Look at public schools or my argument in the U.S. becoming an emotionless face. You can't speak of your religious beliefs in public schools, and history books almost absolutley refrain from calling Jesus an actual God, that Mohammed rose into heaven, just so no one would be offended. The world works while we play. Why do you think the Middle East hates us?

...And yet, wasn't that the rallying cry when the Lewinsky Affair was all the rage?

If I had to support a plan instead of a charismatic candidate, then I'd probably support Gen. Clark. And yes his military experiance gives him more credibility than Bush's National Guard service <cough, cough> in Texas.

Dalamar, in my experience, I can't remember a single time when anyone was in any way discouraged from speaking of their religious beliefs in class. In fact, a number of discussions, particularly recently, have revolved around religion. Also, what I can remember of my history books' (admittedly brief) coverage of religion seems fair, as I can't remember any promoting or degrading any particular sect. Perhaps you could say a bit more about your own experience (as I assume that's where you're coming from with your position)?

If you'll remember, I haven't commented on the Lewinsky Affair... I think that might have also had something to do with then-president Clinton having lied under oath, however. Whether he should have actually been impeached for that or not, I'm not certain... I'm not exceedingly familiar with the legal requirements for that to occurr. *shrug*

Clark... Interesting fellow. I don't personally know too much about him. However, I'm curious... I remember hearing a number of things about Clark having blatantly switched position on several issues without any real reason, which seems somewhat damaging to his credibility. The most recent instance of this I can remember is his being accused of suddenly changing his stance from pro-war to anti-war during the near past, on a news program I saw a small portion of... Perhaps you could clarify here a bit? Since I presume that you have something to say on the matter, if you support him.

[ 01-21-2004, 05:41 PM: Message edited by: Encard ]

Yes, he was accused of switching his stance on the Iraq war, but he did not really. As far as other issues I have found nothing to substantiate the claim that he has blantantly switched positions on anything else, though his opinion of the current administration has fairly well gone downhill since his early 2001 words of praise and confidence in the then new Bush administration.

Here is a link to the Drudge report concerning Clark's alleged war flip-flop:

http://www.drudge.com/discuss/viewMessage.php/10860

Here is a link to news stroy about a Dem debate where he was confronted with some of these accusations by his rivals:

http://www.freep.com/news/politics/dems10_20031010.htm

Finally, here is a link to Clark's official campaign page:

http://clark04.com/issues/

wow! This is turning out to be quite a debate. And to think that i just wanted people to check out that little clip :D

Hmm... The first two links you have actually seem to make it sound like Clark did suddenly shift position on the war. Perhaps you could explain why you say he didn't? Because it's not really the message I got from that information.

I also have to say I'm curious about something... I looked at Clark's issues page you gave in the last link. Some of the stuff on the war section seems a tad bit odd... I'm wondering, for example, how he plans on doing background checks on Iraqi former soldiers. I mean, did Iraq keep good enough records on its soldiers for the US to be able to do that? I was under the impression that it was rather chaotic... Also, how lightly-equipped are the light forces he wants to use more of (point 2, bullet two)? Since just a couple sentences before that he said that unarmored humvees are putting Americans at greater risk... Does he mean pure infantry, or something else, or what? I'm wondering whether you might know enough about his plan to tell me.

<font color=skyblue>This now belongs in the Current Events world, methinks.</font>

Please provide 1 example of where President Bush said there was an Imminent threat. You will find he said if we wait for an Imminent threat, (State of the Union 2003) it will be to late. The only people that even used the term Imminent threat were and are the liberals. The very people that said there had to be an Imminent threat to begin with now are saying the President said there was one. When the President CLEARLY stated, that if we wait until our cities are threaten by WMD's it will be to late.

So there is NO misunderstanding, The people calling for the Imminent Threat threshold, which is not the threshold President Bush called for! Are now saying he did call for that threshold.


HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM I believe the term Gulluble was used exactly where and to whom does the term exactly fit? [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img]

You might want to check the rest of the site as well, there are more anti-Bush ads there. I seriously doubt that their simplistic rhetorics and easy scoring will shut up any Bush-apologists, but some of them are amusing nonetheless. [img]smile.gif[/img]

http://bushin30seconds.com/