Oprano Adult Industry Forums - Presidential race gets more interesting

Oprano Adult Industry Forums (http://www.oprano.com/msgboard/index.php)

- Legacy Archived Main Board (http://www.oprano.com/msgboard/forumdisplay.php?f=25)

- - Presidential race gets more interesting (http://www.oprano.com/msgboard/showthread.php?t=31178)

"CNN and MSNBC are reporting that, capping one of the most unique and historic draft movements in U.S. history, General Wesley Clark has decided to enter the race to be the Democratic nominee for President of the United States. "

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Taxes and the Economy: Clark favors a responsible and progressive taxation system that creates jobs and doesn’t put this country into ruinous financial shape with gaping deficits. Clark, who at one point taught economics at West Point, was against Bush’s tax changes because they don’t effectively create jobs, they are unfair, and they imperil our nation’s fiscal health.

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

http://www.draftwesleyclark.com/on_the_issues.htm

Quote:

Originally posted by Colin@Sep 16 2003, 08:02 AM
Guns: Clark has implied that gun ownership is primarily a local issue. He also believes that assault weapons should be banned for the general public, stating, "people who like assault weapons they should join the United States Army, we have them." (CNN's Crossfire, 06/25/03)

Love this part, saw him on Bill Mahr think it was last week, can't be any worse than any other candidate that's gonna get thrown up against the Bushscam.

This guy is Michael Moore's pinup boy at the moment... and judging from his latest run of newsletter activity he smell's some Bush blood... (Moore that is)

Quote:

A Citizen's Appeal to a General in a Time of War (at Home)

September 12, 2003

Dear General Wesley Clark,

I've been meaning to write to you for some time. Two days after the Oscars, when I felt very alone and somewhat frightened by the level of hatred toward me for daring to suggest that we were being led into war for "fictitious reasons," one person stuck his neck out and came to my defense on national television.

And that person was you.

Aaron Brown had just finished interviewing me by satellite on CNN, and I had made a crack about me being "the only non-general allowed on CNN all week." He ended the interview and then turned to you, as you were sitting at the desk with him. He asked you what you thought of this crazy guy, Michael Moore. And, although we were still in Week One of the war, you boldly said that my dissent was necessary and welcome, and you pointed out that I was against Bush and his "policies," not the kids in the service. I sat in Flint with the earpiece still in my ear and I was floored -- a GENERAL standing up for me and, in effect, for all the millions who were opposed to the war but had been bullied into silence.

Since that night, I have spent a lot of time checking you out. And what I've learned about you corresponds to my experience with you back in March. You seem to be a man of integrity. You seem not afraid to speak the truth. I liked your answer when you were asked your position on gun control: "If you are the type of person who likes assault weapons, there is a place for you -- the United States Army. We have them."

In addition to being first in your class at West Point, a four star general from Arkansas, and the former Supreme Commander of NATO -- enough right there that should give pause to any peace-loving person -- I have discovered that...

1. You oppose the Patriot Act and would fight the expansion of its powers.

2. You are firmly pro-choice.

3. You filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in support of the University of Michigan's affirmative action case.

4. You would get rid of the Bush tax "cut" and make the rich pay their fair share.

5. You respect the views of our allies and want to work with them and with the rest of the international community.

6. And you oppose war. You have said that war should always be the "last resort" and that it is military men such as yourself who are the most for peace because it is YOU and your soldiers who have to do the dying. You find something unsettling about a commander-in-chief who dons a flight suit and pretends to be Top Gun, a stunt that dishonored those who have died in that flight suit in the service of their country.

General Clark, last night I finally got to meet you in person. I would like to share with others what I said to you privately: You may be the person who can defeat George W. Bush in next year's election.

This is not an endorsement. For me, it's too early for that. I have liked Howard Dean (in spite of his flawed positions in support of some capital punishment, his grade "A" rating from the NRA, and his opposition to cutting the Pentagon budget). And Dennis Kucinich is so committed to all the right stuff. We need candidates in this race who will say the things that need to be said, to push the pathetically lame Democratic Party into have a backbone -- or get out of the way and let us have a REAL second party on the ballot.

But right now, for the sake and survival of our very country, we need someone who is going to get The Job done, period. And that job, no matter whom I speak to across America -- be they leftie Green or conservative Democrat, and even many disgusted Republicans -- EVERYONE is of one mind as to what that job is:

Bush Must Go.

This is war, General, and it's Bush & Co.'s war on us. It's their war on the middle class, the poor, the environment, their war on women and their war against anyone around the world who doesn't accept total American domination. Yes, it's a war -- and we, the people, need a general to beat back those who have abused our Constitution and our basic sense of decency.

The General vs. the Texas Air National Guard deserter! I want to see that debate, and I know who the winner is going to be.

The other night, when you were on Bill Maher's show, he began by reading to you a quote from Howard Dean where he (Dean) tried to run away from the word "liberal." Maher said to you, so, General, do you want to run away from that word? Without missing a beat, you said "No!" and you reminded everyone that America was founded as a "liberal democracy." The audience went wild with applause.

That is what we have needed for a long time on our side -- guts. I am sure there are things you and I don't see eye to eye on, but now is the time for all good people from the far left to the middle of the road to bury the damn hatchet and get together behind someone who is not only good on the issues but can beat George W. Bush. And where I come from in the Midwest, General, I know you are the kind of candidate that the average American will vote for.

Michael Moore likes a general? I never thought I'd write these words. But desperate times call for desperate measures. I want to know more about you. I want your voice heard. I would like to see you in these debates. Then let the chips fall where they may -- and we'll all have a better idea of what to do. If you sit it out, then I think we all know what we are left with.

I am asking everyone I know to send an email to you now to encourage you to run, even if they aren't sure they would vote for you. (Wesley Clark's email address is: mailto:info@leadershipforamerica.org). None of us truly know how we will vote five months from now or a year from now. But we do know that this race needs a jolt -- and Bush needs to know that there is one person he won't be able to Dukakisize.

Take the plunge, General Clark. At the very least, the nation needs to hear what you know about what was really behind this invasion of Iraq and your fresh ideas of how we can live in a more peaceful world. Yes, your country needs you to perform one more act of brave service -- to help defeat an enemy from within, at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, an address that used to belong to "we, the people."

Yours,

Michael Moore
Lottery # 275, U.S. military draft, 1972
Conscientious Objector applicant
mailto:mmflint@aol.com

http://www.michaelmoore.com

and since the post is so long anyway.. more excited Mike from today

Quote:

Three Easy Pieces for Any Decent American (from Michael Moore)
September 15, 2003

There are many otherwise decent Americans who are either still on the fence about George W. Bush or they actually profess to like the man. They are the ones who make up the 58% approval ratings and the 64% who say they still believe the war was a good idea. You know these people well. They work next to you, or they sit in the classroom next to you, or they may even be sitting at your kitchen table right now!

I think that we need to hold out a hand to them, not in a partisan sort of way, and not with any condescension. I think that if we share with them a few pieces of information, and do it with common sense instead of politics, there is a chance we just might break through and turn things around. Perhaps it's my foolish optimism in the goodness that is in every person, and in their ability to ultimately know right from wrong.

I would like to give you three little vignettes to share with them. They are so simple and so shocking in their very content that, if you pass them around the office, the school, the neighborhood or the bedroom, it may just do the trick. Here they are:

1. GEORGE AND LAURA ON 9/11 -- A BARREL OF LAUGHS!

The following is an interview with the First Couple from the current issue of one of my favorite magazines, Ladies Home Journal (Oct. '03). They are asked about what September 11, 2001, was like for them personally, and, although over 3,000 people had just perished, George W. was able to find some humor by the end of that day:

Peggy Noonan (the interviewer): You were separated on September 11th. What was it like when you saw each other again?

Laura Bush: Well, we just hugged. I think there was a certain amount of security in being with each other than being apart.

George W. Bush: But the day ended on a relatively humorous note. The agents said, "you'll be sleeping downstairs. Washington's still a dangerous place." And I said no, I can't sleep down there, the bed didn't look comfortable. I was really tired, Laura was tired, we like our own bed. We like our own routine. You know, kind of a nester. I knew I had to deal with the issue the next day and provide strength and comfort to the country, and so I needed rest in order to be mentally prepared. So I told the agent we're going upstairs, and he reluctantly said okay. Laura wears contacts, and she was sound asleep. Barney was there. And the agent comes running up and says, "We're under attack. We need you downstairs," and so there we go. I'm in my running shorts and my T-shirt, and I'm barefooted. Got the dog in one hand, Laura had a cat, I'm holding Laura --

Laura Bush: I don't have my contacts in , and I'm in my fuzzy house slippers --

George W. Bush: And this guy's out of breath, and we're heading straight down to the basement because there's an incoming unidentified airplane, which is coming toward the White House. Then the guy says it's a friendly airplane. And we hustle all the way back up stairs and go to bed.

Mrs. Bush: [LAUGHS] And we just lay there thinking about the way we must have looked.

Peggy Noonan (interviewer): So the day starts in tragedy and ends in Marx Brothers.

George W. Bush: THAT'S RIGHT-- WE GOT A LAUGH OUT OF IT!

(end)

Although America had just suffered the worst attack ever on our own soil, somehow this man was able to end his day on a funny note. I wonder how many of the 3,000 families who lost someone earlier that day had a funny ending before they went to sleep? Please read the above exchange aloud to anyone who will listen. It speaks volumes.

2. WE HAVE JUST WRECKED OUR KIDS' FUTURE.

The first paragraph in yesterday's New York Times story on how Bush has taken a record surplus and demolished it into a record deficit was one of the best lead paragraphs I have ever read in a newspaper article.

Here's how it went:

"When President Bush informed the nation last Sunday night that remaining in Iraq next year will cost another $87 billion, many of those who will actually pay that bill were unable to watch. They had already been put to bed by their parents."

Bingo. Gee, I hope the kids thank us some day!

Here's the next paragraph (my emphasis added):

"Administration officials acknowledged the next day that every dollar of that cost will be BORROWED, a loan that economists say will be repaid by the NEXT generation of taxpayers AND THE GENERATION AFTER THAT. The $166 BILLION cost of the work SO FAR in Iraq and Afghanistan, which has stunned many in Washington, will be added to what was already the largest budget deficit the nation has ever known."

Every conservative friend of yours should weep when they read that, and then you should hug them and tell them that it'll be okay, once we all do what we need to do.

3. WHAT WOULD $87 BILLION BUY?

If you can't get through this list without wanting to throw up, I'll understand. But pass it around anyway. This is the nail in the Iraq War's coffin for any sane, thinking individual, regardless of their political stripe (thanks to TomPaine.com and the Center for American Progress)...

To get some perspective, here are some real-life comparisons about what $87 billion means:

$87 Billion Is More Than The Combined Total Of All State Budget Deficits In The United States.

The Bush administration proposed absolutely zero funds to help states deal with these deficits, despite the fact that their tax cuts drove down state revenues. [Source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities]

$87 Billion Is Enough To Pay The 3.3 Million People Who Have Lost Jobs Under George W. Bush $26,363 Each!

The unemployment benefits extension passed by Congress at the beginning of this year provides zero benefits to "workers who exhausted their regular, state unemployment benefits and cannot find work." All told, two-thirds of unemployed workers have exhausted their benefits. [Source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities]

$87 Billion Is More Than DOUBLE The Total Amount The Government Spends On Homeland Security.

The U.S. spends about $36 billion on homeland security. Yet, Sen. Warren Rudman (R-N.H.) wrote "America will fall approximately $98.4 billion short of meeting critical emergency responder needs" for homeland security without a funding increase. [Source: Council on Foreign Relations]

$87 Billion Is 87 Times The Amount The Federal Government Spends On After School Programs.

George W. Bush proposed a budget that reduces the $1 billion for after-school programs to $600 million -- cutting off about 475,000 children from the program. [Source: The Republican-dominated House Appropriations Committee]

$87 Billion Is More Than 10 Times What The Government Spends On All Environmental Protection.

The Bush administration requested just $7.6 billion for the entire Environmental Protection Agency. This included a 32 percent cut to water quality grants, a 6 percent reduction in enforcement staff, and a 50 percent cut to land acquisition and conservation. [Source: Natural Resources Defense Council]

There you go. In black and white. A few million of you will receive this letter. Please share the above with at least a half-dozen people today and tomorrow. I, like you, do not want to see another approval rating over 50%.

Yours,
Michael Moore
www.michaelmoore.com
moorelist@aol.com

PS. Thanks for the astounding response to the Wesley Clark letter (and for your kind comments to me). Over 95% of the thousands of letters received favored the General tossing his helmet in the ring. All were passed on to his organization. More to come on the road to removing Bush...

Last edited by Opti at Sep 17 2003, 02:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toolz+Sep 16 2003, 11:19 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Toolz @ Sep 16 2003, 11:19 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Colin@Sep 16 2003, 08:02 AM
Guns: Clark has implied that gun ownership is primarily a local issue. He also believes that assault weapons should be banned for the general public, stating, "people who like assault weapons they should join the United States Army, we have them." (CNN's Crossfire, 06/25/03)

Love this part, saw him on Bill Mahr think it was last week, can't be any worse than any other candidate that's gonna get thrown up against the Bushscam.[/b][/quote]
He'll have a tough time surviving the primaries but if he did he could take a lot of the moderate and the moderate conservative votes away from Bush.

Quote:

Originally posted by Opti@Sep 16 2003, 11:24 AM
This guy is Michael Moore's pinup boy at the moment... and judging from his latest run of newsletter activity he smell's some Bush blood... (Moore that is)

I need a Michael Moore warning like Serge needs a football warning.

LOL.. I promise never to do it again ;-)

Quote:

Originally posted by Opti@Sep 16 2003, 11:30 AM
LOL.. I promise never to do it again ;-)

What's the deal with your sig?

Quote:

Originally posted by Colin+Sep 16 2003, 11:28 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Colin @ Sep 16 2003, 11:28 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Opti@Sep 16 2003, 11:24 AM
This guy is Michael Moore's pinup boy at the moment... and judging from his latest run of newsletter activity he smell's some Bush blood... (Moore that is)

I need a Michael Moore warning like Serge needs a football warning.[/b][/quote]

I was thinking the same thing.. The General sounds like a stand up guy. However when Michael Moore starts endorsing someone I get a sick feeling. I don't care much for Michael Moore..

Quote:

Originally posted by Colin+Sep 16 2003, 11:37 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Colin @ Sep 16 2003, 11:37 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Opti@Sep 16 2003, 11:30 AM
LOL.. I promise never to do it again ;-)

What's the deal with your sig?[/b][/quote]
I always thought (dangerous pastime) Opti's sig was half Frank Sinatra and half Hip Hop

Quote:

Originally posted by Vick@Sep 16 2003, 08:51 AM

I always thought (dangerous pastime) Opti's sig was half Frank Sinatra and half Hip Hop

Rat Pack Rap?

anyway...waiting for the Democrats abroad people to get back to me about details of their overview of the canidates and then I get to go to a meeting and listen to debates.

If only everyone had to go through all the stuff I do to vote..much less be an informed voter..might mean a bit more to them .

Clark is an Elitist Liberal.... a basic limosine liberal.... nothing new, except that he has a military record. One that is pretty poor in my opinion.

He is a Clinton retread, the whole Clinton crew is jumping on his bandwagon....

No one drafted him - the man pandered on CNN the entire tmie during the Iraq war.

Bottom line is - HE SUCKS!

Mike,

Ah nothing has changed with you, still drawing from the same old tired right wing spin :)

First off you don't get to be a 4 star general and the top commander in nato because your a flimsly flabby peacenick liberal..

Clark is a great man in my opinion. Graduated top of his class from West Point, served in Vietnam, countless other places, etc.

He is strong on Defense and liberal / left leaning on social issues, policies.

Sure the clintons like him, I think Bill said he has known him since 1965 or so.

this guys even went on to get a graduate degree from Oxford. No dummy here. I think he will make a great "VP"

Quote:

Originally posted by Mike AI@Sep 16 2003, 03:27 PM
Clark is an Elitist Liberal.... a basic limosine liberal.... nothing new, except that he has a military record. One that is pretty poor in my opinion.

He is a Clinton retread, the whole Clinton crew is jumping on his bandwagon....

No one drafted him - the man pandered on CNN the entire tmie during the Iraq war.

Bottom line is - HE SUCKS!

For somebody in his 30s, you do an AMAZING imitation of a 1960s John Bircher.

Exactly what is your basis for evaluating General Clark's military record?

Clark is very close to a pacafist. His role in the former Yugoslavia caused more problems then it solved. We did not let one aircraft fly below 30k feet. Which made targeting difficult. You can read all about it on the net.

I have a friend who was his driver about 8 years ago in Europe, he was a Sgt. and he had a lot of stories about this guy. That is why I know he is an elitist, and what he truly thinks about the enlisted man. Clark thinks he is some kind of Barron or Earl, and the enlisted men was jsut some serf.

I am glad he is in.... The rest of the democrtic party will attack him and show what a fraud he really is.

I do like 1 democrat in the field.... Lieberman! I could vote for him.

Oh, fuck!!! Are you really basing your contention that he's an elitist on the fact that his former enlisted driver says so? Give me a break, Mike - you don't get to flag rank in the military WITHOUT a touch of that. Colin Powell as a 1-star general was an obnoxious asshole too - goes with the territory.

And how you get to "pacifist" from aircraft altitudes is beyond me ... that was probably more aimed at the safety of our own aircraft than any pacifist tendencies. After all, Clinton and Clark had a problem in Congress at the time, you may recall - a whole lot of Iraqhawks were screaming about the U.S. intervention in the Balkans in spite of the tinderbox role it has historically played.

Quote:

Originally posted by Mike AI@Sep 16 2003, 05:16 PM
We did not let one aircraft fly below 30k feet. Which made targeting difficult.

Before of after we took out the Ski Gondola in Italy ?

http://www.s-t.com/daily/02-98/02-05-98/a06wn032.htm

from:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2076528/

The centerpiece for the 58-year-old Clark's campaign would obviously be his biography, and it's an impressive one: first in his class at West Point, Rhodes scholar, wounded in Vietnam, recipient of both the Purple Heart and the Silver Star. In 1981, when Clark was a 36-year-old lieutenant colonel, the Washington Post magazine profiled him as "the ideal, the perfect modern officer." Since then, he continued his career as an Army "water walker," moving effortlessly up the ranks to four-star general. Just as Dr. Bill Frist gives the Republicans some moral authority on health care, a traditional GOP weakness, Gen. Clark could strengthen the Democrats' national-security hand.

One of the most compelling things about Clark is his ability to articulate—better than other Democrats, who sometimes resort to tiresome calls of "chickenhawk" or "quagmire"—the intellectual justification for what many Democrats feel in their gut: skepticism about the need for immediate war with Iraq; concern about the status of the war against al-Qaida; a preference for working with allies over going it alone; and a respect for the institutions that make up the international order that the United States built upon the ashes of World War II.

Clark is no dove. But he argues that the biggest mistake the Bush administration made in the aftermath of Sept. 11 was its refusal to conduct the war under the auspices of NATO, despite the alliance's declaration that an attack on the United States was an attack on all its member nations. As a result, Europe is not accountable for success in the war on terrorism, only the United States is. European leaders see it as George W. Bush's war, according to Clark, because Bush has made it his war. "Not a single European election hinges on the success of the war on terrorism," Clark wrote in the September Washington Monthly. Clark even went so far as to employ a classic Vietnam metaphor to describe Bush's policies: "Because the Bush administration has thus far refused to engage our allies through NATO, we are fighting the war on terrorism with one hand tied behind our back."

Clark calls this "the lesson of Kosovo": If you bring allies into a war, they will want to win it as badly as you do. That's counterintuitive: The lesson most Americans took from Kosovo was that war by committee was a disaster that allowed, for example, a British commander to refuse Clark's order to take an airfield. But, as David Halberstam showed in War in a Time of Peace, the fact that so many leaders had staked their reputations on the Kosovo war meant that they had to win it, despite strong opposition at home: "What [losing] would do to NATO—effectively signal the end of it—and to their countries (and it was known but never said, to their own careers and place in history) was also unacceptable."

I don't know any more about Clark than my cut-n-paste above but I like what I read for the most part.

Here's my favorite part ...

"We’re a nation of immigrants. We should be encouraging every person from the Indian Institute of Technology that comes to this country to stay in this country. Become an American citizen. Join with us. Make a great company. Let’s all be wealthy and prosperous and happy together. Immigration has a vital part to play in that process."

I like his selective immigration line ;-)