TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Michael Moore endorses Clark;
Pages (2): [1] 2 »
Michael Moore endorses Clark;
Ok, so I'm not really a fan of Michael Moore, but he's right about this one:
http://www.clark04.com/moore/
| quote: |
I'll Be Voting For Wesley Clark/Good-Bye Mr. Bush --by Michael Moore January 14, 2004 Many of you have written to me in the past months asking, "Who are you going to vote for this year?" I have decided to cast my vote in the primary for Wesley Clark. That's right, a peacenik is voting for a general. What a country! I believe that Wesley Clark will end this war. He will make the rich pay their fair share of taxes. He will stand up for the rights of women, African Americans, and the working people of this country. And he will cream George W. Bush. I have met Clark and spoken to him on a number of occasions, feeling him out on the issues but, more importantly, getting a sense of him as a human being. And I have to tell you I have found him to be the real deal, someone whom I'm convinced all of you would like, both as a person and as the individual leading this country. He is an honest, decent, honorable man who would be a breath of fresh air in the White House. He is clearly not a professional politician. He is clearly not from Park Avenue. And he is clearly the absolute best hope we have of defeating George W. Bush. This is not to say the other candidates won't be able to beat Bush, and I will work enthusiastically for any of the non-Lieberman 8 who might get the nomination. But I must tell you, after completing my recent 43-city tour of this country, I came to the conclusion that Clark has the best chance of beating Bush. He is going to inspire the independents and the undecided to come our way. The hard core (like us) already have their minds made up. It's the fence sitters who will decide this election. The decision in November is going to come down to 15 states and just a few percentage points. So, I had to ask myself -- and I want you to honestly ask yourselves -- who has the BEST chance of winning Florida, West Virginia, Arizona, Nevada, Missouri, Ohio? Because THAT is the only thing that is going to matter in the end. You know the answer -- and it ain't you or me or our good internet doctor. This is not about voting for who is more anti-war or who was anti-war first or who the media has already anointed. It is about backing a candidate that shares our values AND can communicate them to Middle America. I am convinced that the surest slam dunk to remove Bush is with a four-star-general-top-of-his-class-at-West-Point-Rhodes-Scholar-Medal-of-Freedom-winning -gun-owner-from-the-South -- who also, by chance, happens to be pro-choice, pro environment, and anti-war. You don't get handed a gift like this very often. I hope the liberal/left is wise enough to accept it. It's hard, when you're so used to losing, to think that this time you can actually win. It is Clark who stands the best chance -- maybe the only chance -- to win those Southern and Midwestern states that we MUST win in order to accomplish Bush Removal. And if what I have just said is true, then we have no choice but to get behind the one who can make this happen. There are times to vote to make a statement, there are times to vote for the underdog and there are times to vote to save the country from catastrophe. This time we can and must do all three. I still believe that each one of us must vote his or her heart and conscience. If we fail to do that, we will continue to be stuck with spineless politicians who stand for nothing and no one (except those who write them the biggest checks). My vote for Clark is one of conscience. I feel so strongly about this that I'm going to devote the next few weeks of my life to do everything I can to help Wesley Clark win. I would love it if you would join me on this mission. Here are just a few of the reasons why I feel this way about Wes Clark: 1. Clark has committed to ensuring that every family of four who makes under $50,000 a year pays NO federal income tax. None. Zip. This is the most incredible helping hand offered by a major party presidential candidate to the working class and the working poor in my lifetime. He will make up the difference by socking it to the rich with a 5% tax increase on anything they make over a million bucks. He will make sure corporations pay ALL of the taxes they should be paying. Clark has fired a broadside at greed. When the New York Times last week wrote that Wes Clark has been "positioning himself slightly to Dean's left," this is what they meant, and it sure sounded good to me. 2. He is 100% opposed to the draft. If you are 18-25 years old and reading this right now, I have news for you -- if Bush wins, he's going to bring back the draft. He will be forced to. Because, thanks to his crazy war, recruitment is going to be at an all-time low. And many of the troops stuck over there are NOT going to re-enlist. The only way Bush is going to be able to staff the military is to draft you and your friends. Parents, make no mistake about it -- Bush's second term will see your sons taken from you and sent to fight wars for the oily rich. Only an ex-general who knows first-hand that a draft is a sure-fire way to wreck an army will be able to avert the inevitable. 3. He is anti-war. Have you heard his latest attacks on Bush over the Iraq War? They are stunning and brilliant. I want to see him on that stage in a debate with Bush -- the General vs. the Deserter! General Clark told me that it's people like him who are truly anti-war because it's people like him who have to die if there is a war. "War must be the absolute last resort," he told me. "Once you've seen young people die, you never want to see that again, and you want to avoid it whenever and wherever possible." I believe him. And my ex-Army relatives believe him, too. It's their votes we need. 4. He walks the walk. On issues like racism, he just doesn't mouth liberal platitudes -- he does something about it. On his own volition, he joined in and filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in support of the University of Michigan's case in favor of affirmative action. He spoke about his own insistence on affirmative action in the Army and how giving a hand to those who have traditionally been shut out has made our society a better place. He didn't have to get involved in that struggle. He's a middle-aged white guy -- affirmative action personally does him no good. But that is not the way he thinks. He grew up in Little Rock, one of the birthplaces of the civil rights movement, and he knows that African Americans still occupy the lowest rungs of the ladder in a country where everyone is supposed to have "a chance." That is why he has been endorsed by one of the founding members of the Congressional Black Caucus, Charlie Rangel, and former Atlanta Mayor and aide to Martin Luther King, Jr., Andrew Young. 5. On the issue of gun control, this hunter and gun owner will close the gun show loophole (which would have helped prevent the massacre at Columbine) and he will sign into law a bill to create a federal ballistics fingerprinting database for every gun in America (the DC sniper, who bought his rifle in his own name, would have been identified after the FIRST day of his killing spree). He is not afraid, as many Democrats are, of the NRA. His message to them: "You like to fire assault weapons? I have a place for you. It's not in the homes and streets of America. It's called the Army, and you can join any time!" 6. He will gut and overhaul the Patriot Act and restore our constitutional rights to privacy and free speech. He will demand stronger environmental laws. He will insist that trade agreements do not cost Americans their jobs and do not exploit the workers or environment of third world countries. He will expand the Family Leave Act. He will guarantee universal pre-school throughout America. He opposes all discrimination against gays and lesbians (and he opposes the constitutional amendment outlawing gay marriage). All of this is why Time magazine this week referred to Clark as "Dean 2.0" -- an improvement over the original (1.0, Dean himself), a better version of a good thing: stronger, faster, and easier for the mainstream to understand and use. 7. He will cut the Pentagon budget, use the money thus saved for education and health care, and he will STILL make us safer than we are now. Only the former commander of NATO could get away with such a statement. Dean says he will not cut a dime out of the Pentagon. Clark knows where the waste and the boondoggles are and he knows that nutty ideas like Star Wars must be put to pasture. His health plan will cover at least 30 million people who now have no coverage at all, including 13 million children. He's a general who will tell those swing voters, "We can take this Pentagon waste and put it to good use to fix that school in your neighborhood." My friends, those words, coming from the mouth of General Clark, are going to turn this country around. Now, before those of you who are Dean or Kucinich supporters start cloggin' my box with emails tearing Clark down with some of the stuff I've seen floating around the web ("Mike! He voted for Reagan! He bombed Kosovo!"), let me respond by pointing out that Dennis Kucinich refused to vote against a resolution in Congress on March 21 (two days after the war started) which stated "unequivocal support" for Bush and the war (only 11 Democrats voted against this--Dennis abstained. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll083.xml). Or, need I quote Dr. Dean who, the month after Bush "won" the election, said he wasn't too worried about Bush because Bush "in his soul, is a moderate" (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/09/p...gns/09DEAN.html)? What's the point of this ridiculous tit-for-tat sniping? I applaud Dennis for all his other stands against the war, and I am certain Howard no longer believes we have nothing to fear about Bush. They are good people. Why expend energy on the past when we have such grave danger facing us in the present and in the near future? I don't feel bad nor do I care that Clark -- or anyone -- voted for Reagan over 20 years ago. Let's face it, the vast majority of Americans voted for Reagan -- and I want every single one of them to be WELCOMED into our tent this year. The message to these voters -- and many of them are from the working class -- should not be, "You voted for Reagan? Well, to hell with you!" Every time you attack Clark for that, that is the message you are sending to all the people who at one time liked Reagan. If they have now changed their minds (just as Kucinich has done by going from anti-choice to pro-choice, and Dean has done by wanting to cut Medicare to now not wanting to cut it) - and if Clark has become a liberal Democrat, is that not something to cheer? In fact, having made that political journey and metamorphosis, is he not the best candidate to bring millions of other former Reagan supporters to our side -- blue collar people who have now learned the hard way just how bad Reagan and the Republicans were (and are) for them? We need to take that big DO NOT ENTER sign off our tent and reach out to the vast majority who have been snookered by these right-wingers. And we have a better chance of winning in November with one of their own leading them to the promised land. There is much more to discuss and, in the days and weeks ahead, I will continue to send you my thoughts. In the coming months, I will also be initiating a number of efforts on my website to make sure we get out the vote for the Democratic nominee in November. In addition to voting for Wesley Clark, I will also be spending part of my Bush tax cut to help him out. You can join me, if you like, by going to his website to learn more about him, to volunteer, or to donate. To find out about when your state's presidential primaries are, visit Vote Smart: http://www.votesmart.org/election_p...mary_dates.php. I strongly urge you to vote for Wes Clark. Let's join together to ensure that we are putting forth our BEST chance to defeat Bush on the November ballot. It is, at this point, for the sake of the world, a moral imperative. Yours, Michael Moore www.michaelmoore.com [email protected][/email] [email][email protected] P.S. To register to vote visit www.yourvotematters.org. |
If you want Bush out, this is our man!!!!!!!!!!!! I've felt that way from the start of his campaign actually. I actually think that's honorable of Moore as a multi-millionaire to use his Bush tax cut for Clark's campaign, and it makes me see him in a better light.
That link in the Moore article about the primaries is faulty. I'll try and find the real info about every state�s primary for everyone.
Women for Clark:
http://clark04.com/women/
Chairman of Congressional Hispanic Caucus endorses Clark:
http://clark04.com/press/release/166/
Earth Day founder endorses Clark:
http://clark04.com/press/release/167/
Now if the dems would just lay off the gun control thing, Clark would be really unbeatable with the support of rural voters.
Uh-oh Clark recieves the "kiss of death."
Unfortunatly something tells me this will be a runaway re-election for Bush. He doesn't seem too concerned with all the mudslinging going on and all the polls that I have seen to this point show that he shouldn't be. I don't necessarily think that any of the Dems could do a better job than Bush, but a tight election can lead to many good compromises on an encumbent presidents policies.
I'm bored, so I figure I'd go through and comment on Michael Moore's "points." Maybe they'll start some fun mini-debates.
| quote: |
| 1. Clark has committed to ensuring that every family of four who makes under $50,000 a year pays NO federal income tax. |
| quote: |
| 2. He is 100% opposed to the draft. |
| quote: |
| 3. He is anti-war. |
| quote: |
| 4. He walks the walk. (Affirmative Action) |
| quote: |
| 5. On the issue of gun control |
| quote: |
| 6. He will gut and overhaul the Patriot Act and restore our constitutional rights to privacy and free speech. He will demand stronger environmental laws. He will insist that trade agreements do not cost Americans their jobs and do not exploit the workers or environment of third world countries. |
| quote: |
| 7. He will cut the Pentagon budget, use the money thus saved for education and health care |
I think you've made some very good points--particularly about Clark's tax proposal--it's quite possibly one of the worst economic ideas ever proposed, and does little other than show how truly naive Wesley Clark is when it comes to economic issues.
I don't think you can call Wesley Clark anti-war based on some of yesterday's developments. He may be pro-peace, but I don't think that makes him unique in his stance at all--I'd say at least 95% of the population is pro-peace--some of them just have the sack to stand up for their beliefs and take assertive action.
His views on affirmative action are anything but progressive--if anything they are regressive and promote continued discrimination. I agree with your points here.
Michael Moore is utterly pathetic. It absolutely makes me furious when people equate rich to evil, yet Moore is extremely wealthy--isn't he therefore an extremely evil person as well by his own logic? I sure as hell don't trust him. He's a lost mind and a sad soul.
The exclamation point on that whole article was ending it with the term 'moral imperative'. What a joke.
Dammit the last thing Clark needs is fucking Moore's endorsement .
But it seems that the republicans fear Clark more than Dean and have begun their attacks on him:
Clark Hit by Republican Assault Over Iraq Testimony
Thu January 15, 2004 08:34 PM ET
(Page 1 of 2)
By David Morgan
MANCHESTER, N.H. (Reuters) - Democratic presidential hopeful Wesley Clark faced a barrage of questions over his much-touted opposition to the Iraq war on Thursday, after Republicans released excerpts of congressional testimony in which he appeared to back the use of force against Saddam Hussein.
In excerpts posted on the Republican National Committee's Web site, the former NATO commander described Saddam to the House Armed Services Committee on Sept. 26, 2002, as a threat who already had chemical and biological weapons and was seeking nuclear arms.
"It needs to be dealt with and the clock is ticking on this," Clark was quoted as telling committee members six months before U.S. forces invaded Iraq last March.
He also told lawmakers that a U.S. president was justified in taking military action without U.N. approval, just as NATO forces did in Kosovo under his command.
A retired general who has made vehement opposition to the Iraq war a hallmark of his campaign, Clark fired back by accusing the Republican leadership of trying to discredit him by taking his remarks out of context.
He said Congress should investigate whether the Bush administration had committed a criminal act by misleading the nation into war.
"This is material that's been dug up by the Republican National Committee. (They) should have read the whole testimony because it totally refutes the Bush position," Clark said during a heated 35-minute press conference in Manchester, N.H.
"What I was saying then is what I'm saying today, that Saddam Hussein was not an imminent threat ... Was he troublesome? Sure. Was he a threat eventually? Sure. Was a clock ticking in a two-year, five-year, 10-year time period? Sure. Did we have to do this? No."
The Republican broadside against Clark came as his campaign showed signs of closing in on Democratic front-runner Howard Dean in the Jan. 27 New Hampshire primary. Clark is not running in next Monday's Iowa caucuses, with which the 2004 presidential race formally begins.
"It looks like they've finally figured out that I'm George Bush's greatest threat," Clark said.
The latest New Hampshire tracking poll by Manchester-based American Research Group showed Clark closing to within five percentage points of Dean after trailing the former Vermont governor by 17 points just a few days ago.
This weekend, prominent Democrats, including several former members of the Clinton administration and film-maker Michael Moore, are due in New Hampshire to rally for Clark's presidential bid.
A career officer who has never held elective office, Clark entered the presidential race late but has quickly gained ground in New Hampshire with campaign rhetoric that includes bitter criticism of President Bush's leadership on security issues including Iraq.
At the same time, the lanky 59-year-old from Arkansas has been sensitive to charges of flip-flopping on Iraq after he stumbled over whether he would have supported a congressional resolution authorizing military action in Iraq. He told reporters he probably would have, then switched his stance 24 hours later.
Clark also came under fire from Dean this week who said he was not a true Democrat after voting for Republicans Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan.
Faced with mounting questions about his congressional testimony, Clark tried to shift the spotlight onto Bush by accusing the president of ignoring half a century of U.S. adherence to international law to pursue the war with Iraq.
Asked if it was "criminal" to mislead a country into war, Clark responded: "I think that's a question that Congress needs to ask. This Congress needs to investigate precisely why this administration determined to take us into a war with Saddam Hussein that wasn't connected with the threat of al Qaeda."
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shakka The exclamation point on that whole article was ending it with the term 'moral imperative'. What a joke. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by NeoPhono Uh-oh Clark recieves the "kiss of death." Unfortunatly something tells me this will be a runaway re-election for Bush. He doesn't seem too concerned with all the mudslinging going on and all the polls that I have seen to this point show that he shouldn't be. I don't necessarily think that any of the Dems could do a better job than Bush, but a tight election can lead to many good compromises on an encumbent presidents policies. I'm bored, so I figure I'd go through and comment on Michael Moore's "points." Maybe they'll start some fun mini-debates. I really can't see the economics of this one. First of all I'll just tell you right off the bat, I'm all for a flat tax. I don't see why hard work through school and life should make you "responsible" for more taxes. Where is the incentive to work harder than your neighbor if you are just going to be taxed more for your efforts? 100,000 dollars a year is the top tax bracket if I'm not mistaken, being taxed just over 50%. So with this plan, someone making 100,000 a year would acutally now net less income then someone working a 50,000 a year job? That could really throw a kink in some professions I'd imagine. After all, why would you want to go through college to land one of these jobs, if you would ultimately make less than someone who never went to college and works in a factory pulling a lever making more money? I'm all for a flat tax that also removes loop-holes for the ultra-rich, who get away with paying no taxes due to "creative" book keeping. |
.| quote: |
A bit alarmist if you ask me. We still have hundreds of thousands of unused National Guard that would still be available for active duty before a draft would even be considered. Not to mention the Bush administration is already talking steps to lessen the amount of troops on the two major fronts. Besides, someday the draft probably will have to be used, God forbid...so whether a president is "opposed" to the draft or not makes no real difference, it is the situation of the country that determines whether a draft will or will not occur. |
| quote: |
Well, I'm anti-war, as I think most people are, I'll even admit I consider myself a semi-isolationist. I also have no problem getting out of South Korea and Kosovo. However, I do think the damage to national psyche and military morale if we were to pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan at this time would be killer. First, we would leave both Iraq and Afghanistan in a state of chaos if we were to just leave now. Secondly, the international back-lash and criticism of leaving both these countries "unfinished," would last for years. Lastly, with these two countries, there is a foreseeable end in sight...free elections and an autonomous, stable government. With Kosovo and South Korea, I'm not sure what our goals are anymore, besides acting as peace keepers, which I am strongly oppossed to. |
| quote: |
I still can't figure out the logic of affirmative action. Inequality somehow leads to equality. Affirmative action leads by definition, to inequality, but even more damaging, to the furthering of racial boundries and racially motivated hate. We live in an age where we can almost guarantee discrimination based on sex or ethnicity will be avoided, why do we have to insure that we go further, to the point of reverse desrimination? I will say that if affirmative action is used to allow underprivelaged individuals into college, at least at the undergraduate level, I have no problem. Just make sure aid is given based on socio-economic conditions, not physical characteristics. A poor Appalachian white kid is far more deserving of affirmative action then the black son of a black doctor making millions in Beverly Hills, but as affirmative action is today, this is not the case. Once we are talking about jobs or graduate level education, the most qualified, regardless of race, creed or sex should be selected. Make equality through equality, not by furthering inequality due to physical traits. |
| quote: |
No problems here. I believe people should be able to own a gun, as long as it's not an automatic assault rifle (a people-killer). I also have no problem with keeping tighter records on gun owners. Even though I don't own a gun, I'm not going to tell someone else not to own one. I also don't smoke, because I know it'll kill me and hurt the ones who live with me, but on the same token, I'm not going to take away someone else's right to smoke. |
| quote: |
I have mixed emotions on this one. On a human front, cutting money from the Pentagon ultimately means lost jobs. Yes, we would be cutting billions out of the deficit, but we'd also be cutting thousands of jobs. If we really want to save money in the governement, do so by removing regulatory agencies and beaurocracy in departments, not by wholesale cuts. The pentagon right now spends more money on the paperwork behind traveling (2.2 billion) then on actual traveling expenses (2 billion) due to the overwhelming beaurocracy found in government. Find me a president that will do away with that, and he'll get my vote regardless of his other stances. Paperwork and all-encompasing regulatory agencies will be the downfall of our governement and are the cause of the majority of our increasing deficit. To me it is a fixable although difficult problem that will need to be remedied, or will continue to slowly kill our government. Well, comments...concerns? |
Tax cuts don't create deficits--overspending creates deficits. Bush isn't the only one guilty of overspending, so I don't think it's fair to pin blame on him alone for our current deficit. I don't think that California's $30 Billion deficit is a result of Bush tax cuts. Politicians have a terrible habit of overspending that they need to get under control.
Aside from that, I'm sure everyone here hates Ann Coulter, but she makes some pretty interesting points about Clark's past in one of her latest editorials.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/...c20040115.shtml
| quote: |
| The Democrats' idea of a general Ann Coulter January 15, 2004 Democrats are so delirious about finding a general who is a pacifist scaredy-cat that no one seems to have bothered to investigate whether Wesley Clark is sane. On "Meet the Press" back in November, Clark described intelligence as "a sort of gray goo as you look at it. You can't see through it, exactly, and if you try to touch it, it gets real sticky and you might actually interfere with the information that you're getting back. So you have to draw inferences from it." No, wait. I'm sorry. I think that was Clark talking about Monica Lewinsky's dress, not national security intelligence. Meanwhile, Clark recently said that the "two greatest lies that have been told in the last three years" are: "You couldn't have prevented 9-11 and there's another one that's bound to happen." If he were president, Clark says, there would be no more terrorist attacks. The adversarial watchdog press did not ask Clark to explain how he could guarantee an end to terrorist attacks, but recited Clark's prior statements calling for better intelligence. Apparently, if we could just refine the gray goo of intelligence to a magical terrorist-prediction machine, Clark could put an end to this terrorism nonsense once and for all. Yes, I suppose if our intelligence agencies knew who the terrorists were and when they were going to strike, we could stop them. And if we knew who all the raving lunatics were, we could prevent these infernal Democratic presidential primary debates. Which reminds me, I think I know how we can win the lottery every week, too. Liberals scoff at a system to shoot down incoming missiles, but believe that all random suicide bombers can be located and stopped before they strike. Hitting a bullet with a bullet just isn't feasible, so let's concentrate on something doable like predicting the future. Democrats are utterly unfazed by the fact that Clark is crazier than a March hare. They are so happy to have a pacifist in uniform, they ignore his Norman Bates moments. When this peacenik criticizes the war in Iraq, he can puff up his puny chest and cite his own glorious experience with blood, sweat and tears in the Balkans. Asked on "Meet the Press" what advice he would give Bush, Clark said: "I'd say, 'Mr. President, the first thing you've got to do is you've got to surrender' � stop right there and the Kucinich crowd is yours � 'exclusive U.S. control over this mission. ... Build an international organization like we did in the Balkans.'" Because, as everyone knows, Wesley Clark "built" NATO. This guy sounds more like Al Gore every day. Asked what countries he proposed to bring into Iraq that weren't there already, Clark said, "I think you ask NATO ... just as I did in Kosovo, because this brings NATO into the problem." NATO is the logical choice for this job because of Iraq's extremely close proximity to the North Atlantic. Evidently, Clark is sublimely confident that no one remembers anything about his misadventures in the Balkans. Yugoslavia posed absolutely no threat to the United States � not imminent, not latent, not burgeoning, not now, not then, not ever. (Unless you count all the U.S. highway deaths caused by Yugos.) The president of Yugoslavia, Slobodan Milosevic, never tried to assassinate a U.S. president. He never shook his fist at the Great Satan. He didn't shelter and fund Muslim terrorists � though the people we were fighting for did. In humanitarian terms, Milosevic didn't hold a candle to Saddam Hussein. Milosevic killed a few thousand Albanians in a ground war. Hussein killed well over a million Iranians, Kurds, Kuwaitis and Shias, among others. Milosevic had no rape rooms, no torture rooms, no Odai or Qusai. He didn't even use a wood chipper to dispose of his enemies, the piker. And yet NATO, led by Gen. Wesley Clark, staged a pre-emptive attack on Yugoslavia. Under Clark's command, the U.S. bombed the Chinese Embassy by mistake, killing three Chinese journalists. Other NATO air strikes under Clark mistakenly damaged the Swiss, Spanish, Swedish, Norwegian and Hungarian ambassadors' residences. Despite the absence of ground troops, Yugoslavia took three American POWs, whose release was eventually brokered by Jesse Jackson. America was standing tall. Clark's forces bombed a civilian convoy by mistake, killing more than 70 ethnic Albanians, and then Clark openly lied about it to the press. First he denied NATO had done it, and when forced to retract that, Clark pinned the blame on an innocent U.S. pilot. As New York Newsday reported on April 18, 1999: "American officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the staff of Army Gen. Wesley Clark, the NATO commander, pointed to an innocent F-16 Falcon pilot who was castigated by the media for blasting a refugee convoy." Eventually, even a model of probity like Bill Clinton was shocked by Clark's mendacity and fired him. At the end of major combat operations led by NATO Supreme Allied Commander Gen. Wesley Clark, arch-villain Slobodan Milosevic was still in power. (At least Clark won't have to worry about any embarrassing "mission accomplished" photo-ops coming back to haunt him.) Today, almost a decade and $15 billion later, U.S. troops are still bogged down in the Balkans. No quagmire there! That's the Democrats' idea of a general. |
Clark getting endorsed by Moore.....
Oh goody.
Sooner or later John Kerry's going to get endorsed by the tooth fairy.
Christ I can't stand Moore. But I do like Clark, and if Dean doesn't get the nod, I certainly won't lose sleep if Clark wins. Actually, aside of Sharpton and Bush-lite Lieberman, I don't care who wins anymore.
As for some of his issues-
1. Tax plan-
I'm not crazy about this tax plan, though it would effect me in a positive way since I make under $50,000. I think a progressive (step ladder) tax plan is effective and fair, though the details of where the lines are drawn could use a little reform.
A flat tax? Gimme a break. How can anyone feel this is economically fair to those who don't earn six figures? I applaud those who go to school, earn their 2-3 degrees, and work hard throughout their lives. But is that fair to allow them to %-wise keep more than a teacher? No sale with me, sorry.
2. The draft-
In today's times, I would agree with his opposition, considering Bush sent a couple hundred thousand people off to a war that didn't need to be fought (and was sold to the public with lies). Now we're stretched too thin, and should another disaster break out somewhere, we're toast. If Bush has the gall to start up a draft, this country should throw his ass out of office immediately.
But overall, I don't believe a draft should be banned. Where would we be if a draft was banned before WWII?
3. Anti-war
I'm not sure how Clark is supposedly anti-war. And I agree with NeoPhono, who isin't anti-war? Who advocates a war? War is and always should be a last option. Anyone who thinks otherwise is quite dangerous.
Oops, who does that sound like?
4. Affirmative Action
I've always been an advocate of Affirmative Action. Overall I think a balance must be maintained somehow between giving equal opportunity amongst minorities to the majority, and allowing the most qualified for a job. Considering societal difficulties against minorities, I still feel strongly the playing field should give them a little more benefit:
Source: http://www.hr.ucdavis.edu/FAQS/SAAD/001/006a
It's a pretty socialist view, I realize, but I still feel it's somewhat valid. However, I also concede the fact that we want the most qualified people in the workforce, and must therefore have the most qualified attend colleges. If this is truly the stance, then Bush Jr. and the other legacies need to have their diplomas revoked from their respected colleges, and legacies should never be used again as a means of college qualification along with ethnic status. You get rid of one, you must get rid of the other.
5. Gun control-
Honestly, I'm not crazy about guns. I think outside of hunting, guns should be strictly regulated. The only reason why they aren't today is because of the powerful lobbying of the NRA (something like the 2nd most powerful lobbying group behind energy lobbyists), and that is a fact. Assault weapons, including handguns should be banned altogether. The vast majority of people being shot in the households are family members, not burglers.
But I won't lose too much sleep if they advocate gun laws that aren't quite as strict. I just don't like 'em much.
6. Patriot Act overhauling-
Sounds fine to me. Though I'll be the first progressive to admit that there's probably more hype against the Patriot Act than there should be. Much of what the Act pushes was already in place - we just didn't know much about it or it wasn't enforced as much.
7. Gutting the Pentagon budget-
I certainly wouldn't gut it. Probably keep it level for now. But money does need to come into the social programs, and defense spending as well as tax increases are usually the likely candidates for Democrats. We need much more social spending for our country, and Bush needs to stop gutting that himself in the name of "fighting terrorism" (i.e. fighting a war that has little to do with terrorism). It sickens me when Bush gives nothing but lip service to social programs, then turns around and cuts funding when he's finished. There are military programs that could use a little cutting (missle defense system comes to mind), but overall we unfortunately need the keep the money flowing for our military, given the current times. With the neocon influence as it is, I don't see this changing anytime soon either.
I think Moore means well, but Jesus man why couldn't he just affirm his message without stretching/distorting truths? It creates major credibility problems, and he could do much better (though it probably wouldn't sell as many tickets). I'm personally scared what his next movie is going to bring (Fahrenheit 911). He'd better be a little more careful with his facts and spin, or it'll piss more people off rather than stir them up against Bush.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by MisterOpus1 1. Tax plan- I'm not crazy about this tax plan, though it would effect me in a positive way since I make under $50,000. I think a progressive (step ladder) tax plan is effective and fair, though the details of where the lines are drawn could use a little reform. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by MisterOpus1 1. Tax plan- I'm not crazy about this tax plan, though it would effect me in a positive way since I make under $50,000. I think a progressive (step ladder) tax plan is effective and fair, though the details of where the lines are drawn could use a little reform. A flat tax? Gimme a break. How can anyone feel this is economically fair to those who don't earn six figures? I applaud those who go to school, earn their 2-3 degrees, and work hard throughout their lives. But is that fair to allow them to %-wise keep more than a teacher? No sale with me, sorry. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shakka I've found myself warming up to the idea of a consumption tax, which I guess is like sales tax, but on a higher level. You pay taxes on what you consume--you wanna be a greedy bastard with a 200 foot yacht and a private jet? No problem, but the more you consume, the more you will end up paying in taxes--seems fair, right? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Occrider Dammit people get it right! The no-income tax wouldn't affect every earner under $50,000. Only those under $50,000 with 4 or more kids! So you can forget about your liberal pipedream of living off the taxes of the wealthy unless you wanna start pumping out the babies. Get a job already! |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shakka Flat tax sounds nice, but will never happen. I've found myself warming up to the idea of a consumption tax, which I guess is like sales tax, but on a higher level. You pay taxes on what you consume--you wanna be a greedy bastard with a 200 foot yacht and a private jet? No problem, but the more you consume, the more you will end up paying in taxes--seems fair, right? One issue I see with that though is akin to what Ahnold bitched about in Caulifornia--being taxed on everything. The gov't might get so greedy with such a tax system that you can't do anything without having to pay a little extra for it. Gives the goverment a little too much power to get their hands in people's pockets. |
| quote: |
I don't think people will ever be happy with the tax code--it's just one of those things that is a fact of life. Death and taxes--deal with it. Just don't give me some shit about the government having a right to 50% of my income simply because I'm a bigger earner. Hell, I think 33% is a good cap. I mean giving more than 1/3 of everything I make to the government seems absurd, yet when I look at my pay stub, that's already what's happening. What's worse is when I get a bonus for performance--something that's based solely on my ability to do my job very well--the government hits me with a tax rate that's WELL over 35%. That strikes me as unfair. Why should the government have a clain to a bigger chunk of money that I earned purely by my own individual efforts? |
| quote: |
Damnit, Damnit, Damnit!!! Why you go bustin' my chops everytime? How da hell am I gonna get a job when I can barely read?!? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider You want a job??? I'll give you one. Your job is to build Aluminum Foil Deflector Beanies (commonly referred to as tin foil hats), in preparation for the mind control programs that are to be unleashed upon us! Instructions can be found by going to this site: http://zapatopi.net/afdb.html Make sure you aren't being followed!!! |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Just as I thought, a Republican ploy. No way would I ever want to make these hats. This is just what you'd want me to do, Dick. These hats aren't for deflection. These hats are for AMPLIFICATION!!!!! It's a trap set out by the GOP, I know it. Nice try, but I think I'll stick to my current volunteer work of testing out unmarked land mines. You should try giving to society more through volunteering, like me. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Just as I thought, a Republican ploy. No way would I ever want to make these hats. This is just what you'd want me to do, Dick. These hats aren't for deflection. These hats are for AMPLIFICATION!!!!! It's a trap set out by the GOP, I know it. Nice try, but I think I'll stick to my current volunteer work of testing out unmarked land mines. You should try giving to society more through volunteering, like me. |
For Dave
Dave asked me to post the essay that I have recently written. So I shall:
Intangible Reckless Political Tactics
Citizens of America have been swayed by the smooth talking presidential candidate for 2004 named Howard Dean. Dean�s predominant ambition is to persuade the nation to elect him for president. However, his campaign tactics are far from subtle, with his principal foundation relying on the abhorrence of the current President George W. Bush. His address� to the nation focus on what the existent president is executing inequitably, and not upon his own strategies to improve the American Government. Deans other primary campaign tactic is to attack fellow election candidates. Thankfully, American�s are beginning to catch on to Howard Deans ludicrous game plan.
Glen Johnson, a writer for the Boston Globe, partakes in one of the first gradual negative assessments of former Vermont governor Dean in his article �Kerry, on offense, accuses Dean of flip flopping on issues� from the December 7th issue of 2003. Johnson�s target audience are close 2004 election advocates, regardless of their preference to political party. Johnson manages to show how Dean�s spokeswoman, Tricia Enright, smoothly eludes responding to the direct accusations of Senator John F. Kerry of Dean altering his standpoint oppositions with ��To borrow a phrase from John
Kerry�s favorite philosopher, Yogi Berra, when John Kerry saw the fork in the low-road, he took it.��(Johnson 1). Gradually, representatives from many organizations are realizing that Deans declarations are open ended and without true resoluteness.
Johnson quoted Sarah Brady, the gun control advocate, when she remarked on Deans status towards her own organization. ��As far as I�m concerned, he obviously does not understand or know the issue [state-by-state gun control laws] at all,� Brady said. �He
just makes broad statements to appeal to a wide range of people� (Johnson 2). Unfortunately, the Boston Globe does not reach the entire nation with it�s undaunted journalism, so Glen Johnson�s exceptional prestige when employing a more diverse opinion will probably vanish among various archives.
New York Times writers Jodi Wilgoren and Edward Wyatt started off the new year with the article �In Shift, Dean Starts Watching His Words�, another analysis challenging Deans sudden refusal to freely address the public and reporters. Wilgoren and Wyatt noted that Dean representatives conveniently situated outside of a General Wesley K. Clark campaign event handed out leaflets assailing the General. The revelation of Dean�s scheme to thwart Clarks campaign during the event opened the eyes of the many citizens of America that had a falsified vision of Dean as just and benevolent. Dean�s national spokesman, Jay Carson, became fixated with the supposed significance of whom Clark had voted for in past elections. Clark, not a representative, responded with �After the Vietnam War, the Democratic Party and some of the presidential candidates seemed to be wobbling all over the map on being strong for America...So I voted for people who would take care of the country� (2) Wilgoren and Wyatt report �While Dr. Dean continues to draw impressive crowds at nearly every stop, he has also begun to face daily questions from voters about some of his recent statements and his vulnerability to President Bush� (2). Subsequently, Dean suddenly halted all address� to the public.
Journalists WIlliam Branigin, Dan Balz and Ceci Connolly attempt to induce the opinions of Dean from other presidential candidates in the article �Clark Rebuts Rivals� Attacks as �Old-Style Politics�� released in the January 14th 2004 edition of Washington Post. The article attributed to the annoyance of Dean campaign tactics. Washington Post attempts to target all audiences by bringing in multiple candidates sentiments on the magnitude of inappropriate campaigning. As specified earlier, one of Deans preeminate hype�s rely on the antipathy and hostility towards Bush. Washington Post brings to observation that Gephardt and others are utilizing Deans own platform against him, by remarking things such as �there�s no place for provocation in American diplomacy. As Democrats, we all feel anger, but these times demand more than heat and emotion. They demand the best in all of us�(2). Washington Post then immediately superseding added Kerry�s comment of �I ask you to vote for answers not anger�(2).
All three articles are bestowed in an analytical manner towards the campaign endeavors of Howard Dean, which was long awaited by the citizens of America who saw through his pseudo pretensions. The reports toy with the reality that Dean rarely ever speaks for himself and the other aspirants do, without denominating it directly. The distribution of information on Dean�s campaign was unbiased; however, Dean places himself in a rather oafish standing with his style of hypocritical accusations. It was only a matter of time until his preposterous tactics would be denunciated and he would look like the cretin he really is.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shakka I agree that our teachers should be paid more, and it would raise the overall level of education for those who want to put forth the effort to actually learn. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Heh, I don't think money is the primary problem for the US education. Many poorer countries invest much less into pre-university education, and still produce people with higher amount of knowledge than the average US student. The key to solving this problem is to highten the educational requirements to force the damn kids to get off their lazy asses and start reading the damn books more. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider YES!!! Some accountability! Stop pampering the spoiled brats with all their bs "angst" and "harsh" lifestyles. I'm a fan |
| quote: |
| Gains in Houston Schools: How Real Are They? By Diana Jean Schemo and Ford Fesseden New York Times Wednesday 03 December 2003 As a student at Jefferson Davis High here, Rosa Arevelo seemed the "Texas miracle" in motion. After years of classroom drills, she passed the high school exam required for graduation on her first try. A program of college prep courses earned her the designation "Texas scholar." At the University of Houston, though, Ms. Arevelo discovered the distance between what Texas public schools called success and what she needed to know. Trained to write five-paragraph "persuasive essays" for the state exam, she was stumped by her first writing assignment. She failed the college entrance exam in math twice, even with a year of remedial algebra. At 19, she gave up and went to trade school. "I had good grades in high school, so I thought I could do well in college," Ms. Arevelo said. "I thought I was getting a good education. I was shocked." In recent years, Texas has trumpeted the academic gains of Ms. Arevelo and millions more students largely on the basis of a state test, the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills, or TAAS. As a presidential candidate, Texas's former governor, George W. Bush, contended that Texas's methods of holding schools responsible for student performance had brought huge improvements in passing rates and remarkable strides in eliminating the gap between white and minority children. The claims catapulted Houston's superintendent, Rod Paige, to Washington as education secretary and made Texas a model for the country. The education law signed by President Bush in January 2002, No Child Left Behind, gives public schools 12 years to match Houston's success and bring virtually all children to academic proficiency. But an examination of the performance of students in Houston by The New York Times raises serious doubts about the magnitude of those gains. Scores on a national exam that Houston students took alongside the Texas exam from 1999 to 2002 showed much smaller gains and falling scores in high school reading. Compared with the rest of the country, Houston's gains on the national exam, the Stanford Achievement Test, were modest. The improvements in middle and elementary school were a fraction of those depicted by the Texas test and were similar to those posted on the Stanford test by students in Los Angeles. Over all, a comparison of the performance of Houston students who took the Stanford exam in 2002 and in 1999 showed most did not advance in relation to their counterparts across the nation. More than half of them either remained in the same place or lost ground in reading and math. "Is it better or worse than what's going on anywhere else?" said Edward H. Haertel, a professor of education at Stanford University. "On average it looks like it's not." Stanford University has no relationship to the test. In an interview, Dr. Paige defended Texas's system, saying that it had gradually raised the standards for success over the last 20 years. "Texas measures far more than minimal skills," he said. "The bar is far above what other districts use." But questions about Houston's accomplishments are increasing. In June, the Texas Education Agency found rampant undercounting of school dropouts. Houston school officials have also been accused of overstating how many high school graduates were college bound and of failing to report violent crimes in schools to state authorities. The Houston officials strenuously defend the district's record. Kathryn Sanchez, head of assessment for Houston's schools, said students were doing well on both the Texas exam and the Stanford test, given the city's large number of poor and minority students. Ms. Sanchez said that Houston students had also done well on the National Assessment of Educational Progress, a federally mandated test widely referred to as "the nation's report card." On that test, fourth graders in Houston and New York outdid children in four other cities in writing, to score at the national average. Fourth graders in New York and Houston also led children in other cities in reading, yet fell short of the national average. Of all six cities, however, Houston excluded the most children with limited English from taking the national assessment, and some researchers suggest that removing such students may have helped raise Houston's score. But in interviews, Houston school officials acknowledge that the progress in the elementary grades peters out in high school. About 13,600 eighth graders in 1998 dwindled to fewer than 8,000 high school graduates. Though 88 percent of Houston's student body is black and Latino, only a few hundred minority students leave high school "college ready," according to state figures. Miracle or Mirage? With its own exam to measure pupil achievement, Texas managed to show educational progress over the last decade on a scale rarely, if ever, achieved before. But as the state's paradigm for school accountability became law for the rest of the nation, the authenticity of Texas's accomplishments has become a major question in education policy. The Stanford test provides a useful contrast to the state exam, at least for Houston. More than 75,000 students in grades 3 through 8 and grade 10 took the state exam as well as the Stanford test from 1999 to 2002. The Times analyzed performances on these tests, excluding students in special education, and had educational testing experts review the results. The data were obtained under the state's open records act by George Scott, president of the Tax Research Association of Houston and Harris County, a taxpayers group. "I don't think there was a miracle," said Robert L. Linn, co-director of the Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards and Student Testing at the University of Colorado, who reviewed the calculations. "There were some good positive results, but not extraordinary results like TAAS seemed to show." The modest improvements in Houston have implications for the national debate. "If you anticipate that you can have the gains shown on TAAS � and that's what No Child Left Behind would be requiring in many states � that's not going to be likely to happen, based on this," Dr. Linn said. The Times analysis of performance on the Stanford Achievement Test and the Texas exam shows this: Houston students improved from 1999 to 2002 in most grades, but at only a fraction of the rate portrayed by the state exam. Using a widely employed statistical measure that allows different kinds of tests to be compared called effect size, the gains in the average scores on the Stanford test were about a third of the average gain in the TAAS scores. Even students with the poorest skills posted high scores on the Texas test. In reading, a passing score of 70 on the test was the equivalent to scores below the 30th percentile in national ranking on the Stanford test in every grade. In 10th grade, passing the state exam was equivalent to the fifth percentile in the national ranking. While the Houston gains on the Stanford test in some grades were large enough to be considered significant in educational testing, the city was not making much headway when compared with national averages. Some 57 percent of Houston students who took the math test in 1999 and 2002, and 51 percent of those who took the reading test, saw their standing relative to children around the country either fall or remain the same. On the Stanford tests, the average reading scores for Houston students of all races in grades 9 through 11 have actually dropped since 1999. By contrast, the reading scores for 10th graders on the Texas exam � the only high school grade in which the state test is given � showed a large gain over the same period. The achievement gap between whites and minorities, which Houston authorities have argued has nearly disappeared on the Texas exam, remains huge on the Stanford test. The ranking of the average white student was 36 points higher than that of the average black student in 1999 and fell slightly, to 34 points, in 2002. "This says that the progress on TAAS is probably overstated, possibly by quite a margin," said Daniel Koretz of the Harvard School of Education, who also reviewed The Times's analysis, "And when all is said and done, Houston looks average or below average." Tougher Texas Test While Texas minority students have made gains on the federal government's mandated national assessment test of reading and math, they were already largely ahead of the average scores of minority students from around the country before the current Texas accountability system began in 1993. In Houston, the share of college-bound high school graduates that the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board deemed "college ready" fell to 28.5 percent, or 977 students in 2001, from 33.7 percent, or 1,155 students, in 2000, according to the latest figures available. The board counts only graduates who seek admission to public institutions of higher education in Texas, and says another 10 to 15 percent may seek admission elsewhere. But many here saw the replacement of the Texas exam last spring with a tougher exam as the most stinging indictment of the test. On the new test, the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills, or TAKS, race gaps widened, and passing rates fell. Officials here now say that TAAS was only a test of "minimal skills," paving the way for ratcheting up standards with a new exam. Dr. Paige contends that the TAAS and Stanford tests could not be compared because the Texas test gauges mastery of the Texas curriculum while the Stanford test measures a more general notion of what children should know in a given grade. But education researchers disagreed. "These two tests ought to be telling the same story, and they're telling different stories," said Dr. Haertel, of Stanford University. Dr. Paige also argued that statistical anomalies in the results on the Texas test made comparisons impossible. But testing experts who examined those anomalies said that, if anything, they would reduce the disparities between the two tests. Watching Children Struggle In one way or another, Jo Arevelo, Rosa's mother, has watched each of her children struggle through an educational system that was focused tightly on producing high test scores on state exams. Last summer, Ms. Arevelo tutored her youngest daughter, 10-year-old Angelica, in spelling. Because the state exam does not test spelling, Angelica's teacher never got to it, Ms. Arevelo said one recent afternoon. Earlier that day, her son, Joseph, took the preparatory exam for the SAT college entrance test, but like many other children that day, he left the exam in frustration � mystified by vocabulary words like parallelism and euphemism, words he had never encountered in school. Patricia Anderson, a veteran social studies teacher in Houston, said she was not surprised. Noticing that her high school students could not answer questions after reading passages in their textbooks, she began giving them a vocabulary test at the fourth grade level. Typically, she said, "They flunk it." "We're all very very frustrated, because all these great scores are coming out of the elementary schools, and when they get to high school it's not happening," Ms. Anderson said. "They do not have the skills they need." It was not always like this. Many parents welcomed the accountability system that the Houston district pioneered in the 1980's and early 1990's. It was a way, they reasoned, to force schools in poor neighborhoods not to write off their children. And in some places, it seemed to work, said Rene Barrios, lead organizer for the Metropolitan Organization, a chapter of a group that monitors public services. But in many other places, Ms. Barrios said, the system became the single most important measure of school success and the test itself, for many teachers, became the curriculum. "The whole system has been taken over by the test," she said. Rosa Arevelo, who graduated from Davis High with a B average, tried to keep pace in college. She made flash cards to help her remember what she studied. She had never learned how to take notes in high school, so at her lectures in college, she took down everything the teacher said. Her textbook looks as if it is filled with neon lights: entire paragraphs are highlighted in bars of bright pink and yellow. In the unrelenting array of information, she could not tell what mattered. "When you get to college," she said, "you're just supposed to know. But nobody ever taught us." http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstra...DAB0994DB404482 |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider YES!!! Some accountability! Stop pampering the spoiled brats with all their bs "angst" and "harsh" lifestyles. I'm a fan |
i was under the impression that moore wasn't endorsing him but merely saying that he's the lesser evil.
Although I will admit the problem with our education system is multi-faceted, I would like to point out that the US spends less of its GNP on education than any other major industrialized nation. It also spends the most on mentally disabled students and the least on gifted students. Call me heartless, but where are our priorities there?
Thanks to Philip K. Howard's great book "The Death of Common Sense" for those figures.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by ahlamalek i was under the impression that moore wasn't endorsing him but merely saying that he's the lesser evil. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by NeoPhono Although I will admit the problem with our education system is multi-facted, I would like to point out that the US spends less of its GNP on education than any other major industrialized nation. It also spends the most on mentally disabled students and the least on gifted students. Call me heartless, but where are our priorities there? |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.