Wall street protests continue, 80+ protestors arrested - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;32569549]Well it isn't a suprise that old people who have done a lot in life tend to be conservatives. Winston Churchill himself stated that an old liberal was somebody without a brain.[/QUOTE] Well Churchill had a bad stutter so he probably meant to say something else

[QUOTE=Zeke129;32569617]Well Churchill had a bad stutter so he probably meant to say something else[/QUOTE] A young conservative is somebody without a heart. A old liberal is somebody without a brain. That was the quote I believe.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;32569811]A young conservative is somebody without a heart. A old liberal is somebody without a brain. That was the quote I believe.[/QUOTE] Yeah I'm familiar with the quote. Makes sense that an old man would attempt to justify how old men think.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;32569898]Yeah I'm familiar with the quote. Makes sense that an old man would attempt to justify how old men think.[/QUOTE] Still doesn't deny that he was a very capable statesman.

[QUOTE=Capitulazyguy;32569548]Oh, sorry, my mistake. College students should run the country. Everyone knows that 19 is the age where you are at your intellectual best. All old people should be shot because they have no idea how to run a country and are just holding the wonderful socialist utopia (that our generation totally invented by the way) back.[/QUOTE] You are a fucking horrendous poster, good lord, my head hurts just reading this. How in hell did you get "please explain why college students are inexperienced" to sarcastically saying old people should be shot, and they should run the country. It boggles the mind, how the hell you reached that conclusion. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;32569549]Well it isn't a suprise that old people who have done a lot in life tend to be conservatives. Winston Churchill himself stated that an old liberal was somebody without a brain.[/QUOTE] There are such thing as old liberal. And being Winston Churchill was also an Opportunist and drunk, who's "success" was overplayed [QUOTE=Sobotnik;32569911]Still doesn't deny that he was a very capable statesman.[/QUOTE] No, no he wasn't. He built his small success off the war. He didn't prepare the country for war, Chamerlain did. He also didn't bring the country back from the war, Atlee did. He wasn't a good statesman, he was a cunt who barely did any good for the UK.

[QUOTE=Soviet Bread;32569947] No, no he wasn't. He built his small success off the war. He didn't prepare the country for war, Chamerlain did. He also didn't bring the country back from the war, Atlee did. He wasn't a good statesman, he was a cunt who barely did any good for the UK.[/QUOTE] The problem was that what the Labour part did after the war had big problems for Britain a couple of years down the line. The railways, industries and such went down the shitter whilst Germany/Japan/etc managed to grow quite rapidly during that time.

It has roots to Churchill's useless conservative policies after a devastating war.

[QUOTE=Soviet Bread;32570566]It has roots to Churchill's useless conservative policies after a devastating war.[/QUOTE] What such policies were these?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;32570607]What such policies were these?[/QUOTE] The policy of not getting re-elected.

[QUOTE=Capitulazyguy;32570702]The policy of not getting re-elected.[/QUOTE] I too found it strange how it would be possible for him to implement policies if he wasn't in power to do so.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;32570607]What such policies were these?[/QUOTE] Churchill had a problem of not dealing with domestic issues and choosing to cut budgets to fund wars in Malaya and his antagonism towards the Soviet Union in the 1950's. [QUOTE=Capitulazyguy;32570702]The policy of not getting re-elected.[/QUOTE] Are you capable of posting something that's not inane or completely stupid?

[QUOTE=Soviet Bread;32570803]Churchill had a problem of not dealing with domestic issues and choosing to cut budgets to fund wars in Malaya and his antagonism towards the Soviet Union in the 1950's. Are you capable of posting something that's not inane or completely stupid?[/QUOTE] That was the 50s. Post war was the late 1940s.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;32570999]That was the 50s. Post war was the late 1940s.[/QUOTE] Country doesn't rebuild itself back to perfection in just 5 year.

[QUOTE=Soviet Bread;32570803]Are you capable of posting something that's not inane or completely stupid?[/QUOTE] Churchill lost the 1945 election. You muppet.

[QUOTE=Capitulazyguy;32571998]Churchill lost the 1945 election. You muppet.[/QUOTE] What does that have to do with anything?

[QUOTE=Soviet Bread;32572023]What does that have to do with anything?[/QUOTE] He wasn't able to put in his policies.

He was prime minister a few years after WW2. How do you not know this?

[QUOTE=Soviet Bread;32572722]He was prime minister a few years after WW2. How do you not know this?[/QUOTE] Yes, but he wasn't put into power immediately after the war as you say here. [QUOTE=Soviet Bread;32570566]It has roots to Churchill's useless conservative policies after a devastating war.[/QUOTE]

One of, if not the most devastating war in the history of the UK, does not stop being an issue only a few years down the line. CLEARLY, I wasn't fucking referring to the few years in between. You have to be outright illiterate to not realise that for two very important reasons: One: I said this "Churchill had a problem of not dealing with domestic issues and choosing to cut budgets to fund wars in Malaya and his antagonism towards the Soviet Union in the 1950's." Two: I also said this: "He didn't prepare the country for war, Chamberlain did. He also didn't bring the country back from the war, Atlee did." You're not even arguing a point anymore, you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. Either make a point or don't.

[QUOTE=Soviet Bread;32573320]One of, if not the most devastating war in the history of the UK, does not stop being an issue only a few years down the line. CLEARLY, I wasn't fucking referring to the few years in between. You have to be outright illiterate to not realise that for two very important reasons: One: I said this "Churchill had a problem of not dealing with domestic issues and choosing to cut budgets to fund wars in Malaya and his antagonism towards the Soviet Union in the 1950's." Two: I also said this: "He didn't prepare the country for war, Chamberlain did. He also didn't bring the country back from the war, Atlee did." You're not even arguing a point anymore, you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. Either make a point or don't.[/QUOTE] Way to make personal attacks.

[QUOTE=Soviet Bread;32573320] Two: I also said this: "He didn't prepare the country for war, Chamberlain did. He also didn't bring the country back from the war, Atlee did."[/QUOTE] Well actually Chamberlain gave concessions to Germany, a policy of appeasement. Churchill was one of the few to actually recognise and warn of the threat Germany posed. Despite this no action was taken. Even in 1939 France and Britain had sufficient military capability to invade Germany and bring it to heel. After the war, the labour government spent money on social reforms rather than rebuilding the economy first which led to serious problems down the line, especially in the late 1970s.

I THOUGH THE PROTESTERS WERE 80+ YEARS OLD :v:

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;32573770]Well actually Chamberlain gave concessions to Germany, a policy of appeasement. Churchill was one of the few to actually recognise and warn of the threat Germany posed. Despite this no action was taken. Even in 1939 France and Britain had sufficient military capability to invade Germany and bring it to heel.[/quote] Lets ignore the fact that Chamberlain was a very successful statesman before Hitler rose. The appeasement thing has become somewhat of a myth. He did appease Hitler, however, the UK population were in agreement. They did not want war anymore and they supported Chamberlain. The United Kingdom was NOT equipped to fight Nazi Germany, and if they had fought, the war wouldn't have lasted long. The UK would have lost. The time saved by Chamberlain did two things, first it gave time for the UK to build and strengthen its military, during this time, Chamberlain updated and advanced the RAF. Second, if in fact Hitler had not decided to expand, then England would have been safe and had a stable economy. Unfortunately he didn't, and the UK was much more ready then would have been if they charged into the war as soon as Hitler asked for land. Not only that, the ONLY reason the UK managed to get into the building stage so quickly and efficiently was because of the Factories Act and several other modernisation reforms passed by him. [url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/world-war-2/6062452/Neville-Chamberlain-should-be-praised-not-buried.html[/url] [quote]After the war, the labour government spent money on social reforms rather than rebuilding the economy first which led to serious problems down the line, especially in the late 1970s.[/QUOTE] You seem to have a pretty bad knowledge of your countries own history. The only real social reform Labour took was for healthcare and easing people back into a stable society, no real major social reform was done outside that. Things like Abortion, gay rights, all those small social issues weren't covered until Harold Wilson. I'm not sure how many other social issues you can think of that were that expensive. Money was tight, and it did cause some small debt, on top of the MASSIVE rebuilding costs. But they were needed. The problems in the 1970's is Edward Heath's fault. He spent a majority of his term trying to reverse the good policies Harold Wilson put into place. Which is why Labour held the government for the next 6 years, including reelecting Wilson. [editline]1st October 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Zambies!;32573460]Way to make personal attacks.[/QUOTE] Way to contribute fuck all

[QUOTE=Soviet Bread;32574101]Lets ignore the fact that Chamberlain was a very successful statesman before Hitler rose. The appeasement thing has become somewhat of a myth. He did appease Hitler, however, the UK population were in agreement. They did not want war anymore and they supported Chamberlain. The United Kingdom was NOT equipped to fight Nazi Germany, and if they had fought, the war wouldn't have lasted long. The UK would have lost.[/QUOTE] Britain and France were both fully capable of winning a war against Germany. Hitler himself stated that had the French tried to get him to back down he would be shamefully forced to by them as he was far too weak. The war happened because Britain and France were unwilling to take any action. (This being 1935 when the Versailles treaty was broken by Germany as it occupied the Rhineland.) [QUOTE=Soviet Bread;32574101]The problems in the 1970's is Edward Heath's fault. He spent a majority of his term trying to reverse the good policies Harold Wilson put into place. Which is why Labour held the government for the next 6 years, including reelecting Wilson.[/QUOTE] The economy was declining during this time, and a large part of that is to blame on the trade unions who kept demanding too much without accepting reality.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;32575982]Britain and France were both fully capable of winning a war against Germany. Hitler himself stated that had the French tried to get him to back down he would be shamefully forced to by them as he was far too weak. The war happened because Britain and France were unwilling to take any action. (This being 1935 when the Versailles treaty was broken by Germany as it occupied the Rhineland.)[/quote] I cannot find anywhere that said Hitler said that. France was taken over quickly, and Britain was weak. The UK was NOT equipped for war before Chamberlain. Their factories were in poor shape, their numbers dwindling, and the RAF completely outdated. Plus, they were on the tail end of a crippling depression. The US had an exceptionally weak military during the depression, there was no real way to keep it running strong. Same with the UK. This is only logic. From the wikipedia "Although Britain had increased military spending and funding prior to 1939 in response to the increasing strength of Nazi Germany, its forces were still weak by comparison - especially the British Army. Only the Royal Navy was of a greater strength than its German counterpart. The British army only had nine divisions available for war, whereas Germany had 78 and France 86." [quote]The economy was declining during this time, and a large part of that is to blame on the trade unions who kept demanding too much without accepting reality.[/QUOTE] I [B]severely [/B]doubt Trade Unions are capable of taking the entire country down, but mass deregulation doesn't.

[QUOTE=Soviet Bread;32576230]I cannot find anywhere that said Hitler said that. France was taken over quickly, and Britain was weak. The UK was NOT equipped for war before Chamberlain. Their factories were in poor shape, their numbers dwindling, and the RAF completely outdated. Plus, they were on the tail end of a crippling depression. The US had an exceptionally weak military during the depression, there was no real way to keep it running strong. Same with the UK. This is only logic. From the wikipedia "Although Britain had increased military spending and funding prior to 1939 in response to the increasing strength of Nazi Germany, its forces were still weak by comparison - especially the British Army. Only the Royal Navy was of a greater strength than its German counterpart. The British army only had nine divisions available for war, whereas Germany had 78 and France 86."[/QUOTE] "The forty-eight hours after the march into the Rhineland were the most nerve-racking in my life. If the French had then marched into the Rhineland we would have had to withdraw with our tails between our legs, for the military resources at our disposal would have been wholly inadequate for even a moderate resistance." - Adolf Hitler [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remilitarization_of_the_Rhineland#German_remilitarization[/url]

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;32569811]A young conservative is somebody without a heart. A old liberal is somebody without a brain. That was the quote I believe.[/QUOTE] I bet FDR was very torn up about that [editline]1st October 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;32573770]Well actually Chamberlain gave concessions to Germany, a policy of appeasement. Churchill was one of the few to actually recognise and warn of the threat Germany posed. Despite this no action was taken. Even in 1939 France and Britain had sufficient military capability to invade Germany and bring it to heel. After the war, the labour government spent money on social reforms rather than rebuilding the economy first which led to serious problems down the line, especially in the late 1970s.[/QUOTE] I think the Marshall plan helped with that