Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by The Yankee, Jan 15, 2004.
Moore's endorsement gives people a good reason not to vote for Clark.
Why? Moore has just as much a right to campaign for a candiate then anyone else.
I find the irony that Republicans wish celebrities would "shut up with their political opinions", and they clearly only say this because most celebrities are liberal. They are always quick to adopt celebs as banners for office though (Reagan and Ar-nold)
Right...that's why I'm not so sure what exactly to make of this endorsement. It might get a few people in the primary....but if Moore keeps talking with a picture of Clark next to him, it could be a liability if Clark wins the nomination.
Moores endorsment will help in the primaries, but it nominated it would cost big time in the general election, maybe millions in center and near right cross over votes.
WTF? Why is Ann Coulter even TALKING about Monica Lewinsky? Is Clark the same person as Bill Clinton? I don't think so. She seriously needs to take a step back and realize that not all Democrats are the same.
Well, never say never, but I would say that Clark has just a good a chance as Bush does, because with the Patriot Act it is obvious that the whole administration is stumbling in the dark.
Err, how is calling for better intelligence NOT explaining how to guarantee an end to terrorist attacks? Oh, I see. In her mind, an end to terror is the concept of a police state in which EVERYONE is afraid 24/7.
Err, knowing about terrorist plans is not impossible, and actually surprisingly feasible. It would also be easier if we could focus on fighting terrorists instead of rogue nations.
She makes no sense. At this rate, we have a better chance of stopping a terror attack than shooting down a ballistic missile. Also, what's the point of shooting down missiles if, in her words, the attacks are going to be "random suicide bombers"??
Republicans are utterly unfazed by the fact that Bush is crazier than a March hare. THey are so happy to have the royal family back in line and strutting around a uniform he borrowed and refused to fight for, they ignore his Norman Bates moments. When this warmonger presses for war in Iraq, he can puff up his puny chest and refuse to cite his own disgraceful experience with bribery and using his father's fame to get out of the draft.
How is that bad advice? Also, she fails to grasp the concept that by "organization" he did not mean NATO but instead a coalition of nations. Also, Al Gore DID create the internet as we know it today because without him the internet would have remained the Arpanet, a military exclusive version.
Is she still living in the 19th century? We live in a globalized world. Most armies are capable of deploying almost anywhere in a matter of weeks.
The Balkans are peas compared to the disaster in Iraq.
Iraq didn't pose a threat to the U.S. either. Also, civil wars have the tendency to spill over into neighboring regions, take Vietnam for example. We as a worldwide community decided that this Civil War must be stopped and there must be an end to the bloodshed.
I don't understand. I thought we were trying to make "the world safe for democracy" A civil war hardly constitutes a democracy.
So pre-emptive attacks are bad? I don't understand your reasoning. Perhaps its because you're a HYPOCRITE.
Hey, at least we KNOW how many were killed in the war. In Iraq, your beloved Bush administration is REFUSING to tally the civilian dead. Perhaps because it would be FAR too high for even you to ignore. Also, the casualties in NATO do not even compare to the 300+ dead soldiers in Iraq.
Err, how many civilian convoys have we mistakenly bombed in Afghanistan? Quite a few. But that doesn't get as much attention b/c we were consumed by the jingoist mentality.
Err, Milosevic is on trial for Crimes Against Humanity. Civil Wars take a while to mend. But $15 billion over the course of a decade is INCREDIBLE if you consider the MANY MANY MANY Billions (soon trillions?) we have spent in LESS than a year.
And your idea of a president is an ultra-rich, ignorant, arrogant man who has denied the basic principles of the constitution to many and blatantly disrespects the working class.
The above post could use a bit of editing.
Whoa there buddy...
I didn't say that he doesn't have a right to do so... and I never mentioned anything about celebrities or said anything about their legitimacy in politics.
So, put that straw man away...
Moore is so far to the left that he's going to drive a lot of people away. This follows the direction that the Democrat Party Leadership is going... ultra-left.
I'm not saying that's good or bad (even though I think it's bad). I'm just saying it's left.
I agree that Moore's support could be a long-term burden. The celebrities and politics thing was something I had been thinking about for a while and just need to release it.
Ann Coulter doesn't like Wesley Clark! Why don't we get him elected and give her a better chance to complain?
She's a funny woman. Rabidly psychotic, but funny.
I don't really notice any inconsistencies in Clark's statements. He acknowledges Saddam Hussein's possession of WMD, and that they are a threat, and many, many people were happy for Iraqis on the day Baghdad was liberated--much less for there being one less dictator in the world. No where does he say he supports the war. There were some admirable things about this war, I just happen to think the less-than-so outweigh them.
Shows you how little depth Michael Moore goes into when judging people or events.
Clark can't make up his mind, watching the news it seems that clark has said something like 7 different things(points of view) when it comes to the Iraq war, he can't make up his mind on whether he supports the Iraq war or not, looks like he even said today infront of the armed services committee that he would've probably voted for the Iraq war if he could.
Also clark was a general of a war where we used air power, i don't consider him a real general, so his military career means jack ****. Also he's notorious for not following orders, yes generals have orders from the president.
Clark is like all of the other democrat nominees, including Dean, they can't stand firm on anything.
Dean said over and over before that he supported Bush ect ect ect, all of these Democrats are saying what a certain group of people want to here. If they're around the anti-war group they're going to say they were against the war ect, they're all Bull****ers.
Moore is usually very funny, but completely nutty, like in Bowling for Columbine. I also disagree with how he characterizes Clark, especially on the tax plan. That tax plan is never getting through Congress.
But for the first time in a long time, Moore's essential point for democrats and Bush Bashers is sound. Who stands the best chance of beating Bush? It ain't Dean, whose going to repel middle America and the south. It is General Clark, who stands the best chances of getting all those former Reagan Democrats to at least take a glance back at the old party.
As for Clark winning, it depends on how quickly he can lean at the least basic's of the political game; his inexperience is what lead to some of these flip-flops. (The flip-flops do not bother me too much, considering all the candidates have done it, especially Dean. Bush also flip-flopped when he was running in the primaries and in the general election).
Clark ain't the perfect candidate, but neither was Clinton, Kennedy, or even FDR (who actually ran on balancing the budget, not balooning it). But come November, Clark is the only who stands a chance of beating Bush. If you want to be a "true believer", go vote for Nader, since it worked so well for Bush in 2000.
After repeatidly hearing and reading the same announcements and articles, I have come to the conclusion that Dean's comments on clark have some meaning and thought to it.
The unclarity of Clark's possition on the war, and his various comments supporting Bush and other administration members, undermine his credibility as a democrat.
If were legible to vote in the U.S i would first analyse all canditates words and compare them with their pasts. Offcorse with these tactics one will always find discrepencies. Yet when you start to question if he realy is a democrat, then theres something wrong.
I disagree, I think Dean can carry Middle America, the rust belt specifically. I used to like Clark but he is basically a republican. I forgot, if Dean gets Cali and New York what's the next biggest state/s to win (forget about Texas and no-democrat allowed states)? Illinois?
thank god that wasting billions of dollars on the Star Wars program will help against dirty bombs and crashing airplanes.
Those being of course the only threats whatsoever to national security for the rest of US history. May as well scrap those aircraft carriers, all the heavy bombers, and indeed, most of the military if that is the case.
After all, dirty bombs and hijacked airliners are the way things are going to be; there will never again be another type of conflict, and most certainly not a high intensity one.
Removing the nuclear sword of Damocles from the heads of one's citizens is manifestly not a waste. The technology is viable, and the strategy/politics beyond reproach. A combination of ABLs, ground based interceptors, air launched platforms, Brilliant Pebbles, SM-3s and complimentary THAADS and PAC-3s is the way forward, and one that is being taken despite it putting Russian and Chinese noses out of joint.
When Moore says that the rich should pay their "fair share" of taxes, is he also referring to himself?
LOL @ newfangle. Good point about Moore.
Here is an interesting picture of General Wesley Clark:
Sparkling candidate you have there.
For every "good" point you attempt to cast upon General Wesley Clark, easy-to-find examples of his true nature seem to counter each point. They paint the picture that he is not quite exactly who is trying to portray himself to be. What, the emperor has no clothes???
I'm not a Republican and I'm not a big fan of President Bush, either. So keep your flames to yourself, please.
What about Michael Moores previous "democrats and republicans, same **** different name"-statements.
Separate names with a comma.