mitt romney; u.s. elections Romney campaign book: England is just a small island

[theyarecomingforyou]

I'm confused, are the English actually proud of what they used to be?

Yes and no - the former because it's an example of what the nation is capable of; the latter because the way it was achieved was exploitative. Proud isn't really the right word. The reality is that it was so long ago and it isn't really relevant any more. It's somewhat similar to our relationship with the monarchy, in that it isn't hugely relevant to modern society but it's an important part of our heritage.

wrong I do not call them yanks? and I have never heard anyone refer to americans as yanks other then in films? so you are wrong,

I've heard people in the UK refer to Americans as "yanks" but I wouldn't say it's common, at least not from my experience. It tends to be older generations in the UK that use that term.

I think George Bush was a terrible President, but he probably wasn't a bad guy. I personally think he had a lot of influencers, and if you met him on the street, he'd probably seem pretty normal.

Yeah, I agree. I don't think he was an inherently bad person but he was certainly a bad president and there were a lot people who strongly influenced his policies and decisions. But I think that's my concern about Romney as well, given how much his policies and positions have changed since before he ran for president. He's just a puppet for the people with money who fund his campaign.

[Skin]

I think you're the missing the point massively. The points in this thread brought up the British Empire to disprove that we are not 'just a small island.' as Romney suggested.

but wouldn't the point be that it was the Empire's better technology and meeting a lot of technologically inferior natives that allowed for the near global domination? When they ran into near equal forces, things got touch and go. Just curious.

[Azusa]

hmm. did America steal any resources from natives lately?

I think you used the term "liberated" yeah you "liberated" them.

[HSoft]

but wouldn't the point be that it was the Empire's better technology and meeting a lot of technologically inferior natives that allowed for the near global domination? When they ran into near equal forces, things got touch and go. Just curious.

not quite right. When they ran into near equal forces, most they still won, some they didn't.

I know what you are getting at, the US and how they defeated the UKs forces. But take a look more recently at WW1 & 2. The UK faced superior force numbers and technology and still triumphed.

[jakem1]

5 pages of whining about Romney's comment yet no one is refuting anything he said...guess he won't be getting those votes...oh wait :pinch:

It probably helps if you read the thread as Romney's comments were refuted in the OP and by MikeHellstone 8 posts later :rolleyes:

[HSoft]

wrong I do not call them yanks? and I have never heard anyone refer to americans as yanks other then in films? so you are wrong,

Sorry to burst your tiny bubble but they get called yanks or yankees all the time.

I am from the UK and used to call them yanks just like a lot of other people I know did.

[Skin]

not quite right. When they ran into near equal forces, most they still won, some they didn't.

I know what you are getting at, the US and how they defeated the UKs forces. But take a look more recently at WW1 & 2. The UK faced superior force numbers and technology and still triumphed.

I wasn't even thinking of the US, I was thinking more France, Afgahn, and some others... honestly just wondering since a lot of the history I learned was how a lot of the empire was built on running into natives and well, owning them, and setting up shops. Heck, most countries did it to an extent, but just wondered.

Since you mention WW1 and 2, they also had a lot of help in some areas. They didn't really have an "Empire' then, but I get what you mean.

I think you used the term "liberated" yeah you "liberated" them.

hmm...but Americans didn't steal any resources out of it??? Also, didn't they actually pay the countries money to rebuild, to the tune of billions and billions?

[FlintyV]

Author of Guns, Germs, and Steel talks about how Romney misunderstood his book - http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/02/opinion/mitt-romneys-search-for-simple-answers.html?_r=2&hp

That is so different from what my book actually says that I have to doubt whether Mr. Romney read it. My focus was mostly on biological features, like plant and animal species, and among physical characteristics, the ones I mentioned were continents? sizes and shapes and relative isolation. I said nothing about iron ore, which is so widespread that its distribution has had little effect on the different successes of different peoples. (As I learned this week, Mr. Romney also mischaracterized my book in his memoir, ?No Apology: Believe in America.?)

[Tom]

not quite right. When they ran into near equal forces, most they still won, some they didn't.

I know what you are getting at, the US and how they defeated the UKs forces. But take a look more recently at WW1 & 2. The UK faced superior force numbers and technology and still triumphed.

I pretty sure the only reason the UK lost against the US was because we were in wars all over the globe and had to spread our army out like crazy. For which reason is a primary reason all empires eventually fall.

[dippednbutter]

Romney gets proven to be a liar and an advocate of killing the middle class in favour of the rich on a DAILY basis. Sure Obama sucks but at least you've seen some positive growth. Analysts of Mitt Romneys tax plans found that people on $1m a year will get a $87,000 tax cut whilst the middle class will be forced to make up that money by having their taxes increased (I believe on average it would be an extra $500 for each middle class American)

Obama sucks. Mitt Romney is diabolical and makes no attempt to hide that his first order of business is to **** the middle class up.

Where did you get the middle class information and figures from?

Edit: Nevermind, found it.

[Tom]

Where did you get the middle class information and figures from?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/study-romney-tax-plan-would-result-in-cuts-for-rich-higher-burden-for-others/2012/08/01/gJQAbeCCOX_story.html

The study was conducted by researchers at the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, who seem to bend over backward to be fair to the Republican presidential candidate. To cover the cost of his plan ? which would reduce tax rates by 20 percent, repeal the estate tax and eliminate taxes on investment income for middle-class taxpayers ? the researchers assume that Romney would go after breaks for the richest taxpayers first.

[dippednbutter]

http://www.washingto...CCOX_story.html

Seems unlike his previous track record as governor. Hmmm. I don't care for this but then again Romney was not my choice anyways.

[itylernallen]

From now on I am going to take anything that DocM and consider it as silly republican chin wagging and not take it seriously.

Anyways, Mit will soon say that England is one of the most powerful nations within the next day, because that is what Mit does best. He has the ability to say one thing and then go against what he just said in the second half of his sentence. England, not all Americans are like Mit, just most of them. Some of us actually do understand factual information and think in a logical way.

I am sorry for the strange people that have been allowed to speak in this country. :|

[dippednbutter]

I think you're just as strange to totally ignore Obama's double speak as well. Meaning all politicians do that. They play all sides to garner votes. The ability to ignore that is simply pretty breathtaking unless you're a neophyte.

[Hum]

And sadly, the British Isles will sink. :/

[Original Poster]

Sorry to burst your tiny bubble but they get called yanks or yankees all the time.

I am from the UK and used to call them yanks just like a lot of other people I know did.

maybe its just the commoners then, do not really converse with your sort.

[threetonesun]

I think you're the missing the point massively. The points in this thread brought up the British Empire to disprove that we are not 'just a small island.' as Romney suggested.

I think you massively missed the post I was quoting... unless you're really using the "British Empire" as an example of how the UK is still great. In which case, Mongolia is the world's greatest super power. :laugh:

Wow Pretty much like Modern day America really.

No, not really. But great comparison!

[FloatingFatMan]

Mitt Romney in 2007 declared his favorite book was Scientology classic 'Battlefield Earth'. http://thinkprogress...mney/?mobile=nc

Battlefield Earth isn't a Scientology book, it's just a scifi novel. It was written long before Hubbard went gaga and invented his fake religion.

[Hiram]

Just a quick point about the UK's small houses.

Although houses in the US are bigger - houses in the UK are made to a much higher standard than the majority US houses. Even just a small issue like wiring is much done to a much higher standard here than in the US.

Yes, standards in house building have dropped the UK over the last few years, but I'd much rather buy a brick house with a cavity wall. than a wooden house.

My current house is made of sandstone and has 18" thick walls - it may be small, but I reckon it would stand up to a hurricane better than the wooden built houses in the US.

Just my opinion.

[FloatingFatMan]

I pretty sure the only reason the UK lost against the US was because we were in wars all over the globe and had to spread our army out like crazy. For which reason is a primary reason all empires eventually fall.

IIRC, the main causative factor that was that we were rather busy beating up the frogs French. :p

Oh, and yeah.. "Yank" pretty much IS a general term, at least in the south anyway. Its usage generally stems from back in WW2, when they were considered "Over paid, over sexed, and over here" :p Not that it's really intended as an insult. More of a mildly snarky prod, much like "frogs" is for the French.

[Southern Patriot]

My current house is made of sandstone and has 18" thick walls - it may be small, but I reckon it would stand up to a hurricane better than the wooden built houses in the US.

Just my opinion.

My parents' house is part brick and part wood. It has withstood every hurricane to hit the Mississippi coast since a few years before Camille (in 1969). The house I used to own down the street from them is entirely wood, and was built in 1997. Its first test was Hurricane Georges, and there were a few other small ones since then. It also withstood Katrina. These houses are in the area that sustained the most wind damage, and all that happened to them were some shingles taken off the roof. I think you seriously underestimate the strength of houses built here. Most houses built in this area for the last 7 years (since Katrina) are rated for at least a category 3 hurricane, if not higher.

So please, unless you have more experience with hurricanes than I do (which I seriously doubt), I suggest you leave the discussion about them to those of us who have actually been through a few.

As for the subject of the thread, the biggest issue I see with his statement is that he said "England" when what he actually meant was "the UK". Considering that England makes up the bulk of the UK population and a good chunk of the land mass, it wasn't entirely inaccurate. As for it being small, in relative terms it is. England itself is BARELY bigger than my home state of Mississippi (which itself is smaller than average for a state in the US - ranks 32nd in area). Even taking the entire UK into consideration, you'd only end up with an area roughly equivalent to Mississippi and Alabama put together.

[Hiram]

So please, unless you have more experience with hurricanes than I do (which I seriously doubt), I suggest you leave the discussion about them to those of us who have actually been through a few.

You have a fair point. I have no experience of hurricanes.

I still however maintain that houses made in the US are inferior to UK houses. I?d admit - I have no evidence to back this theory, but throughout my travels in the US, and the many houses I?ve been into ? houses in the US, just feel flimsy, with poor quality electrical standards and bad insulation.

Honestly, if you?ve paid a lot of money for a house that has been put together with a nail gun, I feel sorry for you.

I hear argument about land area all the time ? Australians are always banging on about how big their country is. This is all well and good, and there is not much we can do about ? but, there are advantages in a small country. With gas prices rising, living in a small country may well prove to be more economical, with the less commuting distance.

I?ll throw in one other point about the UK I like. There is very little chance of any natural disasters here, no hurricanes or major earthquakes ? apart from some flooding, there isn?t much likely to happen here.

I've been to Mississippi BTW...

[MikeChipshop Member]

maybe its just the commoners then, do not really converse with your sort.

Amen. I'm London born and bred and i very rarely hear the term 'yank' even though i spent the best part of my twenties working with a mixed bag of Americans, Canadians, Australians, Swiss, German, French.... you get the point.

It's more than likely the people using the word 'Yank' are the same people sitting in their council flats, smoking and watching **shudder** Jeremy Kyle. Those same folk that think p*** and n***** are normal terms to use.

What all this boils down to is that Mitt Romney doesn't know ****! Either through ignorance or bloody minded laziness.

America... and the rest of the world deserve better.

[Southern Patriot]

I?ll throw in one other point about the UK I like. There is very little chance of any natural disasters here, no hurricanes or major earthquakes ? apart from some flooding, there isn?t much likely to happen here.

Well, there were those nasty snowstorms a year or two ago.

As for the commuting, it really wouldn't be much different here than there. It isn't as if many people drive from New York to California on a daily basis. Personally, I like living in a place with a relatively low population density. Much more chance of some peace and quiet and the scenery can be breathtaking. Say what you want about the US, but we do have probably the most varied geography of any single country on earth.

[Original Poster]

Well, there were those nasty snowstorms a year or two ago.

??do you mean here? it wasn't that bad if I am thinking about the one you are I drove in that snow storm it was barely anything only got like 7 inchs of snow everyone panicked about it though *face palm* as everyone seems to do when they watch the news