Standard dishonest reply by alchemize.
Sorry pal, but this one is owned by the facts clearly documented and clearly stated also in the USA Consitution. Congress is charged with making and coining all money. Not some private entity which is what the Federal Reserve is. They are actually not Federal and they have no reserve. They simply loan money into existance out of thin air. And charge interest on it. Causing perpetual debt. The perfect scam from their perspective.
Andrew Jackson fought the Central Bankers in the early 1800's and threw them weasels out on their butts. It's always been a war against that take over of our finances. In 1913 in one of the most corrupt overthrows of the American political process they finally weaseled the Federal Reserve through. People can study this and learn this. It has nothing to do with tinfoil theories.
Backed into a corner now alchemize, ...i suggest you leave the thread so honest posters here can carry on an honest discussion without tripping over your "jamming" tactics.
Guess you missed the debunking, but I'll post it again.
Debunking the Federal Reserve Conspiracy Theories
If you wish to argue any of the specific points of the debunking, please feel free to. I'm more than capable to discuss finance at whatever level you feel comfortable. I believe you should start with Myth #1, #4 and #9 since you've directly referenced all 3 of those.
Then I suggest you go read up on economic theory 101Link so you can actually understand the gibberish you are mashing out on the keyboard.
Or perhaps you are suggesting we should enter the deepest depression in human history and kill off about 2/3 of the world's population.
The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Lecture on the Federal Reserve (a real audio 10.6mb download)
Listen to the 1:45min lecture to learn the full details about the Federal Reserve Scam.
ABOLISH THE FEDERAL RESERVE by Congressman Ron Paul
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
I see Hamilton and Burr are still at it... go for it!....
The Fiscal Policy that the Government is charged with developing and executing is dramatically constrained by the monetary system but also enabled by it.. with out an independent body keeping the economy afloat would be left to the JERKS in Congress and the Executive who tend to screw up stuff all the time...
I'd rather the bankers do their banking stuff (but mostly the Economists) than rely on months and months of hearings and delays to get a bill passed with all the compromise and riders... Monetary Policy is almost instant.. and is for the most part an Economic life saver over the history of its existence... Me thinks..
Edit: Next stop for our warriors will be "Who loves William Jennings Bryan"
The Fiscal Policy that the Government is charged with developing and executing is dramatically constrained by the monetary system but also enabled by it.. with out an independent body keeping the economy afloat would be left to the JERKS in Congress and the Executive who tend to screw up stuff all the time...
I'd rather the bankers do their banking stuff (but mostly the Economists) than rely on months and months of hearings and delays to get a bill passed with all the compromise and riders... Monetary Policy is almost instant.. and is for the most part an Economic life saver over the history of its existence... Me thinks..
Edit: Next stop for our warriors will be "Who loves William Jennings Bryan"
I've studied JFK for 20 years, and am always glad to see a thread that might do some education.
You have to cut through the partisan views (e.g., Pabster), since JFK was a complicated figure who you can find good and bad about; being selective is a distorted picture.
I happen to think he was our greatest president since FDR, despite some large negatives; his positives were just that good.
Not everyone has over a hundred books on the man sitting in their library, so the question, 'what did he do anyway' is a good one. I'll try to list a few highlights:
- His monetary policies were especially thoughtful. He'd studied under Keynes at the london School of Economics, but I mention that not to say he had the answers, but rather that he knew enough to get the answers. He tried new things, such as timing government spending to minimize the risk of recession, and is widely credited with avoiding a predicted cyclical recession. Overall, excellent policies and the economy reflected it.
- He was revolutionary in his support for true independance for third world nations to get to be neutral, independant; he reversed the US policy of supporting European colonization of third world nations, and this caused huge friction with some of our old allies (for example, Portugal). The policy had been to put in right-wing dictators and not worry about their brutality; his policy was to change that and often support truly neutral leaders over right-wing US puppets.
This was in part to gain advantage over the communists in the cold war by making the US more attractive to ally with, but that wasn't his only reason.
There's a reason peasant huts around the world had his picture on the walls for decades. The 'radical' land reformce Hugo Chavez is doing? JFK recommended them.
There's too much to get into - there's an entire book just on his radical, progressive African policies.
- JFK was ahead of his time in pursuing detente with the Soviet Union. Months after the Cuban Missile Crisis, he gave a speech at American University considered by many one of the greatest presidential speeches; it was a reach out to the USSR for peace, and Kruschev called it the greatest speech by a president in decades, and played it in its entirety across the USSR, unheard of.
You can read the speech here
In conjunction with that, he pursued the limited nuclear test ban treaty, something he considered his greatest success.
- He provided leadership that directly was the cause of the moon landing (though today's republicans would mock him like Al Gore for claiming he invented the rocket, no doubt).
- He broadly pursued policies which 'lifted all boats', helping the poor.
- He modernized the US military post-WWII, creating the Navy Seals and the Green Berets.
- He created large amounts of international goodwill towards the US and the west
- There was a broad sense of leadership people felt which is difficult to quantify
- He stood up to a very miiltant Joint Chiefs of Staff on Viet Nam. It's hard to describe today how hard that was, with the cold war at its peak, the joint chiefs of staff very powerful (with the crazy Curtis LeMay the most popular active military figure in the nation, single handedly running our nuclear response to any soviet attack - to get a sense of the culture, Secretary of Defense McNamara was denied in his request to see our nuclear war plans and had to get Kennedy to personally order him access).
There was enormous pressure on him to go to war in Viet Nam; he refused any combat troops, and instead moved us towards exiting - something which he gets credit for only in hindsight. At the time, the US had not lost any wars and it was very gung ho about protecting our interests against those few, easy to defeat communist peasants. In fact, he had to schedule the withdrawal for 1965, because it would go over so badly in the election. (Criticize him if you like for not being up front on his plans).
- He became an unintentional leader of the civil rights movement, leading the nation to adopt new views.
In another of what I think are his greatest speeches, amazingly a day following the one above, he spoke on civil rights.
You can read and hear the speech at this link
- Anti-Mafia: the Justice Department under Robert Kennedy prosecuted more mobsters than all the previous administrations combined.
- He was planning to overhaul the dysfunctional US intelligence agencies.
- His remarkable speeches - and part credit to Ted Sorensen.
Some rebuttals to common criticisms:
Bay of Pigs: a mistake, but nearly unavoidable. The plan had been created by the enormously popular Eisenhower; the democrats had run in part on a platform of not doing enough against Castro; all of the military and CIA advisors said the plan was guaranteed to work; the public rated Castro the #1 threat to America in 1961. He was a brand new president following Eisenhower who would have looked very weak.
Had Kennedy turned down the plan, history would have said he was wrong for passing up the historic, can't-lose chance to get rid of Castro that Eisenhower would have done.
A political disaster. On top of that, he laid out a condition, no air support; some advisors tried to trick him into a broader attack by assuming that once it had started he would have to reverse his decision. They were wrong, and their gamble that he would change his plan cost lives. Nonetheless, he took full responsibility for his error, and learned a lot from it. He never trusted the military much after that for advice, and created a new position for trusted advisor Maxwell Taylor as his chief military advisor.
He suffered the humiliation of negotiating the return of the prisoners in exchange for non-military goods the following Christmas.
- Viet Nam: I suspect that had Kennedy withdrawn from Viet Nam in 1965 history again would have condemned him for being weak on a war we could easily win.
Bottom line is he drew a line, no combat troops, and he stuck to it, even while he made efforts to help the South Vietnamese troops with 16,000 'advisors'.
The Viet Nam issue is complicated; for example, few realize that at one point in the 1950's during the French colonization, the US was paying up to 90% of the costs for them.
A good source for info on JFK and Viet Nam is John Newman's book. For more on Kennedy's plans to withdraw, see William Manchester 'One Brief Shining Moment'.
Negatives? Where to start - his womanizing was reckless, he led a massive and unnecessary nuclear military buildup (again, harking back to the 1960 campaign where the democrats alleged a phony 'missile gap'; we don't know whether they knew it was not true); his campaign of terror and assassination against Castro, etc.
You have to cut through the partisan views (e.g., Pabster), since JFK was a complicated figure who you can find good and bad about; being selective is a distorted picture.
I happen to think he was our greatest president since FDR, despite some large negatives; his positives were just that good.
Not everyone has over a hundred books on the man sitting in their library, so the question, 'what did he do anyway' is a good one. I'll try to list a few highlights:
- His monetary policies were especially thoughtful. He'd studied under Keynes at the london School of Economics, but I mention that not to say he had the answers, but rather that he knew enough to get the answers. He tried new things, such as timing government spending to minimize the risk of recession, and is widely credited with avoiding a predicted cyclical recession. Overall, excellent policies and the economy reflected it.
- He was revolutionary in his support for true independance for third world nations to get to be neutral, independant; he reversed the US policy of supporting European colonization of third world nations, and this caused huge friction with some of our old allies (for example, Portugal). The policy had been to put in right-wing dictators and not worry about their brutality; his policy was to change that and often support truly neutral leaders over right-wing US puppets.
This was in part to gain advantage over the communists in the cold war by making the US more attractive to ally with, but that wasn't his only reason.
There's a reason peasant huts around the world had his picture on the walls for decades. The 'radical' land reformce Hugo Chavez is doing? JFK recommended them.
There's too much to get into - there's an entire book just on his radical, progressive African policies.
- JFK was ahead of his time in pursuing detente with the Soviet Union. Months after the Cuban Missile Crisis, he gave a speech at American University considered by many one of the greatest presidential speeches; it was a reach out to the USSR for peace, and Kruschev called it the greatest speech by a president in decades, and played it in its entirety across the USSR, unheard of.
You can read the speech here
In conjunction with that, he pursued the limited nuclear test ban treaty, something he considered his greatest success.
- He provided leadership that directly was the cause of the moon landing (though today's republicans would mock him like Al Gore for claiming he invented the rocket, no doubt).
- He broadly pursued policies which 'lifted all boats', helping the poor.
- He modernized the US military post-WWII, creating the Navy Seals and the Green Berets.
- He created large amounts of international goodwill towards the US and the west
- There was a broad sense of leadership people felt which is difficult to quantify
- He stood up to a very miiltant Joint Chiefs of Staff on Viet Nam. It's hard to describe today how hard that was, with the cold war at its peak, the joint chiefs of staff very powerful (with the crazy Curtis LeMay the most popular active military figure in the nation, single handedly running our nuclear response to any soviet attack - to get a sense of the culture, Secretary of Defense McNamara was denied in his request to see our nuclear war plans and had to get Kennedy to personally order him access).
There was enormous pressure on him to go to war in Viet Nam; he refused any combat troops, and instead moved us towards exiting - something which he gets credit for only in hindsight. At the time, the US had not lost any wars and it was very gung ho about protecting our interests against those few, easy to defeat communist peasants. In fact, he had to schedule the withdrawal for 1965, because it would go over so badly in the election. (Criticize him if you like for not being up front on his plans).
- He became an unintentional leader of the civil rights movement, leading the nation to adopt new views.
In another of what I think are his greatest speeches, amazingly a day following the one above, he spoke on civil rights.
You can read and hear the speech at this link
- Anti-Mafia: the Justice Department under Robert Kennedy prosecuted more mobsters than all the previous administrations combined.
- He was planning to overhaul the dysfunctional US intelligence agencies.
- His remarkable speeches - and part credit to Ted Sorensen.
Some rebuttals to common criticisms:
Bay of Pigs: a mistake, but nearly unavoidable. The plan had been created by the enormously popular Eisenhower; the democrats had run in part on a platform of not doing enough against Castro; all of the military and CIA advisors said the plan was guaranteed to work; the public rated Castro the #1 threat to America in 1961. He was a brand new president following Eisenhower who would have looked very weak.
Had Kennedy turned down the plan, history would have said he was wrong for passing up the historic, can't-lose chance to get rid of Castro that Eisenhower would have done.
A political disaster. On top of that, he laid out a condition, no air support; some advisors tried to trick him into a broader attack by assuming that once it had started he would have to reverse his decision. They were wrong, and their gamble that he would change his plan cost lives. Nonetheless, he took full responsibility for his error, and learned a lot from it. He never trusted the military much after that for advice, and created a new position for trusted advisor Maxwell Taylor as his chief military advisor.
He suffered the humiliation of negotiating the return of the prisoners in exchange for non-military goods the following Christmas.
- Viet Nam: I suspect that had Kennedy withdrawn from Viet Nam in 1965 history again would have condemned him for being weak on a war we could easily win.
Bottom line is he drew a line, no combat troops, and he stuck to it, even while he made efforts to help the South Vietnamese troops with 16,000 'advisors'.
The Viet Nam issue is complicated; for example, few realize that at one point in the 1950's during the French colonization, the US was paying up to 90% of the costs for them.
A good source for info on JFK and Viet Nam is John Newman's book. For more on Kennedy's plans to withdraw, see William Manchester 'One Brief Shining Moment'.
Negatives? Where to start - his womanizing was reckless, he led a massive and unnecessary nuclear military buildup (again, harking back to the 1960 campaign where the democrats alleged a phony 'missile gap'; we don't know whether they knew it was not true); his campaign of terror and assassination against Castro, etc.
ProfJohn
Lifer
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
Very impressive Craig.
I do agree that he gave great speeches and how much credit for that goes to his writers and his own ability to speak.
Reagan had that same amazing ability to connect with an audience and had great speech writers as well, the speech after the death of the Challenger astronauts is amazing and very touching.
Clinton gave good speeches and was good at making a connection with people through the TV, especially women, and I don't mean this a slight to Monica, Clinton was very popular among women in this country, it was one reason he won. It was also a reason Gore lost because women left the Democrats and went to Bush.
Now people who know him say Bush is a very effective leader in person and very likeable, unfortunately he sucks at giving speeches, as we all know. He was good in the debates and can be good during news conferences. I think way to many people on the left attack his problems with verbal miscues as if that shows a lack of intelligence or some other fatal character flaw.
Question for you Craig. Kennedy cut tax rates, was this because he believed in supply side economics or for other reasons? Don?t feel like reading all about Keynes right now.
I do agree that he gave great speeches and how much credit for that goes to his writers and his own ability to speak.
Reagan had that same amazing ability to connect with an audience and had great speech writers as well, the speech after the death of the Challenger astronauts is amazing and very touching.
Clinton gave good speeches and was good at making a connection with people through the TV, especially women, and I don't mean this a slight to Monica, Clinton was very popular among women in this country, it was one reason he won. It was also a reason Gore lost because women left the Democrats and went to Bush.
Now people who know him say Bush is a very effective leader in person and very likeable, unfortunately he sucks at giving speeches, as we all know. He was good in the debates and can be good during news conferences. I think way to many people on the left attack his problems with verbal miscues as if that shows a lack of intelligence or some other fatal character flaw.
Question for you Craig. Kennedy cut tax rates, was this because he believed in supply side economics or for other reasons? Don?t feel like reading all about Keynes right now.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
I think JFK went to London to study under Laski at the School of Economics there but don't think his health held out long enough for him to finish.. Harold Laski was a Socialist and member of the British Labor party and Laski was Professor of Political Science but also an Economist....
In his April '61 address to the total revamping of the Tax System I don't think you'd classify it as either having a Demand or Supply side objective but rather (and IMO) I see it as a Total change directed to the spenders and the investors and the providers as well. But, I do think Kennedy saw fiscal policy regarding both his 'timed' government spending or tax policy as a means to stimulate the demand side.
EDIT: I say this inspite of the claim that JFK was the Supply Side Patron Saint... he really supported the demand side Liberal position... EDIT END.
I think his legislation was passed in '64. AND pushed by Johnson.. with some Kennedy Legacy support feelings..
In his April '61 address to the total revamping of the Tax System I don't think you'd classify it as either having a Demand or Supply side objective but rather (and IMO) I see it as a Total change directed to the spenders and the investors and the providers as well. But, I do think Kennedy saw fiscal policy regarding both his 'timed' government spending or tax policy as a means to stimulate the demand side.
EDIT: I say this inspite of the claim that JFK was the Supply Side Patron Saint... he really supported the demand side Liberal position... EDIT END.
I think his legislation was passed in '64. AND pushed by Johnson.. with some Kennedy Legacy support feelings..
Thanks for the nice comments. And especially for the correction to the misstatement I made, JFK studied Keynesian economics under Laski, rather than studying under Keynes.
On his speeches, most of the content seems to be from himself and Sorensen; He ran a much smaller White House staff than came to exist later. He was quite able to write his own speeches, as he did with his famous inaugural - and even to speak well extemporaneously; the civil rights speech I linked above was written on short notice in hours before it was delivered, and a good amount was said on the fly. His press conferences are another illustration of his talent in the area of speaking extemporaneously.
On tax cuts, he was a believer of using fiscal policy for obtaining desirable results, especially tax incentives for encouraging investment in areas good for the nation.
The key thing to remember on the tax cuts are where tax rates were when he made the cuts. He cut the top tax rate from 90% to 70% - levels at which his reasons were solid, that the rates were so high as to cause tax avoidance to dominate coporate behavior, and where a cut in the rates would result in a long-term increase in revenues. It's a far cry from cutting rates at that level, to cutting them when they are under half his (cut) rates.
I know of no republicans who quote Kennedy on the tax cuts who would accept his rates.
One other difference between his cuts and recent cuts is that his were much more broadly distributed to all classes, while republican cuts are weighted to the top (something Bush felt the need to lie about, when he said they go mainly to those at the bottom). In the era of the 1950's and 1960's, the tax burden was shifted much more on the side of corporations compared to today.
There are many differences in the circumstances from the time of Kennedy's cuts to today, including the huge defecits we're running.
Kennedy supported short term deficits when they were investments in long term productivity and tax revenue, but he did not support anything like the big debt we have.
In short, the economic principles involved in cutting the top tax rate from 90% to 70% are far different than those in, say, cutting it from 28% o 15%, or eliminating dividend taxes.
I think Kennedy was right on in his economic policies - and yes, they did often challenge Wall Street interests in favor of the public interest. He had a solid team; his chief economic advisor was Paul Samuelson, who went on to win the Nobel Prize for Economics in 1970, for example.
On his speeches, most of the content seems to be from himself and Sorensen; He ran a much smaller White House staff than came to exist later. He was quite able to write his own speeches, as he did with his famous inaugural - and even to speak well extemporaneously; the civil rights speech I linked above was written on short notice in hours before it was delivered, and a good amount was said on the fly. His press conferences are another illustration of his talent in the area of speaking extemporaneously.
On tax cuts, he was a believer of using fiscal policy for obtaining desirable results, especially tax incentives for encouraging investment in areas good for the nation.
The key thing to remember on the tax cuts are where tax rates were when he made the cuts. He cut the top tax rate from 90% to 70% - levels at which his reasons were solid, that the rates were so high as to cause tax avoidance to dominate coporate behavior, and where a cut in the rates would result in a long-term increase in revenues. It's a far cry from cutting rates at that level, to cutting them when they are under half his (cut) rates.
I know of no republicans who quote Kennedy on the tax cuts who would accept his rates.
One other difference between his cuts and recent cuts is that his were much more broadly distributed to all classes, while republican cuts are weighted to the top (something Bush felt the need to lie about, when he said they go mainly to those at the bottom). In the era of the 1950's and 1960's, the tax burden was shifted much more on the side of corporations compared to today.
There are many differences in the circumstances from the time of Kennedy's cuts to today, including the huge defecits we're running.
Kennedy supported short term deficits when they were investments in long term productivity and tax revenue, but he did not support anything like the big debt we have.
In short, the economic principles involved in cutting the top tax rate from 90% to 70% are far different than those in, say, cutting it from 28% o 15%, or eliminating dividend taxes.
I think Kennedy was right on in his economic policies - and yes, they did often challenge Wall Street interests in favor of the public interest. He had a solid team; his chief economic advisor was Paul Samuelson, who went on to win the Nobel Prize for Economics in 1970, for example.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
In the reduction of the tax rates on the upper earners many saw this as a "Supply Side" stimuli and it was but it was also an astute political move as well... Had he not died it would have been tough getting any kind of bill passed that did not cater to the Congress and their need to sate their supporters.. as well as the corporate need for capital for modernization and job creation.. So.. it was a very fair and need bit of legislation "The Tax Reform Bill of '64" should be seen a totally JFK handy work.. almost from his mind to the paper..
When he dropped the medal he was giving to the Astronauts one day... his brilliance and charisma showed.. but also .. if you look carefully.. while he spoke from prepared notes you'll see often times folks turning pages to find where he was... He spoke in a rapid and articulate fashion.. the Mozart of speech... He augmented Sorensen's work alot.. but if any one knew the mind of JFK it was Sorensen.. even Bobby didn't get it all the time.. JFK was simply brilliant. Clinton comes close or maybe even on par with JFK but I think Clinton learned to be like JFK rather than it being his god given talent.. Reagan was good... but not nearly as good as either JFK or Clinton in that his age and mind were slowly leaving what was a gifted orator a rather common person... buz words filled his pages.. "Welllllllll" preceded every response while he fought to find a response...
When he dropped the medal he was giving to the Astronauts one day... his brilliance and charisma showed.. but also .. if you look carefully.. while he spoke from prepared notes you'll see often times folks turning pages to find where he was... He spoke in a rapid and articulate fashion.. the Mozart of speech... He augmented Sorensen's work alot.. but if any one knew the mind of JFK it was Sorensen.. even Bobby didn't get it all the time.. JFK was simply brilliant. Clinton comes close or maybe even on par with JFK but I think Clinton learned to be like JFK rather than it being his god given talent.. Reagan was good... but not nearly as good as either JFK or Clinton in that his age and mind were slowly leaving what was a gifted orator a rather common person... buz words filled his pages.. "Welllllllll" preceded every response while he fought to find a response...
1. Really? I haven't heard that, I heard that he leads by raising his voice and trying to verbally intimidate people, like LBJ. Not that effective IMHO.
2. If you are referring to the '04 debates, he was terrible, Kerry trounced him completely.
Also please update your sig, "Bush invades Iraq with UN and congressional approval because of WMD program and humanitarian reasons. Bush villain to the left."
Bush did not have UN approval, he withdrew the resolution for authorization from the UNSC because he would have been struck down.
I agree with you that the tax bill passed in Feb 1964 was JFK's bill, and that it was only partly 'supply side' - Kennedy was largely focused on demand side in a way republicans are not.
On speaking, I really don't put Clinton or Reagan into the same league as JFK - or RFK for that matter.
The last president I'd compare with JFK was FDR, though I think Eisenhower's 1961 speech as he left office was one of the few most important speeches in the last 50 years.
To digress, RFK took time (like JFK did) but became a great speaker. For an example outside any prepared speech, look how he handled Martin Luther King's assassination.
RFK was going that night to speak to inner city blacks in Detroit - such a bad area the police refused to escort him past a certain point, and this before Secret Service protection.
Kennedy obviously could not have prepared his speech as he announced the news to the crowd - but listen to his eloquence.
Every major city that night had black riots - but for Detroit.
You can read and hear the speech here
And RFK was the gutsiest speaker we've had among major politicians since Teddy Roosevelt, if not even moreso than him.
He'd go to Japan and argue with the young communists where there was potential for violence, he went to South Africa and condemned Apartheid when no one else was, I recall his arguing with American students as well, as he laid out his vision to help the poor, a medical student asked him, who is going to pay for all this? RFK answered: "you are". He had a sense of the balance needed to make a society work, and was direct.
On speaking, I really don't put Clinton or Reagan into the same league as JFK - or RFK for that matter.
The last president I'd compare with JFK was FDR, though I think Eisenhower's 1961 speech as he left office was one of the few most important speeches in the last 50 years.
To digress, RFK took time (like JFK did) but became a great speaker. For an example outside any prepared speech, look how he handled Martin Luther King's assassination.
RFK was going that night to speak to inner city blacks in Detroit - such a bad area the police refused to escort him past a certain point, and this before Secret Service protection.
Kennedy obviously could not have prepared his speech as he announced the news to the crowd - but listen to his eloquence.
Every major city that night had black riots - but for Detroit.
You can read and hear the speech here
And RFK was the gutsiest speaker we've had among major politicians since Teddy Roosevelt, if not even moreso than him.
He'd go to Japan and argue with the young communists where there was potential for violence, he went to South Africa and condemned Apartheid when no one else was, I recall his arguing with American students as well, as he laid out his vision to help the poor, a medical student asked him, who is going to pay for all this? RFK answered: "you are". He had a sense of the balance needed to make a society work, and was direct.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
Craig234,
I am of the opinion that Bobby had that speech ready for the Inner city folks and augmented it to include the MLK tragedy.. Perhaps I'm wrong.. I feel strongly, however, that that was not an 'off the cuff' address on the merits of the now dead Black Leader's philosophy that Bobby embraced and although MLK's name would have been mentioned even if he was alive when Bobby gave it I suppose it could have been 'on the spot' generated or as I said earlier..
Well... neither Ike nor FDR struck me as being great speech givers.. I've heard them speak but not live and the medium don't give them justice, I suppose.. The content of their remarks or those of other Presidents are important but much is lost as the mind of the listener wanes and the yawns occur... JFK spoke so darn fast it kept the mind alert and the message heard..
Bobby spoke softly and slowly but did elevate and speed up at times.. his speeches were emotional and touched the heart in a different way than JFK.. his were more a reality check.. as I heard them..
I am of the opinion that Bobby had that speech ready for the Inner city folks and augmented it to include the MLK tragedy.. Perhaps I'm wrong.. I feel strongly, however, that that was not an 'off the cuff' address on the merits of the now dead Black Leader's philosophy that Bobby embraced and although MLK's name would have been mentioned even if he was alive when Bobby gave it I suppose it could have been 'on the spot' generated or as I said earlier..
Well... neither Ike nor FDR struck me as being great speech givers.. I've heard them speak but not live and the medium don't give them justice, I suppose.. The content of their remarks or those of other Presidents are important but much is lost as the mind of the listener wanes and the yawns occur... JFK spoke so darn fast it kept the mind alert and the message heard..
Bobby spoke softly and slowly but did elevate and speed up at times.. his speeches were emotional and touched the heart in a different way than JFK.. his were more a reality check.. as I heard them..
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
The UN Charter provides for a preemptive invasion only if an exigent condition is met.. and Bush used the 45 day thing that Iraq would be launching its missiles at the US or Its Possessions... that was a joke.. a lie and it is incumbent on the invader to show just cause for the invasion.. which we cannot..
We did Float the 'draft' resolution and were informed that aside from Britain the other permanent members of the UN SC would veto it...
Bush's Oct '03 War Power Act compliance resolution to Congress is filled with lies and half truths... He should be impeached and tried in the Senate or at least hold hearing into why that don't violate the law of the US... Most US legal minds find both the International and US laws were violated.. but yet we debate an exit strategy....
Bush knows well how to avoid wars.. !! He, however, embraces them it seems...
We did Float the 'draft' resolution and were informed that aside from Britain the other permanent members of the UN SC would veto it...
Bush's Oct '03 War Power Act compliance resolution to Congress is filled with lies and half truths... He should be impeached and tried in the Senate or at least hold hearing into why that don't violate the law of the US... Most US legal minds find both the International and US laws were violated.. but yet we debate an exit strategy....
Bush knows well how to avoid wars.. !! He, however, embraces them it seems...
ProfJohn
Lifer
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
So you are saying that you agree with everything else I said in my Sig?
I agree with what you are saying, my statement was a slight exaggeration on getting UN approval. The argument was made that the resolutions passed before the one specifically allowing force were strong enough to allow the use of force, but that is semantics. (You can make the argument that since Saddam violated the 91 ceasefire we could have resumed the war at any time we liked, but I do not want to argue that in this thread.
BTW: I am sure you will all agree with my new Sig.
Thanks for the additional comments.
One thing I look for in the speeches is how much they can bring about change. It's one thing to give consolation after a tragedy, and another to help move the nation n a better direction by bringing about change in public opinion.
This is why I see more greatness in JFK's speeches to solidify American's self image as a just and moral nation as we further became the world's dominant power, how he shifted public opinion on civil rights in a nation with a century of racism after the civil war and little caring about the plight of blacks, how he laid the groundwork for moving from only conflict in a nuclear age with the communists to a "Strategy of Peace", his phrase of choice and the title of a book of his speeches, to a nation fearful of the enemy - and Bobby Kennedy, who once had considered becoming a priest, persuading the nation to choose justice for the weak over selfish self interest.
Ike's speech on the military industrial complex gets points for being incredibly insightful and important, but it was given too late and without what was needed to deal with the issue, and it was left for us to dig up and praise today for its correct message. Too bad he didn't give it years earlier and follow policies based on it more.
To his credit, Ike did try to keep the wasteful spending on the military curtailed, seemingly the last president to do so. FDR originally wanted the Pentagon to be a temporary building because he feared it being permanent would create a self-interested bureacracy that democracy could not keep in check. Jefferson had similar warnings...
One thing I look for in the speeches is how much they can bring about change. It's one thing to give consolation after a tragedy, and another to help move the nation n a better direction by bringing about change in public opinion.
This is why I see more greatness in JFK's speeches to solidify American's self image as a just and moral nation as we further became the world's dominant power, how he shifted public opinion on civil rights in a nation with a century of racism after the civil war and little caring about the plight of blacks, how he laid the groundwork for moving from only conflict in a nuclear age with the communists to a "Strategy of Peace", his phrase of choice and the title of a book of his speeches, to a nation fearful of the enemy - and Bobby Kennedy, who once had considered becoming a priest, persuading the nation to choose justice for the weak over selfish self interest.
Ike's speech on the military industrial complex gets points for being incredibly insightful and important, but it was given too late and without what was needed to deal with the issue, and it was left for us to dig up and praise today for its correct message. Too bad he didn't give it years earlier and follow policies based on it more.
To his credit, Ike did try to keep the wasteful spending on the military curtailed, seemingly the last president to do so. FDR originally wanted the Pentagon to be a temporary building because he feared it being permanent would create a self-interested bureacracy that democracy could not keep in check. Jefferson had similar warnings...
ProfJohn
Lifer
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
I think you are very wrong to compare Clinton as a speaker to Reagan. Reagan wasn't called the great communicator for nothing,
And as far as the "his mind were slowly leaving" comment check out these quips:
Follows are some of his inspirational lines, quote me a few of Clinton's lines that compare.
There are books out there with just quotes of Reagan's, are there any with just Clinton quotes? I don't think so. Go to Amazon.com and search "Reagan quotes" and "Clinton quotes" and look at the difference.
BTW: I think the "tear down this wall" speech ties with Kennedy's "Ich bin ein Berliner" speech as two of the best anti-communist speeches of all time. Right up there with Churchhill's "Iron Curtain" line.
Ps. I am curious as to how old you are Ray, are you old enough to really remember Reagan? I ask this not as an insult, I think it is fair to say that a majority of people on this site are under 30. I myself am old enough to remember Ted Kennedy coming to my Junior High when he was running for President, school was named after his brother.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
So you are saying that you agree with everything else I said in my Sig?
I agree with what you are saying, my statement was a slight exaggeration on getting UN approval. The argument was made that the resolutions passed before the one specifically allowing force were strong enough to allow the use of force, but that is semantics. (You can make the argument that since Saddam violated the 91 ceasefire we could have resumed the war at any time we liked, but I do not want to argue that in this thread.
BTW: I am sure you will all agree with my new Sig.
You can try to make that argument but in diplospeak and in the well written resolutions the US did not have that authority. Being Seized of the situation has a meaning that returns control back to the UN body.. You see... the US is NOT the only player in the UN... It takes the UN to determine IF Iraq's violation was a breech sufficient to revisit the issue.. Unilateral determinations don't fly but we tried that tack too using earlier resolutions but all of them were part of the latter ones and they control.. Bush realized this and tried there but failed.. Nope.. only using a defensive preemptive attack supported by the 45 day time in which Saddam would launch his WMD against us.. somehow would meet the test of unilateral and with out explicit resolution to wage war. The UN did, however, give tacit approval... after the fact.. but with out the WMD being found... tacit is not really an actual approval.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
Well.... (as Reagan might say).... let me address the few before the many.... My age... perceptions and focus...
Well where to start.. ah... My friend Bruce Unruh had a daddy named Jesse.. Big Daddy... and he was.. Speaker of the California house and a lesser office as Treasurer. I first met Bruce back in what... '69... just got done with 6 years in my Yachting Club.. well.... motorized as they were..
The tear down this wall.. was delivered flat it did not have the lead in I'd have wanted to hear.. Reagan vs Moonbeam Brown.. my buddy the almost Jesuit.. heheheh.. Reagan wins.. Reagan's forte was not off the cuff.. he needed a script.. and needed to follow it.. He is perhaps my third most gifted presidential speechafiers... maybe fourth because RFK really knew how to touch a thinking persons heart.. alas he never was elected.. dang... But Reagan was no William Jennings Bryan...
Now to the meat of the matter.... Some day find a person blind since birth and while holding an orange in your hand describe the color of that orange to him or her.. and while you are at it reason why it is that I, a sighted person, looking at that same orange you are holding don't agree with your description.. could it be that what I see is based on light reflected differently to me than you off that orange... or that one of us is a bit color blind.. or even that one of us can't seem to find the words to enable that blind person to grasp the color orange.. or that one might use other analogies that they may find more appropriate for the task...
So... how can I or you seeing or hearing or reading the same words rendered at the same time or captured from that time and reviewed later come away with different OPINIONS? How can one be wrong in how they feel about Ich bin eine Berliner vs Tear down this wall.... I don't think how you or I or anyone feels about speeches can be wrong.. if they know how they feel and accurately express it..
BUT... facts is facts or true is factual.. and even then it is open for opinion.. The SCOTUS renders Opinions but they ain't...
We never know what we don't know.. so all the threads in this forum given infinity as the criteria could be false although true today..But in our little discussion one person's truth can be another person's opposite... all depends..
edit to put a "'" to make it mo possessive
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Well.... (as Reagan might say).... let me address the few before the many.... My age... perceptions and focus...
Well where to start.. ah... My friend Bruce Unruh had a daddy named Jesse.. Big Daddy... and he was.. Speaker of the California house and a lesser office as Treasurer. I first met Bruce back in what... '69... just got done with 6 years in my Yachting Club.. well.... motorized as they were..
The tear down this wall.. was delivered flat it did not have the lead in I'd have wanted to hear.. Reagan vs Moonbeam Brown.. my buddy the almost Jesuit.. heheheh.. Reagan wins.. Reagan's forte was not off the cuff.. he needed a script.. and needed to follow it.. He is perhaps my third most gifted presidential speechafiers... maybe fourth because RFK really knew how to touch a thinking persons heart.. alas he never was elected.. dang... But Reagan was no William Jennings Bryan...
Now to the meat of the matter.... Some day find a person blind since birth and while holding an orange in your hand describe the color of that orange to him or her.. and while you are at it reason why it is that I, a sighted person, looking at that same orange you are holding don't agree with your description.. could it be that what I see is based on light reflected differently to me than you off that orange... or that one of us is a bit color blind.. or even that one of us can't seem to find the words to enable that blind person to grasp the color orange.. or that one might use other analogies that they may find more appropriate for the task...
So... how can I or you seeing or hearing or reading the same words rendered at the same time or captured from that time and reviewed later come away with different OPINIONS? How can one be wrong in how they feel about Ich bin eine Berliner vs Tear down this wall.... I don't think how you or I or anyone feels about speeches can be wrong.. if they know how they feel and accurately express it..
BUT... facts is facts or true is factual.. and even then it is open for opinion.. The SCOTUS renders Opinions but they ain't...
But in our little discussion one person's truth can be another person's opposite... all depends..
edit to put a "'" to make it mo possessive
Wasn't it that genius, Governor Reagan, that dumped the mentally ill our on the streets of California. Reagan was never much more than a turd and those are known to collect large numbers of flies.
Little known fact is he authorized the CIA's involvement in Iraq. He authorized the CIA to help in the overthrow(assisnation) of the dictator who overthrew the Iraqi Monarchy. Our involvement in Iraq started with JFK. We reap what he originally sewed(and every president since).
JFK wasnt anymore of real president. He has just as many screwups as any president since.
ProfJohn
Lifer
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Well.... (as Reagan might say).... blah blah blah...
But in our little discussion one person's truth can be another person's opposite... all depends..
edit to put a "'" to make it mo possessive
You are right, we can both hear the same speech and think two different things.
For instance, I saw Bush's 9-11 speech and thought it was non-partisan, one part you could object to was the "stay the course" part about Iraq, however many Democrats were up in arms about that speech and how bad it was etc etc.
I am not sure what you are saying about the "wall speech" I still think JFKs Berlin speech, Churchill?s "Iron curtain" and "tear down this wall" are the best three lines about the Berlin wall and perhaps the cold war. They sum up the establishment of the wall, our statement that we are part of Europe and therefore as Europe goes so goes the US and our desire that the wall, and therefore the cold war, come to an end. (Major kudos to JFK and Reagan for saying exactly what the crowd wanted to hear in both parts)
Clinton was a good speaker, and like Reagan he was perhaps at his best with the seemingly off the cuff remarks and quips.
I think Clinton's problem is that he was president during very boring times. There was no great outside threat to the country (the war on terror not being known as a war yet) and the economy was doing fine for his entire term. That is why Clinton will never be judged as more than an average President. The "great" Presidents are all people who served during times of great crisis (Lincoln and Roosevelt) or were instrumental in setting up the power of the Presidency and establishing how our country would run itself. (Washington and Jefferson)
Interesting list ranking Presidents.
Federalist Society - The Wall Street Journal Survey on Presidents
Great: Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt
Near Great: Jefferson, Teddy, Andrew Jackson, Truman, Reagan #8 on list
JFK is rated "above average" at 18, he has fallen a lot in these types of polls, seems the further we get away from him the less his "mystique" becomes.
Clinton is only "average" at 24, right below the first Bush at 21. You would think that Clinton would rank higher, but it seems his troubles with impeachment and Monica really hurt him here. I would guess that had he been a good boy he would have ranked higher, some place in the "above average" rating. Again suffering because he was President during "boring" times without no major crisis to lay claim too.
Edit: Reagan was voted at the most "underrated" President so nananana
Edit 2: Kennedy was most overrated, Reagan second... 3 said Washington was overrated and 2 said Lincoln was, who let these people in on this survey?
Survery was of 79 scholars in hisrtory, politics and law
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 20K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 12K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Facebook
Twitter