Okay Then: Does the Clark connection to Bush Backers Bother anyone?

[seventhson]

I will try to restate the question in a noninflammatory way since the topic here got locked:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=79539


I apologize for using the inflammatory term Bushzi in inquiring about the Arkansas mafia background.

Clark was hired by the Stephens group in 2001 for $300,000 with money supplied by a "homeland security" company called Axciom according to this article I had linked in the original thread.

The Stephens group (actually Warren Stephens himself), just before they hired Clark, gave Bush $100,000 for his inauguration.

I am asking whether people think this compromises Clark in people's minds or is a financial interest giving $100,000 to Bush and $300,000 to Clark just hunky-dory.

This is a serious question and a serious topic and I hope the mods and administrators agree.


Here is the link to the article with the facts on Clark and Stephens:

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20030929-123112-7749r.htm


Link for $100,000 contribution to Bush by Stephens in 2001:

http://www.everyvotematters.com/boycott/sss.html

[LuminousX]

1. No.

In the political world, you have to realize just how small it is. There are always a few people who are there in every campaign.

[returnable]

2. Get back to the real story!

Clark is responsible for Haitian man tits!

[theivoryqueen]

4. Just Haitians??? What about american man boobs? (moobs)

[_NorCal_D_]

10. NO!

As a general, Clark supervised secret Government mind control programs, and used Haitians as Guinea pigs in bizarre experiments to produce the perfect mutant soldier!

[helleborient]

13. Was that next door to Gov. Dean's lab? LOL (n/t)

[_NorCal_D_]

14. Maybe!

The Right wing spin these days is that Dean is actually an abortion doctor! :wow: B-)

[seventhson]

16. As head of the Southern Command (which had military authority over Haiti)

there is probably more truth to that than you can imagine.

[_NorCal_D_]

18. Ah, I just love

unsubstantiated conspiracy theories! :bounce:

[xultar]

19. I heard that he went to meet with Osama just before 9/11

he was carrying a note from Shrub, Cheny, Rummy, Condi, and KKKarl

[_NorCal_D_]

21. Really!?

:wow: :wow:
Unbelievable! I always had an underlying suspicion that Clark was in league with the Taliban, but this is proof indeed! B-)

[Rowdyboy]

26. Maybe they can find a picture of Wesley

wearing a "blue turban". Is Clark the next anti-christ? Is Armeggedian near? Remember "Nostrodomus Speaks"? "Enquiring minds" want to know....OOOOOEEEEEEOOOOOOOO.......

[Tinoire]

60. No- US Corporations which produce the pesticides that were

sprayed on the boat people to delouse them are responsible for that.

I believe all Clark is responsible for is making the decision to use those pesticides to de-louse human beings but what they hell, they were just a bunch of poor Blacks trying to escape an island so destablized by the US for 2 centuries and at that time, under the rule of a CIA-backed hench-man.

[CMT]

3. as a Dean backer it used to

but now after watching him I accept that his switch is genuine and don't think it is a viable issue.

[helleborient]

5. Yes, I was a little worried about it at first to...

Particularly since it seemed the Clark campaign was fumbling a bit out of the box.

But I think he's cleared up most of those concerns for me through his own statements and commitment to the campaign.

[mmonk]

6. People hire people based on what they

bring to the table (expertise). If a democrat works for Microsoft and Microsoft contributes to Bush, how does that really mean that democrat is "connected" to Bush backers?

[SahaleArm]

8. Hey, don't pigeonhole us.

:evilgrin:

[seventhson]

9. It matters when they are ON THE BOARD of the company

way big difference from being a "hire" like as in a data processor or something.

Think Enron Directors vs. Enron employees who were screwed out of their pensions by Ken Lay and friends.

Marketing is the backbone of politics.

Of Course Clark is going to play the role of the good guy "antiwar" liberal. Of course if he is working for the military corporations he is going to sound like he opposes them.

I believe it is naive to ignore these financial ties to those who back Bush. Following the money is the surest way to determine whose side someone is on.

Dean has no such nasty and nefarious ties to the extreme right.

But Clark's ties are EVERYWHERE.

[mmonk]

12. You're right then

Homeland security has no democratic involvement. Clark is a republican plant. All he says and writes are just to throw you off:eyes: He's just "nasty " and "nefarious".

[_NorCal_D_]

23. LOL

seventhson you crack me up! I really needed the comic relief today, thanks a bunch! :hi: B-)

[mmonk]

7. Open your mind

Read Clark's policy statements. Read "Winning Modern Wars". Then come back here and tell us what you think.

[helleborient]

11. I may be wrong, but...

Isn't it rather common for most senior military people to have connections with people on both sides of the aisle? Partially because they've been prevented by their job from openly politicking in either direction.

[seventhson]

15. This is precisely the problem

Clark's contacts have been on the Republican side recently.

The fact is that the Stephens group association is just the tip of the iceberg.

But folks here in the "underground" either don't want to hear it or they want to paint it as irrelevent.

Clark is a pretty boy. He sounds pretty good.

But he has been in bed with some of the most corrupt companies associated with Bush.

To Me he reeks of being THEIR candidate and people here seem to be falling all over themsleves to get behind him.

It scares me.

Are Americans so naive politically that they cannot see through another military industrial candidate???


I guess so.

YOU support Clark. Not me.

I cannot support someone who worked for a company that gave Bush $100,000 anymore than I can support anyone who voted for the Iraq war. These people HELPED Bush. And to me that is akin to criminal conduct and , ultimately, murder.

Period.

[mmonk]

20. He is running against

the military industrial complex. You don't seem to understand he was a private citizen trying to make a living. His expertise is related to military and defense matters. He became critical of the Bush administration before he began a run for president. He's no Bush supporter. He doesn't support current Bush foreign policy. He doesn't support current domestic policy. Don't critique someone you obviously know little about (and aren't trying to know).

[GreenArrow]

78. Poppy Bush

is a private citizen trying to make a living. Dick Cheney before he was tabbed as VP was a private citizen trying to make a living. James the human slug Baker is a private citizen trying to make a living. And so on. These people all use their connections to make their livings, and they look out for their business partners as well as themseleves. It's all about connections.

[helleborient]

22. I'm neither supporting him nor planning to vote for him in the primaries..

And I heard relatively damning material about him on NPR from those who worked with him in the military.

There was one person who when asked if he thought he was presidential material, the guy snickered loudly and then said "No."

It did seem like it was very easy for NPR to dig up opposition from within the military. That does raise questions for me.

But the connections with various donors isn't as big of an issue for me.

How his colleagues see him is very valid in my opinion. What some said I was concerned about...others gave glowing reviews. Sort of a wash to me, but I want better than even when I'm picking a candidate.

If Gen. Clark becomes the nominee or if there isn't a candidate left in the race I prefer over him, I'll have to look even closer.

There's only so much time in the world to read reams about every candidate and still do one's job in the real world.

[mmonk]

24. Alot of the criticism

from the military said they wouldn't vote for him (because they support current policy, others because he was a rival for advancement) but that he definitely could do the job.

[_NorCal_D_]

27. Believe me,

Clark is no member of the military-industrial complex.

This article describes my sentiments quite well:

A warrior for peace
Why Wesley Clark could be an Eisenhower for our time.
http://oklahomansforclark.com/Eisenhower.htm

[helleborient]

31. Well, I sort of like warrior for peace....

By Eisenhower for our time??? Ick!

[_NorCal_D_]

33. Eisenhower wasn't much of a Republican.

He did a decent amount of good things during his Presidency. B-)

[munayman]

29. Clark is a plant!

I think Clark is a republican plant. He's had too many connections to Bush. He's in this race to get Bush re-elected. And he's doing this by criticizing Bush on how he's running the country and saying that he's doing everything wrong in Iraq and saying that the tax cuts were a stupid idea that Bush had to benefit all of his friends. Oh...wait...is that a republican plant or a guy that is trying to win the presidency for himself? Hmm....I'm too stupid to realize the difference. Sorry.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

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

[Bucky]

48. No, "Bush" is a Republican plant. Ficus is a Democratic plant. Vote Green

Ha-ha! Get it? Vote "Green"?

(Ya see, all plants are green. So that's a joke.)

[_NorCal_D_]

51. I don't get it.

:shrug: :)

[FrenchieCat]

56. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Gene Lyons' just stupid, I guess...and so is Cal Pundit, and so is Tough Democrat, and so is..........

I guess we are all just stupid....

and you are smart.....ok?

[Closer]

36. If I haven't told you already Seventhson

you are an absolue GEM here at DU. You're a true liberal, a true democrat, a true believer. You're an endangered species unfortunately, especially here at DU.

Thanks for your continued research and rallying.

BTW, I've done my research on Clark, and you are absolutely correct. I'm not fooled by a pretty face either.

[seventhson]

37. Jesus CHRIST!!! You could be NICE about it! Geez....

I'm Blushing.

I was beginning to thnk I had no goddamn friends here at all.

The military industrial murder complex has a lot of resources to flood these sites with lies.

Thanks for speaking up for me.

It means a LOT.

[RandomUser]

38. Hahahahahah

The military industrial murder complex has a lot of resources to flood these sites with lies.

Did you just say all of us here who don't agree with you are actually paid agents sent by the military industrial murder complex for the sole purpose of running seventhson out of DU? Hahahahahah! :crazy: :tinfoilhat:

[seventhson]

39. Nope. YOU said it.

Not me.

I said:

"The military industrial murder complex has a lot of resources to flood these sites with lies."

But you KNEW that. Didn't you?

[RandomUser]

41. lol

I guess they had to divert their resources from their haitian man-boob project, huh? lol.

[_NorCal_D_]

49. So now

all Clark supporters on DU are undercover agents for the military industrial complex? Wow, amazing, I had no idea! This is an outrage among outrages! These vile interlopers must be expunged from DU!

:eyes::tinfoilhat::hi::tinfoilhat::eyes:

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

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

[Mz Pip]

47. LOL

I guess my check must be in the mail.

Will I get a MIC card to go along with my check? Seventhson seems to know a whole lot more about me than even I do.

MzPip
:dem:

[Tinoire]

63. He never said "all" and yes some of the people here most certainly are

here to flood this site with propaganda. It was quite apparent several months ago and the back rooms of DU were buzzing about it.

Your attempt to mus-represent what Seventhson sad reflects poorly on you and only demostrates why it is near impossible to have a rational discussion about Clark. Is mocking Seventhson the only way you can address his point? Or are you naive enough to believe that no one would possibly do such a thing? That every single poster at DU is here because of a pure heart?

[seventhson]

67. Thanks for the support, Tinoire

seems a lot of folks are afraid to stand up for what they believe in and I understand it here. The personal attacks are relentless.

As for corporate sponsored interlopers -- it is very well established that ALL the campaigns have hired folks to saturate the web.

The military industrial complex, I believe, were the first on board with propaganda campaigns en masse on the political discussion boards.

Haely Barbour was behind a very well used website claiming to be neutral.

Thanks God for Skinner and his team here keeping things pretty damn neutral (for the most part).

[_NorCal_D_]

69. Please,

my intentions were never to personally attack you.


But when you evoke the Washington Times, a conservative leaning newspaper to discredit a candidate, then you suggest that supporters of Clark are employed by defense contractors to fill DU with propaganda, it is disconcerting to say the least.
B-)

[Tinoire]

61. Oh no- you know you have my support

Some of your ideas may seem a little whacky to people who don't know the work you did on 911 and BCCI waaay before it was fashionable to even entertain the possibility.

You are simply ahead of your time. In 3 years people will wring their hands and say "we had no idea". Nothing new under the sun Seventh... In our culture, most people won't believe it until it's on TV which is precisely why it was so easy for Bush to sell his obscene war.

Peace

[globoll]

76. ummm

special interest groups give their $$$ to all parties, so who cares,
how did Dean get $5 milllion in 3 days ??? I am sure no REPULICANS gave him $$ right? wrong

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

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

[Rowdyboy]

25. He can't find anything new to talk about because

there are no new avenues to bash Clark. Gotta keep repeating the same old tired song, over and over, hoping to catch newbies.

Most all Dean supporters ignore this trash, so I try to follow their lead. But it keeps getting posted, over and over and over by the same two or three people.

I know, I know VP Clark and the PNAC will surely assassinate President Dean. Sure. But rave on, there's plenty of bandwidth here and it does give me an occasional chuckle.

[DrFunkenstein]

30. Do You Know How Many "Kerry Is A War Criminal" Threads He''s Started?

At first I was pissed. Now I realize he's a joke. And a pretty good one at that.

[_NorCal_D_]

32. He has done

his fair share with Clark as well.

[seventhson]

34. Bullshit. Try to link ONE.

If there is ONE that I started I'd like to see it. If there is more than one show us. I doubt you will find two.

I have alluded to the fact that even he himself said he should be courtmartialed for the killing of civilians. Kerry wrote that in his own journal. That is a fact and you can check on it.

You have repeated this false information about me too many times. I believe I may have started a thread on this subject when I first read the quote from a Vietnam vet who said Kerry shot a wounded and downed teenager in what seemed to be a violation of the Geneva convention. In recent months he has admitted taking part in operations where civilians were gunned down by his men.

Ask Kerry. I am sure he will admit it. He has before on the record, so he cannot very well deny it now.

That is bad enough - but Kerry's membership with the Bushes in a secret order that his Forbes ancestors FOUNDED and financed in the 1830's is the killer for me. That order is a fascist order IMHO. And I am well respected among holocaust researchers.

Other folks believe that Clark was a war criminal for bombing civilians and using depleted uranium in Kosovo and herbicides in Columbia (which killed civilians unnecessarily and intentionally).

I happen to agree with them.

But it is Clark's work with right wing military industrial financiers and corporations that disturbs me the most with respect to this election. He is straight out of the Bush corporate headquarters for war: Stephens.

Spin it any way you want - it just demonstrates ignorance of political and social history.


Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it.

They killed JFK and we got a Brown and Root (Halliburton) sponsored President (LBJ)

We NOW have a Halliburton sponsored President.

Clark would be, IMHO, ANOTHER Halliburton president. I don't care WHAT he says out loud. He WORKED for the Bush team and I believe he still does.

YOU defend the Stephens group and the $100,000 they gave to Bush around the time they hired Clark.

YOU defend THAT and quit making up irrelevent bullshit about me to distract from THESE facts: Axciom. Stephens Group. Military Industrial Intelligence Corporations. And that is only the TIP of this Clark iceberg of ties to the merchants of death.

[_NorCal_D_]

50. I sincerely wish

I could compile all of the slanderous, disgusting treads you have made. However they were all locked by moderators, and have since faded into obscurity.

[seventhson]

75. Truth is an absolute defense to slander

the threads are only disgusting because the facts are disgusting.

I hve had relatively few threads locked and only a few warnings in over a year for allegedly inappropriate posts. Please get your facts straight.

[munayman]

28. Background check

So, before you take a job somewhere...you should do a background check on your employer and find out how he/she has voted in the past and if they are registered as a republican or democrat? What if they are registered as an independent...does that mean that you can only run on the independent ticket? It bothers me more that Clinton secretly backs Clark and visits his headquarter regularly. I've never really liked that guy.

[seventhson]

35. Background check my ass

He was hired to be a director of the company and a front man for it.

OF COURSE you find out who the hell you are working for and what they do before you take a job paying $300,000 a year or more.

It is this kind of sad ignorance of our system that makes me really hopeless for DU and for America.

People who know NOTHING about Clark embrace him on a site called democratic UNDERGROUND even though he was fundraising for Repubs and was NOT EVEN a Democrat until a matter of weeks ago.

It is disgusting and stupid that democrats would fall for this trickery and deceit from ANOTHER corporate sponsored militarty contractor front man. Impossible! Ridiculous.

Just plain stupid.

Americans are just fucking stupid.

Canada is calling

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

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

[seventhson]

43. Do You mean THIS one?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=80225

the one you posted is irretrievable

[democratreformed]

65. Well, I can

at least agree with you on those last three remarks - although I may opt to go for a more drastic change than Canada.

[genius]

44. Halliburton's backing Dean

Look at his list of donors. Anyone taking the maximum contribution from Halliburton board memebers is not likely to go against corporate execs' interests.

[seventhson]

45. Show me the money. Link???

Show 'em if you have 'em.

I WILL Listen.

[genius]

46. Here is one

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=74585&mesg_id=74585

[seventhson]

54. This is the kind of thing that bothers me...

about the Clark supporters here.

Dean gets $2000 from ONE guy at Halliburton. Clark gets what appears to be more than $400,000 (in 2001) from Stephens and Axciom and one of the Stephens group owners gives Bush $100,000 in 2001.

Somehow this is equated with Halliburton supporting Dean and vindicates Clarks ties to Stephens.

It is clearly misleading and ugly spin.


I AGREE that accepting even $2000 from a Halliburton board member is not a good thing.

But it is not a fair comparison in any way shape or form.

[JohnKleeb]

55. thats no Clark supporter seventh

or Kerry supporter.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

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

[Tinoire]

62. Same person I do...

Which is why, though I hate to say this, there is some bewilderment because some of us can not understand why Dean supporters aren't appalled by some of the things Dean has done/does. But you get a B+ for your answer that money from Halliburtin is not a good thing! I hate saying that you know.

There is so much pain and sincerity among Dem voters these days that it gets painful to bear bad bad news about candidates after a while... Not because the candidate doesn't deserve it but because we are all so emotionally invested in our candidates and in this election that our hearts just can't take it. Once we've settled on someone it's almost as if we must believe lest we lose all hope.

I am envious of the people who think they can support/could vote for several candidates. One if these days I hope I fall off my high horse named Principle, it will make life a lot easier ;)

Peace

[democratreformed]

64. I hope you read what I wrote below, but just in case

you don't, let me please point out CLARK DID NOT RECEIVE $400,000 FROM ANYONE ACCORDING TO THAT ARTICLE!!! Please go back and read it again. The article CLEARLY states that the company that he worked for was awarded a $300,000 contract for work that he was to do.

AS A COMPARISON, in 1999, I was instrumental in gaining my employer a $2.1 million contract to construct a new seed plant. MY HUSBAND was the job site superintendent on the $2.1 million contract. NEITHER OF US RECEIVED $2.1 million. OH HOW I WISH THAT WE HAD!!! I most certainly WOULD NOT have spent the past three years struggling to pay off ENORMOUS debts!!! OH YEAH, and the business that I worked for IS OWNED BY A REPUBLICAN. Does that mean that if I choose to run for public office, you will say that a Republican GAVE me money????

This infuriates me. For you to make the jump from what is in that article to stating that Clark was "GIVEN" $400,000 is just crazy. GOD, HOW I WISH IT WERE TRUE THAT IF YOU HELP WIN YOUR EMPLOYER A CONTRACT THAT YOU WOULD GET ALL THE MONEY. I would have so much money right now that I could give Clark enough money to match Howard Dean!

[globoll]

77. how

is it not a fair comparison??

[seventhson]

79. Because Clark's 100,000's of thousands of dollars buys influence IMHO

it is PRIVATE payments to him personally.

Dean got less than 1% of what Clark got and Dean's money was for his campaign and is insignificant compared to his total donations. It is an insignificant amount for Dean while an extremely significant amount for Clark which places his loyalties at issue.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

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

[Padraig18]

72. *Halliburton* is not backing Dean!

One individual board member, Robert Crandall, gave $2000 to the Dean campaign. Get your facts straight!

[democratreformed]

58. I only have one point

to make and you can take it however you like. I really don't care.

I work for my dad. He has been (but is beginning not to be) a die-hard Repub. He even used to get frequent phone calls from Newt Gingrich's office!

Anyways, my dad PAYS me for my work. Sure, he doesn't pay me near as much as Stephens paid Wesley Clark. Actually, my salary was and is around $30,000.

If I were run for a local Democratic office, would you accuse me of being backed by Repubs since my salary comes from a company owned by a person who has contributed money to the Republican party? Why should I be judged because of my boss? GOD FORBID that I should be judged by the politics of my boss or the company I work for.

Now, in some people's little fairy tale worlds, they may be able to choose who they work for based on political or other views instead of putting food on the table and buying the necessities of life. That is not true for most people.

Personally, I have not myself, ever commented on or had an opinion on Howard Dean's contributors. I wouldn't even know the first thing about them if it were not for some other silly people on here.

I don't see where who a person works for should in any way be used as a comparison for who contributes to their campaign or who "supports" them. Neither is their salary anyone else's business. At least not the general public's.

If I were to run for the senate in my state, would some idiot state that B & J Construction "gave" me my $30,000 salary? Would they just forget that I actually had a job and WORKED for it?

Sometimes, I think we should all just give up. I don't know if this country can ever be fixed. Half its citizens have gone completely nuts.

[democratreformed]

59. Well, I guess I should have read

the article first. I DOESN'T say anything about Clark receiving $300,000.

This is what it says:
"That December, Acxiom Inc., a Little Rock data analysis company, signed a $300,000 contract with Stephens to obtain Mr. Clark's help in lobbying the government for homeland security business."

I guess now, if I choose to run for office, people can say B & J Construction gave me $2.1 million since that was one construction contract that I helped to gain them.

[seventhson]

66. The way I read it...

The money was FOR Clark. He also received a salary of some $100,000 or more according to the article.

I am sure that Clark's remuneration was in the ballpark of several hundred thousand dollars, but I accept your point. Only hs financial disclosures will tell for sure and I have not seen them yet.

We should DEMAND to see them for these years (2001-3).

As for the issue with who you work for that is a valid point.

But Clark was hired as a director and manager of these companies and not as a lowly employee - so the analogy is not apt.

If you were a director of a company that gave $100,000 to Bush then it certainy matters.

We can ALL give up and take our cookies and go home.

But that will not change a damn thing.

We need to FIGHT for our democracy. Or we will all be enslaved by corporate fascism.

[democratreformed]

68. Once again,

I can tell you of numerous contracts my employer was awarded "for" me or one of the other people working there. In other words, we simply would not have gotten the job if I or that other person was not working there - that person was the one whose expertise they really wanted. My husband is a very good case in point. He is one of the best foremen in the industry in our area. Many customer's used this company simply because they wanted him to be the one in charge of their project out in the field.

Now, I have a serious question. Speaking as someone who sent numerous messages to General Clark begging him to run for President starting back in March or April, and someone who waited on pins and needles for his decision, how do you expect me to believe that he is a "plant"?

Do you believe that I was just stupid and was fooled by some grand scheme to make it "look like" he was reluctant? Seriously, what do you think?

I would certainly like to believe that I am not an idiot. I am a college educated woman. I never believed I was stupid. I have always read people pretty well. What makes me so easy to fool this time?

[seventhson]

70. One word

Advertising


Clark is advertised as what he is not. You believed the media and the hype as did many.

If you had been doing political research as long as I have you would not be as easily fooled by the media.

I still do not completely trust Dean.

I trusted Gore on many issues - but not all.

I am not surprised that you trust Clark, really. Many people do.

But it is not simply because of his employer that I do not trust him. It is his whole history.

It is complex and scary.

But the military alliances that Clark has are in lockstep with the Bush machine.

Believe it or not.

If you are wrong and I am right we are in for a world of shit. We need to get OUT of this world of shit we are in now.

How do we do that?

By rejecting anyone wth ties to the old way of things - including Clark, Kerry, Lieberman and Gephardt.

Edwards I have not decided on - he is too new to this business.

Sharpton I do not trust at all. I like what he says but all these guys are media creations and will say what needs to be said to advance whatever agenda is at work.

Braun is great, I guess, but she is not as progressive or as viable as we need.

Kucinich is dear to my heart and a brave soul: but I do not believe he can beat the others in the primaries and I want to do whatever I can to be sure the 4 remnants of the old order are defeated.


A college education means nothing in this arena.

Curtis Mayfield coined the phrase - "educated fools from uneducated schools" (meaning that the system of higher education is actually a system of miseducation which supports the capitalist and racist status quo)

The Stephens Group is part of a corrupt system IMHO of corporate fascists. They bankrolled Bush, then Clinton, then Bush, and now Clark.

If you want to vote for the status quo of corporate corruption, then vote for Clark or Kerry or Lieberman or Gephardt.

I rank them from best to worst as follows: Gephardt, Lieberman, Kerry and Clark (tied for third).


I agree that ANY might be preferable to Bush. But what I want is the LEAST tied into the Bush empire. Clark and Kerry are wired in to Bush IMHO. Totally.

But that is my opinion.

Google Stephens Group and the Saudis and Bush to see WHO Clark was really working for.

[FrenchieCat]

71. Your writing sounds....well...

Paranoid....

[democratreformed]

73. Thanks for

an honest, non-inflammatory answer. I honestly will think about what you have said and do some more research. For the record, I have been researching for quiet some time but know that what I feel is quite some time may be hardly any time at all to those people who have been politically active for years.

In other words, I thank you for not attacking me and degrading me to get your point across.

The poster below says that your writing sounds paranoid, but I honestly understand. It has only been a few months since my husband and I discussed the fact that we could eat the deer in our woods if "worst comes to worst". These are scary times that we are living in, IMO. I, myself, have felt a bit paranoid at times. I believe that there are good reasons to be concerned. It has also been only a few months since I woke up every single morning wondering what madness was going to happen that day.

Right now, I do have hope for the future.

One other thing - you know how many times I have thought of running away? Many, many times. But, then, I began to wonder - is it better to run away or stay and fight - in whatever way we can?

[seventhson]

74. You are absolutely right

Paranoid? Hell - I used to deliver papers to the Twin Towers. Several close friends had operations there and were saved by fate (one stepped outside for a cigaret just before the first plane hit - another was running late and a third missed his appointment there altogether due to a scheduling mixup). An inlaw was badly injured at the Pentagon.

Lihop and Mihop may sound paranoid to those who do not know that Osama's family and the Bushes are financial partners in the Carlyle Group (you can look THAT up - it's true) or that the Bushes were partners with Hitler and his adherents. To others it is the only rational conclusion (criminal cllusion).

The fact that the Stephens group and their partners arranged Saudi financing for Shrub and contributed Hundreds of thousands of dollars to Bush while also paying Clark at least $150,000 to get millions in homeland security and defense contracts -- these are just facts.

If they do NOT make you paranoid or at least apprehensive and worried, I would think you might be brain dead.

It is natural to fear the worst just as it is essential to be prepared for any possibility.

I try to prepare people to accept the other possibilities as I do.

It IS frightening. But survival depends on facing these facts and taking appropriate remedial action via education and political activism.