|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
nicholas_chiasson
Joined: 14 Jun 2007
Location: Samcheok
|
 Posted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 2:17 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Lets see how stupid can you get...
-When my brother was adopted from Guatamala, at 3 months of age, multiple people asked "will he speak spanish or english?" So yeah dumb americans.
-The enitre countires of Japan and Korea, I have heard, don't believe in temperate zones, and feel four seasons is unique to east asia. Don't they have globes over there?
-And in Russia...Well...people drink paint thinner cause they can't afford the real vodka. It makes you blind, and kills you, and stuff like that. I know some people want to drink themselves to death, but zylene? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
jinks
Joined: 27 Oct 2004
Location: Formerly: Lower North Island
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 2:53 pm Post subject: Re: Americans Dumb? I Think Not! |
|
|
| Geckoman wrote: |
Treefarmer wrote:
In America we don't have anything as dumb as a Queen or Royal Family.
In fact, your (sic) not even a "citizen" of the UK but a "subject" of the her royal majesty, Queen Elizabeth II. Your (sic) a "British subject," and not a "British citizen."
|
President Bush II?
Different in name only
Nowadays British people are citizens, not subjects |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lowpo
Joined: 01 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 4:23 pm Post subject: Re: Americans Dumb? I Think Not! |
|
|
| Geckoman wrote: |
Treefarmer wrote:
| Quote: |
| "in england we always say americans are the dumbest people on the planet not koreans. how can you say korea is a dumb nation, they don't have anything as dumb as jerry springer..." |
In America we don't have anything as dumb as a Queen or Royal Family.
In fact, your not even a "citizen" of the UK but a "subject" of the her royal majesty, Queen Elizabeth II. Your a "British subject," and not a "British citizen."
In fact, the Queen of England is not just a figurehead but an actual branch of government, with very real and great legal power. If you didn't know that, then hey, look at whose the dumb one. What type of country is dumb enough to not even teach its citizens, or actually, in your case, subjects, the very basic understandings of their own government.
Have you ever seen the movie "The Queen" (2007)? If not, I highly highly recommend it. It's the 21 century! The United Kingdom needs to modernize! But hey, any country whose name has the word "kingdom" in it is just dumb.
Any country that claims to be modern but is a "kingdom," with a very real undemocratically elected monarchy, and a very rigid class system -- let me know if I should be addressing you as "lord" or "duke" -- is just dumb.
Just about all technological advances, scientific breakthroughs, great achievements in social progress (over there in your kingdom you still have a very rigid class system, of which includes a Royal Family) and anything great came from one country in the world, and that country is the United States of America.
Such achievements could only came from intelligent people.
Who went to the moon in the '60s? Who invented the automobile or the atomic bomb? And the list goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on.
America, by far, has the greatest education system in the world. If not, tell me what other country can even compare with America in greatness.
If what you say is true, and the English due in fact say what you claim, it's because of their own jealousy. After all, if the English were so smart, why are they still governed by a monarch (and its not just a figurehead).
God Damn the Queen!...and other dumb things.
 |
American kids can do some pretty dumb things when they are young. I had a friend who decided to piss on a electric fence to see if it would shock him. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ED209
Joined: 17 Oct 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 5:13 pm Post subject: Re: Americans Dumb? I Think Not! |
|
|
| Geckoman wrote: |
Treefarmer wrote:
| Quote: |
| "in england we always say americans are the dumbest people on the planet not koreans. how can you say korea is a dumb nation, they don't have anything as dumb as jerry springer..." |
In America we don't have anything as dumb as a Queen or Royal Family.
|
Bush |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ED209
Joined: 17 Oct 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 5:14 pm Post subject: Re: Americans Dumb? I Think Not! |
|
|
| lowpo wrote: |
American kids can do some pretty dumb things when they are young. I had a friend who decided to piss on a electric fence to see if it would shock him. |
I've done that  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 6:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Well, such stupidity definitely exists in North America. Like that criminal who stayed in a store overnight to rob it, and it was locked, and he couldn't get out. He looked pathetic on camera. Don't tell me there aren't very dumb people in North America. But I understand where you're coming from in terms of Koreans are sometimes very stuck on linear thinking and focus too much on being book smart rather than street smart and don't pay attention to certain details in many cases. I have seen that. I will give you that... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Geckoman
Joined: 07 Jun 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 6:28 am Post subject: Your Comparision is Just Dumb! |
|
|
| Quote: |
President Bush II?
Different in name only |
George W. Bush, Jr., was elected. He ran against other candidates. There were debates and campaigns. Twenty years ago we did no say that he would be the US president because it was not predetermined by birth. If his position was determined by birth we would obviously call him "king" and not "president." In the US, the president is determined by votes, not by birth. He can also be impeached and removed from office. At the end of his second and last term, he would of served a total of 8 years.
It was predetermined that Queen Elizabeth II would be the United Kindgom's (you live in a "kingdom...hahaha...now that's just sad.) monarch since birth. People knew she would be the queen someday, long before she actually was crowned as the monarch. She was not elected. Nobody ran against her. There was no election, nor any debates or campaigns. If she was elected we would obviously not call her "queen." And her term as queen is for life. She can not be impeached or removed from her position.
We can't even begin to compare the two. Your comparision is so outlandish and stupid that, well, look whose the dumb one.
But hey, you were educated in the United "Kingdom" after all.
A good start to educating yourself about your ruler is to go see the movie "The Queen" (2007). I highly recommend it.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Qinella
Joined: 25 Feb 2005
Location: the crib
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 9:45 am Post subject: Re: Your Comparision is Just Dumb! |
|
|
| Geckoman wrote: |
| Quote: |
President Bush II?
Different in name only |
George W. Bush, Jr., was elected. He ran against other candidates. There were debates and campaigns. Twenty years ago we did no say that he would be the US president because it was not predetermined by birth. If his position was determined by birth we would obviously call him "king" and not "president." In the US, the president is determined by votes, not by birth. He can also be impeached and removed from office. At the end of his second and last term, he would of served a total of 8 years.
It was predetermined that Queen Elizabeth II would be the United Kindgom's (you live in a "kingdom...hahaha...now that's just sad.) monarch since birth. People knew she would be the queen someday, long before she actually was crowned as the monarch. She was not elected. Nobody ran against her. There was no election, nor any debates or campaigns. If she was elected we would obviously not call her "queen." And her term as queen is for life. She can not be impeached or removed from her position.
We can't even begin to compare the two. Your comparision is so outlandish and stupid that, well, look whose the dumb one.
But hey, you were educated in the United "Kingdom" after all.
A good start to educating yourself about your ruler is to go see the movie "The Queen" (2007). I highly recommend it.
|
As a fellow American, I'd like to ask you to kindly shut the f*ck up. You are only making the case against Americans worse, doof.
Look at what you have against you:
- Your rambling in such poor syntax it looks like you don't even understand your own language. "Your not a citizen"; "the English due in fact"; "look whose the dumb one"; "he would of served"; unclosed quotation: "kingdom...hahahaha...now that's just sad.
- Thinking an American invented the automobile.
- Believing America has the greatest education system. Certainly, you are proof of that!
- Assuming that having a monarchy somehow makes the populace "dumb". Your entire 'argument' rests on this unproven assumption, making each following thought a non-sequitur.
- Here's the best one: Imagining yourself an expert on British royalty and customs because you watched a movie!!!! 
Let's talk about being unaware of one's own country. If Americans are so smarter than Brits, and so obviously superior to them in every way imaginable, why is it that Americans, across the demographics board, tend to attribute much more meaning and power to something if it's said with a British accent? In studies on the subject, British people even attest that, if in an argument with Americans, all they must do is speak with a stronger British accent and the American will inevitably forfeit his position.
Americans are so smart, they are enraptured by an accent!
Really, just stop making us look worse than we already do. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 10:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| In studies on the subject, British people even attest that, if in an argument with Americans, all they must do is speak with a stronger British accent and the American will inevitably forfeit his position |
No way! That sounds out there to me. What studies or am I completely missing a joke?
There is also no such thing as a british accent, different parts of Britain have wildly different accents. A guy talking in a scouse accent wouldn't make me bow to his opinion, just check for my wallet. thats a joke scousers.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
twg
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Location: Getting some fresh air...
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 3:39 pm Post subject: Re: Your Comparision is Just Dumb! |
|
|
| Qinella wrote: |
| - Here's the best one: Imagining yourself an expert on British royalty and customs because you watched a movie!!!! |
It was a good movie though... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Qinella
Joined: 25 Feb 2005
Location: the crib
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 5:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JMO wrote: |
| Quote: |
| In studies on the subject, British people even attest that, if in an argument with Americans, all they must do is speak with a stronger British accent and the American will inevitably forfeit his position |
No way! That sounds out there to me. What studies or am I completely missing a joke?
There is also no such thing as a british accent, different parts of Britain have wildly different accents. A guy talking in a scouse accent wouldn't make me bow to his opinion, just check for my wallet. thats a joke scousers. |
Have to get back to you later with a reference if I can.
Your objection about the phrase "a British accent" is moot because I never implied there is only one. 'A' can mean 'one from a group'. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jinks
Joined: 27 Oct 2004
Location: Formerly: Lower North Island
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 6:58 pm Post subject: Re: Your Comparision is Just Dumb! |
|
|
| Geckoman wrote: |
| Quote: |
President Bush II?
Different in name only |
George W. Bush, Jr., was elected. He ran against other candidates. There were debates and campaigns. Twenty years ago we did no say that he would be the US president because it was not predetermined by birth. If his position was determined by birth we would obviously call him "king" and not "president." In the US, the president is determined by votes, not by birth. He can also be impeached and removed from office. At the end of his second and last term, he would of served a total of 8 years. It was predetermined that Queen Elizabeth II would be the United Kindgom's (you live in a "kingdom...hahaha...now that's just sad.) monarch since birth. People knew she would be the queen someday, long before she actually was crowned as the monarch. She was not elected. Nobody ran against her. There was no election, nor any debates or campaigns. If she was elected we would obviously not call her "queen." And her term as queen is for life. She can not be impeached or removed from her position.
We can't even begin to compare the two. Your comparision is so outlandish and stupid that, well, look whose the dumb one.
But hey, you were educated in the United "Kingdom" after all.
A good start to educating yourself about your ruler is to go see the movie "The Queen" (2007). I highly recommend it.
:roll: |
Well...
George W. Bush, Jr., was elected. He ran against other candidates. There were debates and campaigns. Twenty years ago we did no say that he would be the US president because it was not predetermined by birth. If his position was determined by birth we would obviously call him "king" and not "president."
I think it is commonly accepted that the vote was rigged: Blacks (with a perceived democrat bias) prevented from voting in some areas, faulty machinery causing the famous 'pregnant chads', a system that does not allow one man (person) one vote, but instead relies on electoral colleges and, of course, a democratic process that requires scads and scads of personal wealth and family influence before allowing anyone even to enter the "race". When was the last working class president? A long, long time ago, right?
"It was predetermined that Queen Elizabeth II would be the United Kindgom's (you live in a "kingdom...hahaha...now that's just sad.) monarch since birth."
WRONG! Queen Elizabeth was not born to be queen, she was born to be an aristocratic country lady. Her uncle was king at the time of her birth, but he abdicated the throne (to marry an American divorcee). It was only then that Elizabeth became the next in line to the throne.
"She can not be impeached or removed from her position."
Why not? It has happened before (Charles I). Also HM the Queen came perilously close to losing public confidence, and consequently the throne during the aftermath of Diana Pricess of Wales' death. who knows what will happen after Elizabeth dies. Charles, the Prince of Wales and heir to the throne is not popular, so who knows whether the monarchy will continue or not.
"A good start to educating yourself about your ruler is to go see the movie "The Queen" (2007). I highly recommend it.
:roll:"
I have seen this movie, Helen Mirren did a great job playing Queen Elizabeth and even though Ms. Mirren is a republican (not in the U.S sense) she played Her Majesty's part very sympathetically. I thought that both the Queen and the Prime Minister were portrayed as decent people doing the best they could during a very difficult time.
And one last thing: Did you see President Reagan bow and his wife, Nancy, curtsey when they were introduced into the royal presence at Charles and Diana's wedding? Do not underestimate the power of majesty. Even in the United States, the office of President is treated with awe and respect; it is nothing to do with the person holding the office (or in some cases, seated on the throne) but everything to do with the embodiment of a nation's aspirations. When U.S government officials utter the words Mister President, it is no less respectful or evocative than palace officials using royal titles. Unlike the (yes, elected) president of the United States, Queen Elizabeth, nor any monarch since Charles II, has no official role in government decisions. The people elect the government and the government makes laws, the queen just signs them off. She has no right not to sign. Please read some books to supplement your knowledge of the role of a constitutional monarch. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jinks
Joined: 27 Oct 2004
Location: Formerly: Lower North Island
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 7:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="JMO"]
| Quote: |
| There is also no such thing as a british accent, different parts of Britain have wildly different accents. A guy talking in a scouse accent wouldn't make me bow to his opinion, just check for my wallet. thats a joke scousers. :D |
Studies have shown that British people relate well to Liverpool (Scouse) accents. They are generally perceived as humourous and friendly - according to the survey. That is why so many UK national call centres are based in Liverpool. Conversely, Americans seem to love the British Midlands accent (another study), but a Birmigham accent (main city in the Midlands) always gets a very low approval rating from British respondents. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
twg
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Location: Getting some fresh air...
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 7:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"Helloooo, my loyal subjects~! Your Queen loves you~! Even you Americans, and Irish!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
djsmnc
Joined: 20 Jan 2003
Location: Dave's ESL Cafe
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 7:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| As an Earth citizen, I find a lot of Humans to be dumb, regardless of which landmass(es) they developed on. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
