# Forum About Russia Culture and History  vladimir ulyanov (lenin)

## Светлана Ежова

what do you all think about Vladimir ulyanov Lenin? would like to know what you all think of him?

----------


## Dogboy182

герой советского союза. Ваще, люблю его полностью... типа - True pimp.

----------


## DenisM

Хмм, как бы сказать помягче... 
Кровавый деспот, узурпировавший власть в России и принесший огромные страдания всему русскому народу. Где-то так.   ::

----------


## Светлана Ежова

> Хмм, как бы сказать помягче... 
> Кровавый деспот, узурпировавший власть в России и принесший огромные страдания всему русскому народу. Где-то так.

   От  Светланы: Я соглащаюь с вами полностью. Ленин- мне не очень нравиться. Я думаю что, он был плохим мужчиной! Догбой!   Почему вы думаете что он был героём  Советского Союза?
Действительно, Я ненавижу его и Дзержинския!

----------


## BlackMage

> Originally Posted by DenisM  Хмм, как бы сказать помягче... 
> Кровавый деспот, узурпировавший власть в России и принесший огромные страдания всему русскому народу. Где-то так.       От  Светланы: Я соглащаюь с вами полностью. Ленин- мне не очень нравиться. Я думаю что, он был плохим мужчиной! Догбой!   Почему вы думаете что он был героём  Советского Союза?
> Действительно, Я ненавижу его и Дзержинския!

 OMFG ADHEKJADHE!!! She learned how to learned how to use the quote tag!!!!!!!

----------


## mike

Yes, now all she needs is to enable BBCode in her messages.

----------


## DenisM

> Originally Posted by DenisM  Хмм, как бы сказать помягче... 
> Кровавый деспот, узурпировавший власть в России и принесший огромные страдания всему русскому народу. Где-то так.     От  Светланы: Я полностью соглашусь с Вами. Ленин мне тоже не очень нравится. Я думаю, что он был плохим человеком! 
> Догбой!  Почему Вы думаете, что он был героём  Советского Союза?
> Действительно, я ненавижу его и Дзержинского!

----------


## DenisM

> Yes, now all she needs is to enable BBCode in her messages.

 Света, pls  select "Always allow BBCode" and click "Submit" button after you click  here

----------


## BETEP

> Я думаю что, он был плохим мужчиной!

 Это вам Крупская сказала?  ::    

> Почему вы думаете что он был героём Советского Союза?

 Видимо это такая разновидность юмора.   

> Действительно, Я ненавижу его и Дзержинския!

 А что они вам сделали?

----------


## Dogboy182

And she still doesn't need to announce her name infront of every single post. We know who she is.

----------


## Евгения Белякова

Svetlana, я is never capitilized like in English. It's always lower cased.

----------


## Dogboy182

Wait. We are talking about lenin right ? THE lenin ? 
Omfg, he rules. 
He laid the true smack down on those evil tsars. Then, there were these wimpy leftist wimps, and they were like "oh, let the people have a say wah wah" and lenin was like SECRET POLICE! GO! and pimp slapped all them too. Infact, i wish lenin were alive today. 
В небе - ленин!

----------


## Kamion

> Wait. We are talking about lenin right ? THE lenin ? 
> Omfg, he rules. 
> He laid the true smack down on those evil tsars. Then, there were these wimpy leftist wimps, and they were like "oh, let the people have a say wah wah" and lenin was like SECRET POLICE! GO! and pimp slapped all them too. Infact, i wish lenin were alive today. 
> В небе - ленин!

 Is that some weird form of American humour?

----------


## Friendy

> Infact, i wish lenin were alive today.

 Lenin *IS* alive.  (I can’t believe you didn’t know such a well-known fact  ::   ) http://www.davno.ru/posters/1967/
_________________
Ленин и теперь живее всех живых (В. В. Маяковский)

----------


## Евгения Белякова

I have a picture of my mother standing next to a statue of Lenin, in her village.

----------


## DenisM

> Originally Posted by Dogboy182  Infact, i wish lenin were alive today.   Lenin *IS* alive.  (I can’t believe you didn’t know such a well-known fact   ) http://www.davno.ru/posters/1967/
> _________________
> Ленин и теперь живее всех живых (В. В. Маяковский)

 Yeah and there is also an opinion that Lenin is some kind of mushroom.

----------


## Dogboy182

::   ::   ::    
=) Friendy, i was just looking at those posters about a week ago =)

----------


## Friendy

> =) Friendy, i was just looking at those posters about a week ago =)

 Have you seen that one too?

----------


## Dogboy182

No, i think i missed it.

----------


## Светлана Ежова

I apologize for putting my name next to my posts....it's just a habit. I visit an "anti-communist action " message board and there I put my name next to my posts to distinguish mine from someone else's. Just so people can tell the difference. Here the quote button will take some getting used to to make a habit of using it. So please forgive all my flaws....I do not mean to annoy anyone. 
What did Lenin and Krupskaya do to me....? Nothing. But it's what they did to other people I didn't like. (Sorry, I can't type in Russian here at university; only my dad's computer has it and he won't let me use it very often.)
By the way, you don't believe in democracy, Dogboy? I mean real democracy, not the pretend stuff the USA has, but real democracy as a theory?
And don't worry. I will tell you some things about me so you can know me better. I want to know you better as well  ::  I hope we can be friends, well, I can get along with pretty much anyone if they are nice, and that's all they have to be. Nice in this case means friendly; they don't have to agree with me on anything.

----------


## Светлана Ежова

> Originally Posted by Светлана Ежова        Originally Posted by DenisM  Хмм, как бы сказать помягче... 
> Кровавый деспот, узурпировавший власть в России и принесший огромные страдания всему русскому народу. Где-то так.     От  Светланы: Я полностью соглашусь с Вами. Ленин мне тоже не очень нравится. Я думаю, что он был плохим человеком! 
> Догбой!  Почему Вы думаете, что он был героём  Советского Союза?
> Действительно, я ненавижу его и Дзержинского!

 Thanks a lot for correcting me! I will remember that. One question though. Why did you use "chelavyek" instead of "mooshina" (forgive my stupid attempts at transliteration)? Lenin was a "mooshina." Well, My Russian is not perfect but you can understand me so it must be pretty good   ::   hee

----------


## br0

Ленин наш вождь! 
Когда был Ленин маленьким с кудрявой головой
Он тоже бегал в валенках по горке ледяной

----------


## BETEP

> What did Lenin and Krupskaya do to me....? Nothing. But it's what they did to other people I didn't like.

 Oh my God! What had Krupskaya done?  ::  
By the way, you don't believe in socialism? I mean real socialism, not the pretend stuff the USSR had, but real socialism as a theory?  ::    

> Why did you use "chelavyek" instead of "mooshina" (forgive my stupid attempts at transliteration)? Lenin was a "mooshina."

 Because it sounds like "Lenin has sexual problems".  ::

----------


## bad manners

Lenin and the "Old Bolsheviks", including Trotsky et al, were not the guys who did away with the Tsars. They did away with the guys who had done away with the Tsars just a few months before. 
Then they pulled out from the war that was almost won and lost a huge chunk of territory and made one of the greatest European powers a joke. Which utterly destabilized Europe and led to the world's biggest slaughter two decades later. 
Incidentally, it also was two decades later that Stalin finally had got rid of that Old Bolshevik scum.

----------


## Светлана Ежова

> Originally Posted by Светлана Ежова  What did Lenin and Krupskaya do to me....? Nothing. But it's what they did to other people I didn't like.

 Oh my God! What had Krupskaya done?  ::  
By the way, you don't believe in socialism? I mean real socialism, not the pretend stuff the USSR had, but real socialism as a theory?  ::  
I am a leftist. I visit the anti-communist action board to debate with the people who support capitalism. I don't like Lenin because I feel that Lenin's beliefs were a poor example of what a socialist country should be like. If I supported anyone of that time period it would be Plekhanov, Martov and the Mensheviks. I like them. (Of course it would be totally unfair for me to say I don't like "Bolsheviks" because Bukharin was one and I really like him. That's why I never try to generalize.)

----------


## DDT

It is hard to understand why anyone is a leftist in this day and age. The Rights of the Individual outweigh the Wants of the Many. Once that rule is broken......no one is safe.

----------


## Линдзи

> Originally Posted by Dogboy182  Infact, i wish lenin were alive today.   Lenin *IS* alive.  (I can’t believe you didn’t know such a well-known fact   ) http://www.davno.ru/posters/1967/
> _________________
> Ленин и теперь живее всех живых (В. В. Маяковский)

 Hee.  I have that poster.

----------


## bad manners

> It is hard to understand why anyone is a leftist in this day and age. The Rights of the Individual outweigh the Wants of the Many. Once that rule is broken......no one is safe.

 Any right that you have has been granted to you by your society. So long as the society thinks having that right is OK, you have it. If the society changes its mind, your right will be revoked faster than you can say f***. That has nothing do with socialism, leftism or rightism.

----------


## mike

> It is hard to understand why anyone is a leftist in this day and age. The Rights of the Individual outweigh the Wants of the Many. Once that rule is broken......no one is safe.

 Once again, your logic begs the question why you support Bush.  If you think the individual's rights are superior to that of the many then why on earth do you support someone who has taken away more civil liberties in the past 4 years than any US president in history (save perhaps John Adams or Woodrow Wilson)?  I'm not advocating Kerry as an alternative, mind you.  He voted in favor of most of the legislation we're talking about here.  But still, sometimes your comments make me wonder if maybe you got kicked in the head by a cow or something.  
By the way, there's an easy and valid argument to make against what you've said, and that is that a lot of people (myself included) do agree with you that individual happiness is more important than self-sacrifice for some Feuerbachian deity called "man," but that the easiest way for me to ensure my own individual happiness is by cooperating with others.  If I contribute to a welfare system it is so if I need it someday, I can be sure it will exist and I will not become destitute and homeless.  If I help come up with ideas of how to abolish the wage system, it is so I myself do not have to live paycheck to paycheck.  If I advocate the end of workplace hierarchy and top-down control, it is because I do not want some asshole telling me what to do.  The fact that other people want or don't want these things will not make me want or not want them.  I am not doing it for them.  But it is obvious I could not establish a system like this by myself, for the same reason that 100 men working 2 hours can accomplish vastly more than 1 man working 200 hours.  It is not *always* stupid for an individual to relinquish some of his short-term desires to ensure the long-term ones come to fruition.  Case in point:  not cheating on my fiance with a Denny's waitress so that I might have a wife six months from now. 
You might do good to read a little Stirner.

----------


## Светлана Ежова

> Originally Posted by DDT  It is hard to understand why anyone is a leftist in this day and age. The Rights of the Individual outweigh the Wants of the Many. Once that rule is broken......no one is safe.   Once again, your logic begs the question why you support Bush.  If you think the individual's rights are superior to that of the many then why on earth do you support someone who has taken away more civil liberties in the past 4 years than any US president in history (save perhaps John Adams or Woodrow Wilson)?  I'm not advocating Kerry as an alternative, mind you.  He voted in favor of most of the legislation we're talking about here.  But still, sometimes your comments make me wonder if maybe you got kicked in the head by a cow or something.  
> By the way, there's an easy and valid argument to make against what you've said, and that is that a lot of people (myself included) do agree with you that individual happiness is more important than self-sacrifice for some Feuerbachian deity called "man," but that the easiest way for me to ensure my own individual happiness is by cooperating with others.  If I contribute to a welfare system it is so if I need it someday, I can be sure it will exist and I will not become destitute and homeless.  If I help come up with ideas of how to abolish the wage system, it is so I myself do not have to live paycheck to paycheck.  If I advocate the end of workplace hierarchy and top-down control, it is because I do not want some asshole telling me what to do.  The fact that other people want or don't want these things will not make me want or not want them.  I am not doing it for them.  But it is obvious I could not establish a system like this by myself, for the same reason that 100 men working 2 hours can accomplish vastly more than 1 man working 200 hours.  It is not *always* stupid for an individual to relinquish some of his short-term desires to ensure the long-term ones come to fruition.  Case in point:  not cheating on my fiance with a Denny's waitress so that I might have a wife six months from now. 
> You might do good to read a little Stirner.

 Hee. Good one, Mike   ::   ::  I love it!

----------


## Линдзи

I think Mike was serious.

----------


## Светлана Ежова

I know Mike was serious. That's why I said 'hee, good one." Because his comments were good. Because I agree with him.  ::

----------


## DDT

I think you must confuse me with "Pledge of Allegiance" (see I probably couldn't even spell it right)  Crowd. This is not a Bush Kerry issue. I only support Bush because the Democrats will eventually take even more rights away than Bush. We can argue all day over how much government should play in social issues and I concede that the government will have to play a role in this. For example there is a HUGE problem with health care in the USA but I don't think that either party will fix it since they both seem to kiss up to the Insurance Industry.
    I am speaking of Property Rights which has been an issue since early civilization and also Liberty Rights. Communism believes that a person Must share his rights which means in essence that he has no rights because Bad Manners is correct when he says that we only have our rights as long as society thinks we should have them. However one of the reasons I like the US is that the Founders wrote a document acknowledging that cetain rights come from a Creator and can not be taken away. This form of government is unique and has problems but that does not mean that we should go down Socialist Road and turn it into another European state. Afterall that is what the early Americans were trying to get away from. 
The Rights of the Individual vs the Needs of the Many  *is* the basic premise for Left and Right. But since neither form of government works  we must work it out amongst ourselves and.... I hate to admit it........compromise...arghhhhhh!

----------


## mike

> I think you must confuse me with "Pledge of Allegiance" (see I probably couldn't even spell it right)  Crowd. This is not a Bush Kerry issue. I only support Bush because the Democrats will eventually take even more rights away than Bush.

 I think it's a cooperative effort between both parties.   

> We can argue all day over how much government should play in social issues and I concede that the government will have to play a role in this.

 This has nothing to do with government.  I don't believe the government should play a role in welfare matters whatsoever.  That doesn't mean it shouldn't exist.   

> I am speaking of Property Rights which has been an issue since early civilization and also Liberty Rights.

 The idea of communism is not to destroy property rights, but to "transcend" them.  I'll make two points here: 
1)  You seem to be ignoring the transitional phase, socialism, where individual property rights exist but rights to capital (i.e. the machines, the factories) are granted only to the collective whole.  It would not be one day we have capitalism, then overnight everyone is expected to possess only what they use. 
2)  You also seem to be unaware of the broad variety of leftist and postleftist (also called "poststructuralist") movements that exist.  Not every socialist is a communist (syndicalists, mutualists, the individualist anarchists who supported free markets and competition, etc.), but every communist is necessarily first a socialist (actually, I shouldn't say _every_--for example, in Alexander Berkman's book the ABCs of Anarchist Communism he asks why this transitional phase is necessary at all).   

> Communism believes that a person Must share his rights which means in essence that he has no rights because Bad Manners is correct when he says that we only have our rights as long as society thinks we should have them.

 Communism believes that if you are not using something, you have no legal claim to it.  If I own 400 acres of land and only occupy and use 1 of them, I cannot really justify letting the other 399 sit there.  So someone else who wants to live there or do something with the land could appeal to the community that shares it for the right to use it rather than pay me rent for something I am not really losing something by not using.  Now, if I was actively and efficiently farming on those 399 acres and selling the produce at market, then I _could_ justify possessing it because I am being productive with it.  In that case no one could take that away from me.  The inherent problem is that it's unlikely I could do this without hiring people to help me.  The second I do that, under communism they are entitled to participate in the process of producing and have their voice heard.  Likewise, excluding the more authoritarian movements like Bolshevism, Trotskyism, et cetera, there are not many leftist groups that would deny people the right to private enterprise.  It is simply the utility of the capital and the level of exploitation in the employer-employee relationship that would be a problem. 
That is communism.   

> However one of the reasons I like the US is that the Founders wrote a document acknowledging that cetain rights come from a Creator and can not be taken away.

 Like the right to own slaves, the right not to drink alcohol, etc., right?  By the way, that is certainly *not* the point of the Constitution, however it may be worded.  Any of the amendments can be removed at any time providing they get Congressional approval to do so.  Congress could take away every single one of the items on the Bill of Rights if a majority vote decided to.   

> This form of government is unique

 No, it isn't.  Our government is a combination of democratic Athens and republican Rome.  The legislature was almost identical to England's parliamentary system in the 18th century. 
BTW there are many, many democracies in existence today.  Read a newspaper sometime.  There is a universe outside of America.   

> ...and has problems but that does not mean that we should go down Socialist Road and turn it into another European state. Afterall that is what the early Americans were trying to get away from.

 Um, socialism as a popular political thought didn't even exist when the Constitution was created.  Also, the "European states" at that time were absolute monarchies, not the welfare states they are today.  That didn't happen until the end of the 19th century with the formation of Social Democratic parties.    

> The Rights of the Individual vs the Needs of the Many  *is* the basic premise for Left and Right. But since neither form of government works  we must work it out amongst ourselves and.... I hate to admit it........compromise...arghhhhhh!

 The basic premise for Left (here I am not talking about liberals, but actual leftists) and Right (and here I am talking about capitalists, of which liberals are a part) is control of the means of producing.  The left believes that, since laborers are the source of everything in the economy, they ought to have a fair say in the decisions of that economy rather than just being automatons.  The right believes that they should shut the fuck up and get back in the salt mines.  It should be noted that the right will talk about the "needs of the many" when it serves their purposes (i.e. buying war bonds and enlisting in the army when it needs to protect a large, overseas financial interest). 
And you need to get past this concept that the answer to everything is either the government or private enterprise.  Both have a great way of fucking up the simplest things.  What we need is more direct public action and popular cooperation without relying on two different assholes only concerned with themselves.  Want higher wages?  Don't ask the government to raise the minimum wage and weaken the buying power:  form a union and walk out until the company gives in.  Want a loan but don't think you should pay exorbitant interest rates?  Form a citizens' credit bank and charge user fees to cover the expenses.

----------


## Линдзи

I think I'm a little in love with Mike   ::

----------


## Светлана Ежова

> I think I'm a little in love with Mike

 Hee.
Whatta ya think of that, Mike?

----------


## DDT

She only said that to provoke me to jealousy, me thinks.

----------


## Bandera

Communist prick who mass-murdered millions of Russians and Ukrainians and deserves to burn in hell for all eternity!  ::

----------


## Линдзи

Eloquent.

----------


## mike

[quote=Светлана Ежова] 

> I think I'm a little in love with Mike

 Hee.
Whatta ya think of that, Mike?[/quote:211fcwni] 
Flattering.  Very flattering.  But I think I'll be playing San Andreas for the next month or so after work and don't have time to think about romance or other frivolities.  Sorry, ladies.

----------


## Scorpio

> By the way, you don't believe in socialism? I mean real socialism, not the pretend stuff the USSR had, but real socialism as a theory?

 Probably, you should explain the difference between "stuff the USSR" had and "real socialism". Is there any real country with real socialism in existance, just to make comparison?  ::    

> I am a leftist. I visit the anti-communist action board to debate with the people who support capitalism. I don't like Lenin because I feel that Lenin's beliefs were a poor example of what a socialist country should be like.

 The Lenin is only known good example of what a real socialist country can be created. Alas, it's a fact. ;(   

> (Of course it would be totally unfair for me to say I don't like "Bolsheviks" because Bukharin was one and I really like him. That's why I never try to generalize.)

 I wonder, why do you like him so much?

----------


## mike

> The Lenin is only known good example of what a real socialist country can be created. Alas, it's a fact. ;(

 Depends on your definition of socialism.  In politics, different definitions of words used by political figures are not in short supply. 
Lenin's definition:  "Or, in other words, *socialism is merely state capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people* and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly."  This quote is taken from a pamphlet of his called "The Impending Catastrophe and How To Combat It." He also says " For if a huge capitalist undertaking becomes a monopoly, it means that it serves the whole nation. If it has become a state monopoly, it means that the state (i.e., the armed organisation of the population, the workers and peasants above all, provided there is revolutionary democracy) directs the whole undertaking. In whose interest?" 
The synthesis of these quotes, as well as State and Revolution (which I am not going to sit here and look up relevant quotes from), leads to two conclusions: 
1)  Lenin's definition of socialism is markedly different from the traditional one of "the workers controlling the means of production; from each according to their ability, to each according to their need."  His version is, "the state will monopolize everything and you are just going to have to hope your say in the matter as a worker amounts to something in policy-making."  Or perhaps a more honest but less objective way of putting it is:  "Your old boss is gone.  Why not celebrate by working extra hard for your new one?" 
2)  Even by his own definition the Soviet Union failed to live up to socialist expectations.  The USSR hardly was a "revolutionary-democratic" system.  In fact, it became precisely the "reactionary-bureaucratic state" that he claimed protected the interests of the landowners and capitalists rather than the proletariat and distinguished state capitalism from state socialism. 
I always assumed The Who song Won't Get Fooled Again was about the USSR, but I am not sure.  Maybe it is just about revolutions in general   ::   
There's nothing in the streets
Looks any different to me
And the slogans are replaced, by the by.
And the party on the left
Is now the party on the right
And their beards have all grown longer overnight 
... 
Meet the new boss:
Same as the old boss

----------


## DDT

Pete Townsend had a habit of leaning back on his Marshall stack while playing guitar. A guy I knew had found Townsends  favourite stage shirt, forgotten in the dressing rooms at The Cavern  and returned it to him a week or so later. Pete was so happy he asked the guy to go on the road with him. One of his jobs was to stand behind Townsends stack and "Push back" while Pete was leaning on it. One time, Townsend stood up straight and walked off to the front of the stage quickly and the amplifier stack was pushed over onto the stage in front of the audience.. 
Sorry, your metion of that song brings back memories.

----------


## Светлана Ежова

[quote=Scorpio] 

> By the way, you don't believe in socialism? I mean real socialism, not the pretend stuff the USSR had, but real socialism as a theory?

 Probably, you should explain the difference between "stuff the USSR" had and "real socialism". 
Sveta replies: Jee whiz, you're asking me to write a book here.   ::   Actually, there will be a page about that on my website where I'll be writing about exactly that so your question will be answered! 
 Is there any real country with real socialism in existance, just to make comparison?  ::  
Sveta replies: I would definitely  say "Нет" Of course maybe someone else has a different opinion, but that's mine.   

> I am a leftist. I visit the anti-communist action board to debate with the people who support capitalism. I don't like Lenin because I feel that Lenin's beliefs were a poor example of what a socialist country should be like.

 The Lenin is only known good example of what a real socialist country can be created. Alas, it's a fact. ;( 
Sveta replies: I don't agree with you on that one but whatever....   

> (Of course it would be totally unfair for me to say I don't like "Bolsheviks" because Bukharin was one and I really like him. That's why I never try to generalize.)

 I wonder, why do you like him so much?[/quote:2p118xui] 
Sveta replies: I will explain that one too on my website. Unfortunately since I am in university right now I don't have the time to work on either of my websites.  ::

----------


## Scorpio

[quote=Светлана Ежова] 

> Originally Posted by "Светлана Ежова":37j46xn7  (Of course it would be totally unfair for me to say I don't like "Bolsheviks" because Bukharin was one and I really like him. That's why I never try to generalize.)   I wonder, why do you like him so much?

 Sveta replies: I will explain that one too on my website. Unfortunately since I am in university right now I don't have the time to work on either of my websites.  :: [/quote:37j46xn7] 
Among all famous Bukharin's quotations, this is the one I like most: 
"У нас многопартийная система: одна партия у власти, а остальные в тюрьме." 
"We have a true multiparty system: one party at power, all others in jail."

----------


## Светлана Ежова

[quote=Scorpio] 

> Originally Posted by Scorpio        Originally Posted by "Светлана Ежова":e1zixm0w  (Of course it would be totally unfair for me to say I don't like "Bolsheviks" because Bukharin was one and I really like him. That's why I never try to generalize.)   I wonder, why do you like him so much?   Sveta replies: I will explain that one too on my website. Unfortunately since I am in university right now I don't have the time to work on either of my websites.

 Among all famous Bukharin's quotations, this is the one I like most: 
"У нас многопартийная система: одна партия у власти, а остальные в тюрьме." 
"We have a true multiparty system: one party at power, all others in jail."[/quote:e1zixm0w] 
Hee! That about summed it up, too! That's  a good quote, too! 
I also liked this quote from him:
"Peasants enrich yourselves, develop your farms, and don't worry that they will be taken away from you."
NI Bukharin, 1925

----------


## Niamh

There is no denying the faults and problems that were directly related to Lenin's leadership, however he was the first who dared apply what had only been discussed as theory into practise. For that, I admire him. Btw, it gets right on my t!ts those who blame him for Stalin since he clearly stated that he didn't want Stalin to succeed him.

----------


## Zhenya

What do you mean by this expression?  

> Btw, it gets right on my t!ts

----------


## Pravit

It pisses her off, in other words. 
There are other expressions using "tits"(most of them British, I've noted). 
"better than a kick in the tits" - really good
"things have gone tits-up" - things have gone to sh*t 
There are probably some others I've forgotten.

----------


## brett

What I think of when I hear the "gets on my t!ts" phrase;  "No wonder you're always gettin' slapped in the t!ts!"- is an improv. line by a friend in my younger brother's movie. His character said it to a guy who regularly tried to hold-up his disposals store with a butter knife. He was then told by my brother's character, also being held-up, "I'll give you the money, so long as you use it to buy yourself a decent knife from our quality selction". So, the guy went into the changing room to 'try them on', mimicking stabs in the mirror. He eventually said "No, they're just not me" to the hunting knives, and "I've got a routine going with this", about his butter knife. So, he gave the money back and was told not to come back unless he has "a decent knife next time".

----------


## Niamh

> It pisses her off, in other words. 
> There are other expressions using "tits"(most of them British, I've noted). 
> "better than a kick in the tits" - really good
> "things have gone tits-up" - things have gone to sh*t 
> There are probably some others I've forgotten.

 Hmz, the only other one I can think of is "it pisses the tits off me", which is up there in quality imagery =)

----------


## Janice McNay

Because the use of 'false facts' to support  an otherwise sound argument really pisses the tits off me, I was compelled to write this post.  
   Concerning the US Constitution, Mike wrote the following:  "Any of the amendments can be removed at any time providing they get Congressional approval to do so. Congress could take away every single one of the items on the Bill of Rights if a majority vote decided to. " 
     It isn't quite that easy to change the Constitution.  There are two ways to do this:
  First Way: two-thirds of the entire US Congress (that is, the House and the Senate) must approve any amendment (and REMOVING an amendment is also an amendment--an example is the amendment that repealed the amendment making alcohol illegal in the US).  Then, the amendment must be approved by three-fourths of the states' legislatures. (or, I believe, the number of states which must approve is 34)
   Second Way: This has never been done, but it would require that two-thirds of the states' legislatures petition the Federal Congress to call a convention to discuss and write possible amendments. These too, would also have to subsequently be approved by three-quarters of the states.
     I will say a prayer tonight in which I will fervently thank God that the process of amending the US Constitution is not nearly as easy as Mike wrote.

----------


## DDT

Well hi again Janice.   

> It isn't quite that easy to change the Constitution.  There are two ways to do this:
>   First Way: two-thirds of the entire US Congress (that is, the House and the Senate) must approve any amendment (and REMOVING an amendment is also an amendment--an example is .

 I agree. I knew this when Mike (and Scotcher) made the reply. I just could not be bothered with the typing. Although I am not American I do realize the value of The Constitution, it is better than what a lot of countries have. 
But, however difficult it is to amend the constitution, the fact that there was an amendment that repealed the amendment making alcohol illegal in the US is a concern or  pet peeve of mine. In fact it scares me and it is part of why I did not respond to Mike and Scotcher on this issue.( Because in theory they are right but on the other hand it is easier and more  likely to happen in England and Australia than in the US. The banning of firearms in Australia is one example.) Ahem…getting back to Prohibition. How did this ever happen in such a civilized country? Prohibition seems to be a uniquely American phenomenon, amongst supposedly free nations. I mean, to tell people that they can't have a drink is just "weird". Which opens up another can of worms. What about the drinking age in USA? 21? You have to be kidding me. An eighteen year old man can vote, be drafted and convicted as an adult for a crime but he is “not old enough” to go to the corner and buy a beer. Or buy wine with his meal in a restaurant when on a date.  If I was under 21. I would be in the streets protesting over this. To hell with protesting against the war in Iraq. First things first. Get your domestic issues in order first and then perhaps you won’t have to protest the foreign policy. Sheesh! Somebody shop me!

----------


## Pravit

> What about the drinking age in USA? 21?

 I thought it's 21 only in some states.

----------


## DDT

It is 21 in all 50 states. http://www.mudpc.org/laws.html  
Here is how the reat of the world sees it. USA has the highest drinking age. http://www2.potsdam.edu/alcohol-info/Le ... ngAge.html

----------


## TATY

> Svetlana, я is never capitilized like in English. It's always lower cased.

 Never say never:  *Я* живу в России
Это *я*

----------


## Линдзи

> What about the drinking age in USA? 21?
> 			
> 		  I thought it's 21 only in some states.

 It used to be 21 in Minnesota but 18 in Wisconsin, but the Minnesotans got all po'd about people drunk driving over state lines and made us change it.  Fascists.    ::

----------


## Harley

> Wait. We are talking about lenin right ? THE lenin ? 
> Omfg, he rules. 
> He laid the true smack down on those evil tsars. Then, there were these wimpy leftist wimps, and they were like "oh, let the people have a say wah wah" and lenin was like SECRET POLICE! GO! and pimp slapped all them too. Infact, i wish lenin were alive today. 
> В небе - ленин!

 lol... amusing...

----------

