WWII was a great leveler in UK society.
honora on January 5, 2007 at 11:21 AM

Hope you were making a bad pun.

honora on January 5, 2007 at 11:21 AM

The lowest point of Churchill’s life was after the elections. He knew he saved the world, and Britain turned their back on him. What you state is ridiculous, after the war naturally there was devastation, and lack of heating and electricity…Britain was torn apart by the bombing. That is not reason they voted him out, people were still digging there way out of the war. They wanted peace, and they thought Churchill was only a war president. The famous picture of him (or the back of him) at his pond was the lowest part of his life, he contemplated suicide, and was put on medical watch. He was despondant over the rejection of the British people. If you do not know that then I suggest this: The series of books “The Last Lion” by William Manchester, this trilogy is noted as one the best historical biographys ever written. You will get the true sense of history surrounding this amazing complex man. Of all the people who post, you may be the one that gets the most out of reading these three books. Enjoy.
And thanks for the suggestion, I will continue to read history, maybe even teach some.

Churchill was defeated as a war monger, the man who defeated the greatest evil, was pointed out as a man not in touch with the lives of the men and women he saved. Such is the whims of people, once danger is removed we no longer need the protector. And the savior is killed. You and your friends have been with us since the beginning of time. And because of brave warriors, you will be around for many more, watching. You never lose, others lose for you.

right2bright on January 4, 2007 at 5:21 PM

Churchill was defeated because people wanted central heating and refrigerators. WWII was a great leveler in UK society. The working class was no longer willing to live in relative poverty after having saved the nation. Read some history.

If the Dems ran WWII we would have never won.
right2bright on January 4, 2007 at 5:21 PM

LOL. Oh the power of self-deception.

Well, honora, you made fun of someone in another thread for saying “tact” rather than “tack”… um, Chicken meet Roost.

“Is this a question or an accustion?” Accustion??

tickleddragon on January 4, 2007 at 11:09 PM

No, I was pointing out that using tact in that sentence was actually quite a comical slip, versus missing a key. I’m guessing wordplay isn’t your thing.

Unless I lost my basic math skills, honora’s math doesn’t add up. I’ve been trying to post later, just in case I was seeing wrong.

None of these stats (and I consider all stats to be just that) are bad for Mr. Bush (either which way one adds them) but they prove disastrous for the press.

I fail to see where the Independents’ responses favor the press, or as she mentioned, are a problem for Mr. Bush.

Entelechy on January 4, 2007 at 10:41 PM

Look at the center (independent) column Entelechy–42% say they think media is accurate, 25% say they think it is overly optimistic. The admin and its minions say the opposite.

“Is this a question or an accustion?” Accustion??

Likewise, in my home state, do you beleive that this will get any press for making a blatant mockery of a broken system?

None of these stats (and I consider all stats to be just that) are bad for Mr. Bush (either which way one adds them) but they prove disastrous for the press.

I fail to see where the Independents’ responses favor the press, or as she mentioned, are a problem for Mr. Bush.

Does not bode well for Bush. (I am a master of the obvious!!!)
honora on January 4, 2007 at 1:14 PM

Yeah, darn, it doesn’t bode well at all…. He might not get to do another term as President.
Talk about obvious. /s

honora on January 4, 2007 at 4:44 PM

Are you comfortable with AP’s Jamil? Are you comfortable with the fauxtography?
No accusations, those are questions. If you are satisfied the the NYT, LAT, AP, Reuters, etc., is not biased than that will tell us about how you analyze news.
Wars have one snafu after another, you think WWII was a cake walk? If the Dems ran WWII we would have never won.
This was stated many times, this is a war agains terrorism that may take generations to win, not 4 or 5 or 6 years. You are the one putting words in my mouth, as you accuse others of doing. The liberals are not at fault, they have done nothing but complain. Don’t blame the liberals, they haven’t done anything. It is easy to sit on the sidelines and whine and point out the faults of those doing the dirty work. BTW, before we win this there will be more deaths and more mistakes, and you can bet that the liberals won’t die for any cause, nor will they make any wartime mistakes. The conservatives will carry the blunt of this war, and we will carry the criticism, and we will die to maintain the freedom in another country. And the liberals will not be held responsible for the mistakes, errors, loss of life…they will dodge that responsibility. You see, honora, I don’t blame the liberals, I feel sorry that they cannot participate in the liberation of a nation, they cannot feel the exhilaration of liberating Afganistan’s women, of watching people oppressed, beaten and tortured walk to the polls and voice their freedom. The liberals can only point and say, it is useless, it is a waste of resources, it costs too much. They will never feel the elation of giving people, a nation, families, a new and better way of living. Your kind have been around for centuries, Hitler, Mussolini, many others were removed by conservatives who stood and fought and lost their lives against evil, and ignored those on the sidelines who cheered for defeat and pointed fingers at the warriors who were protecting them. The first election after the war, Churchill was defeated as a war monger, the man who defeated the greatest evil, was pointed out as a man not in touch with the lives of the men and women he saved. Such is the whims of people, once danger is removed we no longer need the protector. And the savior is killed. You and your friends have been with us since the beginning of time. And because of brave warriors, you will be around for many more, watching. You never lose, others lose for you.

happy new year to you too, honora.

No, what it really means, is if you are a Republican who still believes the administration’s fairy tale on this, you need to start working on a very particular skill set: circling the wagons.

honora on January 4, 2007 at 1:30 PM

So, then … you believe that the Bush Administration controls the press … honora?

You are comfortable with Jamil’s reporting for AP? Not reported on by the MSM. You are comfortable with the fauxtography, not reported on by the MSM (or very little). You may be one of the dying breed who still accepts Dan Rather as being an accurate journalist, or the the NYT or the LAT is not liberal in its coverage. The MSM have a vested interest in not reporting any descrepencies in their coverage, and liberals will accept lies if it supports their beliefs (the standing ovation of Jefferson is. We have all seen the reluctance of liberals to accept the truth when it hurts them.

right2bright on January 4, 2007 at 3:58 PM

Is this a question or an accustion?

You guys make me laugh. You and yours took us down this path; this has been one snafu after another. Rather than taking responsibility, you are already seeding your excuses–whaaa, whaaa!!!! it wasn’t us, it was that nasty media, those nasty liberals. So either way this pans out, nothing is your fault.

Nice work if you can get. (Tell me again about how liberals are irresponsible and don’t accept accountability for their actions. I can’t hear that enough).

If the facts show that a news report is inaccurate, then the reporting is inaccurate. It’s kinda like that hypothesis / null hypothesis scientific like thingy you were supposed to learn about in junior high.

Well, no.

I believe in this case, the issue is more one of balance.

The beef from the Republicans is that the emphasis is on the war part of…the war. And less so on progress being made in other areas.

So thinking that the media is not giving an accurate picture as in “make(s) situation appear worse” is less about accuracy in the narrow way you suggest, and more about the larger sense of accurate as in complete and comprehensive.

honora on January 4, 2007 at 3:20 PM

You are comfortable with Jamil’s reporting for AP? Not reported on by the MSM. You are comfortable with the fauxtography, not reported on by the MSM (or very little). You may be one of the dying breed who still accepts Dan Rather as being an accurate journalist, or the the NYT or the LAT is not liberal in its coverage. The MSM have a vested interest in not reporting any descrepencies in their coverage, and liberals will accept lies if it supports their beliefs (the standing ovation of Jefferson is. We have all seen the reluctance of liberals to accept the truth when it hurts them.

Who is to say what is “accurate” reporting?

honora on January 4, 2007 at 3:20 PM

You might ask Michelle; she is preparing to go to Iraq for just this purpose.

If the facts show that a news report is inaccurate, then the reporting is inaccurate. It’s kinda like that hypothesis / null hypothesis scientific like thingy you were supposed to learn about in junior high.

I’d like to see some exceptions to freedom of the press similar to the exceptions to freedom of speech. Similar to slander laws, if it can be proven that a news organization published something that was known before hand not to be factual, they should be held accountable — and that doesn’t mean just printing a half-hearted correction buried in section G. I’m talking about fines for isolated incidents and licensure revocation for repeat offenders.

Actually, honora, a poll is just that – a poll. it is only an indication of how people perceive a situation, not its reality. Just because more people believe that the press is spot-on accurate, does not make it necessarily true!!

pullingmyhairout on January 4, 2007 at 1:44 PM

True, but for for that matter, “accurate” is pretty subjective in this context. Who is to say what is “accurate” reporting? Happy New Year, pulling

Hey, look everybody!  Capt. Jamil Hussein has his own blog: OK, the truth is I made up the thing with the burned bodies. Big deal! Have you never made anything up? After Bilal Hussein got arrested, the AP stringers moved……

If you add on the percentage of people not bright enough to have responded either way, it averages out to 24.66% — giving further creedence to ‘South Park’ claims that 1/4 of the population is retarded.