Best Democratic Candidate

Anti-
Ask anyone who was on welfare before welfare reform and then had to go with the changed rules–calling welfare post welfare reform is a joke.

Also, when many states are bastardizing the program to the point of non-existence, using the block grants for other purposes, it is time to say that the welfare of the New Deal and the welfare of the Great Society is dead.

Oh yes I believe you are talking about the Department of Health and Human Services. Now unless you think that Social Security, medicare and medicaid are welfare I don’t know what you are saying about federal welfare. The three aforementioned programs are grouped under majoritarian politics, everybody pays, everybody benefits.

Welfare is client politics, where everyone pays but only a small portion of the population benefits directly.

I guess if you’re striving to think of Federal Welfare, subsidies to large acreage farmers and tax cuts for the wealthy count could count. So all right federal welfare does exist.

Did they say that Iraq was getting African Uranium?
Say that Iraq posed a clear and present danger if left alone?
Oh and I hate Hilary (who isn’t a candidate) and Gore (who isn’t a candidate) almost as much as Nader.
I don’t believe Kucinich (who is a candidate), who sued the president to stop the war, said he knew there were WMDs

You know who used the imminent threat basis to take over other countries before Bush? Hitler.

i think someone needs a nap

Anti, Gold- I know I’m not going to make you guys die hard liberals, so I hope you’re not making for a conversion either.

We’re always going to see everything our way, and it’s going to look like the right way from our vantage point, we might as well end this unless you want to continue arguing.

Arguing about the differences between the two parties is pointless.

Thats akin to debating the differing approaches FLEX and Muscle & Fitness employ. Either way your still getting fed the same shit.

Both are owned lock stock and oil barrel by big business, have been for years, and no matter what they say no which side their campaign bread is buttered on.

Sure they have to throw some crumbs to the peasants to garner support, but we should all be able to see deeper than that.

Each party may take money by big business, but only one makes it a party plank to support them (with the exception of the big business loving Lieberman).
While both parties suck, they each have their better members: John McCain on the Reps and of course Kennedy and Kucinich on the Dems. These men serve to go against both big business and party politics.

Kennedy. KENNEDY. Braaaahahahaha.

And Joey, that was my point.

“Ask anyone who was on welfare before welfare reform and then had to go with the changed rules–calling welfare post welfare reform is a joke.”

If you are on welfare that long, you are a pathetic individual.

That is all.

Goldberg,
First, I would like to see the actual stories you quoted about Clark, because frankly I don’t believe them.

Second, whatever happened, I would sure as hell rather have a man as commander and chief in charge of the country and the military who had actually SERVED with honor.

General Wesley K. Clark is one of the nation?s most distinguished retired military officers. During his thirty-three years of service in the United States Army, he held numerous staff and command positions, served in Vietnam, and rose to the rank of 4-star general and NATO Supreme Allied Commander. Now in the private sector, General Clark is chairman and CEO of Wesley K. Clark & Associates, a strategic advisory and consulting firm, serves on the boards of several private corporations and non-profit organizations and comments regularly on politics, diplomacy and public affairs.

From 1997 through May of 2000, General Clark was NATO Supreme Allied Commander and Commander in Chief of the United States European Command. In this position, General Clark commanded Operation Allied Force, NATO?s first major combat action, which saved 1.5 million Albanians from ethnic cleansing in Kosovo.

From 1996 to 1997 General Clark served as Commander in Chief of the United States Southern Command, Panama, where he was responsible for the direction of U.S. military activities in Latin America and the Caribbean.

From 1994 to 1996, he served as Director for Strategic Plans and Policy for the Joint Chiefs of Staff with responsibilities for worldwide U.S. military strategic planning.

General Clark is a 1966 graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point where he graduated first in his class. He holds a Master?s Degree in Philosophy, Politics and Economics from Oxford University where he was a Rhodes Scholar.

General Clark is a recipient of numerous U.S. and foreign military awards, including the Silver Star, Bronze Star and Purple Heart. He has received honorary Knighthoods from the British and Dutch governments and was made a commander of the French Legion of Honor. In August 2000, General Clark was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation?s highest civilian honor.

Much better than a draft dodging coward who has gotten the skids greased for him by his father since the beginning, who got into a chamagne unit, and even still fucked it up with 17 months AWOL. Bush is a tough talking kid playing cowboy, who knows that his gang is all around him if he gets in over his head. He is the head thief, doling out no-bid federal contracts to all of his campaign contributors.

One little debate between the two of them would straighted this problem right out. Problem is that Bush’s handler know that it would be political suicide, so they would have to have something really big, like Saddam or Osama captured. They will avoid the debate at all costs. Mark my words!

May the best man win. This is one T-man who has family over in Iraq still, and whose Dad and uncles are all combat veterans, and who will NOT vote for a dishonorable coward like Bush.

jp-Wow.

You may already know this or not but Bush has made mention of cutting military wages in the future. Just shows how much he cares.

http://zena.secureforum.com/interactive/content/display_item.cfm?itemID=4572

So jpfitness, who do you plan to vote for then when your ret. general doesnt run?

And I still don’t see how on earth gen clark would net the dems party support. Does he support abortion? Is he anti-gun?

The dems will not choose a candidate at their party level without those options at least. They also would not choose someone who isn’t willing to toe the party line. Last thing any major party wants is someone who won’t follow orders. And is the ret. gen willing to go against his morals to follow the party line?
If so, he isn’t worth shit.
If not, they wont choose him. And if he ran as an independant dem, that would only serve one purpose, and that would be re-election of bush.
No way an independant can win the big one. Not yet anyways.

A good question. What would I do if he didn’t run? I guess I would just be stuck here witnessing the money grab for another 4 stinking years, and hopefully keep my own business in the black, and support my family in peace. I just pray that Bush doesn’t screw things up too much for the sake of my children and their children.

So where does Clark stand on the hot issues? Here is a brief description of each major issue:

Affirmative Action: Clark is a strong proponent and supporter of affirmative action, diversity, and multiculturalism:

**?I?m in favor of the principle of affirmative action? what you can?t have is you can?t have a society in which we?re not acknowledging that there is a problem in this society with racial discrimination.? Meet The Press

**“I saw first hand the racial prejudice, the civil disobedience, the intolerance? I’ve often gone back to that experience. It’s something I’ve related to.” Waging Modern War, by Wesley Clark

**Clark was recently one of several former military men to file a pro-affirmative action “friend of the court” brief on behalf of the University of Michigan in their battle against the Bush Administration efforts to dismantle Michigan’s admissions policy. Clark said he was “surprised and dismayed” by the president’s decision. (Read the consolidated brief (PDF) of retired military leaders (including Wesley Clark) in support of University of Michigan’s affirmative action program.)

The Environment: Environmental protections appear to be part of Clark?s overall global and progressive vision for America.

**“Human beings do affect the environment and all you have to do is fly along the Andes and look at the disappearing glaciers down there and you recognize that there is something called global warming and it’s just getting started as China and India modernize.” (source ? speech at the Council on Foreign Relations)

**“100 years out, the only things we leave behind that will matter are the environment and constitutional legitimacy.”

**Opposes drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge on the grounds that “the gains in terms of US energy independence are relatively marginal” The Diane Rehm Show

Gays in the Military: “But essentially we?ve got a lot of gay people in the armed forces, always have had, always will have. And I think that, you know, we should welcome people that want to serve.” Meet The Press

Guns: Clark has implied that gun ownership is primarily a local issue. He also believes that assault weapons should be banned for the general public, stating, “people who like assault weapons they should join the United States Army, we have them.” (CNN’s Crossfire, 06/25/03)

Health Care and Education: Clark is a strong supporter of a social safety net, including effective and well-supported systems of education and health care:

**“I grew up in an armed forces that treated everyone as a valued member of the team. Everyone got healthcare, and the army cared about the education of everyone’s family members. It wasn’t the attitude that you find in some places, where people are fending for themselves and the safety net doesn’t work.” (Source: Waging Modern War)

Immigration: “We?re a nation of immigrants. We should be encouraging every person from the Indian Institute of Technology that comes to this country to stay in this country. Become an American citizen. Join with us. Make a great company. Let?s all be wealthy and prosperous and happy together. Immigration has a vital part to play in that process.” (Source: New Democrat Network speech)

National Security, 9/11, and The Patriot Act: Clark is wary of trading off individual rights that allow the government to escape accountability. Clark supports a review of the Patriot Act to assess its effectiveness and potential damage to individual rights. He has also called for more accountability surrounding 9/11 so we know what went wrong and how to prevent these attacks in the future.

**?I think one of the risks you have in this operation is that you?re giving up some of the essentials of what it is in America to have justice, liberty and the rule of law. I think you?ve got to be very, very careful when you abridge those rights to prosecute the war on terrorists. So I think that needs to be carefully looked at.? Meet The Press

**"One of the things about the war on terror that I am disturbed about is that we’ve essentially suspended habeas corpus. Which is something that’s only been done once in American history and then only for a very brief period. When I go back and think about the atmosphere in which the PATRIOT Act was passed, it begs for a reconsideration and review.? (source ? Salon.com interview)

**?We?ve got a set of hearings that need to be conducted to look at what happened that caused 9/11. That really hasn?t been done yet. You know, a basic principle of military operations is you conduct an after-action review. When the action?s over you bring people together. The commander, the subordinates, the staff members. You ask yourself what happened, why, and how do we fix it the next time? As far as I know, this has never been done about the essential failure at 9/11. Then moving beyond that, it needs to be looked at in terms of the whole intelligence effort and how it?s connected to the policy effort. And these are matters that probably cannot be aired fully in public but I think that the American people and their representatives have to be involved in this. This is essential in terms of the legitimacy and trust in our elected leadership and our way of government.? Meet The Press

Taxes and the Economy: Clark favors a responsible and progressive taxation system that creates jobs and doesn?t put this country into ruinous financial shape with gaping deficits. Clark, who at one point taught economics at West Point, was against Bush?s tax changes because they don?t effectively create jobs, they are unfair, and they imperil our nation?s fiscal health.

**?Taxes are something that you want to have as little of as possible, but you need as much revenue as necessary to meet people?s needs for services.? Meet The Press

**?[The Bush tax changes] were not efficient in terms of stimulating the kind of demand we need to move the economy back into a recovery mode, a strong recovery and a recovery that provides jobs.? Meet The Press

**?The tax cuts weren?t fair? the people that need the money and deserve the money are the people who are paying less, not the people who are paying more. I thought this country was founded on a principle of progressive taxation. In other words, it?s not only that the more you make, the more you give, but proportionately more because when you don?t have very much money, you need to spend it on the necessities of life. When you have more money, you have room for the luxuries and you should?one of the luxuries and one of the privileges we enjoy is living in this great country.? Meet The Press

**?I mean, you look at the long-run health of the country and the size of the deficit that we?ve incurred and a substantial part of that deficit is result of the tax cuts. You have to ask: ?Is this wise, long-run policy?? I think the answer is no.? Meet The Press

Women?s Issues: Clark is a strong supporter of women?s rights. Bluntly stating on CNN’s Crossfire “I am pro-choice.” He is pro-choice, supporting the rights of women to make these decisions outside of governmental regulation (Source ? The American Prospect), and in the early 1980s, he proactively tackled spousal abuse as an army commander with a forward-thinking assessment of the demands of the modern family. (source - War in a Time of Peace, by David Halberstam)

jpfitness, you can keep him if those are his views…

I mean that tax cut statement is just bunk.

Take a look at the code now. Are the poor paying income taxes? Do families making a smaller amount pay income taxes? What he is saying is purely political.

That whole “unfair” thing is so bunk. You show me a tax plan that a democrat has passed that has kept more tax money in the pockets of the lower income earning families than the child tax credit. Go ahead and show me one.

This idea of “unfair” is just so bogus. I mean how can you possibly make it more “fair” when you have someone making $30k who DOESNT pay any tax and gets no tax cut (kinds hard to cut what they dont pay already) and someone making $100k who pays $20k and gets a $2k cut in tax… My guess is the only way to make that more “fair” in those of that belief is to increase the tax on the $100k guy so he pays $35k and give that money to the $30k guy so he makes $35k from “taxes”.

Really funny thing about that is the people who say this “unfair” stuff aren’t willing to include themselves in the group who should pay that much more. They always want to write a whole new book of rules with special exemptions and so on to disclude themselves and their buddies from it. That is what i call “elitism” and it is rampant among politicians, hollywood types and so on.

Look at the tax payer stats in this country. The top few percent of income earners are those who pay the lion’s share of tax. The bottom 50% pay almost none of it in comparison.

Anyone who says the federal coffers are being sucked dry by income tax changes is NOT someone who understands economic theory (or more likely they understand it but they instead choose to politicize their statement).

“While both parties suck, they each have their better members: John McCain on the Reps and of course Kennedy and Kucinich on the Dems. These men serve to go against both big business and party politics.”

Kennedy? KENNEDY??? Braaaahahahahah!!!

jpfitness, sergius,

Just a quick question: Wasn’t algore supposed to mop the floor with George W. in the debates? Even clinton’s camp, when refuting the assertion that gore lost because of clinton’s odium, used the line that gore lost all three debates. Listened to our President lately? He’s going to be a much more impressive debater this time around. Oh, please underestimate him.

I cannot believe ANYONE WOULD TRUMPET KENNEDY AS SOME PARAGON OF VIRTUE!!! Oh my God. My favorite bumper sticker, “Ted Kennedy’s car has killed more people than my gun.” sergius look into the incident I am referring to. If you still think him virtuous, then that says alot about your morals.

I guess you guys never heard that your beloved Bush is political partners with Kennedy. (I guess that makes you feel dirty)

Otherwise US=GG your posts were never informative nor inciteful before and they remain that way.

Just when I think the liberals have gone totally off the chart, another one pops up that is even crazier.

Avoid-“crazier.” The proper term is radical.

And Ted Kennedy and Bush toured the nation to promote No Child Left Behind. Then Bush, needing democratic backing for the Medicare prescription drug plan spoke with Kennedy to unite the Democrats for it.

Read a book–preferably not about bodybuilding.

I’m sick of just about all the politicians period. They all lie. All of them.

Both the Republicans and Democrats can kiss my ass.

The only thing any of them care is being in power. The Democrats will do or say anthing to be in power as will the Republicans. It’s Democrats vs Republicans and all the while the people are forgotten and it’s just going to get worse and worse.

Goldberg for President!

He’d have every High School training the kids Westside!!