I don’t believe the answer for us is to invoke the Lord’s name 55 times in a speech. It looks political.
--
On the idea that the Democratic Party needs to speak to voters in more religious termsJohn Edwards
“Mind you, in the New York Times v. Sullivan case, [the courts] said that in political debate, speech can be robust, wide open, and uninhibited – for political debate! How much more so for...old time gospel hellfire and damnation preaching? – Sermon, November 4, 2007
Fred Phelps
The one who talks about the future is a rascal. The present is the only thing that matters. To invoke one’s posterity is to make a speech to maggots.
Louis-Ferdinand Celine
Socialism. Here I am at at one with you. I have always been opposed to it. It is now taking hold of both parties, in a way I much dislike: & unhappily Lord Salisbury is one of its leaders, with no Lord Hartington (see his speech at Darwen) to oppose him.
William Ewart Gladstone
Tabloids invoke freedom of speech, but they're not interested in that, they're just interested in who's shagging whom, who's got drunk. And if you take that pretend, faux moral standpoint, you end up with people in public life being completely boring. Like they've had their genitals removed.
Jarvis Cocker
Political scientists don't work at banks—which is a problem. As political issues become more important for the markets, analysts at banks are asked all sorts of questions they don't have the ability to answer. And if you're getting paid to answer questions—as analysts at banks are—you never want to be in the position of saying you don't know.
Ian Bremmer
Edwards, John
Edwards, Jonathan
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z