American Electoral System explained

[Molotov]

Rubbish. I haven't lied, have I? Greeks do go on about how great ancient Greece was, and there are plenty of books about how very important Greece was the ancient world. Britain, though, was important to the modern world, and denying it is just being churlish and/or ignorant.

I also didn't say how 'unnecessary' Europe was, but speaking relatively, Britain had much more impact on the modern period than any of the European powers, up to the middle of the twentieth century. This is a question of history, I'm not making things up to make my country sound good. If Shakespeare was French, I wouldn't pretend he wasn't history's most important literary figure.

[GreekIdiot]

Of course, I'm not being ignorant, I'm merely remarking upon the seemingly obvious fact of you being a rather really close-minded arrogant patriot, blinded by his nation's propaganda. In fact, I didn't question what you said, I only supported the fact that OTHER cultures also contributed to global development. For example, you wouldn't be able to form the first representative democracy hadn't been for the ancient Greeks (I'm not arrogant, I just picked this open example).

My point is, everything in this world is connected and it's quite pointless to pertain to each individual like they own the world or a certain achievement. Hadn't it been for something, it wouldn't be for the other that helped the next step.

[GreekIdiot]

If Shakespeare was French, I wouldn't pretend he wasn't history's most important literary figure.

I just saw this. Well, apparently I made a mistake about you, but I think it was justified since a British was bragging about his nation's achievements, despite the fact that I do recognize they are pretty grand.

[JosephJ]

Greece, Italy, Spain - these were in the last century practically Third World countries

To be fair, this was rather more down to climate than politics. Certainly, the political situations locally (Spain and her constant upheavals, Italy and her governance by first the reactionary and then the incompetent, etc.) didn't help, but the lack of wealth was more down to the climate. Remember, northern Italy, not suffering from the accursed situation that the south found itself in, was wealthy even under the Habsburgs.

If we're to go into the political situations, it's worth noting that the Italian system was designed to emulate the British system; it didn't work very well. Britain may have set the pattern for political development in much of the world - more out of the fact that we colonised it than genuine international influence in most cases south of Brussels - but that doesn't necessary mean we were the ones to bring the transition to stability forward in many of these countries.

I just saw this. Well, apparently I made a mistake about you, but I think it was justified since a British was bragging about his nation's achievements, despite the fact that I do recognize they are pretty grand.

You may be jumping too far to conclusions based on Molotov's word there.

[Molotov]

Hadn't it been for something, it wouldn't be for the other that helped the next step.

Never once did I say that wasn't the case. I never said, 'Britain, alone and in a vacuum, invented modernity'. I pointed out some of Britain's contributions, and how they are pretty bloody major and more important relatively than other contributions. I wasn't spouting nationalist propaganda, in other words, you just seem to think that's the case. Any argument in favour of Britain's relative importance is, so far as you're concerned, rubbish. Now, if you were arguing that Greece built the modern world, referring to Greek achievements from the sixteenth century onwards, that would be nationalist bollocks. If you were referring to Greek achievements in ancient times which led on to achievements in the modern period that wouldn't. See?

but I think it was justified since a British was bragging about his nation's achievements, despite the fact that I do recognize they are pretty grand.

I'm not bragging, I'm responding to Khaler's post which was about how Britain's contribution has been nominal. Which was wrong. I was correcting Khaler.

If we're to go into the political situations, it's worth noting that the Italian system was designed to emulate the British system; it didn't work very well. Britain may have set the pattern for political development in much of the world - more out of the fact that we colonised it than genuine international influence in most cases south of Brussels - but that doesn't necessary mean we were the ones to bring the transition to stability forward in many of these countries.

True, but I wasn't assessing the relative merit of Parliament being the Mother of Parliaments, or whether that had a stabilising or good effect on the world, just saying that it was.

Also, Italy is rather a special case. India, on the other hand, despite a vast number of cultures, religions, and languages on the sub-continent, has maintained a stable two party system thanks to following the British model. Obviously I wasn't trying to suggest that the British model was somehow the best, or good for everyone, just that it was the modus operandi for a long time in much of the world.

[GreekIdiot]

If we're to go into the political situations, it's worth noting that the Italian system was designed to emulate the British system; it didn't work very well. Britain may have set the pattern for political development in much of the world - more out of the fact that we colonised it than genuine international influence in most cases south of Brussels - but that doesn't necessary mean we were the ones to bring the transition to stability forward in many of these countries.

True, Greece's recovery can be safely attributed, if not completely, to aid from the US. Marshall Plan. And despite being delayed, those three aforementioned nations are now part of the modern world. No real advancements from anyone today.

Never once did I say that wasn't the case. I never said, 'Britain, alone and in a vacuum, invented modernity'. I pointed out some of Britain's contributions, and how they are pretty bloody major and more important relatively than other contributions. I wasn't spouting nationalist propaganda, in other words, you just seem to think that's the case. Any argument in favour of Britain's relative importance is, so far as you're concerned, rubbish. Now, if you were arguing that Greece built the modern world, referring to Greek achievements from the sixteenth century onwards, that would be nationalist bollocks. If you were referring to Greek achievements in ancient times which led on to achievements in the modern period that wouldn't. See?

I get it. Apparently I've misunderstood but don't blame me entirely. I've grown used to and really angry about those patriotic scums in Greece who actually do believe that the Byzantium and Greece particularly built western europe. I was just being cautious.

[JosephJ]

I get it. Apparently I've misunderstood but don't blame me entirely. I've grown used to and really angry about those patriotic scums in Greece who actually do believe that the Byzantium and Greece particularly built western europe. I was just being cautious.

...wait, people actually sing the merits of the Byzantine system?

[GreekIdiot]

Yup. That's why I feel so proud at being one of the few logical Greeks around.

Do you guys realize how screwed, morally and culturally my nation is? I mean, we are even fools enough to follow the same two-party system the US follows, no matter how many scandals appear or how much stagnancy we see from the two parties we constantly and stupidly vote. I mean, we are all fascist religious pigs who think Byzantium was the time of God's enlightenment.

[Molotov]

To be fair, this was rather more down to climate than politics. Certainly, the political situations locally (Spain and her constant upheavals, Italy and her governance by first the reactionary and then the incompetent, etc.) didn't help, but the lack of wealth was more down to the climate. Remember, northern Italy, not suffering from the accursed situation that the south found itself in, was wealthy even under the Habsburgs.

Northern Italy was more prosperous because of the Habsburgs. The Kingdom of the Two Sicilies was politically backward, autocratic and feudal right up until the Risorgimento, and little change happened afterwards because of the compromise necessary with Southern landed elites. Southern Italy's backwardness was and is a political, social and cultural phenomenon, not a geographic one. Greece I'm not so sure about, but Spain's problems were entirely political - no country could go from the most important medieval power to a complete backwater, if it was just because it was too hot. I presume you are talking about actual climate, rather than political or economic climate?

Do you guys realize how screwed, morally and culturally my nation is? I mean, we are even fools enough to follow the same two-party system the US follows, no matter how many scandals appear or how much stagnancy we see from the two parties we constantly and stupidly vote. I mean, we are all fascist religious pigs who think Byzantium was the time of God's enlightenment.

Yes, I am aware of how shit the political systems of our 'European cousins' are, it's one of the reasons I dislike the EU so

[GreekIdiot]

Greece I'm not so sure about, but...

Greece was one of the worst backwater nations in the EU, even behind SU nations. We didn't have televisions here until the '80 and pretty much needed the dictatorship to introduce electricity nation wide.

But I truly think England is no better. Although I admire your linguistic skills and all of that bureaucratic formality, I still hold my thoughts for your nation. Perhaps a future visit, someday, will clarify things.