Powell: 'I am still a Republican'

[Soul Crusher]

Valid question... Where has his party gone.

Serious, just what does Powell stand for for him to say he is a republican? 

[Straw Man]

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?

[tu_holmes]

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.

[Straw Man]

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.

[Dos Equis]

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. 

[Straw Man]

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

[Dos Equis]

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. 

[Straw Man]

No.  You're welcome. 

thanks

at least you didn't waste my time pretending not to understand the questions

[BM OUT]

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.

[Decker]

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.

[Dos Equis]

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.   

[BM OUT]

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.

[LurkerNoMore]

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.

[tu_holmes]

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.

[MM2K]

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.

[Dos Equis]

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.   

[Straw Man]

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

[Decker]

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.

[Dos Equis]

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.
 

[Straw Man]

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? 

[Decker]

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.

[Dos Equis]

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.