Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: colecampbell666 on May 08, 2008, 08:11:08 pm
-
http://www.thestar.com/article/422864
She has been rehired, but still pretty retarded.
-
http://www.thestar.com/article/422864
She has been rehired, but still pretty retarded.
By retarded, are you referring to her actions, or the Tim Horton's firing her?
-
Just more bull**** that inhabits our world. Nothing to see here *moves to next thread*
-
3 words i got to say...
IDIOTS IN COMMAND!!!!!!
-
It's the PRINCIPLE of the thing man!
-
Abusive power idiots in command?
-
3 words i got to say...
IDIOTS IN COMMAND!!!!!!
Abusive power idiots in command?
Wonder if they know Terran Command?
-
LOL, great PR work there :yes:
Easily beats this: http://www.timhortons.com/en/goodwill/local-programs.html#6
-
Tim Hortons has gone downhill since it was bought by Wendy's. It should have stayed Canadian. But I still love the chain :)
-
I Remember reading about this the other day in the morning paper. Pretty ridiculous stuff going on in this country.
-
You should see this country...
-
Your fault. (I mean Americans in general)
-
Your fault. (I mean Americans in general)
The actions of a few individuals does not reflect the behaviors of that of an entire nation (especially one that has a population exceeding 300 million), and you would be quite stupid to believe it did.
-
Your fault. (I mean Americans in general)
That, of course, being assumed from knowledge already known about most stupid Americans.
Don't get me wrong. Most (well, almost) of the Americans I know are really great guys.
-
Your fault. (I mean Americans in general)
The actions of a few individuals does not reflect the behaviors of that of an entire nation (especially one that has a population exceeding 300 million), and you would be quite stupid to believe it did.
I'm saying that it's your fault for ****ing up your country, who else's would it be?
And yes, Americans are great people.
-
At least we Americans aren't like those up there in can-o-duh.
/me runs away.
-
Yeah. Well. We have Medicare :P
-
And softwood lumber. :p
-
You two missed the mark: we have oil. Be nice to us, mmmkay?
=)
-
And we have ATi. (which isn't much to brag about ATM)
-
Your fault. (I mean Americans in general)
The actions of a few individuals does not reflect the behaviors of that of an entire nation (especially one that has a population exceeding 300 million), and you would be quite stupid to believe it did.
I'm saying that it's your fault for ****ing up your country, who else's would it be?
And yes, Americans are great people.
Oh I get it: steryotyping! Because every single person in America must have the same opinions of society and public policy!
-
Your fault. (I mean Americans in general)
The actions of a few individuals does not reflect the behaviors of that of an entire nation (especially one that has a population exceeding 300 million), and you would be quite stupid to believe it did.
I'm saying that it's your fault for ****ing up your country, who else's would it be?
And yes, Americans are great people.
Oh I get it: steryotyping! Because every single person in America must have the same opinions of society and public policy!
Funny thing about America: It's so big that almost anything could be said about it and the former is most likely equally as true.
-
I'd say it's an attitude that is spreading to be honest, not just limited to the US. Corporations in general are becoming greedier and more draconian, and the governments are too deeply in their pockets to do anything effective about them.
Look at lobbying, one of the most downright insane political concepts I've ever seen in my life.. 'I give you treats, you give us the law we want.'. I'm pretty sure that no countries founders really intended for their great dream of a new land to end up with its morals being sold to the highest bidder.
-
It's not stereotyping if Bush needed a majority vote to get in. In other words, the majority of Americans were stupid in that case. Christ, what's on your back?
-
Christ, what's on your back?
Did you just insult a mega mod™?
-
No, I didn't insult anyone. What I did was asked sizzler what his problem was.
-
It's not stereotyping if Bush needed a majority vote to get in. In other words, the majority of Americans were stupid in that case. Christ, what's on your back?
Tell that to the ~45% of the US population who didn't vote for him, the ~70% of the US population that doesn't approve of him, and all of the minors that can't vote.
In case you didn't know, 45% of 300 million is quite large, and you're making a huge over-generalization based on somewhat inaccurate facts here.
And a majority vote is not necessary for a person to be elected president. In the popular vote, which is what you seem to be hinting at, as opposed to electoral collage, at least.
And holy ****, shut up about "not insulting anyone". Of course you're insulting people. You're insulting me, for one, and in addition to that, the entire populace of America. I won't say that America is perfect, because it is most definitly not, but that doesn't give you the right to go shouting at everyone who's American like you are.
-
It may be a stupid country... but it's our stupid country... kind of...
-
To say that a Democracy "belongs" to anyone is really quite incorrect. America belongs to its people as much as a train belongs to its passangers.
-
It's not stereotyping if Bush needed a majority vote to get in. In other words, the majority of Americans were stupid in that case. Christ, what's on your back?
Turnout: not total.
Was actually a majority of those who did show up: questionable.
-
Let's examine this here. A group of people elect someone to represent them, but get pissed off when they get called on the **** that representative does? Yeah, that makes a whole bunch of sense.
You can try to play it down by saying there was voting fraud or there's still a good number of people that voted for other people, but the fact remains that the people in charge were legally elected to represent the people of the United States. So don't go acting all hurt when you catch some flak. Were it an authoritarian regime or dictatorship? Not your problem, you're not to blame. But it's a democracy, or close enough at any rate. The actions of leaders in a democracy follow the dictates of the people, that's why it's a democracy. Therefore, that makes the people as much responsible as the men in charge.
-
You can try to play it down by saying there was voting fraud or there's still a good number of people that voted for other people, but the fact remains that the people in charge were legally elected to represent the people of the United States.
Actually, that's kind of debateable after all the recounts were in from Florida, y'know.
-
http://www.thestar.com/article/422864
She has been rehired, but still pretty retarded.
she gave food away, when she knew she wasn't allowed to.
what's retarded about it? - the AMOUNT of food she gave away?
it doesn't matter if you steal a car, or steal 100 cars, you're STILL STEALING.
-
Let's examine this here. A group of people elect someone to represent them, but get pissed off when they get called on the **** that representative does? Yeah, that makes a whole bunch of sense.
You can try to play it down by saying there was voting fraud or there's still a good number of people that voted for other people, but the fact remains that the people in charge were legally elected to represent the people of the United States. So don't go acting all hurt when you catch some flak. Were it an authoritarian regime or dictatorship? Not your problem, you're not to blame. But it's a democracy, or close enough at any rate. The actions of leaders in a democracy follow the dictates of the people, that's why it's a democracy. Therefore, that makes the people as much responsible as the men in charge.
Let's look at it this way now: As a minor, I have no rights guaranteed to me by the Bill of Rights, and I can't vote. Since I'm not a rich lobbyist either, I have no say in our government whatsoever. Is it my problem?
Now, let's say that a person doesn't like the way a government is being run. Is there anything he can do about it? No. Now let's say there's 120 million people who agree with him. Can they do anything about it? Not really. Let's say that 70% of the people in the country disapprove of a president. Still nothing being done. Let's say that only ~20% of the eligible population voted in the primaries. Are you going to blame the 80% of the people who didn't vote, who didn't have a say in their government? You can't say "oh, they could've voted, blame them" because the fact is they didn't vote and nothing will change that. You can't blame anyone in this situation because 1) "Abstaining" is a legitimate vote, which is what they essentially did. 2) Blaming accomplishes nothing. 3) Even if they did vote, it's not a guarantee that the results wouldn't have been different, or for that matter better. Too many unknowns.
On top of that, nothing is ever unanimous in America. A one percent difference in the population is over one million people, for christ's sake, you can't blame an entire nation including the million people who had the right idea for the problem.
Blaming people only makes the problem worse in 90% of the cases.
-
she gave food away, when she knew she wasn't allowed to.
what's retarded about it? - the AMOUNT of food she gave away?
it doesn't matter if you steal a car, or steal 100 cars, you're STILL STEALING.
Steal a car?
Lilliman, who has worked at the store for three years, said she thought little of the incident since Timbits are often doled out to dogs and children.
The reaction was ridiculously out of proportion in this case.
-
Let's say that 70% of the people in the country disapprove of a president. Still nothing being done. Let's say that only ~20% of the eligible population voted in the primaries. Are you going to blame the 80% of the people who didn't vote, who didn't have a say in their government?
**** yes I'm going to blame them.
Ever heard the phrase "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil, is for good men to do nothing"?
It appears however that you wish to say that people shouldn't be blamed for doing nothing even though in your own example 50% of the country did **** all to prevent a president they disapprove of from getting power. Even though all that was required was for them to get up off their fat arses and vote.
You can't say "oh, they could've voted, blame them" because the fact is they didn't vote and nothing will change that.
**** yes I can. Are you seriously trying to claim that no one should ever be held responsible for actions they failed to take? Even when warned that they should do something?
You can't blame anyone in this situation because 1) "Abstaining" is a legitimate vote, which is what they essentially did.
So? It's legal, yes. But no one is claiming that the American public acted illegally. The point being made is that by their action or inaction the electorate of the US acted stupidly in electing GW Bush.
2) Blaming accomplishes nothing.
Not if it results in the idiots who abstained and then complained about the results actually getting off their fat arses and voting next time.
3) Even if they did vote, it's not a guarantee that the results wouldn't have been different, or for that matter better. Too many unknowns.
Which isn't actually much of a point at all. Either they wouldn't have voted for Bush or they would have. If they had your country would have been viewed as even more stupid than it currently is. If they hadn't then the world would have thought "Maybe those American aren't quite as idiotic as we thought" But instead they did nothing. And in this case doing nothing was stupid.
-
http://www.thestar.com/article/422864
She has been rehired, but still pretty retarded.
No, they (are allowed by Tim Hortons Inc.) give these things to dogs.
she gave food away, when she knew she wasn't allowed to.
what's retarded about it? - the AMOUNT of food she gave away?
it doesn't matter if you steal a car, or steal 100 cars, you're STILL STEALING.
No, they (are allowed by Tim Hortons Inc.) give these things to dogs.
And Christ, the intention was not to insult anyone, sorry if it did.
-
Let's say that 70% of the people in the country disapprove of a president. Still nothing being done. Let's say that only ~20% of the eligible population voted in the primaries. Are you going to blame the 80% of the people who didn't vote, who didn't have a say in their government?
**** yes I'm going to blame them.
Ever heard the phrase "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil, is for good men to do nothing"?
It appears however that you wish to say that people shouldn't be blamed for doing nothing even though in your own example 50% of the country did **** all to prevent a president they disapprove of from getting power. Even though all that was required was for them to get up off their fat arses and vote.
You can't say "oh, they could've voted, blame them" because the fact is they didn't vote and nothing will change that.
**** yes I can. Are you seriously trying to claim that no one should ever be held responsible for actions they failed to take? Even when warned that they should do something?
You can't blame anyone in this situation because 1) "Abstaining" is a legitimate vote, which is what they essentially did.
So? It's legal, yes. But no one is claiming that the American public acted illegally. The point being made is that by their action or inaction the electorate of the US acted stupidly in electing GW Bush.
2) Blaming accomplishes nothing.
Not if it results in the idiots who abstained and then complained about the results actually getting off their fat arses and voting next time.
3) Even if they did vote, it's not a guarantee that the results wouldn't have been different, or for that matter better. Too many unknowns.
Which isn't actually much of a point at all. Either they wouldn't have voted for Bush or they would have. If they had your country would have been viewed as even more stupid than it currently is. If they hadn't then the world would have thought "Maybe those American aren't quite as idiotic as we thought" But instead they did nothing. And in this case doing nothing was stupid.
Most are understandable and somewhat logical responses, so I'll just elaborate on some previously unspoken thoughts:
First off, voting people voting specific leaders into office isn't the primary cause of America's ill situation. Once elected to office, politicians don't have to keep to what they campaigned for. In fact, given their relatively invisible individual work within the chambers, senators and representatives are pretty much forgotten about weeks after election. The fact is no one really knows specifics about the behaviors of the senators and reps. unless they watch C-SPAN or some show like that, and I doubt that even some of the smartest people watch that channel regularly.
Right now the extreme majority of politicians in the US are either very right handed or very left handed (referring to the political spectrum), however, most voters are themselves moderate. This is where the main friction is created between government and population, which I'll explain why: You can vote for your leaders in the US. Strictly on the federal level, you got representatives, senators, and the president. Unfortunately, as stated earlier, most politicians do not share most of the same opinions as the voters.
On top of all of this, there is the things unaccounted for during elections - lobbyists. Sure, we can get a bit of a taste of how some people will act during debates and similar events, but that still doesn't purely correlate to what they will do once elected as a rep/senator/president.
In short:
1) Once elected to office, politicians aren't obligated to any promises they made while campaigning.
2) There really is a shortage of good politicians/leaders, at least in recent years.
3) Moderate candidates (and thus ones that more accurately represent the citizens) for office are more often than not independent, and only take away votes from similar candidates that are in one of the two major parties.
4) Lobbyists and other contributions to candidates in return for a chunk of public policy skew the otherwise good intentions of many congressmen.
-
While I agree with some of your points I wasn't talking about congressmen and senators but about the (re)election of Bush. You can not claim that Bush was an unknown quantity in 2004. You can't claim that the people who voted for him couldn't have known his position on the major talking points. Yet still 55m Americans voted for him.
What makes this even funnier is their constant claim "Well Kerry wasn't any better" as if the fact they know that their candidate was a stupid wanker makes it any smarter to vote for him instead of another candidate they feel was equally bad.
-
Most people I know during the Bush / Kerry election decided to stick with the devil they knew, rather than vote for Kerry, who very possibly would have been worse.
And I notice you brits don't have the best taste in leaders either, they tend to blindly follow ours.
-
I never said that the British electorate weren't idiots for picking Tony Blair but if you understand the political system over here you'll realise that it isn't quite as cut and dried as it seems. Blair would have lost a presidential election. But in the UK the prime minister is the head of the party that gets the most votes. Apart from 50,000 people in the Sedgefield constituency no one can vote directly for or against him. Not to mention that it was widely accepted that Blair would be going some time soon after the election (it was only 5 days later that the party made the first attempt to get rid of him in fact).
It has often been said that Labour won the last election despite Tony Blair rather than because of him.
On the other hand there is nothing preventing Americans voting in a republican congress and a democratic president. Americans get to vote for the person they think would do the best job. And the majority thought that was Bush. And before you get onto the whole "Maybe Kerry would be worse" argument try to remember who put Kerry in the position of challenger? Oh yes, the 50m or so Americans NOT dumb enough to vote for Bush. :p
-
why does this always derail into a political debate? ;)
-
Yeah isn't there anything interesting happening on the other side of the world? :p
-
IDIOTS IN COMMAND!!!
had to say it again.
During the last presidential election since i'm of voting age over here in the US, i found it quite difficult to vote for someone as opposed to voting for my states new governor. My parents are ultimate die hard republicans and when i didn't want to vote for a governor because i didn't know **** about either of the candidates or the system here in alaska when i was 18, my mother resorted to lecturing me about all the lives of babies that are going to be lost (republicans oppose abortion). Overly exxagerated from my mom, i just went ahead and voted for my parents preferenced governor candidate since i figured they at least knew a lot about the candidates and want to get the ass hole elected for a benefit of opposing abortion. My first voting experience was sure a peer pressure thing, i'm not going to let that happen again.
Little story aside. The voting got even more difficult since i at paid attention to the bush vs. kerry debates. Then i knew a lot of stuff. Stick with the last bad president or vote for the middleman who wants to please everybody (pleasing everybody and unable to take a stance on anything...it was kerry). I just didn't vote. I really didn't see any benefit voting for either one. Bush was going to win anyway which was pretty obvious to everybody given the american war situation and crap alternative president. Which equal valued evil should you vote for?
I'm really hoping the next elections go better. Then again, getting ****ed up candidates may be happening again. Obama vs. Hillary? I really don't know on this one yet :lol: Why can't we get like another raegan, lincoln, john adams, or thomas jefferson?
-
You could have voted for Nader. :p
I suspect that if everyone who has claimed that they didn't see much difference between Kerry and Bush had voted Nader he'd be president right now. Republicans seem to be lining up to say that they didn't want to vote for Bush but only did cause they didn't like Kerry either.
-
It's just funny how the republicans took over the senate and congress when bush jr. got elected. And that ended up being a really bad thing and since my parents are die hard republicans they act like there's nothing bad going on while everyone else slowly finds out that it would have been better if the democrats kept power. I hate mindless party supporters!!! It is really sad to see also that one party wants to dominate the senate and congress for no other purpose than for dominating american politics. Then once the domination is in control, the "um what?" situation occurs.
-
I have argued with someone from the UK about something, and after a while they asked if I was from the USA. When I said yes, they replied with the following:
Josh: OMFG
Josh: It all makes sense now
Josh: People from the US are very stupid
Blackhole: So... i'm stupid?
Josh: Odds say yes
Go on. Tell me I'm stupid because I'm a minor, have no voting rights, can't control who runs my country, but live in the USA. Tell me I'm stupid because I'm surrounded by idiotic religious ****tards. Tell me I'm stupid so you can WIN AN ARGUMENT based entirely on the fact that I'm from America and therefore my opinion is meaningless.
I'm sorry, but thats just a little offensive. Enough with all this anti-american ****, we aren't living in the middle east here, or are the UKers going to start burning american flags too?
-
I never said that the British electorate weren't idiots for picking Tony Blair but if you understand the political system over here you'll realise that it isn't quite as cut and dried as it seems. Blair would have lost a presidential election. But in the UK the prime minister is the head of the party that gets the most votes. Apart from 50,000 people in the Sedgefield constituency no one can vote directly for or against him. Not to mention that it was widely accepted that Blair would be going some time soon after the election (it was only 5 days later that the party made the first attempt to get rid of him in fact).
It has often been said that Labour won the last election despite Tony Blair rather than because of him.
On the other hand there is nothing preventing Americans voting in a republican congress and a democratic president. Americans get to vote for the person they think would do the best job. And the majority thought that was Bush. And before you get onto the whole "Maybe Kerry would be worse" argument try to remember who put Kerry in the position of challenger? Oh yes, the 50m or so Americans NOT dumb enough to vote for Bush. :p
What you need to understand about American politics is that every faction in it believes all the other factions are completely and utterly stupid. No one really wants to get rid of the Electoral College because it theoretically prevents the American populous from doing something Incredibly StupidTM. Not that it works, but it makes it really hard to just get rid of.
You can say "realise that it isn't quite as cut and dried as it seems" but in the end, isn't that true everywhere? If you can't change your political in the UK enough to actually vote for someone other than a man who's about to get fired, then your political system really is screwed up.
I'm not saying Britain is a horrible country, I'm just saying that you all are ones to talk about how stupid we are in this country for voting in ****ty leaders. Because we all have ****ty leaders from time to time. It's just at the time Bush was elected in, a bad leader had the potential to cause a lot of damage, and so Bush did.
When I looked at the lineup of Democratic candidates that year (not that it helped, since I was a minor, in Colorado) John Kerry was, quite literally, at the bottom of my list, because I couldn't figure out what he stood for, at all. Howard Dean only ruined his chances for excess being excessively exuberant... so we ended up with Kerry. Maybe Kerry was worse... because he didn't even know what he was going to do.
Go on. Tell me I'm stupid because I'm a minor, have no voting rights, can't control who runs my country, but live in the USA. Tell me I'm stupid because I'm surrounded by idiotic religious ****tards. Tell me I'm stupid so you can WIN AN ARGUMENT based entirely on the fact that I'm from America and therefore my opinion is meaningless.
I'm sorry, but thats just a little offensive. Enough with all this anti-american ****, we aren't living in the middle east here, or are the UKers going to start burning american flags too?
Those are dangerous thoughts. You can't go around assuming a country's entire population are the bad guys just because the loud people from those countrys are calling us stupid. By doing that you're guilty of the same sort of over-classification. Instead hold tight, wait until you can vote, and in the mean time prove them wrong.
-
Go on. Tell me I'm stupid because I'm a minor, have no voting rights, can't control who runs my country, but live in the USA. Tell me I'm stupid because I'm surrounded by idiotic religious ****tards. Tell me I'm stupid so you can WIN AN ARGUMENT based entirely on the fact that I'm from America and therefore my opinion is meaningless.
I'm sorry, but thats just a little offensive. Enough with all this anti-american ****, we aren't living in the middle east here, or are the UKers going to start burning american flags too?
Those are dangerous thoughts. You can't go around assuming a country's entire population are the bad guys just because the loud people from those countrys are calling us stupid. By doing that you're guilty of the same sort of over-classification. Instead hold tight, wait until you can vote, and in the mean time prove them wrong.
You forgot the part where when he can vote, his votes get canceled out by the portion of the US population that is genuinely stupid. And you also forgot the part where every country has its share of idiots, and the ones canceling out his vote are our share, and the ones who are the primary "US people are stupid" people are their generally their respective country's share. :P
-
I always thought it was the people who still think that Obama is a Muslim.
-
Go on. Tell me I'm stupid because I'm a minor, have no voting rights, can't control who runs my country, but live in the USA. Tell me I'm stupid because I'm surrounded by idiotic religious ****tards. Tell me I'm stupid so you can WIN AN ARGUMENT based entirely on the fact that I'm from America and therefore my opinion is meaningless.
ad hominem is a logical fallacy. There's a huge difference between explaining why the rest of the world think that Americans are on average idiots and assuming that every single American must be one.
You can say "realise that it isn't quite as cut and dried as it seems" but in the end, isn't that true everywhere? If you can't change your political in the UK enough to actually vote for someone other than a man who's about to get fired, then your political system really is screwed up.
But that's the thing. Everyone knew Blair was going. Everyone was voting for a year or so of Blair and then Brown taking over. Which is exactly what they got.
I'm not saying Britain is a horrible country, I'm just saying that you all are ones to talk about how stupid we are in this country for voting in ****ty leaders. Because we all have ****ty leaders from time to time. It's just at the time Bush was elected in, a bad leader had the potential to cause a lot of damage, and so Bush did.
The difference between Britain and the US is that you directly elect your president. Everyone in the UK knew that Blair was a **** prime minister but were willing to put up with him to have a Labour government as we knew it would only be temporary. But in America you get to directly pick your leader. And the rest of the world look at your country and say 55m of you thought GWB was the best man for the job.
Stop trying to defend it. Admit that those who voted for Bush were idiots and you'll go a long way to restoring some faith in your country. But while people insist on saying that there were good reasons for America to pick a man who will no doubt go down as the worst American president in history you only make your country look even worse.
What you need to understand about American politics is that every faction in it believes all the other factions are completely and utterly stupid. No one really wants to get rid of the Electoral College because it theoretically prevents the American populous from doing something Incredibly StupidTM. Not that it works, but it makes it really hard to just get rid of.
Except that Bush won both via the Electoral College and the popular vote. So under a PR system he would still president. I see the EC mentioned all the time but I'm yet to see how it's a valid point.
When I looked at the lineup of Democratic candidates that year (not that it helped, since I was a minor, in Colorado) John Kerry was, quite literally, at the bottom of my list, because I couldn't figure out what he stood for, at all. Howard Dean only ruined his chances for excess being excessively exuberant... so we ended up with Kerry. Maybe Kerry was worse... because he didn't even know what he was going to do.
Which only goes on to reinforce the view the rest of the world has about America being full of idiots. The rest of the world know that Bush is an idiot and yet Kerry was the best you could put up against him? Kerry was the favourite choice of the 50m people not stupid enough to vote for Bush?
And now Kerry being crap is used as an excuse for why Bush got in again. Sorry but that just doesn't fly. The democrats had other choices, they failed to take them. Even against Bush who anyone half decent should have been able to trounce. The fact that Kerry was the Democrats choice only goes to reinforce the notion that the democrat side of the electorate aren't particularly bright either.
What it comes down to is that the rest of the world sees the American public being lied to about Iraq, about who was behind 9/11, about how Bush is making the world safer, about how anyone who isn't willing to sign up with the Coalition of the Stupid is the enemy. But what we find unbelievable is that the American public are actually believing that ****. In a country with a free press. Where they can simply get on the net and hear an opposing viewpoint. Where discussion forums like HLP are full of people shouting the opposing viewpoint at people who aren't willing to listen to it cause they prefer the lies.
Is it any wonder the rest of the world consider America to be a land full of morons?
-
Every country has a percentage of idiocy. In America that happens to be the majority percentage.
That's just my thoughts. So yes, odds do say that there is a better chance if you meet an American he is stupid rather then smart.
That also explains why only 3 of all the 20 americans I know online (excluding the guys on HLP here, who are generally sane people) are people I like.
-
Fine.
There's obviously nothing I can say to convince any of you that Americans are not any more stupid on average than anyone else; so I won't waste my time.
Actually...
Let's see how many people vote for Mccain... he's made his support for Bush's policy's pretty clear.
I'm betting it will be under 25% of the US's total population
-
Chuck Norris supports McCain...just...don't let people know... :nervous:
-
:lol:
Man, such prejudice hostility towards America (land of the idiots)
Let me tell you I'll never visit any of you guys... too perfect for me. Nope I'll chill with the dumb humans you guys are like... condescending deities or something.
-
everyone should just be humble :yes:
-
Being humble doesn't exactly get you ahead in life.
-
Every country has a percentage of idiocy. In America that happens to be the majority percentage.
Every country has a majority percentage of idiots.
However, the American educational system has succeeding in teaching even the idiots about their right to free speech and everyone else's educational system has either failed or suceeded in teaching them they don't have a right to speak freely, so our idiots actually know they can talk and not suffer.
Punished for our successes. As usual. :P
-
Man, such prejudice hostility towards America (land of the idiots)
Let me tell you I'll never visit any of you guys... too perfect for me. Nope I'll chill with the dumb humans you guys are like... condescending deities or something.
Not prejudices per se, more like calling it how we see it. As I said before, a leader in a democratic society represents his people, so are we wrong to appraise the people on the basis of their leader?
However, the American educational system has succeeding in teaching even the idiots about their right to free speech and everyone else's educational system has either failed or suceeded in teaching them they don't have a right to speak freely, so our idiots actually know they can talk and not suffer.
Punished for our successes. As usual. :P
"American education system" and "succeeded" in the same sentence? Well, there's a first time for everything.
-
Every country has a majority percentage of idiots.
However, the American educational system has succeeding in teaching even the idiots about their right to free speech and everyone else's educational system has either failed or suceeded in teaching them they don't have a right to speak freely, so our idiots actually know they can talk and not suffer.
I don't think idiots in the UK are any less aware of their freedom of speech rights than idiots in America.
I think the difference is that the attitude in America to being perceived as an idiot is different. In the UK no one wants to be thought of as a moron so people who are stupid are more likely to keep their mouths shut. In America it's more acceptable to show your stupidity. So we see more of it.
Bush is a great example of this (as are Quayle and Reagan) before him. I can't think of any British politician I consider to be an idiot or below average intelligence. Even Boris Johnson who comes the closest is more a case of someone who doesn't think things through rather than someone incapable of doing it. Yet I just named three American politicians who held very important posts despite most of the world agreeing that they were as thick as two short planks.
-
Oh yes... here in the United States we enjoy being thought of as idiots. :rolleyes:
No one, in any country likes to be thought of as an idiot.
-
In the US no one wants to be thought of as an adulterer but people will admit to it more readily than they will in say Iran. Even if they stopped stoning people for it tomorrow it still wouldn't be culturally acceptable to be regarded as an adulterer for a long time.
Now apply the same thing to stupidity.
The stigma of being perceived as an idiot is not as great in the US.
-
I think that's true. There's a strong vein of anti-intellectualism in our culture; intelligent, educated people are suspected of being elitist and out of touch.
However, I must come to the defense of our educational system. I think our model is really a superb one in many respects. People like to wring their hands about how our students are falling behind and our schools are failing them, etc. But the only real education problem in this country is our inability, or unwillingness, to fund it.
-
Goddammit I even gave you people a smiley and you still can't detect sarcasm?
-
In the 2000 election, Al Gore had over 500,000 more votes than Bush did, yet Bush won the electorate 271 to 266.
Stop using Bush's election as an excuse to call US citizens stupid, whoever was doing it.
-
Want to explain the 5 million votes he won by in 2004 when we knew even better than in 2000 that he was completely useless?
Goddammit I even gave you people a smiley and you still can't detect sarcasm?
Well you were right even if you didn't mean to be. You just picked the wrong reason for Americans feeling that they have freedom of idiotic speech. :D
-
Want to explain the 5 million votes he won by in 2004 when we knew even better than in 2000 that he was completely useless?
IIRC someone in this thread already said it: They thought he would do a better job than Kerry. This relates to one of the points I made previously: Only a handful of the people who actually run for president might actually make even remotely good presidents. Whether Kerry would've actually done a worse job than Bush, like they thought, we'll never know.
One of the problems I think with the presidency (or rather, election) is the electoral collage. IMHO all the electoral collage does is distort the actual views of the people. IIRC there were 4 incidences with one guy getting the popular vote and another winning in the electoral; this being one of them. And if none of the candidate gets the minimum number of electorates, then the vote goes to the HoReps, which is even worse because that is almost completely partisan.
And keep in mind this is from the US constitution, and none of us voted on that. :p
-
IIRC someone in this thread already said it: They thought he would do a better job than Kerry.
And the rest of the world think that they are idiots for believing that.
-
IIRC someone in this thread already said it: They thought he would do a better job than Kerry.
And the rest of the world think that they are idiots for believing that.
That's their problem.
-
'Nuff Said (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cBiOTvxXcY&feature=user)
-
Being humble doesn't exactly get you ahead in life.
If that's your take on it :yes:
-
IIRC someone in this thread already said it: They thought he would do a better job than Kerry.
And the rest of the world think that they are idiots for believing that.
And thus I think the rest of the world is idiots for assuming that a bad choice constitutes utter stupidity.
Either everyone in the world is an idiot, or the only stupid things in the world are people's choices.
-
And of course, we have no way of knowing if it actually was a bad choice.
Oh sure, sure, it couldn't be worse you say.
THERE IS ALWAYS A WAY IT CAN BE WORSE.
-
And the rest of the world think that they are idiots for believing that.
That's their problem.
We don't consider it a problem. It's the Americans who complain about being referred to as a nation of idiots after all. :p
-
I'd think the relative stupidity in US is on about the same level as in any country.
Lets think about factors like:
-size of population
-political Influence
-economical Influence
-freedom of press, media
-freedom of individual people
-openness of the culture
-etc etc
The level of stupidity in any country actually increases, seemingly, as such factors go up, no? (you don't hear a lot of stupid anecdotes regarding North Korean people, should that mean they are smarter than most? or are they just silenced by an overpowering government, or what?)
And about Bush.. well, I'm not a fan of him, but if you look back in the history, its not like he'd be the only questionable leader any country has ever had.
Another thing, if you start to evaluate the smarts of the people according to their politicians, you need to bring into the equation the culture and history of that country as whole, because that is what molds the choices that are made by people today. I mean, they could be doing exactly what they want - not what you want.
-
Everybody knows that iran's got a dumb**** president too. Really so does north korea too.
(http://www.theodoresworld.net/pics/0906/iran_presidentImage3.jpg)
"I run a country with no gay people. How unlikely is that?"
(http://marinadedave.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/kin-jong-il.jpg)
"I werr **** you up! I rearry mean it!!!!"
I'll toss bush in too :nod:
(http://thegate.nationaljournal.com/images/bush_george_w_angry.jpg)
"UUUUUUUUUuuuuuuuhhhhhh??????????????????"
-
So everybody just thinks America is full of idiots because they have the power to rub their idiocy in everybody's faces?
-
So everybody just thinks America is full of idiots because they have the power to rub their idiocy in everybody's faces?
Who's going to annoy you more: The crazy guy rubbing his own **** into his hair down at the park, or the crazy guy going around the neighborhood and stuffing his own **** into everyone's letter box?
-
So everybody just thinks America is full of idiots because they have the power to rub their idiocy in everybody's faces?
Who's going to annoy you more: The crazy guy rubbing his own **** into his hair down at the park, or the crazy guy going around the neighborhood and stuffing his own **** into everyone's letter box?
Yup, that's pretty much it, with even a little extra bias to top it off. ;)
-
So everybody just thinks America is full of idiots because they have the power to rub their idiocy in everybody's faces?
Off by a long shot :nod:
It was an example of how idiocy is also esle where in the world :yes:
-
I wasn't really responding to you, if I was I would of quoted.
-
Sorry, i didn't really know if you were or not. This thread is that much full of hate it seems.
-
i was wondering why this topic is this long, dispite the news its reporting being trivial at best. perhaps some of you have noticed something under my nick, something that gives me the power of nukage. now i should be spending this time learning how to lock threads and split threds, ban people, ect. but i think they want moderation, not tyranny. so this little chit chat that is so not about donut holes (id rather have a bear claw) and i think it better revert to such before my nuke launching button pushing finger gets itchy.
:D
-
Your threat is useless, and also senile. HLP has a long tradition of threads wandering vastly offtopic and not being locked, while threads that stayed completely and totally ontopic were locked.
In other words, topic is more a suggestion than a rule. Noob! :p
-
this thread stayed on topic for like 6 posts, then managed to creep into canadian/amerikan bashing, then hate-politics and now youre flaming. of course im senile, but i have the button. that is all you need to know :D
-
Even Kara posted here. He seems content with it.
-
I have no problem with threads wandering off-topic as long as no one is interested in discussing the original topic. It's when the thread goes off-topic while people are trying to talk about the original one (in which case a split or a split and lock) or when the thread degenerates into spam or flames that it requires moderation.
-
this thread stayed on topic for like 6 posts, then managed to creep into canadian/amerikan bashing, then hate-politics and now youre flaming. of course im senile, but i have the button. that is all you need to know :D
They made you mod of Hard Light main? I'm worried now. :D
-
this thread hasnt tripped my wires yet.
-
I'm sorely tempted to get this thread locked just to see Nuke actually use his mod powers.
But that would probably have nasty side-effects for me.
-
They made you mod of Hard Light main? I'm worried now. :D
/me de-cloaks.
Nuke's not the mod for HLM...he's just the mod for the General Discussion thread. ;)
/me cloaks.
-
looking back this thread has some respectable debate. but since this is the internet, and thus every spammer or sob with a stupid comment or flame on their mind will post and **** everything up.
-
NON-IDIOTS IN COMMAND!!!
AK MOD POWER....GO!
-
im not waiting for somone to give me reason to lock this thread, theres plenty of that. im waiting for somone to give me reason not to.
-
They made you mod of Hard Light main? I'm worried now. :D
/me de-cloaks.
Nuke's not the mod for HLM...he's just the mod for the General Discussion thread. ;)
/me cloaks.
Newbs.
/me sighs
im not waiting for somone to give me reason to lock this thread, theres plenty of that. im waiting for somone to give me reason not to.
I'm hot?
-
Part of the problem in the US is the same problem we have in the UK.
'Hmmm.. Should I treat this wound with Hydrochloric Acid or Arsenic?'
None of the choices are really acceptable, there's such a massive gulf between the political view of reality and the view from ground level that the two are very rarely headed in the same direction.
Certainly, in the US, the political agenda is no longer controlled by the people to a massive degree, politics is about pleasing the Corporations, and then the corps use Media to influece the people.
In the UK, it's very press-centric, our government seem to think that the News makes the Papers, and still haven't figured out that the opposite is true, so now rags like the Sun are dictating governmental policy to the ministers as their own opinions see fit, this has caused more than a few problems.
So, are American's stupid? I don't think they are particularly more stupid than any other race,, but when we vote in an idiot nowadays, it only mostly impacts us (unless Blair starts handing out our army for loans), whereas the US having an idiot in charge has a much more noticeable impact on other countries. It's this, I think, that makes people more aware of when the US has an idiot in charge.
-
america just hasn't had any descent candidates in the last few elections. i don't think thats gonna change. when you get 49-51% voting results, you know that neither candidate is really good, so people just vote for the candidate who's party they lean closest to. usually i like voting for independents as a middle finger to both politicians. the attitude about voting independent is usually that its a throw away vote, but i find its only members of a political party that say this.