Jump to content

Theme© by Fisana
 

Photo

What would it take for Russia to be #1?


  • Please log in to reply
7545 replies to this topic

#3541 Bader

Bader

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1757 posts

Posted 11 August 2004 - 10:36 AM

Coops dont provide defence-

Woj, I can see we have a difference in conceptions based on words used, just as there is sometimes big differences in the conceptions surrounding the word lion.
State businesses/industry doesnt provide defence either, nor capitalist enterprise. The defense depts of states are all public/
national. Only now in the US in Iraq is the corporate military
corporation coming into play to serve state interests by contract.
In short a coop is a joint/multi-owned, private owned enterprise
which makes them property owners, self emplyed, directly involved in management, and the increment of association ( the
prosperity is greater than the sum of indivdual efforts) is controlled and retained by them. Under capitalism and communism the increment of association is not acknowledged
and thus syphoned off in sweet bliss from the sheeple.
The essential dynamic is clearly of will-to-freedom, and the essential principles are the sovereignty of the individual not the state or institution and secondly systems are made for man,
not the reverse. If this describes a ghetto, lets have more of them.
You believe that the individual is best nested in an environment
in which the institution/state comes first (since this is the basis
of the provision of the needs and security of the individual) and thus to it must go the increment of association, the decision making and authority over property etc. in which the dynamics
works power away from the individual, freedom and sovereignty
and is thus will-to-power (control).
The reverse is to build up the individual units of society to achieve a strong national unit, instead of building strong state to shelter
everything within its power.
The other contrast is in relation to power, yours is centralised and thus effectively the property of an elite, exactly the same as capitalism but the basic units of the state, the individual, are totally powerless (ghetto) and there is no psychological basis for any question of accountablility which is natural and automatic when
the individual is sovereign. It is easy to see how the nature of man will not self discipline itself to prevent the abuse of power.
In a coop/ individual sovereignty, decision sharing ,responsibility sharing, they have to coop in relation to law etc getting consensus nationally, Switzerland would be the closest and they are not known for being lazy or presumptious when it comes to defence- its hands on, direct responsibility which is not the ideal
environment for shirkers, dishonest and drones. There should be a lot more Lore and thus less need for Law in a society based on the principles of the coop.
Its merely an economy of size to run a country/state on the
principles of a coop, as a local enterpise, and there are many instances where one could almost say hey we socialists do that,
but the difference is subtle. And people within that state are not compelled to join a coop.
I would suggest that another major difference in a coop principled state would be the law relating to businesses and corporations it just may happen that they may cease to be legal entities that are superior to the human entity and its rights and protection from and by the law. If all business owners which included sharholders were liable then what Enron did would not have happened and millions of people ripped off under the protection of the law.
If society was much more accountable, sound and secure people shouldnt have to be fearful of the future and be able to enjoy a
a better standard of living instead of paying for yesterdays goods
with tomorrows wages (if one isnt laid off) and hopefully save.
And today people are working longer and some hours free to do this.
The sheep of the system and the lion of the system you desire are not the same, its few lords and many serfs as in capitalism. The morals or no morals of the rulers prevail.
When power is decentralised and people have to work at consensus/cooperation, the nature of the morals is likewise- by consensus, democratic, but there can be no dispute that the morals in respect of social justice lies with the system that lets the rewards go to the ones who earn it as opposed to state allocation.
IF in a coop the sheep and lion seem to be the same is because
the boss and worker are the same. But in which case what they stand for doesnt apply as in Animal Farm which is what DonQ
is saying in a nutshell. In capitalism and communisim its animal farm as the author intended it to be seen.
It wouldnt supprise me if millions of communists on reading it thought he was taking the mikie out of capitalism and millions of people in capitalist countries thought he was taking the mickie out of communism.
I never read it as a parody of human nature at work because that merely provides a magnificent cover for the lion. I saw it as the cunning of the lion who was smart enough to study human nature and then take advantage of its weaknesses. The Protocols for example of full of this.
Its either human nature, the hidden hand or economic nature, another hidden hand by never subterfuge that we are supposed to see things, inspite of the fact that subterfuge is human nature.
It implies the rediculous that as people gain greater positions power that this so called weakness of human nature suddenly get
more niave or honest while corruption at the top is as obvious as
leaves on the tree today.
  • 0

#3542 woj1@cyberonic.

woj1@cyberonic.

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10667 posts

Posted 11 August 2004 - 12:28 PM

Bader; @Why would Britain be at war with a country on the other side of a continent ?@

Russian Caucasian Crimean War (October 1853
  • 0

#3543 woj1@cyberonic.

woj1@cyberonic.

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10667 posts

Posted 11 August 2004 - 12:42 PM

Bader;@Why would Britain be at war with a country on the other side of a continent ? part II
British Afghanistan or Anglo-Afghan Wars (1839
  • 0

#3544 woj1@cyberonic.

woj1@cyberonic.

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10667 posts

Posted 11 August 2004 - 01:34 PM

Bader; @There was British support for Finlands war of independance by British people which I rather think was not at govt level. @
Falkland Islands War Argentina had claimed sovereignty over the Falkland Islands (which lie 300 miles [480 km] east of its coast) since the early 19th century, but Britain had occupied and administered the islands since 1833
  • 0

#3545 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 11 August 2004 - 08:23 PM

Sit back, relax and take the journey. It's truly awesome...;)

http://www.geocities.com/frankhutton/

I only have watched these two...

"America's New War" and "Has anyone ever used WMD's?" so I can only comment on them, and definitely would give them the highest marks.

PS: My website got a new counter meter: The Sword of Truth!;)

http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote
  • 0

#3546 Bader

Bader

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1757 posts

Posted 12 August 2004 - 07:31 AM

Howdy Woj:

You are becoming an expert of the Britannica records of the British
past in regards to wars. Its all very interesting but not one of the matters copied have any baring on the second world war
and the claim by you that at that time Britain was at war with the
Soviet Union.
Britain gives amnesty to two Russians today is evidence of Britain at war fifty odd year ago is rediculous. Come on Woj you can do better than that.
Much of what you have posted is obviously a international trade war which is the natural outcome of the debt money system and faulty accounting systems which I wont go into here as it would take several pages.
Basically the City of London, not part of the British state ruled the waves not the British. I suggest you could draw comparisons with the US being used just the same in Iraq, because they are slaves to the Fed international banksters.
But as I said yesterday you dont accept the international dimension, you think the hidden hand is faulty human nature
except when it is British human nature it is all evil.
The Western powers have alway sort to deny Russia an all year naval capasity because that would allow her to become a fellow
international power and thus a rival industrial/trading power.
Preventive strike isnt new.
Same with the Balkins, neither the west nor Russia would allow them to become a power for the same reasons. That is human nature but States are mere junior lions in my book.
The Germans had to match the British navy to compete in the 2oth century with the international advantage that Britain (City of London- THe Crown) had. A hundred years ago the Germans started building big battle ships to rival Britains and they managed to get the Danes to open up the Keil Canal through the peninsula so the Germans could deploy their biggies in half the time into the North Atlantic. It was all seen as potential war preparation. So when the canal was open, Lord Fisher in charge of the British Navy had built new ships slightly too large to go through the canal. Thus the Canal would become obsolete as soon as Germany upped their ship size to match Britain. This is the nature of game. But the primary and essential issue is the financial/trade requirements of the future as the means to
progress and power was through such.
It is natural that the British view was that Germany was intending to go to war (as it did anyway) and there was a view that FIshers smart move delayed the beginning of the First World War. In reality it might have been something like this: each side was - intent on holding the edge on the one hand and determined to gain the edge on the other- both driven by the debt mogals. It is probable that in both the german and British Govts none of the MPs understood the finance system but they both understood that the future well being/progress lay in
meeting their respective trade potentials necessay and the rivalry
was full of the potential for war and did in fact come to that as the last resort. This the classic situation I describe as two fighters in the ring owned by the same promoter, the losers are the ones in the ring and the winners are in the corporate box above the crowd. This has all been clearly explained /exposed by C.H. Douglas and I have given the websites in the past.
You have your own rod, I have told you where to catch the big
fish.

Just like athletes and drugs, the edge is to those who are a step ahead and they all want the edge.
You havent proved your argument, only your attitude towards the British.
  • 0

#3547 Bader

Bader

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1757 posts

Posted 12 August 2004 - 08:40 AM

Howdy DonQ:
I like that statement.
The game is all about money, follow the money, politicians and parties do and media monopolies have an interest in non-real issue elections, to keep the public dumb, so no one startes blowing the whistle.
Can we expect the politicians who need the media and the bigger the coverage the better, to play russian roulette by stepping on media toes. Some might but they would probably lack support.
I dont like the easy "answer" by making another law to add to the trillions we have in the west already.
The public should deal to both and vote with their feet at the polling booth and the news stand, when the two main parties
fall down to quarter of the vote and the big media arent selling which then means big business will have to dump them, it could be sudden death, the people will have one a temporary victory.
It may not have to go that far if they are on the stock exchange.
A nation wide organisation could mearly point the bone at a corp and say the campaign will be against "them", the shareholders will start selling their shares and the rest of the carpet bombers will be thinking about who might be next.
In politics it has happened that the numbers on the balance of power is done and that is the campaign target to tip that number
as a shortcut to winning. The campaign organisers could do the same- calculate what the minimum numbers of subscribers they believe are the strategic number to cause businesses to drop the paper for advertising. It might all be there in market research
regarding targets for the opposite ojective to capture support.
The first step would then be to induce that number to commit themselves to the full and final step, the decision made as who they will make an example of when they reach the first target.

Howards response to being caught like an emporer with no clothes on was pretty dumb and that therefore fits the biggest group of minority voting in Australia.
Amazing how in the US, Britain and Australia the investigations have all been exactly the same and the response based on the
connieved excuse, which is merely doing further what they want, what this is all about- restructuring towards a NWO global govt.
  • 0

#3548 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 12 August 2004 - 10:43 AM

<I like that statement.
The game is all about money, follow the money, politicians and parties do and media monopolies have an interest in non-real issue elections, to keep the public dumb, so no one startes blowing the whistle.>

Hi Bader

(I liked your post on kibbutz. I'll have more shortly on the subject)

Yeap, money is the name of the game. They simply push "puppet show" to keep sheep happy. I have a relative who repeats after Republican radio that Kerry--conviniently presented as a communist--hates our nationality based on him having said (?) that Cubans are a bunch of losers for not having stopped Castro. Absolute non-issue... And I reply, and so are Americans for not stopping Bush, and British for not stopping Blair and Australians for not stopping Howard. Anyway the parrot keeps repeating the same thing...;)

And there's a lesson to be learned from this: OLD VOTERS MUST BE REPLACED BY YOUNG VOTERS. These are the only hope.

<The public should deal to both and vote with their feet at the polling booth and the news stand, when the two main parties
fall down to quarter of the vote and the big media arent selling which then means big business will have to dump them, it could be sudden death, the people will have one a temporary victory.
It may not have to go that far if they are on the stock exchange.
A nation wide organisation could mearly point the bone at a corp and say the campaign will be against "them", the shareholders will start selling their shares and the rest of the carpet bombers will be thinking about who might be next. >

Good point. We can call that strategy "DON'T FEED THE LION!"

<Howards response to being caught like an emporer with no clothes on was pretty dumb and that therefore fits the biggest group of minority voting in Australia.
Amazing how in the US, Britain and Australia the investigations have all been exactly the same and the response based on the
connieved excuse, which is merely doing further what they want, what this is all about- restructuring towards a NWO global govt.>

It goes to show how much these nations are BANANA REPUBLICS...:cool:
  • 0

#3549 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 12 August 2004 - 01:59 PM

Bader, try to swing by the Media debate. You are going to like it...;)

http://engforum.prav...1151#post981151
  • 0

#3550 woj1@cyberonic.

woj1@cyberonic.

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10667 posts

Posted 12 August 2004 - 02:31 PM

Bader; @You have your own rod, I have told you where to catch the big
fish.

Just like athletes and drugs, the edge is to those who are a step ahead and they all want the edge.
You havent proved your argument, only your attitude towards the British.@

Anthony Brandt was one of the most highly social standing English agent in Russian service. He was son of pastor related to King family. He was educated in Cambridge and this school provide him with connection. He was person who after war in American newspaper printed some information regarding role of prince of Wells
  • 0

#3551 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 12 August 2004 - 02:33 PM

"We didn't pay enough attention to the minority."

This goes to show how Big Media goes along with Big Money. Not because they didn't pay attention to the minority, but because they did--the powerful, wealthy minority that shapes the sheepish majority with the help of the Press.

But since the war to grab oil went wrong, sending oil prices higher than ever, it's time to take it back. THE CHEERLEADERS ABANDON THEIR LOSING TEAM...;)

The Post on WMDs: An Inside Story
Prewar Articles Questioning Threat Often Didn't Make Front Page

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, August 12, 2004

Days before the Iraq war began, veteran Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus put together a story questioning whether the Bush administration had proof that Saddam Hussein was hiding weapons of mass destruction.

But he ran into resistance from the paper's editors, and his piece ran only after assistant managing editor Bob Woodward, who was researching a book about the drive toward war, "helped sell the story," Pincus recalled. "Without him, it would have had a tough time getting into the paper." Even so, the article was relegated to Page A17.

"We did our job but we didn't do enough, and I blame myself mightily for not pushing harder," Woodward said in an interview. "We should have warned readers we had information that the basis for this was shakier" than widely believed. "Those are exactly the kind of statements that should be published on the front page."

As violence continues in postwar Iraq and U.S. forces have yet to discover any WMDs, some critics say the media, including The Washington Post, failed the country by not reporting more skeptically on President Bush's contentions during the run-up to war.

An examination of the paper's coverage, and interviews with more than a dozen of the editors and reporters involved, shows that The Post published a number of pieces challenging the White House, but rarely on the front page. Some reporters who were lobbying for greater prominence for stories that questioned the administration's evidence complained to senior editors who, in the view of those reporters, were unenthusiastic about such pieces. The result was coverage that, despite flashes of groundbreaking reporting, in hindsight looks strikingly one-sided at times.

"The paper was not front-paging stuff," said Pentagon correspondent Thomas Ricks. "Administration assertions were on the front page. Things that challenged the administration were on A18 on Sunday or A24 on Monday. There was an attitude among editors: Look, we're going to war, why do we even worry about all this contrary stuff?"

In retrospect, said Executive Editor Leonard Downie Jr., "we were so focused on trying to figure out what the administration was doing that we were not giving the same play to people who said it wouldn't be a good idea to go to war and were questioning the administration's rationale. Not enough of those stories were put on the front page. That was a mistake on my part."

Across the country, "the voices raising questions about the war were lonely ones," Downie said. "We didn't pay enough attention to the minority."

(snip)
  • 0

#3552 woj1@cyberonic.

woj1@cyberonic.

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10667 posts

Posted 12 August 2004 - 03:21 PM

Bader; @You have your own rod, I have told you where to catch the big fish.

Just like athletes and drugs, the edge is to those who are a step ahead and they all want the edge.
You havent proved your argument, only your attitude towards the British.@ Part II

Winston Churchill Son of Lord Randolph Churchill and American Jennie Jerome, served in several cabinet posts, including first lord of the Admiralty (1911
  • 0

#3553 Bader

Bader

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1757 posts

Posted 13 August 2004 - 02:56 AM

Howdy Woj:

The key element which you exclude is the internationalist intrigue.
They wanted war and they could not have war if Germany didnt take back the Ruhr, no Ruhr no Wall St investment, no war.
The second factor interwoven in this is the ideological conflict between communism and national socialism which largely is internatianalism v nationalism.
The reason Hitler was admired before war appeared evident was that he was the hope of defending the western world against communism, which is why Pacelli (later Pius X11) selected and promoted him.
THis is how successful the Helgelian dialectic strategy of divide and rule/control change otherwise not possible in a short time.
The King doesnt rule Parliament and The Crown (Bank of England)
rules both.
The other factor you ignore is that the French who had the largest army in Europe was the Johnny on the spot also responsible for seeing the conditions of the Armistice were maintained eg Ruhr industrial powerhouse be outside German Govts control.The sentiments and problems Teddy caused for the
Royal family and Parliament are not the determanent of outcomes
which fullfil your claim the English did what Hitler wanted, which in fact was to help destroy the Soviet Union and the international
goal of world communist govt.
The Royal problem was secret and the support for Nat Soc in Britain was never a major issue or likely to be.

Anthony Blunt or Brunt was the secret head of Communist penetration into the UK secret services which was kept more hidden that Teddy. He would oppose everything that Teddy would support plus the communists are not known for love of Royals and they have made maximum milage out of anti-national socialism for their own interests.
I recall some special relationship Blunt had with Windsor well after Teddy boy while in service, Stalin would have known about that as well. What credibility do traiters have to communists Woj?
Its still .01% in my book.
  • 0

#3554 TDPushkin

TDPushkin

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 11383 posts

Posted 13 August 2004 - 08:45 AM

________________________

Winston Churchill Son of Lord Randolph Churchill and American Jennie Jerome, served in several cabinet posts, including first lord of the Admiralty (1911v15). After Neville Chamberlain resigned, Churchill headed a coalition government as prime minister (1940v45). He committed himself and the nation to an all-out war until victory was achieved, and his great eloquence, energy, and indomitable fortitude made him an inspiration to his countrymen, especially in the Battle of Britain. With Franklin Roosevelt and Joseph Stalin, he shaped Allied strategy through the Atlantic Charter and at the Cairo, Casablanca, and Tehran conferences. Though he was the architect of victory, his government was defeated in the 1945 elections.

________________________________


The two most important people who interacted with Churchill and who both were in power before, during and one of them after - FDR and Mackenzie King have made available their diaries, personal communications, official engagements.

From what I have seen so far:

Churchill benefited US more than Britain;

He was BIG MOUTH EMPTY POCKET public not aware of this;

He isolated the colonies and dominions by acting like an english snob and made Indians bitter not having to do anything with London. Australians were also pissed off they went for full autonomy like Canada.


Churchil left britain less than he found it. Out of 20 tribal, small country leaders that met Stalin and FDR only 3 met Churchill. They knew he was not powerful and will not keep any balderdash promise he makes.

FDR and Stalin kept every single one of their promises regardless of where the country was located, They had it guaranteed in case of regime change in their countries.

More than 90% of praises to churchill come from America and pro american britons.

He even lost his riding in an election.

He was never a good leader.

He was so stupid, he thought he had authority to sell islands and territories to america, before he was told to shut his big mouth and the lease agreement was developed.
  • 0

#3555 Bader

Bader

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1757 posts

Posted 13 August 2004 - 10:56 AM

Howdy TDPushkin,

good to see some fresh legs jog along with us three.

my impression is that Churchill was "elected" to prosecute the war. there has been on occasions stuff published that tell the otherside - about Churchills down side, some despised him.
he was a zionist and Roosevelt was controlled by them besides
the centre of world money power had shifted from the City of London to Wall st, so it is to be expected that the ball would tend to bounce in their favour not Britains. the international bankers started knee-capping the British after the first world war.
it is also clear that Stalin and Roosevelt dominated the Big Three
conferences which resulted in huge territorial expansion of communism after the war and later US foreign policy rolled back UK influence, eg Suez Crisis, to the gain of the Soviet Union and therefore Israel.

"the Australians were pissed off...", all the British dominions that
had the size and wherewithall to become independant were going to do so regardless of whether they were pissed off or not,
it is the way of anglo-saxons. Theres was the dominant culture
across the globe through the British Empire, until the first world war, and sine then has been the constructed demise and the rise of another which is called "American" because it stems from powerful souces/forces in that country which was also predinantly anglo-saxon, and it is in the last poll a page or so back how this has been achieved.

Regards the comments by Ghandi, which are not unique in the western world having been said many times over in various ways by Christian pundits, you might like to checkout the last poll regarding the US media and the main method all these values have been effectively expunged out of the culture of the once Christian west involve the same ethnic busy-bodies in a significant measure, and transparently so. Things have got that bad that where-as once apon a time, just thirty years ago a
President might have been kicked out of office for lying, but since them one has lied for dropping his tweeds in the Oral Office, once known as the Oval Office, which made the President more popular, and now the war of state terrorism based on lies and using illegal WMD (depleted Uranium) and with the election there is no opposition, no "prosecution".
Money talks and values walk.
What hope is there for Canada, they are very closely tied arent they?
  • 0

#3556 woj1@cyberonic.

woj1@cyberonic.

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10667 posts

Posted 13 August 2004 - 02:03 PM

Bader; @The key element which you exclude is the internationalist intrigue.@


"the Australians were pissed off...", all the British dominions that
had the size and wherewithall to become independant were going to do so regardless of whether they were pissed off or not,
it is the way of anglo-saxons. Theres was the dominant culture
across the globe through the British Empire, until the first world war, and sine then has been the constructed demise and the rise of another which is called "American" because it stems from powerful souces/forces in that country which was also predinantly anglo-saxon, and it is in the last poll a page or so back how this has been achieved.

@it is also clear that Stalin and Roosevelt dominated the Big Three
conferences which resulted in huge territorial expansion of communism after the war and later US foreign policy rolled back UK influence, eg Suez Crisis, to the gain of the Soviet Union and therefore Israel.@

@and the rise of another which is called "American" because it stems from powerful souces/forces in that country which was also predinantly anglo-saxon, and it is in the last poll a page or so back how this has been achieved. @

This is what I say ; US is extension of English culture, if Roosevelt dominated the Big Three , he represented not only US but UK as well.
Soviet Union business was not Israel interest. Yes Stalin made to UN the request to create Israel country in Palestine, but for reason to transfer Jews from CCCP and eliminate in Palestine the British influence.

British are interested in Jews gains;

@Tony Blair was "delighted" with Peter Mandelson's appointment as trade commissioner, a heavyweight post that will ensure him a central role in shaping Europe's economic framework. Mr Mandelson has discussed the negotiations with Patricia Hewitt, the trade and industry secretary. He also knows Robert Zoellick, the US trade representative, as well as his South African, Brazilian, Indian and Chinese counterparts.
As his closest and most loyal ally, Mr Mandelson will prove a vocal advocate for Mr Blair's Atlanticism and agenda of economic reform. Some of the tabloids have already half-joked that they will be sending a special Mandelson correspondent to Brussels to watch his every move. The Conservatives yesterday said simply that they expected Mr Mandelson to put Britain's interests first.
The trade role will also make Mr Mandelson one of the most important interlocutors between Brussels and Washington at a time of growing concern about the degree of mutual incomprehension on either side of the Atlantic.
http://news.ft.com/c...000e2511c8.html
Bader; @What credibility do traitors have to communists Woj?
Its still .01% in my book.@ Could you kindly more explain me that?
  • 0

#3557 woj1@cyberonic.

woj1@cyberonic.

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10667 posts

Posted 13 August 2004 - 02:23 PM

Bader; TDPushkin's post confirmed my point of view.
England was not interested in war with Germany because she was aware that that war will lead UK to losing her colonies .
UK was interested to press Germany to war against Russia because this way were more safe of danger of German attack on England
and German attack would eliminate from the British field the Russian competition in Asia.
I don
  • 0

#3558 woj1@cyberonic.

woj1@cyberonic.

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10667 posts

Posted 13 August 2004 - 02:38 PM

Bader; Not Stalin but Queen Victoria;

Benjamin Disraeli, earl of Beaconsfield
born Dec. 21, 1804, London, Eng.
died April 19, 1881, London
who was twice prime minister (1868, 1874
  • 0

#3559 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 14 August 2004 - 01:48 AM

http://engforum.prav...3482#post983482
  • 0

#3560 woj1@cyberonic.

woj1@cyberonic.

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10667 posts

Posted 14 August 2004 - 08:55 AM

Bader; Gone with the wind.

Do you remember moments when slaves argued their affairs and to add more insult to opposition , called its owners the white trash?
And the same are doing in general the other sheep, they are identified with their lion.
For example English identified with their Queen Family, with their government or with military.
Some English are very rich, but in England they lead simple life trying not to show their bank account, especially when like Margaret Thatcher saved money by cutting milk for children in school.
Different air is on Bahamas , Bermuda or even US shore where Britt
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Copyright © 2016 Pravda.Ru