Here is some more diversity from those great black men..Clinton and Clark.

Igetp2s · Jan 20, 2004

Perhaps Rhode Scholar, Four Star General Clark was slightly more intelligent that your-uncomprehensive-self ....

Did it ever occur to you that there is a 365 X's difference between the flying of the confederate flags in South Carolina and Arkansas??

Doh, puppet boy, did you miss that when you were looking for fuel to slander the General with?

Presidential candidate Gen. Wesley Clark blasted South Carolina officials on Friday for flying the Confederate flag on Statehouse grounds
State sponspered, 365 days/year.

even though his home state of Arkansas still celebrates "Confederate Flag Day"
State allowed, 1 day/year."

I guess its OK to support racism one day a year then. Thanks for the heads up.

"Seems to me like Clark would have been an idiot to address Arkansas first since there is a state that is 365 X's worse."

There doesn't need to be an issue of 1st or 2nd. He could have criticised both at the same time.

I guess I can't denounce the actions of Uday and Qusay, because Saddam was worse.

Your go to such ridiculous lengths to defend anything that Clark does or doesn't do its laughable. The guy can do no wrong.

lander · Jan 20, 2004

It took me a minute to digest your fragmented run-on of an argument, but I think got it. You are saying that Clark is a racist because he lives in the state that Clinton governed, correct? Since this article visibly upsets you pro-genocial neo-cons, could you please let me in on your little secret of what General Wesley Clark and former president Bill Clinton have to do with each other? I'm failing to see the relationship here, as does D2 - the most schooled Clark supporter on the forum.

I'll gladly answer any Clark questions that your blaming on Bill Clinton as soon as you show me the connection, otherwise it's just a big fuking waste of time. We might as well talk about the tooth fairy if we're not going to debate actual facts.

Now, I think the second part of your fragmented run-on is asking why would I vote for the same man as "slow to evolve fuks".

Well, the problem is that we only have two candidates come November (yes, I realize a bunch of nobody's will run on principle and capture 0 electoral votes, but I simplified it in the spirit of my target audience). I think that John Kerry would make a fine president and I think that Howard Dean is an untrustworthy rat and I think that Al Sharpton is a reverse racist. Basically, in my opinion, that leaves Senator Kerry as the only candidate from the NorthEast worth voting for, but the problem is that I fear the South would elect appointed monarchist Bush over a NorthEastern democrat. Perhaps pushing for Kerry would give me "inner peace", but the reality is that America needs somebody that can defeat George Bush - not just the best man. IMO the best chance to defeat Bush lies with Wesley Clark then John Kerry then John Edwards and waaaaaaaaaay down at the bottom Howard Dean.

"bought a line of shit"
Perhaps, but if this is buying a line then you drones that bought into the ever-evolving "reasons" for invading Iraq (while Osama Bin Laden roams freely) are buying the whole fuking sewer system.

In conclusion, my vote will be a vote for the "lesser of two evils" - which will most certainly be the anti-Bush, whomever that may be. Let's just pray that the best matchup to beat Bush gets the nod.

PatPatriot · Jan 20, 2004

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> "bought a line of shit"
Perhaps, but if this is buying a line then you drones that bought into the ever-evolving "reasons" for invading Iraq (while Osama Bin Laden roams freely) are buying the whole fuking sewer system.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Nice line...the difference is I know what I bought...When you and Gomer vote you won't know what you bought.
Ask yourself this...why does his own state have legislation in place to support the confederate flag??...Where was his opposition to Clinton on this??..Where is his pledge to reverse that legislation and go against Clinton?..Is his commitment to Clinton stronger than his commitment to disavow the symbols that enslaved, hurt and humilited a whole race of people and kept them in bondage the very state he lives????...What kind of man are you voting for???...your crazier than that schizoid "Moe" Howard dean!!

lander · Jan 20, 2004

I beleive that General Clark was a bit occupied defending America and it's freedoms with his brilliant leadship when Clinton was passing "vote getting" laws. Afterwards, he might have been just a tad busy with NATO and it's quest to better the world and protect the meek ... or course, since then Bushie has done a fine job of single-handedly destroying world peace.

Now that Clark is in the political spectrum he clearly demonstrates that he is against the Confederate flag, yet you say, "but you didn't say that you were against it in every state .. so I'll pretend that means you're for it and go on and on with my school girl like tantrums slandering you with my dellusional conslusions".
On the other hand, some of the educated amongst us have percieved the events as "Clark is against waiving the Confederate flag because it divides Americans - Amen."

Patriot, I'm shocked - I thought military command was "holier than though", or is that only when war-evading alcoholics are calling the shots?

Apples/oranges, rhode scholar peace keepers/ genocidal alcoholic monarchists ...

to each his own, I supose.

SENDITIN · Jan 20, 2004

(while Osama Bin Laden roams freely)

The reason we can't get him is because like you said we have "cowardly" Apache pilots and murderers in our military. If you were in charge we'd be shooting paintballs at the enemy.

Now we know if Clark was President "He would have got him by now" and "There would never be a terrorist attack in the U.S. if he was in charge"

lander · Jan 20, 2004

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by SENDITIN:
(while Osama Bin Laden roams freely)

The reason we can't get him is because like you said we have "cowardly" Apache pilots and murderers in our military. If you were in charge we'd be shooting paintballs at the enemy.

Now we know if Clark was President "He would have got him by now" and "There would never be a terrorist attack in the U.S. if he was in charge"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If I was the president I would listen to brilliant accomplished leaders like General Clark and, I dunno, maybe go after the guy that killed 3000 Americans ...

"nah, fuk it .. let's blow up Iraq and get Osama after he kills 3000 more. I mean, seriously, my daddy says that our family fortune is dependent on Oil Contracts and my buddy Dicky says he'll tell on me if I don't give his company some sort of open-ended no-bidding contract. Seriously man, me and Dicky have billions at stakes and those 3000 didn't even have 1 billion collectively ... so it's for the greater good. God bless America and it's special interests."

SENDITIN · Jan 20, 2004

Is Clark the same brilliant military leader who got fired from his job or was that some other Clark. Geez Lander now you're backing a military guy. I suppose if he was an Apache pilot he would be a coward and a murderer?

And please tell me about the billions Chaney has at stake? He divested all his stock so please tell me how he makes money off this deal? Do you have evidence of his direct profiting or is this just the usual liberal blather?

Do you really think that Iraq is the reason we haven't found Osama? Give me a break...

lander · Jan 20, 2004

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by SENDITIN:
Geez Lander now you're backing a military guy. I suppose if he was an Apache pilot he would be a coward and a murderer? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Like I clearly stated a few posts earlier, "Well, the problem is that we only have two candidates come November (yes, I realize a bunch of nobody's will run on principle and capture 0 electoral votes, but I simplified it in the spirit of my target audience). I think that John Kerry would make a fine president and I think that Howard Dean is an untrustworthy rat and I think that Al Sharpton is a reverse racist. Basically, in my opinion, that leaves Senator Kerry as the only candidate from the NorthEast worth voting for, but the problem is that I fear the South would elect appointed monarchist Bush over a NorthEastern democrat. Perhaps pushing for Kerry would give me "inner peace", but the reality is that America needs somebody that can defeat George Bush - not just the best man. IMO the best chance to defeat Bush lies with Wesley Clark then John Kerry then John Edwards and waaaaaaaaaay down at the bottom Howard Dean."

Wesley Clark is not my ideal president, but he's an improvement over trigger happy Bush and more importantly he's the best matchup for the Democrats.

I will support whomever runs against genocidal George.

D2bets · Jan 20, 2004

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by SENDITIN:
Is Clark the same brilliant military leader who got fired from his job or was that some other Clark.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's semantics I suppose, but he wan't fired. He was relieved a couple month early after his real work had been accomplsihed so that Joe Ralston wouldn't lose his status. There were technical reasons which had nothing to do with Clark's ability, character, integrity, courage and skill. Those very traits are what earned him unanimous praise from those that supposedly fired him (incldg Shelton and Cohen) as well as the Presidential Medal of Freedom for his work in Kosovo as NATO SACEUR. You can name on one hand military leaders who have earned the PMOF. That's what I call distinction.

But maybe you prefer someone who dodged the war, was AWOL from National Guard duty and prances around in a flight suit.

The General vs. The Deserter