Text of Dick Cheney's National Security Speech at AEI
-
Looks like he kept himself to only 24 "9/11"s. That has got to be a new low for that administration.
Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --Ralph Charell
-
Looks like he kept himself to only 24 "9/11"s. That has got to be a new low for that administration.
Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --Ralph Charell
-
-
Jealous because you still cant get past 10 unless they show it to you on youtube?
Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --Ralph Charell
-
Looks like he kept himself to only 24 "9/11"s. That has got to be a new low for that administration.
Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --Ralph Charell
And referring to a great national disaster that should be remembered for all time as our second greatest day of infamy is bad because .... ?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
And referring to a great national disaster that should be remembered for all time as our second greatest day of infamy is bad because .... ?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Whatever Stan, you know as well as I do that they were a one trick pony and that repetition is such an obvious tool in persuasive speech making. This stuff is purely political and referencing something as somber as 9/11 for political reasons is less than respectable.
Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --Ralph Charell
-
Whatever Stan, you know as well as I do that they were a one trick pony and that repetition is such an obvious tool in persuasive speech making. This stuff is purely political and referencing something as somber as 9/11 for political reasons is less than respectable.
Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --Ralph Charell
Chris Austin wrote:
Whatever Stan, you know as well as I do that they were a one trick pony and that repetition is such an obvious tool in persuasive speech making. This stuff is purely political and referencing something as somber as 9/11 for political reasons is less than respectable.
And I think that 9/11 is the entire issue. It is what the national debate is, and should be, all about. Do we want leadership that goes out and grovels on the world stage begging for forgiveness from the oppressed peoples of the world, or do we we want leadership that fights back unaplogetically and as viciouasly as those who fight against us. Cheney is entirely correct to throw it down like a gauntlet and Obama should be forced to pick it up.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Chris Austin wrote:
Whatever Stan, you know as well as I do that they were a one trick pony and that repetition is such an obvious tool in persuasive speech making. This stuff is purely political and referencing something as somber as 9/11 for political reasons is less than respectable.
And I think that 9/11 is the entire issue. It is what the national debate is, and should be, all about. Do we want leadership that goes out and grovels on the world stage begging for forgiveness from the oppressed peoples of the world, or do we we want leadership that fights back unaplogetically and as viciouasly as those who fight against us. Cheney is entirely correct to throw it down like a gauntlet and Obama should be forced to pick it up.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
And I think that 9/11 is the entire issue. It is what the national debate is, and should be, all about.
Except that is silly. We have an unstable finical system, we have a congress and president that currently and for the previous eight years have debased the dollar. Our middle class in on the brink. We have obscene amounts of money flowing into our politicians from private business and and obscene amount flowing out of our public funds into private firms. Over the last decade, we have seen the seeds of a police state being sown with the introduction of things like "free speech zones". I think there is much more at stake than the politics of fear.
Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --Ralph Charell
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
And I think that 9/11 is the entire issue. It is what the national debate is, and should be, all about.
Except that is silly. We have an unstable finical system, we have a congress and president that currently and for the previous eight years have debased the dollar. Our middle class in on the brink. We have obscene amounts of money flowing into our politicians from private business and and obscene amount flowing out of our public funds into private firms. Over the last decade, we have seen the seeds of a police state being sown with the introduction of things like "free speech zones". I think there is much more at stake than the politics of fear.
Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --Ralph Charell
Chris Austin wrote:
I think there is much more at stake than the politics of fear.
How is anything you just said not 'the politics of fear'?
Chris Austin wrote:
Over the last decade, we have seen the seeds of a police state being sown with the introduction of things like "free speech zones".
That defines silly. The seeds of a police state go back much further than the last decade. In fact, any increase in federal power exercised over the last decade was far more legitimate than any other increases the 20th century saw or that we are seeing now. The very modest efforts to deal with very dangerous and growing terrorist capabilities was entirely legitimate. The massive federal effort to restrict the political power of Americans in their local seats of government has not been.
Chris Austin wrote:
We have an unstable finical system, we have a congress and president that currently and for the previous eight years have debased the dollar. Our middle class in on the brink. We have obscene amounts of money flowing into our politicians from private business and and obscene amount flowing out of our public funds into private firms.
All of which can, and will, be easily solved by simply returning to the principles of free market capitalism and true Jeffersonian political principles.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Chris Austin wrote:
I think there is much more at stake than the politics of fear.
How is anything you just said not 'the politics of fear'?
Chris Austin wrote:
Over the last decade, we have seen the seeds of a police state being sown with the introduction of things like "free speech zones".
That defines silly. The seeds of a police state go back much further than the last decade. In fact, any increase in federal power exercised over the last decade was far more legitimate than any other increases the 20th century saw or that we are seeing now. The very modest efforts to deal with very dangerous and growing terrorist capabilities was entirely legitimate. The massive federal effort to restrict the political power of Americans in their local seats of government has not been.
Chris Austin wrote:
We have an unstable finical system, we have a congress and president that currently and for the previous eight years have debased the dollar. Our middle class in on the brink. We have obscene amounts of money flowing into our politicians from private business and and obscene amount flowing out of our public funds into private firms.
All of which can, and will, be easily solved by simply returning to the principles of free market capitalism and true Jeffersonian political principles.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
All of which can, and will, be easily solved by simply returning to the principles of free market capitalism and true Jeffersonian political principles.
:laugh: Except the cat is out of the bag as far as the political influence wielded by the lobbyist. We need to erect strict barriers as well as get away from our absurd campaign financing practices. That means strict regulation at least at the interface between politicians and the business sector. Perhaps we can require that all meetings are done live on cspan and have completely publicly funded elections where it's not a case of who has more millionaires paying for tv ads.
Stan Shannon wrote:
How is anything you just said not 'the politics of fear'?
I am stating facts, but I do see your point even if I don't entirely agree with it. My point is that we have a whole lot of troubles that need to be dealt with.
Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --Ralph Charell
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
All of which can, and will, be easily solved by simply returning to the principles of free market capitalism and true Jeffersonian political principles.
:laugh: Except the cat is out of the bag as far as the political influence wielded by the lobbyist. We need to erect strict barriers as well as get away from our absurd campaign financing practices. That means strict regulation at least at the interface between politicians and the business sector. Perhaps we can require that all meetings are done live on cspan and have completely publicly funded elections where it's not a case of who has more millionaires paying for tv ads.
Stan Shannon wrote:
How is anything you just said not 'the politics of fear'?
I am stating facts, but I do see your point even if I don't entirely agree with it. My point is that we have a whole lot of troubles that need to be dealt with.
Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --Ralph Charell
Chris Austin wrote:
Except the cat is out of the bag as far as the political influence wielded by the lobbyist. We need to erect strict barriers as well as get away from our absurd campaign financing practices. That means strict regulation at least at the interface between politicians and the business sector. Perhaps we can require that all meetings are done live on cspan and have completely publicly funded elections where it's not a case of who has more millionaires paying for tv ads.
As long as corporations are forced to pay taxes, they should be allowed access to the political system. If you want private wealth to stop influencing public offices, than you also need to take away the power of public offices to influence private wealth. Its a two way street. The more power government has the more need there is to try to influence it with money. The more power you give it to regulate the more money will go to trying to influence the regulations. Its a vicious circle that simply cannot be undone by any other means than unwinding it all back to the beginning.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Chris Austin wrote:
Except the cat is out of the bag as far as the political influence wielded by the lobbyist. We need to erect strict barriers as well as get away from our absurd campaign financing practices. That means strict regulation at least at the interface between politicians and the business sector. Perhaps we can require that all meetings are done live on cspan and have completely publicly funded elections where it's not a case of who has more millionaires paying for tv ads.
As long as corporations are forced to pay taxes, they should be allowed access to the political system. If you want private wealth to stop influencing public offices, than you also need to take away the power of public offices to influence private wealth. Its a two way street. The more power government has the more need there is to try to influence it with money. The more power you give it to regulate the more money will go to trying to influence the regulations. Its a vicious circle that simply cannot be undone by any other means than unwinding it all back to the beginning.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Chris Austin wrote:
Except the cat is out of the bag as far as the political influence wielded by the lobbyist. We need to erect strict barriers as well as get away from our absurd campaign financing practices. That means strict regulation at least at the interface between politicians and the business sector. Perhaps we can require that all meetings are done live on cspan and have completely publicly funded elections where it's not a case of who has more millionaires paying for tv ads.
As long as corporations are forced to pay taxes, they should be allowed access to the political system. If you want private wealth to stop influencing public offices, than you also need to take away the power of public offices to influence private wealth. Its a two way street. The more power government has the more need there is to try to influence it with money. The more power you give it to regulate the more money will go to trying to influence the regulations. Its a vicious circle that simply cannot be undone by any other means than unwinding it all back to the beginning.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
As long as corporations are forced to pay taxes, they should be allowed access to the political system.
Whether they are American corporations or not? Next thing you know, you'll be saying that Mexicans with a phoney social security card, since they pay taxes, should be allowed to vote. Or are you only on the side of corporate socialism?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Chris Austin wrote:
Except the cat is out of the bag as far as the political influence wielded by the lobbyist. We need to erect strict barriers as well as get away from our absurd campaign financing practices. That means strict regulation at least at the interface between politicians and the business sector. Perhaps we can require that all meetings are done live on cspan and have completely publicly funded elections where it's not a case of who has more millionaires paying for tv ads.
As long as corporations are forced to pay taxes, they should be allowed access to the political system. If you want private wealth to stop influencing public offices, than you also need to take away the power of public offices to influence private wealth. Its a two way street. The more power government has the more need there is to try to influence it with money. The more power you give it to regulate the more money will go to trying to influence the regulations. Its a vicious circle that simply cannot be undone by any other means than unwinding it all back to the beginning.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Its a two way street.
I don't disagree.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Its a vicious circle that simply cannot be undone by any other means than unwinding it all back to the beginning.
Now that I would like to see. I believe our system is a near failure at this point. I love the federalist ideals of our country's origins but we are far from them now and short of rebooting the system I don't see a way back.
Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --Ralph Charell
-
You and the younger idiot are only a couple of hours apart. Why don't you get together for some serious butt fucking and see if you can draw Stan over?
"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke
I'm a proud denizen of the Real Soapbox[^]
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!!! -
Chris Austin wrote:
Whatever Stan, you know as well as I do that they were a one trick pony and that repetition is such an obvious tool in persuasive speech making. This stuff is purely political and referencing something as somber as 9/11 for political reasons is less than respectable.
And I think that 9/11 is the entire issue. It is what the national debate is, and should be, all about. Do we want leadership that goes out and grovels on the world stage begging for forgiveness from the oppressed peoples of the world, or do we we want leadership that fights back unaplogetically and as viciouasly as those who fight against us. Cheney is entirely correct to throw it down like a gauntlet and Obama should be forced to pick it up.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
And I think that 9/11 is the entire issue.
I thought your whole issue was setting up the great christian theocracy in the US?
"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke
I'm a proud denizen of the Real Soapbox[^]
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!!! -
You and the younger idiot are only a couple of hours apart. Why don't you get together for some serious butt fucking and see if you can draw Stan over?
"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke
I'm a proud denizen of the Real Soapbox[^]
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!!! -
Stan Shannon wrote:
And I think that 9/11 is the entire issue.
I thought your whole issue was setting up the great christian theocracy in the US?
"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke
I'm a proud denizen of the Real Soapbox[^]
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!!!Tim Craig wrote:
I thought your whole issue was setting up the great christian theocracy in the US?
No, its actually avoiding a secular theocracy.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.