NationStates Jolt Archive

We will stand mighty for peace and freedom, and maintain a strong defense against terror and destruction. Our children will sleep free from the threat of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. Ports and airports, farms and factories will thrive with trade and innovation and ideas. And the world's greatest democracy will lead a whole world of democracies.

The above quote from the inaugural speech expresses the goals of a president with high ideals. Do you agree with these goals?

The above quote from the inaugural speech expresses the goals of a president with high ideals. Do you agree with these goals?
To subjugate the world to America's will? Hell no. And to hell with Bush and all of his followers.

It wouldn't be so bad if I didn't think Bush was talking out of his ass.

It wouldn't be so bad if I didn't think Bush was talking out of his ass.
It wouldn't be so bad if Bush didn't think that the world wants to be led around by them. Kerry thought the same. That the world wants to be subject to the US. Bunch of imbecils.

To subjugate the world to America's will? Hell no. And to hell with Bush and all of his followers.

So you don't believe that the US has an obligation and right to protect its citizens from potential outside threats?

And the world's greatest democracy will lead a whole world of democracies.
http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/contrib/blackeye/lol.gif http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/contrib/blackeye/lol.gif http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/contrib/blackeye/lol.gif

Sorry Bush, but do fuck off. The world doesn't need you and it certainly doesn't want you.

So you don't believe that the US has an obligation and right to protect its citizens from potential outside threats?
You don't realy want to hear my opinion about that. :D
But this is what I meant. The way he automaticly assumes that it's the US's natural right and the worlds desire to be Americans.
And the world's greatest democracy will lead a whole world of democracies.

Okay, a few logic problems his speech writers didn't consider:

1) The only way they will be truly safe from those weapons is if there are none left. If there are none left, that's probably because there are no humans left to build them. Shall we start the Apocalypse early?

2) The ports, airports, farmers, and factories already do that.

3) Considering the US is a republic, I would say it's out of the question as a democracy leading democracies.

Do you think someone like Clinton would set more realistic and popular views?

You don't realy want to hear my opinion about that. :D


Yes I do.

At the very least his speech writers would have seen the obvious.

Who are you asking?

Who are you asking?

Anyone who cares to express an opinion on the validity of this statement. I would like a detailed critique.

To make it short and snappy. Bush is full of shit as usual.

The above quote from the inaugural speech expresses the goals of a president with high ideals. Do you agree with these goals?

Yes, but with qualifiers. This is not something which can be accomplished overnight, or in four years, or even perhaps in a hundred. I think it's a commendable goal if what we mean by "democracy" is that the people of each country are enabled to participate in the decision-making process in some way. But to establish a US-style democracy in EVERY nation is rather presumptious and overly-ambitious. US democracy would not fit well with cultures which grant great power to religious authority, for example.

I very strongly believe that every human being should have a say in how his/her government should be run and who should run it, but they should also have the option of being a Theocracy if they want.

To make it short and snappy. Bush is full of shit as usual.

Did you support the policies of Clinton/Gore?

Do you think someone like Clinton would set more realistic and popular views?

Do you mean "like Clinton" in that he's more socially liberal, or in that he's more charismatic?

The above quote from the inaugural speech expresses the goals of a president with high ideals. Do you agree with these goals?
Didn't vote becuase you've asked two questions.
I agree with them as much as, taken at face value, it's a great dream.
To answer your other question (poll), no. It's not gonna happen.

Do you mean "like Clinton" in that he's more socially liberal, or in that he's more charismatic?

I'm trying not to direct the flow of this discussion, but I am looking at his more liberal leanings. His international popularity has to have some weight also.

Did you support the policies of Clinton/Gore?
I don't support the US and their policies. Period.

I'm trying not to direct the flow of this discussion, but I am looking at his more liberal leanings. His international popularity has to have some weight also.

His popularity made the US almost genuinely liked for once. Then Bush came along.

Didn't vote becuase you've asked two questions.
I agree with them as much as, taken at face value, it's a great dream.
To answer your other question (poll), no. It's not gonna happen.

OK, let me try to clear this up and possibly influence the direction of this discussion. Realistic or not, is the ideal of being the leader of a world movement to democracy valid and worthwhile or are we overstepping our bounds and trying to impose our ideals?

I don't support the US and their policies. Period.

So no matter who is president or what they do, you're not going to like them. That makes your opinions not based on facts and invalid.

The Universal Declaration covers the range of human rights in 30 clear and concise articles. The first two articles lay the universal foundation of human rights: human beings are equal because of their shared essence of human dignity; human rights are universal, not because of any State or international organization, but because they belong to all of humanity. The two articles assure that human rights are the birthright of everyone, not privileges of a select few, nor privileges to be granted or denied. Article 1 declares that "all human beings are born equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason andconscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood." Article 2 recognizes the universal dignity of a life free from discrimination. "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status."

The first cluster of articles, 3 to 21, sets forth civil and political rights to which everyone is entitled. The right to life, liberty and personal security, recognized in Article 3, sets the base for all following political rights and civil liberties, including freedom from slavery, torture and arbitrary arrest, as well as the rights to a fair trial, free speech and free movement and privacy*.

The second cluster of articles, 22 to27, sets forth the economic, social and cultural rights to which all human beings are entitled. The cornerstone of these rights is Article 22, acknowledging that, as a member of society, everyone has the right to social security and is therefore entitled to the realization of the economic, social and cultural rights "indispensable" for his or her dignity and free and full personal development. Five articles elaborate the rights necessary for the enjoyment of the fundamental right to social security, including economic rights related to work, fair remuneration and leisure, social rights concerning an adequate standard of living for health, well-being and education, and the right to participate in the cultural life of the community.

The third and final cluster of articles, 28 to 30, provides a larger protective framework in which all human rights are to be universally enjoyed. Article 28 recognizes the right to a social and international order that enables the realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Article 29 acknowledges that, along with rights, human beings also have obligations to the community which also enable them to develop their individual potential freely and fully*. Article 30, finally, protects the interpretation of the articles of the Declaration from any outside interference contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations. It explicitly states that no State, group or person can claim, on the basis of the Declaration, to have the right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth in the Universal Declaration.

Article Six of the United States Constitution states:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land*; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Under our Constitution, we have a moral obligation to follow the treaties we sign. This includes, but is not limited to, the above UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights.


*emphasis mine

OK, let me try to clear this up and possibly influence the direction of this discussion. Realistic or not, is the ideal of being the leader of a world movement to democracy valid and worthwhile or are we overstepping our bounds and trying to impose our ideals?
It's not our business to decide whether the rest of the world should be "free" or not, in my opinion.
We've got too much work on our our land to do before we can truly call our own nation free.

So no matter who is president or what they do, you're not going to like them. That makes your opinions not based on facts and invalid.
Invalid? How so?

We've got too much work on our our land to do before we can truly call our own nation free.

My friend, that is why we have a little thing called the Constitution.

OK, let me try to clear this up and possibly influence the direction of this discussion. Realistic or not, is the ideal of being the leader of a world movement to democracy valid and worthwhile or are we overstepping our bounds and trying to impose our ideals?
The marked ones.

Invalid? How so?

I'm assuming it's because you would go against the US because they are Americans, not because of what they do.

I'm assuming it's because you would go against the US because they are Americans, not because of what they do.
:D
What they do did help form my opinion on that.

Invalid? How so?

If there is nothing the US can do that you would support, your opinion is self-stated and not based on reasoned opinion. If it doesn't matter if the US is right or wrong, how does your opinion offer any critical input?

What they do did help form my opinion on that.

Let me use my psychic powers to find out.

But I'm guessing it has to do with Iraq.

http://www.villagelife.org/news/archives/inaugural97.html

Let me use my psychic powers to find out.

But I'm guessing it has to do with Iraq.
Nah. It were the Americans and their boundless arrogance here on NS.

My friend, that is why we have a little thing called the Constitution.
My friend, that's why I'd like to see it fully fulfilled. You're mistaken if you believe it is at the moment.
This might be the firebrand Libertarian speaking, but let's get real.

Invalid? How so?

Because it suggests you are not examining evidence, or trying to understand information. Rather it suggests you've made your conclusion and you're conforming your views of reality to make these conclusions stand.

Because it suggests you are not examining evidence, or trying to understand information. Rather it suggests you've made your conclusion and you're conforming your views of reality to make these conclusions stand.
What evidence needs examining? That Bush is a powerhungry moron? Who wants to change the world, with force if he see's fit, to conform to America's needs? Or that Kerry wanted to do the same? Albeit more subtle.

My friend, that's why I'd like to see it fully fulfilled. You're mistaken if you believe it is at the moment.
This might be the firebrand Libertarian speaking, but let's get real.

I believe the Constitution is being violated, don't get me wrong. There's a little thing called the courts. Anyway, I'm pretty libertarian myself when it comes to the constitution. My biggest confidence that Bush (or any other president) can't take away our rights is the Second Amendment. Noah Webster said it best:

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.

I tend to agree with Eutrusca in that these ideals in practice, need modifiers. Obviously as it's the beginning of his term he's going to be vague. He has four years to effect his initiatives (both a long time and a short time). I'd like to see what really becomes of these ideals. I can think of many good things which could be done because of them. But there are also bad policies which could be enacted in their name.

Are they reasonable? They're even better. They've been happening for the past sixteen years, and have been accelarating ever since.

My biggest confidence that Bush (or any other president) can't take away our rights is the Second Amendment. Noah Webster said it best:
Couldn't agree more. Now if only we'd do something about the Patriot Act...
(I'm already watching what I'd like to have said because of it...)

What evidence needs examining? That Bush is a powerhungry moron? Who wants to change the world, with force if he see's fit, to conform to America's needs? Or that Kerry wanted to do the same? Albeit more subtle.
"Bush is a powerhungry moron" This is a conclusion, not evidence. So are the phrases "who wants to change the world with force" and that Kerry would "do the same...Albeit more subtle".

These are conclusion, which may or may not be accurate. But, as they are, they're still conclusions.

Couldn't agree more. Now if only we'd do something about the Patriot Act...
(I'm already watching what I'd like to have said because of it...)

The Patriot Act opens doors that are best left closed. However, there hasn't been a single incident of it being used to violate someone's rights. As long as it doesn't change, and people are aware of it's proscripts, we're fine. By the way, it has been blown way out of proportion by the media. I'm not saying that it's warm and fuzzy, I'm just saying it's not as bad as we're lead to believe.

Better excerpt...

We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.

America's vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one. From the day of our founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this Earth has rights, and dignity and matchless value because they bear the image of the maker of heaven and Earth.

Across the generations, we have proclaimed the imperative of self-government, because no one is fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave. Advancing these ideals is the mission that created our nation. It is the honorable achievement of our fathers. Now it is the urgent requirement of our nation's security and the calling of our time.

These are conclusion, which may or may not be accurate. But, as they are, they're still conclusions.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/
For Bush.

http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?cp=2&knlgAreaID=124&subsecid=900020&contentid=252144
World leadership. Democrats believe energetic U.S. leadership is integral to shaping a world congenial to our interests and values. World order doesn't emerge spontaneously; it must be organized through collective action by the leading powers, in particular the leading democracies. The main responsibility for global leadership falls on America as first among equals. But our country cannot lead if our leaders will not listen. The surest way to isolate America -- and call into being anti-American coalitions -- is to succumb to the imperial temptation and attempt to impose our will on others. We believe, instead, in renewing our democratic alliances to meet new threats, in progressively enlarging the zone of market democracies by including countries that want to join, and in strengthening and reforming international institutions -- the United Nations, the international financial institutions, the World Trade Organization -- which, for all their obvious flaws, still embody humanity's highest hopes for collective security and cooperative problem-solving.
For Kerry and the Democrats.

Both have the same goal. They just use different means. So I don't support the US no matter what president.

What evidence needs examining? That Bush is a powerhungry moron?

That is not evidence. It is an opinion. The fact that very few people manage to argue against Bush without reverting to childish name-calling reinforces my belief that he's not so dumb after all.

If the people do not want a democracy, or if it does more harm than good, it is self deafeating, and dictorial.

-My humble opinion

You know what I note as a bit of an irony is this: Republicans support this idea, and Democrats don't. Usually, it'd be the other way around, as Democrats have traditionally had the more ideaological foreign policy, whereas Republicans are cautious. Remember, all of the major wars until the Gulf War had a Democratic president that lead us in. Bill Clinton had similar ideaologies. It was also a Democrat that created the UN, and a Democrat that proposed the Marshall Plan, NATO, etc. Republicans obviously had great foreign policies, notably Richard Nixon. But the Democrats had the ideaological ones.
This has changed. Even Bush was hesitant in foreign policy pre-9/11, but obviously, he'd be a footnote in the history books without his. The worse thing about the Republicans, however, is that I don't think they are ready. My one uncle, for example, is an old-line Republican. Now, remember how Indonesia gave a deadline for foreign troops to be out of the country? Well, in reaction, he said, "Well they can go to Hell. We don't need to be policing the world all the damn time." It just shows us how ill-equiped we are with these new ideaologues.

If the people do not want a democracy, or if it does more harm than good, it is self deafeating, and dictorial.

-My humble opinion

What people don't want freedom?

I am amazed at the number of people who have made comments on this thread and voted in the poll who have not heard or read Bush's inaugural speech. Let me supply this link one more time, and please read the entire text.

http://www.villagelife.org/news/archives/inaugural97.html

Remember, all of the major wars until the Gulf War had a Democratic president that lead us in.

So the Civil War (Lincoln was Republican) wasn't a major war? Sorry, but my OCD compels me to correct you.

http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/contrib/blackeye/lol.gif http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/contrib/blackeye/lol.gif http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/contrib/blackeye/lol.gif

Sorry Bush, but do fuck off. The world doesn't need you and it certainly doesn't want you.

I fully agree with Myrth.

The above quote from the inaugural speech expresses the goals of a president with high ideals. Do you agree with these goals?
i dont agree with them, why? because i can read between the lines

he intends to invade and takeover any place withotu a democracy that he believes threatens us

i dont agree with them, why? because i can read between the lines

he intends to invade and takeover any place withotu a democracy that he believes threatens us

And that is bad because...?

And that is bad because...?
because it isnt our job to pretend we are the messiah of the world bringing the joys of our "democracy" to him, i think we need to woprk out all the flaws in our system and worry abouit ourselves before pretending the rest of the world wants to be exactly like us

So the Civil War (Lincoln was Republican) wasn't a major war? Sorry, but my OCD compels me to correct you.
Oh, you're right. Same with the Spanish American one. Thanks.
But really, most of the major wars of the 20th century were entered into (or begun) by a Democratic president.

So I don't support the US no matter what president.
So you wouldn't support the US if you were the president?

No one has anything to say about my argument concerning the Constitution? All that hard work (read: copying and pasting) gone to waste...

No one has anything to say about my argument concerning the Constitution? All that hard work (read: copying and pasting) gone to waste...

And no one has clicked the link and read the text of the inaugural speech. Lazy people!!

Lazy people!!

Arrgghhh!

Wait, I'm lazy...

So you wouldn't support the US if you were the president?
Nope. I wouldn't.

The Patriot Act opens doors that are best left closed. However, there hasn't been a single incident of it being used to violate someone's rights. As long as it doesn't change, and people are aware of it's proscripts, we're fine. By the way, it has been blown way out of proportion by the media. I'm not saying that it's warm and fuzzy, I'm just saying it's not as bad as we're lead to believe.
You're libertarian like I'm liberal.
Surely, this was jest?

Arrgghhh!

Wait, I'm lazy...

Let me save everybody the trouble, especially the ones who jumped all over Bush on this one.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WASHINGTON (Reuter) -- The following is the full text of the inaugural speech delivered by President Clinton Monday:

"My fellow citizens:

"At this last Presidential inauguration of the 20th Century, let us lift our eyes toward the challenges that await us in the next century. It is our great good fortune that time and chance have put us not only at the edge of a new century, in a new millennium, but on the edge of a bright new prospect in human affairs. A moment that will define our course, and our character, for decades to come. We must keep our old democracy forever young. Guided by the ancient vision of a promised land, let us set our sights upon a land of New Promise.

"The promise of America was born in the 18th Century out of the bold conviction that we are all created equal. It was extended and preserved in the 19th Century, when our nation spread across the continent, saved the union, and abolished the awful scourge of slavery.

"Then, in turmoil and triumph, that promise exploded onto the world stage to make this the American Century.

"And what a century it has been. America became the world's mightiest industrial power; saved the world from tyranny in two world wars and a long cold war; and time and again, reached out across the globe to millions who like us longed for the blessings of liberty.

"Along the way, Americans produced a great middle class and security in old age; built unrivaled centers of learning and opened public schools to all; split the atom and explored the heavens; invented the computer and the microchip; and deepened the well spring of justice by making a revolution in civil rights for African-Americans and all minorities, and extending the circle of citizenship, opportunity and dignity to women.

"Now, for the third time, a new century is upon us, and another time to choose. We began the 19th century with a choice to spread our nation from coast to coast. We began the 20th century, with a choice to harness the Industrial Revolution to our values of free enterprise, conservation and human decency. Those choices made all the difference. At the dawn of the 21st Century, a free people must now choose to shape the forces of the Information Age and the global society, to unleash the limitless potential of all our people and yes, to form a more perfect union.

"When last we gathered, our march to this new future seemed less certain than it does today. We vowed then to set a clear course, to renew our nation.

"In these four years, we have been touched by tragedy, exhilarated by challenge, strengthened by achievement. America stands alone as the world's indispensable nation. Once again, our economy is the strongest on earth. Once again, we are building strongers families, thriving communities, better educational opportunities, a cleaner environment. Problems that once seemed destined to deepen now bend to our efforts: our streets are safer and record numbers of our fellow citizens have moved from welfare to work.

"And once again, we have resolved for our time a great debate over the role of government. Today we can declare: Government is not the problem, and government is not the solution. We, the American people, we are the solution. Our founders understood that well, and gave us a democracy strong enough to endure for centuries, flexible enough to face our common challenges and advance our common dreams in each new day.

"As times change, so government must change. We need a new government for a new century, humble enough not to try to solve all our problems for us, but strong enough to give us the tools to solve our problems for ourselves. A government that is smaller, lives within its means, and does more with less. Yet where it can stand up for our values and interests around the world, and where it can give Americans the power to make a real difference in their everyday lives, government should do more, not less. The preeminent mission of our new government is to give all Americans an opportunity -- not a guarantee -- but a real opportunity to build better lives.

"Beyond that, my fellow citizens, the future is up to us. Our Founders taught us that the preservation of our liberty and our union depends upon responsible citizenship.

"And we need a new sense of responsibility for a new century. There is work to do, work that government alone cannot do. Teaching children to read. Hiring people off welfare rolls. Coming out from behind locked doors and shuttered windows to help reclaim our streets from drugs and gangs and crime. Taking time out of our own lives to serve others.

"Each and every one of us, in our own way, must assume personal responsibility -- not only for ourselves and our families, but for our neighbors and our nation.

"Our greatest responsibility is to embrace a new spirit of community for a new century. For any one of us to succeed, we must succeed as one America.

"The challenge of our past remains the challenge of our future: Will we be one nation, one people, with one common destiny, or not? Will we all come together, or come apart?

"The divide of race has been America's constant curse. And each new wave of immigrants gives new targets to old prejudices. Prejudice and contempt, cloaked in the pretense of religious or political conviction, are no different. These forces have nearly destroyed our nation in the past. They plague us still. They fuel the fanaticism of terror. And they torment the lives of millions in fractured nations all around the world.

"These obsessions cripple both those who hate, and of course those who are hated, robbing those of what they might become. We cannot -- we will not -- succumb to the dark impulses that lurk in the far regions of the soul everywhere. We shall overcome them -- and we shall replace them with the generous spirit of a people who feel at home with one another.

"Our rich texture of racial, religious and political diversity will be a Godsend in the 21st Century. Great rewards will come to those who can live together, learn together, work together, forge new ties that bind together.

"As this new era approaches, we can already see its broad outlines. Ten years ago, the Internet was the mystical province of physicists; today, it is a commonplace encyclopedia for millions of schoolchildren. Scientists now are decoding the blueprint of human life. Cures for our most feared illnesses seem close at hand.

"The world is no longer divided into two hostile camps; instead, now we are building bonds with nations that once were our adversaries. Growing connections of commerce and culture give us a chance to lift the fortunes and spirits of people the world over. And for the very first time in all of history, more people on this planet live under democracy than dictatorship.

"My fellow Americans, as we look back at this remarkable century, we may ask, can we hope not just to follow, but even to surpass the achievements of the 20th Century in America, and to avoid the awful bloodshed that stained its legacy? To that question, every American here and every American in our land today must answer a resounding, "Yes!"

"This is the heart of our task: With a new vision of government, a new sense of responsibility, a new spirit of community, we will sustain America's journey. The promise we sought in a new land, we will find again in a land of New Promise.

"In this new land, education will be every citizen's most prized possession, our schools will have the highest standards in the world, igniting the spark of possibility in the eyes of every girl and every boy, and the doors of higher education will be open to all. The knowledge and power of the Information Age will be within reach not just of a few, but of every classroom, every library, every child. Parents and children will have time not only to work but to read and play together, and the plans they make at their kitchen table will be those of a better home, a better job, a certain chance to go to college.

"Our streets will echo with the laughter of children, because no one will try to shoot them or sell them drugs anymore. Everyone who can work, will work, with today's permanent underclass part of tomorrow's growing middle class. New miracles of medicine at last will reach not only those who can claim care now, but the children and hardworking families too long denied.

"We will stand mighty for peace and freedom, and maintain a strong defense against terror and destruction. Our children will sleep free from the threat of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. Ports and airports, farms and factories will thrive with trade and innovation and ideas. And the world's greatest democracy will lead a whole world of democracies.

"Our land of New Promise will be a nation that meets its obligations: A nation that balances its budget, but never loses the balance of its values. A nation where our grandparents have secure retirement and health care, and their grandchildren know we have made the reforms necessary to sustain those benefits for their time. A nation that fortifies the world's most productive economy even as it protects the great natural bounty of our water, air and majestic land.

"And in this land of New Promise, we will have reformed our politics so that the voice of the people will always speak louder than the din of narrow interests -- regaining the participation and deserving the trust of all Americans.

"Fellow citizens, let us build that America, a nation ever moving forward toward realizing the full potential of all its citizens. Prosperity and power, yes, they are important, and we must maintain them. But let us never forget: The greatest progress we have made, and the greatest progress we have yet to make, is in the human heart. In the end, all the world's wealth and a thousand armies are no match for the strength and decency of the human spirit.

"Thirty-four years ago, the man whose life we celebrate today spoke to us -- down there -- at the other end of this mall, in words that moved the conscience of a nation. Like a prophet of old, he told of his dream, that one day America would rise up and treat all its citizens as equals before the law and in the heart. Martin Luther King's dream was the American Dream. His quest is our quest: the ceaseless striving to live out our true creed. Our history has been built on such dreams and labors. And, by our dreams and labors we will redeem the promise of America in the 21st Century.

"To that effort, I pledge all my strength and every power of my office. I ask the members of Congress here to join in that pledge. The American people returned to office a President of one party and a Congress of another. Surely, they did not do this to advance the politics of petty bickering and extreme partisanship they plainly deplore. No, they call on us instead to be repairers of the breach, and to move on with America's mission.

"America demands and deserves big things from us -- and nothing big ever came from being small. Let us remember the timeless wisdom of Cardinal Bernadin, when facing the end of his own life. He said, 'It is wrong to waste the precious gift of time ... on acrimony and division.'

"Fellow citizens, we must not waste the precious gift of this time. For all of us are on that same journey of our lives, and our journey, too, will come to an end. But the journey of our America must go on.

"And so, my fellow Americans, we must be strong, for there is much to dare. The demands of our time are great, and they are different. Let us meet them with faith and courage, with patience and a grateful, happy heart. Let us shape the hope of this day into the noblest chapter in our history. Yes, let us build our bridge, a bridge wide enough and strong enough for every American to cross over to a blessed land of New Promise.

"May those generations whose faces we cannot yet see, whose names we may never know, say of us here that we led our beloved land into a new century with the American Dream alive for all her children. With the American promise of a more perfect union a reality for all her people. With America's bright flame of freedom spreading throughout all the world.

"From the height of his place and the summit of this century, let us go forth. May God strengthen our hands for the good work ahead -- and always, always bless our America.''

First of all, thanks for posting the speech, Iwannabeacowboy. Great help.

I find it funny how all of these people who Bush and our country have the right to flame him for the sole reason that they LIVE in the country. All of the Europeans or other nationalities that roam these sites do not apply to this, but all of the Americans who Bush and the government, think about this first:

The ONLY reason you are flaming him without recieving punishment is BECAUSE of what the government does and upholds. Think about how it was in Iraq before Hussein was gone. If you even spoke out against him, you were thrown in jail, d, and killed. I find it funny how hardly anyone actually supports the president of your own god damned country.

Sure, disagreeing with Bush is fine, because I disagree with some of his decisions myself. However, calling him childish names, and saying "He's talking out of his ass" is completely childish and inappropriate. How about a little respect for the man that was rightfully ELECTED into office. Stop being selfish for a moment and be grateful that you live in such a fortunate place as America. Hell, if you the country so much, put yourself in the shoes of a citizen in Iran, or Jordan. That'd make you appreciate this whole situation a little bit.

Where, in ANY part of his speech, does he say that he wants the rest of the world to be Americans? I'd like you to point that one out to me, because that statement makes no logical sense to me. So many of you are so closeminded to even listen to what Bush has to say, and then manipulate the words that YOU DIDN'T EVEN LISTEN TO for God's sake.

he intends to invade and takeover any place withotu a democracy that he believes threatens us

I'm sorry, but that quote made me laugh. Bush Invaded Iraq, Bush senior protected Kuwait, Kennedy sent troops to Vietnam, attempting to stay hostilites there, and Roosevelt sent troops to Japan and Europe. According to you, then, ALL of those men are like Bush. Bush does NOT intend to invade and/or takeover anything. If he sees his country, and the people that he serves being threated, he takes action. Think of it this way: if your family was threatened by a robber, or ist, and you had the manpower and firepower to deal with them, would you? I certainly would. I would not stand by to watch my enemies build up their weapons for the purpose to destroy "Evil America."

So the Civil War (Lincoln was Republican) wasn't a major war? Sorry, but my OCD compels me to correct you.

No, the Civil War was not a major war. A major war is World War 1, and World War 2, and the Revolutionary War. Sure, plenty of soldiers died during the war, but a Civil War doesn't really have anything to do with what he was talking about.

I find it extremely funny, hilarious even, how a quote from an inaugural speech is turned into another Bush-whacking. It is also extemely funny how Iwannabeacowboy literally begged that everyone read the entire text of the speech. As was apparent from the posts, NO ONE did. Iwannabeacowboy finally had to post the speech to get everyone's attention. OMG!!!! Bill Clinton said those things!! Run!! Run!! Run!! We must live to attack Bush on another thread!! Run!!

ROFLMAO

As someone who voted for Bush and would do so again if having the choices I did, I have to say, this speech scares me. We have no right to dictate anything to anyone who hasn't directly and intentionally harmed us. On a moral basis, I am opposed to any "preemptive" aggression against anyone and am very much opposed to what we did/are doing in Iraq. Afganistan, justified. Iraq, unjustified.

I voted for Bush on the basis of other issues and still would.

Yes, the world is a better place without Saddam in power, but it was still wrong of us to go in.

As someone who voted for Bush and would do so again if having the choices I did, I have to say, this speech scares me. We have no right to dictate anything to anyone who hasn't directly and intentionally harmed us.

It just gets better and better!! This was not Bush's speech. It was Bill Clinton's. :headbang:

The above quote from the inaugural speech expresses the goals of a president with high ideals. Do you agree with these goals?

It's like eating at a McDonald's in a world with nothing but McDonald's...

Phooey.

In his 21-minute speech, he used the word "liberty" 15 times and the word "freedom" 27 times!