Award Winning Speeches

Oh, look at you, digging up Teddy Roosevelt quotes like it’s going to save you from that steaming pile of nonsense you just spewed. Quoting Roosevelt when defending a twice-impeached, 91-time indicted, orange-tinted tantrum artist?

That’s like trying to clean up a murder scene with a fortune cookie. Let’s break it down, shall we? You’re throwing around “virtue signaling” like it’s the secret word of the day, hoping it’ll distract everyone from the fact that you’re just parroting the same tired excuses from the MAGA playbook. The only signal you’re giving off is desperation, and it’s about as subtle as a fart in an elevator. 

And then you had the nerve to drop that bit about “whitewashing” as if the truth can’t stand on its own. Here’s a reality check: defending a 34-time convicted felon who’s facing more charges than a damn crime syndicate isn’t some noble stand. It’s a delusion, pure and simple.  So go ahead, keep clinging to those Roosevelt speeches while ignoring the facts smacking you in the face. But remember, no amount of high-minded rhetoric can polish a turd. And right now, you’re knee-deep in it.

You're deflecting from parallels in unacceptable professional conduct in the public domain. 
 

Didn't expect such a tantrum response from my offering an opinion but I must have touched a nerve of truth...

When renowned liberals and persons, who are more knowledgeable about US law than either of us are, like Alan Dershowitz and Jonathan Turley call out the farce that are the charges, trials and convictions then you should know better than to parrot leftist narratives...
Alan Dershowitz, a lifelong Democrat voter, even defended DJT at the first farcical impeachment even though it lost him supposed friends and the second impeachment was such a farce that the Chief Justice didn't even preside over the event...but you've got nothing better than to hurl epithets, so I'll leave you to your delusions...



 

Unbelievable Jeff!

Oh, how adorable!
You’ve dragged out Alan Dershowitz as if his defense of the indefensible is some kind of intellectual holy grail. Here’s a fun fact: just because someone has a law degree and a bit of media spotlight doesn’t mean they’re immune to selling their soul for relevance. Dershowitz clung to Trump like a life raft in a sea of irrelevance, hoping to stay afloat while his credibility sank faster than a stone in quicksand.

 And Jonathan Turley? Please. The guy’s been straddling the fence so long, he’s got splinters in places I wouldn’t dare mention. Citing him like he’s the ultimate voice of reason is like bringing a butter knife to a gunfight – weak and utterly ineffective. 

Your attempt to dismiss Trump’s impeachments as “farces” would be laughable if it weren’t so sad. Let’s be real here: Trump’s impeachments were about as farcical as a Shakespearean tragedy – tragic because the very system meant to hold leaders accountable had to be dragged through the mud just to put him in the spotlight he so desperately craves.

The Chief Justice didn’t preside over the second impeachment because Trump was already out of office, not because it was a “farce.” But of course, details have never been your strong suit, have they? 

And as for your weak attempt at calling out “epithets” – buddy, if you think calling out bullshit is nothing more than hurling insults, you’ve been drinking the Kool-Aid too long. I’m not here to hold your hand through your delusions. I’m here to blow them apart like a cannon at 10 yards. 

So go ahead, keep clinging to your “renowned liberals” and your warped version of reality. Just don’t be surprised when it all crumbles beneath the weight of actual facts like any other apartheid apologist. 

I have never been a fan of Justin as a punter. Never know when to take him seriously when it comes to his comments on his runners. BUT, having a go at him for including a topical element in speech is just ridiculous.
Let's not forget only winners get to make acceptance speeches. Some accept like CR7 and some like Messi. Its their right.
Every champion has a competitive streak in them.
There is always banter with Justin, famously with MDK. Despite this they appear to get along very well.
You have to give him his kudos as he backs up the fighting talk with winners.
The aussies are the best sledgers. They are never shy to remind us about the Proteas throat issues. Did anyone care about Allan Donald's mental health?
There is also a public outcry from some of their taxpayers for what they regard as an embarrassment.

To single out Justin when most in the public limelight have commented or ridiculed, is just crazy.
To personally attack him and to threathen his relationships is just pathetic.

While it's fair to acknowledge that champions often come with a competitive streak and have the right to express themselves in their moments of victory, it's equally important to hold public figures accountable for their words and actions. It's not just about whether someone is a winner, but how they conduct themselves with the platform that winning affords them. 

The comparison to athletes like Ronaldo and Messi is valid in the sense that these figures also face scrutiny for their conduct and off the field. However, the difference lies in the nature of their comments and actions. Public criticism is a natural consequence of public speech, especially when it involves ridiculing or demeaning others, whether they be competitors or professionals in other fields. 

As for the banter and sledging, it's worth noting that while these behaviours are often part of competitive environments, they don't always translate well when directed at individuals outside that context. When sledging crosses into personal attacks or comments that degrade others' efforts or character, it loses its lighthearted, competitive edge and becomes something more insidious. 

Lastly, the idea that it's "crazy" or "pathetic" to hold someone accountable for their words is a dangerous precedent to set. Criticism and feedback are essential to growth, whether it’s for a professional athlete, a public figure, or a champion trainer like Justin. Everyone, regardless of their status or achievements, should be open to constructive criticism, especially when it pertains to how they treat others in their industry. It's not about threatening relationships or tearing someone down—it's about fostering an environment where respect is mutual and where champions, in any field, are celebrated not only for their victories but also for the way they conduct themselves.

He must be better. It isn't a joking matter.  

Bob can I please have the time back that I've spent reading this joke of a thread? Getting all worked up about this when there are actual issues in the game to concern themselves with. Justin doesn't need their support, and they're welcome to never use his services going forward, assume he will not lose any sleep over it.

Further, this Aussie woman is a meme. By definition, they come and go, like she will.
If anyone were to watch this awards ceremony rerun next year (and I'd consider getting a check up, mentally and health wise if you did actually do this, it was hard enough a watch real time), then this part of Justin's speech will be lost on everyone. Move on.

Thor wrote:

Bob can I please have the time back that I've spent reading this joke of a thread? Getting all worked up about this when there are actual issues in the game to concern themselves with. Justin doesn't need their support, and they're welcome to never use his services going forward, assume he will not lose any sleep over it.

Mate remember there are motives, feel my pain

My 10c worth, an eloquently written bad argument. Would love to know the real reason for this tirade. This platform is certainly never boring.