Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Tuesday, December 26, 2017


Many have scoffed at Mike Huckabee for comparing Winston Churchill to Donald Trump. Actually, I welcome the comparison.

One was a famous wit. The other is an infamous half-wit.

One was a war hero. The other dodged the draft.

One wrote history. The other distorts history.

One wrote A History of the English-Speaking Peoples. The other can barely speak English, never mind write a book.

One was a surprisingly good painter. The other has the worst taste imaginable.

One was an intellectual who suffered from bouts of depression. The other depresses anyone of intelligence.

One despised Nazis. The other coddles them.

One was a great orator. The other speaks like a brain-damaged six year-old.

One made no attempt to hide his thinning hair. The other...well, just look at him.

One stayed married to the same woman -- a woman of intelligence and independence -- for 57 years. The other...? Heh heh heh. Ha. Ho. Heh. Hee hee. Heh.

One dressed well. The other could trip on his own tie.

One had the ability to respect his enemies (Michael Collins, for example). The other holds inane grudges forever.

One mistrusted the Russians. The other laundered money for Russians.

One said "A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on." The other proves the point daily.

One said: "We are masters of the unsaid words, but slaves of those we let slip out." The other probably regrets that interview with Lester Holt.

See? There's nothing wrong with comparing Winston Churchill to Donald Trump. I wish more people would look up the meaning of the word "compare" in the dictionary.
Good enough for Time Magazine.
One only won a single election, and that with less votes than the opposition. Oh, wait, that was both of them.
Nice, Joseph!
You're comparing with, not comparing to :-)

Meanwhile, arrangements in the Middle East look likely to fall apart.

Selective summary:

* Qatari princes rescue major British high-street bank, invest heavily in London

* Saudi princes fund Daesh upsurge in Iraq and Syria

Then in 2017:

* Barclays guys get charged with financial crimes

* Saudi princes win support from other Gulf princes and US in trying to isolate Qatar

* Britain signs military aircraft contract with Qatar - a massive "fuck you" to the Saudis, bigger than any I can remember for decades

(At this point, we have to ask what on earth does the Emir of Qatar and his pals have on the British elite, and in that elite's favourite real estate, the City of London and its outposts?)

* Head of the US government announces that he supports Zionist sovereignty over Al-Quds

(He effectively shouts "If Israel tells the world to eat its shit, then hell yeah, the world's gonna eat its shit! You cucks in the rest of the world? Negotiators? Peace settlement snowflakes? You're all LOSERS and you're FIRED!")

* Zionist transport minister announces intention to build underground railway station in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City in al-Quds and to name it after Donald Trump

(That is not quite a Zionist dig under the Haram al-Sharif [Temple Mount], which would probably trigger war, but it's very close - it's an extremely clear provocation.)

I reckon that even in the era of Facebook-dominated passivity there is STILL a limit to how much US and Zionist excrement the Arab street will allow the Arab League and the despotic Gulf governments in particular to eat. Taking a cut from the cement contracts for the apartheid wall is one thing; photographs of a grinning US president standing next to Netanyahu by a "TRUMP STATION" sign practically in the shadow of the al-Aqsa mosque is another.

Which would the Zionists prefer? Iraqifying Iran? Or Yemenising most of the Arab world? I think it's the latter.

For 40 years the falseness of the idea that the Zionists have been seeking a peace settlement has been obvious to everyone except those who renew their ideas each time they read an article or column in the major western media. Can the idea hold? In most of the west, the answer is probably "yes". And while it can be argued with justification that few in the Arab world will learn anything they didn't already know from the latest Trump-and-Zionism show, there remains nonetheless a question of FACE even in a world where most rulers' faces have been smeared with Zionist faeces since 1948. Whenever the Zionists cause a few hundred thousand more Arabs to become refugees in Gaza, British, French and German politicians jump up and tell their audiences that the Zionazis have the right to "defend themselves". I hold no brief for the Gulf despots or for the Arab League, but at least they don't do THAT. Why? Not because they have any principles other than lining their own pockets, but because they couldn't even if they wanted to.

As things move on in the Arab world from the centrality of the conflict in Iraq and Syria, major upheaval is likely to come soon. The oil market won't stay the way it is.
I certainly agree with the final sentiment. I did not know about the underground railway. Good LORD.

In the US, "compared to" is almost universally heard, no matter what is being compared. The distinction between "to" and "with" seems to be relegated to the UK.

I'm not saying that's a good thing. But it's a thing.
Except Churchill never said the quote about lies and pants. Clue: he would have said "trousers."
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is 

powered by Blogger. 

Isn't yours?

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Image and video hosting by TinyPic