Would General Wesley Clark make a good president?

[Imran Siddiqui]

I would have figured you for a Lieberman lover.

Bah! Lieberman is a ****. CENSOR THIS, Joe!

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Bah! Lieberman is a ****. CENSOR THIS, Joe!

Agreed. However, aside from his "issues" with video games, he is one of the more sensible Democratic candidates IMO. That maybe damning him with faint praise considering the people running for the Dem nomination so far.

[Imran Siddiqui]

No, I still wouldn't vote for him .

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Sava
I can't support one who believes men in suits have the right to place laws on the female body in the name of some hypocritical "right to life". Eventually this socially-authoritarian attitude will go away, and America's educational and health care systems will evolve to the point where people can be educated and responsible with their sexuality... where hypocritical politicians aren't telling young adults that abstinence is the only way. Ahh yes... the day there are no abortions will be a great one. But the solution isn't to force your sick, twisted view of morality on other people... it's to educate and provide methods of safe sexual lifestyles to people, so that unwanted pregnancies never occur.

But then again, some people want to threaten with laws and twisted religious views, and others want to find a practical and moral solution.

It still isn't a constitutional right. It's a legislative issue. So regulating it shouldn't be unconstitutional. Whether or not it is bad should be up to state legilatures.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
No, I still wouldn't vote for him .

That's OK. I wouldn't vote for Dean.

[Dis]

all I know, is I wish the democrats would put somone up.

I'm really starting to get unhappy with George W. Bush. I like his tough stance on foreign affairs and terrorism (though he could have had a tough stance befor 9/11- that would have impressed me).

There just seems to be too much bad influence with Bush that I don't like.

Of course democrats are the same way unfortunately.

Isn't it possible to have a president who isn't influenced by special interest groups, but influenced directly by the people?

All I know, is I'm prepared to vote Bush out now. Even if I have to vote for the green party

[lightblue]

Same as most I don't know much of Clark's standpoints. But he seems a very reasonable man from the columns he used to write for The Times during the Iraq War. Pro-war, but not jingoistically so, sensitive of culutural issues (which doesn't really correlate with the Easter bombing) and generally a decent sort. President? Who knows...

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Dissident
Isn't it possible to have a president who isn't influenced by special interest groups, but influenced directly by the people?

You don't want a President that is influenced by the people but you want a President that is influenced by the people.

[Dis]

I want a president who listens to the people, not a few high priced business men with lots of campaign money.

I would ban campaign contributions completely.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Dissident
I would ban campaign contributions completely.

Now you want to reduce the role of people in politics further?

[Kuciwalker]

Campaign contributions are a constitutional right that fall under freedom of expression. Whether or not they're good, I don't know, but I think it's a "slippery slope" sort of thing.

[TCO]

If you see the fetus as a part of the woman's body, would you agree that it is worng to try someone for murder if they kill a fetus?