the 'checks and balances' the Presidential Veto and Signing Statements put to much power in one man imho.

Elections of any sort always come down to 'popularity.' It's just the way we're wired.

Mmmm America is the greatest place on earth because:
1)Its entire populataion is baisicly an imagrent from another country (uk, spain, prettymuch any country you can think off)
2)At the last poll i read 50% of its population was over weight/ obese
3)over 1/3 of the country is nuclear launch sites
4) thier generaly trigerhapy
5)More often than not they shoot thier own troops or thier allys troops
6)they are led by an idiot. A man that many regard as an idiot with scaresly enugh inteligance to make a slinky fall down the stairs. And he was elected by the american people.
7) they are one of the heavyest poluters on the planet
8) guns are leagal, meaning there are waaay more gun crimes and deaths as a result.
9) there are some realy stupid 'sports' such as Nes cars (ftw is that all about?)
10) a fair few are more racist than most of us brits
11)they hacen't developed thier own language like most indiopendant countrys, they mutated the english language.

Im sure there are sooooo many more reasons that america is great but letys face it, id be going for a few years trying to list them all

1. Don't exagerate, that'll get you know where.

2. Learn basic grammaer and how to spell, it'll help people take you seriously.

3. Don't put personal preference as reasoning.

4. Actually the US uses (for the most part) an outdated form on English, the one we used 300 years ago. Their accent is different, but that's about it. It is, in fact, British English which has changed over the years.

5. Some of those points have no fact whatsoever. On point 3, that is plain ridiculous, anyone who believes that is 8 years old or a moron, or both. And on point 5, again, ridiculous. Just about every friendly-fire incident is down to misinterpretation over communications or incompetence in the command chain. The US Army doesn't go around shooting troops it pumps 100 trillion dollars into annually. Granted there were occasions during Vietnam where friendly-fire was ordered, but that was because the US positions were overrun and the American troops were safe from the attack, whilst the NVA were exposed. It was purely military sense.

6. I listen to the Who, I have a Union Jack/Flag hanging on my wall and I eat Steak and Chips on a regular basis. I'm probably one of the most British people you will ever come across in your life. And I'm prepared to say that about the US. What you have stated is nothing more than racial slander. Go take a long, hard look in the mirror.

Elections of any sort always come down to 'popularity.' It's just the way we're wired.
What on earth has human nature got to do with a first-past-the-post electoral system?

What on earth has human nature got to do with a first-past-the-post electoral system?

Unless you know something I don't about the electoral system, I'm pretty sure human beings cast votes. Therefore (as is true of any other system involving human beings), human nature is very relevant.

Unless you know something I don't about the electoral system, I'm pretty sure human beings cast votes. Therefore (as is true of any other system involving human beings), human nature is very relevant.
How, exactly, would a system of electing authority figures that has only been around for the last couple hundred years be in any way integral to human nature?

How, exactly, would a system of electing authority figures that has only been around for the last couple hundred years be in any way integral to human nature?

I'm not saying that HUMAN NATURE was influenced by the electoral system, I'm saying that (because it was created by humans) the ELECTORAL SYSTEM is influenced by human nature.

I'm not saying that HUMAN NATURE was influenced by the electoral system, I'm saying that (because it was created by humans) the ELECTORAL SYSTEM is influenced by human nature.
In what way?

What part of human nature, according to yourself, comes into play in elections?

In what way?

What part of human nature, according to yourself, comes into play in elections?

Lol, are you thick?

Lol, are you thick?
I like to think not, and also try to stay away from sweeping statements about 'human nature'.

So, again, what part of human nature do you perceive comes in to play during an election? You seem to be suggesting something along the lines of 'humans are inherently drawn to popular people', but I want to make sure.

I like to think not, and also try to stay away from sweeping statements about 'human nature'.

So, again, what part of human nature do you perceive comes in to play during an election? You seem to be suggesting something along the lines of 'humans are inherently drawn to popular people', but I want to make sure.

No, I'm saying that people with attractive characteristics (intelligence, good looks, charisma, etc.) are more likely to be chosen over people with undesirable characteristics. The electoral system involves exploiting certain characteristics and understating others. Therefore, certain politicians are elected because voters perceive them to be 'desirable.' Studies have shown, similarly, that taller politicians are more likely to receive votes than shorter politicians (of course, that's assuming the candidates are otherwise equal).

No, I'm saying that people with attractive characteristics (intelligence, good looks, charisma, etc.) are more likely to be chosen over people with undesirable characteristics. The electoral system involves exploiting certain characteristics and understating others. Therefore, certain politicians are elected because voters perceive them to be 'desirable.'
And this is, to you, an aspect of human nature?

Studies have shown, similarly, that taller politicians are more likely to receive votes than shorter politicians (of course, that's assuming the candidates are otherwise equal).
But candidates are never "otherwise equal".

And this is, to you, an aspect of human nature?


But candidates are never "otherwise equal".

To your first remark: absolutely. I've studied Psychology and 'human nature.' According to evolutionary theory, human beings are attracted to strength. Studies indicate that pheromones express immunological traits to potential mates in order to attract a partner that could produce genetically strong offspring. Likewise, human beings are selective with their leaders for similar reasons. Our leaders influence our well-being. If we choose a poor leader, we could all perish...moreover, humanity coud perish under extreme conditions.

To your second point, the same study has been done for job applicants (yielding similar results).

To your first remark: absolutely. I've studied Psychology and 'human nature.' According to evolutionary theory, human beings are attracted to strength. Studies indicate that pheromones express immunological traits to potential mates in order to attract a partner that could produce genetically strong offspring.
Yet one of the most defining features of humanity, if not the defining feature, is that we can happily, and fairly easily, discard our genetic or evolutionary dispositions to behaviour, etc. We aren't, contrary to Dawkins et al seem to claim, slaves to our genes. We can choose not to procreate, to use an obvious example.

I don't see how elections are decided on an evolutionary fit basis.

To your second point, the same study has been done for job applicants (yielding similar results).
I wouldn't mind seeing such studies, and stressing that this is all ceteris paribus.

Yet one of the most defining features of humanity, if not the defining feature, is that we can happily, and fairly easily, discard our genetic or evolutionary dispositions to behaviour, etc. We aren't, contrary to Dawkins et al seem to claim, slaves to our genes. We can choose not to procreate, to use an obvious example.

I don't see how elections are decided on an evolutionary fit basis.


I wouldn't mind seeing such studies, and stressing that this is all ceteris paribus.

Very well put. The defining characteristic of human nature is to go against nature.

But that's still not necessarily objective and all-encompassing. And don't you dare say it's objective just because the government is doing it.

One: Just because I'm liberal does not make me a government worshipper. Two: I gotta agree with you there. Maybe you should ask Bhutan.

The defining characteristic of human nature is to go against nature.
I don't know if I'd put it that strongly; let us just say that we have the mental capacity to ignore 'base' instinct, and not get bogged down in talk of 'human nature'.

But enough of this hijack, I'll let you folks get back to arguing over the US...

I don't know if I'd put it that strongly; let us just say that we have the mental capacity to ignore 'base' instinct, and not get bogged down in talk of 'human nature'.

But enough of this hijack, I'll let you folks get back to arguing over the US...

OK.


US not greatest place on earth. Period.

Yet one of the most defining features of humanity, if not the defining feature, is that we can happily, and fairly easily, discard our genetic or evolutionary dispositions to behaviour, etc. We aren't, contrary to Dawkins et al seem to claim, slaves to our genes. We can choose not to procreate, to use an obvious example.

I don't see how elections are decided on an evolutionary fit basis.


I wouldn't mind seeing such studies, and stressing that this is all ceteris paribus.

There are human beings that eat human beings, there are human beings that jump off of buildings...you can't craft an argument around esoteric outliers. I respect your right to post in this forum, but I would highly recommend that you READ about human nature. Heck, don't even pick up a psychology textbook, go for the history books. Human nature, in my opinion, isn't exclusively defined in terms of evolutionary science or genetics, per se. Human nature is defined with respect to how human beings typically behave (duh). It's convenient, however, that history supports my belief that humans are (on a societal level...i.e. without BS exceptions) attracted to strength.

There are human beings that eat human beings, there are human beings that jump off of buildings...you can't craft an argument around esoteric outliers.
You've got to if you're discussing human nature, unless you simply want to discuss what the majority of humans tend to do, all things being equal.

To me, that's hardly human nature.

I respect your right to post in this forum, but I would highly recommend that you READ about human nature.
I already do so, especially in preparation for my philosophy degree dissertation.

Human nature, in my opinion, isn't exclusively defined in terms of evolutionary science or genetics, per se. Human nature is defined with respect to how human beings typically behave (duh). It's convenient, however, that history supports my belief that humans are (on a societal level...i.e. without BS exceptions) attracted to strength.
Again, all things being equal.

Fairly anecdotal looks at certain human attractions to strength don't add up to a decent argument for the 'shape' of human nature.

You've got to if you're discussing human nature, unless you simply want to discuss what the majority of humans tend to do, all things being equal.

To me, that's hardly human nature.


I already do so, especially in preparation for my philosophy degree dissertation.


Again, all things being equal.

Fairly anecdotal looks at certain human attractions to strength don't add up to a decent argument for the 'shape' of human nature.

You study Philosophy? Terrific. You already know, I'm sure, that one can't create a compelling argument using only trivial/infrequent examples.

An example: Bill wants to learn about Bald Eagles (seems to be appropriate). One teacher tells Bill all about the average life spans of Bald Eagles, what the animal often eats, the type of climate it seems to prefer. Let's say that the first teacher's lesson is based upon thousands of individual Bald Eagles.
Bill, after his first lesson, sees a second teacher. This second teacher tells Bill everything about Bald Eagles...but only based upon one Bald Eagle. Bill becomes terribly misled by the second teacher because the "one bald eagle" has brain-damage (which it received as a hatchling)...this injury caused abnormal behavior in the bird.
Now, were the observations made by the first teacher null and void because they don't account for the unusual behavior of the bird with brain-damage? Absolutely not. Instead, his depiction is reliable...it takes the 'law of averages' into account (sorry to stray, but its relevant). In essence, all quantities (whether ping pong balls or lions) revert to the mean and exclude outliers. This is precisely why biologists use statistics when determining everything from mating patterns to life span for a particular organism (Chai Squares, T-Tests, Standard Deviations, and so forth).

Why, then, should human beings be any different? Are we not organisms? Do we not eat, sleep, mate, and die? Of course. Therefore, when arguing over something as profound as the human condition, it is important to define "human nature" in such a way that it takes the majority of human beings into account. Just as it would be unfair for me to assume that you have an IQ of 75 or 180, it would be unfair to assume that the behavior of all human beings can be judged in terms of a significant minority.

In my country, at least, we use majorities as points of reference. For instance, in a presidential race, a state will be called a "Republican" State if a majority of its citizens endorse Republican politicians. Similarly, if the majority of human beings show certain behaviors...then those behaviors can be considered "representative" of the human species.

So, whether or not MY depiction of human nature conforms to YOUR depiction is irrelevant. As long as the majority of humans agree that a majority is more reliable than a minority, and believe that the actions of the majority of human beings should be considered more reliable than those of a minority of humans, I'll be statistically correct.

You study Philosophy? Terrific. You already know, I'm sure, that one can't create a compelling argument using only trivial/infrequent examples.

An example: Bill wants to learn about Bald Eagles (seems to be appropriate). One teacher tells Bill all about the average life spans of Bald Eagles, what the animal often eats, the type of climate it seems to prefer. Let's say that the first teacher's lesson is based upon thousands of individual Bald Eagles.
Bill, after his first lesson, sees a second teacher. This second teacher tells Bill everything about Bald Eagles...but only based upon one Bald Eagle. Bill becomes terribly misled by the second teacher because the "one bald eagle" has brain-damage (which it received as a hatchling)...this injury caused abnormal behavior in the bird.
Now, were the observations made by the first teacher null and void because they don't account for the unusual behavior of the bird with brain-damage? Absolutely not. Instead, his depiction is reliable...it takes the 'law of averages' into account (sorry to stray, but its relevant). In essence, all quantities (whether ping pong balls or lions) revert to the mean and exclude outliers. This is precisely why biologists use statistics when determining everything from mating patterns to life span for a particular organism (Chai Squares, T-Tests, Standard Deviations, and so forth).

Why, then, should human beings be any different? Are we not organisms? Do we not eat, sleep, mate, and die? Of course. Therefore, when arguing over something as profound as the human condition, it is important to define "human nature" in such a way that it takes the majority of human beings into account. Just as it would be unfair for me to assume that you have an IQ of 75 or 180, it would be unfair to assume that the behavior of all human beings can be judged in terms of a significant minority.

In my country, at least, we use majorities as points of reference. For instance, in a presidential race, a state will be called a "Republican" State if a majority of its citizens endorse Republican politicians. Similarly, if the majority of human beings show certain behaviors...then those behaviors can be considered "representative" of the human species.

So, whether or not MY depiction of human nature conforms to YOUR depiction is irrelevant. As long as the majority of humans agree that a majority is more reliable than a minority, and believe that the actions of the majority of human beings should be considered more reliable than those of a minority of humans, I'll be statistically correct.

Just one thing. I'm not sure if you are trying to argue that the majority defines the nature of the being. If you are doing so, you are wrong.

A brain damaged bald eagle would be the product of an accident that caused it to be abnormal. The strange behavior of the eagle would be a product of the damage that altered its nature.

Minorities are not damaged. The majority does not defines the nature of humanity. If that was the case then the nature of humanity has changed several times in history.

Just one thing. I'm not sure if you are trying to argue that the majority defines the nature of the being. If you are doing so, you are wrong.

A brain damaged bald eagle would be the product of an accident that caused it to be abnormal. The strange behavior of the eagle would be a product of the damage that altered its nature.

Minorities are not damaged. The majority does not defines the nature of humanity. If that was the case then the nature of humanity has changed several times in history.

I'm arguing that one can't judge an entire group (e.g. humans, bald eagles, etc.) in terms of outliers (e.g. brain-damaged eagles, understand?).

As far as human nature is concerned, the same applies. We can't say that "most of us are sociopaths" if 1% of human beings are sociopathic.

As far as human nature is concerned, the same applies. We can't say that "most of us are sociopaths" if 1% of human beings are sociopathic.

Similarly, we can't say that "We saved France" if the "we" in question includes a handful of aging WWII veterans and the person making the statement wasn't even alive in WWII, let alone fighting it.

How do you like Brown?

HATE. Then again I hate all politicians at the moment, so my vote doesn't count.:tongue:

In what way?

What part of human nature, according to yourself, comes into play in elections?

Oh Chumbly, don't make his head explode. It makes such a mess.

Very well put. The defining characteristic of human nature is to go against nature.

Disagree. I'd say, as a stretch, the defining characteristic of most human societies is to put as much distance between people and their basic animal needs (food, sleep, shelter, sex, bowel elimination, etc.) as possible in the form of laws, customs and rituals.

Disagree. I'd say, as a stretch, the defining characteristic of most human societies is to put as much distance between people and their basic animal needs (food, sleep, shelter, sex, bowel elimination, etc.) as possible in the form of laws, customs and rituals.

shame about the sex part thought.

You're telling me that the North Koreans spend over 100 trillion dollars on their military?


And to the person who mentioned Cuba, Fidel Castro spent a lot of the Soviet Subsidies on Healthcare. It might not be a nice place, but it's run by a nice guy who does try.

Can you read? North Korea has a different budget than the US. They dont have the finances of the US. North korea spends more on the millitary than all other areas combined.

I never mentioned North Korea spends more money than the US.

You see what you just did there? That's part of your problem: Americans are always attacking other countries in the feeble guise of defending themselves.

Sorry, it won't wash.

Oh im not American. You obviously didnt read my first post. My argument was that I could run an equaly ignorant response against any country in favour of America.

I did it with North Korea.

And as for sealand well I would have to put the mythical city of atlantas above that. Or is Altantas the capital?
Tell that to my frandfather. If the Japanese didn't keep prisoners what the hell was he doing building the Burma Railroad?

And what would of happened to your farther if the US didnt use the nuclear bomb. Starvation thats what.

Elections of any sort always come down to 'popularity.' It's just the way we're wired.

Depends what you mean popularity, obviously the person who gets the most votes would be the most 'popular' and also wins.

Presidential elections are focussed more or less completely on an individual against an individual, whereas in a UK general election the focus is more diffused, some to the party leader, some to major national party figures, some to party policy, some to local party figures, etc etc. As a result an election tends to be less about an individual's personality and hence less of a 'popularity contest' in that sense.

Depends what you mean popularity, obviously the person who gets the most votes would be the most 'popular' and also wins.

You would think, and yet.

You study Philosophy? Terrific. You already know, I'm sure, that one can't create a compelling argument using only trivial/infrequent examples.
Yes, quite. But I also know that when one wishes to make statements about 'human nature', about the inherent, unavoidable characteristics that all humans share, ignoring examples of perfectly healthy humans who do not share certain characteristics with other humans is foolish.

If one wishes, say, to maintain that it is human nature to be attracted to strength, and yet we can point to a fairly large number of humans who don't share that characteristic, then we cannot say that it is human nature to be attracted to strength.

An example: Bill wants to learn about Bald Eagle...Now, were the observations made by the first teacher null and void because they don't account for the unusual behavior of the bird with brain-damage? Absolutely not.
Quite, yet we're not discussing brain-damaged human beings here; we're discussing humans who don't choose their preferred elected official on personality and looks, but policy.

Your analogy doesn't cut the mustard.

Why, then, should human beings be any different? Are we not organisms? Do we not eat, sleep, mate, and die? Of course. Therefore, when arguing over something as profound as the human condition, it is important to define "human nature" in such a way that it takes the majority of human beings into account. Just as it would be unfair for me to assume that you have an IQ of 75 or 180, it would be unfair to assume that the behavior of all human beings can be judged in terms of a significant minority.
But, by claiming that the behaviour of this minority doesn't have any bearing on human nature, you're either claiming (as you do above) that this minority is brain-damaged, a rather ridiculous claim, or that they are somehow 'not human', again, rather ridiculous.

In my country, at least, we use majorities as points of reference. For instance, in a presidential race, a state will be called a "Republican" State if a majority of its citizens endorse Republican politicians. Similarly, if the majority of human beings show certain behaviors...then those behaviors can be considered "representative" of the human species.
The problem being, you're going further than highlighting majority practice. You''re saying that the majority practice is naturally human, an extreme claim.

To use your example of the 'Republican' state, you're saying that because the majority of citizens in said state vote Republican, it is natural for citizens for said state to vote Republican, and that those citizens who don't vote Republican are unnatural.

Going back to the wider example of humanity, from a quick perusal of this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Forms_of_government.svg) map, it seems that the majority of humans live under a presidential system of government. You seem to be saying that this indicates that it is natural for humanity to live under a presidential system of government, and that citizens of non-presidential states (such as myself, in the UK) are living an unnatural life, contrary to human nature.

A rather bizarre set of claims.

So, whether or not MY depiction of human nature conforms to YOUR depiction is irrelevant. As long as the majority of humans agree that a majority is more reliable than a minority, and believe that the actions of the majority of human beings should be considered more reliable than those of a minority of humans, I'll be statistically correct.
You'll be statistically correct that a majority of humans live a certain way, or behave a certain way, but this says little or nothing about human nature.

All you're identifying is patterns of behaviour.