I am thinking of building refugee homes for Americans

      Home » Humor & Funny videos » I am thinking of building refugee homes for Americans
More Humor and Fun

I am thinking of building refugee homes for Americans

As a service to mankind (humankind?) I am going to make some refugee homes for people fleeing America.

As refugees there will be some changes to your lives.

These are:

1. No flags allowed. The Stars and Stripes are a fundamental tool in the socialization of American mind, therefore to prevent further brainwashing it must be removed. You can have a small white one instead.

2. No American cars. When you get here we will show you European and Japanese cars that will explain why American car manufacturers are down the toilet

3 You will stop playing American "football". There is only one kind of football. What you refer to as American "football" is not a very good game. You will no longer be allowed to play it, and should instead play proper football.

Initially, it would be best if you played with the girls. It is a difficult game. Those of you brave enough will, in time, be allowed to play rugby (which is similar to American "football", but does not involve stopping for a rest every twenty seconds or wearing full kevlar body armor like nancies).

4 You will learn to make real chips. Those things you call French fries are not real chips. Fries aren't even French, they are Belgian though 97.85% of you are not aware of a country called Belgium.

Real chips are thick cut and fried in animal fat. The traditional accompaniment to chips is beer. Waitresses will be trained to be more aggressive with customers.

5 You will learn to resolve personal issues without using guns, lawyers or therapists. The fact that you need so many lawyers and therapists shows that you're not adult enough to be independent. Guns should only be handled by adults.

If you're not adult enough to sort things out without suing someone or speaking to a therapist then you're not grown up enough to handle a gun.

6 You will have to eat real food. Real food is grown in dirt, nurtured by sun and eaten fresh from the ground. Also you will have to eat real meat, from animals that live outside and eat grass, and are not pumped full of growth hormones.

These dietary shocks will be mitigated by weaning you off soda pop. Instead you can drink tea like the rest of the civilized world. Coffee is permitted as long as its freshly ground and brewed.

7. There will be no American game shows on TV. Some dramas will remain and of course science fiction, but no rap videos. Your IQ will immediately gain 5 points.

8 You will be governed by a parliamentary democracy, as its obvious that your own system has failed miserably. This system is 100's of years old and works perfectly.

More rules will follow, but after your American detox you will wonder how you survived back in the States.

refugee-homes.jpg - 11.81kb
By netchicken: posted on 2-10-2008

This little thread indicates less about any need for Americans to escape than it does the misinformation you receive and misperceptions you entertain.

Thanks, but no thanks. If you ever get the chance to visit me, please do. I'd love to show you around sometime! :tu
By Thomas_Crowne: posted on 2-10-2008

I would like for us to import rugby and ditch American football.

You would really think the sports would be reversed. After all, American football is strangled by protective gear and mountains of hobbling rules, and rugby is a straightforward sport of brute force.
By Thomas_Crowne: posted on 2-10-2008

True democracy? Go to some other country and have at it, Mike. "Democracy" is mob rule, nothing more.
This country (The united states of America) was never supposed to be a democracy. The founding fathers warned against such a stupid and dangerous venture. We are supposed to be a republic. We became a democracy after the so-called Civil War, and things have gotten worse ever since.

Rather than pine for something that a looser, why not demand that the republic be restored and we live in a nation of laws rather than a culture of faddish breeze-chasers.
By Thomas_Crowne: posted on 2-10-2008

>> "Democracy" is mob rule, nothing more.<<

No, Democracy is a leader elected by the people in an organised manner. Whether that leader is any good, or whether the people were informed is another matter.

What is your definition of a Republic?
By Kingy: posted on 7-10-2008


It makes no difference how the majority elects the leader. I am not in any way understanding what you mean.

What is my definition of republic? You know, that you ask me what MY definition of the word is leads me to believe you aren't really up on the topic and somehow believe that the two words are interchangeable. Your attempt to defend mob rule by suggesting the elections are organized leads me to believe you are not grasping other words as well.

Rather than reinvent a wheel, I have found a very good primer on the internet. I typed "democracy versus republic" and found this. Remember, this is in context with American history. I have no idea where you live.

A Democracy

The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.

This is true whether it be a Direct Democracy, or a Representative Democracy. In the direct type, applicable only to a small number of people as in the little city-states of ancient Greece, or in a New England town-meeting, all of the electorate assemble to debate and decide all government questions, and all decisions are reached by a majority vote (of at least half-plus-one). Decisions of The Majority in a New England town-meeting are, of course, subject to the Constitutions of the State and of the United States which protect The Individual’s rights; so, in this case, The Majority is not omnipotent and such a town-meeting is, therefore, not an example of a true Direct Democracy. Under a Representative Democracy like Britain’s parliamentary form of government, the people elect representatives to the national legislature--the elective body there being the House of Commons--and it functions by a similar vote of at least half-plus-one in making all legislative decisions.

A Republic

A Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate.

The people adopt the Constitution as their fundamental law by utilizing a Constitutional Convention--especially chosen by them for this express and sole purpose--to frame it for consideration and approval by them either directly or by their representatives in a Ratifying Convention, similarly chosen. Such a Constitutional Convention, for either framing or ratification, is one of America’s greatest contributions, if not her greatest contribution, to the mechanics of government--of self-government through constitutionally limited government, comparable in importance to America’s greatest contribution to the science of government: the formation and adoption by the sovereign people of a written Constitution as the basis for self-government. One of the earliest, if not the first, specific discussions of this new American development (a Constitutional Convention) in the historical records is an entry in June 1775 in John Adams’ "Autobiography" commenting on the framing by a convention and ratification by the people as follows:

"By conventions of representatives, freely, fairly, and proportionately chosen . . . the convention may send out their project of a constitution, to the people in their several towns, counties, or districts, and the people may make the acceptance of it their own act."

This is just a small portion of this article. If you are really wanting to know the difference, please read it.


Your ignorance in the topic doesn't deter you in the slightest. Your rhetoric of claiming I have "unproven theories" is insane, as insane can be defined as being out of touch with reality. At no time have I offered any "unproven theories", and by making such statements you offer nothing but static. Thanks, but please, if you wish to debate, make sense.
By the way, I am certain that you need to read that article.
By Thomas_Crowne: posted on 8-10-2008

By Thomas_Crowne: posted on 8-10-2008

From the article:

>>This double meaning of Democracy--a popular-type government in general, as well as a specific form of popular government--needs to be made clear in any discussion, or writing, regarding this subject, for the sake of sound understanding.<<

This was the part that was not clear to me in your post, TC. I live in SW Australia, we do not have a republic, though there are a few who are demanding one here.

We have a constitutional monarchy, which seems to mean that if the Government of the day completely f*@#s up, then the Monarch can sack them and install a new Govt(As was done in the seventies). If the Monarch is disagreeable to the majority, we can dump them instead.

And being Australian, if they are both disagreeable, we just ignore them and go about our business ;)

Your reference to democracy being "mob rule", and your choice of web description infer to me that you are a Republican?
By Kingy: posted on 9-10-2008

Kingy, Are you referring to Republican as in Republican party? Are you thinking that the party names infer any association with the topic we are discussing? No, you are incorrect on both accounts, anyway.

A democracy is "mob rule" in that the majority determines the direction of the country and not law. Popular fads and the will of the wind determines policy, and that is as dangerous as the mob of boneheads at the foot of the mountain demanding Aaron build a golden calf while Moses was getting the ten commandments from G-d.

I have spent years studying my country's history and government, I understand how it is supposed to be and how it is in reality. I'll not even begin to judge your country's system or Netty's country's system. Both could be nations of prudent, G-d fearing people who enjoy all aspects of individual freedom while completely accepting the responsibilities that go along with them, but I wouldn't know.

Mike, you are incorrect in your assertion that Thomas Jefferson and John Locke were so open to democracy, and for the same reasons the rest wanted nothing to do with it. Democracy is a means through which the federal government would usurp all powers from the several states. Guess what happened when the constitutional republic was destroyed and democracy was forced upon the unsuspecting nation after the Civil War.

As far as your assessment of Ben Franklin, your attempts at debate remind me a lot of the young Ben Franklin. He was greatly aided when he finally received a scathing but loving rebuking from an older and wiser man who he respected. As far as why you think he is a coward and a pervert, well, to make such assertions without backing them up is pretty much useless, don't you think.

Regardless, I am more interested in what grand plans people like me are holding back that people like you believe will cure all the woes. Could you elaborate? Making such assertions without backing them up is useless as well, but these are the ones I would love to hear!
By Thomas_Crowne: posted on 9-10-2008

TC, thanks for clearing that up, I have no real idea how your country's Govt works either. I made the mistake of assuming that your dismissal of democracy was a dismissal of the democratic system. If I sound like I don't know the difference, that's coz I didn't :)

I was sort of trying to compare your 2 major parties with our 2 major parties, without understanding the fundamentals of your system, so it was a fruitless exercise, though I learnt a few new things.

I hope to chat again another time...
By Kingy: posted on 9-10-2008

No problem at all.

Things over here can seem very convoluted, and they are if the history of the country the government isn't thoroughly understood.

I am sure more conversation is in the future!
By Thomas_Crowne: posted on 9-10-2008

You keep talking of a true democracy. That means little, Mike. What is that; a democracy that works as you think it should?
Free will has little to do with a nation of laws. Free will, does that mean whatever you think is cool should be the rule of law for the week? Free will in Christian theology does not mean that you can do anything and there are no consequences. As a matter of fact, Jesus points out that the way to Hell is broad while the path to Heaven is narrow. That doesn't mean you have no free will, it means there are consequences for choosing the wrong path.

You speak of free will and then of "Thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven."
"He" is G-d. May His will be done here on Earth as it is in Heaven. What does that have to do with your will? Do you somehow believe that people will want to do Father's will here on Earth? Talk about a theory that has been tested and proved to be wholly false!

This is a bit convoluted. I wanted to know what grand plan I block. So far, all I know is that you prefer bloody feet to keen diplomacy. How many years did you spend in the military, by the way? I spent enough to know the importance of good diplomacy.

Please, describe this grand system you have in mind, that you think that is better than the one laid out by the Founding Fathers. I am really curious.

By the way, Ben was not a member of the club in England to which you refer, and others have it that he was gathering intel for the U.S. Personally, I don't know. Still, as nothing, including specific onsgoings of the events, is known, who knows?
By Thomas_Crowne: posted on 9-10-2008

I am thinking of building refugee homes for Americans | [Login ]
Powered by XMB
Privacy Policy