Britain had one, France had one, so did Spain, Portugal, Germany and Holland. Hell, even Belgium had one.

You can't say Hawaii, Alaska or the moon, that doesn't count. And you can't claim Canada either.

Great Britain still presides over the mighty Falkland Islands and a two large rocks in the Pacific somewhere which may have a seal or an albatross on it from time to time.

Pixel Pirate wrote: The American empire is not an empire of geography but of minds. That's why it's impossible to put up any resistance and why it's destined to be victorious beyond the wildest dream of Napoleon and Hitler combined.

But on the upside, America has given us the atomic bomb, Hollywood, Dr Pepper and cheerleaders... 

And Donny Osmond

Cheers for that America.

If it wasn't for the USA, Britain and the other European countries mentioned by sigod (including the neutral countries mentioned) might still be part of an empire: either a Nazi empire or a Soviet empire (probably the latter). Collective memory is very short.

Fitzcarraldo wrote: If it wasn't for the USA, Britain and the other European countries mentioned by sigod (including the neutral countries mentioned) might still be part of an empire: either a Nazi empire or a Soviet empire (probably the latter). Collective memory is very short.

Maybe, maybe not. How many lives might have been saved if America had joined sooner?

Do we REALLY need another America bashing thread? Also, for Ivan's sake..Let's just call this a USA bashing thread.

gdub411 wrote: Do we REALLY need another America bashing thread? Also, for Ivan's sake..Let's just call this a USA bashing thread.

Oh shut up,you know you love the opportunity to demonstrate your ignorance of all things academic!

All:

I would have to agree (at least in part) with Sweetnighter here, in the sense that the "definition" of "empire" may have changed over the years.

As Sweetnighter notes, an "empire" used to be, at least primarily, the ownership and control of "real estate" (and economies of those countries it held), usually by force or threat of force.  However, I think the operative word is no longer "real estate" but "control" - in any sense, by any means.

In that regard, it is not simply money that determines the "American" empire.  Consider:

-Culture.  American "culture" has become globally predominant.  American "exports" re music, fashion, film, etc. have spread to - and, in a figurative if not literal sense, predominate in - almost every country.  Think of Coca-Cola, McDonald's (in all but two of the sovereign nations of the world), Disney, etc.  Yes, there are other centers for fashion (Milan, London, Paris et al), music (England, Germany, Italy et al), film (India, Italy, England et al), etc.,  and other "global" "brands" (e.g., Virgin).  But America is without question the "cultural leader" of the world.  This creates a sort of "hegemony" all by itself.  As an aside, the U.S. TV media "stole" most of its "reality TV" ideas from British programs.  Yet the British were unable to "sell" them to the rest of the world, while the U.S. has been successfully selling them throughout the globe (and thereby continuing to "dumb down" the cultures of other countries...).

-Language.  More people speak English than any other language (except perhaps Chinese, but that is simply due to sheer numbers).  True, the British started this during the creation of their empire.  But the U.S. influence in "forcing" English on almost every other nation cannot be questioned.  Somehow, Americans don't think they should have to learn to speak a second language; yet they believe everyone in the whole world should speak theirs.  And more people in more countries speak English than any other language other than their native tongue (i.e., as a second language).  If this is not a global "hegemony" of sorts - as well as one definition of "empire" - I don't know what is.

-Money.  Whether up or down, the dollar still determines the remainder of the world's financial markets.  And the U.S. economy, even at its worst, is still bigger - by far - than the economy of any other country, or even group of countries.  Indeed, the creation of a "United States of Europe" - and the development of the euro, etc. - is a direct reflection of just how powerful the American economy really is: i.e., that it takes over a dozen major countries joining together to simply create a relative "parity" of economies.

This is just a very quick, simplistic look at the global scene.  I know there are many more examples of America's "empire," as "newly" defined.  However, I am in a hurry.  If I think of more, I will post them.

Peace.

Fitzcarraldo wrote: If it wasn't for the USA, Britain and the other European countries mentioned by sigod (including the neutral countries mentioned) might still be part of an empire: either a Nazi empire or a Soviet empire (probably the latter). Collective memory is very short.

Just because they came in at the end when things were looking bad doesn't make their contribution any greater; I respect the American soldiers who fought in the Alliance, but just as the other Allied countries would quite possibly have lost the War (or wars) without the US, if Britain (or several other important countries*) hadn't fought and the US had I'm sure an equally unfortunate outcome would have been reached.

*read: my history is somewhat weak

Fitzcarraldo wrote: If it wasn't for the USA, Britain and the other European countries mentioned by sigod (including the neutral countries mentioned) might still be part of an empire: either a Nazi empire or a Soviet empire (probably the latter). Collective memory is very short.

Well said, Fitz.

Some of the smugly anti-American folk on this forum would do well to bear the above in mind. Having been born free, they too often seem to take that freedom for granted, and forget the thousands of young Americans (Canadians, Newfoundlanders, Aussies, and New Zealanders too) who lie far from home in European graves, having laid down their lives to overthrow an evil, genocidal tyranny for the greater good of all. All that you enjoy most about your rights and freedom has been dearly paid for in blood. You might want to ponder upon that as you sip your coffee and listen to your music today.

Yes, America is now the most powerful nation in the world (as Greece, Rome, the Mongol Empire, France & England were before), but it is not the most evil nation in the world -- far from it. That is our reality -- get over it.

Global history and politics is a complex, organic, ever-evolving thing. I hate to see people simplify it along the lines of: "America is powerful. Power is bad. American culture is spreading everywhere (even into good old, student-crushing communist China) Wah."

No, I certainly don't applaud everything America does or represents on the global stage, but I ask you: what other country would have served as a better counterweight to the murderous global-domination agenda of the Nazis, Japanese, & Soviets? At any given period in history, one country has to be the most powerful. If not America, who exactly would you rather it was? 

Besides bitching about the ebb and flow of great nations and political systems, and throwing up your hands in despair at your seeming insignificance and powerlessness, what are YOU doing to make the world immediately around you better? What values are you teaching your children? Are you a part of the problem, or of the solution?

Some people here seem to want this forum of (mostly) like-minded music fans to disintegrate into mutually intolerant, prejudiced factions. When they have little to say, they try to stir things up, and pick a fight with people that they do not know. You probably have a neighbour who is wealthier/more powerful than you are -- why not go throw a brick through his window instead?

What an inane thread. Baiting others because they don't live where you do.

The boy across the street/block/city/ocean is bad....

Peter:

We all recognise that there is too much generalisation on this forum.

If one thinks back to the different "Most Powerful" nations over the millenia most of them have had many bad points.

However, they have all been a force for progress:learning, advancement of science and mathematics,social systems, legal systems,innovation,Indistrial Revolutions etc.

The good ole USA has been great for "mod cons" but very little else that one could think of (space/weapons etc being achieved through European no-how.)

To paraphrase the oft-quoted "Life Of Brian": "what have the Americans ever done for us?"

Peter wrote: Fitzcarraldo wrote: If it wasn't for the USA, Britain and the other European countries mentioned by sigod (including the neutral countries mentioned) might still be part of an empire: either a Nazi empire or a Soviet empire (probably the latter). Collective memory is very short. Well said, Fitz. Some of the smugly anti-American folk on this forum would do well to bear the above in mind. Having been born free, they too often seem to take that freedom for granted, and forget the thousands of young Americans (Canadians, Newfoundlanders, Aussies, and New Zealanders too) who lie far from home in European graves, having laid down their lives to overthrow an evil, genocidal tyranny for the greater good of all. All that you enjoy most about your rights and freedom has been dearly paid for in blood. You might want to ponder upon that as you sip your coffee and listen to your music today. Yes, America is now the most powerful nation in the world (as Greece, Rome, the Mongol Empire, France & England were before), but it is not the most evil nation in the world -- far from it. That is our reality -- get over it. Global history and politics is a complex, organic, ever-evolving thing. I hate to see people simplify it along the lines of: "America is powerful. Power is bad. American culture is spreading everywhere (even into good old, student-crushing communist China) Wah." No, I certainly don't applaud everything America does or represents on the global stage, but I ask you: what other country would have served as a better counterweight to the murderous global-domination agenda of the Nazis, Japanese, & Soviets? At any given period in history, one country has to be the most powerful. If not America, who exactly would you rather it was?  Besides bitching about the ebb and flow of great nations and political systems, and throwing up your hands in despair at your seeming insignificance and powerlessness, what are YOU doing to make the world immediately around you better? What values are you teaching your children? Are you a part of the problem, or of the solution? Some people here seem to want this forum of (mostly) like-minded music fans to disintegrate into mutually intolerant, prejudiced factions. When they have little to say, they try to stir things up, and pick a fight with people that they do not know. You probably have a neighbour who is wealthier/more powerful than you are -- why not go throw a brick through his window instead? What an inane thread. Baiting others because they don't live where you do. The boy across the street/block/city/ocean is bad....

.....I think Reed lover has more money than me....can I toss a brick through his window?

gdub411 wrote: Peter wrote: Fitzcarraldo wrote: If it wasn't for the USA, Britain and the other European countries mentioned by sigod (including the neutral countries mentioned) might still be part of an empire: either a Nazi empire or a Soviet empire (probably the latter). Collective memory is very short. Well said, Fitz. Some of the smugly anti-American folk on this forum would do well to bear the above in mind. Having been born free, they too often seem to take that freedom for granted, and forget the thousands of young Americans (Canadians, Newfoundlanders, Aussies, and New Zealanders too) who lie far from home in European graves, having laid down their lives to overthrow an evil, genocidal tyranny for the greater good of all. All that you enjoy most about your rights and freedom has been dearly paid for in blood. You might want to ponder upon that as you sip your coffee and listen to your music today. Yes, America is now the most powerful nation in the world (as Greece, Rome, the Mongol Empire, France & England were before), but it is not the most evil nation in the world -- far from it. That is our reality -- get over it. Global history and politics is a complex, organic, ever-evolving thing. I hate to see people simplify it along the lines of: "America is powerful. Power is bad. American culture is spreading everywhere (even into good old, student-crushing communist China) Wah." No, I certainly don't applaud everything America does or represents on the global stage, but I ask you: what other country would have served as a better counterweight to the murderous global-domination agenda of the Nazis, Japanese, & Soviets? At any given period in history, one country has to be the most powerful. If not America, who exactly would you rather it was?  Besides bitching about the ebb and flow of great nations and political systems, and throwing up your hands in despair at your seeming insignificance and powerlessness, what are YOU doing to make the world immediately around you better? What values are you teaching your children? Are you a part of the problem, or of the solution? Some people here seem to want this forum of (mostly) like-minded music fans to disintegrate into mutually intolerant, prejudiced factions. When they have little to say, they try to stir things up, and pick a fight with people that they do not know. You probably have a neighbour who is wealthier/more powerful than you are -- why not go throw a brick through his window instead? What an inane thread. Baiting others because they don't live where you do. The boy across the street/block/city/ocean is bad....   .....I think Reed lover has more money than me....can I toss a brick through his window?

You're not tossing anything near my window!

Reed Lover wrote: gdub411 wrote: Peter wrote: Fitzcarraldo wrote: If it wasn't for the USA, Britain and the other European countries mentioned by sigod (including the neutral countries mentioned) might still be part of an empire: either a Nazi empire or a Soviet empire (probably the latter). Collective memory is very short. Well said, Fitz. Some of the smugly anti-American folk on this forum would do well to bear the above in mind. Having been born free, they too often seem to take that freedom for granted, and forget the thousands of young Americans (Canadians, Newfoundlanders, Aussies, and New Zealanders too) who lie far from home in European graves, having laid down their lives to overthrow an evil, genocidal tyranny for the greater good of all. All that you enjoy most about your rights and freedom has been dearly paid for in blood. You might want to ponder upon that as you sip your coffee and listen to your music today. Yes, America is now the most powerful nation in the world (as Greece, Rome, the Mongol Empire, France & England were before), but it is not the most evil nation in the world -- far from it. That is our reality -- get over it. Global history and politics is a complex, organic, ever-evolving thing. I hate to see people simplify it along the lines of: "America is powerful. Power is bad. American culture is spreading everywhere (even into good old, student-crushing communist China) Wah." No, I certainly don't applaud everything America does or represents on the global stage, but I ask you: what other country would have served as a better counterweight to the murderous global-domination agenda of the Nazis, Japanese, & Soviets? At any given period in history, one country has to be the most powerful. If not America, who exactly would you rather it was?  Besides bitching about the ebb and flow of great nations and political systems, and throwing up your hands in despair at your seeming insignificance and powerlessness, what are YOU doing to make the world immediately around you better? What values are you teaching your children? Are you a part of the problem, or of the solution? Some people here seem to want this forum of (mostly) like-minded music fans to disintegrate into mutually intolerant, prejudiced factions. When they have little to say, they try to stir things up, and pick a fight with people that they do not know. You probably have a neighbour who is wealthier/more powerful than you are -- why not go throw a brick through his window instead? What an inane thread. Baiting others because they don't live where you do. The boy across the street/block/city/ocean is bad....   .....I think Reed lover has more money than me....can I toss a brick through his window? You're not tossing anything near my window!

That's not what you're telling me last night Big Boy!

gdub411 wrote: .....I think Reed lover has more money than me....can I toss a brick through his window?

You're not tossing anything near my window!

[/QUOTE]

That's not what you're telling me last night Big Boy!

[/QUOTE]

Actually I told I'd sue if you kept sending me butt plugs through the post!

Reed Lover wrote: gdub411 wrote: .....I think Reed lover has more money than me....can I toss a brick through his window? You're not tossing anything near my window!

That's not what you're telling me last night Big Boy!

[/QUOTE]

Actually I told I'd sue if you kept sending me butt plugs through the post!

[/QUOTE]

Tomorrow I set out on my quest for the Holy Golden Buttplug of Anok. It should be wrought with peril and anventure but in the end the reward will be truly satisfying...with a little KY that is

Reedy: See Thomas Paine -- The Rights of Man, for one positive American contribution.

See a democratic Germany and Japan for two more.

Hopefully soon, we will also see an American-initiated (& largely funded) global tsunami warning system.

See Jayne Mansfield, Racquel Welch, Marilyn Monroe , country, folk, bluegrass, blues, jazz, rock and roll, and Echolyn for more.

(No excuse for Stynx, though....)

BTW: Happy New Year, chum!

Peter wrote: Reedy: See Thomas Paine -- The Rights of Man, for one positive American contribution. See a democratic Germany and Japan for two more. Hopefully soon, we will also see an American-initiated (& largely funded) global tsunami warning system. See Jayne Mansfield, Racquel Welch, Marilyn Monroe , country, folk, bluegrass, blues, jazz, rock and roll, and Echolyn for more. (No excuse for Stynx, though....) BTW: Happy New Year, chum!

Hmmmm...

A positive post for once!!!

HAPPY (smiley,less-serious,self-deprecating) NEW YEAR

To You Peter

And all at Prog Archives Forum!

from the original sh*t-stain on a wedding dress!

Bon chance!

America did actually aquire quite a bit of territory after the Spanish-American War. We had captured or aquired The Phillipines as well as several other Islands in the Pacific and the Aluetians.

Also why doesn't Alaska and Hawaii not count. They were territories before they were states. That would be saying England couldn't count Canada, India, Egypt, or Australia as places they once occupied. That's just stupid.

Actually you could say the momemt after the revolution through much of the 18th century we were expanding our empire as we seized terrritory from the american indians and mexicans until we reached the Pacific.

So tell me why England once had the largest and most proud navy in the world and has let it shrink into a joke. What a shame! I guess they just don't need it, because they know the USA and it's fleet of 10 Super Carriers will protect them from invasion these days. How many Super Carriers do the rest of the world have?....the answer would be zero.

Arioch wrote: So tell me why England once had the largest and most proud navy in the world and has let it shrink into a joke. What a shame! I guess they just don't need it, because they know the USA and it's fleet of 10 Super Carriers will protect them from invasion these days. How many Super Carriers do the rest of the world have?....the answer would be zero.

Well good for you!

That's really something to be very proud of!

Arioch wrote: That's the best you can do Reed Lover. Where's that wit of yours now?

So you are saying I am witty ???

I was kinda saying that if all you've got to offer the world is big boats with big guns then let's all jump for joy!

Reed Lover wrote: Arioch wrote: That's the best you can do Reed Lover. Where's that wit of yours now? So you are saying I am witty ??? I was kinda saying that if all you've got to offer the world is big boats with big guns then let's all jump for joy!

Yes...isn't that what England had all to offer for several centuries. Imitation is the best form of flattery Reedy my boy.

It certainly wasn't their culinary delights and cuisines.

Arioch wrote: Reed Lover wrote: Arioch wrote: That's the best you can do Reed Lover. Where's that wit of yours now? So you are saying I am witty ??? I was kinda saying that if all you've got to offer the world is big boats with big guns then let's all jump for joy! Yes...isn't that what England had all to offer for several centuries. Imitation is the best form of flattery Reedy my boy. It certainly wasn't their culinary delights and cuisines.

Is that it?

is that all you've got?

You wanna piece of me?

It's like being savaged by a sheep!

Garion81 wrote: Reed Lover wrote: Fitzcarraldo wrote: If it wasn't for the USA, Britain and the other European countries mentioned by sigod (including the neutral countries mentioned) might still be part of an empire: either a Nazi empire or a Soviet empire (probably the latter). Collective memory is very short. Maybe, maybe not. How many lives might have been saved if America had joined sooner? Reed, I respect your opinion but I have to call you on this. America in 1938-9 was still coming out of a depression and had very little military capabilities since all were retired at the end of WW1. There was no way we were in any positon to fight anyone. Pearl Harbor is a perfect example of our unreadiness. We did start to manufacture arms which I think almost all were given (not sold because all your WW2 debt to the US was forgiven) to Britan, France and The Soviet Union. Pray tell sir, What more could we have done until we went into all out mobilization? Which really took 2 -3 years to accomplish. We were not yet a real world power. Besides many in our country felt we had already given to many lives to wars in Europe and felt you could handle that one without us. All things considered it would have been 1940 instead of 41. We still had the Empire of Japan to deal with which BTW we received no help with at all.

Actually that is not true at all Garion. Britain reaverted quite a few ships over to the Indian Ocean to combat the Japanese..or at least protect their interests..either way..this distracted a number of Japanese capital ships to guard over this potential threat.  They had the Repulse and Prince of Wales sunk by the Japanese in Indonesia. Australia helped as much as it could as well.

Garion81 wrote: gdub411 wrote: Actually that is not true at all Garion. Britain reaverted quite a few ships over to the Indian Ocean to combat the Japanese..or at least protect their interests..either way..this distracted a number of Japanese capital ships to guard over this potential threat.  They had the Repulse and Prince of Wales sunk by the Japanese in Indonesia. Australia helped as much as it could as well. Ok I stand corrected. I also think Stalin sent some troops also but just to grab some more land. Gdub I think I meant no one gave the save commitment as we did.

They gave what they could. Every country was strapped for resources and no-one enjoyed the vast military war machine we were producing, except maybe the Russians, but every bit was needed to take on Hitler's War Machine. England and Russia had their hands full and did what they could.

No-one lost as many capital ships and shipping as england...except maybe the Japanese...but they were the losers so what do you expect?

Bah, all this tripe is old news.

You lot are still stuck in 2004!

We  Brits are offivially 2005 ers!

Hic, I mean officially 2005 ers!!

Garion81 wrote: gdub411 wrote: Garion81 wrote: gdub411 wrote: Actually that is not true at all Garion. Britain reaverted quite a few ships over to the Indian Ocean to combat the Japanese..or at least protect their interests..either way..this distracted a number of Japanese capital ships to guard over this potential threat.  They had the Repulse and Prince of Wales sunk by the Japanese in Indonesia. Australia helped as much as it could as well. Ok I stand corrected. I also think Stalin sent some troops also but just to grab some more land. Gdub I think I meant no one gave the save commitment as we did. They gave what they could. Every country was strapped for resources and no-one enjoyed the vast military war machine we were producing, except maybe the Russians, but every bit was needed to take on Hitler's War Machine. England and Russia had their hands full and did what they could. No-one lost as many capital ships and shipping as england...except maybe the Japanese...but they were the losers so what do you expect? I do understand that. They gave more because the war was in their countries. But I don't understand how in history that we (the united states) comes out as the bad guy? Did we not contribute everything we had also?

Garion Waffling!

starring Gdub as kenneth Williams

and Garion as Sid James.  arr arrr arrr, ooer missus!

Reed Lover wrote: Garion81 wrote: gdub411 wrote: Garion81 wrote: gdub411 wrote: Actually that is not true at all Garion. Britain reaverted quite a few ships over to the Indian Ocean to combat the Japanese..or at least protect their interests..either way..this distracted a number of Japanese capital ships to guard over this potential threat.  They had the Repulse and Prince of Wales sunk by the Japanese in Indonesia. Australia helped as much as it could as well. Ok I stand corrected. I also think Stalin sent some troops also but just to grab some more land. Gdub I think I meant no one gave the save commitment as we did. They gave what they could. Every country was strapped for resources and no-one enjoyed the vast military war machine we were producing, except maybe the Russians, but every bit was needed to take on Hitler's War Machine. England and Russia had their hands full and did what they could. No-one lost as many capital ships and shipping as england...except maybe the Japanese...but they were the losers so what do you expect? I do understand that. They gave more because the war was in their countries. But I don't understand how in history that we (the united states) comes out as the bad guy? Did we not contribute everything we had also? Garion Waffling! starring Gdub as kenneth Williams and Garion as Sid James.  arr arrr arrr, ooer missus!

no...we all contributed to the war equally is all I am saying....except France....and don't get me started on Sweden!

P.S....go to bed you drunken oaf....Mr Reed Lover!

Whassh the mater wish yousz?

drunk moi?

nah, Only just onto bottle 3 of the vIno!

a very nice Wolf Blass Cab Sauv   ......... nice!

Reed Lover wrote: Whassh the mater wish yousz? drunk moi? nah, Only just onto bottle 3 of the vIno! a very nice Wolf Blass Cab Sauv   ......... nice!

you're starting to talk like Eddy.

gdub411 wrote: Eddy should teach classes on this strange form of english...we could call it Eddyspeak or Eddycant...or maybe Edydsepak!

Kind of like an Edukayshun?

Eddy wrote: hey all of you god dam retardos quit making fun o me! im enjoying the new year with some magicqal drinks too!(TEGILAAAQAA!) yea i read this thread and saw it change gradully to "lets make fun of eddy's typing! WEll i just type at super mock speeds thats all! just to let all of you guys know, im ABOUT 50 TIMES MORE COOLER THEN ALL OF YOU! im the kool kid in school! all the girls want to sit on my lap(IN ONOTHER WORD THAT MEANS THEY WANT MY BOD yes they WANT MY BOD

Aw...Eddy....we find your "ways" endearing and I hope you do not take offence at any of our comments. You're one of my favorites on this site and I apologize if I have angered you in any way.

your puny threats and taunts make me laugh!

...and cry! in serousness, i know its all in good fun..!

Arioch wrote: America did actually aquire quite a bit of territory after the Spanish-American War. We had captured or aquired The Phillipines as well as several other Islands in the Pacific and the Aluetians. Also why doesn't Alaska and Hawaii not count. They were territories before they were states. That would be saying England couldn't count Canada, India, Egypt, or Australia as places they once occupied. That's just stupid.

Actually this is true... we have American Guam, th US Virgin Islands & Puerto Rico, but we'd gladly give them to the first good buyer...

Oh.. I like this article.. it basically says that Europeans don't like us because we're optimistic conservatives.. and they're pessimist conservatives...

I guess if they were reading the whining on this board, they'd have some proof on that...

http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/a0034380.cfm - http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/a0034380.cfm

threefates wrote: Oh.. I like this article.. it basically says that Europeans don't like us because we're optimistic conservatives.. and they're pessimist conservatives... I guess if they were reading the whining on this board, they'd have some proof on that... http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/a0034380.cfm - http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/a0034380.cfm

Europeans are pessimist conservatives...pessimist liberals, but conservatives?!?

threefates wrote: Oh.. I like this article.. it basically says that Europeans don't like us because we're optimistic conservatives.. and they're pessimist conservatives... I guess if they were reading the whining on this board, they'd have some proof on that... http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/a0034380.cfm - http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/a0034380.cfm

In all seriousness that article is rubbish.

Adrian Wooldridge might as well have been a punk-rock fan discussing Prog.

No Christian radio stations??? Well I notice at least one when I flick through my cable channels (yes we have radio on TV, dont know if you do)

http://www.premier.org.uk/engine.cfm?i=9 - http://www.premier.org.uk/engine.cfm?i=9

No Christian TV channels?

http://www.revelationtv.com/ - http://www.revelationtv.com/

Plus another bizaare statement:

And in Britain? I know that a columnist for the Guardian newspaper, in reference to George Bush, asked something to the effect of "where are the John Wilkes Booths or John Hinckley, Jr.'s when you need them?" And the BBC recently named Michael Moore as a commentator for their coverage on Election Night.

Yes. That's extraordinary and disgraceful, I think. The BBC is a publicly funded organization that should not be employing such a rigid partisan such as that. I think that is disgraceful.

Whilst the comment about assassinations is something Americans might find offensive ( though an example of British sardonic humour, and America's inablility to laugh at themselves), the comment re Michael Moore is ridiculous.Do you seriously think that Michael Moore would be the only commentator on the night?Whilst I cannot say for certain, knowing the BBC, and all British TV companies,I would bet that there would be a Pro- Republican commentator around too , to maintain balance.However, if Moore was the only commentator around, what would be disgraceful about that? Going over-the -top dont you think?

Reed Lover wrote: threefates wrote: Oh.. I like this article.. it basically says that Europeans don't like us because we're optimistic conservatives.. and they're pessimist conservatives... I guess if they were reading the whining on this board, they'd have some proof on that... http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/a0034380.cfm - http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/a0034380.cfm In all seriousness that article is rubbish. Adrian Wooldridge might as well have been a punk-rock fan discussing Prog. No Christian radio stations??? Well I notice at least one when I flick through my cable channels (yes we have radio on TV, dont know if you do) http://www.premier.org.uk/engine.cfm?i=9 - http://www.premier.org.uk/engine.cfm?i=9 No Christian TV channels? http://www.revelationtv.com/ - http://www.revelationtv.com/ Plus another bizaare statement: And in Britain? I know that a columnist for the Guardian newspaper, in reference to George Bush, asked something to the effect of "where are the John Wilkes Booths or John Hinckley, Jr.'s when you need them?" And the BBC recently named Michael Moore as a commentator for their coverage on Election Night. Yes. That's extraordinary and disgraceful, I think. The BBC is a publicly funded organization that should not be employing such a rigid partisan such as that. I think that is disgraceful. Whilst the comment about assassinations is something Americans might find offensive ( though an example of British sardonic humour, and America's inablility to laugh at themselves), the comment re Michael Moore is ridiculous.Do you seriously think that Michael Moore would be the only commentator on the night?Whilst I cannot say for certain, knowing the BBC, and all British TV companies,I would bet that there would be a Pro- Republican commentator around too , to maintain balance.However, if Moore was the only commentator around, what would be disgraceful about that? Going over-the -top dont you think?

When I am Emporor of the USA, into the woodchipper with Micheal Moore for being a  jack#ss!!...you Brits can keep the creep. Good riddance!!

Oh Reed, I thought it was a funny article anyway... I doubt there's much accuracy in it.  Afterall its on a site called thefamily.org... sounds ultra right to me...

I just thought the comment about American conservatism being optimistic and British conservatism being pessimistic was funny.  Especially since they didn't mention that the British conservative party doesn't really have the same definition as ours...  Plus I was thinking about a newspaper article I read recently...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v20/Pebble/Greg%20Lake/LondonTimes.jpg - http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v20/Pebble/Greg%20Lake/Lon donTimes.jpg

Greg Lake and comedian Jim Davidson at a conservative party reception... must of been a hoot!

Americans like to talk about (or be told about) Democracy but, when put to
the test, usually find it to be an 'inconvenience.'  We have opted instead
for an authoritarian system disguised as a Democracy.  We pay through
the nose for an enormous joke-of-a-government, let it push us around, and
then wonder how all those assholes got in there.

F Zappa

threefates wrote: Oh Reed, I thought it was a funny article anyway... I doubt there's much accuracy in it.  Afterall its on a site called thefamily.org... sounds ultra right to me... I just thought the comment about American conservatism being optimistic and British conservatism being pessimistic was funny.  Especially since they didn't mention that the British conservative party doesn't really have the same definition as ours...  Plus I was thinking about a newspaper article I read recently... http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v20/Pebble/Greg%20Lake/Lon donTimes.jpg - http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v20/Pebble/Greg%20Lake/Lon donTimes.jpg   Greg Lake and comedian Jim Davidson at a conservative party reception... must of been a hoot!

Shouldn't have told me that!

Greg Lake at a Conservative Dinner?

Well, he would fit in well with all the other fat, bloated pigs!

As a lifelong Socialist I will print out his picture portfolio from your signature and wipe my perfectly-formed arse on it! 

Unfortunately many Prog Artists seem to be non-socialist including my own heroes, Rush. Must be a money thing!

Reed Lover wrote: [QUOTE=threefates] As a lifelong Socialist I will print out his picture portfolio from your signature and wipe my perfectly-formed arse on it!

I'm sure it will be a better quality than what you usually wipe your arse with..

tuxon wrote:

He has lowered taxes quite a bit you dumb arse.

But your children will have to pay for the defficit he creates now in the future.

So their taxes will have to be higher, the future will pay for yesterday's mistakes.

Or am I really a dumb arse

tuxon wrote: But your children will have to pay for the defficit he creates now in the future. So their taxes will have to be higher, the future will pay for yesterday's mistakes. Or am I really a dumb arse

I don't give a blurp about anyone's children...just myself!

gdub411 wrote: tuxon wrote: But your children will have to pay for the defficit he creates now in the future. So their taxes will have to be higher, the future will pay for yesterday's mistakes. Or am I really a dumb arse I don't give a blurp about anyone's children...just myself!

Numb arse !

Reed Lover wrote: gdub411 wrote: tuxon wrote: But your children will have to pay for the defficit he creates now in the future. So their taxes will have to be higher, the future will pay for yesterday's mistakes. Or am I really a dumb arse I don't give a blurp about anyone's children...just myself! Numb arse !

Dirty,rotten, little whelps always giving ya lip these days. Whatever happened to respect of yer elders? Things were different when I was a kid. I could rip a telephone book in half I tell ya. IN HALF!!!

tuxon wrote: But your children will have to pay for the defficit he creates now in the future. So their taxes will have to be higher, the future will pay for yesterday's mistakes. Or am I really a dumb arse

This argument is very old and it just seems to have little relevance.  The government has only had maybe 6 balanced budgets since before WW2.  Only 4 of those resulted in a surplus. The last time we have "record deficits" were from Reagan's tax cuts in the 80's which helped spur on the prosperity of the 90's.  We pay on the deficit every year since it draws interest.  Hell, we still pay on deficits created in WW2 times that we forgave our allies debt too. American children pay for that too.

gdub411 wrote: Maybe if you gedblarm yourpeeans payd yer lones frum da WW2oo we'd no have a deafisit.

Ah!  true enlightenment at last!  

Goddamm pinko liberal bleeding heart lefty business hater Clinton left the US economy with the biggest surplus in history.

Harvard Business School MBA Texas oilman Mutimegacorporations can do no wrong  Bush has created the biggest deficit in the history of the US economy.

I might be missing something here, not being an economist, but I think I can see which side the bread is buttered....

...and incidentally, it wasn't Reagan who was responsible for the death of Soviet communism, it was Gorbachev's policies of Glasnost and Perestroika.

Syzygy wrote: Goddamm pinko liberal bleeding heart lefty business hater Clinton left the US economy with the biggest surplus in history. Harvard Business School MBA Texas oilman Mutimegacorporations can do no wrong  Bush has created the biggest deficit in the history of the US economy. I might be missing something here, not being an economist, but I think I can see which side the bread is buttered.... ...and incidentally, it wasn't Reagan who was responsible for the death of Soviet communism, it was Gorbachev's policies of Glasnost and Perestroika.    I guess the colapse of the Soviet econmy due to the fact they produced nothing and spent most everything else on their military had nothing to do with it.

Clinton was hardly a bleeding heart liberal especially economically. Well quite honestly I think the collapse of the Tech industry specifically in Silicon Valley, Ca and the resulting energy scandals ie. Enron had more to do with the turn around from Clinton to Bush than any tax cut. Hundreds of thousands lost work and when reemployed at substantially lower rates of pay that previous jobs paid had more to do with less tax money than anything done in Washington DC. Not to mention the lower value of stocks on Wall Street and the loss of business taxes The original tax cuts were proposed because we had a surplus not in spite of it.  You give either man too much credit or blame.

Garion81 wrote: Syzygy wrote: Goddamm pinko liberal bleeding heart lefty business hater Clinton left the US economy with the biggest surplus in history. Harvard Business School MBA Texas oilman Mutimegacorporations can do no wrong  Bush has created the biggest deficit in the history of the US economy. I might be missing something here, not being an economist, but I think I can see which side the bread is buttered.... ...and incidentally, it wasn't Reagan who was responsible for the death of Soviet communism, it was Gorbachev's policies of Glasnost and Perestroika.    I guess the colapse of the Soviet econmy due to the fact they produced nothing and spent most everything else on their military had nothing to do with it.    Clinton was hardly a bleeding heart liberal especially economically. Well quite honestly I think the collapse of the Tech industry specifically in Silicon Valley, Ca and the resulting energy scandals ie. Enron had more to do with the turn around from Clinton to Bush than any tax cut. Hundreds of thousands lost work and when reemployed at substantially lower rates of pay that previous jobs paid had more to do with less tax money than anything done in Washington DC. Not to mention the lower value of stocks on Wall Street and the loss of business taxes The original tax cuts were proposed because we had a surplus not in spite of it.  You give either man too much credit or blame.

don't waste your time Garion...it's not worth it. You'll never convince them so why bother.

Syzygy wrote: Goddamm pinko liberal bleeding heart lefty business hater Clinton left the US economy with the biggest surplus in history. Harvard Business School MBA Texas oilman Mutimegacorporations can do no wrong  Bush has created the biggest deficit in the history of the US economy. I might be missing something here, not being an economist, but I think I can see which side the bread is buttered.... ...and incidentally, it wasn't Reagan who was responsible for the death of Soviet communism, it was Gorbachev's policies of Glasnost and Perestroika.

Ohh... it would be nice to have Clinton back as president... I'd even volunteer as an intern myself...

gdub411 wrote:

Clinton was hardly a bleeding heart liberal especially economically. Well quite honestly I think the collapse of the Tech industry specifically in Silicon Valley, Ca and the resulting energy scandals ie. Enron had more to do with the turn around from Clinton to Bush than any tax cut. Hundreds of thousands lost work and when reemployed at substantially lower rates of pay that previous jobs paid had more to do with less tax money than anything done in Washington DC. Not to mention the lower value of stocks on Wall Street and the loss of business taxes The original tax cuts were proposed because we had a surplus not in spite of it.  You give either man too much credit or blame.

[/QUOTE]

don't waste your time Garion...it's not worth it. You'll never convince them so why bother.

[/QUOTE]

Yeah you are right.  Just wishful thinking.

Garion81 wrote: Syzygy wrote: Goddamm pinko liberal bleeding heart lefty business hater Clinton left the US economy with the biggest surplus in history. Harvard Business School MBA Texas oilman Mutimegacorporations can do no wrong  Bush has created the biggest deficit in the history of the US economy. I might be missing something here, not being an economist, but I think I can see which side the bread is buttered.... ...and incidentally, it wasn't Reagan who was responsible for the death of Soviet communism, it was Gorbachev's policies of Glasnost and Perestroika.    I guess the colapse of the Soviet econmy due to the fact they produced nothing and spent most everything else on their military had nothing to do with it.  Fair comment, but it reinforces my point that the changes in the Soviet Union were more influenced by internal events and policies than any pressures from the West (which did play a part, but were probably not decisive). Incidentally, there are 2 l's in 'collapse'. Clinton was hardly a bleeding heart liberal especially economically. Well quite honestly I think the collapse of the Tech industry specifically in Silicon Valley, Ca and the resulting energy scandals ie. Enron had more to do with the turn around from Clinton to Bush than any tax cut. Hundreds of thousands lost work and when reemployed at substantially lower rates of pay that previous jobs paid had more to do with less tax money than anything done in Washington DC. Not to mention the lower value of stocks on Wall Street and the loss of business taxes The original tax cuts were proposed because we had a surplus not in spite of it.  You give either man too much credit or blame.

So - according to one of your previous posts, the 90s boom was due to Reagan's 80s economic policy, and the current slump is all Clinton's fault. Deeply flawed as he was, from this side of the pond it looks like Clinton got some things right - even Dubya admitted he was running against peace, prosperity and incumbency. Enron had sod all to do with tax cuts, but everything to do with free market ideology - no matter how much spin the Adam Smith institute put on it, it's as flawed an idea as communism ever was and will doubtless go the same way in a couple of decades. It's screwed up utilities and transport here in the UK, and the way Blair is going the relentless drive for profit will ruin education and the postal system next.

Another hooray for the monkey king's of this world.

First a complete destruction of all that once was, then the time for the commies to come back in and save us from the ravages left behind by those who paved the way with their idiotricity.

Syzygy wrote: Garion81 wrote: Syzygy wrote: Goddamm pinko liberal bleeding heart lefty business hater Clinton left the US economy with the biggest surplus in history. Harvard Business School MBA Texas oilman Mutimegacorporations can do no wrong  Bush has created the biggest deficit in the history of the US economy. I might be missing something here, not being an economist, but I think I can see which side the bread is buttered.... ...and incidentally, it wasn't Reagan who was responsible for the death of Soviet communism, it was Gorbachev's policies of Glasnost and Perestroika.    I guess the colapse of the Soviet econmy due to the fact they produced nothing and spent most everything else on their military had nothing to do with it.  Fair comment, but it reinforces my point that the changes in the Soviet Union were more influenced by internal events and policies than any pressures from the West (which did play a part, but were probably not decisive). Incidentally, there are 2 l's in 'collapse'. Clinton was hardly a bleeding heart liberal especially economically. Well quite honestly I think the collapse of the Tech industry specifically in Silicon Valley, Ca and the resulting energy scandals ie. Enron had more to do with the turn around from Clinton to Bush than any tax cut. Hundreds of thousands lost work and when reemployed at substantially lower rates of pay that previous jobs paid had more to do with less tax money than anything done in Washington DC. Not to mention the lower value of stocks on Wall Street and the loss of business taxes The original tax cuts were proposed because we had a surplus not in spite of it.  You give either man too much credit or blame.   Where So - according to one of your previous posts, the 90s boom was due to Reagan's 80s economic policy, and the current slump is all Clinton's fault. Deeply flawed as he was, from this side of the pond it looks like Clinton got some things right - even Dubya admitted he was running against peace, prosperity and incumbency. Enron had sod all to do with tax cuts, but everything to do with free market ideology - no matter how much spin the Adam Smith institute put on it, it's as flawed an idea as communism ever was and will doubtless go the same way in a couple of decades. It's screwed up utilities and transport here in the UK, and the way Blair is going the relentless drive for profit will ruin education and the postal system next.

Where do you draw that conclusion from what I said?  I stated factually the last time we had record deficits was from Reagan's tax cuts in relation to the fact that our deficit spending is irrelevant period since we have only had 6 balanced budgets since before WW2.  There are a fair number of Republican and Democratic controls of government there. They all had cracks at it yet the only two presidents that achieved this task of a balanced budget were Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon.  

I didn't blame Clinton for anything nor praise Reagan for what he did except for lowering  capital gains taxes which made new investments from the sale of old capitol less costly. That did help the fakes prosperity of the nineties with research money in tech companies increasing.  Please reread my posts because I never said Enron had anything to do with tax cuts.  I said Enron and other tech companies collapses had more to due with deficits in the budget than tax cuts.  Why?  Again because when the rise of the tech companies in 90’s brought about prosperity for a time including a record high for the Dow Jones over 12,000.  Their crash, when people realized it was paper prosperity only due to the fact that these companies never made a profit yet their shares of stock were well over $100 each. Many employees were given stock options as part of their compensation.  Suddenly their net worth went from hundreds of thousands of dollars to virtually nothing overnight. When these people received new jobs (for some that took years) they were paid substantially less than previously.  Hence, the government received less tax money because people made less money to tax.  On top of that they were receiving aid from the government in unemployment benefits and welfare which put a bigger drain on government money.

 How do I know this?  I was one of them, one of hundreds of thousands.   Enron and other energy companies that went out of business were the exact same price on taxes collected.  They single handedly took California's budget from the black to the red that we will be paying for years. What they did was illegal and it hurt not just their customers but their stockholders and of course all employees.  They desreve the highest punishment they can hand out for that. The Dow Jones dropped below 9000. All people for the most part suffered.  Was this because of tax cuts? No.   Politicians receive way too much credit and blame for events they really have no control over.

Ladies & Gentlemen

I hereby award one star to all those that missed the joke.

Two stars who understood but got dragged in to the ensuing melee.

Three to those that wanted to stay quiet but couldn't help themselves (that'll be me then )

Four stars to the stalwarts who got it.

And five stars to those who got it, smiled and went on their way...

A belated Happy New Year to you all.

Pixel!

Happy new year to you.

Same to you,Sigod.

51 stars to put on my flag then.

Same colours though! (Hi 3', x.)

emdiar wrote: Same colours though! (Hi 3', x.)

Happy New Year, Emdiar, where you been hiding?

How many stars do you get if you just missed the whole thing?

sigod wrote: Three to those that wanted to stay quiet but couldn't help themselves (that'll be me then )

I resemble that remark.

Peter wrote: Hopefully soon, we will also see an American-initiated (& largely funded) global tsunami warning system.

I dont understand how nobody saw it coming, America sees even the faintest of tropical storms miles and miles away; i refuse to believe that nobody saw a tsunami that big coming....though i dont know, really , what could have been done to help shri lanka and thailand, what would we have said "A huge wave is coming to kill you...you're pretty much trapped on this island, so..don't say we did'nt warn you."

threefates wrote: Yeh, but the picture on the front of the NY Times yesterday showed vacationers on the islands of Thailand sunning out on the beach while workers were cleaning up debris all around them.  I guess if an occasional corpse went floating by... it was just more pictures for the vacation album...

We don't let some waves or set backs destroy our holiday, do we?