Is language, articulation and the ability to reach your target in a way that commands respect important in a Prez?

Oh charming to the core I see! You are such a delight!  I might perhaps have agreed with you on the matter, after having researched, (though having researched a few of your other comments I found them sorely misguided and factually incorrect so this may have been the same.) However, the sheer nasty and malicious tone of your comment there about Brits was uncalled for and unworthy so I don't think I will bother.. I will just put it down to that mighty chip you seem to have on your shoulder. 

You had to "research" this ? I was taught this in junior high school. Do they not teach history in Great Britain? That's pretty sad, actually.

You forget, why am I not surprised.. we have  a very LONG history.. very, very long.. Silly to think we could possibly be taught it all! LOL would that we all had such a minute history as your own country's to draw upon but funnily enough much of that seems to be being taught incorrectly and definitely in an over simplistic way.
Yes, I was familiar with the speech.. almost everyone is.. as I say we have centuries of history to draw upon... so I looked up the facts before responding to check I had it all straight.. clearly not everyone else bothers with that kind of thing... they prefer to spout off at the mouth without knowing facts.. As it was you got a number of things wrong.. as I pointed out..  Shall I reiterate and elaborate again? Indeed the whole base of your statement was based on an incorrect understanding of what Chamberlain said to whom, why he said it, and what he based it upon....  that includes, as I say the fact that the Germans agreed... unfortunately as you would well know there are so many backstabbing liars around.. and people going back on their word....... and there are huge gulfs of relevant things you entirely overlook in your simplistic comments... which is a) what separates us and b) makes it futile to attempt to debate anything with you..

While we are on the subject.. being an educator and information sharer by nature..  We are taught about the kings and queens, King Charles, Henry the VIII etc etc... when we are young, we are taught about the civil wars,, the wars of the roses, we are taught a little about the empire and we are taught about the Spanish armada, we are taught about the Romans, the Vikings, the french invasions. We are taught about our history with the welsh, what we did there... We start to touch on the war around 9 or 10 when we learn about the holocaust, we learn about  what it was like to live in the war, rationing, what people ate, the evacuations, the bombing of London... History then goes more in depth re the war if you take it as a GCSE subject... I never did.. war bores me... my sons took history GCSE and my older son took A level history, which again focuses on the war and the causes, who did what etc..  

SO that's how  WE teach history.. as I say, we have rather a LOT of it to teach...  SO I wonder how well your own fair land is doing at teaching their youth history. I hear tale that most of the American citizens haven't a clue when the War of Independence even was.. let alone an accurate knowledge of what actually happened... 

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/11/ignorance-does-not-lead-to-election-bliss/506894/

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/education/15history.html



and lastly... since you you brought the subject of how well our nations do in terms of knowledge... 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10640690/Americans-surveyed-misunderstood-misrepresented-or-ignorant.html


Just a few snippets  This post was edited by Adaydreambeliever at August 13, 2017 3:36 PM MDT

No, I don't forget, I rely on historians of the day, including your very own Prime Minister at the time. But you seem to have a memory of convenience. And to not remember such a recent and significant "event" as a war that nearly destroyed your nation (and would have if the USA hadn't stepped in on Britain's behalf) . . . well, those who don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it, I suppose.

By the way, that Prime Minister that I referred to didn't seem to have any difficulty in understanding the whole of British history (sorry that it seems to be a challenge for you) In fact, he produced an excellent work titled A History of the English Speaking Peoples. You might want to read it some time.

ahhh charming as ever while totally ignoring the facts.. you seem not to pay any attention to those.. I explained our history.. I explained how its taught.. which judging by your own country's records at least we are being taught.. a long history means we have  a lot to learn... meanwhile you have less to learn and seem to learn it incorrectly..  

So historians of the day.. it's called contemporaneous. But you are entirely evading the facts aren't you! The fact was that the speech was made for reasons other than you suggest.. and none of that changes why it made.. or even WHEN it was made..I never denied it was made... I was the one who explained and corrected you on the facts..  which you seem to have misunderstood.  

I am surprised you seem not to get how thoroughly long, complex and vital it is to know ALL o f our history.. I am shocked at the inference, nay statement that only some of it matters and that that is the only important part.. it's ALL important.. we are a product of that history.. the war, recent-ISH or not doesn't change that.. it doesn't make it more or less important.. it was one of many wars, for different reasons.. Did you forget that there have been more recent wars? Or were they not your pet subject so you didn't study them? Well I can understand that there is so much history as I said..   

Talking of misunderstanding and the absentmindedly forgetting of facts.. you seem to have entirely forgotten WHY America did get involved in WW2 and you are being less than honest if you do remember.. it was because of Pearl Harbour and you know that.. before that you didn't want to know.. oh and talking of misunderstandings.. or is it misteaching.. the common misconception that the AMericans won the war, or saved the day.. is over simplistic in the extreme.  you might well be taught that and believe it.. but the facts don't hold up.. I am surprised you don;t know that since you seem to have studied this war?  You forget too that WE, (albeit stupidly) came to your assistance in the last disasterous war you started... when no one else would join you.. lapdog Tony Blair blundered in.. hey maybe we could make films declaring that we won the war for you and were the heroes .. like you do :P 

War isn't my specialist subject.. AND I research everything, so your attempt at an insult was misplaced.. I have explained that I didn't study advanced war.. I deliberately didn't choose history, even though history is a passion of mine - because at GCSE level it's all about the war.. and i am not a fan of wars.. (one would say you are since you seem to have studied it so hard?) So when your own people are often so ill-informed with their short history to draw from.. it's kinda silly to try to insult me who has an immense history to draw from.. Boadicea, Cavaliers and Roundheads.. blah blah...    

You seem entirely unaware of the sheer complexity of the war... you seem to have gleaned a few facts and then ignored the rest - the study of WW2 is a whole subject on its own.. it takes years of study.. and guess what.. we teach geography too :P But you seem not to comprehend... we are taught it. I never said that we don't know the speech.. it's famous.. DO we all know, without checking, that it was made after the agreement Germany signed that led everyone to believe that war was now not going to happen? No.. it's too advanced for basic school level history.. that comes with GCSE and Alevel which is more in depth.. not sure why you don't get that. especially when your own people have less than a clue about the war of Independence.. you seem not to be able to see the comparisons... 

I am very flattered that you are sooo interested in our history.. yes, it is fascinating isn't it.. what with your own history being so poor in comparison - it's just a shame you seem to not have actually quite got it right. 

It's a pity that all these words are wasted... I think we both know you haven't learned or been able to accept a single fact from what I have explained.. you prefer to harp back to your own limited understanding and what you think you have learned.. in the absence of any real understanding of what happened or the complexity.. it's like you read the Trump Janet and John version of the war and think that's how it was.. you have missed so much..misunderstood so much.. 

Perhaps you would do well to do some more research my friend.. 

https://www.cracked.com/article_18389_the-5-most-widely-believed-wwii-facts-that-are-bullshit.html
https://www.cracked.com/article_23856_5-bs-facts-everyone-believes-about-world-war-ii.html


It's interesting to ponder on exactly why some Americans, almost ALWAYS older males are sooo obsessed with the war.. lots to speculate on there.. but the fact is... it remains a specialist subject... or the in depth elements, the why's wherefores, what happened and why - how the sequence of events panned out.. It's a very complex subject.. reading just a little, or hearing just a little an thinking you know it all is very dangerous .. not to mention naive.. :P 

I have demonstrated a willingness to engage in debate. I have written at length and tried to explain and inform where you seem not to have comprehended.. it's made no difference.. arguably never would or could.. you think you know what you think you know... and discount all the rest, the complexity of the issue.. so there's probably little point in continuing...  

You're entitled to your own opinions but not to your own facts, your own version of history. That you bloviate on the subject rather than succinctly presenting actual, historical facts; that you disingenuously point to a couple of "National Enquirer" style newspaper articles instead, just demonstrates how much out of your depth you are on the subject. But feel free to keep demonstrating that you're driven by shallow emotion rather that a knowledge of history and an understanding of human behavior. I would expect nothing other.

Sorru daydream, what I get from your linkd are:
 - The owner of www.cracked.com has configured their website improperly. To protect your 
 - information from being stolen, Firefox has not connected to this website.

It is a problem a lot of websites have these days with lots of sites converting to https: protocol

Right, And Bush's Bushisms did not cost america any loss of face at all? "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." :-))
The sad thing is that Trump seems determined to make that one come true.

Agreed. You are of course, correct. I would never say other than that.. we ALL laughed like drains over Bush's gems.. Perhaps that was a sign that America were losing respect.. but somehow, and I am sure someone else can explain it better than I can, Bush's gaffs were funny, more innocent, stupid yea but more innocent.. There's something very UN funny about all the utter excrement Trump spouts. 

So, you're saying that a course of "articulate" passivity would have prevented 9/11? 

Then you seem to imply that it's Trump that's threating to fire missiles at Guam? Where the h*** did THAT come from?

So, yeah, right. The die was cast for 0/11 long before Gee Whizz sat in the Oval Office just like the die was cast for the North Korean issue that Trump has to face right now. It makes no difference how the President speaks. The President's verbiage be "proper" with intent to cause the hearts of liberals to swoon or it can be in a language the liberals actually understand and communicate with each other with. Those planes would have still been sent to World Trade and the Pentagon.

But we may not see missiles fired at Guam now that Trump has drawn a line. We shall see just how week the USA is perceived since Obama's groveling before totalitarian dictators on the world stage.

dilligently, though I know I am entirely wasting my breath, I went and looked it up.. as usual your oversimplified and erroneous understanding is at fault.

At least he TRIED diplomacy and at least he could string a sentence together! More than we can say for Trump!  Also factually the war was declared because the Germans went back on their word. So really not comparable much as you would wish it to be to the Trump situ in any shape or form. But I doubt you are able to see that.. Selective memory and learning is a dangerous thing. You forget that actually the world did pretty well out of the WW2 even if it was a terrible price to pay. We retained freedom - just imagine how dire and dreadful the world would have been had Hitler not lost? Unbelievable that you should make such a comment. 


This is like the Pearl Harbour thing again... and you seem to forget, conveniently, America's war history, including the last several disastrous ones where many a funeral car resulted.. Hmmm  and just to reitterate.. killing of 2000 compared to the killing of over 200, 000 all over.. there's none so blind as those who prefer dogma and false nationalistic pride over fact. 

It's not an oversimplification at all. Chamberlain went to Germany and , basically, got suckered in order to buy Germany more time before they started the festivities with that little Friday afternoon sightseeing drive into Poland. But what the heck. Chamberer "tried" so that should count as the final result. After all, he was just an inexperienced schoolboy, not a seasoned diplomatic professional, totally ignorant of history and human nature (apparently like the rest of Britain). So every kid gets an A. Wonder how all the causalities on both sides would feel about that? (Oh, wait; most of them died a horrific death during the war . . . )

And speaking of misplaced National pride . . . England can actually take most of the "credit" for WWII. If it hadn't been for the draconian financial burdens placed on the German people (and I'm no fan of the Germans) by the Treaty of Versailles just after the "War to End all Wars", measures that caused them very severe hardships during the 1920's (check out Germany's history during the Weimar Republic), Hitler would have probably remained the Thursday night stand-up comedy act at the Rathskeller in Munich. But the German people looked at their children on the verge of starvation and Hitler's rantings started to sound pretty good to them.

And you're now trying to say the the USA's recent military history caused Pearl Harbor? Are you having issues understanding time-lines? You also (conveniently) seem to be having issues understanding that many, many more that just 2,000 US citizens (and throw no small number of Brits, Aussies, Canucks and Kiwis) lost their lives to the hands of that Imperial Japanese barbarity. The Little Boy and the Fat Man were a desperate effort to end that 4+years of Japan's continued barbaric hostilities. They weren't dropped as retaliation for Pearl Harbor. Also don't forget that Japan declared war on the USA BEFORE the USA counter-declared. You seem to conveniently ignore that fact as well.

So sorry if the actual facts are confusing and are counter to your preconceived notions, but that's the way it was.

I like your clarity on that one :) 

Dont exaggerate. Quite a few republicans have resigned from politics in disagreement with Trumps ham-fisted (if not Ham-sized) politics and tweets and ...
They are not all idiots.