I was just wondering to our American cousins across the sea what there views are on the relationship between the UK and US. I ask as with the visit of Obama to the UK at present there is a sense that he doesn’t generally like the British.
When he was first elected our prime minister at the time (dumb ass Gordon Brown) had to request 5 times to a meeting with Obama (which I kind of get as he is an arse ). When he did meet him he handed over a gift of DVDs and one of the first things he did was to send back a bust of Winston Churchill from the Whitehouse which was a gift from us to the US for the help they provided in the world wars.
Please note I don’t want this thread to traverse into a slanging match in any way I am asking for the general opinions of the American people as to how they view the alliance between our two nations.
Its interesting. There was a big discussion of this on the BBC. One American in the UK noted and I think it matches- You almost never hear of the "special relationship" between the US and UK in the US, but you hear it in the UK.
You have cool castles and interesting accents, most of which are excellent on fair maidens but grating coming from your menfolk.
You have no appreciation however, for the fine art of TexMex, and of course doomed because of that.
Frazzled wrote:Its interesting. There was a big discussion of this on the BBC. One American in the UK noted and I think it matches- You almost never hear of the "special relationship" between the US and UK in the US, but you hear it in the UK.
You have cool castles and interesting accents, most of which are excellent on fair maidens but grating coming from your menfolk.
You have no appreciation however, for the fine art of TexMex, and of course doomed because of that.
Me and my lass plan a trip to America in the next 6 months so will have to sample the delight of this TexMex
Since moving here, I have been constantly congratulated on being British, having an amazing accent (seriously, I have a face like a robber's dog and the amount of poontang I could obtain by dint of simply talking to a woman here, were I not happily married, is mind blowing), instantly listened to as someone learned on a subject whether I know anything about it or not and on several occasions, total strangers who hear me talking have shook my hand and told me what a great ally I am...
Obama spurned the 'New Labour' government that so heavily allied it's self with GWBush and returned the bust of Winston Churchill because Churchill suppressed Kenya's Mau Mau rebellion. Among Kenyans allegedly tortured by the colonial regime included one Hussein Onyango Obama, the President's grandfather.
I don't think for one moment he 'hates the brits' but has clearly distanced himself from the unpleasantly intimate relationship of Bush and Blair. Aren't you happy your current leader doesn't have a foreign president's hand up his arse?
All this 'he don't like us' whimpering is the result of media stir up from the right wing on both sides of the Atlantic who want that intimacy back. Murdoch controls a good deal of it via Fox in the US and certain of the newspapers in the UK, and then there's the Daily Mail, which is just filth.
This has been talked to death, the OP cant frequent the OT much.
I think Obama dislking the UK is a bit of a myth, and I dont think there is anything "special" about our relationship, were just allies because it makes sense, and it always will do.
biccat wrote:They tried football in the UK, it didn't take off.
Really? Last I heard Football was our national sport
Unless you mean American Football, in which case yes - it is not hugely popular here, though my university had a team (made up mostly of Americans studying in the UK from what little attention I paid to it).
Also, Obama just gave a speech at a state dinner with Her Madge and quoted Churchill... He spoke about the special relationship etc and gave the British nation the ego stroke it's been pining for.
SilverMK2 wrote:Unless you mean American Football, in which case yes - it is not hugely popular here, though my university had a team (made up mostly of Americans studying in the UK from what little attention I paid to it).
Yes, real football, not soccer.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:Also, Obama just gave a speech at a state dinner with Her Madge and quoted Churchill... He spoke about the special relationship etc and gave the British nation the ego stroke it's been pining for.
Michelle Obama did that last year (or a couple of years ago? I can't remember) when she gave the Queen a hug. To be fair, the Queen hugged her back though.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:Also, Obama just gave a speech at a state dinner with Her Madge and quoted Churchill... He spoke about the special relationship etc and gave the British nation the ego stroke it's been pining for.
No, the orchestral conductor failed at remembering Obama's speech and took the pause as time to strike up. The 'gaffe' was his, not the president's. Don't worry, we take that sort of thing very seriously in Blighty and the poor sod will be on a one-way trip to Tasmania by now.
Do you wait with the tv on hoping for your president to make a mistake? Did you do the same when GeeDubya Bush vomited on the Japanese Prime Minister?
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Do you wait with the tv on hoping for your president to make a mistake? Did you do the same when GeeDubya Bush vomited on the Japanese Prime Minister?
To be honest, with respects to most Americans, I can say, "Yes, yes we do."
EDIT: As a bit of explanation. American politics is so completely mired in this two-party nightmare that about 70% of the populace can't help but watch and wait for the guy to take a breath that wasn't perfectly timed. Afterwards, we enjoy listening to it on CNN and Fox news for about the next 3 months afterwards. This is mostly done while waiting for him to make another mistake. The other 30% spend this time defending him and justifying each one of these things as something that are actually a genius move that makes perfect sense in the president's overall strategy. Next election period, those 30% flip flop with 30% from the majority. The remaining 40% are the people who are just angry and bitter and "would vote for a third party if there was a suitable one offered", in spite of the fact that there are.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Do you wait with the tv on hoping for your president to make a mistake? Did you do the same when GeeDubya Bush vomited on the Japanese Prime Minister?
To be honest, with respects to most Americans, I can say, "Yes, yes we do."
Luckily for us we have an entire cabinet that makes mistakes...
It spreads around the mistakes so we can keep things fresh...
MeanGreenStompa wrote:Do you wait with the tv on hoping for your president to make a mistake? Did you do the same when GeeDubya Bush vomited on the Japanese Prime Minister?
MeanGreenStompa wrote:No, the orchestral conductor failed at remembering Obama's speech and took the pause as time to strike up. The 'gaffe' was his, not the president's. Don't worry, we take that sort of thing very seriously in Blighty and the poor sod will be on a one-way trip to Tasmania by now.
Talking during "God Save the Queen" and trying to make a toast before the song had finished was the failure in question.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:Do you wait with the tv on hoping for your president to make a mistake?
Well, I certainly don't make youtube compilations about a president during the last few months he is in office and have it readily available to post it on gaming forums when someone points out a stupid gaffe of the guy I support for president.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:Do you wait with the tv on hoping for your president to make a mistake?
Well, I certainly don't make youtube compilations about a president during the last few months he is in office and have it readily available to post it on gaming forums when someone points out a stupid gaffe of the guy I support for president.
I suppose that would be sort of obsessive.
Or I might have just googled that... y'know, like people do... well, other people than you it seems...
Your tinfoil hat might just be on a tad tight you know.
biccat wrote:They tried football in the UK, it didn't take off.
Really? Last I heard Football was our national sport
Unless you mean American Football, in which case yes - it is not hugely popular here, though my university had a team (made up mostly of Americans studying in the UK from what little attention I paid to it).
MeanGreenStompa wrote:Or I might have just googled that... y'know, like people do... well, other people than you it seems...
Your tinfoil hat might just be on a tad tight you know.
Could you please explain again how Bush vomitting on the Japanese PM is related to Obama being an idiot?
I'm pretty sure (although I never did too well in Biology, so I could be wrong) that vomitting is unrelated to intelligence.
You claimed Obama committed a breach of protocol, I pointed out that he did not and that a simple error had occurred in the timing by the Orchestra.
I am fairly bloody certain however, that throwing up on someone could well be outside the realms of protocol when done by one world leader to another outside of any extreme bedroom antics between two consenting adults.
Your willingness to try and claim Obama is diplomatically inept and yet leap to the defense of Bush Jnr is hilarious as it is tragic. GWB had all the social grace and diplomatic skill of a spaniel. The world gave Obama a Nobel Peace Prize for one major reason, HE WASN'T G W BUSH and we were all just so blindingly happy about that we sent him a gift!
MeanGreenStompa wrote:Your willingness to try and claim Obama is diplomatically inept and yet leap to the defense of Bush Jnr is hilarious as it is tragic. GWB had all the social grace and diplomatic skill of a spaniel. The world gave Obama a Nobel Peace Prize for one major reason, HE WASN'T G W BUSH and we were all just so blindingly happy about that we sent him a gift!
Which says far more about the Nobel Peace Prize than it does about either President Obama or President Bush.
But let me get this straight:
Intentionally speaking during another country's national anthem = not a breach of protocol.
Accidentally throwing up on someone = breach of protocol.
Do you really understand the difference between a mistake and an intentional act?
I suppose it could have been worse, he could have given the queen an MP3 player with his speeches, given a (wrong region) set of DVD's to the prime minister, and then had someone in the state department say "There's nothing special about Britain. You're just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn't expect special treatment."
Special relationship? It always rather worried me how little mutual respect there is for the other partner in the alliance. Admittedly its mutual dis-respect but still, you would think we would be a little less rude about the other sides fighting ability/diet/whatever considering we are supposed to be on the same damn side.
Its a pity Obama seems to show that same lack of respect from time to time.
To be honest I wish the press would talk about, and use, the term 'Special Relationship' a little less. Actually, a lot less. It's embarrassing for both our peoples and doesn't really reflect the way we feel about each other.
Yeah, we're bros. Yeah, we're on the same page a lot, in fact to an unprecedented degree. Does that mean we need to go on and on about it? In my opinion, no. Our countries have a bond that doesn't really need to be brought up every 5 fething minutes. It's like that mother and son who call each other every day - it's fething creepy.
Our countries have had our differences over the years, but when the chips are down, we're part of the same family and we love each other, despite the occasional jibe here and there. I think we should just take that as read, and not go on about it so much, is all. We don't have the same thing with the Canadians, Aussies or Kiwis, and we're just as close to them, if not more so.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Good speech by Obama at Parliament today, mind.
Michelle Obama did that last year (or a couple of years ago? I can't remember) when she gave the Queen a hug. To be fair, the Queen hugged her back though.
Thats savoire faire, do as your guests do (within reason) so as not to discommodate them.
Intentionally speaking during another country's national anthem = not a breach of protocol.
Accidentally throwing up on someone = breach of protocol.
Do you really understand the difference between a mistake and an intentional act?
Delted by Manchu. Please be mindful of Rule Number One, especially when you passionately disagree with someone.
He was mid-speech, he was unsure as he continued with the speech, wondering if the music would stop or he should carry on. The music carried on and he set his glass down. It was an accident, that's all. You trying desperately to prove it makes him a hater of the British and/or diplomatically inept, when you've sprouted up on this forum before to valiantly defend GW Bush, who was highly cumbersome at diplomacy and a very poor speaker, is a double standard that simply reeks of partisan blinkers.
biccat wrote:
I suppose it could have been worse, he could have given the queen an MP3 player with his speeches, given a (wrong region) set of DVD's to the prime minister, and then had someone in the state department say "There's nothing special about Britain. You're just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn't expect special treatment."
Fething idiot in chief.
Bush gave Blair a sweater, wtf is the point of this line of reasoning? I get gak every Christmas that I don't like. I'm sure Gordon owns a multiregion DVD player, you can afford that gak when you're a prime minister. Do you know if Lizzy asked Obama for a way to listen to his speeches? It also included shots of her visits to the US as well as other moments in US history, She might have liked that, you don't know, you're just speculating with a jaundiced lens. Also, the 'you have to wait like everyone else'... do you think that was said to piss off one nation or alleviate the concerns of the other 190? I see a fairly direct point being made about breaking the closeted attitude of the previous administration and I like it.
Monster Rain wrote:The majority of TexMex is good, but chili without beans?
Your ways are strange to me.
Chili with beans is just godless communism, out forth by the New York Times to weaken our manly essence. Its like fluoride in the water. General Ripper knew, and look what they did to him.
corpsesarefun wrote:Some folks have chilli without beans?
I pity them...
See? Only Brits eat chili with beans. Its just this sort of cuisine that sent them across the world, conquering other cultures so that they could get decent food.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
purplefood wrote:I have a question: Do you have curry in America?
Honestly we're glad to still be allies, and friends with the brits. You only have a couple little things that irk us. But they're small. The spice girls for one. Y'all could have kept that one over there. The second one is the whole drinking warm beer thing. Really? Also soccer and rugby. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure it's fun, but there is only one football, and it includes 300 pound men and armor, and really hot cheerleaders, and COLD beer.
Other than that, no real qualms. After all you guys gave us Ozzy, the beetles, russel brand, fish and chips, chicks with hot accents, minicoopers, monty python, and benny hill.
Not to mention how british chippies love us "american cowboys". Free 'tang included with every overseas trip.
I am making chili with beans tonight. Actually I think I will add black beans as well as inviting members of the Ordo Chiliticus to dine with me. I also make curries quite often at home. I like the red and green curries. I had mutter paneer on Monday, bulgogi and kimchee on tuesday, and might have fried chicken on Friday.
As far as on topic, I have always seen it like two cousins living on opposite sides of the country, might not always see eye to eye, but mess with them and you mess with us.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:Special relationship? It always rather worried me how little mutual respect there is for the other partner in the alliance. Admittedly its mutual dis-respect but still, you would think we would be a little less rude about the other sides fighting ability/diet/whatever considering we are supposed to be on the same damn side.
Its a pity Obama seems to show that same lack of respect from time to time.
I couldn't agree less with this mate, ive spent a few years in the States, and the people there genuinelly are lovely to us. They seem to be almost universally polite to British people, I always chat to random people when I go out because i'm a big mouthed bastard, but in the States they really do like an Englishman, they know and admire our monarchy, our military and our culture. I had the guy in passport control shake my hand when I told him I was a RM and went to Iraq a couple times, people try to buy me drinks often and regularly, the women always love the accent and bizarrely think we are "smart" (and try to shag me but then Im essence of man so i cant say that for everyone) and I generally have a ball whenever I go back to see the family.
Over here however, 50% of the people we meet start their first sentence to my American missus with "You know what annoys me about Americans?"
I know its all down to two unpopular wars and Bush and its not genuine eminity because we are two close countries but still, Yanks are waaaaaay more happy with us than we are with them, and I get pissed off when random strangers give my missus gak. Its happened about ten times in the past couple of years, whereas in a few hundrerd piss-ups in the US I have never once had any gak for being a limey, other than a single episode, where a particuarly drunk hick was offended that my missus said she wanted to move to England.
Its the Brits who lack respect, not our colonial cousins!
Dice_Junkie wrote:Honestly we're glad to still be allies, and friends with the brits. You only have a couple little things that irk us. But they're small. The spice girls for one. Y'all could have kept that one over there. The second one is the whole drinking warm beer thing. Really? Also soccer and rugby. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure it's fun, but there is only one football, and it includes 300 pound men and armor, and really hot cheerleaders, and COLD beer.
Other than that, no real qualms. After all you guys gave us Ozzy, the beetles, russel brand, fish and chips, chicks with hot accents, minicoopers, monty python, and benny hill.
Not to mention how british chippies love us "american cowboys". Free 'tang included with every overseas trip.
We had to get rid of them somehow.
I dunno where you've been drinking, but after spending as much time as I have freezing my giblets in a cold beer cellar, I guarantee you the beer isn't warm. Mid you, ours has a decent amount of alcohol in it.
Granted OUR football lacks cheerleaders or armour, but what it lacks in those it makes up in involving "feet" rather than "carrying". For the rest, we just have Rugby, where large gentlemen run into each other at speed..without armour.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mattyrm wrote:
ArbeitsSchu wrote:Special relationship? It always rather worried me how little mutual respect there is for the other partner in the alliance. Admittedly its mutual dis-respect but still, you would think we would be a little less rude about the other sides fighting ability/diet/whatever considering we are supposed to be on the same damn side.
Its a pity Obama seems to show that same lack of respect from time to time.
I couldn't agree less with this mate, ive spent a few years in the States, and the people there genuinelly are lovely to us. They seem to be almost universally polite to British people, I always chat to random people when I go out because i'm a big mouthed bastard, but in the States they really do like an Englishman, they know and admire our monarchy, our military and our culture. I had the guy in passport control shake my hand when I told him I was a RM and went to Iraq a couple times, people try to buy me drinks often and regularly, the women always love the accent and bizarrely think we are "smart" (and try to shag me but then Im essence of man so i cant say that for everyone) and I generally have a ball whenever I go back to see the family.
Over here however, 50% of the people we meet start their first sentence to my American missus with "You know what annoys me about Americans?"
I know its all down to two unpopular wars and Bush and its not genuine eminity because we are two close countries but still, Yanks are waaaaaay more happy with us than we are with them, and I get pissed off when random strangers give my missus gak. Its happened about ten times in the past couple of years, whereas in a few hundrerd piss-ups in the US I have never once had any gak for being a limey, other than a single episode, where a particuarly drunk hick was offended that my missus said she wanted to move to England.
Its the Brits who lack respect, not our colonial cousins!
Clearly we are speaking to different Americans...and I mean that literally. Generally it seems that forces personnel do better in the "respect" stakes, I imagine because having to catch the same bullets is a great equalizer. Though I can't help but think that being a Royal might have an effect on how people deal with you. "Hi, I'm a double-hard ten foot tall killing machine." tends to generate a modicum of respect in people.
biccat wrote:
Talking during "God Save the Queen" and trying to make a toast before the song had finished was the failure in question.
No, in general, conductors are informed of the procedure involved in such a toast prior to the event. If there was a mistake, and it may be that the intention was for Obama to speak during what was very low music (you'll note that he said "propose a toast" prior to the music playing, but no one raised their glasses, and he was very clearly wearing a mic), then the mistake was the conductor's. I'm inclined to believe that there was no mistake though, and that whomever planned the event made a poor choice.
By and large most people in Britain will complain about other countries. This is mainly because complaining is a very British thing to do. There isn't any actual malice behind it but America tends to be a good target for complaining about.
Most people, upon discovering someone from America, will ask questions and generally think it is awesome. I was on my way home form a party once and ended up drinking with some American lads who were very nice people though they couldn't hold their drink all that well.
However you do get the odd collection of w****rs that decide it is acceptable to insult a person to their face when they have no reason to do so.
Special relationship! You call this a special relationship?
In the 1770s they turned their backs on the greatest country on earth. Then we had the war of 1812 and Andrew Jackson attacking the Brits a week after the peace treaty was signed. Then we had the Munroe doctrine which tried to thwart peaceful British interests in south america. In the civil war we had the trent affair and the north's efforts to stop our peaceful blockade runners. Then they accused of of having plans to capture New York in '62 or 63.
They were late in WW1 and in world war two they gave us duff rifles in 1940. Post war, we bailed them out in Korea and negotiated a good deal with Ho Chi Minh to allow Nixon to bring the boys back home. In the 1980s they invaded Grenada, a peace loving commonwealth nation, and Reagan got a deserved whack from Maggie's handbag. in 2002, the author of this piece was almost run over by an american tourist driving on the wrong side of the road. An american girl I knew dated me for three weeks and ran off with one of my friends... The bitterness...
biccat wrote:
Do you really understand the difference between a mistake and an intentional act?
Mistakes can also be intentional acts. Your emotional bias against Obama is compromising your judgment here.
biccat wrote:
I suppose it could have been worse, he could have given the queen an MP3 player with his speeches, given a (wrong region) set of DVD's to the prime minister, and then had someone in the state department say "There's nothing special about Britain. You're just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn't expect special treatment."
Fething idiot in chief.
Wait, are you trying to insinuate that protocol breaches are only a level above explicit insults?
biccat wrote:
Do you really understand the difference between a mistake and an intentional act?
Mistakes can also be intentional acts. Your emotional bias against Obama is compromising your judgment here.
No, they're not. Mistakes are by definition unintentional. Your emotional bias against Bush is clouding your judgment.
dogma wrote:
biccat wrote:
I suppose it could have been worse, he could have given the queen an MP3 player with his speeches, given a (wrong region) set of DVD's to the prime minister, and then had someone in the state department say "There's nothing special about Britain. You're just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn't expect special treatment."
Fething idiot in chief.
Wait, are you trying to insinuate that protocol breaches are only a level above explicit insults?
No, just pointing out that the present administration has worked its way to the bottom, diplomatically speaking.
dogma wrote:Do you punch people who greet you awkwardly?
Sometimes, yes. It depends on how awkward the greeting.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:Though I can't help but think that being a Royal might have an effect on how people deal with you. "Hi, I'm a double-hard ten foot tall killing machine." tends to generate a modicum of respect in people.
Im only 5 foot 9 mate, but yeah your right i'm fething nails.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:Do you wait with the tv on hoping for your president to make a mistake? Did you do the same when GeeDubya Bush vomited on the Japanese Prime Minister?
Wait you thought that was a mistake?
To be fair, the last five Japanese PMs would be vomited on by a lot of Japanese if they got the chance.
Anyway, you haven't seen a sport until you've seen American Cricket.
biccat wrote:
No, they're not. Mistakes are by definition unintentional. Your emotional bias against Bush is clouding your judgment.
Why is Bush relevant? Didn't you just point out how making comparisons like that is foolish? You aren't doing well today.
Anyway, by what definition? When I make a mistake on math test I still made an intentional choice to write the incorrect answer in the relevant place. Mistake is a synonym for error, and Merriam-Webster defines it as, among other things, to blunder in the choice of.
biccat wrote:
No, just pointing out that the present administration has worked its way to the bottom, diplomatically speaking.
With Britain? With Pakistan? With Turkey? With France?
With all countries, or countries that you like?
biccat wrote:
Sometimes, yes. It depends on how awkward the greeting.
So what you're saying here is that diplomacy is not something you're qualified to judge.
I already knew that, but its nice to have my opinions reinforced.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:Though I can't help but think that being a Royal might have an effect on how people deal with you. "Hi, I'm a double-hard ten foot tall killing machine." tends to generate a modicum of respect in people.
Im only 5 foot 9 mate, but yeah your right i'm fething nails.
I live in a city full of SAS people and i have seen a small person to terrible things to another person...
ArbeitsSchu wrote:Though I can't help but think that being a Royal might have an effect on how people deal with you. "Hi, I'm a double-hard ten foot tall killing machine." tends to generate a modicum of respect in people.
Im only 5 foot 9 mate, but yeah your right i'm fething nails.
I live in a city full of SAS people and i have seen a small person to terrible things to another person...
biccat wrote:
No, they're not. Mistakes are by definition unintentional. Your emotional bias against Bush is clouding your judgment.
Why is Bush relevant? Didn't you just point out how making comparisons like that is foolish? You aren't doing well today.
I'm not the one who raised the issue. Some people defend Obama by attacking his predecessor. That's not generally a good idea, since Bush was better than Clinton, and Clinton was better than Bush I who was better (at least with Russia) than Reagan, but we can probably stop there, because there's very few ways you can say Reagan was worse than Carter.
dogma wrote:Anyway, by what definition? When I make a mistake on math test I still made an intentional choice to write the incorrect answer in the relevant place. Mistake is a synonym for error, and Merriam-Webster defines it as, among other things, to blunder in the choice of.
The general intent to write does not equate to a specific intent to make a wrong choice. Do you think "blunder" is an intentional act, or one that is unintended?
dogma wrote:
biccat wrote:
No, just pointing out that the present administration has worked its way to the bottom, diplomatically speaking.
With Britain? With Pakistan? With Turkey? With France?
Yes, yes, yes, and yes.
dogma wrote:With all countries, or countries that you like?
Not all countries, only those that he has engaged in diplomacy yes.
dogma wrote:
biccat wrote:
Sometimes, yes. It depends on how awkward the greeting.
So what you're saying here is that diplomacy is not something you're qualified to judge.
I already knew that, but its nice to have my opinions reinforced.
This makes absolutely no sense. You need to work on your analogies.
Can you prove Fermat's last theorem? No? Well then that simply reinforces the fact that you're not qualified to judge the World's Strongest Man contest.
biccat wrote:
I'm not the one who raised the issue. Some people defend Obama by attacking his predecessor. That's not generally a good idea, since Bush was better than Clinton, and Clinton was better than Bush I who was better (at least with Russia) than Reagan, but we can probably stop there, because there's very few ways you can say Reagan was worse than Carter.
But I didn't raise the issue, and you're responding to me, not other posters. As such its strange that you would make a comparison you identified as being bad, because it is, when responding to a person who did not raise it himself. After all, we are talking about Obama, so my claim that your bias against him (which we can clearly agree exists) is damaging your judgment is directly relevant. However, your claim that I have a bias against Bush (which does not clearly exist) is not directly relevant because we're not talking about Bush.
biccat wrote:
The general intent to write does not equate to a specific intent to make a wrong choice. Do you think "blunder" is an intentional act, or one that is unintended?
No, but if I respond to a question of "What is the sum of 2 and 2?" with "5." I clearly intended to write "5." I don't need to intend to do an erroneous, or mistaken, thing in order for it to be erroneous, or mistaken. Ergo, I can make a mistake without intending to do so, while taking an intentional action; rendering the mistake itself (the action taken) intentional.
Colloquially, would you ever actually say that GWB made a mistake by vomiting on the Japanese PM? Or would you say it was unfortunate, or bad? In short, would you describe the event, or the person's choice? Personally, I would describe the event, and not anything Bush chose to do.
biccat wrote:
Yes, yes, yes, and yes.
France, and Turkey?
The US supported France's engagement of Libya, do you think that was something which occurred by chance, or do you think there may have been diplomatic engagement prior to the event? The US and France have been quietly hostile ever since the beginning of the Cold War, there has been no change under Obama; certainly not following Bush.
As for Turkey, what has Obama done? Induced the Turkish President to say this:
Gül wrote:...evidence of a vital partnership between Turkey and the US...
And hey, we still have nuclear weapons and aircraft at Incirlik, clearly our diplomatic relations are in a terrible state of affairs.
biccat wrote:
Not all countries, only those that he has engaged in diplomacy yes.
Yeah, Kenya hates us, so do Iraq, and Afghanistan. And India. And Japan. And China.
biccat wrote:
This makes absolutely no sense. You need to work on your analogies.
If you punch people who greet you awkwardly, then your diplomatic skills, diplomacy being central to greeting people without making them angry, are not very good.
biccat wrote:
Can you prove Fermat's last theorem? No? Well then that simply reinforces the fact that you're not qualified to judge the World's Strongest Man contest.
It isn't my fault that you made it through law school without learning what "diplomacy" means.
purplefood wrote:Well this thread went south quickly...
Anyone up for cricket?
on Saturdays I normally take team Weinie for an epic tale of high adventure around Milburn park (Frazzled, taking short dogs on long walks since November 2009). They have a Pakistani/Indian group of guys that play Kricket there in the morning. Its kind of neat as there is often swim team competitions or soccer going on at the same time.
purplefood wrote:Well this thread went south quickly...
Anyone up for cricket?
on Saturdays I normally take team Weinie for an epic tale of high adventure around Milburn park (Frazzled, taking short dogs on long walks since November 2009). They have a Pakistani/Indian group of guys that play Kricket there in the morning. Its kind of neat as there is often swim team competitions or soccer going on at the same time.
Brtain: Creating and spreading sports to countries that then become better at them than us since... actually for a while now.
It is a fun game to play but not so much to watch IMO.
Rugby i can watch for ages without getting bored.
purplefood wrote:Well this thread went south quickly...
Anyone up for cricket?
on Saturdays I normally take team Weinie for an epic tale of high adventure around Milburn park (Frazzled, taking short dogs on long walks since November 2009). They have a Pakistani/Indian group of guys that play Kricket there in the morning. Its kind of neat as there is often swim team competitions or soccer going on at the same time.
Brtain: Creating and spreading sports to countries that then become better at them than us since... actually for a while now.
It is a fun game to play but not so much to watch IMO.
Rugby i can watch for ages without getting bored.
Well I don't understand it, so its like this alien thing in the middle of my park. But everyone playing seems to be strictly doing it for fun and enjoying themselves mightily which makes it cool. Where I am in life, everything sports related is generally school and all about competition, so its like a breath of fresh Brit air.
purplefood wrote:Well this thread went south quickly...
Anyone up for cricket?
on Saturdays I normally take team Weinie for an epic tale of high adventure around Milburn park (Frazzled, taking short dogs on long walks since November 2009). They have a Pakistani/Indian group of guys that play Kricket there in the morning. Its kind of neat as there is often swim team competitions or soccer going on at the same time.
Brtain: Creating and spreading sports to countries that then become better at them than us since... actually for a while now.
It is a fun game to play but not so much to watch IMO.
Rugby i can watch for ages without getting bored.
Well I don't understand it, so its like this alien thing in the middle of my park. But everyone playing seems to be strictly doing it for fun and enjoying themselves mightily which makes it cool. Where I am in life, everything sports related is generally school and all about competition, so its like a breath of fresh Brit air.
Sounds nice.
We used to play it during lunch after our we lost the rugby ball and no one could be bothered to get another one.
Please let's avoid the back-and-forth jabs and stick exclusively to the big weighty paragraphs where we poke holes in the formulation of one another's arguments.
biccat wrote:
Fortunately for me, diplomacy isn't a required course. But it's these types of petty insults that make me regret engaging you.
If you're going to talk about bad diplomacy, or talk about why what person X said about person Y's skill with diplomacy, then you might want to know what the word means. You have Google, Yahoo, Bing!, and other search engines and Merriam-Webster has an online dictionary, also dictionary.com exists, use your assets or don't take offense for being called out for not doing so.
There is no harm in not knowing what a word means if you admit to ignorance, and thereby learn from the event.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:Do you wait with the tv on hoping for your president to make a mistake? Did you do the same when GeeDubya Bush vomited on the Japanese Prime Minister?
Wait you thought that was a mistake?
To be fair, the last five Japanese PMs would be vomited on by a lot of Japanese if they got the chance.
Anyway, you haven't seen a sport until you've seen American Cricket.
Last time I checked G.W. Bush never threw up on a Japanese man his father did?
purplefood wrote:Well this thread went south quickly...
Anyone up for cricket?
on Saturdays I normally take team Weinie for an epic tale of high adventure around Milburn park (Frazzled, taking short dogs on long walks since November 2009). They have a Pakistani/Indian group of guys that play Kricket there in the morning. Its kind of neat as there is often swim team competitions or soccer going on at the same time.
Brtain: Creating and spreading sports to countries that then become better at them than us since... actually for a while now.
It is a fun game to play but not so much to watch IMO.
Rugby i can watch for ages without getting bored.
Pshaw. AFL, mate. That's where it's at.
Though apparently we started that because we could never comprehend what offside meant.
DutchKillsRambo wrote:Last time I checked G.W. Bush never threw up on a Japanese man his father did?
corpsesarefun wrote:Some folks have chilli without beans?
I pity them...
Melissia wrote:I pity those fools that put beans IN their chili.
Seriously, it just ruins the texture and flavor of the chili.
There was recently a thread on Fark where Obama had released his chili recipe. I hitherto was unaware that there was a huge disparity in this country re: beans in chili. Apparently half the country considers them essential, and half consider it a travesty. Myself, I omit beans because I don't like beans.
So far as England goes, you guys are OK with me. I like your magazines with the boobs right in them and Princess Beatrice's crazy hats. My wife likes your BBC shows. That being said, I don't think we're quite on the BFF level like we are with Canada. Canada are the Necrons to our Blood Angels.
For pure entertainment, though, Australia wins hands down. I enjoy your Bearded Dragons, but especially, there are news stories there that simple do not occur anywhere else in the world. Seriously, what is with you people.
Ouze wrote:For pure entertainment, though, Australia wins hands down. I enjoy your Bearded Dragons, but especially, there are news stories there that simple do not occur anywhere else in the world. Seriously, what is with you people.
The Officers at the scene wrote:"As a result, the accused and police fell to the ground and ... suffered some cuts and abrasions as a result of the fall."
notprop wrote:He should have rapped, would have been more "real".
Other than that, thanks for coming over see you at the next war/meeting/whatever.
You know how it happens, we show up halfway through the whole thing and make it end sooner than it would have.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ArbeitsSchu wrote:I'm sure the 7 American pilots that showed up of their own accord gave a good account of themselves though.
We were busy sending pilots to China in secret, keeping secrets takes a lot out of us especially when our allies were spying on us at the same time.
Speaking about pilots and WW2, the best pilot ever of all time was a German pilot during WW2. He lasted the entirety of the war, starting with a recon plane and moving up to a stuka, and got the German equivalent of the Medal of Honor five times. He ended up flying over 2,500 missions, destroying 1,000+ trucks, 500+ tanks, 4 trains, 2 destroyers, 1 cruiser, and 1 battleship. Not to mention he also shot down some other planes with a dive-bomber.
halonachos wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ArbeitsSchu wrote:I'm sure the 7 American pilots that showed up of their own accord gave a good account of themselves though.
We were busy sending pilots to China in secret, keeping secrets takes a lot out of us especially when our allies were spying on us at the same time.
Just to be clear I wasn't mocking the performance of American pilots in the Battle of Britain. They did well to ignore the Neutrality Act and get in on the action early, and no doubt flew well. I was mocking our "Prime" minister and his stupidity in making ridiculous and blatantly untrue claims because he wants to jam his head firmly up Obama's ass. Or at least I assume he was lying for a reason, because that worries me slightly less than if he actually doesn't know what happened in the forties, and really does believe that when The Few stood "alone" they were doing so with the full support of the USAAF, and thus neither "Few" nor "alone."
I think he may have been reffering to material aid shipped in by the US rather than pilots (as a pilot contest would make Poland the UK's best buddy).
He was still jamming his head up Obama's arse though.
Its possible he thought he was. He would still have been wrong though, given that Lend/lease didn't start 'til the following year.
I get the impression that mentioning the Poles is politically a bad idea, given that we ostensibly started the damn war to help them, and promptly sold them down the river immediately afterwards, which IMO is shocking and perhaps the most criminal act London perpetrated during the war (even beyond Dresden, which is everyones poster boy for Allied War Crimes.) That and I can't see Cameron wanting to admit that everybody's "favourite" immigrants were actually helpful.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:
Its possible he thought he was. He would still have been wrong though, given that Lend/lease didn't start 'til the following year.
Really?
I honestly wasn't aware of that.
March 1941. Battle of Britain was mid-1940. There was an agreement to trade US Destroyers for Caribbean bases, but as Royal Navy Destroyers tend not to fly, their contribution to the aerial battle was understandably limited.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'm considering for the sake of argument that materials purchased by regular means (ie cash) don't strictly count as special help, or a massive contribution, or anything other than regular trade.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:
Its possible he thought he was. He would still have been wrong though, given that Lend/lease didn't start 'til the following year.
Really?
I honestly wasn't aware of that.
March 1941. Battle of Britain was mid-1940. There was an agreement to trade US Destroyers for Caribbean bases, but as Royal Navy Destroyers tend not to fly, their contribution to the aerial battle was understandably limited.
So what we have here is not, in fact, a flatteringl reference to history by the PM, but us witnessing a political blowjob?
ArbeitsSchu wrote:
Its possible he thought he was. He would still have been wrong though, given that Lend/lease didn't start 'til the following year.
Really?
I honestly wasn't aware of that.
March 1941. Battle of Britain was mid-1940. There was an agreement to trade US Destroyers for Caribbean bases, but as Royal Navy Destroyers tend not to fly, their contribution to the aerial battle was understandably limited.
So what we have here is not, in fact, a flatteringl reference to history by the PM, but us witnessing a political blowjob?
Or a Prime Minister with a staggering ignorance of key historical events in UK history. I'm tempted to see it as a mix of intercontinental fellatio and sheer bobble-headed laziness on the part of a public schoolboy who probably spent more time learning how to rape the poor of their income than he ever did about taking on dictatorships. (If he listened to any part of it, it seems to have been the bit about how to seize power using a coalition.)
Class? LOL. Its no longer about class. Its about "poor" (anyone who isn't a millionaire) and "Rich" (Cameron and his mates.)
Bear in mind that in the modern UK, people who are traditionally upper class can be as poor as church mice, and people who are definitely "Working class" end up on TV doing the Apprentice and as peers in the House of Lords (Sir Alan "I had a wheelbarrer" Cockney Sugar.)
Automatically Appended Next Post: Problem is that working class boys like Sugar worked their way up to the top, then put in a new glass ceiling that was better than the old one because of their Leet Tradesmen Skills.
Shame the Lib Dems didn't actually fulfil one of their main election pledges and stop tuition fees.
Shame no one has gotten to Nick Clegg yet...
Thanks to him going back on his word it's gonna cost me 9 grand a year to go to University, when my sister went it was only 1 grand...
Yeah, though they lost pretty much all their seats at the local elections. Probably because the only people that voted for them previously were students... who all decided to jump ship this time
I laughed at that...
The first time the Lib Dems have been in power for almost 100 years and they do it through lying and begin to lose power rapidly afterwards.
purplefood wrote:Well this thread went south quickly...
Anyone up for cricket?
on Saturdays I normally take team Weinie for an epic tale of high adventure around Milburn park (Frazzled, taking short dogs on long walks since November 2009). They have a Pakistani/Indian group of guys that play Kricket there in the morning. Its kind of neat as there is often swim team competitions or soccer going on at the same time.
I've been by Tom Bass Park in Houston to play frisbee golf a few times (silly game, that). There was a cricket match going on there both times, too. Also Pakistan and/or Indian players.
To the original subject, I spent 10 days in the UK (Wales and London, primarily) a few years ago. I loved the sites, the people, and the beer.
Bumped into a few spankers at a bar in Reading, but otherwise enjoyed myself completely.
Albatross wrote:You're right of course, I'd much rather the leader of our government be poor and badly-educated.
As opposed to rich and badly educated?
So graduating with a first from Oxford adds up to 'badly educated' in your mind? Right...
I think conversations like this would be a lot more honest if people just laid their cards on the table and went: 'I don't like him because I'm a hater - I can't stand to see a wealthy person doing well, and although I am aware that this is quite a pathetic stance to take, it doesn't change the fact that I simply don't like him because he's a bit posh, and so can't possibly deserve to be in a position of power.'
Seriously, just take ownership of it. You're suffering from an acute case of prejudice.
He has done some nice things... the cuts may have been a touch too deep in the wrong places but they are achievable.
Local governments are beginning to share services to cut costs which should help enormously.
Many people have an ingrained response to Tories which is fair considering their track record of f**king with the working class.
However Labour needed to lose because they need time to regroup and reorganise... though that particular Milliband brother is the wrong guy for the job... he also looks evil.
Albatross wrote:You're right of course, I'd much rather the leader of our government be poor and badly-educated.
LOL.
Yeah, I wish the PM was one of "the lads" you know, one of the lack witted spotty fethers who used to smoke behind the bike sheds and didnt get any GCSEs! He would be MINT as PM.
Im a working class bloke from Middlesbrough, but im educated enough to notice the idiocy of the "class warrior", its literally as stupid as sectarianism in my eyes, take people as individuals right? You cant help where you are born, just like you cant help if your born a prod or a catholic. And its applied the exact same way too, usually involving the brainwashing of kids by ridiculous blokes who like the socialist workers party, or particualrly left leaning labour voters.
Thatcher didnt go to public school, and ALL the MPs are posh, so why not put this stupid argument to bed? Do you think Ed Milliband and Nick Clegg went to a scrubbers school?
Im working class, but ive got a brain that allows me to rise above the wealthy people. As a result, I think Just call me Dave is awesome. Superdave shall be his name!
And he doubled the operational allowance for the armed forces, what a gent!
Albatross wrote:You're right of course, I'd much rather the leader of our government be poor and badly-educated.
As opposed to rich and badly educated?
So graduating with a first from Oxford adds up to 'badly educated' in your mind? Right...
I think conversations like this would be a lot more honest if people just laid their cards on the table and went: 'I don't like him because I'm a hater - I can't stand to see a wealthy person doing well, and although I am aware that this is quite a pathetic stance to take, it doesn't change the fact that I simply don't like him because he's a bit posh, and so can't possibly deserve to be in a position of power.'
Seriously, just take ownership of it. You're suffering from an acute case of prejudice.
Seems you're suffering from a terrible case of missing the point. You remember, earlier in the thread? The bit about him demonstrating he wasn't listening in History by painting the Americans as a major part of the Battle of Britain? I don't care how much money someone paid to go to school, the point of being there is to learn. Its a noddy mistake to make, and one which our leader should not be making. Its either that or he's deliberately lying, in which case see below.
And no, I'm not particularly concerned by "posh" people or "rich" people. I'm disturbed by liars and people who make stupid mistakes when they should know better. I don't like Cameron because all his little minions are busy persecuting the poorest and most vulnerable people in society, as he claims to "understand what they are going through" despite the fact he clearly does not. I don't like Alan Sugar because he has a curiously shaped head which unsettles me, and because he's rude, not because he has a helicopter.
So yeah, kindly don't invent prejudices for me to have, especially when you know exactly bugger all about me.
You brought up the fact that Cameron is public school educated. Me? I don't give a gak, as long as his government tackles the legacy of Labour profligacy.
You shouldn't care either, as it has no detrimental effect on his ability to discharge his duties as prime minister. I just find it odd that people like you keep bringing it up. If you're telling me you're not a small-minded bigot, then fair enough. Misunderstanding on my part.
Also, to my mind, whilst making a factual error when discussing our national obsession (WWII) is a little foolish, it's not in the same league as sending young British men to die in an illegal war based on fabricated evidence. Something to think on.
Albatross wrote:You brought up the fact that Cameron is public school educated. Me? I don't give a gak, as long as his government tackles the legacy of Labour profligacy.
You shouldn't care either, as it has no detrimental effect on his ability to discharge his duties as prime minister. I just find it odd that people like you keep bringing it up. If you're telling me you're not a small-minded bigot, then fair enough. Misunderstanding on my part.
Also, to my mind, whilst making a factual error when discussing our national obsession (WWII) is a little foolish, it's not in the same league as sending young British men to die in an illegal war based on fabricated evidence. Something to think on.
Its not the tackling of profligacy that is a problem, IMO. It never was. Labour were Clown-shoes who created legions of non-jobs and wasted money on toss for years, whilst selling us to Europe a piece at a time. The problem is how they go about tackling that. Where I stand, I see a lot of scapegoating and cutting going on, and not a lot of it where Labour were actually wasting cash. Local authorities are still plagued with non-jobs, and the feckless spankers who nearly demolished the economy are still getting bonuses for failure, whilst Cameron et al are busy doing things they were not mandated to do whilst hiding behind the LibDem meat-shields. I can admire and agree with their desire to return to weekly bin collections, but that doesn't mean I won't curse their short-sighted policy on Libraries. Frankly I couldn't care less if Dave is part of the Yah-Blah Brotherhood, if he wasn't busy supporting policies that kill innocent people. Strikes me that people are far too quick to pigeonhole people when it comes to politics. "Oh he must be a liberal/socialist/class warrior, he doesn't like Tories." Hmm if only life were that clear cut.
I was under the impression the comparison was broadly between a faux pas on the part of the current American President and a cock-up on the part of our glorious Leader, not Cameron being ignorant compared to Blair being a war criminal. Surely if we were going to do that comparison, we would compare Blair and Bush lying to start wars? That would make more sense.
Thinking on it, give the Dave New World time. He's started his own war already. Remains to be seen whether it costs us a blood price.
halonachos wrote:We were busy sending pilots to China in secret, keeping secrets takes a lot out of us especially when our allies were spying on us at the same time.
Are you referring to the Flying Tigers who went into operation towards the end of the following year?
For the record I believe this is the third Prime Minister in a row to make this 'mistake' regarding the Battle of Britain.
halonachos wrote:We were busy sending pilots to China in secret, keeping secrets takes a lot out of us especially when our allies were spying on us at the same time.
Are you referring to the Flying Tigers who went into operation towards the end of the following year?
For the record I believe this is the third Prime Minister in a row to make this 'mistake' regarding the Battle of Britain.
You ever wonder if there is some other Battle of Britain that we weren't told about? Maybe they teach about a different Battle of Britain at Oxbridge? Or maybe its like the TV guide. If you buy TV Quick you get Jeremy Kyle and Corrie. If you buy Radio Times you get a much better quality of TV..Midsomer Murders and Doctors.
I think the Queen should just stage a coup and take direct control over the government again, put a stop to all this Prime Minister nonsense. Absolute Monarchy ladies and gents! Bring some law & order!
Manstein wrote:I think the Queen should just stage a coup and take direct control over the government again, put a stop to all this Prime Minister nonsense. Absolute Monarchy ladies and gents! Bring some law & order!
Manstein wrote:I think the Queen should just stage a coup and take direct control over the government again, put a stop to all this Prime Minister nonsense. Absolute Monarchy ladies and gents! Bring some law & order!
God Save the Queen!
That would be fun to watch. I'll get the popcorn.
Ermm... no. What we have maybe broken but it works and has worked for at lest 400 years (in one form or another). We over here don't want another Cromwell thank you.
Manstein wrote:I think the Queen should just stage a coup and take direct control over the government again, put a stop to all this Prime Minister nonsense. Absolute Monarchy ladies and gents! Bring some law & order!
God Save the Queen!
That would be fun to watch. I'll get the popcorn.
Ermm... no. What we have maybe broken but it works and has worked for at lest 400 years (in one form or another). We over here don't want another Cromwell thank you.
Cromwell? Who said anything about bloody Protectorate nonsense, man decapitated ol' Stuart I and was no friend of the beloved Monarchy... although did kind of act like a monarch.
At any rate, I am advocating pure, unfiltered, and totally reasonable rule by a single person, Absolute Monarchy. The Queen just needs to order the Royal Guards, along with a group of combat eager Scottsman, to seize Parliament, declare it all a big rump, and just throw the whole lot of poor sods into the Tower, heck, make um eat some bloody haggish while you are at it.
GB will still be a democracy of sorts, unfortunately, only the Queen gets to vote.
When its all said and done, she can invite the Hohenzollerns, Wittelsbachs, and Hapsburgs over for tea so they might plan to return Europe to the only true, divinely mandated, form of reasonable and acceptable rule. To think the masses could rule... "Albert! More tea will you, I have an Empire to reconquer, Victoria style."
First, I don’t think the UK should worry about kissing up to anymore and I think whenever the PM seems to be pandering to a foreign power or some random dignitary, they do their Queen and Country a great disservice, regardless of party.
When I look around the world and think to myself, if the s*** really hits the fan, who will stand with us? 10 times out of 10 times the answer is going to be the UK. Despite some of the self serving platitudes and public gaffes by our respective leaders, I just don’t see our respective countries forsaking each other for the sake of anyone else. Would the US really abandon the UK for the sake of its relationship with any other country or vice versa? Honestly, who is a more natural ally for the US or the UK? I think that’s why the relationship between the US and the UK is “special”. It’s this sense of an inviolable alliance that permeates the relationship and thus supersedes the vagaries of politics and the oratory of the political party that may be in power at any given time.
Also, no matter how we may reflect on the past and honor our revolution, Great Britain will always be the mother country, and there should be no shame what so ever in admitting that. I mean I would much rather say we won our independence from what was considered the most powerful country on Earth, still in the process of ascending to the height of it's power than say we won our independence from an Imperial has-been or country in obvious decline.
Manstein wrote:I think the Queen should just stage a coup and take direct control over the government again, put a stop to all this Prime Minister nonsense. Absolute Monarchy ladies and gents! Bring some law & order!
God Save the Queen!
That would be fun to watch. I'll get the popcorn.
Ermm... no. What we have maybe broken but it works and has worked for at lest 400 years (in one form or another). We over here don't want another Cromwell thank you.
Cromwell? Who said anything about bloody Protectorate nonsense, man decapitated ol' Stuart I and was no friend of the beloved Monarchy... although did kind of act like a monarch.
At any rate, I am advocating pure, unfiltered, and totally reasonable rule by a single person, Absolute Monarchy. The Queen just needs to order the Royal Guards, along with a group of combat eager Scottsman, to seize Parliament, declare it all a big rump, and just throw the whole lot of poor sods into the Tower, heck, make um eat some bloody haggish while you are at it.
GB will still be a democracy of sorts, unfortunately, only the Queen gets to vote.
When its all said and done, she can invite the Hohenzollerns, Wittelsbachs, and Hapsburgs over for tea so they might plan to return Europe to the only true, divinely mandated, form of reasonable and acceptable rule. To think the masses could rule... "Albert! More tea will you, I have an Empire to reconquer, Victoria style."
Cromwell was fighting Charles I and he was most definitely not a monarch.
That said the armed forces to swear allegiance to the monarchy...
Lord of Deeds wrote:Would the US really abandon the UK for the sake of its relationship with any other country or vice versa?
I seem to recall a certain crisis over in the region of the Suez Canal. I also remember studying the general reluctance of American support in the Falklands.
The simple fact is, America's government does what is best for American interests, to the detriment of her allies, if necessary. They may have to think about it for a few minutes beforehand, but if you offered the American administration the chance to expand in power, wealth, and influence at the expense of the UK, they would do it undoubtedly. America puts America first.
Not that I find anything wrong with that in particular, states always strive to expand themselves. There's only so much wealth, power, and land to go around, its inevitably always going to be at the cost of someone else. I just find it amusing that people seem to think affectionate public sentiment towards Britain in America will ever stand in the way of America acting in her own interests and against ours, when history so clearly indicates the opposite. The funding of the IRA wasn't that long ago......
I think the UK and US would be much better friends, like I fully support we should be, if our president wasn't such an... a rude person to the British. I've heard rumors he started talking to propose a toast to the Queen while "God save the Queen" was playing, was this true? And if so, do you guys hate us as much as we'd hate your prime minister talking during the "Star Spangled Banner"?
British conservative is pretty much centre of American politics if not slightly more left... You guys are fairly right wing in comparison to our politics.
Ketara wrote:
The simple fact is, America's government does what is best for American interests, to the detriment of her allies, if necessary.
America does what it's leaders believe is in the best interests of themselves, and maybe America as well, to the detriment of their allies, if necessary (Mubarak, Saudi Arabia), and sometimes even when it isn't (Sandinistas, Liberia). Same as every other body with agency.
Ketara wrote:
Not that I find anything wrong with that in particular, states always strive to expand themselves.
Well, not always. The Swiss are hardly chomping at the bit for more power, nor are the Vatican, South Korea, or Jamaica.
Ketara wrote:
I just find it amusing that people seem to think affectionate public sentiment towards Britain in America will ever stand in the way of America acting in her own interests and against ours, when history so clearly indicates the opposite. The funding of the IRA wasn't that long ago......
This is the internet age though. People like me get to call politicians idiots in front of a much larger audience these days.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lord of Deeds wrote: Despite some of the self serving platitudes and public gaffes by our respective leaders, I just don’t see our respective countries forsaking each other for the sake of anyone else.
If I were put in charge of either country I would forsake my counterpart for China, India, Canada, Mexico, or Indonesia in seconds. Brazil too, but not for economic reasons, but bikini reasons.
Lord of Deeds wrote:Would the US really abandon the UK for the sake of its relationship with any other country or vice versa?
I seem to recall a certain crisis over in the region of the Suez Canal. I also remember studying the general reluctance of American support in the Falklands.
.
To be fair we told you guys that you had to lose the foreign colonies after the war. It just took a bit longer then we would have liked.
youbedead wrote:To be fair we told you guys that you had to lose the foreign colonies after the war. It just took a bit longer then we would have liked.
To be fair we asked you guys to help us defend our and other countries during the war. It just took a bit longer and cost us significantly more then we would have liked.
youbedead wrote:To be fair we told you guys that you had to lose the foreign colonies after the war. It just took a bit longer then we would have liked.
To be fair we asked you guys to help us defend our and other countries during the war. It just took a bit longer and cost us significantly more then we would have liked.
Yeah, well we were busy doing...stuff. We showed up eventually. Still you were no where near as bad as the french though, they were the only ones to keep a colony in asia and look where that got us.
youbedead wrote:To be fair we told you guys that you had to lose the foreign colonies after the war. It just took a bit longer then we would have liked.
To be fair we asked you guys to help us defend our and other countries during the war. It just took a bit longer and cost us significantly more then we would have liked.
Yeah, well we were busy doing...stuff. We showed up eventually. Still you were no where near as bad as the french though, they were the only ones to keep a colony in asia and look where that got us.
Well i think we can all agree that was a pretty s**t idea.
youbedead wrote:To be fair we told you guys that you had to lose the foreign colonies after the war. It just took a bit longer then we would have liked.
To be fair we asked you guys to help us defend our and other countries during the war. It just took a bit longer and cost us significantly more then we would have liked.
Yeah, well we were busy doing...stuff. We showed up eventually. Still you were no where near as bad as the french though, they were the only ones to keep a colony in asia and look where that got us.
Well i think we can all agree that was a pretty s**t idea.
Thats something we can all agree on, the french are stupid
purplefood wrote:Well they shouldn't have been there in the first place...
To be honest the french have nothing on President Wilson as far as shortsightedness goes. After ww1 when he proposed his 14 points and self determination, a young Vietnamese man wanted to talk to him about allowing his country to determine their own rules and borders, Wilson refused to speak to him. His name was Ho Chi Min.
Manstein wrote:I think the Queen should just stage a coup and take direct control over the government again, put a stop to all this Prime Minister nonsense. Absolute Monarchy ladies and gents! Bring some law & order!
God Save the Queen!
That would be fun to watch. I'll get the popcorn.
Ermm... no. What we have maybe broken but it works and has worked for at lest 400 years (in one form or another). We over here don't want another Cromwell thank you.
Cromwell? Who said anything about bloody Protectorate nonsense, man decapitated ol' Stuart I and was no friend of the beloved Monarchy... although did kind of act like a monarch.
At any rate, I am advocating pure, unfiltered, and totally reasonable rule by a single person, Absolute Monarchy. The Queen just needs to order the Royal Guards, along with a group of combat eager Scottsman, to seize Parliament, declare it all a big rump, and just throw the whole lot of poor sods into the Tower, heck, make um eat some bloody haggish while you are at it.
GB will still be a democracy of sorts, unfortunately, only the Queen gets to vote.
When its all said and done, she can invite the Hohenzollerns, Wittelsbachs, and Hapsburgs over for tea so they might plan to return Europe to the only true, divinely mandated, form of reasonable and acceptable rule. To think the masses could rule... "Albert! More tea will you, I have an Empire to reconquer, Victoria style."
Cromwell was fighting Charles I and he was most definitely not a monarch.
That said the armed forces to swear allegiance to the monarchy...
My apologies, he was Charles I of the House of Stuart, I recalled it a bit backwards.
As to Cromwell being a monarch, perhaps by British standards he didn't carry enough "bling" to be considered an official Monarch but his royal burial, styling of "His Highness, the Lord-Protector" (more than enough to damn a man for monarchial tendencies in the States), absolute power over the country, and the fact that his dictatorial office of Lord Protector was passed on to his son, smells a bit of monarchy by another name to me.
Then again, perhaps its all just my "yank" foolishness. Regardless, I think a return to something along the lines of dictatorship in England would make for great fun and giggles to observers.
purplefood wrote:A member of the conservative party...
Usually hated by Labour supporters and most of Britian due to Margaret Thatcher...
Hated by most of Britain because of Thatcher eh?
Lets explore that...
Last local election results...
Looks like your flat out wrong doesn't it?
What you meant to say was
"Hated by people like me, due to an ill thought out political ideology which demands that I hate people just because they happen to be born into well off families, I mean, some of them could be generous and charitable and warm hearted individuals really, and I know that it is entirely illogical and probably steeped in bitterness and envy, but there you go"
Probably works on the theory that if Hitler or Idi Amin had been a thoroughly nice chap then history would be a lot different.
Rule by a Monarchy tends to be varied at best. You get the Good kings, you get the bad ones.
Point of order: Nobody picked Cameron except the people in the party. We don't vote for the leader (though some people seem to think that is how we should pick), we vote for the party. Only recently have we acquired this habit of voting for "personality" like the Americans appear to do.
I think a return to something along the lines of dictatorship in England would make for great fun and giggles to observers.
Really? Why the would you wish a dictator on anyone?
Dictator? We are talking about enlightened, reasonable, and totally legitimate rule by someone who has been divinely blessed by God almighty himself to rule; the Monarch. With the leadership of someone who has the support of God how can you go wrong? I mean come on.. look at the shape of the Empire, its in rags man!
As I said before, the Queen should just round up the Royal Guards, some ornery Scottsman, and perhaps a few Aussies from the back country to seize the country and once again reestablish the Empire. I suggest that the first action of the Queen, after throwing Parliament in the Tower, should be to venture to India with her vicious pack of War-Corgis, perhaps aided by a support contingent of pure breed Hanoverian (I mean, the Royal house is, in reality, just a bunch of imported Germans. The name was only changed from the belligerent and "Hunish" sounding House of Sax-Coburg-Gotha to Windsor because the royal family didn't want to look German during WWI) dachshunds raised by Frazzled.
With India firmly under the control of the Empire, curry prices and the cost of tech support will drop dramatically. Prosperity will rain down upon the bright and cheerful moors of England to the tune of Tanuk Tanuk Tun.
purplefood wrote:A member of the conservative party...
Usually hated by Labour supporters and most of Britian due to Margaret Thatcher...
Hated by most of Britain because of Thatcher eh?
Lets explore that...
Last local election results...
Looks like your flat out wrong doesn't it?
What you meant to say was
"Hated by people like me, due to an ill thought out political ideology which demands that I hate people just because they happen to be born into well off families, I mean, some of them could be generous and charitable and warm hearted individuals really, and I know that it is entirely illogical and probably steeped in bitterness and envy, but there you go"
That's a local election chart not a national one.
I don't personally hate the Tories but i disagree with their political views.
I do know a lot of people that do hate them however.
And, thanks for judging me entirely on 2 lines i wrote, which don't really reflect my personal beliefs.
I'll say this about Cameron and the apparent "love" for him based on election results: It rather depends on which section of society you are in as to how you feel about Cameron. Tories, the ConDems and the like. (Not by class, but other groupings.) For example, some sections of society feel that they are being unnecessarily scapegoated by the government and the media for a financial crisis that by definition could not be their fault. A lot of those people feel that Cameron is a liar, a two-faced crapsack, and an overblown spin-doctor who is massively out of touch with their situation, who has the interests of bankers and other high-earners at his heart, and not the concerns of everyone else.
Also, the local election/AV map is a bit disingenuous, given that people are voting for local government, not central. The true indicator of feelings about Cameron is surely the fact that they could not form a majority government at the last General Election? Thus a great number of people didn't vote for him or them.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:Also, the local election/AV map is a bit disingenuous, given that people are voting for local government, not central. The true indicator of feelings about Cameron is surely the fact that they could not form a majority government at the last General Election? Thus a great number of people didn't vote for him or them.
A lot of people voted for "change". The fact that the Lib Dems (the biggest winners in the last GE) were the biggest loosers in the LE suggests that a lot of their "support" has become disenchanted with them completely renaging on all but the most meaningless and self serving of their election promises (changing the voting system - which got soundly beaten thankfully).
This leaves a large amount of voters floating - people who do not really feel that there is anyone who they can really vote for who will represent them and still has a chance of actually getting into power. Some of those will go back to the Tories and Labour, some will probably not vote, and the others will go on other smaller parties.
halonachos wrote:So I could care less about what he says.
... so you do care about what he says?
Gah! My pet peeve!
dmitrybrant.com wrote:Not "could care less." When you think about it, to say "I could care less" really means that you actually do care about something, and it's possible for you to care less about it. It is more appropriate to say "I couldn't care less" to indicate that you have reached the rock bottom of carelessness about something.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:I'll say this about Cameron and the apparent "love" for him based on election results: It rather depends on which section of society you are in as to how you feel about Cameron. Tories, the ConDems and the like. (Not by class, but other groupings.)
Eh? Which groupings? I'm not sure what you're getting at here.
For example, some sections of society feel that they are being unnecessarily scapegoated by the government and the media for a financial crisis that by definition could not be their fault.
What caused the financial crisis? And which crisis? The subprime mortgage crisis, the credit crunch or the sovereign debt crisis?
It's not just as simple as 'evil bankers stole our money' The problems in OUR economy were triggered by a crisis outside of our economy, OUR responsibility begins and ends with how well we insulate ourselves against that level of exposure. One of those 'insulations' is public spending which is within our means, something which Labour spectacularly failed to do.
A lot of those people feel that Cameron is a liar, a two-faced crapsack, and an overblown spin-doctor who is massively out of touch with their situation, who has the interests of bankers and other high-earners at his heart, and not the concerns of everyone else.
This is just cheap, childish rhetoric - the Tories weren't in power when the banks were bailed out. Yes, they approved of the bailout, but what? Should we have let the banks go to the wall? Where does that leave the public? We can't just turn our backs on the banking sector - they make up the lion's share of our economy.
Also, what do you think would happen if we DIDN'T make cuts? We'd end up with an austerity package imposed on us by the IMF, larger debts and even DEEPER cuts.
Some people can be so short-sighted when it comes to their own petty self-interest. It's not like public money is 'free money', after all. Someone always pays.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:I'll say this about Cameron and the apparent "love" for him based on election results: It rather depends on which section of society you are in as to how you feel about Cameron. Tories, the ConDems and the like. (Not by class, but other groupings.)
Eh? Which groupings? I'm not sure what you're getting at here.
For example, some sections of society feel that they are being unnecessarily scapegoated by the government and the media for a financial crisis that by definition could not be their fault.
What caused the financial crisis? And which crisis? The subprime mortgage crisis, the credit crunch or the sovereign debt crisis?
It's not just as simple as 'evil bankers stole our money' The problems in OUR economy were triggered by a crisis outside of our economy, OUR responsibility begins and ends with how well we insulate ourselves against that level of exposure. One of those 'insulations' is public spending which is within our means, something which Labour spectacularly failed to do.
A lot of those people feel that Cameron is a liar, a two-faced crapsack, and an overblown spin-doctor who is massively out of touch with their situation, who has the interests of bankers and other high-earners at his heart, and not the concerns of everyone else.
This is just cheap, childish rhetoric - the Tories weren't in power when the banks were bailed out. Yes, they approved of the bailout, but what? Should we have let the banks go to the wall? Where does that leave the public? We can't just turn our backs on the banking sector - they make up the lion's share of our economy.
Also, what do you think would happen if we DIDN'T make cuts? We'd end up with an austerity package imposed on us by the IMF, larger debts and even DEEPER cuts.
Some people can be so short-sighted when it comes to their own petty self-interest. It's not like public money is 'free money', after all. Someone always pays.
I hate nested quoting so bear with me: The "groups" I'm referring to are not ones defined by "class" alone. To pick one: the disabled. This is a group that covers any and every "class" or traditional distinction..poor/rich/moderately wealthy...and political inclination. The elderly would be another. No one distinction covers all of the people who like/dislike Cameron or CondDem policy. Its no doubt very inconvenient as it makes traditional classification difficult. Its also difficult to be wholly for or against the current administration for much the same reason.
Doesn't really matter what or whom caused the current economic situation if you are in a group that is facing massive cuts, who couldn't possibly have had any influence on that situation.
And as tiresome as it gets to repeat myself: I never said that cuts were unnecessary or even bad in many cases. I already pointed out that Labour were clown-shoes and wasters. Do I have to spell it out? I'm not a Labour voter or supporter, or a subscriber to Socialist Worker. I don't think they are better, or a safer option, or that they wouldn't make an even worse mess if they were in power. Nor do I think that public money is "free" or anything of the sort. But we live in a society that has a welfare system, and an NHS, and where taxes are collected and redistributed for the public good, to pay for the safe and perpetual continuance of the nation. Thus "cuts" are not necessarily the best way to decrease the deficit or solve the problems. Here is an example I heard earlier today: Working mothers pay out more for childcare than stay at home mothers on benefits. Many women cannot afford to seek work because the work they can get will not cover the cost of that childcare, thus they remain stuck on benefits. The cost of paying for that childcare is LESS than the cost of all the other beneftits put together. Thus economically it makes more sense for the government to support free or subsidised childcare for working mothers. They are then "economically active" and costing the state LESS, not MORE. Cutting the childcare subsidies means MORE mothers are forced away from work and on to benefits. There are plenty more examples, that one is just fresh in my mind.
It the nature OF those cuts that causes the problems, and the inequality in them. And that is why Cameron isn't always the most popular person..because the cuts that are being made are hurting some of the most vulnerable people in our society. A lot of people turned to the Conservatives to "sort the mess out". What they then see is everything that affects them directly being cut down and re-organised, whilst the big money concerns just carry on as was, or in some cases get even more public money for less service. To compare to the case above: A mother who is forced out of work by cuts to childcare sees the top executives of a company receiving an increased tax payment. ON one level it seems "fair", but on another more realistic level, it means that one person is trapped in the bottom bracket of society through no fault of their own, and the other just carries on as was. That mother then feels that the government does not have her interests at heart, but the interests of Barclays chief exec.
Not to mention many people feel betrayed by a government that is carrying out policies that were never in their pre-election manifestos, whilst failing to carry out the ones that were. (Which holds true for either Cameron or Clegg.) Most governments do that, true..but with this government it is markedly more obvious.
As for letting banks go to the wall: I can't help but wonder on the possibility that a system that rewards failure might not be the correct way to actually run an economy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SilverMK2 wrote:
ArbeitsSchu wrote:Also, the local election/AV map is a bit disingenuous, given that people are voting for local government, not central. The true indicator of feelings about Cameron is surely the fact that they could not form a majority government at the last General Election? Thus a great number of people didn't vote for him or them.
A lot of people voted for "change". The fact that the Lib Dems (the biggest winners in the last GE) were the biggest loosers in the LE suggests that a lot of their "support" has become disenchanted with them completely renaging on all but the most meaningless and self serving of their election promises (changing the voting system - which got soundly beaten thankfully).
This leaves a large amount of voters floating - people who do not really feel that there is anyone who they can really vote for who will represent them and still has a chance of actually getting into power. Some of those will go back to the Tories and Labour, some will probably not vote, and the others will go on other smaller parties.
If I'm perfectly honest, I reckon I fit in to the "floaty votey" bracket to a certain degree. That is to say that none of the political parties appear to represent my interests or the interests of my family/dependents/group, either major parties or minor ones.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:
The "groups" I'm referring to are not ones defined by "class" alone. To pick one: the disabled. This is a group that covers any and every "class" or traditional distinction..poor/rich/moderately wealthy...and political inclination. The elderly would be another. No one distinction covers all of the people who like/dislike Cameron or CondDem policy. Its no doubt very inconvenient as it makes traditional classification difficult. Its also difficult to be wholly for or against the current administration for much the same reason.
But what you seemed to be trying to say was that liking or disliking the current PM is based upon being a member of certain groups, no? For example, students.
I'm a mature student. I support current Tory policy. So do many of my colleagues. Many don't. Again, I think it comes down to how much a sense of petty self-interest a person possesses.
Doesn't really matter what or whom caused the current economic situation if you are in a group that is facing massive cuts, who couldn't possibly have had any influence on that situation.
Really? So the man in the street isn't culpable for the recent consumer boom powered by cheap credit to those who couldn't afford to pay it back? It might seem churlish but it's a fact that subprime lending is where the wider financial crisis started.
...we live in a society that has a welfare system, and an NHS, and where taxes are collected and redistributed for the public good, to pay for the safe and perpetual continuance of the nation. Thus "cuts" are not necessarily the best way to decrease the deficit or solve the problems.
Our creditors seem to think so, and that, in the end, is far more important than what you or I think. If we had failed to make cuts we'd be staring down the barrel of a much worse situation right now. Everything else is just appeal to emotion, and I'm not playing those games.
Don't deal with our massive debts, our credit-rating gets downgraded, our interest payments go up, rinse, repeat, default, bankruptcy. What happens to the welfare state then?
Automatically Appended Next Post: If you wish to continue via PM, fine by me. This thread isn't really about the current UK domestic political situation...
ArbeitsSchu wrote:
Point of order: Nobody picked Cameron except the people in the party. We don't vote for the leader (though some people seem to think that is how we should pick), we vote for the party. Only recently have we acquired this habit of voting for "personality" like the Americans appear to do.
Most people in America vote for the party as well, very few people are actively engaged with politics, and sufficiently distant from it to look at the person; except where the person is particularly divisive. Obama is one of these people, I know quite a few Republican voters who call themselves "anti-Obama" instead of Republican now.
@Albatros: Agreed that we got well diverted from topic. We should just wait until the "UK Economic Crisis Solutions" or one about spin-doctoring pops up.
On topic: More footwork in a Rugger game than a US "foot"ball game. The average scrum rather depends on foot/ball contact.
Well, when Europe began to make rules and names for Soccer and Rugby we were left out of it so we had Soccer, Rugby, and Rugby with passing(football). Europe just had Soccer and Rugby.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:
On topic: More footwork in a Rugger game than a US "foot"ball game. The average scrum rather depends on foot/ball contact.
There's more kicking as well, though progressive removal of footwork is apparent.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
halonachos wrote:
Well, when Europe began to make rules and names for Soccer and Rugby we were left out of it so we had Soccer, Rugby, and Rugby with passing(football). Europe just had Soccer and Rugby.
If I recall correctly the forward pass wasn't a legal play in American Football until about 1900.
). When he did meet him he handed over a gift of DVDs and one of the first things he did was to send back a bust of Winston Churchill from the Whitehouse which was a gift from us to the US for the help they provided in the world wars.
I am asking for the general opinions of the American people as to how they view the alliance between our two nations.
. If it makes you feel any better, the current administration is treating our other allies like gak as well.
