Trump FAIL #1...

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
...oh, well. Maybe it was going a little too smoothly.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/20/president-trump-returns-bust-churchill-oval-office/




Winston Churchill, probably more than any other single person lead the charge to the end of the British Empire and the decline of Western civilization.

He could not have picked a more misguided and awful choice to disgrace our Oval Office.

FAIL #1. A big one. Did he not pay ANY attention to the last 'ol Winny was on display and the results?

Winny had his failings - and many of OUR former leaders were hated during their terms, but history has redeemed them.
Most notably, Harry Truman.

What makes it relevant isn't whether you honor someone you think deserves it or not, but how it affected the Brits.
Statesman or villain, THEY took it as an insult. Whatever historians think - Brits freaking love the guy.
They rated him some years back as the Greatest Briton of all time.

But you know - Obama. He didn't give a crap what THEY thought - HE knew better.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Larry FAIL #1, buying into the propaganda are you. Sean Spicer posted a pic last night of the MLK bust still in the oval office. Search it out, you can find it if it really busts your bubble.

I can't find where I said the MLK bust had been removed. A little help?
 

Bann

Doris Day meets Lady Gaga
Out with the old POTUS, in with the new. He gets to have whatever artwork he chooses. :shrug:
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
I can't find where I said the MLK bust had been removed. A little help?

Didn't say you said it, I said you were buying in to the propaganda. Of note the statement of removing the bust is part of the article you quoted. So you were passing on the lie, which is just as bad as you making it. Or maybe you are allowing your new found Democrat heart to sour and spoil and nothing will ever be your fault again.
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
I never read Mr. Buchanon's book about Churchill and how the british could have avoided going to war, But maybe this fellow who writes for the New York Sun did.
I read the story and it looks like Mr. Buchanon used his choice of Historians to make his attack

Forumites should read it themselves and be the Judge, since I doubt too many of you did actually read Buchanon's book, but it looks to me like Mr Buchanon was full of crap.

http://www.nysun.com/arts/patrick-j-buchanans-know-nothing-history/79722/
 

b23hqb

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
Didn't say you said it, I said you were buying in to the propaganda. Of note the statement of removing the bust is part of the article you quoted. So you were passing on the lie, which is just as bad as you making it. Or maybe you are allowing your new found Democrat heart to sour and spoil and nothing will ever be your fault again.

Like fake news? Winnie wasn't perfect, for sure, and neither was Marty.
 
Last edited:

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Didn't say you said it, I said you were buying in to the propaganda. Of note the statement of removing the bust is part of the article you quoted. So you were passing on the lie, which is just as bad as you making it. Or maybe you are allowing your new found Democrat heart to sour and spoil and nothing will ever be your fault again.

You accuse me of passing on a lie and I just re-read every word I wrote. I say again, where did I say ONE word about MLK's bust being removed. I quoted not ONE part of the article concerning the removal of MLK's bust. Not ONE word.

I'll appreciate your apology when you get to it as I know you will. :tap:
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
I never read Mr. Buchanon's book about Churchill and how the british could have avoided going to war, But maybe this fellow who writes for the New York Sun did.
I read the story and it looks like Mr. Buchanon used his choice of Historians to make his attack

Forumites should read it themselves and be the Judge, since I doubt too many of you did actually read Buchanon's book, but it looks to me like Mr Buchanon was full of crap.

l]


Ah, good. We're in luck, then. We need no books. We need merely use our own two eyes and our own brain to look at the British empire and the period of Winston's leadership and make a simple comparison. There are two indisputable facts; he was constantly in positions of great power and the Empire declined. One last fact I'll reiterate; The MOMENT they could, the British people sent him into retirement.

like an arsonist, if you need a fire, he's your guy.
 

Kyle

ULTRA-F###ING-MAGA!
PREMO Member
Now I understand.

Larry is a fan of Neville Chamberlain... makes everything clear.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Now I understand.

Larry is a fan of Neville Chamberlain... makes everything clear.

:lol: Now THERE is some deductive reasoning for you! I am not into worshiping a man who lead England to decline therefore I MUST be for his opponent. That sort of stupidity is how we rationalized destroying regional national fascism to make the world safe for global communism. You should get a sticker for that. :buddies:
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
PS. I'll bet you know as little about Chamberlain as you seem to know about Churchill; what you read on a Dixie cup.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Actually was on a solo cup Larry.

Ah. All's the better.


In any event, because I'm caffeinated up, here's you history lesson of what you don't know, or forgot; Churchill, a fan of Hitler and Mussolini at the time, wasn't PM for what we know as 'Munich'. He was part of the group behind the scenes that objected to any objection of Hitler consolidating Germany and Austria and Czechoslovakia, seeing it, as many did, as natural that German speaking majorities who WANTED to be part of a greater Germany should want it to be so. Churchill was FINE with German expansionism at the time. He thwarted Chamberlain numerous times when he, Neville, was warning that this was bad, step by step. He did so because Winston Churchill is one of the great political opportunists of history. He said that anyone can turn traitor and switch parties once. He said the real art was to do it twice, referring to himself, turning traitor on his new party and going BACK to where he was. 'Ratting' and "re-ratting' he referred to it as.

In any event, back to our hero. Gaining political advantage, not opposing Hitler, helped Winston make Chamberlain, who warned against Hitler's expansionism, ironically, look like a war monger. The public, wanting NO war, started to favor Churchill, ironically, as a reasonable, peaceful dude.

When Hitler wanted Danzig, the last piece in his Greater Germany puzzle before turning East, thinking the British, very reasonably, had no objections to him doing very reasonable things, putting German people back together again under German rule, he saw ZERO reason for the Brits to change their view and object to the MOST German of German desires; the return of Danzig, a virtually 100% German port. Well, knowing Chamberlain was up against the wall and reeling with the war monger accusations, when Hitler wanted this and Chamberlain was giving no indications, for political reasons, to oppose it, good ol' Winnie switched gears and attacked Chamberlain as a pacifist and that this, this NOW German aggression, the LEAST unreasonable of all Hitlers expansion, was simply TOO much!

Churchill had his man, Neville, boxed in! Churchill had it easy; when England COULD do something, Austria, the Sudetenland, he advocated no action nor any building of arms. Now, when she could do NOTHING, the least possible place for intervention, Danzig, Winston turned hawk. Neville reacted and did the ONLY thing he could; stalled for time. He KNEW England could do not one damn thing to stop Hitler now. That time had passed. He knew that Britain needed time to speed up arms production if war was to come.

A pause here; Dove Winston derided Neville's war mongering for political gain as the public wanted nothing to do with war. Neville, knowing how weak England was, further played into Churchills hands by forcing arms production to begin, knowing, if war came, it was his responsibility to see to it that at least some preparations were going on. Winston hit him for this, too. Winston Churchill made political hay our of the weapons programs Churchill would then use to barely keep England alive. Programs he slammed his opponent over.

So, back to our story. Chamberlain flew to Munich to stall. Hoping the Poles would see reason and abdicate and hand Danzig BACK to Germany, which was long since supposed to have been returned to Germany based on the post war allied agreements dictating that the will of the people should matter. The Poles would NOT back down because they saw Churchill, and others, public opposition to Germany, brand new now for Winston bare in mind, as reason to think they had real support. They were wrong because England, has she wanted to, had NO means to come to her aid.

Chamberlain comes home, waves his paper, the Poles don't back down and off we go. Chamberlain, the warning hawk, was losing to the dove Winston WHEN Hitler could have been stopped. Winston the now hawk, opposed Hitler when he could NOT be stopped and Chamberlain did the ONLY thing he could do; buy time.

Check and mate. Churchill totally outflanked him. And helped, brought on war. Chamberlain was trying to get the Poles to understand England could NOT help them retain a German port town. The Poles pride, and belief in English hawks, even the new ones, lead them to national suicide.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
What an arrogant ass you are.

I'll take that over "Ignorant Lemming Who Thinks Churchill Was a Swell Guy and good role model for a leader even though he lead England to catastrophic decline while at the same time holding an equally uneducated opinion of Neville Chamberlain" ass.

Dixie Cup seemed more...economical


So, the common perception of Churchill and Chamberlain are wrong and I'm an ass. :diva:
 

Kyle

ULTRA-F###ING-MAGA!
PREMO Member
It would probably help if you stop getting your books from conspiracy websites.

I can't wait for your dissertation on Roosevelt's complicity in the bombing of Pearl Harbor.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
So, the common perception of Churchill and Chamberlain are wrong and I'm an ass. :diva:

It's STILL irrelevant. I don't know if Obama removed the bust because he knew all that about the atrocious, awful leader Churchill was and wished to patch things up with our friends the British. I'm betting on - that didn't figure into it.

The OUTCOME was it pissed off the Brits because THEY took it as an insult.

Now I've heard people explain that LINCOLN was a terrible President. I've heard LOTS of stuff explaining how awful Ghandi was for India.
Ditto Louis 14th. Mandela. I could go on.

The CONSEQUENCE of removing his bust was that those historically misinformed Brits were insulted.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
I'll take that over "Ignorant Lemming Who Thinks Churchill Was a Swell Guy and good role model for a leader even though he lead England to catastrophic decline while at the same time holding an equally uneducated opinion of Neville Chamberlain" ass.

Dixie Cup seemed more...economical


So, the common perception of Churchill and Chamberlain are wrong and I'm an ass. :diva:

You sitting at your keyboard preaching to educated and intelligent people, trying to pretend that you are so much smarter and more informed than they, makes you an arrogant ass. If that's what keeps you from opening a vein, great. But know that you're a fan club of one.
 
Top