Cofirmed by the UK for Obama and his minions: Smokers have lower IQs

SPierce wrote:
"William Black" wrote in message
...
SPierce wrote:
"mikeos" wrote in message
...
On 04/04/2010 23:52, SPierce wrote:
Well I would vote for Winston Churchill (smoker/drinker) over Adolf
Hitler
(non-smoking teetotal vegetarian).
# As someone who suffered from both of them, how do you equate a man
who
brought a country out of poverty into a first class nation in six years
to
one who destroyed and Empire in five by winning a war against him...and
using Americans and Russians to help him do it.

Nazi nostalgia, I love it!
# It takes more than nostalgia to bring a poverty stricken nation with
no gold reserves to a bustling first class economy in six years.
It didn't end well though...



# No it didn't end well, for them or us.

We did a lot better than they did.

For a start we didn't have a great big Russian army camped on us for the
next half century...


--
William Black

"Any number under six"

The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff.

"William Black" wrote in message
...

(snipped)
We did a lot better than they did.

For a start we didn't have a great big Russian army camped on us for the
next half century...


# No * WE * didn't do better than them. That's the whole point. I'm
talking about the economic competence of both leaders. Britain financially
was in a mess with aristocrats running the place when the Germans were in
full employment created by a commoner.

Both had *voices* that inspired people. About the only thing they had
in common, but one of them actually achieved an economic miracle without any
gold . In my opinion the reason Churchill hated him so much. All it took
was for an American banker to exploit Churchill's hatred by paying him to
write critically about him.

The war was a different scenario altogether. And * We* only just managed
to stay afloat until the Americans came in.

On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 08:25:34 -0700 (PDT), sutartsorric
wrote:


I doubt that even Obama could smoke enough to give himself a lower IQ
than the previous president.

How about someone who can't spell Syracuse and who thinks there are 57
states?

On 05/04/2010 22:42, SPierce wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 04/04/2010 23:52, SPierce wrote:

Well I would vote for Winston Churchill (smoker/drinker) over Adolf
Hitler
(non-smoking teetotal vegetarian).

# As someone who suffered from both of them, how do you equate a man
who
brought a country out of poverty into a first class nation in six years
to
one who destroyed and Empire in five by winning a war against him...and
using Americans and Russians to help him do it.

Nazi nostalgia, I love it!

# It takes more than nostalgia to bring a poverty stricken nation with no
gold reserves to a bustling first class economy in six years. And to have a
thankful population because of it. Churchill achieved nothing people were
thankful for.

Well we were pretty grateful for being spared the death camps.

SPierce wrote:
"William Black" wrote in message
...
SPierce wrote:
"mikeos" wrote in message
...
On 04/04/2010 23:52, SPierce wrote:
Well I would vote for Winston Churchill (smoker/drinker) over Adolf
Hitler
(non-smoking teetotal vegetarian).
# As someone who suffered from both of them, how do you equate a man
who
brought a country out of poverty into a first class nation in six years
to
one who destroyed and Empire in five by winning a war against him...and
using Americans and Russians to help him do it.

Nazi nostalgia, I love it!
# It takes more than nostalgia to bring a poverty stricken nation with
no gold reserves to a bustling first class economy in six years.
It didn't end well though...



# No it didn't end well, for them or us. A different story altogether
though. I was considering the economic COMPETENCE of the leaders to manage
the country for the betterment of their people. Churchill had no history
of improving his country.


That was much the same verdict of the British public.
He was only fit to be a war time prime minister. He
In the three general elections he ran as PM he never
got as many votes as the Labour Party. Our peculiar
election system allowed him a win in 1951 even though
the Labour Party won than a million votes more than
the Conservative Party. That's even more votes
than Gore won against Bush.

SPierce wrote:
"William Black" wrote in message
...

(snipped)
We did a lot better than they did.

For a start we didn't have a great big Russian army camped on us for the
next half century...


# No * WE * didn't do better than them. That's the whole point. I'm
talking about the economic competence of both leaders. Britain financially
was in a mess with aristocrats running the place when the Germans were in
full employment created by a commoner.

But they had to go to war to pay for it.

It was the looting of Europe that paid for German pre war prosperity.

--
William Black

"Any number under six"

The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff.

William Black wrote:
SPierce wrote:
"William Black" wrote in message
...

(snipped)
We did a lot better than they did.

For a start we didn't have a great big Russian army camped on us for
the next half century...


# No * WE * didn't do better than them. That's the whole point.
I'm talking about the economic competence of both leaders. Britain
financially was in a mess with aristocrats running the place when the
Germans were in full employment created by a commoner.

But they had to go to war to pay for it.

It was the looting of Europe that paid for German pre war prosperity.

I defer to you on all things Indian, William, but not on
other subjects. German industry was virtually wiped out
by Allied bombing in WW2, the Russians in particular
looted their sector ruthlessly. However, because the
Allies refused to let the Germans re-arm we removed an
enormous burden from their shoulders. Combine this
with the fact that they had almost a clean slate when
it came to rebuilding their industry and that, more
than your quite incorrect statement is the reason,
Germany rose from the ashes so quickly.

A friend spent a year in Hamburg from 1955. Ten years
before Hamburg had been devastated by the same phenomena
that raised Dresden. Nearly all it's buildings had been
smashed and 40,000 citizens lost their lives. My friend
didn't find any trace of the bombing. Hamburg was a
beautiful city that looked as if it had not been touched
by war. When he cam back to work in the City he saw
quite a few bomb sites left unattended. We didn't look
as if we had won anything.

John Rennie wrote:
William Black wrote:
SPierce wrote:
"William Black" wrote in message
...

(snipped)
We did a lot better than they did.

For a start we didn't have a great big Russian army camped on us for
the next half century...


# No * WE * didn't do better than them. That's the whole point.
I'm talking about the economic competence of both leaders. Britain
financially was in a mess with aristocrats running the place when the
Germans were in full employment created by a commoner.

But they had to go to war to pay for it.

It was the looting of Europe that paid for German pre war prosperity.

I defer to you on all things Indian, William, but not on
other subjects. German industry was virtually wiped out
by Allied bombing in WW2, the Russians in particular
looted their sector ruthlessly. However, because the
Allies refused to let the Germans re-arm we removed an
enormous burden from their shoulders. Combine this
with the fact that they had almost a clean slate when
it came to rebuilding their industry and that, more
than your quite incorrect statement is the reason,
Germany rose from the ashes so quickly.

Well yes, I agree.

But we're talking about pre war Germany.


--
William Black

"Any number under six"

The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff.

On 06/04/2010 13:47, John Rennie wrote:

A friend spent a year in Hamburg from 1955. Ten years
before Hamburg had been devastated by the same phenomena
that raised Dresden. Nearly all it's buildings had been
smashed and 40,000 citizens lost their lives. My friend
didn't find any trace of the bombing. Hamburg was a
beautiful city that looked as if it had not been touched
by war. When he cam back to work in the City he saw
quite a few bomb sites left unattended. We didn't look
as if we had won anything.

I used to work in Old Bailey, opposite the last remaining bomb site in
London, in Ludgate Hill. It was only finally built on about five years ago.

From: William Black
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Newsgroups:
alt.activism.death-penalty,uk.politics.misc,aus.politics,soc.retireme nt,rec.tr
avel.europe
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2010 11:21:31 +0100
Subject: Cofirmed by the UK for Obama and his minions: Smokers have lower
IQs

SPierce wrote:
"William Black" wrote in message
...

(snipped)
We did a lot better than they did.

For a start we didn't have a great big Russian army camped on us for the
next half century...


# No * WE * didn't do better than them. That's the whole point. I'm
talking about the economic competence of both leaders. Britain financially
was in a mess with aristocrats running the place when the Germans were in
full employment created by a commoner.

But they had to go to war to pay for it.

It was the looting of Europe that paid for German pre war prosperity.

I would prefer to speak of the looting that occurred during the war in the
occupied countries. With France, Germany was punitive in this respect.
They pegged the franc to the mark at a highly unfavorable exchange rate.
They systematically looted Jewish properties - apartments and furniture in
Paris, businesses - and shipped what they had looted to Germany, for the use
of the Germans.

After the war the French Jews tried to recover their stolen property. In
the vast majority of cases, this proved impossible.

Donna Evleth

--
William Black

"Any number under six"

The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff.