For those interested in Clark

[VoteClark]

I noticed many people in here are for Clark to run for President of Vice President. Or at least would like to see him enter the race.

If you want to learn more about Wesley Clark: Please visit this site: http://www.draftwesleyclark.com/

Clark on the issues: http://www.draftwesleyclark.com/on_the_issues.htm

If you want to encourage him to run please write a quick email to him here: http://www.draftwesleyclark.com/send_a_letter.htm


Thanks for your interest and support!


:kick:
J4Clark

[dsc]

1. It is too bad that you chose to behave

so poorly in regards to Dean. It is hard to take even this thread in a decent light given that. I will try to find time to look though. I hope this is a real, honest, new leaf for you.

[VoteClark]

2. Question 4 DSC

I have never attacked another DUer in here on a personal level. Yet, Dean supporters attack me personally. I don't think most Dean supporters understand the difference between me questioning Dean's positions and expressing my personal views about Dean and of a personal attack on a DUer with a viewpoint different from their's.

My question for you is this:

Dean attacks Kerry, Graham, Kucinich, and Gephardt for missing votes while campaigning. Yet when they vote, they miss out on forums. So he attacks them if they miss forums. Isn't this a dirty trick? No matter what they choose to do he attacks them. Is this fair? Or does Dean want them to resign and hand two senate seats to be appointed by Republican Governors, and allow two open Congressional seats to be challenged by the Republicans leading to at least one loss of a seat?

Surely he doesn't want these to happen. I find this a dirty trick considering that Dean knows that, a) that running for president is time consuming and they can't be in two places at once. b) The Repukes control when the vote takes place and can plan the vote at the same time as when the Democratic forums are taking place.

To me, it seems as though Dean is willing to steep to any level to make his opponents look bad, even when he really knows they are doing everything they can to be at all the forums and not miss votes. This tells me something about Dean and his character. I think Kerry, Graham, Gephardt, and Kucinich should say to Dean, if you want us to resign we will if he attacks them with this low blow. That would put Dean on the spot, but they will not give up their positions.

So what do you want? Should they all resign? Or should Dean lay off?
He will not be able to do this to Clark, so I am happy about that, but nonetheless, it is unfair to any reasonable person.

:kick:
J4Clark

[dsc]

3. You need to provide a citation of him doing that

I have never seen him talk at all about how often people are missing votes. I have seen him at several forums and in several stumps speeches. Not once has that come up. He criticises their votes but not their not voting.

As to the forum issue. This is in reference to the NAACP forum. To my knowledge he only criticised Lieberman who missed it for a fundraiser not a vote. It should be noted that none of Edwards, Gephardt, Kerry, or Lieberman were going to show due to a prior agreement by them not to debate. Only after Mfume got angry did Kerry and Edwards show.

[VoteClark]

5. There are plenty of thread in here.

Look under "Missing Votes":

To me, I don't know if Dean said it directly or not. But his supporters are. There was another one that attacked Gephardt for missing the Head Start vote. I am not going to look for it. But as long as you agree it is wrong to do that, that is good enough for me. If Dean doesn't do it, that is great. If he does do it, you have already agreed it is wrong to do so. So tell the other Dean supporters not to attack them for missing forums while voting, or missing votes while campaigning. That is all I ask. Thanks!


:kick:
J4Clark

[dsc]

11. I defended Kucinich

and to a lesser extent Gephardt when Mfume leveled his charges. I didn't defend Lieberman since it wasn't a vote for which he missed that forum.

I will say that missing 74% of ones votes is a cause for concern. By comparision Kucinich missed none. Missing some votes is reasonable but that many seems pretty bad. He owes his constituents and explanation. Generally these forums are scheduled with Congress in mind. That is why the HRC forum was scheduled for the July recess and the Labor one when it was. I don't think Dean should be bringing this up but eventually someone will.

[sfecap]

4. The voting record of elected officials is fair play.

This is also a race for the nomination. All parties involved will draw attention to their strengths and attempt to exploit their opponents weaknesses. The voting records of Senators and Congressmen will get scrutinized by the media, the opposition and the voters. The fact that some of the candidates do not cast votes on issues they promote is a question that will get asked.

In your case, you seem to post a lot of marginal statements about Howard Dean, mostly for flame bait.

You do Gen. Clark a disservice, IMO, but if that it how you think it is best to promote your (non)candidate, have at it.

[VoteClark]

7. Your double standard is hurts Dean more.

I don't like Dean and make no bones about it. But you saying that a candidate must be at a forum and take a vote at the same time is a low blow. That is sour grapes, and I call foul. My candidate will not have to deal with this. But for you to say that the candidates that hold office now must resign and hand their seats to Republicans to run for office is shallow considering that both Senate seats would go to the Republicans. You are willing to hand two senate seats to the Repukes in order to get a leg up for Dean. That is bad for the party.


:kick:
J4Clark

[Egnever]

9. who had to be at a forum and vote at the same time?

?

[sfecap]

13. Please point out the part where I said that

candidates have to resign. I guess I missed it...

I merely said that voting records and attendance will be (and always have been) an issue.

You lose all credibility when you make allegations or statements that simply are false.

[unfrigginreal]

6. Stop trying to act so innocent

I have always been leaning Clark but supporting Dean since he had announced. You have been tyrannical with your smears of Dean. I'm just disappointed that the mods haven't figured you out yet.

[VoteClark]

10. Stop attacking me personally and stocking me Unfriggenreal!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Is that all you do, just follow me around calling me names. Geez, go do somthing else. I have never put anyone on iggy before, but I will you if all you are going to do is personally attack me and call me a Repuke. Sorry, but there is a far cry from questioning Dean and you personally attacking me as a person. Calling someone names, inculding a Republican is against the DU rules. Making fun of a candidate, or questioning them, or providing links about them, positive or negative, is not against DU rules.

Stop these personal attacks against me, or I will send all your attacks on me personally, which is about 5 or 6, and a copy of the rules that shows where this is wrong in the rules to the mods.

Moderators allow opinions about candidates, they don't allow stocking and personal attacks against other DUers, which is what you are doing. STOP STOCKING ME!

:kick:
J4Clark

[unfrigginreal]

17. I'm not [stocking] you VoteClark

As long as you continue to try and discredit Dean, then I'll try and discredit YOU! Uh Oh! I can't do that because it's a personal attack on a DU'er. Well, I don't know about that. If that's the rules then I guess I'll have to lighten up on you but it sure seems to give you an unfair advantage.

I'm a Dean and Clark supporter and people like you send me over the edge. Your whole schtick is to condemn Dean, knowing that a Clark supporter won't fire back. As far as I'm concerned your no better than the infiltration we see from that other board.

On top of that it pains me to believe that I could find myself in agreement with you as far as a candidate. It really makes me feel STUPID.

So, having said all of that, have a nice night, and realize that I'll do my best to give you hell yet avoid being censored, because you want to be a snitch.

[VoteClark]

22. What about this post concerns Dean?

Nothing, therefore, you are stocking and harrasing me. I have not said anything attacking you as a person. Yes, I don't like Dean. About 1/3 of Clark supporters don't. So what. Just because they pretend to buddy with you doesn't mean that really like Dean. I know many CLark supporters that use to support Dean, but after a while, they were distrubed by him and came to Clark.

If you like Clark, that is great and wonderful. But even Republicans like Clark, so that isn't much common ground. And ought to be evidence to you that he is the person we should have as the nominee. I know very few people that don't like him. On C-Span only one person called that didn't like Clark. It was an old lady that thought that Clark was not Ike, so she couldn't vote for him, whatever that meant.

If you also liked Clark, then you would not attack people trying to promote him in posts that are only about him. I haven't attacked you, so don't attack me, it is common curtesy. Attack the issues and the points I make, not me, you might gain better traction for your Dean.


:kick:
J4Clark

[unfrigginreal]

23. You miss the point , my GOOD friend

I don't want to attack Clark. Why would I, he's not attacking Dean, you are. So as long as You attack Dean than I think it's fair for me to attack you. What do you think?

[VoteClark]

28. Think about you said, really think hard.

Because you don't want to attack someone you get to attack me?
That is what you said! Unreal.

No, what it means is that Dean gets to attack me.

If you attack me, can't I attack you? Well, yes I could. So then I am attacking you and Dean. What progress is that? I am still attacking Dean.

I will tell you what. Dean can attack me all he wants. And if becomes a DUer, I can't attack him anymore. When Dean is a member a DU, and I am running for President he can attack me also.

By your reasoning, every time a newspaper reporter writes an article you should attack them. Humm, what does this sound like to you?

Could it be fascism?

Dean is a Public figure, with that, I can say what I want. End of story. If he is no longer a public figure, I can't.

Address the issues and defend Dean, attacking the person does not change the correctness or incorrectness of my opinions.

I will not attack you personally, and still have not, nor will I sink to that level. And your personal attacks on me will only increase the number of my negitive opinions of Dean, and more posts.


:kick:
J4Clark

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[VoteClark]

44. Defend your candidate

That is the best way. But as Labor Day approaches, and the more Dean gets caught saying things like "I never said I wanted to raise the age to 70" the less I have to worry. The Democratic Party is safe from Dean. You do what you want to do, but attacking me doesn't help you or your candidate. I would suggest that you try to counter my points, articles, and opinions, rather then attacking me or trying to falsly paint me as a Repuke or a Freeper. You know very well that I am a Democrat and a dedicated supporter of Clark, who will be the Democratic Nominee. The more people that hear Dean speak, the less I need to post on him. He is only running twice as high as Sharpton, he can't even take on Lieberman now. Once Clark declares, which is soon, I will not even mention Dean, and nobody else will either.:)


:kick:
J4Clark

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tedoll78]

38. You can say stuff about him, of course.

But committing libel is a whole other story.

[acerbic]

39. Yes... I'm very disappointed that DU rules allow

...totally unlimited aggressive, outrageous and obsessively repeated lies about Democratic politicians who now just happen to be Presidential candidates.

I am still attacking Dean.

In normal times it would just get one booted back to freepland...

[tedoll78]

40. Well, is libel against the rules?

He's made some really low unsubstantiated claims against Dean. See below.

[VoteClark]

45. Please, no, it is not Libel

It is not printed in a magazine or newspaper. It is more like Slander, and Slander doesn't count against a Public Figure. You need to take some media courses.

[tedoll78]

26. I'd characterize his smears more as

"obsessive."

But I am glad to see him building-up Clark in the other thread.

[Egnever]

8. I think they should do thier jobs

Sry but if they have the message the people want to hear they will have no trouble getting it out once congress goes on break, Boohooo but i have to campaign doesnt get it.

They are in office to vote not campaign. Theres plenty of time for that.

[VoteClark]

12. OK for Dean to do but not others running against him?

I fail to understand why it is OK for Dean to miss half a year as Governor, but not for members of Congress. Could this be because they are not Dean?


:kick:
J4Clark

[sfecap]

14. Would you be so kind as to post Gov. Dean's

attendance record? (Now that you have alleged that he "missed half a year as Governor")

Thanks.

[VoteClark]

15. Dean was gone 100 days his last year as governor.

If you don't know that you don't the man you are supporting. I am not going to find information and links on your candidate. You want to know, you do the reseach. Don't believe me, that is fine, I don't care. But it shows ignorance of your candidate and his past. You should know the show shoe size of the man you support if you are going to attach your name to his.


:kick:
J4Clark

[sfecap]

16. I do feel sorry for you.

It's a shame that you are unable to engage in a resonable, rational conversation without resorting to innuendo and falsities.

You make a statement, yet are unable or unwilling to back it up. Once again, please prove your allegation, or withdraw it. Would General Clark behave like you do? After all, isn't he selling integrity?

I would hope that your candidate (if and when he announces or even reveals his party affiliation) has more character and class than you. Actually, I know that he does...

You really are a piece of work.

[VoteClark]

24. What does it matter to you?

If I actually spent the 20 minutes to get the travel schedule of Dean showing that Dean was gone more then 100 days from Vermont during his last year as Governor to drum support for a Presidential bid, you would not care.

You don't care about the fact that he faked a spinal problem and went skiing to get out of the draft dispite the evidence presented.

You don't care about the fact that he stood on national televison and said he never said he wanted to raise the age on social security to 70.

You don't care that he signed a contract to bring Vermont into the Texas-Maine-Vermont Compact that dumped Nuclear Waste on poor Hispanics in Texas dispite the links offered.

You don't care that he has switched his positions on numerous issues, dispite the evidence


So why would I waste the time to get the schedule for you? Would it change your mind? I would be hard pressed to think it would.

In terms of judging a candidate based on the character of his supporters, I would hope you would realize that means Dean would be judged upon the worse character of his 79,000 supporters, including yourself. So I would not wish for that to be the case on any candidate.


:kick:
J4Clark

[tedoll78]

29. That's dispicable.

"You don't care about the fact that he faked a spinal problem and went skiing to get out of the draft dispite the evidence presented."

OK, that's it. Pissed me off now.

Show me where he FAKED a spinal problem. Demonstrate for the world, right here and now. Back-up your words.

Exactly how does one fake fused vertebrae?

I've seen low on this board.. you've hit it now.

[VoteClark]

30. Here is your link:

Russert: Let me turn to a Boston Globe article about the military service during the Vietnam War as it applies to you and I’ll put it on the screen. “Dean did not serve in the military during the Vietnam War because he received a medical deferment for an unfused vertebra in his back. Several articles in the last year have noted that after his deferment, Dean spent 80 days skiing in Aspen, Colorado.” And then The Aspen Times wrote this profile. “In Howard Dean, we could have a president who spent the winter of 1971-72...pounding bumps on Aspen Mountain. ‘I paid $250 for a ski pass and skied 80 days on Ajax. It was the greatest mountain. ... I went to work pouring concrete for a small company.’” Why were you able to ski on Ajax Mountain, pounding your back, and pouring concrete, and not serve in the military? http://www.msnbc.com/news/912159.asp



Yeah, pretty low.


:kick:
J4Clark

[tedoll78]

32. No, again..

I'll say it slow this time..

Proof.. that.. he .. faked.. it.

Do you even know the Army medical exam story?

The Army summoned him to show-up for his exam in Kentucky. He went. The Army doctor - NOT one of his own choosing - determined that his fused vertebra posed a POTENTIAL health problem in the future. With these sorts of things, it was the Army's policy to turn-away recruits on this basis. I'll repeat.. a POTENTIAL health problem.

One more time: a POTENTIAL health problem.

Got it? PO-TEN-TIAL. Say it with me: PO-TEN-TIAL.

HE didn't make this decision. The Army did.

But of course, because his name isn't "Clark", shame on him for living his life after the Army made its decision, right?

Consider yourself educated.

[VoteClark]

35. I got some beach front property for you to buy in AZ, real cheap, honest!

Going skiing and pounding concrete is proof. Read Dean's reponse. He said his back did hurt since then. So I happen to think that if someone that is going to Medical School in a University full of anti-war doctors he would not have any trouble finding someone that would give him a pass.

I also don't think a pre-med student would go skiing and pound concrete if he is rich and didn't have to. That would be pretty stupid.

Numerous cases of people claiming back injuries have been found guilty of fraud by video tapes of these people doing such things.

By Dean's own admission he says he experiences back problems. Of course 1/3 of adults do. So he either was moronic to go skiing and pounding concrete with a bad back, or he really didn't have a back problem.

Why he went to Kentucky to get a physical test is a clue. Not many people in New York went to Kentucky for this kind of test. Plenty of other places nearby that he would have gone to under normal circumstances.

:kick:
J4Clark

[tedoll78]

36. Are you slow?

Look-up the word "potential." He had a "potential" back problem. Not a "definite" back problem.

BTW, I'm in radiography school; you can't fake an unfused vertebra. That's how I know you were lying.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11710-2003Jul5.html?nav=hptop_tb

http://slate.msn.com/id/2083791/

http://www.dvmx.com/deanbio.html


So again.. let's try this again.. show me PROOF (do I need to define that word for you?) that he deliberately acted to deceive the Army's medical professionals. Prooooooof.. Ridiculing me with titles does nothing to your assertion. In fact, it speaks volumes that you're avoiding the proof topic.

Anyone can toss-around accusations. It's a cheap tactic. Proooooof. Hablas ingles? Proof.

[VoteClark]

42. We all have potential back problems

I have potential neck problems. I have potential arm problems.

Give me a break. How do not have potential back problems?

Gee, I have potential to get in get in a car wreck too. Maybe we shouldn't drive.

You buy whatever you want. But when someone says they have back problems and goes skiing, that is all I need. End of story.


:kick:
J4Clark

[DannyRed]

43. ummm, no

logic check:

1) the army called him to appear for his physical

2) he went

3) he was found by the army doctors to have an unfused vertebrae

4) he was therefore disqualified from serving in the army based on army criteria

5) that vertebrae means that if he had volunteered, they would have refused him, regardless of how good or fit he felt

6) the army, therefore, rejected him, not the other way around.

7) since he felt ok at the time, and since he was a young doofus who though the was invincible and immortal (like all 15 to 25 year old men), he went skiing.

8) He hurt his back doing it, apparently...

voteclark,

your attacks and refusal to admit when you are wrong do your love for Clark no service, and make you look like a snake.

Dean did his duty, which was to appear for his physical.

He did not meet the army's physical requirements.

That is not his own doing.

[tedoll78]

46. You can say 'end of story'..

.. but you still - very tellingly - fail to show proof.

BTW.. what makes you so much more qualified to determine that his back problem didn't stand in the way of him serving?
Are you claiming that the Army doc was unqualified? If so, do you have evidence of this?
Are you a doctor? Got an "MD" behind your name?
Have YOU looked at his back? Looked at an x-ray of it?
Do you know what an unfused vertebra is, and how it can affect one's health as compared to other back afflictions?

Another question, this one's a biggie: who made the decision that he was unfit for service: Dean himself, or the Army? If you answer just one question from this conversation, let it be this question.

Look, anyone can throw-around a claim like that when he or she is desperate and/or frustrated. Your refusal to back-up that claim though with cold, hard facts speaks volumes. Don't show me photos of his skiiing trip or his concrete pouring.. we've been through that, and it proves nothing of any alleged deception. Show me the process by which he sought to deceive the Army's medical personnel. Step-by-step, what measures did he take?

I'm calling you on your lie.

I'm calling you on this because I don't want you to get away with it. You've made a serious claim against this man's character, and you've produced NOTHING, NADA, ZILCH. I don't think I'm being unreasonable in asking for CONCRETE PROOF. And I think it speaks volumes that you're tap-dancing around instead of delivering, instead of backing-up you word. So I challenge you to produce.

I will continue to bump this until you produce or admit you have nothing. Let's let everyone see this.

[VoteClark]

49. Back yourself into a corner, OK, but you are not going to like it.

Let me run down the facts from Dean’s own mouth.

First, You said he got an exam from Kentucky.

“The Army summoned him to show-up for his exam in Kentucky. He went. The Army doctor - NOT one of his own choosing -” You lie.

Not true, he got it from Ft. Hamilton, in New York

Dean said, “I went to my physical in Ft. Hamilton in Brooklyn” and “I had a draft induction physical in Ft. Hamilton. I think it was, perhaps, during my senior year. I don’t remember the exact date.”

Second: You said he had a Potential Problem, not an actual problem.
“I'll repeat.. a POTENTIAL health problem. One more time: a POTENTIAL health problem. Got it? PO-TEN-TIAL. Say it with me: PO-TEN-TIAL.”

You lie again.

Not true according to Dean. Dean said, “I had a previous back problem, which is evidently congenital, which prevented me from doing any sustained running, a problem that I’ve had since then, since that time, which requires that when I get out of the car I often have some pains up and down my leg and back and so forth.”

Third, you never explained how he could go skiing for 80 days and pound concrete with a bad back when he claims he can't even get out of a car or go running without "pains up and down" his back and legs.

I admit, I got my facts mixed up on the false information you gave me. But those are facts according to Dean.

Now you tell me, show me, how Dean can go skiing for 80 days on Mt. Ajax if he had a bad back and pain up and down his legs just getting out of his car?

Here is your facts, here is the evidence. He says he has bad back problems. He doesn’t remember exactly when he went got the exam. He went skiing for 80 days. He pounded concrete. But his back was so bad it hurt him to run and he got a “Y” deferment from the Army because of it. His daddy had connections. He was a med-student. Now, if that doesn't’t spell bullsh*t. Nothing does! Stop lying about your candidate. You got all the facts wrongs and continue to misrepresent him. You words contridict him. Now, keep bumping this up so people know you are wrong about his back problem and where he got his exam.
The BS is worse than saying he dodged the draft because he disagreed with the war. That I can understand.


:kick:
J4Clark

[tedoll78]

50. Okay..

so I pulled the wrong state form my memory. Big whoop. The geography is incidental, I was mistaken.

----------
Russert: Let me turn to a Boston Globe article about the military service during the Vietnam War as it applies to you and I’ll put it on the screen. “Dean did not serve in the military during the Vietnam War because he received a medical deferment for an unfused vertebra in his back. Several articles in the last year have noted that after his deferment, Dean spent 80 days skiing in Aspen, Colorado.” And then The Aspen Times wrote this profile. “In Howard Dean, we could have a president who spent the winter of 1971-72...pounding bumps on Aspen Mountain. ‘I paid $250 for a ski pass and skied 80 days on Ajax. It was the greatest mountain. ... I went to work pouring concrete for a small company.’” Why were you able to ski on Ajax Mountain, pounding your back, and pouring concrete, and not serve in the military?
Dean: First of all, let me say that there’s only one person who’s contending for the Democratic nominee for president who did serve in the military, nomination for president, and then let me explain the circumstances of my draft classification. I went to my physical in Ft. Hamilton in Brooklyn, which was a great deal like the scene out of Alice’s Restaurant in terms of the different sizes, shapes, colors, and all kinds of people were there. I was given an examination. I had a previous back problem, which is evidently congenital, which prevented me from doing any sustained running, a problem that I’ve had since then, since that time, which requires that when I get out of the car I often have some pains up and down my leg and back and so forth. But I have been able to exercise at—ry vigorous athletic life except for some things. One of those is long-distance running, which is how the problem came to my attention in the first place. I noticed the pain when I was in high school running track. In any case, the—after the physical, I received a one Y deferment. That’s how the United States government decided that they would use me. One Y deferment means you can only be called in times of national emergency. I didn’t have anything to do with choosing any draft deferment. I didn’t try to get out of the draft. I had a physical. The United States government said this is your classification. I’m not responsible for that. I didn’t have anything to do with the decision. That was their choice.
Russert: A military physical.
Dean: Yeah. I had a military physical. I had a draft induction physical in Ft. Hamilton. I think it was, perhaps, during my senior year. I don’t remember the exact date.
Russert: If called, you would have served?
Dean: Of course.
-------------

There's his own words. Now, what evidence do you have to the contrary?

http://www.msnbc.com/news/912159.asp

And, once again, how exactly does one fake a fused vertebra? Your answer on this one (if you ever give one.. I'm noticing a tendency to deflect) should be very entertaining. Is it his fault if it was the army's policy to refuse those with such a condition?

That car pain, the pain that has been experienced "since that time" - nice spin. I'm not a physiologist (maybe you are), but it is possible for a person to have a kind of back problem where running may hurt but skiing may not. Both activities involve different types of movement. Ask your doctor.

Still, this isn't pertinent to your accusation. You said he faked a back problem, and you've produced absolutely no concrete evidence of this. Every time I call you on it, avoid avoid avoid.

What measures did he take? Something of substance would be beneficial to your case that he deliberately frauded the army's medical officials. I'm willing to bet that you're just like Dubya on this one.. all hat and no cattle.

Show us some of those connections his daddy allegedly had. That's a new one.. Any proof?

And BTW, can you cite the sources for those quotes? This topic will come-up again, and I want to be ready for those desperate/frustrated persons willing to lie about it.

Dean showed-up. He was a step away from getting onto the bus to serving his country. They examined him. They turned him away. And you have no evidence of any medical fraud. I've looked up and down the thread. No proof.

I was wrong on some details that I should have checked. But, like some, I admit when I'm wrong. BUMP. For everyone to see.

[VoteClark]

51. Why do bury yourself like this?

You keep on stating WRONG information about your candidate. Why do you keep doing this?

You ask: "And, once again, how exactly does one fake a fused vertebra?"

The Boston Globe reported that he was given a deferment for an "unfused vertebra" in his back. Not a "fused vertebra" as your claim.
Second, he doesn't have to fake it. He can have a doctor write a note and give it to the Military Personnel. His medical records are sealed. Easy to lie when you don't open your records to show it.

You mess up again. "He was a step away from getting onto the bus to serving his country. They examined him. They turned him away."

Nope, sorry, you lie again. He was in High School when he went for the exam. Since when did they send kids in High School off to war? I have a hard time believing that someone can lift and pound concrete and go skiing for 80 days and not be able to get past a physical exam either.

If you have also been to a military exam you would know they don't do xrays to check for unfused vertebra. Unless Dean was screaming in pain when being asked to bend down or there was an obvious curvature of the spine would they notice anything wrong. Every man in the army has one physical problem or another, some much more serious than a partly fused vertebra.

How did the Military find out about the unfused vertebra if they don't test for it?

"That car pain, the pain that has been experienced "since that time" - nice spin. I'm not a physiologist (maybe you are), but it is possible for a person to have a kind of back problem where running may hurt but skiing may not. Both activities involve different types of movement. Ask your doctor."

I am not even going to dignify this with an answer it is so obviously a desperate trial lawyer move. Climbing up a mountain and lifting and pounding concrete doesn't hurt your back but running and getting out of a car does. Please!




:kick:
J4Clark

[tedoll78]

52. Again..

Fused, unfused, location of the exam.. I may get the details wrong, but my challenge to you for some evidence on your accusation still stands.

Quoting you, originally:
"You don't care about the fact that he faked a spinal problem and went skiing to get out of the draft dispite the evidence presented."

Quoting you, again:
"Second, he doesn't have to fake it."

You accuse him of faking. And now you say he didn't need to fake? Make up your mind. Which is it? Hmm?

You say "he can have a doctor write a note." You've been relying pretty heavily on conjecture, and I'm calling on you - once again - for actual evidence. You made the accusation, you have the burden of proof. How did he fake it (assuming you still claim so)? Anyone with an agenda can spout-off accusations. I'm asking you to back them up - that's not such a horrible thing to do.

During the waiting period though, I am noticing a pattern.

You make an accusation.
I defend him and get a minor detail wrong in the process.
You jump on the detail and conveniently evade producing evidence to back-up your original claim.
I repeat my request for evidence.
You avoid.
I repeat the request for evidence.
More tap dancing.

Let's try it again. Any evidence that he made efforts to decieve the docs?

Let's see how many times I have to ask you to get some actual evidence, rather than the tired fluff. BUMP.

[Forkboy]

55. Another bump for tedoll

:kick:

[Pavlovs DiOgie]

53. And you wonder why

your reputation at DU is that of an instigator. You have very little, if any, credibility with many (most?) people here, then you whine about not being taken seriously. I've seen a lot of that tantruming in my students. If you want people to seriously look at Clark, you should have posted your hundreds of threads about Clark, and not about bashing Dean. Then you'd be able to convince someone your non-candidate is worth looking at.

[acerbic]

54. Here's more to wonder:

A critter posts almost nothing but vicious lying (counter)attacks against the Democratic candidate who has attacked Dumbya the most aggressively and "supports" someone who isn't even a Democratic candidate...
Could make you :think:, eh?

[dsc]

21. Last I checked

365/2 is 182.5 which is far more than 100. How did he miss half his last year as governor in this case? He could have been gone 100 days and been gone weekends only.

[VoteClark]

31. Maybe

I am sure most conferences are on the weekends and Holidays.
Whatever helps you sleep at night in supporting the man. I am sure we can come up with all kinds of reasons not be in the state.

:kick:
J4Clark

[dsc]

57. and you are plain out being dishonest

He wasn't gone half the year like you said which is my point. It should be noted that Senators routinely get 3 days home time a week (which people like Kerry, Edwards, etc. can use to campaign) Dennis Kucinich has missed not one vote at all. I haven't a clue as to how he did that. But given those facts I do have a difficult time figuring out how Gephardt missed so many votes.

[Egnever]

20. Because dean didnt miss any votes

His job was not compromised one bit. His duties were carried out to the people of vermont. Thier business was taken care of. Legislation that needed to be passed or turned down was passed or turned down.

Unless you can show me were something was not taken care of or acted on due to his absence. Your comparison falls flat. I can certainly show you where these congresmen were derilict in representing thier constituents.

[tedoll78]

27. Is it possible to run a state..

from the outside of that state? Yes.

[MercutioATC]

58. Dean does NOT attack Kucinich for missing votes...

...because , unlike the rest of the candidates, Kucinich manages to campaign, make it to forums, and have a perfect attendance record in Congress.

If Kucinich can do it, why can't the rest?

[Tinoire]

18. I don't have much feeling for Clark one way or the other

Our entire involvement in Kosovo has bothered me for years and I think that colors my view of him.

That said, he really is one hand-some devil with a terrific, genuine-looking smile and that gets me everytime.

I would never have thought to support a retired General or someone who hasn't even declared themselves in either party yet; but, because of your insistence in supporting him, the numerous articles which were literally thrust in my face at DU, and the passionate support he's getting from some very good people, I must admit I'm more receptive to him now.

What is it about Clark that so excites you?

I've had people swear up and down to me that he's a Liberal and being me convincing evidence from interviews with him. I don't see how anyone could climb that high in officer ranks and remain a liberal but it is not impossible so I'm quietly accepting that he really could be. His stand on gays in the military is certainly liberal and very surprising for someone of his rank!

So, in a nutshell... What is it about Clark that excites YOU so much? Forget electability and all that- I don't care about that because we the people determine electability (not saying no because he would be but I just don't care). What is it about his issues and stance on them that gets you so passionate?

I'll look at his web-site some other time when it's not so late at night.

Please share. This is how I get to best understand the other candidates.

Peace ;)

[VoteClark]

19. He makes me feel safe

Clark makes me feel safe. Americans feel they have to choose between domestic freedoms or national security.

Clark gives us both. He undstands war, so he can deal with foreign threats with experience and understanding.

He is also all for the freedoms that we have and wishes to keep them. He is a social liberal. He doesn't hate gays, or women's rights, or equal rights for minorities.

He is smart and well educated. I would feel more comfortable knowing that the President is protecting my rights as a citizen while also protecting me from foreign threats.

He is intelligent enough to make decisions and think them through. He would be the second most educated President ever elected.

He is not a hypocrit. He follows through. He has the respect to be able to say this is the right time and place for war, or this is not the right time and place for war.

I love the man because he is tough but yet sensitive. He has respect, and for men and women in uniform, and the rights of the men and women he protects in the uniform.

I agree with you that war is horrible and evil. Nobody hates war more than the men and women in uniform. They are the ones that suffer, and are killed and wounded, and see their friends and fellow soldiers get killed and wounded. But the war in Kosovo had to be fought. What better man to lead it then the man who hates war the most. Clark personally knows the loss and destruction of war. He knows what it is like to lose a friend in battle. He knows what it is like to risk your life to save another solider. He knows what it is like to see someone die in front of his eyes. He even knows what it is like to be shot, four times. He knows what it is like to have to re-learn how to walk, or use your right hand again.

He would not risk the lives the soldiers without an absolute need to do so. BUt he would if he thought he needed too. Unlike Bush, who uses are soldiers like plastic army men to gain higher ratings and/or to get more oil. He will use real caution in how he engages our troops abroad.

The Kosovo War had to be fought because Milosovic was slaughtering millions of innocent people on the basis of their race. Even to this day they are still finding mass graveyards of Albanians slaughtered under Molosevic's reign, men, women, and babies included.

There is no such thing as a "perfect war". But Clark is the only General in US history not to lose the life of a single man under his command. The reason why is because he fought in a way to protect the lives of the people under his care. Yes, innocent people died on the ground, but that was not the fault of Clark. Because of this war, 1.5 million Albanians were saved from the ethnic slaughter of Molosevic, and not a single soldier's life was lost. I think that counts for something.

I like Clark. He gives me the security I need. He is has the intelligence to do the job, the honor to fill the shoes, and the heart to make sure it is done right. To me, it is about the man more then any single issue.

:kick:
J4Clark

[DannyRed]

25. You are engaging in....

some pretty extreme exaggeration.

"The Kosovo War had to be fought because Milosovic was slaughtering millions of innocent people on the basis of their race. Even to this day they are still finding mass graveyards of Albanians slaughtered under Molosevic's reign, men, women, and babies included."

Millions?

No, you are wrong. First, the wrongs in that conflict occurred on both sides, with the KLA (a CIA supported, Al Qaeda associated, gun running, drug running group of thugs) engaging numerous atrocities against Serbs in Kosovo...and the Serbs doing nasty stuff to Albanians in Kosovo and Serbia.

Second, MILLIONS were not slaughtered or being slaughtered, and many of the so-called mass-graves you talk about were never found. Some were, but many were not.

Third, the campaign was successful in some lights, but was a humanitarian, environmental, economic, and social disaster. Depleted Uranium was used extensively, and is now showing up in the water table of the land we supposedly liberated. Large numbers of civilians were killed by our attacks, including refugees.

Clark was involved in some really bad decisions about where and when to bomb, who to bomb, and has been accused of nearly sparking a fight with Russia over the airport occupation.

Your gushing enthusiasm is noted, and is appreciated, and I can see why you like Clark.

But your panting is nearly audible, and you do the SAME thing to Clark that you have been doing to Dean, which is erase the humanity and reality of the candidate, paint a false charicature and thereby degrade the real person. In the case of Dean you demonize him, setting yourself up to look like a fool at best, and a snake at worst. In the case of Clark you deify him, setting yourself up to get really disappointed, hurt, or confused when he fails to meet the godlike criteria for success you have set for him in your own mind.

All these things, coupled with your persistent and atrocious spelling, grammar, and logical/reasoning abilities lead me to believe that you are very young, overly enthusiastic, and just getting interested in politics.

In which case, I would personally like to apologize for getting on your case so badly, and would like to invite you to read more than you write, have a little more respect, and learn from the people here who are professionals.

[Tinoire]

34. Aw C'Mon DannyRed

What people here are professionals?

I prefer the gushing enthusiasm of someone who's heart is touched by a candidate and who will then take the time to research him and share with passion than the DU professionals who wheel out their unsightly charts only to declare "X is unelectable" (usually everyone is unelectable except their candidate- have you noticed?).

I agree with you about Kosovo and Serbia but ours isn't yet an accepted position, not even at DU and I'm not sure we can lay the blame for that at General Clark's feet. I did, at one time, express my HORROR that any Liberal would even consider fielding a military General but I am beginning to wonder about Clark. Let's put it this way, he's inspiring a lot of support and there must be a reason.

Who knows? Life is so full of surprises.

[Tinoire]

33. Thanks for that passionate response!

You are right about military men hating war more than anyone else (though that really only applies to good military men and from what you & other Clark supporters have posted in various threads, he certainly seems that way).

I don't agree with you about Kosovo because I was in the military and followed that entire appalling conflict from an intel point of view and was appalled at what I found and why we were there (oil once again played a big part); also I have a few friends who experienced the US bombings of their homes and villages but most people would agree with you and I certainly don't knock you for that reason. Wars have become so ugly and greedy that politicians go to great lengths to convince us that all their wars are just. Clinton, and I do admire him, was a master of this. From what I've heard, Clark did take good care of the men/women under his command and that's admirable. Most Generals are REMFs (Rear Echelon MFs) who could care less about the real well-being of their troops and Clark, I know, did care. That already says a lot about the man.

Keep us posted on him and the issues. I'll try to catch him next timehe's on TV.

Peace

Clark/Kucinich maybe? One never knows!

[VoteClark]

41. N/P Tinoire

I could see any war either way. You may be right about Kosovo. To be honest, I don't think we know the 1/2 of that war.

Clark also fought in the Iraqi War I and Vietnam. I think both of those wars were bogus. However, I don't blame the men and women in uniform.

To me it is the man. I know that Clark is a good man, a good soldier, a good citizen, a good husband. I know he is intelligent, well educated, and well groomed for leadership. He has experience in running bases, budgets, and wars. He is also good under pressure and excellent at debates.

If this was 1992, or 2020, I would not be for Clark. But right now, we are at war, and the Democrats lack serious credibility amoung the public in the area of National Security, military matters, and gun rights. He would close that hole very well with him. I think we need Clark and his skills in the White House from 2005-2013 with the problems we will face.

I also agree with you on the notion of a General being President. That is so 1800's style. There were 8 generals in the past. Washington, Harrison, Grant, Hayes, Garfield, Peirce, Taylor and Ike. Only two were any good, Washington and Ike. Three, Garfeild, Taylor,and Harrison died too earily to tell. But Hayes and Grant were horrible Presidents. I laughed at a friend of mine that said he wanted him for President. The idea of a General for President, get real! But that just exposed my stupidity. After nobody entered the race and got my goat, I looked at Clark after I heard about him on the news, and then read more, eventually, I became totally convinced.

But Clark is not an empty suit running on a war. In fact, that is what I dislike about him, that he spent 38 years in the military. It is what he has done inspite of that that makes me want him.

He is a best selling author, chair and founder of Leadership for America, and on a board to find an alternative car that runs on something other than oil. He graduated first in his class at West Point, and in High School, and was a Roades Scholar.

His Dad died when he was only two years old. The man's life is full of major disappointments and major victories. I know he is not a God. But he is someone more then special to me. I also know that he has some postions that I disagree with. Like on guns, I hate guns. But he owns 21 of them and is pro-gun. But I am overlooking that for everything else. It is the overall man that I agree with.

Another odd tidbit about him, he can do a really good impersonation of Bush. That should be a riot on the Campaign trail. :)

:kick:
J4Clark

[indigo32]

56. You have discredited yourself to the point

where I'm not interested.

[VoteClark]

60. Your loss!

Have fun voting for loser Bush in 04'


:kick:
J4Clark

[indigo32]

61. I would never vote for Bush

I didn't mean to imply I wouldn't support him as a nominee... I only meant that you've done him no credit in attempting to get me to consider him in the primaries. This is all, of course, assuming he throws his hat in the ring.

[tedoll78]

59. BUMP.

bump-a-roni!