2 definitions by Wite
The appropriate response to someone who has droned on and on about a subject. Most appropriate when the beginning of the speech sounds as if perhaps a question will arise, or there will be a reason to continue the conversation, only to return to basically being one large statement with no point. Often associated with politacs.
Person 1: "Everyone's just having a little laugh with Castro but this is not a laughing matter, politically or otherwise.
Consider this, the next in line is the First Vice President Raul Castro, who 'might' be interested in free-market reform (which some consider a 'good' thing) but would also keep in firm place the Communist Party of Cuba. So in a sense, you're not really destroying anything, you're just replacing.
Notice how Cuba was not exactly democratic prior to Fidel Castro taking over, with a fascist dictator named Fulgencio Batista (officially representing the PAU or Partido Acción Unitaria United Action Party) ruling over the nation. The difference? Well, of course, Batista was more friendly to the United States (specifically American corporations).
This has been proved all during the Cold War that the United States government and corporations preferred mostly far-right governments (or just about anyone else for that matter) who are friendly to them (to be exploited). Otherwise, they also prefer anyone to assume power of a nation as long as they weren't Communist or even remotely left.
Both Iran and Iraq are examples of this latter treatment, where both nations could have come under a Communist government or a multi-party government that did include communists. But instead, as we know from history now, Iraq got an Arab Nationalist party (with hatred towards Jews, Kurds, and Persians) and Iran got transformed into a theocratic nation ruled by the ulema (religious cleric) rather than the ummah (members of the religious community).
Person 2: Cuba.
Consider this, the next in line is the First Vice President Raul Castro, who 'might' be interested in free-market reform (which some consider a 'good' thing) but would also keep in firm place the Communist Party of Cuba. So in a sense, you're not really destroying anything, you're just replacing.
Notice how Cuba was not exactly democratic prior to Fidel Castro taking over, with a fascist dictator named Fulgencio Batista (officially representing the PAU or Partido Acción Unitaria United Action Party) ruling over the nation. The difference? Well, of course, Batista was more friendly to the United States (specifically American corporations).
This has been proved all during the Cold War that the United States government and corporations preferred mostly far-right governments (or just about anyone else for that matter) who are friendly to them (to be exploited). Otherwise, they also prefer anyone to assume power of a nation as long as they weren't Communist or even remotely left.
Both Iran and Iraq are examples of this latter treatment, where both nations could have come under a Communist government or a multi-party government that did include communists. But instead, as we know from history now, Iraq got an Arab Nationalist party (with hatred towards Jews, Kurds, and Persians) and Iran got transformed into a theocratic nation ruled by the ulema (religious cleric) rather than the ummah (members of the religious community).
Person 2: Cuba.
by Wite August 11, 2006
Excessive commentary on politics so obscure or uninteresting that there is a stunned silence when it is brought up. Hot politacs issues include Cuba, Australia, and Libya.
Related terms: politacal, politacian, politacal, politacally correct.
Related terms: politacal, politacian, politacal, politacally correct.
Person A: God, this is the third time he's talked this long about potential Turkish military tactics against Norway this week.
Person B: Ya rly, he's been obsessed with politacs lately.
Person B: Ya rly, he's been obsessed with politacs lately.
by Wite August 11, 2006