Colin Powell set to endorse Obama

Manic Moran

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

“Now if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms comes to disarm you and they are bearing arms, resist them with arms. Go for a head shot; they’re going to be wearing bulletproof vests..."

It's not actually unlawful to shoot at federal agents (or police) if they're in the wrong. It's highly ill-advised as it will often result in your own death, and if you were wrong about them being in the wrong you're up the creek even if you survive, but it is sortof the point of the right to keep and bear arms that the government can't come along to disarm you.

Moλωn λaβe.

Similar case in Canada a couple of months ago: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2008/06/13/qc-parasiris0613.html

NTM

Ciaran500

tinker_52 wrote: »

Sorry Brian,
I stepped away a minute. So, do you honestly resent my visiting with the forum? Would it be your wish that folks such as myself dried up and blow away, leaving all you Homies to commiserate, or are you open to the notion of a voice of dissent (troubling, eh what?) interspersed with (as I observed) the ever-present, all-too-easy Bush-bashing, and Sarah-smearing, ad nauseum.
Hey, Miss B.L., Got it. What's up? Sounds like you're either over here on a student visa, or hooked up with Daddy Sugar. If your "harbor's" anywhere near San Fran, I know the area well (I've lived up 'n down the Left Coast, San Diego, Monterey, and Sonoma County), Good friends there. Lovely and enchanting as life in California is, I just came to the conclusion it wasn't the place I'd care to raise my kids.
Matter-of-fact, I was in the formation on the flight line at the Naval Air Station in '73 when the returning POW's came home, among them a young John McCain.
Oh, yeah - I served in the Navy in the same unit as G. Gordon's son, a real good guy. GGL was a guest at one of our reunions a few years ago. We'd have him or his son on a tough mission anytime. They're well-regarded.

So you're not going to respond to any of the posts and valid points. Just attack the poster?

Great argument.

nytraveller

brianthebard wrote: »

Why is kool-aid an insult??

I read this as a racial slur. Kool-aid is a beverage favored by African-Americans over here. I surprised he didnt say fried chicken eating!!!

Manic Moran

nytraveller wrote: »

I read this as a racial slur. Kool-aid is a beverage favored by African-Americans over here. I surprised he didnt say fried chicken eating!!!

I've never heard that connotation before. I'm familiar with it meaning "I'll play the sheep, believe what I'm told, and do what I'm told regardless of how daft it is," it being of course the reference to the mass suicide mentioned earlier.

NTM

Hobbes

nytraveller wrote: »

I read this as a racial slur. Kool-aid is a beverage favored by African-Americans over here. I surprised he didnt say fried chicken eating!!!

My relatives drink kool-aid. They would be white conservatives.

Only negative connotation I've heard is "Drinking the kool aid".

tinker_52

I'm not fond of slurs. They're hurtful, and counter-productive in any legitimate debate.
We must agree to disagree. Who has all the facts? We need facts. Everywhere you turn, History's being re-written (revisionism). Many of the voting block of people who're bound to be decisive in this year's election (youth) have never known a time when there were no PC's, the Internet, cell-phones, microwaves, and al that. Information's accessible within a few key-strokes. What a frame of reference that creates. Still, there's nearly always some benefit to having lived through events first-hand. Pardon me, folks, if my perspective is just that. It's a generational thing. When one knows of an issue or a topic by nothing more than second-hand information, or as how it was taught/presented by an educator, it's a bit two-dimensional.
I was 17, just coming out of high school, when the Weather Underground was active. I was keen to understand the whole affair, since it revolved around issues very real to me, Military service, dissent, political orientations, and all that. Looking around from my perspective in those days, I quickly felt polarized from the likes of Ayers. Don't care for self-described Anarchists. I was among those US Servicemen, who felt the antipathy expressed toward them. I won't ask you to understand, if you don't already. Let's not kid ourselves; none of us would get along real well in a world of Anarchy, that much is pretty indisputable

lostexpectation

kool aid refers to the brians jones town massarce, or whatever its called go look it up.

why does obama want to the give the biggest lier in the world a job.

Trojan

(moderation message)

tinker_52, you're welcome to post here (whether Brian, I or anyone else agrees with you or not). As you mentioned, the point in discussion is to discuss things rationally (or as close as possible) and not to ignore valid points raised by those who disagree with you. Blue_Lagoon has given a logic, well sourced reply to many of your statements. It's true that you have not answered many of the points raised by her and others, and you are deservedly being criticised for that fact.

tinker_52: do not assume that because some of the people here are not US citizens that they are "non-invested bystander/observers". The choice of US President, unfortunately, has a major impact on the rest of the world. We may not be capable of voting, but to say we are non-invested is not true, as you will observe in the energy of discussion.

brianthebard: we welcome all points of view to this board, and voice our disagreements with them as logically and rationally as we can. I'm sure you agree it would be boring around here with no republican posters.

Cheers,
Your friendly, trying his damnedest to be as unbiased as possible, neighbourhood moderator.

Trojan

You guys are way off the mark linking Kool Aid with racism. This is a really well known expression:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=drink+the+kool-aid
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kool-Aid#.22Drinking_the_Kool-Aid.22
http://www.wordspy.com/words/drinktheKool-Aid.asp
http://radgeek.com/gt/2007/02/07/drinking_the/
http://headrush.typepad.com/creating_passionate_users/2005/08/physics_of_pass.html

brianthebard

Trojan wrote: »

brianthebard: we welcome all points of view to this board, and voice our disagreements with them as logically and rationally as we can. I'm sure you agree it would be boring around here with no republican posters.

Cheers,
Your friendly, trying his damnedest to be as unbiased as possible, neighbourhood moderator.

No problem with posters who have a different political viewpoint than me, if I did I wouldn't be able to handle the majority of threads here. My problem is tinker (what's with the username? Seems kind of offensive to me) is refusing to actually engage the issues and won't answer any questions on his own opinions-a bit hypocritical to blast me about debate and then not deal with any questions? MM and others here do an excellent job of backing up their point, why can't he?

tinker_52

Don't get worked up about my user-name, Tinker - okay! I've been called this by my friends, since I was in my teens. Where I come from, it's either a verb or a noun, which refers to a person who works on mechanical things, maybe like a blacksmith or a shade-tree mechanic. As a hobby, well - I'm a motorhead. I restore antique motorcycles, hot rods, clocks, old childrens' toys, or whatever strikes my fancy. I'm pretty adept at it. Thus, Tinker. Needn't read too much into it.
Okay now, regarding the debate. I noticed the cartoon you posted, Brian. Great, a little satire. Interpretation, most likely to mock those who would voice their concern over a left-leaning agenda. It depicts two of the most well-known liberals, HRC & EFK, who've both had quite a run in politics here in the 'States. Pardon me, but these two are much more well-known and irritating to me than they would be to those in the UK, Ireland, or anywhere over in your general direction.
I'll not cast any aspersions at Ted, he's ailing nowadays, and like him or not, won't be with us much longer. I was quite a fan of JFK; his baby brother's not at all like him though.
Hillary, well - she actually believed her hour was approaching, and then, she was suddenly eclipsed, Wham! But, in many folks' opinion she rode her husband's coat-tails, it was a marriage of convenience and ambitious oppotunity. Then, she employed what is known as carpet-bagging (Old, well known term - look that up. It's not racial), to land a Senate seat in what was not her home state.
I'll return when I can,
Later

Black Swan

tinker_52 wrote: »

Hey, Miss B.L., Got it. What's up? Sounds like you're either over here on a student visa, or hooked up with Daddy Sugar.

Yes, I am a uni student. I do not appreciate your "Daddy Sugar" slur, because of the what it implies. If you thought you were being humourous, you failed. It's insulting, and adds no value to the discussion of issues in this forum. Then again, perhaps you think that character attacks are appropriate, as do McCain and Palin?

Thus far it would appear that you have largely avoided the issue raised regarding the use of association as a measure of qualifications for office, and how the association of Obama and Ayers is in many ways similar to the association of McCain with convicted criminal G. Gordon Liddy in terms of the exercise of "poor judgment" for both? Don't you see irony, hypocrisy, and bias when repeatedly and frequently condemning Obama, while ignoring McCain's associations?

tinker_52

The old adage, "One is known by the company he/she keeps," still applies. I would let go of this issue, were it not for my belief that Obama's getting a pass on his "questionable" associations, and there's a long list of them. To get to the core of that, would require some scrutiny on the part of our media. The MSM won't touch it. An analogy, using the Lincoln S&L/Keating Five Scandal, since it appears apt is, that issue only resulted in the huge investigation after several years of on-going private and semi-public wrangling and negotiating, just to decide how the investigation was to be conducted, so as to avoid unwanted political fall-out on the part of both parties. Again, there both parties understood the stakes involved for exposing their people, and the Press also had a role, depending on which player/paper you read or listened to.
In quick summation of the S&L scandal; for the record, each of the five had their day, and each was treated to his individual, specific form of judgment.
In the instance of Obama and Ayers, it's remarkable that (once again) depending on where one may turn for specific information on the relationship in question, there is plenty there to raise some concern, IF a voter is sensitized to the implications of long-term track record, going back to Obama's early college days, of actively seeking out Marxists, to whom (until only recently) he was drawn in the period when he was developing and refining his ideology.
Furthermore, the "book deals;" in '97, Barack Obama gave a warm endorsement to Ayer's book. In approximately the same time frame, Obama finished up writing his first (of two) books. It didn't get any traction, and subsequently underwent a revision which, upon closer examination, appears to have been flavored with new wordage and style, that is not likely original to Obama. Phraseology, etc. The belief of some investigators is, that (not surprisingly) Bill Ayers is Obama's ghost-writer in that first book. Bear in mind, Ayers is recognized as talented, prolific writer, and this undertaking would have a [profit - and political] motive.
Furthermore, the two shared offices for about three years, which would on its face indicate more than a casual acquaintance.
But again, this is not the way they're shown by the mainstream media. Why is that? Well, because if the entire question had been earlier, or even now, opened up to regular folks, or say those "undecided," in the soft squishy center, that would be it for the Obama campaign.
The (my) premise is, Ayers (just to mention one, for now) is an association that Obama, his handlers, and the MSM don't want to deal with.
So, no - the way for Obama to win is continuing to minimize, ridicule, not provide futher response, and just leave it - run down the clock.

CDfm

nytraveller wrote: »

I read this as a racial slur. Kool-aid is a beverage favored by African-Americans over here. I surprised he didnt say fried chicken eating!!!

pot and kettle anyone:pac:

Ludo

tinker_52 wrote: »

The old adage, "One is known by the company he/she keeps," still applies. I would let go of this issue, were it not for my belief that Obama's getting a pass on his "questionable" associations, and there's a long list of them. To get to the core of that, would require some scrutiny on the part of our media. The MSM won't touch it. An analogy, using the Lincoln S&L/Keating Five Scandal, since it appears apt is, ...SNIP

Again the Libby association with McCain is probably more apt in this case since he is basically being accused of having terrorist connections but the MSM also won't touch that. The Rezko association would be closer to the Keating scandal.

tinker_52

If you review my earlier comments, I've touched on this. Once again, it's in the context of the Powell endorsement of Obama. Powell, IMO, chose to inaccurately and incorrectly support his position on the virtues of Obama vs the vices of the McCain campaign. It was based on a false premise; which is, that the McCain people are saying Obama has "terrorist inclinations," when the record shows no such statements to have been made by the McCain camp. The tactic of the carefully prepared press release, IMO, was to generate indignation, sympathy among Obama supporters, that their man is being demonized as "some kinda terrorist." As I said, "We (Republicans) get it." Obama doesn't have terrorist "inclinations;" what he has is questionable connections with a former, unrepentent, domestic terrorist, and he has aligned himself with other persons, and radical ideology - way to the Left of the U.S. political mainstream. That's his bad judgment, in his selling of "Hope, in Change," he has made a judgment, that so many more voters will go for his style of (modern-day Robin Hood) Socialist political reform. That demagogy is the essence of his policies, i.e., to spread the wealth. Raise the tax, redistribute the wealth.
It's so evident in his proposals; e.g., to offer a "financial stimulus check," to voters within the group of forty percent, who do not even pay any income tax! Re-dis-tri-bu-tion. To many tax-payers it's a blatant hand-out.
Re: those associations, read (from the Obama book): "To avoid being mistaken for such a sell-out, I chose my friends carefully."

brianthebard

Do you even know what socialism is? I really don't think you do, because what you are outlining is not socialism, nowhere near it. If Obama's relations to Ayers are questionable, what is the question? the answer from the McCain camp seems to be guilt by association, (how hypocritical) but what is your question about Obama? Or is it that you would rather a non-question be held over his head in an effort to obfuscate the campaign with the goal of putting people off voting for him, using empty statements rather than real factual points?

Denis Irwin

Fairly hypocritcal of the Republicans to talk about guilt by association especially when you see this picture:



But I suppose that's different in someway or another :rolleyes:

tinker_52

Denis,
Excuse me, but have I employed sarcasm in expressing my views on this? I don't believe so, because while I believe sarcasm may remain as an option in one's responses, it should be used with discretion. No, in re: the photo, I can't readily identify the individuals exchanging greetings with Sadam, but I take your point, if it is that one oughtn't apply a double standard of behavior or judgment. Now, because we have this photo, do you propose to educate me on the pitfalls of US-Iraqi relations during Hussein's regime?

Brian,
Yes, thanks, I assure you, I have a working understanding (by definition) of Socialism. Would you care for me to share it with you; shall we compare notes? When you give the opinion that these policies we're debating are "nowhere near it," may I enquire, just how far along the transitional stages between capitalism and communism, in your view, must the State progress, before we, admittedly, find ourselves under the influences of the collective, centralized governance that typifies Socialism?

CtrlSource

Denis Irwin wrote: »

Fairly hypocritcal of the Republicans to talk about guilt by association especially when you see this picture:



But I suppose that's different in someway or another :rolleyes:

Bush met Adams, McGuinness etc., former terrorists.

Now the McCain camp bang on with their arresting sound bite that Obama launched his political career in this guy's [Ayers] living room blah blah (which is not true apparently), but they won't dwell on the fact Ayers served with and worked with registered Republicans over many years too!

brianthebard

tinker_52 wrote: »

Brian,
Yes, thanks, I assure you, I have a working understanding (by definition) of Socialism. Would you care for me to share it with you; shall we compare notes? When you give the opinion that these policies we're debating are "nowhere near it," may I enquire, just how far along the transitional stages between capitalism and communism, in your view, must the State progress, before we, admittedly, find ourselves under the influences of the collective, centralized governance that typifies Socialism?

Yeah I'd love that T. I think you should know for a start that communism and socialism are not interchangeable terms, that's mistake number one. Mistake number two is that socialism involves as a rule more centralised government-it does not. Whenever you leave the rhetoric behind and give me some concrete definitions I'll debate further.

However what I'm really interested in is this question about Obama's associations-care to expand on it?

Ludo

Off topic a bit here but a question for you tinker...you are in Northern Shenandoah Valley of Virginia...would that be the real Virginia? Coz apparently there are three Virginias now...Virginia, West Virginia , and the fake liberal part of Virginia.

For people who don't know what I am talking about:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=188635&title=Pfriend-or-Pfoe?



There is mention of Powell in that link so still on topic...just

CtrlSource

tinker_52 wrote: »

... re: the photo, I can't readily identify the individuals exchanging greetings with Sadam...

Donald H. Rumsfeld

Mr.Micro

Originally Posted by tinker_52 View Post
... re: the photo, I can't readily identify the individuals exchanging greetings with Sadam...

War criminals one and all. One has paid for his crimes, the others are still alive.

tinker_52

Thanks, brian
It's starting to look to me like you may be more interested in word-play than in paying attention to what I've just said. I don't need a lecture from you, amounting to a rephrase of my own words. The operative word is Transition. Re-read my last post. My point is, that we now find ourselves on a slippery slope, we're passing through a Phase. Where's it headed?
"from each according to his ability to each according to his need,"

I don't know your background, Sir. I can only do my best to imagine your frame of reference. I'm concerned about the US economy going in the direction of the European Model, with an indicator being the recent massive $700B Financial Bail-out. As a US taxpayer, I ask, "wherefore and where from?" Anything with the appearance of moves toward more centralization, Federalization of private enterprise is not a good thing. I'm no more a proponent of Corporate Welfare than I am of Social Welfare.

brianthebard

brianthebard wrote: »

However what I'm really interested in is this question about Obama's associations-care to expand on it?

This is the important part, in case you missed it. You still haven't answered what if anything is wrong with Obama's associations,despite me and others asking several times.

tinker_52

Prefacing my reply, 1) this upcoming Election presents voters with distinctions, clearer than any posed in my memory. It represents a watershed, that is, a critical turning point.
2) While I feel obliged, i.e., having a sense of duty, to support McCain, he wasn't actually my first choice. While Sen. McCain has my respect and admiration for his national service, and the ordeal he endured as a POW, I've had reservations about his bona fides as a true Conservative. He has in my view taken for granted the conservative GOP base. I do to an extent understand the strategy he's pursuing, to attract the moderates, by reminding them of his continued bi-partisan record. But, to what end, when it results in a dilution of ideals. I don't see the same sort of meet-in-the-middle approach on the part of the Dems'.

What's wrong with Obama's association with Ayers? Dot-to-dot...It bothered many of us awhile back, when it was observed that Barack had apparently eschewed his American Flag Lapel pin, feeling compelled to "make a statement about his stance" on the war in Iraq. When asked about it, he gave the answer, "I don't have to show my patriotism with a lapel pin, I have my patriotism in my heart." That whole episode demonstrates his (at the very least) ambiguity; he claims to support our troops, yet he doesn't support their mission. He voted to cut off supplies to our troops. Connect the dots. I find the explanation given for not visiting the troops in Hospital, during his European tour, disingenuous. His positions change, depending upon his audience. Obama steadfastly refuses to acknowledge that the Surge in Iraq has succeeded. During the Primary, when it appealed to the Liberal Democratic base he says he's willing to sit down with no pre-conditions with State sponsors of Terrorism. Then, later he qualifies that; more parsing. Obama straddles the fence; he's an opportunist, ready to throw his past associates under the bus, when they become a liability. It's this sort of behavior that I find a concern.
His pal, Ayers, not long ago had himself stylistically photographed, standing on The Flag, thrown upon the ground. He openly disrespects the symbols of the Government. Obama gave a tepid, once-again ambiguous, explanation of his relationship with Ayers. Why, on Earth would he have anything whatsoever to do with an unrepentent Domestic Terrorist, unless it fit with his agenda? They're birds of a feather.

Black Swan

Anyone see the pattern here so typical of this 2008 campaign?

tinker_52 wrote: »

I'm not fond of slurs. They're hurtful, and counter-productive in any legitimate debate.

tinker_52 wrote: »

Sounds like you're either over here on a student visa, or hooked up with Daddy Sugar.

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Yes, I am a uni student. I do not appreciate your "Daddy Sugar" slur, because of the what it implies. If you thought you were being humourous, you failed. It's insulting, and adds no value to the discussion of issues in this forum. Then again, perhaps you think that character attacks are appropriate, as do McCain and Palin?

CivilServant

tinker_52 wrote: »

....

What's wrong with Obama's association with Ayers? Dot-to-dot...It bothered many of us awhile back, when it was observed that Barack had apparently eschewed his American Flag Lapel pin, feeling compelled to "make a statement about his stance" on the war in Iraq. When asked about it, he gave the answer, "I don't have to show my patriotism with a lapel pin, I have my patriotism in my heart." That whole episode demonstrates his (at the very least) ambiguity; he claims to support our troops, yet he doesn't support their mission. ...

The dot-to-dot business is a typical republican tactic. It worked so well in convincing the american public that Al-Queda were in Iraq, even though they were two seperate issues. Bush managed to connect the distress, revenge and anger of 9/11 to Iraq even though Al-Queda was in Afghanistan. He kept mentioning them side by side, over and over and over and over again, until the uninformed believed it there was a connection. It's a tried and trusted technique of the Karl Rove playbook, unfortunately for McCain it looks like most people are able to read the subtext.

Also did you notice how John McCain did not wear his American Flag pin in the last of the debates? Did you hear democrats lament over how unpatriotic that vile action was, no... because people don't really give a damn about silly circus side issues like this.

Rowley Birkin QC

tinker_52 wrote: »

When asked about it, he gave the answer, "I don't have to show my patriotism with a lapel pin, I have my patriotism in my heart."

That right there is why so many people find it hard to take a lot of American politics seriously. Patriotism is not about shouting your nationality and support/non support for a war from the rooftops or about upstaging the other guy with a shinier or larger pin.

This flag lapel pin affair has been laughable at best, scary to outside observers at worst.

tinker_52 wrote:

That whole episode demonstrates his (at the very least) ambiguity; he claims to support our troops, yet he doesn't support their mission.

An understandable stance. It is possible to support the individual troops and care for their wellbeing without supporting the direction that their political masters are leading them towards.