NFB: Kerry's speech -- thoughts?

[Jay 02 TA ws6]

I thought John Kerry's speech last night was pretty good overall. He spoke with more energy and emotion than I expected from him, and really charged to bring trust and honesty back to the oval office.

His strongest line was, "I will never mislead a country in to war." Ouch, that stings the Bush camp pretty bad...

HOWEVER...

Kerry's speech also contained many bold claims. Many ideals and goals to accomplish without the means of getting there. I for one would like to know how Kerry plans to:

1) Create more jobs for Americans, while raising taxes on the rich...
2) Correct the defecit while cutting middle class taxes, AND increasing spending on military, intelligence, defense weapons and technology, education, and law enforcement. (Personally, I am not terribly concerned about a defecit, but if he wants to make it a goal, he should have realistic plans of achieving it).......
3) Create more American jobs while ensuring that we are paid more for our work, and we don't have to work on Saturdays....... huh???
4) Revive the American manufacturing industry, while enforcing more strict pollution controls....

Personally, I think John Kerry is a man of much more character than George W. Bush. I trust him, because his ideals and visions sound good, and he expresses genuine conern for America. However, when it comes to running the country, I see far too many flaws in his promises. He just won't be able to deliver on all that I posted above.

Regardless, I am afraid the next President of the USA will be John Kerry.

[wolfdogs]

no comment what-so-ever.

[aschroeger]

The ballet has blank spot to fill in a name right? I'll vote for Clinton

[fastTa]

That is the problem with Kerry is that is idealistic liberal goals would be nothing short of a miracle for him to accomplish. While I do not proclaim to be either a democrat or a republican (too black and white), I typically like the down to earth, realistic goals and DOINGS of republican politicians. Democrats for the last 100 years have given eloquent speeches only for them to rarely be executed.

President Bush did not deceive anyone. There were doctors, scientists, biologists, and Iraqi familes who provided more than substantial proof of mass killings that were the result of a biological weapon of mass destruction. There were weapons of mass destruction in Saddam Husseins hands shortly before the war began, this is not debatable, it is hardcore fact. Just because these weapons magically dissappeared all of the sudden when UN inspectors went searching does not mean they did not exist nor does it mean they were not used. Lots of people overlook one thing about the war. President Bush did not start the war in Iraq. The terrosists started the war when they flew the planes into the World Trade Center towers.

I've been reading alot of interesting things lately in USA Today and online about Kewrry's time in Vietnam. There a lot of Vietnam Veterans joining together to come forward and say that they have intimate knowledge of his family having ties with big wig politicians and the government and thus "assisted" his 3 purple hearts. Moreover, after only being in Vietnam for 2 weeks, Kerry's first Naval commanding officer Lieutenant Commander Grant Hibbard questioned Kerry's first purple heart because there wern't even any reports of enemy fire recentlly and Kerry came ing to him saying that he had been hit. Kerry had a small scratch on his arm and was presenting to him a small piece of schrapnel.

Here is a quote from the Boston Globe:
The Boston Globe - June 6, 2003 -- . . . The National Archives provided the Globe with a Navy "instruction" document that formed the basis for Kerry's request. The instruction, titled 1300.39, says that a Naval officer who requires hospitalization on two separate occasions, or who receives three wounds "regardless of the nature of the wounds," can ask a superior officer to request a reassignment. The instruction makes clear the reassignment is not automatic. It says that the reassignment "will be determined after consideration of his physical classification for duty and on an individual basis."

Moreover, the instruction makes clear that Kerry could have asked that any reassignment be waived.
The bottom line is that Kerry could have remained but he chose to seek an early transfer . .

Kerry is a pu$$y and will never make to Presidency. George W. Bush has already won the hearts of the wise, and loyal American people by standing up firmly to defend the freedom and dignity of this country. Kerry would probably hide under his desk.

[Jay 02 TA ws6]

President Bush did not start the war in Iraq. The terrosists started the war when they flew the planes into the World Trade Center towers.

It has been proven over and over again that Saddam Hussein and the country of Iraq were not connected in any way to those attacks.

[TraceZ]

I like the man, he did a good job with his speach. I believe he is far too liberal however. He has a 96% liberal voting record. Gore only had a 65% liberal record at the time of election in 2000. Americans are not that liberal. I think that when it comes time to actually vote, Bush will get it.

He is also one of the biggest receivers of special interest money, yet he says he wants to limit how that money can be accepted. Hmmm.

Kerrys line "I will never mislead a country in to war." makes me mad. Is he saying Bush did? Kerry voted for the war too. All the intelligence from many different sources said that WMD did exist and that Iraq had links to terrorists. Given this information no president could had not invaded Iraq after seeing what they were capable of after 9/11. Kerry would had done the same thing at that time with that information. It is easy for us to sit in our homes safe and critisize a decision we didnt have to make. The president had information that we do not have access to at the time. Only now are we learning about the data he was provided with to make his decisions. It turns out it was bad data. Is that his fault?

Bush inherited a recession due to the .com bust. It was nobodys fault. Economies natually cycle. Then we had 9/11 and the economy was damaged worse. Again, not Bush's fault. He did the only thing a president can do, he cut taxes to stimulate growth. It is working. The economy is growing again. home ownership is at its highest ever. Unemployment is low. I think he is doing a fine job. I'm not going to deny him his second term. He has my vote.

War sucks, but here is something else to consider... Hitler was killing jews years before we entered WWII, and we knew it. We sat on our hands and did nothing. We only entered the war after we were attacked by Japan. If Japan had not attacked us, we would had allowed the concentration camps to stay open even longer.

Sadam is an anti-Christ just as Hitler was. lets not make the same mistake twice. We need to learn from history and remove these sick people from power before they get completey out of control. We are the only country capable of this type of action. Who else is going to do it?? the French?

[TraceZ]

It has been proven over and over again that Saddam Hussein and the country of Iraq were not connected in any way to those attacks.

Correct. It has also been proven that Sadam did have a relationship with Al-Quada. He just didnt have anything to do specifically with the 9/11 attack.

Now ask yourself this... If you are president after 9/11 and your intelligence says Sadam has WMD, and a relationship with terror groups would you assume the possibility of him selling the WMD to the terror groups? Would you be willing to risk that after 9/11?

If you did risk it, and terrorists DID use WMD obtained from Iraq in an attack, and you had the possible foresight to prevent it what would you say to the American people?

sorry?

[TraceZ]

False. A significant amount of his money funded terrorist training camps, and the education at out own American Ivy League colleges to educate the terrorists.

That makes him guilty. It is called an accomplice.

And bingo was his name -O-

Like the camp in Iraq with an actual airplane fuselage in it to train tactics in hijacking.

[fastTa]

It has been proven over and over again that Saddam Hussein and the country of Iraq were not connected in any way to those attacks.

False. A significant amount of his money funded terrorist training camps, and the education at out own American Ivy League colleges to educate the terrorists.

That makes him guilty. It is called an accomplice.

[fastTa]

And bingo was his name -O-

Like the camp in Iraq with an actual airplane fuselage in it to train tactics in hijacking.

You betcha!

[M3EATER - GG '00 WS6 T/A]

no comment what-so-ever.

I'll second that one........

[markd79ta]

Correct. It has also been proven that Sadam did have a relationship with Al-Quada. He just didnt have anything to do specifically with the 9/11 attack.

Now ask yourself this... If you are president after 9/11 and your intelligence says Sadam has WMD, and a relationship with terror groups would you assume the possibility of him selling the WMD to the terror groups? Would you be willing to risk that after 9/11?

If you did risk it, and terrorists DID use WMD obtained from Iraq in an attack, and you had the possible foresight to prevent it what would you say to the American people?

sorry?

Exactly, the problem is with intelligence not the Bush administration. The evidence led to a huge problem, and the administration acted accordingly. Osama was courted by Iraq but choose the Taliban. I would not like to be the leader who did not act if something did happen that originated in Iraq. The president declared war on terrorism and the Congress supported him. This was declared on terrorists, terrorist groups, and ANY country who supports terrorism...PERIOD. The administration has done what they said they were going to do in the times it is popular and the times it is unpopular. At least they stay true to their word.

[Jay 02 TA ws6]

I agree that given the intelligence he had, Bush did the right thing. However, this doesn't change the fact that many people in the country feel as though we were deceived and/or mislead into this war.

Kerry's statement preys on those feelings, those doubts in Bush... not on facts.

Since so many of us do feel somewhat mislead, his statement is still very strong.

[TraceZ]

However, this doesn't change the fact that many people in the country feel as though we were deceived and/or mislead into this war.

Misinformation is an epidemic right now. Many major news outlets are editorializing their factual work in an effort to smear Bush. Moore made a movie lying about it all, and people actually believe it.

If Bush plans to win this election he needs to somehow overcome the misinformation. He need to address the people in prime time and explain exactly what happenned to America and why in the last 4 years. Starting with the .com bust, and 9/11 and the WMD/terror threat. He need to tell us about the information he was presented with and make clear his choices. He need to come to a level the average American can come to terms with and show he did the right thing.

In a 1/2 hour public address he could put to rest many misconceptions. There are of course those who are bound and determined to hate him no matter what. There is no making those people happy.

[markd79ta]

Here are the things that I care about:

1. What the president should be doing. Plain and simple it is the protection of my rights and (Property Rights). The government's charge it to protect its citizens of their right to self determination and property. The president's job is to "Enforce" policy enacted by Congress, be the commander and chief and not make promises about what they can give you. I want a president who is strong and who will protect the country not promise handouts. The president is not about how good or bad the economy is. Clinton did not create a good economy. The economy of the 90s grew because of a boom in a new industry, IT, and a series of tax breaks provided by Congress. Remember, the Clinton agenda was rejected in '94 and his '93-'94 agenda items enacted in Congress were largely reversed starting in '95. He jumped on the bandwagon with a slight twist to set himself apart and take credit. The economy was cycling as it always does...remember, the IT breakdown started long before Bush took office. Anyhow, the president isn't about promises except one "...to protect the American People from harm, and encourage Congress to act while placing a check on it."

2. Takings. I enjoy my property and I want to handle it the way I see fit...I will only vote for an elected official who will vote for or sign a "Takings Bill". Takings is the term given to government regulating people out of their land without just compensation. For instance, a land use attorney and good friend of mine represented an elderly couple who bought land for their retirement home. When it came time to build, the county declared it open space rendering the land useless and valueless. The elderly couple was left footing the bill. It was ordered in court to compensate them, but their dreams were shattered. There are thousands of stories like this and it only matters if it happens to you as most people don't think about it or care. Well folks, it does happen...every day. There is a strong initiative throughout the country to get Takings legislation past to force compensation. Well, I have never seen the membership of one of the parties vote for this type of legislation in two different state legislatures. If an elected official can't take this stand then they are my enemy.

3. Gun Ownership. I would like to here lawmakers talk about protecting law abiding citizens right to own firearms while taking a tough stand on those who misuse the tool. I am tired of a gun used as a scapegoat for a problem with human behavior. Attack the perpetrator of a crime whether using a knife, gun, car, or a computer not the law abiding citizens who own firearms.

4. Environmentalism. I will not support a candidate who will subscribe to nature freaks. There is a balance between conservationism and proper planning of resources. They are to be used and used responsibly. However, preservationists as well as industrialists jack up the compromise of any good energy or land use plan while mortgaging our future and screwing up communities and individual's property. Additionally, the stupidity of these groups often ignores people like us who are automobile hobbyists.

For me, voting isn't about what the government will give me in terms of handouts, but about protecting my rights to earn my own way.

Kerry's speech is a politician's speech. He is telling people what they want to hear, or what he perceives people want to hear. People in general don't want to hear about threats nor do they want to hear they need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and get busy. They gravitate to the easy road if their is one. Remember, everything comes with a cost. For every promise, somebody has to pay for it as well as it will come at the cost of something else. Nobody, wants to talk about the choices. Every policy or program is a pendulum; we all know what happens when something outweighs another. Kerry may talk about outsourcing as bad or corporations as bad. ...but, did he talk about the cost in terms of standard of living such as the creation of jobs through venture capitol and investment or the cost of consumer goods...again pendulum. What are people willing to give up because you can't have your cake and eat it to as some politicians would like you to believe.