For all values of “Churchill” less than or equal to zero…

mikey

i dunno mikey, didn’t churchill call for gassing the “niggers” in africa and the middle east?

i doubt the claremont institute for advanced asshattery meant it that way though…

“A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject.”

— Winston Churchill

from his wiki entry..

“I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. We have definitely adopted the position at the Peace Conference of arguing in favour of the retention of gas as a permanent method of warfare. It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected.” from Companion Volume 4, Part 1 of the official biography, WINSTON S. CHURCHILL, by Martin Gilbert (London: Heinemann, 1976)

They’re referring to the Winston Churchill who defended ethnic cleansing in Ireland and who came up with interesting forms of internment during the Boer War. By their lights, Winnie’s campaign against Hitler was an unfortunate blip in an otherwise sterling career of political rapine in favor of the ruling classes and against “those people” whether non-Aryan or merely non-titled. And even so, Churchill’s war provided all sorts of cool military toys that simultaneously blew people up and kept the bleeding hearts from wasting money on the labouring classes and other undesirable types. They figure WC would totally be at home hangin’ with the “better people” at Perle’s villa in Tuscany, even if he did start telling “tribe of Abraham” jokes to the neocons after the third bottle.

Apparently, they have a great sense for “Churchillian” figures:

http://www.claremont.org/events/eventid.60/event_detail.asp

yeah, THAT churchill, anne.

it’s the “churchill” in november and the ” big crocodile botha” in june, right?

Apparently, they have a great sense for “Churchillian� figures

And last year’s recipient—Victor Davis Hanson.

Can they just misappropriate someone’s name like this? Why can’t Churchill’s heirs sue?

Claremont Institute is also proud to present the FBI with its 2007 Freedom and Democracy Award.

Claremont proudly honors Duke Cunningham for the 2007 Honest Dealer Award.

And this year’s Miss Congeniality for 2007 is a TIE.
A nice red one with thin black crosshatching.

The food will be cold and lumpy but the wine will be sparking so come on down and join us at our circle jerk….

At the Claremont Institute.

AAARGH.

Those assholes give Claremont a bad name. For those who don’t know, Claremont is a very nice college town with some of the best liberal arts colleges in the nation. I went to one of them.

The Claremont Institute is not affiliated, and, last I checked, they had their offices down the road in Upland.

Oh shut upi you liberal retards, you’ve got nothing.

Hey, Rumsfeld is the new spirit of Andrew Jackson, and that genocidal bastard made it on our twenty dollar bill. What is old is new again. Twas ever thus…

“Churchill” means “resolute”, “gruff a-hole” and “war hero”. The actual man is secondary to the pleasant thoughts his name elicits in the demented minds of wingnuts. “Reagan” is a conservative tribal identifier that means “gruff a-hole who stuck it to the smart guys, heh heh”.

Hold on now. You’re telling me that “Reagan” doesn’t mean catsup is a vegetable?

graph the function;

where churchill =z and i serves at the pleasure of the president, z(n+1) = z(n)^2 + c, where c is the complex number x+iy corresponding to any point on the (x,y) coordinate plane.

Oh shut upi you liberal retards, you’ve got nothing.

Shoelimpyâ„¢

My momma never taught me to shut upi.

You wanna teach me, asshoel?

where c is the complex number x+iy corresponding to any point on the (x,y) coordinate plane

JPF, you so much as breathe “Euler’s formula” and you’re a dead man.

A DEAD MAN!!!!!

where churchill =z and i serves at the pleasure of the president, z(n+1) = z(n)^2 + c, where c is the complex number x+iy corresponding to any point on the (x,y) coordinate plane.

My conservative instincts are taking over. I want to drop a bomb on that math equation bullshit.

Churchill has left teh building.

Mah momma talkin to me try to tell me how to live –

nah nah na nah nah na na na na

but I don’t lissen to her ’cause my head is like a sieve –

nah nah na nah nah na na na na…

and I only know three chords….

You know, I don’t wanna blow y’all’s minds, but I’m starting to think these guys aren’t exactly put together right, know what I mean?

This is the best frickin’ blog on teh internets…

I usually mostly lurk, but I just got a good new job and I am feelin’ good.

Y’all rock! (except for the trolls, and even they provide comic relief)

Next year’s recipient: Larry the Cable Guy

Wreathed in smoke in Lebanon,

We burn the midnight oil…

Yes, the Claremont morlocks like him for this:

I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes.

As well as for the fact that he chose the Soviets over the Nazis only very very reluctantly — really, when circumstances forced him to.

it is absolutely paradoxical; we cannot understand it, and we don’t know what it means, but we have proved it, and therefore we know it must be the truth.” [6]

love to see “fucktard” used in a scholarly journal…

I’ll give it a shot:

Mark Steyn = Mark Twain + Winston Churchill
–>
Mark Steyn – Mark Twain = Winston Churchill
&
GWB + Jeebus > Winston Churchill
Leads us to:

GWB + Jeebus > Mark Steyn – Mark Twain

Since I believe that Mark Twain is greater than Mark Steyn, we can conclude that the Right Hand Side is negative.

GWB + Jeebus > a negative number

Assuming that Jeebus is equal to infinity (because nothing can be greater than Jeebus) and subtracting Jeebus from both sides, we get:

GWB > negative infinity

Although this fails to properly relate Bush to Steyn, it does give us a lower bound on GWB, which thus proves that just when you think W. can’t sink any lower, he can. In fact, with negative infinity as his limit, there seems to be no bound to how low he can go.

If Winston Chruchill’s ghost rose up during the middle of Rumsfeld’s acceptance speech and totally told him off before ripping off his head and peeing in his bleeding neck hole, how much would you pay to be in attendance? And remember, you’d be surrounded by conservative dickwads. Churchill would tell them off too.

See what kind of wackiness ensues when you make John Hinderaker and Bill Bennett fellows of your high-falutin’-soundin’ no-relation-to-the-famous-university Institute?!

nylund-

shouldn’t that be “GWB

huh… evidently your message gets cut off if you try to list “less than negative infinity” in ASCII characters…..

as I was saying….

“GWB

ummm… the preview button keeps stealing my sentences… it hates the “less than” symbol….

Actually, since GWB + Jesus = a negative number, wouldn’t it make GWB (-infinity – x)? Thereby proving not only that he’s worse than you think, but that he’s so negative that he breaks the number system, too.

And then there’s the Churchill who showed public sympathy to the Jews after Hitler began attacking London, whilst believing that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion was a real document.

Y’know, sort of like our wingnuts make nice with the Jews because it gives them an excuse to make war on the brown people with the oil. And it helps to bring Jesus back sooner.

Jesus says, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God”

Wait a second, why is Claremont Institute security throwing Jesus out of the building?

think i saw the Fucktard Abacus at some hole in the wall in Wheaton, Ill. circa
1975- they were really loud and perfectly talentless. And the cops raided the club.

The comparisons to Churchill leave out the most obvious example, which is that of Galipoli. Every strategic mistake you can think of went into that, including a shocking disregard for the troops and sailors sent on the damnfool orientalist escapade.

And hey, do you know what these guys are up to? One of the grand fromages at Claremont is Howard Ahmenson, who is, along with Paul Weyrich and Little Dickey Scaife, driving the whole megillah in The AAnglican Communion. They are funding that Nigerian Bishop who is trying to dictate doctrine to the Episcopal Church in America, while said church is paying HUGE amounts of overseas mission money to his diocese.

Ahmenson, Weyrich and Scaifey are also funding the breakaway parish movement in the US.

It’s nothing but a naked ploy to destroy The Anglican Communion in general and The Episcopal Church in America in particular.

Note: There is some evidence that fundies have “packed” some of these breakaway congregations as a tactic, according to one source.

Are they comparing Iraqnam with Gallipolli now?

Tulkinghorn hit the bull’s-eye. Performance in Iraq seems to have been based on the Gallipoli model, and the wingnuts seem to have the same attitude toward the US military that the British high command had toward the ANZACS–“none of them belong to my club”.

I’m not sure that I like Churchills’ politics all that much (he was a Tory, after all). However, he was supposedly possessed of an acerbic wit.

One story goes that he was once at a party, drunker than a skunk. A woman, indignant that he was in an intoxicated state, reproached him with a horrified tone in her voice, saying to him, “You’re drunk!”

To which he reportedly replied, “And you’re ugly. But tomorrow, I’ll be sober.”

Another time, another woman said to him, “If I was married to you, I’d put poision in your tea.” His response to her was, “And madame, if I was married to YOU, I’d drink it.”

the same attitude … that the British high command had toward the ANZACS–â€?none of them belong to my clubâ€?.

A bit off-topic here, but pay no attention to any whinging ANZACs and the way they carry on as if the Gallipoli battle was all about them. Let’s see what Wikipedia says about Allied forces at Gallipoli:

Australia — 8,709 dead.
New Zealand — 2,721 dead.
France — 10,000 dead (estimated).
UK — 21,255 dead.

Off-topic, as I say, but this is an element of the Australian & New Zealand national mythologies which really pisses me off.

Yes, but to be fair, good Doktor, we Southerners have bugger-all people, so it represented a much larger proportion of our population.

To say nothing of the fact that it was a war that was half-way around the world, and we really only went because we so wanted them to be our friends. They were there because the whole stinking mess was in their neck of the woods (okay, their neck of the mud, thank you Flanders’ fields).

To say nothing of the fact that it was a war that was half-way around the world, and we really only went because we so wanted them to be our friends.
This is a bit of a recurring theme in Australian and NZ history…

we Southerners have bugger-all people

Yep. Saw ’em in Deliverance

Points to T. Scheisskopf for using “megillah” and “Anglican Communion” in the same sentence!

I think there are a few unfair statements about Churchill:

They’re referring to the Winston Churchill who defended ethnic cleansing in Ireland and who came up with interesting forms of internment during the Boer War.

It is true he was responsible for the Black and Tans. Late, he was involved with the negotiations for the home rule bill of 1920 and he was a lot more sympathetic and conciliatory than other British politicians. Of course he was not conciliatory enough for De Valera and the rest of Sinn Fein. Churchill played a very minor role in the Boer War and is most famous for escaping from prison during the conflict.

Gallipoli would probably have been a disaster in any case, but he was screwed over by Kitchener (the war minister) and the poor leadership of Hamilton, the army commander for the operation.

he was a Tory, after all
He was first elected as a Conservative, but joined the Liberal party and was a member of the Asquith and Lloyd George cabinets before, during and after WWI. He then crossed aisle back to the Conservatives in the 1920s.

I think what neocons admire about Churchill is how resolute and uncompromising he was about Hitler while the rest of the UK government was trying to accommodate him. My general impression (from William Manchester’s biography of Churchill) is that while he was wrong about many things, and disastrously wrong sometimes, he was dead right about Hitler. He was a much better war prime minister than peace one. The UK people probably recognized that, too, since the Conservatives suffered a stunning loss in the 1945 general election.

The comparisons to Churchill leave out the most obvious example, which is that of Galipoli. Every strategic mistake you can think of went into that, including a shocking disregard for the troops and sailors sent on the damnfool orientalist escapade.

On the other hand, prior to Dunkirk, Gallipoli represented the absolute Gold Standard for retreats under fire: When the Allied command finally pulled their heads out of their asses and decided it was time to cut their losses, the entire (remaining) expeditionary force was evacuated from the battle without a single casualty.

I wouldn’t mind one bit if we emulated that tiny bit of history with respect to Iraq.

WOW!!!11!!!

A MAJOR AWARD!!!eleven!!!!!

The Manchester biography is wonderful – I’m still pissed off that he died before he wrote the third part.

I think it’s so much fun that, while the neocons get no end of traction out of Churchill’s “steadfastness,” his contemporaries thought that the man was downright mercurial.

He had a good understanding of tactics and strategy and an ear for sentimental verse, which he used well in his speeches, but what I find remarkable about Churchill is that his reactions to events reveal an instinctive belligerance and that instinct brought him to harmful conclusions again and again and again, until finally it made him right about one big thing.

Churchill wasn’t exceptionally insightful; rather, it was Hitler’s exceptional perfidy that made Churchill’s predictions correct – he was the broken clock that was right twice a day; his place in history is secured because the position he was stalled on was high noon.

Gallipoli would probably have been a disaster in any case, but he was screwed over by Kitchener (the war minister) and the poor leadership of Hamilton, the army commander for the operation.

Another factor is that for years — decades, even — the British Army had used its Quartermaster’s Corps as the dumping ground for all of the feebleminded incompetents who were sufficiently tenured or politically connected as to be untouchable, on the theory that they couldn’t do any harm if they were commanding a commissary full of booze instead of a bunch of soldiers in battle.

That particular Devil’s bargain came back to bite them on the ass when they landed an expeditionary force without any of the supplies needed for an invasion (and without any orders from Hamilton, in part because they had neglected to land communications supplies, and in part because Hamilton was a nincompoop). They also forgot to make adequate provision for little luxuries like food and medicine for the troops.

Ironically, Churchill’s great-to-the-nth ancestor, the Duke of Marlborough, would have known better: His campaign leading up to the Battle of Blenheim in the War of Spanish Succession is generally considered to be one of the finest examples of military logistics ever.

“the Winston Churchill who . . . came up with interesting forms of internment during the Boer War.”

He was a war correspondent in the Boer War, so I doubt this is accurate

My only question is…

Has his Medal of Freedumb(tm) been minted yet?

Sperm Donor: “And you’re ugly. But tomorrow, I’ll be sober.�

To which she replied “Any you’ll be ugly too, and still a drunkard!”

Hey, wait a minute. Rummy’s first name is “Secretary”?

That ain’t no math. This is math:
Mark Steyn = Mark Twain + Winston Churchill
Donald Rumsfeld = Winston Churchill
Therefore,
Mark Steyn = Mark Twain + Donald Rumsfeld
Donald Rumsfeld = Mark Steyn – Mark Twain
Donald Rumsfeld = Mark (Steyn – Twain)
(Donald Rumsfeld)/Mark = Steyn – Twain
So obviously Rumsfeld is a top when he’s with men named Mark. The right hand side of the equation is left as an exercise for the reader.

“To say nothing of the fact that it was a war that was half-way around the world, and we really only went because we so wanted them to be our friends.”

Well, there also was fighting in the antipodean neck of the woods (e.g. the hunt for the German cruiser SMS Emden, which was sunk by HMAS Sydney, and Australia and New Zealand wanted (and got) the German colonies in New Guinea, the Bismarck Archipelago and Nauru, so they didn’t act completely without self-interest.

And we grabbed Samoa while we were at it! W00t!

Maybe its a euphemism. Like giving someone a Churchill means making him down a pint of scotch and then sticking a cigar in his arse.

I’m so thrilled at the fact that this thread contains not one, not two, but many, examples of mathematics, albeit in a fairly debased form.

Harry Cheddar’s Churchill gag, that almost had me swallowing my own tongue, is the icing on a very fine cake of blogthreadery.

Anyone read Terry Pratchett’s Jingo? He uses that appallingly botched landing-and-invasion idea in that. I’d never realised that Lord Rust was based on Hamilton, so thanks, RR.

And Athenawise, what’s wrong with having a first name of Secretary? It’s better than Cheney, who was unfortunately, if preciently, baptised “That Total Bastard”, due to an entertaining contretemp at the font.