NFB: Kerry's speech -- thoughts?

[hotwhip9]

Wasn't his discharge in the 70's a medical? Explaining why it wasn't honorable at that time.

[Jeff_in_Atl]

Some people who inherit money are lazy and should be in the highest tax bracket. i personally know someone who inherited a lot of money and abuses drugs etc. u think he should have a breakfrom taxes on his lifestyle and the amount of money he inherited vs the ppl who work 40 hours a week, thats the most retardedest thing i think ive ever heard anyone say.......

I have a couple of questions for you.
1. Does this person you know have a job? If so, about how much does he make?
2. How much of this inherited money does he have invested?

[hotwhip9]

but should you be forced into fighting for a cause you don't agree with?

My opinion, no. Many soldiers are currently over there whether or not they agree with it. But, the fact is they signed that paper saying you will defend the constitution of the US, take commands and orders from everyone appointed above you and all that other stuff it says. If I go back again, it will be the third time. Not exactly what is on the top of my to do list, but if this nation requires me to do so I will. I might complain and whine but I will do my job to the best of my ability, as should every soldier.

[N20LT4Bird]

[QUOTE=xxRillixx-- 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.

[/QUOTE]

Most our manufacturing is done in Mexico or China or other countries for this very reaon......raise the minimum wage and it will make the problem worse. Why would a smart business man pay someone 7 bucks an hour in America when they can get it for 2 bucks an hour in Mexico? Raising the minimum wage will only send more jobs to other countries willing to do meanial work for less. It doesnt take a genious to figure this stuff out.........Liberals are so idealistic.

Texanmutt.......so I can assume your voting Kerry?

I enjoyed your post, good points.

[fastTa]

The constitution prohibits government support of any religion. Americans come from nearly every ethnic and cutural background imaginable. Not every one of those cultures is Christian. Because something is declared in the Bible does not make it law. It may make it God's law, which in turn may make it your law, but you have no right to impart your beliefs and expectations onto others. This country was founded on freedom of religion and the free exercise thereof, and for you to restrict individuals rights and call them unamerican because their beliefs disagree with yours reeks of a lot of things, of them good. I am disapointed that there are people who feel so strongly about there beliefs (whether they are political, religious, or other) that they would condemn and ridicule those who don't hold those same beliefs.

This has absolutely nothing to do with our government trying to impose their religios beliefs upon immigrants entering the country or own people for that matter, alarmingly instead it is just the opposite. It is all the immigrants and even some our own that want everything changed in this country just because it does not suit their beliefs, morals, and just sometimes their opinion. So according to your theory we are supposed to adjust our federal laws and regulations in such a manner that would make everyone happy so that they may go to bed with a warm fuzzy feeling inside because America didn't tell them what to do. Horse$hit. I guess if all of the middle-eastern immigrants start to take offense to the fact that the American flag is publicly displayed here in our homeland and that interferes with their religion, I suppose we the people of the United States are to oblige them and ban all public display of American flags. Come on man, wake up.

You start off by making the false statement that this country does not support religion and then you make the not suprisingly contradictory statement stating that this country was founded on the "freedom of religion". Our forefathers did accept the Bible as God's law and fortunately they chose to write most of the current laws based on that very precedent. Therefore, our Federal, State, City, and County laws are inherintly Godly based. This cannot be changed, should not be changed, and must be obeyed. Simple as that.

Laws and rules by no means exist to please everyone. Instead they exist to do their best at keeping the place we call home a civil place to live. A place that has a sructured order that maintains a specific chain of command in order to keep the peace and provide the people with a vote in whom they choose to run the important positions within this chain of command.

It is not our government's obligation nor is it in their best interest to try and please everyone that resides in this country. First of all it is impossible to please everyone and by attempting to do so would only dilute their efforts to simply do what is morally and ethically right.

American laws are American laws. American rights are American rights. They are not a privelege they are a right. A gift if you will. They are there for a reason. If someone living here does not like them, the Canadian border is not that far of a drive.

[Jay 02 TA ws6]

-- 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.

ROCK ON, BROTHER!!!!!

[Jay 02 TA ws6]

this is the richest country in the world and no single mother who has 3 kids who can only manage to work 15 hours a week to care for her family should not be denied healthcare becasue she works part time or doesnt have the money. healthcare is expensive, very expensive my company pays 3500/ year for me plus i have co- pays. ppl who drive around in limos who make 200k plus a year dont need a break! its the working class like those single mothers and ppl who are struggling with their minimum wage jobs @ 30 or 40 years old. you obviously have never been in those shoes so i can see how you dont understand.

Maybe if this country would actually start living with some morals, there would be far fewer single mothers of 3. Ever think of that? Maybe she should have been doing a little less "gettin her groove on"...

I don't feel very bad for people who create their own bad situations as a result of their own poor decisions.

Now... in the case of a father's death, divorce, or other tragedy, that's different. But it also is not the mainstream in the case you presented above.

[TraceZ]

Anyone who tries to work hard and improve themselves genrally wont find themselves homeless or on welfare. Most of these poeple who are homeless and on walfare (for a very long time) are the ones that dont want to improve themselves and make their life better, they just want a handout. This country gives people many oppertunties to suceed, but you have to take them. The government should not be responsible for giving people handouts. A helping hand yes, but no free rides. Alot of people are in those situations because they want to be or because they wont apply themselves to get out of it.

I believe this is true, but I need to say someting about homeless people. My wife runs the largest program in this area for the rehabilitation of people that are homeless, mentally handicapped and chemically dependant. Here is a fact... Most homeless people are not homeless because there are not any jobs, but instead because they are not capable of holding a job. They are not reliable enough to show up on time every day, or do not have the mental ability to accurately process a task. This is usually due to mental defect or drugs. My wife's facility deals with these people case by case to find solutions for them.

Improving the economy will not help these folks. Caring passionate people like my wife help them. She could use a bit more funding, sure, but they do get the job done. The staffers in her line of work deserve tons of respect.

I also have a comment to all the liberals who care so much: A friend of mine once told me that you can't put a price on life. She told me that no cost should be too much to save a life. I called her on it. I asked her to sell all her possesions including her house, cars, vacation home, etc... get a 1 bedroom apt that is just enough to survive in. Take all the money from the sales, and the bulk of her wages and donate it all to the save the childern foundation. She could save dozens of childern every month.

She declined my idea. Instead of helping, she decided to keep her material possessions and let the childern die. How terrrible for her.

The fact is, that every day we all make a decision to help ourselves instead of the childern, and they die.

Are we all bad people??? I think it is unfortunate, but it is the way the world works. I guess my point is that before liberals preach lofty values and ideals they want to force on others they should make sure they are making the sacrafices themselves first. If you want to pay more taxes... go ahead. pay more. have your taxes done in a way so you pay the maximum. Leave me out of it.

[TraceZ]

Maybe if this country would actually start living with some morals, there would be far fewer single mothers of 3. Ever think of that? Maybe she should have been doing a little less "gettin her groove on"...

I don't feel very bad for people who create their own bad situations as a result of their own poor decisions.

Now... in the case of a father's death, divorce, or other tragedy, that's different. But it also is not the mainstream in the case you presented above.

Corract. Liberals always want to be sympathetic. I prefer to hold paople accountable. The constitution does not guarantee us the right to have everyone else pay for our kids. I know professional couples that are putting off kids because they cant afford them. Meanwhile, their hard earned tax money goes to the complete slackers that have had several kids irresponsibily and cant pay for their support themselves.

[TraceZ]

Why do liberals demonize the rich?? Who do you think provides our jobs here? When was the last time a poor person offered you a job? And why is it bad for a rich guy to have a big house and a few luxury automobiles? My Uncle just completed a home that I'm guessing ran him well over $3M. He has a garage with 4 Ferraris in it. His daily driver is a H2. It took a crew of hundreds of craftsmen 9 months to build that home. My uncle payed the wages of all those people for that time. It put food on their tables, clothes on their backs, made their housing payments and got them ahead.

The best thing a rich person can do with their money is spend it. When it gets spent, it provides the rest of us an opportunity to work and get our hands on it.

So liberals want to punnish the rich with higher taxes. That hurts us all, and that is why the liberal philosophy fails in a capitolistic society.

[M3EATER - GG '00 WS6 T/A]

Some information on our country's heritage......
Watch for the "separation" of church and state.... thing.......

FAST FACTS:



O What Does “Separation of Church & State” Really Mean?



· This phrase was not found in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or the Declaration of Independence; it was found in a personal letter written by Thomas Jefferson 13 years after the First Amendment was adopted. Jefferson cannot be considered an authority on the First Amendment—he was not one of the signers of the Constitution, nor did he participate in the amendment debate! His comments are third-hand, which no court would consider. But he did sign the Declaration of Independence, and it contains four references to the sovereignty and vital influence of God over this nation!



· A more reliable source of the Founders’ intentions for religion would be the journals of Congress, which record the debate over the Constitution and the First Amendment. The Founders were careful to protect this young nation from having a national religion forced upon it, but they did not want to appear to abolish religion.



· Religion in the Constitution is almost non-existent, and that can be confusing. But religion was a matter of state jurisdiction! The states were suspicious of surrendering any freedoms to the federal government. Samuel Adams and Patrick Henry resisted the Constitution until 10 handcuffs were placed on the power of the federal government—we call them the Bill of Rights. These men protected religion from federal control in the First Amendment, and then went back to their states and included religion in their state charters, constitutions, mottoes, and oaths of office.



· The Civil War changed that. In the South it was called the States Rights War, and after they lost, no one wanted to be linked with that issue. As a result, the federal government easily assumed powers formerly re-served for the states.



O Our Biblical Constitution. A fascinating study was done of all the writings of the men who wrote the Constitution. It was found that 34% of all the quotations they studied were from the Bible! The next most frequently quoted author was a French political philosopher named Baron Charles Louis de Montesquieu. At that time European nations were all monarchies. Yet Montesquieu developed the idea of 3 branches of government based on Isaiah 33:22, which says the Lord is our Lawgiver, our Judge, and our King. He saw the importance of Jeremiah 17:9, where God says that man’s heart is deceitful and wicked. Montesquieu realized that even when the government was divided into 3 branches, each would fight for power over the others. Only if they had equal power, so that greed would check greed, could government survive. He designed one that did the impossible—used sinners to keep other sinners from sinning!



O America Stands Alone. In comparison to the other governments of Europe, many of which were reformed at nearly the same time as ours, no other has lasted! France tried to establish a Democracy based on Rousseau’s philosophy that man is basically good and that left to himself, he will make the right decisions. That ended in a bloodbath! That nation has gone through over a dozen forms of government; Italy has experienced close to 38; and the island of Sicily had so many governments come and go, power fell into the hands of an underground government called the Mafia; while the American republic has continued.



O The Original Meaning of “Separation.” One of the questions we must ask is what the Founders intended to separate from government in the First Amendment. It could more accurately be said they wanted a separation of denomination and state rather than a separation of belief and state. They did not want the Anglican Church, or any other, set up in the White House to dictate how the people practiced religion. But it is basically impossible to establish a separation of belief and state. Every action a person performs is preceded by a thought, and the group of thoughts that controls our actions is our belief system. This also holds true for governments. As we look at the actions of our government, we can tell what belief system precipitates them. The only way to change the actions of a government is to change its belief system! That is the task ahead of us if we would return our country to the actions and policies that made it a great and good nation! We can the importance of this when we examine the philosophies before the Civil War.


Cheers, Guys
Gordon

[AmericanZ28]

Quote:
-- 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.

The less they will buy? Of what? I challenged this very theory once a while back, but got no response. It seems like many believe that a tax break for the rich will automatically result in an investment to hire more people, and expand business. I suggested that this is just as likely as them buying a new ferrari, or some painting. Either way, someone has to make that car, or paint that painting, which therefor creates a demand for that particular product, resulting in the hiring of people to produce that product. Right? Now, assuming that middle class gets the tax break instead of the rich, what do you think the middle class will do with that extra money? THEY WILL SPEND IT! Just like someone who is rich will SPEND IT! Except the only difference is that instead of there being a higher demand of Ferraris, there might be a higher demand of Mitsubishis or something. And as a result of the increase in demand, there will be more jobs and people will get hired, and management will profit, as will everyone else. I know I for one spend my tax refund on performance parts for my car. Theres a performance parts store benefiting already!
And dont forget that the middle class far out-weighs the rich, so this means you have the vast majority of Americans contributing to the economy instead of just a select few. The rich will still be able to afford all the things that the middle and lower class never will, so whats the big deal? Get over it!

[RangerBob]

I certainly can't claim to have been at these demonstrations or in Vietnam. But if the above charges were indeed true to the extent that this post makes them seem, not only would John Kerry not be a Senator or Presidential candidate, he would likely be in prison for treason, perjury, and conspiracy to commit murder. These quotes were taken out of context, and there is a story or explanation behind them like there is any charge made against anyone.

Link to J Kerry's service record explained

Plus other arguements concerning Bush's military service. All very interesting reading.

The bottom line as I see it, was that I was wrong in not respecting John Kerry as a self-promoting war hero. He was a courageous Naval officer, who led his men in combat, something George Bush avoided.

But look at this too:

John Kerry's Vietnam Service Record

Kerry's Silver Star

What Kery did on the battlefields of Vietnam does not excuse his conduct when he got back. I doubt if many VN veterans forgive him, but what do I know?

Bob

[RangerBob]

Transcript of ABC's special June 30, 1971 broadcast of "The Dick Cavett Show"

More interesting reading

[Jay 02 TA ws6]

The less they will buy? Of what? I challenged this very theory once a while back, but got no response. It seems like many believe that a tax break for the rich will automatically result in an investment to hire more people, and expand business. I suggested that this is just as likely as them buying a new ferrari, or some painting. Either way, someone has to make that car, or paint that painting, which therefor creates a demand for that particular product, resulting in the hiring of people to produce that product. Right? Now, assuming that middle class gets the tax break instead of the rich, what do you think the middle class will do with that extra money? THEY WILL SPEND IT! Just like someone who is rich will SPEND IT! Except the only difference is that instead of there being a higher demand of Ferraris, there might be a higher demand of Mitsubishis or something. And as a result of the increase in demand, there will be more jobs and people will get hired, and management will profit, as will everyone else. I know I for one spend my tax refund on performance parts for my car. Theres a performance parts store benefiting already!
And dont forget that the middle class far out-weighs the rich, so this means you have the vast majority of Americans contributing to the economy instead of just a select few. The rich will still be able to afford all the things that the middle and lower class never will, so whats the big deal? Get over it!

What you have said demonstrates why any tax cut is good. However, while a tax cut for the middle class is good, a tax cut for the middle class AND the upper class is even better. I mean, it should be pretty simple to unerstand why...

Not only that though, It really bugs me when people talk of tax cuts "for the rich". They didn't get a tax cut exclusively for them -- everyone got the tax cut. What is 5% of $60,000? $3,000. What is 5% of $6,000,000? $30,000. They got the same tax cut, but the rich saw more money because their percentages are greater. You may say "well why don't we give everyone a $3,000 tax cut then?" Based on equality, I can understand why you may think that... however... you have just effectively removed $27,000 from the wealthy that they would have spent. What could have generated $33,000 dollars of consumer money to be spent has now only generated $6,000. That won't accomplish nearly as much.

Now I challenge you to head to an economics book store, or become a reader of the Wall Street Journal to further understand this...