Eh, is this thread still going? And how did it suddenly deviate towards discussion of royalty and dictatorships?
I used to think the type of dictatorship presented by Putin's Russia pre-2022 is ideal because he stands up against the West. You'd have to agree with his point where the West are increasingly bullying countries not affiliated to it. But the problem his oligarchy introduced is the issue where some regions are poorer than the rest, and it's not even comparable to the community of Alice Springs where the local Indigenous people just don't want to live in a developed city. For example, Chechnya could've been a centre for many industrial development but Putin is afraid that making the population rich would make them gain access to weapons easy and start another Chechen rebellion.
There's no perfect government, but the best is one who keeps their promises to voters obviously.
There's also the problem that Putin kills whoever seems to be a threat or disagrees with him, is totally corrupt and has embezzled to the point where he's possibly the richest person in the world and is also a total amoral psychopath.Originally Posted by todawac
Oh shit, Vinnie! I totally fell for it!
The Vatican is by far the richest organism/entity/organisation/state in the world. It has artefacts and riches that money just couldn't buy. Is it corrupt? Fuck yeah and so is every other religion and government around the world.
They've existed since the mediaeval times under different names and orders. Once upon a time they tried bringing all the Central Asian nomadic kingdoms under them by converting all of them to Christianity.
If you really want to live in a place where there's no corruption, go to Atlantis. You'd die either by drowning or be crushed by massive undersea pressure, and get eaten by seafloor critters.
You miss quarreling with yourself, don't you? Go ahead and create a Vincent999 account then. I bet it's a hassle trying to maintain a personality like that.
I miss your gaslighting Vinnie!
Wouldn't surprise me, in esoteric circles it is often said the Roman Catholics created Islam in order to drive out its occupants and take control of Jerusalem. No different from the way the US has seized control of various Middle East, African, and Central/South American countries. Establish a regime, educate, train and put in place a dictator/tyrannical leader/general to fight your battles and drive out the opposition. The problem is that once these dictators, generals get power, money and control they often turn on and bite the hand that feeds them. History repeating itself over and over again.
Religion back in the days were used by monarchies as a way to establish alliances, combined with marrying off their young princesses to an old king who can't even get hard anymore to seal some sort of treaty. Monarchy benefits the male members but not the female members.
The problem with republican democracies though, is that successful politicians are those with early life influence - USyd debate student majoring in political science, lives in Double Bay or the Eastern suburbs and moves out west to "usurp" seats and tell locals that he's a local only because he changed his address on his driver's licence.
Most get into politics for the benefit of landing a bigger role right after serving their terms. Like the John Barilaro scandal where the NSW govt under Gladys removed the woman who was right for the job only to install Mr Barilaro for that New York job. He wasn't even in the shortlist for successful candidates.
It's a defamation case... Bruce is an innocent man according to the law, that's how it works, innocent until proven guilty, and with that fact network 10 and Wilkinson a done and dusted
Theocracy came first and was well before monarchy. No one is born noble, with a title nor do they have blue blood. Theocracy was created to maintain social order and keep the primates in check. At some point the primitives rebelled and demanded a king rule over them and that's how monarchy came about. As for Prince Harry the only blood he's got is beta simp blood.
Then the kings became lazy, horny, jaded, complacent, greedy, useless (refer to the French, Spanish etc monarchies). The primitives complained once again and demanded the elites, the rich, the intelligent and the upper social class rule over them and that's how aristocracy and oligarcchy came about. The whingeing, moaning, and restlessness continued until someone came up with the idea of a revolution to bring in democracy ie let the primitives decide who will govern over them. Recently the ozzie primitives decided Albo was the man to rule over them and what a fucked up decision that was. Can't wait till imperialism kicks in (that'll be a popcorn worthy show) but Cest la Vie.
This is the reason why many historians theorised that civilisation comes to an end once they get too used to peace. Korea barely defended itself from Japanese invasion because they were too scholastic, all the previous Chinese dynasties fell because people would rather be ministers than generals, the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians etc, you name it.
Whoever wrote this is probably just jealous of royalty. There's nothing to be proud of if you're born either as part of the ruling family or the branches that may never sit on the throne for the next generations to come. I've met many royal relatives of remaining Southeast Asian ruling families and they're a mix bag of people like everyone else - some are still rich while the rest are poor even though they have interesting "titles" on their legal names. What matters is what you do for the people who look up to you - like Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn of Thailand. She's the sister to the current King Vajiralongkorn, and you don't see her on the media too many times because the media just isn't interested in a public person's good deeds as it doesn't sell advertisement space like a royal who's been caught in a scandal.
By the way, whoever it is that goes around banning people without valid reasons should also know that the SSL crap on this forum is causing errors in advert display. Maybe that should make someone think about the dwindling ad revenue and the cost of running clickbots that makes the forum traffic really suspicious as the number of visitors are practically the same every single day.
Yes it's a defamation case. Which means Bruce's lawyers have to prove that people knew who the project was talking about even though they didn't name him. If they can do that then it's up to channel 10 to prove it's probable that he did rape her (rather than beyond reasonable doubt as required in a criminal trial). Not unlike the Bruce Roberts-smith case. Look how that went for him. We'll see how this goes I guess.
Vinnie? I'm getting paranoid now!
Brittanys mum is the star of the show...google kelly higgins
See Brittany has fled to her new house in France with her boyfriend and 2.7 million dollars she was in it all along for the money and her two minutes of fame to bad for Bruce his life ruined over it.
How is it possible to defame Bruce Lehmann? Whatever insult you throw at him is a compliment. LOL
I dunno what happened on that night. Nobody does. The only people who know are Brittney and Bruce and they were both probably too drunk to clearly remember anyway.
You would not want to be a politician, actor or anyone famous with money these days. They all get done by historic sex claims.
Posting Permissions
|
|
|
|
Reply With Quote