Planetarion Forums

Dead_Meat · 4 Jul 2005, 14:17

...to all the American's here.

Remember, we never wanted the place anyway and were far too busy running the rest of the world to really be that bothered anyway.

Don't forget we came back and burned down the White House to remind you who your Daddy was in 1814, faggots.

Deepflow · 4 Jul 2005, 14:33

heh, i hope all your american friends see this and pigstick you.

JammyJim · 4 Jul 2005, 14:45

I doubt any of his friends still have their vision anyway. Most old people go blind (lolz)

Dead_Meat · 4 Jul 2005, 14:47

JJ HAS MAED TEH FUNNEH AND SI MY INTARNAT HERO!

Marilyn Manson · 4 Jul 2005, 14:53

I'm afraid of Americans.

JammyJim · 4 Jul 2005, 14:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dead_Meat

JJ HAS MAED TEH FUNNEH AND SI MY INTARNAT HERO!

You can be my sugar daddy any day <3 <3

Dead_Meat · 4 Jul 2005, 14:54

Anyway, we'll be off now. We're going to the local July 4th parade, where my daughter will be given an American flag to chew on.

Personally, I'll be walking up and down in my Union Jack shorts and T-shirt, waving the British flag and shouting 'YOU SUCK' at the crowd.

It's freedom of speech and a Constitutional right, officer.

SilverSmoke · 4 Jul 2005, 15:09

That will teach them.

Deepflow · 4 Jul 2005, 15:10

you had better be awfully careful your daughter doesnt grow up with an american accent.

Marilyn Manson · 4 Jul 2005, 15:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deepflow

you had better be awfully careful your daughter doesnt grow up with an american accent.

Hi ahm DM's daughter y'all.

Dead_Meat · 4 Jul 2005, 15:14

True, it's a major concern.

What would people say when she's older, we come back to the UK and she's like, y'know, like, talking, y'know, like, like, this and stuff, right?

FFS.

Embroglio · 4 Jul 2005, 15:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dead_Meat

True, it's a major concern.

What would people say when she's older, we come back to the UK and she's like, y'know, like, talking, y'know, like, like, this and stuff, right?

FFS.

that's how i talk

lokken · 4 Jul 2005, 15:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dead_Meat

True, it's a major concern.

What would people say when she's older, we come back to the UK and she's like, y'know, like, talking, y'know, like, like, this and stuff, right?

FFS.

ar know moosh i farkin ate american accents innit

ChubbyChecker · 4 Jul 2005, 16:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dead_Meat

It's freedom of speech and a Constitutional right, officer.

The Constitution doesn't apply to you, Johnny Foreigner.

edmoo · 4 Jul 2005, 16:39

Quote:

ar know moosh i farkin ate american accents innit

hehe. I hate patriotism. Countrys should be abolished, I don't care how many negative effects that would have. What I say, goes

.

Nodrog · 4 Jul 2005, 16:48

July 4rth is important because thats the day i get my exam results but i underperformed so today sucks **** you

dda · 4 Jul 2005, 17:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dead_Meat

...to all the American's here.

Remember, we never wanted the place anyway and were far too busy running the rest of the world to really be that bothered anyway.

Don't forget we came back and burned down the White House to remind you who your Daddy was in 1814, faggots.

"In 1814 we took a little trip.
Along with Colonel Jackson down the mighty Mississip'.
We took a little bacon and we took a little beans
And we fought the bloody British in the town of New Orleans.

We fired our guns and the British kept a commin'.
There wasn't quite as many as there was awhile a go.
We fired once more and they began a runnin'
Down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico."
---Johnny Horton

No taxation without representation.

You can't impress our seamen.

54-40 or fight.

Viva la revelution.----oops got carried away.

God Bless America, Land that I Love.

Note to England: Thanks for letting go.

s|k · 4 Jul 2005, 17:59

I think America, and the world, would have been better off if the UK had not abandoned its colonies, and I am an American saying this.

Marilyn Manson · 4 Jul 2005, 18:27

Let's send a telegram to Mexico encouraging them to invade.

Phang · 4 Jul 2005, 18:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by s|k

I think America, and the world, would have been better off if the UK had not abandoned its colonies, and I am an American saying this.

good god no. the War of Independence is perhaps the only example of good and bad being utterly cut and dried in a conflict.

A less ...plunderous withdrawal from Africa and a more considered approach in the Middle East (Israel/Palestine, India/Pakistan are both sterling examples of imperfect handling during British withdrawal) would have been marvellous, but the Empire was not a good thing, and it certainly wasn't good for the people living under it in the colonies, shut up Yahwe. In the case of America, it's just a shame that after the era of the founding fathers, your list of good leaders included Lincoln and FDR and very few others.

Marilyn Manson · 4 Jul 2005, 18:31

Of course it was a good thing. If it hadn't happened then everyone past Illinois might be speaking French now.

ChubbyChecker · 4 Jul 2005, 18:35

By the way DM, have you met George Washington? What was he like?

lololol!

Yahwe · 4 Jul 2005, 18:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phang

good god no. the War of Independence is perhaps the only example of good and bad being utterly cut and dried in a conflict.

i shall respect your wishes and 'shut up'

i shall therefore console myself with quoting this line and giggling.

s|k · 4 Jul 2005, 18:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phang

good god no. the War of Independence is perhaps the only example of good and bad being utterly cut and dried in a conflict.

A less ...plunderous withdrawal from Africa and a more considered approach in the Middle East (Israel/Palestine, India/Pakistan are both sterling examples of imperfect handling during British withdrawal) would have been marvellous, but the Empire was not a good thing, and it certainly wasn't good for the people living under it in the colonies, shut up Yahwe. In the case of America, it's just a shame that after the era of the founding fathers, your list of good leaders included Lincoln and FDR and very few others.

The UK at that point was a bit of a tyranny I agree, but in the end I feel they turned out better than America has. Of course you might say they never would have turned out this way if the things that happened hadn't happened, which may be true. I think a parliment style political system beats our 'win by a plurality two house congress and one executive branch system' in which the voice of the majority is ignored. IE, only 48% of people voted for someone who won, which means that 52% did not vote for this person, but still they are in office.

Demon Dave · 4 Jul 2005, 18:38

i always remember the 4th of July. not because of the yank thing, but because it's exactly a week before my birthday. Which makes today exactly a week until i'm 18! wooo!

Marilyn Manson · 4 Jul 2005, 18:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phang

good god no. the War of Independence is perhaps the only example of good and bad being utterly cut and dried in a conflict.

'Upper Middle-class gentlemen in Philadephila fight the Upper-class gentlemen in London.'

Boo for that evil Lord North.

Phang · 4 Jul 2005, 18:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by s|k

The UK at that point was a bit of a tyranny I agree, but in the end I feel they turned out better than America has. Of course you might say they never would have turned out this way if the things that happened hadn't happened, which may be true. I think a parliment style political system beats our 'win by a plurality 2 congress system' in which the voice of the majority is ignored. IE, only 48% of people voted for someone who won, which means that 52% did not vote for this person, but still they are in office.

hate to piss on the bonfire, but britain doesn't use the majority vote either. as far as choosing a leader goes, in fact, the electoral college is far more representative than choosing a PM from a FPTP parliament, although a single, majority vote is of course preferable to both.

Tony didn't manage 40% of the popular vote, just so you know.

Phang · 4 Jul 2005, 18:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

'Upper Middle-class gentlemen in Philadephila fight the Upper-class gentlemen in London.'

Boo for that evil Lord North.

yes, but the Upper Middle-class gentlemen were far more palatable and altruistic, even if they were still pretty backward in some respects (sup, 60% of a person) by our standards

Nodrog · 4 Jul 2005, 18:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phang

even if they were still pretty backward in some respects (sup, 60% of a person) by our standards

This is widely misunderstood - the 60% of a person thing was designed to (and did) help the slaves.

Yahwe · 4 Jul 2005, 18:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phang

Tony didn't manage 40% of the popular vote, just so you know.

2005 Election: Sedgefield constituency

Tony Blair Labour 24,421 58.9%

Marilyn Manson · 4 Jul 2005, 18:53

So we're saying that racist slaveholding oligarchs were utterly morally superior to racist imperialist oligarchs?

There is really no basis on which to consider any side in that conflict greatly superior to the other. You must be using some kind of dib-dib-dob system.

Dead_Meat · 4 Jul 2005, 18:56

Happy July 4th.. 4 Jul 2005 16:32 Texan 'YOU SUCK'

A good example of a plan gone marvellously right.

Nodrog · 4 Jul 2005, 18:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by s|k

The UK at that point was a bit of a tyranny I agree, but in the end I feel they turned out better than America has. Of course you might say they never would have turned out this way if the things that happened hadn't happened, which may be true. I think a parliment style political system beats our 'win by a plurality two house congress and one executive branch system' in which the voice of the majority is ignored. IE, only 48% of people voted for someone who won, which means that 52% did not vote for this person, but still they are in office.

Theres nothing in the Constitution which requires states to give all their electoral college votes to one candidate or the other. Theyre perfectly free to allocate them in a way which reflected the voting patterns, and if they choose not to do so, this can hardly be said to be a fault of the 'system'.

s|k · 4 Jul 2005, 18:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phang

hate to piss on the bonfire, but britain doesn't use the majority vote either. as far as choosing a leader goes, in fact, the electoral college is far more representative than choosing a PM from a FPTP parliament, although a single, majority vote is of course preferable to both.

Tony didn't manage 40% of the popular vote, just so you know.

But the government that chooses the prime minister is representative of the votes by percentage isn't it? If 20% of the people vote for the green party, then the green party gets 20% of the seats in parliment? Of course then a coalition would have to be created among the various groups, none of which may have gained a majority, in order to select a prime minister. I still feel that at least the parliment is represenative of the peoples' choice.

Phang · 4 Jul 2005, 19:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

This is widely misunderstood - the 60% of a person thing was designed to (and did) help the slaves.

there were two ...doohickeys that preceded the Constitution (one from Virginia, one from New Jersey i think); i thought that in one (presumaby the latter) slaves had full voting rights but none in the former, so they compromised by deciding that slaves could vote but only as half people? (Which seems pretty close to backward)

Nodrog · 4 Jul 2005, 19:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

So we're saying that racist slaveholding oligarchs were utterly morally superior to racist imperialist oligarchs?

Yes, significantly. I'm not entirely sure why 2 people being racist at a time when pretty much the entire planet was racist negates any further moral comparasions between them.

Yahwe · 4 Jul 2005, 19:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by s|k

But the government that chooses the prime minister is representative of the votes by percentage isn't it? If 20% of the people vote for the green party, then the green party gets 20% of the seats in parliment?

no.

Phang · 4 Jul 2005, 19:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by s|k

But the government that chooses the prime minister is representative of the votes by percentage isn't it? If 20% of the people vote for the green party, then the green party gets 20% of the seats in parliment?

COMPLETELY WRONG. that's proportional representation, which Germany has. England has first past the post, which basically ****s over everyone except the Tories and Labour.

observe:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politi...es/default.stm

s|k · 4 Jul 2005, 19:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phang

there were two ...doohickeys that preceded the Constitution (one from Virginia, one from New Jersey i think); i thought that in one (presumaby the latter) slaves had full voting rights but none in the former, so they compromised by deciding that slaves could vote but only as half people? (Which seems pretty close to backward)

You're right, several attempts had failed before the constitution as we know it came to be accepted. You know more than most Americans about American politics, which just goes to show what miserable state America has decended into.

I find it hard to be a nationalist.

Phang · 4 Jul 2005, 19:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by s|k

You're right, several attempts had failed before the constitution as we know it came to be accepted. You know more than most Americans about American politics, which just goes to show what miserable state America has decended into.

I find it hard to be a nationalist.

technically i'm an American, if that helps

Nusselt · 4 Jul 2005, 19:09

We rule em through the masons anyway.

s|k · 4 Jul 2005, 19:10

Right now in America, being a patriot means that you have coffee cups, plates, t-shirts, neckties, and other gaudy kitsch emblazed with diverse patterns of red and white stripes and some assortment of white stars on a blue background. Americans really have no respect for their own flag, I wonder why some of us are so concerned about people burning that thing when they wholeheartedly piss on it inadvertnly by drinking out of a $1.98 plastic 32 oz monster cup from a 99 cents store that has some vague and tawdry conception of the flag on it.

I doubt that NAZI's would have tolerated a big mac with cheese wrapper with the swazika on it.

Phang · 4 Jul 2005, 19:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Slaveholding states wanted the votes of their slaves to count as being equal to the votes of non-slaves. This would have resulted in them gaining a disproportionate amount of power within the Union. Non-slaving states wanted to limit the power of slave-holding states by not counting the votes of slaves, and a compromise was reached to treat slave votes as being worth 60% of 'normal' votes. Giving slaves full voting rights at this stage would have unquestionably been a bad idea and would have been determental to them in the long run.

i was about to say that surely this would only really be the case if slaves were forced to vote the way of their masters, but then it occured to me that this would almost certainly be the case.

Phang · 4 Jul 2005, 19:10

oh by the way nod (**** the edit button, or the topic), what do you think of wolf parade?

Marilyn Manson · 4 Jul 2005, 19:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

I'm not entirely sure why 2 people being racist at a time when pretty much the entire planet was racist negates any further moral comparasions between them.

Because that's what it boils down to at the fundamental level. There were no significant moral differences between them.

dda · 4 Jul 2005, 19:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

So we're saying that racist slaveholding oligarchs were utterly morally superior to racist imperialist oligarchs?

There is really no basis on which to consider any side in that conflict greatly superior to the other. You must be using some kind of dib-dib-dob system.

But who won the war?

Phang · 4 Jul 2005, 19:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

Because that's what it boils down to at the fundamental level. There were no significant moral differences between them.

BY OUR STANDARDS. with racism and slavery as given, surely a fondness for a generally more equal, fairer, responsibly governed society beats out raw, unadulterated, imperialist greed? (Oh, and for this reason, the America of today vastly loses out to the Europe of today)

Deepflow · 4 Jul 2005, 19:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by s|k

But the government that chooses the prime minister is representative of the votes by percentage isn't it? If 20% of the people vote for the green party, then the green party gets 20% of the seats in parliment? Of course then a coalition would have to be created among the various groups, none of which may have gained a majority, in order to select a prime minister. I still feel that at least the parliment is represenative of the peoples' choice.

no it isnt, and at least once in recent history (92?) the party that won got fewer votes than the party which came 2nd.

Nodrog · 4 Jul 2005, 19:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phang

i was about to say that surely this would only really be the case if slaves were forced to vote the way of their masters, but then it occured to me that this would almost certainly be the case.

I deleted that post because it contained a mistake, I was actually wrong about the 'fine details'. Slaves werent allowed to vote in any case - the issue concerned counting the population of states, which would in turn determine the number of representatives each state got in Congress. Slave states wanted their slaves to count as being full people for this purpose in order to increase their power, while non-slave states didnt want to count slaves at all. The 60% compromise was then reached. Again though, counting slaves as being 'full' people would have increased the power of slave states and would have been a bad idea.

Phang · 4 Jul 2005, 19:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

I deleted that post because it contained a mistake, I was actually wrong about the 'fine details'. Slaves werent allowed to vote in any case - the issue concerned counting the population of states, which would in turn determine the number of representatives each state got in Congress. Slave states wanted their slaves to count as being full people for this purpose in order to increase their power, while non-slave states didnt want to count slaves at all. The 60% compromise was then reached. Again though, counting slaves as being 'full' people would have increased the power of slave states and would have been a bad idea.

ah. okay, you're definitely right in that case.