So much for the collective US IQ ;)

[Attalus]

I would, Davros, but it's not permitted under the TOS. Not really, that is my exact opinion. Timber, what was that mind-rotting crap you were quoting? It doesn't rhyme, scan, or have any relationship to the real world. Must be "rap."

Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by MagiK: It is really disappointing that people don't give the people that founded this country much credit. Ahh well, what ya gonna do? [img]smile.gif[/img]

Queen Elizabeth? [/QUOTE]
She didn't have anything at all to do with founding the United States of America...if I am not completely adle minded, I do believe that it 'twere a King in charge at the time of the American Revolution. Perhaps you know a different time lines history?

Elizibeth I reigned from 1533 - 1603 Establishing colonies? maybe..nations...NOT!
And of course Elizibeth II reigned in the 1900's so...try again [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 05-27-2003, 07:37 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by MagiK: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by MagiK: It is really disappointing that people don't give the people that founded this country much credit. Ahh well, what ya gonna do? [img]smile.gif[/img]

Queen Elizabeth? [/QUOTE]
She didn't have anything at all to do with founding the United States of America...if I am not completely adle minded, I do believe that it 'twere a King in charge at the time of the American Revolution. Perhaps you know a different time lines history?

Elizibeth I reigned from 1533 - 1603 Establishing colonies? maybe..nations...NOT!
And of course Elizibeth II reigned in the 1900's so...try again [img]smile.gif[/img] [/QUOTE]So without the colonies would there be the nation as it exists today? The cities, colonies and people all existed before the revolution. The PHYSICAL entity of the United States existed from well before the revolution. The CONCEPTUAL entity is what changed with the revolution. The USA did not just suddenly appear one day from nothing. If I go to read the history of New York, do I find it starts with the revolution, or does it start with the Dutch colony? The Dutch colony shaped the city. Formed it. Or does it start with the Amerindians before the Dutch?

The same is true of Australia. Does it start with the European invasion? Did the land just plop into existence in 1788 or does the history of Australia and it's people go back 40,000 years?

Same with Britain. British history doesn't start with the Cromwellian revolution, or with the Norman invasion of 1066. The Romans, Celts, Angles, Jutes, Danes, Saxons, and Normans all shaped the nation it is now.

Just as the Amerindians, British/French/Spainish colonies and revolutionary war are all part of the process that resulted in the nation that is America.

Originally posted by Yorick: So without the colonies would there be the nation as it exists today? The cities, colonies and people all existed before the revolution. The PHYSICAL entity of the United States existed from well before the revolution. The CONCEPTUAL entity is what changed with the revolution. The USA did not just suddenly appear one day from nothing. If I go to read the history of New York, do I find it starts with the revolution, or does it start with the Dutch colony? The Dutch colony shaped the city. Formed it. Or does it start with the Amerindians before the Dutch? The nation of the United States and it's founding start proximately with the War of independance..for it was ONLY this war wich brought about a new nation. It was not actually even certain that a new nation was needed...some thought we could continue to be colonies afterwards....look at the whole of it...the NATION vs a loose collection of colonies by various Euro-nations. The same is true of Australia. Does it start with the European invasion? Did the land just plop into existence in 1788 or does the history of Australia and it's people go back 40,000 years? Sorry not familiar with the details of Aussie nationhood. Maybe I'll take a course on it some semester for right now though it is irrelevant to the question. Same with Britain. British history doesn't start with the Cromwellian revolution, or with the Norman invasion of 1066. The Romans, Celts, Angles, Jutes, Danes, Saxons, and Normans all shaped the nation it is now. Is a nice subject and all but completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. Just as the Amerindians, British/French/Spainish colonies and revolutionary war are all part of the process that resulted in the nation that is America. It was not the founding of colonies that brought about the USA...it was the war of independance and the decisions of a few old dead white guys who did an exceptional job of creating what would become the most powerful nation on the planet. There was a good chance that even after the war, that we would continue to be Royal Subjects...it all depended on how things went.

[ 05-27-2003, 08:11 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[Azred]

I think they should have asked why the respondents chose the person they did. Could most of them have answered why Clinton is the best?

On the other hand, only PR people pay attention to polls....

[Albromor]

Another sign that the Apocalypse is upon us.

[Melusine]

Originally posted by Attalus: *Shrugs* At least the little buggers ("the MTV Generation") don't vote. Who cares about their opinion? They listen to "rap" and it rots their mind. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

I don't see why you feel the need to be so bloody rude about this Attalus. I thought you were making a joke at first and decided to take it in the light-hearted way I thought you intended it, only to read, further on, that you honestly believe this. I still don't completely believe you're serious though, but I'm less sure of it.

The little buggers don't vote? Sorry, but the article stated the "MTV generation" (and what a nice and biased category they managed to come up with!) was aged 18-29. I don't know, that sounds like they're of a voting age. If you don't care about the opinions of that age category, why chat in Cloudy's Cafe all day long? I haven't seen you discriminate in whom you talked to!

The only true rap fan on these forums that I know of is Vaskez, and at the very least he's thrice as tolerant as you, and a nice, sweet (sorry for your reputation Vask! ), religious, intelligent, funny person to boot.
Maybe you think it's 'cool' to affect some half-serious ageism, but I think if I were to loudly and repeatedly state that people over 40 are half-senile, backwards, have no knowledge of modern society and should not be listened to, I would be called down on that too, and rightly so. A lot of my friends are in the "older" age group, and I'm glad that their minds are still young enough to know that not everyone under 30 (!!) is subject to rap-induced mindrot.

I would be the first to admit that wisdom often comes with age (although that doesn't exclude the existence of twenty-year-olds who are twice as mature as people twice their age) and that the younger generation has many flaws, as any generation does. But they're also the people who will be taking care of you in your old age, should you ever need it, and who will make your country work in 20 years.

[ 05-28-2003, 06:03 AM: Message edited by: Melusine ]

[Davros]

Originally posted by Melusine: quote: Originally posted by Attalus: *Shrugs* At least the little buggers ("the MTV Generation") don't vote. Who cares about their opinion? They listen to "rap" and it rots their mind. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

I don't see why you feel the need to be so bloody rude about this Attalus. I thought you were making a joke at first and decided to take it in the light-hearted way I thought you intended it, only to read, further on, that you honestly believe this. I still don't completely believe you're serious though, but I'm less sure of it.

The little buggers don't vote? Sorry, but the article stated the "MTV generation" (and what a nice and biased category they managed to come up with!) was aged 18-29. I don't know, that sounds like they're of a voting age. If you don't care about the opinions of that age category, why chat in Cloudy's Cafe all day long? I haven't seen you discriminate in whom you talked to!

The only true rap fan on these forums that I know of is Vaskez, and at the very least he's thrice as tolerant as you, and a nice, sweet (sorry for your reputation Vask! ), religious, intelligent, funny person to boot.
Maybe you think it's 'cool' to affect some half-serious ageism, but I think if I were to loudly and repeatedly state that people over 40 are half-senile, backwards, have no knowledge of modern society and should not be listened to, I would be called down on that too, and rightly so. A lot of my friends are in the "older" age group, and I'm glad that their minds are still young enough to know that not everyone under 30 (!!) is subject to rap-induced mindrot.

I would be the first to admit that wisdom often comes with age (although that doesn't exclude the existence of twenty-year-olds who are twice as mature as people twice their age) and that the younger generation has many flaws, as any generation does. But they're also the people who will be taking care of you in your old age, should you ever need it, and who will make your country work in 20 years. [/QUOTE] - I don't know how Vasky is ever going to recover from this body blow to his reputation. Nice, sweet, intelligent - you bounder Vasky .

[Grojlach]

Originally posted by Azred: I think they should have asked why the respondents chose the person they did. Could most of them have answered why Clinton is the best?

*shrugs*
Could most of them have answered why Dubya is the best? Same thing.

And either way, with these "eternal" popularity polls you'll always end up with some of the most recent contenders high on the list; simply because they're the freshest in people's memories. In 10-15 years from now, there's a good chance two other new "runner-ups" will be high on the list, with Clinton and W. Bush slowly slipping away again to the same level at which the Presidents from 10-15 years ago are now.

Actually I agree with Grojlach [img]smile.gif[/img] the people answering the Poll really probably could not defend their answers with any real logic. Polls are usefull for PR types and politicians...but thats about all.

Personally I just think the average idiot, is. Is what? an Idiot [img]smile.gif[/img] I guess I don't have a very high regard for the intelligence level of the average human.

Of course members of IW have proven themselves to be above average