The Brits and the USA

First topic message reminder :

The only difference between us and our best friends across the pond is the words we and they say about the same thing.
For example we say boot they say trunk/we say bonnet,they say hood/we say rubber,they say eraser/we say negotiate they say BOMB THE B.......S. :afraid:

Alarm-clock radio started my day right with a Professor of Economics at some American University opining that what was missing from Congress this week is adult supervision.

That's sort of what I was thinking.
Is it true that the source of the row is that some Americans don't think it's OK for poor people to have health care?

boatlady wrote:Is it true that the source of the row is that some Americans don't think it's OK for poor people to have health care?

The Tea Party Republicans are social Darwinists so yeah that's pretty much why the government shut down. They don't want "Obamacare" to go into effect. This law was voted on and tested by the Supreme Court and STILL they're trying to sabotage it.

That's okay ... it means fewer Republicans will be elected to Congress in 2014 and, providing the Democrats run a good candidate, I doubt a Republican will win the presidency. Polls already show that a clear majority of Americans blame the Republicans for the shut down.

Oh, and the Republicans voted to cut $4 billion from the food stamp program - so they don't want the poor to have food, either. Meanwhile, the US oil industry receives $10.5 billion in corporate welfare every year even though the industry is earning record profits. How about taking the $4 billion out of THAT welfare program? Nope ... the rich are allowed to receive taxpayer money, but the poor ... nope.

I saw the best political cartoon the other day in our local paper. Unfortunately I can't reproduce it here, but I'll describe it:

In the middle is a stupid looking Tea Party Republican wearing one of those tri-corner hats with tea bags hanging from it. On either side of him is an Islamic terrorist wearing explosives who look rather happy and amazed at the same time.

The terrorist on the left says to the Tea Partier, "You managed to shut down Wall Street AND the government and you didn't even have to fly planes into buildings!"

The terrorist on the right says, "I tip my turban to ya, brother."

LOL! How apt.

The Republican position seem counter-intuitive, to say the least

Every Culture/Community/Race/Tribe/whatever, of humans will include a proportion of "Spoilers" who take delight in throwing a spanner into the works.

That's Hollywood for you

History is always written by The Victors. Both WW1 and WW2 were concluded only after the USA agreed to participate.

In a Nation of more than 300 million people, the documentary resources of e.g. Hollywood are likely to be aimed squarely at the domestic audience.

British people who can describe details of the British contribution in both world wars are nevertheless likely to be a little bit hazy about the invaluable contribution made by Canadians, Aussies and many other components of The British Empire. Ask about Italian participation in WW2 and there is only one name anyone can recall.

Ask about Italian participation in WW2 and there is only one name anyone can recall.

What do you mean a certain Ulice Damicelli (Army) or possibly Giuseppe Serra,(Navy) two members of my family. As to who can name Italian participants depends very much on who you ask.

Has to be said - I never read about either of them in my history lessons - was all that Mussolini - far as we were taught in an English school he was the only Italian in the 1939-1945 war

We can only know information that's available - many didn't think about the war once history lessons were done. In English schools, Italy's role in the war was seen as very much secondary to Germany's and the only Italian name I heard mentioned was Mussolini's - it isn't necessarily right, but that's the way it is.

One of the joys of this kind of forum is the opportunities it gives us to be exposed to new knowledge and other points of view - maybe you can expose us all to some new knowledge, and that would be interesting

Name five famous Belgians.

Name five famous Belgians

Seems somewhat off topic, but here's twenty:-
 
Bertrand Baguette – racing driver
Pieter Bruegel the Elder – artist
Charlemagne – founder of the Frankish Empire
Albert Claude – won Nobel Prize for being the first scientist to isolate a cancer cell
Kim Clijsters – tennis player
Pierre Culliford – cartoonist who created ‘Smurfs’
Fred Deburghgraeve – Olympic swimming champion in 1996
Jeanine Deckers – 'singing nun'
Cesar Franck – composer
Justine Henin – tennis player
Sandra Kim – youngest ever winner of Eurovision Song Contest (aged 13)
René Magritte – surrealist painter
Eddy Merckx – cyclist
Django Reinhardt – jazz guitarist and composer
Peter Paul Rubens – artist
Adolphe Sax – invented the saxophone
Georges Simenon – writer
Jean-Claude Van Damme – actor
Jan van Eyck – artist
Herman Van Rompuy – first full-time President of the European Council
 
You could add the rapist and serial killer Marc Detroux, but he probably falls into the category of 'infamous Belgians'.

You forgot Hercule Poirot

and Hergé, cartoonist creator of Tintin.

If we're getting into what Captain Mainwaring would have called "the realms of fantasy", we could add Albert Foiret, the café owner and resistance leader in ‘Secret Army’.
 
Audrey Hepburn was half British and half Dutch, but she was born in Belgium. Does that count? If a cat has kittens at the back of a fish shop, does that make them herrings?   
 
I think we'd better get back to the Brits and the USA, or I'll be in trouble with the moderators.....  

Ivan wrote:
I think we'd better get back to the Brits and the USA, or I'll be in trouble with the moderators.....  

Yes ,watch your step young man!   

You would find also some remarkable influences by these two nations with things like the internet and other communications. Could we also become more like each other? Perhaps so far, on the small scale in comparison to all our individual (traditional) upbringings.

  

A girlfriend of mine used to argue that the Belgians were obviously superior to everyone else because they were so high up in the lists of both beer and wine consumption, and I am here to tell you that she, a Belgian, proved, against very hot competition from me, that people don't remember famous Belgians because famous Belgians remember so little, havng outdrunk those who are paying!

Take away the beer and chocolates and Belgium seems a bit pointless. Nice place though.

America, as a general rule, has become somewhat insular, xenophobic, and uninterested in the rest of the world - unless there's a war. We would rather hear about a celebrity sex scandal or every sordid detail of a child abduction case (always a pretty little white girl from an affluent family).

With a 24-hour news cycle, air time could be devoted to more international news, but nope ... I guess most Americans just don't give a damn what happens beyond our borders. I can just envision millions of Americans grabbing their maps to find out where Ukraine is because, uh oh, might be some fun war to watch on the boob-tube.

Some documentaries have gotten quite a bit better about acknowledging the contributions of non-American military forces; they've even done entire shows about Ludwig Bauer, a German tank ace, and Luftwaffe Ace Gunther Rall. There's a lot out there that details the Canadian and British attacks on Caen, plenty of documentaries about North Africa and El Alamin (including how America was defeated at Kasserine Pass), etc. so on and so forth.

I think we can admit that Gen. Lucas's decision to dig in and stockpile supplies at Anzio was stupid. Not one major nation can claim to have had perfect generals all around.

Some documentaries will be geared for American audiences, so the focus will be on the American troops. I do find, however, that there just arn't enough documentaries aired about the histories of other nations, and it does annoy me. I remember back when the History Channel aired the entire series by Simon Schama who narrated it. That was a really good series and Mr. Schama had a charming dry wit to his narration, something I'm sure went over the heads of many Americans. It's almost impossible to find shows like that now - documentaries have become "corporatized" which means they are treated like a series of sit coms. Single shows about something specific are rarely ever aired. Now everything has to be a "series" and if something doesn't fit into the show, it doesn't get produced. This doesn't mean the series is bad, I just find them limiting.

For instance, the series "Dogfights" which detailed various air engagements focused primarily on US pilots - no British, German, Aussie, Russian, etc. pilots and their dogfights were interviewed. They DID do a show on the Yom Kippur war featuring Israeli pilots, but that was it. Another show called "Great Planes" which details the evolution, design, and capabilities of certain aircraft, only profiled American planes. BUT, there are two shows, "Wings of the Lufwaffe" and "Wings of the Red Star" which does profile German and Russian aircraft.

So it's not completely all American.

Nicely brought back on topic - we'd strayed more that a little - thanks Shirina

We Brits are often described as "insular", not only because it's the literal truth but also because we still have that colonial attitude of assuming that our way is the only way.
For a US citizen, it is possible to experience most of the world's physical features without even getting a passport. A drive from coast-to-coast can take three weeks, and a north-south journey may begin in frozen wastes and end in tropical swamp. All without changing currency or learning a foreign language.

That makes Americans entitled to be insular, if they want.

I've never been to America, but it's definitely one of the places I'd love to go, if there was only the time (6 months ought to do it)

I will say that America, being so multi-cultural and a land of immigrants is fairly diverse - cities often have ethnic neighborhoods such as Chinatown, Little Italy, etc.

And OW is not wrong in saying that you can see deserts and plains, rainforests and swamps, mountains and rolling hills, vast expanses of grasslands and thousands of miles of coasts and endless lakes (Minnesota alone has over a thousand lakes), tropical islands and arctic wonderlands. Lots to see and do here and one could easily spend a lifetime exploring the USA without ever leaving it.

I've seen most of the east coast from Texas (Houston, San Antonio, Austin, Dallas) to Massachusetts (Boston, Plymouth), been to the Midwest (Chicago, Minneapolis, Indianapolis), through Iowa, North and South Dakota, got a speeding ticket in Wyoming within sight of Devil's Tower, made-out with a boyfriend on the top of the Empire State Building at twilight, went to beach parties on Galveston Island, used to hang out with friends every weekend at Niagara Falls, and all kinds of little adventures. Well, at least when I was a wee bit younger and life was more interesting. When people start getting married, the boredom really sets in. Ho hum.

America is a fun place - or can be. It took me four days to drive without stopping (four days, three nights) from Washington state on the Pacific coast to Pennsylvania in the Northeast ... and there would have been another day's drive from there to the Atlantic coast.

When I travel, I rarely take the interstate (unless I'm in a hurry) because I want to see the country - and the interstates aren't good for that. They tend to avoid all of the interesting places (though when I traveled to the Pacific Northwest, I had to take the interstates).

People here aren't necessarily dumb, but they can be unconcerned about the rest of the world - kind of like Hobbits if you're at all familiar with the Lord of the Rings series. That attitude is what kept us out of WWII for so long when we should have been right there beside Britain and France in the beginning. Who knows, perhaps Hitler would have been defeated at the Ardennes and five more years of war and the Holocaust would have been prevented.

America, as a general rule, has become somewhat insular, xenophobic, and uninterested in the rest of the world - unless there's a war. We would rather hear about a celebrity sex scandal or every sordid detail of a child abduction case..

Well Shirina us British are not that far behind you in America today.. you have the crazy Tea party and we have a crazy UKIP party who between them are as insular and xenophobic as you can get, as UKIP seem to believe the whole world ends at Dover and the rest of the world is fine as long as it buying British goods but as long as everyone stays out of England. oh i forgot.. and big business does away with EU laws that protect our people in the workplace. but as Tacitus a Roman once said.. when you make a desert and call it peace you are lost.. still in our case the European elections is the time year for most UK people to send each other seasonal suicide economic notes to each other ha-ha.. as we in Britain are fast heading back to life in medieval Britain if UKIP have there own way.. still back then we did have a rather good trade in Soothsayer in Europe.. so we can always start that up once again under UKIPS economic plan they are still writing out..

Interesting description of UKIP .
Fortunately an increasing number do not share your opinion .
As for your accuracy in trying to capture the main points of UKIP's raison d'etre ------ it is around zero .
Why not find out what they are really about instead of making wild guesses .

UKIP are probably not going to be around on the British domestic political scene for long enough to make really finding about them worth the effort.

I do think they have to find perhaps a more credible voice if they are going to last as a mainstream party - which they will have to become if they hope to form part of any government

boatlady wrote:I do think they have to find perhaps a more credible voice if they are going to last as a mainstream party - which they will have to become if they hope to form part of any government

They were regarded as ignorant racist scum even two years ago --- by the chattering political classes and their simpering acolytes .
They are now up and really running and it scares Little Ed witless .And the more so with Scotland's complete rejection of Labour --- not half as daft as they look and sound !! , imo
UKIP will continue to gallop relentlessly and could have around 5 MPs after the election --- though one successful terrorist attack in the UK could rase that hugely .Perhaps to 30---40.
Then we could sensibly see the possibility of a Tory and UKIP coalition .
Not bad for a party that you and some of the Tories constantly try to belittle .

Just a little reminder that this thread is about Britain and the USA, not UKIP, which gets plenty of coverage on the UK Politics board. Thank you.

good point - sorry, forgot

Another good thing the two Staes share is a strong economy with excellent prospects .
Labour took a terrible beating yesterday with the Tories cruising into a 2% point lead .

The Tories showed the rest of Europe how the Greatness got into Britain with some very powerful show boating
Unemployment down to 5.8%
Inflation at 0.5%
Earnings increase at 1.8%
Job vacancies at a staggering 700 , 000 , the greatest for over a decade .

A lot of choking and retching going on in the village of Milibandown .

Someone please remind me precisely what Herr. Goebells said about getting lies to sound believable by repetition. I don't think he was in either the USA or Britain when he said it, but it was certainly understood in both Countries.

oftenwrong wrote:Someone please remind me precisely what Herr. Goebells said about getting lies to sound believable by repetition.  I don't think he was in either the USA or Britain when he said it, but it was certainly understood in both Countries.

It's only a fanatic that desperately imagines hard facts to be propaganda .
You certainly know how to make things up as you go , and , tragically , believe in your fantasies .

I just love the 'wages up by an average of 1.8%' quote, at least one on here seems to have over looked the word 'average'....Of course that seems to be par for Tory's as they keep saying that average wages are £26,000 and for a millionaire's wages to be averaged down the must be couple of hundred thousand who are paid way below the £26,000.....But then again why worry about the low pay so long as the 'Great and "Good"' are comfortable.............

I want to know who has received my 1.8% rise...............

"Average" was precisely the word used in all releases and only someone with limited acumen would imagine any other interpretation .
Your last remark is presumably attempted humour because it is mathematical gibberish .
Thank God if the Great and Good are Comfortable .
They need to be , to create the wealth to fund jobs for the under belly and produce growth for the country .
It's quite simple really .
Or do you think that there is a Growth tree which sheds fruit on whim only?

The American "Can do!" has much to commend it when it denotes a Nation pulling together with common purpose.

Unfortunately it could not realistically be applied to Britain's situation in the contemporary world, since Thatcherism encouraged the City spivs to become bolder when the realisation dawned upon them that "There's a lot of money in The Poor!"

oftenwrong wrote:Thatcherism encouraged the City spivs to become bolder when the realisation dawned upon them that "There's a lot of money in The Poor!"

The poor exist to row the boat .
The rich create the wealth that pays for the boat .

Lefties just conduct senseless surveys to try and manufacture more Jobsworths .

The poor exist because wealth would be meaningless without them, and since the wealthy wish to remain so and wealth enables both political and economic power it's unlikely to change. Your comment about 'lefties' is an inaccurate generalisation that strikes me as trite empty rhetoric.

The rich don't create wealth either, that's demonstrably false, their wealth accumulates more wealth. A poor person could do this if they possessed the means, though of course they'd cease to be poor, but my point is that it's wealth that creates wealth not the wealthy.

Old Jewish saying:

Gelt gait tzu gelt. - Money goes to money