I have found my candidate!!!
- Thread starter Dreadsox
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
DrTeeth
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Is it Michael Moore?
I've read most of Michael Moore's opinions and this doens't sound like Moore. Moore would write his opinions in a less formal tone with more conversationalism.
Dreadsox threw in a reference to the Democratic Party, but that could be misleading. If it wasn't meant to defer guesses I'd say it was someone like John Kerry.
Here are a few more guesses:
Colin Powell: although I think you hinted that it wasn't him.
Nelson Mandella: although he technically couldn't campaign and win an American election, these quotes could have come from him.
Ralph Nader: although you said you couldn't find any quotes dealing with domestic issues, and his delivery of the facts would be more eloquent.
I'm sticking with Phil Donahue. It's gots-ta be him!!!!
Dreadsox threw in a reference to the Democratic Party, but that could be misleading. If it wasn't meant to defer guesses I'd say it was someone like John Kerry.
Here are a few more guesses:
Colin Powell: although I think you hinted that it wasn't him.
Nelson Mandella: although he technically couldn't campaign and win an American election, these quotes could have come from him.
Ralph Nader: although you said you couldn't find any quotes dealing with domestic issues, and his delivery of the facts would be more eloquent.
I'm sticking with Phil Donahue. It's gots-ta be him!!!!
deep
Blue Crack Addict
dread,
You are having too much fun,
do you want me to be the spoiler?
You are having too much fun,
do you want me to be the spoiler?
verte76
Blue Crack Addict
deep said:
Someone please spoil dammit!!
I know who it is. 
It's definitely a bit too early to gauge which candidate will shine the most in the primary, but, I tell you, he has some very solid foreign policy that would definitely be a formidable challenge to Bush and his bureaucracy.
Melon
It's definitely a bit too early to gauge which candidate will shine the most in the primary, but, I tell you, he has some very solid foreign policy that would definitely be a formidable challenge to Bush and his bureaucracy.
Melon
Screaming Flower
ONE love, blood, life
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2001
- Messages
- 11,961
now i know who it is too....
Could you all do me a favor and PM me with your guesses as to who my candidate is?
Thank you.
One last piece written by my possible contender:
Restoration of the Republic
Throughout much of our history, Americans have seen our country as a land of rights and opportunities. In the eighteenth century, we fought a war for independence and liberty. In the nineteenth century, we occupied the West and industrialized the nation. In the twentieth century, we achieved material prosperity and dismantled gender and racial barriers. The emphasis throughout this history was on the rugged individualism of the cowboy or the autonomy and independence of the entrepreneur.
More often than not, the national government was seen as the protector of powerful interests and the status quo by those left behind or as a barrier to individual initiative by those resistant to regulation.
We have accepted the necessity of collective action only reluctantly and usually in time of crisis?to save the Union, to survive a depression, to defend democracy against fascism and communism, to defeat terrorism. But by and large, the American citizen's relationship to government has been a wary one, often skeptical and, in times of public corruption, even cynical.
Conservatives traditionally have seen government as the protector of vested interests, rights, and property and otherwise as a hindrance or "the problem". Liberals have viewed the national government from time to time as the instrument of social progress but also, depending on its management, as a danger to their civil liberties.
None of this is necessarily bad, except it obscures the other side of the American political coin. We are not only a democracy of rights, we are also a republic of duties. Further, our existence as a republic presupposes a common good, a commonwealth, a definable national interest greater than a mere collection of narrow or special interests.
We have an interest in our common security, all would agree. We own immense wealth in common in our public lands, timber, minerals, and other resources, though some continue to press for their wholesale privatization. We have a common interest in the health of our environment, though the extent of allowable pollution continues to be debated. And to some degree, the rise and fall of our economy affects us all, except perhaps those who live in mansions on the hill.
Occasionally, national leaders?a Lincoln, a Theodore Roosevelt, a Franklin Roosevelt, a John Kennedy, and even, briefly after 9.11, a George W. Bush?challenge us to consider our common good and common interests. But when crisis recedes, we tend to return to our individual ways.
It is not uncommon, though, for those who have served in combat, or the Peace Corps, or in emergency response to recollect those experiences as the most intensely felt times of their lives, and often the most meaningful. We celebrate "the greatest generation" not for what they did individually but for what they achieved collectively.
There is within almost every American soul a desire to make a contribution, to invest time and energy to make things better, to know the unique satisfaction of helping one's country. We call that sense idealism?the notion that the gap between what is and what ought to be can be narrowed if we will simply try.
The world does divide itself between "realists" and idealists, or perhaps it is between those who accept a kind of Darwinian determinism dictated by fate or natural selection?a Calvinistic predestinarianism between the saved and the damned?and those who believe that nothing is "written", that the human condition can be improved, that none need be left behind. Or, as Robert Kennedy said: "Some men see things as they are and ask 'Why?' I dream things that never were and ask, 'Why not?'" (I am melting, RFK is one of my favorites.)
The sense of idealism has roots in political theory and reality. It is the very essence of the republic. From ancient Greece and early Rome, the ideal of the republic was founded on civic virtue, the sense of citizen duty; on popular sovereignty, the notion that we are self-governing and thus determine our own destiny; on resistance to corruption, requiring the common good to prevail over special interests; and on the commonwealth itself, the proper stewardship of all those things we hold in common.
Today I advocate the restoration of the American republic. I do this as a means of restoring a sense of idealism?of national unity, purpose, and hope?for those who find it sadly missing. I also believe a republican restoration is necessary if we are to secure our future.
The qualities of the republic are related to each other and to the realities of our age. A spirit of citizen duty and participation is required to guarantee the sovereignty of the people. When citizens abdicate their duties, they are no longer sovereign. Popular sovereignty is necessary to resist corruption. For the classical republicans, as well as for America's republican founders, corruption was not simple bribery; it was placing personal interest or a special interest above the common good or commonwealth. For having common interests was what gave the republic meaning and purpose. Without a common purpose, there was no republic.
Duty, sovereignty, integrity, and the common good. These are the hallmarks of the republic. To secure our future, we must restore these qualities to America.
For there are four new realities to which they relate, four revolutions sweeping our early twenty-first-century world, four words on which our future security rests. These revolutionary realities are: globalization, information, sovereignty, and conflict. Globalization is, of course, the internationalization of commerce, finance, and markets. The second economic revolution, the information revolution, is massively altering the way we work, learn, and communicate. These two epic tides are in turn eroding the sovereignty of the nation-state and the authority of its central banks and finance ministries to regulate and stabilize national economies. And as the sovereignty of the nation-state erodes, its ability to maintain its monopoly on violence and to assure the safety of its citizens is declining. This is particularly true in an age where war is being transformed and the nature of conflict is rapidly shifting from national armies in the field to civilian-clothed terrorists targeting civilian victims.
In the twenty-first century, restoration of the values of the republic will be at least as important as the reiteration of the rights of the democracy in addressing these revolutions. For example, civic virtue?the duty of citizens to participate in public life and self-governance?will be vital to invigorating the community, the most immediate forum of government, in an age where economics is spiraling upward and therefore out of control, and where citizens will increasingly feel the need to control their political destinies.
And through the revitalization of communities, citizens can perform not only their civic duties, they can also exercise their popular sovereignty. Our national and state governments are representative democracies. Our community governments, or "elementary republics" as Thomas Jefferson called them, are the venues in which citizens can directly and immediately participate in the governing of their own affairs. The citizen's vote is cast in the representative republics; his or her voice is heard in the local republic. In the community, popular sovereignty is immediately exercised.
And when popular sovereignty is exercised, corruption cannot find roots. Placing narrow, personal, or special interests ahead of the national interest and the common good is not only a definition of corruption in classical terms, it is also, sadly, a description of American government in the early twenty-first century. Some political scientists assure us that at the clash of special interests the national interest emerges. Along with republicans throughout history, I refute that. The clash of special interests produces corrupt government and citizen cynicism and distrust.
And when citizens are distrustful, do not exercise their rights of sovereignty, and do not perform their civic duties, they are not prepared to carry out their most important duty, that of defense of themselves and their communities. The changing nature of conflict, the emergence of the real and present danger of terrorism visited on America, now requires, for the first time since 1812, a new front line of defense, the citizen-soldier. The "first responders" in the war on terrorism on the home front are the citizen, the fireman, the policeman, the emergency health responder. We are all "first responders". We are all in this together.
Globalization, information, sovereignty, and conflict. These revolutions of the twenty-first century call forth the ideals and values of the republic. As important as asserting our rights may be, it is no substitute for performance of our duties, participating in our community governance by way of asserting our popular sovereignty, resisting corruption by putting our national interest first, and becoming citizen-soldiers in defense of our families and communities.
Civic duty, popular sovereignty, resistance to corruption, and a sense of the common good?these are the values of the republic and the necessary response to the new realities of the twenty-first century.
In the real world of governance, these national values must form the basis for policies. In recent days, I have aspired to propose a new vision of security in this new and different century. And I have proposed a framework of ideas for achieving that security.
Security must include not only protection from violence, but also the security of our livelihood and, therefore, shelter, nutrition, and health care for our families. It must include the stability of our communities and, therefore, protection from terrorist attacks, as well as protection from the massive dislocation of a bankrupt or relocated major employer. It includes the security of a clean environment and, therefore, freedom from man-made poisoning of our air, water, and land. And it has to include the security of all our children's futures and, therefore, protection from disease, ignorance, pollution, and poverty.
This new security is central to our common good. Its foundation is found in imaginative programs for public investment in our people, our public structures, and our private productivity. It is found in a foreign policy based on America's highest and best principles. It is found in a new defense policy that incorporates military-reform ideas and fourth-generation warfare capabilities with an understanding of the changing nature of conflict.
In recent speeches, I have proposed a framework of ideas for economic security through investment rather than wasteful consumption, for international security through principled engagement in the world rather than unilateralism, and national security through new approaches to defense.
New economic security requires a strategy of long-term investment in our people, our laboratories, our schools and universities, our productivity, and our infrastructure. It requires energy security sufficient to prevent the loss of American lives fighting for foreign oil. It requires rewarding investment and taxing unnecessary consumption and thus requires a reversal of our current national values.
New international security requires a foreign policy based on principled engagement, internationalism based on historic American principles of liberal democracy, tolerance of diversity, respect for difference of culture and viewpoint, and acknowledgment of an expanding global common. Principled engagement depends on shared security duties and rejection of unilateralism. It depends on expanded trade based on international rules for worker and environmental protection. It fundamentally depends not on America selling its values and ideals but living them.
Our new national strategy for securing our future depends on an understanding of the transformation of war and the changing nature of conflict. We must have superior intelligence, particularly human intelligence, to achieve that understanding, new special forces to disrupt terrorist networks and light, swift, and lethal intervention forces to protect America's legitimate interests. We must form a multinational capability for stabilizing or rebuilding fragile states. It absolutely means a much greater sense of urgency for homeland security. And our new national security strategy for the future certainly means being smarter and quicker than those who wish us ill.
All these things?economic growth and justice through investment, principled global engagement, and a new national security policy?are central to securing our future.
I like to believe that these new policy approaches, creating a framework for restoration of the American republic, would resonate with that founder who continues to provoke our consciousness, that peculiarly eighteenth-century man whose vision reaches into the twenty-first century, Thomas Jefferson.
Out of a torrent of life-long correspondence, one letter?the famous "Head and Heart" ode to Maria Cosway?stands out. Though it is usually seen as a classic internal struggle between Jefferson's sense of duty and rationality on the one hand and his desire for a relationship of affection and even passion on the other, I have chosen to apply it to my own life differently. For me, it represents a search for the means to apply the rationality of policy to the passion of patriotism and particularly how that might be done in an age considerably more cynical than when I first handed out leaflets, as a student just like you, for a candidate named John Kennedy.
Throughout my public life, I have been considered by some to be "cerebral" and, given our experience in recent years, I can understand how such a thing might seem a little strange. I confess to having spent part of a public lifetime trying to find, with the help of very bright minds, new strategies of economic growth and justice that reflect the egalitarian commitment to social justice of the Democratic New Deal but that use the new productivity of the information age to do so. And I have tried to design a new approach to national defense based on profound principles of military reform. I did so, and still do, because the American people must once again see the Democratic Party as the vehicle for social reform, for justice and progress, as well as for progressively securing our nation and our future.
But underlying all this thought and study and policy "wonking" is a profound passion for America and even more so for the ideal of America. When I was your age, I believed in an ideal of America. And now, more than four decades later, I still do. I have only one goal in the public arena, to serve my country and perhaps also to try to inspire people like you to do so. I want you to imagine a picture of America that is above self-interest, above commercialism and materialism, and above ordinary politics.
Politics today is too much about careerism, special interest, campaign contributions and access?what I need, what I want, about my rights. But the ideal I believe in is about all of us together. It is about the common good. What is best for all of us. What is best for our children and future generations. Politics is, as Plato said, "an art whose business is a concern for souls". For me, the ideal of America is about a nation of people still searching for a nobler cause, for a better destiny. We are better than who we are today. And because we know this, we are frustrated by the gap between who we are and who we should be.
America still represents a promise, a promise that democratic people can learn to live together better, that we can rise above autonomy and selfishness, that we can create a "city on a hill". I want to challenge you to join me in realizing that promise, in holding our nation and ourselves to a higher standard, to use the creativity of our heads to find new ways to realize the passion in our hearts?a passion for a just society, a passion for a great society, a passion for the ideal of the American republic.
Thank you.
One last piece written by my possible contender:
Restoration of the Republic
Throughout much of our history, Americans have seen our country as a land of rights and opportunities. In the eighteenth century, we fought a war for independence and liberty. In the nineteenth century, we occupied the West and industrialized the nation. In the twentieth century, we achieved material prosperity and dismantled gender and racial barriers. The emphasis throughout this history was on the rugged individualism of the cowboy or the autonomy and independence of the entrepreneur.
More often than not, the national government was seen as the protector of powerful interests and the status quo by those left behind or as a barrier to individual initiative by those resistant to regulation.
We have accepted the necessity of collective action only reluctantly and usually in time of crisis?to save the Union, to survive a depression, to defend democracy against fascism and communism, to defeat terrorism. But by and large, the American citizen's relationship to government has been a wary one, often skeptical and, in times of public corruption, even cynical.
Conservatives traditionally have seen government as the protector of vested interests, rights, and property and otherwise as a hindrance or "the problem". Liberals have viewed the national government from time to time as the instrument of social progress but also, depending on its management, as a danger to their civil liberties.
None of this is necessarily bad, except it obscures the other side of the American political coin. We are not only a democracy of rights, we are also a republic of duties. Further, our existence as a republic presupposes a common good, a commonwealth, a definable national interest greater than a mere collection of narrow or special interests.
We have an interest in our common security, all would agree. We own immense wealth in common in our public lands, timber, minerals, and other resources, though some continue to press for their wholesale privatization. We have a common interest in the health of our environment, though the extent of allowable pollution continues to be debated. And to some degree, the rise and fall of our economy affects us all, except perhaps those who live in mansions on the hill.
Occasionally, national leaders?a Lincoln, a Theodore Roosevelt, a Franklin Roosevelt, a John Kennedy, and even, briefly after 9.11, a George W. Bush?challenge us to consider our common good and common interests. But when crisis recedes, we tend to return to our individual ways.
It is not uncommon, though, for those who have served in combat, or the Peace Corps, or in emergency response to recollect those experiences as the most intensely felt times of their lives, and often the most meaningful. We celebrate "the greatest generation" not for what they did individually but for what they achieved collectively.
There is within almost every American soul a desire to make a contribution, to invest time and energy to make things better, to know the unique satisfaction of helping one's country. We call that sense idealism?the notion that the gap between what is and what ought to be can be narrowed if we will simply try.
The world does divide itself between "realists" and idealists, or perhaps it is between those who accept a kind of Darwinian determinism dictated by fate or natural selection?a Calvinistic predestinarianism between the saved and the damned?and those who believe that nothing is "written", that the human condition can be improved, that none need be left behind. Or, as Robert Kennedy said: "Some men see things as they are and ask 'Why?' I dream things that never were and ask, 'Why not?'" (I am melting, RFK is one of my favorites.)
The sense of idealism has roots in political theory and reality. It is the very essence of the republic. From ancient Greece and early Rome, the ideal of the republic was founded on civic virtue, the sense of citizen duty; on popular sovereignty, the notion that we are self-governing and thus determine our own destiny; on resistance to corruption, requiring the common good to prevail over special interests; and on the commonwealth itself, the proper stewardship of all those things we hold in common.
Today I advocate the restoration of the American republic. I do this as a means of restoring a sense of idealism?of national unity, purpose, and hope?for those who find it sadly missing. I also believe a republican restoration is necessary if we are to secure our future.
The qualities of the republic are related to each other and to the realities of our age. A spirit of citizen duty and participation is required to guarantee the sovereignty of the people. When citizens abdicate their duties, they are no longer sovereign. Popular sovereignty is necessary to resist corruption. For the classical republicans, as well as for America's republican founders, corruption was not simple bribery; it was placing personal interest or a special interest above the common good or commonwealth. For having common interests was what gave the republic meaning and purpose. Without a common purpose, there was no republic.
Duty, sovereignty, integrity, and the common good. These are the hallmarks of the republic. To secure our future, we must restore these qualities to America.
For there are four new realities to which they relate, four revolutions sweeping our early twenty-first-century world, four words on which our future security rests. These revolutionary realities are: globalization, information, sovereignty, and conflict. Globalization is, of course, the internationalization of commerce, finance, and markets. The second economic revolution, the information revolution, is massively altering the way we work, learn, and communicate. These two epic tides are in turn eroding the sovereignty of the nation-state and the authority of its central banks and finance ministries to regulate and stabilize national economies. And as the sovereignty of the nation-state erodes, its ability to maintain its monopoly on violence and to assure the safety of its citizens is declining. This is particularly true in an age where war is being transformed and the nature of conflict is rapidly shifting from national armies in the field to civilian-clothed terrorists targeting civilian victims.
In the twenty-first century, restoration of the values of the republic will be at least as important as the reiteration of the rights of the democracy in addressing these revolutions. For example, civic virtue?the duty of citizens to participate in public life and self-governance?will be vital to invigorating the community, the most immediate forum of government, in an age where economics is spiraling upward and therefore out of control, and where citizens will increasingly feel the need to control their political destinies.
And through the revitalization of communities, citizens can perform not only their civic duties, they can also exercise their popular sovereignty. Our national and state governments are representative democracies. Our community governments, or "elementary republics" as Thomas Jefferson called them, are the venues in which citizens can directly and immediately participate in the governing of their own affairs. The citizen's vote is cast in the representative republics; his or her voice is heard in the local republic. In the community, popular sovereignty is immediately exercised.
And when popular sovereignty is exercised, corruption cannot find roots. Placing narrow, personal, or special interests ahead of the national interest and the common good is not only a definition of corruption in classical terms, it is also, sadly, a description of American government in the early twenty-first century. Some political scientists assure us that at the clash of special interests the national interest emerges. Along with republicans throughout history, I refute that. The clash of special interests produces corrupt government and citizen cynicism and distrust.
And when citizens are distrustful, do not exercise their rights of sovereignty, and do not perform their civic duties, they are not prepared to carry out their most important duty, that of defense of themselves and their communities. The changing nature of conflict, the emergence of the real and present danger of terrorism visited on America, now requires, for the first time since 1812, a new front line of defense, the citizen-soldier. The "first responders" in the war on terrorism on the home front are the citizen, the fireman, the policeman, the emergency health responder. We are all "first responders". We are all in this together.
Globalization, information, sovereignty, and conflict. These revolutions of the twenty-first century call forth the ideals and values of the republic. As important as asserting our rights may be, it is no substitute for performance of our duties, participating in our community governance by way of asserting our popular sovereignty, resisting corruption by putting our national interest first, and becoming citizen-soldiers in defense of our families and communities.
Civic duty, popular sovereignty, resistance to corruption, and a sense of the common good?these are the values of the republic and the necessary response to the new realities of the twenty-first century.
In the real world of governance, these national values must form the basis for policies. In recent days, I have aspired to propose a new vision of security in this new and different century. And I have proposed a framework of ideas for achieving that security.
Security must include not only protection from violence, but also the security of our livelihood and, therefore, shelter, nutrition, and health care for our families. It must include the stability of our communities and, therefore, protection from terrorist attacks, as well as protection from the massive dislocation of a bankrupt or relocated major employer. It includes the security of a clean environment and, therefore, freedom from man-made poisoning of our air, water, and land. And it has to include the security of all our children's futures and, therefore, protection from disease, ignorance, pollution, and poverty.
This new security is central to our common good. Its foundation is found in imaginative programs for public investment in our people, our public structures, and our private productivity. It is found in a foreign policy based on America's highest and best principles. It is found in a new defense policy that incorporates military-reform ideas and fourth-generation warfare capabilities with an understanding of the changing nature of conflict.
In recent speeches, I have proposed a framework of ideas for economic security through investment rather than wasteful consumption, for international security through principled engagement in the world rather than unilateralism, and national security through new approaches to defense.
New economic security requires a strategy of long-term investment in our people, our laboratories, our schools and universities, our productivity, and our infrastructure. It requires energy security sufficient to prevent the loss of American lives fighting for foreign oil. It requires rewarding investment and taxing unnecessary consumption and thus requires a reversal of our current national values.
New international security requires a foreign policy based on principled engagement, internationalism based on historic American principles of liberal democracy, tolerance of diversity, respect for difference of culture and viewpoint, and acknowledgment of an expanding global common. Principled engagement depends on shared security duties and rejection of unilateralism. It depends on expanded trade based on international rules for worker and environmental protection. It fundamentally depends not on America selling its values and ideals but living them.
Our new national strategy for securing our future depends on an understanding of the transformation of war and the changing nature of conflict. We must have superior intelligence, particularly human intelligence, to achieve that understanding, new special forces to disrupt terrorist networks and light, swift, and lethal intervention forces to protect America's legitimate interests. We must form a multinational capability for stabilizing or rebuilding fragile states. It absolutely means a much greater sense of urgency for homeland security. And our new national security strategy for the future certainly means being smarter and quicker than those who wish us ill.
All these things?economic growth and justice through investment, principled global engagement, and a new national security policy?are central to securing our future.
I like to believe that these new policy approaches, creating a framework for restoration of the American republic, would resonate with that founder who continues to provoke our consciousness, that peculiarly eighteenth-century man whose vision reaches into the twenty-first century, Thomas Jefferson.
Out of a torrent of life-long correspondence, one letter?the famous "Head and Heart" ode to Maria Cosway?stands out. Though it is usually seen as a classic internal struggle between Jefferson's sense of duty and rationality on the one hand and his desire for a relationship of affection and even passion on the other, I have chosen to apply it to my own life differently. For me, it represents a search for the means to apply the rationality of policy to the passion of patriotism and particularly how that might be done in an age considerably more cynical than when I first handed out leaflets, as a student just like you, for a candidate named John Kennedy.
Throughout my public life, I have been considered by some to be "cerebral" and, given our experience in recent years, I can understand how such a thing might seem a little strange. I confess to having spent part of a public lifetime trying to find, with the help of very bright minds, new strategies of economic growth and justice that reflect the egalitarian commitment to social justice of the Democratic New Deal but that use the new productivity of the information age to do so. And I have tried to design a new approach to national defense based on profound principles of military reform. I did so, and still do, because the American people must once again see the Democratic Party as the vehicle for social reform, for justice and progress, as well as for progressively securing our nation and our future.
But underlying all this thought and study and policy "wonking" is a profound passion for America and even more so for the ideal of America. When I was your age, I believed in an ideal of America. And now, more than four decades later, I still do. I have only one goal in the public arena, to serve my country and perhaps also to try to inspire people like you to do so. I want you to imagine a picture of America that is above self-interest, above commercialism and materialism, and above ordinary politics.
Politics today is too much about careerism, special interest, campaign contributions and access?what I need, what I want, about my rights. But the ideal I believe in is about all of us together. It is about the common good. What is best for all of us. What is best for our children and future generations. Politics is, as Plato said, "an art whose business is a concern for souls". For me, the ideal of America is about a nation of people still searching for a nobler cause, for a better destiny. We are better than who we are today. And because we know this, we are frustrated by the gap between who we are and who we should be.
America still represents a promise, a promise that democratic people can learn to live together better, that we can rise above autonomy and selfishness, that we can create a "city on a hill". I want to challenge you to join me in realizing that promise, in holding our nation and ourselves to a higher standard, to use the creativity of our heads to find new ways to realize the passion in our hearts?a passion for a just society, a passion for a great society, a passion for the ideal of the American republic.
Last edited:
theSoulfulMofo
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2001
- Messages
- 4,490
ok, I'm going to Google... and place a quote... and see what I find 
==========================
I know who it is.
Last edited:
diamond
ONE love, blood, life
jfkerry?
This person spoke out on September 17, 2001 just days after the terror attacks and this is what he said about a report he put out with others eight months earlier:
Within a 72-hour period in late August 1991, two empires - the 70-year-old Soviet empire and the several hundred-year-old Russian empire - collapsed. And with them collapsed the central organizing principle and guiding doctrine of U.S. foreign and national security policies: containment of communism. It has taken our government almost a decade to respond, but under the sponsorship of the White House, congressional leadership and the Department of Defense, the response has been presented by the U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century
AND:
Most importantly, we on the commission strongly recommend the creation of a new National Homeland Security Agency with the singular mission of coordinating the national effort to prevent attack, to protect our borders, and to respond to terrorists using weapons of mass destruction - or disruption - against the U.S. homeland. We have starkly predicted that, sometime in the next quarter century, there will be such an attack (or attacks) on American soil and that Americans, possibly in large numbers, will lose their lives. That has not happened in this country since 1812.
AND:
To deal with the new specter of mass-casualty terrorism on American soil, for example, we urge the U.S. government to adopt the new approach to homeland security already suggested. In the world of the past, the strength of our adversaries demanded our attention. In the world we have entered, the weakness of other countries is among our greatest problems. We therefore need a State Department - and an intelligence community - adept at anticipating and preventing conflict, economic instability and terrorist mayhem.
AND:
And reform we must. The consequences of embracing the status quo are more dangerous to this nation than any likely external foe. We must accept the fact that the Cold War is over and that we have entered a new world. If we hold to the present, we will lose the future. We challenge the complacent among us to show otherwise
EDITED FOR SEVERE ERROR AT THE TOP OF PAGE. THANKS MELON.....TIME TO GET MIGRANE MEDICINE
Within a 72-hour period in late August 1991, two empires - the 70-year-old Soviet empire and the several hundred-year-old Russian empire - collapsed. And with them collapsed the central organizing principle and guiding doctrine of U.S. foreign and national security policies: containment of communism. It has taken our government almost a decade to respond, but under the sponsorship of the White House, congressional leadership and the Department of Defense, the response has been presented by the U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century
AND:
Most importantly, we on the commission strongly recommend the creation of a new National Homeland Security Agency with the singular mission of coordinating the national effort to prevent attack, to protect our borders, and to respond to terrorists using weapons of mass destruction - or disruption - against the U.S. homeland. We have starkly predicted that, sometime in the next quarter century, there will be such an attack (or attacks) on American soil and that Americans, possibly in large numbers, will lose their lives. That has not happened in this country since 1812.
AND:
To deal with the new specter of mass-casualty terrorism on American soil, for example, we urge the U.S. government to adopt the new approach to homeland security already suggested. In the world of the past, the strength of our adversaries demanded our attention. In the world we have entered, the weakness of other countries is among our greatest problems. We therefore need a State Department - and an intelligence community - adept at anticipating and preventing conflict, economic instability and terrorist mayhem.
AND:
And reform we must. The consequences of embracing the status quo are more dangerous to this nation than any likely external foe. We must accept the fact that the Cold War is over and that we have entered a new world. If we hold to the present, we will lose the future. We challenge the complacent among us to show otherwise
EDITED FOR SEVERE ERROR AT THE TOP OF PAGE. THANKS MELON.....TIME TO GET MIGRANE MEDICINE
Last edited:
diamond
ONE love, blood, life
hes from the east coast
deep
Blue Crack Addict
He is from the land of John Galt.
Melon, I fixed it and I am going to take my migrane medicine before the pain comes. That was a sure sign, I have one coming on. I mixed up a few words speaking with my wife tonight too. I am also having some difficulty spelling.
Thanks for the fun tonight......Don'tworry, I will have a hart and let you know the name of the candidate tomorrow!
Thanks for the fun tonight......Don'tworry, I will have a hart and let you know the name of the candidate tomorrow!
deep
Blue Crack Addict
minataur
Screaming Flower
ONE love, blood, life
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2001
- Messages
- 11,961
diamond
ONE love, blood, life
gary hart?
?Screaming Flower
ONE love, blood, life
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2001
- Messages
- 11,961
maybe u2 could play at the inauguration...
deep
Blue Crack Addict
deep said:
= avatar (dreads)
