Sixty-Eight Years Ago

[rubato]

"... but ALL fought to preserve our form of government and government is not some contemptible 'other', it is US.

... "

On the dollar.

so to speak.

yrs,
rubato

[Jarlaxle]

I remember that.

I don't, but this is Rube the dipshit, so I am hardly surprised.

[Rick]

"... but ALL fought to preserve our form of government and government is not some contemptible 'other', it is US.

... "

On the dollar.

so to speak.

yrs,
rubato

Our allies were the Russians, how is that reconciled?

[Jarlaxle]

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Simple as that.

[Rick]

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Simple as that.

A Russian saying...

[The Hen]

"... but ALL fought to preserve our form of government and government is not some contemptible 'other', it is US.

... "

On the dollar.

so to speak.

yrs,
rubato

Our allies were the Russians, how is that reconciled?

Have you tried their toilet paper?

They have suffered enough.

[Lord Jim]

Have you tried their toilet paper?

Or their cigarettes....

(I tried to smoke a Russian cigarette years ago...the filter was longer than the part with the tobacco, and it still tasted like I was sucking on a dirty gym sock...)

[MajGenl.Meade]

My friend Paul claims that his Irish mother was a conductress on a London 'bus during and after the war. She told him that after VE day a couple of GI jumped on the platform and asked her for a kiss "for the boys who saved England".

"Tis funny" she said, "Yez doesn't sound loike Roosians"

[rubato]

My friend Paul claims that his Irish mother was a conductress on a London 'bus during and after the war. She told him that after VE day a couple of GI jumped on the platform and asked her for a kiss "for the boys who saved England".

"Tis funny" she said, "Yez doesn't sound loike Roosians"

In many ways the Russians did a lot of the heavy lifting in stopping Nazi Germany. But it was with our material support. ('Our' meaning the U.S.) Good thing for us that Hitler really was a megalomaniac. If he had focussed on Britain he would have occupied the British Isles in no time. He didn't appreciate how weak they were. The "Battle of Britain" was a con job. (abetted by US support).

yrs,
rubato

[dgs49]

President Roosevelt's D-Day prayer:

"Almighty God, our sons, pride of our nation, this day have set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our Republic, our religion, and our civilization, and to set free suffering humanity."

"Lead them straight and true; give strength to their arms, stoutness to their hearts, steadfastness in their faith."

"Some will never return. Embrace these, Father, and receive them, thy heroic servants, into thy kingdom."

Question for the Board: Was the First Amendment amended sometime between 1944 and today, or was the Greatest Democrat President simply ignorant of basic "Constitutional" principles?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[Lord Jim]

Dave, if you go back to the first page of the OP, I posted his speech in it's entirety. (Also the audio )

[dgs49]

Jimmy,
I was extracting a particular part of it for separate discussion.

Have I done something I oughtn't?

Dear me!

[Lord Jim]

I thought maybe you had missed it.

[Sue U]

Question for the Board: Was the First Amendment amended sometime between 1944 and today, or was the Greatest Democrat President simply ignorant of basic "Constitutional" principles?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Did you skip Con Law as well as Torts?

The short answer is that Presidents, as all politicians, can say whatever they want in speeches because it's simply not government action. The First Amendment only limits government action, and only to the extent it is intended to promote or inhibit religion/free exercise. When you demonstrate that World War II was actually a religious crusade for which the government conscripted military personnel to spread the faith, then you might have something to talk about. The President could make the same speech today and it would not violate the First Amendment, although it would probably be considered poor form in view of more modern sensibilites.

[rubato]

"... but ALL fought to preserve our form of government and government is not some contemptible 'other', it is US.

... "

On the dollar.

so to speak.

yrs,
rubato

Our allies were the Russians, how is that reconciled?

We did not choose them as allies. Hitler attacked them and by his action gave them a common cause with us and gave us a practical reason to support the Soviets.

It was not a case of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" Reagan proved that to be a vacuous and counter-productive rationale which he used to prop up one brutal dictator after another, most worse than the Soviets. It was a case of someone who was at war with us attacking someone else we do not especially like and finding a common interest in self-preservation.

yrs,
rubato

[dgs49]

Sue,
You are quite right. Not a literal violation of the First Amendment. But surely you do not deny that such a speech would engender howls from the ACLU, concerned that the President was promoting the establishment of religion.

The point is that the Left has done its utmost to scrub "religion" from the public sphere, and no Democrat President would ever dare - now - to articulate such purely religious sentiments in public, particularly with all of America listening.

[MajGenl.Meade]

most worse than the Soviets

Only in Bizarro World. A swift check of the gulag .... Survey says "much worse" than Chile, El Salvador etc etc

[Lord Jim]

most worse than the Soviets

Only in Bizarro World. A swift check of the gulag .... Survey says "much worse" than Chile, El Salvador etc etc

I read that post of rube's and there's so much repetitive ignorance and idiocy in it, that it's not worth taking the time to debunk it yet again....

I'm never sure when rube does this sort of thing if he is simply too stupid to retain the fact that he has previously been shown to be full of shit about what he's re-posting, or so dishonest that he thinks if he keeps repeating it often enough he'll get people to believe it. (Or maybe it's just a sort of trolling behavior, where he repeats things he knows to have been proven false simply for the purpose of being irritating.)

[Sue U]

Sue,
You are quite right. Not a literal violation of the First Amendment. But surely you do not deny that such a speech would engender howls from the ACLU, concerned that the President was promoting the establishment of religion.

Yes, as a card-carrying member of the ACLU, a former ACLU-NJ Coordinating Attorney for First Amendment issues, and in-law of current senior ACLU national staff, I strongly deny that any such speech "would engender howls from the ACLU." Contrary to the fevered imaginings of your narrow little mind, the ACLU is highly attuned to the distinction between the free speech and free exercise principles that allow for largely unfettered religious expression and the establishment clause proscriptions that prohibit government action to promote religion.

The point is that the Left has done its utmost to scrub "religion" from the public sphere, and no Democrat President would ever dare - now - to articulate such purely religious sentiments in public, particularly with all of America listening.

Religion scrubbed from the public sphere? Have you gone blind and deaf as well as ignorant? Nothing prevents anyone from expressing personal religious sentiments in "the public sphere" -- by which I presume you mean politicians and public servants, as opposed to "public square," in which all kinds of expression are guaranteed regardless of content. Did you notice the Governor of Texas publicly praying for rain last summer? Are you completely unaware of how often God and faith are invoked and displayed by politicians pandering for your vote? The only thing anyone is attempting to "scrub" is religious zealots appropriating the machinery of the state to promote their personal religious views. And I don't see a problem with that at all.

ETA:

I can easily see a speech like FDR's given by a President today were our nation in similar circumstances, although I expect the wording might be slightly adjusted to ensure it was as inclusive as possible for all segments of the population. Recognizing that we have many citizens with many different beliefs and religions (including "none"), rather than being a homogenous pot of general Protestant affiliation, is also a good thing.

[Lord Jim]

Come on Sue...

Are you really trying to say that a President today, who made an address like the one FDR did on D-Day, (and if you haven't done so I really recommend that you go back to page one of this thread and read the address as I quoted it in it's entirety so that you can see the full extent of the religiosity involved in his remarks) wouldn't come in for substantial criticism from many quarters?

I can just imagine the level of caterwauling that would have issued forth if George W. Bush had ever made a speech remotely like that announcing the invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan....

Or if his father had done so when Desert Storm was launched.