Churchill said it best.....

[Bubblehead1980]

In War: Resolution.

In Defeat: Defiance.

In Victory: Magnanimity.

In Peace: Goodwill.

America sure could use him now:salute:

[Tribesman]

America sure could use him now
What use is a drunken arse to America?
Churchill, the man who came to power after another one of his many balls ups brought down the government.

[CaptainHaplo]

Bubblehead - the only problem is even Churchill would likely struggle to figure out whether we are at peace - or nearing war - with our own government....

[Torvald Von Mansee]

In War: Resolution.

In Defeat: Defiance.

In Victory: Magnanimity.

In Peace: Goodwill.

America sure could use him now:salute:

Too bad America won.

[Onkel Neal]

In War: Resolution.

In Defeat: Defiance.

In Victory: Magnanimity.

In Peace: Goodwill.

America sure could use him now:salute:

:sign_yeah: We could all use a little more Churchill.

[Oberon]

"Toilet paper too thin, newspapers too fat."

[SteamWake]

Heres a few noteworthy quotes.


Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.




Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.



Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a loud voice at one end and no responsibility at the other.



No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!



We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.




We should measure welfare's success by how many people leave welfare, not by how many are added.

[Tribesman]

a noteworthy quote from at the height of his acvhievments
Originally posted by Ronald Reagan
Look, I might as well tell you now. He's a monkey.

[SteamWake]

Facts are stubborn things.

I have left orders to be awakened at any time in case of national emergency, even if I'm in a cabinet meeting.

I never drink coffee at lunch. I find it keeps me awake for the afternoon.

Before I refuse to take your questions, I have an opening statement.

Cant say he dident have a sense of humor.

Many thanks to Heritage Foundation for keeping these quotes. :cool:

[Oberon]

I have wondered at times what the Ten Commandments would have looked like if Moses had run them through the US Congress.

It doesn't do good to open doors for someone who doesn't have the price to get in. If he has the price, he may not need the laws. There is no law saying the Negro has to live in Harlem or Watts.

It's difficult to believe that people are still starving in this country because food isn't available.

Protecting the rights of even the least individual among us is basically the only excuse the government has for even existing.


There are no easy answers' but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.


Welfare's purpose should be to eliminate, as far as possible, the need for its own existence.

Ronnie Reagan is probably my favourite US President, his sense of humour and his way of putting words made him stand out, and I know he would have frowned upon the direction that the US government is taking right now, he would certainly frown upon further government involvement within the free market, I do myself, but I don't quite understand the big deal about the Health Care Bill, aside from the desperate measures the government seems to have been considering to get it through, perhaps this is because I come from a nation where free health care is a right, not a privilege or perhaps it is because I do not have a full grasp of how the US system runs. If anyone wishes to enlighten me with calm and level headed facts without dragging this thread into a flame war, then I would be grateful.

[Sailor Steve]

Facts are stubborn things.

Actually that was originally said by John Adams.
http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/3235.html

perhaps this is because I come from a nation where free health care is a right, not a privilege
That's really the crux of the problem. America was founded on the idea that all individuals are free to choose their own destiny, without interference from anyone else, especially the government. It's true that people should never be allowed to starve, or to go without health care; but it's also true that nothing is ever free. If someone recieves "free" health care, someone else has to pay for it. While it's a good idea on the face of it, I don't see it as truly being a "right". I have the right to do what I want, not to make other people do what I want. I'm not actually arguing that point so much as stating it, because I see the need and the correctness of both sides of the issue, just as I do for most.

The problem is that the more power is given to the government to accomplish things, the less America becomes America. Is that a good thing? I don't think so, but that's my opinion.

[SteamWake]

Ronnie Reagan is probably my favourite US President, his sense of humour and his way of putting words made him stand out, and I know he would have frowned upon the direction that the US government is taking right now, he would certainly frown upon further government involvement within the free market, I do myself, but I don't quite understand the big deal about the Health Care Bill, aside from the desperate measures the government seems to have been considering to get it through, perhaps this is because I come from a nation where free health care is a right, not a privilege or perhaps it is because I do not have a full grasp of how the US system runs. If anyone wishes to enlighten me with calm and level headed facts without dragging this thread into a flame war, then I would be grateful.

It's not all about health care. It is an object of greater control. Thats the biggest gripe.

[Skybird]

I admit there are some nice bon mots.

[Sailor Steve]

"Any government big enough to give you anything you want is big enough to take away everything you have."
-Gerald R. Ford

[frau kaleun]

If this is tea, please bring me some coffee. If this is coffee, please bring me some tea. - Abraham Lincoln

[Torvald Von Mansee]

If this is tea, please bring me some coffee. If this is coffee, please bring me some tea. - Abraham Lincoln

"If I was two faced, do you really think I'm be wearing this one?" - Abraham Lincoln (I paraphrase)

[Oberon]

Actually that was originally said by John Adams.
http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/3235.html


That's really the crux of the problem. America was founded on the idea that all individuals are free to choose their own destiny, without interference from anyone else, especially the government. It's true that people should never be allowed to starve, or to go without health care; but it's also true that nothing is ever free. If someone recieves "free" health care, someone else has to pay for it. While it's a good idea on the face of it, I don't see it as truly being a "right". I have the right to do what I want, not to make other people do what I want. I'm not actually arguing that point so much as stating it, because I see the need and the correctness of both sides of the issue, just as I do for most.

The problem is that the more power is given to the government to accomplish things, the less America becomes America. Is that a good thing? I don't think so, but that's my opinion.

Understandable, and I see where you're coming from, certainly our NHS has eaten large portions of the British budget over the years, however I would suspect that there would be as great a protest here if the NHS was turned from free to paying as there is in America at this time, if not more so.
I think it is something that I, and most people in Europe, will not be able to grasp easily because we do not have the same history or spirit that America does, we do not see eye to eye on a great many things, and yet we do on others, that is how things are, how they always will be.
Either which way, I do find it concerning the measures which are being used to get this bill through Congress, however the US government is not alone in this kind of endeavor, the British government is forever ramming things through through one technicality or another, but no matter who is voted in, they'll be just as bad as the last one. It might sound defeatist but when Tony Blair ousted the Tories in 1997 many people hoped for real change, it was the promise of a new era, I recall the word 'Cool Britannia' being thrown around, but at the end of the day, not a great deal changed, about the only positive thing to come out of the Blair years was the minimum wage. The Conservatives will be in next (most likely) and they'll cut a load of things which will probably make the rich richer and the poor poorer, and the great circle begins again. :damn:

[jumpy]

Tony Blair ousted the Tories in 1997 many people hoped for real change, it was the promise of a new era, I recall the word 'Cool Britannia' being thrown around,

That was a sickening display was it not? Nulabour never had any class anyway.
!! two horse race is still flogging two dead horses !!

The thing with the NHS is that it isn't 'free', well it is at the point of access, but we pay for it in taxation. Everyone contributes a little bit, so when they need treatment, then it's there. (I know u know this Oberon ;) )
I wonder how many people who feel that 'paying for someone else's medical care is wrong' are happy to give money to charity to feed starving africans, or displaced people who have experienced some natural disaster or whatever?
I don't really see the difference - surely given the choice of the latter, then the argument against the former is moot as it amounts to the same thing - giving your money to help someone else.

[Bubblehead1980]

Actually that was originally said by John Adams.
http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/3235.html


That's really the crux of the problem. America was founded on the idea that all individuals are free to choose their own destiny, without interference from anyone else, especially the government. It's true that people should never be allowed to starve, or to go without health care; but it's also true that nothing is ever free. If someone recieves "free" health care, someone else has to pay for it. While it's a good idea on the face of it, I don't see it as truly being a "right". I have the right to do what I want, not to make other people do what I want. I'm not actually arguing that point so much as stating it, because I see the need and the correctness of both sides of the issue, just as I do for most.

The problem is that the more power is given to the government to accomplish things, the less America becomes America. Is that a good thing? I don't think so, but that's my opinion.



well said sailor steve, my sentiments exactly:salute:


The major problem in America is we have generations who depend on social welfare programs to get by instead of picking themselves up and doing something with their lives, the productive citizens like myself end up footing the bill, which is not how America is supposed to be.Not sure how it is in other countries and this sounds harsh but MOST people that are poor in America are so because of a series of bad choices throughout life.People who breed and thus have children they are not equipped to raise financially or mentally , this usually brings about more idiots who repeat the cycle and since we have all the entitlements they just take advantage of it, sucking on the federal teet.

[Tribesman]

That's really the crux of the problem. America was founded on the idea that all individuals are free to choose their own destiny, without interference from anyone else, especially the government.
And that lasted only a very few years before they woke up to reality and realised that they had to start the nations first public health service.

[SteamWake]

And that lasted only a very few years before they woke up to reality and realised that they had to start the nations first public health service.

Wow wait what? Are you speaking of those stellar examples of Medicare and Medicaid?

Did you know that Walgreens recently announced that they will no longer accept Medicare patients? Other pharmacys will probably follow suit. Espically now that those funds are destined for the health control...sorry health care.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2011367936_walgreens18m.html

[Tribesman]

Wow wait what? Are you speaking of those stellar examples of Medicare and Medicaid?

Not unless they were founded within a couple of years of the constitution being written.

[Bubblehead1980]

What use is a drunken arse to America?
Churchill, the man who came to power after another one of his many balls ups brought down the government.


Not an arse, sure he liked his booze, so what, still the best Brit leader .Funny thing is he was defeated after the war then elected again in the 50's You guys were lucky to have had him, he had guts, America could use him now.

[Bubblehead1980]

Bubblehead - the only problem is even Churchill would likely struggle to figure out whether we are at peace - or nearing war - with our own government....


Easy to see we are nearing war...not armed uprising or anything, but a war indeed for the future of the US from Obamunism and othe progressive dangers.

Churchill had a brain AND guts and saved the Brits, America could use him now because he would get the RIGHT things done and save this country.Hell Brits could use him again, maybe tackle the nasty muslim problem you guys have:damn:

[Tribesman]

Not an arse, sure he liked his booze, so what, still the best Brit leader
Can you name a few other Brit leaders and their achievements and failings as a measure?
But perhaps given this....
You guys were lucky to have had him...it might suggest that your knowledge of politics and history match your knowledge of geography

Hell Brits could use him again, maybe tackle the nasty muslim problem you guys have
You have been reading too many posts by Skybird.

[Raptor1]

I fail to see what was wrong with Churchill's leadership, apart from his sometimes poor ideas for grand strategy. Surely it can't be worse than Chamberlain's, whose appeasement policy miserably failed at preventing the war, right?

[Bubblehead1980]

Can you name a few other Brit leaders and their achievements and failings as a measure?
But perhaps given this....
...it might suggest that your knowledge of politics and history match your knowledge of geography


You have been reading too many posts by Skybird.

Oh tribesman, my knowledge of politics and history is pretty broad I assure you, although I know more about US then the UK, I know quite a bit .So hmm other Brit leaders....Atlee, Thatcher, Blair, Brown, Chamberlain, Macmillian, Eden, Walpole etc etc They are the ones I know off the top of my head. Walpole was the first and not regarded well from what I've read.Churchill lead Brits during the war and took the fight to Hitler because Chamberlain was a scumbag appeaser,.Atlee implemented the NHS etc .Eden was PM during Suez Crisis, did not do too well.This should suffice for now.I know geography fairly well also, not sure why you question that.I have not read too many posts by skybird.I have talked to Brits in person and read countless reports about the muslim problem in UK.

Back my original post though, I know Churchill was a Brit leader obviously but having studied him for a long time and authored several papers about him when I was in college, I know a lot about the man.I was simply saying the US could use him or someone like him right now.A leader with the correct ideas and the balls to push them, not the jackass we have right now who seems intent on running this nation into the ground via debt and other policies.

[Sailor Steve]

And that lasted only a very few years before they woke up to reality and realised that they had to start the nations first public health service.
Rather than throwing out quips, would you care to elaborate?

[Sailor Steve]

...we do not have the same history or spirit that America does, we do not see eye to eye on a great many things, and yet we do on others, that is how things are, how they always will be.
Three years ago I was involved in a discussion that led to the War of 1812, and the idea of "who won". The United States tried to capture Canada, and failed miserably. Not really relevant, but what I said then I think ties in:
Anyway, who won the war depends on what goals you set. The Americans thought the Canadians would welcome the chance to throw off the "chains of bondage" and be free, but of course Canada had not had the same experience as their southern cousins; the American Revolution came out of attempts by the mother country to force the colonists to help pay for the Seven Years' (French and Indian) War, whereas Canada had been aquired by Britain during that same war. Canadians were very happy to be British, and had no desire to become American.

[Tribesman]

Rather than throwing out quips, would you care to elaborate?
What was the first government funded health service which came about a decade after independance and was deemed neccesary for the good of the nations finances and business interests.
Three years ago I was involved in a discussion that led to the War of 1812, and the idea of "who won".
My favourite war:up: It fits in nicely as it involves the same business interests which saw the benefits of government funded healthcare.

[Sailor Steve]

What was the first government funded health service which came about a decade after independance and was deemed neccesary for the good of the nations finances and business interests.

My favourite war:up: It fits in nicely as it involves the same business interests which saw the benefits of government funded healthcare.
For all my resources I'm not finding what you mean. Reference please?:sunny:

[Oberon]

Three years ago I was involved in a discussion that led to the War of 1812, and the idea of "who won". The United States tried to capture Canada, and failed miserably. Not really relevant, but what I said then I think ties in:

That, I think, sums it up quite nicely and underlines the very strong American belief of 'Freedom' and 'Liberty' having grown up and out from an oppressive force to become a nation. Obviously, there are other factors as well, I think having rather passive neighbours for the past hundred years or so has also helped the American culture grow as well as perhaps polarise America and Europe where we've spent the past couple of centuries fine tuning new and exciting ways to kill each other. :hmmm: Britain has been lucky in a sense that we have not been the subject of an invasion since the last visits from Dowly and friends although we have had a few try, and as such, we do not know that feeling of subjugation and of state control, on the contrary, we've usually been the ones dishing it out, well, up until relatively recently anyway.
American culture fascinates me because it is all so new, America is a very young nation and it's perhaps like a slice of our own history in a modern setting.

[Tribesman]

For all my resources I'm not finding what you mean. Reference please?
!798, 5th congress.
Take a look at the name you use here

[Sailor Steve]

Ah, the Act for Disabled Seamen. Thank you. I wasn't aware of that particular one.

Of course it could be argued that that was the begining of the Veterans Administration, and the VA has been used as an example of why we should not have government-run healthcare. It has also been argued that veterans deserve such benefits because of their service. I don't take either side on that one, since I'm in the middle of it. On the other hand here in Utah we have a pretty good VA system.

I'm also up in the air on the current arguments. My own belief is that the American federal government was originally created just to deal with foreign policy, and I like the idea of social programs being run at a lower level, where abuses can be addressed more easily. I like the idea of keeping the federal government as small and powerless as possible. Of course that's a losing battle all around, but one must try.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground."
-Thomas Jefferson

[Jimbuna]

Not an arse, sure he liked his booze, so what, still the best Brit leader .Funny thing is he was defeated after the war then elected again in the 50's You guys were lucky to have had him, he had guts, America could use him now.

Easy to see we are nearing war...not armed uprising or anything, but a war indeed for the future of the US from Obamunism and othe progressive dangers.

Churchill had a brain AND guts and saved the Brits, America could use him now because he would get the RIGHT things done and save this country.Hell Brits could use him again, maybe tackle the nasty muslim problem you guys have:damn:

I fail to see what was wrong with Churchill's leadership, apart from his sometimes poor ideas for grand strategy. Surely it can't be worse than Chamberlain's, whose appeasement policy miserably failed at preventing the war, right?

Good points guys http://www.psionguild.org/forums/images/smilies/wolfsmilies/thumbsup.gif

[Ducimus]

Cracked.com ( i love this site).

The 5 Most Widely Believed WWII Facts (That Are Bull****) (http://www.cracked.com/article_18389_6-bullsh*t-myths-about-world-war-ii.html)

Churchhill ranks number 4. Satire site though it may be, they do cite references. :O:

[Bubblehead1980]

duci, you and usually agree but if you believe most of what this site says, then I am shocked.The site tended to downplay America's role in the war against Hitler.True I think it's a bad myth that some believe we won the war all by ourselves but that site downplays the huge role American played in Europe and does not even mention the the Pacific.You know the history.

Site is also rather wrong about Churchill, if he was so bad, why was he elected again in the 50's? I honestly think we should have turned against stalin after WW II was over before he had the bomb and couldve prob avoided two proxy wars with the soviets(korea and vietnam) and saved millions of people from living under decades of soviet rule.Sacrificed more then for a better future.However, it did not happen and thinks worked out well anyway because Ronald Reagan helped bring down the Soviet Union.Churchill did not have a bloodlust, he just wanted to rid the world of the virus called communisim.

I am pretty sure Churchill did not call the Labour party leaders Gestapo but he said they may have to use methods like the Gestapo to enforce their views and programs.Could not have been too wrong, he was elected again in next election.Brits figured out the Lefty promises of gumdrop rain showers in the new British utopia are just not possible.All these years later I hear from every Brit I meet and have met(quite a few in my area believe it or not) the NHS sucks outloud.Looks like Winston was correct. You did say it was satire but guess i am missing the satire on this one.

With some reforms, India etc would have been better off to stay part of the Empire.Look at India etc today, not exactly places you want to stay.

[AngusJS]

If someone recieves "free" health care, someone else has to pay for it. While it's a good idea on the face of it, I don't see it as truly being a "right". I have the right to do what I want, not to make other people do what I want.Do you have the right to be tried by a jury of your peers? Who would be paying for that?

[AngusJS]

Site is also rather wrong about Churchill, if he was so bad, why was he elected again in the 50's? I honestly think we should have turned against stalin after WW II was over before he had the bomb and couldve prob avoided two proxy wars with the soviets(korea and vietnam) and saved millions of people from living under decades of soviet rule....by killing millions in Western Europe in 45, which btw would soon be under Soviet control, as they would have beaten us hands down.

[Onkel Neal]

Churchill was awesome. He was half-American, you know. Just think how great he would have been if he had been a full-blooded Yank! :O:

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Churchill was awesome. He was half-American, you know. Just think how great he would have been if he had been a full-blooded Yank! :O:

He would have been...what?? Cherokee? Sioux?

[Raptor1]

It doesn't really say anything about Churchill's wartime leadership, does it?

As I stated before, Churchill had some pretty aweful ideas when it came to grand strategy and Unthinkable was one of them. I've argued before, somewhere, that an Allied attack on Russia in 1945 was doomed to fail horribly. The Russians had more men, tanks, guns, planes; better equipment, especially tanks which far outclassed the Allies' and more experienced troops which fought the Germans for years.

Other than that, it's main point is that the Indians didn't like him, and that's rather moot considering they probably didn't like any of their other colonial rulers much more either.

[Tribesman]

As I stated before, Churchill had some pretty aweful ideas when it came to grand strategy
Yes, Churchill was famous for having lots and lots of ideas on how to win the war, the military and war cabinet had great difficulty getting some of the craziest ideas stopped and on many occasions were unable to stop his military "genius" coming to fruition.

Site is also rather wrong about Churchill, if he was so bad, why was he elected again in the 50's?
Thats easy, the government had made a huge raft of promises. When it got to power it found the coffers empty and the line of credit withdrawn.
That problem affected their vote.
Though as I am sure you understand given your knowledge of politics over in Britain Bubblehead, Churchill won his victory by getting less votes than the sitting government.
Which isn't bad going, three times he stood for election to the job of prime minister, and the only time he won an election for that job he did so by getting less votes that the government he stood against.

[Oberon]

Churchill was a great character, definitely my favourite PM, and I think if he had not taken control of Britain during the Second World War then Britain would have had an even harder struggle than it had. He had some fantastic ideas, but he also had some complete howlers. Operation Unthinkable being one of them.
He was an excellent wartime leader, however he was not such a great peacetime leader, and his re-election in the 1950s I think was more to do with the burnt out Labour party facing the spectre of the legacy of Churchill.
If he had been a US President, I suspect he would have been comparable to another favourite leader of mine, Ronald Reagan.

And a quote for Neal:

"I cannot help reflecting that if my father had been an American and my mother British, instead of the other way round, I might have got here on my own."
- Churchill addressing the US Congress, December 1941

I have a book of Churchill quotes in front of me which I enjoy reading through from time to time, 'The Wicked Wit of Winston Churchill', a really good read if you want a good chuckle. :salute:

[Jimbuna]

Churchill was a great character, definitely my favourite PM, and I think if he had not taken control of Britain during the Second World War then Britain would have had an even harder struggle than it had. He had some fantastic ideas, but he also had some complete howlers. Operation Unthinkable being one of them.
He was an excellent wartime leader, however he was not such a great peacetime leader, and his re-election in the 1950s I think was more to do with the burnt out Labour party facing the spectre of the legacy of Churchill.
If he had been a US President, I suspect he would have been comparable to another favourite leader of mine, Ronald Reagan.

And a quote for Neal:



I have a book of Churchill quotes in front of me which I enjoy reading through from time to time, 'The Wicked Wit of Winston Churchill', a really good read if you want a good chuckle. :salute:

That pretty much sums it up in IMO....a great leader in times of war but not so great in times of peace.

The one undeniable fact being he kept the British peoples morale and refusal to be overawed during its darkest and most perilous moment.

http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/7328/churchillpj8az3.jpg

or

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_JGyMlGQKTSM/SdpVQg8RNzI/AAAAAAAAAUI/cOlRcBF46Tg/s320/winnie.jpg

take yer pick.

He did what no other of his generation could have achieved.

I thank God Roosevelt felt the same way about him.