4th of july coming up, talk about BALLS

[Cobra]

For the time, Dowding, the principles were very radical.

You did not have to be of a certain bloodline to own property, etc.

But, if you look at it through 21st century hindsight, then yes, its principles did not apply to all equally.

But, like I said, for that time, they were very radical.  

But this place is sooo bad today.  Hehe..tell that to my father-in-law, who left Italy with $400 dollars in his pocket, suitcase and 3 kids and didn't know a word of english.

Today, he owns the apartment building that he was a rentor when he came over, he started and sold his own auto-body shop, retired before age 60 and he put 3 kids through college.  

Ohhhh, what a terrible, terrible place.

My point, this country affords the oppurtunity to really make it to those who dare to do it.....that includes all ethnic backgrounds.  

Are there still injustices....hell yes, but show me a country where there isn't.

And speaking of British Rule and injustices, I travel to places that just recently got out from under British Rule....The Brit attitude has changed little in 200 years.

Thank goodness the Brits didn't consider this important, or we could have been held back by Brit rule like India was for those 200 some odd years  .  

If it looks like I'm coming off as proud of my country (an accident of birth place), then so be it, because I AM!!!

But hey, you've got it all figured out anyway.  So please pick apart our faults all day long.  At the end of the day, our society is not perfect, much as humans are not, but its not a bad place to live, warts and all.  

Cobra

[MrBill]

Originally posted by texace:
One reason I think is it's because no teenager really cares about history. Think about it...what are most kids interested in now? Piercings, video games, sex, you name it. I asked a fellow high school student (senior, 12th) why he was failing history (when a football player fails it is fast news) He told me "Because it is boring. We sit there and learn about dead guys from way back when. I like stuff that's "in" today! F**k the past." BTW, on his history term paper, "independance" and "England" were misspelled, along with numerous historical mistakes.

This is the same mentality of most high schoolers today. 65% of the senior class failed the first semester of their history class.

And for this reason, 40 to 60 years from now they will be "shocked" by another Genghis, Peter, or Hitler and have no idea why.
.... b b b but no one told me ... sob sob
Buzzttttt
Wrong answer, It's you who failed to learn.
Even that may be the wrong answer, it may be that WE FAILED to force them to learn.  

[Dowding]

Chill, cobra. I think if you read my post again, you'll find I wasn't saying America was a 'bad place' to live in. I'm sure it's not. In fact, I never used hindsight in any shape or form. Also, show me where I was 'picking apart' your country, if you would?

Who was talking about today? I thought we were discussing events 200 and odd years ago...

I was pointing out that the intentions didn't necessarily square with the reality. There was still a large divide between groups of people based solely on accident of birth - the groups in question merely changed. I'm sure it was a radical idea if you were white, less so if you were anything else.

 

The Brit attitude has changed little in 200 years.

A sweeping generalisation if ever there was one. Care to elaborate?

But I'm just jealous you got today off. Over here, it was 30 deg Celsius and sunny all day. I wish I knew what the weather was going to be like on any particular day, before I booked my holidays.  

[ 07-04-2001: Message edited by: Dowding ]

[Nashwan]

I don't know about radical. If you look back at previous British documents, like the Magna Carta and Declaration of Rights, you can see most of the principles there already.

That the pretended power of suspending of laws, or the execution of laws, by regal authority, without consent of parliament, is illegal.
That levying money for or to the use of the crown, by pretence of prerogative, without grant of parliament, for longer time, or in other manner than the same is or shall be granted, is illegal.
That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of parliament, is against law
That election of members of parliament ought to be free.
That the freedom of speech, and debates or proceedings in parliament, ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of parliament
That excessive bail ought not to be required,nor excessive fines imposed; nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
That jurors ought to be duly impanelled and returned, and jurors which pass upon men in trials of high treason ought to be freeholders.
That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction, are illegal and void.
And they do claim, demand, and insist upon all and singular the premisses, as their undoubted rights and liberties; and that no declarations, judgments, doings, or proceedings, to the prejudice of the people in any of the said premisses, ought in any wise to be drawn hereafter into consequence or example
All from the Bill of Rights, 1689. The Magna Carta was also used as a basis, with it's promises of no man being above the law, the right to trial by jury etc.
Sadly it's taken until the 20th century for the implimentation of the ideas to catch up.

[Wotan]

hows relations with immigrant asians going in jolly 'ole england..... the only reason their attitude changed was because they got their bloody arses kicked from yorktown to zulu land thru india out out the back arse of china...... We call that enlightenment  

[mrfish]

Originally posted by StSanta:
Funked, you're right.

I should mention that it's odd how a people descended from such big balled people now are a mixture of Rikki Lake/Jerry Springer moronic idiots, with little understaniding of the fact that there's a world around them, and with no understanding that other states may, in fact, be better than the US in certain areas.

it is ironic, and america is capable of far better. the cream of each american generation tends to work their hardest making things easier and less complicated for the next generation.

the intended result is to make life better, but unfortunately it has bred a lot of ignorant, lazy and complacent people that don't appreciate the work that made thier lives so effortless and predictable.

there are probably 20 small restaurants within 4 blocks of my house that are owned by small business owners. some tourists stopped me on the street in the midst of this variety and asked if there was a denny's nearby!

i like to support entrepeneurs and mom and pop stores rather than feed the 1% any more wealth than they already have. unfortunately it is getting hard for them because they can't offer the prices that the chains can. more people are abandoning ownership and taking their place on the assembly line for company x.

maybe someday the fire in our bellies will be back and we can dictate what happens in this country from the individual, local and states level up rather than the federal, media/hollywood and corporate level down.

[ispar]

Originally posted by texace:
One reason I think is it's because no teenager really cares about history. Think about it...what are most kids interested in now? Piercings, video games, sex, you name it. I asked a fellow high school student (senior, 12th) why he was failing history (when a football player fails it is fast news) He told me "Because it is boring. We sit there and learn about dead guys from way back when. I like stuff that's "in" today! F**k the past." BTW, on his history term paper, "independance" and "England" were misspelled, along with numerous historical mistakes.

This is the same mentality of most high schoolers today. 65% of the senior class failed the first semester of their history class.

As a fellow highschool student, I agree with you completely tex. Fortunately, at the school I am currently attending, most of the students do care about their classes, because  if they don't get the work done and focus, they do not advance. Wonderful concept for a school. Those that don't care enough leave, and good riddance.

And, because I agree with you, it's painful to have to tell you - you misspelled "independence" in your post.

 

[Nifty]

mrfish, part of that (the Denny's thing) is that people are afraid to try out a new restaurant.  They want what they are familiar with.  That's why those chains are so popular.  You pretty much know what you're getting when you go to a shoney's, denny's, BK, chik-fil-a, etc.  Personally, I like finding good restaurants when I go traveling, like that Irish place in Boston that I can't remember the name of!  We were just walking downtown, and they had a chalkboard on the street with their specials, and we decided to go in.  It was a really good choice.    You just gotta tell those tourists they'd do better if they went to the mom n pop restaurant!  Well, there is one exception to that...  When some Northerners come down to Florida and eat Gulf seafood, they don't like it because it's not as strong as cod and halibut.  Gulf fish are just a lot milder.  We direct those people to the Dead Lobster (Red Lobster that is...)

[Yoj]

Originally posted by Swoop:



Do your big brass balls stick to the monkey in cold weather?  


10 points to anyone who actually gets that one.    

  (Image removed from quote.)

We always used matching metals - brass balls, brass monkey.  Keeps the coefficient of expansion matched  

- Yoj

[ispar]

Originally posted by Nifty:
mrfish, part of that (the Denny's thing) is that people are afraid to try out a new restaurant.  They want what they are familiar with.  That's why those chains are so popular.  You pretty much know what you're getting when you go to a shoney's, denny's, BK, chik-fil-a, etc.  Personally, I like finding good restaurants when I go traveling, like that Irish place in Boston that I can't remember the name of!  We were just walking downtown, and they had a chalkboard on the street with their specials, and we decided to go in.  It was a really good choice.      You just gotta tell those tourists they'd do better if they went to the mom n pop restaurant!  Well, there is one exception to that...  When some Northerners come down to Florida and eat Gulf seafood, they don't like it because it's not as strong as cod and halibut.  Gulf fish are just a lot milder.  We direct those people to the Dead Lobster (Red Lobster that is...)

Cod and halibut STRONG?! ! Those suckers are downright mild next to, say, swordfish. Maybe even compared to salmon, but salmon don't count in New England  . If you want to try a truly wimpy fish, try canned tuna. If you want something better than canned tuna, go for real tuna steaks. Now THAT is actually pretty strong stuff.

 

[Dowding]

Wotan-

I don't know what history books you have been reading (if any), but British military history is a tale of victory more than defeat. Defeat is sometimes inevitable, but compared to the victories, I think the record was good.

Yorktown? Hardly a large scale battle and not really part of a war compared to events elsewhere in the world. For example, the overwhelming success of the British Army all across India (Assaye, Seringapatam etc). The defeat of the French in Spain (Vittoria, Badajoz, Salamanca etc), prior to the invasion of France itself (culminating in the Battle of Waterloo). Not to mention the combined smashing of the joint French/Spanish fleet at Trafalgar.

'Zululand'? A few hundred troops in a 'Thin Red Line' trying to hold back several thousand Zulus in open ground would be quite tricky even today. Once in a defensive position (Rorke's Drift) it might have been a little easier.

China? As far as I know we took HK and only gave it back because that was part of the agreement signed a century ago.

Read a book some time, Wotan, you might learn something.  

[Wotan]

i read one that said britian started a war with germany took a whoopin cried and begged for help     When the war was won they were so broke they gave away what was left of their depleted "empire".......    

to top that off later they offered citzinship to what was at the time 1/5 the worlds population and now have had serious trouble dealing with it ......    

with all your victorious "history" your just moderately better then a third rate country just above portugal......remember their "glory days".......    

maybe the sun has not set on the british "empire" but its sure going down    

compare the last 200 hundreds years of great britians history with the United States you might immigrate now before it gets much worse    

Hell the scotts finally beat ya    

[ 07-05-2001: Message edited by: Wotan ]

[StSanta]

Heh Wotan, the sun will settle on the US empire as well. It is inevitable and has happened to each and every empire so far that has seen the light.

Seen from a historical POV, the Brits held a considerable power. After they got spanked by some Viking raider isn the early 1000's, they got their stuff together.

There's no telling what the future will hold - the only constant is change  

[Dowding]

Wotan - your education in this area blatantly consists of:

Braveheart
The Patriot
Pearl Harbour

I don't think that's something to be proud of.  

Go and study British history and look at the achievements of a nation of a fifth of the size of the US, with few natural resources. I think we did rather well considering the historical context. The British Empire is long gone however - it's time had come - no Empire lasts, and considering we fought two bankrupting world wars I don't think it stood a chance of continuing.

Third world country? Better than living in a third rate country.  

 

i read one that said britian started a war with germany

Really? Is that what they teach you in American schools? Or perhaps your a fan of David Irving (go look it up). The sequence of events was more like:

1) Britain tells Hitler to curb his expansionist plans in Europe.

2) He takes the Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia and Britain turns a blind eye since most of the population there is German anyway.

3) He takes Czechoslovakia wholesale.

4) GB states catergorically that an invasion of Poland would not be tolerated and war would ensure

5) Hitler invades Poland

6) GB declares war.

Hardly the aggressive Britain you make it out to be.

But ignorance is your forte - and you do it so well.  

And Santa - your stinking Viking raiders left an indellible mark on our sheep. We are still awaiting compensation.  

BTW, I asked you once about the Siege of Copenhagen and whether you were taught anything about it - but I lost track of the thread and never saw if you gave a reply.

[ 07-06-2001: Message edited by: Dowding ]

[StSanta]

Ah, the siege of Copenhagen  . I presume you mean the siege during the Napoleanic wars and not the ones the feeble minded Swedes did  

I went to school in Sweden from 1'st to 9th grade, so my Danish history knowledge is somewhat limited but here's my perspective on it:

If there is a war that has many sides, the Danes will ALWAYS pick the losers side.

Anyway, from what I've read, the Brits were sorta pissed at the Danes for their insistence on protecting their merchant ships and ignoring Brit attempts of boarding these so they could check if they were carrying material for Britains enemy, France. Denmark had an armed neutrality position  - i.e they wanted neutrality but didn't have the military power to enforce it. They tried by protecting their merchants from the Brits using warships. In 1806 a French force following Preussians into Denmark was beaten back in a small skirmish, upon which the French respected the Danish neutrality position.

The Brits wanted Denmark to hand over its navy so it could be used in offensive operations against France- Denmark wasn't too keen on it, trying to walk the fine line of balance of neutrality.

So the Brits invaded with a 30 000 strong force. Bad for Denmark since most of its armies were in the south beating off the French or rather protecting the border there. About 13 000 men, many volunteers and few regular soldiers, were besieged inside Copenhagen. In one decisive battle, the Danes tried to break free, but found themselves ill equipped for the job against a force superior in numbers and quality and the result was a blood bath. Copenhagen was also extensively bombared during the siege. The amphibious landing the Brits did was quite extraordinary and would require extensive planning even with modern technology,let alone the technology available at the time.

At any rate, the situation was now quite bad. The Danes had no option but to ask the French for help; at least they respected the Danish neutrality position. This alliance wasn't very popular with the Danes though.  The Danes had succesfully invaded Sweden and gained considerable land masses, but were on the wrong side and when they tried to negotiate with the allies, the Brits were decidedly anti Danish and the Swedes made ridiculous demands, such as the handing over of Norway and that the Danish army would be placed under Swedish control.

In short, Denmark through a series of circumstances found itself in a very tight spot and had to "pick the loser" as an ally, so to speak  .

I find a very interesting thing to reflect on is this: during the last few hundred years, Denmark has spent over 140 years in war with Sweden. We're now good pals. There's been some fighting with the Brits, and for now, Denmark have cancelled their operations concerning and invasion of the Brit isles and the killing of all the pale ugly people there  .

Peace is possible - even between countries that have fought wars for years and years. It can be done on the Balkans as well.