Great American Speeches

Who gave the greatest American speech?

  • Patrick Henry "Give me liberty or give me death." Speech

    Votes: 4 25.0%
  • Washington's Farewell Address

    Votes: 2 12.5%
  • Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address

    Votes: 1 6.3%
  • Abrahams Lincolns Second Innaugural Address "With malice towards none, with charity for all."

    Votes: 2 12.5%
  • FDR's First Innaugrual Address "The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself!"

    Votes: 1 6.3%
  • MacArthurs Farewell Address

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Ike's Farewell Address

    Votes: 2 12.5%
  • JFK's Innaugural Address

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Martin Luther King Jr "I Have a Dream" Speech

    Votes: 2 12.5%
  • Ronald Reagans Brandenburg Gate Speech

    Votes: 2 12.5%

  • Total voters
    16
  • Poll closed .
Well you actually have a point. Part of me put it in there because I know how popular Reagan is with the far right. Another part of me put it in there to see if there would really be anyone actually that stupid to vote for him! LOL

Greater then Washington? Lincoln? FDR? MLK? Come on....you're joking right?

imo...its quite difficult to choose which speech is better or greater....they each had their time, place, impact and audience....

to ridicule reagan's speech is silly, you're just being a partisan hack and judging not his speech, but the man...we get it, you don't like reagan, it doesn't mean his speech is of any less value simply because you don't like him
 
I would like to see a poll of average folks (not political science majors) in thier 40's and have them name the best president in their lifetime, according to thier opinion. If someone knows of such a poll please direct me. In the meantime, I'll google. ;)
 
I would like to see a poll of average folks (not political science majors) in thier 40's and have them name the best president in their lifetime, according to thier opinion. If someone knows of such a poll please direct me. In the meantime, I'll google. ;)

Who gets your vote? I'd guess you to be a Reagan man if you're in that age group.

I'd say Clinton. I thought he was a brilliant politician, and was amazed at how he reinvented himself after '94.
 
Who gets your vote? I'd guess you to be a Reagan man if you're in that age group.

I'd say Clinton. I thought he was a brilliant politician, and was amazed at how he reinvented himself after '94.

I do, in fact, give Reagan a slight edge over Clinton. Mainly because I lived next door to Clinton (statewise) and knew every little slip-up he made before he ran for president. Clinton was a decent president after all was said and done even with all of the rabble-rousing, but did way too much to expand abortion to suit me. Of the first several executive orders he made after taking office I think 5 had to do with expanding abortion. My memory fails me at this moment but I used to know the exact numbers. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't he help push NAFTA through as well. If so this has done much to damage the economy in my little corner of the state. The Bushes were terribly weak and I haven't seen great things from Obama yet.
 
I do, in fact, give Reagan a slight edge over Clinton. Mainly because I lived next door to Clinton (statewise) and knew every little slip-up he made before he ran for president. Clinton was a decent president after all was said and done even with all of the rabble-rousing, but did way too much to expand abortion to suit me. Of the first several executive orders he made after taking office I think 5 had to do with expanding abortion. My memory fails me at this moment but I used to know the exact numbers. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't he help push NAFTA through as well. If so this has done much to damage the economy in my little corner of the state. The Bushes were terribly weak and I haven't seen great things from Obama yet.

Yeah - Clinton's first 2 years were a disaster. The main issues were abortion, gays in the military, and a closed-door takeover of healthcare -GOP campaign strategists must have marveled at their good luck (and it showed in '94).

He was the NAFTA guy from what I recall - that was when Perot was out there debating it. But I think he & Newt were actually able to work together overall to really get a lot accomplished. I was especially glad to see efforts to balance the budget, which no one seems to really care about anymore.

I didn't hate Reagan, and see his appeal, but I thought his policies were generally destructive to the issues I care about. I think everyone knows how I feel about everything Bush. The jury is still out on Obama for me....
 
I would like to see a poll of average folks (not political science majors) in thier 40's and have them name the best president in their lifetime, according to thier opinion. If someone knows of such a poll please direct me. In the meantime, I'll google. ;)
could you a little more specific about what you mean by "average folk". It's not a phrase I like. It reminds me of the comment about the average American family having 3.4 kids. How do you have 4/10ths of a kid and what's an average person?

If what your saying is the under 30 crowd, you'd be talking about 5 Presidents, really 4 because most people under 30 would be to young to Remember Reagan, just like I was to young to remember LBJ and Kennedy. So one of those has been President for less then 2 years and one was a good but not very inspiring Bush 1. That leaves you with Clinton and W. Not a whole lot of choice there.
 
Last edited:
Yeah - Clinton's first 2 years were a disaster. The main issues were abortion, gays in the military, and a closed-door takeover of healthcare -GOP campaign strategists must have marveled at their good luck (and it showed in '94).

He was the NAFTA guy from what I recall - that was when Perot was out there debating it. But I think he & Newt were actually able to work together overall to really get a lot accomplished. I was especially glad to see efforts to balance the budget, which no one seems to really care about anymore.

I didn't hate Reagan, and see his appeal, but I thought his policies were generally destructive to the issues I care about. I think everyone knows how I feel about everything Bush. The jury is still out on Obama for me....
I think that's a fairly accurate analysis. Reagan had his good points. His optimism. His ability to cross the partisan divide (a quality he would be excoriated for by today's conservatives), his intransigence towards comprimising with what he believed to be a moral evil in the Soviet Empire. Like you though, I soured on much of what Reagan did. His economic and domestic spending policies has done great harm to much of this nation and his social policies sometimes bordered on the inhuman as did his initial policies on HIV/AIDS.
 
I think that's a fairly accurate analysis. Reagan had his good points. His optimism. His ability to cross the partisan divide (a quality he would be excoriated for by today's conservatives), his intransigence towards comprimising with what he believed to be a moral evil in the Soviet Empire. Like you though, I soured on much of what Reagan did. His economic and domestic spending policies has done great harm to much of this nation and his social policies sometimes bordered on the inhuman as did his initial policies on HIV/AIDS.

You touch on a pretty good point w/ Reagan & bipartisanship. That was such a different era - he had Tip O'Neil over to the WH for dinner regularly, and there was a real relationship there. The attitude was much more "how can we get things done," instead of "how can I/we block your agenda so we can win the next election."

Clinton had the same thing w/ Newt & the GOP Congress, though there was more partisan rancor in general by then. Now, fugghetaboutit - nothing but partisanship in DC, and it's been that way for a decade.
 
You touch on a pretty good point w/ Reagan & bipartisanship. That was such a different era - he had Tip O'Neil over to the WH for dinner regularly, and there was a real relationship there. The attitude was much more "how can we get things done," instead of "how can I/we block your agenda so we can win the next election."

Clinton had the same thing w/ Newt & the GOP Congress, though there was more partisan rancor in general by then. Now, fugghetaboutit - nothing but partisanship in DC, and it's been that way for a decade.
I think that's the primary cause of our current case of incumbent fever. Those people are elected and sent to DC to do a job and not waste billions of tax payers dollars playing partisan baseball. I'm fucking sick of it. They need to lead follow or get the hell out of the way. I'd love to see a collective shiver of fear go down congress spine so that they come back after the election with the attitude of "We need to do the job we were sent here for!"
 
Lincoln's speech is the greatest in terms of its literary quality and so forth. The one that speaks to me the most is Washington's, because it basically states what his successors should believe and act upon, and I agree with it. FDRs has my favorite phrase, although MacArthur's has another great one that I like. The fact that MacArthur's came at a time of utter douchebaggery for the old general taints it, though. I would also argue that Lincoln's acceptance speech is greater than his second inaugural.

Just to clarify, I voted Licoln's Gettysburg Address.
 
Lincoln's speech is the greatest in terms of its literary quality and so forth. The one that speaks to me the most is Washington's, because it basically states what his successors should believe and act upon, and I agree with it. FDRs has my favorite phrase, although MacArthur's has another great one that I like. The fact that MacArthur's came at a time of utter douchebaggery for the old general taints it, though. I would also argue that Lincoln's acceptance speech is greater than his second inaugural.

Just to clarify, I voted Licoln's Gettysburg Address.
I had a tough time choosing too. The genius of Lincoln is his economy of words. On how he can say something so profound and right to the heart of a matter with so view words while using a uniquely American oratory.

Though like I said, hearing the speech does make a difference. Readking MLK's speech is moving enough but hearing him speak it with his personally powerful oratory skills makes it even more moving.

So it makes you wonder, was Lincolns skill as a orator as profound as his speech writting?

One of the problems I had with a number of the famous speeches I listed is that the Orator, in some cases, didn't write the speech. Of the 10 that I listed we can be pretty sure that only 6 of those speeches were actually written by the orator. The other 4 were probably written by speech writters for the Orator.
 
Reagan's, Kennedy's and Eisenhower's were probably all ghost-written. Are you counting Washington's as the fourth, because Hamilton contributed to it?
 
ROTFLMAO! Do you really, honestly and truely believe Reagan gave the greatest speech in American History? LOL LOL LOL

Dude, you got that right, it's eminently worthy of ridicule. Even Reagan would laugh at yoU! LOL LOL LOL

I think everyone who selected a different speech can make an excellent argument as to why that was superior to Reagan's Brandenburg speech, probably starting with the fact that Reagan didn't even write it! LOL LOL LOL

I'll love to hear you guys on the far right explain this, it ought to be a hoot!

I really liked Ronnie a lot but this mythology you guys create about him is hysterical!
No need for me to "explain" anything, because all you have, again, is appeal to ridicule. No wonder you suck at debating.
 
I think that's a fairly accurate analysis. Reagan had his good points. His optimism. His ability to cross the partisan divide (a quality he would be excoriated for by today's conservatives), his intransigence towards comprimising with what he believed to be a moral evil in the Soviet Empire. Like you though, I soured on much of what Reagan did. His economic and domestic spending policies has done great harm to much of this nation and his social policies sometimes bordered on the inhuman as did his initial policies on HIV/AIDS.

I always have to laugh when Reagan gets criticized for AIDS. HIV is not as big of a threat to public health as cancer, obesity, heart disease, odd strains of enfluenza, etc. Hell, I still have to read literature on WNV when I donate blood, and that pretty much blew over 7 years ago. Carter was president when HIV first surfaced in 1979, and I'm not going to criticize him for failing to suddenly create a multi-trillion dollar task force to hit the problem with head-on.
 
I voted for Washington's Farewell Address. While the other speeches are all great, and certainly deserved mention, the moment in history and context, should also be weighed into consideration. The other were indeed great speeches, but the moment dictated they had to be great speeches. With Washington's Farewell, it didn't have to be anything but a 'goodbye' speech, there was no historic expectation. What makes it a memorable speech, is the message it brings, to a nation who was (at the time) very uncertain as to what the future held. Remember, we were a very young fledgling nation at the time, no one knew if this was going to last or not. Washington's words seemed to reassure people that what we had built was special... beyond special, it was divine. Hundreds of years later, we can read the same words again, and they STILL inspire us.
 
One thing I love about Washington is that he's not an easily quotable man, even though he is generally ranked as the greatest president, founding father, and even general. All you can generally hear is:

1) Gentlemen, allow me to put on my spectacles, for I have not only grown old, but almost blind, in the service of my country.

2) Friendly intercourse with all nations, entangling alliances with none.

The second is from his Farewell Address, and it was an important principle of American foreign policy.

He also looked great in blue riding pants!!! :D
 
I always have to laugh when Reagan gets criticized for AIDS. HIV is not as big of a threat to public health as cancer, obesity, heart disease, odd strains of enfluenza, etc. Hell, I still have to read literature on WNV when I donate blood, and that pretty much blew over 7 years ago. Carter was president when HIV first surfaced in 1979, and I'm not going to criticize him for failing to suddenly create a multi-trillion dollar task force to hit the problem with head-on.

:palm:

Dude, it was because we finally saw it as a grave threat to public health and took action that we were able to limit the scope of AIDS impact in this nation. Had we not done that we damned well could of had the same situation here as has devastated sub-Saharan Africa where millions have died from AIDS or maybe that little fact has escaped your attention?

First, let's get your facts straight. HIV/AIDS was first diagnosed in this nation in 1981 when Reagan was President. Not Carter. When AIDS was first diagnosed in 1981 it didn't even have a name. It had been observed that groups of young Gay men in New York and California were suffering from a group of opportunistic infections and cancers (karposi's sarcoma) that resisted treatment. A frightening number of these young men died and the public became very concerned. Ronald Reagan said nothing.

In 1982 researchers in France and the USA identified a certain retro-virus now called Human Immuno Virus (HIV) that was the cause of this illness and it was given a name "Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome" (AIDS). Public concern was growing as more people had been diagnosed and the incidence of the disease was growing in numbers, spreading to new locations and was noticed in other populations then gay men, such as, Haitians, Hemophiliacs and IV drug abusers. Ronald Reagan said nothing.

In 1983 over 1,000 people had been diagnosed with AIDS, over 300 of them died in the United States. Ronald Reagan said nothing.

By 1984 CDC in Atlanta had reported that over 4,000 cases of AIDS had been diagnosed. 1800 of those people died. The city of San Francisco alone reported over 500 cases. To bring attention to this disease a march was held in San Francisco from the Castro district to the Moscone center, over 100,000 people participated. Again, Ronald Reagan said nothing.

By 1985 CDC had reported that over 6,000 people in the US had died from AIDS. A close personal friend of Ron and Nancy Reagan, Actor Rock Hudson, was diagnosed with AIDS. With AIDS out of the Presidential closet national AIDS activist Paul Boneberg begged President Reagan to say something to America that he new someone with AIDS to raise awareness about the disease. California congressman Henry Waxman publicly criticized Reagan for being silent about the disease. Reagan's friend Rock Hudson died of AIDS. Still, Reagan said nothing.

Finally, in 1987 towards the end of his second term, Reagan addressed the issue of AIDS at the Third International Conference on AIDS in Washington DC.

When he finally spoke, over 36,000 Americans had been diagnosed with AIDS and over 20,000 of them had died. The disease had spread to 113 countries with over 50,000 cases diagnosed. That soon spread to millions of cases.

Now in Africa alone well over a million people have died of AIDS.

The lesson of Reagan's silence is that a localized disease that began in 1981 with only a hand full of people spread to epidemic proportions affecting tens of thousands of lives before anything was said by President Reagan and the mighty resources of the Federal government were finally brought to bear on fighting the spread of this disease. However, subsequently the disease had went from localized outbreak to an epidemic within the USA to a pandemic affecting millions of lives around the world.

One can only speculate, how many more lives would have been saved had Reagan recognized AIDS in 1983 when he was first made aware of it and had done something about it?

This is the legacy of Ronald Reagan's silence about AIDS.
 
Last edited:
I voted for Washington's Farewell Address. While the other speeches are all great, and certainly deserved mention, the moment in history and context, should also be weighed into consideration. The other were indeed great speeches, but the moment dictated they had to be great speeches. With Washington's Farewell, it didn't have to be anything but a 'goodbye' speech, there was no historic expectation. What makes it a memorable speech, is the message it brings, to a nation who was (at the time) very uncertain as to what the future held. Remember, we were a very young fledgling nation at the time, no one knew if this was going to last or not. Washington's words seemed to reassure people that what we had built was special... beyond special, it was divine. Hundreds of years later, we can read the same words again, and they STILL inspire us.
That's an excellent point. Washington set the precedent for what was to come for many years. Whenever I read about Washington I'm always struck by what a visionary he was, but not only that, how accurate his vision for this nation was and how acutely aware of how virtually everything he did would set a Precedent for how we would be governed in the future.

Thank God we had him and not Napoleon, eh?
 
Back
Top