Your Favourite Leaders

[Autumnpuma 0]

First off, Cav you're being an a## in this thread. I'll accept a ban for that if necessary but it needs to be said. Nobody want to post their thoughts and have you come here and throw tomatoes at those thoughts. Sure, you have the right to be an a##, but I also have the right to call you one if you choose to act like one. You're better than this, aren't you? Yeah, yeah, I know, if you can't take the arguments get out of a public forum, but you need lessons in being polite.

Here's my thoughts, no doubt Cav will be here shortly to dissect them as I've no doubt riled him up:

George Washington: He put his life on the line for what he believed was right. His input into our Constitution was invaluable in creating a document that still holds this experiment in democracy together. His biggest contribution was relinquishing his power at a time when leaders generally held their posts for life. With that one move, he cemented for America the tradition of a peaceful transfer of power. His farewell speech is filled with good advice our current American leaders would do well to listen to.

John Adams: My personal hero. He sacrificed his wealth, family and good name for independence and for democracy. He presided over a nation torn by partisanship that would make today's political landscape look tame by comparison. He refused to take any side in the partisan battle for the country, and because of it he suffered political defamings that still exist today. He also fought the last battle for American independence in 1812. Historians call Jefferson the 'Willow' and Adams the 'Oak'; for my money I prefer the strong Oak to the bendable Willow.

Theodore Roosevelt: He governed his way with a love for America and American interests always at the front of his thoughts. He also used his infamous 'big stick' to knock corporate America in the head a few times. Good on him.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt: Like his British counterpart, Churchill, Roosevelt was the right man at the right time.

Martin Luther King Jr. His ideas weren't new, but they spoke to the best in us. King wasn't a political leader, but he affected changes in ways that political leaders should have.

All of these were men with flaws. Each one can be picked apart and the bad parts of them highlighted. In life we put all actions in the balance and see what weighs more. Those that I've listed, to me, have good that outweighs the bad...and that good sent positive ripples that are still felt by Americans today.

[pumpdoc 2]

Here's my thoughts

George Washington: He put his life on the line for what he believed was right. His input into our Constitution was invaluable in creating a document that still holds this experiment in democracy together. His biggest contribution was relinquishing his power at a time when leaders generally held their posts for life. With that one move, he cemented for America the tradition of a peaceful transfer of power. His farewell speech is filled with good advice our current American leaders would do well to listen to.

John Adams: My personal hero. He sacrificed his wealth, family and good name for independence and for democracy. He presided over a nation torn by partisanship that would make today's political landscape look tame by comparison. He refused to take any side in the partisan battle for the country, and because of it he suffered political defamings that still exist today. He also fought the last battle for American independence in 1812. Historians call Jefferson the 'Willow' and Adams the 'Oak'; for my money I prefer the strong Oak to the bendable Willow.

Theodore Roosevelt: He governed his way with a love for America and American interests always at the front of his thoughts. He also used his infamous 'big stick' to knock corporate America in the head a few times. Good on him.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt: Like his British counterpart, Churchill, Roosevelt was the right man at the right time.

Martin Luther King Jr. His ideas weren't new, but they spoke to the best in us. King wasn't a political leader, but he affected changes in ways that political leaders should have.

All of these were men with flaws. Each one can be picked apart and the bad parts of them highlighted. In life we put all actions in the balance and see what weighs more. Those that I've listed, to me, have good that outweighs the bad...and that good sent positive ripples that are still felt by Americans today.

You left out Lincoln, other than Washington our greatest leader in our country's most troubled time

[goferrarigo 0]

You left out Lincoln, other than Washington our greatest leader in our country's most troubled time

Go Lincoln

[Jem of the Shire 0]

Churchill

Mine's Hitler then, on the list of racist imperialist mass murderers, Hitler probably outranks him. Only just though.

what are you talking about

[Schumikonen 2]

My favorite leader is George W Bush.

[Wez 0]

Churchill

Mine's Hitler then, on the list of racist imperialist mass murderers, Hitler probably outranks him. Only just though.

I wouldn't expect must more from Cavaaa

I can only imagine what Hitler would have done to your country when he took over since there are not too many members of Hitlers perfect race running around there.

[cavallino 2]

First off, Cav you're being an a## in this thread. I'll accept a ban for that if necessary but it needs to be said. Nobody want to post their thoughts and have you come here and throw tomatoes at those thoughts. Sure, you have the right to be an a##, but I also have the right to call you one if you choose to act like one. You're better than this, aren't you? Yeah, yeah, I know, if you can't take the arguments get out of a public forum, but you need lessons in being polite.

I give an opinion the respect it deserves, the ones I commented on didn't deserve any. I don't have to be polite, I have to be right. I am.

what are you talking about

Winston "Keep England white" Churchill. Who are you talking about?

This is precisely why so few of us ever discuss Churchill as a war criminal or racist. In 1910, in the capacity of Home Secretary, he put forth a proposal to sterilize roughly 100,000 "mental degenerates" and dispatch several thousand others to state-run labor camps. These actions were to take place in the name of saving the British race from inevitable decline as its inferior members bred.

History has forgiven Churchill for his role in the Allied invasion of the Soviet Union in 1917. England's Minister for War and Air during the time, Churchill described the mission as seeking to "strangle at its birth" the Bolshevik state. In 1929, he wrote: "Were [the Allies] at war with Soviet Russia? Certainly not; but they shot Soviet Russians at sight. They stood as invaders on Russian soil. They armed the enemies of the Soviet Government. They blockaded its ports, and sunk its battleships. They earnestly desired and schemed its downfall."

Two years later, Churchill was secretary of state at the war office when the Royal Air Force asked him for permission to use chemical weapons against "recalcitrant Arabs" as an experiment. Winston promptly consented (Yes, Churchill's gassing of Kurds pre-dated Hussein's by nearly 70 years).

"I am strongly in favor of using poisoned gas against uncivilized tribes," he explained, a policy he espoused yet again in July 1944 when he asked his chiefs of staff to consider using poison gas on the Germans "or any other method of warfare we have hitherto refrained from using." Unlike in 1919, his proposal was denied...not that history would not have forgiven him anyway.

In language later appropriated by the Israelis, Winston Churchill had this to say about the Palestinians in 1937: "I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place."

When not scheming a Bolshevik downfall, gassing the uncivilized, or comparing Palestinians to dogs, Churchill found time to write soulmate Benito Mussolini. In January 1927, Sir Winston gushed to Il Duce, "if I had been an Italian, I am sure I would have been entirely with you from the beginning to the end of your victorious struggle against the bestial appetites and passions of Leninism." Even after the advent of WWII, Churchill found room in his heart for the Italian dictator, explaining to Parliament in 1940:"I do not deny that he is a very great man but he became a criminal when he attacked England."

Mussolini's criminality aside, Churchill certainly took note of Axis tactics...cavalierly observing that "everyone" was bombing civilians. "It's simply a question of fashion," he explained, "similar to that of whether short or long dresses are in."

Sir Winston must have been a slave to fashion because he soon ordered a fire-bombing raid on Hamburg in July 1943 that killed at least 48,000 civilians, after which he enlisted the aid of British scientists to cook up "a new kind of weather" for larger German city.

In his wartime memoirs, Winston Churchill forgave himself for the countless civilians slaughtered in Dresden. "We made a heavy raid in the latter month on Dresden," he wrote benignly, "then a centre of communication of Germany's Eastern Front."

Surely the Nazis were hiding WMD there, right?

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=3930

I can only imagine what Hitler would have done to your country when he took over since there are not too many members of Hitlers perfect race running around there.

The same the likes of Churchill had been doing for 200 years?

Here is what your president thinks of him - http://www.guardian.co.uk/southafrica/stor...1383331,00.html

[pabloh20 1]

I give an opinion the respect it deserves, the ones I commented on didn't deserve any. I don't have to be polite, I have to be right. I am.

Winston "Keep England white" Churchill. Who are you talking about?

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=3930

The same the likes of Churchill had been doing for 200 years?

Here is what your president thinks of him - http://www.guardian.co.uk/southafrica/stor...1383331,00.html

Cav - go and get the whole story on Churchill, rather than just pick 1 article that agrees with you. I mean who is Mickey Z?? And what makes him such an authority on Churchill? I would suggest you find particular comments from 1899 and I found that without trying too hard - just to prove a point.

I'm surprised at you, Cav, I really am.

Edited: My original tone wasn't very good and I didn't actually mean it like that!

[DarkLord 0]

No one. period.

i hate each and every 'leaders' of india

[LabradoRacer 2]

Churchill

Mine's Hitler then, on the list of racist imperialist mass murderers, Hitler probably outranks him. Only just though.

Well, I have a grudging admiration for Hitler in the sense that he was probably the world's greatest hypnotist. I mean it takes skill to have millions of men obeying every word of yours. Probably every leader is a hypnotist. I mean , it's indeed difficult to convince even one man to toe my line of thought,forget about millions! It takes skill to convince large numbers.

I have always ben impressed by what Mustafa Kemal Ataturk accomplished. We could do with leaders like him today.

Agree. Though my knowledge about history is very poor, it seems Ataturk has built what seems to be a secular,tolerant Islamic country that also treats women as equals.

First off, Cav you're being an a## in this thread. I'll accept a ban for that if necessary but it needs to be said. Nobody want to post their thoughts and have you come here and throw tomatoes at those thoughts. Sure, you have the right to be an a##, but I also have the right to call you one if you choose to act like one. You're better than this, aren't you? Yeah, yeah, I know, if you can't take the arguments get out of a public forum, but you need lessons in being polite.

No,Mike , I can vouch that Cav doesn't actually like Hitler. Cav's only fault is that he's very abrasive & in your face while making a valid point. His general knowledge is very vast,probably greater than anyone else on this forum. Perhaps he knows the little known flaws of generally widely praised leaders. It gets his goat that others are ignorant of the faults of their favourite leaders. To illustrate his point, he often uses a "shocker" example to give others a taste of his perspective.

[LabradoRacer 2]

India has never had a leader.

[cavallino 2]

Cav - go and get the whole story on Churchill, rather than just pick 1 article that agrees with you. I mean who is Mickey Z?? And what makes him such an authority on Churchill? I would suggest you find particular comments from 1899 and I found that without trying too hard - just to prove a point.

I'm surprised at you, Cav, I really am.

Actually there are plenty of such articles. I presume you refer to this?

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries!

Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia

in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many

countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods

of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet

rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the

next of its dignity and sanctity.

The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as

his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must

delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased

to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid

qualities - but the influence of the religion paralyses the social

development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists

in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and

proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa,

raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity

is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it

had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell

the civilization of ancient Rome."

Which rather proves my point doesn't it? What aare you trying to say? Which part of the things I quoted is incorrent - it is mentionedi n several places, I just took the article that had the quotes listed most conveniently.

So again, what aare you trying to say? Are you in any way trying to insist that Churchill was not a racist, bigoted, white supremaacist, a supporter of eugenics, of imperialism and above all, a hypocrite of this highest order, as clearly shown by the above passage that you have most helpfully guided me to?

Edited: My original tone wasn't very good and I didn't actually mean it like that!

Never saw it. No you made me curious

[Autumnpuma 0]

I give an opinion the respect it deserves, the ones I commented on didn't deserve any.

All opinions deserve a basic respect because they are the thoughts of another person.

I don't have to be polite, I have to be right. I am.

Quite correct. You don't have to be polite. If politeness were mandated, then how would we know the base sort of person from the enlightened?

No,Mike , I can vouch that Cav doesn't actually like Hitler.

That wasn't why I described his behaviour in this thread as a$$-like. I used accurate terminology. An a$$ sh!ts all over everything. Cav ventured here and proceeded to sh!t over others' opinions. My description of him in this thread is quite correct.

Cav's only fault is that he's very abrasive & in your face while making a valid point.

Only fault? I doubt that, but whatever floats your boat. My point is that the abraisiveness is not needed and only illustrates an overall lack of character and restraint on his part. Making a valid point is irrelevant.

His general knowledge is very vast,probably greater than anyone else on this forum.

Vast knowledge means that a person is often correct; it doesn't mean that person is often right.

Perhaps he knows the little known flaws of generally widely praised leaders. It gets his goat that others are ignorant of the faults of their favourite leaders.

I believe most people know that all humans have faults. The greater the leader, the greater the faults. As I've said before, you must weigh the good and the bad, and see what those actions led to, in order to determine if that person was a force for good or for evil. Churchill, for example, had many faults, but the good he did in battling the greater evil of Hitler's Reich deserves praise.

[Autumnpuma 0]

Actually there are plenty of such articles. I presume you refer to this?

That bit you posted is a commentary on the Islamic religion at that time and it's effects on the people living under it. Please point out what assessment of Churchill's is incorrect.

[rumblestrip 0]

None of my favorites ever get elected, so I think I'll abstain.

I'll also abstain from selecting someone who led before my time, as I've seen how history can show only one version of events.

[cavallino 2]

All opinions deserve a basic respect because they are the thoughts of another person.

No they don't, and you well know that - you don't show that respect when you take people's opinions as a direct insult, like a lot of views about your country here.

Quite correct. You don't have to be polite. If politeness were mandated, then how would we know the base sort of person from the enlightened?

If calling a spade a spade is impolite then I'd rather be impolite than pussyfoot around reality.

Only fault? I doubt that, but whatever floats your boat. My point is that the abraisiveness is not needed and only illustrates an overall lack of character and restraint on his part. Making a valid point is irrelevant.

Maknig a valid point is everything. I don't know a polite way of saying that a person who thinks Winston Churchill is the greatest leader is either entirely ignorant, or is a supporter of the things I have listed here.

I believe most people know that all humans have faults. The greater the leader, the greater the faults.

Th former is of course right, the latter is entirely baseless.

As I've said before, you must weigh the good and the bad, and see what those actions led to, in order to determine if that person was a force for good or for evil. Churchill, for example, had many faults, but the good he did in battling the greater evil of Hitler's Reich deserves praise.

Again, that is looking from a purely Euro-American perspective which doesn't concern me, and at the same time involves subscribing to the popular ignorant view of the war which completely ignores the most significant contribution of the USSR.

That bit you posted is a commentary on the Islamic religion at that time and it's effects on the people living under it. Please point out what assessment of Churchill's is incorrect.

Ok, will do.

[Max Mosley 2]

Churchill

Mine's Hitler then, on the list of racist imperialist mass murderers, Hitler probably outranks him. Only just though.

I have always argued Churchill was over-rated. I didn't bother to do as much research as you though. Not that I'm necessarily accepting everything those articles claim without investigating it myself (after all Mbeki is hardly a reputable source ), but I do accept he made many mistakes and the British adoration of him is unjustified.

My favorite leaders.

Cheer leaders!!!!

MMMMMMMMM!

Yup!

My favorite leader is George W Bush.

I'll also abstain from selecting someone who led before my time, as I've seen how history can show only one version of events.

Good point.

Ataturk as mentioned above is an interesting choice. I don't know that much about him (yet) alas but he surely achieved a lot in Turkey.

My favourite British leaders are King Arthur, Robin Hood and Tony Blair. Oh OK seriously my favourite is Margaret Thatcher. I am being serious with that last one! I don't necessarily agree with everything she did but she was very effective at accomplishing her aims and she made a lot of important changes in Britain that have overturned the post-war consensus here for the better imho. I don't mind the other Brits I mentioned either.

[cavallino 2]

How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries!

Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia

in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy.

So being a Muslim gives you a fanatical frenzy comparable to being bitten by a rabid dog and not getting your shots I presume. I am surprised how many seemingly intelligent people hold this view. All I can say is coming from a country with about 115 million Muslims, knowing and interacting with hundreds, thousands of them, I find this incredibly laughable, I doubt if more needs to be said. Maybe you should ask our resident BNP sympathizer who is in Dubai (another such backwater full of rabid Muslims) what an awful time he is having.

The effects are apparent in many

countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods

of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet

rule or live.

And when they have used their natural resources to bring themselves to a standard which most of the western world aspires to, they are still met with snide derision. Shame isn't it, that Bernie is taking our beloved sport to places with 'sluggish methods of commerce' and 'insecurity of property'.

A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the

next of its dignity and sanctity.

Bah (Need I say more)

The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as

his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must

delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased

to be a great power among men.

Ah, now we come to the funny bits. Exhibit A is an imperialist, who supported and connived to keep millions of people under vitual slavery under the British empire has the gall to make accusations on others?

More imperialist mumbo jumbo follows. I am tired and really, does any of this need to be refuted?

Individual Moslems may show splendid

qualities - but the influence of the religion paralyses the social

development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists

in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and

proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa,

raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity

is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it

had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell

the civilization of ancient Rome.

[Autumnpuma 0]

No they don't, and you well know that - you don't show that respect when you take people's opinions as a direct insult, like a lot of views about your country here.

I show respect for the person in my responses to them. Sometimes I fail, but mostly I succeed. The important part is that I make the attempt. That differentiates you from me.

If calling a spade a spade is impolite then I'd rather be impolite than pussyfoot around reality.

You are young and arrogant; you don't have enough life under your belt to know that you can discuss an issue without resorting to the 'stick'. Often you'll get a better response from those you are trying to talk to.

Maknig a valid point is everything. I don't know a polite way of saying that a person who thinks Winston Churchill is the greatest leader is either entirely ignorant, or is a supporter of the things I have listed here.

Again, when you get older, and hopefully wiser, you will realize that making a point well is everything.

Th former is of course right, the latter is entirely baseless.

My fault in not explaining it clearly. The greater a person's responsibilities, the greater that person's mistakes send ripples out that affect future generations. My point was that we all have faults in equal measure, but a leader's flaws afffect more people that yours or mine. We are all human and make mistakes and hold biased views; it's naive to expect a leader to be perfect. All we can reasonably hope for is that the good outweigh the bad.

Again, that is looking from a purely Euro-American perspective which doesn't concern me, and at the same time involves subscribing to the popular ignorant view of the war which completely ignores the most significant contribution of the USSR.

It doesn't ignore anything, I simply choose to focus on Churchill and his affect on England as that was the topic at hand. Are you so arrogant that you believe you and you alone know that Churchill didnt come riding into Germany on his white nag and defeat Hitler all by himself? Please. Churchill deserves praise, and a place among Englands great leaders, because he led England well during a time that threatened the Blessed Isles' very existence. It is that part of Chruchill that most here praise and admire. I'm sure we all know, at least a little, what a b@stard Churchill could be - please refer back to my statement above concerning faults and human nature.

[ykickamoocow 0]

It doesn't ignore anything, I simply choose to focus on Churchill and his affect on England as that was the topic at hand. Are you so arrogant that you believe you and you alone know that Churchill didnt come riding into Germany on his white nag and defeat Hitler all by himself? Please. Churchill deserves praise, and a place among Englands great leaders, because he led England well during a time that threatened the Blessed Isles' very existence. It is that part of Chruchill that most here praise and admire. I'm sure we all know, at least a little, what a b@stard Churchill could be - please refer back to my statement above concerning faults and human nature.

Churchill was good for England but i will personally never like him because of what he did to Australia during the 2nd World War.

[Autumnpuma 0]

How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy.

So being a Muslim gives you a fanatical frenzy comparable to being bitten by a rabid dog and not getting your shots I presume. I am surprised how many seemingly intelligent people hold this view. All I can say is coming from a country with about 115 million Muslims, knowing and interacting with hundreds, thousands of them, I find this incredibly laughable, I doubt if more needs to be said. Maybe you should ask our resident BNP sympathizer who is in Dubai (another such backwater full of rabid Muslims) what an awful time he is having.

Hmm....fanatical frenzy....much like a current religious practice where certain of them take to the streets and slice their heads and scream and shout and eventually pass out from lack of blood? They compound this frenzy by also slicing their own children's heads. A dog without it's shots would be preferable in my house to those few screaming, bloody folk in the grips of their religious frenzy. Churchill's assessment is sound, but not applicable to every Muslim.

Here's a quote you didn't address that proves Churchill is describing the effects of the religion, not the people:

Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities - but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.

The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.

And when they have used their natural resources to bring themselves to a standard which most of the western world aspires to, they are still met with snide derision. Shame isn't it, that Bernie is taking our beloved sport to places with 'sluggish methods of commerce' and 'insecurity of property'.

Churchill is describing the effect the Islam religion was having, at that time, on agriculture, commerce and insecurity of property. You haven't said this was inaccurate so I assume we both agree Churchill was correct. Good. Your case weakens, Cav. As to the rest, I'm not concerned with today's situation, only this narrow bit of conversation about Churchill. Let's keep it focused here for now.

A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity.

Bah (Need I say more)

I find this comment very Churchill-like. This is obviously his take on it, so it's opinion and isn't really an inaccuracy, just a different view on it.

The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

Ah, now we come to the funny bits. Exhibit A is an imperialist, who supported and connived to keep millions of people under vitual slavery under the British empire has the gall to make accusations on others?

Virtual slavery? That's a new one to me. Slavery is quite a simple concept: making a person into a piece of property, under the law. Churchill didn't do this, Cav, and you know it. Harsh laws are not the same as converting a person into property. Just as my contemptible American brothers of the past made Africans into legal property, so too the Islamic law of that time made women into property, under the law. Churchill righty stands against this practice. Again, Churchill is accurate, and again, you have no convincing case against him, based on this posted writing.

More imperialist mumbo jumbo follows. I am tired and really, does any of this need to be refuted?

Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities - but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.

Of that 'mumbo jumbo' you don't comment on is Churchill giving credit to the people while making it clear it is their unique religious practices (at that time) that are the problem and a hindrance to those people advancing into a better state of civilization. Those areas in Central Africa are still a wasteland to this day. It's interesting to note how prophetic Churchill's words are. The last line about Islam being in conflict with western civilization and threatening to throw it down like ancient Rome being the most interesting. Rome fell from a myriad of reasons, but one significant reason was the inclusion of peoples at lower stages of socio-economic development. Look at today's headlines where in Germany a man is cleared of charges that he beat his wife because his Islamic religion allows such behaviour. German law is being put below Islamic law, despite how wrong it clearly is. There are many cases of this around the globe.

I'm sorry that you're tired, but I'm hungover so you get no sympathy from me.

[Autumnpuma 0]

Churchill was good for England but i will personally never like him because of what he did to Australia during the 2nd World War.

Fair enough you have valid reasons. I'm not saying Cav has no reason to dislike Churchill, but he's laying on that one man the evils of a nation's policies towards India. Cav has great intelligence, so I find these bits of irrational fancy...interesting...and worthy of debate.

[Max Mosley 2]

Look at today's headlines where in Germany a man is cleared of charges that he beat his wife because his Islamic religion allows such behaviour. German law is being put below Islamic law, despite how wrong it clearly is. There are many cases of this around the globe.

Sounds like a problem with German law as well as with that interpretation of Islam. That is clearly unacceptable. However it's easy to see why some people are attracted to these ideas. OK, but seriously now, it's not hard to see that working class men, with no status in a country as a whole, seek to dominate the one area they can - the home. I think there are examples of this in all religions.

[Autumnpuma 0]

Sounds like a problem with German law as well as with that interpretation of Islam. That is clearly unacceptable. However it's easy to see why some people are attracted to these ideas. OK, but seriously now, it's not hard to see that working class men, with no status in a country as a whole, seek to dominate the one area they can - the home. I think there are examples of this in all religions.

Indeed, Murray, but I was limiting my focus to Cav's initial post.

[AutoRacer5 0]

I have a few.

George Washington, because without him, we couldn't have beaten the English.

Andrew Jackson. He selected the best people for his cabinet, and he was the first president after Washington to show some balls to the other branches of government.

Abraham Lincoln. He held the Union together for the Civil War, and promoted equality.

Theodore Roosevelt. He was the man that the Republican Party should have been formed around.

Franklin Roosevelt. He got America through two big problems in the 20th century.

Ronald Reagan. Stood up to terrorism and the Soviet Union.

Yeah, that's it.