Freepers are talking about Clark: they've officially lost their minds.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/982497/posts

Get ready to gag :puke:

of a need to enforce more strictly laws prohibiting cousins from marrying each other.

they're so terrified. It's only gonna get worse if Clark does well. What a bunch of hateful twisted people.

Of course, to have lost their minds implies they had minds in the first place...

"Proof positive...the higher the rank...the lower the IQ."

So what does that make the Commander in Chief? DUH YOU STUPID FUCKS!

DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!

What the fuck is he doing?

They may have worked when it was aginst McCain- but that was a fight amonsgst hypocritical repugs, not the entire voting public...

not a smart or "patriotic" "wartime" strategy- many voters will be turned off by it...

...but I think that a lot of people were thinking that this wouldn't happen just because he was a general. Thing is, they'll attack any Democrat. They'd just turn it around and say that it's a sign of how junky the military's gotten.

That's pretty much my objection to Clark running for president (though I'd love to have him as a VP candidate). I'm not too worried about him not holding elected executive office before because military professionals seem to be esteemed for decision making in general - someone told me they get hired as CEOs when they retire from military service. It's the campaigning I'm worried about; he's never run for anything before and I don't know how he'd perform in this climate.

no response

Clark is morally bankrupt because he associates with the Clintons! HA HA HA HA!!!!

No response.

...that mostly concerned republican voters- it easy to get them to hate anyone...

I think attacking military figures on a national scale during "wartime" is not going to click very well with non Rush-bots and non-hard-core GOP types...

He's utterly brilliant. He's hard working. He seems to have a very good handle on the issues he talks about. He's garners support from the other half? of the Democratic Party that isn't as supportive of Dean. (Note: This doesn't seem to be a policy split, but a personality/resume split. I've yet to see Dean and Clark disagree with one another on anything policy related.)

I think that if we can get them the name recognition and the face time with Americans, Dean / Clark will be one heck of a great ticket.

The Doctor and the General. :)

As for the Freepers, it is my observation that they attack anyone with a "D". And they just make stuff up, for the most part. They'll exploit any perceived flaw that they think might take hold as a mem. It doesn't matter if that mem goes against their own belief system (which I still can't figure out, unless it's flat out pro-authority).

and it sounded like Dean talking. They agree on virtually every matter they're interviewed about.

I don't want to insult Clark supporters who want to draft Clark for a presidential run. But I believe with all of my heart (and most people who want Chimpy gone do) that if Dean runs with Clark as his V.P. running mate, the Chimpster & Co. will be TOAST BEYOND A DOUBT. The full weight of the Democratic party, independents, some Republicans, many Greens, etc.--would all be behind them. Think about it.

Can you picture Wesley Clark debating Dick Cheney?!

It is true that Clark and Dean have met on several occasions within the last several months. We don't know what they talked about; that is pure speculation by media pundits, etc. But they cared enough to hash things out together, and it's very evident that they believe in the same things. They know that if they team up, they will have some phenomenal support. They will win if they do this.

But this is ultimately up to Clark. He must do what he has to do. I'd just love to see it happen.

One of the things I light about Clark is that he seems to be honest and straight forward. After getting a look at Howard Dean I don't think they would make a very good team.

this would happen to Clark. Always. And when they are finished with him they will take someone else down.

The repubs want to chose who junior runs against.

I know little about Clark. And I will worry about Clark once he says he is in the race. Until he announces this, there is just a lot of talk and bravado. Some of which throw up red flags in my face. But I degrees here.

The biggest "strength" about Clark seems to be his military record. And that he "can't be painted as week on defense" as one of his supporters claimed to me not long ago. But clearly, he CAN be painted as week on defense, and have his military record attacked. I am not surprised, but I am astonished that the Clark supporters are.

It's not that I am leery of Clark by any stretch. He is NOT on my list of "Democrats I will not vote for." And contrary to the thinking of some, this is NOT a list that can easily be made by Democrats. But what I am leery of is the quality of Clark's supporters. It's as if Clark is nothing more than a gimmick to some. Some seem to argue that Clark will stand up with his military record and make the Freepers swoon with love and admiration. I am sorry, but you will have to do better than that. The Repugs will attack him because he isn't one of their own, regardless of any credentials. They would attack Jesus himself if they though he was not of them, and seem to do just that on a regular occasion. I suspect that Clark himself may also be aware of this.

Regardless, it is his right to run, and I welcome him to do so. Certainly he has a lot of folks I admire and respect, vary excited. If he dose run, I will take a closer look. But the fight is already under way. If he hope to avoid the fray, by announcing that he will run late, this seems to hint at a form of cheep cowardice, hoping to avoid the tuff questions and the trial by fire the others are facing, IMMHO. To finish the race, you must first start at the starting line. He had better announce soon, or this opinion of mine will be harder to dissuade.

There is also a tactical question here. Any one who is watching the democratic party knows that the first battle is going to be against the DLC. The vary DLC that just happens to be the GOP's first line of defense, and the secret enablers of the new and increasingly fascist agenda of the current Bush regime. That battle will already have been decided when the primary gets started. If Clark waits to long to announce, hoping to avoid the fray, its possible that he may in fact make the fray worse, by being a spoiler against the Wellstone Democratic movement just now gaining steam. A late announcement, may be the best news W will hear come the primary season. And I for one am sick and tired of being stabbed in the back by our own.

I LOVE to see these pigs wallow in their slop of misery. Piss and moan,piss and moan....that's all these creeps know how to do. Ha ha....I can't wait for things to REALLY heat up and the majority in this country rises up against bu$h and his band of thugs.Next year is going to be FUN.....especially when we give the presi-DUNCE his one way ticket back to his Texas pig farm! LOL!

I wonder sometimes if we don't live in a matrix because there can be no other explanation for such disperate views of the world.

declare for Clark. Just to drive those Clinton haters over the edge. I know, they already are over the edge. OK, just to piss em off then.

If Clark gets the Democratic nomination Bush is toast.

As to those chickenhawks trying to smear a military man let me quote G DUHbya."Bring it on."

since Bosnia.

They were on the Serb side you see.

I recall how fond they were of slobo and the way he stood up Clinton's "bullying".

But its just too much, I can't handle that...

it may be hard to read, but knowing they're bugged senseless by Clark running is great. I love knowing they're agitated. Where's the logic in attacking a military man (no mention of Vietnam record obviously) when their esteemed leader is an AWOL chimp?????

Smile and let their hatred fuel our determination.

that thread was about the most flagrant exposition of stupidity i ever saw this side of a "Three Stooges" movie.

not only did they have their facts wrong, they adamantly reject reality and the validity of documented facts contrary to their positions, which admittedly would undermine their stands. so much for the butterknife dull mental acuity of the hoof-and-mouth soldiers of the far right wing.

only one name for it. denial.

what is amazing is that rather than admit that a 4 time wounded combat veteran and battlefield commander, rhodes scholar, and top of his class west pointer is better equipped to deal with international crises, they tout as their preferred leader a man who has failed at everything he ever touched, and is an actual physical coward.

all i can guess is that they are just like bush, pathological ideologues, big mouth braggarts, personal failures, and cowards.

those folks sure are skewing downward the IQ curve for americans, you betcha'.

In that same thread: (this guy's been a freep for 5 years/he's an ex-officer) Here's what he had to say:

To: Tarl

u couldn't be more wrong if you purposely set out to be so. Gen. Clark is a brilliant and independent thinker who managed the operation in Bosnia as Supreme Commander of NATO. He is a strong proponent of a national defense structure that would have avoided the morass that has evolved in Iraq. Irrespective of whether we obtain any assistance from any allied power or there is a satisfactory UN resolution, Gen Clark's broad experience in force management, an understanding of logistics and effective resupply that thus far has escaped the sycophants and know-nothing civilians surrounding Rumsfeld and the president, and his grasp of foreign policies realities that is orders of magnitude beyond the present National Command structure are benefits that he brings to the table.

Support him or don't, that's a function of individual study, analysis and even predisposition. But pejorative attributions to him as knee-jerk reaction to his possible opposition to the sitting president is neither intelligent, persuasive nor idicative of commentary by a person worthy of others' attention.

#29 posted on 09/14/2003 8:05 PM PDT by middie

LOL

:wtf: is a dictionary? you talkin' bout my wife?

/freeper

You wrote:
Freepers are flipping through their dictionaries right about now.

That is TOO effin funny! And so TRUE!!! Thanks for the laugh! :)

Same thread. They've got the think tank in session tonight, I think.


To: middie

Support him or don't, that's a function of individual study, analysis and even predisposition. But pejorative attributions to him as knee-jerk reaction to his possible opposition to the sitting president is neither intelligent, persuasive nor idicative of commentary by a person worthy of others' attention.

I disagree. Any General who hitched his star to a Military Hater like Clinton, is worthy of our scorn. Im not decrying his service, just his contradictory politics. Clinton's hatred and abuse of our Military was deplorable, and Clarks constant reference to his position in Clintons admin, speaks volumes for his character. He simply cant be trusted based on his pride of working for Clinton. Becuase he certainly wasnt working for America..

#36 posted on 09/14/2003 8:28 PM PDT by cardinal4

that figures, the freepers expect a military officer to disobey the commander in chief and his sworn oath to protect the constitution and the nation.

is there little wonder then that these folks are purely and simply 21st century avatars of hitler's brown shirt bragade?

Know what I'm sayin'?

Honistly. They just need to get over Clintion already. And their hatred of Hiller is breath taking and stupifying. Why, I bet you they would acuse her of faking her own death, so she could run in 2105.

n/t

is like shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre.

this is one of the strongest dem fields in a very, very long time. The candidate who wins out - will have to have an awful lot of appeal. Many states have a form of "open" primaries - where one doesn't have to preregister for a party - but has to declare at the primary (get a dem ballot or repub ballot).

If there is a growing ABB sentiment (which at this moment there is) expect more independents - and some moderate republicans move to the dem primary (at a greater rate than the expected 'trickster' crossover votes). If this happens (which if the election were held now would be more likely - but public sentiment is fickle, so who knows whether or not this will still be true when primary season kicks in), then the dem front runner will have to demonstrate broad appeal to make it through the gauntlet. Thus, if Clark takes off as some suggest, he will be election tried prior to the main race.

In a less crowded and strong field this would not be the case. But right now, there seems to be someone to appeal to just about all voting segments center to left. The end winner will be forced to draw from a wide spectrum - because there are other candidates representing each of those parts of the spectrum. In short, let the primary system work before making such declarations.

the above post is in response to post #8.

the only thing that bothers me is the front-loading. McAuliffe's idea was to encourage states to move up their primaries (since they can't legally be stopped from it anyway) so as to pick a nominee by the end of March, so we have over three months to unify the party and bash Bush before the convention.

The problem is that with a closely fought contest, and all the primaries jammed together, we won't have the full normal time of a campaign to decide. Unless someone really runs away with the field early, there are going to be a lot of candidates and their supporters who will think they got shortchanged, and that's not good for the general election.

I hope whoever wins, wins big early, so we can get the party back together in time.

Even NH is a possible W. I'd almost say IA, too, but I coudn't guess yet how rules and demographics/factions would play out.

Though there are many now, and a wide spectrum, it could still be a quick precipitation.

Maybe one of the many lurking FReepers we have can explain to me exactly how 9/11 did anything other than benifit Bush and protect his presidency.

seen on any message board. I'm still laughing my ass off. If anything could have made me like Clark more, that thread did it. Those guys are as filled with rage at Clark as they are at Clinton -- and look at what 8 years of hating Clinton got them. This is awesome stuff. I'm going to have to go by that site every once in a while; it's pure comedy gold.

whenever ya'll brave the bandwidth and bottomfeed over there, try to bring back more samples like that #23 above. I'd welcome such reasoned disagreement with my views, but hell, I agree with the guy. Clark might even get a few freep votes!

(It seems his responders were limited to the "pejorative attributions", which he had pre-countered.)

:toast:

calling him a blow-dried Napoleon, "I don't need someone like Tom Delay telling me about anything."

O, please, BRING IT ON!!! I'm ready:nuke:

the threat to the right wing that Clark represents. "Clinton bad. Clark like Clinton. Clark bad."

What a sorry lot. Too much Faux news will do that to you.

:kick:

They're gonna go f'ing ballistic! Their little tiny heads will no doubt explode!!

Should be fun to watch.

Bake

I love it!!!!

:bounce:

But I did love the cartoon one of them posted. I gotta print this one up - it's a keeper.

The Right has always believed that the military was just an institutional extension of the Republican Party, and that the military was their personal little playtoy to be used for their amusement and enrichment. Wesley Clark as a serious presidential candidate of the Democratic Party severely complicates their world view of the military and everything they have always thought about patriotism.

Great post. It will be interesting to see how much of "the military vote" (if that can be categorized) Clark gets in that context.

Although in the context of the FR thread, I thought the post would go something like this:

Subject: "There's a reason for these attacks on Clark and his patriotism"
Message Body: Clinton's penis. ;)

The freekers are scared shitless!

because we are panty waists who hate the military. They are in for a rude awakening.

who says anything that slightly disagrees with the bush cartel. They even bash those in Iraq if they hear one of the soldiers complaining about anything. The Repukes have gotten away with this for years - they really do hate the military and the veterans - just get away with pretending they support them.