PDA

View Full Version : Elections It's Official: Powell Endorses Obama


dirk digler
10-19-2008, 07:22 AM
It is official he announced it on Meet the Press

he has the judgement McCain doesn't

McCain's choice of Palin was wrong and blasted McCain for talking about Ayers

KCJohnny
10-19-2008, 07:24 AM
So?

PRIEST
10-19-2008, 07:26 AM
Just another Fuc#you for McCain & Company :clap:

dirk digler
10-19-2008, 07:28 AM
So?

It is a huge deal for a big time Republican who served in the military to endorse a Democratic President.

Also Colin Powell is widely respected across all party lines and is very very popular in the U.S.

dirk digler
10-19-2008, 07:29 AM
The former Bush Secretary of State crosses party lines to endorse Obama, citing his "ability to inspire and lead."

Says the Illinois Senator dives deeply into issues and tackles them with a steady hand.

Makes the announcement on Sunday's "Meet the Press." Says he plans to vote-- but not campaign-- for Obama.


Powell also criticizes McCain's negative ads, says he's concerned by the choice of Palin as VP.

dirk digler
10-19-2008, 07:35 AM
Powell wants Iraq war to end now. WOW

dirk digler
10-19-2008, 07:36 AM
Damn he is slamming that bitch from Minnesota for saying Americans are un-American because they don't vote for McCain.

Bashing McCain for using Ayers and for McCain saying Obama is a Muslim. He is fucking pissed off.

Friendo
10-19-2008, 07:37 AM
BAM!

dirk digler
10-19-2008, 07:38 AM
Still a Republican.

That was a hard edged fucking press conference. He fucking nailed McCain

Friendo
10-19-2008, 07:41 AM
Still a Republican.

That was a hard edged ****ing press conference. He ****ing nailed Right-Wing Ideology--ie-75% of the Republican Party


FYP

BigCatDaddy
10-19-2008, 07:41 AM
He's black, who did you think he would endorse?

dirk digler
10-19-2008, 07:42 AM
He's black, who did you think he would endorse?

:rolleyes:

He is a republican and McCain is his friend.

It is stupid to say that Powell only endorsed him because Obama is black.

Cmon you're smarter than that

KCJohnny
10-19-2008, 07:43 AM
Powell was always a RINO. He's pissed at the GOP for OIF.

BigCatDaddy
10-19-2008, 07:47 AM
:rolleyes:

He is a republican and McCain is his friend.

It is stupid to say that Powell only endorsed him because Obama is black.

Cmon you're smarter than that

What percentage of the African American population support Barack? Over 90? If I was a betting man, I liked those odds.

dirk digler
10-19-2008, 07:49 AM
What percentage of the African American population support Barack? Over 90? If I was a betting man, I liked those odds.

It had nothing to do with color it had everything to do with his view of Obama's judgment and the negative tone of the McCain campaign.

tiptap
10-19-2008, 07:52 AM
Powell was always a RINO. He's pissed at the GOP for OIF.

That would be an ever larger group of people in this election cycle. It must be because the position of the true R is hollow.

Friendo
10-19-2008, 07:55 AM
That would be an ever larger group of people in this election cycle. It must be because the position of the true R is hollow.

with "Independent", undecided, and True Republican votes at stake, this qualifies as an "October Surprise" imho.

banyon
10-19-2008, 07:57 AM
Powell was always a RINO. He's pissed at the GOP for OIF.

Powell was not a RINO. He was a largely apolitical figure who was respected for his prudent judgment and quality of service to the country. People were not aware of his party ID. After his term as CJCS he was sought out by Republicans to lend credibility to Bush, since Bush had so little of his own.

RJ
10-19-2008, 07:58 AM
Why does Colin Powell hate America?

dirk digler
10-19-2008, 08:01 AM
Why does Colin Powell hate America?

Because according to some it is because he is black

Also this was a smart move and wiped Palin's boring SNL appearance off the news

dirk digler
10-19-2008, 08:09 AM
Powell said McCain showed that he didn't really understand how to handle the economy

Palin is NOT ready to be POTUS

The Republican Party has gone too far right for his liking

dirk digler
10-19-2008, 08:13 AM
Got to stop polarizing people with race and religion. Being an American Muslim is not a bad thing and is mad republicans are saying Obama is a muslim and could be a terrorist

dirk digler
10-19-2008, 08:15 AM
Had ZERO to do with race

ROYC75
10-19-2008, 08:16 AM
Damn he is slamming that bitch from Minnesota for saying Americans are un-American because they don't vote for McCain.

Bashing McCain for using Ayers and for McCain saying Obama is a Muslim. He is ****ing pissed off.

When has McCain EVER called Obama a Muslim ?

When ?

Ayers is a issue, it's a lack of judgment issue . So Is Wright, Resko, Adinga, Pflegger, Larry Sinclair and his their pal Young ,etc. Socialism, Marxism, radical movements, etc. These are national issues that the American public have issues with.

It's the people who are not programmed are the ones that understand these issues.

banyon
10-19-2008, 08:17 AM
<iframe height="339" width="425" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/27265490#27265490" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe>

banyon
10-19-2008, 08:21 AM
When has McCain EVER called Obama a Muslim ?

When ?


By you. In this forum. And others many times.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=186164&highlight=Obama+Muslim

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=5101384&highlight=muslim#post5101384

http://www.cfnews13.com/uploadedImages/Stories/Local/0006(38).jpg

dirk digler
10-19-2008, 08:24 AM
When has McCain EVER called Obama a Muslim ?

When ?



He was talking about his supporters and that McCain doesn't come out and condemn them

dirk digler
10-19-2008, 08:26 AM
Damn Powell said McCain is would just continue the same policies as Bush and we need to make a fundamental change

Boon
10-19-2008, 08:28 AM
I wish Powell was either party's nominee for POTUS.

chris
10-19-2008, 08:34 AM
Powell was not a RINO. He was a largely apolitical figure who was respected for his prudent judgment and quality of service to the country. People were not aware of his party ID. After his term as CJCS he was sought out by Republicans to lend credibility to Bush, since Bush had so little of his own.

Powelll wasn't pissed off this morning. He was calm, cool, and very clear in his reasoning.

I would give large amounts of $$ and time to a Powell campaign.

He would be a MUCH BETTER president that the two poor candidates currently running.

It's sad that the Repubs couldn't convince him to run.

dirk digler
10-19-2008, 08:34 AM
I wish Powell was either party's nominee for POTUS.

I would vote for the guy

chris
10-19-2008, 08:36 AM
Damn Powell said McCain is would just continue the same policies as Bush and we need to make a fundamental change

No he didn't. And he wasn't "pissed off"

You are twisting his words to fit your perceived view of the world.

Just a little bit biased, aren't you. :)

banyon
10-19-2008, 08:37 AM
Powelll wasn't pissed off this morning. He was calm, cool, and very clear in his reasoning.

.

Did I say something to make you think I thought he was pissed off?

xbarretx
10-19-2008, 08:37 AM
:rolleyes:

He is a republican and McCain is his friend.

It is stupid to say that Powell only endorsed him because Obama is black.

Cmon you're smarter than that

QFT

chris
10-19-2008, 08:37 AM
I would vote for the guy

Over Obama?? :)

KCJohnny
10-19-2008, 08:40 AM
It had nothing to do with color it had everything to do with his view of Obama's judgment and the negative tone of the McCain campaign.

Judgment?

Ayers.
Wright.
Farrakhan.
Pull out of Iraq.
Tax the economic engine of America,
Every conceiveable form of abortion and post abortion survival infanticide.

Judgment?

Experience?

Patriotism?

chris
10-19-2008, 08:42 AM
Did I say something to make you think I thought he was pissed off?


Nope. Wrong thought in wrong post. :)

You are smart guy. Do you think a write in campaign for Powell would make send a message?

dirk digler
10-19-2008, 08:44 AM
No he didn't. And he wasn't "pissed off"

You are twisting his words to fit your perceived view of the world.

Just a little bit biased, aren't you. :)

I was talking about his press conference.

Watch his press conference after his appearance.

He wasn't happy.

dirk digler
10-19-2008, 08:45 AM
Judgment?

Ayers.
Wright.
Farrakhan.
Pull out of Iraq.
Tax the economic engine of America,
Every conceiveable form of abortion and post abortion survival infanticide.

Judgment?

Experience?

Patriotism?

He is obviously alot smarter than you and got farther in the military then you ever will

banyon
10-19-2008, 08:49 AM
Nope. Wrong thought in wrong post. :)

You are smart guy. Do you think a write in campaign for Powell would make send a message?

I'm not sure. Obviously it would depend on it's ability to impact the race one way or another.

I think Nader's campaign in 2000 certainly sent a message to the Democrats that they had better do more than just pay lip service to issues like the environment. Both parties haveadopted more environmentally friendly stances to reclaim/claim that 2%.

I guess I'm not sure what message Powell would be sending. Integrity and class in election campaigns, as opposed to low brow mudslinging? Maybe. Obviously it's not "stay in Iraq", since he has endorsed the candidate with a withdrawal plan. Maybe if you could tell me more about the message, I might be more inclined to believe it could have a Nader-like impact.

Count Zarth
10-19-2008, 08:51 AM
Good. At there are reasonable people in this country willing to cross party lines.

I'm sure he'll now be ostracized by plenty of dipshit conservatives.

dirk digler
10-19-2008, 08:52 AM
Good. At there are reasonable people in this country willing to cross party lines.

I'm sure he'll now be ostracized by plenty of dipshit conservatives.

He already is by dipshit Johnny.

ROYC75
10-19-2008, 08:54 AM
By you. In this forum. And others many times.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=186164&highlight=Obama+Muslim

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=5101384&highlight=muslim#post5101384

http://www.cfnews13.com/uploadedImages/Stories/Local/0006(38).jpg

You are freaking stupid then. I never once said he was or that I thought he was. Saying " very interesting " is not an admission of my opinion.

banyon
10-19-2008, 08:57 AM
You are freaking stupid then. I never once said he was or that I thought he was. Saying " very interesting " is not an admission of my opinion.

It lent credibility to it, and then passed it along without comment in the other thread. You were facilitating the people trying to do the same thing.

Even your signature tries to tie Obama to Muslims as a ham-handed play on words wth Osama.

True, it would be patently offensve to just come out and say these things like the redneck with the yard sign, but that's why you've resorted to rumor and innuendo here on this topic, hoping someone will get the wrong idea, accidental or not.

ROYC75
10-19-2008, 08:59 AM
It lent credibility to it, and then passed it along without comment in the other thread. You were facilitating the people trying to do the same thing.

Even your signature tries to tie Obama to Muslims as a ham-handed play on words wth Osama.

True, it would be patently offensve to just come out and say these things like the redneck with the yard sign, but that's why you've resorted to rumor and innuendo here on this topic, hoping someone will get the wrong idea, accidental or not.

Still does not mean I share those views because I read it or posted somebody else's comments or columns.

And credibility ?

Hardly ........

banyon
10-19-2008, 09:00 AM
Still does not mean I share those views because I read it or posted somebody else's comments or columns.

Whatever you've got to say to rationalize the behavior, "Obama Bin Lyin". :rolleyes:

BigRedChief
10-19-2008, 09:23 AM
The Chairman of the National Security Council under Republican President Ronald Regan

Chaiman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Republican President George H. Bush

Secretary of State under Republican George W. Bush

Still says he's a Republican

Supports Obama?

Spin that neo-cons

DaFace
10-19-2008, 09:28 AM
Over Obama?? :)

I certainly would. I've always liked the guy.

BigCatDaddy
10-19-2008, 09:30 AM
It had nothing to do with color it had everything to do with his view of Obama's judgment and the negative tone of the McCain campaign.

Suuuuurrrrrrreeee.

penchief
10-19-2008, 09:31 AM
So?

Why does Colin Powell hate KCJohnny?

Why does Colin Powell hate the troops?

Why does Colin Powell hate America?

Why is Colin Powell a Marxist?

WHY! WHY! WHY!!!

BigCatDaddy
10-19-2008, 09:31 AM
Powell was always a RINO. .

This is true and so is McCain which is why he has trouble gathering support from the base. Although the dems will tell you otherwise and label him another Bush.

penchief
10-19-2008, 09:32 AM
He's black, who did you think he would endorse?

You knew that was coming from the sheep. Why didn't he endorse Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton?

penchief
10-19-2008, 09:33 AM
Powell was always a RINO. He's pissed at the GOP for OIF.

Rationalize much, HypocriteJohnny?

penchief
10-19-2008, 09:36 AM
Damn Powell said McCain is would just continue the same policies as Bush and we need to make a fundamental change

duh...

penchief
10-19-2008, 09:37 AM
I wish Powell was either party's nominee for POTUS.

Hopefully, he will serve in some capacity in a Obama Administration, if there is one.

memyselfI
10-19-2008, 09:38 AM
Should be quite ROFL watching all of the 'antiwar' DEMS racing to embrace Colin Powell all of a sudden.

Adept Havelock
10-19-2008, 09:38 AM
Why does Colin Powell hate KCJohnny?

Why does Colin Powell hate the troops?

Why does Colin Powell hate America?

Why is Colin Powell a Marxist?

WHY! WHY! WHY!!!

ROFL

memyselfI
10-19-2008, 09:39 AM
You knew that was coming from the sheep. Why didn't he endorse Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton?

They weren't as effective at hiding their liberalism and they weren't part white? :doh!:

penchief
10-19-2008, 09:39 AM
Judgment?

Ayers.
Wright.
Farrakhan.
Pull out of Iraq.
Tax the economic engine of America,
Every conceiveable form of abortion and post abortion survival infanticide.

Judgment?

Experience?

Patriotism?

Dude, get a grip. Turn off the hate radio and try not to go to any Sarah Palin messiah rallies.

Colin Powell republican > Rush Limbaugh republican.

HolmeZz
10-19-2008, 09:41 AM
I'm glad to see a Republican blasting the party for veering too far to the Right. You absolutely never hear that criticism from within the party.

TEX
10-19-2008, 09:41 AM
It is official he announced it on Meet the Press

he has the judgement McCain doesn't

McCain's choice of Palin was wrong and blasted McCain for talking about Ayers

Whatever. This more to do about race then anything else.

banyon
10-19-2008, 09:42 AM
Whatever. This more to do about race then anything else.

So, we should expect Alan Keyes' endorsement soon then?

penchief
10-19-2008, 09:42 AM
Suuuuurrrrrrreeee.

So you're calling Colin Powell a liar? To borrow a little self-righteousness from HypocriteJohnny, how can you presume to know what is in his heart? Especially when he's telling you what is in his heart? Do you have a direct line to God, too? Has God told you that he's lying?

HolmeZz
10-19-2008, 09:43 AM
They weren't as effective at hiding their liberalism and they weren't part white? :doh!:

I thought Obama wasn't liberal enough for you. Or was it that Obama was too liberal? I forget because you actually used both of those arguments.

TEX
10-19-2008, 09:43 AM
Dude, get a grip. Turn off the hate radio and try not to go to any Sarah Palin messiah rallies.

Colin Powell republican > Rush Limbaugh republican.

ROFL

Obama is the Messiah - according to Pelosi. Or haven't you heard?

memyselfI
10-19-2008, 09:45 AM
I thought Obama wasn't liberal enough for you. Or was it that Obama was too liberal? I forget because you actually used both of those arguments.

Therein lies the essence of my problem with him. Will he govern as the pseudo-Marxist he is or try to be moderate because he will owe his win to the many moderates and conservatives who did not pay close attention to his past?

One will be very dangerous to the country and the other will be very dangerous to the party and the country.

HolmeZz
10-19-2008, 09:46 AM
It's nice to see Republicans are all aligned in their talking points on this early Sunday morning.

"Colin Powell's 'blackness' renders his opinions on this election meaningless!"

penchief
10-19-2008, 09:46 AM
Should be quite ROFL watching all of the 'antiwar' DEMS racing to embrace Colin Powell all of a sudden.

I've always respected Colin Powell. And from what I've observed over the years most democrats have. We may not be for unjustified military aggression but I don't associate Powell with Bush & Cheney when it comes to that. I think most everyone, including democrats, associate Powell with advocating for the use of military force as a last resort.

IMO, you are trying to create something with your comment that doesn't exist.

HolmeZz
10-19-2008, 09:47 AM
Therein lies the essence of my problem with him. Will he govern as the pseudo-Marxist he is or try to be moderate because he will owe his win to the many moderates and conservatives who did not pay close attention to his past?

One will be very dangerous to the country and the other will be very dangerous to the party and the country.

I'm glad you've already gone about setting up scenarios where Obama can't win in your mind.

TEX
10-19-2008, 09:48 AM
So, we should expect Alan Keyes' endorsement soon then?


Who knows? It is a fact that 92.8 % of all registered African American voters who have been polled, have stated that they are voting for Obama. Race is a huge part of this election whether you choose to believe it or not.

Adept Havelock
10-19-2008, 09:50 AM
So, we should expect Alan Keyes' endorsement soon then?

And JC Watts (R-OK ret.) and Justice Clarence Thomas as well, I'm sure.



LMAO at the reaction to the endorsement.

DaFace
10-19-2008, 09:50 AM
Who knows? It is a fact that 92.8 % of all registered African American voters who have been polled, have stated that they are voting for Obama. Race is a huge part of this election whether you choose to believe it or not.

88% of African Americans voted for Kerry, too. :shrug:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

I won't argue that race plays a part in some voters' decisions, but I don't think the effect is substantial. And I certainly don't think that someone in as high a position as Colin Powell would back some schmuck just because he's black.

Mr. Laz
10-19-2008, 09:52 AM
Colin Powell is anti-America

TEX
10-19-2008, 09:55 AM
88% of African Americans voted for Kerry, too. :shrug:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

Yep. But I wonder what the numbers would have been had there been an African American running then?

Dave Lane
10-19-2008, 10:05 AM
<iframe height="339" width="425" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/27265490#27265490" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe>

Ouch thats going to leave a mark. Where's Patty and Reject to set us straight?

Dave

BigChiefFan
10-19-2008, 10:14 AM
There's so many fucking excuses, that's it pathetic. Powell endorsed Obama, some don't like it, so they'll clutch at straws, hoping something sticks. Deal with it, some of you are partisan hacks.

Direckshun
10-19-2008, 10:23 AM
Next up: Condi.

Direckshun
10-19-2008, 10:24 AM
I'm waiting for patteeu to marginalize him as a historically awful secretary of state.

dirk digler
10-19-2008, 10:25 AM
Yep. But I wonder what the numbers would have been had there been an African American running then?

Who cares? Are you saying blacks can't vote?

dirk digler
10-19-2008, 10:26 AM
Next up: Condi.

I actually think Condi will vote for Obama but she won't say it publically

Direckshun
10-19-2008, 10:27 AM
I actually think Condi will vote for Obama but she won't say it publically

Which is hilarious considering she's a neoconservative.

This whole race has realignment written all over it...

dirk digler
10-19-2008, 10:29 AM
Which is hilarious considering she's a neoconservative.

This whole race has realignment written all over it...

I don't think she is a neo I think she is a moderate much like Powell is. I could be wrong on that though

The only reason though I say that she might vote for Obama because when she is asked she is always saying very nice things about him. I don't think I have heard her say anything about McCain

NCarlsCorner2
10-19-2008, 10:32 AM
Maybe the Dems will quit calling him an Uncle Tom.

Mr. Kotter
10-19-2008, 10:35 AM
I don't really understand why anyone would be at all surprised by this. Duh.

dirk digler
10-19-2008, 10:36 AM
I don't really understand why anyone would be at all surprised by this. Duh.

It is a big deal that is why

Mr. Kotter
10-19-2008, 10:38 AM
It is a big deal that is why

No bigger deal than Lieberman supporting McCain. Meh.

Pretty predictable to anyone paying real attention.

splatbass
10-19-2008, 10:39 AM
So?

He was a general that lead our troops to victory in Kuwait and Iraq. I thought you respected that. I guess you only respect the members of the military that vote Republican.

Direckshun
10-19-2008, 10:40 AM
I don't really understand why anyone would be at all surprised by this. Duh.

Would you be surprised if Wesley Clark endorsed McCain?

Would you be surprised if Colin Powell endorsed McCain?

banyon
10-19-2008, 10:41 AM
No bigger deal than Lieberman supporting McCain. Meh.

Pretty predictable to anyone paying real attention.

Uh, people don't like Lieberman.

dirk digler
10-19-2008, 10:41 AM
No bigger deal than Lieberman supporting McCain. Meh.

Pretty predictable to anyone paying real attention.

Yes it was fairly predictable but now that it has happened it is a huge deal.

Frank Gallup was on MSNBC a little while ago and he said that Powell has a 85% approval rating and this will move voters to Obama

Mr. Kotter
10-19-2008, 10:45 AM
Moonbats and yellowdog Dems don't like Lieberman.

FYP

You're welcome.

;)

Mr. Kotter
10-19-2008, 10:45 AM
Would you be surprised if Wesley Clark endorsed McCain?

Would you be surprised if Colin Powell endorsed McCain?

Maybe a bit; but not shocked. And No.

HolmeZz
10-19-2008, 10:46 AM
No bigger deal than Lieberman supporting McCain. Meh.

Pretty predictable to anyone paying real attention.

Nobody cares about Lieberman, who essentially got voted out of the party two years ago by CT Dems. Yes, that was the same primary election where Lieberman crawled to Obama for help. He's not taken seriously on the national level.

Powell commands a level of respect from most in this country.

nychief
10-19-2008, 10:47 AM
He's black, who did you think he would endorse?

you're an idiot, who do you think you endorse?

dirk digler
10-19-2008, 10:48 AM
Nobody cares about Lieberman, who essentially got voted out of the party two years ago by CT Dems. Yes, that was the same primary election where Lieberman crawled to Obama for help. He's not taken seriously on the national level.

Powell commands a level of respect from most in this country.

I agree with this. Lieberman hasn't moved many or any voters to McCain.

The Powell endorsement will move alot of voters to Obama.

keg in kc
10-19-2008, 10:51 AM
Why listen to general powell when we have seargent johnny spreading the real truth.

banyon
10-19-2008, 10:52 AM
FYP

You're welcome.

;)

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1296.xml?ReleaseID=1189

Colin Powell

Favorable
Unfavorable
Never heard of
No opinion

2004 Nov 19-21 †
87%
9
2
2

Connecticut Senator, Joe Lieberman
Favorable
Unfavorable
Never heard of
No opinion

2006 Sep 15-17
43%
28
11
18

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1618/Favorability-People-News.aspx#3

splatbass
10-19-2008, 10:52 AM
Who knows? It is a fact that 92.8 % of all registered African American voters who have been polled, have stated that they are voting for Obama. Race is a huge part of this election whether you choose to believe it or not.

90% of African-Americans voted for Kerry, who isn't black. 90% of African-Americans will vote for whoever the Dems nominate.

dirk digler
10-19-2008, 10:53 AM
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1296.xml?ReleaseID=1189

Colin Powell

Favorable
Unfavorable
Never heard of
No opinion

2004 Nov 19-21 †
87%
9
2
2

Connecticut Senator, Joe Lieberman
Favorable
Unfavorable
Never heard of
No opinion

2006 Sep 15-17
43%
28
11
18

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1618/Favorability-People-News.aspx#3

That poll is little old

banyon
10-19-2008, 10:57 AM
That poll is little old

The link has a current poll, but I couldn't find any more recent favorability ratings for either man.

I would doubt the numbers have moved much for Powell, they're probably worse for Lieberman.

penchief
10-19-2008, 11:06 AM
Maybe the Dems will quit calling him an Uncle Tom.

I think that's a gross mischaracterization. I think that dems, like just about everybody else, have always respected Powell regardless of his party affiliation.

penchief
10-19-2008, 11:08 AM
No bigger deal than Lieberman supporting McCain. Meh.

Pretty predictable to anyone paying real attention.

It shoots a hole through half the radical right talking points.

Ooooh, be afraid of the man with the Arab sounding name. Ooooh, be afraid of the muslim who associates with terrorists. Oooooh, he's dangerous, he's risky, he's unpatrioitc, oooooooh. Be very afraid....

beer bacon
10-19-2008, 11:49 AM
No bigger deal than Lieberman supporting McCain. Meh.

Pretty predictable to anyone paying real attention.

Lieberman is hated by everyone that is not you.

beer bacon
10-19-2008, 11:50 AM
This thread needs more rationalizing from butthurt Republicans.

NewChief
10-19-2008, 12:16 PM
It's official. Colin Powell is a socialist.

RJ
10-19-2008, 12:43 PM
Maybe the Dems will quit calling him an Uncle Tom.



He has an 85% approval rating and dems think he's an Uncle Tom? That's astounding.

Mr. Kotter
10-19-2008, 12:49 PM
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1296.xml?ReleaseID=1189

Colin Powell

Favorable
Unfavorable
Never heard of
No opinion

2004 Nov 19-21 †
87%
9
2
2

Connecticut Senator, Joe Lieberman
Favorable
Unfavorable
Never heard of
No opinion

2006 Sep 15-17
43%
28
11
18

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1618/Favorability-People-News.aspx#3

See, just like I SAID: moonbats and yellowdogs don't like him. So what? :shrug:

After this, there will be many Dittoheads and RWNJs who won't like Powell anymore.

Different side of the same coin.

banyon
10-19-2008, 01:02 PM
See, just like I SAID: moonbats and yellowdogs don't like him. So what? :shrug:

After this, there will be many Dittoheads and RWNJs who won't like Powell anymore.

Different side of the same coin.

Did you even read the numbers? 40 points of favorability is quite a lot.

57% of people aren't "moonbats and yellow dogs"

Mr. Kotter
10-19-2008, 01:12 PM
Did you even read the numbers? 40 points of favorability is quite a lot.

57% of people aren't "moonbats and yellow dogs"

28% Unfavorable ratings for Lieberman, correct? :shrug:

Did YOU even read your own post? Sheesh. My HS students would understand this without any help. Duh.

28% = roughly the yellowdog dem/moonbat demographic; and FWIW, a new poll in a few weeks on Powell will probably now put his unfavorables in about the same ballpark, with Dittoheads and RWNJs.

Any other stupid questions? :rolleyes:

BigRedChief
10-19-2008, 01:16 PM
The Powell Endorsement

October 19, 2008 11:38 AM
<!-- Gary Langer
-->Endorsements tend to reinforce predispositions rather than change them. Nonetheless Colin Powell's (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/10/powell-voting-f.html) is unusual, in that it both crosses the aisle and comes from a particularly well-liked quasi-political figure - one, as a bonus, who's steeped in the military experience Barack Obama lacks.

A few data points:
-In a Fox News poll in August, registered voters by nearly 2-1 said a Powell endorsement would make them more likely rather than less likely to vote for Obama – 35 percent more likely, 19 percent less so. (“No difference” was not offered as a choice; 43 percent volunteered it anyway.)

-Same poll, 76 percent reported an overall favorable opinion of Powell, 13 percent unfavorable.

-In an ABC/Post poll back in October 1995, 64 percent of Americans said Powell should run for president in 1996. In a head-to-head matchup Powell led Bill Clinton by 10 points, 52 to 42 percent, among registered voters. (Among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, though, Powell was not the frontrunner in preference for their party's nomination; he ran second to Bob Dole.)

-Same October 1995 poll, 70 percent viewed Powell favorably. And 54 percent rated his leadership abilities as “outstanding” or “above average,” well above his contemporaries (Bush 41 got above-average leadership ratings from 39 percent, Bob Dole 26, Bill Clinton 25). Powell also bettered Ronald Reagan’s leadership rating (43 percent outstanding/above average).

Note, part of Powell’s popularity stems from the fact that he’s never waded deeply into the political fray. It’s when they actually engage in the messy business of policy and governance that public figures tend to lose some of their appeal. Or at least to put it on the line.

Regardless, beyond his popularity and Republican credentials, Powell's endorsement may resonate for another reason: In making it he criticized John McCain for negative campaigning - a concern that, as I reported here (http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenumbers/2008/10/attack-blowback.html) a week ago, the public clearly shares.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenumbers/2008/10/the-powell-endo.html

Mr. Kotter
10-19-2008, 01:23 PM
...

Note, part of Powell’s popularity stems from the fact that he’s never waded deeply into the political fray. It’s when they actually engage in the messy business of policy and governance that public figures tend to lose some of their appeal. Or at least to put it on the line.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenumbers/2008/10/the-powell-endo.html

QFT :thumb:

If his unfavorables don't hit at least 20-25% (Dittoheads and RWNJ-types, who will cry "traitor!") after this, I'll be surprised. It's too bad, because I don't think he should take a hit--because he is right; but he will.

It amazes me how partisan and ideological loyalty blind people to a pretty self-evident fact....even if I agree with them on their choice for President, they still can't see things objectively.

banyon
10-19-2008, 01:34 PM
28% Unfavorable ratings for Lieberman, correct? :shrug:

Did YOU even read your own post? Sheesh. My HS students would understand this without any help. Duh.

28% = roughly the yellowdog dem/moonbat demographic; and FWIW, a new poll in a few weeks on Powell will probably now put his unfavorables in about the same ballpark, with Dittoheads and RWNJs.

Any other stupid questions? :rolleyes:

Geez, I guess when you're blindly stubborn, well, I guess that's what you are.

Favorable ratings 87-43%.

My post: "People don't like Lieberman" (I.e, don't have a favorable opinion, not that they have a negative opinion) (and they do like Powell).

You: some audience abuse ad hominem rhetoric about your students

Gahd, I've had some retarded inmates filling out their indigent defense applications with better reasoning skills than this! :harumph:

Your shenanigans aside, there's a huge difference between the two.

keg in kc
10-19-2008, 01:47 PM
I wonder if Powell's been offered a cabinet position.

jAZ
10-19-2008, 01:49 PM
Powell was always a RINO. He's pissed at the GOP for OIF.
Isn't that what conservatives have said about McCain for years?

dirk digler
10-19-2008, 02:03 PM
Powell's Obama endorsement 'devastating,' analysts say

By Margaret Talev, William Douglas and Nancy A. Youssef | McClatchy Newspapers


WASHINGTON — Colin Powell, a retired general who'd often been mentioned as a Republican presidential candidate himself, endorsed Democrat Barack Obama for president Sunday during the taping of NBC's "Meet the Press" television program.

Political analysts said Powell's endorsement, coupled with a blistering critique of the campaign of Republican Sen. John McCain, especially of the selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate, was a serious blow to McCain's candidacy, particularly in swing states with large numbers of undecided voters.

"It was a devastating critique. He gave a convincing national endorsement. That's what made it so damaging," said Larry J. Sabato, the director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics. "This is a more important endorsement than Oprah's."

Susan MacManus, a political science professor at the University of South Florida in Tampa, said that Powell appeals to independents who are socially liberal, fiscally conservative and moderate on defense issues. Because they shun party labels, they are more swayed by personality, and Powell is a respected national figure. Independents make as much as 9 percent of voters in swing states.

The timing of the endorsement is key as well. In some swing states, voting has already begun. And in Florida, early voting begins Monday. Obama will be campaigning in Tampa.

"That is why this is a prized endorsement," McManus said. "I can't think of a more important endorsement at this point in the campaign."

G. Terry Madonna, director of the Center for Politics and Public Affairs at Franklin & Marshall College in Pennsylvania, echoed this comments.

"This is a huge endorsement, maybe the most significant endorsement he's got," Madonna said. ""For undecided voters who are looking at their concerns about national security and defense, this is a plus."

dirk digler
10-19-2008, 02:06 PM
Kevin Madden (http://www.politico.com/arena/bio/kevin_madden.html), Republican strategist:

I believe there are very few endorsements that move blocs of voters. Endorsements tend to reaffirm what voters already know or like (or dislike) about a candidate's personal and ideological attributes. But the endorsement of Colin Powell is significant because of its timing and the message it sends to swing Democrats and independents.

Friendo
10-19-2008, 02:08 PM
I wonder if Powell's been offered a cabinet position.

My guess is yes. He said in the interview he's been in discussions with Obama for two years. And BO has sought counsel from several Moderates in the Republican Party, esp on FP & military affairs.

vailpass
10-19-2008, 02:18 PM
My brotha' from anotha' motha'!

Donger
10-19-2008, 02:21 PM
And Harry Belafonte suddenly forgets where he was in 2002.

Logical
10-19-2008, 02:23 PM
So?ROFLROFLROFLROFL

vailpass
10-19-2008, 02:26 PM
Movin on up, to the top, to a de-luxe apartment in the sky...
"Weezy, get me cabinet member Powell"

I wonder if they'll play dominos in the war room?

Logical
10-19-2008, 02:39 PM
Should be quite ROFL watching all of the 'antiwar' DEMS racing to embrace Colin Powell all of a sudden.Being as he said we need to get out of Iraq, should not be hard.:rolleyes:

HolmeZz
10-19-2008, 02:46 PM
Being as he said we need to get out of Iraq, should not be hard.:rolleyes:

It's funny watching an 'anti-war dem' go out of her way to slam Obama's candidacy, while propping up the candidacy of Hillary and Edwards(two Senators who supported the war).

Mr. Kotter
10-19-2008, 02:47 PM
Geez, I guess when you're blindly stubborn, well, I guess that's what you are.

Favorable ratings 87-43%.

My post: "People don't like Lieberman" (I.e, don't have a favorable opinion, not that they have a negative opinion) (and they do like Powell).

You: some audience abuse ad hominem rhetoric about your students

Gahd, I've had some retarded inmates filling out their indigent defense applications with better reasoning skills than this! :harumph:

Your shenanigans aside, there's a huge difference between the two.

Parsing like that may stand up among lawyers; it doesn't in the real world though.

:rolleyes:

Unfavorable = "don't like" in the minds of normal/non-lawyer types

I wonder if Powell's been offered a cabinet position.

That might explain it.

FWIW, he would be a good choice too.

Messier
10-19-2008, 02:49 PM
Movin on up, to the top, to a de-luxe apartment in the sky...
"Weezy, get me cabinet member Powell"

I wonder if they'll play dominos in the war room?



Now can you do one where Obama and Powell are eating fried chicken and watermelon or something?

Logical
10-19-2008, 03:02 PM
28% Unfavorable ratings for Lieberman, correct? :shrug:

Did YOU even read your own post? Sheesh. My HS students would understand this without any help. Duh.

28% = roughly the yellowdog dem/moonbat demographic; and FWIW, a new poll in a few weeks on Powell will probably now put his unfavorables in about the same ballpark, with Dittoheads and RWNJs.

Any other stupid questions? :rolleyes:Pretty early to be drunk or smelling mouse turds.

HonestChieffan
10-19-2008, 03:14 PM
Not a surprise but low level of impact either.

Baby Lee
10-19-2008, 03:17 PM
The fear of additional conservative SC appointments is quite telling.

Ultra Peanut
10-19-2008, 03:19 PM
WATERBOARD POWELL

He's black, who did you think he would endorse?He's American, who did you think he would endorse?

Movin on up, to the top, to a de-luxe apartment in the sky...
"Weezy, get me cabinet member Powell"

I wonder if they'll play dominos in the war room?Mmmmmmyes, casual racism is so in these days.

vailpass
10-19-2008, 03:22 PM
He's American, who did you think he would endorse?

You can just smell your chances improving for leeching money off the government to pay for the medically unnecessary surgery you want, can't you?
Comrade Obama gonna' spread our money around huh?

HolmeZz
10-19-2008, 03:22 PM
POWELL, RIGHT IN THE KISSER

Ultra Peanut
10-19-2008, 03:27 PM
You can just smell your chances improving for leeching money off the government to pay for the medically unnecessary surgery you want, can't you?
Comrade Obama gonna' spread our money around huh?Ah, yes. From 0 to U R TRANNY in half a second! Well done.

Now go back to mockin' them negros.

vailpass
10-19-2008, 03:30 PM
Ah, yes. From 0 to U R TRANNY in half a second! Well done.

Now go back to mockin' them negros.

Dude you are self-admittedly menally unstable. That little fact doesn't just go away. You have expressed a desire to cut off your own manhood. There is no getting beyond that for most of us in the stable portion of the populace.
Everything you say after that is static.

Logical
10-19-2008, 03:32 PM
Not a surprise but low level of impact either.ROFLROFLROFL

Ultra Peanut
10-19-2008, 03:34 PM
Dude you are self-admittedly menally unstable. That little fact doesn't just go away. You have expressed a desire to cut off your own manhood. There is no getting beyond that for most of us in the stable portion of the populace.
Everything you say after that is static."Stable" means "willfully ignorant of the medical and psychiatric community's position on this issue." Good to know.

There are a lot of uncertainties in life, but it's comforting to know that I'll always be a better person than you.

Mecca
10-19-2008, 03:35 PM
Ah, yes. From 0 to U R TRANNY in half a second! Well done.

Now go back to mockin' them negros.

I think he's just upset because Jay Cutler still looks like a child molester.

Logical
10-19-2008, 03:35 PM
"Stable" means "willfully ignorant of the medical and psychiatric community's position on this issue." Good to know.

There are a lot of uncertainties in life, but it's comforting to know that I'll always be a better person than you.So true, so very true

jettio
10-19-2008, 05:06 PM
This endorsement is much more powerful than I expected.

The reason is that Powell does such a good job of explaining his decision.

I think most endorsers had to have their finger in the wind. Powell could have elected not to endorse and no one would have given him a hard time about it. He might have caught hell if he endorsed McCain, but the reality is that he endorsed Obama when he could have stayed on the sidelines.

Powell does a great job of explaining why Obama gives him reasons not to stay on the sidelines and that McCain's campaign tactics provides additional reasons.

jettio
10-19-2008, 05:11 PM
The fear of additional conservative SC appointments is quite telling.


Why should the supreme court have 6 conservatives 1 moderate and 2 liberals when that does not reflect the country?

The supreme court is already unbalanced compared to the population, why make it even more so?

And your phrase, "quite telling" is curious. Are you suggesting that Powell accidentally reveals something about himself that he did not intend to reveal?

Seems like he intentionally made the point to make a point about who he is.

Mr. Flopnuts
10-19-2008, 05:13 PM
He's black, who did you think he would endorse?

You must've forgotten that white people claimed Colin during the racial draft.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/MrwG6_Z0sjU&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/MrwG6_Z0sjU&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

vailpass
10-19-2008, 05:20 PM
"Stable" means "willfully ignorant of the medical and psychiatric community's position on this issue." Good to know.

There are a lot of uncertainties in life, but it's comforting to know that I'll always be a better person than you.

LMAO
You can't be the king if you don't have a scepter.

Donger
10-19-2008, 05:29 PM
It's official: Powell is as big a political whore as Barack Hussein.

Nice couple.

I wonder what was offered?

Mr. Kotter
10-19-2008, 05:42 PM
It's official: Powell is as big a political whore as Barack Hussein.

Nice couple.

I wonder what was offered?


Secretary of State is my guess.

He won't make the same mistakes as cabinet member this time as he did for W, though.

'Hamas' Jenkins
10-19-2008, 05:44 PM
QFT :thumb:

If his unfavorables don't hit at least 20-25% (Dittoheads and RWNJ-types, who will cry "traitor!") after this, I'll be surprised. It's too bad, because I don't think he should take a hit--because he is right; but he will.

It amazes me how partisan and ideological loyalty blind people to a pretty self-evident fact....even if I agree with them on their choice for President, they still can't see things objectively.

You'd make a hilarious contestant on a reality show. Always trying to play both sides of the fence, and failing epically in both attempts.

'Hamas' Jenkins
10-19-2008, 05:45 PM
It's official: Powell is as big a political whore as Barack Hussein.

Nice couple.

I wonder what was offered?

.

Good. At least there are reasonable people in this country willing to cross party lines.

I'm sure he'll now be ostracized by plenty of dipshit conservatives.

Mr. Kotter
10-19-2008, 05:46 PM
You'd make a hilarious contestant on a reality show. Always trying to play both sides of the fence, and failing epically in both attempts.

Hamas: I call it like I see it. You seem to also, so I'd expect you to appreciate it more. Oh well.

The difference is you only see the world through an ideological lense, while I prefer a political lense.

Baby Lee
10-19-2008, 05:53 PM
Why should the supreme court have 6 conservatives 1 moderate and 2 liberals when that does not reflect the country?

The supreme court is already unbalanced compared to the population, why make it even more so?

And your phrase, "quite telling" is curious. Are you suggesting that Powell accidentally reveals something about himself that he did not intend to reveal?

Seems like he intentionally made the point to make a point about who he is.

Why did the SC need to be packed in the FDR era?

And the 'quite telling' is quite straightforward, and it's not about some nefarious secret, or a slipup revealing a character flaw.

One can be conservative and have qualms about issues, or about the tone in Washington, or about the skills, demeanor or acumen of a particular candidate, but something like the SC is kind of a foundational thing, especially when couched in terms of 'no additional conservative justice could be a good thing.' That's not saying a particular nominee is off, it's the notion that additional conservatives, no matter their skill or reason, would be bad.
It's as telling as if he'd said he supported Barack because we needed to 'spread the wealth around,' or we needed single payer health care, or we needed a massive program to reduce carbon footprint.

'Hamas' Jenkins
10-19-2008, 05:55 PM
Legislating from the bench= teh evil, unless you are overturning Roe v. Wade.

dirk digler
10-19-2008, 05:56 PM
It seems the Powell endorsement really pissed off the people on the right.

That means the endorsement had a huge impact.

Baby Lee
10-19-2008, 06:00 PM
Legislating from the bench= teh evil, unless you are overturning Roe v. Wade.

ROFL ROFL ROFL

1. First and primarily, completely off point. It's not about something so minor as quabbles about single decisions, it's about Powell making the policy statement that too many conservative justices would by definition and without consideration of the merits of the nominees be a bad thing.

2. Anyone wanna tell Sparky why they call it 'Roe v. Wade.' Hint, note that it's not called the Roe/Wade Act.

'Hamas' Jenkins
10-19-2008, 06:02 PM
ROFL ROFL ROFL

1. First and primarily, completely off point. It's not about something so minor as quabbles about single decisions, it's about Powell making the policy statement that too many conservative justices would by definition and without consideration of the merits of the nominees be a bad thing.

2. Anyone wanna tell Sparky why they call it 'Roe v. Wade.' Hint, note that it's not called the Roe/Wade Act.

Yeah, I mean it's not like it's using PR to craft undesirable outcomes as "legislation" or anything, is it?

Secondly, you are completely FOS if you can honestly sit there and say that the Republicans don't require just as much of a "litmus test" from their nominees as the Democrats do. It's not 1985 anymore.

jettio
10-19-2008, 06:07 PM
Why did the SC need to be packed in the FDR era?

And the 'quite telling' is quite straightforward, and it's not about some nefarious secret, or a slipup revealing a character flaw.

One can be conservative and have qualms about issues, or about the tone in Washington, or about the skills, demeanor or acumen of a particular candidate, but something like the SC is kind of a foundational thing, especially when couched in terms of 'no additional conservative justice could be a good thing.' That's not saying a particular nominee is off, it's the notion that additional conservatives, no matter their skill or reason, would be bad.
It's as telling as if he'd said he supported Barack because we needed to 'spread the wealth around,' or we needed single payer health care, or we needed a massive program to reduce carbon footprint.

What is your opinion on judicial appointments?

Mr. Kotter
10-19-2008, 06:09 PM
Why did the SC need to be packed in the FDR era?

And the 'quite telling' is quite straightforward, and it's not about some nefarious secret, or a slipup revealing a character flaw.

One can be conservative and have qualms about issues, or about the tone in Washington, or about the skills, demeanor or acumen of a particular candidate, but something like the SC is kind of a foundational thing, especially when couched in terms of 'no additional conservative justice could be a good thing.' That's not saying a particular nominee is off, it's the notion that additional conservatives, no matter their skill or reason, would be bad.
It's as telling as if he'd said he supported Barack because we needed to 'spread the wealth around,' or we needed single payer health care, or we needed a massive program to reduce carbon footprint.

So, BL...in your opinion, what does it tell us exactly?

ClevelandBronco
10-19-2008, 06:10 PM
Huge endorsement.

This kind of thing could ensure that Sen. Obama gets the majority of the African-American vote. :D

'Hamas' Jenkins
10-19-2008, 06:11 PM
So, BL...in your opinion, what does it tell us exactly?

Powell is a traitor and deserves to die.

Donger
10-19-2008, 06:15 PM
.

ROFL

Donger
10-19-2008, 06:17 PM
Powell is a traitor and deserves to die.

I don't think he's a traitor. He's merely adjusting himself (a little) for political gain.

He was never a conservative.

Donger
10-19-2008, 06:18 PM
It's actually rather amusing seeing of the leftists here suddenly thinking Powell is the other chosen one.

I'm sure you were all thinking the same thing when he was selling the invasion of Iraq to the world, right?

HolmeZz
10-19-2008, 06:18 PM
I don't think he's a traitor. He's merely adjusting himself (a little) for political gain.

He was never a conservative.

What are your excuses for Peggy Noonan, Kathleen Parker, Christopher Bunkley, and company?

Mr. Kotter
10-19-2008, 06:20 PM
What are your excuses for Peggy Noonan, Kathleen Parker, Christopher Brinkley, and company?


It's Christopher BUCKley. ;)

Programmer
10-19-2008, 06:30 PM
It is official he announced it on Meet the Press

he has the judgement McCain doesn't

McCain's choice of Palin was wrong and blasted McCain for talking about Ayers

Colin Powell was always against women in combat. My opinion is that he doesn't like women in power. If Hillary had of been the democrats candidate he would have endorsed McCain.

Donger
10-19-2008, 06:31 PM
What are your excuses for Peggy Noonan, Kathleen Parker, Christopher Brinkley, and company?

Misogynists, obviously.

HolmeZz
10-19-2008, 06:35 PM
It's Christopher BUCKley. ;)

Yeah, that was a funny slip.

Logical
10-19-2008, 06:46 PM
It's official: Powell is as big a political whore as Barack Hussein.

Nice couple.

I wonder what was offered?My guess is he saw the continuation of the Cheney worldview in McCain and wanted to make sure that was stopped.

Ultra Peanut
10-19-2008, 06:59 PM
Huge endorsement.

This kind of thing could ensure that Sen. Obama gets the majority of the African-American vote. :DIf by "African-American" you mean "moderate white Republicans aged 45+," then you may be right.

The base is obviously going to rip into him as a terrorist sympathizer, but the endorsement and the way he phrased it was a massive boon for Obama to groups that may have been intrigued but not completely willing to back him before.

***SPRAYER
10-19-2008, 06:59 PM
Yeah, I mean it's not like it's using PR to craft undesirable outcomes as "legislation" or anything, is it?

Secondly, you are completely FOS if you can honestly sit there and say that the Republicans don't require just as much of a "litmus test" from their nominees as the Democrats do. It's not 1985 anymore.

Alrighty then!

Chiefshrink
10-19-2008, 08:31 PM
I don't think he's a traitor. He's merely adjusting himself (a little) for political gain.

He was never a conservative.

Precisely! I really see Powell paralleling General McCellan of the Civil War. Reluctant to fight. Powell was never a "Hawk" and I feel this endorsement is a BIG FU to Bush and Cheney. This is not a surprise at all but you watch the Liberal Media will play this up as big huge deal because "pussy Powell" is a Republican. I wonder how Powell justifies Obama's resume over Palin? THERE is the big contradiction!:shake:

Adept Havelock
10-19-2008, 08:42 PM
Precisely! I really see Powell paralleling General McCellan of the Civil War.

ROFL

Please, McClellan was nothing more than the mirror image of Fabius Maximus. McClellan only deserves to be thought of as bizzaro-Cunctator for his delaying actions serving the enemy.

On the other hand Gen. Powell oversaw the most successful use of American Arms since the Second World War, taking the MidEast record from Israel's 144 hours to roughly 100. :D

I see your command of Military History is as lacking as your command of Roman History. Better stick to psychobabble. ;)

And yes, it's a big endorsement for Senator Obama. However, it's not that big because he's a member of the GOP. It's big because it effectively skewers the "soft on defense/won't defend the US" card.

Only a few fools will believe Gen. Powell would endorse Sen. Obama if he wasn't comfortable with his stance on National Security.

One last point, if the current administration had followed the Powell Doctrine, I suspect Iraq would be in far better shape today.

This is not a surprise at all but you watch the Liberal Media will play this up as big huge deal because "pussy Powell" is a Republican.

It's a shame that your Obama Derangement Syndrome leads you to belittle Gen. Powell in this manner. :shake:

There are reasons to dislike Gen. Powell, most recently his horrible performance at the UN in the lead up to OIF. However, as much as I dislike that I would never stoop to calling the man who spent his life defending our nation a "pussy".

I strongly suspect "Pussy Powell" has done FAR more to serve this nation than you ever have.

Nice job. It's been a while since someone stuck their foot in their mouth on the level recxjake used to. It's always nice when one of our resident fools shows his true colors with such a telling statement. :clap:

Chiefshrink
10-19-2008, 08:59 PM
One last point, if the current administration had followed the Powell Doctrine, I suspect Iraq would be in far better shape today.

So Iraq would have it's freedom in Democracy at this moment if it would have followed Powell's Doctrine?

Adept Havelock
10-19-2008, 09:05 PM
I'm not sure I should bother responding further to an idiot who would insult Gen. Powell for his service (by calling him Pussy Powell) because he endorsed his candidates rival for president.


So Iraq would have it's freedom in Democracy at this moment if it would have followed Powell's Doctrine?

Did you have the same English teacher as Roy? ROFL

My point being that one of the chief elements of the Powell doctrine calls for overwhelming force. I suspect we would have had far more troops available at the end of major combat operations, which would have dramatically improved our ability to secure the country. AFAICS, that lack of manpower was one of the biggest mistakes we made, and helped the local insurgency get established as strongly as it was. :shrug:

Stick to psychobabble and insulting our troops because they endorse your candidate's rival. It suits you.

Oh, and once again, thanks for showing your true colors...you ignorant cretin. :thumb:

Logical
10-19-2008, 10:16 PM
Precisely! I really see Powell paralleling General McCellan of the Civil War. Reluctant to fight. Powell was never a "Hawk" and I feel this endorsement is a BIG FU to Bush and Cheney. This is not a surprise at all but you watch the Liberal Media will play this up as big huge deal because "pussy Powell" is a Republican. I wonder how Powell justifies Obama's resume over Palin? THERE is the big contradiction!:shake:I am glad Adept properly rebuked you because the "pussy Powell" reference is so vile as to be beyond reprehensible.

Adept Havelock
10-20-2008, 06:17 AM
I am glad Adept properly rebuked you because the "pussy Powell" reference is so vile as to be beyond reprehensible.

I'd like to say I'm surprised he'd say something like that, but I'm not.

BigCatDaddy
10-20-2008, 06:43 AM
Quesion for the Dems : Who did Powell endorse in the past two elections? I'm sure you feel he was 0 for 2 in his last to votes. So why do you now feel all of a sudden he is intelligent enough at age 70 to get. Maybe he has like you all say, McCain syndrome and has lost it. Or perhaps since Powell liked the Bush policies, he wants a third term and is supporting Obama.

penchief
10-20-2008, 06:55 AM
I'd like to say I'm surprised he'd say something like that, but I'm not.

Wait until you see how some of the people in this country are going to act if Obama wins.

BigCatDaddy
10-20-2008, 07:07 AM
Wait until you see how some of the people in this country are going to act if Obama wins.

Agreed, if anyone thought Bush was a divider you haven't seen anything yet.

BigRedChief
10-20-2008, 07:13 AM
If Obama wins the popular vote and McCain wins the electrol college vote there will violence.

penchief
10-20-2008, 07:20 AM
Agreed, if anyone thought Bush was a divider you haven't seen anything yet.

The difference will be that Bush did the dividing. Many of those on the far right are going to make sure they give Obama the Clinton treatment X 10. Whereas Bush imposed himself on the country, the repbublican party and its partisans imposed themselves on the country during the Clinton presidency. That is a big difference.

Those on the extreme right who plan on disrupting an Obama presidency are ready to impose themselves on the country again.

BigCatDaddy
10-20-2008, 07:24 AM
The difference will be that Bush did the dividing. Many of those on the far right are going to make sure they give Obama the Clinton treatment X 10. Whereas Bush imposed himself on the country, the repbublican party and its partisans imposed themselves on the country during the Clinton presidency. That is a big difference.

Those on the extreme right who plan on disrupting an Obama presidency are ready to impose themselves on the country again.

The threat of socialism and his skin color will be the dividiig factors.

penchief
10-20-2008, 07:26 AM
The threat of socialism and his skin color will be the dividiig factors.

You make my case. Thank you.

tiptap
10-20-2008, 07:29 AM
ROFL

Please, McClellan was nothing more than the mirror image of Fabius Maximus. McClellan only deserves to be thought of as bizzaro-Cunctator for his delaying actions serving the enemy.

On the other hand Gen. Powell oversaw the most successful use of American Arms since the Second World War, taking the MidEast record from Israel's 144 hours to roughly 100. :D

I see your command of Military History is as lacking as your command of Roman History. Better stick to psychobabble. ;)

And yes, it's a big endorsement for Senator Obama. However, it's not that big because he's a member of the GOP. It's big because it effectively skewers the "soft on defense/won't defend the US" card.

Only a few fools will believe Gen. Powell would endorse Sen. Obama if he wasn't comfortable with his stance on National Security.

One last point, if the current administration had followed the Powell Doctrine, I suspect Iraq would be in far better shape today.



It's a shame that your Obama Derangement Syndrome leads you to belittle Gen. Powell in this manner. :shake:

There are reasons to dislike Gen. Powell, most recently his horrible performance at the UN in the lead up to OIF. However, as much as I dislike that I would never stoop to calling the man who spent his life defending our nation a "pussy".

I strongly suspect "Pussy Powell" has done FAR more to serve this nation than you ever have.

Nice job. It's been a while since someone stuck their foot in their mouth on the level recxjake used to. It's always nice when one of our resident fools shows his true colors with such a telling statement. :clap:

This parallels this liberals thought. I in no way think Powell gets a pass as a Democrat without a better explanation of the decision making about Iraq 2. I do understand his wonderful work in Bush I Iraq War. And I wished we had looked to the Powell Doctrine since. I hope he has no presence in Obama's administration.

BigCatDaddy
10-20-2008, 07:30 AM
You make my case. Thank you.

I don't know what case that is, but I'm just giving you the straight truth.

Ari Chi3fs
10-20-2008, 07:33 AM
If Obama wins the popular vote and McCain wins the electrol college vote there will violence.

Likely to be violence either way... but yeah, when McCain wins ANYWAY, thanks to Diebold... there will be Rodney King-esque Riots x 100.

penchief
10-20-2008, 07:37 AM
I don't know what case that is, but I'm just giving you the straight truth.

That right wing hate mongering and prejudice is going to impose itself on the country again if a democrat wins. The Limbaugh/Hannity arm of the republican party will be out in full force spreading lies and hatred in an attempt to disrupt and undermine the country under a democratic administration just like it did during the Clinton presidency. Only probably worse this time.

Donger
10-20-2008, 07:39 AM
That right wing hate mongering and prejudice is going to impose itself on the country again if a democrat wins. The Limbaugh/Hannity arm of the republican party will be out in full force spreading lies and hatred in an attempt to disrupt and undermine the country under a democratic administration just like it did during the Clinton presidency. Only probably worse this time.

I love that you write this with no apparent acknowledgment that the left wing does the very same.

Now please proceed with your "It's justified because Bush..." statement.

BigCatDaddy
10-20-2008, 07:57 AM
That right wing hate mongering and prejudice is going to impose itself on the country again if a democrat wins. The Limbaugh/Hannity arm of the republican party will be out in full force spreading lies and hatred in an attempt to disrupt and undermine the country under a democratic administration just like it did during the Clinton presidency. Only probably worse this time.

I think you give the Republican party too much credit. They wouldn't need to push very hard for a backlash on Obama. He just doesn't transend race in rural America the way Tiger Woods, Michael Jordan or Nelson Mandela does. Get ready for another 4 years of a divided American getting nothing done.

Mr. Kotter
10-20-2008, 07:58 AM
I love that you write this with no apparent acknowledgment that the left wing does the very same.

Now please proceed with your "It's justified because Bush..." statement.

Exactly right.

Sadly, and unfortunately, for the country....this seems to be what we are reduced to.

I have some hope that Obama could help to change all that, but I wouldn't bet more than a six-pack on it. :shake:

penchief
10-20-2008, 08:07 AM
I love that you write this with no apparent acknowledgment that the left wing does the very same.

Now please proceed with your "It's justified because Bush..." statement.

I've gone to great lengths to explain the difference between legitimate governance-related criticisms and personal hate campaigns.

There is a world of difference between the Clinton witch hunts (hate campaign) that had nothing to do with the people's business or good governance and the attempts by reasonable people to hold a rogue administration accountable for misconduct directly related to good governance (the people's business).

Republicans subjected an unwilling nation to a partisan investigation and partisan hearings over a hate campaign for nearly eight years while there have been no hearings or independent investigations of this administration in relationship to its poor conduct of the people's business.

I think the difference is clear. Republicans have behaved in petty and spiteful ways while democrats have been derelict in carrying out their duty to hold the executive accountable for its questionable conduct related to the good governance.

That is a big distinction. But it seems that important distinctions are something that the right wing brain is incapable of processing.

penchief
10-20-2008, 08:17 AM
Exactly right.

Sadly, and unfortunately, for the country....this seems to be what we are reduced to.

I have some hope that Obama could help to change all that, but I wouldn't bet more than a six-pack on it. :shake:

Exactly wrong.

The inability or unwillingness to recognize a distinction between the degree to which entities will carry out their agenda or the vehicle by which it is accomplished only contributes to the confusion. To deny those distinctions seems in itself partisan.

The change will be up to those on the right who seem poised to wage another hate campaign against another democratic president. If Obama handles those attacks in the same manner that he has handled them throughout this campaign, then he will have done his part. Somehow I doubt that will be enough for the rabid right.

Mr. Kotter
10-20-2008, 08:18 AM
Exactly wrong.

The inability or unwillingness to recognize a distinction between the degree to which entities will carry out their agenda or the vehicle by which it is accomplished only contributes to the confusion. To deny those distinctions seems in itself partisan.

The change will be up to those on the right who seem poised to wage another hate campaign against another democratic president. If Obama handles those attacks in the same manner that he has handled them throughout this campaign, then he will have done his part. Somehow I doubt that will be enough for the rabid right, though.


You are purely and simply FOS--demagoguery and the politics of "personal destruction" and partisan acrimony and rancor in this country is 100% a bi-partisan effort. It will remain so, unless BOTH parties call a cease-fire, and pull their heads out of their assses. BOTH parties.

You are simply unable to see beyond those ideological rose-colored blinders you have welded to your skull.

penchief
10-20-2008, 08:23 AM
You are purely and simply FOS; unable to see beyond those ideological rose-colored blinders you have welded to your skull.

Explain to me how personal hate campaigns are just as valid as criticisms of corrupt or incompetent governance. I've laid down the distinction as I see it. You can either address it or concede to my point. Either way, just calling me a partisan without making a case for your own claim doesn't make me a partisan. No matter how forcefully you want to make that empty claim.

I'm all ears. Tell me how dissenting against government corruption and incompetence is the equivalent of a personal smear campaign.

Chief Henry
10-20-2008, 08:29 AM
I don't really understand why anyone would be at all surprised by this. Duh.

You are right. Imagine, one black man voting for another black man :doh!:

Friendo
10-20-2008, 08:39 AM
Exactly wrong.

The inability or unwillingness to recognize a distinction between the degree to which entities will carry out their agenda or the vehicle by which it is accomplished only contributes to the confusion. To deny those distinctions seems in itself partisan.

The change will be up to those on the right who seem poised to wage another hate campaign against another democratic president. If Obama handles those attacks in the same manner that he has handled them throughout this campaign, then he will have done his part. Somehow I doubt that will be enough for the rabid right.


I wouldn't worry too much about that. The axe has fallen already. The real fight will be for the Soul of the Republican Party, and it could get nasty. Credit where credit's due-at least Will, Kraut, Smerconish & others have started the ball rolling early on instead of waiting until after the election.

Mr. Kotter
10-20-2008, 08:53 AM
....That is a big distinction. But it seems that important distinctions are something that the right wing brain is incapable of processing.

If you can't see that this is a bipartisan problem and habit, there won't be any convincing you. The campaign against Bush, even if you set aside the legitimate criticism of the man....has become a over-zealous attempt at exacting revenge for the Clinton years. It's irrational, and illogical....the scathing contempt and shear lunatic-fringe hatred that's been directed at the man. He isn't the greatest President we've ever had....to be sure, and may well go down as one of the least accomplished....but he's certainly not the evil and maniacal enemy of the state he's been made out to be by the moonbat left, either.

Explain to me how personal hate campaigns are just as valid as criticisms of corrupt or incompetent governance. I've laid down the distinction as I see it. You can either address it or concede to my point...

It begins with your bogus characterization and blanket rules that (1) anything the Republicans do is evil, and (2) everything that Democrats do is selfless and in the name of the public good. That's horseshit. Anybody with a real brain knows it too. Your partisan bullshit is not the same as constructive dialogue.

I'm sure as hell not going to concede such poppycock; yet, I've already wasted much more time and effort with you than your drivel deserves....so I'll let you go back to your la-la land/land of make believe.

In case you hadn't noticed, I generally ignore your posts. Discussing or debating anything with you for any length of time simply isn't worth the time involved. That puts you in a class with two or three others. Enjoy your partisan ignorance; as they say though, I guess, ignorance [can be] bliss....

And IMHO, you are one blissful dude.

dirk digler
10-20-2008, 08:58 AM
You are right. Imagine, one black man voting for another black man :doh!:

:rolleyes:

Yeah because it has everything to do with race and not what he believes

Why are you so simple minded some times? Do you think all blacks are just going to go in lock step and vote for Obama?

ROYC75
10-20-2008, 09:00 AM
:rolleyes:
Do you think all blacks are just going to go in lock step and vote for Obama?


All ? No

Most ? Yes. I'm not playing the race card here, but it's a fact, as the polls that are being conducted by the media.

Chief Henry
10-20-2008, 09:02 AM
:rolleyes:

Yeah because it has everything to do with race and not what he believes

Why are you so simple minded some times? Do you think all blacks are just going to go in lock step and vote for Obama?

What a crock Dirk. I'm suppose to beleave that 90% of Black people are going to vote Republican ?

dirk digler
10-20-2008, 09:03 AM
All ? No

Most ? Yes. I'm not playing the race card here, but it's a fact, as the polls that are being conducted by the media.

Fair enough. I am not doubting race played a part in his decision a little bit but he said he believed Obama would be the better leader and had the better ideas.

Also just for reference in 2004 89% of blacks voted Dem so we can expect around 90-95% this time around which isn't that big of a jump.

dirk digler
10-20-2008, 09:05 AM
What a crock Dirk. I'm suppose to beleave that 90% of Black people are going to vote Republican ?

Like I posted to Royc in 04 89% of blacks voted for Kerry. Obama will get a few more obviously but blacks vote traditional Democratic anyway.

But to suggest that the sole reason why Powell endorsed Obama was because he is black is simple minded.

ROYC75
10-20-2008, 09:07 AM
Fair enough. I am not doubting race played a part in his decision a little bit but he said he believed Obama would be the better leader and had the better ideas.

Also just for reference in 2004 89% of blacks voted Dem so we can expect around 90-95% this time around which isn't that big of a jump.

Democrats have pulled the majority of the black vote for years.....

dirk digler
10-20-2008, 09:10 AM
Democrats have pulled the majority of the black vote for years.....

I know so it really has nothing to do with the race of the candidate for most blacks anyway.

Also I am just curious if anyone believes the reason why Lieberman endorsed McCain was because he is white?

Because you know honkies have to stick together.

penchief
10-20-2008, 09:12 AM
If you can't see that this is a bipartisan problem and habit, there won't be any convincing you. The campaign against Bush, even if you set aside the legitimate criticism of the man....has become a over-zealous attempt at exacting revenge for the Clinton years. It's irrational, and illogical....the scathing contempt and shear lunatic-fringe hatred that's been directed at the man. He isn't the greatest President we've ever had....to be sure, and may well go down as one of the least accomplished....but he's certainly not the evil and maniacal enemy of the state he's been made out to be by the moonbat left, either.



It begins with your bogus characterization and blanket rules that (1) anything the Republicans do is evil, and (2) everything that Democrats do is selfless and in the name of the public good. That's horseshit. Anybody with a real brain knows it too. Your partisan bullshit is not the same as constructive dialogue.

I'm sure as hell not going to concede such poppycock; yet, I've already wasted much more time and effort with you than your drivel deserves....so I'll let you go back to your la-la land/land of make believe.

In case you hadn't noticed, I generally ignore your posts. Discussing or debating anything with you for any length of time simply isn't worth the time involved. That puts you in a class with two or three others. Enjoy your partisan ignorance; as they say though, I guess, ignorance [can be] bliss....

And IMHO, you are one blissful dude.

I've never said that partisanship was not a problem for both sides. It would be stupid for me to say such a thing. I'm simply pointing out that it is equally incorrect to suggest that there is not a distinction between hate campaigns that focus on personal smears and legitimate criticisms that focus on policy and conduct.

It is incorrect to say that there has been no difference in the general tact that each side has taken. No matter how corrupt or undemocratic the Bush Administration has behaved, the left has basically kept it's attacks confined to issues that relate directly to the president's duties. They have not, for the most part, stooped to the tactics that the right is currently using against Obama and that they employed against Clinton and Kerry.

I gave Bush six months before I started speaking out forcefully against his ideological agenda and the way that he was ramming it down our throats. On the other hand, just like they did with Clinton, the right appears that it is not even going to give Obama a chance because the hatred has already been stirred to the point of no return by the Limbaugh mentality of the republican party.

dirk digler
10-20-2008, 09:15 AM
I've never said that partisanship was not a problem for both sides. It would be stupid for me to say such a thing. I'm simply pointing out that it is equally incorrect to suggest that there is not a distinction between hate campaigns that focus on personal smears and legitimate criticisms that focus on policy and conduct.

It is incorrect to say that there has been no difference in the general tact that each side has taken. No matter how corrupt or undemocratic the Bush Administration has behaved, the left has basically kept it's attacks confined to issues that relate directly to the president's duties. They have not, for the most part, stooped to the tactics that the right is currently using against Obama and that they employed against Clinton.

I gave Bush six months before I started speaking out forcefully against his ideological agenda and the way that he was ramming it down our throats. On the other hand, just like they did with Clinton, the right is not even going to give the guy a chance because the hatred has already been stirred to the point of no return by the Limbaugh mentality of the republican party.

While I agree with the majority of your post it is pretty stupid to say that the left has only attacked Bush on policy issues. They have called him all kinds of despicable names and smeared him at every turn.

penchief
10-20-2008, 09:18 AM
While I agree with the majority of your post it is pretty stupid to say that the left has only attacked Bush on policy issues. They have called him all kinds of despicable names and smeared him at every turn.

I said "for the most part." I said that it has not become the "general" tact of their attacks in the way it appears to have become with the right wing.

Mr. Kotter
10-20-2008, 09:22 AM
I said "for the most part." I said that it has not become the "general" tact of their attacks in the way it appears to have become with the right wing.

That's absurd, and anyone with an objective bone in their body knows it. It's WHY many of us simply choose to ignore you.

:rolleyes:

penchief
10-20-2008, 09:39 AM
That's absurd, and anyone with an objective bone in their body knows it. It's WHY many of us simply choose to ignore you.

:rolleyes:

You keep making statements that don't address the content of my comments. Other than your opinion, you have yet to provide me with any evidence that what I have suggested is misguided.

Again, how is attacking the president's conduct related to his duties the equivalent of attacking the president through personal smears? How are they equally relevent to the goal of good governance?

Until you can answer that question and also provide evidence that the left has utilized personal smear campaigns as frequently and as deeply as the right, your comments about my credibility are not credible.

I will stand by my observations until you actually address them with evidence to the contrary instead of just calling my objectivity into question.

Meanwhile, you wear your faux-objectivity like a shield so that you can pretend that your opinions are more valid because they are supposedly more "bi-partisan." But it's pretty easy to see through your facade when it gets down to the nitty gritty. Otherwise, you would be able to address my claims by answering these questions with substance rather than resorting to personal accusations as a means of deflection.

Mr. Kotter
10-20-2008, 09:52 AM
You keep making statements that don't address the content of my comments. Other than your opinion, you have yet to provide me with any evidence that what I have suggested is misguided.

Again, how is attacking the president's conduct related to his duties the equivalent of attacking the president through personal smears? How are they equally relevent to the goal of good governance?

Until you can answer that question and also provide evidence that the left has utilized personal smear campaigns as frequently and as deeply as the right, your comments about my credibility are not credible.

I will stand by my observations until you actually address them with evidence to the contrary instead of just calling my objectivity into question.

Meanwhile, you wear your faux-objectivity like a shield so that you can pretend that your opinions are more valid because they are more "bi-partisan." But it's pretty easy to see through the facade when it gets down to the nitty gritty. Otherwise, you would be able to address my claims with substance rather than unsupported personal accusations.

This is the best you are going to get from me....so I'd encourage you to do what I have for the last 10-15 years--which is why, and how, I've come to the conclusions I have:

1. http://www.mediaresearch.org/ (right leaning)

2. http://mediamatters.org/ (left leaning)

3. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/03/24/LI2005032401272.html (Howard Kurtz is the best in the business at this)

Read these sources regularly, for even a few months. You'll see VERY quickly what I mean....that you are presently blinded by, because of the ideological rose-colored glasses that you have welded to your skull.

|Zach|
10-20-2008, 09:54 AM
I said "for the most part." I said that it has not become the "general" tact of their attacks in the way it appears to have become with the right wing.

You're wrong.

penchief
10-20-2008, 09:55 AM
This is the best you are going to get from me....so I'd encourage you to do what I have for the last 10-15 years--which is why, and how, I've come to the conclusions I have:

1. http://www.mediaresearch.org/ (right leaning)

2. http://mediamatters.org/ (left leaning)

3. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/03/24/LI2005032401272.html (Howard Kurtz is the best in the business at this)

Read these sources regularly, for even a few months. You'll see VERY quickly what I mean....that you are presently blinded by, because of the ideological rose-colored glasses that you have welded to your skull.

I know what partisanship is and I acknowledge it. You are trying to deflect away from the very specific but fundamenal claim that I am making. If you really believe what I am saying is wrong, then I recommend that you address my claims head on with your own knowledge of current affairs.

The question I have asked is so simple and so fundamental. Why is it so hard for you to answer? Again, how is attacking the president's conduct related to his duties the equivalent of attacking the president through personal smears? How are they equally relevent to the goal of good governance?

Also, if both sides have behaved equally as bad when it comes to personal smear campaigns, you should be able to provide supporting evidence to back up that assertion, right?

I'm still waiting.

Mr. Kotter
10-20-2008, 09:56 AM
You're wrong.

Holy crap..... :spock:



Is this genuine; or are you pandering for Independent votes? :hmmm:

RJ
10-20-2008, 09:57 AM
If Jesus Christ Himself appeared to the world to tell us that he was endorsing Barrack Obama, McCain would still get about 20% of the vote.

patteeu
10-20-2008, 09:57 AM
Juan Williams says that Rush Limbaugh is right when he suggests that this endorsement is heavily influenced by the fact that Obama could be the first black man to rise to the Presidency, fwiw.

|Zach|
10-20-2008, 10:01 AM
Holy crap..... :spock:



Is this genuine; or are you pandering for Independent votes? :hmmm:

Penchief is usually wrong. I know you like grouping people together blindly but it doesn't always fit.

Besides that for a guy who isn't here a lot you are here a lot.

Mr. Kotter
10-20-2008, 10:03 AM
I know what partisanship is and I acknowledge it. You are trying to deflect away from the very specific but fundamenal claim that I am making. If you really believe what I am saying is wrong, then I recommend that you address my claims head on with your own knowledge of current affairs.

The question I have asked is so simple and so fundamental. Why is it so hard for you to answer?

Also, if both sides have behaved equally as bad when it comes to personal smear campaigns, you should be able to provide supporting evidence to back up that assertion, right?

I'm still waiting.

Fine.... :rolleyes:

I'll waste another 2 minutes of my life..... :shake:

1. George Sorros/MoveOn.Org

2. Michael Moore

3. Oliver Stone

4. Alec Baldwin/Hollywood constant disparagement and innuendo without facts

5. Keith Olberman/Countdown and MSNBC's charade of having him as an "anchor" during the earlier campaign

6. "Loose Change" and other leftwing nutjob/moonbat/anarchist conspiracy theory crap about 9/11

7. Grandstanding and demagoguery in the form of the left's incessant drumbeat of.....Bush/Cheney's impending 'impeachment' (with complicity from Democratic members of Congress)--in "two weeks!"....despite pathetic and transparent cases for such.

The list could go on, but you get the point.....

Mr. Kotter
10-20-2008, 10:04 AM
Penchief is usually wrong. I know you like grouping people together blindly but it doesn't always fit.

Besides that for a guy who isn't here a lot you are here a lot.

I'm caring for sick kids the last couple of days; can you tell? :shrug:

:p

Chief Henry
10-20-2008, 10:10 AM
If Jesus Christ Himself appeared to the world to tell us that he was endorsing Barrack Obama, McCain would still get about 20% of the vote.

Jesus would not vote for Barry. Barry is pro abortion.

penchief
10-20-2008, 10:29 AM
Fine.... :rolleyes:

I'll waste another 2 minutes of my life..... :shake:

1. George Sorros/MoveOn.Org

2. Michael Moore

3. Oliver Stone

4. Alec Baldwin/Hollywood constant disparagement and innuendo without facts

5. Keith Olberman/Countdown and MSNBC's charade of having him as an "anchor" during the earlier campaign

6. "Loose Change" and other leftwing nutjob/moonbat/anarchist conspiracy theory crap

7. Grandstanding and demagoguery in the form of the left's incessant drumbeat of.....Bush/Cheney's impending 'impeachment' (with complicity from Democratic members of Congress)--in "two weeks!"....despite pathetic and transparent cases for such.

The list could go on, but you get the point.....

1. Toward whom and what specifically did George Soros do to wage a smear campaign? And how come it wasn't all over the corporate media the way Obama smears have been? As far as MoveOn.Org goes, you would have to clue me in on them. I have never been to their site so I can't comment. Do they focus on policy and conduct or do they focus on personal smears?

2. Michael Moore has made movies that document a lot of pertinent facts that do expose Bush's misconduct. I'll agree that his aggressive nature has caused some to question his veracity and I'll agree that he sometimes gets personal. That said, he does not hold sway over an entire segment of society that wishes ill-will toward the man. Most liberals take him with a grain of salt. They hardly worship him the way righties worship Limbaugh, Hannity, and O'Reilly.

3. Again, Oliver Stone is a film maker. He does not crusade against or rally segments of society into a hate-filled frenzy the way the Limbaugh/Hannity forces within the republican party do. The way that the republican party leaders themselves often do. His movie may be causing some people to laugh, some to cry, and some to criticize Stone, or maybe even Bush. But I doubt they are walking out of the theater yelling, "kill him" and "off with his head!"

4. Again, you keep referring to entertainment types. I'll agree that Alec Baldwin's contempt for Bush is visible. But those are his personal feelings and he expresses them freely. That is still not the same thing as an entire segment of a party waging a hate campaign through the corporate media based on lies and innuendo.

5. Keith Olberman does not even belong on this list. All he ever does is use people's own words and deeds to hang them. Yes, he is running a campaign against Bush but it is related to his conduct as president. Nothing More.

6. I haven't seen Loose Change, so I can't comment on it. Is it a personal smear movie or does it deal with activities related to the prosecution of presidential duties?

7. The conduct of Bush & Cheney during the build up to Iraq and their ensuing conduct related to the occupation should be transparent but it is not. There have been plenty of things that justify the scrutiny that has not been honored. This can hardly be called a hate campaign. It's more like a call for accountability.

You have provided me with names but not examples. With the exception of a couple of very specific things (Michael Moore's tendency to embellish and Alec Baldwin's personal contempt), everything you cited are criticisms and dislikes centered around the conduct of the president's duties. They are not all-out personal smear campaigns aimed at stirring personal hatred for the man. I'll grant you that there is a lot of contempt for what Bush has done to this country but that is not the same thing as employing smear campaigns to rally personal hatred.

Again, I have never said that it doesn't exist on both sides. Only that the right tends to carry it farther. Which I think is being proven as we speak.

RJ
10-20-2008, 10:39 AM
Jesus would not vote for Barry. Barry is pro abortion.


It was sort of a hypothetical. I personally wouldn't presume to know what Jesus would do.

Mr. Kotter
10-20-2008, 10:43 AM
penchief:

I'm sorry I even bothered to respond to you; I know better. Seriously. :shrug:

That you have the audacity to cast Moore/Olberman as legitimate or credible in any sense of the words....says all anyone needs to know about you. They are the same as Limbaugh/Hannity--and it is crystal clear to ANY fair-minded people on both sides of the isle. Get help.

penchief
10-20-2008, 11:10 AM
penchief:

I'm sorry I even bothered to respond to you; I know better. Seriously. :shrug:

That you have the audacity to cast Moore/Olberman as legitimate or credible in any sense of the words....says all anyone needs to know about you. They are the same as Limbaugh/Hannity--and it is crystal clear to ANY fair-minded people on both sides of the isle. Get help.

I agreed that Moore gets carried away. But I don't think that fact completely discredits his legitimate criticisms against Bush's conduct. I prefer that he didn't get personal because I do believe it ultimately undermines the legitimate criticisms. That said, he doesn't get the national play that the corporate media gives to the right wing hate machine. Even you have to admit that.

I disagree with your assessment of Olberman. I think it is clearly unobjective on your part. Olberman does not outright lie on his show and does not employ character assassination for the sake of character assassination. He simply uses the events of the day to expose the hypocricy and audacity of those on the right. I am willing to defend Olberman because I can catagorize his tact as different than baseless smears. If you can give give me examples of baseless personal smears that he has employed, I will come your way a little. But I don't think you can.

Even if I were to concede every one of your examples by name (which I don't), you still have not given me any concrete examples of smears similar to the ones going on against Obama right now, or the ones that were waged against Clinton. Smears that are (and were) repeated over and over again in the corporate media and in a coordinated way intended to stir contempt for the individual.

Again, you are trying to say that I'm attempting to blame only one side in a partisan manner. I'm not. I think that you are still deflecting from the point that I am actually trying to make. I'm pointing out that there is a clear distinction in the willingness to go there and the degree to which it will be carried.

You are the one that is not willing to concede that point. A point that has been made obvious by current events. Which is the entire reason for this discussion. How will those who have already been whipped into a frenzy of manufactured personal hatred for Obama conduct themselves if he is elected?

Oh, and you still haven't answered this quesition: How is attacking the president's conduct related to his duties the equivalent of attacking the president through personal smears? How are they equally relevent to the goal of good governance?

mlyonsd
10-20-2008, 12:08 PM
I disagree with your assessment of Olberman. I think it is clearly unobjective on your part. Olberman does not outright lie on his show and does not employ character assassination for the sake of character assassination. He simply uses the events of the day to expose the hypocricy and audacity of those on the right. I am willing to defend Olberman because I can catagorize his tact as different than baseless smears. If you can give give me examples of baseless personal smears that he has employed, I will come your way a little. But I don't think you can.


Bleh. You just have to look as far as the Rove will be indicted in two weeks thread to see Olbermann using his pulpit to assasinate Rove's character.

Rove being indicted would have been a story. Speculating on whether Rove would be indicted is another thing, one intended to damage Rove's character.

I agree with Kotter, if you don't like Hannity you're a hypocrite if you like Olbermann.

oldandslow
10-20-2008, 12:10 PM
Bleh. You just have to look as far as the Rove will be indicted in two weeks thread to see Olbermann using his pulpit to assasinate Rove's character.

Rove being indicted would have been a story. Speculating on whether Rove would be indicted is another thing, one intended to damage Rove's character.

I agree with Kotter, if you don't like Hannity you're a hypocrite if you like Olbermann.

They both are what they are...shills from each side. I listen to both. Of course I only take Keith seriously :)

Friendo
10-20-2008, 12:13 PM
They both are what they are...shills from each side. I listen to both. Of course I only take Keith seriously :)

at least Keith knows he's mostly a shill.

mlyonsd
10-20-2008, 12:18 PM
They both are what they are...shills from each side. I listen to both. Of course I only take Keith seriously :)

It's apparent by your posting style. :p

Do you remember we had a bet? I don't recall exactly what it was.

I think it was if McCain was running against Hillary?

BIG_DADDY
10-20-2008, 12:22 PM
This is a real SHOCKER!!!! LMAO

bsp4444
10-20-2008, 01:25 PM
I think you give the Republican party too much credit. They wouldn't need to push very hard for a backlash on Obama. He just doesn't transend race in rural America the way Tiger Woods, Michael Jordan or Nelson Mandela does. Get ready for another 4 years of a divided American getting nothing done.

I rerpresent rural America and I think Obama is well backed in my neck of the woods. I was surprised by the number of people I thought would never vote for a black candidate (based on their beliefs, not mine) are planning to do so.

bsp4444
10-20-2008, 01:32 PM
You are purely and simply FOS--demagoguery and the politics of "personal destruction" and partisan acrimony and rancor in this country is 100% a bi-partisan effort. It will remain so, unless BOTH parties call a cease-fire, and pull their heads out of their assses. BOTH parties.

You are simply unable to see beyond those ideological rose-colored blinders you have welded to your skull.

If you don't think that McCain's campaign has been a more negative attack than Obama's, then I think you will lose credibility with me.

Iowanian
10-20-2008, 01:36 PM
McCain has done a pretty effective job of stepping on his own dick lately.

Powell is a respected, middle of the road person of political influence. His word will have value to Independent voters and I give his word some credibility.

I will not vote for Obama. He has far too many issues that go counter to my grain. McCain is working pretty hard to proove himself unworthy of my "hold my nose" vote.

I really, really don't like to prospect of EITHER one.

Powell didn't have to put out a news release to let me know that McCain has less chance of having a GM job as Matt Millen does in 2009.

tiptap
10-20-2008, 01:42 PM
Jesus would not vote for Barry. Barry is pro abortion.

No, Jesus wants little kids to suffer when they come until him. Really suffer. Or suffocate. or something.

Mr. Kotter
10-20-2008, 01:53 PM
If you don't think that McCain's campaign has been a more negative attack than Obama's, then I think you will lose credibility with me.

I said nothing about THIS campaign; I'd agree with your assessment of that.

I'm talking about politics, in general.

penchief
10-20-2008, 02:07 PM
Bleh. You just have to look as far as the Rove will be indicted in two weeks thread to see Olbermann using his pulpit to assasinate Rove's character.

Rove being indicted would have been a story. Speculating on whether Rove would be indicted is another thing, one intended to damage Rove's character.

I agree with Kotter, if you don't like Hannity you're a hypocrite if you like Olbermann.

I've always admitted that Olberman was partisan. I've just said that he doesn't use smear campaigns to personally attack his targets. 99% of what he does is use their own words and deeds to expose their hypocricy or their audacity. If you watched the show with any regularity you would pretty much recognize that.

Nothing in this world is absolute. But if you want to talk in terms of what the primary tact being used is, it is clear to me that the right wing resorts to more personal attacks that appeal to fear and prejudice as a means of stirring personal hatred toward their target than does the left.

Again, there is a distinction between attacking ideology, conduct, or policy and attacking someone with personal smears intended to undermine their character for the purpose of stirring feelings of contempt towards them. I just don't think I'm imagining that distinction when it seems like events in real time continue to prove that assertion accurate. IMO, those on the right tend to resort to personal character attacks more often and more broadly as a means of attacking than those on the left.

oldandslow
10-20-2008, 02:09 PM
It's apparent by your posting style. :p

Do you remember we had a bet? I don't recall exactly what it was.

I think it was if McCain was running against Hillary?

I don't remember what it was either...I did think HRC would be the nominee (thank goodness I was wrong).

Baby Lee
10-20-2008, 03:03 PM
I am glad Adept properly rebuked you because the "pussy Powell" reference is so vile as to be beyond reprehensible.

This from the author of pussy-whipped Todd and Sarah the bidge?

Programmer
10-20-2008, 03:09 PM
Juan Williams says that Rush Limbaugh is right when he suggests that this endorsement is heavily influenced by the fact that Obama could be the first black man to rise to the Presidency, fwiw.

No doubt.

Programmer
10-20-2008, 03:10 PM
If Jesus Christ Himself appeared to the world to tell us that he was endorsing Barrack Obama, McCain would still get about 20% of the vote.

Based on the commentary by Obslama I seriously doubt that Jesus would want to be seen on the same continent as Obama unless he was coming to stomp him into oblivion.

Calcountry
10-20-2008, 03:11 PM
Race ahead of Party? Nice.

Calcountry
10-20-2008, 03:12 PM
Based on the commentary by Obslama I seriously doubt that Jesus would want to be seen on the same continent as Obama unless he was coming to stomp him into oblivion.Jesus ate with sinners.

Programmer
10-20-2008, 03:15 PM
Jesus ate with sinners.

How many of them approved of late term abortions?

Said for effect rather than practicality. Jesus would forgive him ...

I don't think I could be as forgiving, at least for some time.

Calcountry
10-20-2008, 03:16 PM
It is official he announced it on Meet the Press

he has the judgement McCain doesn't

McCain's choice of Palin was wrong and blasted McCain for talking about AyersI found some of that music from MTP, and am going to read the rest of this thread, with it playing, OMG, EARTHSHATTERING, Colin Colonel powel, from Farakahns mother plane, is going to ENDORSE the messiah. Because when the messiah speaks, the youth will listen.

BIG_DADDY
10-20-2008, 03:18 PM
This from the author of pussy-whipped Todd and Sarah the bidge?

Heaven forbid any dude marry up, it makes him a pussy to Jim.

Programmer
10-20-2008, 03:52 PM
Heaven forbid any dude marry up, it makes him a pussy to Jim.

It also doesnt' matter that McCain is taking care of his ex and she still thinks he is the best man for the job of President.

As for Palin, he is just jealous that her husband gets to sleep with her and he is stuck with his old ball and chain.

ClevelandBronco
10-20-2008, 04:36 PM
I'm listening to a political call-in show. A caller just said that Colin Powell was the most presidential guy in the movie "W."

God help us.

RJ
10-20-2008, 04:40 PM
I'm listening to a political call-in show. A caller just said that Colin Powell was the most presidential guy in the movie "W."

God help us.


Real life is way funnier than made up stuff.

DaFace
10-20-2008, 04:43 PM
I'm listening to a political call-in show. A caller just said that Colin Powell was the most presidential guy in the movie "W."

God help us.

ROFL

Maybe we should have an election to see if Harrison Ford, Michael Douglas, Jack Nicholson, or Morgan Freeman should be our president.