„I'm not wild about the term first lady. I'd just like to be called Laura Bush.“

—  Laura Bush, CBS News (June 24, 2004) http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/24/eveningnews/main625975.shtml
Laura Bush photo
Laura Bush
primeira dama dos Estados Unidos de 2001 a 2009 1946
Publicidade

Citações relacionadas

George W. Bush photo
Mandy Patinkin photo

„I'd have sex with a number of the Muppets. I just don't talk about it publicly. It's private. Although a hint is, that there was a character in Elmo in Grouchland who was called "My Lady" and that's all I'll say.“

—  Mandy Patinkin American actor and tenor singer 1952
Kansan.com (the University of Kansas Daily), "A conversation with Mandy Patinkin" http://www.kansan.com/stories/2005/apr/07/jayplay_features_mandy_qanda/ (2005-04-07)

Publicidade
Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis photo

„The one thing I do not want to be called is First Lady. It sounds like a saddle horse.“

—  Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis public figure, First Lady to 35th U.S. President John F. Kennedy 1929 - 1994
Advice to her secretary; quoted inThe Kennedys (1984) by Peter Collier and David Horowitz

Lawrence Taylor photo

„I guess that I'm just a plain wild dude.“

—  Lawrence Taylor All-American college football player, professional football player, linebacker, Pro Football Hall of Fame member 1959

Lewis Black photo
Eoin Colfer photo
Steve Martin photo

„Hello. I'm hello, and I'd like to say myself.“

—  Steve Martin American actor, comedian, musician, author, playwright, and producer 1945

Warren Zevon photo

„It just sort of happened. I wrote like what I'd always read and what was in the movies … I'm sure popular music is supposed to be like this.“

—  Warren Zevon American singer-songwriter 1947 - 2003
Answering the question "What led you to stake out the noir Roland the Headless Thompson Gunner genre?", in "My Lunch with Warren Zevon" by David Bowman,Salon.com (17 March 2000)

Darren Shan photo
Clive Barker photo
Terry Pratchett photo
Raymond Chandler photo
Leo Tolstoy photo

„These new justifications are termed "scientific". But by the term "scientific" is understood just what was formerly understood by the term "religious": just as formerly everything called "religious" was held to be unquestionable simply because it was called religious, so now all that is called "scientific" is held to be unquestionable.“

—  Leo Tolstoy Russian writer 1828 - 1910
Context: These new justifications are termed "scientific". But by the term "scientific" is understood just what was formerly understood by the term "religious": just as formerly everything called "religious" was held to be unquestionable simply because it was called religious, so now all that is called "scientific" is held to be unquestionable. In the present case the obsolete religious justification of violence which consisted in the recognition of the supernatural personality of the God-ordained ruler ("there is no power but of God") has been superseded by the "scientific" justification which puts forward, first, the assertion that because the coercion of man by man has existed in all ages, it follows that such coercion must continue to exist. This assertion that people should continue to live as they have done throughout past ages rather than as their reason and conscience indicate, is what "science" calls "the historic law". A further "scientific" justification lies in the statement that as among plants and wild beasts there is a constant struggle for existence which always results in the survival of the fittest, a similar struggle should be carried on among human­beings, that is, who are gifted with intelligence and love; faculties lacking in the creatures subject to the struggle for existence and survival of the fittest. Such is the second "scientific" justification. The third, most important, and unfortunately most widespread justification is, at bottom, the age-old religious one just a little altered: that in public life the suppression of some for the protection of the majority cannot be avoided — so that coercion is unavoidable however desirable reliance on love alone might be in human intercourse. The only difference in this justification by pseudo-science consists in the fact that, to the question why such and such people and not others have the right to decide against whom violence may and must be used, pseudo-science now gives a different reply to that given by religion — which declared that the right to decide was valid because it was pronounced by persons possessed of divine power. "Science" says that these decisions represent the will of the people, which under a constitutional form of government is supposed to find expression in all the decisions and actions of those who are at the helm at the moment. Such are the scientific justifications of the principle of coercion. They are not merely weak but absolutely invalid, yet they are so much needed by those who occupy privileged positions that they believe in them as blindly as they formerly believed in the immaculate conception, and propagate them just as confidently. And the unfortunate majority of men bound to toil is so dazzled by the pomp with which these "scientific truths" are presented, that under this new influence it accepts these scientific stupidities for holy truth, just as it formerly accepted the pseudo-religious justifications; and it continues to submit to the present holders of power who are just as hard-hearted but rather more numerous than before. IV