Sarkozy loses election

Originally posted by rottensociety


That's clever! So what do you make of that? It would be a good way to ensure disharmony at political meetings.

There was a Bolshevik, Rakovsky, who admitted that Communism/the Left and Capitalism/the Right, are both, yes both, funded and directed by the "International" and used as a means of controlling the working classes - like a big pincer movement around the world.

The whole point of both ideologies is to get to a revolution, where a country is in such chaos, the International can step in and take over after the people have done all the hard work. In both cases the people need to be "dumb" enough to allow this to happen.

Communism has been used for countries where the people are poor and uneducated because unfortunately, they are already considered "dumb" enough.

Capitalism has been used for richer countries where the people are educated and prone to 'think'. Firstly, any moral system like Christianity must be removed for Capitalism to fail and the people must be "dumbed-down" with distractions in order to bring them down to the level of "homo stultum" (as Rakovsky said) and therefore "dumb" enough to be led into a revolution. You can see this happening in all the "Occupy" movements that sprang up over Europe and the USA.

Christianity has been beaten down severely by the International but its fighters remain. Could Merkel, a Christian Democrat, be one of them, as she has been fighting against the economic crisis in Europe by trying to keep countries afloat. As I understand, the Polish government promised to do exactly the same just before they all died in a plane crash. So could Merkel be "holding up" the big crash and the subsequent revolutions across Europe?? If so, I'm not surprised that the International have pushed in their Socialists in France - who have already said that they will not accept Merkel's plan.

Also as "Socialists" are all "IngSoc" thesedays, it looks like France is about to get the same amount of privacy invasion and camera survelliance as England. Not good.

Hi rot,
Thanks for taking the time to post some over due logic to the membership.
I for one have seen a alarming shift to the dramatic left across the board internationally.
Sneaky culprits behind the scenes. Most folks working to hard and giving their money through taxes to pay for un supportable people and projects. Most are just not aware. The preps propaganda is pretty effective.
Divide and conquer. The PEOPLE need to unite as the elite will have no quarter for them if they loose their cool.
cheerfully figuring ljb

Originally posted by stanguilles7
reply to post by sonnny1

 

Medvedev didnt lose an election. He didnt run, and Putin, the leader of his own party, took the presidency back.

He was "forced" out.........

Originally posted by sonnny1

Originally posted by stanguilles7
reply to post by sonnny1

 

Medvedev didnt lose an election. He didnt run, and Putin, the leader of his own party, took the presidency back.

He was "forced" out.........

Uh, no. Putin is from the same party. Medieval stepped down. He was nothing more than a place holder for Putin the whole time, anyway. He didnt even run. Therefore he didnt lose.

reply to post by stanguilles7


He was forced out by the guy who placed him there.

That he did or didn't run is of no importance, he's a puppet.

Originally posted by stanguilles7

Originally posted by sonnny1

Originally posted by stanguilles7
reply to post by sonnny1

 

Medvedev didnt lose an election. He didnt run, and Putin, the leader of his own party, took the presidency back.

He was "forced" out.........

Uh, no. Putin is from the same party. Medieval stepped down. He was nothing more than a place holder for Putin the whole time, anyway. He didnt even run. Therefore he didnt lose.

I would call it a personal loss. What could Putin do,that Medvedev COULDN'T do ? He would have won,if he would have ran. My honest opinion?.....He lost,because HE DIDN'T run. Yes,a place holder,that Putin will use as a scapegoat,hence someone that will take the downfall,of failed policy's.

“It is obvious that in the post of prime minister he cannot be more efficient than he was at the post of president,” said Lilia Shevtsova, an analyst at the Carnegie Moscow Centre. She described Medvedev as “political botox” whose aim was to make Putin’s Russia slightly more palatable to the West. “Russia is stagnating. A social and economic crisis cannot be ruled out. Putin may have to make Medvedev a scapegoat,” Shevtsova told AFP.

Medvedev quits Kremlin with a whimper

Originally posted by AGWskeptic
reply to post by stanguilles7

 

He was forced out by the guy who placed him there.

That he did or didn't run is of no importance, he's a puppet.

He was not forced out, because, as you say, he was a puppet.

The post i initially responded to claimed he had lost the election. I merely pointed out he hadnt. To imply that Putin's 'election' means a change of course for Russia, as the person i responded to did, is incorrect.

Originally posted by stanguilles7

Originally posted by AGWskeptic
reply to post by stanguilles7

 

He was forced out by the guy who placed him there.

That he did or didn't run is of no importance, he's a puppet.

He was not forced out, because, as you say, he was a puppet.

The post i initially responded to claimed he had lost the election. I merely pointed out he hadnt. To imply that Putin's 'election' means a change of course for Russia, as the person i responded to did, is incorrect.

Actually,I did post this................

Here's a Pic. Show me WHO has lost an election, or is no longer in Power?



Less we cherypick it to death............

reply to post by sonnny1


Look, I merely pointed out the ONE error you made in your analysis.

One cant lose an election f they dont run.

You implied he lost, and that it means a change of direction for Russia. That is, of course, wrong.

Dont get all butthurt, just acknowledge a mistake and move on.

reply to post by sonnny1


Putin did push him out the proof of that were the beat downs in the streets of Russia.

Originally posted by stanguilles7
reply to post by sonnny1

 

Look, I merely pointed out the ONE error you made in your analysis.

One cant lose an election f they dont run.

You implied he lost, and that it means a change of direction for Russia. That is, of course, wrong.

Dont get all butthurt, just acknowledge a mistake and move on.

Why should I acknowledge a mistake that didn't happen? You need to acknowledge you didnt read the WHOLE sentence.....

Originally posted by sonnny1
reply to post by illuminnaughty

 

Here's a Pic. Show me WHO has lost an election,or is no longer in Power?

Very telling.

I see one left.....................

See that part that says or is no longer in Power?

As you said...........

"Dont get all butthurt, just acknowledge a mistake and move on. "

Originally posted by stanguilles7

Originally posted by AGWskeptic
reply to post by stanguilles7

 

He was forced out by the guy who placed him there.

That he did or didn't run is of no importance, he's a puppet.

He was not forced out, because, as you say, he was a puppet.

The post i initially responded to claimed he had lost the election. I merely pointed out he hadnt. To imply that Putin's 'election' means a change of course for Russia, as the person i responded to did, is incorrect.

Ok, nudged out.

But I get where you're coming from, no problems.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by sonnny1

 

Putin did push him out the proof of that were the beat downs in the streets of Russia.

Putin made him an offer he couldn't refuse.........

reply to post by antonia

Yes I did read quite a bit about the details of the bailouts and where the money went. There were a few really good threads about it here on ATS too.
While the story itself is true, your impression is still a little off though... the profits of those particular arms-deals are nowhere near the sums we paid in total. I wouldn't call this "making money".

reply to post by longjohnbritches


You're right. There's an organisation in England called "Common Purpose" who claim to be a charity organisation yet have been found to be giving training courses for "European leadership". They have infiltrated all the Councils and Constabularies in England and keep the social-workers snowed under with paperwork so they can't do their jobs properly.

The exact same thing is happening in the USA and Europe. They are working for the Communist International but call themselves 'socialists' or 'liberals' to avoid the communist label.