Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6411|eXtreme to the maX
Not sure everyone has read this, I think they should.
Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.

The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don’t oppose all wars.

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton’s army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.

I don’t oppose all wars.

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.

I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn’t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not – we will not – travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.
Barack Obama 2002
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Ob … raq_Speech

Anyone disagree?

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-05-24 05:32:43)

Fuck Israel
topthrill05
Member
+125|6883|Rochester NY USA
Sounds like it was written a few days ago.

I have now said this for well over a year now, Obama 08.
Benzin
Member
+576|6303
Too bad that Obama doesn't really know why the Civil War was fought. *shrug*

We'll see what happens. I still say Ron Paul or Mit Romney should be President, though.
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6716|'Murka

And again, Obama says lots of things are wrong but doesn't present any details on how he would make them better. Political speeches mean nothing.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
God Save the Queen
Banned
+628|6648|tropical regions of london

FEOS wrote:

And again, Obama says lots of things are wrong but doesn't present any details on how he would make them better. Political speeches mean nothing.
what kind of details did bush present in 2000, in 2004?
Benzin
Member
+576|6303
Tis also true.

The thing is, though, there are so many ways that an individual can get out of poverty in the USA it's not even funny. My father got out just fine and now has a master's in aerospace engineering. No worries. It's a matter of motivation that many people lack.

Now if something could be done about the BS malpractice suits (suing for something swelling after a procedure, but the waiver fucking said it would in the first place) in the USA that drive up medical costs (thus driving up insurance costs), then we'll be in business.
God Save the Queen
Banned
+628|6648|tropical regions of london
I was on welfare growing up now my mother makes $100/hour as a consultant and owns muliple properties.
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6716|'Murka

God Save the Queen wrote:

FEOS wrote:

And again, Obama says lots of things are wrong but doesn't present any details on how he would make them better. Political speeches mean nothing.
what kind of details did bush present in 2000, in 2004?
Never said he did...that's the problem with politicians. And the people who vote for them without requiring details from them.

Last edited by FEOS (2008-05-24 11:13:22)

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Vax
Member
+42|6157|Flyover country
I appreciate the interest non-americans take in our elections, but does anyone else think it's a bit  inappropriate for them to blatantly tell americans who we should vote for ?
I mean, how many americans make threads like "vote for Rudd!" or "why labour is the fail"


Anyway it's a good sounding speech by Senator Obama there.  Notable that he said Saddam " has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity."
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6710|North Carolina
Well, to be fair, who we pick as president has a huge effect on other countries like Australia.
SealXo
Member
+309|6841
whatever if immigrants can come north.
when obama gets elected so will I

upper ottawa valley is my san diego.

Last edited by SealXo (2008-05-24 12:12:31)

Vax
Member
+42|6157|Flyover country
I understand the interest, it just seems a bit over the top sometimes.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6710|North Carolina
From Dilbert, it often is.  Granted, I agree with him on a number of things, and I'll be voting Obama anyway.
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6716|'Murka

Vax wrote:

Anyway it's a good sounding speech by Senator Obama there.  Notable that he said Saddam " has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity."
Nuh uh. That never happened. bushliedpeopledied.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Lotta_Drool
Spit
+350|6488|Ireland
I won't vote for Obama unless he admits that he is gay.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6710|North Carolina

Lotta_Drool wrote:

I won't vote for Obama unless he admits that he is gay.
Is that really you, Mr. Sinclair?
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6411|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:

Nuh uh. That never happened. bushliedpeopledied.
Bush did lie, people have died, what's your point?

You should have read on a bit.
'You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty.'

Sounds like it was written a few days ago.
Funny isn't it? People with intelligence and an education can see things for what they are.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-05-24 21:04:47)

Fuck Israel
paul386
Member
+22|6550
I cannot vote for Barrack Obama, and I simply cannot understand why other would. Do they honestly vote for him because they agree with him, not on issues, but in general view of the role of government? Or are they voting for him because he is the simple of progress, which is something they want, but they don't really know much about.

I cannot vote for Barrack Obama not because he is black or because he is a Democrat. I cannot vote for him because he wants to increase the scope and power of the federal government (as President Bush has done for the past 8 years). He wants to strip my Constitutional Rights and replace it with a "nanny" state. I cannot vote for someone who so blatantly ignores the ideas of liberalism that this country was founded on.

What is the difference between Barrack Obama and John McCain? They both want to spend your money, it is just a matter of what the want to spend it on (war / welfare). They both want to increase federal powers, it is just a matter of what their justification is (war / welfare). I reject both of these candidates.

I leave you with this to ponder:

"In a much quoted passage in his inaugural address, President Kennedy said, "Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country." It is a striking sign of the temper of our times that the controversy about this passage centered on its origin and not on its content. Neither half of the statement expresses a relationship between the citizen and his government that is worthy of the ideals of free men in a free society. The paternalistic "what your country can do for you" implies that government is the patron, the citizen the ward, a view that is at odds with the free man's belief in his own responsibility for his own destiny. The organismic, "what you can do for your country" implies that government is the master or the deity, the citizen, the servant or the votary. To the free man, the country is the collection of individuals who compose it, not something over and above them. He is proud of a common heritage and loyal to common traditions. But he regards government as a means, an instrumentality, neither a grantor of favors and gifts, nor a master or god to be blindly worshipped and served. He recognizes no national goal except as it is the consensus of the goals that the citizens severally serve. He recognizes no national purpose except as it is the consensus of the purposes for which the citizens severally strive.
The free man will ask neither what his country can do for him nor what he can do for his country. He will ask rather "What can I and my compatriots do through government" to help us discharge our individual responsibilities, to achieve our several goals and purposes, and above all, to protect our freedoms? And he will accompany this question with another: How can we keep the government we create from becoming a Frankenstein that will destroy the very freedom we establish it to protect? Freedom is a rare and delicate plant. Our minds tell us, and history confirms, that the great threat to freedom is the concentration of power. Government is necessary to preserve our freedom, it is an instrument through which we can exercise our freedom, yet by concentrating power in political hands, it is also a threat to freedom. Even though the men who wield this power initially be of good will and even though they be not corrupted by the power they exercise, the power will both attract and form men of a different stamp.
How can we benefit from the promise of government while avoiding the threat to freedom? Two broad principles embodied in our Constitution give an answer that has preserved our freedom so far, though they have been violated repeatedly in practice while proclaimed as precept.
First, the scope of government must be limited. Its major function must be to protect our freedom both from the enemies outside our gates and from our fellow-citizens: to preserve law and order, to enforce private contracts, to foster competitive markets. Beyond this major function, government may enable us at times to accomplish jointly what we would find it more difficult or expensive to accomplish severally. However, any such use of government is fraught with danger. We should not and cannot avoid using government in this way. But there should be a clear and large balance of advantages before we do. By relying primarily on voluntary co-operation and private enterprise, in both economic and other activities, we can insure that the private sector is check on the powers of the governmental sector and an effective protection of freedom of speech, or religion, and of thought.
The second broad principle is that government power must be dispersed. If government is to exercise power, better in the county than in the state, better in the state than in Washington. If I do not like what my local community does, be it in sewage disposal, or zoning, or schools, I can move to another local community, and though few make take this step, the mere possibility acts as a check. If I do not like what Washington imposes, I have few alternatives in this world of jealous nations."

- Milton Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others."

- Thomas Jefferson

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

- Thomas Jefferson

"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question."

- Thomas Jefferson

"That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves.
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."

- Thomas Jefferson
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,060|7077|PNW

Obama: cuz change is gud, m'kay?
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6458|what

Change for changes sake is stupid.

But change away from Bush and the Neo-cons is good.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
TrollmeaT
Aspiring Objectivist
+492|6977|Colorado
McCain will win, all three of them make me sick, we need leadership, not more hot air up our ass. Unfortunately no one will step up because we kill good leaders. Yes change is needed, but not the change they will bring, vote independent & send a message that we wont take the garbage anymore.
d.Luxe
Banned
+64|6156

TrollmeaT wrote:

McCain will win,
I don't hope so.
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6979|Canberra, AUS

paul386 wrote:

I cannot vote for Barrack Obama, and I simply cannot understand why other would. Do they honestly vote for him because they agree with him, not on issues, but in general view of the role of government? Or are they voting for him because he is the simple of progress, which is something they want, but they don't really know much about.

I cannot vote for Barrack Obama not because he is black or because he is a Democrat. I cannot vote for him because he wants to increase the scope and power of the federal government (as President Bush has done for the past 8 years). He wants to strip my Constitutional Rights and replace it with a "nanny" state. I cannot vote for someone who so blatantly ignores the ideas of liberalism that this country was founded on.

What is the difference between Barrack Obama and John McCain? They both want to spend your money, it is just a matter of what the want to spend it on (war / welfare). They both want to increase federal powers, it is just a matter of what their justification is (war / welfare). I reject both of these candidates.

I leave you with this to ponder:

"In a much quoted passage in his inaugural address, President Kennedy said, "Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country." It is a striking sign of the temper of our times that the controversy about this passage centered on its origin and not on its content. Neither half of the statement expresses a relationship between the citizen and his government that is worthy of the ideals of free men in a free society. The paternalistic "what your country can do for you" implies that government is the patron, the citizen the ward, a view that is at odds with the free man's belief in his own responsibility for his own destiny. The organismic, "what you can do for your country" implies that government is the master or the deity, the citizen, the servant or the votary. To the free man, the country is the collection of individuals who compose it, not something over and above them. He is proud of a common heritage and loyal to common traditions. But he regards government as a means, an instrumentality, neither a grantor of favors and gifts, nor a master or god to be blindly worshipped and served. He recognizes no national goal except as it is the consensus of the goals that the citizens severally serve. He recognizes no national purpose except as it is the consensus of the purposes for which the citizens severally strive.
The free man will ask neither what his country can do for him nor what he can do for his country. He will ask rather "What can I and my compatriots do through government" to help us discharge our individual responsibilities, to achieve our several goals and purposes, and above all, to protect our freedoms? And he will accompany this question with another: How can we keep the government we create from becoming a Frankenstein that will destroy the very freedom we establish it to protect? Freedom is a rare and delicate plant. Our minds tell us, and history confirms, that the great threat to freedom is the concentration of power. Government is necessary to preserve our freedom, it is an instrument through which we can exercise our freedom, yet by concentrating power in political hands, it is also a threat to freedom. Even though the men who wield this power initially be of good will and even though they be not corrupted by the power they exercise, the power will both attract and form men of a different stamp.
How can we benefit from the promise of government while avoiding the threat to freedom? Two broad principles embodied in our Constitution give an answer that has preserved our freedom so far, though they have been violated repeatedly in practice while proclaimed as precept.
First, the scope of government must be limited. Its major function must be to protect our freedom both from the enemies outside our gates and from our fellow-citizens: to preserve law and order, to enforce private contracts, to foster competitive markets. Beyond this major function, government may enable us at times to accomplish jointly what we would find it more difficult or expensive to accomplish severally. However, any such use of government is fraught with danger. We should not and cannot avoid using government in this way. But there should be a clear and large balance of advantages before we do. By relying primarily on voluntary co-operation and private enterprise, in both economic and other activities, we can insure that the private sector is check on the powers of the governmental sector and an effective protection of freedom of speech, or religion, and of thought.
The second broad principle is that government power must be dispersed. If government is to exercise power, better in the county than in the state, better in the state than in Washington. If I do not like what my local community does, be it in sewage disposal, or zoning, or schools, I can move to another local community, and though few make take this step, the mere possibility acts as a check. If I do not like what Washington imposes, I have few alternatives in this world of jealous nations."

- Milton Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others."

- Thomas Jefferson

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

- Thomas Jefferson

"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question."

- Thomas Jefferson

"That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves.
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."

- Thomas Jefferson
This is a very interesting post. I'll read it in more detail later.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
Benzin
Member
+576|6303
TBH, McCain doesn't blow my skirt up, but his comments about a lot of accountability in the government have made me like him a bit more. Weekly press conferences, regular appearances before Congress, etc.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6411|eXtreme to the maX
I cannot vote for him because he wants to increase the scope and power of the federal government (as President Bush has done for the past 8 years). He wants to strip my Constitutional Rights and replace it with a "nanny" state. I cannot vote for someone who so blatantly ignores the ideas of liberalism that this country was founded on.
For example?

appreciate the interest non-americans take in our elections, but does anyone else think it's a bit  inappropriate for them to blatantly tell americans who we should vote for ?
Gee whiz, its not like I invaded your country and installed a puppet govt more to my liking.
Fuck Israel

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard