I'd never say something that I didn't feel I could defend.
It's easy to defend a policy that works. It's not so easy to defend a policy that didn't work.
To launch weapons against a nuclear power would be suicide. To do so against a non-nuclear enemy would be militarily unnecessary, morally repugnant, and politically indefensible.
Any danger spot is tenable if men, brave men, will make it so.
...not everyone is willing to defend a position of 'not knowing.' There is no virtue in ignorance for its own sake.
What no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish.
Predictability can eventually be defended.
Though argument does not create conviction, the lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish.
The only defensible war is a war of defense.
It is commonly said that if rational argument is so seldom the cause of conviction, philosophical apologists must largely be wasting their shot. The premise is true, but the conclusion does not follow. For though argument does not create conviction, the lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish.
It is easy to defend the innocent; but who is eloquent enough to defend the guilty?
Invincibility depends on one's self; the enemy's vulnerability on him.
"Patents make our product defensible." The optimal number of times to use the P word in a presentation is one. Just once, say, "We have filed patents for what we are doing." Done. The second time you say it, venture capitalists begin to suspect that you are depending too much on patents for defensibility. The third time you say it, you are holding a sign above your head that says, "I am clueless."
I have observed in my 30 years in Washington that when a President initiates a major policy speech on a controversial issue while Congress is in recess, it usually is because what he is advocating is indefensible and that he is seeking to minimize criticism.
It is almost always the unhappiness of a victorious disputant to destroy his own authority by claiming too many consequences, or diffusing his proposition to an indefensible extent.
Anyone can be beaten. I don't think any team is unbeatable.
Whenever I write something, I always want to make sure that what I write is defensible.
For even if you should have stood your ground, he said, yet what ground was it?
Oh, how great is the power of truth! which of its own power can easily defend itself against all the ingenuity and cunning and wisdom of men, and against the treacherous plots of all the world.
You better be able to defend it after the attack - so don't stretch it. In other words, if the guy's guilty of A and B, don't make him guilty of A, B, and C. That's what a lot of people do.
No place is weak where there are men capable of defending it.
For a similar Ancient Greek version of this notion, See : {632265}.
I'm not really going to defend anyone's lyrics.
With my own memoirs, they are truthful, and I write everything fully expecting to some day end up televised on Court TV, and I'm fully prepared to be challenged legally on it. Everything I write is the truth and I know that I would win.
I've found that my first drafts are not so special. But the more I work on them, the better they get. They are more unique and defensible.
Image has to be its own fortress, in spite of the owners. People can't separate that or they don't comprehend that you can turn that on and off for each one of the different entities.