Clark supporters here scare me - the economy and militarism

Clark is of course, the late-comer to some degree in the election - we had a look at all the candidates and then he announced his candidacy.

Previously, the Democrat I liked least was Lieberman because he ran the DLC and seemed the most right-wing of the candidates. Clark came in as an unknown. However, from reading what he says about the economy and foreign policy, considering his Republican background, and especially seeing the opinions of a lot of his supporters here, he is turning me off in a big way as well.

The two big issues for me are militarism and the economy. None of the Democratic candidates is that great - I suppose Kucinich is, but aside from the unelectable canard, I don't think he's very good at expressing his views (relative to people like Dean, Sharpton, or in a more toned down manner, Gephardt). The economy is more important to me personally, as it effects me. But I am also concerned about militarism - I think the directors who want to send American soldiers overseas with guns, bombs, artillery etc. are sending them overseas to do evil (not just in the Middle East but in South America etc.) As a conscientious person, if I had to choose between a candidate who would rein all off this back, or fix the economy (which only a Democrat/Green could do for workers), I might choose the one against foreign interventions of force, just because I would feel conscientiously that all of the garbage and evil of the USA should be contained within it's borders and should not violently intrude on other lands. But of course, someone who would make the economy more worker-friendly would be good as well. Clark and especially his DU supporters, seem to fail on both counts.

LOL!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Seems like Joey L and Tipper were both pretty right wing on music, video games things like that once upon a time.

...why don't you do a little research on what it is Tipper actually proposed. She wanted a system of Kiosks in music retailers where a parent could scan the music their child wanted to purchase and read the lyrics, listen to clips, and make an INFORMED DECISION as a consumer. The music industry said, "Nah, too expensive, let's just slap a label on all rap and a sprinkling of other items."

When did Tipper help form the PMRC, they were pushing for labeling back in the 1980s, the ACLU sure seemed concerned about it. I'm sorry if you're a Tipper fan, but that's what she was involved with.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PMRC

http://archive.aclu.org/library/pbr3.html

Lieberman has a 70-something percent liberal voting record. No, not as good as Kerry, Edwards, or Kucinich, but it's a lot more liberal than every Republican.

Yes, he's conservative and he's become more conservative over time. But his voting record is moderately liberal.

So, you think a man who has stated he's opposed to excessive military interventionism and who has a degree from Oxford in economics fails the test? What was the question again?

Clark only seems oppose inefectivly military interventionism. He has said that he agree's with the doctren of premptive warfare against tarorism in one of his major policy speaches.

before W uses it to attack others. he exposed PNAC's plan - 7 countries in 5 years. Why do I feel we are back to September?

????????????

:P

Go reread the transcript of that speech and the transcript of the NH townhall meeting where he spent nearly five minutes addressing this very issue. He makes a bright line delineation between pre-emptive and preventative military action, what he supports and what he does not. Pre-emptive is a military doctrine. It is where there is an unambiguous threat against your assets that you have the ability to pre-empt through force. This is the equivalent (and I believe he has used this metaphor) of someone throwing a punch at you when you just happen to be faster. You shouldn't have to wait for the punch to connect to use force to protect yourself. The classic example of this would be Pearl Harbor. If a known attack was in progress, you would not have to wait for the first bomb to go off to respond. A preventative attack is a policy action, where there is no eminent threat, and you are using military action to prevent the possibility of a future threat. This is incredibly dangerous for a number of reasons, not the least of which being that it sets a horrible precedent for international relations (again, this is a policy, and not a military, prerogative), and Clark has strongly denounced it.

While it is easy to confuse the two in usage (pre-emptive vs. preventative), Clark has done his best, on multiple occasions, to clarify the issue.

Actually his Oxford economic degree would probably turn me more against him. I personally feel that university economics programs are in many ways equivalent to a student going to a seminary and being indoctrinated in a faith.

I mean, I would prefer an incompetent to be running the economy than someone like Milton Friedman. The more important question to me than competency is the old question of "Which side are you on?" I mean, Ronald Reagan and both Bushes very competently screwed over workers and handed the country over to the wealthy. That said, and I haven't examined everyone's economic positions thoroughly, he probably isn't out of the league of Lieberman, Edwards and Dean. Almost everyone claims to be in the DLC camp, with perhaps Sharpton and Dean as exceptions. Gephardt is DLC, but he is very strongly union tied so he is probably at the far left of the DLC but still within it.

Many different schools of thought occur among economists. Some economists are like Reich who focus on the worker. Others are like Rubin who promotes prosperity but not necessarily putting workers first. Some are like Milton Friedman, who promote a version of capitalism that does not exist. Some are neo-marxists.

Then there are the incompetents like this administration who promote an ideology that has no basis in reality.

I prefer a candidate who can think and uses the experts and predictable modeling. I don't want an idealogue nor an incompetent.

But he is no economis. Demonstrated by the fact that he was first a military genral, than came to join 19 corprate boards. (Or which he has apprintly resigned from 2.) Being a CEO make him no more an economist than I am made into a brige ingenere by looking at a picture of the Golden Gate Bridge.

Actually his Oxford economic degree would probably turn me more against him. I personally feel that university economics programs are in many ways equivalent to a student going to a seminary and being indoctrinated in a faith.

Its good to see some one else hold this exact same view as I do. :)

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

That was one of the rudest posts I've seen in a while. If you can't take the time to decipher a few mis-spelled words then the problem is yours. Some people here have a more pressing need for their time. I'll take that poster's posts with its few mispelled words any day over most of the trash that gets published or the inane rah-rah threads/posts that flood this board.

Exercise your brain. There's nothing there that can't be easily understood.

Lets see;
Clark, you say, has a degree in economics
He is a Rhodes scholar and was first in his class at West Point
He has some business experience
He took responsibility for the economy of his troops

Therefore you turn against him to lead the US economy.

My thinking is that a smart guy with a good education is a better bet to lead than someone with no training who is perhaps less bright.

Should one just learn "on the job" so to speak?

Let's see....Bill Clinton, Rhodes Scholar.....8 years of a dynamic economy and full employment. George Bush? Major in Partying, minor in cheerleading...2mm jobs lost (so far) and $1TT delta in the treasury.

No, I think the next President best be well versed in economics...

Here is a true story:

An economist from Hungary (or some country behind the Iron Curtain)
escaped to the West. His fellow economists there found his background
in mathematical economics to be unusual for a Communist society.
They asked him how he came to be so expert. He said:

"They wouldn't let any Western journals into the library, except
Econometria (a journal of mathematical economics). They thought
it was such a bunch of bologna that it would screw up anyone's
mind who thought this was how to become a Westerner. And,
except for me, it seems to have worked."

arendt

He's a genral.

I'm reading your posts lately, and you and I gotta go out par-tay some day....you aint from Houston, is ya?

What about places like Kosovo and Liberia. Isn't all kind of a strong word. Do you want us to be isolationists?

this is the first time i have seen someone with the lieberman sign on here. i do wish more supporters of his and some other candidates would come on here though. it would be nice to get their side included on here even though many may disagree.

who simply don't think that the U.S. should try to run the whole world.

We have a lot of people on here that are big Wes Clark fans, well he was definitely a leader of the efforts in Kosovo etc.. where U.S. troops were needed. If you don't call the U.S. never getting involved from a military perspective in anything isolationist what do you call it? I suppose pacifist. We dragged our feet on Liberia. The U.S. should not roll the tanks in every time the wind blows, but there are imes that it seems right to get involved.

A Lieberman supporter is indeed a rare species aound here.

:hi:

Well, I had high hopes for him about a year ago. I remember once upon a time he was even leading in some of the South Carolina polls, alas those days are long gone. As time went on other candidates got more recognition and Joe L's star began to fade. I hope he has at least a decent showing in New Hampshire. I would imagine if he exits the campaign early that Clark should pick up a lot of his support.

I mean, if you want to see a textbook case of why the US should not be going into military adventures overseas, the history of Liberia presents some great examples. Liberia's history is a horrible example to use of why American overseas military intervention is a good idea. US intervention in Liberia is WHAT made a mess of Liberia. A lot of times people say America is blamed for things unfairly, Liberia is the one country in the world (of many) where there is no doubt that the hand can be only pointed in one way - at the US. For people who don't know, Liberia is an African country that was essentially founded by the US.

Africa is having an AIDS epidemic right now. If the US wanted to "help the world", it could help with that. Sending medicine and food to places that need it helps. Sending guns, artillery, missiles and so forth does not.

Throughout history, from the Roman Empire, to Napoleon and the French, to the British Empire to the Fourth Reich, countries have always told it's people that it was sending it's troops overseas in an act of benevolence to others. The Indians in America (before they were wiped out) were going to have their souls saved from their pagan ways and so forth. I do not buy into this, I see it as the US producing more capital than it can use, the capital is sent overseas, and then the military follows the capital. General Smedley Butler made some very honest comments about this early in the 20th century.

Right now, all I'm concerned with is putting forward the best possible candidate to defeat George Bush. If you think that is of less importance than meeting your standards, vaya con dios.

It is an interesting situation, from my point of view. You can't accept what Bush is doing because it violates both of your standards, but you aren't willing to take a chance on Clark because you don't think he will meet your standards.

From my point of view if you don't support Clark we are all but guaranteed four more years of Bush (there's no guarantee that even Clark will be able to beat him, just a likely scenario) so there just doesn't seem a winning position for you in this at all.

Ain't life unfair at times?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

That charge is bordering on yelling freeper isn't it?

US lead Genocise. Ahem, prevenitive warfare.
Americans being held above internationl law.
Corperation, and pro-corprate practices.
Bush's position on the Iraq war, including Saddam's threat to America.
The school of the Americas (that guy got tombstoned.)
The American Empire and unerlatulisem.
Contiues control over Iraq's recoses.
Bush's policy of premptive warfare. Ahem, prevenitive warfare.
Mantaining Americas suppiror position in the world, both economic and militerisitly.
Natonlisem (with Clark's "Patristism for a New American Centory. PNAC any one?)

Yep. I have seen Clark supporters defend all of these position. And dispite there claim to the contrary, I find them to be exactly the same as Bush's standing polcies. Slaping 4 shiny stars on these policyes dosn't imprese me at all.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

wouldn't find me defending any of those positions, and I havn't seen Clark espouse any of them either, except the one about maintaining America's position in the world, which I would suggest all of the credible candidates support, because not to do so would be suicidal in a presidential campaign.

And he is the only candidate I have seen to actually mention PNAC by name and call them out on their agenda.

That is a tremendous insult and untrue. Prove it and don't just throw out baseless attacks.

Its you who has to convince me other wise. And the Clark supporters have done a bang up job so far of giving me this oppinion in the first place. Or do you not comprehend my point?

You basically just said that all Clark supporters agree with republican positions. I seem to remember you moaning when others made similar broad brush attacks against Dean supporters. I think anyone who attacks a group of supporters of whichever candidate is wrong. All it does is to divide this board. If it's done in the real world, then it helps divide the party.

I've never done it. I don't stereotype any group of supporters.

I never said all Clark supporters. Only that I have seen these arguments mae BY clark supporters. Atempting to mis-represent my arguments, and thinking in such bianry terms is another striking simularity between Clark supporters and the Neo-cons.

The harder you try to polish Clark's image, the ugler he looks.

You say "similarity between Clark supporters and neo-cons." Maybe you meant to say similarity between a few Clark supporters.

But I will not respond again because neither of us will change our mind.

Notice CND has not one link.

I follow most of the Clark threads, and have never seen ONE Clark supporter support anything even resembling what this poster has just charged. Ever! So I would refute the modifier few.

Clark's being a member of the military does not equate CND's allegations. The man has consistently supported multilateral and multinational agreements. So how by any stretch of the imagination could one conclude that Clark, or those supporting Clark, have PNAC intents?

Fuzzy logic...fuzzy math...fuzzy thinking...just plain ol' return of the fuzzy.

A rant of smears aimed at Clark and as usual unsupported by someone who despises the man. So be it.

My experience tells me that anything said or posted here will not be read. The next rant will contain all of the same buzz words. Say a thing often enough and someone will believe it. Now who said that?

Notice CND has not one link.

The comment you are answering to is in regards to some of the arguments Clark Supporters have made. Not necessarily Clark himself. However, I do not think Clark supporters are drawing their admiration of "the general" from thin air, but are correctly interpreting Clark's policies. If you wish to see links of this, than simply go back and look at this thread. Or any of the other bast threads involving Clark.

I follow most of the Clark threads, and have never seen ONE Clark supporter support anything even resembling what this poster has just charged. Ever! So I would refute the modifier few.

Oh please. You relay think I am that stupid? LTM and Tinore alone have posted reams of evidence and thousands of links to a wide array of supporting links and documents. Some of which have been posted on THIS thread. Perhaps you should not be so quick to place people you do not agree with on ignore.

Clark's being a member of the military does not equate CND's allegations. The man has consistently supported multilateral and multinational agreements.

First. The Kosovo conflict itself was a unilateral action. Clark pushed the Iraq invasion while he was a commentator on CNN, and was among the loudest cheering when Bush declaring "Mission Accomplished." Clark's own campaign insists on maintaining a superior military to enforce our economic interests around the world. And while he says he would work though the UN, Clark has openly opposed the idea that the UN should have the power to "VETO" a US agenda. To Clark, the UN is nothing more than a rubber stamp to approve the US agenda, legal or otherwise. It is your allegation that is the stretch.

Second: Cleark's being a member of the military doesn’t insulate him from my allegations either. Or do you share the opinion that US military officers are not to be held accountable to international law?

So how by any stretch of the imagination could one conclude that Clark, or those supporting Clark, have PNAC intents?

And exactly how many times has Clark mentioned PNAC? Has he explained in detail what is contained in PNAC? Is he talking about PNAC now? Has he explained why PNAC is bad for America And while working for AXUM, Clark sold passenger lists to the military as part of the Total Information Awareness agenda that has been descried in great detail in PNAC. That not only makes him complicit in PNAC, but a participant. How dose it feel to know your hero would sell you out for a few dollars?

Great arguement!

You found a Clark supporter or two that are not agreeable to you.
Therefore Clark should be dismissed as a candidate.

I am a Clark supporter. I cannot find anything nice to say about the shrub - does that make Clark OK

One of the main reasons for supporting Clark is that he's our best shot at beating bush.

Read his position papers and review his accomplishments. If you prefer someone else after that, support your man. I will have no disagreement with you then.

glad to have you on the team too.

:hi:

As a Kerry supporter (but ultimately, a supporter of any Democrat who gets the nomination), this whole argument being postualeted is bizarre.

First, Kosovo was a UN action, not unilateral action. Clark was brilliant in managing that conflict, IMHO.

Secondly, his credentials of an having an economics degree is actually quite important in understanding how macro-economic theory affects micro-economics and social policy. Gee, I'd think we've all gotten this lesson shoved up our backside over the past 3 years. There may be no more important or better educational background for a person running for POTUS.

No, I'd be quite happy to see an extremely intelligent and capable man of Clark's stature lead America back from moronville.

I cannot believe any Democrat could possibly argue against him. Those that are, well....read their posts........

it was a NATO action.

ANd I can't believe that you'd consider anybody a democrat after they went to a republican fundraiser 2 years ago and said:


"And I'm very glad we've got the great team in office, men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice... people I know very well - our president George W. Bush. We need them there."


"We were really helped when President Ronald Reagan came in. I remember non-commissioned officers who were going to retire and they re-enlisted because they believed in President Reagan."

"That's the kind of President Ronald Reagan was. He helped our country win the Cold War. He put it behind us in a way no one ever believed would be possible. He was truly a great American leader. And those of us in the Armed Forces loved him, respected him, and tremendously admired him for his great leadership."



"President George Bush had the courage and the vision... and we will always be grateful to President George Bush for that tremendous leadership and statesmanship."

Did you actually read that speech? If you did, you somehow missed how it was overall a testiment to what we were doing wrong, what we needed to do to get it right, and came complete with a warning that we better wise up...

"Anyway, a lot of that is in my book. The title of the book is 'Waging Modern War'; I'm not going to go through all of that tonight. But I'll just make a small prediction: When this book comes out, it may be World War III. Because when you're there, when you're a general and you're caught up in these things, it's just like politics or business or anything else--you know a lot of people with different ideas. And I hope that we have learned something out of this experience in the Balkans."

I've found it interesting that when you cut and paste this same post, which you have done numerous times, you don't supply a link... can't imagine why that is. :eyes:

Do you know what a paid speaker does and why they're hired? Paid speakers aren't hired for any association they may have with whatever group they're paid to speak to but for whatever expertise they offer.

As an example, a friend of mine is a retired police officer. He frequently gives paid speeches at various schools about the importance of driver safety. Many of those schools are Catholic academies, and he's Jewish. Like any paid speaker, he includes a few nice comments about the group he's speaking in front of... in the case of his speeches at Catholic academies, he'll even say a few nice things about *gasp* Catholics! I assure you, he isn't going to be thrown out of Temple and stoned.

This is standard operating procedure. Paid speakers most often need to have their speech pre-approved before giving it, and it won't be approved without a few nice comments having something to do with the group they're speaking in front of.

There are subtle and not so subtle pokes at Repubs throughout the speech, and *holy mother of God!* he says not one single word against Clinton... can't imagine how that got by the censors.

the bush doctrine. That's an attack on US.

The Bush argument when people say the killing of civilians in Iraq is unacceptable and a war crime... that Saddam is a madman who killed his own people, and if you criticize the attack on iraq, you support Saddam genocide.

The Clark argument when people say the killing of civilians in Kosovo is unacceptable and a war crime... that Slobo is a madman who killed his own people, and if you criticize the attack on Kosovo, you support Slobo and genocide.

But I think your comparison between Slobo and Saddam is faulty.

(1) Saddam was not invading neighboring states doing ethnic cleansing.
(2) Reasons for war are important. In Clinton/Clark's case it was to stop the bloodbath and possible escalation of it into wide European war...maybe with Islam.
(3) Bush2 reasons had more to do with personal security (distraction from 9/11) and PNAC objectives (steal the oil and Pax Americana) than a compeling humanitarian basis.

You're doing an awsome job as a stealth Clark supporter. I especially like how you work so hard to make his opponents look bad
;-) :toast: :yourock:

doctrine. You are making this up and making yourself look ridiculous in the process.

I don't defend anything about the * and I think your post is indefensible. I am an avid Clark supporter and have been since May before he announced and was an original draft supporter of Clark, but I have always, always maintained that I would work just as hard for the eventual nominee. People like you make it hard to follow through with that committment.

Unfortunately, it seems to me that unless Americans stop using as much fossil fuel and consuming as we do, we will always have a militaristic government, regardless of who is elected. The truth is that OUR government is militaristic largely to support OUR overconsumption.

I am personnally doing everything I can to cut down on my use of fossil fuels and consumer goods. It feels good.

Also, I hope whoever becomes the Dem nominee institues a Department of Peace. Thank you, Dennis!

Clark actually agrees with you on all those things.

He has also more detailed policies on the economy than any other candidate. If you really care, go read:
http://clark04.com/issues/
As for..uh...militarism, read the 10 pledges:
http://clark04.com/issues/10pledges/

who worte a book or something.

You frighten easily.

that they would take a bullet for their candidate or they would trust him with their fate the same as their mother or father frighten me. Sorry. If that's not you then I apologize but I can't for the life of me recall the supporters of any other candidate saying things like that.

Not me. Apology accepted.

I really like most of our Dems. I think most of them are actually heroic. Anthrax, plane crashes and a relentlessly immoral "press", that's just openers. It takes a lot to be righteously elected.

and I stress "you people" (I don't think Clark, himself, does this), remind me of McCarthy. Clark doesn't do that. His supporters do.

Yeah, that frightens me.

and my wife and I are making quiet plans to leave this country.

Do I remind you of McCarthy?

Our foreign policy is scary. If you don't see it that way, I can't explain it.

Clark supporters are making an argument made by McCarthy, Support us or the demagogues win. Suppott us or the bad guys win. Support us or the demons win.

You guys don't make any effort to discuss issues with Dean.

That's my view at least.

*Support Clark or a bush will be in the White House for the next 30 years.. Can you say, 'President Prescott Bush?' :scared:

*Support Clark because this is our last fighting chance to try to keep the republicans from completing their coup of our country.

*Support Clark because Justice Stephens, who has fought the good fight for us is over 80 years old and will not be able to remain a justice for another bush term.

*Support Clark because he will make Ken Starr, John Ashcroft and Ted Olsen Supreme Court Justices, if given the chance

*Support Clark or their will be a constitutional amendment banning same sex marraige..

*Support Clark or the draft will be reinstated..

Scare tactics? Maybe. Could these things happen if Bush wins next year? I'm 100% certain.

I'm aware of most of the Clark supporters on this board, and none of them would seem likely to follow McCarthy's lead. Since Clark has always said, long before he ever decided to make this run, that dissent is essentially the highest form of patriotism, I find the McCarthy equation ill thought out and quite rude.

I would take offense at the term "you people" but have decided to let your slur whiz by.

retyred in fla
“good night paul, wherever you are”
So I read this book

Of course for me it's always been what I can't see that scares me, like the shit in Dean's sealed records.

What does this pic say about Clark? Seriously, this photo is as spooky scarey creepy as Bush* with the halo of lights over his head.

Charles Manson has eyes just like that.

around long enough, I can snap a photo of you that makes you look like a homicidal maniac too.

Here's a couple for you.

and the snarky photoshopped fake by certain Clark supporters are probably the reason why the poster feels justified in posting such an unflattering photo of the General.

"Honk if You Got Bombed in Kosovo"

It was a UN action to stop a massive genocidal campaign that threatened to escalate into a European War. The fact that we accomplished an armistice and got Miloshevic in front of a world tribunal is a good thing.

And as far as I know we did it because it was the right thing to do, there was no oil, and Haliburton's bottom line was nor a factor.

that made all the difference.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Kosovo/Story/0,2763,208056,00.html

A month later, with Nato getting increasingly frustrated about Milosevic's refusal to buckle, Mary Robinson, the UN human rights commissioner, said Nato's bombing campaign had lost its "moral purpose". Referring to the cluster bomb attack on residential areas and market in the Serbian town of Nis, she described Nato's range of targets as "very broad" and "almost unfocused". There were too many mistakes; the bombing of the Serbian television station in Belgrade - which killed a make-up woman, among others - was "not acceptable".

Nato, which soon stopped apologising for mistakes which by its own estimates killed 1,500 civilians and injured 10,000, said that "collateral damage" was inevitable, and the small number of "mistakes" remarkable, given the unprecedented onslaught of more than 20,000 bombs.

Yet once Nato - for political reasons, dictated largely by the US - insisted on sticking to high-altitude bombing, with no evidence that it was succeeding in destroying Serb forces committing atrocities against ethnic Albanians, the risk of civilian casualties increased, in Kosovo and throughout Serbia. Faced with an increasingly uncertain public opinion at home, Nato governments chose more and more targets in urban areas, and experimented with new types of bombs directed at Serbia's civilian economy, partly to save face. By Nato's own figures, of the 10,000 Kosovans massacred by Serb forces, 8,000 were killed after the bombing campaign started.

Nato does not dispute the Serb claim that just 13 of its tanks were destroyed in Kosovo - a figure which gives an altogether different meaning to the concept of proportionality. Nato fought a military campaign from the air which failed to achieve its stated objectives.

:eyes:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

letting him have his way in Kosovo?

I believe Dean supported our action in Kosovo...so how can you support Dean?

I'm not sure why, but whenever the subject comes up, you can count on at least two or three alleged Leftists jumping up and defending him.

They make the same arguments in defence of murdering civilians as Bush supporters.


Get this through your heads... saying that the tactics used by Clark in Kosovos were war crimes, is not the same thing as defending Milosevic.

Clark supporters are using the same Rovian shit arguments the right wingers use to defend Iraq.


Bush Supporters: He was killing his own people and had to be stopped.

Clark Supporters: He was killing his own people and had to be stopped.

Bush Supporters: Oh if you question the bombing of civilians then you support Saddam.

Clark Supporters: Oh if you question the bombing of civilians then you support Milosevic.

Bush Supporters: There's nothing wrong with the Vice President using his connections in the pentagon to get government contracts for a company that pays him.

Clark Supporters: There's nothing wrong with the President using his connections in the pentagon to get government contracts for a company that pays him.

Clark Supporters: There's nothing wrong with the President using his connections in the pentagon to get government contracts for a company that pays him.

He's not president and has never been in favor of no bid contracts. The rest of your tripe has been hashed over 1000x times in other threads.

I was refering to what Cheney did after being sec of state, and before being Vice President.

Just as Clark did after leaving the military and before running for president.


Given that you know CLark was a defense lobbyist who did for several companies exactly what Cheney did for Halliburton, and yet you still support him for president... it is not conjecture to assume that you therefore approve of the men in the office of president having beena defense lobbyist.

Creating an Energy bill behind closed doors and giving Halliburton a no-bid contract. I would expect Clark to recuse himself from such negotiations if it involved companies he was involved with. Same for any other candidate.

between working in government or military and then switching to private industry to profit off the policy and connections made during that work in the government or military... then switching back to government again.


The fact is that Clark did the same thing Cheney did... used his connections in the pentagon to get government contracts for the company that hired him. Selling influence.

And now just like Cheney... Clark wants MORE influence.

Then the conflicting party must recuse themselves, happens in court cases all the time.

And now just like Cheney... Clark wants MORE influence.

Now you're really reaching with nothing more than conjecture and a transitive argument:).

The whole point of the revolving door is build conflicts of interest over time, because the politicians switch from Government to privet sector, usually carrying with them the benefits of there own legislation.

That was Howard Dean's honk for Kosovo. Do less honking and childish photo shopping, and more reading about your candidate. Respect is a two way street.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2003/11/24/185642/27

So whatcha got now?

I said the next one which was obviously a photoshopped version to produce a desired effect was not real. So what's your point?

did not desire to produce an effect? I doubt that considering the content of their post. Was it not snarky? I believe it was.

Snarky is in the eye of the beholder. :hi:

My candidate was snarked upon and I snarked back. Welcome to politics.

Thanks to Closer, every time I see that Clark photo posted by a Dean supporter on DU I intend to counter it with the photo of Dean. (the unshopped one) So you can thank your fellow Dean supporter for that.

And I say agian, if I follow you around long enough, I can snap a rather demonic looking photo of you (or anyone else) as well. So what does it prove?

Your condemnation of my posting the unflattering images of Dean is frightfully thin if you do not condemn the same in your own ranks.

I was referring to another Clark supporter who had posted them in the past. I realize you posted them in this thread in response to the Clark photo that was posted and I definitely agree with you that an unflattering photo can be taken of anyone. And I've seen the photoshopped, not the real, version used in a certain Clark supporter's posts several times. And I called the photoshopped version snarky, not the real one.

Truce. :-)

Beware of the snark side................:P

I find the first Dean photo scary.

The second one is just funny.

:yourock:

The first dozen times I saw it.

Yer killin' me.

Sorry, the GENERAL doesn't get my vote.

Didn'r know I was scary. Little ole 5ft tall midwestern gal that I am.

BOO!

It'll be okay.
:scared:

who supports the School of the Americas?

No, thank you.

edited for spelling

Who wants to cut the Pentagon budget by 25%?

Who said it doesn't need to be cut?

First I'll point out that Clark was an Independent not a republican...and yes, that is a matter of public record.

Then I'll ask could you be a bit more specific than the rather vague, "from reading what he says about the economy and foreign policy"? What have you read that you don't like?

And last I would ask, do you like the United States at all? This based on your, "I would feel conscientiously that all of the garbage and evil of the USA should be contained within it's borders".

"Clark was an Independent not a republican...and yes, that is a matter of public record."

My understanding is that in Arkansas people just vote without registering a party. Small "i" independent is what I recall.

And your post reeks of that tactic.

they're all tuned in to C-span. So they can get a clue about what Clark has to say to the country.

:scared:

If you are looking for a candidate who agrees with you about "all of the garbage and evil of the USA", and who agrees about economic incompetence being a virtue to tout, I predict you will belong to a very small caucus.

I'm talking about the world of the possible here.

:shrug:

If I had a soldier trying to shoot me, I would rather have him be incompetent than competent. The less competent he is, the less likely he is to hit me. As I said, the more important question is which side he's on, I'd rather have a friend who was a bad shot than an enemy who was a good shot. Whether he's working for me or against me is more important than his competency - the first question is, is he on my side, the second is how competent he is. Reagan was incompetent but he just surrounded himself with experts.

As far as the US trying to remake the world in it's image - one out of every two marriages in the US end in divorce, more young black men go to jail than prison, the average inflation-adjusted US hourly wage is below what it was thirty years ago, the US locks up more of it's population than any other country in the world and so on and so forth. The US waged war on the world from the 1940's until 1990 for a cold war, leaders tried to keep it going for a decade afterwards having some problems, and then in 2001 got their big break - a "freedom fighter" fighting against the communist USSR in Afghanistan that Reagan had funded, Osama Bin Laden, became unhappy about the US military presence in Saudi Arabia among other things and gave these people their big chance. So now, like in the book 1984, we are back on permanent war once again after a ten year break of sorts, ina permanent war on terror or evil doers or whatnot.

Yes, I think conscientious people should work to keep the US's garbage from spilling out over the whole world. I don't see anything noble about wanting more My Lai's, or sending tanks to the Israelis so there will be more Jenin's. Despite all the media coverage about Palestinian suicide bombers, the Israelis have killed 2-3 Palestinians for every dead Israeli this year. I know where my sympathies lie. I've spoken to soldiers who've been in Iraq - conservative-leaning ones at that. And they are not over there handing out ice cream cones. Nor was the US handing out ice cream cones when it was arming Hussein throughout the 1980's. As it is arming the Turks now, who are probably worse than Hussein but since they're US allies little is mentioned about THEIR massacre of Kurds, which is still ongoing, in fact, they invaded Iraq against the US's wishes in order to kill more Kurds. I refuse to put blinders on to think the bloodshed the US is causing around the world is noble.

"Reagan was incompetent but he just surrounded himself with experts."

Yes, Reagan was incompetent...and he had experts....the wrong kind of experts. The ones who put ideology and personal financial gain ahead of our collective national interests. It was the "experts" under Reagan that enabled Hussein to consolidate power. It was the same "experts" that ran dirty covert wars in South American supporting RW governments, against the stated policy of the United States. His experts, instead of working to make us energy independent, made deals with Saudi Arabia to keep the oil flowing. Lots of Republicans made big money under Reagan/Bush. Now the bills come due and we are paying for it now.

"Yes, Reagan was incompetent...and he had experts....the wrong kind of experts. The ones who put ideology and personal financial gain ahead of our collective national interests. It was the "experts" under Reagan that enabled Hussein to consolidate power. It was the same "experts" that ran dirty covert wars in South American supporting RW governments, against the stated policy of the United States. His experts, instead of working to make us energy independent, made deals with Saudi Arabia to keep the oil flowing. Lots of Republicans made big money under Reagan/Bush. Now the bills come due and we are paying for it now."

Then why do you support a candidate who looks to reagan and bush as great examples of leadership?


"We were really helped when President Ronald Reagan came in. I remember non-commissioned officers who were going to retire and they re-enlisted because they believed in President Reagan."

"That's the kind of President Ronald Reagan was. He helped our country win the Cold War. He put it behind us in a way no one ever believed would be possible. He was truly a great American leader. And those of us in the Armed Forces loved him, respected him, and tremendously admired him for his great leadership."



"President George Bush had the courage and the vision... and we will always be grateful to President George Bush for that tremendous leadership and statesmanship."

Insulting the guests probably wouldn't have been a good idea ;)

Dean on Bush I: Excellent on Foreign policy

Maybe Dean will hire James Baker for SOS? :eyes:

Either CLark is a republican, or he's willing to lie about being one because the audience is repulican.

"Insulting the guests probably wouldn't have been a good idea ;)"

How about not going to the republican fundraiser in the first place? As if saying, he did not want to upset the crowd at the republican fundraiser he went to, soemhow negates the point about his praise for republicans.


"Dean on Bush I: Excellent on Foreign policy"


Why not provide the whole sentence? Oh yeah, because as ususal the whole quote proves that your attack is baseless.

MATTHEWS: So, let’s go to-what did you think of the following presidents and you can do this in a few words if you don’t mind-Ronald Reagan.
DEAN: Great charisma. Lousy policy.
MATTHEWS: That’s it? You are a cold man.
George Bush Sr., Herbert Walker Bush?
DEAN: Excellent on foreign policy. Not to great on domestic policy.
MATTHEWS: William Jefferson Clinton?
DEAN: Excellent on domestic policy and excellent on foreign policy. a few other little problems which we won’t go into.


So the best thing Dean has to say about reagan, "Great charisma. Lousy policy."

CLark has to say about Reagan..."He was truly a great American leader. And those of us in the Armed Forces loved him, respected him, and tremendously admired him for his great leadership."


The nicest thing Dean has to say about Bush I... "Excellent on foreign policy. Not to great on domestic policy."

Clark on Bush I..."President George Bush (sr) had the courage and the vision... and we will always be grateful to President George Bush for that tremendous leadership and statesmanship."



Now go ahead and tell me how those are even close to the same.

Dean could have panned Bush I like Reagan but didn't, why? Should I take context and question into account only for Dean?

On Edit: Sarcasm Alert :eyes:

Chasing that traveling post... la la la

Did you actually read that speech? If you did, you somehow missed how it was overall a testiment to what we were doing wrong, what we needed to do to get it right, and came complete with a warning that we better wise up...

"Anyway, a lot of that is in my book. The title of the book is 'Waging Modern War'; I'm not going to go through all of that tonight. But I'll just make a small prediction: When this book comes out, it may be World War III. Because when you're there, when you're a general and you're caught up in these things, it's just like politics or business or anything else--you know a lot of people with different ideas. And I hope that we have learned something out of this experience in the Balkans."

I've found it interesting that when you cut and paste this same post, which you have done numerous times, you don't supply a link... can't imagine why that is. :eyes:

Do you know what a paid speaker does and why they're hired? Paid speakers aren't hired for any association they may have with whatever group they're paid to speak to but for whatever expertise they offer.

As an example, a friend of mine is a retired police officer. He frequently gives paid speeches at various schools about the importance of driver safety. Many of those schools are Catholic academies, and he's Jewish. Like any paid speaker, he includes a few nice comments about the group he's speaking in front of... in the case of his speeches at Catholic academies, he'll even say a few nice things about *gasp* Catholics! I assure you, he isn't going to be thrown out of Temple and stoned.

This is standard operating procedure. Paid speakers most often need to have their speech pre-approved before giving it, and it won't be approved without a few nice comments having something to do with the group they're speaking in front of.

There are subtle and not so subtle pokes at Repubs throughout the speech, and *holy mother of God!* he says not one single word against Clinton... can't imagine how that got by the censors.

I think they all have strong and unique attributes.

Clark's out-of-context comments don't bother me in the least. I can accept that people can change their perspectives over time. Clinton made comments that you could cut and paste here that would insinuate he wasn't a Democrat. One could ambush Dean with C&&P, too....but that would be equally disingenuous. Hell, Bush2 had nice things to say about Ted Kennedy....that does make him a Democrat.

If one listens to the total body of Clark's comments/speeches, you know he feels deeply that this country is going down the shitter. That's good enough for me.

Funny how I keep having to chase this one from thread to thread all the time. :eyes:

Did you actually read that speech? If you did, you somehow missed how it was overall a testiment to what we were doing wrong, what we needed to do to get it right, and came complete with a warning that we better wise up...

"Anyway, a lot of that is in my book. The title of the book is 'Waging Modern War'; I'm not going to go through all of that tonight. But I'll just make a small prediction: When this book comes out, it may be World War III. Because when you're there, when you're a general and you're caught up in these things, it's just like politics or business or anything else--you know a lot of people with different ideas. And I hope that we have learned something out of this experience in the Balkans."

I've found it interesting that when you cut and paste this same post, which you have done numerous times, you don't supply a link... can't imagine why that is. :eyes:

Do you know what a paid speaker does and why they're hired? Paid speakers aren't hired for any association they may have with whatever group they're paid to speak to but for whatever expertise they offer.

As an example, a friend of mine is a retired police officer. He frequently gives paid speeches at various schools about the importance of driver safety. Many of those schools are Catholic academies, and he's Jewish. Like any paid speaker, he includes a few nice comments about the group he's speaking in front of... in the case of his speeches at Catholic academies, he'll even say a few nice things about *gasp* Catholics! I assure you, he isn't going to be thrown out of Temple and stoned.

This is standard operating procedure. Paid speakers most often need to have their speech pre-approved before giving it, and it won't be approved without a few nice comments having something to do with the group they're speaking in front of.

There are subtle and not so subtle pokes at Repubs throughout the speech, and *holy mother of God!* he says not one single word against Clinton... can't imagine how that got by the censors.

what a load of crap.

"What a load of crap" comes off really funny with your cheerful holiday avitar there.

Made me laugh.:dem:

http://Blog.forclark.com/story/2003/11/28/81836/095

She details his efforts in behalf of the Dayton Peace Accords and his brilliant command of NATO forces in Kosovo. Her chapter on Kosovo ends, "The man who probably contributed more than any other individual to Milosvevic's battlefield defeat was General Wesley Clark. The NATO bombing campaign succeeded in removing brutal Serb police units from Kosovo, in ensuring the return on 1.3 million Kosovo Albanians, and in securing for Albanians the right of self-governance

Posts like these make me regret findung DU!

with a few exceptions both groups are obnoxious,childish and a major turn off for the candidate of choice.

So if a candidate's supporters are attacked and don't attack back, they are either wimps or have no answer. If they DO attack back, then it's a turn off. So in other words, by your logic, if you're attacked you're screwed. Sheesh.

:puke:

IMHO he is an opprtunist who recently declared to be a democrat because the door to the presidency from the repug side was closed to him in 2004.

Go with Dean...you KNOW he is a full fledged democrat, inside & out.

That's your lie that Clark was a Republican....just cause you keep repeating it, doesn't make it true.

We are not falling for the RW tricks, OK?

It is Ok to be an avid supporter of your candidate of your choosing, that is the way it should be, but our job as Democrat supporters need to be pointing out the best of our candidate to make the point not the worst of others and each candidate will have negatives. Last I checked I did not see anyone resembling a God to be running for the nomination, no one is perfect and what appeals to some will be a turn off to others. That is the lifeline that makes up the Democratic party, we are a party of more than one issue and we are deverse which easily becomes divisive, we can not do Rove's job for him. No matter who you support the bottom line is that the base of either party can not win an election, so look for a reason why your candidate can appeal to the general electorate and post it and don't tell me why mine can't and in turn I will do the same.. Maybe in this way whoever gets the nomination we will have a cache of ideas of how to deflect Rove's machine in the general election.

Unfortunately it has turned quite inflammatory.


Thanks for understanding.


DU Moderator