Who Said It?

AnyOldIron

AnyOldIron

Atheist Missionary
Who was it who described Gandhi as "a half-naked fakir" who "ought to be laid, bound hand and foot, at the gates of Delhi and then trampled on by an enormous elephant with the new viceroy seated on its back"

And described Mussilini as having "rendered a service to the whole world," showing, as it had, "a way to combat subversive forces" and that he was a "Roman genius… the greatest lawgiver among men."

You might be shocked..... lol
 
I've always snickered -- rather obnoxiously, I must admit -- whenever I've encountered Reaganite cultists comparing the Great Fellator to Mr. Churchill. The brainwashed can be so gullible.
 
Yes he was a good speaker, read the teleprompter like a pro . And was a charismatic. Beyond that though....
 
uscitizen said:
Yes he was a good speaker, read the teleprompter like a pro . And was a charismatic. Beyond that though....
Click to expand...
Beyond that, he was indeed an American Churchill . . . in some respects.

Oh well. We all know that Ornot despised Reagan as the worst president in history and holds all of his minions so far beneath contempt as to ask them to inspect for termites in the joists. So, what else is new? ;)
 
OrnotBitwise said:
Beyond that, he was indeed an American Churchill . . . in some respects.

Oh well. We all know that Ornot despised Reagan as the worst president in history and holds all of his minions so far beneath contempt as to ask them to inspect for termites in the joists. So, what else is new? ;)
Click to expand...

Do you think that he led to W, Ornot? Because I have been reading about his adminstration, and I see this split between the sane and the insane, happening right there. For instance, George Schultz was deeply disturbed by Iran/Contra, and in fact, believed it to be impeachable, and said so. He said, look we have a constitution here, and you cannot constitutionally take money that congress has not appropriated and use it to wage a foreign war, and he thought that would be the end of it, because even in someone like Goldwater's adminstration (had he been President) it would have been the end of it, and personally I do not see goldwater as this moderate that subsequent events and books have nearly turned him into. And, anyway, right there is where you see the crack occur. And it leads you, and in fact, with many of the same players, right to W, and today, where the unthinkable is now the commonplace, and the insane is the sane, and the unconstitutional gave way to the unitary executive.

Do you think so? Or did this split happen somewhere else that I am unaware of?
 
"Oh well. We all know that Ornot despised Reagan as the worst president in history and holds all of his minions so far beneath contempt as to ask them to inspect for termites in the joists. So, what else is new? "

Yeah, but you're a nutjob lib wacko from CA... we expect nothing less from you :D
 
I feel that the Neo movement started under Regan or at least was given reign to run. I also would take Regan back anyday over W.
 
Winston Churchill.

Bugger. Didn't think you'd get it that quickly...

I can accept Churchill saying what he did about Gandhi, he wasn't the most diverse person in the history of mankind. (He was the first to gas the Kurds - does that make Saddam the new Churchill???)

But to compliment el Duce that way???
 
AnyOldIron said:
Winston Churchill.

Bugger. Didn't think you'd get it that quickly...

I can accept Churchill saying what he did about Gandhi, he wasn't the most diverse person in the history of mankind. (He was the first to gas the Kurds - does that make Saddam the new Churchill???)

But to compliment el Duce that way???
Click to expand...

Have you ever read the things he said about the Palestinians? I'm not surprised by this. That is funny though, asking if this makes Saddam the new Churchill.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top