Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

The Greatest Country on Earth!

13468911

Posts

  • Nexus ZeroNexus Zero Registered User
    edited December 2006
    poshniallo wrote:
    So you really believe that working class people don't know shit about international affairs and hate all immigrants?

    Except for you, of course, because you're one of those 'reasonably intelligent people'

    How spiffy for you.

    That's generally (oh, there's that word again!) how I've found every single person I've ever met from a working-class background. Their minds have always been warped by their idiot parents and the views of xenophobic tabloids. Two of my intelligent housemates at Uni have racist streaks obtained exclusively from living in working-class neighbourhoods, and it's taken a year for one and two years for another to accept that not all arabs are here to steal our jobs and rape our children. Of course, I have a certain kind of discrimination in me, too; we were walking through a particularly rough part of Nottingham and I was convinced that we'd be shot. They pointed out that it wasn't really that rough (hardly St. Anns) and not at all different from where they came from.

    Nexus Zero on
    sig.jpg
  • redxredx I(x)=2(x)+1 whole numbersRegistered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Mahnmut wrote:
    Aldo wrote:
    @I.H.N.I.W.T.R.: Of course, your soldiers get to aim at people's heads a whole lot more than your average US soldier. ;)

    Every army has its assholes, renegades and general douchebags. The IDF just gets a hell of a lot more exposure about the things its idiots commit because it's in a major global newspot. And besides, it's not like the fuckers who do these things are excused. Bastards who shoot people in the head to confirm their kills deserve to be locked away in someplace horrible for a long time.

    EDIT: also, no more derailing the thread.

    Wait what?

    If you've already decided to kill someone, why does shooting them in the head to make sure it's done and over make you a monster? I'm honestly confused here.

    well, it is kinda in poor taste. If they are wounded already, they are pretty much out of the fight. You don't really need to kill them.

    It's kinda like machine gunning pilots who have ejected. There is kinda a diffrence between killing someone in the heat of battle, and going around afterward popping caps in people who are pretty much defenceless.

    If that is what we are talking about. Don't think there is anything especially wrong if they are just trained to go for headshots in combat.

    redx on
    This machine kills threads.
  • MahnmutMahnmut Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    redx wrote:
    Mahnmut wrote:
    Aldo wrote:
    @I.H.N.I.W.T.R.: Of course, your soldiers get to aim at people's heads a whole lot more than your average US soldier. ;)

    Every army has its assholes, renegades and general douchebags. The IDF just gets a hell of a lot more exposure about the things its idiots commit because it's in a major global newspot. And besides, it's not like the fuckers who do these things are excused. Bastards who shoot people in the head to confirm their kills deserve to be locked away in someplace horrible for a long time.

    EDIT: also, no more derailing the thread.

    Wait what?

    If you've already decided to kill someone, why does shooting them in the head to make sure it's done and over make you a monster? I'm honestly confused here.

    well, it is kinda in poor taste. If they are wounded already, they are pretty much out of the fight. You don't really need to kill them.

    It's kinda like machine gunning pilots who have ejected. There is kinda a diffrence between killing someone in the heat of battle, and going around afterward popping caps in people who are pretty much defenceless.

    If that is what we are talking about. Don't think there is anything especially wrong if they are just trained to go for headshots in combat.

    OK.

    edit: Hi Aldo; I was just curious as to what he thought he was talking about.

    Mahnmut on
    Steam/LoL: Jericho89
  • subediisubedii Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    The majority of any population are idiots. Actually scratch that, ALL of any population are idiots, it's just some have better credentials. This is then reflected to become the impression that the rest of the world gets. It also helps because a part of those idiots are also xenophobic idiots, and are also capable of shouting louder than everyone else.

    That's about it really.

    subedii on
  • AldoAldo Hippo Hooray the swamp, always the swampRegistered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Mahnmut wrote:
    redx wrote:
    Mahnmut wrote:
    Aldo wrote:
    @I.H.N.I.W.T.R.: Of course, your soldiers get to aim at people's heads a whole lot more than your average US soldier. ;)

    Every army has its assholes, renegades and general douchebags. The IDF just gets a hell of a lot more exposure about the things its idiots commit because it's in a major global newspot. And besides, it's not like the fuckers who do these things are excused. Bastards who shoot people in the head to confirm their kills deserve to be locked away in someplace horrible for a long time.

    EDIT: also, no more derailing the thread.

    Wait what?

    If you've already decided to kill someone, why does shooting them in the head to make sure it's done and over make you a monster? I'm honestly confused here.

    well, it is kinda in poor taste. If they are wounded already, they are pretty much out of the fight. You don't really need to kill them.

    It's kinda like machine gunning pilots who have ejected. There is kinda a diffrence between killing someone in the heat of battle, and going around afterward popping caps in people who are pretty much defenceless.

    If that is what we are talking about. Don't think there is anything especially wrong if they are just trained to go for headshots in combat.

    OK.
    You bunch of rambling nitwits just couldn't be bothered to read the rest of the backlog and just picked I.H.N.I.W.T.R's post to punch at. D: He already said that he misunderstood my post and we left it at that. More reading less off-topic plx.

    Aldo on
    Elendil wrote: »
    said Aldo hazily, before clop-clop-clopping out of the room
  • SithDrummerSithDrummer Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Also, when I went to Texas... my god..... People parading down the streed holding a goddam gun and showing it off like it's a good thing.
    What the fuck? Where the hell did you go and see this? I've been through I've been all over Texas, large cities and small towns, east and west, and the only people I've seen carrying guns on the street are cops and people buying or returning them. What a tainted opinion of the state you have.

    This isn't to say that a disproportionate of Texans own guns, because I'd buy that. But that you saw more than one person openly carrying it and showing it off on a public street leads me to call bullshit.

    SithDrummer on
    It's an easy game to hate
  • AldoAldo Hippo Hooray the swamp, always the swampRegistered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Also, when I went to Texas... my god..... People parading down the streed holding a goddam gun and showing it off like it's a good thing.
    What the fuck? Where the hell did you go and see this? I've been through I've been all over Texas, large cities and small towns, east and west, and the only people I've seen carrying guns on the street are cops and people buying or returning them. What a tainted opinion of the state you have.

    This isn't to say that a disproportionate of Texans own guns, because I'd buy that. But that you saw more than one person openly carrying it and showing it off on a public street leads me to call bullshit.
    It could've been during some celebration or something? :?

    Aldo on
    Elendil wrote: »
    said Aldo hazily, before clop-clop-clopping out of the room
  • urbmanurbman Registered User
    edited December 2006
    I think a lot of hate towards americans is a result of 1 sentence: "you are either with us, or against us". Of course, we realize that the majority (?) didn't vote or didn't vote willingly for the person who said that, but that is another issue.

    That sentence alone is a major deal breaker. Sure, 'with us' means in practice, anyone not actively or passively supporting terrorist organizations. But the whole non negotiability that speaks from it is the issue. People don't like being pushed around and told what they have to do, American officials seem fond to assure that is all they're there for.

    America can't stand losing their power and control over the world. Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld both (now out of office, but still) are part of an organisation that openly states America should be the ruling power in the world, exerted through military force. People (me included) simply don't care if america is right in their views on freedom and democracy (in theory, you got it almost right), they simply feel it isn't america's decision to make war over it and have the last say.

    This is emphasized by the fact that a lot of big american corporations got a really good deal out of the war. It might sound just, but when you look at the ideals posed as a reason to go to war over, those should apply and be supported by all participants evenly, so so should the 'rewards' of the war be distributed proportionally to all those who supported the war. The idea of going to war for the spoils is sickening and should be prevented and discouraged as much as possible. As long as other countries don't get a say in the progress of war, that essential control won't happen.

    Also outside of war, economic reasons count heavily in america's decision making, and it's a big factor why people/countries hate to be bossed around by america, since it isn't always in their best interest, as they make it out to be.

    My economics Teach in high school said "the best way to boost the economy was to got to war."

    Me personaly I think america is to gun ho about the rest of the world. Someone else said it earlier in the thread at that our diplomacy is our military is the past lets say 5-8 armed conflicts did we try diplomacy first? No, I dont think we did. We need a damn pres that thinks with this head and not his dick.

    urbman on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited December 2006
    urbman wrote:
    I think a lot of hate towards americans is a result of 1 sentence: "you are either with us, or against us". Of course, we realize that the majority (?) didn't vote or didn't vote willingly for the person who said that, but that is another issue.

    That sentence alone is a major deal breaker. Sure, 'with us' means in practice, anyone not actively or passively supporting terrorist organizations. But the whole non negotiability that speaks from it is the issue. People don't like being pushed around and told what they have to do, American officials seem fond to assure that is all they're there for.

    America can't stand losing their power and control over the world. Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld both (now out of office, but still) are part of an organisation that openly states America should be the ruling power in the world, exerted through military force. People (me included) simply don't care if america is right in their views on freedom and democracy (in theory, you got it almost right), they simply feel it isn't america's decision to make war over it and have the last say.

    This is emphasized by the fact that a lot of big american corporations got a really good deal out of the war. It might sound just, but when you look at the ideals posed as a reason to go to war over, those should apply and be supported by all participants evenly, so so should the 'rewards' of the war be distributed proportionally to all those who supported the war. The idea of going to war for the spoils is sickening and should be prevented and discouraged as much as possible. As long as other countries don't get a say in the progress of war, that essential control won't happen.

    Also outside of war, economic reasons count heavily in america's decision making, and it's a big factor why people/countries hate to be bossed around by america, since it isn't always in their best interest, as they make it out to be.

    My economics Teach in high school said "the best way to boost the economy was to got to war."

    Me personaly I think america is to gun ho about the rest of the world. Someone else said it earlier in the thread at that our diplomacy is our military is the past lets say 5-8 armed conflicts did we try diplomacy first? No, I dont think we did. We need a damn pres that thinks with this head and not his dick.

    Yeah, but you have to go to war correctly. Not fuck it up like we did. Especially the economic part.

    Fencingsax on
    torchlight-sig-80.jpg
  • EchoEcho Moderator mod
    edited December 2006
    tynic wrote:
    Sweden, like most of scandinavia, is a horribly racist country.

    We're what now?

    Granted, the most recent election was kind of a mess at places - the "Sweden Democrats" got a few mandates across the country.

    They're doing the whole "we're not racists, we just want to take care of all our native citizens first!" spiel. By kicking all immigrants out of the country.

    Fox News did a fair and balanced report in a series called "Eurabia". They claimed that Sweden was "under siege" by Arab immigrants.

    It's true that we have had a lot of immigrants over the last couple of years. Most of them were from Denmark.

    God damn Danes.

    fake edit: here's one of the articles. How much of it was invented by Fox is left as an exercise to readers.

    real edit: it's true that 25% of the Malmö population are immigrants. But that includes all nationalities. And the largest of them are the Danes, them being a neighbor country and just across the bridge.

    Echo on
    Echo wrote: »
    Let they who have not posted about their balls in the wrong thread cast the first stone.
  • FyreWulffFyreWulff Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited December 2006
    urbman wrote:
    I think a lot of hate towards americans is a result of 1 sentence: "you are either with us, or against us". Of course, we realize that the majority (?) didn't vote or didn't vote willingly for the person who said that, but that is another issue.

    That sentence alone is a major deal breaker. Sure, 'with us' means in practice, anyone not actively or passively supporting terrorist organizations. But the whole non negotiability that speaks from it is the issue. People don't like being pushed around and told what they have to do, American officials seem fond to assure that is all they're there for.

    America can't stand losing their power and control over the world. Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld both (now out of office, but still) are part of an organisation that openly states America should be the ruling power in the world, exerted through military force. People (me included) simply don't care if america is right in their views on freedom and democracy (in theory, you got it almost right), they simply feel it isn't america's decision to make war over it and have the last say.

    This is emphasized by the fact that a lot of big american corporations got a really good deal out of the war. It might sound just, but when you look at the ideals posed as a reason to go to war over, those should apply and be supported by all participants evenly, so so should the 'rewards' of the war be distributed proportionally to all those who supported the war. The idea of going to war for the spoils is sickening and should be prevented and discouraged as much as possible. As long as other countries don't get a say in the progress of war, that essential control won't happen.

    Also outside of war, economic reasons count heavily in america's decision making, and it's a big factor why people/countries hate to be bossed around by america, since it isn't always in their best interest, as they make it out to be.

    My economics Teach in high school said "the best way to boost the economy was to got to war."

    Me personaly I think america is to gun ho about the rest of the world. Someone else said it earlier in the thread at that our diplomacy is our military is the past lets say 5-8 armed conflicts did we try diplomacy first? No, I dont think we did. We need a damn pres that thinks with this head and not his dick.

    Actually we did try diplomacy first in Iraq. Maybe we could have gone on longer, but I'm pretty sure we just got tired of Saddam's posturing.

    FyreWulff on
  • Nexus ZeroNexus Zero Registered User
    edited December 2006
    FyreWulff wrote:
    Actually we did try diplomacy first in Iraq. Maybe we could have gone on longer, but I'm pretty sure we just got tired of Saddam's posturing.

    I don't remember them just asking for the oil.

    Nexus Zero on
    sig.jpg
  • CorvusCorvus . VancouverRegistered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Avris wrote:
    Corvus wrote:
    Elendil wrote:
    Marx wrote:
    Also, I find it pompous that citizens of the United States of America call themselves Americans, when there are two whole continents that bear the name America.
    I don't know.

    United States-ian sounds pretty retarded.

    Yeah. Plus, the USA is the only country that actually has "America" as part of its name. We don't need "American" as a generic term for the countries on the two American continents. In North America, theres only three countries. Its just easier to refer to the countries by name or refer to "North American" or "South American"

    Pomposity really has nothing to do with it.
    North America only has 3 contries?

    Are we not including Central America in this? Since when did we have 8 contients?

    Well, yeah. I tend not to think of Central America as part of North America. Which leaves us with Canada, USA and Mexico.

    Central America has always been sort of its own thing to my mind, not part of either American continent. Lets call it seven continents and a land-bridge.

    Corvus on
    :so_raven:
  • JinniganJinnigan Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    FyreWulff wrote:
    urbman wrote:
    I think a lot of hate towards americans is a result of 1 sentence: "you are either with us, or against us". Of course, we realize that the majority (?) didn't vote or didn't vote willingly for the person who said that, but that is another issue.

    That sentence alone is a major deal breaker. Sure, 'with us' means in practice, anyone not actively or passively supporting terrorist organizations. But the whole non negotiability that speaks from it is the issue. People don't like being pushed around and told what they have to do, American officials seem fond to assure that is all they're there for.

    America can't stand losing their power and control over the world. Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld both (now out of office, but still) are part of an organisation that openly states America should be the ruling power in the world, exerted through military force. People (me included) simply don't care if america is right in their views on freedom and democracy (in theory, you got it almost right), they simply feel it isn't america's decision to make war over it and have the last say.

    This is emphasized by the fact that a lot of big american corporations got a really good deal out of the war. It might sound just, but when you look at the ideals posed as a reason to go to war over, those should apply and be supported by all participants evenly, so so should the 'rewards' of the war be distributed proportionally to all those who supported the war. The idea of going to war for the spoils is sickening and should be prevented and discouraged as much as possible. As long as other countries don't get a say in the progress of war, that essential control won't happen.

    Also outside of war, economic reasons count heavily in america's decision making, and it's a big factor why people/countries hate to be bossed around by america, since it isn't always in their best interest, as they make it out to be.

    My economics Teach in high school said "the best way to boost the economy was to got to war."

    Me personaly I think america is to gun ho about the rest of the world. Someone else said it earlier in the thread at that our diplomacy is our military is the past lets say 5-8 armed conflicts did we try diplomacy first? No, I dont think we did. We need a damn pres that thinks with this head and not his dick.

    Actually we did try diplomacy first in Iraq. Maybe we could have gone on longer, but I'm pretty sure we just got tired of Saddam's posturing.
    It's like you've completely forgotten the way that Osama Bin-Laden and the War Against Terrorism In Afghanistan was twisted to become the War Against Saddam in Iraq.

    Jinnigan on
    whatifihadnofriendsshortenedsiggy2.jpg
  • DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited December 2006
    FyreWulff wrote:
    Actually we did try diplomacy first in Iraq. Maybe we could have gone on longer, but I'm pretty sure we just got tired of Saddam's posturing.

    By "posturing" you mean "as far as we know now, telling the truth about not having any weapons," right?

    Doc on
  • JCMJCM Registered User
    edited December 2006
    I cant complain much on how Brazil is perceived.

    Any country I go I get the hostile "america?", and as soon as I say "no, Brasil" I get smiles, maybe a Ronaldo/Romario/Pele comment, and free booze, boarding and in Thailand, free whores.

    Its great being the 2nd neutral country in the world, if you overlook the violence, poverty and corruption that is.

    JCM on
  • AldoAldo Hippo Hooray the swamp, always the swampRegistered User regular
    edited December 2006
    JCM wrote:
    I cant complain much on how Brazil is perceived.

    Any country I go I get the hostile "america?", and as soon as I say "no, Brasil" I get smiles, maybe a Ronaldo/Romario/Pele comment, and free booze, boarding and in Thailand, free whores.

    Its great being the 2nd neutral country in the world, if you overlook the violence, poverty and corruption that is.
    I still hate your country for Brasilia. A bit over the top, you know.

    Aldo on
    Elendil wrote: »
    said Aldo hazily, before clop-clop-clopping out of the room
  • JCMJCM Registered User
    edited December 2006
    Aldo wrote:
    JCM wrote:
    I cant complain much on how Brazil is perceived.

    Any country I go I get the hostile "america?", and as soon as I say "no, Brasil" I get smiles, maybe a Ronaldo/Romario/Pele comment, and free booze, boarding and in Thailand, free whores.

    Its great being the 2nd neutral country in the world, if you overlook the violence, poverty and corruption that is.
    I still hate your country for Brasilia. A bit over the top, you know.

    Brasilia? I live here... whats wrong with it if I may ask?

    JCM on
  • SamSam Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    I just wanted to say I have some problems with the OP. Your roommate from Hong Kong must either be lying about where he's from, or is just batshit insane. Hong Kong has full freedom of speech, and the populace has made its hatred of certain government officials pretty damned clear (to the extent of booing them off the field at a Liverpool soccer game)
    Allegations of genocide committed by the People's party in China are also openly made by organizations persecuted in the mainland, but free to do what they will here (Falun Gong)
    I could go on about protests for democracy, against government land reclamation projects, and annual Tianenmen square remembrance gatherings, but I think I've made my point.

    I'm not very familiar with Japanese media, but it isn't the dictatorial propoganda machine that you make it out to be by any stretch of the imagination. Media outlets can run stories without government permission or approval. Whether they actually do is a different story.
    But is that really different from the likes of Fox News?

    Also, I've been to Sweden, and the people there were much nicer than most other places I've been to. And I'm brown.

    By far the worst racist treatment I've ever gotten has been in airports in the united states. Next to that would be cabbies in London, although that was mostly provoked by a rather loud, uncouth person that I was in the company of at the time who took it upon himself to haggle over 2 pounds.

    Sam on
  • ZoolanderZoolander Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Sam wrote:
    By far the worst racist treatment I've ever gotten has been in airports in the united states.
    I'm pretty sure US airports agents hate everyone equally
    I HATE travelling through US airports

    Zoolander on
  • SamSam Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Aldo wrote:
    Also, when I went to Texas... my god..... People parading down the streed holding a goddam gun and showing it off like it's a good thing.
    What the fuck? Where the hell did you go and see this? I've been through I've been all over Texas, large cities and small towns, east and west, and the only people I've seen carrying guns on the street are cops and people buying or returning them. What a tainted opinion of the state you have.

    This isn't to say that a disproportionate of Texans own guns, because I'd buy that. But that you saw more than one person openly carrying it and showing it off on a public street leads me to call bullshit.
    It could've been during some celebration or something? :?

    I hear there's a place in Kansas called Dodge City where people walk around with guns in holsters.
    I've only been to Lawrence, Kansas, and the only time you'd see that there is on haloween, and the guns would probably be plastic, and the guys would be drunk college kids in cowboy costumes.

    Apparently Lawrence is a hippie commune compared to the rest of the state.

    Sam on
  • AldoAldo Hippo Hooray the swamp, always the swampRegistered User regular
    edited December 2006
    JCM wrote:
    Aldo wrote:
    JCM wrote:
    I cant complain much on how Brazil is perceived.

    Any country I go I get the hostile "america?", and as soon as I say "no, Brasil" I get smiles, maybe a Ronaldo/Romario/Pele comment, and free booze, boarding and in Thailand, free whores.

    Its great being the 2nd neutral country in the world, if you overlook the violence, poverty and corruption that is.
    I still hate your country for Brasilia. A bit over the top, you know.

    Brasilia? I live here... whats wrong with it if I may ask?
    Building a city in the middle of the forests and making it as modern as possible. A bit too prestigious for my tastes. They could've spent all that money needed much better.

    Aldo on
    Elendil wrote: »
    said Aldo hazily, before clop-clop-clopping out of the room
  • FyreWulffFyreWulff Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited December 2006
    Doc wrote:
    FyreWulff wrote:
    Actually we did try diplomacy first in Iraq. Maybe we could have gone on longer, but I'm pretty sure we just got tired of Saddam's posturing.

    By "posturing" you mean "as far as we know now, telling the truth about not having any weapons," right?

    Actually, it was all the bullshit where they'd keep delaying UN inspectors from investigating certain sites.

    FyreWulff on
  • SamSam Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Zoolander wrote:
    Sam wrote:
    By far the worst racist treatment I've ever gotten has been in airports in the united states.
    I'm pretty sure US airports agents hate everyone equally
    I HATE travelling through US airports

    I don't mean to whinge, but I really do think I get it worse than everyone else. Every time I have re-entered the US (going back to college from home) I have been detained at immigration for upwards of 3 hours, missing my connection, and having to get in line after that and pray that I can get a connection in less than 8 hours. Immigration doesn't even tell me why I'm detained- I just have to sit and wait until my name is called, and then I'm given my documents and sent on my way without a word.

    As for security checks, I saw a man go through a folder with confidential documents in them (relating to medical prescriptions, that sort of thing)
    What fun it is to have them take apart your entire handcarry, and not only look into what you have, but what it says about you.

    It was out of line and I probably could've complained, but then I would've missed my flight.

    And what's funny is that although I'm brown, I'm not Arabic or Muslim or even have a Muslim sounding name. In fact my last name is derived from the name of the Buddha.

    All them Shaolin terrorists.

    Sam on
  • JCMJCM Registered User
    edited December 2006
    Aldo wrote:
    JCM wrote:
    Aldo wrote:
    JCM wrote:
    I cant complain much on how Brazil is perceived.

    Any country I go I get the hostile "america?", and as soon as I say "no, Brasil" I get smiles, maybe a Ronaldo/Romario/Pele comment, and free booze, boarding and in Thailand, free whores.

    Its great being the 2nd neutral country in the world, if you overlook the violence, poverty and corruption that is.
    I still hate your country for Brasilia. A bit over the top, you know.

    Brasilia? I live here... whats wrong with it if I may ask?
    Building a city in the middle of the forests and making it as modern as possible. A bit too prestigious for my tastes. They could've spent all that money needed much better.

    "Serrado" actually, flatlands with red Earth, it was post WW2 and it seemed foolish to have a seaside city be the capital, but believe me, the money spent to build brasilia is a tenth of the money lost in brasilia today due to corruption. :(

    Malaysia also followed the "planned city" and built a new capital, but I left while they were still finishing construction, cant say if its any good.

    JCM on
  • SamSam Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Echo wrote:
    tynic wrote:
    Sweden, like most of scandinavia, is a horribly racist country.

    We're what now?

    Granted, the most recent election was kind of a mess at places - the "Sweden Democrats" got a few mandates across the country.

    They're doing the whole "we're not racists, we just want to take care of all our native citizens first!" spiel. By kicking all immigrants out of the country.

    Fox News did a fair and balanced report in a series called "Eurabia". They claimed that Sweden was "under siege" by Arab immigrants.

    It's true that we have had a lot of immigrants over the last couple of years. Most of them were from Denmark.

    God damn Danes.

    Funny sidetrack story- There was this street performer doing a variety musical/comedy act in Copenhagen, and I stopped to watch. He introduced a song that he said was about all the things he liked about Sweden.

    It had no lyrics.

    Sam on
  • EchoEcho Moderator mod
    edited December 2006
    The Scandinavian countries have a long-standing tradition of playful hatin' on each other. Each country has stories about "Stupid X". For Sweden, it's Norwegians. Us Swedes also have our "Bellman jokes" - Carl Bellman and two other (usually unnamed) people of other nationalities (such as, say... Norwegian and Danish?) are in trouble and Bellman comes out on top.

    ...but this wasn't a thread about Scandinavia.

    Echo on
    Echo wrote: »
    Let they who have not posted about their balls in the wrong thread cast the first stone.
  • Al_watAl_wat Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Whats the general Swedish position on Finns?

    I ask as someone who has Finnish lineage but is not really culturally Finnish (I live in Canada).

    I'm really just asking for curiosity/humor's sake. I won't get pissed if you say "we hate dem dam dirty finns!"

    Al_wat on
    PSN: AWATTT66| XBox Live: AWATTT66| Steam: AL-WAT| Battle.Net: ALWATTS #1320
    Origin: aiwatt| Switch: SW-8499-0918-5960
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar Audio Game Developer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Al_wat wrote:
    Whats the general Swedish position on Finns?

    Anything but missionary.

    :winky:

    Incenjucar on
  • Al_watAl_wat Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Oh you

    Al_wat on
    PSN: AWATTT66| XBox Live: AWATTT66| Steam: AL-WAT| Battle.Net: ALWATTS #1320
    Origin: aiwatt| Switch: SW-8499-0918-5960
  • EchoEcho Moderator mod
    edited December 2006
    Al_wat wrote:
    Whats the general Swedish position on Finns?

    According to the stereotype, Finns drink all the time (without ever getting really drunk) and fight with knives all the time. :P

    Finnish drinking song: "Now!"

    Echo on
    Echo wrote: »
    Let they who have not posted about their balls in the wrong thread cast the first stone.
  • SamSam Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Out of curiosity, other than in the U.S, and of course Borat's Kazakhstan, are there any nations that regularly tout themselves (maybe tout isn't the best word though) as the greatest on the face of the earth?

    Sam on
  • CavilCavil Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Echo wrote:
    Al_wat wrote:
    Whats the general Swedish position on Finns?

    According to the stereotype, Finns drink all the time (without ever getting really drunk) and fight with knives all the time. :P

    Finnish drinking song: "Now!"

    I thought the stereotype was that they all looked like Conan O'Brien.

    Cavil on
    Virtue finds and chooses the mean.
  • Al_watAl_wat Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Echo wrote:
    Al_wat wrote:
    Whats the general Swedish position on Finns?

    According to the stereotype, Finns drink all the time (without ever getting really drunk) and fight with knives all the time. :P

    Finnish drinking song: "Now!"

    Strangely enough one of my most prominent memories of Finland is my uncle making me sniff a bottle of some 90% alcohol he got in Estonia. It burned the fuck out of my nose.... and it was completely empty!

    Al_wat on
    PSN: AWATTT66| XBox Live: AWATTT66| Steam: AL-WAT| Battle.Net: ALWATTS #1320
    Origin: aiwatt| Switch: SW-8499-0918-5960
  • EchoEcho Moderator mod
    edited December 2006
    Al_wat wrote:
    Strangely enough one of my most prominent memories of Finland is my uncle making me sniff a bottle of some 90% alcohol he got in Estonia. It burned the fuck out of my nose.... and it was completely empty!

    Might have been Minttu. It's 50%. :P

    Echo on
    Echo wrote: »
    Let they who have not posted about their balls in the wrong thread cast the first stone.
  • Joe Camacho MKIIJoe Camacho MKII Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Sam wrote:
    Out of curiosity, other than in the U.S, and of course Borat's Kazakhstan, are there any nations that regularly tout themselves (maybe tout isn't the best word though) as the greatest on the face of the earth?

    Argentina.

    Argentinan Joke: What's the country that's closest to Heaven?

    [spoiler:75ff1d8b28]No, it's not Argentina, it's Uruguay that's next to Argentina.[/spoiler:75ff1d8b28]

    Joe Camacho MKII on
    steam_sig.png I edit my posts a lot.
  • Anarchy Rules!Anarchy Rules! Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Sam wrote:
    Out of curiosity, other than in the U.S, and of course Borat's Kazakhstan, are there any nations that regularly tout themselves (maybe tout isn't the best word though) as the greatest on the face of the earth?

    Here we tout ourselves as having been the greatest nation ever. You just gotta love an empire.

    Talking of stereotypes have we covered the Yanks being obese?

    Why do the Americans care so much about their flag? I couldn't care less if the Union Jack was burnt, yet the Americans I've talked to would spaz out if it burnt.

    Anarchy Rules! on
  • SamSam Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Sam wrote:
    Out of curiosity, other than in the U.S, and of course Borat's Kazakhstan, are there any nations that regularly tout themselves (maybe tout isn't the best word though) as the greatest on the face of the earth?

    Here we tout ourselves as having been the greatest nation ever. You just gotta love an empire.

    Talking of stereotypes have we covered the Yanks being obese?

    Why do the Americans care so much about their flag? I couldn't care less if the Union Jack was burnt, yet the Americans I've talked to would spaz out if it burnt.

    Not all Americans I would imagine, as flag burning is legal and the good old boys at Rage Against The Machine exercised that right on TV.

    Sam on
  • GimGim a quietly erotic life Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Boy: [spoken] Hey, who left all this garbage lying on the steps of Congress?

    Amendment: [spoken] I'm not garbage.

    I'm an amendment to be
    Yes, an amendment to be
    And I'm hoping that they'll ratify me
    There's a lot of flag burners
    Who have got too much freedom
    I wanna make it legal
    For policemen
    To beat 'em
    'Cause there's limits to our liberties
    'Least I hope and pray that there are
    'Cause those liberal freaks go too far.

    Boy: [spoken] But why can't we just make a law against flag burning?

    Amendment: [spoken] Because that law would be unconstitutional.
    But if we _changed_ the Constitution...

    Boy: [spoken] Then we could make all sorts of crazy laws!

    Amendment: [spoken] Now you're catching on!

    Boy: [spoken] But what if they say you're not good enough to be in the Constitution?

    Amendment: Then I'll destroy all opposition to me
    And I'll make Ted Kennedy pay
    If he fights back
    I'll say that he's gay

    Big Fat Guy: [running up] Good news, Amendment! They ratified 'ya. You're in the U.S. Constitution!

    Amendment: Oh, yeah! Door's open, boys!

    [many bills and amendments run in, guns a-shooting and bombs a-flying]

    Gim on
  • ArikadoArikado Southern CaliforniaRegistered User regular
    edited December 2006
    I went to South Korea once.

    I'm Mexican.

    Yeah...sorta stuck out in a crowd, despite my best efforts. I was in Daegu (sp?) and I learned from my Korean gf that even tho I wasn't despised or hated, that part of the country sees little else aside from Asians and Americans.

    Oh, and the whole tricked out Japanese toilets are slowly moving over to Korea.

    Arikado on
    BNet: Arikado#1153 | Steam | LoL: Anzen
13468911
Sign In or Register to comment.