This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
Does anyone else hate being British?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Adelaide--
That doesn't just happen in Britain though.
Neither does drinking tea or 'being pessimistic' which OP attributes as British culture...
You don't have to hold exclusivity over something to have it in your 'culture'....
In the States; you have two viable political options. Moderately right of centre, and right of centre. Although on a national level there are only three parties with a realistic chance of holding a majority or being a 'main player' in a coalition; there are still a huge amount of realistic candidates to choose from on a local level. There's rightly criticism over a lot of outdated parliamentary practices; but the entire American system of government is based on a model that the Romans outgrew over 2,000 years ago.
Along with the NHS (which is the greatest public welfare scheme in the history of mankind), our disproportionate (considering our size and population) number of eminent scientists, scholars, inventors and well respected people in other fields, English as a language and the pound sterling as one of the most valuable currencies on the planet.
The negative rhetoric in Britain likes to paint us a power who's star is waning and is content to be America's lapdog. Let's not forget that, whilst all the conflicts in modern history that involved the US were cluster****s, the biggest by far was Vietnam which coincidentally did not involve the British in any way. Let's not forget, either, that we are still a Nuclear superpower and a permanent member of the UN Security Council.
Along with the NHS (which is the greatest public welfare scheme in the history of mankind), our disproportionate (considering our size and population) number of eminent scientists, scholars, inventors and well respected people in other fields, English as a language and the pound sterling as one of the most valuable currencies on the planet.
The negative rhetoric in Britain likes to paint us a power who's star is waning and is content to be America's lapdog. Let's not forget that, whilst all the conflicts in modern history that involved the US were cluster****s, the biggest by far was Vietnam which coincidentally did not involve the British in any way. Let's not forget, either, that we are still a Nuclear superpower and a permanent member of the UN Security Council.
Original post by Mod777
In the States; you have two viable political options. Moderately right of centre, and right of centre. Although on a national level there are only three parties with a realistic chance of holding a majority or being a 'main player' in a coalition; there are still a huge amount of realistic candidates to choose from on a local level.
Along with the NHS, our disproportionate number of eminent scientists, scholars, inventors and well respected people in other fields, English as a language and the pound sterling as one of the most valuable currencies on the planet.
Along with the NHS, our disproportionate number of eminent scientists, scholars, inventors and well respected people in other fields, English as a language and the pound sterling as one of the most valuable currencies on the planet.
What's the third party
America has a two party system. Further, I don't see what party systems have to do with liking or disliking being British.Also, I don't think your second paragraph makes sense. Could you read it again and clarify what you meant? (I took out the brackets to make for clearer reading, but I still don't know what you mean)
Original post by tinkertailor
I know I do. So President Obama has landed in Northern Ireland for the G8 Summit and basically he gave this great speech to dignitaries and students there. I couldn't help but feel inspired by his and Michelle Obama's speeches. You wouldn't get similar speeches about hope, opportunity and prosperity here in the UK, not least from our dull moronic politicians 
We're a country that prides itself from being cynical which I think is disgusting. The only thing that I think us Brits actually feel proud for is the NHS and that's it. Of course it would an institution to be proud of it was any good, but it isn't. There are a whole host of healthcare systems in the rest of Europe alone that are superior to ours. That's the only thing us Brits are proud about, that and our precious welfare state
Honestly if I get a chance in the future, I'd leave these islands and seek US citizenship.
We're a country that prides itself from being cynical which I think is disgusting. The only thing that I think us Brits actually feel proud for is the NHS and that's it. Of course it would an institution to be proud of it was any good, but it isn't. There are a whole host of healthcare systems in the rest of Europe alone that are superior to ours. That's the only thing us Brits are proud about, that and our precious welfare state
Honestly if I get a chance in the future, I'd leave these islands and seek US citizenship.
You criticism our healthcare system... then say you want to go to the US of all places?!
Original post by sugar-n-spice
His speech was just really flashy nothingness, he probably didn't even write it all himself 
Of course he didn't
Original post by Mod777
In the States; you have two viable political options. Moderately right of centre, and right of centre. Although on a national level there are only three parties with a realistic chance of holding a majority or being a 'main player' in a coalition; there are still a huge amount of realistic candidates to choose from on a local level. There's rightly criticism over a lot of outdated parliamentary practices; but the entire American system of government is based on a model that the Romans outgrew over 2,000 years ago.
Along with the NHS (which is the greatest public welfare scheme in the history of mankind), our disproportionate (considering our size and population) number of eminent scientists, scholars, inventors and well respected people in other fields, English as a language and the pound sterling as one of the most valuable currencies on the planet.
The negative rhetoric in Britain likes to paint us a power who's star is waning and is content to be America's lapdog. Let's not forget that, whilst all the conflicts in modern history that involved the US were cluster****s, the biggest by far was Vietnam which coincidentally did not involve the British in any way. Let's not forget, either, that we are still a Nuclear superpower and a permanent member of the UN Security Council.
Along with the NHS (which is the greatest public welfare scheme in the history of mankind), our disproportionate (considering our size and population) number of eminent scientists, scholars, inventors and well respected people in other fields, English as a language and the pound sterling as one of the most valuable currencies on the planet.
The negative rhetoric in Britain likes to paint us a power who's star is waning and is content to be America's lapdog. Let's not forget that, whilst all the conflicts in modern history that involved the US were cluster****s, the biggest by far was Vietnam which coincidentally did not involve the British in any way. Let's not forget, either, that we are still a Nuclear superpower and a permanent member of the UN Security Council.
There is much to say about this country's great scientists but that's all in the past. Sterling on the other hand is a failing currency just like the Euro. No one wants to buy into it. In fact people are short selling on Sterling. Despite the fact that Sterling has been devaluing drastically against major currencies since 2008, the UK has exported zilch since. That's how pathetic the UK economy is
And with regards to our nuclear weapons, we can't use them without daddy America's permission. Also what's the point being a permanent UN Security Council member when you're going to follow America's every order? This poodle has learned its lesson since we refused to enter Vietnam.Original post by nexttime
You criticism our healthcare system... then say you want to go to the US of all places?!
The US healthcare system is very disproportionate but that doesn't take away from the fact that they have the most advance hospitals and treatment facilities in the world. The NHS however is incredibly mediocre and is neither as advanced as America's or as efficient as France's for example.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
I think if you look around enough, you find widespread idiocy and the loathing of intellectual life in many/most countries. The US and UK are not particularly worse or better in this regard, they are just better known.
I agree about the lack of 'can-do' in the UK, it's deeply ingrained in our culture and is at least partly connected to the old aristocratic society, the monarchy, etc and also to do (in more recent times) with the need to obey those in authority during the extremities of the war, when the UK was far more threatened than the US. However, I think this is slowly changing and the British are less deferential than they were even 10 or 20 years ago. Sadly though, in the meantime it makes British consumers easy meat for exploitation, as they tend to do as they are told in terms of accepting outrageous prices and ripoff monopolistic utilities, etc.
The US may have 'can-do', but it is in a profound mess in other ways, such as murderous mayhem from gun violence, chronic obesity caused by an exploitative commercialised food production system built on the need to flog corn syrup and a debased, corrupted political culture that has become almost wholly detached from anything but the concerns of the extremely rich.
I agree about the lack of 'can-do' in the UK, it's deeply ingrained in our culture and is at least partly connected to the old aristocratic society, the monarchy, etc and also to do (in more recent times) with the need to obey those in authority during the extremities of the war, when the UK was far more threatened than the US. However, I think this is slowly changing and the British are less deferential than they were even 10 or 20 years ago. Sadly though, in the meantime it makes British consumers easy meat for exploitation, as they tend to do as they are told in terms of accepting outrageous prices and ripoff monopolistic utilities, etc.
The US may have 'can-do', but it is in a profound mess in other ways, such as murderous mayhem from gun violence, chronic obesity caused by an exploitative commercialised food production system built on the need to flog corn syrup and a debased, corrupted political culture that has become almost wholly detached from anything but the concerns of the extremely rich.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that the U.S. is a "profound mess", and although the obesity "epidemic" is greater in the U.S. than in Britain, it is less of a burden to society because of the lack of free healthcare (NHS' biggest expense is to treat weight-related diabetes IIRC). As for gun crime, I think it is greatly exaggerated and exploited by news agencies, with a population of 300 million, the U.S. is bound to have a greater number of psychotic outliers than small European countries. As for the political culture, one could make a case that the entire world system is growing increasingly detached from the concerns of all but the "extremely rich", and I certainly feel that in America, such concern is more acceptable when a significantly higher proportion of individuals are rich (vs the U.K.). There's also the issue of what defines "extremely rich", one could also make a case that the U.K. is almost wholly concerned with the extremely rich because it doesn't produce enough foreign aid (on the global scale, virtually everyone in the U.K. is extremely rich)
Original post by Shane96
I'm Irish and you should be proud of wherever you come from 
If I were North Korean should I be proud of my country? Although when I think about it, I'd have no choice but to be proud of my nation because of the brainwashing of the NK state
Honestly though I would much rather be Irish than British.
I don't see myself as British and never say I am. I indentify myself as Scottish.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by tinkertailor
Say what you want about Obama, he's a hell of a lot better than any of our recent Prime Ministers. Obama is actually likeable. No one cheers for David Cameron or any of our previous leaders or even any EU leader. Obama has done a lot of good. Under George Bush America was seen as a bully but he changed that with his diplomatic approach with regards to foreign policy. He has brought growth back to America whereas Europe is mired in a debt crisis.
But Obama's rhetoric doesn't say anything about America as a nation. Even then, whilst he's certainly a more likeable figure than Bush and many EU leaders, his foreign policy hasn't deviated too greatly from the foundations Bush laid in his second term (even the conciliatory tone he took in 2009 has largely given way to a more hegemonic assertion of American power). He has ordered the execution of American citizens (and countless non-Americans) abroad and has continued to enforce some of the more draconian sections of the PATRIOT Act after initially deciding to rescind it. I have a lot of respect for Obama (mostly for the economic reasons you cited), but after following his rhetoric closely starting way back in 2007, I think it's fair to say that what Obama says and what Obama does don't correlate, especially in foreign affairs.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by Tabzqt
Really? You think it's better in Murrica?
Do people actually believe this is real?
Original post by tinkertailor
Honestly if I get a chance in the future, I'd leave these islands and seek US citizenship.
And do tell, how many other Brits are wanting to migrate to America?
In truth, America isn't the land of milk and honey you genuinely believe it is. The NHS may have it's flaws, but how many millions of Americans go without even basic health care, which has to go through insurance?
Let's see how long you last in America without healthcare. You'll want to come back soon enough...
Original post by tinkertailor
The US healthcare system is very disproportionate but that doesn't take away from the fact that they have the most advance hospitals and treatment facilities in the world. The NHS however is incredibly mediocre and is neither as advanced as America's or as efficient as France's for example.
Tinkertailor, have you actually been to America - or France for that matter?
"so President Obama has landed in Northern Ireland for the G8 Summit and basically he gave this great speech to dignitaries and students there. I couldn't help but feel inspired by his and Michelle Obama's speeches."
Don't get me started on Obama.... too late...
The Democratic incumbent has surrounded himself with conservative advisors and key figures — many from previous administrations, and an unprecedented number from the Trilateral Commission. He also appointed a former Monsanto executive as Senior Advisor to the FDA. He has extended Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, presided over a spiralling rich-poor gap and sacrificed further American jobs with recent free trade deals. Trade union rights have also eroded under his watch. He has expanded Bush defence spending, droned civilians, failed to close Guantanamo, supported the NDAA which effectively legalises martial law, allowed drilling and adopted a soft-touch position towards the banks that is to the right of European Conservative leaders. Taking office during the financial meltdown, Obama appointed its principle architects to top economic positions. We list these because many of Obama's detractors absurdly portray him as either a radical liberal or a socialist, while his apologists, equally absurdly, continue to view him as a well-intentioned progressive, tragically thwarted by overwhelming pressures. 2008's yes-we-can chanters, dazzled by pigment rather than policy detail, forgot to ask can what? Between 1998 and the last election, Obama amassed $37.6million from the financial services industry, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. While 2008 presidential candidate Obama appeared to champion universal health care, his first choice for Secretary of Health was a man who had spent years lobbying on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry against that very concept. Hey! You don't promise a successful pub, and then appoint the Salvation Army to run it. This time around, the honey-tongued President makes populist references to economic justice, while simultaneously appointing as his new Chief of Staff a former Citigroup executive concerned with hedge funds that bet on the housing market to collapse. Obama poses something of a challenge to The Political Compass, because he's a man of so few fixed principles.
As outrageous as it may appear, civil libertarians and human rights supporters would have actually fared better under a Republican administration. Had a Bush or McCain presidency permitted extrajudicial executions virtually anywhere in the world ( www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/AMR51/047/2012/en ), expanded drone strikes and introduced the NDAA, the Democratic Party would have howled from the rooftops. Senator Obama the Constitutional lawyer would have been one of the most vocal objectors. Under a Democratic administration however, these far-reaching developments have received scant opposition and a disgraceful absence of mainstream media coverage.
Democratic and, especially, some Republican candidates, will benefit massively from new legislation that permits them to receive unlimited and unaccountable funding. This means a significant shift of political power to the very moneyed interests that earlier elections tried to contain. Super PACs will inevitably reshape the system and undermine democracy. It would be naïve to suppose that a President Gingrich would feel no obligations towards his generous backer, Sheldon Adelson, one of the country's most influential men. Or a President Santorum towards billionaire mutual fund tycoon, Foster Freiss. (Santorum emerged as the most authoritarian candidate, not the least for his extreme stand against abortion and condom sales.) Or a President Paul, whose largest single donor, billionaire Peter Thiel, founded a controversial defence company contracting to the CIA and the FBI. Last year it was caught operating an illegal spy ring targeting opponents of the US Chamber of Commerce. In our opinion the successful GOP contender, Romney, despite his consistent contempt for the impoverished, was correctly described as the weather vane candidate. He shares another similarity with Obama. His corporate-friendly health care plan for Massachusetts was strikingly similar to the President's "compromise" package. The emergence of the Tea Party enables the 2012 GOP ticket of unprecedented economic extremity to present itself as middle-of-the road — between an ultra right movement with "some good ideas that might go a bit too far" and, on the other side, a dangerous "socialist" president.
The smaller non-Tea parties provide the only substantial electoral diversity — virtually unreported — in their Sisyphean struggle against the two mountainous conservative machines. Identity issues like gay marriage disguise the absence of fundamental differences and any real contrast of vision. Since FDR, the mainstream American "Left" has been much more concerned with the social rather than the economic scale. Identity politics; issues like peace, immigration, gay and women's rights, prayers in school have assumed far greater importance than matters like pensions and minimum wages that preoccupy their counterparts in other democracies. Hence the appeal of Ron Paul to many liberals, despite his far-right economics. Paul, unlike Romney, would have delivered a significant crossover vote from Democrats.
Don't get me started on Obama.... too late...
The Democratic incumbent has surrounded himself with conservative advisors and key figures — many from previous administrations, and an unprecedented number from the Trilateral Commission. He also appointed a former Monsanto executive as Senior Advisor to the FDA. He has extended Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, presided over a spiralling rich-poor gap and sacrificed further American jobs with recent free trade deals. Trade union rights have also eroded under his watch. He has expanded Bush defence spending, droned civilians, failed to close Guantanamo, supported the NDAA which effectively legalises martial law, allowed drilling and adopted a soft-touch position towards the banks that is to the right of European Conservative leaders. Taking office during the financial meltdown, Obama appointed its principle architects to top economic positions. We list these because many of Obama's detractors absurdly portray him as either a radical liberal or a socialist, while his apologists, equally absurdly, continue to view him as a well-intentioned progressive, tragically thwarted by overwhelming pressures. 2008's yes-we-can chanters, dazzled by pigment rather than policy detail, forgot to ask can what? Between 1998 and the last election, Obama amassed $37.6million from the financial services industry, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. While 2008 presidential candidate Obama appeared to champion universal health care, his first choice for Secretary of Health was a man who had spent years lobbying on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry against that very concept. Hey! You don't promise a successful pub, and then appoint the Salvation Army to run it. This time around, the honey-tongued President makes populist references to economic justice, while simultaneously appointing as his new Chief of Staff a former Citigroup executive concerned with hedge funds that bet on the housing market to collapse. Obama poses something of a challenge to The Political Compass, because he's a man of so few fixed principles.
As outrageous as it may appear, civil libertarians and human rights supporters would have actually fared better under a Republican administration. Had a Bush or McCain presidency permitted extrajudicial executions virtually anywhere in the world ( www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/AMR51/047/2012/en ), expanded drone strikes and introduced the NDAA, the Democratic Party would have howled from the rooftops. Senator Obama the Constitutional lawyer would have been one of the most vocal objectors. Under a Democratic administration however, these far-reaching developments have received scant opposition and a disgraceful absence of mainstream media coverage.
Democratic and, especially, some Republican candidates, will benefit massively from new legislation that permits them to receive unlimited and unaccountable funding. This means a significant shift of political power to the very moneyed interests that earlier elections tried to contain. Super PACs will inevitably reshape the system and undermine democracy. It would be naïve to suppose that a President Gingrich would feel no obligations towards his generous backer, Sheldon Adelson, one of the country's most influential men. Or a President Santorum towards billionaire mutual fund tycoon, Foster Freiss. (Santorum emerged as the most authoritarian candidate, not the least for his extreme stand against abortion and condom sales.) Or a President Paul, whose largest single donor, billionaire Peter Thiel, founded a controversial defence company contracting to the CIA and the FBI. Last year it was caught operating an illegal spy ring targeting opponents of the US Chamber of Commerce. In our opinion the successful GOP contender, Romney, despite his consistent contempt for the impoverished, was correctly described as the weather vane candidate. He shares another similarity with Obama. His corporate-friendly health care plan for Massachusetts was strikingly similar to the President's "compromise" package. The emergence of the Tea Party enables the 2012 GOP ticket of unprecedented economic extremity to present itself as middle-of-the road — between an ultra right movement with "some good ideas that might go a bit too far" and, on the other side, a dangerous "socialist" president.
The smaller non-Tea parties provide the only substantial electoral diversity — virtually unreported — in their Sisyphean struggle against the two mountainous conservative machines. Identity issues like gay marriage disguise the absence of fundamental differences and any real contrast of vision. Since FDR, the mainstream American "Left" has been much more concerned with the social rather than the economic scale. Identity politics; issues like peace, immigration, gay and women's rights, prayers in school have assumed far greater importance than matters like pensions and minimum wages that preoccupy their counterparts in other democracies. Hence the appeal of Ron Paul to many liberals, despite his far-right economics. Paul, unlike Romney, would have delivered a significant crossover vote from Democrats.
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
