guppie9
New member
I know you are, but what am I???
DO you support the minute men
- Thread starter Delw
- Start date
guppie9
New member
Neiner....neiner...neiner
guppie9
New member
Whew....I feel all better now!!!!
Thank you!
Thank you!
Ithaca 37
New member
Guppie, What a waste of my time. You're the next idiot on "ignore".
Here you go Buzzer.. Let's start here..
It was reported today that retired four-star General, ardent critic of Bush's national security policies, telegenic TV commentator, and recently declared Democrat Wesley Clark will enter the crowded presidential race.
Democrats believe that Clark, as a former military officer, could make the party more viable on foreign affairs than it's been since a general named George Marshall was containing Communism under the command of a president named Harry Truman. (That's the conventional wisdom, though the staggering cost of the badly bungled Iraqi occupation has diminished the Republican advantage on defense no matter who runs against Bush.)
While media commentary on Clark's prospective candidacy has been almost entirely favorable--even adulatory--it's worth looking back at a forgotten chapter in his military biography that occurred when Clark was Supreme Allied Commander of NATO and Commander In Chief for the US European Command. Call it Clark's "High Noon" showdown. It's an incident that deserves scrutiny because Clark's claim to be an experienced leader in national security matters is tied, in significant part, to his record in the Balkans.
On June 12, 1999, in the immediate aftermath of NATO's air war against Yugoslavia, a small contingent of Russian troops dashed to occupy the Pristina airfield in Kosovo. Clark was so anxious to stop the Russians that he ordered an airborne assault to confront these units--an order which could have unleashed the most frightening showdown with Moscow since the end of the Cold War. Hyperbole? You can decide. But British General Michael Jackson, the three-star general and commander of K-FOR, the international force organized and commanded by NATO to enforce an agreement in Kosovo, told Clark: "Sir, I'm not starting world war three for you," when refusing to accept his order to prevent Russian forces from taking over the airport. (Jackson was rightly worried that any precipitous NATO action could risk a confrontation with a nuclear- armed Russia and upset the NATO-led peacekeeping plan just getting underway with the withdrawal of Serbian forces from Kosovo.)
After being rebuffed by Jackson, Clark, according to various media reports at the time, then ordered Admiral James Ellis, the American in charge of NATO's southern command, to use Apache helicopters to occupy the airfield. Ellis didn't comply--replying that British General Jackson would oppose such a move. Had Clark's orders been followed, the subsequent NATO- negotiated compromise with the Russians--a positive element in the roller- coaster relationship between Moscow and Washington, which eventually incorporated Russian troops into peacekeeping operations--might well have been undermined.
In the end, Russian reinforcements were stopped when Washington persuaded Hungary, a new NATO member, to refuse to allow Russian aircraft to fly over its territory. Meanwhile, Jackson was appealing to senior British authorities, who persuaded Clinton Administration officials--some of whom had previously favored occupying the airport--to drop support for Clark's hotheaded plan. As a result, when Clark appealed to Washington, he was rebuffed at the highest levels. His virtually unprecedented showdown with a subordinate subsequently prompted hearings by the Armed Forces Services Committee, which raised sharp questions about NATO's chain of command.
As a Guardian article said at the time, "The episode triggers reminscences of the Korean War. Then, General Douglas MacArthur, commander of the UN force, wanted to invade, even nuke, China, until he was brought to heel by President Truman." Of course, the comparison is inexact. The stakes were not as high in the Balkans, but Clark's hip-shooting willingness to engage Russian troops in a risky military showdown at the end of the war is instructive nonetheless.
Indeed, it is believed in military circles that Clark's Pristina incident was the final straw that led the Pentagon to relieve him of his duties (actually retire him earlier). Clark had also angered the Pentagon brass--and Secretary of Defense William Cohen in particular--with his numerous media appearances and repeated public requests for more weapons and for more freedom to wage the Kosovo war the way he wanted (with ground troops). At one point, according to media reports, Defense Secretary Cohen, through Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Hugh Shelton, told Clark to "get your $*)Q!#@$ face off of TV."
In recent years, it's only fair to note, Clark has insisted in interviews and in his memoir Waging Modern War that the incident was a surprising moment for him. Clark said that his order to confront the Russian troops was refused by an emotional General Jackson, who took the matter up the British chain of command, where General Charles Guthrie, British Chief of Defence, said that he agreed with Jackson. Guthrie, according to Clark, told him that Joint Chiefs Chairman Shelton also agreed with the British. This surprised Clark because he claims that the original suggestion to block the Russians came from Washington. Clark maintains that the matter was a policy problem between the US and British governments and insists that he was carrying out the suggestions of the Clinton Administration.
Despite concerns this incident raises, it remains a fact that the Clark candidacy is a tantalizing prospect. Clark says he is a liberal Democrat who favors abortion rights, affirmative action, gun control and progressive economic policies. He has also spoken eloquently about basing America's role in the world on the country's better principles: "generosity, humility, engagement..."
The other day, Clark told Bill Maher on HBO that this country was founded on "the idea that people could talk, reason, have dialogue, discuss the issues…We can't lose that in this country. We've got to get it back."
Perhaps Clark has learned that building alliances--and not risking showdowns-- is more crucial than ever in these perilous times? It would be good to hear from the general himself now that he has decided to run for president.
It was reported today that retired four-star General, ardent critic of Bush's national security policies, telegenic TV commentator, and recently declared Democrat Wesley Clark will enter the crowded presidential race.
Democrats believe that Clark, as a former military officer, could make the party more viable on foreign affairs than it's been since a general named George Marshall was containing Communism under the command of a president named Harry Truman. (That's the conventional wisdom, though the staggering cost of the badly bungled Iraqi occupation has diminished the Republican advantage on defense no matter who runs against Bush.)
While media commentary on Clark's prospective candidacy has been almost entirely favorable--even adulatory--it's worth looking back at a forgotten chapter in his military biography that occurred when Clark was Supreme Allied Commander of NATO and Commander In Chief for the US European Command. Call it Clark's "High Noon" showdown. It's an incident that deserves scrutiny because Clark's claim to be an experienced leader in national security matters is tied, in significant part, to his record in the Balkans.
On June 12, 1999, in the immediate aftermath of NATO's air war against Yugoslavia, a small contingent of Russian troops dashed to occupy the Pristina airfield in Kosovo. Clark was so anxious to stop the Russians that he ordered an airborne assault to confront these units--an order which could have unleashed the most frightening showdown with Moscow since the end of the Cold War. Hyperbole? You can decide. But British General Michael Jackson, the three-star general and commander of K-FOR, the international force organized and commanded by NATO to enforce an agreement in Kosovo, told Clark: "Sir, I'm not starting world war three for you," when refusing to accept his order to prevent Russian forces from taking over the airport. (Jackson was rightly worried that any precipitous NATO action could risk a confrontation with a nuclear- armed Russia and upset the NATO-led peacekeeping plan just getting underway with the withdrawal of Serbian forces from Kosovo.)
After being rebuffed by Jackson, Clark, according to various media reports at the time, then ordered Admiral James Ellis, the American in charge of NATO's southern command, to use Apache helicopters to occupy the airfield. Ellis didn't comply--replying that British General Jackson would oppose such a move. Had Clark's orders been followed, the subsequent NATO- negotiated compromise with the Russians--a positive element in the roller- coaster relationship between Moscow and Washington, which eventually incorporated Russian troops into peacekeeping operations--might well have been undermined.
In the end, Russian reinforcements were stopped when Washington persuaded Hungary, a new NATO member, to refuse to allow Russian aircraft to fly over its territory. Meanwhile, Jackson was appealing to senior British authorities, who persuaded Clinton Administration officials--some of whom had previously favored occupying the airport--to drop support for Clark's hotheaded plan. As a result, when Clark appealed to Washington, he was rebuffed at the highest levels. His virtually unprecedented showdown with a subordinate subsequently prompted hearings by the Armed Forces Services Committee, which raised sharp questions about NATO's chain of command.
As a Guardian article said at the time, "The episode triggers reminscences of the Korean War. Then, General Douglas MacArthur, commander of the UN force, wanted to invade, even nuke, China, until he was brought to heel by President Truman." Of course, the comparison is inexact. The stakes were not as high in the Balkans, but Clark's hip-shooting willingness to engage Russian troops in a risky military showdown at the end of the war is instructive nonetheless.
Indeed, it is believed in military circles that Clark's Pristina incident was the final straw that led the Pentagon to relieve him of his duties (actually retire him earlier). Clark had also angered the Pentagon brass--and Secretary of Defense William Cohen in particular--with his numerous media appearances and repeated public requests for more weapons and for more freedom to wage the Kosovo war the way he wanted (with ground troops). At one point, according to media reports, Defense Secretary Cohen, through Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Hugh Shelton, told Clark to "get your $*)Q!#@$ face off of TV."
In recent years, it's only fair to note, Clark has insisted in interviews and in his memoir Waging Modern War that the incident was a surprising moment for him. Clark said that his order to confront the Russian troops was refused by an emotional General Jackson, who took the matter up the British chain of command, where General Charles Guthrie, British Chief of Defence, said that he agreed with Jackson. Guthrie, according to Clark, told him that Joint Chiefs Chairman Shelton also agreed with the British. This surprised Clark because he claims that the original suggestion to block the Russians came from Washington. Clark maintains that the matter was a policy problem between the US and British governments and insists that he was carrying out the suggestions of the Clinton Administration.
Despite concerns this incident raises, it remains a fact that the Clark candidacy is a tantalizing prospect. Clark says he is a liberal Democrat who favors abortion rights, affirmative action, gun control and progressive economic policies. He has also spoken eloquently about basing America's role in the world on the country's better principles: "generosity, humility, engagement..."
The other day, Clark told Bill Maher on HBO that this country was founded on "the idea that people could talk, reason, have dialogue, discuss the issues…We can't lose that in this country. We've got to get it back."
Perhaps Clark has learned that building alliances--and not risking showdowns-- is more crucial than ever in these perilous times? It would be good to hear from the general himself now that he has decided to run for president.
How about this one.
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The important Democrats eager to run retired Gen. Wesley Clark for president might exercise due diligence about a military career that was nearly terminated before he got his fourth star and then came to a premature end. The trouble with the general is pointed out by a bizarre incident in Bosnia nearly a decade ago.
Clark was a three-star (lieutenant general) who directed strategic plans and policy for the Joint Chiefs of Staff in Washington. On Aug. 26, 1994, in the northern Bosnian city of Banja Luka, he met and exchanged gifts with the notorious Bosnian Serb commander and indicted war criminal, Gen. Ratko Mladic. The meeting took place against the State Department's wishes and may have contributed to Clark's failure to be promoted until political pressure intervened. The shocking photo of Mladic and Clark wearing each other's military caps was distributed throughout Europe.
Last week on CNN's "Crossfire," I asked one of Clark's new supporters -- Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois -- about that indiscretion. "Well, I don't know about the photo," he replied. He and other Clark backers, led by Rep. Charles Rangel of New York, might want to dig more deeply into the general's turbulent military career before getting too deeply committed.
For Emanuel, Rangel and other well-connected Democrats, Wes Clark seems a dream come true. He is walking the liberal line on taxes, abortion, racial quotas and Iraq. But he has military credentials and decorations that George W. Bush lacks. Even before formally announcing last week, Clark had 10 percent in Gallup's first national listing of him among presidential candidates and was just 6 percentage points behind the front-runner. Clark comes over on television as a square-jawed straight-shooter, not the stormy petrel that the Army knew during 34 years active duty -- including his conduct in the Banja Luka incident.
U.S. diplomats warned Clark not to go to Bosnian Serb military headquarters to meet Mladic, considered by U.S. intelligence as the mastermind of the Srebrenica massacre of Muslim civilians (and still at large, sought by NATO peacekeeping forces). Besides the exchange of hats, they drank wine together, and Mladic gave Clark a bottle of brandy and a pistol.
This was what U.S. Ambassador Richard Holbrooke's team seeking peace in Yugoslavia tried to avoid by instituting the "Clark Rule": whenever the general is found talking alone to a Serb, Croat or Muslim, make sure an American civilian official rushes to his side. It produced some comic opera dashes by diplomats.
After Clark's meeting with Mladic, the State Department cabled embassies throughout Europe that there was no change in policy toward the Bosnian Serbs. The incident cost Victor Jackovich his job as U.S. ambassador to Bosnia, even though he protested Clark's course. The upshot came months later, when Serbian dictator Slobodan Milosevic, in bitter negotiations with Holbrooke, handed Clark back his Army hat.
After such behavior, Clark was never on the promotion list to full general until he appealed to Defense Secretary William Perry and Gen. John Shalikashvili, chairman of the Joint Chiefs. He got his fourth star and became commander in chief of the Southern Command. His last post, as NATO supreme commander, found this infantry officer leading an air war against the Serbs over Kosovo. Clark argued with NATO colleagues by insisting on a ground troops option and complaining about the slowly graduated bombing campaign. He was pushed out abruptly by Defense Secretary William Cohen.
Since retiring in 2000, Clark has not been less contentious. Secretary of State Colin Powell was furious that a fellow four-star general in his CNN commentary would criticize U.S. strategy in Iraq, without much information and with the war barely underway. Clark attributed one comment to a Middle East "think tank" in Canada, although there appears to be no such organization. After claiming that the White House pressured CNN to fire him, Clark later said, "I've only heard rumors about it."
Nevertheless, liberals who gathered Thursday night at the Manhattan home of historian Arthur Schlesinger agreed that a general is just the right kind of candidate to oppose President Bush and that they never had seen any general so liberal as Wes Clark. They chose to ignore past performance, which may be cause for regret.
I knew you'd be asking about the picture.. So here it is.. Do you recognize the man just left of center wearing Clark's cap? The Butcher of where??
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The important Democrats eager to run retired Gen. Wesley Clark for president might exercise due diligence about a military career that was nearly terminated before he got his fourth star and then came to a premature end. The trouble with the general is pointed out by a bizarre incident in Bosnia nearly a decade ago.
Clark was a three-star (lieutenant general) who directed strategic plans and policy for the Joint Chiefs of Staff in Washington. On Aug. 26, 1994, in the northern Bosnian city of Banja Luka, he met and exchanged gifts with the notorious Bosnian Serb commander and indicted war criminal, Gen. Ratko Mladic. The meeting took place against the State Department's wishes and may have contributed to Clark's failure to be promoted until political pressure intervened. The shocking photo of Mladic and Clark wearing each other's military caps was distributed throughout Europe.
Last week on CNN's "Crossfire," I asked one of Clark's new supporters -- Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois -- about that indiscretion. "Well, I don't know about the photo," he replied. He and other Clark backers, led by Rep. Charles Rangel of New York, might want to dig more deeply into the general's turbulent military career before getting too deeply committed.
For Emanuel, Rangel and other well-connected Democrats, Wes Clark seems a dream come true. He is walking the liberal line on taxes, abortion, racial quotas and Iraq. But he has military credentials and decorations that George W. Bush lacks. Even before formally announcing last week, Clark had 10 percent in Gallup's first national listing of him among presidential candidates and was just 6 percentage points behind the front-runner. Clark comes over on television as a square-jawed straight-shooter, not the stormy petrel that the Army knew during 34 years active duty -- including his conduct in the Banja Luka incident.
U.S. diplomats warned Clark not to go to Bosnian Serb military headquarters to meet Mladic, considered by U.S. intelligence as the mastermind of the Srebrenica massacre of Muslim civilians (and still at large, sought by NATO peacekeeping forces). Besides the exchange of hats, they drank wine together, and Mladic gave Clark a bottle of brandy and a pistol.
This was what U.S. Ambassador Richard Holbrooke's team seeking peace in Yugoslavia tried to avoid by instituting the "Clark Rule": whenever the general is found talking alone to a Serb, Croat or Muslim, make sure an American civilian official rushes to his side. It produced some comic opera dashes by diplomats.
After Clark's meeting with Mladic, the State Department cabled embassies throughout Europe that there was no change in policy toward the Bosnian Serbs. The incident cost Victor Jackovich his job as U.S. ambassador to Bosnia, even though he protested Clark's course. The upshot came months later, when Serbian dictator Slobodan Milosevic, in bitter negotiations with Holbrooke, handed Clark back his Army hat.
After such behavior, Clark was never on the promotion list to full general until he appealed to Defense Secretary William Perry and Gen. John Shalikashvili, chairman of the Joint Chiefs. He got his fourth star and became commander in chief of the Southern Command. His last post, as NATO supreme commander, found this infantry officer leading an air war against the Serbs over Kosovo. Clark argued with NATO colleagues by insisting on a ground troops option and complaining about the slowly graduated bombing campaign. He was pushed out abruptly by Defense Secretary William Cohen.
Since retiring in 2000, Clark has not been less contentious. Secretary of State Colin Powell was furious that a fellow four-star general in his CNN commentary would criticize U.S. strategy in Iraq, without much information and with the war barely underway. Clark attributed one comment to a Middle East "think tank" in Canada, although there appears to be no such organization. After claiming that the White House pressured CNN to fire him, Clark later said, "I've only heard rumors about it."
Nevertheless, liberals who gathered Thursday night at the Manhattan home of historian Arthur Schlesinger agreed that a general is just the right kind of candidate to oppose President Bush and that they never had seen any general so liberal as Wes Clark. They chose to ignore past performance, which may be cause for regret.
I knew you'd be asking about the picture.. So here it is.. Do you recognize the man just left of center wearing Clark's cap? The Butcher of where??
Attachments
BuzzH
Well-known member
Hey Danr...nice place to get your "proof" from a music major, HAHA...let me guess another old drinking buddy? I doubt this is a biased report, right Danr?
Heres where your information comes from the Dissident Voice:
"Dissident Voice is an internet newsletter dedicated to challenging the distortions and lies of the corporate press and the privileged classes it serves. The goal of Dissident Voice is to provide hard hitting, thought provoking and even entertaining news and commentaries on politics and culture that can serve as ammunition in struggles for peace and social justice.
DV editor Sunil K. Sharma is a musician, writer/researcher, and merry agitator based in Santa Rosa, CA. He did his undergraduate work in Music at Sonoma State University. He is formerly a researcher with the media watchdog group Project Censored, and is co-author of The Current Plight of the Kosovo Roma, a groundbreaking survey based on the field research and compiled reports of historian Paul Polansky, published by Voice of Roma in Graton, CA. His articles have appeared in Z Magazine, CounterPunch, Yellow Times, Palestine Chronicle, and Left Turn among others. He often pontificates before captured audiences at colleges and other reputable soapboxes, and welcomes requests for speaking engagements: [email protected]
What a joke, do you really think this is a reliable source? Come on now, you cant be serious...
Heres where your information comes from the Dissident Voice:
"Dissident Voice is an internet newsletter dedicated to challenging the distortions and lies of the corporate press and the privileged classes it serves. The goal of Dissident Voice is to provide hard hitting, thought provoking and even entertaining news and commentaries on politics and culture that can serve as ammunition in struggles for peace and social justice.
DV editor Sunil K. Sharma is a musician, writer/researcher, and merry agitator based in Santa Rosa, CA. He did his undergraduate work in Music at Sonoma State University. He is formerly a researcher with the media watchdog group Project Censored, and is co-author of The Current Plight of the Kosovo Roma, a groundbreaking survey based on the field research and compiled reports of historian Paul Polansky, published by Voice of Roma in Graton, CA. His articles have appeared in Z Magazine, CounterPunch, Yellow Times, Palestine Chronicle, and Left Turn among others. He often pontificates before captured audiences at colleges and other reputable soapboxes, and welcomes requests for speaking engagements: [email protected]
What a joke, do you really think this is a reliable source? Come on now, you cant be serious...
How about the picture Buzzer? Is that bogus too? By the way, what do you do for a living that makes you such a credible source? Are you insinuating that because the man was a Music Major in college that he lacks credibility? Music Majors don't tell the truth? Or is it they are incapable of communicating accurately?
You asked for information to support what I claimed and I provided it. Now you go and find evidence to refute it. Or are you just pissing up a rope?
How about the report about two subordinant officers disobeying a direct order from a commander because it didn't make sense? What do you think about that? Regardless of the source, the facts are there. Your boy gave the order and the people under him told him he was nuts. Don't you think that had that been a legimate order that was in the best interest of NATO that there would have been repercussions? It's called MUTINY, INSUBORDINATION. Not the least among the crimes described in the UCMJ.
I'm beginning the think that everyone is right about you. Are you sure you're not from Wyoming?
Oh, one more question. As I recall Gen. Clark was the favorite candidate for one of those Montana Cow Pasture Militias. Do you belong to/support one of those groups?
You asked for information to support what I claimed and I provided it. Now you go and find evidence to refute it. Or are you just pissing up a rope?
How about the report about two subordinant officers disobeying a direct order from a commander because it didn't make sense? What do you think about that? Regardless of the source, the facts are there. Your boy gave the order and the people under him told him he was nuts. Don't you think that had that been a legimate order that was in the best interest of NATO that there would have been repercussions? It's called MUTINY, INSUBORDINATION. Not the least among the crimes described in the UCMJ.
I'm beginning the think that everyone is right about you. Are you sure you're not from Wyoming?
Oh, one more question. As I recall Gen. Clark was the favorite candidate for one of those Montana Cow Pasture Militias. Do you belong to/support one of those groups?
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Buzz gets his talking points from Moveon.org and then has the nuts to ridicule someone else's source? Funny!
LMAO Now that is definatly the pot calling the kettle black... LMAO and this comes from one that states over and over that he does "massive" amounts of research before he speaks..
I think the speaking is sounding a lot like puttering originating from to much ingesting of beens...
BuzzH
Well-known member
Danr, Since you missed the question the first time...
Please refute the merits of his rank or his military career...purple hearts, bronze stars, and silver star, etc.
Oh, and Danr...glad you hold a Brits "merits" in such high regard...I'd always trust some British windbag...in particular on tough military decisions...
When was the last time the U.S. HASNT bailed the Brits out of a jam?
Have you seen the Alzheimers specialist yet?
BHR, you never bring a source of any kind to the discussions...so what are you yapping about?
Please refute the merits of his rank or his military career...purple hearts, bronze stars, and silver star, etc.
Oh, and Danr...glad you hold a Brits "merits" in such high regard...I'd always trust some British windbag...in particular on tough military decisions...
When was the last time the U.S. HASNT bailed the Brits out of a jam?
Have you seen the Alzheimers specialist yet?
BHR, you never bring a source of any kind to the discussions...so what are you yapping about?
Now I know your fibbin, I have seen quite a number of things posted right from there source from Paul...
I don't see Dan forgetting much of any thing presented here, but I do see you forgetting any thing that makes you look bad...
All well, it must be nice trying to hide from yourself, even if you make it so "painfully" obvious in almost every post...
P.S. … You spelled Alzheimer’s wrong...
Your English teacher would be ashamed…
BuzzH
Well-known member
Hey elkcheese,
I spelled Alzheimers wrong?
Try a web search and see if I spelled it wrong.
Cheese cant spell...and is a dumbass.
I spelled Alzheimers wrong?
Try a web search and see if I spelled it wrong.
Cheese cant spell...and is a dumbass.
cjcj
New member
Back to the minutemen... When i joined about 7-8 weeks ago their were about 200 members.....Now applications are at 14,000. yes! fourteen thousand! and growing.... Looks like the next targets will be companies that hire illegals
Watch out Gunner the minutemen are coming..HeHe.
Watch out Gunner the minutemen are coming..HeHe.
Buzz, at this particular point in time, I will trust the word of US Army officers who served with Clark over the patent whinings of a small dog from the north who keeps changing direction when backed into a corner. First it was support your ascertians.. then it was "Do you trust a music major", now it is "refute the rank and decorations".. So we've gone full circle. The man got his CIB at the cost of the lives of wounded men. That was my fist statement and you've brought us full circle back to it. I don't know where one of the officers I spoke with is, but the second man is now a Brigade
Commander with an Apache Unit in Iraq. If you want to question his veracity, then that's OK. In my book he has a lot more credibility than you do.
Have you noticed that your sources are always unimpeachable while you always deny any credibility to my sources without even knowing who they are? Sounds like the ravings of a lunitic to me. Perhaps you've spent too much time in the pasture.
Commander with an Apache Unit in Iraq. If you want to question his veracity, then that's OK. In my book he has a lot more credibility than you do.
Have you noticed that your sources are always unimpeachable while you always deny any credibility to my sources without even knowing who they are? Sounds like the ravings of a lunitic to me. Perhaps you've spent too much time in the pasture.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Dan,
For a guy with alzheimers, your doing a heck of a job kicking the shit out of buzz boy. I'd hate to see what he'ld look like if you were on top of your game? That would be ugly! Carry on.
For a guy with alzheimers, your doing a heck of a job kicking the shit out of buzz boy. I'd hate to see what he'ld look like if you were on top of your game? That would be ugly! Carry on.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Hey BHR,
Do you read the dissident voice too???
Do you read the dissident voice too???
BuzzH
Well-known member
Michaelr,
Speaking of school...how's second grade treating you?
Speaking of school...how's second grade treating you?
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Buzz,
What was Wesley Clark's position on dam breeching? You still haven't answered that one. Could it be that he didn't have one? What kind of "research" is that? My money says that you never supported him anyway. You just threw his name out after the fact.
If you did your "research" you would have learned that Clark wasn't in the race to win. He was there to make sure someone else didn't. But now that moveon "owns" the Democrat Party, Clark's effort was all for not. Hillary's going to have quite a job kissing the moveon crowds ass while pretending to the rest of America she's a moderate. Should be entertaining to watch. JMO however.
What was Wesley Clark's position on dam breeching? You still haven't answered that one. Could it be that he didn't have one? What kind of "research" is that? My money says that you never supported him anyway. You just threw his name out after the fact.
If you did your "research" you would have learned that Clark wasn't in the race to win. He was there to make sure someone else didn't. But now that moveon "owns" the Democrat Party, Clark's effort was all for not. Hillary's going to have quite a job kissing the moveon crowds ass while pretending to the rest of America she's a moderate. Should be entertaining to watch. JMO however.
Similar threads
