Wesley Clark joins the race

I'd like to make it clear that having served your country does not make you a mindless robot, incapable of thinking independently from the administration which you serve...

I am going to love what the haters have to say about this limp wristed, birkenstock wearing, pot smoking communist....

Just for something totally different, H2O, why don't you try posting a fishing subject on this FISHING discussion board.

If you'd like the url for some good political argument sites, let me know.

SlabQuest
But I dont think H2O fishes he is to caught up in politics

I suggest you consider which is the more important subject to discuss...or...skip the threads I start altogether.

...thus alleviating your need to compulsively complain about the content I post...

BTW...I don't recall you posting here: a fishing related thread for the haters

this limp wristed, birkenstock wearing, pot smoking communist

Am I missing something here?

Aren't all of us "libs" that way?

I forgot baby killers...

Damn, shw, now I remember how these things get started.

H2Ohead,

Maybe if just once you'd explain why you insist on posting your political crap on this board (BTW it's called Piscatorial Pursuits) instead of a board whose theme is political crap, I'd lay off...

But I guess you're right about one thing. If we see the post is from you then we can safely assume that it's NFR - even if you don't include NFR in the title.

Isn't this the guy on that was on CNN non-stop during the first several days of the Iraq War? Yes...???

Pahhhlease, maybe I should run for Pres too!

Running our country requires a strong minded businesperson with astute decision making skills in the political arena and business economics. He should be adroit in all areas of government and diplomacy.

General Wesley Clark could certainly tell you how to "engage a target downrange and light up some Iraqi's", but run a country?

He wont get my vote.

Suggestion:

Instead of carping to me about it (I'm obviously NOT going to listen to you) try emailing the mods...

If they ask me tone down the rhetoric I am going to listen for sure.

...but some neo-conservative that doesn't like what I have to say???

...buh-bye...

see you on the river....

Is THAT you're explaination??

I no idea what your opinion on politics and I don't care in the least. I never read any of this crap.

I'm trying to help this board maintain it's integrity.

Sky-guy...

That it takes some sort of massive business acumen to successfully lead the United States is, IMO, a big fallacy.

Which business did Abraham Lincoln run again before he was President? How about Dwight Eisenhower...another business genius? JFK?

Which Presidents have had that acumen for 'business' of which you speak?

Reagan?

Is a multi-trillion dollar deficit any way to run a business?

Roosevelt??

Being a an officer in the military, especially such a high ranking one requires much more than the skill of an average infantryman, that required to engage a downrange target as you put it. Let's not oversimplify this....I suggest taking a much closer look at what General Clark brings to the table before dismissing him out of hand....

To attain the rank of general, especially in the Army, takes massive poilitical maneuvering and skill. It means compromising ones personal values from time to time to in order to do what's right for the organization as a whole...it means making life and death decisions in regards to our soldiers, our brothers and sisters in the field. Personally, I think this is the heaviest a decision a president can ever make, and feel that someone who has actually carried out those orders is more suited making that decision than say a Dean or a Leftywicz....

I'm just interested at this point....but I feel so strongly about the negative direction this country has headed since APPOINTING a Republican president that I am going to get involved this time on some level....for a candidate I believe in...right now as I said I am still only interested.

"I'm trying to help this board maintain it's integrity."

If you were really trying to do said, you'd post the exact same BS on the other political threads going right now....

...instead, you are just trolling.

h20- your posts are on the money.

maybe H2o has allready mastered river fishing and is not a mindless "where too" "how too" internet potato like so many that seem to do nothing but sit on these boards and spew garbage. what would you rather that he post? ..... how he did in all those great holes that he fished last week so that they can fill up this week with crackers.

these boards should be more about fishing related politics and less false info from conservative internet potatos. 99% of these posts on this board have absolutely no valuable info for a good fisherman. most good fishermen arent even on these boards. most good fishermen hate these boards and blame them for the downfall of their secret spot that is now filled with garbage since someone on here named it or gave directions to it.

i say way to go h20!!!!! obviously you are thinking on a larger scale than mose of these crackers that want to learn why their leader keeps wrapping around their mainline or something totally stoupid.
we need more thinkers in this country

hey grandpa and the conservative mob out there! we are short of soldiers now to fight the quagmire that you all wanted so bad. why dont you all grab a gun and go fight for what you wanted so badly in iraq. but shut your mouths and leave H20 alone

...that is a definite strike...

I have the same aversion to Texans....

I think Clark is an interesting candidate, also. Matter of fact, I think a Clark/Lieberman or Clark/Kerry ticket would be kind of nice.

My biggest concern is whomever does not receive the nomination will run as an independent, as did Nader, and really pooch things up.

h2o,

I don't click on topics that say NFR or that obviously don't belong on a fishing discussion board. I thought your original title might be about fishing....silly me.

OH WAIT.....I see you just edited the tile with a big NFR.
Thank you.

Now if you could only answer my original question and explain...

(I didn't think so)

I put NFR in the title just for you Slabquest . Thanks for your interest in how you would like to see this board to operate, but I'm sure Bob or I can handle these NFR posts.

Well then, thank YOU, Jerry.

How do you and Bob feel about this board's tendency to get WAY off it's core subject? I am genuinely curious.

I just don't see much of this on other boards.

Maybe slabquest will start his own board and then he can only let what topics he wants be on his board.

This is just like all the people that hate Tom Licus yet listen to him everyday. I guess these crackers worship you H20.

H20 good points, maybe I was a bit quick in my response. I just dont picture him as being the right type of leader for our countryin this day and age.

When I think about him as a cantidate, I immeadiately think about how much he would/could be in bed with the military, and as a result, be favorable of massive budget increases to appease all his old buds.

I understand he has probably made many "personal compromises" to attain his status, but that freaks me out to. How far did he go and what did that do to his persona?

Anything I have to say about him is pure speculation because I really dont know much about the guy, I am just relaying my gut feelings. They ususally keep me out of trouble and arent too far from the facts.

Slabquest,

Your continued attempts to single guys out who post NRF subjects and to push your agenda of sanitizing this board don't seem to be going anywhere..... As you stated there are lots of other boards who have those "norms" understood by most of the members. Just because that's how other boards operate, doesn't mean this one needs to be homoginized with the rest....

Well, I did post on DR's NFR thread on where to go for an anniversary.

OK, then, what is this guy's (whoever he is) stand on sportfishermen's rights?

can you say:

clinton/clark

Jeff'ed,

If you purchased a magazine about motorcycles because you were interested in them, and then found that the mag was mostly info about needlepoint, would you be happy with the mag? Would you buy it again?

I think that there are plenty of fishing related posts on this site so that the theme of the board is not lost. A few NFR's, be they political or other, just liven it up a bit.

Slabquest, you didn't pay to participate in this forum, remember?

Sky,

I'm investing my valuable time. And I'm viewing the advertisements on this site. I guess we could change the analogy from a magazine to a TV show...

Jeffed,

Currently on page 1 of PP there are about:

180 fishing related posts

475 NFR

although most of the topics ARE FR.

How valuable could that time possibly be if you have enough of it to spend reading internet bulletin boards??

I tell myself that every time I am about to use the excuse "i don't have the time for that"...

In your own investigation on the number of posts you seem to have proved that there is an interest in some NFR posts. Seems that mostly the NFR post are here because people want to see how other fisherpeople feel and think about some of these important subjects. I at times get weary from the childish behavior the NFR posts seem to elicit.

Jerry,

I agree, the intrest is obvious.

But as the board slides away from it's original intent and into something else, it tends to bring in non-anglers who want to argue politics and drive away the true fisherman.

Thus integrety, by definition, is lost.


h2o,

My posts come in buches, a couple times a month I have time for this.

I am still trying to understand the original limp wristed, pot smoking reference...

Whats wrong with a few puffs of the old weed every now and again???????

Was general Wesley Clarke's war in Kosovo and Serbia a good war? One worth your praise? Credentials worthy of your support for his presedential bid? Do all of your points of opposition to war apply to general Clarke? Or only to Tommy Franks?

NOOOOO! GRANDPA! NOT YOU!!

I thought we agreed that these arguments were, as you put it, "a stupendous waste of time".??

If you keep this up, next time I'll cracker-off your trophy king at the net....dude.


(did someone say something about a little puff?)

I know I know....Just like a crack head ... gotta light up one more time before I quit...

Same guys with the same opinions rehashed again...

Remember not so long ago the board was pretty quiet and almost devoid of NFR politics....then whammo!!! here we go again.

I will say though that good fishing related posts garner maybe 50 posts.....Controversial stuff complete with insults and name calling can get you 8 pages. How about a good 5 or 6 pages on the Seattle pot smoking initiative?

Sure lets talk about legalizing pot so the government can tax it and lower the taxes on all the stuff I use.

I'm with you, glowball...

Slab ..I think he is talking about taxing pot so they can lower the taxes on beer....A real trade off for some....Maybe the state can start making our fishing licenses out of hemp!!!!

No, I think Franks was a wonderful commander. He performed superbly in both Afganistan and Iraq. As a matter of fact, I don't believe there is a single post on this board vilifying Franks and his role in Iraq.

Probably my only beef with him is when replying to the President (sic) after being asked what he thought about Rumsfeld's war plans, he said (paraphrased), "Sir, I think what my Secretary of Defense thinks. What he thought yesterday, and anything he'll think in the future."

My opposition to war is when it's done unilaterally against the better judgement of the global populace. When I'm lied to in order to support the justification for war. When it's used as an offensive invasion in the name of colonization rather than the defense of this nation.

Sacrificing American lives for a misguided ideologue is criminal.

Clinton's General

By Jed Babbin
Published 9/16/2003 12:04:00 AM


Is a Howard Dean-Wesley Clark ticket the Dem dream team for '04? The two have met, and Dean has publicly asked Clark to join the race, if not yet his ticket. Clark is about to announce that he will run for president, and an alliance with Dean seems illogical. Why would a four-star general who is banking on his military record want to link up with a man like Dean who has the needle pegged on the whackometer? All you need to know is that Clark -- whatever else he may be -- is a member of Team Clinton.

It's redundant to say more to prove Howard Dean's unfitness for the presidency than he has already said himself. His vitriolic attacks on President Bush are not just McGovernism, they are Michael Mooreism. In a recent Dem gabfest, he said that we shouldn't take sides in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. He sticks to the line that the Iraq campaign has made us less secure, not more, and was a diversion from the war against terrorism. He would beg the U.N. for 50,000 foreign troops to join ours in Iraq. If we elect Dean, we might as well hand the keys to the Oval Office to Kofi Annan and eliminate the middle man. Maybe they would start renting out the Lincoln Bedroom again.

Dean is too shrewd a pol to think that he could win in '04 with "hate Bush" as his only claim to office. That's why he is pushing the former NATO commander to run for president. In Dean's mind, Clark would be a perfect balance to him as a #2 on the Dean ticket. But Dean should know where the General's loyalties lie, and they're not with him. Clark is, above all else, a member in good standing of Team Clinton. Which means Dean is toast if Clark can have any say in it. And he will.

For months, Clark has been teasing the media about his possible candidacy, but hasn't gotten past that Dan Quayle-like deer in the headlights look he gets every time he's asked an unexpected question. We know he's for "reproductive rights," against private ownership of assault weapons, and was strongly against the Iraq campaign. There is precious little else we know about the man. Because he may announce his candidacy as soon as tomorrow, it's time to learn more.

When I mentioned to a few sources that I was interested in Clark, I began receiving what soon became a flood of e-mails all of which said that Clark was a faux-soldier, a pretty face, the General from Central Casting, and not too smart. The other common theme was that as a commander, he knew little about how to fight, and had to be bailed out of bad decisions almost every day. Some of that is true. Most of it is not.

People who know him assure me Clark is brilliant, and his personal courage is unquestionable. Another Rhodes Scholar from Arkansas, Clark was first in his 1966 class at West Point. He won a Silver Star in Vietnam, which is only a couple of steps down from the Medal of Honor. He's an intense man with a tremendous work ethic. One senior Air Force officer guessed that Clark must have not gotten more than four or five hours of sleep during the Kosovo campaign. That's the good Clark.

The other Clark is the Friend of Bill, a man with a Jimmy Carter-like personality. Clark is a micro-manager of the worst sort. He distrusts his subordinates and injects himself into little decisions so much that he loses track of the big picture. He trusts his superiors even less. That's what got him fired from NATO.

Ever since Clark and Lil' Billy got together (which apparently happened in 1968, in their overlapping months at Oxford) Clark has been a FOB. Years later, when the army had made Clark a two-star, it had no future plans for him. But the Clintons did, and put him in line for three- and four-star jobs, culminating in the NATO command.

Clark and his wife are good friends with the Clintons, but that didn't save him from being fired from the SACEUR -- Supreme Allied Commander, Europe job. Clark was fired not by the Clintons, but by then Defense Secretary Bill Cohen. Clark got cross-wise with Cohen for routinely going to Clinton around both Cohen and then-Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Hugh Shelton. He did this all the time both indirectly -- through his pal Madeleine the Short -- and directly on the phone and in person with Clinton. Clark was such a publicity hound, that Cohen once ordered a subordinate, "Tell Clark to get his f#$%^&g face off television." Cohen, no small ego himself, thought Clark was hogging the camera.

Clark was fired because of his overweening ego and because he -- like so many others -- misjudged Clinton. He might have thought he could get away with what he was doing going around Cohen and Shelton, that Lil' Billy would protect him. So Clark was fired and to no one's surprise (except perhaps Clark's) Clinton didn't protect him. Now, the Clintons are using Clark again.

Clark wants the presidential nomination and the Clinton team -- who never act without clear orders from Billy and Hilly -- are lining up to get it for him, or at least use him to deny it to Dean. According to U.S. News & World Report's "Washington Whispers" by Paul Bedard, "Many of Clark's team in waiting are Clintonistas, like the former president's handyman Bruce Lindsey, scandal spokesman Mark Fabiani, and maybe even ex-Deputy Chief of Staff Harold Ickes, who's close to New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton." With a team like that behind him, Clark isn't aiming to play second banana. (Unless Hillary runs in '04, which is pretty unlikely. A Clinton-Clark ticket? I wonder how many ashtrays the general has had tossed at his head?)

As I said a couple of weeks ago, the Clintons are fighting against the Dean candidacy because they recognize that if Dean is nominated -- and goes down like McGovern did -- it will take a decade or more for America to again take the Dems seriously. That would mean Hillary would never make it back to Pennsylvania Avenue. Clark's job is to keep the Dems from following Dean off the McGovernik cliff. But how will he do that, given his positions?

Clark isn't clear on that many issues, and he may yet cleave to the center. But Clark is pro-abortion, against the Bush tax cuts, and opposed to the expansion of law enforcement powers in the "PATRIOT Act." Clark opposed the Iraq campaign, and has said again and again that the Iraq campaign was an "elective" war and that "we went into Iraq under false pretenses." He thinks we now have to "establish legitimacy" by getting the U.N.'s full endorsement (which means turning Iraq over to Kofi, Dominique, and the rest of the U.N. clown show). No wonder he gets along so well with Madeleine.

Clarks' solution to the war on terrorism is pure Clintonism. About a month after 9-11, Clark gave a speech in which he said, "Our best protection is not going to build a wall around America. It's not going to be to create a missile-defense impenetrable shield. It's going to be, instead, to create a community of common values and shared responsibilities and shared interests in which nations and people get along. That really is ultimately the only protection." Or he can lead the world in a chorus of "Kumbaya."

Clark will leap over the sure-losers among the Dem candidates by sundown on the day he announces. According to a CNN poll, he would be #5 of ten immediately. He'd be ahead of the Breck Girl, Al, Carol (even with her NOW endorsement) and Dennis the Menace but behind Kerry, Lieberman, Gephardt and Dean. Still, I don't see how it's possible for a military man who isn't a proven die-hard leftie to get the Fonda-McGovern party's nomination.

Clark won't want to run as anyone's Number Two Boy, far less any likely loser such as Dean. But that's the catch. After gaining credibility in a primary run, Clark would be established as a national political figure in a way he will never be otherwise. Simply to keep his prominence, he might take a #2 slot at the Demo convention, especially if they make a big publicity splash drafting him. And if he is someone's #2, and they lose, it leaves him in competition with Miz Hillary in '08.

Which is the point the Clintons lose control over Clark. He is enough of his own man to want the prize, and not settle twice for second place. What Clark doesn't realize that he won't -- ever -- become such a luminary that the Hollywoodenhead fundraising stars and the others the Dems rely on will defect from Hillary to him. Forget it, general. They'll use you and suck air out of your bubble whenever it pleases them. Sooner or later -- and I bet sooner -- Clark will join the rest of those who have been used and discarded by the Clintons.

SQ,

Other than a NFR post, why would you even want to drag me into this? If the post does not interest you, simply move on. It is that easy. Kinda like watching TV- change the channel!

The integrity of the board is just fine..

Since you asked.... I'll do whatever it takes to make sure you, I and future sportspersons have a spot to fish and fish to catch! I do not plan on taking up knitting any time soon!
However, I'll decide what is best... I don't need to be influenced.

**** oh dear. Actually a board like this is to get away from the BS of every day living. I understand the ignore the post idea, but can't this kind of stuff go to boards that give a ****? Someone always needs to go off

Actually golfer this is good humor to some of us. Kinda like our own reality gig.

Grandpa- whats wrong with cheaper beer?

Do tell us about GW's distinguished military career, grandpa. Tell us about his credentials.

glowball, there is definetly better head than steelhead. You have a credibilty issue...

I thin NFR's are perfectly fine in this forum, as talking about fishing ONLY can get dull at times.
Discussions such as these allow everyone in this community a chance to air their thoughts, as it should be. I personally could care less about political forums or the like, and have never even looked one up.

So everyone just deal with it, smile and be happy that you found this forum in the first place. I know you have gained from it one way or another.
Does an NFR here and there really spoil the overall quality of the content here....really?

Message deleted. Decided it was inappropriate.

Ok this is a fishing board so I will bite this time...

Most of the time I don’t do this but… this one seems pretty easy… Clark for President in 2004?

** So let’s ask who is asking and indorsing him to run?

“… Clark, 58, has aggressively recruited staff in the last week. His earliest allies would be from former President Clinton's Arkansas-based political network, including former White House aide Bruce Lindsey, though not all will have formal campaign roles. …” http://newslink.nandomedia.com/NandoTimes/politics/election/president/story/999393p-7018269c.html

** But wasn’t it the same people that fired him for his constant disrespect and lack of following orders?

“… So, NATO continued with a limp air campaign that was inadequate to stopping Milosevic's ethnic-cleansing campaign, that appalled other members of the military brass who thought Clark had helped drag the U.S. into a near-fiasco, and that led to such ill-feeling toward Clark in the Pentagon that he was fired at war's end, launching his career as a TV pundit. …” http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry082603.asp

** And why would the Clinton’s (and staff) support the Clark to run in 2004?

“Wesley Clark: The new Howard Dean?
The former Vermont governor is the front-runner, but some Democratic insiders wonder if the retired general has a better chance of beating Bush. …” http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/09/17/clark/index_np.html

NOTE: It say a “better chance” not that he can or will beat Bush

** Hillary will not run in 2004 – Statement.

“…Hillary and Bill Clinton, responding to growing speculation, advised a longtime Iowa supporter this week that under no conditions would the senator run for president in 2004. …” http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak14.html

So here is how I see it…

This is a perfect example of the “faint to draw in move”! So the Ms. Clinton says there is no way that she will run in 2004 and then several days later they and their staff support and endorse a man they had fired several years ago. Then the Democrats say that maybe Clark has a better chance than Dean. Hmmm

So, in this election year with all the fighting and name calling and splitting of the party that will happen and the Democrats will be lost fainting back… and then POW in comes the upper cut! The Party will need a strong willed, seasoned, charismatic candidate as a Savior to save the day, the Party and Nation in 2008! So who could that be??? Senator Hillary Clinton…

Seems like a well thought out plan? But that is just my simple view…

Now it is time for a beer and a light hearted sitcom...

Nothing wrong with cheaper beer...Since I stopped drinking it the price has climbed a bit ...

Dan and harley...How did we leap from Wesley Clarke's military background to making fun of George Bush again? My point was that you and others with similar views seem to trash the military and war when it is convenient and share the opposite view when it is convenient. Wesley Clarke was in charge of much the same killing during the Clinton war in Bosnia and Kosovo as that which you condemn so nobly in the Iraq war. Are you boys being transparently partisan? Or just plain foolish?

I often wonder if these heated arguements do not intimidate potential contributers i.e members.There are alot of people out there new to the amount of information that is avalable here on some of these boards.They have not had the chance to see what you all think about fishing line or god forbid the old hook argument.The simple things we take for granted.hell they have not even figured out wht a z-lip is and that can be a fun lesson!

I know this was the first bb that I ever participated on and was very timid at first.[Bleeeeep!] back then it was gooose fish jesus and auntyM that would put you in your place if you got out of line Remember those days Erik

Anyways I wonder if these off topic brow beatings should not be kept in a seperate boxing ring where a new poster can choose to go the [Bleeeeep!] beat out of him after he has cut his teeth asking what some of you consider stupid questions.

I just remember first finding this bb and how exited I was to be able to interact with people that love to fish as much as me.I remember being afraid of looking stupid or pissing somebody off.I don't think that with the present climate I would of joined.I am not saying that these arguements are good or bad,just not what people are looking for when they come looking.

Rhodes scholar, top in his class, four star general and former NATO commander. On paper he is porbably the most intelligent presidential candidate we've ever had.
Kosovo is not comparable to Iraq. At Kosovo we had the worlds blessing.
As far as his position on fishing....I doubt it's a high priority unlike the current administration which has a top priority of environmental regulation roll back and exempting entire industries from environmental law and whom wants to de-list salmon from ESA based upon a couple years of good returns.

no UN resolution in Kosovo...rewriting history a bit there Stlhead? Lots of civilian casualties too....oooooo

NATO-led war in Kosovo. Memory failing you grandpa?

You go right ahead and find where I have EVER bashed the military............ever.

I'll bash Bush again because he is so bashable. His so-called military service is a disgrace.

Downriggin,

You totally misunderstood my post. I guess it was poorly written.

1) I was admitting to participating in a NFR topic (where to go...)

2) Aunty M was saying that this topic about the pres candidate was FR cuz politicians influence our rights. Responding to that, I said, "OK then, what is his stand?". It had nothing to do with you.

Are we OK now?

I agree with you in reference to my post on Bush. I removed the post because I realized it was inappropriate and lowered myself to the level of those that mention Clinton everytime Bush's policy is questioned. I was tired and used poor judgement.

One thing you will never see me do is speak ill of the military. Why bite the hand that feeds me?

A soldier does what he/she is told, they follow orders - be them right or wrong. It's the administration giving those orders that I take extreme issue with.

I'm not opposed to the Afgan war; there's a rational reason for being there. I'm opposed to the Iraqi war and the people that put us there.

DanS please tell me about your demo Clintons military career because all that comes to mind is
AWAL

One one account, I have to agree with Slabquest...

..these threads do often deteriorate into something other than what they were intended for....

My intent was to discuss/bash a new candidate, not drag the same old names through the mud again.

General Clark would, at the very least, add some military credibility to what is always a weak point for the Dems.

Not only that, but his bent for a strong, fully maned and ready military is more in line with my own personal feelings on the subject, one place where I have typically deviated from the 'party line'...

Yep.........Bilbo and GW are both a military disgrace. They both make Dan Quayle look like a war hero.

I think we need to let the primaries process happen and let the candidates sort themselves out. I think conservative democrats play well to the mainstream public and this guy may fit the bill, but is too early to say.

Conservative democrat? He has stated that hes against ownership of "assault weapons", just ask Californians what constitutes "assault weapons"ie color, pistol grip etc. Hes a true blue liberal democrat right down the line, hes hoping his military service will make him appear more mainstream. I will vote for no canidate that has no grasp on true gun ownership and will not uphold the 2nd amendment as one would the first. Dean would be a better suited canidate on this issue.

What do you need an assault weapon for?

Read The 2nd admendment!!! DUH

You don't achieve four stars and lead a NATO force into combat being a far left wing liberal.

I don't think they had assault rifles when that was written. Not that I really have a problem with people owning them, I don't really understand why you'd need one. But then people don't understand why I spend the money on my bike that I do.

I guess if you have to explain it I wouldn't understand.

Where does it mention assault weapons, bazookas or the like? It doesn't. Nuf said.

dude...c'mon...you've heard the rumblings from the great white north...those Canadian hopheads could invade at any moment....

And the fisrt admendment was written before the internet, televison,radio,and most newspapers!! nuf said

Do you want politicians to interpret what an assault weapon is? A mini-14 is an "assault weapon" in the eyes of government and it happens to be one of the most versatle weapons i own. Its good for home protection, hunting, varmint control and just plinking. The list gos on. I personally own three assault weapons that i enjoy shooting, whats it to you or the government that i own them or not. That 12 gauge in your closet will kill people just as dead or that 10/22 with large clips will also do the same.

Exactly Racerdan,
My SKS with bayonet= assalt weapon
My SKS without bayonet= rifle
Makes no sense at all!!

My intent wasnt to create a gun control debate. It was just my take on Wes Clark and my opinion of him. My biggest issue is freedom and the whole constitution, not just what serves ones ideal.

Where does it mention single shots or no bayonets? It dosent. Nuff said. I sure hope i interpreted that correctly.

The constitution was written when muskets were the arms of choice. You do admit a line has to be drawn somewhere though. We can't have rocket launchers on our trucks and torpedo tubes on our boats. Thus the dilemma...where to draw the line.

stlhead,
The same could be said about Freedom of speech. When the constitution was written it amounted to saying what you want in the group around you. It didnt say anything about broadcasting what you want world wide. Yes I believe in the 1st and 2nd admendments. But I dont believe in gutting the meaning of the 2nd to make some liberals happy. Guns dont kill people kill. I have been a life member of the NRA for 35 years and am glad we have them to protect our rights.
And what you know a gun shop that carries rocket launchers that would be a nice addition to the collection.

There is no dilemma, keep it as is. Crimes are not committed with assault weapons, but with mostly stolen and illegally obtained handguns. The areas with the most stringent gun laws have the highest gun violence. Like Chicago and D.C. Machine guns are legal in over 15 states (not Washington unfortunatley but in Oregon they are) And they have accounted for no crime or violence. Hmm. Law abiding citizens rarely commit crimes with firearms. You get the occasional murder/ suicide or workplace killing, but compare that to the 40,000+ killed in auto accidents and cars are no where to be found in the constitution. He who would legislate safety over liberty, deserves neither. Of course Stlhd i am only speaking of small arms and not bazookas and landmines, but sporterized civilian(semi-auto) military rifles. If the military uses them they must be of good quality and suitable for hunting and sport shooting.

Yeah the constitution was written when there were no fancy guns but so was the treaty written before the indians had powerboats and .300 ulta mags to take what they need. They still get to and I will still get to keep the guns I own.

You simple minded people are blind to the fact that they are smarter than you think. They know they can't just take away our guns or stop us from fishing so they take it away from us little by little. No trapping no hounds no barbs no etc etc etc. Get my drift. We have to keep every right that we have now or our kids won't be able to enjoy half of what we have now.

Uh Oh! Now it's on to gun control! h2o, I gotta feelin' this one's goin' PAST 300!

I agree with you on the assault weapon issue. I, too, believe it's law abiding citizens that own them here in the US.

Curious, though, what may happen in the future with assault weapons because of the Patriot Act. Those weapons could very easily be classified as "terrorists' tools." I can forsee those registered to own assault weapons ending up on a list of "known owners of terrorist weapons."

Just a thought. Paranoid thought maybe, but a thought none the less.

Yeah, i think every law-biding citizen ought to have an assault weapon in their house like the Swiss do. Just stirring it a little.

Goharley, doesent the Patriot act have an expiration date? I do know that both sides of the aisle have been grumbling about its far reaching and unforseen consequences.

Don't worry. I am not trying to take anyones guns away. As if I could anyway. I grew up hunting. I just have a hard time understanding why anyone feels the need to own assault weapons or have bayonets and such. You'll never explain it to my satisfaction so don't try.

One tiny little tidbit, then I'm headin' for the hills!

What do you suppose all of the families that have lost members to gang violence would say when you tell them that it really wasn't a modified AK, or an Ouzi used in that particular drive-by?

Part of it is set to expire on 31 December 2005. This will give "Congress and the public the chance to evaluate how law enforcement exercised some of its broad new powers and to decide whether the serious reduction of American privacy and civil liberties enacted by USAPA was worthwhile."

Sunset Provision

zzzzzzzz zzzzzzzz

Geez I go to work and come home and we are on gun control....Can abortion and religion be far behind....

Wesley Clarke was fired from his NATO command...Seems like a nice enough man and a smart enough guy...He could be a shill for Hillary however.

"Wesley Clarke was fired from his NATO command"

..for having the balls to disagree when appropriate...

I like him even more now...

Clark and his wife are good friends with the Clintons, but that didn't save him from being fired from the SACEUR -- Supreme Allied Commander, Europe job. Clark was fired not by the Clintons, but by then Defense Secretary Bill Cohen. Clark got cross-wise with Cohen for routinely going to Clinton around both Cohen and then-Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Hugh Shelton. He did this all the time both indirectly -- through his pal Madeleine the Short -- and directly on the phone and in person with Clinton. Clark was such a publicity hound, that Cohen once ordered a subordinate, "Tell Clark to get his f#$%^&g face off television." Cohen, no small ego himself, thought Clark was hogging the camera.

Clark was fired because of his overweening ego and because he -- like so many others -- misjudged Clinton. He might have thought he could get away with what he was doing going around Cohen and Shelton, that Lil' Billy would protect him. So Clark was fired and to no one's surprise (except perhaps Clark's) Clinton didn't protect him. Now, the Clintons are using Clark again.

...source...

not the Guardian and not Rush Limbaugh...Matt Drudge's website I think...I noted the source on the other thread...the firing is fact the reasons are opinion...

Here's an opinion on Clark from a war correspondent that was in Serbia during the war. He doesn't speak too kindly of the general.

Frisk interview

As a caveat, the reason Clark was fired by Cohen was because he didn't approve of the Pentagon's insistance of an aerial campaign. He felt the Serbs were too entrenched to simply win by bombing. So he bypassed Shelton and Cohen and got authorization to use more ground forces.

It proved to be the right tactical manuever, but ultimately cost him his job.

Its a he said she said deal! you choose who to believe..

Look where this came from- * Robert Fisk, Middle East correspondent for the London Independent . Speaking from Baghdad.

"Matt Drudge's website"

you mean Mr. unbiased himself?

I'm sorry, I must have missed the memo. Could someone please post the list of approved correspondents, pundits, and news sources.

I've already read Drudge and have a hard time getting by all the name calling, sarcasm, and innuendos to find any new facts.

Here you go Harley, some of Grandpa's official list:

Sean Hannity
Ann Coulter
Bill O'Reilly
Michael Savage

"Fair and balanced" Who could ask for more?

4Salt, Harley and H2O's list:

Mao Tse Tung
Che Guevera
Fidel Castro
James Carvill
Hitler
Bill Clinton
Hillary Clinton
Ted Kennedy
Kim Jung Il
Osama Bin Laden
Sadam Hussein
Howard Dean
Mad Magazine
Village Voice
Huckleberry Hound
Barney
Al Franken

Hey, grandpa, I gotta thank you. I'd never read any of Carville's stuff, but since you posted that I went and did some research. I found this that he wrote:

Pretty damn good point he made. Especially since Coulter herself made such a big deal about the US handling the Japanese occupation, alone without any support, unlike the European occupation.

So following Coulter's lead we really should investigate the president for a lack of plan.

..you forgot 'High Times' dude...

and 'The Stranger'...

Let me just point out again that the whole point of this thread was to see how the usual suspects try to tear him down...

"I am going to love what the haters have to say about this limp wristed, birkenstock wearing, pot smoking communist...."

...ahem...

grandpa-

The only rocks you could manage to find for ammo were someone elses opinions, pretty weak stuff really.

For god's sake man, keep those communist references coming...you DO realize that every one is a black arrow of death to YOUR credibility, don't you? Trying to paint me as some sort of left-wing political whacko might be fun for you gramps, a good way to pass the time while the 'ol teeth soak I suppose....

...but to any one of the few members of this board that actually do know me that idea is preposterous and absurd.


If the right was smart, they would quit trying to paint everyone that has questions about the war as unamerican.

...luckily though, I don't think they are going to be smart enough to figure how important that will be come election time.

We'll see, won't we?

Not looking for credibility H2O.....Not here anyway.

Either way...continue to schill for your party in absolutely the most disrespectful way possible.......please?

Alienating 'the moderates' is a losing campaign strategy....

If I can alienate you (H2O), 4Salt, and Harley I have succeeded!!!

Your opinions all make me laugh out loud.

Wesly Clark could be a formidable candidate against the Republicans. Who better to question foreign policy than a 4-star general? A candidates strength in foreign policy will likely outweigh domestic related experiences, except for a strategy to decrease our bloated deficit.

Along with foreign policy, his ability to strengthen the defense of our ports and borders will be an assest.

I agree that the other domestic issues such as the deficit, jobless rate, and sluggish economy will be his liability.

Hey Grandpa,

You didn't alienate me at all. I get a big kick out of the political sh!t you post. If you take a careful second look, you'll find any truly opinionated political posts from me conspicuously absent from these clusterf*ck threads. I was just helpin' you out with the pundit list.

As I was listening to Kirby Wilber this morning, getting my daily dose of what is on the conservative mind, he brought up Wesley Clark and bashed him pretty strongly. This probably means I need to pay attention to him as Kirby was denegrating him pretty badly. Sounded like that old Republican might be a tad bit scared.

All taken with a grain of salt 4Salt.....my follow up reading list was absurd of course....your list for me was pretty accurate . By the way the Drudge Report has current print journalism from a wide variety of writers from all over the political spectrum...not just those I may agree with and not just Matt Drudge's . We have diverse opinions...not necessarily right and wrong opinions but different.

Eddie ....Kirby is a little too red white and blue for me most of the time...Al Gore is going start up a liberal cable system soon so you will have someone to replace that void Phil Donohue left.

Grandpa, I actually like listening to Kirby in the morning, the local hosts on KVI are generally pretty good, usually wrong, but pretty good. I do have problems with Sean Hannity. Hell, if a loud mouth and no taste was all it took to get the gig, I should have had it.

I'm looking forward to the liberal network. Phil, however, never worked for me. I probably won't listen to the liberal network much, I prefer to listen to folks that I disagree with - they have the ability to teach me something, to maybe convince me where I am wrong. I do believe in the old adage - A mind is like a parachute - it only works when it is open.

Not if its full of holes!

I find it ironic that those who bash Clinton's military record will not admit that Bush Jr. doesn't have a good military record either. Besides Bush Jr. is responsible for kiling Chinook salmon and comes here to take credit for improved salmon runs. What a hypocrite! (Fishing related)

Why don't you support Clark if all you are interested in is military service.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/969659.asp

Racerdan, a parachute that is closed will not work either, just like a closed mind.

I agree, for the most part, knowing the commanders I've been affiliated with. However, Teddy and Ike did a pretty good job of running things.

By the way, I recently discovered that Clark taught economics during his tenure at West Point.

Retired Col. David Hackworth, the source of much Clark ire, including the 'perfumed prince' comment and the accompanied implication that Clark wasn't resilient enough to make tough decisions, has totally reversed himself after meeting the man and doing some research. This quote is magnificent:


"No doubt he's made his share of enemies. He doesn't suffer fools easily and wouldn't have allowed the dilettantes who convinced Dubya to do Iraq to even cut the White House lawn. So he should prepare for a fair amount of dart-throwing from detractors he's ripped into during the past three decades.



Hey, I am one of those: I took a swing at Clark during the Kosovo campaign when I thought he screwed up the operation, and I called him a "Perfumed Prince." Only years later did I discover from his book and other research that I was wrong - the blame should have been worn by British timidity and William Cohen, U.S. SecDef at the time.



At the interview, Clark came along without the standard platoon of handlers and treated the little folks who poured the coffee and served the bacon and eggs with exactly the same respect and consideration he gave the biggies in the dining room like my colleague Larry King and Bob Tisch, the Regency Hotel's owner. An appealing common touch.



But if he wins the election, don't expect an Andrew Jackson field-soldier type. Clark's an intellectual, and his military career is more like Ike's - that of a staff guy and a brilliant high-level commander. Can he make tough decisions? Bet on it. Just like Ike did during his eight hard but prosperous years as president."

Bush and Clark head to head in poll:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/a...%20Bush%20Polls