The first Progressive President ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yQGpC18v1U
American predecessor to Winston Churchill, who also proposed social reforms when he was allied to the Liberals.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owTPZQQAVyQ
Quote from: Baruch on July 15, 2019, 01:44:12 PM
The first Progressive President ...
American predecessor to Winston Churchill, who also proposed social reforms when he was allied to the Liberals.
If he had been President today, you would despise him as being "Too Liberal"...
Quote from: Cavebear on July 20, 2019, 01:49:12 AM
If he had been President today, you would despise him as being "Too Liberal"...
Yes, he would be helping the Four Jihadis of the Apocalypse convert Yogi Bear to Islam ;-)
I can appreciate what he did, by ignoring the label "liberal".
Quote from: Baruch on July 20, 2019, 06:00:22 AM
Yes, he would be helping the Four Jihadis of the Apocalypse convert Yogi Bear to Islam ;-)
I can appreciate what he did, by ignoring the label "liberal".
If Churchill was PM of England or even US President, would you actually be happy? I see you more as a raised fist to chest Roman Dictator follower type.
Quote from: Cavebear on July 20, 2019, 09:47:51 AM
If Churchill was PM of England or even US President, would you actually be happy? I see you more as a raised fist to chest Roman Dictator follower type.
I can admire amazing personalities, without agreeing to their politics. Genghis Khan was amazing, but not a nice person. Right now I am "fanning" Churchill, but of course he was a monster. All leaders are. On the last comment ... when in Rome, do as the Romans do. I see no problem with that. I would agree with Flavius Josephus, not with Bar Kochba.
Quote from: Baruch on July 20, 2019, 11:00:38 AM
I can admire amazing personalities, without agreeing to their politics. Genghis Khan was amazing, but not a nice person. Right now I am "fanning" Churchill, but of course he was a monster. All leaders are. On the last comment ... when in Rome, do as the Romans do. I see no problem with that. I would agree with Flavius Josephus, not with Bar Kochba.
Well, see, that's a difference between us. I really don't admire people for fame or power.
Quote from: Cavebear on July 20, 2019, 11:04:38 AM
Well, see, that's a difference between us. I really don't admire people for fame or power.
Fame or power? Yes, those are minor. I admire Caesar's genius, or Churchill's stubbornness.
Quote from: Baruch on July 20, 2019, 11:36:33 AM
Fame or power? Yes, those are minor. I admire Caesar's genius, or Churchill's stubbornness.
But there are farmers of equal stubborness as Churchill and some small-battle generals of equal strategic thought as Caeser who did not seek power...
That said, yes Caesar and Churchill were both alphas... I tend to admire people like Franklin and Lincoln more though.
Quote from: Cavebear on July 20, 2019, 01:08:52 PM
But there are farmers of equal stubborness as Churchill and some small-battle generals of equal strategic thought as Caeser who did not seek power...
That said, yes Caesar and Churchill were both alphas... I tend to admire people like Franklin and Lincoln more though.
Franklin and Lincoln are American. I admire them too, though both were monsters in their own way. Lincoln is like Caesar. Franklin is more like Churchill.
Quote from: Baruch on July 20, 2019, 03:29:53 PM
Franklin and Lincoln are American. I admire them too, though both were monsters in their own way. Lincoln is like Caesar. Franklin is more like Churchill.
That is so wrong. I fling my nose-droppings at you... Just kidding - Monty Pythonish. But really, Lincoln like Caesar? He never led an army directly nor had a desire to be dictator (in the Roman sense). And, to my knowledge, Franklin was both a skilled ambassador and scientist while Churchill was just a stubborn old fart who lost the only battle he originated (Gallipolli) (sp?)
I'll admire a stubborn old fart (and there is a family connection to him) but Franklin was not one...
Quote from: Cavebear on July 20, 2019, 03:43:11 PM
That is so wrong. I fling my nose-droppings at you... Just kidding - Monty Pythonish. But really, Lincoln like Caesar? He never led an army directly nor had a desire to be dictator (in the Roman sense). And, to my knowledge, Franklin was both a skilled ambassador and scientist while Churchill was just a stubborn old fart who lost the only battle he originated (Gallipolli) (sp?)
I'll admire a stubborn old fart (and there is a family connection to him) but Franklin was not one...
Lincoln was commander in chief. He didn't need to personally command armies. He started a civil war (under provocation). He hired and fired generals. And yes, he was a warmonger, involved (inversely) in slavery. He wanted to free slaves, Caesar made slaves. Caesar came from an inferior political position relative to Lincoln, and started a civil war to resolve that problem. But your whole point is morality. I deny all morality. If morality was your real issue, then support Gandhi and Mother Theresa.
Ever hear of the young Franklin, how escaped the shit hole of New England for Philadelphia, because he didn't want to continue as a candle maker apprentice to his older brother? He got from Boston to Philadelphia on just about nothing. Then he invented the post office, the American almanac and much more.
Churchill was the initial promoter of Naval aviation (which years later led to the sinking of the Bizmark). He was one of the first people, and the first politician to learn to fly an airplane, at risk to his own life (3 times). And it was his initial inspiration, and direction to the naval engineers, that led to the first tank. Churchill also was an unofficial diplomat and spy ... as was Franklin.
Quote from: Baruch on July 20, 2019, 03:55:49 PM
Lincoln was commander in chief. He didn't need to personally command armies. He started a civil war (under provocation). He hired and fired generals. And yes, he was a warmonger, involved (inversely) in slavery. He wanted to free slaves, Caesar made slaves. Caesar came from an inferior political position relative to Lincoln, and started a civil war to resolve that problem. But your whole point is morality. I deny all morality. If morality was your real issue, then support Gandhi and Mother Theresa.
Ever hear of the young Franklin, how escaped the shit hole of New England for Philadelphia, because he didn't want to continue as a candle maker apprentice to his older brother? He got from Boston to Philadelphia on just about nothing. Then he invented the post office, the American almanac and much more.
Churchill was the initial promoter of Naval aviation (which years later led to the sinking of the Bizmark). He was one of the first people, and the first politician to learn to fly an airplane, at risk to his own life (3 times). And it was his initial inspiration, and direction to the naval engineers, that led to the first tank. Churchill also was an unofficial diplomat and spy ... as was Franklin.
Wow, and I thought *I* drank too much sometimes!
First, your comparisons of Lincoln and Caesar seems more support of my opinion. Second, I'll grant you some minor points about Franklin and Churchill, but ONLY minor. Both had a talent for witticisms... But Franklin was a bon vivant, subtle in diplomacy, and dedicated to peace. Churchill was a dour old man even when young, was anti-social, and direct to the point of rudeness. I'll remind you of "and had I been your husband, I would let you". I trust you know the reference.
;)
Just to round out this string ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrqkhCsLwDA
Quote from: Baruch on August 01, 2019, 12:07:32 PM
Just to round out this string ...
I admire Churchill. The right person at the right time in the right place. If not for him, the US might have had a cold war with a German Europe in the 50s instead of the Soviets. But he was also the wrong person afterwards. Being right isn't always good enough.