| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 40 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 05:43:29 |
| Calls: | 180 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 118 |
| Messages: | 64,292 |
| Posted today: | 1 |
Indeed a young person 100 times unlikely will unleash a nuclear war
than a person who is going to die soon anyway. ;)
Joe Biden drops out of race, handing off football to Kamala
Harris. You do realize what that means.
In every poll, including in Florida (Trump's home state), women
come out ahead. Putting two of them together makes them
unbeatable. Joe Biden has endorsed Kamala Harris, knowing she
will win. That was the first thing coming out of his mouth
after he dropped out of the race.
Barack Obama has also endorsed Kamala Harris, knowing she will
win. But he is one smart cookie, knowing it takes more than one
state to win the presidency.
That is why Barack Obama did one better, by endorsing another
woman to join the ticket. And we all know who that woman is.
And being from Chicago, who better than to introduce her
She has many trumps in her sleeve. How do you like her slogan "Let
America be free from old farts!" ;-)
Indeed a young person 100 times unlikely will unleash a nuclear war than a person who is going to die soon anyway. ;)
IMHO President must be a part of a team. He must not be allowed to do whatever he wants.
but we never really tried hard to stop our weirdo Putin?
but we never really tried hard to stop our weirdo Putin?
So why did you not vote him out when you still could?
So why did you not vote him out when you still could?
The only chance was in 2000,
but people were tired of inflation, the civil war in Chechnya, and an
ill and drunk President Yeltsin, and they wanted someone "strong
enough" to fix the country and show the world that "Mother Russia is
great again."
So why did you not vote him out when you still could?
The only chance was in 2000,
I don't think that really was the last and only chance. However...
but people were tired of inflation, the civil war in Chechnya,
and an ill and drunk President Yeltsin, and they wanted someone
"strong enough" to fix the country and show the world that
"Mother Russia is great again."
So the people want a "strong leader" to solve the problems. And that
is what they get. Or so they think. What they don't realise is that
what they get is a leader that will use the power given to /stay/ in power. For as long as possible. At all cost...
Putin isn't the only one. There is a world wide trend for elected
leaders to turn into autocrats. Xing Pi, Erdogan, Bouterse, Netanyahu, Orban, Maduro. And maybe Trump and Wilders...
I just hope that in ten or twenty years the samen question will not be asked to the people of The Netherlands... :(
The only chance was in 2000,
I don't think that really was the last and only chance.
However...
It doesn't matter how people vote. If you have total control over the voting system, you can make up any numbers. 40% can become 70% with no problem.
But when you have total control over the media, the courts, the
police, and the secret service, it's very difficult to even make
people believe that they can change anything.
to /stay/ in power. For as long as possible. At all cost...
It wasn't something we were taught in Soviet schools... The main idea
was that you have to trust someone who is in power at the moment -
your teacher, your boss, your party or state leader. Orthodox church always says - do not oppose your state leader, it's a sin.
Fidonet was different because it was a democracy :)
Putin isn't the only one. There is a world wide trend for elected
leaders to turn into autocrats. Xing Pi, Erdogan, Bouterse,
Netanyahu, Orban, Maduro. And maybe Trump and Wilders...
People like simple answers to difficult questions and strong populist leader is a very simple answer.
Russia is always providing very good examples of how not to do things.
The previous one was communism, now it's time for a new one :)
I am just curious why it's always something from Germany? Carl Marx
was German, the current Putin's regime is very much based on German
ideas from 193Xs..
It doesn't matter how people vote. If you have total control over
the voting system, you can make up any numbers. 40% can become
70% with no problem.
Of course. But it was not always like that after the end of the cold
war. Remember Glasnost and Perestroyka? Yes, that is gone now, but in
But when you have total control over the media, the courts, the
police, and the secret service, it's very difficult to even make
people believe that they can change anything.
It was not always like that...
And who told you to trust the leaders of the Ortthodox church? Your parents?
Fidonet was different because it was a democracy :)
Fidonet is not and never was a democracy.
People like simple answers to difficult questions and strong
populist leader is a very simple answer.
Bottom line: "the people" are too naive for democracy. :(
Russia is always providing very good examples of how not to do
things. The previous one was communism, now it's time for a new
one :)
Not "always". 200 years ago Russia was a country not much different
from the rest of Europe.
I am just curious why it's always something from Germany? Carl
Marx was German, the current Putin's regime is very much based on
German ideas from 193Xs..
Trotsky was not German...
MvdV> noThe only chance was in 2000,
I don't think that really was the last and only chance.
However...
It doesn't matter how people vote. If you have total control over the
voting system, you can make up any numbers. 40% can become 70% with
problem.
But when you have total control over the media, the courts, the
police, and the secret service, it's very difficult to even make
people believe that they can change anything.
to /stay/ in power. For as long as possible. At all cost...
It wasn't something we were taught in Soviet schools... The main idea
was that you have to trust someone who is in power at the moment -
your teacher, your boss, your party or state leader. Orthodox church
always says - do not oppose your state leader, it's a sin.
Fidonet was different because it was a democracy :)
Putin isn't the only one. There is a world wide trend for elected
leaders to turn into autocrats. Xing Pi, Erdogan, Bouterse,
Netanyahu, Orban, Maduro. And maybe Trump and Wilders...
People like simple answers to difficult questions and strong populist
leader is a very simple answer.
Russia is always providing very good examples of how not to do things.
The previous one was communism, now it's time for a new one :)
I am just curious why it's always something from Germany? Carl Marx
was German, the current Putin's regime is very much based on German
ideas from 193Xs..
Of course. But it was not always like that after the end of the
cold war. Remember Glasnost and Perestroyka? Yes, that is gone
now, but in
Glasnost and Perestroyka was a Soviet thing, in late 80s. It was long before Putin.
However, the country was ill-prepared for such a significant shift.
We lacked people with good economic education
and as a result, the attempt to transition from socialism to a system
akin to that of the Netherlands failed. Many of those experts in government saw the transformation as an opportunity for personal gain,
and the Soviet Nomenklatura maintained their hold on power.
It was not always like that...
In the 90s, I was too busy working to get involved in politics. I
started working at the age of 13 because my parents couldn't afford to
buy me a modem or pay for phone calls, which were quite expensive and charged by the minute.
I've started to go the protests only in 2006, but it was too late.
Fidonet was different because it was a democracy :)
Fidonet is not and never was a democracy.
In Russia, we had Fidonet as a great example of democracy. Many of my friends still talk about democracy as something from the Fidonet era!
(I'm not joking).
Before Fidonet, they had no experience with real elections, or
providing the infrastructure for elections or removing an elected
person from "office".
Russia is always providing very good examples of how not to do
things. The previous one was communism, now it's time for a new
one :)
Not "always". 200 years ago Russia was a country not much
different from the rest of Europe.
In reality, it was quite different. We had actual slavery in place.
The culture may have been the same but it was a culture of the elite.
The average Russian lived like an African slave with no rights, in his
own country.
Interestingly, I now live in London (for the past 1.5 years, since the
war started),
and there's a pub here where Trotsky, Lenin, and Stalin used to drink together.
Of course. But it was not always like that after the end of the
cold war. Remember Glasnost and Perestroyka? Yes, that is gone
now, but in
Glasnost and Perestroyka was a Soviet thing, in late 80s. It was long
before Putin.
However, the country was ill-prepared for such a significant shift.
We lacked people with good economic education
and as a result, the attempt to transition from socialism to a system
akin to that of the Netherlands failed. Many of those experts in
government saw the transformation as an opportunity for personal gain,
and the Soviet Nomenklatura maintained their hold on power.
MvdV> toIt was not always like that...
In the 90s, I was too busy working to get involved in politics. I
started working at the age of 13 because my parents couldn't afford
buy me a modem or pay for phone calls, which were quite expensive and
charged by the minute.
I've started to go the protests only in 2006, but it was too late.
Fidonet was different because it was a democracy :)
Fidonet is not and never was a democracy.
In Russia, we had Fidonet as a great example of democracy. Many of my
friends still talk about democracy as something from the Fidonet era!
(I'm not joking).
Before Fidonet, they had no experience with real elections, or
providing the infrastructure for elections or removing an elected
person from "office".
MvdV> hisRussia is always providing very good examples of how not to do
things. The previous one was communism, now it's time for a new
one :)
Not "always". 200 years ago Russia was a country not much
different from the rest of Europe.
In reality, it was quite different. We had actual slavery in place.
The culture may have been the same but it was a culture of the elite.
The average Russian lived like an African slave with no rights, in
own country.
MvdV> theInterestingly, I now live in London (for the past 1.5 years, since
war started),
and there's a pub here where Trotsky, Lenin, and Stalin used to drink
together.
Glasnost and Perestroyka was a Soviet thing, in late 80s. It was
long before Putin.
Indeed, long before Putin. But it didn't have to go when the Sovjet
Union was dissolved. If you had voted against Putin when you still
could, Glasnost and Perestroyka might still be here.
However, the country was ill-prepared for such a significant
shift.
No country is ever prepared well for such a shift. Yet other countries survived. France survived the revolution. The USA survived after they kicked the Brittish out and they survived a civil war. Italy survived
the fall of the Roman Empire and The Netherlands survived when they declared independance from the Spanish Kingdom.
We lacked people with good economic education
I don't believe that. Russia has produced famous artist and
scientists. Don't try to tell me that there were no economists.
That a small elite sees a transition as an opportunity for personal
gain happens everywhere. What do you think happened during the so
called "Golden Age" in The Netherlands. BTW, during that "Golden Age"
The Netherlands had very good relations with Russia.
When I was 13, I could not buy a modem because modems didn't exist in 1959. I already had a modem before Fidonet existed. I didn't buy it, I
put it together myself. IIRC that was around 1978.
This wasn't meant as a personal attack. By "you" I meant the plural,
the people who didn't vote against Putin when they still could.
In Russia, we had Fidonet as a great example of democracy. Many
of my friends still talk about democracy as something from the
Fidonet era! (I'm not joking).
Ha, so there is where it went wrong. You thought Fidonet was a democracy... That explains a lot... ;-)
Not much different from The Netherlands when The King was the ultimate ruler..
In reality, it was quite different. We had actual slavery in
place. The culture may have been the same but it was a culture of
the elite. The average Russian lived like an African slave with
no rights, in his own country.
Not much different from how it was in The Netherlands 200 years ago.
Interestingly, I now live in London (for the past 1.5 years,
since the war started),
So you left the country in the hands of the Putin supporters...
and there's a pub here where Trotsky, Lenin, and Stalin used to
drink together.
"used to drink together" That sounds like all three were regulars
there and met once a week or so. Nice story that if a wear a pub owner would also try to get around in order to lure customers.
Glasnost and Perestroyka was a Soviet thing, in late 80s. It was long before
Putin.
Just imagine your salary as an engineer at a nuclear power station is
so low at the end of the month that it doesn't even cover your monthly public transport ticket. How much time would you spend worrying about democracy versus how you are going to feed your kids?
I don't believe that. Russia has produced famous artist and
scientists. Don't try to tell me that there were no economists.
We had the same problem with telecommunications. Not enought experts.
This wasn't meant as a personal attack. By "you" I meant the
plural, the people who didn't vote against Putin when they still
could.
You probably just don't understand: it doesn't matter how people vote. What matters is who is counting their votes.
In Russia, we had Fidonet as a great example of democracy. Many
of my friends still talk about democracy as something from the
Fidonet era! (I'm not joking).
Ha, so there is where it went wrong. You thought Fidonet was a
democracy... That explains a lot... ;-)
Fidonet is a democracy :)
Not much different from The Netherlands when The King was the
ultimate ruler..
It was like.. 200 year ago?
In reality, it was quite different. We had actual slavery in
place. The culture may have been the same but it was a culture
of the elite. The average Russian lived like an African slave
with no rights, in his own country.
Not much different from how it was in The Netherlands 200 years
ago.
So people in Netherlands 200 years ago were slaves??
How many citizens of the Netherlands chose to die fighting when Nazi Germany occupied your country? How many of your relatives died
fighting Germany?
Not having the money to pay for food for kids is a very good reason to
not have them in the first place. Nuclear power plant enigineers
should be smart enough to figure that out for themselves...
We had the same problem with telecommunications. Not enought
experts.
But you had engineers for the nuclear power plants.
You probably just don't understand: it doesn't matter how people
vote. What matters is who is counting their votes.
That is not how it was in the early days of Putin when he still could
be voted out.
Fidonet is a democracy :)
Yeah right, keep on dreaming.
Not much different from The Netherlands when The King was the
ultimate ruler..
It was like.. 200 year ago?
Until about 150 years ago...
So people in Netherlands 200 years ago were slaves??
For all intents and purposen: yes. What I am saying is that just like
So don't give me all this bla bla in answer to the question why you
did not vote Putin out when your still could. I think you have already given the answer: You were not interested in politics.
How many citizens of the Netherlands chose to die fighting when
Nazi Germany occupied your country? How many of your relatives
died fighting Germany?
You loose: Godwin's law.
How many citizens of the Netherlands chose to die fighting when
Nazi Germany occupied your country? How many of your relatives
died fighting Germany?
You loose: Godwin's law.
Godwin himself broke this law when compared Putin to Hitler couple of years ago.
https://x.com/sfmnemonic/status/1504244193660571651
But yes, the Netherlands did very badly in WWII, especially in
comparison to Belgium, for example:
Godwin himself broke this law when compared Putin to Hitler
couple of years ago.
https://x.com/sfmnemonic/status/1504244193660571651
That Mike Godwin alledgedly broke his own law does not invaildate it
and it does not stop me from invoking it.
But yes, the Netherlands did very badly in WWII, especially in
comparison to Belgium, for example:
And now you are doing it again. I asked "why did you not vote Putin
out when you still could" and all you come up with are diversions,
fake arguments and subject chenges. It reminds me of the one who's
name shall not be mentioned. Regarding the answer to my question, all
that I can deduct from your postings is that you were not intersted in politics...
Not having enough money to live is a very good reason to be interested
in politics because it is politicians that have the power to actually
do something about it. Nuclear power plant engineers should be smart enough to figure that out for themselves...
But yes, the Netherlands did very badly in WWII, especially in
comparison to Belgium, for example:
Not having enough money to live is a very good reason to be MV>interestedin politics because it is politicians that have the MV>power to actually do
something about it. Nuclear power plant MV>engineers should be smart enough
to figure that out for MV>themselves...
I read back some of your posts and I think they are detached from reality.
I have experienced one party politics.
I experienced totalitarian "choice".
I experienced a police interrogation.
And that was only Czechoslovakia and even the better times from this era.
It is naive to think that there is a way out of this in a "democratic way".