Posted on 10/14/2004 5:32:41 AM PDT by NotchJohnson
True. My parents are Catholic as I. They are what would be termed a devout catholic with crosses, Virgin Mary's all over the place, Catholic retreats, going to Mass at lunch break, etc. They may vote for Kerry even though a long time ago they supposedly belonged to the right to life party. They have become people who "hate Bush, Bush is dumb, just because you are Catholic doesn't mean you leave your mind at the door." Now these people would fall into voting for W very easily if they had a clue what they were voting for. The big lie is that Catholics vote pro life.
You don't get it. His opinion that JFnK won the debate is a vindication of the typical American that looks to the government to solve their problems or "take care of them". It may not be as high a percentage as Neal seems to think, but it is at least half of our country.
he did say that but he also believes that we have become a society where most people look to government.
You are absolutely correct and not just because I agree and I'm seeing it from the same viewpoint. LOL!
You're correct because I said so.
LOL!
"My own parents are sending me letters to get me to vote for Kerry.. they hang up on me now when we talk Politics. "
You too? Not my parents, but some friends and even my own relatives. I'm stunned. One of my cousins with whom I share a house, even told me that she thought 9/11 "was our fault". It was all I could do to just not explode and slap her silly. Her brother is the same way. They say we can't talk "politics". What they mean is that they don't want to hear another opinion or any differing facts.
There is now a wedge between me and many of my friends
and relatives. I don't know if it's going to go away. For me, it's not about "politics", it's about survival and freedom. It's about common sense and the reality of Islamofascism's war on America and freedom. It's depressing.
Well, I feel right at home next to Southern Baptists. I was raised in a Penecostal household.
Mr Boortz ought to be commisioner of the Non-results-Oriented Soccer League (NOSL)
Boortz has always been pro-choice....He used to have a policy of immediately hanging up on any man who called into his show (females excluded) and raised the subject of abortion (in any context). His approach used to be, if you do not have a womb you have no say.....
I got in a heated debate with him once approx. 10-12 years ago on this very subject...before he was syndicated and just a local talk jock......I've never listened to him since....
NeverGore :^)
I feel so bad for both of you. My grandparents were both Democrats. (Both union members!) Anyhoo, all of their children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren are Republican. Hehe!
Voting for a Democrat in my family is so foreign that it would seem simply un-American.
DID ANYONE CATCH THIS?
Schieffer 8,000 / Kerry 4,000
SCHIEFFER: Let's go to a new question, Mr. President.
I got more e-mail this week on this question than any other question. And it is about immigration.
I'm told that at least 8,000 people cross our borders illegally every day. Some people believe this is a security issue, as you know. Some believe it's an economic issue. Some see it as a human-rights issue.
How do you see it? And what we need to do about it?
Kerry talked about the borders being worse today than they were on 9/11
BUSH: Well, to say that the borders are not as protected as they were prior to September the 11th shows he doesn't know the borders………..
KERRY: FOUR THOUSAND people a day are coming across the border. (Backs up Bush's point about Kerry not knowing the borders)
The way I saw the debate last night is if you are for big government, higher taxes, handouts, etc., vote for Kerry. If you are for making a better life for yourself, lower taxes, smaller government vote for Bush. If the majority of voters expect the government to solve their problems every time then Kerry's their man. Although I'm not so sure he'll solve problems as much as create them.
If Neal is right why then do Conservatives keep winning elections? If this is the case, the Right is never going to win ever again.
I think people want someone to inspire and call forth the creative, positive and constructive within them, to expect the best from them. - The method of leftists is to inspire and call forth the dependent, negative and destructive within people, to have no expectations of them, to the end that they wield immature, self-serving POWER over the masses. Why? - For different reasons, personal celebrity, greed for personal riches, lust for personal sexual favors at the ready at the public expense (witness Bill Clinton and his intern exploitation), a high personal lifestyle at the public expense, for personal power which enables them to dictate their whims to the masses, and I guess more personal reasons. *Note - all the reasons are selfish personal ones probably going to the love of money, which is the root of all evil.
That's a hard-left attitude, to say the least.
An actual libertarian would not exclude callers on the basis of sex or ideas.
Usually someone whose approach to debate on a specific issue like this is so unreasoning and emotional has unresolved personal conflicts about it.
Exactly -- people need to remember that 1) these are not really "debates", and 2) the "winner" of the "debate" is irrelevant, it is only the winner on Nov. 2nd that counts.
For example, if we had Pres. Gore today, do you think anyone would be saying that Pres. Bush won the debates in 2000?
I don't know who Neil Bortz is, and right now, I DON'T CARE.
"Not sure im getting Boortz on this one. He offers nothing to back up his belief that he thinks most people want govt handouts. I dont believe that to be true at all."
How about 50+ years of constant growth of gov't?
How about 50+ years of every politician offering to give away more and more?
Face it, people have been voting for socialist presidents ever since Roosevelt. It's not a question of whether or not both candidates agree that gov't should solve everything, because they pretty much do (look at what Bush has done, he's gotten the gov't involved in all sorts of things, like prescription drugs for old people). It's just a question of degree, and how much more socialism you want in your leader.
Neither man talks about actually making gov't smaller, neither has said one word about eliminating a gov't office or department, and neither has said one word about making the federal budget smaller. The budget has grown enormously during Bush's term.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.