President declares: Every gun that is made, every warship launched is a theft from the hungry

[rightwinger]

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. This is, I repeat, the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron. … Is there no other way the world may live?



Great speech by a great President



.

How about vacations to Hawaii, campaign trips, golf outings, open borders, etc

I don't think he ever vacationed in Hawaii.....but he did play golf more than any other President. Over 800 times

Where did he spend Christmas...in North Dakota?

I seem to remember Gettysburg

 

[Correll]

When the Soviet Union fell, contrary to the belief system of many, defense spending fell and fell and kept falling.

It wasn't until we were horribly attacked that it went back up.

Hell, in Europe, protected by the powerful United States, average defense spending is from our European allies in NATO is running at 1.6%.

YOu remove immediate threats and First World democratic societies will be happy to spend the money elsewhere.

We have a larger military than the next ten countries combined.....who is the threat?

Other nations seem to understand they can build schools, hospitals and feed their people while we build bigger and better military hardware

THat's a bogus number.

Our dominance discourages spending by both our allies AND many of our enemies.

Also, spending does not compare well from nation to nation.

Threats? Terrorists, Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, off the top of my head.

None of those threats warrant 25% of our military spending

None are capable of engaging us on the land, sea or air

Sure they are. Terrorists hit US on 9-11, Russia has thousands of nukes aimed at US, the US has forces stationed in South Korea where they would be easily hit by North Korea and/or China.

 

[Conservative65]

He presents something as being made by THE President not A former President. There is a difference. Very misleading coming from someone known to say that this isn't the 1950s anymore and we can't live like we did then yet uses something from the 1950s.

We do not have the Soviet threat we had in the 53 when Eisenhower made the speech

In fact, today we have nowhere near the threat that Eisenhower faced

The Soviet Union was a country with defined borders. We knew our threat. Today, our greatest threat has no identifiable borders which makes it a greater one. Eisenhower handled the threats. The President today tries to appease those who threaten us.

And how should we use our Military force to address that threat?

Quit taking the approach of trying not to lose and taking one of trying to win. There is a difference. I don't give a shit if those we are fighting don't like us. Far too many don't want to make them mad or want to fight them in a way thinking that if we're nice to them, they'll like us.

I asked a simple question

You claimed the threat we face is worse than we faced in the Cold War

I asked you to define how you would use military force against terrorism

You are aware of the potential casualties we faced in 1953 than we currently face today aren't you?

You asked a simple minded question to a complex issue.

I'd make the areas we know are enemy areas a desert. Wait, they are one. I'd make it one where no one could live for a long time.

 

[rightwinger]

Yeah you are...and complete moron. In fact your entire thread is moronic. You idiot when Eisenhower made that speech we were embroiled in the Korean War and he couldn't make it where he wanted to, in front of the UN due to that, he had to make it in front of the American Society of Newspaper Editors

He presents something as being made by THE President not A former President. There is a difference. Very misleading coming from someone known to say that this isn't the 1950s anymore and we can't live like we did then yet uses something from the 1950s.

We do not have the Soviet threat we had in the 53 when Eisenhower made the speech

In fact, today we have nowhere near the threat that Eisenhower faced

The Soviet Union was a country with defined borders. We knew our threat. Today, our greatest threat has no identifiable borders which makes it a greater one. Eisenhower handled the threats. The President today tries to appease those who threaten us.

And how should we use our Military force to address that threat?

Tell the muslim leaders to kill the radicals or we will kill all of you. Nukes is good.

 

[rightwinger]

When the Soviet Union fell, contrary to the belief system of many, defense spending fell and fell and kept falling.

It wasn't until we were horribly attacked that it went back up.

Hell, in Europe, protected by the powerful United States, average defense spending is from our European allies in NATO is running at 1.6%.

YOu remove immediate threats and First World democratic societies will be happy to spend the money elsewhere.

We have a larger military than the next ten countries combined.....who is the threat?

Other nations seem to understand they can build schools, hospitals and feed their people while we build bigger and better military hardware

THat's a bogus number.

Our dominance discourages spending by both our allies AND many of our enemies.

Also, spending does not compare well from nation to nation.

Threats? Terrorists, Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, off the top of my head.

None of those threats warrant 25% of our military spending

None are capable of engaging us on the land, sea or air

Sure they are. Terrorists hit US on 9-11, Russia has thousands of nukes aimed at US, the US has forces stationed in South Korea where they would be easily hit by North Korea and/or China.

Unbelievable how lame your fear mongering is

Totally clueless as to global threat

 

[g5000]

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. This is, I repeat, the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron. … Is there no other way the world may live?



Great speech by a great President



.

Eisenhower was not calling for a stand-down. He was stating the price that was being paid for being vigilant in a world in which the USSR existed. He acknowledged we had no choice but to pay this terrible price as long as a threat to peace existed, and that the US wanted peace for this reason.

That principle has not changed.

It is a simple fact the United States does not in any way face the existential threat it did in 1953. Not even close.

And so we have to ask ourselves why our Defense budget is bigger today, in real dollars, than it was in 1953.

 

[Conservative65]

He presents something as being made by THE President not A former President. There is a difference. Very misleading coming from someone known to say that this isn't the 1950s anymore and we can't live like we did then yet uses something from the 1950s.

We do not have the Soviet threat we had in the 53 when Eisenhower made the speech

In fact, today we have nowhere near the threat that Eisenhower faced

The Soviet Union was a country with defined borders. We knew our threat. Today, our greatest threat has no identifiable borders which makes it a greater one. Eisenhower handled the threats. The President today tries to appease those who threaten us.

And how should we use our Military force to address that threat?

Tell the muslim leaders to kill the radicals or we will kill all of you. Nukes is good.

I'm not arguing with you. I'm trying to educated a stupid person that is apparently too stupid to learn. We need stupid people like you. Someone has to lean on the shovel on road crews.

 

[g5000]

With Eisenhower’s blessing, the budget request inherited from Truman was slashed by nearly 30%, with more cuts targeted for future years.

Although defense spending never did shrink all the way to Ike’s target, the wind-down of Truman’s war budget was swift and drastic. When measured in constant 2005 dollars of purchasing power, the defense budget was reduced from a peak of $515 billion in fiscal 1953 to $370 billion by fiscal 1956. It remained at that level through the end of Eisenhower’s second term.

Moreover, even though Democrats charged that Eisenhower and Humphrey were “allowing their Neanderthal fiscal views to endanger the national security,” the actual record proves the administration’s drastic rollback of Pentagon spending was not based merely on penny-pinching.

Yes We Can How Eisenhower Wrestled Down the U.S. Warfare State - The Globalist

Notice the Democrats were the big defense hawks?

 

[Dana7360]

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. This is, I repeat, the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron. … Is there no other way the world may live?



Great speech by a great President



.

I thought the President was a Constitutional scholar. Apparently he missed the part about raising a military in Article I, Section 8 while thinking there was any article about social welfare programs. Just more pandering.

Wrong president.

You're assuming that Obama said that.

He didn't.

A republican president by the name of Dwight D. Eisenhower said those words in his last speech as president.

He was also the republican who ran in the republican party as "The Peace President."

Those republicans are long gone. The republican party has been taken over by warmongers and right wing extremists.

In fact Susan Eisenhower came out in 2008 to say she was no longer a republican but an Independent and voting for Obama. She did the same thing in 2012.

John Eisenhower left the republican party in 2004 when he announced he was leaving the republican party and was now an Independent and voting for John Kerry.

Dwight D. Eisenhower could never get nominated for president in the republican party today.

Today's republicans would call him a communist or socialist.

 

[Conservative65]

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. This is, I repeat, the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron. … Is there no other way the world may live?



Great speech by a great President



.

I thought the President was a Constitutional scholar. Apparently he missed the part about raising a military in Article I, Section 8 while thinking there was any article about social welfare programs. Just more pandering.

Wrong president.

You're assuming that Obama said that.

He didn't.

A republican president by the name of Dwight D. Eisenhower said those words in his last speech as president.

He was also the republican who ran in the republican party as "The Peace President."

Those republicans are long gone. The republican party has been taken over by warmongers and right wing extremists.

In fact Susan Eisenhower came out in 2008 to say she was no longer a republican but an Independent and voting for Obama. She did the same thing in 2012.

John Eisenhower left the republican party in 2004 when he announced he was leaving the republican party and was now an Independent and voting for John Kerry.

Dwight D. Eisenhower could never get nominated for president in the republican party today.

Today's republicans would call him a communist or socialist.

Then Susan Eisenhower, much like sellout Colin Powell is a Democrat. Same for John Eisenhower.

John Kennedy couldn't get nominated by the Democrats today. They'd call him a Conservative RWNJ.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Eisenhower died in 1969. How could be become Commanding General in 1992?

Truth matters to assclown Dana, if you catch my drift....

 

[Dana7360]

Where in the Constitution does it say we have to raise a military larger than the next ten militaries combined?

The President knows from experience what a military force can and cannot do. More military knowledge than any President in the last 100 years

It doesn't say anything about how big or little just that Congress has the authority. Seems you base your argument on how much and that's a faulty argument. That the power exists is all that matters.

So you're saying that he has more experience than Eisenhower? You get the award for dumbass response of the year.

I'd say as much experience as Eisenhower

You also get the chapped lips of the year award for how much ass you kiss.

Obama couldn't shine Eisenhower's boots when it comes to military experience.

Who said anything about Obama?

It was Eisenhower who made the quote in the OP. Seems he would know more about the subject than anyone else....won't you agree

Where in the Constitution does it say we have to raise a military larger than the next ten militaries combined?

The President knows from experience what a military force can and cannot do. More military knowledge than any President in the last 100 years

It doesn't say anything about how big or little just that Congress has the authority. Seems you base your argument on how much and that's a faulty argument. That the power exists is all that matters.

So you're saying that he has more experience than Eisenhower? You get the award for dumbass response of the year.

I'd say as much experience as Eisenhower

You also get the chapped lips of the year award for how much ass you kiss.

Obama couldn't shine Eisenhower's boots when it comes to military experience.

Who said anything about Obama?

It was Eisenhower who made the quote in the OP. Seems he would know more about the subject than anyone else....won't you agree

You should credit Eisenhower and actually put quotes around it if it is. Very misleading but not surprised from someone like you.

No one had to tell me who said those words when I read the OP.

Anyone who went to a public school in America from 1960 on has seen that film in class.

At least those who went to school when I went. We saw that film many times throughout our education.

Maybe they stopped showing it and teaching it in the reagan years.

I graduated from high school in 1978 so we were still getting something close to a complete education before reagan came along. I graduated from college in 1982 just as the destruction of public education was starting.

If you went to school in the 80s and after maybe they didn't have it as part of the curriculum on President Eisenhower.

But then a few years ago I ran into a cashier/clerk at a store who asked me "What's an Eisenhower?" I asked her where she went to school and she said she was home schooled.

 

[Dragonlady]

What if you use the dreaded tools to liberate the hungry? Did the former community agitator ever think of that? How about the fact that U.S. war production during WW2 brought the Country out of the depression that FDR presided over for three terms in office?

Yes, sales of weapons to the Allies brought the US out of the Depression, but at that time the US still had a policy of staying out of Europe's wars. The US came ut of the Depression because it wasn't FIGHTING any wars.

Now, the US is involved in multiple conflicts, especially when Republicans are in power. The US Military has become a huge drain on the public purse, and yet here are right wingers who say every dollar is well spent. The US spends more on "defense spending", than the 10 next highest spending countries COMBINED. And 9 of those 10 are your allies.

Republicans have no problem making war, but a real problem paying for it. Even Reagan invaded Granada????? That was so strange.

 

[Conservative65]

It doesn't say anything about how big or little just that Congress has the authority. Seems you base your argument on how much and that's a faulty argument. That the power exists is all that matters.

So you're saying that he has more experience than Eisenhower? You get the award for dumbass response of the year.

I'd say as much experience as Eisenhower

You also get the chapped lips of the year award for how much ass you kiss.

Obama couldn't shine Eisenhower's boots when it comes to military experience.

Who said anything about Obama?

It was Eisenhower who made the quote in the OP. Seems he would know more about the subject than anyone else....won't you agree

It doesn't say anything about how big or little just that Congress has the authority. Seems you base your argument on how much and that's a faulty argument. That the power exists is all that matters.

So you're saying that he has more experience than Eisenhower? You get the award for dumbass response of the year.

I'd say as much experience as Eisenhower

You also get the chapped lips of the year award for how much ass you kiss.

Obama couldn't shine Eisenhower's boots when it comes to military experience.

Who said anything about Obama?

It was Eisenhower who made the quote in the OP. Seems he would know more about the subject than anyone else....won't you agree

You should credit Eisenhower and actually put quotes around it if it is. Very misleading but not surprised from someone like you.

No one had to tell me who said those words when I read the OP.

Anyone who went to a public school in America from 1960 on has seen that film in class.

At least those who went to school when I went. We saw that film many times throughout our education.

Maybe they stopped showing it and teaching it in the reagan years.

I graduated from high school in 1978 so we were still getting something close to a complete education before reagan came along. I graduated from college in 1982 just as the destruction of public education was starting.

If you went to school in the 80s and after maybe they didn't have it as part of the curriculum on President Eisenhower.

But then a few years ago I ran into a cashier/clerk at a store who asked me "What's an Eisenhower?" I asked her where she went to school and she said she was home schooled.

Glad you realize public education has been destroyed. You can thank Jimmy Carter for that.

Sure you ran into that person.

 

[Dana7360]

I'd say as much experience as Eisenhower

You also get the chapped lips of the year award for how much ass you kiss.

Obama couldn't shine Eisenhower's boots when it comes to military experience.

Who said anything about Obama?

It was Eisenhower who made the quote in the OP. Seems he would know more about the subject than anyone else....won't you agree

I'd say as much experience as Eisenhower

You also get the chapped lips of the year award for how much ass you kiss.

Obama couldn't shine Eisenhower's boots when it comes to military experience.

Who said anything about Obama?

It was Eisenhower who made the quote in the OP. Seems he would know more about the subject than anyone else....won't you agree

You should credit Eisenhower and actually put quotes around it if it is. Very misleading but not surprised from someone like you.

I said it came from the President

Words all presidents should live by, don't you agree?

THE President is Obama. Eisenhower is A President. Like I said, very misleading but expected.

It's not at all if you're properly educated.

I knew who said it when I read the title of the thread. I learned about it in the 1960s when I was in grade school.

Wow you right wingers sure don't know your history very well.

 

[Dana7360]

The man couldn't even dress himself. He had a valet do it

I normally scroll right by your posts but this one caught my eye.

The man helped win WWII. He helped liberate Europe. He first had the responsibility for creating the major war plans to defeat Japan and Germany until June 1942. In June 1992 he became Commanding General, European Theater of Operations. In November of that year he was also appointed Supreme Commander Allied Expeditiory Forces of the North African Theater of Operations.

He planned Operation Overlord, the landing on Normandy Beach on D day.

He liberated concentration camps across Europe.

Dwight D. Eisenhower - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

His resume/biography is very long. The above is just a very small portion of his accomplishments.

Every American and European on this earth have Dwight D. Eisenhower to thank for their freedom.

Yet all you can say was he couldn't dress himself?

Eisenhower died in 1969. How could be become Commanding General in 1992?

Sorry Typo. I meant 1942 but I know you knew that.

For a person who has a lot to say you don't have much of a valid point.

 

[Conservative65]

The man couldn't even dress himself. He had a valet do it

I normally scroll right by your posts but this one caught my eye.

The man helped win WWII. He helped liberate Europe. He first had the responsibility for creating the major war plans to defeat Japan and Germany until June 1942. In June 1992 he became Commanding General, European Theater of Operations. In November of that year he was also appointed Supreme Commander Allied Expeditiory Forces of the North African Theater of Operations.

He planned Operation Overlord, the landing on Normandy Beach on D day.

He liberated concentration camps across Europe.

Dwight D. Eisenhower - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

His resume/biography is very long. The above is just a very small portion of his accomplishments.

Every American and European on this earth have Dwight D. Eisenhower to thank for their freedom.

Yet all you can say was he couldn't dress himself?

Eisenhower died in 1969. How could be become Commanding General in 1992?

Sorry Typo. I meant 1942 but I know you knew that.

For a person who has a lot to say you don't have much of a valid point.

For a person that claims to be so smart, mistakes like that aren't made.

 

[Roadrunner]

The man couldn't even dress himself. He had a valet do it

He says this, while morbid obesity and morbid obesity related disorders are dooming our poor to diabetes, strokes, and wrecked joints.

 

[Correll]

When the Soviet Union fell, contrary to the belief system of many, defense spending fell and fell and kept falling.

It wasn't until we were horribly attacked that it went back up.

Hell, in Europe, protected by the powerful United States, average defense spending is from our European allies in NATO is running at 1.6%.

YOu remove immediate threats and First World democratic societies will be happy to spend the money elsewhere.

We have a larger military than the next ten countries combined.....who is the threat?

Other nations seem to understand they can build schools, hospitals and feed their people while we build bigger and better military hardware

THat's a bogus number.

Our dominance discourages spending by both our allies AND many of our enemies.

Also, spending does not compare well from nation to nation.

Threats? Terrorists, Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, off the top of my head.

None of those threats warrant 25% of our military spending

None are capable of engaging us on the land, sea or air

Sure they are. Terrorists hit US on 9-11, Russia has thousands of nukes aimed at US, the US has forces stationed in South Korea where they would be easily hit by North Korea and/or China.

Unbelievable how lame your fear mongering is

Totally clueless as to global threat

You asked, I answered.

What is the global threat in your opinion?

 

[Roadrunner]

Get rid of despots and terrorists and we wouldn't need guns, planes and ships.

Get rid of guns and we would be praying toward Mecca.

Get a fuckin' job, and these piss poor patriots would not need welfare.

There is no problem that cannot be solved by personal responsibility, and no irresponsible behaviour that cannot be excused and justified by RW.