Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on May 24, 2009, 11:48:17 AM
-
Is he?
Powell: 'I am still a Republican'
From CNN's Steve Brusk
WASHINGTON (CNN) – Former Secretary of State Colin Powell struck back Sunday at critics of his decision to support Barack Obama's presidential candidacy last year.
Calling for his divided party to widen its ranks, Powell declared, "I am still a Republican."
In an appearance on CBS' Face the Nation, Powell responded to attacks from former Vice President Dick Cheney and talk show host Rush Limbaugh, saying they are "not members of the membership committee of the Republican Party."
"Rush will not get his wish, and Mr. Cheney was misinformed. I am still a Republican", he said. "I would like to point out that in the course of my 50 years of voting for presidents, I have voted for the person I thought was best qualified at that time to lead the nation. Last year, I thought it was President Barack Obama. For the previous 20 years, I voted solidly for Republican candidates."
Earlier this month on the same program, Cheney was asked about a dispute between Limbaugh and Powell over the role each plays in the GOP. "My take on it was Colin had already left the party. I didn't know he was still a Republican," Cheney responded.
Powell said Sunday that he didn't want to trade insults with Limbaugh, but that he thought it was "unfortunate" Limbaugh framed his support of Obama along racial lines.
Limbaugh, on his radio program, argued that Powell supported Obama "solely based on race."
Discussing divisions over the direction of the party in the wake of its losses in the 2006 midterm elections and 2008 presidential election, Powell said Sunday the party should expand its base.
"I have always felt that the Republican Party should be more inclusive than it generally has been over the years and I believe that we need a strong Republican Party that is not just anchored in the base but has built on the base to include more individuals. And if we don't do that, if we don't reach out more, the party is going to be sitting on a very, very narrow base," he told "Face the Nation."
Powell added, "Let's debate the future of the party and let all segments in… What we have to do is debate and define who we are and what we are, and not just listen to dictates that come down from the right wing of the party."
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/24/powell-i-am-still-a-republican/
-
I don't think half of the republicans know what the republican party stands for. This is why theres so many conflicts and bickering back and forth. When I think of what is a republican, I think Ron Paul.
-
Republican party is stretched over so many bases i think its pretty much impossible to continue in its current guise, whether that means creation of a third party for the moderate right wing, or a defection of more arlen specters i think we've yet to see.
But I cant see how the rich episcopalian wasps in the North East can be in league with a bunch of Evangelical working class folks from down south, the difference on social issues is too great for them to keep together just based on low tax rates and laissez faire economy.
Personally I think a centre right party would be a great idea, since its probably reflective of most people's points of view, and stops this polarisation between an ever right moving republican party and an ever left moving democrat party
-
Conservatives = vote ron paul flavor of republican
neoconservatives = vote for the bush flavor of republican
-
Anyone can be a republican... all you gotta do is say "im a republican" so who ever argues hes not, its a IDIOT. Next Case.
-
Conservatives = vote ron paul flavor of republican
neoconservatives = vote for the bush flavor of republican
Good to be a conservative.
-
He is still a FOOL also... someone put Powell in a nursing home...
-
Busted= A braindead waste of space that should have been swallowed by his dog of a mother. :'(
NEXT CASE!
-
Is he?
Do you say he is not? Please list your reasons...
-
Republican party is stretched over so many bases i think its pretty much impossible to continue in its current guise, whether that means creation of a third party for the moderate right wing, or a defection of more arlen specters i think we've yet to see.
But I cant see how the rich episcopalian wasps in the North East can be in league with a bunch of Evangelical working class folks from down south, the difference on social issues is too great for them to keep together just based on low tax rates and laissez faire economy.
Personally I think a centre right party would be a great idea, since its probably reflective of most people's points of view, and stops this polarisation between an ever right moving republican party and an ever left moving democrat party
I somewhat agree with you here, ...but I disagree with your assessment that the democrats are moving more to the left. I think quite the opposite has occured. I think the democrats along with the republicans have moved to the right. It is this rightward motion of the dems imo, that has allowed many republicans to throw their support to Obama. I think that the republicans have moved sooo far to the right that they've alienated many within their own party, and with such extreme right wing policies over the past 8 years, any approach by the democrats will appear a move to the left.
-
Do you say he is not? Please list your reasons...
I don't know. Starting to have my doubts. Doesn't change my opinion of him. But I will say that if he's going to start doing nothing but throw darts at his party then he should leave and become a Democrat or an independent.
-
I don't know. Starting to have my doubts. Doesn't change my opinion of him. But I will say that if he's going to start doing nothing but throw darts at his party then he should leave and become a Democrat or an independent.
according to most accounts the party is in disarray. Is it not expected at this time for differeing voices to be heard in the party? Ron Paul refused to leave the party even though he has disagreed with the direction for a long time. He constantly launches criticism not only at everything going on but also within his party. Perhaps these men are just trying to affect changes they see as critically needed. I also don't remember anybody saying Chuck Hagel was no longer a republican and for several years he bucked what was happening in the party all the way to the president. Perhaps Powell is getting different treatment for failing to support McCain? Perhaps Rush is the leader in that he's been the leading voice denouncing Powell :D
-
I was with Powell until he said "Americans do want to pay more taxes for more services". That is as democratic as you can get. He cannot be a real republican if he believes this. It is a core democratic principle.
There is no doubt that the middle of the democratic party has moved left. The fringe is always further left, but in general, the working class democrats of the 50s-80s (the majority of the party) would be moderates compared to the Barack/Pelosi/Reid democrats of today.
-
I was with Powell until he said "Americans do want to pay more taxes for more services". That is as democratic as you can get. He cannot be a real republican if he believes this. It is a core democratic principle.
There is no doubt that the middle of the democratic party has moved left. The fringe is always further left, but in general, the working class democrats of the 50s-80s (the majority of the party) would be moderates compared to the Barack/Pelosi/Reid democrats of today.
wasn't it something like 46%/46% last year in a poll asking if you want the govt to do more or less?
Americans are split pretty evenly, unfortunately.
-
according to most accounts the party is in disarray. Is it not expected at this time for differeing voices to be heard in the party? Ron Paul refused to leave the party even though he has disagreed with the direction for a long time. He constantly launches criticism not only at everything going on but also within his party. Perhaps these men are just trying to affect changes they see as critically needed. I also don't remember anybody saying Chuck Hagel was no longer a republican and for several years he bucked what was happening in the party all the way to the president. Perhaps Powell is getting different treatment for failing to support McCain? Perhaps Rush is the leader in that he's been the leading voice denouncing Powell :D
Both parties are in disarray.
I don't know what Powell's motivation is, but supporting a Democrat for president, followed by public criticism of the party doesn't sound very good. If his goal is to make changes, he should work with party leaders.
Paul had the same problem.
-
Anyone can be a republican... all you gotta do is say "im a republican" so who ever argues hes not, its a IDIOT. Next Case.
ok,then Im a democrat.Im against abortion,affirmative action,want less government,lower taxes,hate Obama,dont like queers,like states rights,think judges should follow the constitution,want to end ALL welfare oif ALL kind,want to see unions get destroyed,and I vote republican.Those are a few of my beliefs,but Im a democrat.
-
Both parties are in disarray.
I don't know what Powell's motivation is, but supporting a Democrat for president, followed by public criticism of the party doesn't sound very good. If his goal is to make changes, he should work with party leaders.
Paul had the same problem.
The Dems are hardly in dissarray
Powell explained on Meet the Press exactly why he picked Obama - no mystery
Unlike the Repubs who seem to operate with a hive mind and gang-like mentality there is no conflict with voting for a Dem and also criticizing the party or individual members.
Heck, I think Harry Reid is a completely useless tool and I'd like to see him gone in the next election
-
Powell represents the future of the GOP. So does Crist. Without them, there is no future for the GOP.
Because without Repubs like them, there is no appeal to the moderates and independents. But hey... go ahead and revert back to a shrinking base with a minority that is only dying out over time anyway. ;D
-
Powell represents the future of the GOP. So does Crist. Without them, there is no future for the GOP.
Because without Repubs like them, there is no appeal to the moderates and independents. But hey... go ahead and revert back to a shrinking base with a minority that is only dying out over time anyway. ;D
McCain and Crist agree on almost EVERY issue.how did that work out?Powell and McCain agree on almost every issue.How did that work out.They are the death of the party.Evertime that philosophy runs,it looses.
-
Palin was the death of McCain. That's how he worked out.
McCain, Crist and Powell could draw more voters than Cheney, Rush or Palin.
-
I like Powell, I just don't understand the "Americans are ok with more taxes for services comment". That is not conservative or republican. Most true conservatives, like Ron Paul, believe there's too much overall taxation and too much waste in government. One of the problems the repubs have/had is that they had a big government republican in office the last 8 yrs.
240, I saw a similar poll that favored people wanting less government but by a relatively small margin. Interesting that way more than half of people polled consider themselves democrat.
Repubs need a wider umbrella and need to focus on smaller gov.
-
Republicans who come across as moderates don't do so well in presidential elections, like Dole and McCain. Republicans who run as conservatives on fiscal and social issues win, like Reagan, Bush Sr., and Dubya.
I'd vote for Colin Powell if he ran tomorrow, but the contention that conservatives need to be moderates to win is inconsistent with history.
-
If that is the case, why did no right wing conservative do well in the primaries? That was voting from within the own party and it was pretty much establised the majority of the party isn't down with conservative outlook anymore.
-
If that is the case, why did no right wing conservative do well in the primaries? That was voting from within the own party and it was pretty much establised the majority of the party isn't down with conservative outlook anymore.
Bad candidates. What you should be asking is why fiscal and social liberals consistently lose presidential elections to fiscal and social conservatives. Those are the historical facts.
-
Bad candidates. What you should be asking is why fiscal and social liberals consistently lose presidential elections to fiscal and social conservatives. Those are the historical facts.
I thought Obama was supposed to be the most liberal Senator according to some conservative think tank (or something similar)
-
I thought Obama was supposed to be the most liberal Senator according to some conservative think tank (or something similar)
True. And?
-
If that is the case, why did no right wing conservative do well in the primaries? That was voting from within the own party and it was pretty much establised the majority of the party isn't down with conservative outlook anymore.
Because there was only ONE conservative running,Ron Paul.The rest were neo-cons or outright libs like Rudy and McCain.
-
Wasn't Thompson and Huckabee the little darlings of the conservative crowds? We see how well they did.
-
Wasn't Thompson and Huckabee the little darlings of the conservative crowds? We see how well they did.
Darlings like Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry? If you're trying to get an accurate view of trends, you need to look at more than one election.
-
Darlings like Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry? If you're trying to get an accurate view of trends, you need to look at more than one election.
I am not even looking at an election. I am looking at the party base primary. Where the trend WITHIN THE OWN PARTY was to nominate something other than a conservative. Even though conservative voters were clinging to Thompson and Huckabee.
Forget mainstream America, how do you justify the GOP itself not nominating a conservative if that is what is best?
-
I am not even looking at an election. I am looking at the party base primary. Where the trend WITHIN THE OWN PARTY was to nominate something other than a conservative. Even though conservative voters were clinging to Thompson and Huckabee.
Forget mainstream America, how do you justify the GOP itself not nominating a conservative if that is what is best?
Conservative voters weren't clinging to anyone. No candidate ever gained momentum during the primaries. You have poll numbers to support the contention that Thompson or Huckabee ever held leads in the primaries?
I don't need to justify anything within the GOP or the Democrat party. I'm only talking about trends, and how social/fiscal liberals and conservatives fare in presidential elections.
-
You have poll numbers to support the contention that Thompson or Huckabee ever held leads in the primaries?
They didn't. Which is the entire point I am making. They never had a lead. I never said they did. They were always behind. The candidates that were leading were moderate/liberal ones. The GOP party members were not even voting for the conservative candidates they had.
So far there hasn't been a reason given why Republicans themselves do not nominate conservative candidates within their own party. Why?
-
They didn't. Which is the entire point I am making. They never had a lead. I never said they did. They were always behind. The candidates that were leading were moderate/liberal ones. The GOP party members were not even voting for the conservative candidates they had.
So far there hasn't been a reason given why Republicans themselves do not nominate conservative candidates within their own party. Why?
When in the hell was Mike Hukabee the darling of conservatives?Most conservatives dont like his politics on many social issues.Thompson could have been a player but the guy didnt campaign.His campaig never got off the ground,he entered late,then easnt heard from at all.It wasnt the views,it was the personality.
Here is what is so amusing.I hear from libs like you and 240 that republicans need to be more like democrats.They need to not oppose immigration.Well,we ran a guy who was THE GUY who proposed an amnesty bill.THE GUY WHO WROTE THE FREAKING LAW!Guess what?Hispanics still voted against him.Why?You cant attract people to the republican party pretending to be democrat light.You can attract them by beating cutting taxes and getting government smaller over and over and over again.They work very hard,tell them you will let them keep their money,you win!!!
-
They didn't. Which is the entire point I am making. They never had a lead. I never said they did. They were always behind. The candidates that were leading were moderate/liberal ones. The GOP party members were not even voting for the conservative candidates they had.
So far there hasn't been a reason given why Republicans themselves do not nominate conservative candidates within their own party. Why?
First you called them darlings. Now you say they were always behind. Which is it?
Again, you're looking at one election. If you're going to ask a question about trends, you have to actually look at trends.
-
Calling them darlings isn't the same as saying they had a lead. Where did you get that?
The conservatives loved Huckabee and Thompson.
Again, I am not even looking at an election, I am looking at a primary. This isn't about any so called "trend". It is a so called fact that conservatives are in the minority of their own party today and can't even field a candidate that represents their views from their own party pool.
-
You cant attract people to the republican party pretending to be democrat light.
Then why didn't you run a better candidate. This isn't a Dem thing. This is 100% Republican voters. If the Republican party didn't want to run a moderate or liberal candidate then why did McCain win the nomination? Hmmm?
The majority of Repubs simply do NOT want a conservative right wing candidate running.
-
Calling them darlings isn't the same as saying they had a lead. Where did you get that?
The conservatives loved Huckabee and Thompson.
Again, I am not even looking at an election, I am looking at a primary. This isn't about any so called "trend". It is a so called fact that conservatives are in the minority of their own party today and can't even field a candidate that represents their views from their own party pool.
Here is what you said:
If that is the case, why did no right wing conservative do well in the primaries? That was voting from within the own party and it was pretty much establised the majority of the party isn't down with conservative outlook anymore.
You're basing this contention on one presidential election. I'm starting to repeat myself, but you can't draw informed conclusions based on one election. The fact is liberals consistently lose presidential elections. Obama is obviously an exception, but the last elected Democrat (Clinton) had to talk like a conservative on a number of fiscal and social issues to get elected.
I have no idea why both parties don't support better candidates. Obama was a terrible candidate IMO, as was Hillary and every other Democrat who ran. I was not crazy about McCain or most of the Republican candidates and was surprised to see him win the nomination. But even McCain, the nominee, was a fiscal and social conservative during the primary, at least by words. So even if you look solely at this election your conclusion doesn't make any sense.
-
Good lord. Someone doesn't know the difference between a primary or an election. Even when quoting two previous posts of mine where I plainly stated then I was not referencing an election.
Last time I checked, Dems and Independents didn't vote in a Republican primary.
-
The fact is liberals consistently lose presidential elections.
Why did the Republican voters nominate one to the ticket then? DUH!!
-
Good lord. Someone doesn't know the difference between a primary or an election. Even when quoting two previous posts of mine where I plainly stated then I was not referencing an election.
Last time I checked, Dems and Independents didn't vote in a Republican primary.
Good grief. Someone has a myopic view of elections and appears to be unable to look past a single election cycle, but still draw long range conclusions.
-
Why did the Republican voters nominate one to the ticket then? DUH!!
I give up. ::)
-
Here is what is so amusing.I hear from libs like you and 240 that republicans need to be more like democrats.
No. They need to be more TOLERANT of those with moderate positions. Ridge, Powell, Crist, mccain, and others agree.
-
Then why didn't you run a better candidate. This isn't a Dem thing. This is 100% Republican voters. If the Republican party didn't want to run a moderate or liberal candidate then why did McCain win the nomination? Hmmm?
The majority of Repubs simply do NOT want a conservative right wing candidate running.
Hmmmm,they nominated Reagan twice,they nominated Bush twice[when they thought he was a conservative]they both won.They nominated Dole and McCain,they lost.
-
No. They need to be more TOLERANT of those with moderate positions. Ridge, Powell, Crist, mccain, and others agree.
The others that agree are democrats and liberals.NO CONSERVATIVE agrees with that.Christ Ron Paul refused to vote for McCAIN,not because he wasnt inclusive,but because he was a liberal!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Hmmmm,they nominated Reagan twice,they nominated Bush twice[when they thought he was a conservative]they both won.They nominated Dole and McCain,they lost.
I don't remember Reagan or Bush being on the last ticket. Maybe you could point it out for me?
-
Good grief. Someone has a myopic view of elections and appears to be unable to look past a single election cycle, but still draw long range conclusions.
Perhaps if Republicans understood the difference between a primary and an election they might do better in the next one.
-
Powell supported Obama
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27265369/
You can't claim your part of a team when you actively work against them in public.
Those are facts.
Just like you can't support the steelers when you are on the cardinals and playing in the super bowl.
You may not like the defense the cardinal is using but you best talk to the coach about it and still do your job.
Otherwise quit.
He quit the party before the party quit on him.
-
Powell supported Obama
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27265369/
You can't claim your part of a team when you actively work against them in public.
Those are facts.
Just like you can't support the steelers when you are on the cardinals and playing in the super bowl.
You may not like the defense the cardinal is using but you best talk to the coach about it and still do your job.
Otherwise quit.
He quit the party before the party quit on him.
I agree. I've tried to make those points in the past. If you're going to call yourself a Democrat, Republican, etc. there is a degree of loyalty involved, particularly if you are a high profile member of the party.
If its change he wants he should be working with party leaders and not throwing darts in public.
-
I don't remember Reagan or Bush being on the last ticket. Maybe you could point it out for me?
I know your not very bright ,so I will explain it you.Try to follow.When republicans nominate conservatives THEY WIN!!!![REAGAN,BUSH].When they nominate moderates or libs THEY LOOSE[McCain,Dole].Do you understand that now?Do I need to explain it to you?When republicans forget to be conservative they fail[BUSH].When they remain conservative they are legends[ReAGAN].I hope this helps.
Powell is a lib.HES DEATH for republicans.If they follow a fool like him THEY WILL LOOSE just as McCain and Dole lost!!!
-
Is he?
Powell: 'I am still a Republican'
From CNN's Steve Brusk
WASHINGTON (CNN) – Former Secretary of State Colin Powell struck back Sunday at critics of his decision to support Barack Obama's presidential candidacy last year.
Calling for his divided party to widen its ranks, Powell declared, "I am still a Republican."
In an appearance on CBS' Face the Nation, Powell responded to attacks from former Vice President Dick Cheney and talk show host Rush Limbaugh, saying they are "not members of the membership committee of the Republican Party."
"Rush will not get his wish, and Mr. Cheney was misinformed. I am still a Republican", he said. "I would like to point out that in the course of my 50 years of voting for presidents, I have voted for the person I thought was best qualified at that time to lead the nation. Last year, I thought it was President Barack Obama. For the previous 20 years, I voted solidly for Republican candidates."
Earlier this month on the same program, Cheney was asked about a dispute between Limbaugh and Powell over the role each plays in the GOP. "My take on it was Colin had already left the party. I didn't know he was still a Republican," Cheney responded.
Powell said Sunday that he didn't want to trade insults with Limbaugh, but that he thought it was "unfortunate" Limbaugh framed his support of Obama along racial lines.
Limbaugh, on his radio program, argued that Powell supported Obama "solely based on race."
Discussing divisions over the direction of the party in the wake of its losses in the 2006 midterm elections and 2008 presidential election, Powell said Sunday the party should expand its base.
"I have always felt that the Republican Party should be more inclusive than it generally has been over the years and I believe that we need a strong Republican Party that is not just anchored in the base but has built on the base to include more individuals. And if we don't do that, if we don't reach out more, the party is going to be sitting on a very, very narrow base," he told "Face the Nation."
Powell added, "Let's debate the future of the party and let all segments in… What we have to do is debate and define who we are and what we are, and not just listen to dictates that come down from the right wing of the party."
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/24/powell-i-am-still-a-republican/
Yeah, he is.
Colin Powell tells CBS: I am a Republican; Dick Cheney misinformed
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_tv_tvblog/2009/05/colin-powell-tells-cbs-i-am-still-a-republican.html
On the other hand, we could have deduced that Powell was a republican based only on his grand deception at the UN where he laid out the case that Iraq was a comet headed for the US and that a war was the only medicine for that malady.
-
I agree. I've tried to make those points in the past. If you're going to call yourself a Democrat, Republican, etc. there is a degree of loyalty involved, particularly if you are a high profile member of the party.
If its change he wants he should be working with party leaders and not throwing darts in public.
What exactly are you talking about?
You aren't anything. You are the torturing christian...you are the non-republican who supports all extreme rightwing candidates and proposals while mocking anything to the left of Rush Limbaugh.
Your admonition that loyalty is a key feature to the essence of the definition of 'republican' borders on nonsensical. Loyalty to what?
The obvious question is: What is a republican?
Is torture, non-transparent government, big government and fiscal irresponsiblity the sine qua non of republicanism?
Then Dick Cheney is your man and that is your party.
-
What exactly are you talking about?
You aren't anything. You are the torturing christian...you are the non-republican who supports all extreme rightwing candidates and proposals while mocking anything to the left of Rush Limbaugh.
Your admonition that loyalty is a key feature to the essence of the definition of 'republican' borders on nonsensical. Loyalty to what?
The obvious question is: What is a republican?
Is torture, non-transparent government, big government and fiscal irresponsiblity the sine qua non of republicanism?
Then Dick Cheney is your man and that is your party.
If slaughtering babies,promoting racists,keeping silent on racist rants by those around you,spending us into oblivian,taking over private industry,dictating what people can make,raising utility bills by 3,000 a year under the lie of global warming,pumping up failing companies,pushing shit bag unions, IS THE SINE QUA NON OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY ,then Obama is your man.
POWELL IS A FUCKING DEMOCRAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
What exactly are you talking about?
You aren't anything. You are the torturing christian...you are the non-republican who supports all extreme rightwing candidates and proposals while mocking anything to the left of Rush Limbaugh.
Your admonition that loyalty is a key feature to the essence of the definition of 'republican' borders on nonsensical. Loyalty to what?
The obvious question is: What is a republican?
Is torture, non-transparent government, big government and fiscal irresponsiblity the sine qua non of republicanism?
Then Dick Cheney is your man and that is your party.
What is it with you liberals? Just incapable of discussing issues without focusing on the person, rather than subject at hand. It's a very predictable pattern. I expect it from the dummies, but not the smart ones (like you).
In any event, I stand by what I said. If a person considers themselves a member of any organization, including political parties, there is a degree of loyalty required to the organization/party. I shouldn't have to explain that concept. This loyalty is particularly important if a person is in a leadership position. This means if you voluntarily join a group, you support the group.
That doesn't mean you accept or agree with everything the organization or party does. But if you have a problem with the organization or party, you work to change it behind the scenes. If the differences are untenable and cannot be resolved, you leave. Simple as that.
If you consider that nonsensical then we have a diametrically opposed view of loyalty.
-
POWELL IS A FUCKING DEMOCRAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Is Powell not a card carrying Republican? If so, then I'd say you were wrong.
-
Is Powell not a card carrying Republican? If so, then I'd say you were wrong.
I was a card carrying member of the teamsters for a few years.I DESPISED EVERYTHING THEY STOOD FOR.Does that make me a good union member?I was forced into that,it wasnt a choice like Powell has with his politics.YOU CANT BE A REPUBLICAN AND SUPPORT OBAMA.ITS IMPOSSIBLE.
-
What exactly are you talking about?
You aren't anything. You are the torturing christian...you are the non-republican who supports all extreme rightwing candidates and proposals while mocking anything to the left of Rush Limbaugh.
Your admonition that loyalty is a key feature to the essence of the definition of 'republican' borders on nonsensical. Loyalty to what?
The obvious question is: What is a republican?
Is torture, non-transparent government, big government and fiscal irresponsiblity the sine qua non of republicanism?
Then Dick Cheney is your man and that is your party.
spot on
-
YOU CANT BE A REPUBLICAN AND SUPPORT OBAMA.ITS IMPOSSIBLE.
the same thing can be said in reverse: YOU CAN'T BE A DEMOCRAT AND SUPPORT BUSH
This is in essence one of the many things wrong with American Politics
-
If slaughtering babies,promoting racists,keeping silent on racist rants by those around you,spending us into oblivian,taking over private industry,dictating what people can make,raising utility bills by 3,000 a year under the lie of global warming,pumping up failing companies,pushing shit bag unions, IS THE SINE QUA NON OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY ,then Obama is your man.
POWELL IS A FUCKING DEMOCRAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I find your hypocrisy amusing. In the other thread you're thumping your chest and screaming that you don't want Obama to tell you how to live your life, what car you can drive and what form of energy you can use yet here you are trying to tell other women what they can do with their own unborn fetuses and their bodies. HYPOCRITE.
-
the same thing can be said in reverse: YOU CAN'T BE A DEMOCRAT AND SUPPORT BUSH
This is in essence one of the many things wrong with American Politics
Why is that wrong?Can you be a Yankee fan and a Red Sox fan?I dont think you can.They are enemies.
-
I find your hypocrisy amusing. In the other thread you're thumping your chest and screaming that you don't want Obama to tell you how to live your life, what car you can drive and what form of energy you can use yet here you are trying to tell other women what they can do with their own unborn fetuses and their bodies. HYPOCRITE.
Im not telling ANYONE what to do.Im pro life,BUT I never want the government involved in that decision.Id prefer the DR.SLEPIAN method.Use that about 40 or 50 times and you end that problem.
Now,partial birth abortion is not a fetus,its a living baby that they birth but leave the head in and stab it with scissors.However,if you like that fine.Vote Obama ,he LOVES abortion and even wants babies that survive an abortion attempt to be left to die.So,if thats what your for,you got the right guy.I would NEVER force my view down anyone elses throat.However,if a women has a right to do what she wants with her body and people like Joe Biden say that,then how do they tell a man what he can do with his and ban steroids[JOE BIDEN DID THAT!!!!!!!!!].Talk about hypocricy!!!!
-
Im not telling ANYONE what to do.Im pro life,BUT I never want the government involved in that decision.Id prefer the DR.SLEPIAN method.Use that about 40 or 50 times and you end that problem.
Now,partial birth abortion is not a fetus,its a living baby that they birth but leave the head in and stab it with scissors.However,if you like that fine.Vote Obama ,he LOVES abortion and even wants babies that survive an abortion attempt to be left to die.So,if thats what your for,you got the right guy.I would NEVER force my view down anyone elses throat.However,if a women has a right to do what she wants with her body and people like Joe Biden say that,then how do they tell a man what he can do with his and ban steroids[JOE BIDEN DID THAT!!!!!!!!!].Talk about hypocricy!!!!
again, are your posts meant to be some kind of joke?
You're advocating killing doctors?
Serious question - are you posting from inside a mental institution?
-
Why is that wrong?Can you be a Yankee fan and a Red Sox fan?I dont think you can.They are enemies.
It's very wrong, because people tend to align themselves along party lines without thinking or looking at an issue with an open mind or examining other view points. It leads to polarization, stereotyping and bias based solely on party loyalty. Creating a common enemy is the first step to manipulation, next comes the blinders followed by transforming into a complete drone. Then a person becomes a basic tool that sees everything the "other party" does wrong, and everything their party does right. Reason and common sense are forfeited for being on the "right" team.
Politics isn't baseball. If anything that should show you are falling into that trap. This is AMERICA. You can be what ever the fuck you want. Individual liberty above all else with the exception of that liberty restricting or endangering someone else. If you want to be a red sox and Yankees fan YOU CAN just as if you want to be a democrat on some issues, yet a republican on other issues YOU CAN. And anyone that says different is part of that drone making machine.
I strive not to surrender my intelligence to one side of the fence and automatically categorize the other. There are many conservatives and liberals on this board that are not drones, that see issues individually before they apply party ideals to them. And there are drones who are sock puppets for talking heads. We got conservatives accusing Obama of attacking the middle class, and just a year ago we had Dems accusing BUSh of the same. That tells me we are really just getting bent over while the powers at be play yank the drone cord.
You can be a democrat and not support Obama.
You can be a conservative and not have supported BUSH. There where plenty, and there are plenty of dems now not supporting Obama.
-
Decker= Still suffering a two week old yeast infection and hot flashes from the realization that Nancy Pelosi, his hero, authorized and encouraged "torture". :-X
-
Decker= Still suffering a two week old yeast infection and hot flashes from the realization that Nancy Pelosi, his hero, authorized and encouraged "torture". :-X
authorized = aware it might be used
encouraged = sounds crazy - show me some proof of your claim
-
What is it with you liberals? Just incapable of discussing issues without focusing on the person, rather than subject at hand. It's a very predictable pattern. I expect it from the dummies, but not the smart ones (like you).
There is nothing wrong with ad hominem arguments. You support torture b/c cheney says waterboarding is not torture. Both international and domestic case law/statutes state that waterboarding is torture. Yet you buck the law to stand with a man you seem to hold as representative of republican ideals.
If republican ideals include lawless brutality, then by gum, you are a republican.
I mention this b/c I see a worth in you and you are doing yourself a disservice.
In any event, I stand by what I said. If a person considers themselves a member of any organization, including political parties, there is a degree of loyalty required to the organization/party. I shouldn't have to explain that concept. This loyalty is particularly important if a person is in a leadership position. This means if you voluntarily join a group, you support the group.
I'll stand by this statement as well. It does not speak to what it means to be a republican, but I agree with it.
That doesn't mean you accept or agree with everything the organization or party does. But if you have a problem with the organization or party, you work to change it behind the scenes. If the differences are untenable and cannot be resolved, you leave. Simple as that.
I agree with this as well. But the statement is neutral to what it means to be a republican.
If you consider that nonsensical then we have a diametrically opposed view of loyalty.
This only makes sense if you view Dick Cheney's perspective of secretive government, torture, illegal/unjustified wars as the meat on the republican bone. I.e., Cheney's perspective is the republican party.
Is Dick Cheney the republican party?
Or does it mean something else to be a republican?
-
Decker= Still suffering a two week old yeast infection and hot flashes from the realization that Nancy Pelosi, his hero, authorized and encouraged "torture". :-X
You seem to be wasted human potential.
Would you care to make any more straw arguments? (my apologies to Straw Man).
Personally, I wouldn't mind if your crap was funny. But you're not funny.
Why don't you dust off the 'sand in the vagina' howler again? That's a crowd pleaser. And by 'crowd', I mean only you.
-
again, are your posts meant to be some kind of joke?
You're advocating killing doctors?
Serious question - are you posting from inside a mental institution?
YES!!!Im advocating killing abortion doctors.Did you care when the allies freed the concentration camps and killed Nazis?Same fucking thing!!!!
Are you posting from inside a bath house in San Fran?
-
YES!!!Im advocating killing abortion doctors.Did you care when the allies freed the concentration camps and killed Nazis?Same fucking thing!!!!
Are you posting from inside a bath house in San Fran?
nope - I'm posting from work.
you're a perfect example of the rationale, measured approach that make the pro-life view so appealing to the rest of us.
I can't believe some people on the left think all pro-lifers are crazy, religious nutbags
-
nope - I'm posting from work.
you're a perfect example of the rationale, measured approach that make the pro-life view so appealing to the rest of us.
I can't believe some people on the left think all pro-lifers are crazy, religious nutbags
Well I hate RELIGION,SO YOUR NOT TALKING ABOT ME!!!Funny,you dont seem to be outraged that Obamas best friend,Bill Ayers tried to bomb government buildings[he was just so imcompetant at it that he couldnt pull it off.Typical lib,cant do a fucking thing correctly].I guess NUTS are defined by who is defining them.
-
Well I hate RELIGION,SO YOUR NOT TALKING ABOT ME!!!Funny,you dont seem to be outraged that Obamas best friend,Bill Ayers tried to bomb government buildings[he was just so imcompetant at it that he couldnt pull it off.Typical lib,cant do a fucking thing correctly].I guess NUTS are defined by who is defining them.
ok - so you're not a religious nutbag
You're clearly some kind of nutbag so what exactly is it that makes you sound so crazy?
I wasn't aware that Ayers and Obama were best friends.
-
ok - so you're not a religious nutbag
You're clearly some kind of nutbag so what exactly is it that makes you sound so crazy?
I wasn't aware that Ayers and Obama were best friends.
Well he kicked off his political career right in Ayers' living room.
Frankly,I think you sound crazy.I always find it amusing when the left will throw out stuff like "your crazy,your out of the mainstream,anyone who watches FOX news is an idiot".Thanfully,I dont give a flying fuck what you think of me.YOU dont pay my bills.The very people you think are stupid,crazy,idiots,kooks,think EXACTLY the same about you.The good thing is,WE actually dont need you or the left wing libs to help us get by,we do it for ourselves.So,your opinion of me is as important as something stuck to the bottom of my shoe.
-
I can't believe you're still hanging on to the Ayers thing. First of all the election is over so it's a moot point. Second, that fake issue only worked on the dumbest of the dumb.
Back to the tangent of mass assasination of doctors. Are you aware that puts you in radical fringe of a group that's already filled with crackpot and nutbags. I'd venture a guess that 99.9% of pro-lifers would not be in agreement with your idea of killing 40-50 doctors as a way to challenge abortions.
-
I can't believe you're still hanging on to the Ayers thing. First of all the election is over so it's a moot point. Second, that fake issue only worked on the dumbest of the dumb.
Back to the tangent of mass assasination of doctors. Are you aware that put's you in radical fringe of a group that's already filled with crackpot and nutbags. I'd venture a guess that 99.9% of pro-lifers would not be in agreement with your idea of killing 40-50 doctors as a way to challenge abortions.
YOU MUST BE UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT IM TRYING TO BE PART OF THE PRO-LIFE MOVEMENT.I dont care what they believe in.In fact I find them to be as stupid as the idiots who march with people like Rev. Al or Jackson.A total waste of time and energy.All that silly praying and marching and writing congress people,what has it accomplished?Tim McVeigh accomplished more in ten minutes then they have in 50 years.
-
I would like Powell for once to tell us just why is is a republican in the first place.
-
I would like Powell for once to tell us just why is is a republican in the first place.
Valid question... Where has his party gone.
-
Valid question... Where has his party gone.
Serious, just what does Powell stand for for him to say he is a republican?
-
YOU MUST BE UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT IM TRYING TO BE PART OF THE PRO-LIFE MOVEMENT.I dont care what they believe in.In fact I find them to be as stupid as the idiots who march with people like Rev. Al or Jackson.A total waste of time and energy.All that silly praying and marching and writing congress people,what has it accomplished?Tim McVeigh accomplished more in ten minutes then they have in 50 years.
yeah - that doesn't sound crazy at all
btw - what did McVeigh accomomplish exactly....besides the obvious murder of 168 innocent people?
-
yeah - that doesn't sound crazy at all
btw - what did McVeigh accomomplish exactly....besides the obvious murder of 168 innocent people?
And going to prison for a long, long time.
I'm thinking Billy is just a gimmick.
-
And going to prison for a long, long time.
I'm thinking Billy is just a gimmick.
yeah - I assumed that a few pages ago and even asked him.
It's hard to tell with people on this board.
-
There is nothing wrong with ad hominem arguments. You support torture b/c cheney says waterboarding is not torture. Both international and domestic case law/statutes state that waterboarding is torture. Yet you buck the law to stand with a man you seem to hold as representative of republican ideals.
If republican ideals include lawless brutality, then by gum, you are a republican.
I mention this b/c I see a worth in you and you are doing yourself a disservice.
I'll stand by this statement as well. It does not speak to what it means to be a republican, but I agree with it.
I agree with this as well. But the statement is neutral to what it means to be a republican.
This only makes sense if you view Dick Cheney's perspective of secretive government, torture, illegal/unjustified wars as the meat on the republican bone. I.e., Cheney's perspective is the republican party.
Is Dick Cheney the republican party?
Or does it mean something else to be a republican?
The problem with ad hominem arguments is they are almost always used by people who aren't smart enough, don't have the discipline, or aren't mature enough to discuss the merits. They really add nothing to the discussion, unless you're challenging a person's credibility, IF credibility is relevant to the discussion.
Why do you keep bringing up Dick Cheney? You fascinated with the man or something? I actually like him and was very glad he was VP after 911 rather than someone like Biden or some other liberal.
I have no problem with waterboarding terrorists, or suspected terrorists if our people believe it will help save American lives. Call that whatever you want. I won't be losing any sleep over that trumped up non-issue.
You'll have to ask a Republican what it means to be a Republican, and not one of the phony baloney ones who call themselves one when they are in reality a liberal apologist.
-
The problem with ad hominem arguments is they are almost always used by people who aren't smart enough, don't have the discipline, or aren't mature enough to discuss the merits. They really add nothing to the discussion, unless you're challenging a person's credibility, IF credibility is relevant to the discussion.
Why do you keep bringing up Dick Cheney? You fascinated with the man or something? I actually like him and was very glad he was VP after 911 rather than someone like Biden or some other liberal.
I have no problem with waterboarding terrorists, or suspected terrorists if our people believe it will help save American lives. Call that whatever you want. I won't be losing any sleep over that trumped up non-issue.
You'll have to ask a Republican what it means to be a Republican, and not one of the phony baloney ones who call themselves one when they are in reality a liberal apologist.
Bum - Why not just say you have no problem with torturing suspected terrorists. You said call it whatever you'd like so why not just call it what it is.
After that, please tell us why torture is the best way to acquire reliable intelligence
and I know you'll spare me the ad hominem arguments or pointless diversion and avoidence by bringing up marijuana.
thanks
-
Bum - Why not just say you have no problem with torturing suspected terrorists. You said call it whatever you'd like so why not just call it what it is.
After that, please tell us why torture is the best way to acquire reliable intelligence
and I know you'll spare me the ad hominem arguments or pointless diversion and avoidence by bringing up marijuana.
thanks
No. You're welcome.
-
No. You're welcome.
thanks
at least you didn't waste my time pretending not to understand the questions
-
And going to prison for a long, long time.
I'm thinking Billy is just a gimmick.
He didnt go to prison for long.He was executed as he should have been.McVeigh brought attention to the dissasters of WACO and Ruby Ridge which the government tried to hide from the public and sweep under the rug.Militias sprung up all over because of his actions.People became involved because of him.
-
The problem with ad hominem arguments is they are almost always used by people who aren't smart enough, don't have the discipline, or aren't mature enough to discuss the merits. They really add nothing to the discussion, unless you're challenging a person's credibility, IF credibility is relevant to the discussion.
Ad Hominem arguments can be an avenue to understanding the psychological underpinnings of why someone holds a certain belief. Nietzche employed ad hominem attacks all the time. I doubt you'd characterize his legendary genius as undisciplined or immature.
Why do you question that Powell is not a republican?
Only Rush, Dick and you are making this an issue. Why?
Why do you keep bringing up Dick Cheney? You fascinated with the man or something? I actually like him and was very glad he was VP after 911 rather than someone like Biden or some other liberal.
Cheney was the driving force behind torture, war crimes, and diminishing the US constitution. And you like that.
That's a problem.
I have no problem with waterboarding terrorists, or suspected terrorists if our people believe it will help save American lives. Call that whatever you want. I won't be losing any sleep over that trumped up non-issue.
Waterboarding is a crime. The US has executed people who have tortured with waterboarding.
And you lose no sleep over that? Do you see why I have a problem with that, sir?
Did it ever occur to you that waterboarding someone 183 times is a method to manufacture confessions rather than elicit them?
You know, like torturing a confession out of someone to use as evidence to justify an illegal war.
Has that occurred to you?
Does it bother you that people who interrogate these detainees (in reality) decry waterboarding as counterproductive?
You'll have to ask a Republican what it means to be a Republican, and not one of the phony baloney ones who call themselves one when they are in reality a liberal apologist.
Don't you see the unspoken assumption in your questioning whether Powell is a republican?
The implication is that you know what a republican is and that Powell is not measuring up to that standard.
That's the exact argument made by Dick and Rush...and you.
-
Ad Hominem arguments can be an avenue to understanding the psychological underpinnings of why someone holds a certain belief. Nietzche employed ad hominem attacks all the time. I doubt you'd characterize his legendary genius as undisciplined or immature.
Why do you question that Powell is not a republican?
Only Rush, Dick and you are making this an issue. Why?
Cheney was the driving force behind torture, war crimes, and diminishing the US constitution. And you like that.
That's a problem.
Waterboarding is a crime. The US has executed people who have tortured with waterboarding.
And you lose no sleep over that? Do you see why I have a problem with that, sir?
Did it ever occur to you that waterboarding someone 183 times is a method to manufacture confessions rather than elicit them?
You know, like torturing a confession out of someone to use as evidence to justify an illegal war.
Has that occurred to you?
Does it bother you that people who interrogate these detainees (in reality) decry waterboarding as counterproductive?
Don't you see the unspoken assumption in your questioning whether Powell is a republican?
The implication is that you know what a republican is and that Powell is not measuring up to that standard.
That's the exact argument made by Dick and Rush...and you.
I've rarely seen ad hominem used as some means to try and engage in legitimate discourse on this board. Not by you or anyone else.
Here is what I said about Powell earlier in the thread:
Both parties are in disarray.
I don't know what Powell's motivation is, but supporting a Democrat for president, followed by public criticism of the party doesn't sound very good. If his goal is to make changes, he should work with party leaders.
Paul had the same problem.
If he calls himself a Republican, but supports a Democrat for president, publicly criticizes his party, does nothing to try and make positive changes in the party, and starts to support liberal ideas, then yes I will question whether the person is actually a Republican. I'm not saying Powell isn't a Republican. Just having my doubts.
Who was waterboarded 183 times? Wasn't that debunked already?
The CIA said waterboarding helped prevent a terrorist attack. That's good enough for me. I care much more about the safety of American citizens than the animals trying to kill us. I could care less if that puts me in line with Cheney et al.
Unlike people who do politics for a living, I don't lose any sleep over whether someone wants to put a label on me, tell me I'm just like Rush, etc. That's so trivial. And no, I lose no sleep over waterboarding. I sleep like a baby. :)
-
I've rarely seen ad hominem used as some means to try and engage in legitimate discourse on this board. Not by you or anyone else.
Here is what I said about Powell earlier in the thread:
If he calls himself a Republican, but supports a Democrat for president, publicly criticizes his party, does nothing to try and make positive changes in the party, and starts to support liberal ideas, then yes I will question whether the person is actually a Republican. I'm not saying Powell isn't a Republican. Just having my doubts.
Who was waterboarded 183 times? Wasn't that debunked already?
The CIA said waterboarding helped prevent a terrorist attack. That's good enough for me. I care much more about the safety of American citizens than the animals trying to kill us. I could care less if that puts me in line with Cheney et al.
Unlike people who do politics for a living, I don't lose any sleep over whether someone wants to put a label on me, tell me I'm just like Rush, etc. That's so trivial. And no, I lose no sleep over waterboarding. I sleep like a baby. :)
Powell voted for JFK,JIMMY CARTER AND OBAMA.Someone PLEASE explain how in the world he calls himself a republican.He not only votes for democrats but openly campaigns for them.
-
McVeigh was nothing more than an idiotic COWARD.
He was unpatriotic and complete unAmerican down to his soul. The only thing he "inspired" was his own death sentence and the death sentences for any future copycats like his stupid ass creates.
-
Powell voted for JFK,JIMMY CARTER AND OBAMA.Someone PLEASE explain how in the world he calls himself a republican.He not only votes for democrats but openly campaigns for them.
You forgot Lyndon Johnson.
So out of 48 years, he's voted for 4 Democrat Presidents... Ooooh...
Out of 10 Presidents and 13 Elections, he's voted for Democrats 4 out of 13. Can't really see a Democratic trend there to be honest.
-
Ok, so let me get this straight. The Republican Party nominated John McCain, a man whom has stuck his thumb against his own party several times, someone the media claimed they liked until he was nominated. The Democrats nominate the most leftward candidate since atleast George McGovern. Colin Powell votes for the most leftward Democrat and has the audacity to say that the Republican Party needs to become mroe "inclusive"? What a POSER.
-
Ok, so let me get this straight. The Republican Party nominated John McCain, a man whom has stuck his thumb against his own party several times, someone the media claimed they liked until he was nominated. The Democrats nominate the most leftward candidate since atleast George McGovern. Colin Powell votes for the most leftward Democrat and has the audacity to say that the Republican Party needs to become mroe "inclusive"? What a POSER.
Good point. McCain was considered a liberal by some conservatives. A lot of social conservatives didn't like him. He flirted with joining the Democrats not too long ago. The fact he won the nomination definitely cuts against the argument that the Republican party needs to move to the left.
-
YES!!!Im advocating killing abortion doctors.Did you care when the allies freed the concentration camps and killed Nazis?Same fucking thing!!!!
Are you posting from inside a bath house in San Fran?
Hey Billy - is this your work?
If not you I'm sure we'll learn it was some other righteous christian warrior ( I forgot, you're not religious)
Shot and killed at his church
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/05/31/kansas.doctor.killed/index.html
-
I've rarely seen ad hominem used as some means to try and engage in legitimate discourse on this board. Not by you or anyone else.
Ok. You've just had narrow experiences of effective ad hominem arguments. No crime there.
Here is what I said about Powell earlier in the thread:
If he calls himself a Republican, but supports a Democrat for president, publicly criticizes his party, does nothing to try and make positive changes in the party, and starts to support liberal ideas, then yes I will question whether the person is actually a Republican. I'm not saying Powell isn't a Republican. Just having my doubts.
So essentially whichever way the crowd goes, you go. If cheney and his supporters state that they are the republican party, you fall into line. You've already alluded to the notion that Cheney and his corrupt ideals are the basis of the republican party.
Wait a moment, here you are with another story. Now it's not that Cheney and his corruptions are the basis of the republican party, it's that Powell is aligning himself with 'liberals.'
So your ideological enemy is defining you and your sense of what it means to be a republican.
I don't think you know what a republican is.
It seems you either go with the crowd or have your opponent's actions define your political being.
Who was waterboarded 183 times? Wasn't that debunked already?
No it was not debunked. Fox news tried to spin it but no dice. The torture stands.
The CIA said waterboarding helped prevent a terrorist attack. That's good enough for me. I care much more about the safety of American citizens than the animals trying to kill us. I could care less if that puts me in line with Cheney et al.
Where'd you pull that nugget, Fox news?
Is that the best you can do?
So the same people committing the crime of waterboarding claim it 'saved' LA and you believe them? The "confession" came from KSM in 2003. Bush already took credit for disrupting the plot in 2002. Which is it? I would guess since 2002 predates 2003, the CIA is bullshitting you to cover their criminal asses.
It's well established that Fox news consumers are the least informed news consumers in the country.
Maybe that's why you consistently come down on the wrong side of issues. You believe what you are told by Fox News.
If you cared about the safety of the US, why the hell did you vote for Bush twice? His criminal negligence permitted the single worst terrorist attack in US history. His inept management of the "war on terror" has led to the deaths of tens of thousands of innocents.
Unlike people who do politics for a living, I don't lose any sleep over whether someone wants to put a label on me, tell me I'm just like Rush, etc. That's so trivial. And no, I lose no sleep over waterboarding. I sleep like a baby. :)
No label on you?
You support torture and bombing men, women and children b/c someone told you they were a threat.
It's that profound sense of fearfulness and self-preservation of yours that tells me all I need to know.
You approve of your leaders doing anything name of keeping you 'safe'.
That is a dangerous illusion.
-
Ok. You've just had narrow experiences of effective ad hominem arguments. No crime there.
So essentially whichever way the crowd goes, you go. If cheney and his supporters state that they are the republican party, you fall into line. You've already alluded to the notion that Cheney and his corrupt ideals are the basis of the republican party.
Wait a moment, here you are with another story. Now it's not that Cheney and his corruptions are the basis of the republican party, it's that Powell is aligning himself with 'liberals.'
So your ideological enemy is defining you and your sense of what it means to be a republican.
I don't think you know what a republican is.
It seems you either go with the crowd or have your opponent's actions define your political being.
No it was not debunked. Fox news tried to spin it but no dice. The torture stands.
Where'd you pull that nugget, Fox news?
Is that the best you can do?
So the same people committing the crime of waterboarding claim it 'saved' LA and you believe them? The "confession" came from KSM in 2003. Bush already took credit for disrupting the plot in 2002. Which is it? I would guess since 2002 predates 2003, the CIA is bullshitting you to cover their criminal asses.
It's well established that Fox news consumers are the least informed news consumers in the country.
Maybe that's why you consistently come down on the wrong side of issues. You believe what you are told by Fox News.
If you cared about the safety of the US, why the hell did you vote for Bush twice? His criminal negligence permitted the single worst terrorist attack in US history. His inept management of the "war on terror" has led to the deaths of tens of thousands of innocents.
No label on you?
You support torture and bombing men, women and children b/c someone told you they were a threat.
It's that profound sense of fearfulness and self-preservation of yours that tells me all I need to know.
You approve of your leaders doing anything name of keeping you 'safe'.
That is a dangerous illusion.
This horse is about dead, but I've actually had a broad range of experience with ad hominem arguments and they are most often used precisely like I said, including by everyone who uses them on the board, including you.
I believe what I do based on my life experience, common sense, education, reading, talking to people, etc. But have fun with the repeated straw men. :)
Torture blah blah blah. Get over it man. I don't give a rip about waterboarding. I do not care about terrorists. I don't care about Hotel Guantanamo. Pour water over their heads till the cows come home. Big deal. Safety of our people first. The "rights" of terrorists last. But I'm getting repetitive.
-
This horse is about dead, but I've actually had a broad range of experience with ad hominem arguments and they are most often used precisely like I said, including by everyone who uses them on the board, including you.
I believe what I do based on my life experience, common sense, education, reading, talking to people, etc. But have fun with the repeated straw men. :)
Torture blah blah blah. Get over it man. I don't give a rip about waterboarding. I do not care about terrorists. I don't care about Hotel Guantanamo. Pour water over their heads till the cows come home. Big deal. Safety of our people first. The "rights" of terrorists last. But I'm getting repetitive.
yeah but torture doesn't even work and doesn't make us more safe (and quite probably makes us less safe)
meh, who cares right?
-
This horse is about dead, but I've actually had a broad range of experience with ad hominem arguments and they are most often used precisely like I said, including by everyone who uses them on the board, including you.
I believe what I do based on my life experience, common sense, education, reading, talking to people, etc. But have fun with the repeated straw men. :)
Torture blah blah blah. Get over it man. I don't give a rip about waterboarding. I do not care about terrorists. I don't care about Hotel Guantanamo. Pour water over their heads till the cows come home. Big deal. Safety of our people first. The "rights" of terrorists last. But I'm getting repetitive.
These are not straw arguments. Your denial is rife with errors, misstatements and conclusions based on preconceptions inculcated by Fox News. No wonder, it is well established that Fox News connoisseurs have more erroneous information and false understandings than their peers yet they are the most convinced that they are correct.
You are fitting that description to a T.
Before we close, what do you think of Gen. Petraeus?
Here're his views on the torture of waterboarding:
MacCallum: Where do you think those people should go?
Gen. Petraeus: Well, it's not for a soldier to say. What I do support is what has been termed the responsible closure of Gitmo. Gitmo has caused us problems, there's no question about it. I oversee a region in which the existence of Gitmo has been used by the enemy against us. We have not been without missteps or mistakes in our activity since 9/11 and again Gitmo is a lingering reminder for the use of some in that regard.
MacCallum: What about the concern that a Khalid Sheikh Muhammad or anybody of that ilk might be tried here in a US court and the possibility that some of the treatments that were used on them that they could go free.
Gen. Petraeus: Well, first of all, I don't think we should be afraid of our values we're fighting for, what we stand for. And so indeed we need to embrace them and we need to operationalize them in how we carry out what it is we're doing on the battlefield and everywhere else. So one has to have some faith, I think, in the legal system. One has to have a degree of confidence that individuals that have conducted such extremist activity would indeed be found guilty in our courts of law.
MacCallum: So you're confident that they will never go free.
Gen. Petraeus: I hope that's the case.
MacCallum: (Ticking time bomb scenario)
Gen. Petraeus: ....There might be an exception and that would require extraordinary but very rapid approval to deal with, but for the vast majority of the cases, our experience downrange if you will, is that the techniques that are in the Army Field Manual that lays out how we treat detainees, how we interrogate them -- those techniques work, that's our experience in this business.
MacCallum: So is sending this signal that we're not going to use these kind of techniques anymore, what kind of impact does this have on people who do us harm in the field that you operate in?
Gen. Petraeus: Well, actually what I would ask is, does that not take away from our enemies a tool which again have beaten us around the head and shoulders in the court of public opinion? When we have taken steps that have violated the Geneva Conventions, we rightly have been criticized, so as we move forward I think it's important to again live our values, to live the agreements that we have made in the international justice arena and to practice those.
http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/gen-petraeus-believes-our-values-and-co
Thanks for your time.
-
These are not straw arguments. Your denial is rife with errors, misstatements and conclusions based on preconceptions inculcated by Fox News. No wonder, it is well established that Fox News connoisseurs have more erroneous information and false understandings than their peers yet they are the most convinced that they are correct.
You are fitting that description to a T.
Before we close, what do you think of Gen. Petraeus?
Here're his views on the torture of waterboarding:
MacCallum: Where do you think those people should go?
Gen. Petraeus: Well, it's not for a soldier to say. What I do support is what has been termed the responsible closure of Gitmo. Gitmo has caused us problems, there's no question about it. I oversee a region in which the existence of Gitmo has been used by the enemy against us. We have not been without missteps or mistakes in our activity since 9/11 and again Gitmo is a lingering reminder for the use of some in that regard.
MacCallum: What about the concern that a Khalid Sheikh Muhammad or anybody of that ilk might be tried here in a US court and the possibility that some of the treatments that were used on them that they could go free.
Gen. Petraeus: Well, first of all, I don't think we should be afraid of our values we're fighting for, what we stand for. And so indeed we need to embrace them and we need to operationalize them in how we carry out what it is we're doing on the battlefield and everywhere else. So one has to have some faith, I think, in the legal system. One has to have a degree of confidence that individuals that have conducted such extremist activity would indeed be found guilty in our courts of law.
MacCallum: So you're confident that they will never go free.
Gen. Petraeus: I hope that's the case.
MacCallum: (Ticking time bomb scenario)
Gen. Petraeus: ....There might be an exception and that would require extraordinary but very rapid approval to deal with, but for the vast majority of the cases, our experience downrange if you will, is that the techniques that are in the Army Field Manual that lays out how we treat detainees, how we interrogate them -- those techniques work, that's our experience in this business.
MacCallum: So is sending this signal that we're not going to use these kind of techniques anymore, what kind of impact does this have on people who do us harm in the field that you operate in?
Gen. Petraeus: Well, actually what I would ask is, does that not take away from our enemies a tool which again have beaten us around the head and shoulders in the court of public opinion? When we have taken steps that have violated the Geneva Conventions, we rightly have been criticized, so as we move forward I think it's important to again live our values, to live the agreements that we have made in the international justice arena and to practice those.
http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/gen-petraeus-believes-our-values-and-co
Thanks for your time.
I think Petraeus is excellent. I'll typically defer to military folks on military matters. That said, I don't think closing Hotel Guantanamo will make us any safer, particularly if the detainees are then held in the United States. That would be more of a terrorist recruiting tool than holding them in Cuba IMO.