NationStates Jolt Archive

"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!",
"Wollt ihr den totalen Krieg?",
"Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country!",
"Der Sieg des Glaubens",
"I have a dream!",
"Give me liberty or give me death!"

Now, let's not focus on the politics or even the morality behind these speeches and bold statements, but on the speeches themselves. Why arn't there any leaders who give bold speeches anymore? Why don't leaders use speeches to electrify the souls of their people, inspire awe into their nations and simply shock the world?

Where has all the passion from politics/leadership gone? Instead of Ronald Reagans and JFK's, we have Bush who can hardly speak let alone electrify the soul of an electric eel and Kerry who's dullness can honestly kill the immortal and put to sleep a man who just smoked $500 worth of crack.

You know, people say that's the past and let it go. I say no. I say that our society is in a shitty time period and we can learn from the past and use those secrets and tips to progress to the future. One may compare it to how in Europe in the middle ages, during the Renaissance, Italians went back to the secrets of the Greeks and Romans to better their current civilization. It is possible to take the good from the past and use it to fight today's social problems, and arguably the number 1 problem is apathy.

The decline in the fire behind politics mixed with the growing levels of general apathy due to the "comfort level" is to blame behind this, and I for one can't stand it, hate those who don't care, and will, in my lifetime, personally change things.

The quality of the speeches isn't why the public feels apathy.

I'll tell you why; because they always interrupt my favorite TV show to give them! :mad:

At that point, I'm too pissed to care! :mad:

:p

The quality of the speeches isn't why the public feels apathy.

I'll tell you why; because they always interrupt my favorite TV show to give them! :mad:

At that point, I'm too pissed to care! :mad:

:p
omgplzdie





:p


But seriously, got anything serious to say on the subject, for a change?

omgplzdie





:p


But seriously, got anything serious to say on the subject, for a change?

<.<

>.>

Maybe. But I wouldn't get my hopes up if I were you. :p

You missed Secretary Bodman's speech on meeting with Estonian Prime Minister Andrus Ansip.

"Prime Minister Ansip, we will now discuss tariff rates!"

Inspiring.

'But I do not fear prison, as I do not fear the fury of the miserable tyrant who took the lives of 70 of my comrades. Condemn me. It does not matter. History will absolve me.'

Passion+Politics=Patriotism?

I don't know, I think we should make every speech into a simple mathematical equation. Everything would be so much clearer.

For example, the OP:
- Passion + Apathy = --Political Interest

Bodman is a masterlocuter.

Secretary Bodman said. “Finalizing this regulation for the Department’s Loan Guarantee program puts Americans one step closer to being able to use new and novel sources of energy on a mass scale to reduce emissions and allow for vigorous economic growth and increased energy security.”

Our children will remember this as the 'one step closer' speech.

Our children will remember this as the 'one step closer' speech.
Scandinavian proverb: "Have opinion. Will censor. Think children."

Passion+Politics=Patriotism?

I don't know, I think we should make every speech into a simple mathematical equation. Everything would be so much clearer.

For example, the OP:
- Passion + Apathy = --Political Interest

This has been attempted on a previous occasion...

n-= Negative Discrimination
p= Positive Discrimination
0= Total Equality
0np= Net Equality

If sum=p>0 then p=n

0+0=0 (Total Equality)
1p+1p=2n- (Extreme Discrimination)
1p+0=1n- (Discrimination)
1n-1p=0np (Net Equality)
1n-0=1n- (Discrimination)
1n-1n=2n- (Extreme Discrimination)

This has been attempted on a previous occasion...
:eek:
I said simple mathematical equation!

:eek:
I said simple mathematical equation!

Is that not simple? If so, please explain perceived complexities.

Is that not simple? If so, please explain perceived complexities.

I was being partially sarcastic-ish.

I understood it after reading it through carefully, but at first glance it was all numbers and letters mixed/mashed all confusing-like.

It's fine.

Guys, please leave my thread. Your nerdyness is scaring all the chicks away.

Emotive speeches are dangerous precisely because they target emotions. If there is one area of life I want to keep emotion out of, it's politics.

What we should be doing is complaining that there are so many people who get bored by facts and excited by rhetoric.

Guys, please leave my thread. Your nerdyness is scaring all the chicks away.

Silly goose, there are no chicks on teh interwebs. I ate them all.

I was being partially sarcastic-ish.

I understood it after reading it through carefully, but at first glance it was all numbers and letters mixed/mashed all confusing-like.

It's fine.

Understood….

The referenced post could have been simpler; however, the desire was to have it be as mathematically correct as possible while still conveying the intended point. Though, it is likely that there are some mathematical errors within said post despite the previously mentioned effort...

Guys, please leave my thread. Your nerdyness is scaring all the chicks away.

Hey, I just leveled and managed to get +2 to my Charisma. Why don't you leave, before I cast Banish?

Emotive speeches are dangerous precisely because they target emotions. If there is one area of life I want to keep emotion out of, it's politics.

What we should be doing is complaining that there are so many people who get bored by facts and excited by rhetoric.

This might be relevant to that point...

Passion+Politics=Patriotism?

I don't know, I think we should make every speech into a simple mathematical equation. Everything would be so much clearer.

For example, the OP:
- Passion + Apathy = --Political Interest

No, being a good speaker doesn't mean that you have anything worth saying. I care about ideas, not that those are common, but it's better to base a speech on logic and reason than emotion.

"Give me liberty or give me death!"

Why aren't there any leaders who give bold speeches anymore? Why don't leaders use speeches to electrify the souls of their people, inspire awe into their nations and simply shock the world?

Where has all the passion from politics/leadership gone?

"I for one can't stand it, hate those who don't care, and will, in my lifetime, personally change things."

1st - Patrick Henry ROCKS!!!
2nd- Leaders that grace the main stream media are just puppets of the corporations that are gobally unifing the world at the expense of the people.
It is only when you start to look you find the peoples leaders and those that speak the truth and the bold speeches and heartfelt messages that empower and energize the souls. It is only when you find a cause that is worthy, then the passion will show it self and the others who believe in the same things you believe. I cant stand it either, wake up! (The Doctor cured my Apathy!).

No, being a good speaker doesn't mean that you have anything worth saying. I care about ideas, not that those are common, but it's better to base a speech on logic and reason than emotion.

It might be that perceived passion in a leader makes that leader seem more likely to be moved to action. It seems that the general public tends to like leaders that live up to their word. If passion is actually a sign that a leader will be motivated to live up to said word then passion might not be so bad.

It also seems that leaders who are passionate can better motivate others. If this rule applies then even under completely logical standards passion when applied to leadership has its advantages.

That is, if one is willing to acknowledge that most people do have emotions, and said emotions can't simply be turned off. Weather or not that is a good thing is an entirely different debate.

Indeed. I think it's fine if there's passion in a speech. It can make us feel about why we should care, but I think there's a fine balance there that needs to be maintained in order to ensure we have fact as well and not just "remember 9/11".

Its becuase we have no truly "great" people in office anymore. We have liars, and criminals.
We have people too concerned with pleasing this lobbyist, or the other.
Too many people following an agenda, rather than having a serious interest in helping others.

Im not laying the blame soley with Bush, either, although his group may just be the worst of the entire bunch, its both sides.
Essentially, its all selfishness, and greed.

No one gives a fuck about anything but themselves and what they personally can get out of life in general. The idea of a politician with a real goal of helping his city/state/country as
best he can, and making real change is a thing of the past.

Great men say great things. Assholes reveal themselves for what they are.

The 'great' speeches of the past all took place in either a time of conflict between opposing ideologies or in an environment of upheaval - whether that be war or some paradigm shift in social policies.

Today the world is stagnating, politically. There is no significant political opposition to the inexorable rise of globalised capitalism. The Chinese, oft-cited as the 'evil commies' on this, and other boards, pay no more than lip service to blanket communist ideals and the failure of states such as North Korea no longer requires comment. In such a climate there is no real need for 'great' speeches, so none are made... perhaps this is the much-vaunted market efficiency at work.

Another factor might be that it is no longer possible to get away with anything, accuracy-wise, in a political speech. Thanks to the rise of the Internet every single member of the target audience for any given speech is able to check for themselves the veracity of what has been said and, even if the audience don't, you can be sure that the political opponents of whoever dares open their mouth will be going through whatever has been stated as fact with a fine-toothed comb, and will pounce on any inconsistency or inaccuracy, however trivial.

Such is the world today.

Its becuase we have no truly "great" people in office anymore. We have liars, and criminals.
We have people too concerned with pleasing this lobbyist, or the other.
Too many people following an agenda, rather than having a serious interest in helping others.
Yeah, this too.

It comes across as being worse in the USA that it is here, but I'm sure we'll catch up eventually. Corporate funding of political systems is a recipe for disaster.

Mass media metapolitics filter out originality and personality, among other things. The field of speech that allows a candidate to retain electability is increasingly narrow. An "ask not" style Kennedy speech, or any of those speeches would be career-enders today because they are not parsible by the "We analyze, you decide" style of media commentary.

"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"? Antagonistic, they would say.
"I have a dream"? Preachy, idealistic, and unrealistic.
"Give me liberty or give me death!"? Vain warmongering.
"Ask not"? Fascist.

Today if you so much as Dean Scream (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_Scream), your career is fux0red.

Emotive speeches are dangerous precisely because they target emotions. If there is one area of life I want to keep emotion out of, it's politics.

What we should be doing is complaining that there are so many people who get bored by facts and excited by rhetoric.
Agreed.

"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!",
"Wollt ihr den totalen Krieg?",
"Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country!",
"Der Sieg des Glaubens",
"I have a dream!",
"Give me liberty or give me death!"

Now, let's not focus on the politics or even the morality behind these speeches and bold statements, but on the speeches themselves. Why arn't there any leaders who give bold speeches anymore? Why don't leaders use speeches to electrify the souls of their people, inspire awe into their nations and simply shock the world?

Where has all the passion from politics/leadership gone? Instead of Ronald Reagans and JFK's, we have Bush who can hardly speak let alone electrify the soul of an electric eel and Kerry who's dullness can honestly kill the immortal and put to sleep a man who just smoked $500 worth of crack.

You know, people say that's the past and let it go. I say no. I say that our society is in a shitty time period and we can learn from the past and use those secrets and tips to progress to the future. One may compare it to how in Europe in the middle ages, during the Renaissance, Italians went back to the secrets of the Greeks and Romans to better their current civilization. It is possible to take the good from the past and use it to fight today's social problems, and arguably the number 1 problem is apathy.

The decline in the fire behind politics mixed with the growing levels of general apathy due to the "comfort level" is to blame behind this, and I for one can't stand it, hate those who don't care, and will, in my lifetime, personally change things.

The need for inspirational political leadership is only during wars and other great crisises. That being lacking in the contemporary first world, politicians are limited to trade agreements and mundane domestic affairs. If you want to, we could start a war to change that...

"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!",
"Wollt ihr den totalen Krieg?",
"Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country!",
"Der Sieg des Glaubens",
"I have a dream!",
"Give me liberty or give me death!"

Now, let's not focus on the politics or even the morality behind these speeches and bold statements, but on the speeches themselves. Why arn't there any leaders who give bold speeches anymore? Why don't leaders use speeches to electrify the souls of their people, inspire awe into their nations and simply shock the world?

Where has all the passion from politics/leadership gone? Instead of Ronald Reagans and JFK's, we have Bush who can hardly speak let alone electrify the soul of an electric eel and Kerry who's dullness can honestly kill the immortal and put to sleep a man who just smoked $500 worth of crack.

You know, people say that's the past and let it go. I say no. I say that our society is in a shitty time period and we can learn from the past and use those secrets and tips to progress to the future. One may compare it to how in Europe in the middle ages, during the Renaissance, Italians went back to the secrets of the Greeks and Romans to better their current civilization. It is possible to take the good from the past and use it to fight today's social problems, and arguably the number 1 problem is apathy.

The decline in the fire behind politics mixed with the growing levels of general apathy due to the "comfort level" is to blame behind this, and I for one can't stand it, hate those who don't care, and will, in my lifetime, personally change things.

It's because we don't elect passionate people. This might be remembered as an era of conservatives IN politics, more than of conservative politics.

Someone like Bush isn't elected for his fiery rhetoric. Someone like Bush isn't elected for being able to string together a whole sentence.

There are people who might have fire in their bellies (even in American politics), but it's hard to get them elected.

(Example: http://youtube.com/gravel2008)

The decline in the fire behind politics mixed with the growing levels of general apathy due to the "comfort level" is to blame behind this, and I for one can't stand it, hate those who don't care, and will, in my lifetime, personally change things.There is no decline in the fire behind politics. What there is is a decline in people willing to put up with hollow propaganda.

The 'great' speeches of the past all took place in either a time of conflict between opposing ideologies or in an environment of upheaval - whether that be war or some paradigm shift in social policies.

Another factor might be that it is no longer possible to get away with anything, accuracy-wise, in a political speech. Thanks to the rise of the Internet every single member of the target audience for any given speech is able to check for themselves the veracity of what has been said and, even if the audience don't, you can be sure that the political opponents of whoever dares open their mouth will be going through whatever has been stated as fact with a fine-toothed comb, and will pounce on any inconsistency or inaccuracy, however trivial.

There is and always will be a conflict between opposing ideologies. It's just in the past, people cared about these things more. Now they'd rather watch to see who leaves the house in The Real World.:rolleyes:

Also, a valid point in the internet statement...but just because a leader gives an inspirational speech does not mean it has to be filled with falacies...
Mass media metapolitics filter out originality and personality, among other things. The field of speech that allows a candidate to retain electability is increasingly narrow. An "ask not" style Kennedy speech, or any of those speeches would be career-enders today because they are not parsible by the "We analyze, you decide" style of media commentary.
I disagree. I think that that candidate would get alot of support. For instance, Ron Paul gives nice inspirational speeches and statements that really shake things up and he's enjoying alot of sucess, notably in the university areas.

"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"? Antagonistic, they would say.
"I have a dream"? Preachy, idealistic, and unrealistic.
"Give me liberty or give me death!"? Vain warmongering.
"Ask not"? Fascist.
:rolleyes: You suck as an audience member. By the way, if you thought THOSE were bad, I'm glad you didn't comment on the German ones.

Today if you so much as Dean Scream (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_Scream), your career is fux0red.
Yeah but that was fucking gay and everyone knows it. That's not an inspirational speech but rather the sound of a pig being offed.

The need for inspirational political leadership is only during wars and other great crisises. That being lacking in the contemporary first world, politicians are limited to trade agreements and mundane domestic affairs. If you want to, we could start a war to change that...
I think a great leader can get people to rise up even in peace time. Even just to say, "this nation is too comfterable! We are all disillusioned by our government but to lazy to intervene to change it! Let's make ourselves heard!"...ect ect ect
It's because we don't elect passionate people. This might be remembered as an era of conservatives IN politics, more than of conservative politics.
Yes, and this is a problem I'm trying to address.
Someone like Bush isn't elected for his fiery rhetoric. Someone like Bush isn't elected for being able to string together a whole sentence.

There are people who might have fire in their bellies (even in American politics), but it's hard to get them elected.

Ron Paul is also one.
There is no decline in the fire behind politics. What there is is a decline in people willing to put up with hollow propaganda.
How German of you. Must EVERYTHING that get's peope to rise up and take interest be evil nazi propoganda? :rolleyes:

How German of you. Must EVERYTHING that get's peope to rise up and take interest be evil nazi propoganda? :rolleyes:

I like how you put the 'evil nazi' bit in there. Freudian slip, one might say.

I like how you put the 'evil nazi' bit in there. Freudian slip, one might say.
No. I put it in there on purpose with full meaning. Because him and Neu Leonstein are against anything that might be related to patriotism, nationalism, getting the general populace to their feet because of what happend to Germany under the Nazis.

"Rarely is the question asked, is our children learning?" - w

Why isn't that up there? Has a more pertinent question ever been asked, ever?

"Rarely is the question asked, is our children learning?" - w

Why isn't that up there? Has a more pertinent question ever been asked, ever?
.......

:rolleyes: You suck as an audience member. By the way, if you thought THOSE were bad, I'm glad you didn't comment on the German ones.

And what, exactly, would make him a good audience member?

Now, let's not focus on the politics or even the morality behind these speeches and bold statements, but on the speeches themselves. Why arn't there any leaders who give bold speeches anymore? Why don't leaders use speeches to electrify the souls of their people, inspire awe into their nations and simply shock the world?

Where has all the passion from politics/leadership gone? Instead of Ronald Reagans and JFK's, we have Bush who can hardly speak let alone electrify the soul of an electric eel and Kerry who's dullness can honestly kill the immortal and put to sleep a man who just smoked $500 worth of crack.

You know, people say that's the past and let it go. I say no. I say that our society is in a shitty time period and we can learn from the past and use those secrets and tips to progress to the future. One may compare it to how in Europe in the middle ages, during the Renaissance, Italians went back to the secrets of the Greeks and Romans to better their current civilization. It is possible to take the good from the past and use it to fight today's social problems, and arguably the number 1 problem is apathy.

The decline in the fire behind politics mixed with the growing levels of general apathy due to the "comfort level" is to blame behind this, and I for one can't stand it, hate those who don't care, and will, in my lifetime, personally change things.

You should run for president.

You should run for president.

Oh god help us

No. I put it in there on purpose with full meaning. Because him and Neu Leonstein are against anything that might be related to patriotism, nationalism, getting the general populace to their feet because of what happend to Germany under the Nazis.

I can't speak for NL, but I'm pretty sure you just made a strawman fallacy.

Not to mention euphemistically equating opposition to Nazism, racism, bigotry, fascism as "against anything that might be related to... getting the general populace on their feet."

Good job, I didn't think the NS bigots club could accomplish so much in one short post.

And what, exactly, would make him a good audience member?
He had a retarded reaction to some of histories greatest speeches/phrases. "Give me liberty or give me death" is not vain war mongering, it's a cry for liberty.

"Ask not what your country can do for you" is not fascism, it's just Patriotism and is part of a larger phrase: ""My fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you -- ask what can you do for your country. My fellow citizens of the world, ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man." Yes, how fascist. :rolleyes:

"I have a dream" Preachy, idealistic, and unrealistic ???? Speeches ARE preachy as they are telling others how, in your opinion they should behave think and act! Idealistic?!?! Since when is that bad? Unrealistic? This speech had a drastic change on the most important country in the world. I think not.

"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" Antongistic? Wow...antagonstic..it's not like we were locked in a global conflict over who's ideology would deem supreme and control the globe? Wouldn't want to give a speech about giving freedom to Germany and being antagonistic, would we?

Like I said, he'd be a terrible audience member.

You should run for president.
I'd love to and I would be better than anyone running now, that's for damn sure. I'd breathe life back into our politics and awaken our nation, a sleeping giant.
Oh god help us
Why, exactly?

Ron Paul is also one.


I prefer the one where the horse tries to order beer.

Like I said, he'd be a terrible audience member.

I didn't ask what made him a "terrible audience member", I asked what would make him a good one.

Why, exactly?

Dillusions of grandeur, for starters:

I'd love to and I would be better than anyone running now, that's for damn sure. I'd breathe life back into our politics and awaken our nation, a sleeping giant.

Yes yes, you're so VERY special.

I didn't ask what made him a "terrible audience member", I asked what would make him a good one.
Maybe understand things for what they are instead of just jumping to retarded leftist conclusions that cause him to oppose everything?

I prefer the one where the horse tries to order beer.
lol. I'm sure I would have laughed if I understood it. Care to explain it or will the joke be forever lost on me, cast into the sands of time and forgotten like my 1st period French?
Dillusions of grandeur, for starters:
Dillusions? What makes you think that? Seriously, I'm interested to know...


Yes yes, you're so VERY special.
I would breathe life back into the system and do my best to get a great nation to rise to it's feet. What makes you think I'd be any worse than any of living corpses we have in Washington today?

How German of you. Must EVERYTHING that get's peope to rise up and take interest be evil nazi propoganda? :rolleyes:

Because all of those people that made those inspirational speeches delivered? There was lots of Anti-USSR speeches made by American presidents, promising to protect the world from communism, yet I didn't see the U.S coming in to Hungary's aid durring their revolution, nor Poland's. So yes, plenty of these inspirational speeches were empty rheortic.

Maybe understand things for what they are instead of just jumping to retarded leftist conclusions that cause him to oppose everything?

A healthy dose of cynicism (not a near-lethal dose such as he had) is very much a good thing, especially in this day and age. Unfortunately, cynicism makes a good speech rather difficult to appreciate.

lol. I'm sure I would have laughed if I understood it. Care to explain it or will the joke be forever lost on me, cast into the sands of time and forgotten like my 1st period French?


A horse walks into a bar.
He walks up to the barman, and asks for a beer.
The barman looks him up and down, reaches for the glass and says "why the long face?"

A healthy dose of cynicism (not a near-lethal dose such as he had) is very much a good thing, especially in this day and age.
Agreed...it seperates a man from a sheep.
Unfortunately, cynicism makes a good speech rather difficult to appreciate.
Disagreed. It just means our leaders need to be that much more educated and factual when moving their people. Which is not a bad thing....
Because all of those people that made those inspirational speeches delivered? There was lots of Anti-USSR speeches made by American presidents, promising to protect the world from communism, yet I didn't see the U.S coming in to Hungary's aid durring their revolution, nor Poland's. So yes, plenty of these inspirational speeches were empty rheortic.
Yes and America never worked hard to prevent Communism from spreading, fed East-Berliners and tried it's hardest to stop Communism, but we could not invade Eastern Europe....that would be the worst possible mistake we could have made. We were trying to defeat Communism without declaring de-facto war on the Soviet Union. Don't ya know?

There is and always will be a conflict between opposing ideologies. It's just in the past, people cared about these things more. Now they'd rather watch to see who leaves the house in The Real World
I agree up to a point, but the ideological conflict only really grabs people's attention when it is at the forefront of their domestic politics, as was the case when Kennedy and Reagan made the speeches cited in the OP. As for the reality TV thing, yeah, no contest... it pisses me off, too.

just because a leader gives an inspirational speech does not mean it has to be filled with falacies...
Quite true, and I am not suggesting that all inspirational speeches made by leaders are filled with fallacies. However, some are (or rather, were) and the access that people have to resources that allow them to corroborate what they're spoon-fed by their leaders is an excellent thing in my book - a sort of DIY option replacing part of the role of the press in a democracy, as it were.

Another thing that I haven't seen anyone mention in this thread is that there is a sort of mass selective memory effect. Speeches get labelled and lauded as 'great' if a significant part of what was said turns out to have been true, or if predictions made turn out to have been prescient. Nobody remembers the other parts of the speech, the little inaccuracies or pieces of wishful thinking that, with hindsight, just look like naiveté. Instead, such passages simply get glossed over.

For example, Kennedy's inaugural address will always be remembered for the "ask not..." quote, and for the statement of intent to keep the US at the top of the pile militarily, come what may, and these passages get quoted time and time again by people who want to show their patriotism. How often do you hear anyone referring to his pledge to combat poverty across the globe? The whole "To those people in the huts and villages of half the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required -- not because the Communists may be doing it, not because we seek their votes, but because it is right. If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich." It's as if people feel free to forget about it because they no longer fear the Communist threat.

There are countless other examples. Also, lest anyone think that I'm bashing the US unnecessarily, I only chose Kennedy's address because it is the one I am most familiar with. Similar examples could, I am quite sure, be culled from the speeches of the leaders of any nations.

Mostly, though, I think that it's the apathy thing that stops people caring. People are no longer interested, and so politicians no longer need to try.

Disagreed. It just means our leaders need to be that much more educated and factual when moving their people. Which is not a bad thing....

A good thing yes, but hardly likely as it's so often counterproductive to what they're trying to do.

Dillusions of grandeur, for starters:



Yes yes, you're so VERY special. If someone didn't think that they could outdo all the others, they wouldn't be wanting to run for President.

So on this count he's Presidential Material--at least he's passed the test of having the ego that is required for the job.

Not to bring out NSG's eternal boogeyman, but in all honesty, I think its...
POLITICAL CORRECTNESS.
Yeah, you cant make a nice, firey, impassioned speech without it being offensive to SOMEBODY, because one of the main components of most firey, impassioned speeches is pointing out that somebody is the enemy/is inferior/made the French win WWI.
Firey impassioned speeches get you in trouble, basically. Hence, the need for GOOD speeches dies out, because nobody listens to the speeches, because theyre boring. The National Speechwriters Guild atrophies and dies out and we end up hiring cheap Chinese speechwriters instead.


That and Putin bought out all the good speechwriters.

No. I put it in there on purpose with full meaning. Because him and Neu Leonstein are against anything that might be related to patriotism, nationalism, getting the general populace to their feet because of what happend to Germany under the Nazis.
And I can tell you why. Communal love and happiness are very bad motivators. People will do all sorts of stuff to make themselves happy, but unless you pay them they'll be hesitant to do anything for the community.

Even the best speech doesn't make an impact if all it goes after is positive emotions. So what do most of these soundbites you have there (by the way, that's why there are no more great speeches - people only listen to soundbites) have in common? They attempt to make people angry at the present situation.

Politics based on emotions will primarily be politics based on anger. And politics of anger are politics of force - and force aims to make reason unnecessary by not relying on arguments to convince the other mind of a given course of action. One or two of your soundbites make this patently obvious - what else is "ask what you can do for your country" than a call to ignore one's own judgement of actions and instead follow the judgement of "the country"?

And besides, Bush tried one of those speeches, remember? "Axis of Evil", he said.

And besides, Bush tried one of those speeches, remember? "Axis of Evil", he said.

That was a pretty electrifying speech.

Probably not in the way he intended. But that's the thing with electricity.

I disagree. I think that that candidate would get alot of support. For instance, Ron Paul gives nice inspirational speeches and statements that really shake things up and he's enjoying alot of sucess, notably in the university areas.
Ron Paul is a complete idiot, an intellectual lightweight who's ideology falls apart under scrutiny even before questions of practicality. The only reason he's getting attention is because of the backlash against Neoconservatism and the Dem's unwillingness to take a firm stand against it. Be assured that if anybody in the major networks thought Ron Paul had a chance of winning, he would be strung out to dry.

:rolleyes: You suck as an audience member. By the way, if you thought THOSE were bad, I'm glad you didn't comment on the German ones.Maybe I wasn't being clear, but those weren't my opinions, they were what the media would say if those speeches were given in the present day.

Yeah but that was fucking gay and everyone knows it. That's not an inspirational speech but rather the sound of a pig being offed.That's what the media wants you to think. In fact, the sound played on Fox News over and over was nothing like the real sound in the Val Air Ballroom, which was a throng of cheering supporters. That somebody should consider making a decision over who should be president over something as petty as a non-linguistic utterance demonstrates just how much the mass media milks these things.

"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!",
"Wollt ihr den totalen Krieg?",
"Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country!",
"Der Sieg des Glaubens",
"I have a dream!",
"Give me liberty or give me death!"

Now, let's not focus on the politics or even the morality behind these speeches and bold statements, but on the speeches themselves. Why arn't there any leaders who give bold speeches anymore? Why don't leaders use speeches to electrify the souls of their people, inspire awe into their nations and simply shock the world?

Where has all the passion from politics/leadership gone? Instead of Ronald Reagans and JFK's, we have Bush who can hardly speak let alone electrify the soul of an electric eel and Kerry who's dullness can honestly kill the immortal and put to sleep a man who just smoked $500 worth of crack.

You know, people say that's the past and let it go. I say no. I say that our society is in a shitty time period and we can learn from the past and use those secrets and tips to progress to the future. One may compare it to how in Europe in the middle ages, during the Renaissance, Italians went back to the secrets of the Greeks and Romans to better their current civilization. It is possible to take the good from the past and use it to fight today's social problems, and arguably the number 1 problem is apathy.

The decline in the fire behind politics mixed with the growing levels of general apathy due to the "comfort level" is to blame behind this, and I for one can't stand it, hate those who don't care, and will, in my lifetime, personally change things.

What does "Wollt ihr den totalen Krieg?" mean?

Not to bring out NSG's eternal boogeyman, but in all honesty, I think its...
POLITICAL CORRECTNESS.
Yeah, you cant make a nice, firey, impassioned speech without it being offensive to SOMEBODY, because one of the main components of most firey, impassioned speeches is pointing out that somebody is the enemy/is inferior/made the French win WWI.
Firey impassioned speeches get you in trouble, basically. Hence, the need for GOOD speeches dies out, because nobody listens to the speeches, because theyre boring. The National Speechwriters Guild atrophies and dies out and we end up hiring cheap Chinese speechwriters instead.


That and Putin bought out all the good speechwriters.

LOL :p

Ich bin ein Berliner!

What does "Wollt ihr den totalen Krieg?" mean?
It means "Do you [all] want total war!?"......it's one fo the most famous phrases, here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoV7Vzq3pps

I'll respond to the last couple posts later but I'm busy with my studies right now.

Who are we talking about, and why is the poor sod's soul in a river in Poland?

Dillusions? What makes you think that? Seriously, I'm interested to know...

Well...for starters...

I would breathe life back into the system

That's one...

What makes you think I'd be any worse than any of living corpses we have in Washington today?

Your overt racism, perhaps?

Oh my fucking lord. Now he wants to be President of the US.

It's chilling.

Oh my fucking lord. Now he wants to be President of the US.
Yeah I think I'd be up for the job. I could do this country alot of good and run it better than most of the foolios we have on board (Democrat and Republican).
It's chilling.
Yeah it is a bit cold isn't it? Must be the wind chill...you know from the winds of change...

That's one...
As if that's a bad thing...


Your overt racism, perhaps?
You say tomato...I say a better understanding of reality rather than your utopian ideas of "everyone loves each other and anyone who says this is not reality IS RACIST!".

I agree up to a point, but the ideological conflict only really grabs people's attention when it is at the forefront of their domestic politics, as was the case when Kennedy and Reagan made the speeches cited in the OP. As for the reality TV thing, yeah, no contest... it pisses me off, too.


Quite true, and I am not suggesting that all inspirational speeches made by leaders are filled with fallacies. However, some are (or rather, were) and the access that people have to resources that allow them to corroborate what they're spoon-fed by their leaders is an excellent thing in my book - a sort of DIY option replacing part of the role of the press in a democracy, as it were.

Another thing that I haven't seen anyone mention in this thread is that there is a sort of mass selective memory effect. Speeches get labelled and lauded as 'great' if a significant part of what was said turns out to have been true, or if predictions made turn out to have been prescient. Nobody remembers the other parts of the speech, the little inaccuracies or pieces of wishful thinking that, with hindsight, just look like naiveté. Instead, such passages simply get glossed over.

For example, Kennedy's inaugural address will always be remembered for the "ask not..." quote, and for the statement of intent to keep the US at the top of the pile militarily, come what may, and these passages get quoted time and time again by people who want to show their patriotism. How often do you hear anyone referring to his pledge to combat poverty across the globe? The whole "To those people in the huts and villages of half the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required -- not because the Communists may be doing it, not because we seek their votes, but because it is right. If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich." It's as if people feel free to forget about it because they no longer fear the Communist threat.

There are countless other examples. Also, lest anyone think that I'm bashing the US unnecessarily, I only chose Kennedy's address because it is the one I am most familiar with. Similar examples could, I am quite sure, be culled from the speeches of the leaders of any nations.

Mostly, though, I think that it's the apathy thing that stops people caring. People are no longer interested, and so politicians no longer need to try.
This has probably been the best response in this thread and the best post I've seen in general in a while. Very interesting and good breakdown of ideas and arguement. Excellent post, thank you for contributing in my thread.
And I can tell you why. Communal love and happiness are very bad motivators. People will do all sorts of stuff to make themselves happy, but unless you pay them they'll be hesitant to do anything for the community.
But not unless you rally them up so that they become inspired to do things for the community.
Even the best speech doesn't make an impact if all it goes after is positive emotions. So what do most of these soundbites you have there (by the way, that's why there are no more great speeches - people only listen to soundbites) have in common? They attempt to make people angry at the present situation.

Politics based on emotions will primarily be politics based on anger. And politics of anger are politics of force - and force aims to make reason unnecessary by not relying on arguments to convince the other mind of a given course of action. One or two of your soundbites make this patently obvious - what else is "ask what you can do for your country" than a call to ignore one's own judgement of actions and instead follow the judgement of "the country"?
There is ALWAYS something wrong and there always WILL be....and it is not wrong to be angry about the bad/evil/wrong in the world and bring the masses to light about these wrongs that need be righted. By the way, that paragraph was very Yoda like. :p
And besides, Bush tried one of those speeches, remember? "Axis of Evil", he said.
Yes but I've already said that Bush is not a powerful public speaker and even if the content of his speech may contain power, he cannot deliver it in the way that it deserves to be delivered. Anyway, if people were to be moved, it would not be because of some Iraqi dictator, but problems at home or problems that DIRECTLY effect our nation.

Ron Paul is a complete idiot, an intellectual lightweight who's ideology falls apart under scrutiny even before questions of practicality. The only reason he's getting attention is because of the backlash against Neoconservatism and the Dem's unwillingness to take a firm stand against it. Be assured that if anybody in the major networks thought Ron Paul had a chance of winning, he would be strung out to dry.
Disagree 110%.

Maybe I wasn't being clear, but those weren't my opinions, they were what the media would say if those speeches were given in the present day.
I doubt that. And anyway some people can make a huge impact even without the media. Ron Paul's word is spreading like wild fire and has a HUGE grass roots support and the media hates him.

That's what the media wants you to think. In fact, the sound played on Fox News over and over was nothing like the real sound in the Val Air Ballroom, which was a throng of cheering supporters. That somebody should consider making a decision over who should be president over something as petty as a non-linguistic utterance demonstrates just how much the mass media milks these things.
Proof that the media forged the sound, please?

But not unless you rally them up so that they become inspired to do things for the community.
So in other words, your goal is to use emotions to control people. But if that is your goal it doesn't take too long to realise how much easier it is to get people to do your bidding by appealing to negative feelings rather than positive ones.

For some reason this reminds me of the view of the bad guys in "Atlas Shrugged": reward and punishment are equivalent, but punishment is more practical.

There is ALWAYS something wrong and there always WILL be....and it is not wrong to be angry about the bad/evil/wrong in the world and bring the masses to light about these wrongs that need be righted.
You do realise that things like "the masses" and "community" only exist because of appeals to emotion, right? No one considers themselves part of a nation in any more than an organisational sense if it wasn't for feelings.

Look, the true evil is not to think. Without thought there can be no morality and no moral action. Whether you use an emotive speech or a gun, if your goal is to suppress thought (as any form of collectivism necessarily must) your goal is to make sure your own will can reign supreme, without a need for justification or objectivity. That is what you are saying, and it's equivalent to being able to pretend that objective reality is not what it is and the idea that simply wanting something is enough to make it appear or give you a right to it.

And that is what I've been telling you about why I consider politics dirty business. Whether it's Chávez with his legislature or King with his rhetoric, if an argument is not based on rational facts and figures but on force or emotion, the goal is simply to impose one person's will on everyone else. There is no knowing whether that will is a good thing, and no need to ever find out is considered necessary. Reason necessarily imposes a standard, namely that of objective truth as determined by the facts available to our perception and judgement. That standard is the only one that we know exists. If you ignore it, all you have is arbitrariness, and no reason other than your own emotions to consider King superior to Chávez or Mother Teresa superior to Adolf Hitler.

And if Hitler happens to be a better orator than Mother Teresa, well, who are we to say the result is bad? People didn't feel it was bad, right?

How German of you. Must EVERYTHING that get's peope to rise up and take interest be evil nazi propoganda? :rolleyes:Oh please. You make it seem like convincing stupid people to do stupid things with a few stupid words is actually a good thing. People becoming smart enough to look past the appeal of strong words spoken by someone is a very good development. It's well worth the slight increase in apathy that accompanies it.

Ron Paul's word is spreading like wild fire and has a HUGE grass roots support...

It has to be said, it does appear that grass would be his ideal target demographic...

I'm not that much into politics but I do admit if I was one of those high ranking people which would be a complete Nightmare if it did happen I do have some speeches like that. but yeah...i don't go for politics that much unless it deals with the military.

Its becuase we have no truly "great" people in office anymore. We have liars, and criminals.
An awful lot of "great" leaders were also liars and criminals, to some degree.
No one gives a fuck about anything but themselves and what they personally can get out of life in general.
ah yes, the libertarian ideal.
Great men say great things. Assholes reveal themselves for what they are.
Whereas great assholes say great things that reveal themselves? I point to Goebbels for example.

Someone like Bush isn't elected for his fiery rhetoric. Someone like Bush isn't elected for being able to string together a whole sentence.
Someone like Bush is elected (in theory) for being a competent leader capable of managing the interests of those he represents -- either the common people, or the local warlords, or Big Business with a capital N.

And what, exactly, would make him a good audience member?
Be a good follower, run along now and do exactly as you're told. Extra points if you manage to convince yourself you're thinking independently.
A healthy dose of cynicism (not a near-lethal dose such as he had) is very much a good thing, especially in this day and age. Unfortunately, cynicism makes a good speech rather difficult to appreciate.
There we go again. Why is it that these days everyone equates cynicism with maturity? I've noticed it everywhere. It's as though, in order for something to be properly "mature" and "adult", its message has to be bleak and pessimistic. (I'm bleak and pessimistic, and I have no friends.)

I would breathe life back into the system and do my best to get a great nation to rise to it's feet. What makes you think I'd be any worse than any of living corpses we have in Washington today?
So tell me, oh mighty statesman, how long have you been Secretary General of your high school's Model UN?

And anyway some people can make a huge impact even without the media.I would like to believe this, but I don't. Who has had a large impact without the media?

Proof that the media forged the sound, please?I wasn't "forged," it's just what you get when a unidirectional mic records a scream uttered by a hoarse man who probably can't hear himself very well because everybody's cheering and there are no good soundpeople in Iowa (I know this for a fact), so the monitors suck, and then the networks take the line straight from the board's shitty mix with no crowd sound, and then put it directly into the TV-slick max compression. Yeear!

So in other words, your goal is to use emotions to control people. But if that is your goal it doesn't take too long to realise how much easier it is to get people to do your bidding by appealing to negative feelings rather than positive ones.

For some reason this reminds me of the view of the bad guys in "Atlas Shrugged": reward and punishment are equivalent, but punishment is more practical.


You do realise that things like "the masses" and "community" only exist because of appeals to emotion, right? No one considers themselves part of a nation in any more than an organisational sense if it wasn't for feelings.

Look, the true evil is not to think. Without thought there can be no morality and no moral action. Whether you use an emotive speech or a gun, if your goal is to suppress thought (as any form of collectivism necessarily must) your goal is to make sure your own will can reign supreme, without a need for justification or objectivity. That is what you are saying, and it's equivalent to being able to pretend that objective reality is not what it is and the idea that simply wanting something is enough to make it appear or give you a right to it.

And that is what I've been telling you about why I consider politics dirty business. Whether it's Chávez with his legislature or King with his rhetoric, if an argument is not based on rational facts and figures but on force or emotion, the goal is simply to impose one person's will on everyone else. There is no knowing whether that will is a good thing, and no need to ever find out is considered necessary. Reason necessarily imposes a standard, namely that of objective truth as determined by the facts available to our perception and judgement. That standard is the only one that we know exists. If you ignore it, all you have is arbitrariness, and no reason other than your own emotions to consider King superior to Chávez or Mother Teresa superior to Adolf Hitler.

And if Hitler happens to be a better orator than Mother Teresa, well, who are we to say the result is bad? People didn't feel it was bad, right?
I can't say I agree with everything you said there...but you really gave me something to think about. Congrats. I'm not quite sure how to respond to that. Excellent point.

Oh please. You make it seem like convincing stupid people to do stupid things with a few stupid words is actually a good thing. People becoming smart enough to look past the appeal of strong words spoken by someone is a very good development. It's well worth the slight increase in apathy that accompanies it.
But I'm not talking about stupids words nor stupid tings. I'm talking about good words and good outcomes. Also, you talk about "convincing stupid people" yet you don't seme to have a problem with the increase in apathy, which IS stupidity.
It has to be said, it does appear that grass would be his ideal target demographic...
As in, low class people or what?

Someone like Bush is elected (in theory) for being a competent leader capable of managing the interests of those he represents -- either the common people, or the local warlords, or Big Business with a capital N.
How unfortunate? So why just accept it and don't try to change it or engage in healthy debate about it to find ways to change it?

So tell me, oh mighty statesman, how long have you been Secretary General of your high school's Model UN?
I actually just started going to Model UN! That's funny you should say that....but no I'm not the Secretary General...but I fail to see your point?
I would like to believe this, but I don't. Who has had a large impact without the media?
Ron Paul?

It wasn't "forged," it's just what you get when a unidirectional mic records a scream uttered by a hoarse man who probably can't hear himself very well because everybody's cheering and there are no good soundpeople in Iowa (I know this for a fact), so the monitors suck, and then the networks take the line straight from the board's shitty mix with no crowd sound, and then put it directly into the TV-slick max compression. Yeear!
Whatever I wasn't there but it sounded totally ridiculous and non-comparable to the earth-shattering, rally-around speeches I'm talking about.

Ich bin ein Berliner!

Really? Good, beckause I happen to be hungry. How much do you ckost?

As in, low class people or what?

Nope. Grass. Sounds about right.

Nope. Grass. Sounds about right.
What do you even mean?

Really? Good, beckause I happen to be hungry. How much do you ckost?

;)

I was looking through my television history DVD, and I came across Al Gore's concession speech from 2000. I gotta say, that was the most heartfelt and appealing speech I have seen in years.

Yes and America never worked hard to prevent Communism from spreading, fed East-Berliners and tried it's hardest to stop Communism, but we could not invade Eastern Europe....that would be the worst possible mistake we could have made. We were trying to defeat Communism without declaring de-facto war on the Soviet Union. Don't ya know?

I never said it would be a good idea, in fact it would probably have been disatrous. My point was that the actions (or lack of in that instance) didn't match up with the speeches being given. Hence empty rheortic.

Dillusions of grandeur, for starters:



Yes yes, you're so VERY special.

Sorry, but that made me cringe. it's DELUSIONS. Sorry, you're not the only one in this thread to make spelling mistakes but that one irked me. The greatest problem with the world today is that people aren't thinking. They merely acquiesce to the opinion given by the television or the radio and leave it at that.

The world would be a much better place if people actively questioned what was being said. Not for the sake of questioning, of course, but to prevent such lies and deception such as those presented by the Bush regime from being perpetuated for so long.

I never said it would be a good idea, in fact it would probably have been disatrous. My point was that the actions (or lack of in that instance) didn't match up with the speeches being given. Hence empty rheortic.
Yes they did! We said we would strive to protect Europe and the world from Communism (which we did/do) not that we will invade the Soviet Union...

Yes they did! We said we would strive to protect Europe and the world from Communism (which we did/do) not that we will invade the Soviet Union...

What heroes. 'Protecting' people from freedom to choose is so dashing.

Kind of hard since I don't believe in souls.

How do you electrify something that does not exist?

But I'm not talking about stupids words nor stupid tings. I'm talking about good words and good outcomes. And you're missing my point. When I look back at inspiring words like "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself," or such things, I suddenly realize just how hollow and meaningless they really are, if you take the time to think about them instead of letting them fill you up.
Also, you talk about "convincing stupid people" yet you don't seme to have a problem with the increase in apathy, which IS stupidity.Stupid people are more likely to be convinced or swayed by big words. The effect is multiplied by peer pressure, so a group of people will most likely be easier fooled than an individual that doesn't have to consider what a bunch of peers think about him/her. Apathy and stupidity aren't the same thing. Apathy can be caused by lots of things. Laziness is one. The ability to realize none of the choices are worth the effort, i.e. an intelligent observation, would also lead to apathy.

What heroes. 'Protecting' people from freedom to choose is so dashing.
You can't possibly be that thick, can you? Let's take an educational trip over to the former Eastern-Block countries and ask them if they had the 'freedom to choose" whether or not to be enslaved.....

Lame, dude. Real lame.
Kind of hard since I don't believe in souls.

How do you electrify something that does not exist?
Hardly matters whether or not you beleive in a soul as long as you understand the context of the quote.

You can't possibly be that thick, can you? Let's take an educational trip over to the former Eastern-Block countries and ask them if they had the 'freedom to choose" whether or not to be enslaved.....Lets not forget the Iranians and Chileneans...

You can't possibly be that thick, can you? Let's take an educational trip over to the former Eastern-Block countries and ask them if they had the 'freedom to choose" whether or not to be enslaved.....

No, this is good. While we're on that trip we can ask them if the US ever "protected" them.

You'll get the opposite answer. The US turned a blind eye to communism for decades. The US sat back and let the Russians conquer those countries in the first place. The US sat back and did nothing while thousands and thousands of people were sent into gulags and millions oppressed. You think because the USSR (eventually) collapsed, that anyone there is going to be grateful to the USA for it? For making their lives in any way better? Sorry, making the survivor's lives in any way better?

Lame, dude. Real lame.

Mmmmm.

Hardly matters whether or not you beleive in a soul as long as you understand the context of the quote.

I believe the contextual translation would be, "You must speak to his fear in order to electrify him."

Now, let's not focus on the politics or even the morality behind these speeches and bold statements, but on the speeches themselves. Why arn't there any leaders who give bold speeches anymore? Why don't leaders use speeches to electrify the souls of their people, inspire awe into their nations and simply shock the world?

<snipped for brevity>

The decline in the fire behind politics mixed with the growing levels of general apathy due to the "comfort level" is to blame behind this, and I for one can't stand it, hate those who don't care, and will, in my lifetime, personally change things.

Well, if we're going to have demagoguery, let's at least make it more entertaining so people get interested. Sure, why not?

Well, if we're going to have demagoguery, let's at least make it more entertaining so people get interested. Sure, why not?Surely more could be achieved with novelty hats than with words in that regard?

Lets not forget the Iranians and Chileneans...
Well I'd be happy to debate those issues in a different thread, but here we talking about America's speeches against Soviet Europe and the enslavement of Eastern-Europe and such...so for the sake of relevancy, let's keep it on topic to Europe. (Though by all means, create a new thread about Iran and Chile)
No, this is good. While we're on that trip we can ask them if the US ever "protected" them.
Berlin Airlift?
You'll get the opposite answer. The US turned a blind eye to communism for decades. The US sat back and let the Russians conquer those countries in the first place. The US sat back and did nothing while thousands and thousands of people were sent into gulags and millions oppressed. You think because the USSR (eventually) collapsed, that anyone there is going to be grateful to the USA for it? For making their lives in any way better? Sorry, making the survivor's lives in any way better?
No...we didn't exactly "let the Russians conquer" Eastern Europe...that was their area of occupation from WWII...none of us were ready for another war against Russia. Learn history. America did as much as it could without resorting to attacking Russia, but there is only so much one can do to difuse a nuclear-powered super power.... Learn geo-politics.
Yes, in fact. I'm sure that you've never been to Eastern Europe but if you go there is generally alot more of a pro-American feeling because of how fresh the cold war is in their minds. This may have been diluted a bit because of the Iraq war, but it exists nonetheless. Not my fault if you don't travel, but rather sit at home and act like you know the opinions of people in places you have never visited. Travel.

Mmmmm.
Enjoying the taste of pwnage is "mmm", I know.


I believe the contextual translation would be, "You must speak to his fear in order to electrify him."
"Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."

Wow, how scary. I'm shaking in my little space boots.:rolleyes:

Berlin Airlift?


Mmm, yeah. Let's ask some of the East Berliners if they think that airlift made up for 50 years of inaction.

No...we didn't exactly "let the Russians conquer" Eastern Europe...that was their area of occupation from WWII...

....which the US agreed upon. Hey, it was only Stalin, how bad could the guy be, right?

Seriously, let's go to East Europe. I want to meet some of the throngs of people who you think owe you and I gratitude for "protecting" them from communism. You get your bags ready?

Learn history.

I know history well enough to shit all of your "LOL WE PROTECTED THEM" self-congratulatory ejaculations.

Learn geo-politics.

I love how you presume I must be ignorant for disagreeing with your fap.

Oh well, I didn't expect much from you on this so I'm not exactly disappointed.

Yes, in fact. I'm sure that you've never been to Eastern Europe

Irrelevant. You and me and GnI are going, yes?

And yeah, I wasn't born in Eastern Europe, my family managed to emigrate before things got too bad. Luckily for us we weren't sitting around waiting for the US to "protect" us from the communists, or else I most likely wouldn't be alive today. You know, what with the 80 years of "protection" that I, if I only knew geo-politics or history, might assume that the place got.

but if you go there is generally alot more of a pro-American feeling because of how fresh the cold war is in their minds. This may have been diluted a bit because of the Iraq war, but it exists nonetheless.

Being pro-American doesn't mean they agree that they were "protected" against communism.

Fail.

Not my fault if you don't travel, but rather sit at home and act like you know the opinions of people in places you have never visited. Travel.

Wait, did I bring up the "people over there, they love us, this is what their opinion is and it agrees with me" argument?

No. That was you. Me, I don't resort to unfalsifiable statements followed by asshattery as a method of debate.


Enjoying the taste of pwnage is "mmm", I know.

Grow the fuck up if all you're here to do is "pwn" people by making stupid, illogical arguments based on little more than your own masturbatory fantasy life.


"Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."

Wow, how scary. I'm shaking in my little space boots.:rolleyes:

Did you actually think that was a rebuttal of something I said?

I suppose you thought it was more "pwnage."

When you're through building non-arguments with fallacy and non-rebuttals with delusion I'll be happy to put you in your place again. Until then I think I might be in violation of cruelty to animal laws.

Surely more could be achieved with novelty hats than with words in that regard?

I dunno. Ask a Bishop. They have cool hats.

"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!", Done. :D
"Wollt ihr den totalen Krieg?",Hell no! (Now that would've been the right answer!)
"Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country!",Meh.
"Der Sieg des Glaubens",Not again?
"I have a dream!",So do I.
"Give me liberty or give me death!"And give me the Patriot Act as well? :p

Now, let's not focus on the politics or even the morality behind these speeches and bold statements, but on the speeches themselves. Why arn't there any leaders who give bold speeches anymore? Why don't leaders use speeches to electrify the souls of their people, inspire awe into their nations and simply shock the world?
Beats me. But it would have to be a pretty good speech to get through to the masses.

Hell, I mean, back in the days, a TV station managed to broadcast a year-old New-Year's speech of Chancellor Kohl and nobody noticed until the very last minute when he wished everyone a happy "wrong" new year.

No. I put it in there on purpose with full meaning. Because him and Neu Leonstein are against anything that might be related to patriotism, nationalism, getting the general populace to their feet because of what happened to Germany under the Nazis.
Count me in as well.

Mmm, yeah. Let's ask some of the East Berliners if they think that airlift made up for 50 years of inaction.
Not invading the Soviet states or the Soviet puppet states does not equal inaction. People in Berlin were very happy to know that Americans cared about them and flew in supplies. Nobody wanted another world war....


....which the US agreed upon. Hey, it was only Stalin, how bad could the guy be, right?
Wrong. But you're ignoring the fact that as the Russians advanced on the Germans, all the land that they put behind their tanks belonged to them (in their opinion) and there was not much we could do because nobody wanted to fight after the end of the war.

Seriously, let's go to East Europe. I want to meet some of the throngs of people who you think owe you and I gratitude for "protecting" them from communism. You get your bags ready?
I don't know if you're actually dumb, or if you're pretending just to be annoying. (Both are very believable scenarios). Eastern Europeans don't owe "you or I" anything, it's gratitude to the nation of America and it's anti-Communist stance. The same as Poles don't owe every Catholic on earth gratitude, but owe the Church and the former Pope gratitude.

I know history well enough to shit all of your "LOL WE PROTECTED THEM" self-congratulatory ejaculations.
Actually, you don't, as seen above.

I love how you presume I must be ignorant for disagreeing with your fap.
Not "presume", I know.



Irrelevant. You and me and GnI are going, yes?
Irrelevant? You never having been to Eastern Europe may be alot of things, but irrelevant IT IS NOT. You learn from your travels and your interactions. You learn things that arn't just the standard in school or the articles on wiki. You learn things from the people who have actually lived in these places and who our history lesson is their life's story.



Being pro-American doesn't mean they agree that they were "protected" against communism.
False arguement. It ties into it. Because of the anti-Soviet stance of America, many of the former Communist places have pro-American tendancies due to this.

Count me in as well.
Yeah I had you figured in there also....unfortunatly.:rolleyes:

No...we didn't exactly "let the Russians conquer" Eastern Europe.

Um, yes, we did. Read I Saw Poland Betrayed by Arthur Bliss Lane.

Um, yes, we did. Read I Saw Poland Betrayed by Arthur Bliss Lane.
Already covered:

"Wrong. But you're ignoring the fact that as the Russians advanced on the Germans, all the land that they put behind their tanks belonged to them (in their opinion) and there was not much we could do because nobody wanted to fight after the end of the war."

Yes they did! We said we would strive to protect Europe and the world from Communism (which we did/do) not that we will invade the Soviet Union...

The people of hungary were expecting American support because of the tough language against communism, because of the speeches of the politicians. Any political-aware person would see the risk of invading the USSR, why it would never happen but your average person is not that political aware. They tend to believe these speeches and that results in situations like the Hungary uprising.
The Cuban Missile crisis was another example. Part of the reason why Kennedy acted tough was because America couldnt be seen to give into the Soviets again.It got into that situations because its words and promises didn't live up to its actions.
Thats why NL is being reasonable to be worried about this idea about these powerful speeches. People's actions cannot always match their rheortic. Reason is more important. Less exciting but more improtant.

Sorry about my random posting nature. It'smy lurking tendencies.

Already covered:

"Wrong. But you're ignoring the fact that as the Russians advanced on the Germans, all the land that they put behind their tanks belonged to them (in their opinion) and there was not much we could do because nobody wanted to fight after the end of the war."

Read the book. It's not that no one wanted to fight. We deliberately handed those countries to Stalin on a silver platter.