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 Moon-Crane » Fri Nov 23, 2007 2:46 am

JT the Rightwing American wrote:
Moon-Crane wrote:
I'd assume we consider our own culture as superior because we've lived it, absorbed it, and are trained to want things from within that lifestyle that our culture has developed. It's not necessarily going to look superior to a total outsider from another planet.


To a planetary outsider, wouldn't it be more plausible to assume they would concentrate more on the culture with the most advanced technology - in terms of what would threaten, benefit, or otherwise interest them most?

You'd think so, if that's what floats your own personal boat, but it's not always the case with people, so who knows what a species from another planet might be interested in.

JT the Rightwing American wrote:
Moon-Crane wrote:
JT wrote:multi-culturalism is the best organizing principle of a nation"


Is it not, in principle? Maybe in current practice there are barriers that make it more difficult, but in theory it would be the ideal goal, surely? It's artificially learned differences that cause problems between cultures. They'll merge and evolve in generations to come, as others have in generations past.


I think that is where the confusion is. We in the U.S view our cultural history in terms of what we call a "melting pot", where immigrants with differing initial cultures come together to assimilate into a dominant American culture. They may and do retain elements of their initial culture, but the dominant identifying culture becomes uniquely American. Multi-culturalism, the way most Liberals view it, does not demand or even envisage this melting into an overarching dominant single culture. They somehow think that many separate cultures will somehow just get along. And we must all respect each others cultural norms. Hence letting muslims where head scarves and such in drivers license photos. All this is dysfunctional. Sometimes we refer to this distortion of the melting pot as a "salad bowl" or something like that. Multi-culturalism interpreted this way inevitably leads to the inefficiencies of heterogeneousness and conflict. In the long run, it just won't work.

I can't disagree there. I'd say i see the two differences in my finacee and her brother. She's what they term a 'banana' - yellow on the outside white on the inside - she mainly speaks english, even with cousins, etc - only really conversing in chinese to older family members. She has English friends, eats Western food and is, to all intents and purposes a Westerner. Her brother, however, mainly speaks Chinese; sticks within a small circle of Chinese friends and only makes new friends with people who come from overseas to study here; he prefers to stick to Chinese food and seems to have no desire to be 'Western'. He talks constantly about wanting to go back and work in Hong Kong. Am i wrong to keep telling him to stop simply saying it and actually fook off back there? :lol: He'll soon realise how much harder it is back in Hong Kong than the life he has over here.


JT the Rightwing American wrote:
Moon-Crane wrote:
JT wrote:We should teach the culture of 'Native Americans' as much as dead white European males".

I don't know about as much as, but certainly some background to their peoples' and their role in the history of America's development should be there.

Yes, be there, but not equivalent to that of European/colonist history. There IS a difference in degree of influence to the development of the country. Thats what should dictate degree of academic attention. Libs don't like to here that, but its true.

Again, can't really disagree. The history of European descent is probably more relevant to the majority of US citizens, so it should realistically be the predominant history taught? I'd imagine there's room in further education to specialise in some sort of Native American Indian based study if one is that way inclined?

JT the Rightwing American wrote:
Moon-Crane wrote: Apologise for nothing in history would be my motto. Criticise where you feel appropriate, sure. Celebrate where you feel appropriate. Take neither credit nor blame, though.


Thats ok. It would ok if that would be the case, but libs base their concepts of victim hood and, well, much of the very foundation of their ideology on perceived white/European/American/male wrongs of the past. They are still getting away with it. Political correctness. We are still apologizing (love those "z's" ?). It has seeped into government, law, academia, media, and most other areas of life.


This is, again, where i don't believe that true liberals feel this way. I think a faction of people, with some agenda more complex than simple political correctness, have hijacked the word and allowed the media to destroy the positive connotations of what liberal should mean (again, i'm implying that i don't believe the media, in general, are at all liberal).

Ands the 'z' is fine :wink:
''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 JT the Rightwing American » Fri Nov 23, 2007 7:10 am

Liberal is just a word. I don't know what a 'true' liberal is or is supposed to be. I just know political and social behavior that really gets under my skin is done by those identified - by self or otherwise - as liberal.

As for political discussion web sites, MC, I usually go on forums to argue my ass off with liberals. Especially the liberal ones like in the no-holds barred chat room at http://liberalforum.org/liberalforum/
The tone is very crude though. Not like here. But it can be fun. They let right-wingers like me into this portion of the forum.
For a more conservative forum, I used to go into Bernard Goldberg's message board linked from at http://www.bernardgoldberg.com/
Liberals often go in there to 'challenge' us righties. BTW, I did the logo for the message board there.
As for non-forum political sites, ones like the Libertarian Cato institute at http://www.cato.org/
are worthwhile. BTW, Cato's home page has a pretty good write-up about what their political identification is - discussing the meaning of 'liberal', 'conservative', etc..
JT the Rightwing American
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 1:44 pm

Postby JT the Rightwing American » Fri Nov 23, 2007 7:15 am

Rodge wrote:Hey, hey - :lol: Nice to see JT on his usual great 'form'. I'm sure we've had this discussion in the past; and just to reiterate my answer to the question that started this thread - "Hell no - Jeez, what sort of Dumb-ass question is that anyway"!!!!! :wink:


I agree. What sort of dumb-ass question is this anyway. It's obvious. Yes, America is the greatest country in the history of Earth.
JT the Rightwing American
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 1:44 pm

Postby Moon-Crane » Fri Nov 23, 2007 11:27 am

JT the Rightwing American wrote:Liberal is just a word. I don't know what a 'true' liberal is or is supposed to be. I just know political and social behavior that really gets under my skin is done by those identified - by self or otherwise - as liberal.


Yes, i can see that, i guess. I do see people calling themselves liberal who certainly don't seem to be. They should just call themselves dumb-asses the way they carry on. Mind you, the dumb ass legion would have quite a few from the left and the right.

I guess i just don't see liberal as being the opposite side of the political spectrum from somebody, like yourself, who tends towards 'right wing' views. The 'left' usually gets blanket viewed as liberal, whereas I'm certain you can be liberal and right wing.

To go back to basics, any opposite definition just falls into Utopian/fascist tendencies (great for films, but not really what i see in real life, for the most part, at least) I've seen as many left wingers suggest facist leanings than right, when you boil it down. I think it would be difficult for any politician to be truly liberal, as the mindset for that type of work doesn't marry. They'd all snap your hands off to be given dictator like powers if they could get away with it. Who wouldn't if it really came down to it :wink:

JT the Rightwing American wrote:As for political discussion web sites, MC, I usually go on forums to argue my ass off with liberals. Especially the liberal ones like in the no-holds barred chat room at http://liberalforum.org/liberalforum/
The tone is very crude though. Not like here. But it can be fun. They let right-wingers like me into this portion of the forum.
For a more conservative forum, I used to go into Bernard Goldberg's message board linked from at http://www.bernardgoldberg.com/
Liberals often go in there to 'challenge' us righties. BTW, I did the logo for the message board there.
As for non-forum political sites, ones like the Libertarian Cato institute at http://www.cato.org/
are worthwhile. BTW, Cato's home page has a pretty good write-up about what their political identification is - discussing the meaning of 'liberal', 'conservative', etc..


Thanks JT, I'll chck them out. I assume all these places analyse the ass out of every move the political candidates make, right up to the election result :)

I'm pretty sure it would be worth having a Presidential thread on this site once the proceedings really start to shift along?
''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 JT the Rightwing American » Sat Nov 24, 2007 12:30 am

Moon-Crane wrote: I'm certain you can be liberal and right wing.


In my concept of Left/Right, that would not be the case. Liberal is to the left on the spectrum and Conservative is to the right. The only way I can think of someone like me being generally 'liberal' is if I were to reduce the term down in the sense of it representing someone advocating change to the prevailing paradigm - and believing that the prevailing paradigm is liberal. I do pretty much think that we are in a post-WWII liberal paradigm and that my ilk's views represent a reaction to this. Maybe in that way I am kind of 'Neo-Liberal'. Some people characterize modern Right-wingers as Classical Liberals - as opposed to Modern Liberals. Now, someone can be mostly liberal/left or conservative/right and have views on some issues that are on the other side. Most people are probably this way. I am this way to a limited degree. But most people also seem to clump most of their views on issues somewhere in a recognizably tight 'group' along the spectrum - left, middle, or right.

As for those forums I gave you, just a word of caution. They can get pretty juvenile and crude. You have to pick and choose your discussions and sometimes wade through some crap. Some threads are substantive. The tone can be very rude. There is one poster called 'DeportLiberals'- with whom I usually agree ideologically- who is extremely rapier-tongued. But also funny. Kinda like Ann Coulter but even worse!
JT the Rightwing American
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 1:44 pm

Postby Moon-Crane » Sat Nov 24, 2007 12:46 pm

JT the Rightwing American wrote:
Moon-Crane wrote: I'm certain you can be liberal and right wing.
As for those forums I gave you, just a word of caution. They can get pretty juvenile and crude. You have to pick and choose your discussions and sometimes wade through some crap. Some threads are substantive. The tone can be very rude. There is one poster called 'DeportLiberals'- with whom I usually agree ideologically- who is extremely rapier-tongued. But also funny. Kinda like Ann Coulter but even worse!


hehe thanks, i'll look forward to reading some of those. I'm a big boy, JT. I'll be just fine. I may sometimes feign indignation at some posts, but i've yet to read anything ever that's offended me. I remember back to the real IRC days. I like rude, i can do rude, when needed.

I'm only able to dart in and out at the moment, so hopefully should check those sites on sunday.
''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 Mr Blue Sky » Sat Nov 24, 2007 5:05 pm

JT the Rightwing American wrote:What sort of dumb-ass question is this anyway. It's obvious. Yes, America is the greatest country in the history of Earth.


I was hoping this thread would attract interest from some genuine historians (Hans The German Butler, where are you?) who would frankly laugh at the notion of America with it's relatively short history being the greatest civilisation of all time, especially given Ancient Egypt's list of achievements over a 3000 year period.

Pity I'm not an expert on the issue, or that no historical experts have posted on here to share their knowledge with us all.
"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 Moon-Crane » Sat Nov 24, 2007 8:42 pm

Beer Necessity wrote:I was hoping this thread would attract interest from some genuine historians (Hans The German Butler, where are you?) who would frankly laugh at the notion of America with it's relatively short history being the greatest civilisation of all time, especially given Ancient Egypt's list of achievements over a 3000 year period.


Yeah, but they never sent a man to live outside of the Earth's atmosphere, or even unmanned items, with precision navigation and communications, to fly millions upon millions of miles through the most hostile environment imaginable and still report back data findings - which is a pretty phenomenal achievement when you think about it.

They definitely managed some pretty amazing things, relative to their tech abilities and whatever. But when some people say they could do all of these amazing mathematical and scientific things - without relying on the technology we use nowadays - my answer is, yes, but we created the technology to allow ourselves to do those same things so much more cost/time effectively - with more on top.

I maybe wouldn't class America on it's own, but the Western civilisation in general, of which America plays a massively significant part, can't be beaten, imho.
''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 Mr Blue Sky » Sun Nov 25, 2007 9:41 am

Moon-Crane wrote:
Beer Necessity wrote:I was hoping this thread would attract interest from some genuine historians (Hans The German Butler, where are you?) who would frankly laugh at the notion of America with it's relatively short history being the greatest civilisation of all time, especially given Ancient Egypt's list of achievements over a 3000 year period.


Yeah, but they never sent a man to live outside of the Earth's atmosphere, or even unmanned items, with precision navigation and communications, to fly millions upon millions of miles through the most hostile environment imaginable and still report back data findings - which is a pretty phenomenal achievement when you think about it.

They definitely managed some pretty amazing things, relative to their tech abilities and whatever. But when some people say they could do all of these amazing mathematical and scientific things - without relying on the technology we use nowadays - my answer is, yes, but we created the technology to allow ourselves to do those same things so much more cost/time effectively - with more on top.

I maybe wouldn't class America on it's own, but the Western civilisation in general, of which America plays a massively significant part, can't be beaten, imho.


What you have to appreciate is when Egypt made all its advancements the rest of the world was in hunter/gatherer mode and made no contribution whatsoever to the advancement of civilisation. It could be argued that most, if not all of America's remarkable achievements have been made on the back of earlier discoveries by other civilisations. At the time the Egyptians were true pioneers, as were the Romans.
"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 » Sun Nov 25, 2007 9:43 am

Moon-Crane wrote:we created the technology to allow ourselves to do those same things so much more cost/time effectively


Yes, but virtually everything is based upon earlier systems used by the Egyptians, Romans or Greeks. Refinement is far easier than invention.
"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 Dorset Girl » Sun Nov 25, 2007 9:31 pm

Moon-Crane wrote:I maybe wouldn't class America on it's own, but the Western civilisation in general, of which America plays a massively significant part, can't be beaten, imho.


I would say that's a different question, though:

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


Western civilisation as a whole has a different history than the USA alone.


The 'technology' issue - surely inventions and refinements have built up over time, and have had input from numerous other civilisations. What I mean to say is that, for example, the technology that exists in the USA at present has not been solely developed by America, it is an amalgamation of inventions and refinements from across the world and throughout history.

I wonder what would happen if the impact of any one civilisation - for instance, the Romans - were removed from the equation? How much of our current knowledge and technology relies on 'groundwork' laid by them, or developments they made? I think it's impossible to know.
I know they're only moments... but that's all life is - just a bunch of moments. Molly, in 'Life Stinks'
User avatar
Dorset Girl
 
Posts: 25084
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 8:37 pm
Location: Costa del Dorset

Postby Moon-Crane » Mon Nov 26, 2007 12:32 am

Beer Necessity wrote:It could be argued that most, if not all of America's remarkable achievements have been made on the back of earlier discoveries by other civilisations. At the time the Egyptians were true pioneers, as were the Romans.


I don't think we give ourselves enough credit for the pioneering work of modern times.

We've refined everything that was initially developed by older civilisations - that's progress. We've also created things which weren't even a twinkle of a thought in said old civilisations brains.

I'd be more inclined to believe that the Egyptians and Romans developed their 'pioneering inventions' in the same we as we do, ie. taking the seeds of ideas from previous generations and improving with newly discovered information.
''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 Moon-Crane » Mon Nov 26, 2007 12:51 am

Dorset Girl wrote:
Moon-Crane wrote:I maybe wouldn't class America on it's own, but the Western civilisation in general, of which America plays a massively significant part, can't be beaten, imho.


I would say that's a different question, though:

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


Western civilisation as a whole has a different history than the USA alone.


Western Civilisation is massively influenced, for better and worse, by the United States. If the western civilisation is maybe the greatest civilisation to have lived - and if America is arguably the most dominant influence on that civilisation, then it's possible for America to lay claim to being the greatest nation. I'm not saying it's true, just proving a possibility?

I don't believe the USA has that much of a different history to Western civilisation as a whole - they are a flowering seed of the history of 'the West'.


The 'technology' issue - surely inventions and refinements have built up over time, and have had input from numerous other civilisations. What I mean to say is that, for example, the technology that exists in the USA at present has not been solely developed by America, it is an amalgamation of inventions and refinements from across the world and throughout history.

I wonder what would happen if the impact of any one civilisation - for instance, the Romans - were removed from the equation? How much of our current knowledge and technology relies on 'groundwork' laid by them, or developments they made? I think it's impossible to know.


You answered your own question there. I think most history of invention has proved that the ideas for a particular technology didn't come from one person or type of people, it was a race to who was simply first credited with the invention. If the Romans hadn't 'invented' certain methods and application, other peoples would have - and maybe even a better way in some instances? The Romans maybe have a lot to answer for as well as be praised for, if we could use the old magic crystal ball to see their impact removed?

I'm not sure how much of the development of plastics and polycarbons, for example, has groundwork laid out in the Roman empire, or the Egyptians, etc - but it seems unlikely to be much. There may be common approaches with the application of method in the quest for scientific breakthrough, but that's yet another different argument, i would say?
''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 JT the Rightwing American » Mon Nov 26, 2007 1:46 am

Beer Necessity wrote:
JT the Rightwing American wrote:What sort of dumb-ass question is this anyway. It's obvious. Yes, America is the greatest country in the history of Earth.


I was hoping this thread would attract interest from some genuine historians (Hans The German Butler, where are you?) who would frankly laugh at the notion of America with it's relatively short history being the greatest civilisation of all time, especially given Ancient Egypt's list of achievements over a 3000 year period.

Pity I'm not an expert on the issue, or that no historical experts have posted on here to share their knowledge with us all.


If I were to trust Hans The German Butler's opinions as to somehow being the voice of some 'genuine' expert historian, I would probably give up reading any history. Appeal to false authority. Sorry, that guy just got under my skin a while ago. No matter how much Hans thinks he knows (he thinks he knows a lot, just ask him) or in fact does know, one thing he has proven is that he cannot escape biases and prejudices any better than the rest of us. Furthermore, if you want to solicit these so-called expert opinions to "frankly laugh at the notion of America with it's relatively short history being the greatest civilisation of all time", then aren't you sort of begging the question to begin with?
As for the original question, I would not agree that America's relatively short history precludes it from the title, nor does ancient Egypt's relatively long one give it any extra points. Not in my formulation. I nominate (and elect) the USA based on its general cultural power (technology, government, institutions), ideals, standard of living, and the simple fact that so many people want to live here. I don't give much credit in this context to a civilization doing things like putting thousands of stone blocks into a pyramid shape and developing a library at Alexandria. These things are interesting and noteworthy in the context of the time they were developed. I do give that civilization and others credit for forming the foundation of modern western culture - including the US. In my formulation none of these older cultures would win. It would by necessity be a modern one. So in a way, if you want to look at it that way, its not fair. If the question was something like "In the context of their contemporary worlds, which of Earth's civilizations was greatest", then the issue would be a more difficult one for me.
JT the Rightwing American
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 1:44 pm

Postby Mr Blue Sky » Mon Nov 26, 2007 9:34 am

JT the Rightwing American wrote:If I were to trust Hans The German Butler's opinions as to somehow being the voice of some 'genuine' expert historian, I would probably give up reading any history. Appeal to false authority. Sorry, that guy just got under my skin a while ago. No matter how much Hans thinks he knows (he thinks he knows a lot, just ask him) or in fact does know, one thing he has proven is that he cannot escape biases and prejudices any better than the rest of us. Furthermore, if you want to solicit these so-called expert opinions to "frankly laugh at the notion of America with it's relatively short history being the greatest civilisation of all time", then aren't you sort of begging the question to begin with?


Wow, Hans really did get under your skin didn't he! Whether you like him/agree with him or not he certainly knew his stuff (although the 20th century seemed to be his area of expertise) and I'd hoped he would appear on this thread at some point but sadly it looks like he won't.

As for the original question, I would not agree that America's relatively short history precludes it from the title, nor does ancient Egypt's relatively long one give it any extra points. Not in my formulation. I nominate (and elect) the USA based on its general cultural power (technology, government, institutions), ideals, standard of living, and the simple fact that so many people want to live here. I don't give much credit in this context to a civilization doing things like putting thousands of stone blocks into a pyramid shape and developing a library at Alexandria. These things are interesting and noteworthy in the context of the time they were developed. I do give that civilization and others credit for forming the foundation of modern western culture - including the US. In my formulation none of these older cultures would win. It would by necessity be a modern one. So in a way, if you want to look at it that way, its not fair. If the question was something like "In the context of their contemporary worlds, which of Earth's civilizations was greatest", then the issue would be a more difficult one for me.


Yes, the original question was only phrased that way as it was a direct quote from yourself on another thread and I thought it an interesting enough question to create a poll for. The masses (all 16 of them! :lol: ) would appear to need a little convincing although yourself and MC have put forward very valid arguments. It's possible some people voted 'no' simply because they don't like America, but it's equally possible (as in Cat's case I think) they voted 'yes' simply to be patriotic. Personally I just wanted to read some interesting views from both sides. I personally see the question in the context of the bolded portion of your post. How can you possibly compare America now with Egypt of 5000 years ago? In my humble opinion is HAS to be within the context of their contemporary worlds or it's a false comparison. My point was, and still is, that the ancient Egyptians developed the very basics like mathematics and the first known alphabet without being able to simply 'refine' previous work from other civilisations. There were specific reasons why Egypt could break free from being a scattered hunter-gatherer tribe like everyone else at that time due to the abundance of food available from the Nile. Basically they were the first major civilisation to be able to spend their time on self-development rather than simply having to gather food.

I admit I'm not an expert in this area but I find the whole subject fascinating. Apparently the ancient Egyptians invented the first 365 day calendar and even factored in leap years! They also invented paper and black ink. It's very easy to say 'If they hadn't have invented them, someone else would have' but the fact is they DID invent them and life today without those things would be very hard to imagine.
"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 » Mon Nov 26, 2007 9:41 am

Moon-Crane wrote:
Beer Necessity wrote:It could be argued that most, if not all of America's remarkable achievements have been made on the back of earlier discoveries by other civilisations. At the time the Egyptians were true pioneers, as were the Romans.


I don't think we give ourselves enough credit for the pioneering work of modern times.


I've deliberately shied away from trumpeting Britain's achievements as I didn't want to turn this into an Anglo/US debate, I wanted to look at the bigger historical picture. But yes, Britain's achievements are legion and I think even JT admitted at one point that Britain could claim to be the greatest civilisation because it spawned the greatest nation! I'm inclined to believe he had his tongue planted firmly in his cheek when he wrote that, though. :wink:
"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 Stratman » Tue Nov 27, 2007 5:41 am

I think so, yes. America has come so very far in such a short time, and they are after all the leaders of the freeworld.
User avatar
Stratman
 
Posts: 11077
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 1:00 am
Location: Australia

Postby Mr Blue Sky » Tue Nov 27, 2007 11:12 am

Stratman wrote:I think so, yes. America has come so very far in such a short time, and they are after all the leaders of the freeworld.


Australia's even younger than America in terms of being a developed civilisation, I thought you'd be tooting your own horn!

I always think of Australia as a kind of mini-America. Obviously Aus has less than a tenth of the population of the US but in terms of a nation founded upon the melting pot of imigration they're very similar.
"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 Moon-Crane » Tue Nov 27, 2007 11:49 am

Beer Necessity wrote:
Stratman wrote:I think so, yes. America has come so very far in such a short time, and they are after all the leaders of the freeworld.


Australia's even younger than America in terms of being a developed civilisation, I thought you'd be tooting your own horn!

I always think of Australia as a kind of mini-America. Obviously Aus has less than a tenth of the population of the US but in terms of a nation founded upon the melting pot of imigration they're very similar.


Not really a country thought of as being at the forefront of innovation, though. Sporting prowess, yes, but not the powerhouse of political influence and science/tech innovation that the US/UK is seen as on a world scale? The influence of US/UK policy is quite amazing as a global impact when you think about it - hence the growing 'tensions' around the world, i suppose.

I'd probably think of Australia more along the lines of Canada - seen more in the shadows of the US and UK? (of course, making them less hated too)

The US, UK, Australia, Canada, and probably SA, would make a better union in the world, in terms of trade agreements and mutual help, etc - rather than the UK trying to fit with mainland Europe or the US with the Central/Southern American countries?
''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 Mr Blue Sky » Tue Nov 27, 2007 11:58 am

Moon-Crane wrote:Not really a country thought of as being at the forefront of innovation, though. Sporting prowess, yes, but not the powerhouse of political influence and science/tech innovation that the US/UK is seen as on a world scale? The influence of US/UK policy is quite amazing as a global impact when you think about it - hence the growing 'tensions' around the world, i suppose.

I'd probably think of Australia more along the lines of Canada - seen more in the shadows of the US and UK? (of course, making them less hated too)

The US, UK, Australia, Canada, and probably SA, would make a better union in the world, in terms of trade agreements and mutual help, etc - rather than the UK trying to fit with mainland Europe or the US with the Central/Southern American countries?


Yes, I agree with that. Just to be clear, I wasn't tooting Australia's horn as being amongst the most influential civilisations in history, I just thought Strat might...

I was reading quite a bit about the ASEAN union after your previous comments a few weeks back MC, they certainly look like being the major economic world power by the middle-end of this century.
"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 Moon-Crane » Tue Nov 27, 2007 12:35 pm

Beer Necessity wrote:I was reading quite a bit about the ASEAN union after your previous comments a few weeks back MC, they certainly look like being the major economic world power by the middle-end of this century.


They have potential based on the theories and predicted growths, but in reality there's certainly a lot of potential for disaster, too.
''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 JT the Rightwing American » Sat Dec 01, 2007 6:35 am

Moon-Crane wrote:
I'm likely going to incur the wrath of Cat, but I can't imagine anything worse than Hillary Clinton getting in to power - and that includes the worry i have for someone like Rudy Giuliani finding his way in there.


I haven't heard from Cat since she referenced the balls I had for talking about Hillary's habit of lying in light of Bush's 'lies'. I challenged her on examples of Bush's 'lies', mentioning the WMD's issue. Haven't heard back on it yet.
JT the Rightwing American
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 1:44 pm

Postby Mr Blue Sky » Sun Dec 02, 2007 9:54 am

JT the Rightwing American wrote:
Moon-Crane wrote:
I'm likely going to incur the wrath of Cat, but I can't imagine anything worse than Hillary Clinton getting in to power - and that includes the worry i have for someone like Rudy Giuliani finding his way in there.


I haven't heard from Cat since she referenced the balls I had for talking about Hillary's habit of lying in light of Bush's 'lies'. I challenged her on examples of Bush's 'lies', mentioning the WMD's issue. Haven't heard back on it yet.


You don't think the Bush administration had an agenda for war in the MidEast prior to 9/11?
"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 » Sun Dec 02, 2007 10:05 am

Moon-Crane wrote:I can't imagine anything worse than Hillary Clinton getting in to power - and that includes the worry i have for someone like Rudy Giuliani finding his way in there.


I'm not a big fan of HC as a person, I think she's quite a phoney (there's a surprise for a politician!) but at least she has more liberal policies than her Republican opponents.

It looks like Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama will take the Democrat candidacy, which will be quite exciting as it will be a 'first' either way if and when they ascend to the Presidency. I'm certain one of them will get in, as judging by the last mid-terms there's a real feeling towards kicking the Republicans out in '08.
"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 Stratman » Sun Dec 02, 2007 10:28 am

Beer Necessity wrote:
Moon-Crane wrote:Not really a country thought of as being at the forefront of innovation, though. Sporting prowess, yes, but not the powerhouse of political influence and science/tech innovation that the US/UK is seen as on a world scale? The influence of US/UK policy is quite amazing as a global impact when you think about it - hence the growing 'tensions' around the world, i suppose.

I'd probably think of Australia more along the lines of Canada - seen more in the shadows of the US and UK? (of course, making them less hated too)

The US, UK, Australia, Canada, and probably SA, would make a better union in the world, in terms of trade agreements and mutual help, etc - rather than the UK trying to fit with mainland Europe or the US with the Central/Southern American countries?


Yes, I agree with that. Just to be clear, I wasn't tooting Australia's horn as being amongst the most influential civilisations in history, I just thought Strat might...


My delusion of grandeur can only go so far.

:D
User avatar
Stratman
 
Posts: 11077
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 1:00 am
Location: Australia

PreviousNext

Return to Off Topic Games / Polls / Quizzes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron

© 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.