Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Seaward wrote:

purplefood wrote:It does...
The law regarding the spread of racial hatred doesn't cover spreading hatred against religion...
Though you may be charged with other things...

Such as?

Well if you focused on 1 person it would be harassment.
Probably provocation of violence if they actually hit you.
Though they would probably result in a fine/restraining order...

AustonT wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:

Frazzled wrote:I'd say the old USSR was the largest empire ever, dwarfing pretty much everything else, except the Mongol Empire. But I'll grant you, it was big.

In regards to "losing.'

Here's ours.
"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing. "
Vince Lombardi

The Soviet Union covered a total of 22,402,200 square kilometres. The Mongol Empire was 24,000,000 square kilometres. The British Empire covered 33,700,000 square kilometres (around a quarter of the total land on Earth). So us Brits had the biggest

As for that "winning isn't everything" thing, how was Vietnam?

I'm sorry, come again? Is that figure in land mass or counting all the ground between the various Britannic possessions?

Land mass.

Do you happen to have a colour coded map, I'm a visual person.

AustonT wrote:Do you happen to have a colour coded map, I'm a visual person.

This is the best one I can find at the moment for an easy to look at visual picture


This one is much bigger and names all the different countries which were part of it.

Albatross wrote:

mattyrm wrote:

ArbeitsSchu wrote:I've found that often Americans become quite upset simply because the British refuse to believe that their country is all that great. Its OK, I suppose. Passable even. Occasionally it can be quite interesting. But its not super-awesome-wintastic. For some reason that really twists their nipples?

I told you, I've lived in both, and I understand both extremely well. Britain loves a loser. Tim Henman would have been a bus boy if he was American!

It think its due to many things, partially because of the war and a lingering paranoia, also an enforced feeling of unity taken after the collapse of the USSR. I also once saw a programme about it that said Britian and America are inherently the way they are because the people that had that entrepreneurial spirit and get up and go and positive outlook buggerd off to the US in search of their fortune. The "Its never gonna work" crowd stayed home.

And proceeded to create the largest empire the world has ever seen. Yeah, gonna have to disagree most strongly with that. You're talking about people who built a railway across India, for feth's sake! That takes get-up-and-go. Hell, the Empire only existed because millions of Brits 'got up and went' to all four corners of the globe.

It sounds totally bizarre, but the USA to this day has something of a chip on its shoulder. Britain being the place that started it all is the opposite, and folk here regularly say how terrible they are at everything, complain incessently, lack drive, and say "back in the good old days" and "my grandad said..."

America is a nation with a winners, Britain is a nation of whiners. These might be hard things for people of both countries to hear, but trust me on this...

You're wrong Matt. It's just a massive generalisation. How many Americans use therapists compared to here? And I disagree that we're a nation of losers - British culture isn't about winning OR losing, it's about doing both with elan. It's about how you play the game, and how you conduct yourself at the outcome. People always bang on about us loving a 'valiant loser', but it's the 'valiant' part that counts, because that's the measure of a man, not 'WOOO!! YEAH!! WE'RE NUMBER ONE! WE'RE NUMBER ONE!! IN YOUR FACE!!! I would much rather see us lose with dignity than win like that. It's crass and boorish. Of course winning valiantly is preferable, but as we say, 'you can't win 'em all'. You can always conduct yourself with decorum, however. This is often misinterpreted, particularly by our American cousins.

I think Kipling puts it best:

If

If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you;
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or, being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or, being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise;

If you can dream - and not make dreams your master;
If you can think - and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with triumph and disaster
And treat those two imposters just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with wornout tools;

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breath a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: "Hold on";

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with kings - nor lose the common touch;
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you;
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run -
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And - which is more - you'll be a Man my son!

Damn right.

Goddamnit Albatross, you're giving me these tingly feelings.

Joey wrote:

The British Empire was a sham. It was colour on a map. The only places it had success was where the inhabitants were primative and the climate was tolerable to Europeans, i.e. The Americas, South-East Australia. Any country can be successful if it has a quarter of the globe in its trading sphere.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/26/The_British_Empire.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ea/Mongol_Empire_map.gif
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/Union_of_Soviet_Socialist_Republics_%28orthographic_projection%29.svg

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

The British Empire is the largest ever in most ways. The idea any current person who considers them self British should be proud of that fact is moronic however. Not only are you sending up a bunch of absoloute c***s but unless you are heir to a lordship your ancestors were probably the guys who got treated like gak by said c***s not the c***s themselves. Leave the meaningless patriotism to the Americans.

In my opinion if John Harrison could have lived to see the devastation the BE wrought, he like Robert Oppenheimer would have regreted the technological revolutions he gave birth to.

No, no, no your Brits have had other thing to be proud of.

The Battle of Brittan went on 5 motha Fing weeks. The Fascists dumped everything they on you, and it didn't brake your resolve. The Nazi's poured all their military and industrial might onto this Island off the coast of France, and that Islands people wouldn't budge. Bombs rained on your head for 5 weeks and it didn't brake your spirit. There are stories of British doggedness all over WW2. That's what I admire about Brits, how stubborn they are.

Hey, look we may have different views on Democratic philosophy, and civil rights. But our friendship was forged in blood over 2 wars. And I say this because I don't think our politicians are saying it loud enough. Americans and Brits are homies.

Margret Thatcher was a woman you might not have wanted to F, but that was definitely a woman you didn't want to F with. If your doubting me, ask the Argentinians how they fell about Thatcher. "I will sink your Battlegak right now!"

So this empire size thing isn't the Empires at thier hieght but any territory they ever claimed? I guess I could see the British Empire as being the largest then.

AustonT wrote:So this empire size thing isn't the Empires at thier hieght but any territory they ever claimed? I guess I could see the British Empire as being the largest then.

Exactly, territory has nothing to do with an empire, you measured an empire by it's territory back in the 1600's, that's pirate bs. And this maybe some hippie gak but, As long as the Star Spangled Banner, or the Union Jack or whatever you call your country's flag flies, it is flying the pride of your people. Because the empire is you my friend. Your not some 3rd world country are you? Your able to keep pace with us militarily and technologically, and we have states that are bigger than your whole country.

broodstar wrote:No, no, no your Brits have had other thing to be proud of.

The Battle of Brittan went on 5 motha Fing weeks. The Fascists dumped everything they on you, and it didn't brake your resolve. The Nazi's poured all their military and industrial might onto this Island off the coast of France, and that Islands people wouldn't budge. Bombs rained on your head for 5 weeks and it didn't brake your spirit. There are stories of British doggedness all over WW2. That's what I admire about Brits, how stubborn they are.

Hey, look we may have different views on Democratic philosophy, and civil rights. But our friendship was forged in blood over 2 wars. And I say this because I don't think our politicians are saying it loud enough. Americans and Brits are homies.

Margret Thatcher was a woman you might not have wanted to F, but that was definitely a woman you didn't want to F with. If your doubting me, ask the Argentinians how they fell about Thatcher. "I will sink your Battlegak right now!"

Yup, that's what we do best, be stubborn.

Occasionally we also do suicidal missions well, too. The St Nazaire raid in WW2 is one of my favourites. Ramming a destroyer filled with explosives into a German controlled drydock and having a small contingent of Commandos completely wreck the rest of the docks with explosives. Pretty much all the Commandos were captured or killed after their planned escape route was cut off (5 managed to fight their way out of the town then run through half of France to reach Spain) and only after having ran out of ammunition did they surrender.

dogma wrote:[
Of course when you lose, and you will, the ego doesn't take it well.

Exactly. thats the point. Or as the Great One said:
"Win, or you're out of the family."
- Homer Simpson

broodstar wrote:No, no, no your Brits have had other thing to be proud of.

The Battle of Brittan went on 5 motha Fing weeks. The Fascists dumped everything they on you, and it didn't brake your resolve. The Nazi's poured all their military and industrial might onto this Island off the coast of France, and that Islands people wouldn't budge. Bombs rained on your head for 5 weeks and it didn't brake your spirit. There are stories of British doggedness all over WW2. That's what I admire about Brits, how stubborn they are.

Hey, look we may have different views on Democratic philosophy, and civil rights. But our friendship was forged in blood over 2 wars. And I say this because I don't think our politicians are saying it loud enough. Americans and Brits are homies.

Margret Thatcher was a woman you might not have wanted to F, but that was definitely a woman you didn't want to F with. If your doubting me, ask the Argentinians how they fell about Thatcher. "I will sink your Battlegak right now!"

thats the one thing that is always true England is the mother of our country and no matter how we disagree we will always fight together.

broodstar wrote:
Margret Thatcher was a woman you might not have wanted to F, but that was definitely a woman you didn't want to F with. If your doubting me, ask the Argentinians how they fell about Thatcher. "I will sink your Battlegak right now!"

...do you read what you write at all before hitting submit?

AustonT wrote:

broodstar wrote:
Margret Thatcher was a woman you might not have wanted to F, but that was definitely a woman you didn't want to F with. If your doubting me, ask the Argentinians how they fell about Thatcher. "I will sink your Battlegak right now!"

...do you read what you write at all before hitting submit?

Was making a joke man lighten up.

And actually that joke was written by Robin Williams.

ifStatement wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_empires

The British Empire is the largest ever in most ways. The idea any current person who considers them self British should be proud of that fact is moronic however. Not only are you sending up a bunch of absoloute c***s but unless you are heir to a lordship your ancestors were probably the guys who got treated like gak by said c***s not the c***s themselves. Leave the meaningless patriotism to the Americans.

In my opinion if John Harrison could have lived to see the devastation the BE wrought, he like Robert Oppenheimer would have regreted the technological revolutions he gave birth to.

Be aware, the Empire was not built by chinless and inbred aristos, it was built by the British Working Class, the most formidable and resolute and hardnosed bastards on the face of the earth.
We, the working class of Britain, should take pride in the empire that we built and the British sense of fair play, decency and honour kept in good order. I've watched footage of village elders in Zimbabwe calling for the British to return and overthrow Mugabe, who is committing genocide there. We ruled, for the most part, fairly and should have a lot less of a hangup about our Empire than we do. Many European nations were carving up empires when we did, very few if any made as fair and decent a job of it as we, just look at who remained in the Commonwealth.

If you want to know what an evil empire looks like, take a serious look at what the Belgians did in the Congo... Vicious and horrific. Leopold II treated it as his private torture garden.

broodstar wrote:America is only 236 years old, we are like a college kid. It may take us a while to make up our minds, but when we do, we can do some amazing things.

There is no government in the world as old as yours. Seriously, look it up if you want. This thing where Americans think they're oh so young just doesn't make any sense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:get off your high horse. You're not British either.

But I think a person is capable of gaining a decent amount of knowledge about another country's politics without living there. You're the one that claimed that wasn't possible, and yet here you are sounding off about British politics.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

broodstar wrote:Frazz, dude, Let it go the dude can say what he wants.

The point is apparently we can't. We are not supposed to say anything about anyone else's politics.

Unless Fraz reads an article and wants to sound off about it. Then you don't even have to know what the hell you're talking about.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

broodstar wrote:Really you can't talk mess about the queen, prime minister or athletes and such? We attack each other all the time. Why? it's entertainment.

It's not like that at all. Taking the piss out of celebrities, particularly politicians and royalty happens constantly in the UK. There are shows dedicating to doing that and nothing else.

The point is there's a difference between having a laugh about a public figure and abusing an entire ethnic group. Whether the latter should be a crime or not, the difference between the two is pretty clear.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/03/society_of_homeopaths_director_richard_barr_libel.php

Comes to mind. As does the case of Simon Singh, though he was eventually (after a long and expensive court battle) victorious.

Which would be telling, if either case were about direct criticism of the quackery involved (homeopathic medicine and chiropractic medicine), but they weren't. The libel case against Singh hinged around his claim that a chirpractic body "happily promotes bogus treatments", which is a charge of dishonest behaviour, not one of a type of medical practice being dodgy. The libel case against Paul Offit was dependant on whether Richard Barr funded a study specifically for the purposes of subsequent legal action.

Both are things that its entirely sensible to hear argued in court, regardless of the standing of the types of medicine behind them. Dressing it up as an issue of good, true science vs quackery is ignoring the actual substance of the cases.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AustonT wrote:A lot of comics steal jokes. Dane Cooks routine is very reminiscent of Louis K, Joe Rogan called him on it and drama ensued. I happen to like mind of Mencia. I could do without his actual comedy sets.

I have no idea how "Dane Cook does it too" could ever be used as a defence.

sebster wrote:

broodstar wrote:America is only 236 years old, we are like a college kid. It may take us a while to make up our minds, but when we do, we can do some amazing things.

There is no government in the world as old as yours. Seriously, look it up if you want. This thing where Americans think they're oh so young just doesn't make any sense.

You know, that's always one of the things they get me. For all the gak that goes on in our country, we have had the longest running 'regime' in recent history.

sebster wrote:

broodstar wrote:America is only 236 years old, we are like a college kid. It may take us a while to make up our minds, but when we do, we can do some amazing things.

There is no government in the world as old as yours. Seriously, look it up if you want. This thing where Americans think they're oh so young just doesn't make any sense.

Country / First acquisition of sovereignty / Date of last subordination / Previous governing power / Notes

Vietnam / 2879 BC / 1954 / France / Văn Lang confederacy arose 2879 BC according to legend. Several periods of Chinese domination. French occupation from 1887 until Geneva Conference (1954), interrupted by Japanese occupation (1940–1945). While not an occupation, the United States gave military support to the South Vietnam government until the 1973 Paris Peace Accords.

United States of America / July 4, 1776 / October 19, 1781 / United Kingdom / Independence declared 1776; British surrender 1781; U.S. recognized by Treaty of Paris 1783.

United Kingdom / 843 / (none) / (none) / Kingdom of Scotland unified 843; Kingdom of England unified 927. Tender of Union 1657–1660, Acts of Union 1707, adding Kingdom of Ireland in 1801 (only Northern Ireland from 1922). Partial occupations by Normans, Vikings, Romans.

France / 843 / 1945 / Germany / 843 Treaty of Verdun established West Francia.

Australia / October 9, 1942 / October 9, 1942 / United Kingdom Dominion status 1902, Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942.

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

You're right but, America is a college kid Australia is a infant.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:

Frazzled wrote:get off your high horse. You're not British either.

But I think a person is capable of gaining a decent amount of knowledge about another country's politics without living there. You're the one that claimed that wasn't possible, and yet here you are sounding off about British politics.

My point with this is, if we want to be able to talk gak able other people's politics we should allow other people to talk gak about American politics.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

infinite_array wrote:

sebster wrote:

broodstar wrote:America is only 236 years old, we are like a college kid. It may take us a while to make up our minds, but when we do, we can do some amazing things.

There is no government in the world as old as yours. Seriously, look it up if you want. This thing where Americans think they're oh so young just doesn't make any sense.

You know, that's always one of the things they get me. For all the gak that goes on in our country, we have had the longest running 'regime' in recent history.

There are so many countries that have been conquered and liberated and conquered and liberated. There are also countries that haven't been conquered and among those, we are among the young.

broodstar wrote:Country / First acquisition of sovereignty / Date of last subordination / Previous governing power / Notes

Vietnam / 2879 BC / 1954 / France / Văn Lang confederacy arose 2879 BC according to legend. Several periods of Chinese domination. French occupation from 1887 until Geneva Conference (1954), interrupted by Japanese occupation (1940–1945). While not an occupation, the United States gave military support to the South Vietnam government until the 1973 Paris Peace Accords.

Notice I used the word government in my post.

Vietnam merged the South and North in 1976, making it much, much younger than the United States.

United Kingdom / 843 / (none) / (none) / Kingdom of Scotland unified 843; Kingdom of England unified 927. Tender of Union 1657–1660, Acts of Union 1707, adding Kingdom of Ireland in 1801 (only Northern Ireland from 1922). Partial occupations by Normans, Vikings, Romans.

The United Kingdom could be considered as existing in it's current form from the act of union in 1800, making it just slightly younger than your own.

France / 843 / 1945 / Germany / 843 Treaty of Verdun established West Francia.

The French Revolution was 1789. Then that government lost power to Napoleon's coup in 1799, which in turn collapsed, was replaced by the Bourbon King, who fled when Napoleon returned, who once again lost power, leading to the restoration of monarchy for the next 15 years, which was overthrown for another monarchy, which lasted until it was overthrown for the Second Republic, which lasted until it's president (Napoleon's nephew) claimed himself as dictator, he was overthrown, leading to the third Republic, which lasted until the Nazis took over the country and the Vichy government was formed. Following their defeat by the Allies, France formed the Fourth Republic.

The upshot of that is that in the time you've had one government, France has had 11.

You're right but, America is a college kid Australia is a infant.

What? Dude, seriously, there's no point in "nuh uh" "is too" here. You have the oldest continuous government in the world. That's just how it is. It's something to be proud of.

It means that when you look at the problems of how political power operates in your country, they become an issue of having a very old system, not the result of having a very young system.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

My point with this is, if we want to be able to talk gak able other people's politics we should allow other people to talk gak about American politics.

Which is fair enough. I'd argue that there should be a minimum standard, but that standard should be "has some idea what they're talking about", which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with their country of origin.

There are so many countries that have been conquered and liberated and conquered and liberated. There are also countries that haven't been conquered and among those, we are among the young.

No, seriously, there just aren't countries with governments stretching back past 1776.

Frazzled wrote:

dogma wrote:
Of course when you lose, and you will, the ego doesn't take it well.

Exactly. thats the point. Or as the Great One said:
"Win, or you're out of the family."
- Homer Simpson

Well, go on hating Vietnam vets, then.

sebster wrote:which is a charge of dishonest behaviour

Which is true, but I suppose that probably doesn't matter legally speaking.

sebster wrote:Which is fair enough. I'd argue that there should be a minimum standard, but that standard should be "has some idea what they're talking about", which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with their country of origin.

I don't know about that, I would after they are done talking point out where their facts are wrong, but I would not stop anyone from speaking. I don't believe in censoring anyone or any ideology.

Last summer I went to a KKK rally (with all the 500 people from 3 states) and they were there in the full robes in August in Alabama, (where the temperature is 600 degrees and the humidity is about 6000%) so not only are they racist, they're idiots. But, I listened to what the had to say, because I believe that if someone has something to say it should be heard and evaluated.

Free Speech does not really exist. I don't care what Liberals and Communists think of me but when others try to censor my views it is kinda stupid. Gay Marriage activists want freedom of speech but want to censor anyone whos against it for example saying it is hate speech.
Check this out for example:

Maybe because opposing Gay marriage is ridiculous and bigoted, unjustifiable, small-minded and a pointless waste of resources?

Bit like supporting National Socialism really.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mind you, ridiculous ideas should always be allowed some public viewing, if only so they can be properly ridiculed...

ArbeitsSchu wrote:Maybe because opposing Gay marriage is ridiculous and bigoted, unjustifiable, small-minded and a pointless waste of resources?

Bit like supporting National Socialism really.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mind you, ridiculous ideas should always be allowed some public viewing, if only so they can be properly ridiculed...

If they they can be allowed public viewing they can be ridiclued. The people who raise the ideas should be able to commit suicide without the law stopping them. I oppose gay marriage because the LGBT attitude towards it if you don't care about it you must be against it. I have negative opinion towards many things like the Mental Health service for example.

I don't know how you're linking gay marriage to laws against inciting racial hatred and the like.

Saying "I oppose gay marriage because etc" is vastly different from saying "Gays should be strung up."

Two people getting married happens all the time with zero impact on my life. It makes no difference if they are gay or straight, it still has no effect on my life, nor on most of the rest of the world. Thus its pointless making a fuss about it. Just let then get on with it.

Opposing a concept because you have made a vast unfounded generalization about some of the people who support it is ridiculous by the way.

Hazardous Harry wrote:I don't know how you're linking gay marriage to laws against inciting racial hatred and the like.

Saying "I oppose gay marriage because etc" is vastly different from saying "Gays should be strung up."

It started with me and Sab's conversation on the censorship of ideologies. From there he posted a video of a woman against gay marriage's voice being drowned out and the camera being covered up by gay marriage supporters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ArbeitsSchu wrote:Maybe because opposing Gay marriage is ridiculous and bigoted, unjustifiable, small-minded and a pointless waste of resources?

Bit like supporting National Socialism really.

Then defeat it on the battlefield of debate and the ballot box, not by name calling. But, let the thought be heard.

ArbeitsSchu wrote:Two people getting married happens all the time with zero impact on my life. It makes no difference if they are gay or straight, it still has no effect on my life, nor on most of the rest of the world. Thus its pointless making a fuss about it. Just let then get on with it.

Opposing a concept because you have made a vast unfounded generalization about some of the people who support it is ridiculous by the way.

There is a major difference between having a shaky, silly argument that might be bigoted and the call for persecuting people on the base of their race/colour/creed/sexual-orientation.