I just heard Churchhill for the first time

I just heard Churchhill for the first time (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

LTRsubNW -> I just heard Churchhill for the first time (11/10/2006 7:21:59 PM)
What an incredibly masterful voice. Can't even describe it.

HarryVanWinkle -> RE: I just heard Churchhill for the first time (11/10/2006 7:40:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LTRsubNW What an incredibly masterful voice. Can't even describe it. Talk about masterful use of a speech impediment.

Arpig -> RE: I just heard Churchhill for the first time (11/10/2006 7:46:01 PM)
An artist who painted with words.

LTRsubNW -> RE: I just heard Churchhill for the first time (11/10/2006 7:52:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HarryVanWinkle quote: ORIGINAL: LTRsubNW What an incredibly masterful voice. Can't even describe it. Talk about masterful use of a speech impediment. Indeed.

Zensee -> RE: I just heard Churchhill for the first time (11/11/2006 2:07:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HarryVanWinkle Talk about masterful use of a speech impediment. Yeah. It's called English.

LadyEllen -> RE: I just heard Churchhill for the first time (11/11/2006 7:32:15 AM)
Never in the field of human conversation, has so much been owed by so many to one. We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall fight them on the beaches, we shall fight them on the landing grounds, we shall fight them in the fields and in the streets. We shall never surrender. E

mnottertail -> RE: I just heard Churchhill for the first time (11/11/2006 7:38:54 AM)
I had just been thinking , had I been born to Churchill's parents rather then the other way 'round I might have been more intelligible in my postings. F.D.R.

Dtesmoac -> RE: I just heard Churchhill for the first time (11/11/2006 7:56:02 PM)
He's also a good example of a someone who fails, pick themselves up and keeps on going. He also stated once that "history will remember me affectionately....because I will write the history".

NorthernGent -> RE: I just heard Churchhill for the first time (11/12/2006 1:02:01 PM)
He's an amazingly good example of a man with no principles i.e. one day he's a conservative, the next day he's a liberal the next day he's a conservative. He's also a very good example of the power of advertising - everyone knows him but no one knows people who actually gave their lives in WW2 (outside of their own families). He was also the man who thought up the Gallipoli plan in WW1 (as Lord of the Admirality) which was one of the Allies greatest disasters in WW1. Then again, he did make a few speeches from the safety of his house so he's obviously a man who deserves to go down in history. Am I missing something here? Isn't this supposed to be the anti-politican board yet the worst of career politicians is being revered? Is this whole thread a piss take and I'm just not seeing the joke?

meatcleaver -> RE: I just heard Churchhill for the first time (11/12/2006 2:38:24 PM)
Actually because of Churchill, Britain had an airforce and a navy in 1939. The Dutch called him a warmonger in the 30s while hoping Deustchland really wasn't their neighbour. Now you see Churchill Pleins, Churchhillstraats, Churchillboulevards everywhere. Maybe it all is publicity and advertising, maybe it all is national myth but when the chips were down he produced the goods, it is very rare that nice decent people make good leaders. In fact I can't think of a leader of any quality that one would want as a neighbour.

LadyEllen -> RE: I just heard Churchhill for the first time (11/12/2006 2:43:24 PM)
NG you are absolutely unbelievable. Pray tell me, who would have done such a good job at preserving the UK through the second world war and such a good job of manipulating the US into the war on our side (long before Pearl Harbor, incidentally)? Lord Halifax perhaps? Clement Attlee? Who exactly? Which of those who would rather have appeased and reached a settlement with Hitler? Which of those who despite him not being PM, wanted him to take the reins as the best man for the job? Churchill did such a good job because he had crossed the benches and because he had fxxxed up so monumentally in the first world war and because of his upper class connections worldwide. Those were his strengths, not his weaknesses. If you really hate this country and its institutions so much as we have seen in so many of your previous posts, and as we see here, hate with equal strength the man voted the greatest Briton of all time in a nationwide poll this year, then why oh why dont you find somewhere else to go live which is in more accord with your own ideas? Like a small child throwing tantrums, you have now passed the point of being amusing, and have become annoying. E

Termyn8or -> RE: I just heard Churchhill for the first time (11/12/2006 4:32:06 PM)
LE; (et al) That sounds alot like "love it or leave it", something that can bring great consternation. I love my country and hate the government. I have no problem with the English people but their government acts as a pompus ass, with extra hubris to go around. They are about as screwed up as the US government. Should English patriots leave England ? Hell no ! Should US patriots leave the US ? No, we need to stay and try to change it for the better. Churchill was a drunk, coke addict womanizer, no doubt about it, but what he did in terms of the country is at issue. I was very dismayed at Clinton's antics in the whitehouse, but after GWB I would take him anyday. Churchill probably inherited some problems too, say like Carter when he wound up giving refuge to the Shah of Iran. OK, let's put it in perspective. In my private life I drink and smoke and violate legal code and statute every day of my life. Breaking the law is a different thing. I would make a great leader IMO and would, just as when I go to work now, work in the best interest of my employer. If I were the leader of a country I would consider myself a servant, because a true leader is a servant. His job is to put the country on the path to greater fortune or good. There have been very few leaders in the 20th century, and if LaM can shutup about it, Hitler was one of the best. Now Hitler led a clean life and was mongamous. What he did for Germany was amazing, a tired poor little country almost really made it. He had the ability to whip up people's spirits and achieve. In that respect he was much like Churchill. People, things are not always as they seem. Politicians of all sorts basically put on a show. When Saddam Hussein learned that we were going to liberate Iraq, what did he do ? Passed out weapons to the people. The US wouldn't do that. Would England ? I agree with the OP that Chuchill was a great orator, and even a statesman. A little coke and booze and some nooky on the side does not make one a bad person. FDR, a man with a handicap was way worse. It was Churchill's JOB to convince the US to get into the war, it WAS in the best interest of England. Then FDR fell for it and betrayed the US, because it is unlawful for the US to go to war on a foreign land unless we are attacked. I did not say illegal, I said unlawful. The sad fact is that even lawyers and "lawmakers" usually do not know the difference. The only one I can think of is Ron Paul of Texas. FDR was a great orator too, but he forgot to orate a little detail about a bunch of bombers coming to Pearl harbor. Chuchill forgot to orate the details of the Balfour declaration, something that has screwed the world up greatly ever since. Stalin and Yamamoto forgot to orate a few things to the people who it affects the most. There are many others. I see a pattern here, they are all scum, they operate in their own best interests except when,,,,,,,,helping their rich friends get richer. We, ALL OF US, are in non-cosentual bondage to these people who occupy those positions now. And until and unless we rein in their power, they will take us down the road to doom. Even with all their faults Hitler, Stalin, Churchill, all of them were better than what we have today. Don't be thinking that I love Hitler either, a great man yes, but he did fail. He led the country into a war that was damnear unwinnable. Hitler was egged on by a sense of nationalism that was bigger than the nation. He wanted to reunite the Austrio-Hungarian empire or something like that. Unter him of course. If he would have simply nationalized the war debt from WW1, built solid defenses and just concentrated on making Germany a better place he would have been one of the best loved leaders of all time. Like John Belushi would say "BUT NOOOOO, we gotta ....". Tell you what, you want to hear good speech ? Good ideas and common sense from someone who knows things and is not afraid to speak out ? Let me suggest Fr. Couglin. Around the 30s to 40s he was a very staunch critic of the US government and alot of other things. Couglin would've made a great President and got us out of shit instead of into it. Now I must go and pay my taxes, that is that I need to go and pay $12 for $4 worth of beer and $8 for $1 worth of cigarettes. You all in England don't forget to renew the license for your frickin TV set ! Remember, the rich people need you. The Pope needs your money too by the way. T

LTRsubNW -> RE: I just heard Churchhill for the first time (11/12/2006 5:13:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dtesmoac He's also a good example of a someone who fails, pick themselves up and keeps on going. He also stated once that "history will remember me affectionately....because I will write the history". That is remarkably powerful.

topcat -> RE: I just heard Churchhill for the first time (11/12/2006 5:19:34 PM)
(fast reply) I have come to grips with the fact that I'll never see a national leader that I agree with across the board. I am, however, aghast, when I consider that the leader of recently greatest nation on earth can't get through a speech without sticking his foot in his mouth. I didn't think so highly of WJ Clinton, but he is a great orator, which, frankly is the only thing I really ask.

meatcleaver -> RE: I just heard Churchhill for the first time (11/12/2006 5:24:31 PM)
Churchill won the Nobel prize for literature in 1953 and deservedly so. I don't much like his personality, he had all the faults of people who think they have destiny on their side and being born with a silver spoon in his mouth helped but money and privilege while helps, doesn't make you a great writer and his History Of The English Speaking peoples was great writing.

Dtesmoac -> RE: I just heard Churchhill for the first time (11/12/2006 5:48:29 PM)
NG I normally like the snippets of logic and fact in with your political monologue but on this one you really are making 2+2 = 965 ............ :) He's an amazingly good example of a man with no principles i.e. one day he's a conservative, the next day he's a liberal the next day he's a conservative. - someone who cares not what others think of them at the time only what they believed was necessary, and who learnt from their mistakes? He's also a very good example of the power of advertising - everyone knows him but no one knows people who actually gave their lives in WW2 (outside of their own families). - ridiculous, lots of people know lots about people that gave their lives in WW2. Just as you did not need to know all blacks to know that Martin Luther Kings speeches helped to change history, Churchill became PM because Halifax actually stated that he did not want it and was not the man for the job. Without Churchill Hitler would have won peace in 1940 and a lot of your socialist pals would have gone to the concentration caps through the 40s, 50s and 60s. He was also the man who thought up the Gallipoli plan in WW1 (as Lord of the Admirality) which was one of the Allies greatest disasters in WW1. - the concept was good it was the execution which failed due to the inital failure to follow through. It also ensured that during the planning stages for D-day and other aspects of WW2 logistics etc were properly considered. Then again, he did make a few speeches from the safety of his house so he's obviously a man who deserves to go down in history. - his adviser frequently had to stop him going to the more dangerous locations, as they understood the importance of the man and symbol, and he understood the importance of being seen where the war was occuring. Am I missing something here? Isn't this supposed to be the anti-politican board yet the worst of career politicians is being revered? Is this whole thread a piss take and I'm just not seeing the joke? - short, fat, alcoholicwho like wandering around naked smoking cigars.......saves the world.......reality is stranger than fiction.

ToGiveDivine -> RE: I just heard Churchhill for the first time (11/13/2006 9:25:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen NG you are absolutely unbelievable. Pray tell me, who would have done such a good job at preserving the UK through the second world war and such a good job of manipulating the US into the war on our side (long before Pearl Harbor, incidentally)? Lord Halifax perhaps? Clement Attlee? Who exactly? Which of those who would rather have appeased and reached a settlement with Hitler? Which of those who despite him not being PM, wanted him to take the reins as the best man for the job? Churchill did such a good job because he had crossed the benches and because he had fxxxed up so monumentally in the first world war and because of his upper class connections worldwide. Those were his strengths, not his weaknesses. If you really hate this country and its institutions so much as we have seen in so many of your previous posts, and as we see here, hate with equal strength the man voted the greatest Briton of all time in a nationwide poll this year, then why oh why dont you find somewhere else to go live which is in more accord with your own ideas? Like a small child throwing tantrums, you have now passed the point of being amusing, and have become annoying. E You left out Neville Chamberlain - now there was a leader of distinction LOL

NorthernGent -> RE: I just heard Churchhill for the first time (11/13/2006 2:20:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dtesmoac He's an amazingly good example of a man with no principles i.e. one day he's a conservative, the next day he's a liberal the next day he's a conservative. - someone who cares not what others think of them at the time only what they believed was necessary, and who learnt from their mistakes? Political historians will tell you that Churchill held no real principles for the reason laid out above and he changed sides twice for personal gain. The man was a career politician of the first order. There is no way in the world this can be construed as a man learning from his mistakes. Genuinely, do some reading around his defection to both parties and you'll understand what this man was all about. He's also a very good example of the power of advertising - everyone knows him but no one knows people who actually gave their lives in WW2 (outside of their own families). - ridiculous, lots of people know lots about people that gave their lives in WW2. Just as you did not need to know all blacks to know that Martin Luther Kings speeches helped to change history, Churchill became PM because Halifax actually stated that he did not want it and was not the man for the job. Without Churchill Hitler would have won peace in 1940 and a lot of your socialist pals would have gone to the concentration caps through the 40s, 50s and 60s. Actually Dtes, you're the one who is being ridiculous based on the facts outlined below: 1) Recent studies at Warwick University have uncovered recently released documents suggesting Churchill twice made peace overtures towards Germany (you'll be able to find a link on the net). 2) How many soldiers do you know (outside of your own family) who fought and died in WW2? Yet, we all know this career politician who didn't even lift a gun. 3) Churchill's speeches did not help to change history. If you're going to pass this off as fact you would have to be able to measure an intangible fighting spirit derived from a speech - which is blatantly impossible. Also, you are ignoring military historians who argue that the Germans could never have invaded England due to a lack of naval strength, logistics and the necessary depth of fighter aircraft and trained pilots. He was also the man who thought up the Gallipoli plan in WW1 (as Lord of the Admirality) which was one of the Allies greatest disasters in WW1. - the concept was good it was the execution which failed due to the inital failure to follow through. It also ensured that during the planning stages for D-day and other aspects of WW2 logistics etc were properly considered. Not at all. In typical British style, Churchill and the Government completely underestimated the Turkish fighting ability. They didn't envisage having to send any troops ashore on the Gallipoli peninsula - they thought the navy would just blast the Turks into submission. Once they realised this wasn't going to happen they sent the troops ashore to walk straight into a series of mines and machine guns. It was pretty much like The Somme. Serious bad planning and arrogance. They ended up pinned down on the beach before retreating. Then again, he did make a few speeches from the safety of his house so he's obviously a man who deserves to go down in history. - his adviser frequently had to stop him going to the more dangerous locations, as they understood the importance of the man and symbol, and he understood the importance of being seen where the war was occuring. He was a politician who did nothing except act like a politician. I'm scratching my head here wondering why a such a man would be held in high esteem. Am I missing something here? Isn't this supposed to be the anti-politican board yet the worst of career politicians is being revered? Is this whole thread a piss take and I'm just not seeing the joke? - short, fat, alcoholicwho like wandering around naked smoking cigars.......saves the world.......reality is stranger than fiction. He could be king fucking kong for all I care, the fact remains he is revered for being a career politician. Nail on the head when you say reality is stranger than fiction.

popeye1250 -> RE: I just heard Churchhill for the first time (11/13/2006 5:24:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Actually because of Churchill, Britain had an airforce and a navy in 1939. The Dutch called him a warmonger in the 30s while hoping Deustchland really wasn't their neighbour. Now you see Churchill Pleins, Churchhillstraats, Churchillboulevards everywhere. Maybe it all is publicity and advertising, maybe it all is national myth but when the chips were down he produced the goods, it is very rare that nice decent people make good leaders. In fact I can't think of a leader of any quality that one would want as a neighbour. Meat, Churchill didn't actually "produce the goods", the U.S. literally produced the goods that kept England going throughout the war. Tens of thousands of shiploads of goods. Terminator, no good leaders in the 20th century? I'd say Dwight D. Eisenhower was no slouch in the leader dept.

meatcleaver -> RE: I just heard Churchhill for the first time (11/13/2006 11:51:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 Meat, Churchill didn't actually "produce the goods", the U.S. literally produced the goods that kept England going throughout the war. Tens of thousands of shiploads of goods. Britain paid for the goods, it wasn't charity which you make it sound like and it was also in America's interest that Britain stayed in the war. All the planes in the Battle of Britain and the navy that kept the Germans at bay were British. America did sell Britain 12 warships which were old and exacted a high price for them which at any other time but war would have been declined because of their condition. Yes America did provide material help throughout the war but as I say, it was paid for. Before you start suggesting that America won the war, if any one nation won the war it was Russia so maybe Stalin was the best war time leader.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875