Kerry's speech.

Fusion pimp · Post by **Fusion pimp** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:44 pm

I think the speech was good, but, there's a part of me that doesn't think his words are sincere and I can't quite put my finger on it.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:49 pm

Yeah, I feel about the same way. It just seems so plausible that he's only trying to set himself up as the super bi-partisan/American of the next election, or whatever else he may be after.

I guess it would be hard, anyway, for me to accept anything he could say as sincere, when he has been so eloquent/polished in saying some things that I know just aren't true.

Plebeian · Post by **Plebeian** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 2:16 pm

Sergeant Thorne wrote:It just seems so plausible that he's only trying to set himself up as the super bi-partisan/American of the next election, or whatever else he may be after.

That's in the back of my mind, as well. None of what he's said has ever sat really well with me, he just seems almost like a robot or something. I can't really explain it, but he scares me. I guess we'll see what happens in four years, if he does try again (now that Bush will be out of the way and they're all-new candidates).

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 2:30 pm

"I think the speech was good, but, there's a part of me that doesn't think his words are sincere and I can't quite put my finger on it."

Shawn, consider yourself lucky. You get to think those things about a Senator whose constituents live on the other side of the country. I get to think these things about the President.

Iceman · Post by **Iceman** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 2:42 pm

Sergeant Thorne wrote:It just seems so plausible that he's only trying to set himself up as the super bi-partisan/American of the next election, or whatever else he may be after.

Doubtful it would be the next presidential race. Historically both parties have neglected to give a loosing candidate a second chance, seeing them as unable to win.

Fusion pimp · Post by **Fusion pimp** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 3:11 pm

Jeoff, ..

..

I wouldn't say that I trust Bush completely either. To me it was the choice between crap and sh*t, one sounds a bit nicer, but they both stink the same.

Shawn.

Plebeian · Post by **Plebeian** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 3:12 pm

Well, as he's "stepped down gracefully" as it were, I wouldn't put it out of the realm of possibility. May not happen, but I don't see it as impossible. If he fought tooth-and-nail and wouldn't back down until it was driven home that Bush did have the majority win (if that did turn out to be the case -- without a 100% count, it's hard to say for sure, but it's most likely), then I couldn't see him being nominated again, but as it stands now, I wouldn't dismiss the possibility.

Fusion pimp · Post by **Fusion pimp** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 3:12 pm

Thanks for remembering, Jeff.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 3:15 pm

Good comment, vander.

Kerry is toast. Not only did he lose, but he's a northern democrat. I think the democrats will go with that southern democrat next time around, if they have any brains at all.

I think a lot of people were upset or unhappy with bush, but just not really turned on by this northerner from Mass.

Joe Shmoe in Ohio who drives a truck just couldn't identify with Kerry, and it would sit badly with him to think of himself as a "kerry person".

Shawn, I think you fall into this camp. You aren't completely pleased with bush but the alternative is this Massachutesettes liberal guy

Dems need a people-person, someone from the south who is distinguished but likable. Bush does really well on the "average american" factor.

Avder · Post by **Avder** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 3:18 pm

Kerry aint gonna run again. Maybe for senate, but not for president. Next in line for the Democrats are Hillary and Obama, and maybe, possibly Gore.

In 2008, for the Republicans I see either Jeb Bush or John McCain running. I would vote quite eagerly for John McCain.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 3:19 pm

Obama is too young to run. He just won his first senate seat. Look for him in 2012 or 2016.

McCain is your president in 2008, by a landslide. I can't think of ANYONE that will come close to mccain's bi partisan support.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 3:21 pm

I think the speech was good, but, there's a part of me that doesn't think his words are sincere and I can't quite put my finger on it.

I can't for the life of me understand why he wouldn't be sincere. Conceeding means game over, no need to pander to voters. He could have said '★■◆● Bush', he could of said, 'lets bring the lawyers', but he put what was best for the country ahead of whats best for him and said, "It's over, Bush is the president".

Maybe you guys just had him pegged wrong?

Plebeian · Post by **Plebeian** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 3:24 pm

I definitely agree, Birds. I know I could never figure out Kerry, and just couldn't bring myself to vote for him (despite tending to lean toward the Dems usually). He scared me since I could never figure out just what was going on in his head. He seemed like he was too distant from "normal" people, and who knows what he'd do once elected.

Bush at least seems like a regular guy, even if he does do some things that are somewhat misguided (or what some of us would deem as inappropriate). We all know where he stands, though, so there's no surprises.

We need candidates we can really believe in, and not just have people that are a placeholder for us to allow us to vote against the incumbant (this goes for both sides -- pick good candidates and I doubt the country would be as torn apart).

Fusion pimp · Post by **Fusion pimp** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 3:45 pm

Goob, it's possible that I have him pegged wrong, but I don't think so.

Conceeding means game over, no need to pander to voters. He could have said '**** Bush', he could of said, 'lets bring the lawyers', but he put what was best for the country ahead of whats best for him and said, "It's over, Bush is the president".

He could have said and done all of that, but it wouldn't have changed a thing. The people of America have spoken and no amount of lawyers or money would change that. I believe *that's* why he didn't.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 4:03 pm

Gooberman wrote:I can't for the life of me understand why he wouldn't be sincere. Conceeding means game over, no need to pander to voters. He could have said '**** Bush', he could of said, 'lets bring the lawyers', but he put what was best for the country ahead of whats best for him and said, "It's over, Bush is the president".

One of us is lacking in understanding on the subject, because I believe that what he said was the best thing, for him, that he could have said.

Gooberman wrote:Maybe you guys just had him pegged wrong?

I guess that's always a possibility. We can only judge by his campaigning, which, though reasonably sufficient to convince me, personally, that he definately wasn't the man for the job, can't be expected to show everything about his character. I hope he was sincere.

For me, there is still the perverbial fly in the ointment of his seemingly gracious speech of his insinuating that the other side was against every vote being counted. ..And speaking of which: was all that stuff about making sure everyone's vote was counted just a bunch of propoganda/gas--was he taking credit for other people's efforts in getting all the votes in and counted, or did he really have a serious part in the effort? It's sounded like BS to me.

HaAGen DaZS · Post by **HaAGen DaZS** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 4:14 pm

I can see ST's point here, but I'm gunna side with Goob.

and even if he personally wanted to go for the lawyers etc, at least he did stick to his word. How many "leaders" pull through like that?

DCrazy · Post by **DCrazy** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 4:35 pm

Rumor floating about the city is that Giuliani will try for the Republican Presidential ticket in 08.

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 7:56 pm

Shawn, of course he didn't want to say the things he said. He wanted to win! He wanted to give an acceptance speech, not recite passages from the "Good Loser's Handbook." Can you maybe cut him a little slack, just once in this case? For me?

Fusion pimp · Post by **Fusion pimp** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:33 pm

Joe Shmoe in Ohio who drives a truck just couldn't identify with Kerry, and it would sit badly with him to think of himself as a "kerry person".

Shawn, I think you fall into this camp. You aren't completely pleased with bush but the alternative is this Massachutesettes liberal guy

Brian, are you suggesting that I am the equivalent of a truck driver from Ohio? Kidding.

I'll be as candid as possible. I don't frequently share what I think because people tend to take advantage and pigeon-hole.

I have a lot of respect for the liberals because I think they have heart. I think they have the desire to help everyone they possibly can at any cost. I truley appreciate a giving person. I'm all for helping a fella up, but I'm not going to support anyone but my family.I also think the liberals very unrealistic under the current financial circumstance.
More often than not, I think the liberals are driven more by emotion than by rational, but I'm not going to give examples ,it'll turn into an issue war. I think most liberals lack the ability to see natural consequence. It seems they'd rather help an individual now and chose to ignore the future consequence.. feel good now, deal with it later.
Then you have the Soros and moores who I don't believe represent the majority of true liberals, rather, they are the extremes. Unfortunately those extremes have the loudest voices and these are who come to mind when the word liberal is spoken. I truely abhor these people and I believe that they are intentionally deceitful. Nasty people who are driven by thier own agenda, not caring for this great country. America has done its share of wrongs, but no other country in this earth's history has been as gracious as America and its people. The people of America are caring to a fault at times. Watching these extremist butcher our country's name using the constituion that affords them that freedom is apostate and liberals seem to embrace them.
I cannot identify with these people. Perhaps I'm equating Soros/Moore with liberals just as non-Christians are equating the Bakers with Christianity, I don't know.
Then I have this problem with the liberals display of morals. I don't believe basic morals change with time. I don't subscribe the the idea that whatever you think is right, must be okay... It's a very selfish way of life. To me, morals are a set of rules that are followed not only for your own good, but for the good of humanity. Compromising those morals on any level slowly leads to a degrading society. I don't buy into gray areas.. it's right or it's wrong.
Let me be clear, I do not think that liberals are intentionally trying to destroy America like The Soros' and Moores'. I think they truely think that what they want, they believe *is* the best thing for the country and its people. I have to respect a person who will stand for what he believes, whether I agree or not.
I believe that those I am addressing know that I'm a big-time constitutionalist, I believe the constitution is what makes our country great. I watch liberals butcher our constitution into "read what I meant and not what I wrote". The constitution should not change because some don't like what it says. I keep hearing from the liberals how the constitution is a "living document", suggesting that it changes with time. As if somehow speaking the words "living document" respects its authority. The constitution is not a living document, it's a document to live by and no matter how the words are manipulated by special interest groups, it still says the same thing when it's read in it's entirety.

Jeff, I honestly hope that the right man got the job. I pray that Bush will lead us into health, wealth and saftey, and pave the way for the next president, democrat or republican, to keep this country the best damn place on earth. America is in perilous and divisive times, I can't imagine having to make the decisions that our president has to make.
I don't support George W. Bush because he's George W. Bush, I support him because he is the president of the United States of America. John Kerry would get the same respect from me if the polls went his way.

B-

Tetrad · Post by **Tetrad** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 10:08 pm

Fusion pimp wrote:To me, morals are a set of rules that are followed not only for your own good, but for the good of humanity. Compromising those morals on any level slowly leads to a degrading society.

Where exactly do you draw the line in as far as morality is concerned? Is it very wide sweeping as simply not killing everybody else, or can you say that a skirt that's too short in public is immoral and should be outlawed? What is stopping me from removing the word "morals" and pigeonholing whatever I think is the proper way of living into legislation?

Of course, if you think it's immoral you're probably not going to partake in such things you'd want to institute, but overall it sickens me that the majority of americans would treat these people like they are. To be cliched, what did they ever do to you?

And whatever happened to personal responsibility?

roid · Post by **roid** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 10:11 pm

Fusion Pimp thanks for writing that, it read very well.

<-- is in a pure-listening mood.

tetrad back off and give him the respect he deserves for saying what he did with such honesty. jump down ppl's throats when they bare their interior to you, and you encourage the armour to be pulled up stronger than ever.

Fusion pimp · Post by **Fusion pimp** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 10:15 pm

Tetrad,
My beliefs are not up for debate. And, nowhere did I suggest that morals should be legislated.
It's *ALL ABOUT* personal responsibility.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 11:14 pm

I think most liberals lack the ability to see natural consequence. It seems they'd rather help an individual now and chose to ignore the future consequence.. feel good now, deal with it later.

As roid said. Well written, but I will still respond

. I know you didn't want to go into specifics, but I feel that I have to inorder to respond. So I understand if you just don't care to respond.

Quite often I think you and others mis-peg the average liberal on the actual issues as well. I'm just speaking for myself, but I believe it transfers to the majority of us. For example welfare: Yes, we want welfare, but not to "support" other people, just to get them back on their feet.

If someone has been on welfare for a year and has shown no attempt at finding a job, or no attempt at holding a job, drop them. I seriously don't even know a liberal that would argue otherwise! Yet I feel like people assume we just want to support them at all costs, this is just not the case. And helping a man on his feet helps the economy, which helps your family, and helps my family.

I have never in my life talked to someone who has argued for unlimited welfare, and yet, I feel like the conservatives believe the average liberal wants it.

On gun control: I could argue all day with you if it makes you safer to have them, but if someone were to ever take away your basic guns I would be right there on the picket line next to you fighting for your right to have them. Where we, and I do believe most, liberals/conservatives differ are these assault weapons. I don't want to make this about guns, but I'm just saying that liberals seem to get pegged with gun-elimination, when all we want is gun-control.

Healthcare, well, ok, you got me there. But the point is I think a lot of people buy into the republican spin machine, that liberals will take away your guns, we will take your money and make you support other people, etc. It is the republicanâ??s job to defeat us, and they do a great job at labeling us as the extreme. However, most of this just isn't the case. Either that or I am greatly out of touch with my party.

I would fight for your right to have guns, and I certainly don't want you to support anyone.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 11:44 pm

The Fusion Pimp is firing fully charged!
Well said B

Fusion pimp · Post by **Fusion pimp** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 1:17 am

Goob,
You would fight for my right to have guns as long as they're guns you approve of. I would fight for your right to say/do anything you wanted to within the bounds of the law, even if I didn't agree. This has nothing to do with guns, but it is a perfect example of the difference between the way I think and the way you seem to think.

There's a vast difference and that's exactly what I'm talking about.

I have this internal struggle, that is, Balancing my faith with freedom. There are many ways people abuse freedoms that make me sick and go totally against what my faith would have me do. However, I can't be a hypocrite and tell another free man what he can and cannot do with his life, this is, after all, the land of the free. Free means free, it does not mean free only if I/we agree. Not controlled by obligation or the will of another. **NOT CONTROLLED BY OBLIGATION OR WILL OF ANOTHER**

Abortion is murder in my eyes, however, I would fight to the death for your right to excercise that freedom if you so chose to take that path. A free people means a free will. I will not hinder a free man from making his own choice, right or wrong, it's his choice and it's between him and God. I am not God.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 9:29 am

I watched a show last night on MSNBC called Hardline or something, Reagan's kid was on there talking about Bush's victory speech. I guess he reached out and said that he wanted those that voted for Kerry to trust him and to help build the unity that the country has absolutely none of right now. I'm reluctant to think he will do anything but revert back to the extreme right wing.

On the other hand, I liked Gooberman's post. There is the mass misconception with what the conservatives on this board like to pigeon us "liberals" with. Welfare, in my opinion, is a divine program. Helping people get back on their feet is something that everyone should be proud of. But the system lacks the ability to make anyone get off their feet, that is the problem. I have never had to use any kind of government help, but if I had to, it's nice to know that the citizens of this country feel that there should be some kind of program in place to do such a thing. I feel the same way about gun control, now Shawn here knows how I feel about that stuff and could tell you my opinions readily. As with Gooby, I'm against the anti-tank .50 cal armor piercing with exploding shell guns. Why is there any need for that? My honest opinoin, every single gun should be taken away and if you want to carry a weapon, do it with a knife. Try to kill someone with a knife, you would see a rapid decrease in a variety of shooting incidents. No one is going to cut someone off and then slice them with their buck knife in traffic. No more drive by shootings, much easier to kill someone 500 yards away then to watch and feel them die right on you.

End result, something needs to be figured out to make this country one again. I know that you cannot get every single person to agree on all issues, that would be impossible, but we can't survive this nasty division. 58 million people voted for Bush, the most in history, but 54 million voted against him, the most in history. Troubling numbers, in my opinion, from a president who does not have to answer to anyone, or worry about getting re-elected. I see this country getting far worse when it comes to partisan(ness?) than getting better, any time soon.

How long 'till ANWR is brought back up again?

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 12:09 pm

Fusion P. wrote:**NOT CONTROLLED BY OBLIGATION OR WILL OF ANOTHER**

Just out of curiosity, yes or no would be fine:

Should I have the right to walk into your house without your permission?

Drive by your kids school at 180mph?

★■◆● my girlfriend in times square? On your front porch?

Drive an apachie helicopter fully armed through new york?

Have sex with your wife, if she doesn't want too?

If you say yes to all of these, you will have floored me in shock, but at the same time made it very difficult for me to make a come-back.

If you have said no to some of these, then in reality you do think we should be controlled by the will of others, and all we are arguing about is the difference of the extent of that control.

Fusion pimp · Post by **Fusion pimp** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 12:12 pm

Did I kill the thread?

[edit]
Goob, giving extreme examples only suggests that you're not considering morals or respect. I'm not suggesting that anarchy is contitutional, nor should it be. If people had a solid and basic set of morals and respected one another, your questions wouldn't even have come to mind. Your examples are an exmaple of abuse of freedoms and lack of respect for mine.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 12:22 pm

No, you made a good/interesting post. But if you were asking if you were guilty, then the anwser is yes

Edit: Yes, I purposfully thought of examples where I knew "no way could Barry say yes to this." I could have slowly tweaked them to where you would have said yes. It wasn't my goal to be disrespectful.

All I am saying is that 'Basic set of morals' is too vague. The golden rule is too easily and willingly broken. This is where reality comes into play.

Fusion pimp · Post by **Fusion pimp** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 12:31 pm

Basic set of morals is only too vague if you're selfish and have no respect for others and thier freedoms.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 12:33 pm

Yes, and people are.

If I knew someone would never go into a room with an assult weapon and kill a bunch of people, I would be all for legalizing them. If I knew that people had the sence not to go 180 near your childs school, I would be all for removing speed limits. But some people are selfish, and have no respect for others freedoms.

This is just reality.

Fusion pimp · Post by **Fusion pimp** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 12:43 pm

It's difficult to be cruel or abuse a kind and smiling face, Goob.

Fusion pimp · Post by **Fusion pimp** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 1:05 pm

I was hoping to hear from Brian and Jeff on this issue.

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 2:03 pm

What issue?

Fusion pimp · Post by **Fusion pimp** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 2:30 pm

I was hoping to hear from Brian and Jeff.....