# Forum About Russia Politics  Putin's increasing police state and smth about some other countries

## Pavelov

How come no one here talks about Putin and his destruction of Russia? 
Putin and his unsavory Oligarch 'friends' are purging Russia of money for themselves and destroying the country in the process.    
They are increasingly introducing laws and actions contrary to liberal policies so infractions against the people's rights.   Russia is becoming a police state like U.S., Canada, Germany and other Western countries.    Putin and co. are controlled or are complicit with powerful people in Russia.    
Putin arrests politicians (from Parties) who are a threat to his power so these include Nationalists especially.   Putin is a traitor but no one discusses this in Politics?   Strange.   
Yes, Medvedev is current Prez but they are interchangeable... 
EU + U.S. + Israel + Russia = Elite traitors

----------


## kidkboom

I'm interested in this.  Is there any place I can find more info, research, references?  I know little and I'd like to know more.

----------


## Marcus

Когда такие мысли приходят мне в голову, я говорю себе: "Если бы Путин хотел развалить страну и сдать её Западу, то давно уже бы это сделал."

----------


## Lampada

> ...   Putin is a traitor but no one discusses this in Politics?   Strange.  ...

 Just name-calling.  We do not do it here.

----------


## Marcus

> Just name-calling. We do not do it here.

 Человек думает о своей стране, о её будущем. Поэтому лучше ответить по существу: вопрос-то серьёзный.

----------


## Hanna

*
Are there oligarchs in Belarus, or not?*  
I can report from Belarus (I am currently there!) that as far as I can see, Gomel is in a very good shape.  
Everything is in good state of repair. Additionally, this might be the safest country in Europe (unless you are a political dissident...) Plenty of shops, restaurants, cafes etc. Things are in better shape than Ukraine (outside of central Kiev) and certainly than Moldova.  
No beggars or super-poor babushkas like I saw in Ukraine - older people look much better off.

----------


## Eric C.

> *
> Are there oligarchs in Belarus, or not?*  
> I can report from Belarus (I am currently there!) that as far as I can see, Gomel is in a very good shape.  
> Everything is in good state of repair. Additionally, this might be the safest country in Europe (unless you are a political dissident...) Plenty of shops, restaurants, cafes etc. Things are in better shape than Ukraine (outside of central Kiev) and certainly than Moldova.  
> No beggars or super-poor babushkas like I saw in Ukraine - older people look much better off.

 Hanna, I'd really like you (sure if that's possible) to take a trip deep in the country (somewhere far from big cities) and report on what you see there. That's what's gonna be really interesting to know as in cities they're obviously gonna try everything they can to make you think life there is a paradise...

----------


## BappaBa

> EU + U.S. + Israel + Russia = Elite traitors

 С козырей зашёл.

----------


## Hanna

> Hanna, I'd really like you (sure if that's possible) to take a trip deep in the country (somewhere far from big cities) and report on what you see there. That's what's gonna be really interesting to know as in cities they're obviously gonna try everything they can to make you think life there is a paradise...

 Eric, you drive me crazy! I don't think any officials etc in Belarus care what I think about how the country looks. Where do you get all your misinformation from? Fox News? 1950s spy novels? This is very obviously a modern country that's taken an ever-so-slightly different road politically, than Ukraine and Russia.  
1) Belarus is a free country - I can do what I like here for as long as my visa lasts (it's for 3 months). Including visiting poor villages. I would visit a village if there was some good reason to do that - but villages are tight-nit communities and it would be pretty weird if I just turned up to "check it out".  Maybe there is some handicraft village or something like that, that I could visit.  
2) Obviously I am aware that the countryside of the entire CIS area is poor by Western standards. One of the main good points about the current Belarussian leadership, is that they have managed to keep rural villages in a better shape than they are in in Russia or Ukraine. That's why Lukashenko keeps getting re-elected, because poor and old people support him.   _Belarussians, correct me if I am wrong, but that's my impression.  
And are there oligarchs in Belarus? Does anyone know?_

----------


## Dmitry Khomichuk

There are no oligarchs as it looks in Russia. There are few rich people by they are quiet and famous only each to other.

----------


## Crocodile

> And are there oligarchs in Belarus?

 Belorussian oligarchs are poorer than Russian *oil*garchs.  ::

----------


## Crocodile

> С козырей зашёл.

 И не говори. Настолько толстый троллинг, что даже реагировать стыдно.  ::

----------


## Lampada

> И не говори. Настолько толстый троллинг, что даже реагировать стыдно.

 This is it!

----------


## Ramil

ЧОРТ! Я всё пропустил.  ::

----------


## Hanna

As usual, I walk straight into the trolling trap! 
I am not really half as "red" as I seem - but I just can't control myself when I see truly ignorant or false statements.

----------


## Pavelov

Why call me a troll?   That is mean.   I have read several articles about what Putin does and who he surrounds himself with.   Also, based on previous history of when an economy collapses and how opportunists benefit at the expense of the people.   Are you brainwashed?   Are you brainwashed into thinking political leaders are good people?   Your heroes are Obama, Bush, Blair, Cameron, Putin, Merkel et al?   Sad. 
Throughout history, these leaders have benefited with certain people and groups and the people have been brainwashed into support because of ignorance and desperation.   
I cannot fathom why you have so much faith in Putin. 
I know you despise Gorbachev but even he is saying Putin's 'democracy' is a sham. 
I am not going by this as it won't be accepted but other articles and info I have read convinces me.    But, it is a basic fact how these Governments deceive the people.   Hopefully, Russians can realize before their country is destroyed like others. 
Because Lampada is so quick to accuse me of trolling and 'name-calling' (maybe look up word, 'traitor'), I doubt my articles can be allowed.   
Too bad there's no freedom here either.   ::     Maybe financed by friends of United Russia and friends.  ::

----------


## mishau_

> EU + U.S. + Israel + Russia = Elite traitors

 Честно говорю, прочитал и реально описался.

----------


## Hanna

Ok, so what is the solution? 
Don't forget that as far as we know, Putin and United Russia won the latest election in Russia. 
People may be brainwashed..... but that's what they voted for.  
So if you want to get rid of Putin, what do you suggest?  
Military coup?  
Revolution...? by whom
Another election with international monitors?
Do you want the old communist system back? 
Or do you want a government that's more pro EU or pro USA than the current government.  
It's understandable that you are disillusioned but you should indicate exactly what you think is wrong, and what you think the solution would be.

----------


## Ramil

> Ok, so what is the solution? 
> Don't forget that as far as we know, Putin and United Russia won the latest election in Russia. 
> People may be brainwashed..... but that's what they voted for.

 They didn't vote _en masse_ for United Russia. It goes like that:
A regional UR leader 'asks' all affiliated businesses to bring votes. Since nearly all officials working for government are the members of the party they can arrange all kinds of problems for those who disagree. Thus, such businesses threaten their employees to fire them if they don't vote as they're told. Needless to say that apart from that there are all kinds of 'miracles' happen when they start counting votes. 104%, 110% or even 122% of votes can be cast for United Russia. And exit polls data miraculously differs from 'official results'. 
When elections are held there're no illusions about who's going to win. Everyone (and I mean it), everyone knows the winner right from the start. And 'just to be on the safe side' every opposing candidate in the bulletin is such a clown that no one in his right mind would cast a vote for him. Thus, either you go vote for clowns or United Russia or don't go (in this case your bulletin would be cast for United Russia - as many who didn't attend discovered later).

----------


## Hanna

Well, I believe you and it's a sad state of affairs.  
If Russia was going to remain a non-democratic one-party state; then: what was the point of all the chaos and tragedy in the 1990s?   
If the purpose was to introduce market economy because the people wanted that -- then it would have been simpler to do what China did.  
And it's ironic how many Eastern European politicians have a history of membership in organisations that were part of the Communist system. Now they say they are liberalist, democratic etc. But it seems they are mainly just opportunists and have no ideology at all.

----------


## Marcus

> If Russia was going to remain a non-democratic one-party state; then: what was the point of all the chaos and tragedy in the 1990s?

 Elections decide nothing in any country. The country was ruled by traitors who wanted to destroy Russia in order to establish the world government. But, fortunately, it did not happen.  

> If the purpose was to introduce market economy because the people wanted that -- then it would have been simpler to do what China did.

 No one asked people what they wanted.

----------


## sperk

> But, fortunately, it did not happen.

 yet...

----------


## Marcus

> yet...

 Почему вы такой пессимист?

----------


## sperk

Просто реалист.

----------


## Marcus

Вы считаете, что у России нет будущего?

----------


## sperk

Я не знаю, но существуют силы желающие упразднять суверенные государства.

----------


## Marcus

Вы абсолютно правы, сперк.

----------


## Eric C.

> Я не знаю, но существуют силы желающие упразднять суверенные государства.

 Right here we're getting into another round of the conspiracy theory.  ::

----------


## Lampada

> Я не знаю, но существуют силы желающие упразднять суверенные государства.

 Whoever it is they can wish all they want. Who cares?

----------


## Marcus

> Who cares?

 Я. Эти силы обладают огромной властью.

----------


## Lampada

> Я. Эти силы обладают огромной властью.

 Чистой воды троллизм. ::

----------


## Marcus

Что такое "троллизм"? Я давно интересуюсь политикой, экономикой и историей, много читаю на эти темы, а ещё больше думаю, поэтому я не понимаю, почему вы так несерьёзно относитесь к моему мнению. То, что многим кажется глупой теорией заговора, для очевидно.

----------


## mishau_

Теория заговора - это фигня. План Люцифера, он гораздо опаснее любых человеческих заговоров.

----------


## Basil77

> Что такое "троллизм"? Я давно интересуюсь политикой, экономикой и историей, много читаю на эти темы, а ещё больше думаю, поэтому я не понимаю, почему вы так несерьёзно относитесь к моему мнению. То, что многим кажется глупой теорией заговора, для очевидно.

 You sound like you are 10 years old.

----------


## Ramil

Those who say that there's no conspiracy are probably right. Everything is there on the plain view, so you can't call it conspiracy right? There is policy of the 'golden billion' against all others - to maintain the status quo. There are natural resources - metal, oil, gas, water, wood, etc - all of this is produced or extracted in the so called 'third world' countries. All of this is bought in exchange for US dollar - a green piece of paper that's worth nothing. If there's not enough dollars FRS will always print more.
Anyone who tries to introduce some other international reserve currency (like golden dinar as it was with Gaddafi) immediately gets a 'democracy operation' in his country. What conspiracy? It's all there and nobody makes a secret out of it. You can even hear them saying exactly what their policy is on TV.

----------


## Crocodile

> Я не знаю, но существуют силы желающие упразднять суверенные государства.

  Все без исключения современные суверенные государства возникли в результате деятельности сил, упразднивших существовавшие до них другие суверенные государства. В таком случае, какой смысл защищать именно суверенные государства, а не эти самые силы?  ::   (Вопрос для тех, кто давно интересуется политикой, экономикой и историей.)  
PS. If you guys like trolling I can definitely help.  ::

----------


## Crocodile

> Что такое "троллизм"?

 Троллизм - есть троллистское администрирование плюс троллизация всего форума.  ::

----------


## Crocodile

There is policy of the 'golden billion' against all others - to maintain the status quo. 
=> Please, provide some proof. 
There are natural resources - metal, oil, gas, water, wood, etc - all of this is produced or extracted in the so called 'third world' countries.
=> Not all. Some of it is produced in the second world countries. For example in Canada. 
All of this is bought in exchange for US dollar - a green piece of paper that's worth nothing.
=> Any money worth nothing unless another person is [temporarily] willing to give you something for it (and vice versa). I think we have discussed it extensively in the past. 
Anyone who tries to introduce some other international reserve currency (like golden dinar as it was with Gaddafi) immediately gets a 'democracy operation' in his country. 
=> I would really like to learn more about that. Would you be able to provide me some links (not the google search results, but something that made your mind that way). I mean, what's so special about the golden dinar?

----------


## Hanna

> Anyone who tries to introduce some other international reserve currency (like golden dinar as it was with Gaddafi) immediately gets a 'democracy operation' in his country. What conspiracy? It's all there and nobody makes a secret out of it.

 Wow, I'll be darned if you are not completely right. Saddam Hussein tried it too.... 
That's what it all comes down to. The dollar must be the top currency, even though it's actually not supported by anything other than the US military.... and then the need to commercialize everything, American style.  
But there are two countries which the US cannot take on and be sure to win: China and Russia. Europe is already in the US pocket...  
But if China and Russia could come to an agreement together to switch do some alternative, then things might change. Apparently China itself has masses of dollars saved though, and can not afford for them to lose their value.

----------


## Crocodile

> Wow, I'll be darned if you are not completely right.

 A little light-minded for a believer, might I say.  ::

----------


## Crocodile

> Теория заговора - это фигня. План Люцифера, он гораздо опаснее любых человеческих заговоров.

 Ящерики овладевают - вот это проблема. А Люцифер - друг и товарищ человека.  ::

----------


## mishau_

> Ящерики овладевают - вот это проблема. А Люцифер - друг и товарищ человека.

 Нет, ящерики не опасны, у нас под самым носом вот-вот пробудится Ктулху, вот это реально страшно! (;,;)

----------


## it-ogo

> Нет, ящерики не опасны, у нас под самым носом вот-вот пробудится Ктулху, вот это реально страшно! (;,

 Это не Ктулху, а Годзилла, друг человека. Он почти не кусается. Проблема - это астероид. Он падает.

----------


## kidkboom

> Wow, I'll be darned if you are not completely right. Saddam Hussein tried it too.... 
> That's what it all comes down to. The dollar must be the top currency, even though it's actually not supported by anything other than the US military.... and then the need to commercialize everything, American style.  
> But there are two countries which the US cannot take on and be sure to win: China and Russia. Europe is already in the US pocket...  
> But if China and Russia could come to an agreement together to switch do some alternative, then things might change. Apparently China itself has masses of dollars saved though, and can not afford for them to lose their value.

 Fair play, the road map seems to lead there.. but there can't be enough gas in the tank.... can there? 
.. The idea that the 'golden dinar' would somehow be able to upstage not only the american dollar, but every other currency on the map?  That the US should be worried that these new forms of currency would go from 0 to being the pace car of currencies, so we move in an expensive and costly (in terms of lives) "democracy operation?"  I'm a conspiracy theorist enough to believe it.. but shouldn't there be something more imminently threatening than "the golden dinar?"  (And, if we moved in on Saddam because of currency, then am I to believe that the stories of human torture wherein children were tied to ceiling fans until they were swung to death were fabricated?  Or were they just "icing on the cake" for reasons to move in military?) 
Please don't mistake this for an attempt to debate this;  I merely want to know what everyone's thought are.  I know nothing of these topics beyond what little I've read and I respect your opinions... my conspiracy theorist research has all been in reference to goings-on on American soil.

----------


## Crocodile

> Это не Ктулху, а Годзилла, друг человека. Он почти не кусается. Проблема - это астероид. Он падает.

 Неправда ваша, дяденька. Астероид-то как раз себе вполне мирно летит, а падать он начинает только если вдруг Земля оказывается рядом. Поэтому Земля - более реальная проблема, чем астероид. Тем более, что вот-вот ледяной щит Антарктиды сползёт в океан. Но ящерики, пожалуй, всё-таки страшнее. Они и астероид подтолкнуть горазды, и Антарктиду потрясти на горячую голову. И Годзиллу склонировать, предварительно генно-модифицировав до безобразия. И всё это, заметь, без грамма выпивки. Ну, и как с такими иметь дело?

----------


## Lampada

Кончайте баловаться.  Ваша болтовня не похожа ни на офф-топик, ни даже на троллинг.  And it's not cute. Если хозяин темы пожелает, то я могу это всё вытереть.

----------


## sperk

> Ваша болтовня не похожа ни на офф-топик, ни даже на троллинг.  Если хозяин темы пожелает, то я могу это всё вытереть.

 Пожалуйста...

----------


## Lampada

> Пожалуйста...

 Ладно, давай подождём, может, сами вытрут.

----------


## Marcus

Лампада - либерал.

----------


## Ramil

> There is policy of the 'golden billion' against all others - to maintain the status quo. 
> => Please, provide some proof.

 By 'golden billion' I mean North America and Europe. All who has enough food, shelter and clothes and some extras. This definition includes you and me as well. This billion people is called 'golden' because it controls 4/5 of the world's wealth. So, tell me, will you give away 80% of your posessions in order to save the starving in Africa? No, I don't think so. You'll point at someone who is richer than you and generally say that the hunger is not your fault and blah blah blah. So this is your policy. No matter what particular government you have, they can be liberalists, conservatives, republicans, democrats or even communists - you won't give away 80% of your wealth. And nobody would. This makes you a collaborationist.   

> There are natural resources - metal, oil, gas, water, wood, etc - all of this is produced or extracted in the so called 'third world' countries.
>  => Not all. Some of it is produced in the second world countries. For example in Canada.

 And does it prove anything?   

> All of this is bought in exchange for US dollar - a green piece of paper that's worth nothing.
> => Any money worth nothing unless another person is [temporarily] willing to give you something for it (and vice versa). I think we have discussed it extensively in the past.

 Yes, we discussed that. The key word is 'willing'. People don't have any choice and any attempt to provide an alternative gets smothered with 'winged democracy'. And people do want an alternative but this will be against US interests.   

> Anyone who tries to introduce some other international reserve currency (like golden dinar as it was with Gaddafi) immediately gets a 'democracy operation' in his country. 
> => I would really like to learn more about that. Would you be able to provide me some links (not the google search results, but something that made your mind that way). I mean, what's so special about the golden dinar?

 There's nothing special about it except the fact 'it's golden' and they planned to sell oil for dinars only. US can live with free yuan, rouble even, but oil is a blood of economy.   Why Qazzafi was Targeted? He was introducing Golden Dinar  Is Libya being bombed because Gaddafi wants to introduce gold dinar? The Daily Bell - Gaddafi Planned Gold Dinar, Now Under Attack The Gold Dinar: Saving the world economy from Gaddafi

----------


## mishau_

> Кончайте баловаться.  Ваша болтовня не похожа ни на офф-топик, ни даже на троллинг.

 Правильно. Это не офф-отпик и не троллинг. Это вполне себе безобидная ирония на тему всемирных заговоров. А о полицейском государстве вообще и речи не идет. Скорее о мародерском. Выстроена демократия по принципу берегового братства XVII века.

----------


## BappaBa

> Что такое "троллизм"?   ....я не понимаю, почему вы так несерьёзно относитесь к моему мнению.

 Здесь админ американьский, поэтому троллить про буржуев ниZZя. Попробуй создать тему типа "В России беременных выбрасываю на улицу" или поюродствуй по поводу доступности Красной площади на 9-е мая - слова никто не скажет. =)

----------


## mishau_

А есть ли у "буржуев" такое: Человек прибыл из другой страны, получил гражданство, затем ему ампутировали конечность, а инвалидность не дают - нет московской прописки.

----------


## Юрка

> А есть ли у "буржуев" такое: Человек прибыл из другой страны, получил гражданство, затем ему ампутировали конечность, а инвалидность не дают - нет московской прописки.

 Всё по закону, чем ты недоволен?  ::

----------


## Crocodile

> By 'golden billion' I mean North America and Europe. All who has enough food, shelter and clothes and some extras. This definition includes you and me as well. This billion people is called 'golden' because it controls 4/5 of the world's wealth. So, tell me, will you give away 80% of your posessions in order to save the starving in Africa? No, I don't think so. You'll point at someone who is richer than you and generally say that the hunger is not your fault and blah blah blah. So this is your policy. No matter what particular government you have, they can be liberalists, conservatives, republicans, democrats or even communists - you won't give away 80% of your wealth. And nobody would. This makes you a collaborationist.

 Can we go one step back though? When you said "_There is policy of the 'golden billion' against all others_" I was under impression you mean the 'richer' states deliberately want the existence of the 'poorer' states. And, as such, they make efforts to keep the 'poorer' states even poorer (as the anti-globalist ideology suggests). Was that your intention? Or, your way of thinking goes along with Hanna's in that there's a finite amount of resources and so the 'richer' countries possess all the resources and do not want to share any (=give some of them up) of the resources with the 'poorer' countries? So, using your and Hanna's terminology, me and you should stop taking expensive vacations to Carribean and rather send that money to Africa where that money can purchase livestock and feed the entire families? Or, you mean something else?   

> There are natural resources - metal, oil, gas, water, wood, etc - all of this is produced or extracted in the so called 'third world' countries.
> => Not all. Some of it is produced in the second world countries. For example in Canada.
> And does it prove anything?

 It proves there's no deliberate policy of the 'richer' states to deliberately keep the 'poorer' states poorer. That is also a proof that you don't need to own the FRS's printing machines to not to be poor. In addition, it's a proof that an oil/natural resources exporting country can also export goods. (When the Canadian dollar rises as a result of the oil rise, the Bank of Canada tries to lower it as much as possible by all measures to make the export of goods be profitable.)   

> There's nothing special about it except the fact 'it's golden' and they planned to sell oil for dinars only.

 Ok, you gave me a homework to read all those articles, so I'll get back to you on that.  ::

----------


## Crocodile

> Кончайте баловаться.  Ваша болтовня не похожа ни на офф-топик, ни даже на троллинг.  And it's not cute. Если хозяин темы пожелает, то я могу это всё вытереть.

  Да ладно, зачем уж так кипятиться?  ::

----------


## Crocodile

> Anyone who tries to introduce some other international reserve currency  (like golden dinar as it was with Gaddafi) immediately gets a 'democracy  operation' in his country. [...] There's nothing special about it except the fact 'it's golden' and they planned to sell oil for dinars only. US can live with free yuan, rouble even, but oil is a blood of economy.

  Ok, I've done my homework. Phew! Here's what I think about it. It is highly unlikely the introduction of the golden currency was so decisive as to cause the military operation in Libya, however, the operation might have won a much broader support in the goods-exporting countries for that reason.  
The major point neither of those article touch (and I hope you will) is: if the US (with its allegedly еphemeral green paper) was so afraid of the golden dinar, why is that the major call for the military operation came from Europe and not from the US? Unless I get a satisfactory answer I'm not sure I can proceed any further on taking this claim any seriously. (And by a satisfactory answer I mean anything except for: "well, the US ultimately controls Europe, and the US is so inspire-conspiring that it wanted others to act on its behalf."  ::  ) 
As a side note, according to one of your articles Why Qazzafi was Targeted? He was introducing Golden Dinar  _“There were two conferences on this, in 1986 and 2000, organized by Gaddafi. Everybody was interested, most countries in Africa were keen,__"_ and neither time was Gaddafi attacked.  
By the way, one of the results of the two world wars was to form an agreement to work business issues like that out collectively in a global forum and not unilaterally (which can cause new wars). So, strictly speaking, Gaddafi was provoking the goods-exporting countries to go on war with him, but every time he did it again those countries preferred relatively peaceful counter-measures. This time the military operation just coincided with the global Middle East unrest.  
So, I'm afraid Hanna's bet on it was too hasty.  ::

----------


## Hanna

Hehe Croc! There are always different ways to interpret history. 
But it's interesting that lately there it is always the same country that invades other countries and builds up endless stories of how gruesome these countries are, and why they need to be invaded for everyones best. Yet when you scratch the surface; oil, currency or spreading commercialism is always there in the background.
You are leaning much more towards the Fox News interpretation of things than I am. 
If I see a clear pattern then no amount of hype can get me to look around it. 
And I feel there is a pattern.

----------


## kidkboom

> Hehe Croc! There are always different ways to interpret history. 
> But it's interesting that lately there it is always the same country that invades other countries and builds up endless stories of how gruesome these countries are, and why they need to be invaded for everyones best. Yet when you scratch the surface; oil, currency or spreading commercialism is always there in the background.
> You are leaning much more towards the Fox News interpretation of things than I am. 
> If I see a clear pattern then no amount of hype can get me to look around it. 
> And I feel there is a pattern.

 How do you divide hype from clear-patten criteria, and give the latter credence? How to identify Real from Not-Real? What you mention above about "it's interesting.." is similar to the often-mentioned Bilderberg theory. (I'm actually a fan of that theory - some of it checks out, and it's plausible, if a little manic.)
But with respect: Most of the people who work in politics in my US are (imho but w/ citations!) idiots - far below the requisite intellect of folks who can fool the people en-masse.. The type of idiots that, when some objectile should be propelled toward their face at a high-profile press conference abroad in a hostile country, would try to CATCH said object instead of, oh, I don't know, taking cover. (An acinine reference, but it's shoe .. er, true. ::  ) We have people in politics in America with severe drug problems, marital problems, deep-seated honesty problems - senators that fake their deaths, cheat on their wives, and get caught on TV just hoping it will IMPROVE their career. We even generated a Jimmy MacMillan recently, which is telling enough on its own about us. ::  -- For crying out loud, one of our biggest states is governed by a halfwit Austrian ex-bodybuilder who is himself in the midst of a divorce... (It's not that America doesn't turn out great people. It's just that precious few of our great people are politicians.) 
I would not doubt the idea that people like Berlusconi or Medvedev or someone else would be smart enough to be part of the Bilderbergs and leave us none the wiser. But when I try to imagine people like Hilary Clinton and Joe Biden being privy to the goings-on of this uber-powerful phantom-group, I can't help but laugh at the idea. Honestly, in my opinion, Obama's the first politician we've had in a long time who isn't a towering, rosaceic embarassment to us by just being on camera. He was the first president in my lifetime I can actually _imagine_ as being smart enough to fool us. (And Kennedy, the one before him, was, fittingly enough, assassinated.)
Hanna, I for one don't doubt we're being fooled. But I know the puppeteer has got to be better than the ones we've seen.

----------


## Hanna

Reading what you say is interesting... I think you've got your country pinned down - and it's a real shame things should be like that. It could be such a great country. The "dumbing down" of Americans seems almost deliberate. And most Americans are so affected by this that they don't even realise it's a problem! Catch 22! 
When "news" has to be entertainment and appeal to the lowest common denominator.... also please the shareholders of the company that owns the TV network and accommodate for insane levels of constant commercial breaks.... then it's no surprise that the average person has no idea what's really going on in the world and in their country.  
What's happened with American education I don't know, but I can tell you that "dumb Americans" are a source of lots of jokes in Western Europe for example. Can't even point out the major countries on a world map; know NOTHING about the history or real state of politics of major countries and have picked up some shockingly incorrect misinformation about some parts of the world. It seems to me that the only way to get a proper education in the US; either to go to a top private school, or read up about things on your own.  (Respect to those who have done that!) I think this is really sad.... the ignorance of people means they can be tricked to think that it's necessary to regularly invade other countries, spend money and sacrifice lives for wars that are not needed for anyone apart from commercial interests. Why some smarter European nations play along with this I have no idea... but many people in Europe are furious about their countries' (largely symbolic) representation in America's wars. 
I am disappointed that Obama has not deviated much from Bush' foreign policies. I agree with you he seems smarter and somewhat more sympathetic than many of the other presidents. But fundamentally he's changed nothing.  
Bilderberg seems just too complicated a conspiracy for me to believe in. Freemasons, Jews etc; same thing. 
If there IS a worldwide conspiracy, then it's probably a bit more secret. But most likely there is nothing very organised in place. 
I lean more towards Ramil's point; that the "conspiracy" is fairly open secret - it's just that media is totally ignoring it.  *A complex worldwide conspiracy would be too complicated* I think: A human life is too short and a real worldwide conspiracy would take many generations to implement. Nobody lives long enough to keep the conspiracy running, or see it come to fruition.  
Unless the plan/conspiracy is *God's or the Devil's* .....   ::

----------


## mishau_

President Dmitry Medvedev announced having signed a presidential  executive order defining the new regulations on the Security Council.  Указ Президента  
Actually, civilan authorities are going to be replaced by "siloviki" and some experts call it a "quiet coup".

----------


## kidkboom

It was a joy to read this. I must agree on all points. I was born here and I love this place, but there are two usa's - one where the people live, and the other where the governing powers hold court. I'm a dissatisfied citizen for the moment, because after all that's gone down since '01, I'm a little hurt that my countrymen won't prove to me, and all others, beyond all doubt, that Bin Laden was killed by us (if true). I'm like the woman who's been cheated on, wanting to believe what she is being told by the man, but unable to have faith.. If it's true, I would be relieved to see fingerprints, DNA or something that shows this man was real, and truly died as they say. (But that's a digression - sorry.)   

> Reading what you say is interesting... I think you've got your country pinned down - and it's a real shame things should be like that. It could be such a great country. The "dumbing down" of Americans seems almost deliberate. And most Americans are so affected by this that they don't even realise it's a problem! Catch 22! 
> When "news" has to be entertainment and appeal to the lowest common denominator.... also please the shareholders of the company that owns the TV network and accommodate for insane levels of constant commercial breaks.... then it's no surprise that the average person has no idea what's really going on in the world and in their country.  
> What's happened with American education I don't know, but I can tell you that "dumb Americans" are a source of lots of jokes in Western Europe for example. Can't even point out the major countries on a world map; know NOTHING about the history or real state of politics of major countries and have picked up some shockingly incorrect misinformation about some parts of the world. It seems to me that the only way to get a proper education in the US; either to go to a top private school, or read up about things on your own. (Respect to those who have done that!) I think this is really sad.... the ignorance of people means they can be tricked to think that it's necessary to regularly invade other countries, spend money and sacrifice lives for wars that are not needed for anyone apart from commercial interests. Why some smarter European nations play along with this I have no idea... but many people in Europe are furious about their countries' (largely symbolic) representation in America's wars.

 These are some of the reasons I've been here these last few years. Sequestered thinking is dangerous. It depletes one's respect for human value. I often say that I am lucky to be surrounded by people such as you all from whom I learn a lot. And it's sad but true that many of us don't seem to know what we should about the world at large. When we in public school were taught geography, we were taught the States; in World History, never referred to maps, only to dates and paragraphs of written history. I learned geography, like what portion of Russian I know, from the internet. Many things gain value and excellence when marketed; here, I think, education when marketed loses value and excellence. Even integrity, at some point. 
Maybe there is merit in redesigning some of these things. Ousting existing media channels and creating new ones, with more transparent processes of information collection and delivery, less moving parts. Revamping private education to market it not just toward use toward financial success as is severely the focus now, but instead toward actual knowledge of the world.. but there are more obstacles than I have digits to count them on.  
If nothing else, certainly you've got me thinking.   

> Bilderberg seems just too complicated a conspiracy for me to believe in. Freemasons, Jews etc; same thing. 
> If there IS a worldwide conspiracy, then it's probably a bit more secret. But most likely there is nothing very organised in place. 
> I lean more towards Ramil's point; that the "conspiracy" is fairly open secret - it's just that media is totally ignoring it.  *A complex worldwide conspiracy would be too complicated* I think: A human life is too short and a real worldwide conspiracy would take many generations to implement. Nobody lives long enough to keep the conspiracy running, or see it come to fruition.

 That's pretty much my thought on this, too. When we speak of the emotional landscape of the subject, I would say that my *feeling* is there's more than meets the eye, and that the threads we pull on run deep into the fabric. But I have no evidence, so I leave my Shining moments where they belong for the time being.=)

----------


## Ramil

People, when you say that it's senators or congressmen and presidents who make the politics these days, you are wrong. As kidkboom has just pointed out - they are dump people mentally incapable of doing anything real. Moreover - they have no real instruments of doing anything major. A government (any government) simply represents the owner of money who had brought them on the political pinnacle to express their views and interests. I still think that this world is ruled by 200-300 powerful families (or clans) and everything that is happenning in the world is done for their profit. When some political or economical event happens I ask myself - who benefits from this? Old buddy Hercule Poirot used this trick many times and always succeeded in finding out who the criminal was. 
I won't ever believe that Nicolas Sarkozy or David Cameron or Hillary Clinton could start a war merely for the defense of 'innocent civilians molested by the evil regimes'. I won't ever believe that political circles in France, UK or USA even cared about these poor victims of dictatorships. I won't believe they ever cared about anything but their continued well-being.
@Crocodile: I don't know whether the Gaddafi's intentions triggered an attack on him or not, but the official story they tell us about why we are bombing Libya is even less plausible. And no, I don't think it concerns oil directly. I can only think of other player who might be interested in the removal of Gaddafi - Saudi Arabya. Perhaps some kind of a bargain has taken place between EU and the Saudis, I don't know.

----------


## Crocodile

> Hehe Croc! There are always different ways to interpret history.

 True words.  ::    

> But it's interesting that lately there it is always the same country that invades other countries and builds up endless stories of how gruesome these countries are, and why they need to be invaded for everyones best. Yet when you scratch the surface; oil, currency or spreading commercialism is always there in the background. If I see a clear pattern then no amount of hype can get me to look around it. And I feel there is a pattern.

 Good catch! The only problem is to find out what's behind that pattern. As Mr. Lenin used to say: "_The politics is the most concentrated expression of the economics._" As I mentioned earlier, I think the sole purpose of the local armies is to either promote or defend the local economies. What else would you expect? Do you think Charles XII of Sweden was any different? Any politician would use the force if he could, be it the US or Sweden, or Russia, or China, or New Zealand, no exceptions. The NATO presently is the most dominant military power on the planet, and that's what is observed from the outside as a "pattern". If you still don't believe me, have a closer look at the African military conflicts of the recent history. Still the same pattern.  ::    

> Most of the people who work in politics in my US are idiots - far below the requisite intellect of folks who can fool the people en-masse.. Hanna, I for one don't doubt we're being fooled. But I know the puppeteer has got to be better than the ones we've seen.

 Yeah, I can see your point. The only thing is that the politicians of any other country are no different. And I think if you take a closer look, you'll find that in the constant power games the fools are being eliminated first. Those we see on the top of the political food chain are not necessarily well-educated, but very smart evil men with no principles and empathy whatsoever. If they act like idiots, that means they have their reasons to look that way at that moment. As to the shoe incident... well, give them a break, they are still people. Others chew on their their ties just as easy as they chew on their political opponents. You get the picture.  ::    

> People, when you say that it's senators or congressmen and presidents who make the politics these days, you are wrong. As kidkboom has just pointed out - they are dump people mentally incapable of doing anything real.

 Сперва добейся. (ТМ)  ::    

> Moreover - they have no real instruments of doing anything major. A government (any government) simply represents the owner of money who had brought them on the political pinnacle to express their views and interests.

 That used to be true long time ago, but these days the same businesses contribute to both parties. How on Earth a government could represent all those with the different business needs?  ::    

> I still think that this world is ruled by 200-300 powerful families (or clans) and everything that is happenning in the world is done for their profit.

 Yeah, we had a long talk about it some time back. I see it differently.  ::    

> When some political or economical event happens I ask myself - who benefits from this? Old buddy Hercule Poirot used this trick many times and always succeeded in finding out who the criminal was.

 Right, but Hercule Poirot is a character in a book. There are other books in which a criminal is not the one who seems to benefit the most, but commits the crime to make the police imprison another person for life as a revenge. IRL, we have an assasination of General Lev Rochlin and his wife was prosecuted on the grounds she benefited from his death. And so on and so forth. It's true the one who commits the crime benefits from the crime in some way, but it's not always the one who benefits the most and/or "the most" is subjective.    

> I won't ever believe that Nicolas Sarkozy or David Cameron or Hillary Clinton could start a war merely for the defense of 'innocent civilians molested by the evil regimes'. I won't ever believe that political circles in France, UK or USA even cared about these poor victims of dictatorships. I won't believe they ever cared about anything but their continued well-being.

 I agree with each and every word you said.    

> @Crocodile: I don't know whether the Gaddafi's intentions triggered an attack on him or not

 You kidding me, right? Earlier, you insisted you know that for sure in a rather certain way: "_Anyone who tries to introduce some other international reserve currency (like golden dinar as it was with Gaddafi) immediately gets a 'democracy operation' in his country._" But now you back off and say you don't know? After all the homework you sent me?! That's just mean!!  ::     

> but the official story they tell us about why we are bombing Libya is even less plausible.

 Yup. Sadly it's not worth a dime.

----------


## Crocodile

> Wow, I'll be darned if you are not completely right. Saddam Hussein tried it too....

 Ok, I finally got to look into that as well. Here's what I've found: 
1. Saddam Hussein's decision was out there by at least Nov. 13, 2000 => Foreign Exchange: Saddam Turns His Back on Greenbacks - TIME
2. The Second Gulf War started on March 20, 2003. 
Please, feel free to draw your own conclusion as to how tight those events are related.  ::

----------


## Ramil

> You kidding me, right? Earlier, you insisted you know that for sure in a rather certain way: "_Anyone who tries to introduce some other international reserve currency (like golden dinar as it was with Gaddafi) immediately gets a 'democracy operation' in his country._" But now you back off and say you don't know? After all the homework you sent me?! That's just mean!!

 Who am I? Nostradamus? I said what I said. Saddam wanted this and so did Gaddafi. There may be other reasons, but I only noticed similarities. What concerns the timeline you've posted - it's hard to say exactly what Saddam had actually undertaken during this period. Surely, you're not going to tell me about his threat to the civilized world with WMD?  ::  I must research however if the leaders of Tunis and Egypt in the North and Bahrain and Syria in the South supported Gaddafi's ideas.

----------


## Hanna

> 1. Saddam Hussein's decision was out there by at least Nov. 13, 2000 => Foreign Exchange: Saddam Turns His Back on Greenbacks - TIME
> 2. The Second Gulf War started on March 20, 2003. 
> Please, feel free to draw your own conclusion as to how tight those events are related.

 He was talking about it just before the FIRST gulf war too, I've read. And TIME magazine? That "unbiased" publication? I'd rather trust Donald Duck! 
But if you want to see the USA:s wars as completely justified freedom-and-democracy missions for the benefit of all humanity... then I don't think there is much anyone can say that will change your mind! After all, that is the official version. But did you believe in the official version in the papers when you lived in the USSR too? For example: The USSR war in Afghanistan.... That was just a humanitarian response to pleas of help from the majority of people in Afghanistan, who needed help to protect them from oppression, religious fanaticism and imperialist exploitation.... Completely justified war, right? Just like the gulf wars, the modern Afghanistan war etc, etc.

----------


## kidkboom

> Completely justified war, right?

 WAR! What is it good for? Absolutely nothin'..  ::

----------


## Hanna

> WAR! What is it good for? Absolutely nothin'..

 *It's good for business*:    First you sell the weapons...   Then you sell the material and services to build up everything that's been destroyed.   Then you and your friends get some good deals on whatever are the best business opportunities in the country that was defeated..   Then you sell security services and other services to the occupying forces, etc, etc.
 And if anyone asks why all this is happening, you make sure that the papers and TV staions that you and your friends own, *say that it was all to fight terrorism, protect human rights, democracy and freedom.*

----------


## kidkboom

::  ::  :: Generals gathered in their masses / Just like witches at black masses / Evil minds that plot destruction / Sorcerors of death's construction / In the fields the bodies burning / As the war machine keeps turning / Death and hatred to mankind / Poisoning their brainwashed minds / (Oh lord yeah!) / Politicians hide themselves away / They only started the war / Why should they go out to fight? / They leave that role to the poor.. YouTube - Black Sabbath War Pigs

----------


## Crocodile

> Who am I? Nostradamus?

 Well, Nostradamus used to tell the future using codes, I kind of wanted you to tell the past in a very clear way. So, I was kind of hoping you're the logical complementary of Nostradamus.  ::    

> I said what I said. Saddam wanted this and so did Gaddafi. There may be other reasons, but I only noticed similarities.

 Alright, but that probably does not deserve the certain tone in: "_Anyone who tries to introduce some other international reserve currency [...] immediately gets a 'democracy operation' in his country."_ thing because my understanding is that way of thinking is part of maintaining the whole "USDs are only supported by the US military, and not by anything real" canvas, on which you use to build up other things.    

> What concerns the timeline you've posted - it's hard to say exactly what Saddam had actually undertaken during this period.

 Yes, I agree. And I think that we would not know for real in the near future why Bush invaded Iraq. I mean, we can try and make some guesses, but that's all they are - the guesses.    

> Surely, you're not going to tell me about his threat to the civilized world with WMD?

 No, I'm not. That would be an insult to your intelligence.  ::    

> I must research however if the leaders of Tunis and Egypt in the North and Bahrain and Syria in the South supported Gaddafi's ideas.

 Sure thing. Please, let me know how that reasearch would go. Especially about Egypt.

----------


## Crocodile

> He was talking about it just before the FIRST gulf war too, I've read.

 I'm curious, so can you provide a link? Also, there's a HUGE difference between _talking_ and _announcing a decision_, won't you think? For example, I'm talking about going on the super-dive marathon across the Atlantics. But, if I officially announce my decision to do that, that's another matter, is that not?  ::    

> And TIME magazine? That "unbiased" publication? I'd rather trust Donald Duck!

 I'm not sure you paid good attention to what I said. The only thing I want you to trust in the TIME magazine is the issue date.  ::    

> But if you want to see the USA:s wars as completely justified freedom-and-democracy missions for the benefit of all humanity...

 Goodness gracious!!!! I think we've been through that before. NEVER EVER had I said that. Why to put those words in my mouth?!  ::  It's truly wonderous to see a Political Science graduate that can only perceive the world monochromatically.  ::    

> then I don't think there is much anyone can say that will change your mind!

 Well, as I said I don't, so go ahead and change my mind.  ::    

> After all, that is the official version. But did you believe in the official version in the papers when you lived in the USSR too? For example: The USSR war in Afghanistan.... That was just a humanitarian response to pleas of help from the majority of people in Afghanistan, who needed help to protect them from oppression, religious fanaticism and imperialist exploitation.... Completely justified war, right? Just like the gulf wars, the modern Afghanistan war etc, etc.

 Ok, so you made my decision on my behalf without really asking me and now you're trying to educate me the official version can not be reflecting the entire truth? Hmm... what can I say...  ::   ::   ::

----------


## Crocodile

> *It's good for business*:

 A word about the images you attached. The Advertising Standards Canada had recently started a campaing which can probably address those creative images of yours:  ::

----------


## sperk

YouTube - Styx - Too Much Time On My Hands

----------


## Lampada



----------


## BappaBa

Я люблю читать ее откровения =)   

> Н. ФАТЕЕВА: ...А что с Грузией вытворяют? Это  просто недостойно! Мало того, что нельзя захватывать чужие территории…
> С. БУНТМАН: Ну, как же, Саакашвили же сам напал.
> Н. ФАТЕЕВА: Ну, конечно! Их спровоцировали… устраивали… Это для дураков, и все! А людям, которые понимают, что к чему, понятно.

  

> Н. ФАТЕЕВА: Если анализировать теракты – Беслан, "Норд-Ост", взрывы домов - и  последующие захваты наших прав, можно подумать, что это была  спецоперация с целью лишить нас всего.

  

> Н. ФАТЕЕВА: С каждым годом вокруг Победы нагнетается все больший психоз, я в это  время просто тихо живу. Сколько мы живем, нам рассказывают про войну,  нам это надоело.

  

> К. ЛАРИНА – А наш взгляд, вот, может быть, так спросить… В течение  всей жизни вашей был ли период в России наиболее благоприятный для жизни  человека?
>  Н. ФАТЕЕВА – Он был очень короткий. 90-е годы.
>  К. ЛАРИНА – Лихие 90-е проклятые?
>  Н. ФАТЕЕВА – Да нет, это всё вранье, я называю это путинской  пропагандой, это они, его политтехнологи для того, чтобы людям дурить  головы, для того, чтобы они совершенно запутались в происходящих  событиях, неправда, что вы.

----------


## Юрка

> 

 Я знаю, какие мужики нравятся Фатеевой. Смазливые как Евгений Фокс из фильма "Место встречи изменить нельзя" (она там играла Иру Соболевскую). И вообще, чего с неё взять, раз три раза замужем: сегодня нравится, завтра не нравится...

----------


## Hanna

> (And, if we moved in on Saddam because of currency, then am I to believe  that the stories of human torture wherein children were tied to ceiling  finans until they were swung to death were fabricated?  Or were they just  "icing on the cake" for reasons to move in military?)

 Actually, I vaguely remember the events around the 1st gulf war - was in school at the time, was not interested in politics at that time and paid very little attention since my country was not involved at all. Howe.ver, it was brought up in school 
The stories about Iraqi soldiers pulling infants out of incubators were widely circulated though. 
I remember a teacher saying "I think you can take that with a pinch of salt - it's typical war propaganda".  
Imagine yourself: If you were in an invasion force, invading a country that you hated (and bear in mind, the Iraqis did NOT hate Kuwait, their neighbours and fellow Arabs).  Would you honestly pull out innocent babies from incubators and deliberately try to hurt civilians? The Kuwaitis hadn't actually done anything to the Iraqis, so there was no reason for Iraqis to feel any passionate hatred against them. It goes against everything that's known about human behaviour. Iraqis are humans, many religious with rich culture and old traditions. Perhaps there was one incident of some crazy person doing that, but the rest was fabricated and there is a lot of fabrication around.  
I read an article in a respectable magazine that was genuinely suggesting that TERRORISM was funded by income from illegal piracy online, and from child pornography. So that when you download from a torrent site or similar, then you are "funding terrorism". Give me a break!  
With media feeding you so much rubbish, you have to use your own head to decide what to believe in or not. Not always an easy job!

----------


## Seraph

> Originally Posted by *Ramil*  
>  I  still think that this world is ruled by 200-300 powerful families (or  clans) and everything that is happenning in the world is done for their  profit.  
> Yeah, we had a long talk about it some time back. I see it differently.

 The Rich Are About To Get Very, Very Rich: Study Finds Global Millionaire Wealth Set To More Than Double By 2020 | zero hedge 
Scroll down to find: 
"And then a quick look at the creme of the crop: the households who  likely account for well over half of the total trillions in assets held,  those who have over $30 million (remember the Talebian scale issue  here), are only 871 currently, of which well over half, or 496 reside in  the US."  =>  In other words, a small number of families do control majority of global assets.  In other words they run most of the world.  Study was done by Deloitte , an accounting firm.   Originally Posted by *Ramil*  
 Anyone  who tries to introduce some other international reserve currency (like  golden dinar as it was with Gaddafi) immediately gets a 'democracy  operation' in his country. What conspiracy? It's all there and nobody  makes a secret out of it.  http://www.zerohedge.com/article/zim...ops+to+zero%29 
It is the normal experience of countries that go through hyperinflation, that they never want to go through it again, and so they go to something like gold backed.  Will they be bombed?  Don't know.  Stay tuned...

----------


## Crocodile

> Zimbabwe, *a country rich in natural resources,* took so long to figure out that it was nothing but a puppet in the hands of western monetary interests. [...]  *It sits on gold reserves worth trillions. It has the world’s  second largest reserves of platinum, has got alluvial diamonds that can  fetch the nation $2 billion annually and even boasts of chrome and coal  deposits.*

 The magic word is corruption. In order to extract the resources you need to build the infrastructure. In order to process the resources (like clean up the raw metals, etc.) you need even more advanced infrastructure. In order for that to happen, you need to do the long-term investment. You need to educate specialists. And so on and so forth. Why would the Zimbabwe government be interested in that? They already have everything they want. As you know, it doesn't really matter how much wealth you have, the more important that you have more than the others around you. Therefore, the government goes the easy way and outsources the excavation, the processing, and all the rest to the external companies who have the expertise and the necessary tools. The government officials would prefer hand out the contracts to those companies who give them the biggest piles of cash in return. That would only be profitable for the companies if they keep the extracting costs very low, pay very low salaries to the locals, and pay very low taxes to the state. So, in some way the ordinary people's poverty is beneficial to those companies and the government officials. The golden/diamond or similar currency is not any news. While it not only slows down the production economy, it also has clear benefits of hoarding the currency, creating shortages of currency, and slowing down the overall business activity. But it makes the currency more stable, that's true. Gold is gold, no matter who presently holds the power in Zimbabwe and/or if tomorrow there's going to be a civil war in there. So, by introducing such currency, Zimbabwe officials would be richer and the other Zimbabwe citizens would not feel any difference.  ::

----------


## Seraph

Possibly old news to many of you, interesting none the less: The Extended Confessions Of An Economic Hit Man | zero hedge

----------


## Hanna

Yeah, I got that on my iPod by chance almost a few years ago.  *If you have not read that book, you REALLY should.*  
I think Perkins perhaps exaggerates and dramatizes a bit, but fundamentally what he says is true. 
There is just too much evidence to support it, and it explains a lot of events with otherwise seem random and make no sense.  
The people in in the European countries affected by recent economic problems should read this book! Belarussians too I think. Of course, some the problems in Europe recently are due to bad economic planning by the countries' own leadership. In Greece, in.by etc..  
But I definitely think that Belarus is the victim of many of the strategies from Perkins' book. 
Maybe Greece and the others too.  
Those few countries that are still outside of the grip of manipulation of international finance are exactly the ones that are on the hit list for the next "democracy action", or having their assets frozen and being boycotted. It makes me sick that countries are manipulated in that way.

----------


## Crocodile

> There is just too much evidence to support it, and it explains a lot of events with otherwise seem random and make no sense.

 Ok, so you've read this book and I haven't. Could you tell me in [perhaps] a short paragraph if his theory (=the explanation of the facts) is at all falsifiable and why? Falsifiability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

----------


## Seraph

Falsifiability? Or deniability?  The usual suspects. Confessions -- or Fantasies -- of an Economic Hit Man? 
Perkins is actually a late comer to exposing international "financial persuasion".  The myth of foreign aid was debunked over forty years ago in the 60's.

----------


## sperk

as usual, no proof or documentation...

----------


## Seraph

I guess I'm getting lazy, here's just one of many The myth of aid; the hidden agenda of the development reports
  by Denis Goulet, 1971. 
"as usual, no proof or documentation..."  and after this no more comments from me! Your future brought to you by http://www.alec.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home and http://www.iie.com/ 
Prof. Crotty explains what it means.   http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?...4&jumival=5857 http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?...4&jumival=6724  more: http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?...74&jumival=718

----------


## Crocodile

> The myth of foreign aid was debunked over forty years ago in the 60's.

 Yeah, we can talk about that. I mean, the only free cheese is in a mousetrap. The thing is I kind of just wanted Hanna to lay out something more specific than just "_There is just too much evidence to support it_". I mean, as a joke, I can claim Hanna is a computer program similar to Alice and is not a real person. Which would explain a lot of evidence, but it least it would be falsifiable. And if Hanna would be unable to find out that book falsifiability criteria ready out there on the Internet written by someone else *on her own*, that would be another evidence to support the claim she's just a pseudo-AI.  ::

----------


## Hanna

Well the thing Crocodile, is that ultimately these things are down to what view of the world you take. 
We can look at the exact same event, say for example the "Orange Revolution" in Ukraine, and we can give completely different descriptions of what happened.  
You could give a whole bunch of factually correct information to support your version of events, and I could likewise give factually correct information to support my version. 
We are unlikely to accept the other persons viewpoint unless some truly amazing information is unearthed. All we'd do would have done would be to spend a lot of time on places like Wikipedia and writing posts.  
Like I said, I think John Perkins spices things up a bit in true American story-telling style. But fundamentally I do think that destabilising political activities do take place in certain countries, instigated by US agencies like the CIA, and perhaps privately funded organisations. I also believe that the loans offered by IMF and developed countries to poorer countries are often a poisoned chalice, a bit like lending money from a loan shark or prostituting yourself for cash. There could be a good reason to accept money on these conditions, but in many cases I think it's not.  
I can't PROVE any of this to anyone, anymore than I can prove any religious points. But that's what I believe because it explains a lot of contemporary history. Therefore I think Perkins' book is relevant because it outlines an existing phenomenon in a very accessible fashion. I don't think it's quite as James Bond-ish as he makes out though, most of it is probably done by rather boring people between 9-5.30 Mondays to Fridays... 
That said, I usually read what you say with interest since you have experience of living under two very different economical and political systems, and moving from one continent to another. No doubt you have some unique insights and experiences that makes your views particularly interesting.

----------


## Crocodile

> You could give a whole bunch of factually correct information to support  your version of events, and I could likewise give factually correct  information to support my version. [...] We are unlikely to accept the other persons viewpoint unless some truly  amazing information is unearthed. All we'd do would have done would be  to spend a lot of time on places like Wikipedia and writing posts.

 Exactly!!! You proved to me and I hope to yourself just now that just expressing each of our point of view is a total waste of time! What I was trying to attempt is a conversation about what's common between our point of views and not what's different. And if our point of views are based on anything more than just: "That's how I see it and I don't care about even defending it as I don't really remember why I started thinking this way. But now it's just too much effort to even think about it."    

> We can look at the exact same event, say for example the "Orange Revolution" in Ukraine, and we can give completely different descriptions of what happened.

 Yeah, that's what I was told in the university. That helps you to live in peace with your beliefs. But, the reality is different. Because, if that would be completely true, the Historical Science would never come to existence. It's more or less the same logic that's behind the saying: "Each person is unique." That's a comfort resort from the reality. If that would be 100% true, the Sociology would never exist. Think about it.  ::    

> But fundamentally I do think that destabilising political activities do take place in certain countries, instigated by US agencies like the CIA, and perhaps privately funded organisations. I also believe that the loans offered by IMF and developed countries to poorer countries are often a poisoned chalice, a bit like lending money from a loan shark or prostituting yourself for cash.

 Let's say you're right. So, how would your point of view explains what happens in Zimbabwe? Why to outsource the entire resource-exploiting industry to the foreign corporations rather than doing it themselves: taking a loan from the IMF, hire specialists from all over the globe, purchase modern equipment, start educating your own population so they would be able to replace those foreign specialists in the future, pay off the IMF loan in 30 years and become one of the most prosperous countries in the world? In other words, why not to (using your terminology) prostitute yourself for cash now to gain the university degree and start making some big cash in the future? Why to prefer living on the street and clean the dishes for the rest of your life and deprive your children and grandchildren from a better future than living on the street, begging for change and look up at the rest of the world with constant hatred? Why is Zimbabwe which "*sits on gold reserves worth trillions*" is so poor? Because of the IMF constantly looking for whom it can impoverish it hadn't yet and the CIA dreaming of placing some brand-new military bases in Zimbabwe?

----------


## Marcus

I believe we can aproach to the truth if we love it. It won't be all the truth though.

----------


## Hanna

> Why is Zimbabwe which "*sits on gold reserves worth trillions*" is so poor? Because of the IMF constantly looking for whom it can impoverish it hadn't yet and the CIA dreaming of placing some brand-new military bases in Zimbabwe?

  Because it is suffering in general from the legacy of colonialism, because the leadership is incompetent and it lost some of the foreign aid and support it used to recieve in the past. It also doesn't have enough educated people, and there is corruption throughout the country.  
Why not prostitute yourself for cash? Well I have personally recieved such offers when I was well and truly broke, while at university. I declined because I did not want to live the rest of my life knowing I'd done such a thing. I am not sure a man can understand that. Perhaps if I'd been actually starving I would have done it, but it should be the absolute last resort for a decent women.  
Perhaps a country where people are starving have a responsibility to do whatever they can, including IMF loans. But that is not the case anywhere in Europe or the Middle East. 
But why not ask yourself this instead Croc; with all the rhetoric against a perfectly decent country like Belarus, and others like Syria, Iran etc.... Why is there no interest in Zimbabwe? In England, the only interest is in the "white farmers" whose property is confiscated by the government.  
Zimbabwe is in the backwaters of Africa, there are no real potential future consumers and ultimately gold is not that unusual as a natural reserve. Lots of countries have plenty. There is no shortage of gold per se.  
But if the USA and others MUST go and meddle in other countries, then Zimbabwe is exactly where I think tit though. I believe China is investing there though - infrastructure for natural resources, and the agenda is fairly open, they do not bother talking about democracy, human rights etc.

----------


## Crocodile

> Why not prostitute yourself for cash?

 Ok, let's not get dragged down that path. I also don't support prostitution for cash. I was just using your analogy.   

> I believe China is investing there though - infrastructure for natural resources, and the agenda is fairly open, they do not bother talking about democracy, human rights etc.

 Ok, so you're saying China is not like the bunch of G8 gang of pimps, but rather a respectful married man who 'supports' a young beautiful black girl. Sometimes it's cash, sometimes it's diamonds, sometimes a casual voyage to a resort. Is that ok for a decent woman?  ::  
But let's assume another way around, this time without any loans. Why not to outsource only, say, 50% of the resources and with that cash start exploiting the other half themselves? This time it would only be the escourt service, no sex involved. Why is that not happening?   

> Because it is suffering in general from the legacy of colonialism

 That explanation was good some time back, but I don't think that is adequate anymore. Zimbabwe is not a colony for some good 30 years. The US was a buch of colonies once and the economic situation some 30 years after they won their independence wasn't nearly as bad. And Canada is still a colony.  ::    

> because the leadership is incompetent

 I respectfully disagree. I think they are rather competent in what they are doing having in mind that Mugabe is in power for so long. I think the prosperity of Zimbabwe is not in their agenda, that's all. Why would they be interested in that? How would that benefit Zimbabwe government?   

> and it lost some of the foreign aid and support it used to receive in the past.

 Hey, you said earlier it wasn't the foreign aid but rather the 'economic hit', right? That's not fair to use the same thing twice for the opposite purposes.  ::    

> It also doesn't have enough educated people

 How much education you really need to start digging out gold? It's no rocket science.  ::    

> and there is corruption throughout the country.

 Now, you're talking. We have an agreement here. Yay! So, if our opposite point of views have something in common, that is probably the only objectively true thing, agree?    

> But why not ask yourself this instead Croc; with all the rhetoric against a perfectly decent country like Belarus, and others like Syria, Iran etc.... Why is there no interest in Zimbabwe?

 If you thought I'm going to evade your question, then SURPRIZE!! I think there's no interest in 'democratic' Zimbabwe (and other African countries for that matter) mainly because it's going to be way way worse than in Vietnam. It took so much effort to get out of there, that NATO would not even contemplate going back there. Iraq was supposed to be a piece of cake: it was already solidified under the central government, it had a strong opposition, and was previously run by just one of the ethnic minorities (no just ethnic representation). Look how hard it is to get out. There's lots of experience with Africa, it's just not working. The last and best attempt was done in South Africa. That was supposed to be a total success: a country with previous democratic (although apartheid) tradition, relatively educated population (the best in Africa), the capitalist economy, the history of long-lasting international support for the cause of black majority, and so on. In other words, just plug-and-play! So, what's now? The highest crime rate in the world, bad economics, serious brain drain, poverty, the highest documented child rape statistics (Rape Statistics - South Africa & Worldwide 2010). It's just not working in Africa (yet) and it's not worth to try. Very sad.  ::

----------


## Windup Merchantski

Hanna, 
it is a pleasure to know that you take a keen interest in russian politics. unfortunately you have been misinformed about some key facts. for example you wrote: 
"Or do you want a government that's more pro EU or pro USA than the current government. " 
most russians want a gov't that is more pro russia and no russian would ever think of having a gov't that is pro eu or pro usa - in russia there is a big cult of power, i mean we like our leaders strong, it is something deeply rooted in our psyche, we are a nation of explorers and warriors and we look for partnership with countries of the same calibre. nowadays they happen to be china and india. we aren't too keen on democracy, collectively as a culture we find that such form of gov't would be built on nothing solid and we have our historical reasons to think so - remember the parliament of medieval novgorod (so-called veche) that brought our country nothing but grief.

----------


## Basil77

> Hanna, 
> it is a pleasure to know that you take a keen interest in russian politics. unfortunately you have been misinformed about some key facts. for example you wrote: 
> "Or do you want a government that's more pro EU or pro USA than the current government. " 
> most russians want a gov't that is more pro russia and no russian would ever think of having a gov't that is pro eu or pro usa - in russia there is a big cult of power, i mean we like our leaders strong, it is something deeply rooted in our psyche, we are a nation of explorers and warriors and we look for partnership with countries of the same calibre. nowadays they happen to be china and india. we aren't too keen on democracy, collectively as a culture we find that such form of gov't would be built on nothing solid and we have our historical reasons to think so - remember the parliament of medieval novgorod (so-called veche) that brought our country nothing but grief.

 Man, when you write such ridiculous things, please speak for yourself. Don't say "we".

----------


## Crocodile

*@Bazil77,*
You're kidding me, the guy's just provoking you telling some nationalistic propaganda. He is clearly having fun.  :: 
On the other hand, I would really appreciate your personal opinion on that piece of propaganda. Something a bit more substantial than "such ridiculous things".

----------


## Basil77

> *@Bazil77,*
> You're kidding me, the guy's just provoking you telling some nationalistic propaganda. He is clearly having fun.

 It could be propaganda or other bullshit, but if someone would write "We Russians are bunch of morons" I would ask him to speak for himself too.  

> On the other hand, I would really appreciate your personal opinion on  that piece of propaganda. Something a bit more substantial than "such  ridiculous things".

 Sorry, but I'm not in the mood for commenting stupid things right now.

----------


## Hanna

I have heard the stereotype that Russians like a strong leader so many times. There must be something to it; no smoke without fire.  
I think it does suit the mentality of Russian people though - too wild and tough and such a harsh country in terms of climate and history. Lots of drama constantly within the borders of Russia. Perhaps only a very tough person could handle the job! 
For example - could a woman lead Russia do you think? Somebody like Angela Merkel, Julia Timoshenko or Hilary Clinton? Would people vote for that and would it work?  
I think there is something to the idea that really large countries can't be good democracies. 
Look at the USA, nobody other than American citizens seriously believe that there is decent democracy there... then Russia which has never really been a democracy and China likewise. 
Oops, Canada ruins the hypothesis, or does it..? a question for Crocodile perhaps!

----------


## Basil77

Canada can't be really counted as a large country because it's population 1.5 times less than in Ukraine for example and most of them live not further than 100 km from US border. Also about strong leader. What exactly you mean by "strong"? To be strong enough to take responsibility for the decisions you make? Or to be strong enough to treat most of the population like sh!t? In the second sence most of Russian leaders were very strong. But in the first one I'm afraid they are very weak and coward.

----------


## Hanna

*Basil77 what kind of leader do you think would be best for Russia? 
I mean, can you think of an example of a leader in any other country or from another era in time, for example?*  
My biggest issues with democracy anywhere, is that I think it is a hoax. Perhaps it is more a hoax in some countries than others, but I think the idea that regular people decide which way the country goes is just not true.  
One of my favourite leaders is Lee Kuan Yew in Singapore. He is a relatively sympathetic person, but also a dictator. His policies lifted Singapore to become one of the richest countries in the world in 25 years, and the wealth is not that unevenly distributed. Regular people like teachers, secretaries and shopkeepers have a good lifestyle there, and there is good free healthcare, education etc. He didn't do it to become rich himself, just because he really wanted the best for his country. Some of the things he has done, I wouldn't have supported and he is more of a pro-capitalist than me, but I respect his integrity and I think that on the whole he has really helped his country and not let anyone push it around. 
Most people in Singapore really like him.

----------


## Lampada

> One of my favourite leaders is *Lee Kuan Yew* in Singapore. He is a relatively sympathetic person, but also a dictator. His policies lifted Singapore to become one of the richest countries in the world in 25 years, and the wealth is not that unevenly distributed. Regular people like teachers, secretaries and shopkeepers have a good lifestyle there, and there is good free healthcare, education etc. He didn't do it to become rich himself, just because he really wanted the best for his country. Some of the things he has done, I wouldn't have supported and he is more of a pro-capitalist than me, but I respect his integrity and I think that on the whole he has really helped his country and not let anyone push it around. 
> Most people in Singapore really like him.

 http://masterrussian.net/f31/charlie...26/#post188753

----------


## Hanna

Interesting links, Lampada!
LKY (as they call him) took a country that was split along ethnic, religious and linguistic lines, had been exploited by colonialism and with hostile neighbours and made it rich in 25 years. I was there at their 25 year anniversary and regular people had good lives. It is a real success story and it's even better now. Interestingly there are lots of similarities between what I saw in Belarus and what Singapore is trying to do. 
Build a nation where there was none before. Make people feel loyalty and be hardworking and law abiding... 
Keep the streets clean and everything looking tidy etc. 
Of course, LKY is more capitalist than Lukashenko, but both want to prevent their countries from being ripped off by foreign interests for any reason. 
Singapore has a 0 tolerans for corruption and drugs.

----------


## Eric C.

> Make people feel loyalty and be hardworking and law abiding...

 That might sound cool while you're visiting the country as a tourist. But would you, personally, like to be made to work hard for almost no money and feel loyalty at the same time? 
I think when you talk like this, you're showing a certain kind of disrespect to the citizens of the country you're talking about - like "you, the second-best, have to work hard and show no dissatisfaction about it so that I, a first class person, can enjoy visiting your country, that's what matters"...

----------


## Hanna

As usual you talk nonsense Eric, most likely on purpose because you are trolling. 
Obviously I would not wish for any country something that I wouldn't be willing to accept to live with myself! Being hard working and law abiding is a good ideal.  
It's completely irrelevant to this forum, but my father used to live in Singapore and I spent many summer and christmas holidays there. My brother once got into very serious  trouble because he broke the law there. He should have followed the law.  
I think Europe as a whole would benefit from having tougher laws about yobbery (A British word for anti social behaviour on the street, hooliganism etc). 
In Singapore economic necessity force all able bodied people to get a job and criminality is not an option, the penalties are too harsh. In Belarus, I think that people who aren't able to get a job themselves for a long time, are made to work doing community work such as cleaning and fixing public areas.  
So if you think it is bad for people to be hard-working and law-abiding, do you support a national order where people are lazy skivers and criminals?

----------


## Basil77

> *Basil77 what kind of leader do you think would be best for Russia? 
> I mean, can you think of an example of a leader in any other country or from another era in time, for example?*

 Yes, my political ideal is Franklin Delano Roosevelt.  The situation in USA when he became a president was pretty much like in Russia in the beginning of 90s: Great Depression, gangsters everywhere, prohibition (The Dry Law) and huge corruption. But he managed to solve many of these problems. Also in my opinion his foreign policy was also very wise and good for his country.  

> My biggest issues with democracy anywhere, is that I think it is a hoax. Perhaps it is more a hoax in some countries than others, but I think the idea that regular people decide which way the country goes is just not true.

 I can not agree with you here. I agree with Churchill that democratic system with two major parties: social-democtaric and conservative is the best system that humankind ever developed. Any power is evil, but while you have an instrument of "checks and balances" you can at least keep them in the limits of "lesser evil". My own political views are rather social-democratic, maybe with a bit of nationalistic (in the good sence) touch. But of course by "democracy" I don't mean that disgusting chaos that we had in 90s. I don't see connection between democtaric change of the ruling party and not working laws. Otherwise, I think that in real democracy laws must work equally for everyone, not like in modern Russia when a hungry person who steals a loaf of bread goes to jail for two years but at the same time a corrupt official who steals billions in the worst case just loses his job and goes to London to spend what he stole.  

> One of my favourite leaders is Lee Kuan Yew in Singapore. He is a relatively sympathetic person, but also a dictator. His policies lifted Singapore to become one of the richest countries in the world in 25 years, and the wealth is not that unevenly distributed. Regular people like teachers, secretaries and shopkeepers have a good lifestyle there, and there is good free healthcare, education etc. He didn't do it to become rich himself, just because he really wanted the best for his country. Some of the things he has done, I wouldn't have supported and he is more of a pro-capitalist than me, but I respect his integrity and I think that on the whole he has really helped his country and not let anyone push it around. 
> Most people in Singapore really like him.

 Well, he is a very rare exception, such rulers are born once in 1000 years. Also he has a rather small enclave to run, I doubt that he could be such succesful with a big country. But although sometimes I want his anti-corruption measures to be put to Russian corrupt officials, I would rather live here in Russia than in a country like Singapore. I'm too "раздолбай" for that. I like, for example, to drink beer with my friends on a bench in a park and what if I (accidentally) get a bit drunk and while that (accidentally of course!) drop a cigarette butt to the ground? In Singapore I guess I would be immediately lined up infront of a fire squad and shot on site. No thanks, I like it in Russia more.

----------


## Ramil

> But although sometimes I want his anti-corruption measures to be put to Russian corrupt officials, I would rather live here in Russia than in a country like Singapore. I'm too "раздолбай" for that.

 Now, THAT is a state of mind of the bulk of the Russian nation. I think it's the national trait which in many ways DEFINES a true Russian. Those who are not like that prefer it to leave the country or stay here suffering miserably. No, I am not stereotypic, not in the slightest. 
Therefore, we must always balance between a total chaos and a total dictatorship, a tyranny even. That 'oscillation', I think, make us believe we're still alive. Something must always happen in Russia. Perhaps it is even our chance for survival in the world.

----------


## Hanna

Ramil, you are back! This forum is no fun without you!  ::   
@Basil77 
I did not know that Churchill had said that.  
But I don't like the British and American system with only two big parties, or the idea that only one person can represent a district. 
This means that there is no point in voting for anyone other than somebody from either of the two main parties. 
A vote for any other party is going to be wasted, since they could never win the "seat". 
That is the situation in Britain. To make matters worse, there is very little difference between the Labour views and the Conservative views.  
It's democracy in the sense that you have a fair election. However if I have any political views other than the mainstream, then my views will never be represented. 
There will be opinions which many people in the country care about, which are never represented in the parliament. 
For example Environment, Christian ethics, Radical philosophies etc. That is the situation in the UK I think.  
It's a stable situation, but I am not sure it's really that democratic. 
Only about half of those eligible even bother to vote. The rest probably feel there is not a lot of point.  
However, if you have one election for the national parliament where all votes count and another one for local districts then there is better representation of the actual views that people hold. 
Then, as long as a certain minimum percentage vote for a party, it will send representative(s) to the parliament, representing the percentage of votes they got.  
That way, you can have environmentalist, nationalists, Christians, radical left wing people and others in the parliament. 
They are very good at raising the alarm about issues which are really important to them, but which mainstream parties don't care about.  
As for Singapore, you just get a big fine for doing the things you mentioned. And if you can't pay, it prison or community service. 
The fines are Singapore, not US dollars.  
I agree that running Russia and running Singapore are two completely different things that cannot be compared. 
I can't wait to see Russia and make up my own mind about whether Edinaya Rossia is doing a good job under the circumstances.... or not!   _What is a "durian"??? Looks very mysterious! Never heard the word._      *On Social democracy:* Yes, I lean towards that too. 
But the social democracy that I like is the OLD style, the one that built up Sweden to great welfare state in the 30s, 40s and 50s. 
Basically a healthy mix of socialism and capitalism in the interest of building a fair society where there is enough private initiative to keep things rolling. Whether it paves the road for a future revolution as the official ideology is/was I don't really care because there has never actually been a revolution in a Social Democratic country.  *
The problem with Social Democracy is that it has gone off the track!* 
First they built the country up to one of the best the world has EVER seen. No doubt about that. 
But they literally ruined it. 
It started in the mid 1960s.  
In the 1960s 1970s it became all the rage to get interested in 3rd world countries that were communist.  They had to be supported with tax money, lots of massive aid projects and investments, innumerable friendship leagues, etc... It was just silly and very expensive. Social democracy should have continued to focus on building OUR state... but instead everything had to be International,  3rd world solidarity etc.  They totally lost the plot!  
The next big thing was immigration. Just open up the borders, literally. Anyone is welcome, particularly (initially) those from right wing dictatorships who said they were persecuted. Later, some really dubious people from very dangerous parts of the world, people who had little or no chance of ever integrating. In greater and greater numbers. And more internationalism, anti-racism. This in my opinion was a huge mistake. 
Nobody could disagree with this, or he'd be labelled a racist and totally stigmatised. 
Then appoint Social Democratic bishops until Christianity is turned into the "Comrade Jesus' Humanitarian Ideology" as some call it (after a popular childrens book, "Comrade Jesus".) I learnt all the 6 verses of "Internationale" on my Church of Sweden confirmation camp, just to give you an idea.  Seriously. I really resent what Social democracy has done to the church. They've cooled down with this a bit now, after the extreme left wing ideologies went out of fashion. But the damage to the church is already done. It has lost all credibility from a religious perspective. 
Then feminism, in extreme. 
And the latest big thing is pro-homosexuality. It has lost all proportions. Right at this moment in Stockholm, the Pride festival is going on. As a result, the homosexual flag is all over town and on the buses. I really don't like that. Nothing against gays, but a 7 day festival??!  Gay marriages, gays adopting childrens and gender change surgery for free on national health. Endless talking about this lifestyle in all media....  
That's the end of my anti Social-democracy-rant! 
 To sum it up, I support it in principle, but not in the form it's been in post 1960s. 
I can't vote for them after what they have done. 
I suppose you heard about the crazy terrorist in Norway?  He hated the Social Democrats for exactly the reasons I listed here, only he was crazy and obsessive. There are lots of people throughout Scandinavia who have these views, and sadly he is beginning to become a bit of a legend, despite the fact that he is a complete psychopath. He hated Social democracy so much that he wanted to destroy the next generation.

----------


## Windup Merchantski

Hanna, translated into Swedish 'durian' is 'durian'. It's a fruit.

----------


## Lampada

> Hanna, translated into Swedish 'durian' is 'durian'. It's a fruit.

----------


## Hanna

I had not heard of it!!! 
Interesting!

----------


## Windup Merchantski

I didn't know them by sight either. However I often get a waft of pong from the buggers when I pass by this here fruit shop on my way to work.

----------


## Lampada

Back to the topic:      *Нателла Болтянская  Гаечка* 
Какая, в общем, разница, быть против или за,
Ведь всё случится так, а не иначе.
Он молод и спокоен, он смотрит вам  в глаза
И действует отнюдь не наудачу.
Обязанности всяко важнее, чем права,
Права - поставить там, где скажут, галочку.
Он говорит полезные и важные слова,
Закручивая  гаечку за гаечкой. 
Отцам-иезуитам  вполне достойный сын,
Он ценности и цели обозначил.
Над  выбритой губою мерещатся усы,
И френч растет из лацканов Версаче.
Покуда не забрали, давай-ка наливай
Судьба  ль нам быть описанными  Галичем?
Он говорит полезные и важные слова
И тихо крутит  гаечку за гаечкой. 
Он сделает, как хочет. Он внятен и суров,
Но гибок, хоть глядится несгибаемым.
Свобода - несогласных крутить в бараний рог,
И  методы  печально узнаваемы.
Безбашенный  период  дискуссий и бравад
Сменился  перспективою пугающей.
Он говорит полезные и важные слова,
Закручивая гаечку за гаечкой. 
Увы, уже проиграно, что ставилось на кон.
Мы строимся повзводно и поротно
Он - нами же рожденный и вскормленный дракон,
Который  не дождется Ланселота.
Осталось ли  дыханья - колючку разорвав,
В бега уйти, другие берега ища?
Он говорит полезные и важные слова,
И тихо крутит гаечку за гаечкой.

----------


## Pavelov

I reply to my own thread since no one talks about this??!??!?  Putin plays to the crowd as he prepares presidential return - Europe - World - The Independent 
"Mr Putin is eligible for another two six-year terms, meaning he could be in power until 2024."  http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/28/wo...ntial-bid.html  http://www.isria.com/pages/13_November_2011_48.php  http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/26/wo...arsenyevo.html  Russian presidential poll in March | Pakistan | News | Newspaper | Daily | English | Online  
The farce in Russia with no one opposing the modification of the Russian constitution so that Putin can have presidential post through two terms of two six-year terms?!? 
But, no Russians bring this up here?   Maybe the mod will censor me?   Who owns MR?   I am afraid of all these police states all over so-called 'democratic states.'    But, no one talks about his on any forum anywhere.   Why?!? 
Russia has no one criticizing this although finally some Russians recognize the deceit and manipulation (read the articles above) but since Putin's mafia and money changers control the media, only a small fraction is expressed and escapes.     
I read here of Republican Americans and those wanting more Government so I wonder about humankind.    Stupid people who pursue the politicians who destroy their countries so they/you reward them by granting them your right of voting?!?    It is sad no one speaks for Russia.   At least, the USA has Ron Paul and the UK has Nigel Farage.    Who does Russia have?!?    No one.   Russians are used to theft, deception and manipulation or maybe the media will not report on any critics but at least, where is anyone in the Russian parliament demanding transparency and accountability?    The Russian mafia would kill him/her?

----------


## Lampada

> ...   Maybe the mod will censor me?   ...

 You will be censored *only* if you engage in personal attacks or insult someone here.

----------


## zedeeyen

_" At least, the USA has Ron Paul and the UK has Nigel Farage."_  
I just blew coffee down my nose. Thanks for that. 
Good grief.

----------


## Ramil

> But, no Russians bring this up here?   Maybe the mod will censor me?   Who owns MR?   I am afraid of all these police states all over so-called 'democratic states.'    But, no one talks about his on any forum anywhere.   Why?!?

 Man, the whole Russian Internet is awash with anti-Putin sentiments. Where have you been looking?

----------


## Hanna

I have some questions! 
Ok, I understand that lots of people don't like Putin and that the massive victory of his party in the last local elections was rather suspicious...   My impression of why people on this forum don't like Putin is mainly because he is financially involved with lots of elite people / oligarchs and that he does not allow large manifestations by his opponents. Is this right?   Are there any other clear & specific reasons why you don't like Putin - can you explain what they are?   Or maybe some people here actually think Putin is more or less good for Russia  and don't mind if Edinaya Rossia wins again?   There ARE large groups of people who really like Putin though... who are they?  Why do they like him?   Is liking Medvedev as a president synonymous with liking Putin, or is there a difference between the two... ?   If anyone dares being bold and frank, explain which party you would like to see win the next election in Russia, and why, then I'd love to hear it! Russian politics is really interesting and I have no preconcieved opinions.

----------


## Doomer

> I Are there any other clear & specific reasons why you don't like Putin - can you explain what they are?

 People don't like current state of living in Russia and they need somebody to blame. Putin is the guy
People don't like Medvedev either and before they didn't like Yeltsin 
Also, in Russia people divided on some who use Internet and some who don't 
Current polls for December 4th election show that Internet users would rather vote for КПРФ - more than 50% (КПРФ are communists) than for Единая Россия (pro-government party). They saying that КПРФ is the only real opposition to ЕР and they(users) don't like either, as usual - молодёжь против ветра
People who don't have Internet would vote for Единая Россия - 50% or more
So you will not find truth on forums  ::  
This is interesting reading about elections in Russia - http://gonzoblog.ru/post/2011/11/10/...k_oni_est.aspx

----------


## Marcus

> People don't like current state of living in Russia and they need somebody to blame. Putin is the guy
> People don't like Medvedev either and before they didn't like Yeltsin

 Из Чикаго, конечно, виднее, но это, извините, полный бред. Ненависть к Ельцину не идёт ни в какое сравнение с недовольством Путиным или Медведевым, которые, несмотря ни на что, весьма и весьма популярны.

----------


## BappaBa

> Из Чикаго, конечно, виднее, но это, извините, полный бред. Ненависть к Ельцину не идёт ни в какое сравнение с недовольством Путиным или Медведевым, которые, несмотря ни на что, весьма и весьма популярны.

 +500

----------


## Юрка

> *Нателла Болтянская* Какая, в общем, разница, быть против или за...
> И тихо крутит гаечку за гаечкой.

 Какую гаечку?
И почему эту гаечку видят только евреи? Какой-то слишком революционный народ.

----------


## Marcus

> Or maybe some people here actually think Putin is more or less good for Russia and don't mind if Edinaya Rossia wins again?

 I don't mind. Nothing would change otherwise.  

> There ARE large groups of people who really like Putin though... who are they? Why do they like him?

 Yes, there are.  

> Is liking Medvedev as a president synonymous with liking Putin, or is there a difference between the two... ?

 No, of course, but they are very close. There are people who like Medvedev but don't like Putin. There are more people who are the opposite, but most people understand that Putin rules anyway and they work together.  

> If anyone dares being bold and frank, explain which party you would like to see win the next election in Russia, and why, then I'd love to hear it! Russian politics is really interesting and I have no preconcieved opinions.

 Parties brought more harm than benefit in the past, so to my mind they are not needed at all.

----------


## Lampada

> Какую гаечку?
> И почему эту гаечку видят только евреи? Какой-то слишком революционный народ.

   ::  
  "Если в кране нет воды..."  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwlnvOyFPS0

----------


## BappaBa

http://echo.msk.ru/programs/personalno/834038-echo/   

> К.РЕМЧУКОВ: ... Поэтому когда вы  говорите, что происходит демистификация власти и, как бы, отсюда  следует, что вы хотите сказать, что власть становится смешной, менее  популярной, А я говорю: «Рейтинг – 60». Сегодня в статье в той же «The  New York Times» 61% указывается, «The Wall Street Journal» писал 61%. То  есть это газеты вообще не склонные, они дают свою оценку и удивляются,  как высок рейтинг Путина после 12 лет у власти.  
> О.ЖУРАВЛЕВА: Но они из чего исходят? Из каких данных? Из нашей официальной статистики?  
> К.РЕМЧУКОВ:  Ну, и наша статистика, и их эксперты, которые там, Бруклинский  институт. Там же есть люди, которые следят за этим делом. Главное, что  они на страницах своих газет, серьезные журналисты анализирующие  подчеркивают вот этот редкий феномен: в течение 12 лет лидер сложной  страны умудряется поддерживать очень высокий рейтинг. Никто из западных  лидеров не может поддерживать такой.

----------


## Юрка

> "Если в кране нет воды..."

 Не, правда. Кажется, ваш Билл Гейтс сказал, что Россия экспортирует радикальных евреев, несущих идею революции. 
Раньше я был маленьким и наивно думал, что все люди одинаковые. А сейчас вижу, что евреи хоть и владеют русским языком и культурой часто лучше русских (иногда просто делают русскую культуру), но они не ассимилировались с русскими и сохраняют свой менталитет и свою особость.

----------


## BappaBa

> Кажется, ваш Билл Гейтс сказал, что Россия экспортирует радикальных евреев, несущих идею революции.

 А про кого, конкретно, он говорил? По-моему, они едут туда обслуживать существующий строй. Березовский и Гусинский там местных устоев не подрывают, и не "обувают" бедных нативов.

----------


## Юрка

> А про кого, конкретно, он говорил? По-моему, они едут туда обслуживать существующий строй. Березовский и Гусинский там местных устоев не подрывают, и не "обувают" бедных нативов.

 Энергию Березовского они благоразумно направили против нас. А сказал он не про кого-то конкретно, а в общем про еврейскую эмиграцию из России. У него же там много бывших наших работает. Видать, успел уже прочувствовать их настрой.

----------


## Lampada

> ... А сказал он не про кого-то конкретно, а в общем про еврейскую эмиграцию из России. У него же там много бывших наших работает. Видать, успел уже прочувствовать их настрой.

 Интересно, как сильно русские евреи повредили Микрософту?  Гугл ничего не знает о мнении Гейтса по этому поводу.  Может, это просто сплетня?.  
И между прочим, не нужно создавать оффтопик. Хочешь, открывай отдельную тему.

----------


## Юрка

> Гугл ничего такого не знает. Это чья-то выдумка.

 Не, это я услышал на канале Культура, в очень приличной передаче Виталия Третьякова "Что делать. Философские беседы". У него там не бывает выдумщиков.  

> И между прочим, не нужно создавать оффтопик. Хочешь, открывай отдельную тему.

 Фсё-фсё, я умолкаю.  ::

----------


## Doomer

> Из Чикаго, конечно, виднее, но это, извините, полный бред. Ненависть к Ельцину не идёт ни в какое сравнение с недовольством Путиным или Медведевым, которые, несмотря ни на что, весьма и весьма популярны.

 в чем бред то?
давайте разберемся
я пишу: люди не любят Путина, Медведева и Ельцина, потому что им не нравится текущие условия жизни в России
вы пишите: люди недовольны Путиным и Медведевым и ненавидели Ельцина 
Найдите 10 отличий, это раз
второе я говорю не от себя, а из статистики, я много общаюсь с людьми на русскозычных форумах 
А безапелляционность заявлений обычно является следствием недалекого мышления

----------


## Marcus

> в чем бред то?

 Бред в том, что Ельцина ненавидела почти вся страна за всё. Он был всеобщим посмешищем. И за экономическую разруху, и за слабость центральной власти, и за сдачу позиций американцам и поливание грязью советского прошлого.
Напротив, Путин изначально был очень популярным политиком, и оставался им всё время своего правления. Конечно, кто-то недоволен.

----------


## Doomer

> Бред в том, что Ельцина ненавидела почти вся страна за всё. Он был всеобщим посмешищем. И за экономическую разруху, и за слабость центральной власти, и за сдачу позиций американцам и поливание грязью советского прошлого.
> Напротив, Путин изначально был очень популярным политиком, и оставался им всё время своего правления. Конечно, кто-то недоволен.

 т.е. мой ответ на вопрос "почему не любят Путина" должен был быть, "его все любят", так что ли? Это же неправда
Я все равно не понимаю где бред, по-моему все очень логично и даже не противоречит вашим словам

----------


## Throbert McGee

I think I see Marcus's point, Doomer. If you said in a US context that "a lot of people didn't like Reagan, and a lot of people didn't like Nixon," many Republicans would object to the "implied comparison" of Reagan with Nixon -- since the first was merely a _controversial_ President, while the second resigned from the office in disgrace. 
Similarly, many Democrats today would object if you said "people dislike Obama, just as people disliked Carter." (Not that Carter was as much of an asshole as Nixon, but Carter was a one-term President who lost by a huge margin in 1980. So if you speak of Obama and Carter in the same breath, можно принять это за предсказание о выборах ноября 2012.)

----------


## Crocodile

> По-моему, они едут туда обслуживать существующий строй. Березовский и Гусинский там местных устоев не подрывают, и не "обувают" бедных нативов.

 Кгокодил попросил меня уточнить что именно означает "обслуживать существующий строй?" Говорит, в прошлый раз ему сказали, что он уехал для того, чтобы существующий строй обслуживал его ("за колбасой"). Ибо строй в СССР/России его плохо обслуживал. Ещё Кгокодил просил передать, что он сам не очень точно знает для чего он уехал (вариант "для будущего детей" используется тогда, когда все остальные совсем никуда не катят), но если BappaBa сможет ему этот момент объяснить, он будет очень благодарен.  ::

----------


## BappaBa

> Кгокодил попросил меня уточнить что именно означает "обслуживать существующий строй?" Говорит, в прошлый раз ему сказали, что он уехал для того, чтобы существующий строй обслуживал его ("за колбасой"). Ибо строй в СССР/России его плохо обслуживал.

 "Обслуживать существующий строй" было сказано в пику про юркино "несущих идею революции". Ходят слухи, что в странах с молочными реками и кисельными берегами, крокодилам просто так колбасу выдавать отказываются. Возможно, врут. По косвенным данным, у меня сложилось впечатление, что некоторые крокодилы даже ездят из колбасного рая халтурить на Украину.  ::   

> Ещё Кгокодил просил передать, что он сам не очень точно знает для чего он уехал (вариант "для будущего детей" используется тогда, когда все остальные совсем никуда не катят), но если BappaBa сможет ему этот момент объяснить, он будет очень благодарен.

 А вот про это BappaBе ничего не известно; та часть таламуса, к-рая у него должна отвечать за поиск лучшей жизни на чужбине, полностью атрофирована (что взять с тупого совка?)

----------


## Crocodile

> "Обслуживать существующий строй" было сказано в пику про юркино "несущих идею революции".

 А, ясно. Т.е. и то и другое просто для красного словца. Ну, тогда лады.  ::    

> По косвенным данным, у меня сложилось впечатление, что некоторые крокодилы даже ездят из колбасного рая халтурить на Украину.

 Основной задачей некоторых крокодилов было хрумканье колбасой на Украине вместо Кубы, Мексики, Доминиканской Республикии и т.д. Не потому, что дешевле (уже давно наоборот), а именно из-за романтики. Медведь-гора, все дела... По совести, надо было, конечно, поехать отдыхать на Клязьминское водохранилище, но это уже перебор.  ::    

> А вот про это BappaBе ничего не известно

 Ну, вот вроде и разобрались.  ::

----------

