Ending the Controversy
View: 1370x4000
Note: I am an American, but this is true. So you can have your pride if you want. Just know that there's nothing to be proud of right now.
ReportReport this topic to moderators FlagFlag as not safe for work.
Views: 7,205
RATE
-2
Posted: 2010-02-13 16:27:08
Psst.
Responses (136) / Sorted by points
I have pride of America due to the fact that we DO have things to be proud of. Because some dick decied to take only the bad and show it does that make us bad. maybe u should have shown how Most of europe was gettin the shit kick out of them in WW1 and WW2. with out on there wouldnt be another. That makes our history similar because we would not have had any history the way it is with out the other country.
WWI, WWII? Wasn't that Europeans vs. Europeans? Look at it from the German side, and it was going well at first. Loom at it from the allies, and it finished well.
This comment is below viewing threshold (Show Comment)
You're a fucking idiot. That bomb was dropped to stop the war and end it for good. Not only did it shut Japan the fuck up from attacking and killing thousands of americans in a suprise attack, WHILE JAPAN AMBASSADORS WERE IN WASHINGTON DISCUSSING A TREATY. And what? You dont think it was needed to end the war? Hello, germany was mass exterminating the Jews and even other religions and races. Get off your high horse, if you're in a european country, you need to be praising America for stepping in and winning the war, or you would be speaking German.
I suggest you take a step back and examine the events of 1945, you might learn a few things:
The Japanese had already asked the Russians to intercede for them and had indicated they would surrender if allowed to keep their emperor. We proceeded to drop the bomb while calling for unconditional surrender; immediately afterwards, we made peace on terms allowing them to keep their emperor.
It is hard to know, of the many causes men allege, which are their real motives, which are subsidiary, which are trivial or meaningless. But there were people who said at the time that the bomb would send an assertive signal to the Russians.
The selection of Hiroshima was made because the city had not been bombed, and we would learn more about the effects of an atomic bomb upon a virgin city.
There was profound racism against the Japanese, and one wonders if we would ever, under equivalent circumstances, been able to bring ourselves to use the bomb against the Germans.
The idea of dropping a demonstration bomb, or of dropping the bomb upon a large uninhabited area, was considered but rejected. The fear was that a pre-announced bomb might lead the Japanese to move POW's to the site (which they might have done), while a dud under those circumstances would have been a huge embarassment. But no-one has definitively explained why the bomb had to be dropped on a place of little strategic significance, inhabited mostly by civilians.
The second device was dropped on Nagasaki only days afterward, before the Japanese even had assimilated what had happened at Hiroshima. They certainly would have surrendered without the necessity of a second bomb.
The estimate that the invasion of Japan would have cost us a million casualties is ludicrous and not based on anything. The studies done at the time and presented to the president showed that the soldiers killed would have been about 5% of that number. The fact that the Japanese were already trying to surrender when we dropped the bomb--and that we ultimately gave them the terms we first refused--makes the allegation that we would have had to invade Japan particularly ridiculous.
There were even those who believed, in a tortuous example of one extreme of bomb thinking, that we must drop the bomb to show the world how horrible it is, so that we may never drop the bomb again.
Edit: Another way of placing the bomb in perspective is to think like this. If you have a terrible weapon in your hand, the morality of tool use should demand that you not consider using it until you are in extremis. Were we in extremis? The evidence listed above indicates we were not. We had won the European war, were ahead of the game in men and material and our Russian ally was ready to enter the war against Japan.
If we were not in extremis, the only remaining rationales for use of the bomb were murderous vengeance, detached sadistic curiousity, or amoral realpolitik, none of which are foundations upon which we want to build our humanity.
The Japanese had already asked the Russians to intercede for them and had indicated they would surrender if allowed to keep their emperor. We proceeded to drop the bomb while calling for unconditional surrender; immediately afterwards, we made peace on terms allowing them to keep their emperor.
It is hard to know, of the many causes men allege, which are their real motives, which are subsidiary, which are trivial or meaningless. But there were people who said at the time that the bomb would send an assertive signal to the Russians.
The selection of Hiroshima was made because the city had not been bombed, and we would learn more about the effects of an atomic bomb upon a virgin city.
There was profound racism against the Japanese, and one wonders if we would ever, under equivalent circumstances, been able to bring ourselves to use the bomb against the Germans.
The idea of dropping a demonstration bomb, or of dropping the bomb upon a large uninhabited area, was considered but rejected. The fear was that a pre-announced bomb might lead the Japanese to move POW's to the site (which they might have done), while a dud under those circumstances would have been a huge embarassment. But no-one has definitively explained why the bomb had to be dropped on a place of little strategic significance, inhabited mostly by civilians.
The second device was dropped on Nagasaki only days afterward, before the Japanese even had assimilated what had happened at Hiroshima. They certainly would have surrendered without the necessity of a second bomb.
The estimate that the invasion of Japan would have cost us a million casualties is ludicrous and not based on anything. The studies done at the time and presented to the president showed that the soldiers killed would have been about 5% of that number. The fact that the Japanese were already trying to surrender when we dropped the bomb--and that we ultimately gave them the terms we first refused--makes the allegation that we would have had to invade Japan particularly ridiculous.
There were even those who believed, in a tortuous example of one extreme of bomb thinking, that we must drop the bomb to show the world how horrible it is, so that we may never drop the bomb again.
Edit: Another way of placing the bomb in perspective is to think like this. If you have a terrible weapon in your hand, the morality of tool use should demand that you not consider using it until you are in extremis. Were we in extremis? The evidence listed above indicates we were not. We had won the European war, were ahead of the game in men and material and our Russian ally was ready to enter the war against Japan.
If we were not in extremis, the only remaining rationales for use of the bomb were murderous vengeance, detached sadistic curiousity, or amoral realpolitik, none of which are foundations upon which we want to build our humanity.
Why even post this kind of shit? It's only going to cause arguments.
Fascinating how some asshole can take the WORST things about America and compare the to the BEST things about Europe, and make a generalized assumption that Europe is therefore better.
@Meinftw: this is going to be a huge fight, and will end badly, and you have no one to blame but yourself.
Seriously people stop posting shit just to piss other people off.
Seriously people stop posting shit just to piss other people off.
I am from europe but that is so mean
we had the advantage of like 1500 years more lol
anyways football is a million times better than soccer
and europe isnt better in everything
the music is bette in the us lol
btw I spend over a year in america so I know the difference XD
the people are nicer in the US
but they suck at partying
being drunk after 9 beer is like awful
especially with the american beer
we had the advantage of like 1500 years more lol
anyways football is a million times better than soccer
and europe isnt better in everything
the music is bette in the us lol
btw I spend over a year in america so I know the difference XD
the people are nicer in the US
but they suck at partying
being drunk after 9 beer is like awful
especially with the american beer
You are right on a lot of this, but the partying you guys start drinking before us :( well legally at least but good point but they are basically the same everyone just has pride for their own counrty
things i love about europe
aston martin <3
dubstep & drum&bass <3
fish & chips<3
the women <3
things i love about america:
films<3
mcdonalds & kfc<3
cars<3
women<3
CALL OF DUTY MUFAFUCKEERRSS<3
Hey umm...fuck you for the 9/11 pic.
Cant beat good ole American muscle cars baby!
all i have to say is without the US there would be no europe just germany
all i have to say is without europe there wouldn't have been any US to start with
and there was a kind of government befor europe came over it was in tribes and nations (exp Iroquois nation which had 13 tribes in it) so it is possible that without Europian influences that we would have developed into a bigger nation slowly and been at the same place we are today. also i blame europe for the dark ages
You 'blame' europe for the dark ages? how do the dark ages come into any of this! haha
This comment is below viewing threshold (Show Comment)
This comment is below viewing threshold (Show Comment)
This comment is below viewing threshold (Show Comment)
I never said they did, I said the government believed there was Taliban in Iraq which did attack America. Now don't tell me I'm dancing around the point because you didn't put two and two together.
You had the obligation to not watch the world burn at the hands of an evil dictator.
And the taliban were never in Iraq.
Why does the reply system have to fuck up like this.
And the taliban were never in Iraq.
Why does the reply system have to fuck up like this.
Posted: 2010-02-19 13:02:43 Report
Iraq had nothing to do with the Taliban. It was to find non-existant WMD's and topple the government. And Oil of course.
Posted: 2010-02-19 04:37:09 Report
It's obvious Danny, he can't find a reason for why they invaded them, and so when some ignorant person goes "It was dem dayum muslim terrorists" he believes it and passes it onto the next idiot/ignorant person.
And I'm not saying there was no reason to invade Iraq, as I believe there was, but just try and educate yourselves on topics as controversial as this before entering a debate about them, otherwise I'll have no choice but to label you a blithering moron.
And I'm not saying there was no reason to invade Iraq, as I believe there was, but just try and educate yourselves on topics as controversial as this before entering a debate about them, otherwise I'll have no choice but to label you a blithering moron.
Posted: 2010-02-26 12:04:50 Report
the taliban never attacked us. al-quaeda, as a terrorist network, operating with or without the approval and support of foreign governments, attacked us. The Taliban isn't so much a terrorist organization as it is an extremist branch of Islam. They were the governing, albeit not really legally, body in afghanistan. an insurgency is not terrorism per se, as most of their attacks against coalition forces are directly related to said forces being within their country. that beimg said, the main group in iraq was the AQI and the local militias loyal to their muhallah's cleric.
Posted: 2010-10-03 21:28:02 Report
The Taliban attacked us. The Taliban goes to Iraq. We follow the Taliban. And this argument started because we didn't go fight the Axis (I believe) Powers when they were destroying the world but we did when they attacked us. Since when is it our job to keep peace in other nations? The U.N. didn't start until WWII was over. We had no obligation.
Posted: 2010-02-19 12:45:37 Report
Hey dipshit do some research the reason the bomb was dropped was the entire population of Japan was ready to die for the emperor its the samurai mentality the president was given the choice of launching a land invasion that would have killed MILLIONS of both sides or drop a bomb that would kill a couple thousand. In war there is never a good choice you have to make the one that results in the least loss of life
lets put it this way both the U.S. and the E.U have unique things that make them both special, in this way we can go there or they can come here and experience something completely diffrent and have an enjoyable time for example E.U has alot of older historical sites some still in use exp vatican city. while the US diffrent kinds of things and is much more multi-cultural.
So this arguement is just completely stupid because we should learn to like the diversity
So this arguement is just completely stupid because we should learn to like the diversity
You can't really claim the US is more multi-cultural than Europe, when Europe is a collection of countries and therefor cultures. :P
But I agree with the general theme of your post.
But I agree with the general theme of your post.
omg i lov this but all isnt true tho, cus our history is very great from 20th century onwards with roosevelt and secretary of state Hay and his open door policy in which the US decided to show the world how great it is. so in that sense, our history is better, our architecture is better. idk y u put 9/11 on there, as if those planes crashing into our towers was our fault... Secondly, we beat EU in tech by far, US heg is strongest right now. i will concede food and drinks, only b.c there is no "unique" american delicacy. as with the celebrities...WAY TO PUTS SLUTS as celebrities for the us and models for EU.... um on education.. the bible has nothing to do with this.... the bible was never taught in the US after 1860's when public education became compulsory, and the bible was only taught till 1800 neway. EU has great universities too, but when looking at the US, we win in terms ofeducation. You may hav oxford..we hav MIT, Cal TEch, Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Stanford, Duke, Dartmouth. Emory, Northwestern... etc. All the universities respected world wide (im sorry im just ignorant about EU colleges, ill call it a tie since i know the EU isnt stupid). and music maybee...at least the EU has little Rap... i HATE rap.
Partying..again. ill call it a tie.
Partying..again. ill call it a tie.
Cars is the one thing that Europe is definitively better than the US at. Obviously this could be put down to Europe being a continent and the US being a country, so that Europe as a lot of different countries and therefor a wider selection of companies and cars. Whereas the US is dominated by the likes of Ford, GM and Chrysler.
But anyway, with cars, it's always gonna be Europe > America.
But anyway, with cars, it's always gonna be Europe > America.
Any Aston is a thousand times cooler than every American car ever produced combined, end of.
Any muppet can stick a massive engine in a car and go "Woot it's well fast we're awesome!" European cars have speed and quality. American cars are just a metal shell with a massive engine in.
It actually speaks volumes that the car you selected to show off as America's finest you chose because it's just got speed.
Any muppet can stick a massive engine in a car and go "Woot it's well fast we're awesome!" European cars have speed and quality. American cars are just a metal shell with a massive engine in.
It actually speaks volumes that the car you selected to show off as America's finest you chose because it's just got speed.
Hey Mikey, I like how you posted 4 days ago that this was going to start an argument, and then 2 hours ago fan the flames of said argument.
My hypocrisy sense is tingling...
My hypocrisy sense is tingling...
There's a difference between massive angry arguments, and a decent debate.
This post is incredibly biased and at times insulting, so people are always going to react angrily. All I did was start an even debate about the difference between European and American cars.
And once this has been posted, I'm gonna set people straight when they say stupid shit regardless.
This post is incredibly biased and at times insulting, so people are always going to react angrily. All I did was start an even debate about the difference between European and American cars.
And once this has been posted, I'm gonna set people straight when they say stupid shit regardless.
You argue about how your cars are better looking. No it all depends on your unique preferences and what you like! We have Vipers Camaro and look at the new Camaro is a beast. So just agree that you cant say one country's car are better than another. There all unique
I never said our cars are better looking... They are though... :P
But yeah it is down to personal preference, I mean I really like the appearance of some American muscle cars, but in general I prefer European ones, but obviously other people will like other styles.
From a technical viewpoint though, European cars are superior. However, the fact that American cars are so shit at handling makes them a lot of fun to drive, purely because you're an inch away from death every time you break 80mph. The thing most American cars have going for them is the pure madness of them.
There is no real way to define what makes a car good, since they are all designed for different things. You could say that European cars would kick American car's arses going round a track, but in a drag race, the American car's would probably be on top a lot of the time. It's all about what the car is designed for.
But, if you weigh up all the factors involved in cars, I believe European cars are superior in more areas.
But yeah it is down to personal preference, I mean I really like the appearance of some American muscle cars, but in general I prefer European ones, but obviously other people will like other styles.
From a technical viewpoint though, European cars are superior. However, the fact that American cars are so shit at handling makes them a lot of fun to drive, purely because you're an inch away from death every time you break 80mph. The thing most American cars have going for them is the pure madness of them.
There is no real way to define what makes a car good, since they are all designed for different things. You could say that European cars would kick American car's arses going round a track, but in a drag race, the American car's would probably be on top a lot of the time. It's all about what the car is designed for.
But, if you weigh up all the factors involved in cars, I believe European cars are superior in more areas.
Yea I admit some European cars are tight looking Ferrari and Porsche make some of the best cars there are and they are awesome. For the other things like performance we have a different car for certain qualities I can't say any car is perfect here they aren't but I don't think any are. I still like my American Roadsters and Muscle. Now days most cars are all about the same almost. Go World fuck this country and continent shit. We're all connected and can get any car we want so who cares anymore?
you are so funny. its a shame your cars are no longer the best. its a shame when a vet handles better than a beatle, i mean porsha. its funny and true. Go look at the top gear list. why did the vett beat silly so many euro cars that cost more but give you less? in the us we want results for our money. in europe you just want a badge.
Yeah, a ZR1 definitely handles better than a 'porsha' (porsche, not everything is spelt phonetically, even though it's not pronounced porsha like you yanks seem to think). That's why a Carrera GT with 550hp beats a ZR1 with 640 round a track.
Using Top Gear as an example again, here are some cars that beat the ZR1 and are around the same price or cheaper:
Ferrari F430
Ariel Atom
Caterham R500
And there is a reason that the European cars cost more, because they are higher quality and are simply overpriced because of the badge that comes with them.
They could make a car that could perform like a ZR1 if they wanted to, but they know it wouldn't sell in a European market so they don't, whereas a ZR1 suits the American market perfectly.
I would also point that you are still relying completely on the ZR1.
Ferrari F430
Ariel Atom
Caterham R500
And there is a reason that the European cars cost more, because they are higher quality and are simply overpriced because of the badge that comes with them.
They could make a car that could perform like a ZR1 if they wanted to, but they know it wouldn't sell in a European market so they don't, whereas a ZR1 suits the American market perfectly.
I would also point that you are still relying completely on the ZR1.
not relying on the zr1. thats the only car you silly euros know about. its not even our best. listen lets have a 5 mile drag race. i will bring the ssc. dame did i do that? i win. you have nothing that can compete. and the ssc cost lets that a verone.
The only car you have that can compete on a track with European ones is a ZR1. You can go on about drag races all day long, but they don't matter in the slightest. As I have said before, all American cars have is speed, and that's not all that matters. If you're going to carry on debating with me at least try and be intelligent and coherent. Every other post your making is idiotic and pointless, merely filled with childish insults.
I am making various different arguments and countering what you say, you are just ignoring them and carrying on bleating about the same bullshit, start paying attention because I'm getting bored of it.
I am making various different arguments and countering what you say, you are just ignoring them and carrying on bleating about the same bullshit, start paying attention because I'm getting bored of it.
Posted: 2010-02-27 06:25:16 Report
I don't think that's quite true. The one thing American cars have is that they are unique. They have their good points and their bad points. There is the odd company in Europe that makes crazy over-powered cars, but none of them do it as well as the Americans do.
My personal opinion on them, is whilst they're going to be a lot of fun to throw about, they're going to be nasty as a day to day car, going to fall apart, and would be torn to pieces on a track by a european car with half the power. From a technical point of view in particular, European cars are far superior.
My personal opinion on them, is whilst they're going to be a lot of fun to throw about, they're going to be nasty as a day to day car, going to fall apart, and would be torn to pieces on a track by a european car with half the power. From a technical point of view in particular, European cars are far superior.
Same thing applies to those as the Ultimate Aero.
Go look up the track time on Top Gear, and look at the 20 European cars above the ZR1, which is the highest American car.
And then lets look at the top 50, in which there are 45 European cars, 3 American cars, The ZR1, Z06 and the Ford GT, and 2 Japanese cars. Face it, European cars will destroy American ones round a track.
And then lets look at the top 50, in which there are 45 European cars, 3 American cars, The ZR1, Z06 and the Ford GT, and 2 Japanese cars. Face it, European cars will destroy American ones round a track.
you silly fool. you forget that top gear has not taken all american cars on the track. my point is that a $100,000 vet is better than a $600,000 what ever from europe. thats why the vet is so amazing. now what i want to see is what the saleen s7 does or the ssc. either one of them is a continder for the fastest car top gear has ever driven around their track. if you want a pretty car that cost a pretty penny buy a farrie. if you want a pretty car for a reasonable about that will destroy a farrie, buy american. if you want to knw what the best car on a track is just go look at the american and european lemans races. #4 chevy corvet ZR-1 for the win. you can't argue with facts. this car beats the best europe has to offer. its ok europe. i admit. you can build a car that cost $600,000 that is better than an American car that only cost $100,000. to bad you can't build a car that cost $550,000 thats better than an American car that cost $100,000. its ok that that american cars are wining the lemans. ssssshhhhh europe its ok. you are still better than japan, but not by much
First of all, the last winner of Le Mans was a Peugeot, and it was an Audi several times before that. I think the fact that a Peugeot won shows how useless Le Mans is as an example, as they're just a shell of a car.
And you can make the point that America makes cheaper cars than European cars, but you can't say that the ZR-1 would beat 'the best europe has to offer', as as I've just shown, the ZR1 has about 20 European cars above it on the Top Gear track, so clearly it can't. And of course the ZR1 is cheaper than European cars, it's just a basic car with a big engine, European cars have speed and build quality.
And it shows how you have to rely on the ZR1, the only car America has produced that can actually go round the track without crashing. You have to rely on one car whereas European cars have a wider variety of cars.
On a track - European Cars > American Cars. I'm not saying that's all that matters, but it's just fact.
And you can make the point that America makes cheaper cars than European cars, but you can't say that the ZR-1 would beat 'the best europe has to offer', as as I've just shown, the ZR1 has about 20 European cars above it on the Top Gear track, so clearly it can't. And of course the ZR1 is cheaper than European cars, it's just a basic car with a big engine, European cars have speed and build quality.
And it shows how you have to rely on the ZR1, the only car America has produced that can actually go round the track without crashing. You have to rely on one car whereas European cars have a wider variety of cars.
On a track - European Cars > American Cars. I'm not saying that's all that matters, but it's just fact.
In every day life and time round a track.
The only things American cars have is cheapness, and the pure madness and fun of the things, but if anything that's because they're built so poorly.
The only things American cars have is cheapness, and the pure madness and fun of the things, but if anything that's because they're built so poorly.
Well I can't argue with a lot of your point they're straight on. However the newer American cars coming out aren't built poorly and they are still considerably cheap. The older ones though I will completely agree.
Well my knowledge on the up and comings of American cars isn't great obviously as a Brit, it takes a while for them to gain enough fame to trickle into our consciousness. Any specific examples I could look up?
Just look at any of them really they are trying real hard not to make crap anymore. They are adding so much technology in them it's unbelievable although that might hurt driving skills a little. There are some that are still not quite on top of there game.
That's good, although as much as I have argued against the general style of American cars, I hope some companies stay true to the ethos of the old American muscle car. As they do have many values to them aswell as flaws. It is human nature to want to stretch the limits of what things can achieve. And that is precisely what American cars do with their insane engines, regardless of what happens if you touch the steering wheel (usually a firey death).
On the subject of technology, the amount that is going into European cars recently (particularly the Germans) is ridiculous. Someone even made a car recently (Skoda I believe) that parks itself.
On the subject of technology, the amount that is going into European cars recently (particularly the Germans) is ridiculous. Someone even made a car recently (Skoda I believe) that parks itself.
Posted: 2010-02-26 12:19:03 Report
hmm.. it wouldn't let me reply to yours but yea there is some cars here that do that also. I say within 15 years you wont even have to drive the car yourself.
Posted: 2010-02-26 12:47:53 Report
Yeah I hate it when the reply system does this, always puts and end to any decent debates.
I really hope technology doesn't come on too far too soon, or that some companies have the sense to ignore it. Otherwise, the real joys of driving will be lost.
I really hope technology doesn't come on too far too soon, or that some companies have the sense to ignore it. Otherwise, the real joys of driving will be lost.
Posted: 2010-02-26 14:44:45 Report
It would really suck I love just taking joy rides and messing around. But they already have cars that can stop themselves if your gonna hit something and all that and can drive themselves short distances. Not looking good.
Posted: 2010-02-28 09:59:55 Report
Time around a track, MikeyNinja? Excuse you, but the Dodge Viper ACR and the Corvette ZR1 beat basically every European car ever made around the usual tracks. The only exceptions are unholy expensive purpose-built machines. Sorry, but some of us think slapping a couple airbags on a Le Mans racer and calling it a Radical isn't exactly fair play.
No, they don't. They just don't. They would be able to if they didn't have to go around corners sideways.
everything you have negative to say about an american car is symantics and not a fact. i agree you may like something more, but that does not make them better. lets appraise the situation. how does one derive value? in my answer its money/what you get. in real life you can spend 100,000 on a crazy turbo, paintjob or what ever but that does not make the car worth more. high end eruro cars are nice, but you pay a lot of $$$ for a name. ps when are the euros going to take back the speed record? the ssc needs a good rival, but nothing yall have to offer can even stand up. and yes the plastic fantastic (the vet) did only come in 19. i wonder what place it would come in if it did not rain that day? Hunnnnn? and please name one car that beat it that is in the same price range? most cars that beat it cost 5 times if that more than the vet. and just think the vet is not our best car. its just the only one yall know about. ps GO USA in the olimpics:)
You say I'm arguing symantics then say that the it had rained when the ZR1 did the Top Gear track...?
And there is a challenge to the SSC, the Bugatti Veyron. However, I very much doubt there will be a similar car to the Veyron, as they cost them about 10 million a piece on the individual cars and sold them at about a million, and no European company would have the stones to do something like that in this economic climate.
And I belive the only way you can decide on a cars value in an unbiased manner, is the technical side of things. The pure facts and figures of the cars. And basically how fast they go round a track. Those are the only things that don't hinge on opinion. And in these aspects European cars are on top. And I also believe if you weighed up all the things you would look for in cars, the European cars would check more boxes than the American ones. Regardless of my opinion, if I think objectively about the pro's and con's of each, the European cars come out on top.
If you were going to go into personal opinion, then obviously Americans would prefer American cars, and Europeans would prefer European ones. Clearly, the markets have been tuned to the wants of the consumers, and in general European and American people will look for different things in cars. So there's no way to decide from that point of view, but like I said, looking at it objectively I believe European cars are superior machines (emphasis on machines) to American ones.
And there is a challenge to the SSC, the Bugatti Veyron. However, I very much doubt there will be a similar car to the Veyron, as they cost them about 10 million a piece on the individual cars and sold them at about a million, and no European company would have the stones to do something like that in this economic climate.
And I belive the only way you can decide on a cars value in an unbiased manner, is the technical side of things. The pure facts and figures of the cars. And basically how fast they go round a track. Those are the only things that don't hinge on opinion. And in these aspects European cars are on top. And I also believe if you weighed up all the things you would look for in cars, the European cars would check more boxes than the American ones. Regardless of my opinion, if I think objectively about the pro's and con's of each, the European cars come out on top.
If you were going to go into personal opinion, then obviously Americans would prefer American cars, and Europeans would prefer European ones. Clearly, the markets have been tuned to the wants of the consumers, and in general European and American people will look for different things in cars. So there's no way to decide from that point of view, but like I said, looking at it objectively I believe European cars are superior machines (emphasis on machines) to American ones.
It doesn't matter that it rained, you were just nit picking. It wasn't even recorded as a wet lap.
And I have said a lot about price in other posts, you didn't mention price much in that post so I didn't respond with much about price.
All you are doing is ignoring all the points I make and hiding behind the fact that American cars are cheaper or offer more value for money.
But value for money isn't important in these circumstances. We're not saying "I have 100 grand to spend, what should I buy?" We're saying in an ideal world, where money isn't an object, which car is better.
I'll try and make it simple for you, as you seem incapable of understanding most of my points (although you are probably just ignoring them because you have no comeback to them): If you have two different packs of toilet paper, one of which has twelve rolls and feels like sand paper on your arse, but only costs 1 pound. The other also has twelve rolls, is soft and comfortable, but costs 4 pounds. Now, if you didn't have much money, you'd buy the first, but, the second paper will still be the best set of toilet paper regardless.
And I have said a lot about price in other posts, you didn't mention price much in that post so I didn't respond with much about price.
All you are doing is ignoring all the points I make and hiding behind the fact that American cars are cheaper or offer more value for money.
But value for money isn't important in these circumstances. We're not saying "I have 100 grand to spend, what should I buy?" We're saying in an ideal world, where money isn't an object, which car is better.
I'll try and make it simple for you, as you seem incapable of understanding most of my points (although you are probably just ignoring them because you have no comeback to them): If you have two different packs of toilet paper, one of which has twelve rolls and feels like sand paper on your arse, but only costs 1 pound. The other also has twelve rolls, is soft and comfortable, but costs 4 pounds. Now, if you didn't have much money, you'd buy the first, but, the second paper will still be the best set of toilet paper regardless.
i love how the entire euro fleet is taking on the zr1. ha! it takes your entrire fleet to take on one car. for the record the US holds the Skid Pad G record, the breaking record and the speed records. i would listen to you but your cars are sooooo far behind us that well, i just left you in the dust. its ok europe should be used to comeing in 2nd place to the US. hows those olimpics going? the US winning like it does with everything? huh
I'm not even going to bother with this anymore. I can appreciate a debate with intelligent people, buddyfoeva for example, who I had a decent debate with. You on the other hand, are just moronic and boring. You're stupid as hell and still act like a patronising bitch. I'm sure you'll claim this as a victory because you've pissed me off enough into ignoring you from now on. I look forward to one day when you're driving round one of your stupid American cars a little too fast around a corner (5mph for example), and it can't handle it, flips 50 times and then hits a tree. And just as your about to hit the tree, you think "Dayum I shurrr weesh I had a car that works."
Posted: 2010-02-27 07:00:42 Report
you must be french. all passion, no brains, and wow you gave up the debate easy. but then again why argue with the facts? it just lets the world know what a white flag waving surrender monkey you are. hey when ww3 comes well see how much smak ya talk. USA 1. French Surrender Monkey 0. Just like every war. ssssshhhhhhh, you wrap that white flag around yourself and it will keep you warm and hide you from the truth you want to ignore. now go have some wine, watch jerry lewis and not have a bath. its the french way. there is no question though, i will give it to you eurotrash. no one in the world gives up as easy.
Ok, pretty sure for Science on Euro that's meant to be some kind of particle accelerator, likely the LHC, which needs to be shut down every year or two because of poor construction. But every time I look at it I expect it turn blue and some guys with cobra-armor heads and staffs that shoot lasers to walk through. If you don't get that reference you shouldn't be on teh interwebz =^-^=
Who is the celebrity with the blond hair, european side? (most left)
Wow 9/11 Couldnt stoop much lower could you
And I prefer our art anyway
And I prefer our art anyway
yeah fuck u ass hole atleast we got football not some stupid ass soccer that is fucking boring as hell and we got lots of cool celebrities like sylvester stalone and we got one of the coolest bands of all like Alice in chains, Nirvana and Blind Melon and we one of the nicest cars in the world like hummer and no other country can come close beeting us u ass hole.
Judgement from something who can barely put words together and whose username says he's a Nazi is pretty upsetting.
True we have soccer, the most renowned sport in the world. We also have rugby, rugby being what american football is based on except for a few key differences. Those differences being the rules of rugby are more complex and we don't put on body armour to do it (in other words we're not wimps).
Also there are lots of great celebrities from the US, not sure why Sylvester Stalone came to your mind. However this isn't a valid argument as celebrities are just people who are known by a lot of other people. Also I find it strange that you'd use celebrities as an argument and then move on to quote a list of bands that aren't exactly famous (nirvana aside obviously).
Now then Nazi, you see what just happened here? I've beaten you in an argument by using the medium of reasoned debate, taking what you've said and then giving a reason why I'm dismissing those things. I did all this without swearing and making myself look like an idiot. I assume you are literate as you've put together that very long sentence above so I suggest you begin taking notes.
True we have soccer, the most renowned sport in the world. We also have rugby, rugby being what american football is based on except for a few key differences. Those differences being the rules of rugby are more complex and we don't put on body armour to do it (in other words we're not wimps).
Also there are lots of great celebrities from the US, not sure why Sylvester Stalone came to your mind. However this isn't a valid argument as celebrities are just people who are known by a lot of other people. Also I find it strange that you'd use celebrities as an argument and then move on to quote a list of bands that aren't exactly famous (nirvana aside obviously).
Now then Nazi, you see what just happened here? I've beaten you in an argument by using the medium of reasoned debate, taking what you've said and then giving a reason why I'm dismissing those things. I did all this without swearing and making myself look like an idiot. I assume you are literate as you've put together that very long sentence above so I suggest you begin taking notes.
Celebrities are a particularly stupid thing to argue over. They're mostly cunts anyway.
mienftw i believe that ghettoshen just totally owned you with the arctitechure lol.
dipshit you made britten sound worst. haha and made amreica better
this ones better
www.sharenator.com/USA_vs_Europe/
www.sharenator.com/USA_vs_Europe/
Well if America is so great, Explain how every country simultaniously hates them :)
Explain how America has the worst crime rates anywere in the world.
Also Explain this, if Americas mighty army is so strong... how did they get their ass handed to them by a bunch of vietnamese farmers? :P
Dont fuck with the EU
Explain how America has the worst crime rates anywere in the world.
Also Explain this, if Americas mighty army is so strong... how did they get their ass handed to them by a bunch of vietnamese farmers? :P
Dont fuck with the EU
but yes they are comparing the best of the best of europe to the worst of the US i will give EU one thing they have the "Black Library"
for those of you that dont know what that is its warhammer 40k and other universes
for those of you that dont know what that is its warhammer 40k and other universes
First off Celebrities who the fuck cares there all quite stupid. Music I might give you, but some of my favorite bands are from the US, and why did so many of your great bands come to america? Science and Education is retarded cause the US was the first to land on the moon, and while todays US education may be behind, some of the top scientists come from US colleges. Architecture has already been discussed cause wtf does a terrorist attack have to do with god damn architecture. History sure you guys have more cause the world has known about Europe longer, and the US is a more new country because you thought the world was a fucking square. Art was stupid because the monilisa is the size of a notebook its really nothing special other than a half retarded smile. Food and drink of course there is no American delicacy because we haven't been around as long as you have. Cars not going to argue you have us beat. Football ummm.... two different sports not even comparable. Partying is even cause we both have the same amount of clubs and raves as we do. Oh and we did invade Iraq because of 9/11 what are you stupid they killed 3,000 people and we wont let that go unpunished.
This comment is below viewing threshold (Show Comment)
I have never in my life seen any American claim they invented Golf or Boats.
And space travel? They don't claim that, they claim they were the first to land on the moon, which they were.
And space travel? They don't claim that, they claim they were the first to land on the moon, which they were.
Post a response
Related posts
Examples of real United States architecture:
View: 588x392
View: 588x441
View: 588x378
View: 588x752
View: 588x570
View: 588x828
View: 588x465
View: 588x392
View: 588x402
View: 588x459
Now whats that about architecture?