The RKBA v Tyranny

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

34. okay yeah

"Churchill was referring to the British army & territorial home guard & Chamberlains' appeasement approach, not the civilian populace of the UK taking up arms, outside able bodied men."

The scope of Churchill's speech changes the meaning of his words and wisdom entirely.

"You evidently aren't aware of Churhill's racist tendencies..."

And obviously racists unilaterally lie and always speak foolishness.



Tell me this, are Churchill's words untrue, irrelevant or otherwise not applicable to this topic because of the scope of his address lacking sufficient overlap into this topic or because of his apparently racist remarks? If either of these arguments hold water, why are they both necessary to your denial of what seems rather plain and simple? Further, perhaps you can show why the statement itself is untrue or foolish. Rather than simply attacking the source, maybe you have an actual argument??? Kind of smacks of some odd flavor Godwinism.


Hold the salad, hold the dressing.
With the truth, there is no messing.