chennaiguy 0 Report post Posted May 3, 2007 Even i think you made a mistake there, I think he has only been elected once and wants to be elected again, and mostly/hopefully he will...But TBH, a president of our country doesn't do much.... like a pm is expected to do more/ has more powers... thus i said indira gandhi.... And i just want to confirm, wasn't it during her reign India had a budget surplus? yeah i want to mean he has been selected once and is in the race for second time.... well i like him for his various achievements and to note few drops in his ocean...in his Presidential term... "# His popularity among Indian youth is evident from the fact that the request to his re-election as president petition in Petition Online site is the one of the Top 10 petitions. # As President, he donated his income from his first 10 months in office to the NGO created and managed by Mata Amritanandamayi # As a sign of his popularity among Indian youth, MTV-India recently nominated him as one of the prospects for its MTV India Youth Icon for the year 2006 Award # visited siachen for developing peace talks... and a lot....... " Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stopkidding 0 Report post Posted May 5, 2007 What could possibly be a better course than his own writings, his own actions, his own speeches. Are you telling me people faked his writings? Are you telling me he was not an imperialist. Really, what is your point? How on earth are you denying the blindingly obvious, and if you merely condone it, just say it. My sources are irrelevant - what they refer to is impeccable and well documented. I am using the internet to point out things that I have already read elsewhere. If you can refute anything, go ahead. Otherwise, this is rather tiresome.My perspective is a secular humanist one, an anti imperialist one. If you stand against those, you could call me biased. If my research is so bad, it would be easily refuted, wouldn't it? So do it. You have not produced a single word to counter my evidence, you just ramble on about finding information on the internet. there was no internet in Churchill's time, if anything I have pointed out misquotes or misrepresents him, well go ahead, point it out. It is staggering how people can close off a part of their mind because they want to believe something. You want to believe Churchill was a hero, and you won't dare actually try to find out about anything I said. You are afraid of knowing, don't try to pin that on me. Live in your make believe world, but then limit yourself to it, the reality will shock you. Sorry I joined way too late on this thread, But Cav! Respect man! You are the ONLY one on this forum doing some serious reading! I certainely not among those who has any sort of favourable opinion about churchill and he likes. I recently read the book by AJP Taylor on the "Origins of the Second World War", a book which comes under much critisicm by traditional historians for being critical of the British and the French Govts for their role in starting the WWII. The problems lies in the inability of the different nations to admit to any wrong doing on their behalf. Thanks for Hilters infamy with the Holocaust, all further examination of the cause and events of WWII were recorded by historians with a very biased anti Germany pro Allies slant. Hence everything Germany did was wrong and the rest were absolved of all guilt. Such is the fallacy of the mainstream history. But I second your opinion. India may have never had a notable leader in the modern past, but Churchill was an imperialist a##! And I don't expect people who benefitted from that imperialism to agree to it as they only were shown his "good" side. But Its pretty obvious that no one would bother with the process of self examination of their present and past actions as it would shatter the illusion of "civillized society" not matter how many lives they trample upon in the process to create that illusion. ah! With regards to what Puma said in response to you "ranting", the less said the better, his arguments are about as this as chocolate wafer. I wish people were more objective and less polemic. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
YHR 0 Report post Posted May 5, 2007 I wise man once said " let he without sin be the first to throw stones" Greatest leader of all time. The world is not perfect and men are not perfect, and for that reason we are doomed. This debate proves all that is wrong when humanistic opinions and faults get in the way of rightousness. It is sad that we just don't get it . Never have, never will. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Max Mosley 2 Report post Posted May 5, 2007 Ah but YHR, was he Canadian? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cavallino 2 Report post Posted May 12, 2007 Sorry I joined way too late on this thread, But Cav! Respect man! You are the ONLY one on this forum doing some serious reading! I certainely not among those who has any sort of favourable opinion about churchill and he likes. I recently read the book by AJP Taylor on the "Origins of the Second World War", a book which comes under much critisicm by traditional historians for being critical of the British and the French Govts for their role in starting the WWII. We had a very interesting history curriculum in school, that was before the far right came into power and trashed it I wise man once said" let he without sin be the first to throw stones" Greatest leader of all time. The world is not perfect and men are not perfect, and for that reason we are doomed. This debate proves all that is wrong when humanistic opinions and faults get in the way of rightousness. It is sad that we just don't get it . Never have, never will. I have no clue what you are suggesting, is there some kind of divine justification behind Churchill's actions that overrides humanism? Can someone else explain, I promise I won't blow up, I am just curious. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goferrarigo 0 Report post Posted May 12, 2007 I have no clue what you are suggesting, is there some kind of divine justification behind Churchill's actions that overrides humanism? Can someone else explain, I promise I won't blow up, I am just curious. Nope i think he is talking abt Jesus.... Nothing to do with Churchill just introducing a new (...) in the discussion... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
