Jump to content

Clinton's speech


Rune
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'm not going to go into big details about my opinions but as for last nights speech, Clinton reaffirmed everything I believe in and why I'm a democrat and for those all over the country is did the same.

 

Whether you like him or hate him, that was a powerful speech that he pulled off last night. Some on the right will try to downplay it while others will take it as it was, a powerful speech that moved many on that side of the political spectrum. A speech which IMO was the best thing to happen to Kerry putting the ball in his court for thursday night. Clinton rose the democratic machine which had slept for the past 4 years and now it's either hit or miss for John to accept that or throw it away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I'm not going to go into big details about my opinions but as for last nights speech, Clinton reaffirmed everything I believe in and why I'm a democrat and for those all over the country is did the same.

 

Whether you like him or hate him, that was a powerful speech that he pulled off last night. Some on the right will try to downplay it while others will take it as it was, a powerful speech that moved many on that side of the political spectrum. A speech which IMO was the best thing to happen to Kerry putting the ball in his court for thursday night. Clinton rose the democratic machine which had slept for the past 4 years and now it's either hit or miss for John to accept that or throw it away.

478041[/snapback]

 

Clinton's speech was the most powerful Kerry endorsement to date. His comparisons between the "our way" and the Republican way were right on target. However, the most important part of his speech was when he said that "Strenght and Wisdom are not opposing values". Awesome speech! But we couldn't expect less from the Elvis of the Democrats. :thumbup

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought clinton made a good speech for the most part, good endorsement for kerry. And he made some key points into what democrats believe the role of government should be, and that is exactly why im not voting for john kerry. Its an ideological difference, but very well done to convince likeminded individuals.

478081[/snapback]

 

Not that you were voting for him at any point anyway. :mischief

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought clinton made a good speech for the most part, good endorsement for kerry. And he made some key points into what democrats believe the role of government should be, and that is exactly why im not voting for john kerry. Its an ideological difference, but very well done to convince likeminded individuals.

478081[/snapback]

 

Not that you were voting for him at any point anyway. :mischief

478092[/snapback]

 

 

. Had the ticket been in reverse I would have thought twice. However the point I'm making is that the reason I dont vote democrat is because of what dems think the role of govt should be, which i am in total disagreement of. I believe govt's only role is to protect out rights and to procide security. Everything else is left to individuals, thats called freedom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought clinton made a good speech for the most part, good endorsement for kerry. And he made some key points into what democrats believe the role of government should be, and that is exactly why im not voting for john kerry. Its an ideological difference, but very well done to convince likeminded individuals.

478081[/snapback]

 

Not that you were voting for him at any point anyway. :mischief

478092[/snapback]

 

 

. Had the ticket been in reverse I would have thought twice. However the point I'm making is that the reason I dont vote democrat is because of what dems think the role of govt should be, which i am in total disagreement of. I believe govt's only role is to protect out rights and to procide security. Everything else is left to individuals, thats called freedom.

478095[/snapback]

 

I know what you mean Legacy. However, one has to distinguish between "government intrusion" and "Government Protection". I believe that intrusion is what you don't want. I want my Government to let me make my own decisions in respect to my likes and dislikes, but I also want to feel that my Governement is ensuring I am protected against all possible threats to my personal freedom and well being. I want to know that my government will not meddle in the privacy of my home or read my mail, or decide who I should listen to. But I also want to know that my Government is ensuring others do not take advantage of me just because they have the power and/or the money, I want to know that my Government is doing everything to protect me from people who want to do me harm in any way. I also, want to know that while my government doesn't decide what should be thought in schools, it ensures that teachers are well paid and that education is accessible for me and my children.

 

I want my Government to be a fair capitalist government that ensures we all have the opportunity to succeed in life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought clinton made a good speech for the most part, good endorsement for kerry. And he made some key points into what democrats believe the role of government should be, and that is exactly why im not voting for john kerry. Its an ideological difference, but very well done to convince likeminded individuals.

478081[/snapback]

 

Not that you were voting for him at any point anyway. :mischief

478092[/snapback]

 

 

. Had the ticket been in reverse I would have thought twice. However the point I'm making is that the reason I dont vote democrat is because of what dems think the role of govt should be, which i am in total disagreement of. I believe govt's only role is to protect out rights and to procide security. Everything else is left to individuals, thats called freedom.

478095[/snapback]

 

I know what you mean Legacy. However, one has to distinguish between "government intrusion" and "Government Protection". I believe that intrusion is what you don't want. I want my Government to let me make my own decisions in respect to my likes and dislikes, but I also want to feel that my Governement is ensuring I am protected against all possible threats to my personal freedom and well being. I want to know that my government will not meddle in the privacy of my home or read my mail, or decide who I should listen to. But I also want to know that my Government is ensuring others do not take advantage of me just because they have the power and/or the money, I want to know that my Government is doing everything to protect me from people who want to do me harm in any way. I also, want to know that while my government doesn't decide what should be thought in schools, it ensures that teachers are well paid and that education is accessible for me and my children.

 

I want my Government to be a fair capitalist government that ensures we all have the opportunity to succeed in life.

478116[/snapback]

 

For the most part we agree, the problem is that as a realist I agree that some social programs will continue to be around, but most of these need major reform, and we need to stop taxing everyone (including the top 2% which pays 40% of our taxes) excessively for useless thing such as free money to people who refuse to work and so forth

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the most part we agree, the problem is that as a realist I agree that some social programs will continue to be around, but most of these need major reform, and we need to stop taxing everyone (including the top 2% which pays 40% of our taxes) excessively for useless thing such as free money to people who refuse to work and so forth

478171[/snapback]

 

Then you agree with the major tax cuts Bush has given the top 1%? How would we pay for the social programs you've just mentioned? The democratic party's plattform is not advocating raising the taxes, but to repeal the tax cuts in order to pay for the deficit. What do you think we should do to pay our debts and not endanger our future?

 

I don't mean to sound "pointy", I really want to know what does your party propose we do (the libertarians).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Legacy(sorry about the edit problem),

 

And what about those looking for jobs? I believe The Libretarian stance is eliminating unemployment all together. I believe they deserve some type of help if they are recently unemployed. WHen they worked they were doing tasks and jobs that are done to make our lives easier or more productive, I believe 100% that they should have time to get back to where they were as they have contributed to society not just simply being lazy enough not to work.

 

Of course their will be fraud but I think the positives outweight those cases. However if you have only worked a short period of time since being fired and still are relativly young or even if you're old and have never worked because of laziness. Then of course you shouldn't be helped out as say a person who's worked for 10 straight years and was just layed off. Plus those who are in their 20's and early 30's should be given low benefits if their unemployed as 20 year old legs are much more valuable on the job market that say a person who's 50. I think if you reduce from the young unemployed and increase benefits to long time workers, it evens out the system and somewhat gives it a balance it needs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Legacy(sorry about the edit problem),

 

And what about those looking for jobs? I believe The Libretarian stance is eliminating unemployment all together. I believe they deserve some type of help if they are recently unemployed. WHen they worked they were doing tasks and jobs that are done to make our lives easier or more productive, I believe 100% that they should have time to get back to where they were as they have contributed to society not just simply being lazy enough not to work.

 

Of course their will be fraud but I think the positives outweight those cases. However if you have only worked a short period of time since being fired and still are relativly young or even if you're old and have never worked because of laziness. Then of course you shouldn't be helped out as say a person who's worked for 10 straight years and was just layed off. Plus those who are in their 20's and early 30's should be given low benefits if their unemployed as 20 year old legs are much more valuable on the job market that say a person who's 50. I think if you reduce from the young unemployed and increase benefits to long time workers, it evens out the system and somewhat gives it a balance it needs.

478194[/snapback]

 

 

The problem is first of all bush's tax cuts were not just for the top 2%, the cuts actually affected me directly as well and I make like 25,000 a year. In terms of percentage we all benfit from tax cuts, it terms of numerical dollar amount of course the billionaire saves more. Either way the way i view unemployment is that we need to open up global markets so that there will be opportunity for everyone, everywhere and you need to migrate if there are no jobs available in your area. However, jobs will be based on skill and accountability, so basically it is impossible for employment to be at 0% all the time, but these types of things would allevaite those problems. And as for taxes you need to tax everyone the same percent. For example if yo utax me 10% I pay 2000 a year if you tax bill gates 10% you get 10,000,000 a year (or w/e he makes in comaprison). In that way you can briefly regulate (this is my perspective now not the lp one) the globalizaed economy to make sure total abuses do not occur, but still the freedom of employment and all goes to the individual,a and the smartestw worker and the hardest worker will reak the benefits

Link to comment
Share on other sites

agreed, that was a great speech. The man's got issues, but he's always been super on the stump.

 

he didn't overdo it either, because he easily could have started talking about his own presidency, related to the 9/11 commission & all that, but he kept the focus all on Kerry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Legacy(sorry about the edit problem),

 

And what about those looking for jobs? I believe The Libretarian stance is eliminating unemployment all together. I believe they deserve some type of help if they are recently unemployed. WHen they worked they were doing tasks and jobs that are done to make our lives easier or more productive, I believe 100% that they should have time to get back to where they were as they have contributed to society not just simply being lazy enough not to work.

 

Of course their will be fraud but I think the positives outweight those cases. However if you have only worked a short period of time since being fired and still are relativly young or even if you're old and have never worked because of laziness. Then of course you shouldn't be helped out as say a person who's worked for 10 straight years and was just layed off. Plus those who are in their 20's and early 30's should be given low benefits if their unemployed as 20 year old legs are much more valuable on the job market that say a person who's 50. I think if you reduce from the young unemployed and increase benefits to long time workers, it evens out the system and somewhat gives it a balance it needs.

478194[/snapback]

 

 

The problem is first of all bush's tax cuts were not just for the top 2%, the cuts actually affected me directly as well and I make like 25,000 a year. In terms of percentage we all benfit from tax cuts, it terms of numerical dollar amount of course the billionaire saves more. Either way the way i view unemployment is that we need to open up global markets so that there will be opportunity for everyone, everywhere and you need to migrate if there are no jobs available in your area. However, jobs will be based on skill and accountability, so basically it is impossible for employment to be at 0% all the time, but these types of things would allevaite those problems. And as for taxes you need to tax everyone the same percent. For example if yo utax me 10% I pay 2000 a year if you tax bill gates 10% you get 10,000,000 a year (or w/e he makes in comaprison). In that way you can briefly regulate (this is my perspective now not the lp one) the globalizaed economy to make sure total abuses do not occur, but still the freedom of employment and all goes to the individual,a and the smartestw worker and the hardest worker will reak the benefits

478217[/snapback]

 

The flat rate tax percentage makes sense. However, I don't know how it would affect government revenues. How would you implement this without bankrupting the country is my concern.

 

My other concern is globalization. I understand an open market is necessary for the country's industry to be able compete with international firms. However, globalization entails for each country to specialize in something, to be able to fully compete in the global market. The way I have seen it, globalization has had a negative effect on the job market in America. Americans are competing with low wage workers in other countries due to outsourcing, because as everyone knows, it is more profitable to pay less wages. So instead of creating opportunities here for Americans, globalization has pushed American companies to pick up their bags, and go set their base in other countries, leaving American workers without possibilities. If the trend would also come this way and help create jobs to compensate for the ones lost, it would be no problem. But the truth is that no other country has set up its base here to create jobs for Americans. In other words, American companies are greately benefiting from setting up their factories elsewhere, but American workers are the ones paying the price.

 

Economists argue that a global market helps the economy and creates jobs, the problem is that this can take years and maybe decades to happen. American workers have to specialize in a particular skill that no one else in the world posess. The truth is that no blue collar (and white collar for that matter) is in the position to compete with countries like India where well educated men and women can do mine and your job at a fraction of the price.

 

First was the automobile industry, then the microship industry, then the IT technology industry, then the middle management, marketing and now costumer service industry. American workers are running out of options. The only jobs that are outsourcing "risk free" are service industry jobs. Doctors, teachers, nurses, lawyers, etc and low wage jobs, like Walmart, K-Mart and Government jobs.

 

What else can the American worker do to keep his or her job in our ever changing economy without having to settle for a low wage job or having to go back to school at the age of 50?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In one of my e-mail lists, I received a recent blog entry by Andrew Sullivan (whom everyone knows as an influential conservative), and even he was blown away by it. He said that the Democrats are doing it right and that if the Constitution didn't forbid it, Clinton would have still been President, based on the appeal from last night's speech.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Damn I missed it. He's my favorite president that I've witnessed in office. (I know not to many great ones to choose from)

 

Any of you guys know where I can catch it.

478278[/snapback]

 

Probably by DL, Most networks have been just showing clips but it was powerful, funny, and basically everything anyone who loved or respected Clinton would expect from him and more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have zero problem with outsourcing .. for me anything that keeps the production cheap is good for me

 

I think the auto industry is a classic case of an industry that went bad in the US .... they got outworked, innovation came higher from others, unions got too much control and all of a sudden they were making a poor product at a high cost .... then when a cheaper, more reliable foreign product came in all they had was "buy american, save american jobs"

 

sometimes you have to save yourself

 

become more skilled .. show more benefit in having the jobs stay at home

 

a lot of outsourcing is getting brought back .. one because of the other costs of doing it abroad .. setting up the networks, training, infrastructure and then dealing with a labor force that can at times have an adverse effect on the customer

 

for a call center located in India, if the rep isn't able to communicate effectively or handle the situation quickly on 1 call, then it can become expensive to the company

 

i think competition is a good thing and I'm not afraid of the world

 

also you always need to update your skills and sometimes even if you do that you can lose your job due to your line becoming obsolete ... it's going to happen at times regardless

 

i for one would rather have the money I pay into unemployment and social security to put in my bank account then go through the inefficiencies and restrictions of government

 

for example, after graduation I moved to MN, where I started a temp job (with it being a bad economy and all you take what you can get) ... after 7 months I was laid off from my temp job without any sort of notice ... this led to a 3 week span of unemployment as I looked for another job .. i received no benefit and had no chance to prepare .. i had some $$ to hold me over, but am truly glad that the money I pay into the social programs were able to help someone else

 

i eventually moved to AZ, worked another temp job and then ended up permanent with another company .. now I would be eligible for unemployment .. but once again considering the odds of that happening I'd rather have the extra cash to invest in a nest egg for the worst case scenario

 

it wouldn't take much of a tax break for me to get the extra amount needed to put together 3 months of living expenses, which is all the insurance I feel I would ever need

Link to comment
Share on other sites

as for his speech, I didn't catch it

 

but from what I've read and the clips I've seen it looks like he did an excellent job

 

not a fan of his, but he can be a tremendous asset .. nice that ego didn't upstage the event, which can be horrid (see Wellstones service turning into a right wing bashing rally)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In one of my e-mail lists, I received a recent blog entry by Andrew Sullivan (whom everyone knows as an influential conservative), and even he was blown away by it. He said that the Democrats are doing it right and that if the Constitution didn't forbid it, Clinton would have still been President, based on the appeal from last night's speech.

478292[/snapback]

 

 

100% true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

agreed, that was a great speech. The man's got issues, but he's always been super on the stump.

 

he didn't overdo it either, because he easily could have started talking about his own presidency, related to the 9/11 commission & all that, but he kept the focus all on Kerry.

478235[/snapback]

*pictures Darrell Hammond's Bill Clinton impression*

:lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share



×
×
  • Create New...