Frasier Online
home About The Show Episode Guide Merchandise Forum Reviews Gallery Contact

Is America The Greatest Nation In The History Of The Planet?

A forum for any Off Topic Games / Polls / Quizzes. All registered members are able to start their own polls in this forum

Is America the greatest nation in the history of the planet?

Yes
15
29%
No
37
71%
 
Total votes : 52

Postby JT » Wed Feb 27, 2008 7:27 am

Rodge wrote:
JT wrote: Having said that, don't forget we have an awful lot of people winning nobel prizes, have 8 of the 10 top universities in the world, and more.


Sounds very picky, but I've seen you state this before? How can this be when we have 3 in the Top 5 & 4 in the Top 10?? :)


Rank University
1 Harvard University, USA
2 University of Cambridge, UK
2 University of Oxford, UK

2 Yale University, USA
5 Imperial College London, UK
6 Princeton University, USA

7 California Institute of Technology, USA
7 University of Chicago, USA
9 University College London, UK
10 Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA


Thats the ONLY 'poll' that i've seen that has UK universities that well represented. I'm surprised you didn't include the London school of the culinary arts! :wink: The one I reference has 2 in the top 10 - the other 8 of course being American. Even the Chinese government rated world-wide schools this way. They want to know where to send their promising students. I'm afraid, Rodge, that your rankings there are more than just a little Anglo-centric. And that coming from something of an Anglophile here.
Whataya going to tell me next, that England do in fact rank in the top 5 in cuisine?

p.s And this doesn't go into the top 50 or so.
Last edited by JT on Wed Feb 27, 2008 8:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
What fresh hell is this?
JT
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:15 am
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Postby JT » Wed Feb 27, 2008 7:57 am

Mr Blue Sky wrote:
Come on JT, is that the best you can do? :wink:

If Obama had nothing extra about him, why haven't others made it this far before? Is there something unique about this point in history? Or is it just that Obama is an outstanding candidate?


Obama does have something extra about him. He's black (or more precisely half non-caucasian). I'm not saying he doesn't have ingredients that make him an attractive politician above and beyond his symbolism. He's smart, young, articulate and more. But it is the fact that he is a liberal 'minority' that is the acid test as far as his prominence is concerned. Is there something unique about this point in history? Yes. Liberals have been desperate to elect a symbolic 'victim' to the nations highest office from the formative 1960's through liberalism's overreaching modern era. 'Eyes on the prize". Obama meets their criteria as the symbolic golden boy that will give a nominal realization to the liberal establishment's quest to fulfill what they think is both a righteous repudiation of regressive white male conservative oppression and a symbolic victory for liberalism. I think a lot of liberals, ones that have been in the 'movement' for a long time, realize that they have overreached and have been receding in the ebb of the historical tide. I think they feel a liberal 'achievement' such as 'President Obama' would help turn the tide of history back to them - at least symbolically and momentarily. Obama is an outstanding candidate in a sense on the basis of his symbolism and superficial political strengths. Not on the merits, however (maybe later in his career he will be. But given his liberalism, maybe only in political experience and gravitas). Nixon was outstanding on the merits. But not on his symbolism and other superficial political traits (receding cold war conservatism, old boys network, and cold, distant, not-with-it personality).

p.s What about Obama's church in Chicago? Romney had to answer about going to a Mormon ward every Sunday. Mormons are among the most stable and patriotic Americans. What, no desire to know about Obama's church's black-seperatist and/or afro-centric nature? mmmmmmmmm..... :?
What fresh hell is this?
JT
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:15 am
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Postby JT » Wed Feb 27, 2008 8:18 am

Something else, Rodge, thats interesting. The historical trend. In the last 8 years, the U.S has produced nearly 4.5 times as many Nobel winners as the very prolific U.K. Pre-2000, the U.S produced only nearly 2.5 times as many. The U.S has been increasing in it's rate of dominance in achievement throughout the latter half of the 20th century. Just something else to stoke the flames of resentment against the great Satan.

Just to reiterate, I am fan of English historical achievement. But Rodge got me going with the insinuated assertion of a superior British academic system. Blame it on him.
What fresh hell is this?
JT
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:15 am
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Postby Mr Blue Sky » Wed Feb 27, 2008 10:49 am

JT wrote:
Mr Blue Sky wrote:
Come on JT, is that the best you can do? :wink:

If Obama had nothing extra about him, why haven't others made it this far before? Is there something unique about this point in history? Or is it just that Obama is an outstanding candidate?


Obama does have something extra about him. He's black (or more precisely half non-caucasian). I'm not saying he doesn't have ingredients that make him an attractive politician above and beyond his symbolism. He's smart, young, articulate and more. But it is the fact that he is a liberal 'minority' that is the acid test as far as his prominence is concerned. Is there something unique about this point in history? Yes. Liberals have been desperate to elect a symbolic 'victim' to the nations highest office from the formative 1960's through liberalism's overreaching modern era. 'Eyes on the prize". Obama meets their criteria as the symbolic golden boy that will give a nominal realization to the liberal establishment's quest to fulfill what they think is both a righteous repudiation of regressive white male conservative oppression and a symbolic victory for liberalism. I think a lot of liberals, ones that have been in the 'movement' for a long time, realize that they have overreached and have been receding in the ebb of the historical tide. I think they feel a liberal 'achievement' such as 'President Obama' would help turn the tide of history back to them - at least symbolically and momentarily. Obama is an outstanding candidate in a sense on the basis of his symbolism and superficial political strengths. Not on the merits, however (maybe later in his career he will be. But given his liberalism, maybe only in political experience and gravitas). Nixon was outstanding on the merits. But not on his symbolism and other superficial political traits (receding cold war conservatism, old boys network, and cold, distant, not-with-it personality).

p.s What about Obama's church in Chicago? Romney had to answer about going to a Mormon ward every Sunday. Mormons are among the most stable and patriotic Americans. What, no desire to know about Obama's church's black-seperatist and/or afro-centric nature? mmmmmmmmm..... :?


Well, that's a much more satisfying response JT, and there may be a kernel of truth about American Liberals wanting subconsciously to vote for a symbol of US oppression through guilt or whatever. My main point was that if an outstanding candidate like Obama had emerged before he would have got just as far - I think your point about the alleged pro-liberal media bias is a red herring. If it does exist, it has probably always existed (and I've certainly seen my share of right wing bias from Fox News for example) so Obama is in no more an advantageous position than any other black candidate from previous generations. Apart from his obvious advantage of being more articulate, having greater presence and having more vision than any previous black candidate. You may call these superficial traits , but if voters didn't like what he had to say policy-wise he wouldn't have won so many primaries. But to be fair I think you've already conceded that Obama has some extra quality about him that sets him apart so there's no need for me to keep banging on about that.
"You don't turn the other cheek, you slice it."
User avatar
Mr Blue Sky
 
Posts: 21732
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 1:00 am

Postby Mr Blue Sky » Wed Feb 27, 2008 10:56 am

JT wrote:Something else, Rodge, thats interesting. The historical trend. In the last 8 years, the U.S has produced nearly 4.5 times as many Nobel winners as the very prolific U.K. Pre-2000, the U.S produced only nearly 2.5 times as many. The U.S has been increasing in it's rate of dominance in achievement throughout the latter half of the 20th century. Just something else to stoke the flames of resentment against the great Satan.

Just to reiterate, I am fan of English historical achievement. But Rodge got me going with the insinuated assertion of a superior British academic system. Blame it on him.


Hmm, I wonder how many of those are recent immigrants to the US? The US is in such a dominant academic position that the cream of the world's students want to study there. The universities are obviously outstanding but geographically speaking if the top 5 universities were all located in Nepal then THAT country could claim to have the biggest brains. See what I mean? Success breads success, and the US universities have long-established histories of academic success, which will inevitably attract the world's top students. The same is true of Oxford and Cambridge of course, it's not just a point about the US.
"You don't turn the other cheek, you slice it."
User avatar
Mr Blue Sky
 
Posts: 21732
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 1:00 am

Postby Mr Blue Sky » Wed Feb 27, 2008 11:09 am

JT wrote:
Rodge wrote:
JT wrote: Having said that, don't forget we have an awful lot of people winning nobel prizes, have 8 of the 10 top universities in the world, and more.


Sounds very picky, but I've seen you state this before? How can this be when we have 3 in the Top 5 & 4 in the Top 10?? :)


Rank University
1 Harvard University, USA
2 University of Cambridge, UK
2 University of Oxford, UK

2 Yale University, USA
5 Imperial College London, UK
6 Princeton University, USA

7 California Institute of Technology, USA
7 University of Chicago, USA
9 University College London, UK
10 Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA


Thats the ONLY 'poll' that i've seen that has UK universities that well represented. I'm surprised you didn't include the London school of the culinary arts! :wink: The one I reference has 2 in the top 10 - the other 8 of course being American. Even the Chinese government rated world-wide schools this way. They want to know where to send their promising students. I'm afraid, Rodge, that your rankings there are more than just a little Anglo-centric. And that coming from something of an Anglophile here.
Whataya going to tell me next, that England do in fact rank in the top 5 in cuisine?

p.s And this doesn't go into the top 50 or so.


I'm sorry Rodge, but it looks like JT may be right on this one. I did a bit of research and it looks like you got your info from 'The Times Higher Education Supplement (THES) and Quacquarelli Symonds (QS)' which is described by Wikipedia like this: "THES ranking has been criticized by many in the United States and other places in the world as “irrelevant,” “non-representative,” and even “self-promoting” because of using categories that would highly favor British universities. Notably, 2-3 British universities consistently rank among the top five in the world in THES ranking, which are often not even ranked in the top ten according to all other global university rankings (Cambridge University being the exception). The Academic Ranking of World Universities by Shanghai University and the ranking of world universities by Newsweek are generally considered as more respectable and widely recognized."

No doubt that page was written by an American, judging by their spelling of 'favor'. ( :wink: ) here's how that table breaks down:-

Image

Here is the table JT probably got his information from. It's The Academic Ranking of World Universities and is described on Wiki like this:- "The Academic Ranking of World Universities is compiled by Shanghai Jiao Tong University’s Institute of Higher Education and includes major institutes of higher education ranked according to a formula that took into account alumni winning Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals (10 percent), staff winning Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals (20 percent), “highly-cited researchers in 21 broad subject categories” (20 percent), articles published in Nature and Science (20 percent), the Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, and Arts and Humanities Citation Index (20 percent) and the size of the institution (10 percent). The results have been cited by The Economist magazine."

Here's the table:-

Image

Quite interesting to see the difference between the two lists, and that Oxford and Cambridge have been slightly on the slide over the last couple of years. These things tend to be cyclical though, in 5 years time they could both be amongst the world's top 5 again.
"You don't turn the other cheek, you slice it."
User avatar
Mr Blue Sky
 
Posts: 21732
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 1:00 am

Postby Rodge » Wed Feb 27, 2008 7:07 pm

JT wrote:
Rodge wrote:
JT wrote: Having said that, don't forget we have an awful lot of people winning nobel prizes, have 8 of the 10 top universities in the world, and more.


Sounds very picky, but I've seen you state this before? How can this be when we have 3 in the Top 5 & 4 in the Top 10?? :)


Rank University
1 Harvard University, USA
2 University of Cambridge, UK
2 University of Oxford, UK

2 Yale University, USA
5 Imperial College London, UK
6 Princeton University, USA

7 California Institute of Technology, USA
7 University of Chicago, USA
9 University College London, UK
10 Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA


Thats the ONLY 'poll' that i've seen that has UK universities that well represented. I'm surprised you didn't include the London school of the culinary arts! :wink: The one I reference has 2 in the top 10 - the other 8 of course being American. Even the Chinese government rated world-wide schools this way. They want to know where to send their promising students. I'm afraid, Rodge, that your rankings there are more than just a little Anglo-centric. And that coming from something of an Anglophile here.
Whataya going to tell me next, that England do in fact rank in the top 5 in cuisine?

p.s And this doesn't go into the top 50 or so.


OK, I'm willing to concede slightly on the education, but please do not try and compare UK cuisine with American food (sorry, I cannot bring myself to calling it cuisine!). Don't tell me; next there will be a film about some American Rat that goes to France and becomes the best Chef in the country!!! :shock: :wink:
My fine is over £700 !! (",)
Rodge
 
Posts: 5484
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 12:00 am

Postby Rodge » Wed Feb 27, 2008 11:46 pm

JT wrote:Something else, Rodge, thats interesting. The historical trend. In the last 8 years, the U.S has produced nearly 4.5 times as many Nobel winners as the very prolific U.K. Pre-2000, the U.S produced only nearly 2.5 times as many. The U.S has been increasing in it's rate of dominance in achievement throughout the latter half of the 20th century. Just something else to stoke the flames of resentment against the great Satan.

Just to reiterate, I am fan of English historical achievement. But Rodge got me going with the insinuated assertion of a superior British academic system. Blame it on him.
:lol:

So what you are saying is that the USA has finally managed to get the amount of Nobel prize winners when compared with the UK that matches the population ratios? :wink:

Seriously though, in the last 8 years England has become the most hated country in Europe, is it any wonder that since Tony Blair buggered up our international relations (especially in Europe) that the Swedes have suddenly decided not to select English scholars!

Finally, why are the Nobel Prize awards considered a good measure when it comes to intellectual achievements. I do not think the Institutions involved are beyond prejudice & corruption. We should also be careful putting too much weight behind them, otherwise there is the insinuation that women lack achievement considering only 4% of all Laureates have been women! If you don't believe me talk to Doris Lessing?
My fine is over £700 !! (",)
Rodge
 
Posts: 5484
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 12:00 am

Postby JT » Thu Feb 28, 2008 7:43 am

Mr Blue Sky wrote:I think your point about the alleged pro-liberal media bias is a red herring. If it does exist, it has probably always existed (and I've certainly seen my share of right wing bias from Fox News for example)


Its not a red herring at all. To even question its existence is like questioning a right-wing bias among members of the U.S military. And interestingly it has not really always existed. The left-wing take-over of the media was primarily a post WWII thing. If the left had the media during WWII we wouldn't have won the damn war!! Fox news does indeed have a right wing bias. And in a perfect world I would be concerned about that. Same with domination of US radio air. However, the multi-generation fascistic and corrupt dominance of the media by the liberal establishment has been and is (although we're making inroads) so severe and destructive that the little sliver (do you know how relatively small an audience Fox news is?) of the pie that Fox and right radio have is not only completely just but goes further toward promoting justice than any liberal affirmative action program ever could. Right radio starting with Rush Limbaugh, leading to Fox in the '90's, is the product of the end of the so called 'fairness doctrine' in the late '80's. Corrupt, fascistic, disingenuous liberals have been trying to get the 'fairness' act back of late because they are so threatened by the emerging sliver of democratic justice and semblance of balance-of-power in the national institution of public persuasion (or is that the national institution of 'The News'?).

Mr Blue Sky wrote:so Obama is in no more an advantageous position than any other black candidate from previous generations. Apart from his obvious advantage of being more articulate, having greater presence and having more vision than any previous black candidate.


He wouldn't have been elected in, say, 1960 in large part due to racism. So in that sense he is in a more advantageous position. But liberals still try to assert - even if they don't explicitly say it - that it still is 1960!

Mr Blue Sky wrote:You may call these superficial traits , but if voters didn't like what he had to say policy-wise he wouldn't have won so many primaries.


Not so. Many...most of these fainting, hooping, emotional, often young, Obamagasmic party-goers wouldn't have a clue about a policy if it bit them on the ass. They 'feeeeeeeeeeeeel'. They 'swoooooooooooon'. They get the 'vaaaaaaaaaaaaapors'. But policy? Don't ruin the Obama-rama party, man.

Mr Blue Sky wrote:But to be fair I think you've already conceded that Obama has some extra quality about him that sets him apart so there's no need for me to keep banging on about that.


Yes, but don't be mistaken in the non-significance of that 'concession'. These qualities wouldn't persuade me. And chief among these qualities, for the hundredth time, is being black (or more appropriately, only half-Caucasian).
What fresh hell is this?
JT
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:15 am
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Postby JT » Thu Feb 28, 2008 7:54 am

Mr Blue Sky wrote:
JT wrote:Something else, Rodge, thats interesting. The historical trend. In the last 8 years, the U.S has produced nearly 4.5 times as many Nobel winners as the very prolific U.K. Pre-2000, the U.S produced only nearly 2.5 times as many. The U.S has been increasing in it's rate of dominance in achievement throughout the latter half of the 20th century. Just something else to stoke the flames of resentment against the great Satan.

Just to reiterate, I am fan of English historical achievement. But Rodge got me going with the insinuated assertion of a superior British academic system. Blame it on him.


Hmm, I wonder how many of those are recent immigrants to the US? The US is in such a dominant academic position that the cream of the world's students want to study there. The universities are obviously outstanding but geographically speaking if the top 5 universities were all located in Nepal then THAT country could claim to have the biggest brains. See what I mean? Success breads success, and the US universities have long-established histories of academic success, which will inevitably attract the world's top students. The same is true of Oxford and Cambridge of course, it's not just a point about the US.


O.K fine, but still we have to be that attractive IN THE FIRST PLACE to attract these 'foreigners'. Hey, i'm only being defensive (and precisely correct of course) in not only this part of the thread but this topic as a whole. And remember, I respect England (U.K) a lot. I'm a self-professed Anglophile. I respect all achievement and good wherever and who ever. BUT I ABHOR BASELESS, INACCURATE, AMERICA-BASHING AND ANTI-AMERICAN PROPAGANDA DUE TO ENVY, JEALOUSY, OR WHATEVER. Like the bloke who came in and questioned the U.S 'ever inventing really anything of significance' or something like that and then Welshben stating that 'everything that was said has been fact' or something to that effect when I pitched a fit. Un-fricking believable!!!!!
What fresh hell is this?
JT
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:15 am
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Postby JT » Thu Feb 28, 2008 8:00 am

Mr Blue Sky wrote:
JT wrote:
Rodge wrote:
JT wrote: Having said that, don't forget we have an awful lot of people winning nobel prizes, have 8 of the 10 top universities in the world, and more.


Sounds very picky, but I've seen you state this before? How can this be when we have 3 in the Top 5 & 4 in the Top 10?? :)


Rank University
1 Harvard University, USA
2 University of Cambridge, UK
2 University of Oxford, UK

2 Yale University, USA
5 Imperial College London, UK
6 Princeton University, USA

7 California Institute of Technology, USA
7 University of Chicago, USA
9 University College London, UK
10 Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA


Thats the ONLY 'poll' that i've seen that has UK universities that well represented. I'm surprised you didn't include the London school of the culinary arts! :wink: The one I reference has 2 in the top 10 - the other 8 of course being American. Even the Chinese government rated world-wide schools this way. They want to know where to send their promising students. I'm afraid, Rodge, that your rankings there are more than just a little Anglo-centric. And that coming from something of an Anglophile here.
Whataya going to tell me next, that England do in fact rank in the top 5 in cuisine?

p.s And this doesn't go into the top 50 or so.


I'm sorry Rodge, but it looks like JT may be right on this one. I did a bit of research and it looks like you got your info from 'The Times Higher Education Supplement (THES) and Quacquarelli Symonds (QS)' which is described by Wikipedia like this: "THES ranking has been criticized by many in the United States and other places in the world as “irrelevant,” “non-representative,” and even “self-promoting” because of using categories that would highly favor British universities. Notably, 2-3 British universities consistently rank among the top five in the world in THES ranking, which are often not even ranked in the top ten according to all other global university rankings (Cambridge University being the exception). The Academic Ranking of World Universities by Shanghai University and the ranking of world universities by Newsweek are generally considered as more respectable and widely recognized."

No doubt that page was written by an American, judging by their spelling of 'favor'. ( :wink: ) here's how that table breaks down:-

Image

Here is the table JT probably got his information from. It's The Academic Ranking of World Universities and is described on Wiki like this:- "The Academic Ranking of World Universities is compiled by Shanghai Jiao Tong University’s Institute of Higher Education and includes major institutes of higher education ranked according to a formula that took into account alumni winning Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals (10 percent), staff winning Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals (20 percent), “highly-cited researchers in 21 broad subject categories” (20 percent), articles published in Nature and Science (20 percent), the Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, and Arts and Humanities Citation Index (20 percent) and the size of the institution (10 percent). The results have been cited by The Economist magazine."

Here's the table:-

Image

Quite interesting to see the difference between the two lists, and that Oxford and Cambridge have been slightly on the slide over the last couple of years. These things tend to be cyclical though, in 5 years time they could both be amongst the world's top 5 again.


Either way, these points:

1. My mission is to promote truth, fight baseless propaganda, and thereby bring to the U.S the fair laurels that any objective inspection would warrant.

2. I respect the culture and achievements of the U.K. They are all-in-all truly outstanding.

3. Frasier wouldn't care either way, he went to BOTH Harvard and Oxford, and he would let you know about it too!!
What fresh hell is this?
JT
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:15 am
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Postby JT » Thu Feb 28, 2008 8:08 am

Rodge wrote:
JT wrote:Something else, Rodge, thats interesting. The historical trend. In the last 8 years, the U.S has produced nearly 4.5 times as many Nobel winners as the very prolific U.K. Pre-2000, the U.S produced only nearly 2.5 times as many. The U.S has been increasing in it's rate of dominance in achievement throughout the latter half of the 20th century. Just something else to stoke the flames of resentment against the great Satan.

Just to reiterate, I am fan of English historical achievement. But Rodge got me going with the insinuated assertion of a superior British academic system. Blame it on him.
:lol:

So what you are saying is that the USA has finally managed to get the amount of Nobel prize winners when compared with the UK that matches the population ratios? :wink:

Seriously though, in the last 8 years England has become the most hated country in Europe, is it any wonder that since Tony Blair buggered up our international relations (especially in Europe) that the Swedes have suddenly decided not to select English scholars!

Finally, why are the Nobel Prize awards considered a good measure when it comes to intellectual achievements. I do not think the Institutions involved are beyond prejudice & corruption. We should also be careful putting too much weight behind them, otherwise there is the insinuation that women lack achievement considering only 4% of all Laureates have been women! If you don't believe me talk to Doris Lessing?


Precisely!!!! I've been bashing on those Euro-centric, world 'bodies' and their corruption and anti-American agenda's for a while now, and the fight will only get more intense. Look at the peace prize or whatever the hell that stupid liberal thing is called. But come on, any metric you want to use, the U.S of A (and by extension to a lesser degree 'The West') is the Alexandria of today.

And yes, England has been a very intellectual-centric culture, producing a disproportionate number of world-changers and leaders for a long time. All due respect. But it was only a matter of time before the son matured from an impetuous youth into the bigger, smarter offspring and overtook the father. Rise again new World!
Last edited by JT on Thu Feb 28, 2008 8:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
What fresh hell is this?
JT
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:15 am
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Postby JT » Thu Feb 28, 2008 8:13 am

Rodge wrote:
Seriously though, in the last 8 years England has become the most hated country in Europe, is it any wonder that since Tony Blair buggered up our international relations (especially in Europe) that the Swedes have suddenly decided not to select English scholars!


Because y'all actually have one foot and two toes on the European continent and the other three toes somewhere in the Atlantic ocean making a move toward us. Can you imagine the treatment these Euro-snits like Hans Blix and the other UN, EU, etc lib-whacked anti-American's hurl toward the US? Except of course American liberals, who are really French in every way but legal status anyway.
What fresh hell is this?
JT
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:15 am
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Postby Moon-Crane » Thu Feb 28, 2008 11:58 am

JT wrote:Either way, these points:

1. My mission is to promote truth, fight baseless propaganda, and thereby bring to the U.S the fair laurels that any objective inspection would warrant.

2. I respect the culture and achievements of the U.K. They are all-in-all truly outstanding.

3. Frasier wouldn't care either way, he went to BOTH Harvard and Oxford, and he would let you know about it too!!


I think it's irrelevant the order of those Universities to the most extent. What it proves is that the US and UK are still the places where everyone who wants decent prospects, and can afford it, first looks to and respects their system of excellence - even if they publicly do the old "Oo aren't they awful to the rest of the world" with the other jealous sheep.

You beat me to it with the Frasier analogy :P

The US is still, for now, the strongest economy; pretty much does most things right (in spite of any left/right preferences at times); and can continue to lead in innovation and mkae things better for the majority of the world. The UK plays a significant part in it, too. The USA/UK should stick together and they'll be just fine.
''Fire in the hole, Bitch!'' Jesse Pinkman - Breaking Bad

My Top TV
User avatar
Moon-Crane
 
Posts: 20753
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 12:19 pm
Location: Bucks, UK

Postby Rodge » Thu Feb 28, 2008 1:43 pm

JT wrote:
Rodge wrote:
Seriously though, in the last 8 years England has become the most hated country in Europe, is it any wonder that since Tony Blair buggered up our international relations (especially in Europe) that the Swedes have suddenly decided not to select English scholars!


Because y'all actually have one foot and two toes on the European continent and the other three toes somewhere in the Atlantic ocean making a move toward us. Can you imagine the treatment these Euro-snits like Hans Blix and the other UN, EU, etc lib-whacked anti-American's hurl toward the US? Except of course American liberals, who are really French in every way but legal status anyway.


I'm not so sure. I agree that there is a certain dislike of America by the European community, however because the UK has got into bed with the US I feel the European community hate us even more so as it has been seen as a heinous stab in the back? :roll:
My fine is over £700 !! (",)
Rodge
 
Posts: 5484
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 12:00 am

Postby Rodge » Thu Feb 28, 2008 1:56 pm

JT wrote:
Mr Blue Sky wrote:
JT wrote:Something else, Rodge, thats interesting. The historical trend. In the last 8 years, the U.S has produced nearly 4.5 times as many Nobel winners as the very prolific U.K. Pre-2000, the U.S produced only nearly 2.5 times as many. The U.S has been increasing in it's rate of dominance in achievement throughout the latter half of the 20th century. Just something else to stoke the flames of resentment against the great Satan.

Just to reiterate, I am fan of English historical achievement. But Rodge got me going with the insinuated assertion of a superior British academic system. Blame it on him.


Hmm, I wonder how many of those are recent immigrants to the US? The US is in such a dominant academic position that the cream of the world's students want to study there. The universities are obviously outstanding but geographically speaking if the top 5 universities were all located in Nepal then THAT country could claim to have the biggest brains. See what I mean? Success breads success, and the US universities have long-established histories of academic success, which will inevitably attract the world's top students. The same is true of Oxford and Cambridge of course, it's not just a point about the US.


O.K fine, but still we have to be that attractive IN THE FIRST PLACE to attract these 'foreigners'. Hey, i'm only being defensive (and precisely correct of course) in not only this part of the thread but this topic as a whole. And remember, I respect England (U.K) a lot. I'm a self-professed Anglophile. I respect all achievement and good wherever and who ever. BUT I ABHOR BASELESS, INACCURATE, AMERICA-BASHING AND ANTI-AMERICAN PROPAGANDA DUE TO ENVY, JEALOUSY, OR WHATEVER. Like the bloke who came in and questioned the U.S 'ever inventing really anything of significance' or something like that and then Welshben stating that 'everything that was said has been fact' or something to that effect when I pitched a fit. Un-fricking believable!!!!!


It is such a difficult topic of conversation really. I think the key area of my concern when it comes to the US is the arrogance, and yes if you are the best you have a right to be arrogant; but at the same time if you are the best, you shouldn't need to blow your own trumpet, as the facts speak for themselves. I'm sure you will argue this point vehemently, but why is it that everything the US imports has to be Americanised before it gets to go mainstream, where as when it exports it has to remain fully Americanised? :?
My fine is over £700 !! (",)
Rodge
 
Posts: 5484
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 12:00 am

Postby JT » Thu Feb 28, 2008 4:56 pm

Rodge wrote:
JT wrote:
Rodge wrote:
Seriously though, in the last 8 years England has become the most hated country in Europe, is it any wonder that since Tony Blair buggered up our international relations (especially in Europe) that the Swedes have suddenly decided not to select English scholars!


Because y'all actually have one foot and two toes on the European continent and the other three toes somewhere in the Atlantic ocean making a move toward us. Can you imagine the treatment these Euro-snits like Hans Blix and the other UN, EU, etc lib-whacked anti-American's hurl toward the US? Except of course American liberals, who are really French in every way but legal status anyway.


I'm not so sure. I agree that there is a certain dislike of America by the European community, however because the UK has got into bed with the US I feel the European community hate us even more so as it has been seen as a heinous stab in the back? :roll:


Yes, and like Francois Mitterand said, "Most people in France do not realize it, but we are at war with the United States". France has a cultural tradition of not winning wars on the battlefield, why should we loose to a country that is trying to hide behind the more-powerful facade of the EU to poke at us?
What fresh hell is this?
JT
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:15 am
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Postby JT » Thu Feb 28, 2008 5:02 pm

Rodge wrote:
JT wrote:
Mr Blue Sky wrote:
JT wrote:Something else, Rodge, thats interesting. The historical trend. In the last 8 years, the U.S has produced nearly 4.5 times as many Nobel winners as the very prolific U.K. Pre-2000, the U.S produced only nearly 2.5 times as many. The U.S has been increasing in it's rate of dominance in achievement throughout the latter half of the 20th century. Just something else to stoke the flames of resentment against the great Satan.

Just to reiterate, I am fan of English historical achievement. But Rodge got me going with the insinuated assertion of a superior British academic system. Blame it on him.


Hmm, I wonder how many of those are recent immigrants to the US? The US is in such a dominant academic position that the cream of the world's students want to study there. The universities are obviously outstanding but geographically speaking if the top 5 universities were all located in Nepal then THAT country could claim to have the biggest brains. See what I mean? Success breads success, and the US universities have long-established histories of academic success, which will inevitably attract the world's top students. The same is true of Oxford and Cambridge of course, it's not just a point about the US.


O.K fine, but still we have to be that attractive IN THE FIRST PLACE to attract these 'foreigners'. Hey, i'm only being defensive (and precisely correct of course) in not only this part of the thread but this topic as a whole. And remember, I respect England (U.K) a lot. I'm a self-professed Anglophile. I respect all achievement and good wherever and who ever. BUT I ABHOR BASELESS, INACCURATE, AMERICA-BASHING AND ANTI-AMERICAN PROPAGANDA DUE TO ENVY, JEALOUSY, OR WHATEVER. Like the bloke who came in and questioned the U.S 'ever inventing really anything of significance' or something like that and then Welshben stating that 'everything that was said has been fact' or something to that effect when I pitched a fit. Un-fricking believable!!!!!


It is such a difficult topic of conversation really. I think the key area of my concern when it comes to the US is the arrogance, and yes if you are the best you have a right to be arrogant; but at the same time if you are the best, you shouldn't need to blow your own trumpet, as the facts speak for themselves. I'm sure you will argue this point vehemently, but why is it that everything the US imports has to be Americanised before it gets to go mainstream, where as when it exports it has to remain fully Americanised? :?


This maybe really gets at the fundamental differences between us, Rodge. US 'arrogance'. O.K, but the US, as a superpower, is in a historical context the most introspective, most 'open-minded (to a neurotic fault) behemoth to exist on Earth.

Rodge wrote:yes if you are the best you have a right to be arrogant; but at the same time if you are the best, you shouldn't need to blow your own trumpet, as the facts speak for themselves.


Yes, yes,yes, but when people like the 'Have Americans invented anything of use' guy and Welshben distort, misrepresent, and deny facts that SHOULD speak for themselves, it requires the likes of me to get angry and set things straight. And this is not an isolated thing. Liberals (almost synonymous with anti-American) have made it a movement.
What fresh hell is this?
JT
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:15 am
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Postby JT » Thu Feb 28, 2008 5:05 pm

Rodge wrote:why is it that everything the US imports has to be Americanised before it gets to go mainstream, where as when it exports it has to remain fully Americanised? :?


Probably just the natural consequence of being a dominant cultural hegemon.
What fresh hell is this?
JT
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:15 am
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Postby Hans the German Butler » Thu Feb 28, 2008 5:19 pm

JT wrote:
Rodge wrote:why is it that everything the US imports has to be Americanised before it gets to go mainstream, where as when it exports it has to remain fully Americanised? :?


Probably just the natural consequence of being a dominant cultural hegemon.


Is that something akin to a Pokemon, but with slightly bushier hair? :wink:
ROZ: It's not like she worships the Devil
FRASIER: She doesn't need to, he worships her!
Hans the German Butler
 
Posts: 1299
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2006 4:54 pm
Location: Liverpool

Postby Rodge » Thu Feb 28, 2008 11:49 pm

JT wrote:
Rodge wrote:why is it that everything the US imports has to be Americanised before it gets to go mainstream, where as when it exports it has to remain fully Americanised? :?


Probably just the natural consequence of being a dominant cultural hegemon.


:lol: :lol:

I love the irony of describing America utilising a concept coined by a Marxist philosopher!! :D

Oh and just remember being a dominant hegemon is not always a good thing; Budweiser is hegemonic when it comes to beer :shock:
My fine is over £700 !! (",)
Rodge
 
Posts: 5484
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 12:00 am

Postby Rodge » Thu Feb 28, 2008 11:51 pm

Hans the German Butler wrote:
JT wrote:
Rodge wrote:why is it that everything the US imports has to be Americanised before it gets to go mainstream, where as when it exports it has to remain fully Americanised? :?


Probably just the natural consequence of being a dominant cultural hegemon.


Is that something akin to a Pokemon, but with slightly bushier hair? :wink:


Hey, Hey - Sonic the hegemonic! (That is actually quite apt!! - or is Mario more dominant)
My fine is over £700 !! (",)
Rodge
 
Posts: 5484
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 12:00 am

Postby Rodge » Fri Feb 29, 2008 12:16 am

JT wrote:But it was only a matter of time before the son matured from an impetuous youth into the bigger, smarter offspring and overtook the father. Rise again new World!


Maybe that "Son" is rising from the East?? I see India, China & Japan as the next "new World"
My fine is over £700 !! (",)
Rodge
 
Posts: 5484
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 12:00 am

Postby JT » Fri Feb 29, 2008 7:59 am

Hans the German Butler wrote:
JT wrote:
Rodge wrote:why is it that everything the US imports has to be Americanised before it gets to go mainstream, where as when it exports it has to remain fully Americanised? :?


Probably just the natural consequence of being a dominant cultural hegemon.


Is that something akin to a Pokemon, but with slightly bushier hair? :wink:


Exactly.
What fresh hell is this?
JT
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:15 am
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Postby JT » Fri Feb 29, 2008 8:01 am

Rodge wrote:
JT wrote:But it was only a matter of time before the son matured from an impetuous youth into the bigger, smarter offspring and overtook the father. Rise again new World!


Maybe that "Son" is rising from the East?? I see India, China & Japan as the next "new World"


True, except that I don't think the East will replace the West. The globe is, well, becoming more global all the time. The world will continue to march toward more homogeneity and more even development.
What fresh hell is this?
JT
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:15 am
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

PreviousNext

Return to Off Topic Games / Polls / Quizzes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests


© Site contents are copyright Stuart Lee 1999 - 2020. This is a Frasier fan site and is not affiliated in any way with the program, Grub St Productions, Paramount or NBC.