Racism? Really?

[Anonymous]

Great. Debate the issues. I used socialism as an example because that is a common critique. Explain how well you understand 'socialism' and the President's departure from it. Just pleeeeeeease stop throwing down the racism card. Such feeble feeble feeble ... anyhow.

[Anonymous]

There are people who find racism an important issue, especially those old enough to have seen a society dominated by it. And there are still racists, some of whom are visible in the recent demonstrations. Just as the racists may be only a small part of the anti-Obama picture, those for whom racism is the primary concern represent only a part of the liberal reaction.

People on both sides should recognize the complexities of their opponents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think Bush has a lack of intelligence, I think he has a different world-view than his critics. Just like Churchill had to stand alone when the liberal elite in Britian wanted to surrender.

Since when does standing alone prove intelligence? More often than not, it proves that you are wrong.

And Churchill's reputation was built on his leadership, not his predictions. Also, contrary to your statement, most conservatives supported appeasement, too. This was not a "liberal elite" thing. Furthermore, neither party wanted to surrender to Hitler. And lastly, Churchill was both an elite and, at times, a Liberal. He switched parties a few times in his career. Who writes your textbooks, Sarah Palin?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think Bush has a lack of intelligence, I think he has a different world-view than his critics. Just like Churchill had to stand alone when the liberal elite in Britian wanted to surrender.

Since when does standing alone prove intelligence? More often than not, it proves that you are wrong.

And Churchill's reputation was built on his leadership, not his predictions. Also, contrary to your statement, most conservatives supported appeasement, too. This was not a "liberal elite" thing. Furthermore, neither party wanted to surrender to Hitler. And lastly, Churchill was both an elite and, at times, a Liberal. He switched parties a few times in his career. Who writes your textbooks, Sarah Palin?

ah, silly rabbit. as a primer to work on your lack of knowledge in this area, please read Five Days in London as a starting point. Not sure how switching parties a few times is relevant. Reagan did the same thing, does that mean he wasn't a conservative icon? Of course not. And by "surrender", clearly you know I wasn't referring to an unconditional surrender, but more of a negotiated cessation. But such a negotiation would certainly mean the loss of most of the Empire - so pretty much "surrender" in Sir Winston's eyes. Nice try, but fail.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think Bush has a lack of intelligence, I think he has a different world-view than his critics. Just like Churchill had to stand alone when the liberal elite in Britian wanted to surrender.

Since when does standing alone prove intelligence? More often than not, it proves that you are wrong.

And Churchill's reputation was built on his leadership, not his predictions. Also, contrary to your statement, most conservatives supported appeasement, too. This was not a "liberal elite" thing. Furthermore, neither party wanted to surrender to Hitler. And lastly, Churchill was both an elite and, at times, a Liberal. He switched parties a few times in his career. Who writes your textbooks, Sarah Palin?

ah, silly rabbit. as a primer to work on your lack of knowledge in this area, please read Five Days in London as a starting point. Not sure how switching parties a few times is relevant. Reagan did the same thing, does that mean he wasn't a conservative icon? Of course not. And by "surrender", clearly you know I wasn't referring to an unconditional surrender, but more of a negotiated cessation. But such a negotiation would certainly mean the loss of most of the Empire - so pretty much "surrender" in Sir Winston's eyes. Nice try, but fail.

You need a deeper library. Go look and see who was in that War Cabinet that Churchill needed to persuade. And also while you are at it, read a book about the thirties and see which parties were responsible for appeasement. In fact, go back to the early 30's and see what Churchill himself said about Hitler.

[Anonymous]

I've forgotten more about Churchill than you will ever learn, and I don't see how comments made in the early 30s are relevant when discussing the critical days of 1940 when England stood alone. Neither is the make-up of the cabinet or Lord Halifax's misguided views at that time.

Point is, I see many of Sir Winston's qualities in GWB.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've forgotten more about Churchill than you will ever learn, and I don't see how comments made in the early 30s are relevant when discussing the critical days of 1940 when England stood alone. Neither is the make-up of the cabinet or Lord Halifax's misguided views at that time.

Point is, I see many of Sir Winston's qualities in GWB.

Right. You know nothing of my education, but nice try. I can probably tell you more about the inside of the Bodleian than you can. I am fine with you finding parallels between the two individuals, although I personally don't think that being unpopular in your time means you are Churchill. But you misrepresented 1940 as a liberal vs. conservative battle, which is wrong. You portrayed it as an elite issue, which is wrong especially if you understand the popular sentiment of the time. And lastly, I believe that you cannot get a realistic understanding of a political figure until you look at his whole career, including his mistakes. It is easy to take five isolated days and learn the wrong lesson.