11
   

Why I am a Republican - By Dwight D. Eisenhower

 
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 06:12 pm
@farmerman,
I remember, back on Abuzz,
someone posted quite a long list
of denunciations of Individualism and of capitalism by Hitler in his fanatical speeches.

I wish that I had recorded his post.

Back then, I probably did not know how to do it.


farmerman wrote:
Actually, many of the founders of the NAzi party dis;liked the term "Socialim" in their title.
When HItler took the party over and when he re-named it he did what he wanted with it,
which OBVIOUSLY expressed Hitler 's views of the reality of the world & of Hitler 's desires for the world.



farmerman wrote:
The Book by Brian Girvin of 20th centruy right wing states links Nazism and Mussolinis Facsisti.
I reality, I view these parties as an example of
"The enemy of my enemy...".
Are u alleging that the principles of National Socialism were inconsistent with Fascism??
If u wish to argue that case,
then I will be very interested to hear what u have to say.




farmerman wrote:
Both were anti liberal, anti communist and prosupercapitalism.
Supercapitalism is PURE laissez faire free enterprize, which I love and favor.
Laissez faire free enterprize ideally exists within
an environment of (domestically) weak and feeble government. This is inconsistent with nazism & communism,
both of which are totalitarian despotism.





farmerman wrote:
However, as STernhall states, implies, the extreme racism of Nazism was even a higher priority than anti communism.


Quote:
Nazism (National Socialism, Germany)
Main articles: Nazism and National Socialism

Flag of the German Nazi PartyThe National Socialist German Workers’ Party (Nazi Party) ruled Germany from 1933 until 1945. The party was originally formed as the German Workers' Party under the leadership of Anton Drexler, and espoused a combination of racialist völkisch nationalism and socialism that rejected the conditions imposed on Germany after World War I. The party accused international capitalism of being Jewish-dominated, and denounced capitalists for war profiteering in World War I.[273] To ease concerns among potential middle-class nationalist supporters, Drexler made clear that unlike Marxists, the party supported middle-class citizens, and that the party's socialist policy was meant to give social welfare to all German citizens who were deemed part of the Aryan race.[273]

Drexler's insistence on the inclusion of the term "socialist" in the party's name had caused tension amongst members of the party including then-member Adolf Hitler, who preferred that the party be named the "Social Revolutionary Party", until Rudolf Jung persuaded him to support the name "National Socialist German Workers' Party".[274] Drexler was ousted from the leadership in 1921 by Hitler, who secured himself the position of undisputed and permanent leader of the party.

Hitler admired Benito Mussolini and the Italian Fascists, and after Mussolini's successful March on Rome in 1922, presented the Nazis as a German version of Italian Fascism.[275][276] Hitler endorsed Italian Fascism, saying that "with the victory of fascism in Italy the Italian people has triumphed [over] Jewry" and appraised Mussolini as "the brilliant statesman".[277] Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's chief propagandist, credited Italian Fascism with starting a conflict against liberal democracy, saying:

The march on Rome was a signal, a sign of storm for liberal-democracy. It is the first attempt to destroy the world of the liberal-democratic spirit[...] which started in 1789 with the storm on the Bastille and conquered one country after another in violent revolutionary upheavals, to let... the nations go under in Marxism, democracy, anarchy and class warfare...[278]

Following the Italians' example, the Nazis attempted a "March on Berlin" to topple the Weimar Republic, which they characterised as "Marxist".[278]

Days after Mussolini rose to power in October 1922, the major British national newspaper The Times referred to Hitler as Mussolini's promising pupil in Germany.[277] A month after Mussolini had risen to power, amid claims by the Nazis that they were equivalent to the Italian fascists, Hitler's popularity in Germany began to grow, and large crowds began to attend Nazi rallies. The newspaper Berlin Lokal-Anzeiger featured a front page article about Hitler, saying "There are a lot of people who believe him to be the German Mussolini".[275]


Adolf Hitler, German Nazi leaderIn private, Mussolini expressed dislike of Hitler and the Nazis, seeing them as mere imitators of Italian Fascism. When Mussolini met with the Italian Consul in Munich prior to the Nazis' failed Beer Hall Putsch in 1923, he stated that the Nazis were "buffoons".[279] However by 1928, the Italian Fascist government recognized the utility of the Nazis and began to financially subsidize the Nazi party.[280]

Hitler remained impressed by Mussolini and Fascist Italy for many years in spite of resentments towards Italy by other Nazis. During the period of positive outlook towards Fascist Italy, Hitler became an Italophile.[281] Hitler like Mussolini profoundly admired Ancient Rome, and repeatedly mentioned it in Mein Kampf as being a model for Germany.[282] In particular, Hitler admired ancient Rome's authoritarian culture, imperialism, town planning, and architecture, which were incorporated by the Nazis.[283] Hitler considered the ancient Romans to have been a master race.[283]

In an unpublished sequel to Mein Kampf, Hitler declared that he held no antagonism towards Italy for having waged war against Germany and Austria-Hungary in World War I, saying that it was only in Italy became at war with Germany because of Germany's alliance with Austria Hungary which Italy had territorial claims on.[284] Hitler declared his sympathy to the Italians for desiring to regain Italian-populated lands held by Austria-Hungary, claiming it was naturally in Italians' national interest to wage war to regain those lands.[284]

Hitler made controversial concessions to gain Fascist Italy's approval and alliance, such as abandoning territorial claims on the Tyrol region of Italy that had a dense population of hundreds of thousands of Germans.[281] In Mein Kampf Hitler declared that it was not in Germany's interest to have war with Italy over South Tyrol.[277]

The Nazis gained political power in Germany's government through a democratic election in 1932. Hitler was appointed Chancellor of Germany following the 1933 election, subsequently putting into place the Enabling Act of 1933, which effectively gave him the power of a dictator, except over the German Roman Catholic Church, which was under the Vatican. The Nazis announced a national rebirth, in the form of the Third Reich, nicknamed the Thousand Year Empire, promoted as a successor to the Holy Roman Empire and the German Empire.

Although the modern consensus sees Nazism as a type of generic fascism,[285] some scholars, including Gilbert Allardyce, Zeev Sternhell, Karl Dietrich Bracher and A.F.K. Organski, argue that Nazism is not fascism " either because it is different in character or because they believe fascism cannot be generically defined.[286][287][288] Nazism differed from Italian fascism in that it had a stronger emphasis on race, religion, and ethnicity, especially exhibited as antisemitism. Roger Griffin, a leading exponent of the generic fascism theory, wrote:

It might well be claimed that Nazism and Italian fascism were separate species within the same genus, without any implicit assumption that the two species ought to be well-nigh identical. Ernst Nolte has stated that the differences could be easily reconciled by employing a term such as 'radical fascism' for Nazism. ... The establishment of fundamental generic characteristics linking Nazism to movements in other parts of Europe allows further consideration on a comparative basis of the reasons why such movements were able to become a real political danger and gain power in Italy and Germany, whereas in other European countries they remained an unpleasant, but transitory irritant...[289]

Sternhell views Nazism as separate from fascism:

Fascism can in no way be identified with Nazism. Undoubtedly the two ideologies, the two movements, and the two regimes had common characteristics. They often ran parallel to one another or overlapped, but they differed on one fundamental point: the criterion of German national socialism was biological determination. The basis of Nazism was a racism in its most extreme sense, and the fight against Jews, against 'inferior' races, played a more preponderant role in it than the struggle against communism.[290]
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 06:19 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
Being considered a RINO, by his GOP colleagues would, only be a logical extension of the facts of history, not some piece that cobbles together what he may have espoused as he tried to be an elder statesman . To my mind, Eisenhower was actually more like Clinton than Ronald Reagan.
Alleging that Ike was "considered a RINO" is an outrageous rape of history, farmer.
If u can find Republicans who accused him of that, then please
set that forth. Goldwater never did.

For sure, I don 't remember anyone saying that.





David
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 06:35 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
Quote:

Fascism can in no way be identified with Nazism.


I have seen stupid statements on this forum, but that one pretty much tops them all, farmerman.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 06:37 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
quote] The word RINO, (republican in name only) was introduced nationally in an article by Gardner Goldsmith, which appeared in Investor's Business Daily in 1998, and came into widespread usage around 2000, particularly during the election campaigns of that year. While the term is new, the concept of being a member of a party but not representing its mainstream is not uncommon in American political history. In 1912, former President Theodore Roosevelt, then-President William Howard Taft and Senator Robert LaFollette fought for ideological control of the Republican Party and each denounced the other two as "not really Republican." The Taft faction went on to control the national ticket until 1936. [/quote]

If you read my first offering ,I said that TODAY, Eisenhower would have been called a RINO, mostly for his domestic policies. As I said, he was elected for his foreign policy skills. He rode his own wartime reputation into the whitehouse,(sorta like my avatar)
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 06:40 pm
@okie,
farmerman wrote:
Quote:

Fascism can in no way be identified with Nazism.

okie wrote:
I have seen stupid statements on this forum, but that one pretty much tops them all, farmerman.
Farmer, Hitler, LOVED Mussolini.
Hitler is known for the fact of having written to Mussolini,
asking for an autografed picture, before Hitler 's later rise to power.





David
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 06:40 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Alleging that Ike was "considered a RINO" is an outrageous rape of history, farmer.
If u can find Republicans who accused him of that, then please
set that forth. Goldwater never did.

For sure, I don 't remember anyone saying that.
David


David, I doubt the term, Rhino was even invented in those days. Interestingly, if read the article written by Eisenhower "Why I am a Republican," he mentions that fact that Democrats had tried to claim or usurp the legacy of Abraham Lincoln as theirs. I think Democrats have this tendency to try to usurp or claim the legacy of any great American as theirs, and there is no question that Dwight D. Eisenhower was one great American. Also, if anyone reads his article, it is in fact a blistering condemnation of Democratic policies and politics, there is no question about it. Not only does he condemn "Democratic big government and big spending policies, but he condemns "liberal" policies.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 06:47 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
Are u alleging that the principles of National Socialism were inconsistent with Fascism??
No Ive implied by my own reading (and quoting) that Fascism and Nazism were soulmates. I dont understand how Okie got otherwise. When I quote someone else, I hope you understand that a quote is where I lay down what someone ELSE has written.

The argument that Okie made was that Nazism was "Communist" leaning and I basically say BULLASHIT. NAzism was enemy of communism . It was a supwer capitalistic regime (Very similar to todays growing movement in China). The state will still be totalitarian but will exert its force to develop its economy from its own resources and talent. I see no difference between fascism and Communism BUT. , plese do n ot accuse me of misunderstanding history. Hitler ws a deep enemy of anything liberal, communist, or anything that smacked of demopcracy or democratic republics (like ours). Hitler had a raging hard-on for Mussolinis method of governance and so patterned.
By stating that Hitler WAS patterned after fascism, doesnt OKIE negate hias own argument (which seems to be a dump primarily on liberal Democrats of the US?).

I figured that, given enough typing room, Okie would disabuse his own opinion. I thankee.
OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 06:48 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
The word RINO, (republican in name only) was introduced nationally in an article by Gardner Goldsmith, which appeared in Investor's Business Daily in 1998, and came into widespread usage around 2000, particularly during the election campaigns of that year. While the term is new, the concept of being a member of a party but not representing its mainstream is not uncommon in American political history. In 1912, former President Theodore Roosevelt, then-President William Howard Taft and Senator Robert LaFollette fought for ideological control of the Republican Party and each denounced the other two as "not really Republican." The Taft faction went on to control the national ticket until 1936.

If you read my first offering ,I said that TODAY, Eisenhower would have been called a RINO, mostly for his domestic policies. As I said, he was elected for his foreign policy skills. He rode his own wartime reputation into the whitehouse,(sorta like my avatar)
Agreed that he won for defeating Hitler; no doubt,
but he was NOT accused by any similar name before RINO.

Look: if u can show that Robert A. Taft or Goldwater said as much,
then I am rong.

I don 't remember anyone claiming that.





David
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 06:57 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
The argument that Okie made was that Nazism was "Communist" leaning and I basically say BULLASHIT. NAzism was enemy of communism . It was a supwer capitalistic regime (Very similar to todays growing movement in China). The state will still be totalitarian but will exert its force to develop its economy from its own resources and talent. I see no difference between fascism and Communism BUT. , plese do n ot accuse me of misunderstanding history.

I have never made the argument that Nazism and Communism were friends or not ememies, obviously not, but I have contended rightly so that they had some common denominators, and that the primary difference was that Hitlers brand of socialism was nationalistic, while communism was an international version of extreme socialism or Marxism.
Quote:
Hitler ws a deep enemy of anything liberal, communist, or anything that smacked of demopcracy or democratic republics (like ours).

More nonsense. Hitler railed against the greed of capitalism, which he tied very closely to the influence of the Jews, hence his hatred for Jews.
Quote:
Hitler had a raging hard-on for Mussolinis method of governance and so patterned.
By stating that Hitler WAS patterned after fascism, doesnt OKIE negate hias own argument (which seems to be a dump primarily on liberal Democrats of the US?).

I figured that, given enough typing room, Okie would disabuse his own opinion. I thankee.

Actually, Democrats are at this very moment using some ideas of fascism, getting in bed with capitalists in various industrial segments of the economy, banking, the auto industry, etc., and there is no doubt they want to do more withe the energy industry. So okie here is not negating his own arguments, I keep enforcing them, while you keep showing your ignorance of what actually happened and what is happening.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 06:58 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Lots of hitory lookw back upon Eisenhower as a "Pennsylvania" style republican . SInce the party has undergone a radical shift to the conservative, even presidents like Kennedy are looked on as liberal.
Eisenhower WAS the father of one of the lrgest bloody public works projects in US history. He also was a rel friend of Social Sexcurity and was outspoken against unregulated industry. Hell hes the one who invented the phrase "Military Insustrial Complex" (Hint: he didnt mean that as a compliment).

Im not gonna argue the point further cause its of little interest to me and all that happens in these things is that everyone loses their civility. (Okie is already beginning to start namecalling)
SO, if you disagree with me, fine. Youre certinly free to do that. I just added the points to give you some alternatives to consider.
OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 07:13 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
Lots of hitory lookw back upon Eisenhower as a "Pennsylvania" style republican .
SInce the party has undergone a radical shift to the conservative,
even presidents like Kennedy are looked on as liberal.
OF COURSE !!!! He can get a good recommendation
from his pal, Fidel Castro.




farmerman wrote:
Eisenhower WAS the father of one of the lrgest bloody public works projects in US history. He also was a rel friend of Social Sexcurity and was outspoken against unregulated industry. Hell hes the one who invented the phrase "Military Insustrial Complex" (Hint: he didnt mean that as a compliment).

Im not gonna argue the point further cause its of little interest to me and all that happens in these things is that everyone loses their civility. (Okie is already beginning to start namecalling)
SO, if you disagree with me, fine. Youre certinly free to do that. I just added the points to give you some alternatives to consider.
I gotta get something to eat; see ya later.





David
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 07:13 pm
@farmerman,
We are all aware I think of what has been referred to as the "blue blood Republicans," but they fall well within the umbrella of being a Republican. Nobody would claim that any political party is totally pure in terms of one perfectly consistent philosophy straight down the line, and there has been a battle between the blue blood types of Republicans vs the more conservative wing, just as there have always been battles within the Democrats, which are now controlled by the ultra liberals. But if you read Eisenhower's article, there is very very little in there that disagrees with the conservative core beliefs of the Republican Party.

I was going to eventually mention the issue of the "military industrial complex" that Eisenhower is on record of mentioning, and I think this is probably one biggee that liberals remember and love Eisenhower for, but if you really examine Eisenhower's policies, you will find that he is very strong on national defense, and in fact he supported the Korean War and perhaps was instrumental in the very beginnings of sending advisors to Vietnam. Eisenhower was very very anti-communist and would never have backed away from confronting an enemy that he considered dangerous or a threat to our freeom or national interest based upon his fear of the military industrial complex. I think the major component of his dim view of the military industrial complex, or the eventual danger of it, was as a result of his overall dim view of all government bureaucracies. His article talks at length about the Department of Agriculture, the thousands of bureaucrats, and also about the race to the moon that not only amounted to high costs, but also the diversion of the technical and research expertise away from other useful purposes.

The interstate highway system, yes a large federal government project, but perhaps one that even conservatives can see as a viable project for the federal government to coordinate as part of tying together the transporation system of the country. I think also that Eisenhower saw it a piece of the puzzle in regard to national defense, and as a man just finished with a major war, he was keenly aware of those implications. No Republicans, including conservatives, are going to condemn the man for that initiative I do not think. The federal government has legitimate functions to undertake, and perhaps that was one.

In regard to Social Security, he does support the program, but he also condemns that of the plans for Medicare, he thought there were better alternatives than that, from what I read.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 07:31 pm
@okie,
I am confused at this "history" of which you speak. Eisenhower (Dwight), called the first conference on aging in 1961, the outcome of which was a proposal for health care for the aging (Which he solidly supported). This first proposal was defeated by a very close Senate vote in 1962. It wasnt till Johnson , that it passed and Harry and Bess Truman got the first cards and Ike and his wife got the second (I believe that this was a gesture of thanks for your leadership and support).
BTW, the tea baggers of today, seemingly a white male group of above avg income, have been frequently quoted as saying something like;
"I dont want no damn Socialized medicine, tell Obama not to mess with my Medicare" Very Happy

What Eisenhower said (AS I said before) was from his posts in the years after he was president. Maybe what he said THEN ws considered conservative, his actions as president were definately NOT.

farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 07:40 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[/size]Military-Industrial Complex Speech, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961

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

Public Papers of the Presidents, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1960, p. 1035- 1040

My fellow Americans:

Three days from now, after half a century in the service of our country, I shall lay down the responsibilities of office as, in traditional and solemn ceremony, the authority of the Presidency is vested in my successor.

This evening I come to you with a message of leave-taking and farewell, and to share a few final thoughts with you, my countrymen.

Like every other citizen, I wish the new President, and all who will labor with him, Godspeed. I pray that the coming years will be blessed with peace and prosperity for all.

Our people expect their President and the Congress to find essential agreement on issues of great moment, the wise resolution of which will better shape the future of the Nation.

My own relations with the Congress, which began on a remote and tenuous basis when, long ago, a member of the Senate appointed me to West Point, have since ranged to the intimate during the war and immediate post-war period, and, finally, to the mutually interdependent during these past eight years.

In this final relationship, the Congress and the Administration have, on most vital issues, cooperated well, to serve the national good rather than mere partisanship, and so have assured that the business of the Nation should go forward. So, my official relationship with the Congress ends in a feeling, on my part, of gratitude that we have been able to do so much together.

II.

We now stand ten years past the midpoint of a century that has witnessed four major wars among great nations. Three of these involved our own country. Despite these holocausts America is today the strongest, the most influential and most productive nation in the world. Understandably proud of this pre-eminence, we yet realize that America's leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment.

III.

Throughout America's adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among people and among nations. To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people. Any failure traceable to arrogance, or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us grievous hurt both at home and abroad.

Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology -- global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger is poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle -- with liberty the stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment.

Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in newer elements of our defense; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research -- these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel.

But each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs -- balance between the private and the public economy, balance between cost and hoped for advantage -- balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable; balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual; balance between actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration.

The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their government have, in the main, understood these truths and have responded to them well, in the face of stress and threat. But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise. I mention two only.

IV.

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present

and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological elite.

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system -- ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.

V.

Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we -- you and I, and our government -- must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.

VI.

Down the long lane of the history yet to be written America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect.

Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield.

Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war -- as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years -- I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.

Happily, I can say that war has been avoided. Steady progress toward our ultimate goal has been made. But, so much remains to be done. As a private citizen, I shall never cease to do what little I can to help the world advance along that road.

VII.

So -- in this my last good night to you as your President -- I thank you for the many opportunities you have given me for public service in war and peace. I trust that in that service you find some things worthy; as for the rest of it, I know you will find ways to improve performance in the future.

You and I -- my fellow citizens -- need to be strong in our faith that all nations, under God, will reach the goal of peace with justice. May we be ever unswerving in devotion to principle, confident but humble with power, diligent in pursuit of the Nation's great goals.

To all the peoples of the world, I once more give expression to America's prayerful and continuing aspiration:

We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have their great human needs satisfied; that those now denied opportunity shall come to enjoy it to the full; that all who yearn for freedom may experience its spiritual blessings; that those who have freedom will understand, also, its heavy responsibilities; that all who are insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity; that the scourges of poverty, disease and ignorance will be made to disappear from the earth, and that, in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live together in a peace guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect and
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  4  
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 08:59 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:
It is apparent that you probably did not read the article that I posted here, written by Ike.

Farmerman's analysis was based on what Eisenhower did, not what he said.

I'm not surprised that you have difficulty with this, because you insist on judging Hitler by what he said and not on what he did.

Have you ever heard the phrase "actions speak louder than words", "your work speaks for itself", or "when deeds speak, words are nothing"?
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  0  
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 09:41 pm
@ebrown p,
Had okie understood what he wrote.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 09:43 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Theoretically, middle of the road is not conservative. Middle of the road should be a position obtained after the left and right have laid out how they stand, making the middle neither.
Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 10:21 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:

What are you referring to, the debate about Hitler, that you persist in thinking you can't be wrong even though history says otherwise? I can read the Nazi 25 points, but you seem to have a problem with that, you flunk the test of comprehending that they are overwhelmingly leftist, old europe, and you apparently even live in Germany.


Well, oe speaks German.

If you could do so, you perhaps would understand those 25 points.

But even then, I've my doubts.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 10:22 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Oh my. I'd really thought that you, David, could read. And there might have even been a chance that you'd know history.

Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 10:27 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
But I really don't want to discuss this topic again.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/23/2021 at 09:27:29