- Jan 8, 2007
- 30,528
- 2,263
- 1,045
Well, then feel free to convey as much in the last thread we were discussing this in.. I bet Skull Pilot would like to hear how a fellow fiscal conservative can rationalize socialism.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
historical qoutes and speeches
- Thread starter eots
- Start date
Well, then feel free to convey as much in the last thread we were discussing this in.. I bet Skull Pilot would like to hear how a fellow fiscal conservative can rationalize socialism.
Well, then feel free to convey as much in the last thread we were discussing this in.. I bet Skull Pilot would like to hear how a fellow fiscal conservative can rationalize socialism.
socialism or social programs? Ah, I know the game we're playing now. It's the one where if I think certain social programs are okay and neccessary I have to be for full blown socialism, right? Supporting social programs = supporting socialism now?
sooo...anyway
CFR Quotes
"The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is the American Branch of a society which originated in England... (and) ...believes national boundaries should be obliterated and one-world rule established."
- Carroll Quigley, member of Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), mentor to Bill Clinton
The conspiracy that an invisible hand is trying to move us toward that aside, what would be your issues with a world government?
CFR Quotes
"Once the ruling members of the CFR shadow government have decided that the U.S. Government should adopt a particular policy, the very substantial research facilities of (the) CFR are put to work to develop arguments, intellectual and emotional, to support the new policy, and to confound and discredit, intellectually and politically, any opposition."
- Admiral Chester Ward, former CFR member and Judge Advocate General of the U.S. Navy
So are our congressmen and woman complicent or are they being subliminally controlled as well?
CFR Quotes
"The main purpose of the Council on Foreign Relations is promoting the disarmament of U.S. sovereignty and national independence and submergence into an all powerful, one world government."
Why would you want one?
The real menace of our Republic is the invisible government which like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy legs over our cities, states and nation. At the head is a small group of banking houses... This little coterie...run our government for their own selfish ends. It operates under cover of a self-created screen...seizes...our executive officers...legislative bodies...schools...
courts...newspapers and every agency ceated for the public protection.
N.Y. Mayor, John Hylan
The CFR and the American News/Media
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FPAQlbmlSc
This is why this all so hard to swall eots, I'm suppossed to believe that I am somehow being sublimminally controlled by an entity that there is little evidence that actually exists to the extent that you believe anyway.
- Jan 8, 2007
- 30,528
- 2,263
- 1,045
socialism or social programs? Ah, I know the game we're playing now. It's the one where if I think certain social programs are okay and neccessary I have to be for full blown socialism, right? Supporting social programs = supporting socialism now?
well BERN, far be it for me to invoke the slippery slope argument now that we've determined that it's merely a matter of deciding how much socialism is acceptable... Clearly, your opinion is a much better spot to Say When than any given liberal looking to provide universal health care.
Communicate effectively? This from the person who can't stay on the substance of a debate for more than two posts?
Ah back to your old lies, Bern? Remember when we had those incredibly long detailed discussions about healthcare? I recall them lasting longer than two posts. Or is your claim that there was no substance to them? Either claims are patently stupid.
By the way, care to explain why you didn't respond to the part of my post that had substance? You just "happened" to skip over my question of "do you honestly think that even if JFK was the greatest democratic president ever that anyone, ever, is saying that we should live by all of his words?". But no....its me who doesn't respond to substance
I bring you up because when I think of banging my head against a wall trying to be understood by someone who isn't interested in understanding in the first place, I think of you. When I think of people who turn the subject of most every debate from the original topic to being about the poster (or anything but the original subject), I think of you.
I never think of you, but then I don't have strange obsessions about people on internet boards.
Understanding someone takes a willingness to do so over trying to be right, something coincidentally (or maybe not) missing by each person I've mentioned.
Tell me where the understanding comes in when you generalize "libs" and make broad assumptions about large swathes of the voting public? What you can't understand is that often I DO understand you, I just think you are wrong.
Does it not bother any of you that the validity of your arguments more often than not rely upon beliefs attributed to a person that aren't accruate?
When the claim comes from you? No. If it came from someone who actually was perhaps a little bit reputable? Then yes.
Since we're offering up suggestions perhaps you should make the effort to make sure what you think you heard is accurate instead of assuming your easy to apply right wing stereotypes to a person fo the sake of convenience of your argument.
WTF are you talking about? I don't use right wing stereotypes. I don't generalize. I'm not the one who constantly refers, derogatorily, to what "libs" or "neocons" think. Look in the mirror.
Ah, so it's the democrats telling everyone to be productive members of society and to not look to government for all the answers? I must have been confused.
Is your claim that democrats are telling people to look to government for all the answers? What exactly are you claiming that Democrats do and advocate for that is so "180" from what JFK said?
eots
no fly list
- Thread starter
- #26
Mario Savio: Sproul Hall Steps, December 2, 1964
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcx9BJRadfw[/ame]
MARIO SAVIO: We were told the followingif President Kerr actually tried to get something more liberal out of the Regents in his telephone conversations, why didnt he make public statements to that effect? The answer we received, from a well meaning liberal, was the followinghe said, would you ever imagine the manager of a firm making a statement publicly in opposition to its board of directors? Thats the answer?
I ask you to considerif this is a firm, and if the Board of Regents are the board of directors and if President Kerr is in fact the manager, then I tell you something, the faculty are a bunch of employees and we are the raw materialsbut were a bunch of raw materials that dont mean to have any process upon us, dont mean to be made into any product, dont mean to end up being bought by some clients of the university, be they of government, be they industry, be they organized labor, be they anyone. Were human beings.
There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odiousmakes you so sick at heart that you cannot take part. You cannot even passively take part. And youve got to put your bodies on the gears and upon the wheels and levers, upon all of the apparatus and you have to make it stop and you have got to indicate to the people who run and own it, that unless you are free, the machine will be prevented from working at all.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcx9BJRadfw[/ame]
MARIO SAVIO: We were told the followingif President Kerr actually tried to get something more liberal out of the Regents in his telephone conversations, why didnt he make public statements to that effect? The answer we received, from a well meaning liberal, was the followinghe said, would you ever imagine the manager of a firm making a statement publicly in opposition to its board of directors? Thats the answer?
I ask you to considerif this is a firm, and if the Board of Regents are the board of directors and if President Kerr is in fact the manager, then I tell you something, the faculty are a bunch of employees and we are the raw materialsbut were a bunch of raw materials that dont mean to have any process upon us, dont mean to be made into any product, dont mean to end up being bought by some clients of the university, be they of government, be they industry, be they organized labor, be they anyone. Were human beings.
There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odiousmakes you so sick at heart that you cannot take part. You cannot even passively take part. And youve got to put your bodies on the gears and upon the wheels and levers, upon all of the apparatus and you have to make it stop and you have got to indicate to the people who run and own it, that unless you are free, the machine will be prevented from working at all.
Gunny
Gold Member
I keep asking Dems about this one:
"Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."
-JFK
I seem to get very few responses or explanations for the apparent shift in mentality.
Good luck on that response.
Good luck on that response.
Actually I've already responded. But since Bern hasn't responded, perhaps you would care too Gunny?
How exactly have Democrats changed 180 from that mentality?
eots
no fly list
- Thread starter
- #30
Chairman, ladies and gentlemen:
I appreciate very much your generous invitation to be here tonight.
You bear heavy responsibilities these days and an article I read some time ago reminded me of how particularly heavily the burdens of present day events bear upon your profession.
You may remember that in 1851 the New York Herald Tribune under the sponsorship and publishing of Horace Greeley, employed as its London correspondent an obscure journalist by the name of Karl Marx.
We are told that foreign correspondent Marx, stone broke, and with a family ill and undernourished, constantly appealed to Greeley and managing editor Charles Dana for an increase in his munificent salary of $5 per installment, a salary which he and Engels ungratefully labeled as the "lousiest petty bourgeois cheating."
But when all his financial appeals were refused, Marx looked around for other means of livelihood and fame, eventually terminating his relationship with the Tribune and devoting his talents full time to the cause that would bequeath the world the seeds of Leninism, Stalinism, revolution and the cold war.
If only this capitalistic New York newspaper had treated him more kindly; if only Marx had remained a foreign correspondent, history might have been different. And I hope all publishers will bear this lesson in mind the next time they receive a poverty-stricken appeal for a small increase in the expense account from an obscure newspaper man.
I have selected as the title of my remarks tonight "The President and the Press." Some may suggest that this would be more naturally worded "The President Versus the Press." But those are not my sentiments tonight.
It is true, however, that when a well-known diplomat from another country demanded recently that our State Department repudiate certain newspaper attacks on his colleague it was unnecessary for us to reply that this Administration was not responsible for the press, for the press had already made it clear that it was not responsible for this Administration.
Nevertheless, my purpose here tonight is not to deliver the usual assault on the so-called one party press. On the contrary, in recent months I have rarely heard any complaints about political bias in the press except from a few Republicans. Nor is it my purpose tonight to discuss or defend the televising of Presidential press conferences. I think it is highly beneficial to have some 20,000,000 Americans regularly sit in on these conferences to observe, if I may say so, the incisive, the intelligent and the courteous qualities displayed by your Washington correspondents.
Nor, finally, are these remarks intended to examine the proper degree of privacy which the press should allow to any President and his family.
If in the last few months your White House reporters and photographers have been attending church services with regularity, that has surely done them no harm.
On the other hand, I realize that your staff and wire service photographers may be complaining that they do not enjoy the same green privileges at the local golf courses that they once did.
It is true that my predecessor did not object as I do to pictures of one's golfing skill in action. But neither on the other hand did he ever bean a Secret Service man.
My topic tonight is a more sober one of concern to publishers as well as editors.
I want to talk about our common responsibilities in the face of a common danger. The events of recent weeks may have helped to illuminate that challenge for some; but the dimensions of its threat have loomed large on the horizon for many years. Whatever our hopes may be for the future--for reducing this threat or living with it--there is no escaping either the gravity or the totality of its challenge to our survival and to our security--a challenge that confronts us in unaccustomed ways in every sphere of human activity.
This deadly challenge imposes upon our society two requirements of direct concern both to the press and to the President--two requirements that may seem almost contradictory in tone, but which must be reconciled and fulfilled if we are to meet this national peril. I refer, first, to the need for a far greater public information; and, second, to the need for far greater official secrecy.
I
The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.
But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country's peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In time of "clear and present danger," the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public's need for national security.
Today no war has been declared--and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.
If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of "clear and present danger," then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.
It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions--by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.
http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historica...s/JFK/003POF03NewspaperPublishers04271961.htm
I appreciate very much your generous invitation to be here tonight.
You bear heavy responsibilities these days and an article I read some time ago reminded me of how particularly heavily the burdens of present day events bear upon your profession.
You may remember that in 1851 the New York Herald Tribune under the sponsorship and publishing of Horace Greeley, employed as its London correspondent an obscure journalist by the name of Karl Marx.
We are told that foreign correspondent Marx, stone broke, and with a family ill and undernourished, constantly appealed to Greeley and managing editor Charles Dana for an increase in his munificent salary of $5 per installment, a salary which he and Engels ungratefully labeled as the "lousiest petty bourgeois cheating."
But when all his financial appeals were refused, Marx looked around for other means of livelihood and fame, eventually terminating his relationship with the Tribune and devoting his talents full time to the cause that would bequeath the world the seeds of Leninism, Stalinism, revolution and the cold war.
If only this capitalistic New York newspaper had treated him more kindly; if only Marx had remained a foreign correspondent, history might have been different. And I hope all publishers will bear this lesson in mind the next time they receive a poverty-stricken appeal for a small increase in the expense account from an obscure newspaper man.
I have selected as the title of my remarks tonight "The President and the Press." Some may suggest that this would be more naturally worded "The President Versus the Press." But those are not my sentiments tonight.
It is true, however, that when a well-known diplomat from another country demanded recently that our State Department repudiate certain newspaper attacks on his colleague it was unnecessary for us to reply that this Administration was not responsible for the press, for the press had already made it clear that it was not responsible for this Administration.
Nevertheless, my purpose here tonight is not to deliver the usual assault on the so-called one party press. On the contrary, in recent months I have rarely heard any complaints about political bias in the press except from a few Republicans. Nor is it my purpose tonight to discuss or defend the televising of Presidential press conferences. I think it is highly beneficial to have some 20,000,000 Americans regularly sit in on these conferences to observe, if I may say so, the incisive, the intelligent and the courteous qualities displayed by your Washington correspondents.
Nor, finally, are these remarks intended to examine the proper degree of privacy which the press should allow to any President and his family.
If in the last few months your White House reporters and photographers have been attending church services with regularity, that has surely done them no harm.
On the other hand, I realize that your staff and wire service photographers may be complaining that they do not enjoy the same green privileges at the local golf courses that they once did.
It is true that my predecessor did not object as I do to pictures of one's golfing skill in action. But neither on the other hand did he ever bean a Secret Service man.
My topic tonight is a more sober one of concern to publishers as well as editors.
I want to talk about our common responsibilities in the face of a common danger. The events of recent weeks may have helped to illuminate that challenge for some; but the dimensions of its threat have loomed large on the horizon for many years. Whatever our hopes may be for the future--for reducing this threat or living with it--there is no escaping either the gravity or the totality of its challenge to our survival and to our security--a challenge that confronts us in unaccustomed ways in every sphere of human activity.
This deadly challenge imposes upon our society two requirements of direct concern both to the press and to the President--two requirements that may seem almost contradictory in tone, but which must be reconciled and fulfilled if we are to meet this national peril. I refer, first, to the need for a far greater public information; and, second, to the need for far greater official secrecy.
I
The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.
But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country's peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In time of "clear and present danger," the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public's need for national security.
Today no war has been declared--and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.
If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of "clear and present danger," then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.
It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions--by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.
http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historica...s/JFK/003POF03NewspaperPublishers04271961.htm
eots
no fly list
- Thread starter
- #31
Quote from George W. Bush
"Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories
concerning the attacks of September the 11th;
malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away
from the terrorists, themselves, away from the guilty."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remember, remember the 11th of september
Gunpowder, treason and plot.
I see no reason, why gunpowder treason
Should ever be forgot.
Remember, remember, the 11th of september
Gunpowder, treason and plot!
"Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories
concerning the attacks of September the 11th;
malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away
from the terrorists, themselves, away from the guilty."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remember, remember the 11th of september
Gunpowder, treason and plot.
I see no reason, why gunpowder treason
Should ever be forgot.
Remember, remember, the 11th of september
Gunpowder, treason and plot!
eots
no fly list
- Thread starter
- #32
[AUTHENTICITY CERTIFIED: Text version below transcribed directly from audio.]
My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people, and to defend the world from grave danger.
On my orders, coalition forces have begun striking selected targets of military importance to undermine Saddam Hussein's ability to wage war. These are opening stages of what will be a broad and concerted campaign. More than 35 countries are giving crucial support -- from the use of naval and air bases, to help with intelligence and logistics, to the deployment of combat units. Every nation in this coalition has chosen to bear the duty and share the honor of serving in our common defense.
To all the men and women of the United States Armed Forces now in the Middle East, the peace of a troubled world and the hopes of an oppressed people now depend on you. That trust is well placed.
The enemies you confront will come to know your skill and bravery. The people you liberate will witness the honorable and decent spirit of the American military. In this conflict, America faces an enemy who has no regard for conventions of war or rules of morality. Saddam Hussein has placed Iraqi troops and equipment in civilian areas, attempting to use innocent men, women and children as shields for his own military -- a final atrocity against his people.
I want Americans and all the world to know that coalition forces will make every effort to spare innocent civilians from harm. A campaign on the harsh terrain of a nation as large as California could be longer and more difficult than some predict. And helping Iraqis achieve a united, stable, and free country will require our sustained commitment.
We come to Iraq with respect for its citizens, for their great civilization, and for the religious faiths they practice. We have no ambition in Iraq, except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people.
I know that the families of our military are praying that all those who serve will return safely and soon. Millions of Americans are praying with you for the safety of your loved ones and for the protection of the innocent. For your sacrifice, you have the gratitude and respect of the American people. And you can know that our forces will be coming home as soon as their work is done.
Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly -- yet, our purpose is sure. The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder. We will meet that threat now, with our Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard and Marines, so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of fire fighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities.
Now that conflict has come, the only way to limit its duration is to apply decisive force. And I assure you, this will not be a campaign of half measures, and we will accept no outcome but victory.
My fellow citizens, the dangers to our country and the world will be overcome. We will pass through this time of peril and carry on the work of peace. We will defend our freedom. We will bring freedom to others and we will prevail.
May God bless our country and all who defend her.
My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people, and to defend the world from grave danger.
On my orders, coalition forces have begun striking selected targets of military importance to undermine Saddam Hussein's ability to wage war. These are opening stages of what will be a broad and concerted campaign. More than 35 countries are giving crucial support -- from the use of naval and air bases, to help with intelligence and logistics, to the deployment of combat units. Every nation in this coalition has chosen to bear the duty and share the honor of serving in our common defense.
To all the men and women of the United States Armed Forces now in the Middle East, the peace of a troubled world and the hopes of an oppressed people now depend on you. That trust is well placed.
The enemies you confront will come to know your skill and bravery. The people you liberate will witness the honorable and decent spirit of the American military. In this conflict, America faces an enemy who has no regard for conventions of war or rules of morality. Saddam Hussein has placed Iraqi troops and equipment in civilian areas, attempting to use innocent men, women and children as shields for his own military -- a final atrocity against his people.
I want Americans and all the world to know that coalition forces will make every effort to spare innocent civilians from harm. A campaign on the harsh terrain of a nation as large as California could be longer and more difficult than some predict. And helping Iraqis achieve a united, stable, and free country will require our sustained commitment.
We come to Iraq with respect for its citizens, for their great civilization, and for the religious faiths they practice. We have no ambition in Iraq, except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people.
I know that the families of our military are praying that all those who serve will return safely and soon. Millions of Americans are praying with you for the safety of your loved ones and for the protection of the innocent. For your sacrifice, you have the gratitude and respect of the American people. And you can know that our forces will be coming home as soon as their work is done.
Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly -- yet, our purpose is sure. The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder. We will meet that threat now, with our Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard and Marines, so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of fire fighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities.
Now that conflict has come, the only way to limit its duration is to apply decisive force. And I assure you, this will not be a campaign of half measures, and we will accept no outcome but victory.
My fellow citizens, the dangers to our country and the world will be overcome. We will pass through this time of peril and carry on the work of peace. We will defend our freedom. We will bring freedom to others and we will prevail.
May God bless our country and all who defend her.
It didn't need to be "transcribed from vide"...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-17.html
Is there a point in there somewhere?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-17.html
Is there a point in there somewhere?
President Bush Addresses the Nation
The Oval Office
10:16 P.M. EST
THE PRESIDENT: My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger.
On my orders, coalition forces have begun striking selected targets of military importance to undermine Saddam Hussein's ability to wage war. These are opening stages of what will be a broad and concerted campaign. More than 35 countries are giving crucial support -- from the use of naval and air bases, to help with intelligence and logistics, to the deployment of combat units. Every nation in this coalition has chosen to bear the duty and share the honor of serving in our common defense.
To all the men and women of the United States Armed Forces now in the Middle East, the peace of a troubled world and the hopes of an oppressed people now depend on you. That trust is well placed.
The enemies you confront will come to know your skill and bravery. The people you liberate will witness the honorable and decent spirit of the American military. In this conflict, America faces an enemy who has no regard for conventions of war or rules of morality. Saddam Hussein has placed Iraqi troops and equipment in civilian areas, attempting to use innocent men, women and children as shields for his own military -- a final atrocity against his people.
I want Americans and all the world to know that coalition forces will make every effort to spare innocent civilians from harm. A campaign on the harsh terrain of a nation as large as California could be longer and more difficult than some predict. And helping Iraqis achieve a united, stable and free country will require our sustained commitment.
We come to Iraq with respect for its citizens, for their great civilization and for the religious faiths they practice. We have no ambition in Iraq, except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people.
I know that the families of our military are praying that all those who serve will return safely and soon. Millions of Americans are praying with you for the safety of your loved ones and for the protection of the innocent. For your sacrifice, you have the gratitude and respect of the American people. And you can know that our forces will be coming home as soon as their work is done.
Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly -- yet, our purpose is sure. The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder. We will meet that threat now, with our Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard and Marines, so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of fire fighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities.
Now that conflict has come, the only way to limit its duration is to apply decisive force. And I assure you, this will not be a campaign of half measures, and we will accept no outcome but victory.
My fellow citizens, the dangers to our country and the world will be overcome. We will pass through this time of peril and carry on the work of peace. We will defend our freedom. We will bring freedom to others and we will prevail.
May God bless our country and all who defend her.
eots
no fly list
- Thread starter
- #34
It didn't need to be "transcribed from vide"...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-17.html
Is there a point in there somewhere?
you will have to ask George about that
Ah back to your old lies, Bern? Remember when we had those incredibly long detailed discussions about healthcare? I recall them lasting longer than two posts. Or is your claim that there was no substance to them? Either claims are patently stupid.
And after a very short time they were not about healthecare anymore.
By the way, care to explain why you didn't respond to the part of my post that had substance? You just "happened" to skip over my question of "do you honestly think that even if JFK was the greatest democratic president ever that anyone, ever, is saying that we should live by all of his words?". But no....its me who doesn't respond to substance
Ummm, no. I'm simply curious as to why the dems don't espouse those particular words.
Tell me where the understanding comes in when you generalize "libs" and make broad assumptions about large swathes of the voting public? What you can't understand is that often I DO understand you, I just think you are wrong.
Do you understand the difference between an individual and a group? I don't recall that I have consistantly misrepresented any of your beliefs as an individual. However to state that generalities where groups are concerend is unwarranted is silly. It's why I'm a 'conservative' and you are a 'liberal' (unless of course you want to claim you aren't one), because I/you share a common set of values with a group of people. We may vary to some degree on certain issues, but for the most part I/you would have similar postions as others within our respective group.
Is your claim that democrats are telling people to look to government for all the answers? What exactly are you claiming that Democrats do and advocate for that is so "180" from what JFK said?
My claim is simply what I said, JFK said "......but what can you do for your country." When was the last time you heard a democrat decree anything of the sort? When was the last time you heard a democrat tell citizens they have a social responsibility, if able, to be productive members of society? Look at the two dem presidential candidates all they are about is what government is gonna do for people.
- Jan 8, 2007
- 30,528
- 2,263
- 1,045
Good luck on that response.
Like i pointed out... what WE did for our country is create a support structure so that even fiscal conservatives can take off 6 months to get their shit together.
isn't that right, BERN?
And after a very short time they were not about healthecare anymore.
Actually, yes they were. But keep on lying there, buddy.
Ummm, no. I'm simply curious as to why the dems don't espouse those particular words.
Err AFAIK usually people try and come up with their own words as opposed to just repeating those used previously.
Do you understand the difference between an individual and a group? I don't recall that I have consistantly misrepresented any of your beliefs as an individual.
Of course not.
My claim is simply what I said, JFK said "......but what can you do for your country." When was the last time you heard a democrat decree anything of the sort? When was the last time you heard a democrat tell citizens they have a social responsibility, if able, to be productive members of society? Look at the two dem presidential candidates all they are about is what government is gonna do for people.
Except that getting rid of the Bush tax cuts would cause more people to give to their country in a monetary form.
By the way...nice backtracking from claiming they did a "180" to claiming that they don't advocate exactly what JFK advocated in exactly the same way.
Like i pointed out... what WE did for our country is create a support structure so that even fiscal conservatives can take off 6 months to get their shit together.
isn't that right, BERN?
that's right, what's your point? Again being a fiscal conservative does not equal anti-social programs.
Except that getting rid of the Bush tax cuts would cause more people to give to their country in a monetary form.
A truly awesome spin. Great work!
By the way...nice backtracking from claiming they did a "180" to claiming that they don't advocate exactly what JFK advocated in exactly the same way.
not backtracking at all I still believe exactley what I said. How democrates operate now is pretty much the opposite of those words. Unless of course do the big spin dance you dad to avoid a contradiction by claiming pay more taxes is 'doing for your country.'
Similar threads
- Replies
- 43
- Views
- 426
- Replies
- 81
- Views
- 717
- Replies
- 4
- Views
- 94
- Replies
- 8
- Views
- 146
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 13
- Views
- 27
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8043
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 469
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-