Our TOTALLY out of touch President

The Brits are not as stupid as you, Doggie. They understand what it means when Obama returns Churchill's bust and gives the Queen an ipod filled with his speeches.
 
But of course, objectively (a construct with which you are utterly unfamiliar), the claim that President Bush "fucked up" the War in Afghanistan is simply so much dishonest liberal porpaganda devoid of truth value.

The attack on America took place in September and the troops were in Afghanistan by December and you deem that a fuck up? :eusa_liar::cuckoo::eusa_liar:

You are patently ridiculous in your partisan hack criticisms.

The "bring 'em on" comment may have been ill-advised. But everyone in the world realizes that it was just putting word to bravado which leaders sometimes do. I don't believe, for example, that Sir Winston Churchill had any burning desire to "fight them in the streets . . . " etc.,* when speaking of the fucking Nazis in WWII. But he SAID it all the same. According to the phony logic you and your ilk rely on, his words would have been the focus of outraged criticism from you guys. :cuckoo:


______________________
*
* * * * We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender * * * *
-- excerpt of famous speech delivered by Sir Winston Churchill to the British House of Commons, June 4, 1940.

Objectively? You couldn't be objective if you were paid to.

You call his "Bring 'em on" comments "ill-advised" but have a hissy fit over Obama's comments about kicking ass? :cuckoo:

President Bush even admitted he royally fucked up by making such comments.

As for Churchill, that is NOTHING compared to the "Bring 'Em on" comment. Your dishonesty in trying to compare the two is noted.

Wrong again Modbutt. At least you are consistent. Unlike you, I am objective and have already demonstrated objectivity. Not liking the President's policies is not the same thing as being nonobjective. Sorry you seem to find that simple concept so difficult.

Yes, I did suggest that President Bush's "bring 'em on" comment was ill-advised, but no, I never threw any "hissy fit" or anything even remotely akin to a hissy fit over the current PResident's comments about "kicking ass."

I don't care that W supposedly said that he royally fucked up. First off, of course, he said no such thing. Secondly, he happens to be a gentleman and is capable of admitting error. In fact, I agree that his comment was ill-advised. I just said that in fact.

And the purpose of both Churchill's speech (rallying the nation in a dark hour) and the Bush comment (rallying the nation in a dark hour) are absolutely comparable. Your dishonesty in pretending otherwise is noted, but comes as no surprise.
 
Typically low-brow critique. Next, one of you schmucks will note that the name "Rabinowitz" is suspiciously Jewish sounding.

Another typical neocon response.

Another typically dishonest Modbutt response. The inclusion of the meaningless term "neocon" has no relevance other than you, being a studious liar, pretending yet again that I am or ever was a "neocon." That you persist in that dishonesty is not surprising. Liars lie and you are just a liar. Ergo, you lie.

But lots of the pukes on your side of these debates do tend to be awfully anti-Semitic and highly suspicious of any critiques from any Jews.
 
And the purpose of both Churchill's speech (rallying the nation in a dark hour) and the Bush comment (rallying the nation in a dark hour) are absolutely comparable. Your dishonesty in pretending otherwise is noted, but comes as no surprise.

Again, no.

Though it figures a neocon such as yourself would cheer Bush's "Bring 'em On" comments.

Tell me at what point in this speech, Churchill says bring it on.

Winston Churchill Speech - Fight them on the beaches

"I have, myself, full confidence that if all do their duty, if nothing is neglected, and if the best arrangements are made, as they are being made, we shall prove ourselves once again able to defend our Island home, to ride out the storm of war, and to outlive the menace of tyranny, if necessary for years, if necessary alone.

At any rate, that is what we are going to try to do. That is the resolve of His Majesty's Government-every man of them. That is the will of Parliament and the nation.

The British Empire and the French Republic, linked together in their cause and in their need, will defend to the death their native soil, aiding each other like good comrades to the utmost of their strength.

We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France,
we shall fight on the seas and oceans,
we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be,
we shall fight on the beaches,
we shall fight on the landing grounds,
we shall fight in the fields and in the streets,
we shall fight in the hills;
we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old."

I see a lot about not surrendering and defending. Nothing about telling Hitler to "Bring 'em on." Even so, there is a major difference between the capabilities of the Nazis and the terrorists in the modern error. Anyone who has even fallen asleep in history class would know that.
 
One of these things is not like the others:

I say to the House as I said to ministers who have joined this government, I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears, and sweat. We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many, many months of struggle and suffering.

You ask, what is our policy? I say it is to wage war by land, sea, and air. War with all our might and with all the strength God has given us, and to wage war against a monstrous tyranny never surpassed in the dark and lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy.

You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word. It is victory. Victory at all costs - Victory in spite of all terrors - Victory, however long and hard the road may be, for without victory there is no survival.

Let that be realized. No survival for the British Empire, no survival for all that the British Empire has stood for, no survival for the urge, the impulse of the ages, that mankind shall move forward toward his goal.

I take up my task in buoyancy and hope. I feel sure that our cause will not be suffered to fail among men. I feel entitled at this juncture, at this time, to claim the aid of all and to say, "Come then, let us go forward together with our united strength."


We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.


One of the ways to bring this war to a speedy end is to convince the enemy, not by words, but by deeds, that we have both the will and the means, not only to go on indefinitely but to strike heavy and unexpected blows. The road to victory may not be so long as we expect. But we have no right to count upon this. Be it long or short, rough or smooth, we mean to reach our journey's end.


I talk to these folks because they potentially have the best answers -- so I know whose ass to kick.
 
Doggie the Bubble Mod lacks historical perspective, although he is quite adept at the hysterical one.

The incident with Churchill's bust is emblematic of Obama's disrespect for our allies. Trying to deflect attention by yet more BOOOOSSSSHHHHHH critique doesn't absolve Obama for his decision.

So far, he's played the Racist and BOOOOSSSSHHHH cards. The only one left is for him to blame the Jews.

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: careful,, he could invoke kennedy!
 
Oh No! Not That! That's the moonbat equivalent of "You'll Shoot Your Eye Out, Kid".
 
And the purpose of both Churchill's speech (rallying the nation in a dark hour) and the Bush comment (rallying the nation in a dark hour) are absolutely comparable. Your dishonesty in pretending otherwise is noted, but comes as no surprise.

Again, no.

Though it figures a neocon such as yourself would cheer Bush's "Bring 'em On" comments.

Tell me at what point in this speech, Churchill says bring it on.

Winston Churchill Speech - Fight them on the beaches

"I have, myself, full confidence that if all do their duty, if nothing is neglected, and if the best arrangements are made, as they are being made, we shall prove ourselves once again able to defend our Island home, to ride out the storm of war, and to outlive the menace of tyranny, if necessary for years, if necessary alone.

At any rate, that is what we are going to try to do. That is the resolve of His Majesty's Government-every man of them. That is the will of Parliament and the nation.

The British Empire and the French Republic, linked together in their cause and in their need, will defend to the death their native soil, aiding each other like good comrades to the utmost of their strength.

We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France,
we shall fight on the seas and oceans,
we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be,
we shall fight on the beaches,
we shall fight on the landing grounds,
we shall fight in the fields and in the streets,
we shall fight in the hills;
we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old."

I see a lot about not surrendering and defending. Nothing about telling Hitler to "Bring 'em on." Even so, there is a major difference between the capabilities of the Nazis and the terrorists in the modern error. Anyone who has even fallen asleep in history class would know that.

You remain trite and predictable. And as always, you remain a liar.
 
[ Liars lie and you are just a liar. Ergo, you lie.

But lots of the pukes on your side of these debates do tend to be awfully anti-Semitic and highly suspicious of any critiques from any Jews.

See, this is the perfect example of a typical neocon and Liability post. Circular logic and the entire labeling of a entire side with typical vague words like "lots" and "debates". No real evidence, no real much of anything. Just a vague post used to further their own argument in a pitiful manner.

Using Liability's lack of logic in this case, I could easily say there are lots of pukes on his side of these debates that tend to be awfully racist. Now, I wouldn't do so, because that would be judging a entire movement based on a few people.
 
On SOME days the lefties here (like Modbutt) are all aghast that President Bush said that Osama bin Laden was wanted dead or alive. {He's such a cowboy. Such a joke! What an unporesidential thing to say!" Tsk tsk!}

But on other days, W instead gets criticizd for not promptly wading into Afghanistan to find and assassinate old Osama.

Unpresidential is an insult when it was W doing the talking.

But unpresidential is perfectly fine when it's the Obamessiah spewing the nonsense.

These liberoidals are a contrary lot. :lol:

Actually, he gets criticizing for completely fucking up the War in Afghanistan, which was ignored until President Obama came into office. Thanks to W's "leadership", our troops did not even get into the area where Bin Laden was until December 2001.

Meanwhile, saying "Bring 'em on" to people who are more than willing to be use that as their reason to kill as many troops as possible. Bush was never in danger, which is why Mr. Magoo over there said it. It was our troops he put in danger just a little more with those dumbass comments.

Ah hind site is wonderful. And what about clinton not taking the shot on bin laden when he had it? So whos fault is it?
 
[ Liars lie and you are just a liar. Ergo, you lie.

But lots of the pukes on your side of these debates do tend to be awfully anti-Semitic and highly suspicious of any critiques from any Jews.

See, this is the perfect example of a typical neocon and Liability post. Circular logic and the entire labeling of a entire side with typical vague words like "lots" and "debates". No real evidence, no real much of anything. Just a vague post used to further their own argument in a pitiful manner.

Another sterling example of Modbutt posting. Criticize the alleged flaws in another person's post while studiously avoiding addressing the topic. Also, when in doubt, use deliberately false labels, even though they are completely devoid of honesty or meaning.

As I correctly noted, many of the fubars on your side of these debates do tend to express consternation over anything and everything Jewish. But you have my blessing, Modbutt, to pretend otherwise. :eusa_liar: The facts never do get in your way, by golly.

And the OP wasn't a "vague" post, either. That's why you avoid it with your own petty efforts at deflection, founded on your ever-present supply of dishonesty.

You remain just a liar.
 
This looks like Churchillian for "Bring it":

We ask no favours of the enemy. We seek from them no compunction. On the contrary, if tonight the people of London were asked to cast their votes as to whether a convention should be entered into to stop the bombing of all cities, an overwhelming majority would cry, "No, we will mete out to the Germans the measure, and more than the measure, they have meted out to us." {applause} The people of London with one voice would say to Hitler: "You have committed every crime under the sun. Where you have been the least resisted there you have been the most brutal. It was you who began the indiscriminate bombing. We remember Warsaw! In the first few days of the war. We remember Rotterdam. We have been newly reminded of your habits by the hideous massacre in Belgrade. We know too well the bestial assaults you're making upon the Russian people, to whom our hearts go out in their valiant struggle! {cheers} We will have no truce or parley with you, or the grisly gang who work your wicked will! You do your worst! - and we will do our best! {sustained cheering} Perhaps it may be our turn soon. Perhaps it may be our turn now."
 
Ah hind site is wonderful. And what about clinton not taking the shot on bin laden when he had it? So whos fault is it?

Oh fun. Clinton gets some blame too. However, this all can be traced back to one Ronald Reagan. It's all thanks to Reagan that Osama Bin Laden came to power. Especially after it was Reagan who through the CIA gave Osama Bin Laden CIA training, guns, and money. After all, he didn't think in hindsight what exactly his actions would have for consequences. All he looked at was the short term of driving the Soviets out of Afghanistan.
 
This looks like Churchillian for "Bring it":

We ask no favours of the enemy. We seek from them no compunction. On the contrary, if tonight the people of London were asked to cast their votes as to whether a convention should be entered into to stop the bombing of all cities, an overwhelming majority would cry, "No, we will mete out to the Germans the measure, and more than the measure, they have meted out to us." {applause} The people of London with one voice would say to Hitler: "You have committed every crime under the sun. Where you have been the least resisted there you have been the most brutal. It was you who began the indiscriminate bombing. We remember Warsaw! In the first few days of the war. We remember Rotterdam. We have been newly reminded of your habits by the hideous massacre in Belgrade. We know too well the bestial assaults you're making upon the Russian people, to whom our hearts go out in their valiant struggle! {cheers} We will have no truce or parley with you, or the grisly gang who work your wicked will! You do your worst! - and we will do our best! {sustained cheering} Perhaps it may be our turn soon. Perhaps it may be our turn now."

LOL wut? It looks like to me he's saying they won't sign a truce with the Nazis. They will do their worst obviously, and they will do their best in return. If that's the best you got, then you need to go back to the drawing board.
 
Ah hind site is wonderful. And what about clinton not taking the shot on bin laden when he had it? So whos fault is it?

Oh fun. Clinton gets some blame too. However, this all can be traced back to one Ronald Reagan. It's all thanks to Reagan that Osama Bin Laden came to power. Especially after it was Reagan who through the CIA gave Osama Bin Laden CIA training, guns, and money. After all, he didn't think in hindsight what exactly his actions would have for consequences. All he looked at was the short term of driving the Soviets out of Afghanistan.

So then, Modirt, you are saying you can trace it back to the Soviet Union and that would, of course, take us back to the roots of the uber left known as Marx, Engels, Trotsky, Lenin and Stalin. For it was the old Soviet Union that first went into Afghanistan that led to the creation of the fighter known as Osama bin Laden.

It figures that a disreputable, willfully and always dishonest guy like Modbutt :eusa_liar: would then turn around and "blame" Ronald Reagan.
 
This looks like Churchillian for "Bring it":

We ask no favours of the enemy. We seek from them no compunction. On the contrary, if tonight the people of London were asked to cast their votes as to whether a convention should be entered into to stop the bombing of all cities, an overwhelming majority would cry, "No, we will mete out to the Germans the measure, and more than the measure, they have meted out to us." {applause} The people of London with one voice would say to Hitler: "You have committed every crime under the sun. Where you have been the least resisted there you have been the most brutal. It was you who began the indiscriminate bombing. We remember Warsaw! In the first few days of the war. We remember Rotterdam. We have been newly reminded of your habits by the hideous massacre in Belgrade. We know too well the bestial assaults you're making upon the Russian people, to whom our hearts go out in their valiant struggle! {cheers} We will have no truce or parley with you, or the grisly gang who work your wicked will! You do your worst! - and we will do our best! {sustained cheering} Perhaps it may be our turn soon. Perhaps it may be our turn now."

LOL wut? It looks like to me he's saying they won't sign a truce with the Nazis. They will do their worst obviously, and they will do their best in return. If that's the best you got, then you need to go back to the drawing board.


^ that's dishonest Modbutt-speak for "boedicca kicked Modbutt's ass and Modbutt doesn't know how to admit that boedicca kicked Modbutt's ass."
 
Ah hind site is wonderful. And what about clinton not taking the shot on bin laden when he had it? So whos fault is it?

Oh fun. Clinton gets some blame too. However, this all can be traced back to one Ronald Reagan. It's all thanks to Reagan that Osama Bin Laden came to power. Especially after it was Reagan who through the CIA gave Osama Bin Laden CIA training, guns, and money. After all, he didn't think in hindsight what exactly his actions would have for consequences. All he looked at was the short term of driving the Soviets out of Afghanistan.

"The enemy of my enemy, is my friend. " Or haven't you heard that one before? At the time of regan, bin laden was our friend.

At the time Clinton had the opportunity to take him out, bin laden was not our friend. Obviously at the time the government though bin laden was a very serious threat or they would not have been in a position of asking for permission to take him out when they had him in the cross hairs

You were bringing up pasts to make a point of fault. I followed your lead.
 
So then, Modirt, you are saying you can trace it back to the Soviet Union and that would, of course, take us back to the roots of the uber left known as Marx, Engels, Trotsky, Lenin and Stalin. For it was the old Soviet Union that first went into Afghanistan that led to the creation of the fighter known as Osama bin Laden.

It figures that a disreputable, willfully and always dishonest guy like Modbutt :eusa_liar: would then turn around and "blame" Ronald Reagan.

Wut? Osama Bin Laden would of been nothing if the CIA hadn't trained him and given him and his friends $3 billion. To use your logic, that would be like giving credit to Osama Bin Laden for making the U.S military what it has been since 2001.

And it's called placing blame where it is due. I understand neocons like yourself don't like to take responsibility for your actions in manners like these, but it's okay. :thup:
 
so, in conclusion both obie wan and the modmoron are out of touch with reality and both have their heads frimly implanted in their anal sphincters.. is this correct? Say Aye! The Ayes have it..
 
This looks like Churchillian for "Bring it":

We ask no favours of the enemy. We seek from them no compunction. On the contrary, if tonight the people of London were asked to cast their votes as to whether a convention should be entered into to stop the bombing of all cities, an overwhelming majority would cry, "No, we will mete out to the Germans the measure, and more than the measure, they have meted out to us." {applause} The people of London with one voice would say to Hitler: "You have committed every crime under the sun. Where you have been the least resisted there you have been the most brutal. It was you who began the indiscriminate bombing. We remember Warsaw! In the first few days of the war. We remember Rotterdam. We have been newly reminded of your habits by the hideous massacre in Belgrade. We know too well the bestial assaults you're making upon the Russian people, to whom our hearts go out in their valiant struggle! {cheers} We will have no truce or parley with you, or the grisly gang who work your wicked will! You do your worst! - and we will do our best! {sustained cheering} Perhaps it may be our turn soon. Perhaps it may be our turn now."

LOL wut? It looks like to me he's saying they won't sign a truce with the Nazis. They will do their worst obviously, and they will do their best in return. If that's the best you got, then you need to go back to the drawing board.


The heartbreak of historically illiteracy. Churchill was not Chamberlain.

This speech took place in 1941 - Britain entered WWII in 1939. Churchill is clearly rallying the Brits for the war effort by citing the German's attacks and bombings in Warsaw, Rotterdam, and Belgrade - and by saying that the Brits won't be brutalized into a false peace but choose to fight instead.
 

Forum List

Back
Top