← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Sam Reeves
Thread ID: 18677 | Posts: 4 | Started: 2005-06-15
2005-06-15 21:21 | User Profile
Lately I have been doing some reading on Putin. While he has some short comings I have grown to admire him. I tried to determine how he would rank in terms of being a effective leader in world politics. I figure he is in aleast the top 80%. It occured to me that Bush and Blair are obviously amoung the worst since they seem to cater to everybody else rather then doing what is the best for their own nation. Would this mean that Mexico's Fox and Israel Sharon would be amoung the best polical leaders since they are able to muscle the heavy wieghts into doing their bidding?
2005-06-15 21:37 | User Profile
Sam,
I like Putin too. I'd say yes to your question, save that I don't consider Russia to be a third world nation. I comsider them to be part of the West.
2005-06-15 22:19 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]Sam,
I like Putin too. I'd say yes to your question, save that I don't consider Russia to be a third world nation. I comsider them to be part of the West.[/QUOTE] No, I wouldn't consider Russia a third world nation. I would consider them one of the heavy weights, just not one that is easily pushed around by the same TWN that we are.
2005-06-16 12:08 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sam Reeves]It occured to me that Bush and Blair are obviously amoung the worst since they seem to cater to everybody else rather then doing what is the best for their own nation.[/QUOTE]
Bush & Co. are the worst (and Blair a close 2nd) because they roam the world spouting "freedom" and "democracy", supporting bogus "color revolutions", and viciously attack and destroy nations to force "regime change" while telling their own respective nations that we do this because "we're protecting our freedom" and telling the victims "democracy" is good for them!! Meanwhile Bush & Blair work to take away freedom within their own nations. They're hypocrites of the highest and most disgusting nature.
Vladimir Putin and others like him, typically make no illusions about attaining some "freest nation in the world" status nor does he or other world leaders say that their exclusive form of democracy should be the model for the rest of the world.
I was debating on another board about Mass Media. I theorized that State-owned and operated mass media was better than the American "free press" because a state-owned and operated mass media will always be held in suspicion by it's people and never trusted while here in the US, the political leaders tell us day in and day out that we "free" because we have a "free press" yet the American media is the farthest thing from free, catering to advertisers and government propaganda while it daily reminds Americans they are the "best" the "freest" and the "stongest". Americans are completely subservient to the mass media.
Who's more free?