ouch!

Oct 07, 2003 16:05

here's a scathing criticism of michael moore's position on wes clark running for president...
i'm glad someone has been doing their homework -- i just haven't had the time to organize my notes since i last posted about clark.

politics, wesley clark, michael moore

Leave a comment

Comments 11

openmynd October 7 2003, 21:26:32 UTC
I haven't looked at Kucinich, but Tammy seems to like him. Frankly, the Democrats are so centrist, sucking the Republidicks so much, that they won't nominate someone so "out there" as Kucinich. You'll get someone worthless, I guarantee. Clark is perfect for this. He'll be nominated. You just watch.

Reply

lassiter October 7 2003, 22:58:34 UTC

Oh, yes, I agree. But I'm p*ssed that so many "progressives" are making it so easy for 'em by backing so-called "centrists" themselves.

Reply

aethyrflux October 10 2003, 12:09:21 UTC
well, i think they probably want to back a candidate who has a snowball's chance in Hell of winning against the current regime; which, despite public opinion, still has immense power to manipulate the system in its' favor.

admittedly, politicians are generally a cowardly lot; and not generally disposed to take risks until they are forced to...

so, i am not claiming that they are correct -- just that we are talking about a generally conservative system that tends to find a 'sensible center' between the extremes of the polarized political spectrum.

Reply

aethyrflux October 10 2003, 12:13:21 UTC
willie supports kucinich, so he can't be a bad guy...
but you saw what happened to jimmy carter.
good guys have a tough time as president.

Reply


Comparing notes texasfanboy October 7 2003, 23:17:28 UTC
I haven't watched the issues. Really, I don't need to -- elections are determined by trends more than anything else ( ... )

Reply

Re: Comparing notes aethyrflux October 10 2003, 12:17:06 UTC
if the neo-cons are supporting clark, who'd back hillary?

Reply


sophiaserpentia October 8 2003, 00:26:04 UTC
Excellent. Thank you for posting this.

Reply

aethyrflux October 10 2003, 12:18:21 UTC
what, no dissenting opinions?
i know, those take more time to construct.
seriously, thanks for reading!

Reply


litch October 8 2003, 16:46:19 UTC
What a fucked up little wanker. This pathetic ratfucker should have the shit flushed out of his head with a 3" firehose.

I know you are aware that four years ago General Clark waged a war against Yugoslavia. This was a war that by no means was necessary...

What part of stopping Ethnic Cleansing is unnecessary? Go read ladydiana's journal, she's got a bunch of friends who are Kosovar Albanians who survived the pogroms the Yugoslav's were perpetrating. I'd like to see that worm who wrote the article explain to them how it was a jigoistic escalation of the atrocities.

Reply

aethyrflux October 10 2003, 13:42:12 UTC
yeah, i certainly don't agree with all, or even many of the opinions expressed in that piece -- i was just glad to see some organized criticism about clark. i hadn't taken the time to crtically analyze it myself. thanks for your input.

as far as the yugoslav situation goes, i always pretty much considered the whole deal to be ultimately a problem of 'thugs with guns' rather than nationalism, ethnicity, or religion

i understand Tito was able to govern the country by ruling with an iron fist, and pitting dissident factions against each other.
NATO was not nearly as efficient.

and, in the words of LaibachWhat is, in your opinion, the cause of the war in ex-Yugoslavia? (BRAVO ( ... )

Reply


Leave a comment

Up