Posted on 11/19/2013 4:47:38 PM PST by dynachrome
Q: 150 years after President Lincoln delivered “The Gettysburg Address,” the speech is still celebrated. What other historic speech is as significant?
Martin Luther King’s “I Have A Dream”
John F. Kennedy’s Inaugural Address
Ronald Reagan’s “Tear Down This Wall” speech
Gen. Douglas MacArthur’s farewell address to Congress
None of the above
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
They be racists!
FREEP THIS POLL ***PING!*** FRmail me if you want to be added or removed from the Fearless Poll-Freeping Freepers Ping list. (multiple votes using multiple internetz devices are allowed!) And be sure to ping me to any polls that need Freepin', if I miss them. (looks like a medium volume list) (gordongekko909, founder of the pinglist, stays on the list until his ghost signs up for the list)
22%Martin Luther King’s “I Have A Dream”
18%John F. Kennedy’s Inaugural Address
30%Ronald Reagan’s “Tear Down This Wall” speech
13%Gen. Douglas MacArthur’s farewell address to Congress
17%None of the above
Lincoln’s 2nd Inaugural Address. “...until every drop of blood drawn by the lash, shall be paid with another drawn by the sword...” GOOD STUFF!
Reagan leading at 30%
I used to have McArthur’s speech on tape. Actually I probably still have it somewhere. About as well delivered as any I have ever heard.
I think Robert E. Lee’s Father earned a place in history with his funeral speech for George Washington. “First in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen”.
When I was in high school I remember reading that Pericles funeral oration for Athenian soldiers killed fighting the Spartans was considered the greatest speech ever. Probably the credit should be given to Thucydides as he was the one who wrote it down for history.
>>They left out ALL of our maximum leader’s, Obozo, speeches!<<
“If you like your health plan, YOU CAN KEEP IT!”
Well, that seems to be becoming pretty historic. His legacy.
....It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace – but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
(I’m from Virginia, so I’m partial to this one...)
My choices,
1. Ronald Reagan’s “Tear Down This Wall” speech
2. Theodore Roosevelt’s Citizenship in a Republic ( “The Man in the Arena” ) speech
3. Gen. Douglas MacArthur’s farewell address to Congress
4. Bluto’s Germans bombed Pearl Harbor speech from “Animal House”
5. The “Chuckles the Clown” eulogy from “Mary Tyler Moore.”
I agree with you. It’s not among the choices, but I’d say Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Speech. After that, Martin Luther King, Jr.’s I Have A Dream Speech.
No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The questing before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.
Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.
I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free-- if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!
They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.
It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
I like Reagan’s “A Time For Choosing” speech personally, but any of them are good :)
> “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” [Martin Luther King] <
A worthy aspiration. The problem is that the civil rights movement and much of the country went on to support “affirmative” action (racial discrimination that judges by the color of their skin). When an athletic director down here a couple of years ago said he was going to look for a “minority” coach, I don’t recall a single word of public protest.
So the respect paid to that speech is “skin”-deep. The principle is being ignored.
That warms this Virginian’s heart. I go to the church where Patrick Henry delivered this speech.
> “...multiple votes using multiple internetz devices are allowed!” <
If people are going to cheat, what’s the point of urging individuals to vote? Couldn’t a single indvidual just keep using those multiple internetz until the number is whatever he wishes (I’m not familiar with such devices, are there limits to how many votes can be made?). Maybe the other side is using them too, and if so, using them in response may be justified. It seems to me, though, that openly advocating “multiple votes” looks bad on a conservative site (or any site).
Saying that this or that won an internet poll doesn’t make much of an impression on me. A quote from a site advocating multiple votes, though, does.
Some of the so-called news organizations seem to take these internet polls seriously.
“Look, Muffy, 102% of our readers love obozo!”
Yup. Nothing quite like it. Although Reagan’s “Tear Down This Wall!” speech, coming when it did, may actually approach that. Third place is a long way back.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.