Lucius

Well, I'm sure Pat Robertson is overwhelmed with joy, I saw the other day on the Daily Show that he was Tele-praying to God for another seat.

Julian and Kumq, I just don't want you to set your hopes high, the US have a snowballs chance in hell at winning the WC, you have no idea what you're up against. You see, teams like Puerto Rico, Grenada, Panama and so on are not good teams, defeating them gave a ticket onwards, yes but nations like Saudi Arabia also qualified, so you see qualifying doesn't mean that you're particularly good, it all depends on who was in the group you defeated. When faced with qualified European teams (European groups are very difficult to qualify from), or Argentina you'll get... well, let's just say it won't be pretty. Just FYI. ^_^

I agree....for now. But when we start dominating "football" too, we get to change the name to soccer <{POST_SNAPBACK}> If the US "soccer" team had been in a qualification group with European nations it would've probably been the equivilant of a Euro American Football team coming over to the US to participate in the NFL.

Shouldn

While I don't think the US stand a chance against teams such as the Czech, Argentinians, Dutch etc. I think it's nice that they're doing better. (my own national team still has a long way to go, mind you)

Denmark too tolerates extreme Islamofascists preaching hatred (for now), and Neonazies too of course. I personally believe that people advocating the destruction of a democracy ought to be expelled, they do NOT deserve to live in one. Is that seeing thigns too black and white? :ph34r:

Surely you jest?

Yes.

Diesel is about 1/4 cheaper than gas (or "benzin" as it's called here), however cars with diesel engines are more expensive, and with my country having some of the most expensive car registration prices in the western world, we have to pay the price + 200% in registration, diesel cars tend to be pretty expensive. Edit for spelling.

Me first. Wow, Get me a room with those guys... First, let's see what I can do for you. Alright, you guys sure you don't need a hand? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I rest my case.

Me first. Wow, Get me a room with those guys... I'd like to see what I can do with you. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ahh, a menage a trios with a moderator, how rude.

So what can you and I conclude after this little comparison? I sure as hell don't know. Your society doesn't sound more free than mine. :D

You need a revolution my friend, revolution. Strike down commercial TV guy!!!!1

I was talking about democracies, however. But you're right, they probably do get on TV in other nations, however I don't know of any cases except for this. I honestly don't think that you have, but nevermind. Anyway, (1) However you might think of it as a test, I know a few Americans who seriously do believe that the creation of the Patriot Act and Homeland Security is a step in the wrong direction, you can't in any possible way twist this into something that makes the USA more free, quite the contrary really. Needless to say, my country does not have either of these two, but we haven't been attacked either. But whether freedom is tested under attack really isn't the point since I can't say how we would have reacted. (2) Well, I don't live in either England, Russia or Germany. But I agree, freedom of speech ought to be basic and unalianable, you might even want to throw Sweden in there which is (seen with Danish eyes) extremely political correct. I have sympathy with Germany and its disdain for Neonazism, however, but just shutting up the minorities with laws won't do you any good in the long run. Here, there is only one limit, and that is the "Racism law" which can jail people for making strong racist comments, however recently there has been talk about removing this. You gotta admit though, there must be certain limits to your freedom of speech, such as advocating terrorism and death threats. Speaking ill about the Queen is also punishable, but I've not heard of anybody actually getting nailed for this, the monarchy does have around 80% public support. (3) In Denmark, we have the "Groundlaw" of 1849, when the nation transgressed from an Absolute Monarchy, to a Constitutional Monarchy, and our Groundlaw (like your constitution) has been ammended many times over the years, a change in these demands a majority vote in the Folketing (parliament), then a public vote of 40%, then a majority vote in the parliament again. It is up to be changed again these days, actually, in order to secure the right for the firstborn baby of the Crownprince and Crownprincess to be monarch no matter if it is boy or girl. (4) Can't really argue with you there, my only beef with you is the national freedom thing, and that we don't really go around thanking you in our hearts for having democracy today, I think it is wrong try and to take credit for everything. (5) In 1953 the people by popular vote adopted a new constitution. Among the changes was the elimination of the Landsting (our old second house) and the introduction of a unicameral parliament, known only as the Folketing. This was partly due to obstructed passage of legislation by the second house, which was found obsolete. The problem is see with your system, and which I find lacking freedom of choice, is the dominant two party system. Here, we currently have six parties in the parliament, parties with their own public support and politics, it makes the choice more diverse, and less "black and white"

No, but if you've watched the clip, you would probably be able to figure out that I mean only in America could a religious nutjob like this guy get on TV and call for the assassination of a foreign leader. (I'm talking democracies here, mind you) How about this; you post something substantial about WHY it is you think that the USA is more free than other Western democracies, or I can just continue doing the same thing as you, and simply rant on about how mine is better than yours without even knowing how yours is like. EDIT: I might have to go soon, so hurry up already!

... Or freedom in general? :ph34r: <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That's what they hate us for. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The freedom to touch young men? Awww silly terrorists... had you only asked first.

Nah, the Fifth 5l5ment will always rule simply due to: "CHICKAAAAAAAAN GOOD!!1"

Bah! That never stopped the Greeks from getting their bum fun! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> He's got a point Eldar. What is with you and not touching young men? Or do you just hate gays? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ... Or freedom in general? :ph34r:

In Denmark, there's two national news stations which everyone can see, cable or no. The reporters usually don't show a political bias per se, such an attitude on national TV would indeed be highly frowned upon, but sometimes their true colours are revealed. Most notably in the Palestine vs Israel case, I'd say that some of the regular reporters down there, in Gaza, have a slight bias towards Palestine. But the anchors never sit around on the air making smug jabs, or venting their own bias, however subtle you might think they could do it. At least not compared to what I've seen and read on Fox News website.

And luckily many of those channels are only avaliable on cable, which I fortunately don't have access to. I'm pleased with my national TV network, although they really ought to show some newer movies.

Both are bad although Uwe Boll is much worse. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I didn't know that it was humanly possible to be worse than Anderson, however I must admit that Battlefield Earth with John T. WAS the worst piece of shi... lort, to ever grace my TV.

Uwe Bolls is the one that kills whatever project he lays his hands on, no? Or is that Paul Anderson?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why I never! Edited my own edit of another posters edit to an edit. What does that make it?