Talk:Leader of the Free World: Difference between revisions
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
It is a completely legitimate term, in that it has been and currently is still in use to refer to the President of the United States of America. It's akin to referring to the monarch of the United Kingdom as "Defender of the Faith". <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/99.234.23.2|99.234.23.2]] ([[User talk:99.234.23.2|talk]]) 21:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
It is a completely legitimate term, in that it has been and currently is still in use to refer to the President of the United States of America. It's akin to referring to the monarch of the United Kingdom as "Defender of the Faith". <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/99.234.23.2|99.234.23.2]] ([[User talk:99.234.23.2|talk]]) 21:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
I think either that guy was jocking, or he is the least intelligent 11 year old I have ever had the insult and dis-honour of listening to. First of all, the USA is far from the best country in the world; care to name a single war the USA has won by itself? Even the War of Independance would have been difficult / impossible without the French. Besides, even if the USA was the best nation in the world, and bare in mind that it sure as hell isn't, how would that be anything for an American to brag about? So your country is good. Well done, while you have been sitting on your fat ass all day eating your way through a super sized Big Mac meal with Coke with your IQ of 90, someone else did something good and you can suddenly bask in the glory forever. Well f***ing done, jackass. [[Special:Contributions/213.78.183.91|213.78.183.91]] ([[User talk:213.78.183.91|talk]]) 22:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 22:51, 13 June 2008
Rather disagree with 24.202.248.245's removal of the text "Others would argue that a nation like the US can't really consider itself free when its elections have such a long history of vote rigging, general poll mismanagement and a primative 'First Past The Post' system which ensures a third political party can almost never achieve representation." as 'flame-bait'.
It's a valid viewpoint and each point is fairly easy to argue for. Certainly, it's not a US view, but, hopefully Wikipedia is not so US-centric that views from outside are casually removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.80.62 (talk • contribs) --
Leader of the Free World, yeah right... I can´t remember participating in a such election. Have anyone else here?. The text should be removed, it´s just imbarrassing
Are you kidding me Wikipedia IS US-centric!
- Duh! Because Wikipedia is owned by Americans, it is based in America; live with it. You people hate to admit it, but your nations ARE subservient to the American Hegemony over the world. It's humorous to watch you squirm and dispise all aspects of the United States, while your nations are still married to our money, and your people to our culture. Accept your place. We are the hyperpower, the first ever; and thus it will remain - your anger wont change it. 198.109.26.19 (talk) 07:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
In reference to the comment by user at 198.109.26.19 (from Detroit, Michigan):- ^ See, Americans aren't at all jingoistic or egocentric ^ *chuckle*
To 198.109.26.19: Haha, wow, what a headcase. The American Hegemony Over the World, to which all other nations are subservient, their cultures forever subsumed. We must grovel in the dirt, puny wretches that we are, for we can never hope to resist the almighty Big Mac. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.219.204 (talk) 10:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
U.K
Leaders of the free world isn't the British currency the most powerful , wasn't the British empire the most powerful ever , isn't English the favored language of most of the advanced world nations , For the U.S to be considered as leaders of anything is some what off putting considering all the farcical moments they as a nation have given us over the years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benmichaelelwell (talk • contribs) 13:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
== This entry is in serious need of rewriting or deletion. It starts on an incomplete or inaccurate definition - as "leader of the free world" is more often used to refer to the USA than to the US President. I might also note that the expression is often used, outside America, in a satirical way, lampooning what is often seen (rightly or wrongly) as American arrogance or self-obsession.Ncox (talk) 23:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
It is a completely legitimate term, in that it has been and currently is still in use to refer to the President of the United States of America. It's akin to referring to the monarch of the United Kingdom as "Defender of the Faith". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.23.2 (talk) 21:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)