Moore to vote for Clarke

[(*]

Wednesday, January 14th, 2004
I’ll Be Voting For Wesley Clark / Good-Bye Mr. Bush — by Michael Moore


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.
...


Full Message (http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php)


So, what do you think? Madonna has also aligned herself with him.

Moore asserts that Clark has the best chance at winning

[RosaRL]

I think that the anti-war movement is in danger of being co-opted by those seeking political office. I think its going to be a terrible shame if that is what happens!

Also, if it is in the interest of the rulling class to continue the war, just changing who gives the speaches won't do much.

Battles are won in the streets - if they co-opt the opposition behind some faction of the rulling class, then they wil have won the battle against the demonstrations - against the resistance.

[Hampton]

"Voting for Ralph Nader is like throwing a political Molotov into the corrupt political system that we have in this country," Moore says.

Quick! Vote for a Democrat!

[LuZhiming]

Michael Moore is really proving his cluelessness with this one. I wouldn't be surprised if Wesley Clark ended up being worse than Bush. He did basically start a massacre in the Balkans with full knowledge that it would happen.

[Red Flag]

Clark is a republican.. this whole election stinks already, months in advance. If clarke would win the election it would be Republican vs. Republican. This is bullshit. Even the most left-leaning canidates are at best centralists..

[Monty Cantsin]

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 the war 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). 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"? 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.



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]


comments?

[Weidt]

Typical of the liberal Democrat that is Michael Moore.

He's a damn poser too, "[email protected]" The man wasn't from Flint, nor does he live in Flint. The man is from fuckin' Davison, an overwelmingly white suburb in eastern Genesee County, and he lives in NYC so far as I know now. Just because the dude became famous over his exploits of Flint don't mean shit. The sad thing is many folks I know in Flint actually love him... it is vile.

This does make me wonder what all the Flint folks who support Kucinich think now that Moore has basically endorsed Clark. Since they all love Moore, I wouldn't be amazed if they switch to Clark too. "Mikey says we should vote Clark. Everyone make new Vote Clark placards!" haha.. wankers!

[Monty Cantsin]

if Wesley Clark can beat bush how come he doesnt get any press?

[redstar2000]

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.

Honest? Decent?? Honorable???

A general???

:lol: :lol: :lol:

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Valishin]

He will make the rich pay their fair share of taxes.
I didn't know Clark was for a flat tax rate. Wow, learn something every day.

While I can't stand Moore myself I have to agree though Clark is the best bet dems have to beat Bush. BUT, it requires something I am not sure Clark is ready for. He has to face Bush on the issues outside the arena of warfare. Both have valid claim to being able to handle the war issue even though they have different desired results.

But how is Clark going to deal with Bush on an issues election that doesn't become about the war? As far as we have seen he has no concrete ideas. He could take from the general ideas of the democrates but then he has to deal with the reps most powerful answer to nearly every such idea. "How are you going to pay for it."

There are two things that americans are absolutely against:
1. higher taxes - They don't want the rich to pay more, they don't want the middle class to pay more, they don't want the poor to pay more. American's hate taxes and anything that even looks like a tax hike is the kiss of death to a politician unless it can be applied under the radar.
2. lowering military funding when they feel threatened - Under no condition are americans going to buy off on the idea of reducing military until the so called war on terror appears to have been won.

What Clark needs are some ideas that are friendly to the average american. And by average american we have to keep in mind these are not people who concern themselves day to day with things like class warfare. Those tactics won't work this time the people just aren't buying off on that one.

The deck is stacked against Clark but even though I still have to agree he is the best chance the dems have simply because his military experience takes away Bushes best weapon. What Clark needs to do is get his message in line with what the american people want. Unfortunatly raising taxes on the rich isn't it because the average american does not disassociate himself with the rich. The average american strives to be rich and as such has a difficult time accepting punishing people for success.

[Valishin]

Red Flag, remember it doesn't matter how nobel your ideas are if you can't win. You have to take into account the dynamics of the american voting populas. You may have the opinion that furthest left wing candidate in the world or right wing for that matter is the best guy for the job, but if his chances of getting elected are between 0 and none that doesn't do you a whole lot of good now does it?

[The Feral Underclass]

Michael Moore lives a dream world half of the time. Althougth his books were entertaining and in some cases political sharp he doesnt seem to grasp the real perpespective. I think this is proven by the fact he is putting his faith in some like Clarke. How on earth can anyone believe that this man is going to "stand up for working people."

Clarke was responsabile for bombing reseidential areas in serbia and Kosovo. The man is a war criminal.

[Kez]

why should we support any of these pricks, we should support only those who stand for the working class, and stand independent with the working class, no comprimise with the bourgeoise

[Sabocat]

He will gut and overhaul the Patriot Act


Not eliminate mind you.....gut and overhaul. How political.

This guy is nothing more than the same old, same old.

[LuZhiming]

I think some of you are being obsessive about this "we must beat bush" concept, and it will only lead to future disspointment. Frankly, Bush is not the first of his kind in the White House, nor will he be the last. Every U.S. President is a Bush. U.S. politics are almost hopeless.

[Inti]

I think its time to vote in Samuel L Jackson or something to kick ass.. He would be mean:D Anyway I think the US politics are a morbid joke.

[Don't Change Your Name]

so when are the yankee elections going to be?

[LSD]

First Tuesday in November

[Al Creed]

Moore should have backed This Guy (http://www.thelobsterman.net/).

[Alejandro C]

yeah dude, lobster man was on the daily show tonight.

moore seems to think that clarke will win because he will bring republicans over to the democrats. he thinks the swing votes are a small number that only matter because the two parties are tied. what he fails to realize is that most of the fucking country is a swing vote. the percentage of people who voted (who can) in 2000 was 51 percent. that means those that don't vote could have beaten the dem and the rep put together (since nader and some other small constituents took some percent). those who didn't vote aren't just lazy. they aren't just apolitical. they don't vote because they don't have someone who represents them. simple as that. if moore would endorse a real candidate, they could beat the democrats and the republicans. hes trying for the short term. he should be thinking about the future. we all should be.

[Sabocat]

Democratic presidential contenders battle over "electability"
The "lesser evil" is still evil

January 23, 2004 | Page 3

IS HOWARD Dean too extreme to win? That was the brand new conventional wisdom cranked out by the mainstream media after the Iowa caucuses this week, where Dean and Dick Gephardt--who had been expected to dominate the first contest in the primaries for the Democratic Party presidential nomination--got clobbered.

Instead, John Kerry and John Edwards each picked up about a third of the delegates, to finish first and second. The pompous pundits immediately declared that Dean’s "bitter" style had alienated voters, proving that he’s "unelectable"--while the "positive," more moderate campaigns of Kerry and Edwards were people’s natural preference.

Hold on a minute. The caucuses drew only 100,000 people--less than 0.05 percent of the voting age population of the U.S., in one of the whitest states in the country. There’s a long way to go before the Democrats come up with a nominee, and no one can predict where the race will go--or what the media’s "wisdom" will be next week after the New Hampshire primary.


http://www.socialistworker.org/2004-1/483/...StillEvil.shtml (http://www.socialistworker.org/2004-1/483/483_03_StillEvil.shtml)

[Al Creed]

Isn't it fantastic how the media like to put the cart before the horse like this?

You see what happens when Great White isn't torching Nightclubs? CNN has TOO much time on it's hands;)

[Comité De Salut Public]

Originally posted by (*@Jan 16 2004, 03:06 PM

Wednesday, January 14th, 2004
I’ll Be Voting For Wesley Clark / Good-Bye Mr. Bush — by Michael Moore


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.
...


Full Message (http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php)


So, what do you think? Madonna has also aligned herself with him.

Moore asserts that Clark has the best chance at winning
What the hell is Michael Moore thinking? This guy Clark is still boastful about his "service" in the Vietnam war! At least Kerry admits it was a great mistake. For crying out loud!!!!!! Lenin was right when he said "Social democracy has never taken a sentimental view of war." I know I might be wrong about this guy Clark. He may, as Moore paints him, be decent human being. Then again, he may be the antiChrist. At least Moore will vote for him in the primaries only. Moore is till sniffing the air. Think for yourself. As for me Ralph Nader is still my man.

[Al Creed]

You do raise an interesting point, he only supports him for the Democratic nod. He hasn't thrown full support (IE campaigning for him) behind him yet.

Moore has a colourful past of criticizing the Democrats (most, if not all of it justafiable...they are, after all, a branch of one party, The Democratic Republicans). At thge risk of sounding more uncool than I already am, I support Kucinich. Long before the Primaries, or even the Democratic Race, he stood up against the Republican. He appears to acknoledge the toxin that is NAFTA and all "Free Trade." If only he could get more TV time.

[Comité De Salut Public]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 07:50 PM
You do raise an interesting point, he only supports him for the Democratic nod. He hasn't thrown full support (IE campaigning for him) behind him yet.

Moore has a colourful past of criticizing the Democrats (most, if not all of it justafiable...they are, after all, a branch of one party, The Democratic Republicans). At thge risk of sounding more uncool than I already am, I support Kucinich. Long before the Primaries, or even the Democratic Race, he stood up against the Republican. He appears to acknoledge the toxin that is NAFTA and all "Free Trade." If only he could get more TV time.
Yes indeed Kucinich. Nader said that if the Democrats nominated Kucinich or Al Sharpton he would not run. It doesn't appear likely the Democrats will do that.

[LuZhiming]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 07:50 PM
Long before the Primaries, or even the Democratic Race, he stood up against the Republican. He appears to acknoledge the toxin that is NAFTA and all "Free Trade." If only he could get more TV time.
I just want to ask you why does "standing up against the Republican" matter? Are John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan for example, that much different? I am not meaning to criticize you, but I have to say that your mindset here isn't a wise one. Most Democrats and Republicans have the exact same goals.

[Al Creed]

Ive studied American History, and Kucinic gives the appearance thathe actually OPPOSES the Republicans.

He comes off, honestly, as a leftist (or as far left as you can get in Mainstream American Politics..).

But, of course, he is a politician, so Thats why I use words like "Appears." Yet, on the contrary, MOST Democrats side with the Republicans...MOST, not all.

And yes, any Candidate that Nader unofficially endorses, HAS to be good, at least a little.

[Knowledge 6 6 6]

voting for another president just replaces an old tyrrant with a new one...

the 'most leftist' president in decades, (Bill Clinton) sent a bomb-campeign the same day as Columbine that killed 20,000 ppl in Yugoslavia. This is supposed to be a 'leftist'?!

Whoever u vote for, u can guarantee they're gonna do shit behind closed doors. Its just a matter of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.

[Al Creed]

BILL CLINTON, LEFTIST?!

Read "Stupid WHite Men," Dude

[LuZhiming]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 11:06 PM
Ive studied American History, and Kucinic gives the appearance thathe actually OPPOSES the Republicans.

He comes off, honestly, as a leftist (or as far left as you can get in Mainstream American Politics..).

But, of course, he is a politician, so Thats why I use words like "Appears." Yet, on the contrary, MOST Democrats side with the Republicans...MOST, not all.

And yes, any Candidate that Nader unofficially endorses, HAS to be good, at least a little.
I am not disagreeing on the matter of voting for Kucinich, I just think that your belief of the ideology of Democrats is a false one. Democrats are generally corrupt and brutal. That is how they are supposed to be. That is how every U.S. President has been. Kucinich is a bit to the left (So is Sharpton), and that unfortunately is why he can't win.

[Al Creed]

Im not Naive, man, I know the Democrats are a corrupt, measly excuse for a Political party.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Clark has a little *****, I see.

Silly American politics....
Do these fellas realize that entering the American political arena necessarily means that you'll be competing with other politicians for control of government which one can use to voice not his peoples' governmental needs, but his corporate collaborators'. Those in fact, in opposition to his people.

Moore is a corporate tool like all the others.
He needs to choose between politics and humour.
His book, "Stupid White Me", was hardly very funny.
And about half of the political messages he conveyed were absolute sillyness.

He did reveal some truths about thuis country that I didn't know before, though.

[Valkyrie]

yeah, Clark's a war criminal and a career criminal.. He spent his whole adult life in the military, West Point grad and former NATO commander. War must be in his blood and definetley blood is on his hands. Very odd and absurd getting backed by someone who just made an anti-firearms film. Pretty much a self-renouncing of his own movie.

According to this article below, Clark vigourously defends the SOA. so, Moore is bullshitting us if he expects people to believe that Clark is anti-war. Supporting The Schools of America's is pro-genocide. Anti-war seems to be the popular theme of opposition in this election however.
I'm adverse to the whole thing of Multi-Millionaire celebreties, Madonna, Penn etc, grandstanding and trying to influence public opinions on vital everyday issues of working class struggles that they're virtually dissassociated from. it really reeks of lobbying to me.

Remember, people -- It's a puppet show. Vote socialist or abstain.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0117-01.htm

[Sean Reynolds]

If you really believe Dennis Kucinich isn't corrupt like the typical Democratic Party, I urge you to re-read where he's stood on the issues for a LONG time.

Remember, Kucinich up until he ran for president was pro-life, in fact he got almost a 100% voting record from the Right to Life community. Not only that but back in 1996 Kucinich was supportive of DOMA; and even as recently as last year talked about how he would support the war if President Bush made the case like his father did. Dennis Kucinich isn't a liberal - he's a moderate Democrat that is NOW trying to define himself as someone on the far left. It isn't working. I supported Kucinich up until I read up on him.

[Knowledge 6 6 6]

when you're a politician, there's no way of NOT being corrupt. Corruption is a feature of any political leader...

Its whether you consider the corruption good or bad. Some say Gandhi was corrupt for the better...;).

[Sabocat]

Michael Moore enlists with General Clark: the pathetic—and predictable—logic of protest politics

By David Walsh
27 January 2004


The decision by American independent filmmaker and radical gadfly Michael Moore to endorse former army general Wesley Clark for the Democratic Party presidential nomination, while deplorable, is hardly astonishing. On the contrary, the move possesses a certain inevitability. It expresses the political and intellectual limitations, indeed bankruptcy, of an entire trend of current liberal-left thinking in America.

Moore is only one of many in that milieu who are presently weighing in on the respective alleged virtues of Clark, former Vermont governor Howard Dean, Representative Dennis Kucinich of Ohio or Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts.

The filmmaker’s arguments, advanced in his statement, “I’ll Be Voting For Wesley Clark/Good-Bye, Mr. Bush,” are pragmatic and fairly puerile. Moore explains that he has met Clark “on a number of occasions” and “I have to tell you that he is the real deal...an honest, decent, honorable man who would be a breath of fresh air in the White House.”

The clinching argument is this: “Clark has the best chance of beating Bush.... 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 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.”

Read the rest... http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jan2004/.../moor-j27.shtml (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jan2004/moor-j27.shtml)

[Valkyrie]

Published on Monday, January 26, 2004 by Democracy Now!
Democracy Now! Exclusive: Wesley Clark Admits Targeting Civilians In Yugoslavia


In a Democracy Now! exclusive, General Wesley Clark responds for the first time to in-depth questions about his targeting of civilian infrastructure in Yugoslavia, his bombing of Radio Television Serbia, the use of cluster bombs and depleted uranium, the speeding-up of the cockpit video of a bombing of a passenger train to make it appear as though it was an accident and other decisions he made and orders he gave as NATO's Supreme Allied Commander.

Since the 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia, General Wesley Clark has not answered any in-depth questions about his targeting of civilian infrastructure in Yugoslavia, his bombing of Radio Television Serbia, the use of cluster bombs and depleted uranium, the speeding-up of the cockpit video of a bombing of a passenger train to make it appear as though it was an accident and other decisions he made and orders he gave as NATO's Supreme Allied Commander.

With the New Hampshire primary just 24 hours away, the remaining Democratic candidates are in their final push to win votes in the key poll in the Granite state. Whether or not Howard Dean wins or loses, he set the tone very early for what has become a definitive issue in the race early on: opposition to the war in Iraq. Among the Democrats, Dennis Kucinich, Al Sharpton and Carol Moseley Braun held the most clear antiwar stances. But Braun has pulled out of the race, Al Sharpton is not in New Hampshire and Dennis Kucinich - well the media hardly gives him any airtime.

With the exception of Senator Joseph Lieberman, all of the candidates have sought to portray themselves as opponents of the war. But only Kucinich has announced a concrete plan for withdrawing US forces from Iraq. The theme of Iraq is the main issue on which General Wesley Clark is running his campaign.


Gen. Wesley Clark, speaking at a rally in Portsmouth, New Hampshire on January 24, 2004.
TRANSCRIPT
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: We went to war with Iraq without an imminent threat from Iraq. Without any connection between Iraq and the events of 9-11. We went to war with Iraq before all diplomatic options were exhausted. We went to war with Iraq without our allies all on board. We went to war with Iraq without a clear understanding and a plan for what was going to happen when we did get to Baghdad, and we didn't have the forces on hand to handle the situation. In short, I don't consider the war with Iraq patriotic. It was simply bad leadership and deceptive practices. It was wrong, and I’m going to hold the president of the United States accountable. He didn't do the right thing for America. It's that simple. He didn't do it!

Clark portrays himself as the antiwar warrior and his rhetoric against the war has escalated significantly over the past week of campaigning in New Hampshire. At his campaign stops, he has been saying regularly, "The war is wrong."

This is not always what he said as one voter pointed out to him onstage.


Gen. Wesley Clark, responding to a voter asking about his previous comments on Iraq as a CNN commentator.
TRANSCRIPT
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I was a military analyst and so I looked at everything in great detail. I wasn't allowed on television to talk politics at all. I testified in front of the senate, but the "Boston Globe" did a long piece on my military stuff about three or four days ago. You can find it there. Joanna Weiss wrote it, and she said what's changed is my rhetoric. My rhetoric has changed, because when I wasn't a politician, I couldn't speak out this forcefully, because I didn't have any basis for doing it. I had a military commentary that I gave. I said from the beginning of the war with Iraq, that Iraq wasn't an imminent threat. I said in the beginning that we shouldn't rush into war. I said that it was an elective war. I always believed that he had weapons of mass destruction because that's what the intelligence told us. And I wasn't -- I didn't know how much to rely on the intelligence. In fact, at one point, I had lunch with a bunch of other retired generals, with Donald Rumsfeld just a few months in front of the war and Rumsfeld told me that he knew where 30% of the weapons were. Well, if the secretary of defense tells you personally, I still didn't think it was an imminent threat, but I wasn't privy to the intelligence. He was. They misled the American people, so I didn't think we had to go to war, but I will admit my rhetoric has gotten harsher and tougher since then because I think they misled us. I think it was deliberate. I found out that Rumsfeld on 9-11 that he said he was going to try to use it to take us to war with Saddam Hussein. I have never been inconsistent.

This is in sharp contrast to statements Clark made as a commentator on CNN before the bombing last year. In January, Clark told CNN, "He [Hussein] does have weapons of mass destruction." When asked, "And you could say that categorically?" Clark responded: "Absolutely."

In February, Clark told CNN, "The credibility of the United States is on the line, and Saddam Hussein has these weapons and so, you know, we're going to go ahead and do this and the rest of the world's got to get with us...The U.N. has got to come in and belly up to the bar on this. But the president of the United States has put his credibility on the line, too. And so this is the time that these nations around the world, and the United Nations, are going to have to look at this evidence and decide who they line up with."

Immediately following the fall of Baghdad to US forces, Clark responded to a question about finding the alleged weapons of mass destruction, saying: "I think they will be found. There's so much intelligence on this."

But as Clark speaks out about the war in Iraq, his own record in a different war is almost never examined. That is his role as the Supreme Allied Commander of NATO during the 78 day bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999. Sure, the Clark campaign promotes this in its TV ads - but they say that he liberated a nation and ended a genocide. Clark mentions it often in his stump speeches and the debates. But as a qualification to be commander-in-chief.

What is not discussed is what Clark actually did when he was running a war.

Democracy Now! correspondent Jeremy Scahill covered the 78 day bombing of Yugoslavia from the ground in 1999, the war Clark was leading as the Supreme Allied Commander of NATO. Jeremy is now in New Hampshire and joins us on the line from Concord, New Hampshire.


Jeremy Scahill, Democracy Now! correspondent speaking from Concord, New Hampshire.
Since the 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia, General Wesley Clark has not answered any in-depth questions about his targeting of civilian infrastructure in Yugoslavia, his bombing of Radio Television Serbia, the use of cluster bombs and depleted uranium, the speeding-up of the cockpit video of a bombing of a passenger train to make it appear as though it was an accident and other decisions he made and orders he gave as NATO's Supreme Allied Commander.

This weekend, we had a chance to ask Clark some questions he has never faced before. After a rally where Clark was filming a TV commercial for his campaign, Jeremy and I made our way to the stage. As we attempted to question General Clark, we were told by his press people that he would not be taking questions from reporters. As he was heading backstage, Jeremy approached Clark.


Gen. Wesley Clark, being questioned by Democracy Now! correspondent Jeremy Scahill.
TRANSCRIPT:
JEREMY SCAHILL: In Yugoslavia, you used cluster bombs and depleted uranium, I want to know if you are president, will you vow not to use them.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I will use whatever it takes that's legal to protect the men and women against force.

JEREMY SCAHILL: Even against civilians in the Nis marketplace? Why bomb Radio Television Serbia? Why did you bomb Radio Television Serbia? You killed 16 media workers, sir.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: They were-[in audible - Interview interrupted by another questioner.]

That was Clark making an exit off the stage. We followed him as he left the theater and walked down the streets of Portsmouth, New Hampshire, shaking hands, signing autographs, talking to potential voters. As he was entering a business establishment, Jeremy Scahill again approached the General.


Gen. Wesley Clark, being questioned by Democracy Now! correspondent Jeremy Scahill.
TRANSCRIPT:
JEREMY SCAHILL: General Clark, on that issue of the bombing of Radio Television Serbia, Amnesty International called it a war crime.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Excuse me -- I'm not --

JEREMY SCAHILL: Amnesty called it a war crime and it's condemned by all journalist organizations in the world. It killed makeup artists.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I want to answer this fellow. Because the truth was that that -- first of all, we gave warnings to Milosevic that that was going to be struck. I personally called the CNN reporter and had it set up so that it would be leaked, and Milosevic knew. He had the warning because after he got the warning, he actually ordered the western journalists to report there as a way of showing us his power, and we had done it deliberately to sort of get him accustomed to the fact that he better start evacuating it. There were actually six people who were killed, as I recall.

JEREMY SCAHILL: There were 16.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I recall six.

JEREMY SCAHILL: I was there at the time and I knew the families. They do hold Milosevic accountable and they also hold you accountable, sir.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: They were ordered to stay there.

JEREMY SCAHILL: And they were makeup artists, and they were engineers, and they were technicians

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I remember reading the story, but I want to tell you about it.

JEREMY SCAHILL: Amnesty International said you committed a war crime by bombing that.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: It was all looked at by the International Criminal Tribunal crime by Yugoslavia. All of my actions were examined and they were all upheld by the highest law in the United States.

JEREMY SCAHILL: And you think a media outlet is a legitimate target?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: No, but when it is used as command and control, it is. But then

JEREMY SCAHILL: Even if it kills…

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Now wait a minute, you have to let me finish and then I will let you finish.

JEREMY SCAHILL: Go ahead.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: What I said is, we would give them the warnings. It was part of the command and control systems. It was approved as a legitimate target under the laws of land warfare and went through the U.S. Government. That was the basis on which we struck. We actually called the bombers back one time, because there was still -- it was still unclear to us that we weren't absolutely certain. What we know is that Milosevic ordered them to stay there, and it was wrong, but I was doing my duty, and I have been looked at by the law, so -- I mean, I respect Amnesty International. I think they're a good organization, but --

JEREMY SCAHILL: But do you feel any remorse for the killing of civilians that you essentially were overseeing?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Yes, I do.

JEREMY SCAHILL: And what about the bombing of the Nis marketplace with cluster bombs, shredding human beings.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: It was terrible, but you know in that instance, if we had got the same incident, there was a cluster bomb that opened prematurely. It was an accident. And every one of these incidents was fully investigated. All of the material from the Yugoslavian government was given to the International Criminal Tribunal, plus as the NATO commander, I made a full report to the International Criminal Tribunal. It was all investigated. The pilots who did it, nobody could have felt worse than the pilots who did it. And I got a letter from a man in Serbia who said you killed my granddaughter on a schoolyard at Nis. I know how he must have felt. And I felt so helpless about it. Every night before I let those bombs go, I prayed we wouldn't kill innocent people. But unfortunately, when you are at war, terrible things happen, even when you don't want them to. You can't imagine what those pilots felt like in those convoys when they struck the convoys. You remember the convoys?

JEREMY SCAHILL: In Gurdulica were the 72 Albanians were killed.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: In that place, too. And they had flown over it a couple of times. You know, we just -- we were trying to establish some kind of communications on the ground with the Albanians. The Serbs were on the nets, and they were jamming all of the communications, and they were doing imitative communications deception. And nobody could get the truth about it. We saw the Serb vehicles around the place. And I didn't make the decision, but they were following orders on my command. And it was looked at, and so forth. The decision was made as a legitimate target. It turned out that they had been ordered to stay in there by the Serbs. The Serbs were surrounding the place to keep them penned in. It was horrible. You never forget stuff like that. That's why when this government has used force as it has, it makes me so angry. Because these people in the White House don't understand -- you don't use force except as a last, last, last resort.

JEREMY SCAHILL: On April 12th you targeted a passenger train, and then you showed a video that was sped up at three time the speed. Why?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I think -- first of all, the passenger train was not targeted. The pilot's instructions were to go after a bridge, and not the train. He felt, as he launched that missile, that all of a sudden at the very last minute, the train suddenly came into his field of view. I showed the tape. I did not know that the tape was accelerated. I don't think it was three times. I think it was one-and-a-half times. Whatever it was, it was going faster than the actual speed. It made it look like it was --

JEREMY SCAHILL: But the Supreme Allied Commander, you are ultimately responsible for all of the information that came out.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: That's true. I was.

JEREMY SCAHILL: What the actual in real-time speed showed is that the pilot actually moved the target so that it would hit the train.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, I don't have that information.

JEREMY SCAHILL: 12 people were killed, including an orthodox priest.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: That's terrible. But, I don't have the information. When I looked at it, we didn't see that. All of the material was sent to The Hague and they did not see that either.

JEREMY SCAHILL: Do you think you owe the people of Serbia who died in that war an apology?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: No, I don't because I did my duty as the commander for NATO and for the United States. I think Slobodan Milosevic owes the people of Serbia an apology, because we acted to prevent regional destabilization, and to be honest, when you take the kinds of actions that he has done, he was the proximate cause. All we tried to do was head off the ethnic cleansing through diplomacy, and basically, he had a plan to go to war, no matter what.

JEREMY SCAHILL: But now the U.S. is supporting a regime of ethnic cleansing in Kosovo where all minorities have been forced out, including almost every single Serb.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well you know, we are trying very hard not to allow that to happen. And we have worked very hard with the Kosovo Albanians and the Serbs, but to be honest with you that regime that's north of the Ibar River is a regime that wants to prevent Serbs from living peacefully with Kosovo Albanians. So, both sides have to share the blame. They have been under the control of Seselj and also some under Milosevic and their tactic in 1999 was to provoke the retaliation by the Albanians to be able to blame the Albanians for reverse ethnic cleansing. There were -- there were crimes on both sides and they needed to be investigated. To the best of my ability as NATO commander at the time, we did.

JEREMY SCAHILL: But then why -- you have a man like Agim Ceku in power, a man who was responsible for the ethnic cleansing of the Serbs at Kraina, a man trained by MPRI in Virginia. Why put a man like that in charge? What kind of message does that send to ethnic minorities in Kosovo, when a man who is a basically a war criminal is in charge of what is going to be the future army in Kosovo.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, we looked at his record and it's not clear that he's going to be in charge of the future army of Kosovo. He did receive instruction from a contracted U.S. firm at MPRI. He received basic information after he became there in charge of the Kosovo protective corps. We thought that was the best way to maintain order and security in the country.

JEREMY SCAHILL: He has been accused of hate speech by the United Nations.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Lots of people in that part of the world have been accused of hate speech, and they shouldn't do it. I met with Agim Ceku a few times when I was over there, and I told him who I thought about it. I don't accept that language.

JEREMY SCAHILL: Do you think that he should be in a position of power in Kosovo?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, you know, I'm so far removed from the issues right now --

JEREMY SCAHILL: But you know him.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: But I can’t – yeah – I know him, but what I have seen of him, he is the one of the more reasonable people in that region.

JEREMY SCAHILL: Because in your ads you say you liberated a nation. And that’s why I am asking you this question.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: The thing is I have got to talk to some other voters. Is that okay? Can you excuse me?

JEREMY SCAHILL: Absolutely. Thank you very much.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I am trying to answer all your questions.

JEREMY SCAHILL: Thank you I appreciate it. Thank you for being patient with me.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Thank you.

© Copyright 2004 Democracy Now!

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0126-05.htm

[Hampton]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 06:04 AM
According to this article below, Clark vigourously defends the SOA. so, Moore is bullshitting us if he expects people to believe that Clark is anti-war. Supporting The Schools of America's is pro-genocide. Anti-war seems to be the popular theme of opposition in this election however.
I'm adverse to the whole thing of Multi-Millionaire celebreties, Madonna, Penn etc, grandstanding and trying to influence public opinions on vital everyday issues of working class struggles that they're virtually dissassociated from. it really reeks of lobbying to me.

Remember, people -- It's a puppet show. Vote socialist or abstain.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0117-01.htm
Michael Moore was on Democracy Now I think last Friday and was confronted by the SOA question. He said something to the effect of he knew about it, but, the old SOA school was shut down and he was doing research into whether or not the new school that opened commits the same crimes as the old and that once he gets the results he would give them to Clark.

He also responded to what he wrote about Mumia in Dude and said he would probally revise the comment when the book comes out in paperback and that it was meant to be in a saterical manner. Pretty much bullshit.

[Agent provocateur]

When I was in college (University of Miami) taking a course entitled "The Rise of the American Empire" with Dr. Michael Krenn during the 2000 presidential campaign he told us that he preferred Third Parties than voting for Republicans or Democrats. You can quote me on that.


http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...=glance&s=books (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0815334176/qid=1075241258/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-2831531-7014327?v=glance&s=books)

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...=glance&s=books (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/156324943X/qid=1075241258/sr=1-8/ref=sr_1_8/104-2831531-7014327?v=glance&s=books)

:redstar2000:

[Valkyrie]

hey Hampton.. What did Moore say about Mumia in his book? haven't gotten around to reading it yet.

Yeah, the Green Party has good potential in making some serious large-scale social changes if ever elected, if they were able to act unimpeded. That's the problem though.
and I don't think they are running anyone this year. The objective seems to be to get Bush out, so I guess the Greens are sitting out this time around on the National front.

[Hampton]

"Mumia probably killed that guy. There, I said it. That does not mean he should be denied a fair trial or that he should be put to death. But because we don't want to see him or anyone executed, the efforts to defend him may have overlooked the fact that he did indeed kill that cop. This takes nothing away from the eloquence of his writings or commentary, or the important place he now holds on the international political stage. But he probably did kill that guy."

Here's what he said on Democracy Now:

MICHAEL MOORE: First of all, it's in a satirical chapter called "How to Talk to Your Conservative Brother-In-Law." I'm going through a bunch of ideas how to convince that knucklehead down at the other end of the table at Thanksgiving dinner why he should maybe see things our way. And as certain icebreakers, I say you could say to him - you know, we should just admit, why don't we just admit some of the things that we're wrong about and that will get him to open up. I go down this whole list. And -- clearly, at least to me, it was tongue-in-cheek. Some people have taken this completely literally, and you know, I feel bad about that now, because you shouldn't make light of somebody whose on death row and could die. I say in the book, you know, why don't we -- just say to your conservative brother-in-law, "Mumia probably killed that guy." Then I say, you know, I don't know if he did or didn't, but what I do know is that he didn't get a fair trial and he deserves a new trial. Neither he nor anyone should be executed. That is the bottom line with everything. Then I go on to say, tell your conservative brother-in-law that teen-agers shouldn't have sex, and then I say maybe I'm just saying that because I didn't have sex until I was 32. Clearly, I hope that people understand that was a joke and that I actually had sex by the time I was 31. But having said that, though, I do -- I received a lot of letters. I feel bad because this is a man's life we're talking about. Sometimes with comedy it's a fine line between - do you take it too far, and maybe I took it too far in this case, but you know, that's how I feel about it.

MICHAEL MOORE: Very good calls. I hope my explanation suffices there. I have been very active in the past in calling for a new trial, opposing his execution. I continue to be that way. Do you know who Nicholas Yarros is? Have you ever heard of him? Anybody listening ever hear of Nicholas Yarros? He's another death row inmate in the Pennsylvania death row along with thousands of others who are on death row in this country. Except for Nicholas Yarros was exonerated on December 9. He was let go from the Pennsylvania death row because he didn't commit the crime. It turns out since Pennsylvania has re-instituted the death penalty in '78 they have executed three people, but exonerated five. So, there's almost been twice as many people found to be actually innocent, who were going to be executed, than the number of people they have executed in Pennsylvania. My point is that we need to know about not just the Mumia's but the Nicholas Yarroses and the other people who are going to be executed. If you live California or anywhere in the country, you should know about Kevin Cooper, who the state of California is planning to execute in the next couple of weeks. We need to write to Governor Schwarzenegger and ask that this person -- you should go to the web site, I think it's -- I forget the name of the web site - look him up on the web. He's easy to find. You will see Noam Chomsky and Danny Glover and all the people who are trying to stop this execution. All of these executions have to be stopped. We need a moratorium. Clark, for instance, told the Miami Herald that he would consider a moratorium. He is one of the few candidates who have ventured into that area because people are very afraid to talk about the death penalty, and so that's how I feel about this.

AMY GOODMAN: Michael, given that you have said that you think people misconstrued what you said, would you consider changing it in your book, as it's increased --

MICHEAL MOORE: Yeah, I have considered that. Before I put the paperback out, I think I'll clean this up a bit because we are talking about a man's life. I think that's how it is when you are attempting to be funny, hopefully most of the time you're funny. Sometimes, it's maybe not so funny, especially when it involves a man's life. That's how I feel about it.

Link (http://www.democracynow.org/static/moore1.shtml)

[Sean Reynolds]

Michael Moore just proved he's a typical whore.

[Fknugly]

I see alot of jive about Moore, but the fact is that Moore has worked harder to terminate the Bush regime and has fought harder for the working class on a grand level than anyone i see hear. Perhaps the reason why that imperialist fugger is in the white house is because the so called "free thinkers" are too busy bickering over who they think should have office while Bush's opposition remains divided.

[LuZhiming]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 02:52 AM
I see alot of jive about Moore, but the fact is that Moore has worked harder to terminate the Bush regime and has fought harder for the working class on a grand level than anyone i see hear. Perhaps the reason why that imperialist fugger is in the white house is because the so called "free thinkers" are too busy bickering over who they think should have office while Bush's opposition remains divided.
:lol: There is no chance for any President that will actually help the people to get into office. All of the Democrats who stand a chance at winning are all virtually the same as Bush. Bush's opposition are mainly a bunch of niave people who think voting for some Right-Wing Democrat will make a difference. Anyone who is proud to be labeled as a part of "Bush's opposition" should be ashamed. I am a part of the "U.S. President Opposition." If a person wants to make a difference, they must first eliminate fantasies. The common fantasy is that Bush is something new or different, or that having him in office any longer will make a great difference on the world. All U.S. Presidents thus far are Imperialist bastards.

[Fknugly]

i agree with that to a certain degree, but if you think that Moores influences wont make a difference in dismantling Bush then there is great naivity in your statement. Agreed also that there is no difference that in voting one must pick the lesser evil, but to date, noone in the history of america has there been a president that compares to the destructive nature of Bush. He is the closest thing to a self proclaimed, meglo-maniacal imperialist that the nation has ever seen. In rescent studies, In only 3 yrs he has denoted our national currency to the point that the euro is worth more than the dollar. America is no longer the most powerful nation on the planet.

[LuZhiming]

i agree with that to a certain degree, but if you think that Moores influences wont make a difference in dismantling Bush then there is great naivity in your statement.

Michael Moore's influence? Has he helped Wesley Clark in any way? It seems like he has probably hurt Clark's chances. Just look at the media's (Thus the majority of the population's) reaction.


Agreed also that there is no difference that in voting one must pick the lesser evil, but to date, noone in the history of america has there been a president that compares to the destructive nature of Bush. He is the closest thing to a self proclaimed, meglo-maniacal imperialist that the nation has ever seen.

That's a joke. This fantasy that Bush is something different or something new is one that upholds sheer ignorance. Bush hasn't done anything that could compare to at least, the actions of Kennedy, Nixon, Reagan, and Truman. Not to forget that there is little besides blank assumptions to prove that Bush himself couldn't be the lesser of two evils. That's not the point, fuck evil.


In rescent studies, In only 3 yrs he has denoted our national currency to the point that the euro is worth more than the dollar.

So you oppose the U.S. wars just for pragmatic purposes?


America is no longer the most powerful nation on the planet.

First off, America isn't a nation. Secondly, it is unquestionable that the U.S. is the most powerful nation on Earth. Just the influence and control they have over the World Bank and IMF, along with the many strong businesses and technology. When you add that to the military, which there is no competition, the U.S. is by far the most powerful nation on Earth.

[Fknugly]

Be careful not to be contradictive, you are being presumptious if you believe i am against the war for pragmatic purposes. It is also presumptious to believe i am going off blank notions. That was just for starters. Sounds like a Bush supporter.
I will tell you this, subsidizing giant corporations and tax breaks for the rich are not in the interest of the working class. Do you work?
In any case, i stand firm in my belief and you are only proving my point when i said Bush has maintained power because his opposition is divided.
I agree CLark wont make it.

"First off, America isn't a nation. . When you add that to the military, which there is no competition, the U.S. is by far the most powerful nation on Earth." ---LuZhiming

Boy are you contrary. I cannot dignify anything else you say with an honorable response without wasting my treasure words on you.

[LuZhiming]

Be careful not to be contradictive, you are being presumptious if you believe i am against the war for pragmatic purposes.

I never said I believed that. You may note the question mark.


Sounds like a Bush supporter.

Bush and the Democrats are virtually the same.


I will tell you this, subsidizing giant corporations and tax breaks for the rich are not in the interest of the working class. Do you work?

And any person with common sense knows that the Democrats who stand a chance are in no way going to change that. People tend to forget that huge deficit, and the Democrats solution to problems such as the above is spend, spend, spend. None of them want to cut back on say, giving money to Israel or building a huge military budget.


In any case, i stand firm in my belief and you are only proving my point when i said Bush has maintained power because his opposition is divided.

Or perhaps his opposition does not have a worthwile alternative.


"First off, America isn't a nation. . When you add that to the military, which there is no competition, the U.S. is by far the most powerful nation on Earth." ---LuZhiming

Boy are you contrary. I cannot dignify anything else you say with an honorable response without wasting my treasure words on you.

Ouch, you have just owned yourself. My fellow poster, you fail to understand that America is in fact: Two continents! Amazing, and much as the founding fathers had interests in conquering the entire hemisphere and beyond, they never did, thus the United States is not America. Guatemala deserves to be called America just as much as the U.S.

[Fknugly]

Sorry man, no offense, its hard to debate when you avoid answering honest questions, double talk, avoid the subjects, and justify your short-comings. I could do that too but i wouldnt be honest with myself if i did.
I sincerly didnt mean it to sound the way it did.
I am a little curious though, do you work?????? Do you plan to vote? And if i could be so bold, who? (if they are the same), or are you in america, just not IN the usa.lol
last chance, answer the questions.

[LuZhiming]

Sorry man, no offense, its hard to debate when you avoid answering honest questions, double talk, avoid the subjects, and justify your short-comings. I could do that too but i wouldnt be honest with myself if i did.
I sincerly didnt mean it to sound the way it did.

Translation: I am unable to refute anything. I love Michael Moore, and other intellectual reading.


I sincerly didnt mean it to sound the way it did.
I am a little curious though, do you work?????? Do you plan to vote? And if i could be so bold, who? (if they are the same), or are you in america, just not IN the usa.lol
last chance, answer the questions.

I don't work, and I don't plan to vote. Then again, I'm not even old enough to vote yet.

[Fknugly]

translation: I dont wanna offends anyone, and dont wanna waste my rebuttals on anyone who doesnt understand the working class and is just arguing to try to make an impotent point.
I coulda guessed you were young, naive, and if i were to go further, your parents provided you with everything in your life thus far. You have never worked a job and cannot understand the conditions of anybody that does. The characteristics provided for the poverished are insurmountable. The dignity and character that is earned by the working class is designated just for them. Your argument has no point
Mine is that Moore is aiding Bush's opposition. Thats hard to deny. Anyone that supports Bush is against the working class.
When i was young i thought it best to boycott the system i didnt agree with but in retrospect it is the only means to dismantle corrupted world leaders. Moore carries the banner of a few freethinkers but you cant possibly understand that with a closed mind more than likely inflicted on you by your parents and teachers. I recommend reading more socrates.
Once you take the time to read you will understand. Dont be so set in your ways, think your own thoughts instead of reiterating whats been passed down to you by the older ppl in your life. (it wears like dirty underwear), and when someone asks you a simple question, dont sidestep it. I guess you need bush, without subsidizing giant corporations and tax breaks for the rich, you wouldnt be able to keep your lifestyle. You talk like a white person. Step aside for the future kid.
However you have a tremendous talent for debate, keep it up and try not to get personal or contradict yourself so much.
Do you plan to be a lawyer?

[LuZhiming]

This is such a shameless piece of propaganda. You know very well I have not contradicted myself, that is exactly why you have resorted to showing a refusal to directly respond to my posts, and type this crap.


Mine is that Moore is aiding Bush's opposition. Thats hard to deny. Anyone that supports Bush is against the working class.

Yours is also that Wesley Clark isn't an enemy of the working class. That is a mistake.


When i was young i thought it best to boycott the system i didnt agree with but in retrospect it is the only means to dismantle corrupted world leaders. Moore carries the banner of a few freethinkers but you cant possibly understand that with a closed mind more than likely inflicted on you by your parents and teachers. I recommend reading more socrates.

The assumptions in this are so naked, you really have nothing to back up your claims with. I grew up in a household of middle class, racist, Southern, right-wing, Christians. Michael Moore is not much of a 'freethinker.' He is an ignoramos. His books are full of ranting and factual errors.


Once you take the time to read you will understand. Dont be so set in your ways, think your own thoughts instead of reiterating whats been passed down to you by the older ppl in your life. (it wears like dirty underwear), and when someone asks you a simple question, dont sidestep it. I guess you need bush, without subsidizing giant corporations and tax breaks for the rich, you wouldnt be able to keep your lifestyle. You talk like a white person. Step aside for the future kid.

:lol: Learn to read genius. My arguement is that the Democrats aren't much different than Bush, not that Bush is great. You are replying with outright lies, the shamelessness in this is really extraordinary. Try responding with something that is actually true, don't make absurd assumptions, stop using shameless propaganda, and I would appreciate some grammar if that's not too much to ask.


However you have a tremendous talent for debate, keep it up and try not to get personal or contradict yourself so much.
Do you plan to be a lawyer?

I would ask you the same question. Unlike you, I am addressing what you have said and not replacing it with outright lies. I am not going off on completely different points to purposefully run off the subject(Which is due mainly to your fear of embarassment). You are acting very much like a lawyer.

No I don't plan to be a lawyer.

[Valkyrie]

THANKS HAMPTON ---for the link!

I don't know if he was trying to be sardonic or not in regard to Mumia. All I can say is-- That it's VERY important for the innocent person to be seen as innocent and completely vindicated outside of getting a fair trial. Moore overlooks that.

[Fknugly]

dont get defensive kiddo. I suggest looking over your posts and understanding when you contradicted yourself (I posted a few of them), and accepting responsiblity for them instead of living in denial and trying to justify them. You cant take away my crediblity with such impotent tactics. I am not for Wesley Clarke, another false assumption on your part. I do not fear embarressment, that would be appropriated. What i do fear is wasting my values on a hot air bag. Before you make any judgements on the working class, you might want to join it first, instead of talking "wet behind the ears". If you appreciated grammar in the first place i guess you could rebutt without sidestepping questions, refute without pressumptions, and not sound like a cracker. The acorn doesnt fall far from the tree. The truth is always debatable, but not with you kid. If i said anything you might percieve as a lie, then i apologize. Its not my intention. You found someone to argue with and ran with the ball, but what you dont understand is that I know Democrats arent far from Bush, one difference is is that those candidates wont be nearly as comparable to the pre-natzi leaders. Like i said in a previous post, one must choose the "lesser evil". There is very little you could teach me. Save your words for cooling your oatmeal, you would have better luck saving your comments for your next show and tell.
You have no room to preach to me about assumptions when this is the first post of mine i considered Clark for anything. You are as institutionalized as a Jehova witness. Before you deem Moore's books full of factual errors and ranting, you should read them first, but if i were you, i would stick to my Harry Potter literature.
You never mentioned any point to your argument before your last post so there wasnt any "running off the subject". I just wanted to deterr you from talking with a lack of experience.

"I wise man speaks when he has something to say, a fool speaks when he wants to say something. Do you know the difference?" ---Plato

[Fknugly]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 02:14 AM
THANKS HAMPTON ---for the link!

I don't know if he was trying to be sardonic or not in regard to Mumia. All I can say is-- That it's VERY important for the innocent person to be seen as innocent and completely vindicated outside of getting a fair trial. Moore overlooks that.
I think i can agree with that. Moore has many faults but it is his duty as it is all of ours to stand up for what we believe in.