[Jaime_Souviens]

Hardy Hardy:

Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:

My challenge, cite Clinton saying any more intelligent than an average high school teacher. Anything. Any great insight. Anything brilliantly profound.

US politicians don't make a lot of brilliant statements. Jefferson made some, but he was a fluke. The most one can usually hope for is that they will refrain from saying anything embarassing.

$1:

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Hardy Hardy:

You can dig through their speeches and find something once in a while, but who was the last US president to completely write any of their own speeches, anyway? Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy?

Kennedy didn't, Schlesinger wrote his.

I don't know if Eisenhower ever spoke.

Truman's speechwriter was George Elsey.

[xerxes]

Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:

Hardy Hardy:

Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:

My challenge, cite Clinton saying any more intelligent than an average high school teacher. Anything. Any great insight. Anything brilliantly profound.

US politicians don't make a lot of brilliant statements. Jefferson made some, but he was a fluke. The most one can usually hope for is that they will refrain from saying anything embarassing.

$1:

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Hardy Hardy:

You can dig through their speeches and find something once in a while, but who was the last US president to completely write any of their own speeches, anyway? Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy?

Kennedy didn't, Schlesinger wrote his.

I don't know if Eisenhower ever spoke.

Truman's speechwriter was George Elsey.

At the very least Eisenhower gave a farewell address.

[Jaime_Souviens]

xerxes xerxes:

Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:

Hardy Hardy:

Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:

My challenge, cite Clinton saying any more intelligent than an average high school teacher. Anything. Any great insight. Anything brilliantly profound.

US politicians don't make a lot of brilliant statements. Jefferson made some, but he was a fluke. The most one can usually hope for is that they will refrain from saying anything embarassing.

$1:

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Hardy Hardy:

You can dig through their speeches and find something once in a while, but who was the last US president to completely write any of their own speeches, anyway? Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy?

Kennedy didn't, Schlesinger wrote his.

I don't know if Eisenhower ever spoke.

Truman's speechwriter was George Elsey.

At the very least Eisenhower gave a farewell address.

As written by.... Malcolm Moos.

(No, I don't memorize the speechwriters of American presidents.)

[Hardy]

$1:

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

I didn't forget that one, of course -- how could one forget it? It's one of the most beautifully composed speeches ever written. Shakespeare or Cicero could have done no better. But I didn't include it because I thought of it as a beautiful piece of rhetoric, rather than the expression of any new ideas. Same reason (along with uncertainty about author) that I wouldn't have cited any Kennedy speeches, despite there being a few good quotes in them. I probably misjudged what you were looking for.

$1:

Kennedy didn't, Schlesinger wrote his.

I don't know if Eisenhower ever spoke.

Truman's speechwriter was George Elsey.

I am fairly certain that Truman spoke extemporaneously from time to time, and believe that Eisenhower may have done so once or twice. In any event, it seems pretty clear that we can't assume that any speech made by a US president in our lifetimes was his own words.

Nowadays, if you want an intelligent statement from a politician, you're probably going to have to dig up their term papers from university.

[ridenrain]

Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Clinton presided over eight of the most prosperous years in US history that were overwhelmingly peaceful, while at teh same time limiting the size and role of government. Bush has presided over seven of the most violent years in US history, run up record deficits and massively increased the cost and role of government.

"Clinton presided over eight of the most prosperous years in US history"
Clinton presided over an economic bubble built on overvalued tech stocks that was already collapsing in 2000.

"that were overwhelmingly peaceful"
where the United States was repeatedly being attacked & did nothing responsive; remember the synchronized embassy bombings, the USS Cole? the constant low level shooting over Iraq?

"while at teh same time limiting the size and role of government"
when he lost Congresss and Republicans forced welfare reform on him.

"Bush has presided over seven of the most violent years in US history,"
except for, of course, every major war, such as the Revolution, the Civil War, and WWII, the non-stop interventionism from 1890-1920, Korea, Vietnam and the Cold War.

"run up record deficits"
run up deficits in line with American fiscal policy over the past 50 years

"and massively increased the cost and role of government"
mostly because of 'homeland security' issues and defending the nation from direct attack.

"Clinton was an internationalist who respected international treaties, for the most part, and sought to increase trade wiht other nations."
particularly when he was being bribed by the Chinese.

"Bush is a unilateralist who has thrown away a number of important treaties, disgraced his country in front of the UN and instituted protectionist policies."
By, for examaple, ending the softwood standoff with Canada? Or was it Kyoto? --No, the Senate killed Kyoto.


Carefully feel your forehead, Zip, you seem to be a little feverish.

All those nasty little details just keep getting in the way.

Nicely done.

[Jaime_Souviens]

Hardy Hardy:

I didn't forget that one, of course -- how could one forget it? It's one of the most beautifully composed speeches ever written. Shakespeare or Cicero could have done no better. But I didn't include it because I thought of it as a beautiful piece of rhetoric, rather than the expression of any new ideas. Same reason (along with uncertainty about author) that I wouldn't have cited any Kennedy speeches, despite there being a few good quotes in them. I probably misjudged what you were looking for.

Well, it is a damn good speech. He did write it on the train there, on the back of an envelope. He spoke right after the President of Harvard, who had just delivered a two-hour speech. Later, President Everett said to Lincoln that Lincoln had said more in five minutes than he had in two hours.

Kennedy (Schlesinger) cribbed from better writers. "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country," was stolen from Orestes Brownson.

Hardy Hardy:

I am fairly certain that Truman spoke extemporaneously from time to time, and believe that Eisenhower may have done so once or twice. In any event, it seems pretty clear that we can't assume that any speech made by a US president in our lifetimes was his own words.

It's a matter of degree. You can tell both when Bush is speaking without notes, and when he's totally speaking naturally.

Hardy Hardy:

Nowadays, if you want an intelligent statement from a politician, you're probably going to have to dig up their term papers from university.

Some don't even have that to go to.

The oral tradition has really suffered in the United States. The ability to speak well is about as out of date as ballroom dancing.

In Canada, it still lives on.

[Jaime_Souviens]

Thanks, ridenrain.

[ridenrain]

$1:

The oral tradition has really suffered in the United States. The ability to speak well is about as out of date as ballroom dancing.

In Canada, it still lives on.

I don't think Canada has saved anything of that tradition. Our national debates are painfull to watch and only the hardcore fans really watch them. Our media is pretty much following the US and everything is soundclips and voicebites, with editorial to fill in the blanks.

I just have a hate on for Clinton and revisionist history.

[Johnny_Utah]

President Bush is right when he said a stable Middle East was a mirage because it was, Anti-War Moonbats, Human Rights Groups, Liberals, Peaceniks would never admit that because in their World the Middle East was peaceful with rainbows and sunshine until the start of the Iraq War in 2003. Hopefully President Bush's speech reached the Muslim World who really needed to be reached. As for Iran's Nuclear program how more clear could he have been?

[Johnny_Utah]

Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Clinton presided over eight of the most prosperous years in US history that were overwhelmingly peaceful, while at teh same time limiting the size and role of government. Bush has presided over seven of the most violent years in US history, run up record deficits and massively increased the cost and role of government.

"Clinton presided over eight of the most prosperous years in US history"
Clinton presided over an economic bubble built on overvalued tech stocks that was already collapsing in 2000.

"that were overwhelmingly peaceful"
where the United States was repeatedly being attacked & did nothing responsive; remember the synchronized embassy bombings, the USS Cole? the constant low level shooting over Iraq?

"while at teh same time limiting the size and role of government"
when he lost Congresss and Republicans forced welfare reform on him.

"Bush has presided over seven of the most violent years in US history,"
except for, of course, every major war, such as the Revolution, the Civil War, and WWII, the non-stop interventionism from 1890-1920, Korea, Vietnam and the Cold War.

"run up record deficits"
run up deficits in line with American fiscal policy over the past 50 years

"and massively increased the cost and role of government"
mostly because of 'homeland security' issues and defending the nation from direct attack.

"Clinton was an internationalist who respected international treaties, for the most part, and sought to increase trade wiht other nations."
particularly when he was being bribed by the Chinese.

"Bush is a unilateralist who has thrown away a number of important treaties, disgraced his country in front of the UN and instituted protectionist policies."
By, for examaple, ending the softwood standoff with Canada? Or was it Kyoto? --No, the Senate killed Kyoto.


Carefully feel your forehead, Zip, you seem to be a little feverish.

You Owned Zipperhead..

[Jaime_Souviens]

ridenrain ridenrain:

$1:

The oral tradition has really suffered in the United States. The ability to speak well is about as out of date as ballroom dancing.

In Canada, it still lives on.

I don't think Canada has saved anything of that tradition. Our national debates are painfull to watch and only the hardcore fans really watch them. Our media is pretty much following the US and everything is soundclips and voicebites, with editorial to fill in the blanks.

Well, at least there's something...

What I had in the back of my mind is that someone who is horrible at public speaking can become President, and I don't think you could rise to PM that way.

[Hardy]

Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:

The oral tradition has really suffered in the United States. The ability to speak well is about as out of date as ballroom dancing.

In Canada, it still lives on.

In the case of US politicians (or their speechwriters), there may be another cause as well.

It's not difficult to present some sort of argument in favour of an arbitrary position. What is much harder is to express one's self in a way which is emotionally moving. On the rare occasions when I have managed to do so, it was only because I had very deep feelings about the subject under discussion. I was simply acting as a conduit for those feelings.

Perhaps part of the reason so many modern speeches are boring is because the speakers don't deeply believe the words that are coming out of their own mouths.

[Jaime_Souviens]

Johnny_Utah Johnny_Utah:

You Owned Zipperhead..

Thank you Mr. Utah.

[ridenrain]

Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:

What I had in the back of my mind is that someone who is horrible at public speaking can become President, and I don't think you could rise to PM that way.

I'm so tempted to pull out some of Paul Martin's Bullshit bingo cards and use some of his standard phrases.

[Hardy]

Johnny_Utah Johnny_Utah:

President Bush is right when he said a stable Middle East was a mirage because it was

Well, sure, it was a mirage. It's still a mirage now.

The Middle East, until recently, was a very poor area. Islam encourages males to learn to read Arabic, so that they can read the Koran; but that's the only thing that kept the literacy rate out of the basement in much of the Islamic world. The poor can't usually find a way to fit education into their budgets.

Then they got money, lots of it. But, rather than distributing it very equally, it tended to end up in the hands of a few ridiculously wealthy rulers, and the people didn't benefit very much. The rulers used their wealth to arm themselves and to propagandise, because only tyranny could maintain their inequitable position.

What will happen if you overthrow one of these tyrannies and try to impose democracy? A complete mess. Democracy won't function when the people can barely read, and can't afford to take the time to keep up on current events. Democracy also won't function when the voters have never had a free press, but have instead lived their lives on a stream of propaganda. Nowhere in the Middle East has yet had both a free press and a population who could read it. Under these conditions, they can be counted on to elect people who are stark, staring mad.

Hope you're in the mood for ayatollahs, because that's what's on the menu.