NFB: Kerry's speech -- thoughts?

[hotwhip9]

Elect Kerry and we will see this country take a turn for the worse in the morality department. Abortion, gay marriages, secularism......these are the things Kerry stands for.

Doesn't abortion, gay marriages, secularism stand for the peoples right to chose how they want to live their lives? I'll be the guy to say it, christianity is not as strong as it was in the past, particularily when this country was founded. That might pull the non-religous voters, knowing that Kerry is somewhat for the peoples choice when it comes to their own decisions about life. Why can the gov't say you two people of the same sex can't get married if they do love each other. If those two people are not christian based in their views, how can christian based people tell them what to do?
If "official" marriages are not allowed, they are still going to live together and act like they are married, so why not let them put it on paper?

By NO means am I attacking or implying that I am attacking religion. Just wanted to let you guys know, if it came across that way.


One thing that might change the views of the current military members is that Kerry wants VA benifits for life. That says a LOT. Being in the military it would sure be nice knowing I have medical benifits for as long as I live when I'm out of the military. I think Bush has done a good job, with the war on terror. Not everyone is going to agree or disagree with his decisions he has made. As it was said earlier, it was not just his decision. Its a tough decision to make. There is no right answer or decision, as there will always be some opposers to whatever decision is made about anything.

[TraceZ]

The way I see it, Bush should have never been in office to begin with. Why should we put so much effort and trust into a candidate who SNAKED his way into the presidency? The fact that he had to steal the election to get into office doesnt sit right with me, and should be the concern of everyone.

IF the media outlets had not called the election for Gore hours before voting was done, Bush would had gotten even more votes. Once people saw Gore had it, many Bush supporters saw no point in voting and didnt go. Even with this, the recount still gave the election to Bush. He did not "snake" his way in. He rightfully won the election, without a doubt.

I think it should be illegal for the madia to say anything about the election results until the polls are closed. They have too much power to influence the results.

[hotwhip9]

I think it should be illegal for the madia to say anything about the election results until the polls are closed. They have too much power to influence the results.

I agree. The media has far to much influence on EVERYTHING!!! It would have been a different election and war if the media had not been so involved.

[Jeff_in_Atl]

IF the media outlets had not called the election for Gore hours before voting was done, Bush would had gotten even more votes. Once people saw Gore had it, many Bush supporters saw no point in voting and didnt go. Even with this, the recount still gave the election to Bush. He did not "snake" his way in. He rightfully won the election, without a doubt.

I think it should be illegal for the madia to say anything about the election results until the polls are closed. They have too much power to influence the results.

Actually it is illegal. The media outlets are not allowed to post any results until the poles close for a district. However it may have some impact in the time zones further west.

I think the poles should be open for a 24 hour period based on 1 time zone. That means they will close at 7 in the eastern, 6 in the central, 5 mountain, etc. That and keep the law for no pole results until poles close. I know it would be hard on the pole operators but it would get more people to vote. What would really help is being able to vote online. We can do everything else online, why not vote.

[paxton350]

ehh bushes

The saying is true lol....."Republicans spend all of my tax money over seas and on the military while they cant even help their own citizens who are starving on the streets here". as far as im concerned, 1. no WMD were found. 2. hundreds of amercians are dead due to going over to iraq. 3. osama is still at large. Bush aint gettin a vote outta me thats for sure we need a new approach. i wonder if all the ppl who were laid off due to bushes great econcomy would vote for him too?

[Kevin - Blown 95 TA]

The saying is true lol....."Republicans spend all of my tax money over seas and on the military while they cant even help their own citizens who are starving on the streets here". as far as im concerned, 1. no WMD were found. 2. hundreds of amercians are dead due to going over to iraq. 3. osama is still at large. Bush aint gettin a vote outta me thats for sure we need a new approach. i wonder if all the ppl who were laid off due to bushes great econcomy would vote for him too?

Who was it that got us into Viet Nam? And Who got us out? How many died there?

1. Wrong
2. Hundreds, not thousands.
3. Hiding in a cave somewhere living in the dirt. Not caught YET.

You should definitely vote for whomever you percieve to be the more capable and honest candidate. Maybe you should study history, current events, and economics first.

So, what approach would your candidate propose and how would he implement it?

[N20LT4Bird]

Doesn't abortion, gay marriages, secularism stand for the peoples right to chose how they want to live their lives? I'll be the guy to say it, christianity is not as strong as it was in the past, particularily when this country was founded. That might pull the non-religous voters, knowing that Kerry is somewhat for the peoples choice when it comes to their own decisions about life. Why can the gov't say you two people of the same sex can't get married if they do love each other. If those two people are not christian based in their views, how can christian based people tell them what to do?
If "official" marriages are not allowed, they are still going to live together and act like they are married, so why not let them put it on paper?

YOURE RIGHT!!!!! It does stand for PEOPLE choosing how THEY WANT to live.......The problem with that, is that those choices have no regard for RIGHT or WRONG. Just because our country has put God on the "backburner", doesnt make homosexuality, abortion, and (insert sin here), etc. right. Thats what Bush stands for; doing what is right no matter what the liberal agenda is.

I dont want to get into a gay marriage debate (but I guess I am going to anyway ), but if we acknowledge a same sex marriage, we are degrading what this country values as a sacred relationship - the marital relationship between a man and woman. There are certain rights and responsibilities that come with my relationship with my wife......MY marriage doesnt mean the same thing if anyone or anything can get a marriage liscense. If we allow this perversion of marriage, whats next? IF im bisexual, can I marry a guy AND a girl? Can I go and marry my dog? Some people are into beastiality, its their right to chose, so why not allow it? Can I go and marry 3 wives, a guy, AND my dog? You see where it could go? We've already been desensitised to homosexuality, many people feel its O.K........as long as they are not hurting others. The thing is - they are. THey are hurting what I hold valuable and are out to destroy the traditional family in America.

You know what - youre absolutely right when you say Christianity is not as strong as it was in the past. Its sad that we have walked away from what our founding fathers intended. Had we not, we wouldnt be dealing with the absense of morality in this country. Kerry wouldnt stand a chance.

[paxton350]

kevin-

i dont know too much about politics but i will tell you this much, i saw clintons nomination speech in 92' (i didnt see kerry's) and he took bush sr.'s mess and cleaned it up with his "new covenant" proposal. im sure you had no problem finding a job during his time in office. clinton took bush jr's fathers mess and cleaned it up... thats why he got two terms.. simple.... new ideas, thats what liberals are all about a new approach and it worked didnt it? now i believe kerry can take bush jr's mess and clean it up and manage it to the extent clinton did. and thats not just my opinion, thats everyones here in boston...........

[fastTa]

1. no WMD were found. 2. hundreds of amercians are dead due to going over to iraq. 3. osama is still at large. Bush aint gettin a vote outta me thats for sure we need a new approach. i wonder if all the ppl who were laid off due to bushes great econcomy would vote for him too?

1. How about this. Lets say here in the USA there was a warehouse known for someone harboring illegal weapons, and the perpetraor suspected of harboring these weapons was priveleaged to the information days in advance before the police came to serve him a search warrant. Do you think the police are going to find a thing?? Saddam had weeks of notice!

2. This statement you make greatly dishonors those soldiers who died. These soldiers you dishonor truly believed they were merely upholding their duties to protect the freedom of the American people and put a stop to that which threatens us.

3. Do you have a better plan on capturing him?

Doesn't abortion, gay marriages, secularism stand for the peoples right to chose how they want to live their lives? I'll be the guy to say it, christianity is not as strong as it was in the past, particularily when this country was founded. That might pull the non-religous voters, knowing that Kerry is somewhat for the peoples choice when it comes to their own decisions about life. Why can the gov't say you two people of the same sex can't get married if they do love each other. If those two people are not christian based in their views, how can christian based people tell them what to do?
If "official" marriages are not allowed, they are still going to live together and act like they are married, so why not let them put it on paper?

By NO means am I attacking or implying that I am attacking religion. Just wanted to let you guys know, if it came across that way.


One thing that might change the views of the current military members is that Kerry wants VA benifits for life. That says a LOT. Being in the military it would sure be nice knowing I have medical benifits for as long as I live when I'm out of the military. I think Bush has done a good job, with the war on terror. Not everyone is going to agree or disagree with his decisions he has made. As it was said earlier, it was not just his decision. Its a tough decision to make. There is no right answer or decision, as there will always be some opposers to whatever decision is made about anything.

Like N20LT4Bird said. Just because someone is already doing something does in no way make it right or moral. If we allow these things to become legal and commonplace it will only open the door for even further immoralities seeking to become "legal". The reason that "Christian" based people can apply rules to those you say aren't "Christian based" is because the entire premise and foundation of the Constitution and the Decalration of Independence is founded on God. If they these non-Christian people choose to live in America then they automatically chose to accept America's foundations and laws. Pretty simple eh.

VA benefits have always been for life since I can remeber. If you have a DD214 then you have VA benefits for life. I only served 2 years in the Navy under the college fund program and havn't paid for a dental visit or x-ray since.

[Jeff_in_Atl]

1. no WMD were found.

That is absolutely NOT TRUE.

.....there has been about a dozen mustard gas artillery shells and 1 shell filled with about 4 liters of saran gas. It takes about 15 mls to kill someone. Do the math 4000mls/.015mls. That is enough to kill 266,666 people. If that is not a WMD, I don't know what is. It doesn't matter when it was made. It was found in Iraq. Do you believe that Saddam made just 1 of these? Where are the rest of them. A lawyer asks you at a trial, answer yes or no, have WMDs been found in Iraq. Yes or no. The answer is yes. End of story.

Ugh

[fastTa]

kevin-

i dont know too much about politics but i will tell you this much, i saw clintons nomination speech in 92' (i didnt see kerry's) and he took bush sr.'s mess and cleaned it up with his "new covenant" proposal. im sure you had no problem finding a job during his time in office. clinton took bush jr's fathers mess and cleaned it up... thats why he got two terms.. simple.... new ideas, thats what liberals are all about a new approach and it worked didnt it? now i believe kerry can take bush jr's mess and clean it up and manage it to the extent clinton did. and thats not just my opinion, thats everyones here in boston...........

You openly and freely admit that you know very little about politics and that your opinion is in harmony with the ENTIRE city of Boston, yet you still have not managed to state one specific agenda that Kerry has proposed that would incline you to vote for him based on that. Scary to say the least!!

Instead you will be voting for Kerry just in spite of Bush and due to a demographically popular demand

My fear is there are many more people in this country that will be doing the same. What a shame.

[xxRillixx]

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.

-- He tells us that he wont 'mislead us into war', but he voted to pass the bill saying we SHOULD go to war... just like Bush... having the same intellegence that Bush did. Kerry also says that he wasnt to support the troops, but then he voted against properly arming the military. Listen to his statements made at the time of 9/11. He was very adiment about going after terrorists, and disarming Saddam. But now when he is asked about it, he is against it.

-- He wants to raise taxes... from the rich. "The wealthy get a bigger tax break." No, they get the same %... just they spend more, so theyget more back (spending $10 gettting $1 back is NOT more then spending $1 getting $0.10 back). They want the rich to pay more in taxes... but also want them to create businesses, and give to charity. The more we tax them, the less they will buy... We want the rich to buy our products or companies start to fail. Meaning the middle and lower classes lose jobs.

-- 'Creating more jobs'... we are at a 5.3%? unemployment rate... close to the lowest we have have been in 20 years. ... ok?!

-- Wanting everyone to be middle class, having not high / low... That would be nice, but people shouldnt be paid equally. Some people work their butts off while others could care less. So the person who works himself to death is supposed to support the bum who is able, but doesnt like to work?? Doctors should be paid as much as someone in McDonalds? Then why go to school? Why work harder when everyone gets paid the same no matter what? ... just doesnt make sense.

-- Raising the minimum wage... it doesnt just effect the minimum wage people, it effects everyone. Say you have 3 tiers - $6 , $7, $8. The minimum wage is bumped to $7... well the tier above him makes $7... so they have to be moved up to $8, well the tier above them makes $8... so they have to be moved up to $9. Now the company is spending more to run the business, and is makeing less. So they have to raise their prices on goods... guess who pays more - you, me and the minimum wage person. Everything we buy that is run or created by employees will be more expensive. ... doesnt mase sense.

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.

I agree!!!!

[xxRillixx]

You openly and freely admit that you know very little about politics and that your opinion is in harmony with the ENTIRE city of Boston, yet you still have not managed to state one specific agenda that Kerry has proposed that would incline you to vote for him based on that. Scary to say the least!!

Instead you will be voting for Kerry just in spite of Bush and due to a demographically popular demand

My fear is there are many more people in this country that will be doing the same. What a shame.

so true...

" Why are you voting for Kerry... "
-- I dont like Bush

[paxton350]

i saw an article a while back about bush sr. during his time in office- his campaign funded weapons and $ to iraq during the cold war to help assist the us in bringing the ussr to its knees but neglected to hold relations with the us. hmmm now 2 decades later his son takes my taxes and my fellow americans into iraq for a personal vendetta started by his father just because he hasnt found bin laden? apparently thats just the tip of the iceburg..... did any of you see that 60 minutes episode with bushes former advisor i forget his name it was a few months ago, he stepped down from his position due to the corruption and spoke openly about it on 60 minutes. oh an spending $80 billion and building the national defecit that much higher is also pretty bright, id rather take that money write a bill and give every american healthcare because what happens when you have millions of americans with no healthcare? you create poverty and harsh times. shame on conservatives for looking the other way....

[texanmutt]

News flash: we are not the world's police force. ...

Some times we have to be cause no one else will do anything about it.

I have seen no such intelligence.

I haven’t seen it either because the methods of gaining them are to sensitive to release. If they did release it, they source would be compromised and quite possibly the person gaining it could be put in danger if they are still in the field.

The USA throws it's weight around far too much. Who are we to tell Iran and North Korea, or anyone else for that matter, not build nuclear wepons?

North Korea is kept in line with 50,000 US troops sitting south of their border. Iran is kept in line with 150,000 troops sitting in Iraq. Both are kept in line by pointing 500 nuclear missiles at them. Therefore we don’t have to worry about them getting out of line to much. Saddam is a different story. He is fu(kin crazy and would be very eager to use WMD.

Do I want those countries to have them? Of course not, but we have no right to restrict their development when we were the first country to develop them, the ONLY country to use them, and the one with the most. Saddam's stockpile of chemical weapons and nerve agents pales in comparison to our own.

Using the atom bombs in WWII saved more Japanese and American lives then if we would have invaded the mainland. Hundreds of thousands of purple hearts where ordered by the defense department in preparation for the invasion of Japan, which never happened. Our chemical and biological weapons are being destroyed (if they haven’t been already) in special facilities that incinerate them.

What if one day Canada decided that the country to its south was making it nervous by having those large stockpiles. What if they don't like Bush as a president or feel he was illegally given the presidency after the 2000 election. Do they have a right to come in here and set up a Canad-friendly goverment of their choice, and to destroy our weapons and our ability to defend ourselves? No one would answer in the affirmative yet the US does this all around the world; destroying goverments we don't agree with and dismantling armies in the name of democracy.

Canada is one of our best allies and they depend heavily on our military for their own protection. How do you think we monitor incoming nuclear missiles from Russia, with US radar stations in Canada. They depend heavily on us for the support of there economy. We get more of our oil from Canada then any other middle eastern country. We get only 20-25% of our oil from the Persian Gulf area. Go here for the facts (US Dept of Energy website) http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/p...df/table35.pdf

As I said, I don't agree with the war in Iraq, I don't think the threat was imminent enough to warrant an invasion but if there was intelligence that the president was privy to that we are not then of course my view could change.

Very thought that Japan or Germany was a threat till Pearl Harbor got bombed. Many people died needlessly because we sat on our a$$ and did nothing. If we had gotten in the war in the 30's when hitler started his conquest, many lives would have been saved. But instead we chose to wait till 1941 and by then the Threat was alot bigger than it was just a few years before, so it took alot longer to defeat them.

John Kerry is a yellow SOB who endorses any idea that helps his career. He supported the war at first because Americans wanted justice for 9/11 at that time. As time progress and everyone started to forget about 9/11, anti war sentiment begin to rise with lefties, so Kerry jumped on that bandwagon to help him with his oval office conquest. He talks of making the military stronger, but has voted against every new weapon system and votes against more military funding. He talks of stimulating the economy, but votes against legislature that would benefit small businesses. Small business create more than 75% of all new jobs. You have to remember that Kerry and Edwards are former trail lawyers. Lawyers will say anything to win their case, whether its morally right or wrong, or true or false. Kerry flip-flops from on point of view to the opposite based on popularity and benifits to his career.