# historical qoutes and speeches



## eots (Feb 26, 2008)

"The Technocratic Age is slowly designing an every day more controlled society. The society will be dominated by an elite of persons free from traditional values (!) who will have no doubt in fulfilling their objectives by means of purged techniques with which they will influence the behavior of people and will control and watch the society in all details". "... it will become possible to exert a practically permanent watch on each citizen of the world".

- *Zbigniew Brzezinski -  co-founder of Trilateral Commission*



To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, loyalty to family tradition, national patriotism and religious dogmas ... 
We have swallowed all manner of poisonous certainties fed us by our parents, our Sunday and day school teachers, our politicians, our priests, our newspapers and others with vested interests in controlling us. 

The reinterpretation and eventual eradication of the concept of right and wrong which has been the basis of child training, the substitution of intelligent and rational thinking for faith in the certainties of the old people, these are the belated objectives ... for charting the changes of human behavior. 

*DIRECTOR, WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION Brock Chisolm *



"We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the work is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries." 

*David Rockefeller, founder of the Trilateral Commission, in an address to a meeting of The Trilateral Commission, in June, 1991. *


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The world can therefore seize the opportunity (Persian Gulf crisis) to fulfill the long-held promise of a New World Order where diverse nations are drawn together in common cause to achieve the universal aspirations of mankind." 

*George Herbert Walker Bush* 

"In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn't such a great idea after all." 

*Strobe Talbot, Clinton's Deputy Secretary of State, as quoted in Time, July 20th, l992*. 



*Dick Cheney ex-director of CFR talks to David Rockefeller* 

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbnpN07J_zg[/ame]

*Lou Dobbs vs. THE CFR - Rockefeller and Cheney Featured* 

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-Ccjqy8mhY[/ame]



*President John F Kennedy Secret Society Speech *version 2 
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhZk8ronces[/ame]

*Bush and Kerry in Skull and Bones* 
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pUogbYkoHc[/ame]


*David Gergen - Alex Jones *
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32z6Cw21OAk[/ame]




*Eisenhower warns us of the military industrial complex. *

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY[/ame]


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 26, 2008)

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.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Feb 26, 2008)

The upshoot of this thread is nothing more than another grand Conspiracy to strip us of our rights and make us all peons. I suggest this belongs in another forum.


----------



## eots (Feb 26, 2008)

only someone of your mentality would think that historical speeches of presidents..belongs else where...and then you have _no speakers_ so its all lost to you anyway


----------



## jillian (Feb 26, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> I keep asking Dems about this one:
> 
> "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."
> 
> ...



This from the person who thinks everything should be privatized, thinks corporations will act in the public interest and opposes universal health care???

I think this will be the second time today, if I'm not mistaken, that someone notes the irony in your posts.


----------



## Shogun (Feb 26, 2008)

can't catch a break today, eh Bern?


FWIW, I still consider you a worthy opponent on most fiscal-social issues.


----------



## eots (Feb 26, 2008)

jillian said:


> This from the person who thinks everything should be privatized, thinks corporations will act in the public interest and opposes universal health care???
> 
> I think this will be the second time today, if I'm not mistaken, that someone notes the irony in your posts.



and then there is the bizarre suggestion that the troops that serve are all Republican ..


----------



## jillian (Feb 26, 2008)

eots said:


> and then there is the bizarre suggestion that the troops that serve are all Republican ..



that is pretty bizarre... an out and out fabrication, too.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 26, 2008)

jillian said:


> that is pretty bizarre... an out and out fabrication, too.



but saying someone believes everything should be privitized when they 1) have never said that and 2) have said otherwise on more than one occasion, isn't a fabrication, right?  My statement would be ironic if I believe what you claim I believe.  You, Shogun, Midcan, Larkinn, you're all the same.  You have no desire whatsoever to actually figure out if what you believe someone's position is, is really their position. 

Now answer the question:  Why has the democratic party, who hails JFK as one of the greatest democrat presidents ever, shifted so far from his words that they basically now stand for exactley the opposite?


----------



## Shogun (Feb 27, 2008)

it's just like waving the "deregulation" banner without having the first interest in actually discussing what that means, dude.  Pretty lil talking points will only take you so far before you have to start backtracking and laying out damage control regarding your actual position.


I mean, I"ve never been on umemployment so I guess I am not an American that has asked what my country can do for me, eh?  I wonder how taking 6 months off to get my shit together would be just like doing something for my country.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 27, 2008)

Shogun said:


> it's just like waving the "deregulation" banner without having the first interest in actually discussing what that means, dude.  Pretty lil talking points will only take you so far before you have to start backtracking and laying out damage control regarding your actual position.



I told you more than once what it means.  I can't help your tunnel vision that allows you to read interpret whatever you want.




Shogun said:


> I mean, I"ve never been on umemployment so I guess I am not an American that has asked what my country can do for me, eh?  I wonder how taking 6 months off to get my shit together would be just like doing something for my country.



  Here's the problem.  Again you have assumed I have a certain position, because you have assumed said position, you believe my taking unemployment is somehow hypocritical based on the position you have assumed.  And again what you have assumed is incorrect, so why don't we just lay it out.  You tell me what you think I believe and I'll tell you if you're right.  Sound fair? 

and why am I surprised the actual question wasn't answered?


----------



## Shogun (Feb 27, 2008)

no, Bern, you really didn't.  it was fun to toss out until I brought up particular scandals that were the product of short-sighted mantra deregulation.  Similarly, you are bitching about how my side takes you to task for your usual mantra talking points on social programs.  Don't cry for me, Argentina.


Why am I NOT surprised that a flopping fish tries real hard to extract itself from a fishing hook?  Do you want to clarify your position then, BERN?  Or is it easier just to keep railing against social programs and the like until someone starts expecting you to be consistent?


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 27, 2008)

Shogun said:


> no, Bern, you really didn't.  it was fun to toss out until I brought up particular scandals that were the product of short-sighted mantra deregulation.  Similarly, you are bitching about how my side takes you to task for your usual mantra talking points on social programs.  Don't cry for me, Argentina.
> 
> 
> Why am I NOT surprised that a flopping fish tries real hard to extract itself from a fishing hook?  Do you want to clarify your position then, BERN?  Or is it easier just to keep railing against social programs and the like until someone starts expecting you to be consistent?



I told you how to resolve it.  What I did as far collecting unemployment is not incompatible or hypocritcal where my beliefs are concered. It probably is incompatible based on what you think my beliefs are, but you're not really interesed in that are you?

Again amazed that you can't answer a simple question.  Why has the democratic done a politcal 180 from the words of JFK who is touted as one of our great presidents?


----------



## Shogun (Feb 27, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> I told you how to resolve it.  What I did as far collecting unemployment is not incompatible or hypocritcal where my beliefs are concered. It probably is incompatible based on what you think my beliefs are, but you're not really interesed in that are you?
> 
> Again amazed that you can't answer a simple question.  Why has the democratic done a politcal 180 from the words of JFK who is touted as one of our great presidents?





waving the "deregulation" banner probably isn't going to resolve anything.  

Agian, why don't you CLARIFY your beliefs then, BERN, instead of dancing here?  After all, individuals who think that their own shit smells like roses are a mite a dozen.  Let's figure out if you are grandstanding or are willing to admit the social necessity of social programs (even if doing so chaffes every inch of the way out).  OR, I guess you can keep crying about me and jill and the rest of us who are reflecting at your usual positions taken..


Also, to answer your silly lil question: 

By evidence of your own rationalized participation, thanks to lefties, it looks like what we DID for our country is provide social stabilizers that have proven more tangible than bitching about lazy people looking for handouts.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 27, 2008)

Shogun said:


> waving the "deregulation" banner probably isn't going to resolve anything.
> 
> Agian, why don't you CLARIFY your beliefs then, BERN, instead of dancing here?  After all, individuals who think that their own shit smells like roses are a mite a dozen.  Let's figure out if you are grandstanding or are willing to admit the social necessity of social programs (even if doing so chaffes every inch of the way out).  OR, I guess you can keep crying about me and jill and the rest of us who are reflecting at your usual positions taken..



In the first I place I have never said there isn't a need for social programs, which is what you essentially calling me a hypocrit is based on the notion that I have made such a suggestion.  Again I don't know if you just can't read or what, but I have stated on numerous occasions that their is a need for them and that I don't have a problem with any of them. 




Shogun said:


> Also, to answer your silly lil question:
> 
> By evidence of your own rationalized participation, thanks to lefties, it looks like what we DID for our country is provide social stabilizers that have proven more tangible than bitching about lazy people looking for handouts.



And I'm the once dancing?  You have a very famous, if not the most famous democrat, who espoused a belief and your party now espouses basicaly the opposite and that's your answer as to why?  That is quite the shuffle.


----------



## Larkinn (Feb 27, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> but saying someone believes everything should be privitized when they 1) have never said that and 2) have said otherwise on more than one occasion, isn't a fabrication, right?  My statement would be ironic if I believe what you claim I believe.  You, Shogun, Midcan, Larkinn, you're all the same.  You have no desire whatsoever to actually figure out if what you believe someone's position is, is really their position.



Perhaps if you learned to communicate effectively, people wouldn't misunderstand your positions.   And really, I haven't posted here in months, why the fuck are you still talking about me?   



> Now answer the question:  Why has the democratic party, who hails JFK as one of the greatest democrat presidents ever, shifted so far from his words that they basically now stand for exactley the opposite?



Umm they haven't.   Pot meet kettle as far as misunderstanding others points of views.   And even disregarding that, 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?


----------



## Shogun (Feb 27, 2008)

Who is shuffling, BERN?  Seems to me that when even fiscal conservatives like yourself can break away for 6 months and come back admitting the necessity of social programs then, indeed, "what you can do for your country" has been realized.  


Im glad to know that you are such a big fan, BERN!  Tell me how important you think the New Deal was....


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 27, 2008)

Shogun said:


> Who is shuffling, BERN?  Seems to me that when even fiscal conservatives like yourself can break away for 6 months and come back admitting the necessity of social programs then, indeed, "what you can do for your country" has been realized.
> 
> 
> Im glad to know that you are such a big fan, BERN!  Tell me how important you think the New Deal was....



Still not listening I guess, let's try big bold letters.

I HAVE NEVER SAID, BEFORE OR AFTER I TOOK UNEMPLOYMENT, (AND HAVE STATED THE OPPOSITE ON SEVERAL OCCASION INCLUDING ABOUT THREE TIMES IN THIS VERY THREAD), THAT SOCIAL PROGRAMS AREN'T NECCESSARY.

So again why you think you are justified or right or made some point or whatever it criticizing me is beyond me.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 27, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> Perhaps if you learned to communicate effectively, people wouldn't misunderstand your positions.   And really, I haven't posted here in months, why the fuck are you still talking about me?



Communicate effectively?  This from the person who can't stay on the substance of a debate for more than two posts?  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. 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.  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?  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.





Shogun said:


> Umm they haven't.   Pot meet kettle as far as misunderstanding others points of views.   And even disregarding that, 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?



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.


----------



## eots (Feb 27, 2008)

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

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

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." 


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 
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FPAQlbmlSc[/ame]


----------



## Shogun (Feb 27, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> Still not listening I guess, let's try big bold letters.
> 
> I HAVE NEVER SAID, BEFORE OR AFTER I TOOK UNEMPLOYMENT, (AND HAVE STATED THE OPPOSITE ON SEVERAL OCCASION INCLUDING ABOUT THREE TIMES IN THIS VERY THREAD), THAT SOCIAL PROGRAMS AREN'T NECCESSARY.
> 
> So again why you think you are justified or right or made some point or whatever it criticizing me is beyond me.



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.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 27, 2008)

Shogun said:


> 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?


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 27, 2008)

eots said:


> 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?



eots said:


> 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?



eots said:


> 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? 




eots said:


> 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
> ...



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.


----------



## Shogun (Feb 27, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> 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.


----------



## Larkinn (Feb 27, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> 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 (Feb 27, 2008)

Mario Savio: Sproul Hall Steps, December 2, 1964 

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcx9BJRadfw[/ame]

MARIO SAVIO: We were told the followingif President Kerr actually tried to get something more liberal out of the Regents in his telephone conversations, why didnt he make public statements to that effect? The answer we received, from a well meaning liberal, was the followinghe said, would you ever imagine the manager of a firm making a statement publicly in opposition to its board of directors? Thats the answer?

I ask you to considerif 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 materialsbut were a bunch of raw materials that dont mean to have any process upon us, dont mean to be made into any product, dont 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. Were human beings.

There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odiousmakes you so sick at heart that you cannot take part. You cannot even passively take part. And youve 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 (Feb 27, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> I keep asking Dems about this one:
> 
> "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."
> 
> ...




 

Good luck on that response.


----------



## Larkinn (Feb 27, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> 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 (Feb 27, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> Good luck on that response.



I really dont think he meant.. in  fact *I know* ...he did not mean..not to question or hold government accountable


----------



## eots (Feb 27, 2008)

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


----------



## eots (Feb 28, 2008)

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!


----------



## eots (Feb 28, 2008)

[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.


----------



## jillian (Feb 28, 2008)

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?



> President Bush Addresses the Nation
> The Oval Office
> 
> 10:16 P.M. EST
> ...


----------



## eots (Feb 28, 2008)

jillian said:


> 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


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 28, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> 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.  



Larkinn said:


> 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. 



Larkinn said:


> 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.



Larkinn said:


> 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.


----------



## Shogun (Feb 28, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> 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?


----------



## Larkinn (Feb 28, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> 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.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 28, 2008)

Shogun said:


> 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.


----------



## Shogun (Feb 28, 2008)

I notice you don't bother admitting that in the same thread where Skull Pilot's interest has been piqued...

MY point was to answer your goofy little JFK question.  I take it that my answer works for you?


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 28, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> 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!    



Larkinn said:


> 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.'


----------



## Shogun (Feb 28, 2008)

*How democrates operate now is pretty much the opposite of those words.*

thats rich, BERN.


----------



## Larkinn (Feb 28, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> A truly awesome spin.  Great work!



Nice responding to the substance there, Bern.   



> 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.'



How exactly is paying more taxes not doing anything for your country?   

And by the way, you still haven't (gee whiz, what a surprise) explained what they do that is the opposite of those words.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 28, 2008)

Shogun said:


> I notice you don't bother admitting that in the same thread where Skull Pilot's interest has been piqued...



Skull pilot can think whatever he wants to think.  I haven't responded to any of his posts we may agree and we may not, what exactley does posting the same thing in another thread accomplish?



Shogun said:


> MY point was to answer your goofy little JFK question.  I take it that my answer works for you?



You didn't answer the question.  Why seemingly do the dems operate from a different set of values then what a fellow dem once advocated.  Has the democratic party really changed from that?  Or do you think JFK meant by those words that dems operate exactley as they do now?  I think the essence of JFK's statement is that the citizens of a country need to recognize that they have a social responsiblity, if able, to be productive members of society and not be a burden to it and by extension to not be a burden to government.  That is not incompatible from stating government can and will be there to help when you need it.


----------



## Shogun (Feb 28, 2008)

Like I siad, BERN, given the evidence of your own behaviour, we HAVE taken responsibility in society by creating a support structure that increases our standard of living.  If Liberals, JFK and the world doesn't operate according to your opinion of that which is considered "responsible" then so be it.  If You wanna sit there and twist JFKs words around your silly little mud rake then don't get to bent outa shape when I keep laughing at your fencepost position on social programs.

Heaven forbid you remain consistent or anything...


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 28, 2008)

Shogun said:


> Like I siad, BERN, given the evidence of your own behaviour, we HAVE taken responsibility in society by creating a support structure that increases our standard of living.  If Liberals, JFK and the world doesn't operate according to your opinion of that which is considered "responsible" then so be it.  If You wanna sit there and twist JFKs words around your silly little mud rake then don't get to bent outa shape when I keep laughing at your fencepost position on social programs.
> 
> Heaven forbid you remain consistent or anything...



Like I said, hell of spin.  You managed to turn paying taxes to the government (the 'country' JFK would be referring to) for social programs into equalling "ask not what your country can do for you."  Is that the limit of your imagination? Opening your pocket book to the government?  I'm not the one doing the spinning friend.

How you were able to turn doing for your country into paying more money for social programs, rather than recognizing social responsibility to make yourself productive is quite amazing.


----------



## Larkinn (Feb 28, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> Like I said, hell of spin.  You managed to turn paying taxes to the government (the 'country' JFK would be referring to) for social programs into equalling "ask not what your country can do for you."  Is that the limit of your imagination? Opening your pocket book to the government?  I'm not the one doing the spinning friend.
> 
> How you were able to turn doing for your country into paying more money for social programs, rather than recognizing social responsibility to make yourself productive is quite amazing.



No...paying taxes isn't helping your country, but working productively somehow is?   Tell me how an ibanker working in NYC is doing so much for the country, Bern.   

Btw...gonna answer my question from before?


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 28, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> No...paying taxes isn't helping your country, but working productively somehow is?   Tell me how an ibanker working in NYC is doing so much for the country, Bern.



Because they are providing for themselves rather than being dependant on government.  The democrat party has changed to such an extent that seems to think it is there job to think up new things to do for people and thus become make them more dependant on government.  



Larkinn said:


> Btw...gonna answer my question from before?



What question?


----------



## Shogun (Feb 28, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> Like I said, hell of spin.  You managed to turn paying taxes to the government (the 'country' JFK would be referring to) for social programs into equalling "ask not what your country can do for you."  Is that the limit of your imagination? Opening your pocket book to the government?  I'm not the one doing the spinning friend.
> 
> How you were able to turn doing for your country into paying more money for social programs, rather than recognizing social responsibility to make yourself productive is quite amazing.



I guess the opinion of which of us is spinning depends on who is trying to insist that their personal shit don't stink, eh?  By your own example we can see how "paying the government taxes" amounts to necessary socialism.  were you busy remembering JFK quotes during your unemployed six months?  no.. THEN such socialism is necessary, eh BERN?  You could be a dradle for for halloween, dude.


What should be amazing is how you are trying to poke a stick at the very socialism that you participated in in some last ditch effort to rationalize your own behaviour.  hiding behind JFK probably doesn't make the irony any richer.


----------



## jillian (Feb 28, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> Because they are providing for themselves rather than being dependant on government.  The democrat party has changed to such an extent that seems to think it is there job to think up new things to do for people and thus become make them more dependant on government.
> 
> 
> 
> What question?



Do you honestly think working and paying your bills was what Kennedy was talking about when he said "ask not..."? That's absurd. It's the same non-logic that allowed Mitt Romney to counter the fact that not a single one of his sons served in the military in a military action that he wants others' sons to fight, by saying "they are serving their country, they're working on my campaign". ... Ridiculous. 

Kennedy was talking about the Peace Corps... about public service... about helping people... the exact polar opposite of what you're talking about. He was talking about altruism. You are talking about self-involvement.

So, when you bemoan the democrats somehow not following Kennedy's words, you probably should understand what he was talking about.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 28, 2008)

Shogun said:


> I guess the opinion of which of us is spinning depends on who is trying to insist that their personal shit don't stink, eh?  By your own example we can see how "paying the government taxes" amounts to necessary socialism.  were you busy remembering JFK quotes during your unemployed six months?  no.. THEN such socialism is necessary, eh BERN?  You could be a dradle for for halloween, dude.
> 
> 
> What should be amazing is how you are trying to poke a stick at the very socialism that you participated in in some last ditch effort to rationalize your own behaviour.  hiding behind JFK probably doesn't make the irony any richer.



It is ironic to you because despite your conttinued insistance to the contrary I am not or have ever been anti-social programs.  You are the one who wants to make the leap that doing means I have to be for full blown socialism.   Again why do you not get that every argument, every whitty little come back you've made, is based on an assumption that is not accurate.  Further why after I have repeatedly stated I don't hold the position you profess do you keep posting as if i do?


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 28, 2008)

jillian said:


> Do you honestly think working and paying your bills was what Kennedy was talking about when he said "ask not..."? That's absurd. It's the same non-logic that allowed Mitt Romney to counter the fact that not a single one of his sons served in the military in a military action that he wants others' sons to fight, by saying "they are serving their country, they're working on my campaign". ... Ridiculous.
> 
> Kennedy was talking about the Peace Corps... about public service... about helping people... the exact polar opposite of what you're talking about. He was talking about altruism. You are talking about self-involvement.
> 
> So, when you bemoan the democrats somehow not following Kennedy's words, you probably should understand what he was talking about.



So it is your contention of well that he means pretty much the opposite of the words that came out of his mouth?  You guys stick with that, it'll go a long way.


----------



## Shogun (Feb 28, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> It is ironic to you because despite your conttinued insistance to the contrary I am not or have ever been anti-social programs.  You are the one who wants to make the leap that doing means I have to be for full blown socialism.   Again why do you not get that every argument, every whitty little come back you've made, is based on an assumption that is not accurate.  Further why after I have repeatedly stated I don't hold the position you profess do you keep posting as if i do?



then WHY ask a silly lil loaded question about JFK, BERN?  Is it because you are trying to convey that democrats have somehow allowed our culture to accept handout solutions even though you, yourself, are bouncing back and forth on the necessity of such socialism?  do you want to draw the line in the sand here, BERN, or can we keep guessing what should and shouldn't fall inside your circle of criticism here?  Your posted opinions are probably not the basis of my assumptions about your positions, dude.. nope.  After all, most people who admit to the necessity of social programs probably DO dangle silly little JFK quotes like cheese on a mousetrap..


----------



## Shogun (Feb 28, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> So it is your contention of well that he means pretty much the opposite of the words that came out of his mouth?  You guys stick with that, it'll go a long way.



It's MY contention that "ask what you can do for your country" has been achieved by evidence of your own six month employment vacation, BERN.  Feel free to ride that fence though.


----------



## jillian (Feb 28, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> So it is your contention of well that he means pretty much the opposite of the words that came out of his mouth?  You guys stick with that, it'll go a long way.



Perhaps you need to know what you're talking about before you speak to this issue...



> Vice President Johnson, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Chief Justice, President Eisenhower, Vice President Nixon, President Truman, reverend clergy, fellow citizens, we observe today not a victory of party, but a celebration of freedomsymbolizing an end, as well as a beginningsignifying renewal, as well as change. For I have sworn before you and Almighty God the same solemn oath our forebears prescribed nearly a century and three quarters ago.    1
> The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globethe belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God. 2
> We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americansborn in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritageand unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world. 3
> Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty. 4
> ...


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 28, 2008)

jillian said:


> Perhaps you need to know what you're talking about before you speak to this issue...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 28, 2008)

Shogun said:


> It's MY contention that "ask what you can do for your country" has been achieved by evidence of your own six month employment vacation, BERN.  Feel free to ride that fence though.



Still can't stop the assumptions can you?  We are all 'riding the fence'.  I am not for nothing but capitalism and no social programs any more than you are for government control of all industries.


----------



## Larkinn (Feb 28, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> Because they are providing for themselves rather than being dependant on government.



JFK said "think what you can do for your country not what your country can do for you".   He did NOT say "think what you can do for yourself, not what your country can do for you".   See the difference?



> The democrat party has changed to such an extent that seems to think it is there job to think up new things to do for people and thus become make them more dependant on government.



They want to give more low and middle income people more opportunities to succeed in this country.   That will make this a better country and make this a better society.   I am willing to give for that goal, are you?   



> What question?



And by the way, you still haven't (gee whiz, what a surprise) explained what they do that is the opposite of those words.


----------



## Larkinn (Feb 28, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> Still can't stop the assumptions can you?  We are all 'riding the fence'.  I am not for nothing but capitalism and no social programs any more than you are for government control of all industries.



Then why the hell do you equate government programs with "making people dependent on government"?   Or are they only the same thing when Democrats want social programs?


----------



## eots (Feb 28, 2008)

A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death. 
 Martin Luther King, Jr. quotes (American Baptist Minister and Civil-Rights Leader. 1929-1968)


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 28, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> JFK said "think what you can do for your country not what your country can do for you".   He did NOT say "think what you can do for yourself, not what your country can do for you".   See the difference?



I see recognizing a social responsibility to minimize your burden on government as doing for your country.





Larkinn said:


> They want to give more low and middle income people more opportunities to succeed in this country.   That will make this a better country and make this a better society.   I am willing to give for that goal, are you?



You bet, but I'd be curious if you mean more opportunites or more equal outcomes.   



Larkinn said:


> And by the way, you still haven't (gee whiz, what a surprise) explained what they do that is the opposite of those words.



By opposite as I noted to Jillian my focus would be on "ask not what your country can do for you"  which means not looking to government for all the answers, while today government seems to want to provide all the answers.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Feb 28, 2008)

jillian said:


> Do you honestly think working and paying your bills was what Kennedy was talking about when he said "ask not..."? That's absurd. It's the same non-logic that allowed Mitt Romney to counter the fact that not a single one of his sons served in the military in a military action that he wants others' sons to fight, by saying "they are serving their country, they're working on my campaign". ... Ridiculous.
> 
> Kennedy was talking about the Peace Corps... about public service... about helping people... the exact polar opposite of what you're talking about. He was talking about altruism. You are talking about self-involvement.
> 
> So, when you bemoan the democrats somehow not following Kennedy's words, you probably should understand what he was talking about.



Ohh I see, so since Obama has not served in the Military nor in Combat should we disqualify him as well as Mitt Romney because his sons chose not to serve in the military? Last I checked the military was an ALL VOLUNTEER force. Using YOUR logic you should be voting for McCain since he is the ONLY candidate to have served in the military and Combat.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Feb 28, 2008)

eots said:


> A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.
> Martin Luther King, Jr. quotes (American Baptist Minister and Civil-Rights Leader. 1929-1968)



And yet the fact is we DO spend more on social programs then the military YEAR AFTER YEAR. Or do we need to bust out the pie graph for you again, the one that even in the time of war has the social programs over and above the military budget?

The single largest portion of our national expense ( Budget) goes to Social Programs and has for MANY YEARS.


----------



## Larkinn (Feb 28, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> I see recognizing a social responsibility to minimize your burden on government as doing for your country.



You think Democrats are encouraging people to depend on government?   They want to allow people to lean on the government when they need to do so, not to encourage people to do so.   By the way, look at the wealth of all those liberal commie far left fags.   Those people who support social programs generally won't ever have a need for them (except perhaps the ones aimed at the middle/upper class...student loans and the like).   We are supporting these NOT so that the country can support us, but so that we can help support the country.   Are you willing to do the same?    



> You bet, but I'd be curious if you mean more opportunites or more equal outcomes.



I mean what I said.   



> By opposite as I noted to Jillian my focus would be on "ask not what your country can do for you"  which means not looking to government for all the answers, while today government seems to want to provide all the answers.



Well today's government is a Republican administration.   But besides that, I asked, exactly WHAT Democrats do or advocate for that are the opposite of JFK's words.   I'm not asking for these generalized statements like "government seems to want to provide all the answers".   Give me specifics.


----------



## Larkinn (Feb 28, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Ohh I see, so since Obama has not served in the Military nor in Combat should we disqualify him as well as Mitt Romney because his sons chose not to serve in the military? Last I checked the military was an ALL VOLUNTEER force. Using YOUR logic you should be voting for McCain since he is the ONLY candidate to have served in the military and Combat.



She didn't say that Romney should be disqualified since his sons didn't serve in the military.   Try reading before you respond.   She said that them working on his campaign is not public service.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Feb 28, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> She didn't say that Romney should be disqualified since his sons didn't serve in the military.   Try reading before you respond.   She said that them working on his campaign is not public service.



And she said MORE than that or are YOU being purposefully blind? Ohh wait never mind, I know the answer to that question.


----------



## Larkinn (Feb 28, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> And she said MORE than that or are YOU being purposefully blind? Ohh wait never mind, I know the answer to that question.



That was the only part of her post which ONLY involved the military.   The other parts involved other types of public service, which Obama has done for much of his life.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Feb 28, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> That was the only part of her post which ONLY involved the military.   The other parts involved other types of public service, which Obama has done for much of his life.



So your claiming she did not say this?



> That's absurd. It's the same non-logic that allowed Mitt Romney to counter the fact that not a single one of his sons served in the military in a military action that he wants others' sons to fight, by saying "they are serving their country, they're working on my campaign". ... Ridiculous.



And that it has no meaning at all about Romney's fitness to lead?


----------



## Larkinn (Feb 28, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> So your claiming she did not say this?



No, I'm not claiming that.   Derr.



> And that it has no meaning at all about Romney's fitness to lead?



It has meaning regarding the fact that "he wants others' sons to fight".   I see reading comprehension still isn't your strong suit.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Feb 28, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> No, I'm not claiming that.   Derr.
> 
> 
> 
> It has meaning regarding the fact that "he wants others' sons to fight".   I see reading comprehension still isn't your strong suit.



I see willful ignorance and character assassination are still your forte.


----------



## Larkinn (Feb 28, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> I see willful ignorance and character assassination are still your forte.



LMFAO...Again.   This is amazing...If I were to try and write the perfect post for me to ridicule and respond too, I don't think I could have done better than you did RGS.  Kudos!

So...please explain how you can justify accusing me of character assassination when your last post contained exactly NO substance and ONLY insults?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Feb 28, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> LMFAO...Again.   This is amazing...If I were to try and write the perfect post for me to ridicule and respond too, I don't think I could have done better than you did RGS.  Kudos!
> 
> So...please explain how you can justify accusing me of character assassination when your last post contained exactly NO substance and ONLY insults?



My post contains all the substance of what we are discussing, your attempts to character assassinate others. Except for your pavlovic responses you would be a laugh riot.


----------



## eots (Feb 28, 2008)

Edouard Daladier, Premier of France, delivered this radio address to the people of France on January 29, 1940, after the Nazis had conquered Poland and just a few months before Hitler's armies attacked France.


At the end of five months of war one thing has become more and more clear. It is that Germany seeks to establish a domination over the world completely different from any known in history. 

The domination at which the Nazis aim is not limited to the displacement of the balance of power and the imposition of supremacy of one nation. It seeks the systematic and total destruction of those conquered by Hitler, and it does not treaty with the nations which he has subdued. He destroys them. He takes from them their whole political and economic existence and seeks even to deprive them of their history and their culture. He wishes to consider them only as vital space and a vacant territory over which he has every right. 

The human beings who constitute these nations are for him only cattle. He orders their massacre or their migration. He compels them to make room for their conquerors. He does not even take the trouble to impose any war tribute on them. He just takes all their wealth, and, to prevent any revolt, he wipes out their leaders and scientifically seeks the physical and moral degradation of those whose independence he has taken away. 

Under this domination, in thousands of towns and villages in Europe there are millions of human beings now living in misery which, some months ago, they could never have imagined. Austria, Bohemia, Slovakia and Poland are only lands of despair. Their whole peoples have been deprived of the means of moral and material happiness. Subdued by treachery or brutal violence, they have no other recourse than to work for their executioners who grant them scarcely enough to assure the most miserable existence. 

There is being created a world of masters and slaves in the image of Germany herself. For, while Germany is crushing beneath her tyranny the men of every race and language, she is herself being crushed beneath her own servitude and her domination mania. The German worker and peasant are the slaves of their Nazi masters while the worker and peasant of Bohemia and Poland have become in turn slaves of these slaves. Before this first realization of a mad dream, the whole world might shudder. 

Nazi propaganda is entirely founded on the exploitation of the weakness of the human heart. It does not address itself to the strong or the heroic. It tells the rich they are going to lose their money. It tells the worker this is a rich man's war. It tells the intellectual and the artist that all he cherished is being destroyed by war. It tells the lover of good things that soon he would have none of them. It says to the Christian believer: "How can you accept this massacre?" It tells the adventurer - "a man like you should profit by the misfortunes of your country."

It is those who speak this way who have destroyed or confiscated all the wealth they could lay their hands on, who have reduced their workers to slavery, who have ruined all intellectual liberty, who have imposed terrible privations on millions of men and women and who have made murder their law. What do contradictions matter to them if they can lower the resistance of those who wish to bar the path of their ambitions to be masters of the world? 

For us there is more to do than merely win the war. We shall win it, but we must also win a victory far greater than that of arms. In this world of masters and slaves, which those madmen who rule at Berlin are seeking to forge, we must also save liberty and human dignity.

Edouard Daladier - January 29, 1940


----------



## eots (Feb 28, 2008)

Dr. Johannes B. Koeppl, Ph.D.  Former German Defense Ministry Official and Advisor to former NATO Secretary General Manfred Werner.  6th November, 2001
"The interests behind the Bush Administration, such as the CFR, The Trilateral Commission - founded by Zbigniew Brzezinski for David Rockefeller - and the Bilderberg Group, have prepared for and are now moving to implement open world dictatorship within the next five years. They are not fighting against terrorists. They are fighting against citizens."



Tam Dalyell  Labour MP, Father of the House of Commons and one of the leading rebel voices against war with Iraq.  September 2002 
"This is garbage from right-wing think-tanks stuffed with chicken-hawks -- men who have never seen the horror of war but are in love with the idea of war. Men like Cheney, who were draft-dodgers in the Vietnam war. 'This is a blueprint for US world domination -- a New World Order of their making. These are the thought processes of fantasist Americans who want to control the world. I am appalled that a British Labour Prime Minister should have got into bed with a crew which has this moral standing."

sundayherald UK  September 15th, 2002



God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them."

Haaretz - Israeli paper  June 26th, 2003
Washington Post  June 27th, 2003


Lincoln  16th President of U.S.: 1861~1865. In a letter written to William Elkin less than five months before he was assassinated  Nov. 21st, 1864
"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the Republic is destroyed."


Founder & Honorary Chairman of Trilateral Commission, Honorary Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations. Written in his 2002 autobiography 'Memoirs' [pp 405]
"For more than a century, ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as "internationalists" and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."
http://www.911kemet.co.uk/nwoquotes.html


----------



## Larkinn (Feb 28, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> My post contains all the substance of what we are discussing, your attempts to character assassinate others. Except for your pavlovic responses you would be a laugh riot.



We were discussing what Jillian said.   I said "It has meaning regarding the fact that "he wants others' sons to fight"."   You ignored that, and instead attacked me about...the nerve of it all, character assassination.   Man...really, get with it.


----------



## jillian (Feb 28, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Ohh I see, so since Obama has not served in the Military nor in Combat should we disqualify him as well as Mitt Romney because his sons chose not to serve in the military? Last I checked the military was an ALL VOLUNTEER force. Using YOUR logic you should be voting for McCain since he is the ONLY candidate to have served in the military and Combat.



What on earth are you talking about??? We were discussing Kennedy's admonition to "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country...." When you were in school, didn't they ever do exercises with you where you had to find the "main idea" of a paragraph. You might want to work on that skill, since it's clearly something you're lacking.

You always totally miss the boat. There are real issues, real ideas and real genuine disagreements to discuss. Try it sometime although I'm not really sure you're capable.

Also, try actually reading... it's generally pretty helpful.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Feb 28, 2008)

jillian said:


> What on earth are you talking about??? We were discussing Kennedy's admonition to "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country...." When you were in school, didn't they ever do exercises with you where you had to find the "main idea" of a paragraph. You might want to work on that skill, since it's clearly something you're lacking.
> 
> You always totally miss the boat. There are real issues, real ideas and real genuine disagreements to discuss. Try it sometime although I'm not really sure you're capable.
> 
> Also, try actually reading... it's generally pretty helpful.



Sure thing, your post had all about claiming that because Romney did not compel his sons to join the military and go to Iraq they were not in fact serving their Country. They can and do serve in other manners JUST as MILLIONS of Americans do also. The political process is IN FACT serving the Country. You have no problem seeing that when it regards a draft dodging former President, but have a problem when it concerns the sons of a candidate from a party you do not support. I got the message clear as a bell.


----------



## Gurdari (Mar 2, 2008)

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."

It is from the 1800s I believe...


----------



## midcan5 (Mar 11, 2008)

Advice, like youth, probably just wasted on the young  by Mary Schmich


Inside every adult lurks a graduation speaker dying to get out, some world-weary pundit eager to pontificate on life to young people who'd rather be Rollerblading. Most of us, alas, will never be invited to sow our words of wisdom among an audience of caps and gowns, but there's no reason we can't entertain ourselves by composing a Guide to Life for Graduates.

I encourage anyone over 26 to try this and thank you for indulging my attempt.

Ladies and gentlemen of the class of '97:

Wear sunscreen.

If I could offer you only one tip for the future, sunscreen would be it. The long-term benefits of sunscreen have been proved by scientists, whereas the rest of my advice has no basis more reliable than my own meandering experience. I will dispense this advice now.

Enjoy the power and beauty of your youth. Oh, never mind. You will not understand the power and beauty of your youth until they've faded. But trust me, in 20 years, you'll look back at photos of yourself and recall in a way you can't grasp now how much possibility lay before you and how fabulous you really looked. You are not as fat as you imagine.

Don't worry about the future. Or worry, but know that worrying is as effective as trying to solve an algebra equation by chewing bubble gum. The real troubles in your life are apt to be things that never crossed your worried mind, the kind that blindside you at 4 p.m. on some idle Tuesday.

Do one thing every day that scares you.

Sing.

Don't be reckless with other people's hearts. Don't put up with people who are reckless with yours.

Floss.

Don't waste your time on jealousy. Sometimes you're ahead, sometimes you're behind. The race is long and, in the end, it's only with yourself.

Remember compliments you receive. Forget the insults. If you succeed in doing this, tell me how.

Keep your old love letters. Throw away your old bank statements.

Stretch.

Don't feel guilty if you don't know what you want to do with your life. The most interesting people I know didn't know at 22 what they wanted to do with their lives. Some of the most interesting 40-year-olds I know still don't.

Get plenty of calcium. Be kind to your knees. You'll miss them when they're gone.

Maybe you'll marry, maybe you won't. Maybe you'll have children, maybe you won't. Maybe you'll divorce at 40, maybe you'll dance the funky chicken on your 75th wedding anniversary. Whatever you do, don't congratulate yourself too much, or berate yourself either. Your choices are half chance. So are everybody else's.

Enjoy your body. Use it every way you can. Don't be afraid of it or of what other people think of it. It's the greatest instrument you'll ever own.

Dance, even if you have nowhere to do it but your living room.

Read the directions, even if you don't follow them.

Do not read beauty magazines. They will only make you feel ugly.

Get to know your parents. You never know when they'll be gone for good. Be nice to your siblings. They're your best link to your past and the people most likely to stick with you in the future.

Understand that friends come and go, but with a precious few you should hold on. Work hard to bridge the gaps in geography and lifestyle, because the older you get, the more you need the people who knew you when you were young.

Live in New York City once, but leave before it makes you hard. Live in Northern California once, but leave before it makes you soft. Travel.

Accept certain inalienable truths: Prices will rise. Politicians will philander. You, too, will get old. And when you do, you'll fantasize that when you were young, prices were reasonable, politicians were noble and children respected their elders.

Respect your elders.

Don't expect anyone else to support you. Maybe you have a trust fund. Maybe you'll have a wealthy spouse. But you never know when either one might run out.

Don't mess too much with your hair or by the time you're 40 it will look 85.

Be careful whose advice you buy, but be patient with those who supply it. Advice is a form of nostalgia. Dispensing it is a way of fishing the past from the disposal, wiping it off, painting over the ugly parts and recycling it for more than it's worth.

But trust me on the sunscreen.


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-970601sunscreen.column?coll=chi-news-col 

From the Chicago Tribune


----------



## midcan5 (Mar 11, 2008)

Gurdari said:


> "Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."
> 
> It is from the 1800s I believe...



Sounds like Marx but is this a trick? Lincoln?


----------



## midcan5 (Mar 11, 2008)

Desiderata 

Go placidly amid the noise and the haste,
and remember what peace there may be in silence.

As far as possible, without surrender,
be on good terms with all persons.
Speak your truth quietly and clearly;
and listen to others,
even to the dull and the ignorant;
they too have their story.
Avoid loud and aggressive persons;
they are vexatious to the spirit.

If you compare yourself with others,
you may become vain or bitter,
for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself.
Enjoy your achievements as well as your plans.
Keep interested in your own career, however humble;
it is a real possession in the changing fortunes of time.

Exercise caution in your business affairs,
for the world is full of trickery.
But let this not blind you to what virtue there is;
many persons strive for high ideals,
and everywhere life is full of heroism.
Be yourself. Especially do not feign affection.
Neither be cynical about love,
for in the face of all aridity and disenchantment,
it is as perennial as the grass.

Take kindly the counsel of the years,
gracefully surrendering the things of youth.
Nurture strength of spirit to shield you in sudden misfortune.
But do not distress yourself with dark imaginings.
Many fears are born of fatigue and loneliness.

Beyond a wholesome discipline,
be gentle with yourself.
You are a child of the universe
no less than the trees and the stars;
you have a right to be here.
And whether or not it is clear to you,
no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.

Therefore be at peace with God,
whatever you conceive Him to be.
And whatever your labors and aspirations,
in the noisy confusion of life,
keep peace in your soul.

With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams,
it is still a beautiful world.
Be cheerful. Strive to be happy.

by Max Ehrmann


----------



## eots (Mar 15, 2008)

Deteriorata
(National Lampoon) 
(You are a fluke of the universe.
You have no right to be here.
Deteriorata, Deteriorata) 

Go placidly amidst the noise and waste, and remember what comfort there may be in owning a piece thereof. Avoid quiet and passive persons, unless you are in need of sleep. Rotate your tires. Speak glowingly of those greater than yourself; and heed well their advice, even though they be turkeys. Know what to kiss - and when. Consider that two wrongs never make a right, but that three do. Wherever possible, put people on hold. Be comforted, that in the face of all irridity and disillusionment, and despite the changing fortunes of time, there is always a big future in computer maintenance. 

(You are a fluke of the universe.
You have no right to be here.
Whether you can hear it or not,
The universe is laughing behind your back.) 

Remember the Pueblo. Strive at all times to bend, fold, spindle, and mutilate. Know yourself. If you need help, call the FBI. Exercise caution in your daily affairs, especially with those persons closest to you... That lemon on your left, for instance. Be assured that a walk through the seas of most souls would scarcely get your feet wet. Fall not in love, therefore, it will stick to your face. Gracefully surrender the things of youth: the birds, clean air, tuna, Taiwan - and let not the sands of time get in your lunch. Hire people with hooks. For a good time, call 606-4311, ask for Ken. Take heart in the deepening gloom that your dog is finally getting enough cheese. And reflect that whatever misfortune may be your lot, it could only be worse in Milwaukee. 

(You are a fluke of the universe.
You have no right to be here.
Whether you can hear it or not,
The universe is laughing behind your back.) 

Therefore, make peace with your god, whatever you perceive him to be: hairy thunderer or cosmic muffin. With all its hopes, dreams, promises, and urban renewal, the world continues to deteriorate. GIVE UP!


----------



## Paulie (Mar 15, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> The upshoot of this thread is nothing more than another grand Conspiracy to strip us of our rights and make us all peons. I suggest this belongs in another forum.



Why must it take believing in a "grand conspiracy", to realize that these people, WHO ARE ALL REAL AND HAVE ALL SAID WHAT THEY SAID, are alluding to things detrimental to the United States' sovereign future?

Brzezinski is Obama's foreign policy advisor.  Coincidentally, or maybe NOT, he also was one of the godfathers of the creation and use of radical islam for international political purposes.  He's behind the Mujahadeen and Bin Laden's fight against the Soviets in the late 70's.

Maybe you ought to read his book, _[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Grand-Chessboard-American-Geostrategic-Imperatives/dp/0465027261"]The Grand Chessboard[/ame]_

Here's a pretty telling quote from that book:



> "Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, *except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat*."



Funny how throughout history, people have said that very same thing.  I believe Goering said that during the Nuremburg trials, too.

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.asp

You really ought to study history and politics more deeply.  I suspect you only know what you know from watching TV news.


----------



## Gurdari (Mar 21, 2008)

midcan5 said:


> Sounds like Marx but is this a trick? Lincoln?



Nice! You get a red star...haha


----------



## AllieBaba (Mar 21, 2008)

jillian said:


> This from the person who thinks everything should be privatized, thinks corporations will act in the public interest and opposes universal health care???
> 
> I think this will be the second time today, if I'm not mistaken, that someone notes the irony in your posts.



Corporations act in the public interest every day of the year. They spend millions, if not billions, of dollars in purely philophanthric enterprises.

How much have the proponents of "universal" health care donated? Oh, that's right. They don't want to donate. They expect middle class American business owners to foot the bill so they won't have to.


----------



## Paulie (Mar 21, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Corporations act in the public interest every day of the year. They spend millions, if not billions, of dollars in purely philophanthric enterprises.
> 
> How much have the proponents of "universal" health care donated? Oh, that's right. They don't want to donate. They expect middle class American business owners to foot the bill so they won't have to.



But they ultimately WILL have to when those middle class business owners go out of business from over-taxation, and trickle-_UP_ failures.  People will lose jobs.  But at least they'll have free healthcare!

It's not corportions in general that deserve a bad rap. it's mainly the greedy multi-national ones that put profit over people to the point that our government operates for THEM instead.


----------



## eots (Mar 22, 2008)

President Bush Speaks to United Nations 
Remarks by the President
To United Nations General Assembly
U.N. Headquarters
New York, New York 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/11/20011110-3.html


9:38 A.M. EST 

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you.  Mr. Secretary General, Mr. President, distinguished delegates, and ladies and gentlemen.  We meet in a hall devoted to peace, in a city scarred by violence, in a nation awakened to danger, in a world uniting for a long struggle.  Every civilized nation here today is resolved to keep the most basic commitment of civilization: We will defend ourselves and our future against terror and lawless violence. 

The United Nations was founded in this cause.  In a second world war, we learned there is no isolation from evil.  We affirmed that some crimes are so terrible they offend humanity, itself.  And we resolved that the aggressions and ambitions of the wicked must be opposed early, decisively, and collectively, before they threaten us all.  That *evil *has returned, and that cause is renewed. 

A few miles from here, many thousands still lie in a tomb of rubble. Tomorrow, the Secretary General, the President of the General Assembly, and I will visit that site, where the names of every nation and region that lost citizens will be read aloud.  If we were to read the names of every person who died, it would take more than three hours. 

Those names include a citizen of Gambia, whose wife spent their fourth wedding anniversary, September the 12th, searching in vain for her husband. Those names include a man who supported his wife in Mexico, sending home money every week.  Those names include a young Pakistani who prayed toward Mecca five times a day, and died that day trying to save others. 

The suffering of September the 11th was inflicted on people of many faiths and many nations.  All of the victims, including Muslims, were killed with equal indifference and equal satisfaction by the terrorist leaders.  The terrorists are violating the tenets of every religion, including the one they invoke. 

Last week, the Sheikh of Al-Azhar University, the world's oldest Islamic institution of higher learning, declared that terrorism is a disease, and that Islam prohibits killing innocent civilians.  The terrorists call their cause holy, yet, they fund it with drug dealing; they encourage murder and suicide in the name of a great faith that forbids both.  They dare to ask God's blessing as they set out to kill innocent men, women and children.  But the God of Isaac and Ishmael would never answer such a prayer.  And a murderer is not a martyr; he is just a murderer. 

Time is passing.  Yet, for the United States of America, there will be no forgetting September the 11th.  *We will remember every rescuer who died in [/B]honor.  We will remember every family that lives in grief.  We will remember the fire and ash, the last phone calls, the funerals of the children. 

And the people of my country will remember those who have plotted against us.  We are learning their names.  We are coming to know their faces.  There is no corner of the Earth distant or dark enough to protect them.  However long it takes, their hour of justice will come. 

Every nation has a stake in this cause.  As we meet, the terrorists are planning more murder -- perhaps in my country, or perhaps in yours. They kill because they aspire to dominate.  They seek to overthrow governments and destabilize entire regions. 

Last week, anticipating this meeting of the General Assembly, they denounced the United Nations.  They called our Secretary General a criminal and condemned all Arab nations here as traitors to Islam. 

Few countries meet their exacting standards of brutality and oppression.  Every other country is a potential target.  And all the world faces the most horrifying prospect of all:  These same terrorists are searching for weapons of mass destruction, the tools to turn their hatred into holocaust.  They can be expected to use chemical, biological and nuclear weapons the moment they are capable of doing so.  No hint of conscience would prevent it. 

This threat cannot be ignored.  This threat cannot be appeased. Civilization, itself, the civilization we share, is threatened.  History will record our response, and judge or justify every nation in this hall. 

The civilized world is now responding.  We act to defend ourselves and deliver our children from a future of fear.  We choose the dignity of life over a culture of death.  We choose lawful change and civil disagreement over coercion, subversion, and chaos.  These commitments -- hope and order, law and life -- unite people across cultures and continents.  Upon these commitments depend all peace and progress.  For these commitments, we are determined to fight. 

The United Nations has risen to this responsibility.  On the 12th of September, these buildings opened for emergency meetings of the General Assembly and the Security Council.  Before the sun had set, these attacks on the world stood condemned by the world.  And I want to thank you for this strong and principled stand. 

I also thank the Arab Islamic countries that have condemned terrorist murder.  Many of you have seen the destruction of terror in your own lands. The terrorists are increasingly isolated by their own hatred and extremism. They cannot hide behind Islam.  The authors of mass murder and their allies have no place in any culture, and no home in any faith. 

The conspiracies of terror are being answered by an expanding global coalition.  Not every nation will be a part of every action against the enemy.  But every nation in our coalition has duties.  These duties can be demanding, as we in America are learning.  We have already made adjustments in our laws and in our daily lives.  We're taking new measures to investigate terror and to protect against threats. 

The leaders of all nations must now carefully consider their responsibilities and their future.  Terrorist groups like al Qaeda depend upon the aid or indifference of governments.  They need the support of a financial infrastructure, and safe havens to train and plan and hide. 

Some nations want to play their part in the fight against terror, but tell us they lack the means to enforce their laws and control their borders.  We stand ready to help.  Some governments still turn a blind eye to the terrorists, hoping the threat will pass them by.  They are mistaken. And some governments, while pledging to uphold the principles of the U.N., have cast their lot with the terrorists.  They support them and harbor them, and they will find that their welcome guests are parasites that will weaken them, and eventually consume them. 

For every regime that sponsors terror, there is a price to be paid. And it will be paid.  The allies of terror are equally guilty of murder and equally accountable to justice. 

The Taliban are now learning this lesson -- that regime and the terrorists who support it are now virtually indistinguishable.  Together they promote terror abroad and impose a reign of terror on the Afghan people.  Women are executed in Kabal's soccer stadium.  They can be beaten for wearing socks that are too thin.  Men are jailed for missing prayer meetings. 

The United States, supported by many nations, is bringing justice to the terrorists in Afghanistan.  We're making progress against military targets, and that is our objective.  Unlike the enemy, we seek to minimize, not maximize, the loss of innocent life. 

I'm proud of the honorable conduct of the American military.  And my country grieves for all the suffering the Taliban have brought upon Afghanistan, including the terrible burden of war.  The Afghan people do not deserve their present rulers.  Years of Taliban misrule have brought nothing but misery and starvation.   Even before this current crisis, 4 million Afghans depended on food from the United States and other nations, and millions of Afghans were refugees from Taliban oppression. 

I make this promise to all the victims of that regime:  The Taliban's days of harboring terrorists and dealing in heroin and brutalizing women are drawing to a close.  And when that regime is gone, the people of Afghanistan will say with the rest of the world:  good riddance. 

I can promise, too, that America will join the world in helping the people of Afghanistan rebuild their country.  Many nations, including mine, are sending food and medicine to help Afghans through the winter.  America has air-dropped over 1.3 million packages of rations into Afghanistan. Just this week, we air-lifted 20,000 blankets and over 200 tons of provisions into the region.  We continue to provide humanitarian aid, even while the Taliban tried to steal the food we send. 

More help eventually will be needed.  The United States will work closely with the United Nations and development banks to reconstruct Afghanistan after hostilities there have ceased and the Taliban are no longer in control.  And the United States will work with the U.N. to support a post-Taliban government that represents all of the Afghan people. 

In this war of terror, each of us must answer for what we have done or what we have left undone.  After tragedy, there is a time for sympathy and condolence.  And my country has been very grateful for both.  The memorials and vigils around the world will not be forgotten.  But the time for sympathy has now passed; the time for action has now arrived. 

The most basic obligations in this new conflict have already been defined by the United Nations.  On September the 28th, the Security Council adopted Resolution 1373.  Its requirements are clear:  Every United Nations member has a responsibility to crack down on terrorist financing.  We must pass all necessary laws in our own countries to allow the confiscation of terrorist assets.  We must apply those laws to every financial institution in every nation. 

We have a responsibility to share intelligence and coordinate the efforts of law enforcement.  If you know something, tell us.  If we know something, we'll tell you.  And when we find the terrorists, we must work together to bring them to justice.  We have a responsibility to deny any sanctuary, safe haven or transit to terrorists.  Every known terrorist camp must be shut down, its operators apprehended, and evidence of their arrest presented to the United Nations.  We have a responsibility to deny weapons to terrorists and to actively prevent private citizens from providing them. 

These obligations are urgent and they are binding on every nation with a place in this chamber.  Many governments are taking these obligations seriously, and my country appreciates it.  Yet, even beyond Resolution 1373, more is required, and more is expected of our coalition against terror. 

We're asking for a comprehensive commitment to this fight.  We must unite in opposing all terrorists, not just some of them.  In this world there are good causes and bad causes, and we may disagree on where the line is drawn.  Yet, there is no such thing as a good terrorist.  No national aspiration, no remembered wrong can ever justify the deliberate murder of the innocent.  Any government that rejects this principle, trying to pick and choose its terrorist friends, will know the consequences. 

We must speak the truth about terror.  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.  To inflame ethnic hatred is to advance the cause of terror. 

The war against terror must not serve as an excuse to persecute ethnic and religious minorities in any country.  Innocent people must be allowed to live their own lives, by their own customs, under their own religion. And every nation must have avenues for the peaceful expression of opinion and dissent.  When these avenues are closed, the temptation to speak through violence grows. 

We must press on with our agenda for peace and prosperity in every land.  My country is pledged to encouraging development and expanding trade.  My country is pledged to investing in education and combatting AIDS and other infectious diseases around the world.  Following September 11th, these pledges are even more important.  In our struggle against hateful groups that exploit poverty and despair, we must offer an alternative of opportunity and hope. 

The American government also stands by its commitment to a just peace in the Middle East.  We are working toward a day when two states, Israel and Palestine, live peacefully together within secure and recognize borders as called for by the Security Council resolutions.  We will do all in our power to bring both parties back into negotiations.  But peace will only come when all have sworn off, forever, incitement, violence and terror. 

And, finally, this struggle is a defining moment for the United Nations, itself.  And the world needs its principled leadership.  It undermines the credibility of this great institution, for example, when the Commission on Human Rights offers seats to the world's most persistent violators of human rights.  The United Nations depends, above all, on its moral authority -- and that authority must be preserved. 

The steps I described will not be easy.  For all nations, they will require effort.  For some nations, they will require great courage.  Yet, the cost of inaction is far greater.  The only alternative to victory is a nightmare world where every city is a potential killing field. 

As I've told the American people, freedom and fear are at war.  We face enemies that hate not our policies, but our existence; the tolerance of openness and creative culture that defines us.  But the outcome of this conflict is certain:  There is a current in history and it runs toward freedom.  Our enemies resent it and dismiss it, but the dreams of mankind are defined by liberty -- the natural right to create and build and worship and live in dignity.  When men and women are released from oppression and isolation, they find fulfillment and hope, and they leave poverty by the millions. 

These aspirations are lifting up the peoples of Europe, Asia, Africa and the Americas, and they can lift up all of the Islamic world. 

We stand for the permanent hopes of humanity, and those hopes will not be denied.  We're confident, too, that history has an author who fills time and eternity with his purpose.  We know that evil is real, but good will prevail against it.  This is the  teaching of many faiths, and in that assurance we gain strength for a long journey. 

It is our task -- the task of this generation -- to provide the response to aggression and terror.  We have no other choice, because there is no other peace. 

We did not ask for this mission, yet there is honor in history's call. We have a chance to write the story of our times, a story of courage defeating cruelty and light overcoming darkness.  This calling is worthy of any life, and worthy of every nation.  So let us go forward, confident, determined, and unafraid. 

Thank you very much.  (Applause.)*


----------



## midcan5 (Mar 24, 2008)

Anna Quindlen's Commencement Address at Villanova

The following is from Pulitzer Prize winning author Anna Quindlen's commencement address to Villanova University, Friday 23 June 2000:

It's a great honor for me to be the third member of my family to receive an honorary doctorate from this great university. It's an honor to follow my great-uncle Jim, who was a gifted physician, and my Uncle Jack, who is a remarkable businessman. Both of them could have told you something important about their professions, about medicine or commerce.

I have no specialized field of interest or expertise, which puts me at a disadvantage, talking to you today. I'm a novelist. My work is human nature. Real life is all I know. Don't ever confuse the two, your life and your work. The second is only part of the first.

Don't ever forget what a friend once wrote Senator Paul Tsongas when the senator decided not to run for reelection because he'd been diagnosed with cancer: "No man ever said on his deathbed I wish I had spent more time in the office." Don't ever forget the words my father sent me on a postcard last year: "If you win the rat race, you're still a rat." Or what John Lennon wrote before he was gunned down in the driveway of the Dakota: "Life is what happens while you are busy making other plans."

You walk out of here this afternoon with only one thing that no one else has. There will be hundreds of people out there with your same degree; there will be thousands of people doing what you want to do for a living. But you will be the only person alive who has sole custody of your life. Your particular life. Your entire life. Not just your life at a desk, or your life on a bus, or in a car, or at the computer. Not just the life of your minds, but the life of your heart. Not just your bank account, but your soul.

People don't talk about the soul very much anymore. It's so much easier to write a resume than to craft a spirit. But a resume is a cold comfort on a winter night, or when you're sad, or broke, or lonely, or when you've gotten back the test results and they're not so good.

*Here is my resume: I am a good mother to three children. I have tried never to let my profession stand in the way of being a good parent. I no longer consider myself the center of the universe. I show up. I listen, I try to laugh. I am a good friend to my husband. I have tried to make marriage vows mean what they say. I show up. I listen. I try to laugh. I am a good friend to my friends, and they to me. Without them, there would be nothing to say to you today, because I would be a cardboard cutout. But call them on the phone, and I meet them for lunch. I show up. I listen. I try to laugh.*

I would be rotten, or at best mediocre at my job, if those other things were not true. You cannot be really first rate at your work if your work is all you are.

So here is what I wanted to tell you today:

Get a life. A real life, not a manic pursuit of the next promotion, the bigger paycheck, the larger house. Do you think you'd care so very much about those things if you blew an aneurysm one afternoon, or found a lump in your breast? Get a life in which you notice the smell of salt water pushing itself on a breeze over Seaside Heights, a life in which you stop and watch how a red-tailed hawk circles over the water gap or the way a baby scowls with concentration when she tries to pick up a cheerio with her thumb and first finger.

Get a life in which you are not alone. Find people you love, and who love you. And remember that love is not leisure, it is work. Each time you look at your diploma, remember that you are still a student, still learning how to best treasure your connection to others. Pick up the phone. Send an e-mail. Write a letter. Kiss your Mom. Hug your Dad. Get a life in which you are generous.

Look around at the azaleas in the suburban neighborhood where you grew up; look at a full moon hanging silver in a black, black sky on a cold night.

And realize that life is the best thing ever, and that you have no business taking it for granted. Care so deeply about its goodness that you want to spread it around. Once in a while take money you would have spent on beers and give it to charity. Work in a soup kitchen. Be a big brother or sister.

All of you want to do well. But if you do not do good, too, then doing well will never be enough. It is so easy to waste our lives: our days, our hours, our minutes. It is so easy to take for granted the color of the azaleas, the sheen of the limestone on Fifth Avenue, the color of our kid's eyes, the way the melody in a symphony rises and falls and disappears and rises again. It is so easy to exist instead of live. I learned to live many years ago.

Something really, really bad happened to me, something that changed my life in ways that, if I had my druthers, it would never have been changed at all. And what I learned from it is what, today, seems to be the hardest lesson of all. I learned to love the journey, not the destination. I learned that it is not a dress rehearsal, and that today is the only guarantee you get. I learned to look at all the good in the world and to try to give some of it back because I believed in it completely and utterly. And I tried to do that, in part, by telling others what I had learned. By telling them this:

Consider the lilies of the field. Look at the fuzz on a baby's ear. Read in the backyard with the sun on your face. Learn to be happy. And think of life as a terminal illness because if you do you will live it with joy and passion, as it ought to be lived.

Well, you can learn all those things, out there, if you get a life, a full life, a professional life, yes, but another life, too, a life of love and laughs and a connection to other human beings. Just keep your eyes and ears open. Here you could learn in the classroom. There the classroom is everywhere. The exam comes at the very end. No man ever said on his deathbed I wish I had spent more time at the office. I found one of my best teachers on the boardwalk at Coney Island maybe 15 years ago. It was December, and I was doing a story about how the homeless survive in the winter months.

He and I sat on the edge of the wooden supports, dangling our feet over the side, and he told me about his schedule; panhandling the boulevard when the summer crowds were gone, sleeping in a church when the temperature went below freezing, hiding from the police amidst the Tilt a Whirl and the Cyclone and some of the other seasonal rides. But he told me that most of the time he stayed on the boardwalk, facing the water, just the way we were sitting now even when it got cold and he had to wear his newspapers after he read them.

And I asked him why. Why didn't he go to one of the shelters? Why didn't he check himself into the hospital for detox? And he just stared out at the ocean and said, "Look at the view, young lady. Look at the view."

And every day, in some little way, I try to do what he said. I try to look at the view. And that's the last thing I have to tell you today, words of wisdom from a man with not a dime in his pocket, no place to go, nowhere to be. Look at the view. You'll never be disappointed.


----------

