Armed Polite Society

Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Ben on January 11, 2017, 11:32:11 PM

Title: Churchill Back in the White House
Post by: Ben on January 11, 2017, 11:32:11 PM
More of Obama's policies being reversed.  =D

Story didn't mention what (if anything) the Churchill bust is replacing. Churchill was removed by Obama to make room for MLK.

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/01/11/report-trump-personally-asked-for-winston-churchills-bust-to-be-returned-to-oval-office/
Title: Re: Churchill Back in the White House
Post by: K Frame on January 12, 2017, 06:33:52 AM
Well, if we needed proof positive that the man is a racist, there it is...
Title: Re: Churchill Back in the White House
Post by: Hawkmoon on January 12, 2017, 01:19:25 PM
Well, if we needed proof positive that the man is a racist, there it is...

Obama?

Agreed.

And apparently xenophobic, as well. Can't have a bust of a furriner in the Oval Office.
Title: Re: Churchill Back in the White House
Post by: K Frame on January 12, 2017, 01:30:11 PM
But Sir Winston is/was a US citizen.



Title: Re: Churchill Back in the White House
Post by: Scout26 on January 12, 2017, 06:11:03 PM
But Sir Winston is/was a US citizen.





Hmmm, I knew his mother was a US citizen, but always though he was only a British Subject.   (IIRC, the USS Winston Churchill being the only US warship to be named in honor of a non-US citizen.)  Turns out I was wrong, he (and one of only two people, ever, sorta kinda) was given an Honorary US Citizenship:

http://www.winstonchurchill.org/the-life-of-churchill/senior-statesman/churchill-honored-with-us-citizenship
Title: Re: Churchill Back in the White House
Post by: BlueStarLizzard on January 12, 2017, 10:28:14 PM
That always bugged the crap out of me and I'm glad it's coming back.

IMHO, a president can add to the collection of artifacts in the White House, but should never remove them. It's one of those things where the individuals opinion should not come into play because it's a matter of historical importance rather than personal preferences or aesthetics.
At most, they can move things to a dusty out of the way corner if they don't want to look at it.
Title: Re: Churchill Back in the White House
Post by: lee n. field on January 12, 2017, 11:12:01 PM
Quote
Churchill Back in the White House

Without my glasses on I read that as "Cthulhu back in the White House".
Title: Re: Churchill Back in the White House
Post by: Northwoods on January 12, 2017, 11:14:09 PM
^^^^ Would be an improvement.
Title: Re: Churchill Back in the White House
Post by: RoadKingLarry on January 13, 2017, 01:27:11 AM
Without my glasses on I read that as "Cthulhu back in the White House".

I KNEW I'd seen Michelle somewhere before....
Title: Re: Churchill Back in the White House
Post by: agricola on January 13, 2017, 11:41:05 AM
that is a terrible bust of him though
Title: Re: Churchill Back in the White House
Post by: Regolith on January 13, 2017, 06:08:07 PM
that is a terrible bust of him though

The one in the article is a different bust that Congress had installed in the Capitol as a reaction to Obama moving the other one out of the White House.

This is actual bust (http://redstatewatcher.com/article.asp?id=49222)...which isn't much better, I guess.
Title: Re: Churchill Back in the White House
Post by: KD5NRH on January 13, 2017, 06:25:50 PM
This is actual bust (http://redstatewatcher.com/article.asp?id=49222)...which isn't much better, I guess.

Maybe they should have had him pose for it before his death.
Title: Re: Churchill Back in the White House
Post by: Andiron on January 13, 2017, 06:28:03 PM
Maybe they should have had him pose for it before his death.

Even the bust of DEAD Churchill must have made Obama feel inadequate :D
Title: Re: Churchill Back in the White House
Post by: 230RN on January 13, 2017, 06:50:43 PM
That always bugged the crap out of me and I'm glad it's coming back.

IMHO, a president can add to the collection of artifacts in the White House, but should never remove them. It's one of those things where the individuals opinion should not come into play because it's a matter of historical importance rather than personal preferences or aesthetics.
At most, they can move things to a dusty out of the way corner if they don't want to look at it.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.  Tell that to the self-righteous racist demagogue who's in residence for another week.
Title: Re: Churchill Back in the White House
Post by: Ben on January 13, 2017, 07:16:01 PM
Yeah, yeah, yeah.  Tell that to the self-righteous racist demagogue who's in residence for another week.

I never saw a logical (or any) explanation of why Churchill had to go, vs as Liz said, just getting moved to a corner. I have no problem with an MLK monument in the oval office - it seems sensible to have one. I just don't see any reason for having to move Churchill (other than spite of course). Especially since it was given as a gift from our strongest ally.
Title: Re: Churchill Back in the White House
Post by: Scout26 on January 13, 2017, 10:06:45 PM
I never saw a logical (or any) explanation of why Churchill had to go, vs as Liz said, just getting moved to a corner. I have no problem with an MLK monument in the oval office - it seems sensible to have one. I just don't see any reason for having to move Churchill (other than spite of course). Especially since it was given as a gift from our strongest ally.

Obama (like his father) was very much a anti-British, anti-colonialist.  All anyone had to do was read his book (Dreams of My Father) to know that.
Title: Re: Churchill Back in the White House
Post by: BlueStarLizzard on January 13, 2017, 11:43:56 PM
Obama (like his father) was very much a anti-British, anti-colonialist.  All anyone had to do was read his book (Dreams of My Father) to know that.

It doesn't matter. The residents of the White House are curators, not a *expletive deleted*ing redesign team.
Title: Re: Churchill Back in the White House
Post by: 230RN on January 14, 2017, 03:36:42 AM
Well, it was just a furnished apartment to them.
Title: Re: Churchill Back in the White House
Post by: lee n. field on January 14, 2017, 10:26:01 AM
Well, it was just a furnished apartment to them.

Will they get their damage deposit back?  >:D