Liberals such as David Cameron, the Conservative Party Prime Minister of England?
But by the standards of US conservatives such as Clothahump, British conservatives are just to the left of Mao Zedong. So the point stands.
Things so jaw droppingly insane that The Onion rejected them for not being believable.
Turns out that last week’s gaffe isn’t the only time Romney has decided thata presidential candidate doesn’t need to be nice to our most significant ally;
[QUOTE=Mitt Romney]
England [sic] is just a small island. Its roads and houses are small. With few exceptions, it doesn’t make things that people in the rest of the world want to buy. And if it hadn’t been separated from the continent by water, it almost certainly would have been lost to Hitler’s ambitions.
[/QUOTE]
I’ve seen a lot of political cartoons recently that show Romney trying to compete in an Olympic event with images depicting the “mainstream media” clinging to him and hampering him… It’s kind of depressing that some people fail so badly to understand the issue.
This is a presidential candidate running against a sitting president who has been incredibly strong on foreign policy, in a time where international relations are becoming more and more crucial. And while on his first international tour, he:
– Openly disses the security detail in England enough to piss off basically everyone there
– Praises two countries who have very stable economies largely due to government involvement and universal health care
– Completely alienates any arabs who may have been tuning in to his israel address
– Pissed all over an important jewish fasting day
– Had a major aide snap and basically tell people to fuck off.
Now call me crazy, but when the guy puts his foot in it every time he opens his mouth on an international tour, that’s something we should know about! That’s entirely valid criticism of Romney as a candidate.
I haven’t read the book (danger sign right there), but isn’t this somewhat similar to the recent kerfuffle over Obama’s ‘you didn’t build it’ speech? Not in content per se, but in nature.
Here’s the full quote as presented in the link (emphasis added):
Inelegant or not or inartfully phrased, it seems to me that he’s praising, not insulting. What’s particularly missing is the context that follows–why did Britain control so much territory and people?
Without more, I can’t say that the missing context vindicates the quote–but it does seem to be the most reasonable explanation. If so, the criticism at Romney is equally eye-roly.
I don’t think “you used to be awesome, but now you suck balls” is high praise.
Hence the problem with the lack of context. I’m not asserting that it is innocent and that you’re definitely wrong (we have too little to go on), just that a close read suggests it’s not quite that damning.
Consider the construction. He’s not (necessarily) saying “now you suck balls.” He seems to be saying “check it out. England had jack shit–no assets and major vulnerabilities–yet two generations ago had the world by the balls.”
What’s missing? Is it how lacking jack and shit England still managed to grab the world by the shorthairs? Was he making a point that in two generations this powerful country lost everything because of a particular set of policies? Don’t know. Just pointing out that at face value, the recent Obama quote seemed a bit damning. But with a hint of context, the larger point stood strongly, despite poor phrasing. It seems likely that this could be the case here.
It’s because Britain outsourced everything to India, including running India.
Apparently Romney has issued an apology to Great Britain and the City of London. The only problem is that it’s written in a language only he understands.
Well, you see, you put the seer stone into a hat…
Perhaps he can lend them a hat and a seer stone so they can read it.
Oooh. Synchronized Snark. I smell a new Olympic event.
Do they still test your pee? I have no use for steroids, but, well…
I don’t think so. England did have assets during the age of empire; it controlled most of the world’s textile production, among much else, and was the only industrial state.
Oh, good grief. Now there’s a “documentary” out claiming that Obama’s real father was “card-carrying Communist” named Frank Marshall Davies, and that his mother posed for adult photographs for Davies which he later sold to porn magazines. And this is why Obama is a socialist.
It’s getting rave reviews on Amazon.
This is not necessarily an endorsement. I read a few of those reviews; the tinfoil-hat brigade is well-represented.
I didn’t say they weren’t rave reviews from loonies.
“Solid historical analysis,” “Very, very compelling,” “Well-documented and fact-based.” 
Yup, reviews by loonies for sure.