Well, that about sums it up. You can be my intern, when should I be expecting you?

Women Presidents, well that one the UK had was pretty famous. Then again the one in India got assasinated. But I dont think she was ever really in control. More like a puppet.

I wouldnt mind having a female PM here.
You know, I dont think we are ever going to be happy with who ever is actaully in the presidentry at the time. Only afterwards when someone we hate even more comes along will we say, oh that Mrs Rice was Nice.

arctic, dude:
i had no idea what ur post meant.

To the best of my knowledge, most of the UK (if not all) is governed under the Commonwealth Law.
Thus, just like us here in Australia, a countrys Head of State is the Queen, where she in turn delegates the duty of Royal Representive to a member of parliment. We call this person the Prime Minister.

I took the liberty to google 'United Kingdom Presidents' and came up with zilch.

So i have no idea what 'female UK president' of urs was 'pretty famous'.

Also, india, having been governed by british rule for nearly a century, still falls under the Commonwealth (despite their independence).
So it is impossible for India to 'have a president'.
'The mystery female indian president' u speak of, is Indira Gandhi .
And u call her a puppet?!?

She was brutally assassinated by her own bodyguards, men bought off to beat a woman because they new that she led a revolution.
Think of a country like india, third-world and famine riddled, and amidst all the corruption, a WOMAN was the one to stand up and fight for equality.

Australia is a shithouse government-wise.
Our Prime Minister, John loves-the-cock Howard is the real puppet.
Bush uses him as his boy toy and he cant even grow the gonads to stand up to the CEO of Telstra. After record high profits exceeding $4billion, jonny boy still intends to give telstra TAXPAYERS money to start a project in the bush.

I know this may sound like a rant, and upon careful reading some might argue it IS a rant.
But mate, theres one thing we should all have realised by now:
On UGN Security, give credit where the credit is due.

Not president of the UK, Prime minister, her name was Margaret Thatcher. Prime minister, president, all the same shit. The executive branch.

I'll clear up my last post for endgame and others.

What I was referring to when I said President instead of Prime minister was just that role as being the winner of an election that the people voted for. We don’t vote for the head of state. That is for the commonwealth, hereditary and so we do not vote for the women that may take up the throne.
The thread is about a female president being elected and I extended that to countries that don’t have Presidents but are still capable of electing a female leader.
Note: I know that England has had no President.

About Ghandi, well being an Indian and having gone to the country 3 times already, I can tell you that if the country still disputes whether or not she had control then for me it doesn’t matter what the west has accepted.
She was assassinated by the Sikhs in her guard because she blew up the Golden Temple (the Vatican of the Sikh faith) which she blamed on her military acting without full authority.
Mahatma Gandhi was a man and came before Indira to fight for equity between not only the people of Britain and Hindustan but also within the Country itself. Most Indians believe he got India its Independence and Indira hardly continued a revolution as effectively. I’m not saying that was because she was a woman, I’m just hoping to clear up any misconceptions that she was as great as you think she was in her “rising” out before others to fight inequity, and the real reason she was assassinated.
I hope you don’t always take what you find on google to be the bible of knowledge.

Disclaimer: I know this sounds like a flame/rant but its not meant to be.

further google reading for Indira

sintax:
Prime Minister still answers to the queen and can be charged for criminal acts.
President only answers to the people (ha, once in four years :p ) and he cannot be charged due to the fact as he is seen as an Institution, not a person.

Artic:
political conflict and disputes is my graduate minor.
no, google is not my bible, but rather the British Journal of Political Science, the Cambridge Journal PS1987 and a large amount of information from the World Political Journal - John Hopkins has been my guide through a year and a half of study.

i appreciate the fact that u are indian and have visited the richness of ur motherland, but please do not be so deluded in thinking that just because u were at the scene of the crime, you know who the murderer is (if ul pardon the metaphor).

i advise you read up on the journals rather than take what you find online (or on your travels) to be the bible of ur knowledge.

cheers

p.s
i have the article proving that her military INDEED, did not act on her authority whatsoever. It was written and drawn up by her successor and qualified by the head of the armed forces.
PM me if u require such proof as i will have to scan it and email it to u

Actually in the States we can impeach his ass. We tried to do it to Clinton for get caught while having his dick sucked...

icey, yea u can put him on trial.
but if found guilty, he can only serve his term after the presedential reign.

I dont understand why you want to prove to me something I already knew. Like I said she was to an extend a puppet "i have the article proving that her military INDEED, did not act on her authority whatsoever". I said that "which she blamed on her military acting without full authority".

In any case, they know it was the guards that killed her and I didnt have to go to the scence of the crime to find that out. But I know it was because of what she did to the Golden Temple and not "men bought off to beat a woman because they new that she led a revolution". I found that out from my mum, not online.

And I dont call India my motherland, my parents could but they dont either... I should have mentioned that I was born here.
However we are getting of the topic now.

if u acknowledge she said that the military wasnt acting on full authority and i HAVE PROOF they werent acting on full authority (in fact, on no authority whatsoever)...
then wouldnt that mean it wasnt her fault the building got bombed?!

so ur great source of enlightenment is your MOTHER!?!
wtf?!
professors studying the political conditions in the east, lecturers holding seminars on british rule and the aftermath and a journal that has been around since 1948 is all dismissed cos ur mother told u something on the contrary?!?



erm, yea..
u sure showed me.

It was her fault, what is the point of having a Prime minister if they carnt even control her own fucking military. She should have just declared another state of emergency. At least this time it would have been legit and not just a ploy to stay in power. Thats why she was assassinated (im not saying that I support it) and I know this. Even if it was a mum, Im sure some of your lecturers are dads or mums too fucktart.
Im just saying if she wasnt in control then someone else was, therefore making her to an extent a puppet or figure head. Its funny how you continue to ignore that part of this tangent debate.
Where the fuck did you get your "minor in political confilicts", a cereal box?
Its your loss if you have found no source of enlightment from your mother, perhaps thats why your an egomaniac. Or perhaps that is you enlightenment.

now, now artic...
lets not get as low as to start name calling.
the difference between those lecturers and ur mother, however is the fact that theyre actually qualified in their field of study.
u going to start telling me ur mothers a historian now?
and yes, SHE wasnt in control of the army.
(thats why it was a called a revolution, ie: The overthrow of one government and its replacement with another.)

i also dnt think u understand the word puppet.
a puppet is actually CONTROLLED by someone else.
she refused to be controlled (hence the assasination) thus she wasnt a puppet.

also id appreciate it if u dimmed down the foul filth that somehow manages to escape the chasm u call a brain.
u continuously harp about puppets when there were no puppets! if she was a puppet there wouldnt be a need to kill her!

:shakes head:
egomaniac am i?
hmm, that explains why I am the one reduced to swearing when people discover my point of view is tripe huh?
(that was a rhetorical, sarcastic question u dumbass)

cheers.

p.s: watch sesame street and learn what a puppet is dipshit.

now now children calm down before something happens to this thread :p

So now she was assasinated because she was refusing to be a puppet. lol. Where do you get off at changing history at your own will.
Get it through that head of yours that it was becacuse her failure to control her military.
I never said she was a complete puppet, if she was then it would have been obvious and like I said the people were disputing that well they wouldnt be if that was the case.
I find it hard to believe that your actaully passing your course because much of the way your basing your defence is in complete disregard for politics. In complete sarcasm.
You need to learn how to take your own medicine endgame before you head explodes.

*eXplode* too late.

Yeah ok. Im going to leave this thread now.

Take the tone of the company you are in.