michael moore backs clark

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Palestinian Jew
Jimnyc, I thought you only allowed reliable sources on your sight, might as well quote Michael Moore about Clark.

Are you disputing what she wrote? None of this stuff happened?

 

[bamthin]

Damn, I go through all the trouble of linking US government web sites and I get Ann Coulter quotes in response. This is the same woman who calls Joe McCarthy an American hero. I think I'll pass on her opinion of what a hero is. The right wing-nuts have nothing on Clark and it will drive them nuts. If that's the best Coulter can do, I would start getting nervous if I were a Bush fan.

She is personally blaming Clark for bomb damage to embassy residences? I thought she already blamed Clinton for all that stuff?

By the way, how many American troops died under Clark's command in the Balkans?

The man is untouchable. He released all his records yesterday. Financial, voter history, military, etc. Have fun!

-Bam

 

[jimnyc]

Chinese embassy bombing:
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/europe/9905/08/kosovo.01/

Swedish , Norwegian and Spanish ambassadors:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/europe/jan-june99/update_5-21.html

Here's an article that discusses the 3 American POW's in Yugoslavia:
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/europe/9905/03/kosovo.02/

The Albanians killed when their convoy was mistakenly hit:
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/europe/9904/15/nato.attack.03/

If that's the best Coulter can do, I would start getting nervous if I were a Bush fan.

Did she confuse you with the facts? Not surprising.

She is personally blaming Clark for bomb damage to embassy residences?

Who was the general in charge of Nato at the time? And yet you guys will continually hold Bush responsible for any civilians killed in Iraq.

He's a war criminal. He's a joke to the democrats. Doesn't matter anyway, he'll be history before too long. Maybe Dizzy Dean and him can carpool to the unemployment office.

 

[Palestinian Jew]

Jim, those are valid links we can trust. A good deal of what Ann says are just outright lies. I think what you posted proved to me more than ever that Ann is a complete idiot, unless if everything she wrote was supposed to be ironic and hypocritical. She supports war, and loss of civilians is what happens in war, so what right does she have to criticize Clark? I hear Hannity everyday say put down dems by saying prominent figures in the dem party like Kucinich say Bush "targeted civilians" and I'm quite sure Ann feels the same way, so this is nothing but hypocracy for her to say this.

And you are absolutely right, none of this matters b/c soon Clark and Dean will be conspiring how the infrastructure of D.C. is laid out in a pentagram.

 

[bamthin]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Did she confuse you with the facts? Not surprising.

Who was the general in charge of Nato at the time? And yet you guys will continually hold Bush responsible for any civilians killed in Iraq.

He's a war criminal. He's a joke to the democrats. Doesn't matter anyway, he'll be history before too long. Maybe Dizzy Dean and him can carpool to the unemployment office.

She confused me with her logic. The success of NATO in the Balkans is well documented. The cost, in both money and lives, to America was paltry compared to the Iraqmire.

We are holding Bush responsible, not Tommy Franks, for the death and cost of Iraq.

Can you provide evidence that Clark is a "war criminal"? A "joke" to Democrats shouldn't be polling 18% in the backyard of three Northeastern politicians in New Hampshire.

I think you are the confused one.

-Bam

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by bamthin
She confused me with her logic. The success of NATO in the Balkans is well documented. The cost, in both money and lives, to America was paltry compared to the Iraqmire.

We are holding Bush responsible, not Tommy Franks, for the death and cost of Iraq.

Can you provide evidence that Clark is a "war criminal"? A "joke" to Democrats shouldn't be polling 18% in the backyard of three Northeastern politicians in New Hampshire.

I think you are the confused one.

-Bam

Where did I mention the Balkans? I think I clearly mentioned the specific wrongs, and then backed them up with sources - and not one of them dealt with the Balkans.

Clark is a dipshit and nothing more than a Clinton pawn. He'll be out of the race before too awfully long. None of the Democrats have a hope in hell of being president, especially Clark.

Read the papers, get outside, talk with people, turn on the TV, surf the internet - Clark is nothing more than a Clinton pawn. Delusions of grandeur won't seat him in the oval office. Bookmark your conspiracy theory sites, you're gonna need them for the next 4 1/2 years!

 

[Palestinian Jew]

Clark is a dipshit and nothing more than a Clinton pawn. He'll be out of the race before too awfully long. None of the Democrats have a hope in hell of being president, especially Clark.

I think the tin-foil hat idea of the Clintons being in charge of every dem thing is funny. Maybe I'm mistaken, but didn't Clinton fire his ass?

Read the papers, get outside, talk with people, turn on the TV, surf the internet - Clark is nothing more than a Clinton pawn. Delusions of grandeur won't seat him in the oval office. Bookmark your conspiracy theory sites, you're gonna need them for the next 4 1/2 years!

I think you need to get outised, read the papers and talk with people, because you would know that this is a very split country, 45-45, so it isn't going to be a cakewalk in November, though Rumsfeld and Rove might have told him so, as was the case with Iraq.

 

[jimnyc]

I think the tin-foil hat idea of the Clintons being in charge of every dem thing is funny. Maybe I'm mistaken, but didn't Clinton fire his ass?

Dunno, ask Bam, he swears Clark wasn't fired. Besides, do you understand what 'pawn' means?

I think you need to get outised, read the papers and talk with people, because you would know that this is a very split country, 45-45, so it isn't going to be a cakewalk in November, though Rumsfeld and Rove might have told him so, as was the case with Iraq.

How do you get the figures '45-45'? Sources?

 

[Palestinian Jew]

Dunno, ask Bam, he swears Clark wasn't fired. Besides, do you understand what 'pawn' means?

I guess they called it "forced resignation", but its the same as being fired. I think pawn means he was sent in by the Clintons and is somewhat controlled by the clintons.

How do you get the figures '45-45'? Sources?

This has been on the news quite a lot. But here are a few sites that cite the number:

http://www.badgerherald.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2003/12/11/3fd7d7f02f7f4?template=pda
http://www.iowapresidentialwatch.com/dailyArchive/Nov2003/11-24-03.htm

The last source comes from Time magazine and I believe it came from a Zogby poll.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Palestinian Jew
This has been on the news quite a lot. But here are a few sites that cite the number:

I guess I misunderstood what you meant the first time. I agree that is the political makeup of the country, but it's not the current voting consensus. Bush has a higher than average approval rating and the democrats just don't have anyone strong enough to take '04. They can barely beat one another. And it's not because they're all that good, it's because they're all that bad.

 

[MtnBiker]

Micheal Moore backs Clark

Somehow I don't believe this will help Clark with the much needed independent vote.

 

[jimnyc]

fat donut eating bastard!

 

[bamthin]

Originally posted by jimnyc
I guess I misunderstood what you meant the first time. I agree that is the political makeup of the country, but it's not the current voting consensus. Bush has a higher than average approval rating and the democrats just don't have anyone strong enough to take '04. They can barely beat one another. And it's not because they're all that good, it's because they're all that bad.

Zogby would beg to differ.

January 18th, 2004

Bush job performance Positive: 49% Negative 50%
Bush in '04 Bush: 41% Any Democrat 45%
Re-elect Bush? Yes: 41% Someone New: 48%

-Bam

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by bamthin
Zogby would beg to differ.

January 18th, 2004

Bush job performance Positive: 49% Negative 50%
Bush in '04 Bush: 41% Any Democrat 45%
Re-elect Bush? Yes: 41% Someone New: 48%

-Bam

And where's the link? How many were polled?

Face it, the Dems are hopeless.

 

[jimnyc]

Oh, I see, they polled 601 voters, and it was ONLY New Hampshire. I guess I wouldn't have posted a link either.

 

[bamthin]

1000 polled all over America.

-Bam

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by bamthin
1000 polled all over America.

-Bam

" The poll of 601 likely primary voters was taken Wednesday through Friday and has a margin of error of 4.1 percentage points."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040124/ts_nm/campaign_poll_dc_2

Do you have a source that states otherwise? Usually factually based posts, especially polls, come with a source cited.

And even if it was 1000, I don't see anything about it saying nationwide, and .00000002% is still useless.

I'll wait for your link.

 

[jimnyc]

How about right from Zogby's site:

"Polling results will be released daily through Tuesday, January 27th, the date of New Hampshire’s Democratic primary election.Zogby International conducted telephone interviews of a random sampling of 601 likely primary voters statewide over a rolling three-day period."

Looks like it was STATEWIDE and it WAS 601. Like I said, useless.

 

[bamthin]

Originally posted by jimnyc
" The poll of 601 likely primary voters was taken Wednesday through Friday and has a margin of error of 4.1 percentage points."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040124/ts_nm/campaign_poll_dc_2

Do you have a source that states otherwise? Usually factually based posts, especially polls, come with a source cited.

And even if it was 1000, I don't see anything about it saying nationwide, and .00000002% is still useless.

I'll wait for your link.

hehe. That was the poll for Democratic candidate in New Hampshiire. Of course it would be primary voting Democrats. Face it, Zogby shows Bush less than 50% in a national poll. Get over it.

"The most recent Zogby America poll of 1000 likely voters chosen at random was conducted January 15-18, 2004 and has a margin of error of +/- 3.2 percentage points. Slight weights were added to region, party, age, race, religion, and gender to more accurately reflect the voting population.Margins are higher in sub-groups."



LINK


-Bam

 

[jimnyc]

hehe. That was the poll for Democratic candidate in New Hampshiire. Of course it would be primary voting Democrats. Face it, Zogby shows Bush less than 50% in a national poll. Get over it.

Look, the only one whining about Bush is you. You've pointed a poll that may give the dems a couple hundred votes. They'll likely need several million more! And you can face the FACT that his approval rating is over 50% in nearly every poll conducted. You will have to deal with another 4 1/2 years under a president you despise. Looks like you're the only one here that needs to get over anything! LOL

Like I've already stated, bookmark your conspiracy sites, you're gonna need them for quite some time!