egafd.com

Be-Seen-Here wrote:
> why would a "millionaire" like Cameron want to be
> Prime Minister for a measly 120K when he has earn't and could
> earn far more in the private sector ?
I can't beieve you're naive enough to ask that question.
POWER.
And then, look at how much ex-PM Blur is raking in......


> This inverse snobbery that we see being spouted here, about how
> someone from Eton should not be PM
Isn't what you perceive as 'inverted snobbery' merely a rational
reaction on the part of the mass of the ruled to the disconnect
between them and their [poorly-mandated] rulers?
Wouldn't it be, just for once, to have a PM who ISN'T from the
ruling-class or its fringes? Just for a laugh, and to see if there
really is a democracy here?
Oh, my sides are splitting.. what a silly notion. Oh, dearie me.
Sorry.


> They could have such an easier and more comfortable life in the
> private sector. Rather than your Labour comrades who really do
> have a financial incentive but are oh so good at pretending
> it's for the greater good....."the greater good"
Yes; let's have more greedy people in parliament. For the 'greater
good', of course....
'Greed is good'- whether it's for power [or money], or money [or
power].
What a world you plan to create. Prospero would be thrilled.

Power is an end in itself.
It means, at its base, the ability to act without external constraint;
the freedom to choose to be good or to be evil; to confer or deny
benefits to others on a whim, without responsibility to anything or
anyone else.

A heady brew- which is why it's so infernally dangerous.

It's vanity isn't it ? To be remembered, to make history. If he'd continued to do what he did there was no prospect of that happening.

Be-Seen-Here wrote:
> Ok well that's just a ridiculous subjective comment

No; it's fact.