Engleski kutak: Improve your English — Chat II (English only)

[slafko]

sunshinestar kaže:

Kurva/kurwa is not a false friend in Polish and Croatian. They are synonyms. Like in Croatian and Hungarian.
The meaning is whore in all there languages.

But Hungarians use this word more, in different contexts, and Poles even more

Thank you and good night.



P.S. Do try and work a bit on your reading skills. Please.

[sunshinestar]

slafko kaže:

No, it won't.
It's not a question of liking but of being able to use it.


You wish.

You dare to talk like this about Poles to me?

[Woden]

makaranin kaže:

You know, there is a proverb that goes something like, "...people who live in glass houses should not throw stones.". I think it suitable and quite aptly replies to your comments.

You dare to talk like this to me.


You Slavonians are funny people. Any reason behind your proverb (Bible?) or it is your wild uneducated guess?
The level of kakistocracy at this point in time forced on Greek citizens is unprecedented anytime, anywhere in the world.

Back to failed ideologies and the wickedness of human nature seems popular among the retards running the country.


This will never happen to a young Croatian democracy. Ever!

But for the sake of your remembering good old times let us sing a song. Will this one be appropriate for you: America and England will be the land of proletarian……..

[makaranin]

Woden kaže:

(...)

You Slavonians (????) are funny people. Any reason behind your proverb (Bible?) or it is your wild uneducated guess?

(...)

You mention (un)educated. That, by definition, would mean that you are - educated, that is. Following your line of logic would lead one to assume that you had actually benefited from and actually acquired something (from that education). Something like the ability to read, and to (actually) comprehend what you're reading. Was that the case, you would have been able to, quite easily, deduce the point that I was making. You fail, and miserably at that, in all your conclusions.

This will never happen to a young Croatian democracy. Ever!

Ha! You make me laugh. How can a country be a democracy without a House of Review, or a Senate, etc? Simple, it cannot!

[slafko]

Democracy needs to go back to its roots.

[Emericzy]

slafko kaže:

Democracy needs to go back to its roots.

You mean underground?

[slafko]

No, not that deep.

[makaranin]

slafko kaže:

Democracy needs to go back to its roots.

Not quite sure exactly what you mean by this statement. But, as a possible comment allow me to say that I spent most of last year in Croatia. Whilst there I read the papers (Slobodna & Jutarnji), watched the current affairs programs and listened to what most people were saying. One thing that I found particularly surprising (for someone from where a politician MUST win in his electorate to be able to stand), for a "young democracy", was the seemingly arbitrary replacement of Ministers by the Premier. And some of the more important ministries at that! I refer of course to ministers Lorencin (Tourism), Lalovac (Finance), Mornar (Education), and Varga (Health). What surprised me was that they were nominated, and appointed without one person in Croatia voting for them (at least to my knowledge - I do not vote as I do not believe that the Diaspora should have the right to vote until you are actually residing in Croatia, and have resided there continuously for at least two years). Perhaps it is my not fully understanding the sytem, but still...?

[Woden]

makaranin kaže:

You mention (un)educated. That, by definition, would mean that you are - educated, that is. Following your line of logic would lead one to assume that you had actually benefited from and actually acquired something (from that education). Something like the ability to read, and to (actually) comprehend what you're reading. Was that the case, you would have been able to, quite easily, deduce the point that I was making. You fail, and miserably at that, in all your conclusions.



Ha! You make me laugh. How can a country be a democracy without a House of Review, or a Senate, etc? Simple, it cannot!

I misread it for some reason or other but could you explain the point in a simpler terms to me. Like who are the people living in glass houses in particular without using it as allegory.


If you only knew what the Senate reduces to in practice!!!

[Emericzy]

makaranin kaže:

Not quite sure exactly what you mean by this statement. But, as a possible comment allow me to say that I spent most of last year in Croatia. Whilst there I read the papers (Slobodna & Jutarnji), watched the current affairs programs and listened to what most people were saying. One thing that I found particularly surprising (for someone from where a politician MUST win in his electorate to be able to stand), for a "young democracy", was the seemingly arbitrary replacement of Ministers by the Premier. And some of the more important ministries at that! I refer of course to ministers Lorencin (Tourism), Lalovac (Finance), Mornar (Education), and Varga (Health). What surprised me was that they were nominated, and appointed without one person in Croatia voting for them (at least to my knowledge - I do not vote as I do not believe that the Diaspora should have the right to vote until you are actually residing in Croatia, and have resided there continuously for at least two years). Perhaps it is my not fully understanding the sytem, but still...?

Yes, indeed, you do not understand the system fully. (No problem; I have no knowledge to speak of of the Australian political system.)

What we have here is quite common in Europe, however.

In practice, it is the parties, not people, that get elected in parliamentary elections. People, individuals, only get to be elected on the local level. The President too, but he is of little actual consequence; his role is largely ceremonial.

It is thus the party hierarchy that runs the country. Until the next elections.

It appoints the Prime Minister, who is almost always also the party president. The PM gets to appoint (and dismiss) government ministers, i.e. members of his cabinet.

The Parliament and the President get to approve or disapprove of the appointments. When the majority in the Parliament is strong enough, and the President not too ornery, it goes without a hitch and looks as if the PM can do it at his whim. Which is sometimes true, of course.

As I said, many countries in Europe and elsewhere have a similar system. It's neither very much more democratic than the other systems nor very much less. All such systems boil down to the same thing in the end: party rule. If a party stinks, it will be replaced by another. Even though that one may actually stink even worse. Which is currently the case in Croatia.

As the national saying goes, same shit, different packaging.

[makaranin]

Woden kaže:

I misread it for some reason or other but could you explain the point in a simpler terms to me. Like who are the people living in glass houses in particular without using it as allegory.


If you only knew what the Senate reduces to in practice!!!

I would have thought that the answer to that question, given your rhetoric and propensity to "preaching", was rather obvious.

Emericzy kaže:

Yes, indeed, you do not understand the system fully. (No problem; I have no knowledge to speak of of the Australian political system.)

What we have here is quite common in Europe, however.

In practice, it is the parties, not people, that get elected in parliamentary elections. People, individuals, only get to be elected on the local level. The President too, but he is of little actual consequence; his role is largely ceremonial.

It is thus the party hierarchy that runs the country. Until the next elections.

It appoints the Prime Minister, who is almost always also the party president. The PM gets to appoint (and dismiss) government ministers, i.e. members of his cabinet.

The Parliament and the President get to approve or disapprove of the appointments. When the majority in the Parliament is strong enough, and the President not too ornery, it goes without a hitch and looks as if the PM can do it at his whim. Which is sometimes true, of course.

As I said, many countries in Europe and elsewhere have a similar system. It's neither very much more democratic than the other systems nor very much less. All such systems boil down to the same thing in the end: party rule. If a party stinks, it will be replaced by another. Even though that one may actually stink even worse. Which is currently the case in Croatia.

As the national saying goes, same shit, different packaging.

I do not wish to take up too much space here, as perhaps this is not the proper forum to be discussing differences in political ideology.

I had gathered that, what you have so nicely explained, already. But, to "us", a democracy's main strength lies in it's "checks and balances" and responsibility of, and by, it's participants. That is where a house of review and an independent judiciary play a VITAL role. This whole principle is lost and/or missing in Croatia (and in other European governments, as you have indicated), and perhaps this is one of the main causes for the reason why there are "affairs" in just about every segment of life in Croatia. From local government, education, land ownership, investments, jobs and job security, etc. Try comparing the powers of, say, Barack Obama with those of Milanovic. Do you think that Mr. Obama could appoint, say, a Supreme Court judge similarly to how Milanovic appoints a Finance Minister in Croatia? I don't think so. And the reason why not are those "checks and balances". The bit missing in Croatia. With the (all too) predictable outcome.

I do not really see how, given essentially a "one party" state/government, Croatia has progressed from what was there twenty odd years ago. For Croatia to progress I feel that it must develop those "checks and balances". All officials, both government, local, judiciary, etc MUST take responsibility for their actions or, as the case may be, their inaction. I cannot understand how ministers like Varga, Pusic, et al, get caught rorting the system and simply "play dumb". If they, and their ilk, do not have the moral fortitude, honesty, integrity, courage, or the basic decency to resign then the Premier should take on the responsibility to sack them. Until at least something like that happens I can not see "the light at the end of the tunnel" for Croatia.

So, in summary, I must agree with your summation and respond with a colloquial expression, "same dog, different leg action".

[Emericzy]

Well, friend, I never even mentioned judiciary. You didn't, either, in your first post on the issue. You didn't dwell on checkjs and balances either. Had you done so, I would have explained.

Yes, the judiciary is the third leg on which our system of government stands. Same three legs as in any other democratic system. The executive government can't appoint or dismiss people at the top of the judiciary at will. They only get to appoint a small number of top figures -- only the people whose mandates are running out -- and the choice has to be approved by the Parliament. The appointees are thus always a mix of various political outlooks and backgrounds. Again, nothing unususal. Nothing you can't see anywhere else.

You mention the House of Review as if it were a fantastic democratic achievement. It is not. It's just part of a different parliamentary sytem, that's all. Some countries have a two-house parliament, others have a single house. Neither has proved markedly more or markedly less democratic. We used to have two houses initially but the upper house (which you call the house of review) proved to be of no consequence -- about as useful as the British House of Lords. It was soon removed from the system and no one has shed a tear.

I do not really see how, given essentially a "one party" state/government, Croatia has progressed from what was there twenty odd years ago

This is a silly statement. About as silly as your usual statements about Croatian language. You are a very, very irritating person to talk with.

How can a a country be "one party" if the party in power is elected every four years? And if the Parliament members are elected every four years?

In 25 years we have had four sweeping changes of government. Another is in the cards soon, because the people are clearly fed up with the current pricks.

I cannot understand how ministers like Varga, Pusic, et al, get caught rorting the system and simply "play dumb". If they, and their ilk, do not have the moral fortitude, honesty, integrity, courage, or the basic decency to resign then the Premier should take on the responsibility to sack them. Until at least something like that happens I can not see "the light at the end of the tunnel" for Croatia.

What does this have to do with democracy and with checks and balances? You are talking about a stupid government. Please go back to school and bone up on democracy. You have missed something in your education.

Democracy is not a system that ensures smart end intelligent government. No. Unfortunately it isn't. There is no system that does that. Demoicracy is a system that ensures that the government can be changed if the people dislike it. And that's exactly what we have. When we were displeased with HDZ we elected a government from the ranks of the opposition. It wasn't very good so we elected another HDZ-led government. That one was even worse, so we elected an SDP-led opposition. That one doesn't work. Looks like we'll be replacing them very soon. That's democracy.

We are certainly not the only country with a series of stupid governments. Italy has never had a good executive government. Yet, you can't call their system undemocratic. It simply isn't. France has not had a good government in a long while. Belgium did not even have a government for almost two years because of political brawling not so long ago.

I would really, really, really appreciate it if you stopped writing about Croatia. Let's face it, you are just not up to it.

[sunshinestar]

slafko kaže:

No, not that deep.

To Greece?
Or UK?
Or USA?

[Woden]

sunshinestar kaže:

To Greece?
Or UK?
Or USA?

No one knows. Not even the OP.

[Woden]

makaranin kaže:

I do not wish to take up too much space here, as perhaps this is not the proper forum to be discussing differences in political ideology.

The direct quote that Nica wrote in her post opening this sequel to an earlier IYE forum:

The thread is a mishmash of a sort - here we contemplate about Language, the Universe and Everything.

So this is a thread for anything that you claim to possess the knowledge of, given that you can express yourself sufficiently in English.

So bring it on.


My question for you is what is the difference between the political system of Croatia before and after the National Liberation War of 1991?

[slafko]

OP does know. It's just he isn't interested in having a conversation with you two stooges, nhf.

[Emericzy]

slafko kaže:

OP does know. It's just he isn't interested in having a conversation with you two stooges, nhf.

He isn't interested in having a conversation, period. He's into preaching.

[slafko]

Trolling from a distance? Not in the slightest, my dear Jenkins.

[Woden]

Emericzy kaže:

I would really, really, really appreciate it if you stopped writing about Croatia. Let's face it, you are just not up to it.

No Emericzy, you are going to scare him off.

As he mentioned he already has been in Croatia for a year or so and he is interested in politics.

So he is entitled to say his opinion whatever it may be. This is a democratic forum and everyone is invited.


And what's more he might return to Croatia, from the foreign countries he used to work in, for good and bring his money and experience thus helping ailing Croatian economy.


He might even open some business and employ people willing to work.



The Guardian Quote:

After six years of recession, unemployment is running at 19% in the ex-Yugoslav republic of 4.4 million people, which joined the EU last July. High taxes and poor administration hamper business and the economy is not expected to grow in 2015.

You see what I mean.

[Emericzy]

Woden kaže:

So he is entitled to say his opinion whatever it may be. This is a democratic forum and everyone is invited.

Sure. He's entitled. And I'm entitled to say what I think about it.