19 replies to this topic

[Caesar]

"General Wesley Clark is not attending the Democratic National Convention. I was told by General Clark's personal office in Little Rock that he would not be attending.

Clark was informed by Barack Obama's people that there was no reason to come.

General Clark has been given no role of any kind at the convention.

Rubbing salt in the wound even more, the "theme" of Wednesday's Democratic convention agenda is "Securing America."

Wesley Clark's PAC also happens to be called SECURING AMERICA.

This is a mistake in my view. There are a lot of perspectives and competing agendas about how to direct America's next national security posture -- and General Wesley Clark should be one of the top tier names and personalities at the table."
Source and full article
With the very little that Obama knows about the military do you think Wesley Clark should have been invited?

[MasterPo]

Caesar on Sep 7 2008, 12:16 AM, said:

With the very little that Obama knows about the military do you think Wesley Clark should have been invited?

Why complicate Obama's view of things with the facts?

[__Kratos__]

Caesar on Sep 6 2008, 11:16 PM, said:

With the very little that Obama knows about the military do you think Wesley Clark should have been invited?

No, he should have been lead or at least VP. He's far superior as a leader then Obama will ever be.

Edited by __Kratos__, 07 September 2008 - 04:21 AM.

[Caesar]

Biden has been in congress for 36 Wesley Clark would have been a much better pick, but then again he would lack so many other fields. I guess being a community organizer would be an asset

[MasterPo]

Caesar on Sep 7 2008, 12:48 AM, said:

I guess being a community organizer would be an asset

It seems to me that a community organizer relies heavily on getting everyone together and working from the same page (so to speak).

If world events of the last 8 years have shown anything, the world is hardly united even in the face of a clear danger.

So.....

What is Obama's experience dealing with people who do not see eye-to-eye with his vision of how things should be done?
What is Obama's fall-back strategy if he is unable to convince the world to do things as he sees it should be done?
What is Obama's record for persevering (pardon the spelling) in the face of unanimous opposition?

And king of all: How can Obama convince the American people that as President he will put the best interests of the United States first and not bend over to the wants and wishes of the rest of the world?

[SilverCougar]

Now .. was it Ron Paul the republican party said they didn't want speaking...

[ninjadude]

Caesar on Sep 6 2008, 11:48 PM, said:

Biden has been in congress for 36 Wesley Clark would have been a much better pick, but then again he would lack so many other fields. I guess being a community organizer would be an asset

Ron Paul would have been a better pick for the Republicans and just about anyone else rather than the wacko Palin.

[Caesar]

ninjadude on Sep 7 2008, 05:48 PM, said:

Ron Paul would have been a better pick for the Republicans and just about anyone else rather than the wacko Palin.

I doubt that very much, many of Ron Pauls stands are wacko like the gold standard

[BlindMessiah]

Caesar on Sep 7 2008, 10:12 PM, said:

I doubt that very much, many of Ron Pauls stands are wacko like the gold standard

Spoken like someone who knows nothing about Ron Paul, gold standard or a basic idea of freedom.

[Caesar]

BlindMessiah on Sep 7 2008, 08:18 PM, said:

Spoken like someone who knows nothing about Ron Paul, gold standard or a basic idea of freedom.

I don't care who it is, the gold standard is a bad idea. what the hell does the gold standard have to do with freedom?

[MasterPo]

Caesar on Sep 7 2008, 08:28 PM, said:

I don't care who it is, the gold standard is a bad idea. what the hell does the gold standard have to do with freedom?

As a foot note:

The argument for going back to the gold standard is that without gold directly backing the currency then the dollar is just paper only supported by the good name of the U.S. government.

This in turn leaves the government free to print as much currency as they want thus leading to inflation and devaluation.

It is believed that someday the world powers will loose faith in the U.S. government and U.S. economy and thus the value of the dollar will plumit dragging the country down to 3rd world status.

[Caesar]

MasterPo on Sep 7 2008, 08:47 PM, said:

As a foot note:

The argument for going back to the gold standard is that without gold directly backing the currency then the dollar is just paper only supported by the good name of the U.S. government.

This in turn leaves the government free to print as much currency as they want thus leading to inflation and devaluation.

It is believed that someday the world powers will loose faith in the U.S. government and U.S. economy and thus the value of the dollar will plumit dragging the country down to 3rd world status.

A dollar backed by gold can also cause inflation and devaluation just on the amount of gold deposits found dispite how good the economy is. the idea that nothing backing the dollar and people loosing faith in it and that it could cause the currency to 3rd world status is also an old idea, 60% of sales from large cap companies come from other nations. these are paid in Euros's, pounds, ect. I also think if we had the gold standard and if we were in a ecomonic down turn, the time to recovery would be much longer because people wouldn't spend and the fed wouldn't be able to put more money into our economy. I think if we could drill oil that would be much better then backing the dollar buy gold, the government would have taxing power on the high demand of oil thats in world demand. kind of like Canada a much more stable currency due to world demand of oil

[MasterPo]

Just saying that's the argument for going back to gold.

[Caesar]

LOL I know, this is like the tenth time on this forum I've discussed this.

[Vampwitchenstein]

Wasn't General Clark the one who said recently words to the effect of McCain getting shot down and held as a POW for 5 years didn't qualify him as a militarily savvy person like everyone has been going on about? I think that would be why Obama wanted to distance himself from Wesley Clark.  Even tho I would suspect Obama and Co. agree...as do I.