Fun ?
Hardly any fun with all the communism / russian/ ukranian/ polish/ relationships- conflicts and other discussions of that kind here.:rolleyes:
Cant we all get alone ?
Elected by whom?
By the peoples? Or by the few superrich elite that owned the 60-80%% of national property and fully controll the Mass media.
Oh common mate - not me to tell you about how the Western Mass media manipulate and wash the brains for the Peoples during the election compains and befror it;)
I’ ve readed in one site ( do not remember what) that the 95% of American Mass media is controlled by the one relatively small group of peoples.
Do not forget my friend - simple peoples will vote for THAT candidate who are PORTRAYED as a GOOD in mass media.
Coz the simple people usially nothing know about this man and ONLY the media could inform them about.
So the MEdia is the one who Really vote in the elections:)Well in most of cases.
Coz the media determ who is GOOD candidate and who is not.
And do not forget about Black PR against that one who do not play in their rules;)
Fact remains, he was elected by the people (the small proportion who can be bothered voting), as was every president before him, and is subject to scrutiny and impeachment which no Russian or Soviet president has had to deal with during the same period.
Well i have to remind you - that the Soviets presidents ( indeed the 1st Secretary of ComParty) clearly know what does impeachment mean:)
Coz in the 1964 the Khrushev was easy removed from a power when the Soviet elite found out the NEw LEader that could change him.
At the same time the AMerican presidents NOT all time had impeachment of its elite - but some of them were SIMPLY MURDERED like the president Kennedy.
America came into existence because of, among other things, opposition to a hereditary monarchy in the 1770’s. Russia, like most of Europe, was still putting the father’s son into power until 1917, in ways nobody in America has ever dreamed of since America threw off the monarchical shackles about 140 years earlier.
I/m strongly doubt that the American lack of Monarhy has a even deal with American economical rise in the 20 centure.
As i know during the entire 19 centrure the American was just a poor agrocaltural state and only after beginning of the 20 centure and especially after the beginning of the WW1 the European capitals had come into America.
The inner Eruopeans problems like wars was that Things that force to rise America over them.
If you anylase that American economical increase - yo would comclude - the most quike rise was during the World Wars. The reason is simple - during the Every Euriopean war the Europeans ordered a Giant quantuty of wearpon, food, amunition and everuthing in the America for the Hundreds TONNS of Gold. Simply coz the American continent WAS OUT of combat action.
So it was rather right to say - the worsen time was for the Europe, then better for America.
Its not my cynical point- this is just the facts.
If to tell about it honestly…
The post-1917 Russian / Soviet system certainly got rid of inherited power, but compared with America over the same period it left a lot to be desired in the way of good government and community harmony.
Community harmony?
How do you think is the harmony in society whan someone ONCE buy the pistol or a shot-gun and going to the shop or school to shoot the peoples?
And what harmony do you tell if the american poorests even have no enought money for food.Or for the good education ( that depends their future from).
Or that ones who died coz ther relatives HAVE no money to pay for medical service.
Or there are everyone who has the Madical Insurance?
More waffle…
The mass media was incredibly biased against Bush, yet he won two elections.
The rest is too incoherent to comment on…
Didn’t expect that reply did you?
Oh i did not expect pdf:)
You have beat me:)
OK if you persist - lets look for those “simple people” more carefully.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Blair
Blair boarded at Fettes College, a notable independent school in Edinburgh, where he met Charlie Falconer (a pupil at the rival Edinburgh Academy), whom he later appointed Lord Chancellor. …
Tony Blair’s wife, Cherie Booth QCAfter Fettes, Blair spent a year in London, where he attempted to find fame as a rock music promoter, before going up to the University of Oxford to read jurisprudence at St John’s College.
So the prestuge elite school in Edinburgh and jurisprudence in Oxford university was thing that cost more than you probably earn for 10 years:)
Nice simple Tony like you or me, right?
John Major was the son of a music hall “artiste” - again, pretty lowly.
Agree about John Major. He was a man who finished the common school.
Margaret Thatcher was the daughter of a small shopkeeper and Methodist lay preacher.
A small shopkeeper daughter that finished the Oxford
Hence, we have to go back to Alec Douglas-Home (who was in office for less than a year in 1963-64) to find a British Prime Minister who does not “has the simple lineage”.
And what about rest 730 mens of House of Lords who untill the 1999 inherited its places?
Were they “simple” as you and me?
More waffle…
But at that time press incredibly support him in a war agains Terror during last election in the 2004.
they still supported his “operation iraq freedom” as action against who" treat for the american safety".
Besides IT WAS A MEDIA who inspired the Simple americans the thought about “little victorious war in Iraq” in the 2003 and simply lie about MDW in Saddam hands in aim to increase the Anti-iraqi and Anti-muslim domestic feeling.
It so interesting - while the MEdia called for the war in 2003- it was all OK.
And every one was wanted to kill the Evil arabs:)The American military corporations were so happy to get the new giants incomes.
But now - who is scapegoat?
The President Bush?
The rest is too incoherent to comment on…
That’s right:)
And what’s wrong with that?
Who started the whole sorry episode?
The press didn’t give orders to invade Iraq, or spend ages trying to dredge up any evidence it could find about weapons of mass deception.
I couldnt help but wonder about Chevans statement about only the priveledged being in Government here in the UK.
Just for him, here is a link to the UK members of parliament, their websites and their Biographies. I think you will find the information interesting.
http://www.parliament.uk/directories/hciolists/alms.cfm
As an aside, I think your misconception about going to Oxford or Cambridge is a bit off as anyone in the UK can attend these places regardless of wealth or privelidge.
At the time he went to Oxford the tuition was free and all students were provided with a grant to cover living expenses. Admission was purely on merit - the brightest people got in, with a few exceptions (being a member of the royal family usually means they make an extra place for you - the current Prince of Wales is a good example).
I’ll happily grant you that he went to an upper class type school. However, my point was that Tony Blair’s PARENTS were from “common stock” - his father was the child of a shipbuilder, and went on to become a barrister (highly paid lawyer).
Chevan, you seem to have some idea that Oxford and Cambridge are very exclusive places that don’t let anyone not from the right family in. I’ve been there (I spent four years reading Engineering at Peterhouse, Cambridge) so know from personal experience that’s utter rubbish. The colleges are all very rich indeed (Peterhouse for instance owns property worth something like $ 1 Billion) and exist for the purpose of educating people. Thus, if they ever come across a poor student who is bright enough to go, they will somehow find the money to keep them there. I know this for a fact because it applied to several of my friends.
Right now the biggest obstacle to poor people going to Cambridge is attitudes like yours that say “I’ll never be allowed in” - so they never apply. In reality someone from a poor background is more likely to get in than someone from a rich background with the same qualifications, because the college will realise that they have had to work harder to achieve the same result so give them extra leeway. Again, I know about this because it happened to at least one of my friends.
The House of Lords is rather anti-democratic (now that the Hereditary Peers have left, the only ones left are those appointed by the government of the day who stay in it for life - they are usually former politicians or people who have given a lot of money to a political party). However, it can’t actually make any laws - it can just make it harder for the government to pass new laws by slowing them down for a year or two if it thinks they are a bad idea. Personally, I think this is generally quite a good thing - politicians come up with far too many bad laws, so getting rid of or slowing them down is usually a good thing.
I went to Oxford, and my father is a teacher. He went to Oxford as a postgrad, and his father was a fireman.
Communist joke: when was the first Russian election? When God created Eve, placed her in front of Adam, and said “choose your wife”.
Also, I don’t know what the American media you were watching around 2004, but with one notable exception it was quite clear that the main news organisations wanted Kerry to win. Reconcile that with the theory that the media chooses the president (as if individual voters don’t have free will…)
Not always a good thing.
They let Australians in.
And Bill Clinton, of U.S. presidential fame, attended Oxford, as a Rhodes Scholar.
The former and current colonies collided when Australia’s arch feminist, and prize export sour bitch and self-promoter, Germaine Greer gave a lecture at Oxford. She said that the female orgasm was a form of gender tyranny, and was vastly overrated.
Clinton,then a student, said, variously reported but along the lines:
“About that overrated orgasm, M’aam. Would you like to give a Southern boy a chance to convince you otherwise?”
Not necessarily highly paid.
A barrister is merely the occupational term for a professional court advocate.
Some of modest ability make a lot of money by doing commercial work, others of great ability make relatively modest incomes by doing criminal work.
In England, and in other English speaking countries, the barristers’ best tradition has long been one of defending individual rights against the ceaseless assaults of the state.
Compared with, say, the show trials under Stalin and Hitler, there hasn’t been a similarly disgraceful period in English speaking countries where court advocates and the judiciary have become tools of the dictatorship. At least not since the Star Chamber several centuries ago.
That’s not to say that there haven’t been some appalling instances of state oppression in the courts in English speaking countries and some disgraceful failures by defence barristers, even in modern times.
I don’t know, some excel in their chosen fields. Bob Hawke for example…
I’m sure MoS knows the Turf better than I do, but it seemed rather a nice pub when I dropped in a few years back.
That’s undoubtedly Hawke’s (the silver budgie’s) view of himself.
Apart from downing a yard of ale quick smart, his greatest achievement as a Labor prime minister was to keep wages down for a decade so that the lowest paid workers still haven’t recovered. He’s the best post-war conservative prime minister Australia ever had. Prick that he is.
I’m sorry, you misunderstand me. I was implying that drinking was their chosen field (for all Australians, not just a certain former Prime Minister) :mrgreen:
that’s probably true, though beer consumption has been in decline for years, whilst the consumption of plonk has been steadily increasing. Yes we are a nation of piss pots, but not in the way you think.
Bob Hawke was one of our many post war PM’s who would be better consigned to the scrap heap of history. A legend in his own mind Hawke had humble beginnings and rose through the ranks of the trade union movement, eventually becoming Australia’s most powerful unionist, leader of the ACTU. From here he began his career of fucking everything he touched.
As Prime Monster of Australia he proved to be nothing more than a chardonnay swilling socialist who sold the Australian worker and the economy down the drain for several million bucks.
Hawke, like his mates Keating, Whitlam and opponents Fraser and Howard should be classified as a traitor and shot.
digger
That’s all right then.
I don’t mind being accused of being a piss pot, because I am, but I do mind Hawke being accused of excelling as a Prime Minister, because he didn’t.
The only thing he excelled at was being a treacherous, self-promoting, show pony arsehole who sucked up to the crooked capitalists like there was no tomorrow, where he definitely excelled.
Hawke was a socialist? :shock::shock::shock:
I must have missed that five seconds in his career. 
I thought Hawke was a trojan horse for shifty capitalist turds like Peter Abeles. Sorry, Sir Peter Abeles. Or, to borrow the old army saying, Sir, spelt Cur.
On the basis of people I know, Hawke encouraged more resignations from the Labor Party, by true Labor people, than all other Labor leaders combined.
LMFAO!! Who knew Sheila feminists were so up tight? Around this time, Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin would have been engaged in a contest as to who could sleep with the most members of the National Organization of Women…
Hey gentlements i see you going out of topic.
Back on it please.
We tells about communists previligies , righ.
If some of you tells that the education in Oxford is so accessible and easy to get.
So i have a few question to englishmans- how many money cost the years of studiing in Oxford in, for instance juridical department?
And sec- who much average salary in Briatin today?
Yep!
That’s definitely bringing it back on topic.
What’s the point of comparing apples with oranges?
Compare medical doctors in the USSR with those in the West. There’s no comparison.
Compare military political commisars in the USSR with those in the West. It can’t be done, because there weren’t any in the West.