WantsOfTheFlesh
Posts: 1226
Joined: 3/3/2009
Status: offline
|
Stern Skipper, I'll reply to your post briefly and drop the topic as I reckon others object to these thread derails.
quote:
ORIGINAL: SternSkipper
quote:
I believe the conventional view is that the conservative party got the UK into WW2 in the first place. He was personally popular, but his party less so.
The conventional view offered in the historical texts I have read. What was the slogan "Toast Churchill vote Liberal (or labor maybe)" you'll look up I'm sure.
It was da Labour party. The old Liberal/Whig party had become almost non-existant as a political force by 1945.
quote:
You really are a fucking idiot aren't you. 1)I have a 30 year personal investment in the culture you imply I know nothing about. So ya know, I was out there several times with my family during a time when my oldest sister attended Berkley and lived in the Haight, I started seeing shows in 73 and in the years that ensued, MET all the principals, and was even quite friendly with a few.
I didn't imply you knew little about the hippie movement. Quite the opposite.
quote:
Certainly a lot more familiar with any knowledge of the events than you have of your hero Churchill. I took history in college and world war 2 was covered just like many other topics. How you got a goddamned couple of paragraphs for a simple answer. He didn't ask do you think Churchill lost the first election after ww2 for a fair resson. I didn't even imply he did get the UK into the war or even that there was a choice you fucking moron. What I said was WHY they voted him out. And made no claim to whether that was just or not.
No you said the conservative party got the UK into the war, which implies there was a choice, and Owner asked why he was "booted out". I didn't think you made a claim if it was good or not either. In fact for an apparent "hero" of mine, it was probably good that there was a term and a hlaf of Labour government as they brought in the NHS service.
quote:
And you got this fucked over my pointing out a so[called new article smacked of propaganda, yet lacked what a REAL NEWS OUTLET WOULD REQUIRE AS A CONDITION TO PUBLICATION (namely WHO WHAT WHEN WHERE?) the article only cites these mysterious sources. And you went on the attack and stalked me through every thread you could find me in over that, gawd buddy, that's pretty fucking unbalanced. have you sought psychiatric help?
Maybe you can take YOU'RE time machine (you know, the one that actually takes you back to before you were even born to visit Churchill), and this time take it all the way back to Freud.
You misunderstand. I got pissed cuze you got pretty vicious for no real reason when talking to Julia, saying that I was a liar and you alluded to it on here as well. The article wasn't that important but was right to point it out. I have seen quite a few articles by reputable news sources where ministers and advisers talk on condition of anonymity. I didn't stalk you. If I remember right I only posted on two other threads you were posting on already, this and the thread you started on Bibi.
_____________________________
"I had lot's of luck but its all been bad"
|
RE: The trouble with Herman Cain - 
Profile
.gif){kind=avatar}
.gif){kind=avatar}
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread