Active Now

Element 99
Shuhak
Discussion » Statements » Rosie's Corner » The dipstick compared himself to Winston Churchill and then to FDR. Do YOU see any comparison whatsoever or is dipstick a DOLT??
RosieG

The dipstick compared himself to Winston Churchill and then to FDR. Do YOU see any comparison whatsoever or is dipstick a DOLT??

Posted - September 11, 2020
Tags : None

Responses


  • 6477
    No comparison.. although it's believed both have/had learning difficulties.. In one's case it was a specific learning difficulty such as Dyslexia/Dyspraxia/ADHD which did NOT affect his intelligence. Indeed those with specific learning difficulties are often of higher intelligence than average and just have specific difficulties in specific areas  - nutty professor type stuff..  

    In the other's case - his learning difficulty is due to low intelligence.. 

    I leave you to guess which is which! 
      September 11, 2020 12:21 PM MDT
    1

  • 113301
    I'm pretty sure I can figger it out Addb. Thank you for your reply! :)
      September 12, 2020 4:23 AM MDT
    0

  • 7280
    ADHD is not considered to be a learning disability. It can be determined to be a disability under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), making a student eligible to receive special education services. However, ADHD falls under the category “Other Health Impaired” and not under “Specific Learning Disabilities.”

    https://ldaamerica.org/disabilities/adhd/#:~:text=ADHD%20is%20not%20considered%20to,to%20receive%20special%20education%20services.

    I am ADHD  I was diagnosed about 20 years ago as an adult after our youngest son was also diagnosed.

    Before it got a fancy name it was referred to as a minimal grain disorder.

    Two correlative abilities are the high IQ and the ability to hyper-focus.

    I think it's a nice trade-off; but I do not have a severe case of ADHD and there are ways besides medications to deal successfully with it.

      This post was edited by tom jackson at September 12, 2020 4:20 PM MDT
      September 12, 2020 3:54 PM MDT
    0

  • 6023
    Well ... Winston Churchill was a "large" man.

    FDR probably told a lot of "tall tales", being an outdoorsman and all.
      September 11, 2020 3:28 PM MDT
    1

  • 113301
    Well you certainly are in your "being kind" mode Walt. I'd say that's a stretch but well maybe it's spot on. Thank you for your reply. Size matters especially to the dipstick. Hands feet and well er other body parts. Crowds. Ratings. He is very self-conscious about size. For him the bigger the better. Maybe that is why he is obese?
      September 12, 2020 3:50 AM MDT
    0

  • 7280


    Critics were incredulous at the comparison Trump drew between himself and Churchill by pointing out that while Churchill sought to build the country's morale amid attacks from Nazi Germany, the prime minister was bluntly honest about the dangers and hardship Britain faced. 

    "America will prevail over the China virus," Trump said, using a racist nickname for the coronavirus. "As Franklin Delano Roosevelt said: 'The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.' We do it very well."

    Roosevelt, however, had used that line in a speech that also stressed the importance of being honest in tackling national crises.

    "This is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly," he said at the time. "Nor need we shrink from honestly facing conditions in our country today."

    https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-defends-downplaying-coronavirus-compares-churchill-fdr-2020-9

      September 11, 2020 3:34 PM MDT
    1

  • 113301
    I believe dipstick also has compared himself to Abraham Lincoln at least indirectly. Didn't he desecrate the Lincoln memorial by holding a photo op ego speech there on the steps with the Lincoln Memorial in the background? He is compared to Hitler by many. He sees himself in a light from a different source. Not right light but fright light. I'm going to use that. I like it. Thank you for your reply tom! Sigh. What's next? Your guess. This post was edited by RosieG at September 12, 2020 3:57 PM MDT
      September 12, 2020 3:17 AM MDT
    1

  • 16894
    Well, Churchill WAS an a$$hole. Sending the Black and Tans into Ireland was an act of bastardry he was never called to account for, neither was his refusal to provide an escort for the Lusitania while he was Lord of the Admiralty - a deliberate attempt to bring the US into the First World War (which didn't work, President Wilson made his famous "too proud to fight" speech immediately thereafter - it wasn't until the Zimmerman telegram nearly two years later that America declared war).
    FDR was also a philanderer despite his being near-crippled by poliomyelitis as a child, his affair with Lucy Mercer is well known.
    There the comparisons end. The bad bits he shares. FDR was honest with his people for the most part, and Churchill brave to the point of foolhardiness - two concepts which His Royal Orangeness is completely unfamiliar with. This post was edited by Slartibartfast at September 12, 2020 1:25 AM MDT
      September 11, 2020 10:44 PM MDT
    1

  • 113301
    I always thought both men were heroic R. I guess even heros have clay feet. Thank you for your very informative analysis. I appreciate it bigly. Happy Saturday to thee and thine! :)
      September 12, 2020 1:27 AM MDT
    0