What did john f kennedy meen...

[jinglesassy]

what did he mean when he said We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things what did he mean by and do the other things?

 

[insanity]

We want to kick some commie butt?

 

[n72.75]

Apollo applications program??

 

[Urwumpe]

what did he mean when he said We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things what did he mean by and do the other things?

Read the full speech, there he describes the "other things":

http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historica.../Speeches/JFK/003POF03SpaceEffort09121962.htm

No man can fully grasp how far and how fast we have come, but condense, if you will, the 50,000 years of mans recorded history in a time span of but a half a century. Stated in these terms, we know very little about the first 40 years, except at the end of them advanced man had learned to use the skins of animals to cover them. Then about 10 years ago, under this standard, man emerged from his caves to construct other kinds of shelter. Only five years ago man learned to write and use a cart with wheels. Christianity began less than two years ago. The printing press came this year, and then less than two months ago, during this whole 50-year span of human history, the steam engine provided a new source of power.​

Newton explored the meaning of gravity. Last month electric lights and telephones and automobiles and airplanes became available. Only last week did we develop penicillin and television and nuclear power, and now if Americas new spacecraft succeeds in reaching Venus, we will have literally reached the stars before midnight tonight.

​

This is a breathtaking pace, and such a pace cannot help but create new ills as it dispels old, new ignorance, new problems, new dangers. Surely the opening vistas of space promise high costs and hardships, as well as high reward.​

​

 

[n72.75]

Here is a video:

 

[garyw]

Was that a state of the union address?

 

[flying coffin]

It was a speech he gave at Rice University in Houston, Texas on September 12, 1962.

 

[agentgonzo]

Was that a state of the union address?

No, it was a speach to Rice University in Houston in 1962.

 

[n72.75]

This is the '62 State of the Union Address: http://www.infoplease.com/t/hist/state-of-the-union/175.html

 

[Kurt M. Weber]

It meant that he absurdly and erroneously thought that it was his place to speak for 200,000,000 other people, as though he were some sort of "leader" that was in charge of marshaling them rather than merely the head of a body intended to serve them.

 

[Andy44]

The other things? He had to give his cat a bath. Believe me, that's hard to do.

 

[Urwumpe]

The other things? He had to give his cat a bath. Believe me, that's hard to do.

Nothing that can't be solved with technology. For example a cat-apult.

 

[Ghostrider]

It meant that he absurdly and erroneously thought that it was his place to speak for 200,000,000 other people, as though he were some sort of "leader" that was in charge of marshaling them rather than merely the head of a body intended to serve them.

Since the US is a representative rather than a direct democracy and since POTUS is the chief executive, he happens to be a leader. Chosen by the people with a limited mandate and with legally limited powers, but still a leader. To lead, at least to lead well, is a form of service.

 

[Kurt M. Weber]

Since the US is a representative rather than a direct democracy and since POTUS is the chief executive, he happens to be a leader.

Of the executive branch of the Federal Government; NOT of "the people" or "the country." And so he only is empowered to speak for the executive branch of the Federal Government; NOT for "the people" or "the country."

 

[insanity]

Of the executive branch of the Federal Government; NOT of "the people" or "the country." And so he only is empowered to speak for the executive branch of the Federal Government; NOT for "the people" or "the country."

You're so wrong, again. Look, I try to be a pretty nice dude- even to people I disagree with, but you are flat out wrong.

Article 2 of the Constitution, a document made by 'We the People', establishes the Presidency as the head of the executive branch of the Federal Government. You are correct about the role of President as the head of the Executive Branch, but the source of his power is we the people. Amendment 12 makes them elected by the majority of electors decided upon by the electoral results of the state (most states are winner-take all in terms of electors). What part of being the head-of-state and commander-in-chief, elected in the legal way (by the methods prescribed by we the people), does not entitle them to speak on our behalf? We elect leaders to lead. Do you have to agree with the leader's path or the underlying logic to get there? No! You can protest and complain all you want, you can do everything legally possible to stop it, but you can't deny their right as an office holder to set out policy goals, goals they carry out in the name of the people. This is called Representitve Government and has been more or less the standard for the last 200 years.

Think about how big the executive branch is, a size that has been defended in the Supreme Court multiple times, and you can see the President has gigantic power to set national policy and a responsibility to articulate that policy to the people (the source of power).

I understand your disdain for representative government, as erroneous as it is, but at the end of the day you have to deal with the facts, and they are just not there to support your case because that's the system we have.

Beyond that, here is the problem with your delusion about anarcho-libertarianism:
The interests of the free market and the interests of free people are not always aligned. Did we not learn anything from derivative trading? Or the vertical intergration and conglomeration of the media? Or the airline industry? Or NAFTA? I could go on and on, we could start calling into question the morality of a free market the openly exploits third world labor and the view that humans are guided purely by self-interest. Each time your argument would fall flat. In short, the foundation of your political philosophy is based upon the most intellectually dishonest rationale, and any challenges that are raised to it are dismissed in cute three word replies like, "No, it's not".

 

[PhantomCruiser]

:ditto:

Serious thanks guys. My dad thinks (in his humble opinion) this is one of the best speeches by ANY politician in his lifetime. I'll take him at his word, but I must say it is mighty good.
I wonder if the cigarettes and cigars remark still holds true?

 

[Andy44]

Disagree. It's a collectivist speech. Kurt is pushing your buttons, of course, but he's right: JFK was not, could not, speak for every American when he said "we choose".

What he should have said, had he been more honest, was, "I choose to make you pay for". That's what he did. Clearly Walter Mondale and others didn't choose, they were not part of Kennedy's "we".

Of course, this whole worship of Kennedy as some sort of saint gets under my skin. JFK didn't care a wit about landing on the moon until he figured out it would make a good strategy for one-upping the USSR.

---------- Post added at 10:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:51 PM ----------

To Urwumpe: take your cat out in your cat-amaran and toss him in the drink for a moment. That should do the trick.

 

[RisingFury]

JFK didn't care a wit about landing on the moon until he figured out it would make a good strategy for one-upping the USSR.

Yea!! And he didn't care a wit about body armor and bullet proof cars until he figured out they're good at stopping bullets!

 

[insanity]

Disagree. It's a collectivist speech. Kurt is pushing your buttons, of course, but he's right: JFK was not, could not, speak for every American when he said "we choose".

What he should have said, had he been more honest, was, "I choose to make you pay for". That's what he did. Clearly Walter Mondale and others didn't choose, they were not part of Kennedy's "we".

Of course, this whole worship of Kennedy as some sort of saint gets under my skin. JFK didn't care a wit about landing on the moon until he figured out it would make a good strategy for one-upping the USSR.

He was the dully elected leader by the People, thus entitling him to set a policy agenda on their behalf. That is what government is and does.
Sure, I think he wanted to do it to trump the commies, but he has the legal authority to set NASA's budget and goals as the President. I understand it pisses you off to see the government spend money you've earned, but that is what they've done since before Jesus.

 

[Andy44]

EDIT...nevermind. No point in spinning things up. Believe whatever makes you feel happy.