• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Powell cautions against a GOP slide to the right

tlmorg02 said:
Neocon began to be used during the Reagan administration and resurged during the Bush administration to describe those who supported toppling the leadership of a nation in order to set-up a democracy. If we have been doing that since WWII, tell me what nations we invaded, occuppied and attempted to establish democracies in prior to Iraq.
Click to expand...

Once again no one in the United States has ever taken a position that suggests we just topple any regime that is not a Democracy. The case of Afghanistan and Iraq were born out of events that surrounded 9-11 and the realization that a declaration of war on our society by those who would attack us should be taken seriously and that UN resolutions against a despot like Saddam should actually finally be enforced.

The notion that we have been doing that since WWII requires willful ignorance of history. What were doing was supporting regimes/governments that were resisting direct forcible Communist attempts take over their nation’s governments. Now maybe you think Communists should have taken over the Middle East, Asia and South America by force, but a vast majority would disagree with your assertions.

Communism was a violent and despotic one party system that was desirous of our destruction as a nation based on our Democratic ideals.
 
Dav said:
Where did this ridiculous view come from that any political party is one opinion, rather than a range? The GOP is and has been for a while the party ranging from center-right to far-right.

Right now the centrists who decide elections are fed up with the Republicans of the last few years and have started voting Democrat. It is because of this shift that the Republican Party has become more right-wing, not the other way around: as it loses moderates, the "average member" becomes more conservative. It did not lose moderates by not being moderate enough. It lost moderates by being hypocritical and lacking clear values.
Click to expand...

What I find so amusing about this trite analogy of this perceived "centrist" revolt against Republicans is that the supposed centrist “revolters” chose a party that was even MORE of what they revolted against in the first place.

It is equally amusing when I saw some who claimed they were Conservative suggest they were going to teach those big bad corrupt Republicans a lesson by........voting in corrupt Leftist Liberals. :rofl

Forget the FACT that after four decades of Liberal Democrat control of the Congress, Republicans for the very short time they held power actually balanced a budget.

Yep, we showed those bad Republicans a thing or two; how dare they actually want us to keep MORE of our money! We showed them by electing people that will NEVER get enough of it and have now put us in a record deficit our children’s children will be paying for!

You just can't fabricate the lunacy of such asinine logic. :roll:
 
Truth Detector said:
What I find so amusing about this trite analogy of this perceived "centrist" revolt against Republicans is that the supposed centrist “revolters” chose a party that was even MORE of what they revolted against in the first place.

It is equally amusing when I saw some who claimed they were Conservative suggest they were going to teach those big bad corrupt Republicans a lesson by........voting in corrupt Leftist Liberals. :rofl

Forget the FACT that after four decades of Liberal Democrat control of the Congress, Republicans for the very short time they held power actually balanced a budget.

Yep, we showed those bad Republicans a thing or two; how dare they actually want us to keep MORE of our money! We showed them by electing people that will NEVER get enough of it and have now put us in a record deficit our children’s children will be paying for!

You just can't fabricate the lunacy of such asinine logic. :roll:
Click to expand...

I'm not a fan of that logic either, but I would cordially point out that the most recent batch of Congressional Republicans didn't do such a bang-up job balancing the budget.

And as a moderate (or at least self-proclaimed), it's not like we're crashing the GOP tent yelling, "Let us in!" It's just that the tent has gotten rather small, and Republicans might be quite lonely if they only pander to those already in there.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
So he says McCain picked Palin, a sound conservative with more qualifications to hold the office of President than the Democrat candidate and his plagiarizing running mate combined, wasn't a sound choice. Must be because she's not only a woman, but white, too.

Skippy was unhappy at the "personal attacks" by the GOP on the Kenyan Kandidate, as if he's been totally blind to the tactics employed by the Democrats since the Reagan Era, tactics the Red Queen herself labeled "Politics of Personal Destruction". I guess he also missed The Messiah's deliberate introduction of racism into the campaign with his "dollar bill" comments. That couldn't be racist, right? After all, Obama is black, like Powell, and hence can't be racist.

Seems pretty light on what Obama's qualifications are, though, merely mindlessly repeated attacks on the Republicans that he'd heard from others.

AH! Here's a positive "qualification" he cites:



He's saying Obama can kiss European ass better than McCain. Frankly, I don't see a need to kiss European ass at any time, and this "qualification" isn't valid.

Here's this one...



So he's supporting a candidate who espouses all the wrong economic approaches, instead. Well, if Skippy is this ignorant, his opinion doesn't matter. Why does his opinion matter again? Oh, yeah, because he's black, he's a turncoat, and he's black.



See? Skippy isn't an American, even if he's registered in the GOP. He would have difficulty with judges that obeyed the Constitution.

Yep, he came up with no real reasons, because his real reason is that Skippy's black and his Messiah is black, too.
Click to expand...

I have to say.....BRAVO on this one. :applaud
 
Thales said:
I'm not a fan of that logic either, but I would cordially point out that the most recent batch of Congressional Republicans didn't do such a bang-up job balancing the budget.
Click to expand...

But that is only if you prefer denial; they had run up a deficit dealing with 9-11, two wars VOTED FOR BY OVERWHELMING margins by our Congress and dealing with the devastation of TWO hurricanes on major cities.

FACT: the final year Republicans were in charge the deficit was going DOWN from a high of about $200 billion. After Democrats took over, the deficit proceeded to climb to over $400 billion and with the election of Obama, over a trillion.

Thales said:
And as a moderate (or at least self-proclaimed), it's not like we're crashing the GOP tent yelling, "Let us in!" It's just that the tent has gotten rather small, and Republicans might be quite lonely if they only pander to those already in there.
Click to expand...

The tent has NEVER gotten smaller; that is mere hyperbole. The major differences between the Republican Tent and the Democrat tent is that Republicans actually attempt to stand for something while Democrats attempt to say anything to get elected and pander to voters with emotionally driven giveaways that do NOTHING to make their voters situations better.

Do not mistake my arguments as being a defense of the Republican Party as many on this forum tend to think, I just prefer the LESSER of TWO evils. I distrust ALL politicians; I just prefer the ones who still believe that political service is a privilege and not a form of royalty and still believe that the money I earn is actually mine and who do not believe that I should be thankful for what they allow me to keep.
 
I'm not going to waste time reading all 3 pages of bickering over how Powell is really just a liberal.

Instead I'd just like to say, please ignore Powell and anyone else who thinks the CCCP needs to move back toward the center. They are all liberal commy athiests who want to steal xmas and replace it with Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton day. :happy:
 
Truth Detector said:
But that is only if you prefer denial; they had run up a deficit dealing with 9-11, two wars VOTED FOR BY OVERWHELMING margins by our Congress and dealing with the devastation of TWO hurricanes on major cities.

FACT: the final year Republicans were in charge the deficit was going DOWN from a high of about $200 billion. After Democrats took over, the deficit proceeded to climb to over $400 billion and with the election of Obama, over a trillion.
Click to expand...

Situation and circumstance is relevant, of course. My point is that the current deficits aren't so much the result of "tax and spend" policies as much as a huge economic downturn, two wars and a worldwide fight against terrorism. But I suppose this isn't terribly relevant to the current state of the Republican party.

The tent has NEVER gotten smaller; that is mere hyperbole. The major differences between the Republican Tent and the Democrat tent is that Republicans actually attempt to stand for something while Democrats attempt to say anything to get elected and pander to voters with emotionally driven giveaways that do NOTHING to make their voters situations better.

Do not mistake my arguments as being a defense of the Republican Party as many on this forum tend to think, I just prefer the LESSER of TWO evils. I distrust ALL politicians; I just prefer the ones who still believe that political service is a privilege and not a form of royalty and still believe that the money I earn is actually mine and who do not believe that I should be thankful for what they allow me to keep.
Click to expand...

Fair enough - I won't mistake you for a Republican spokesman. :wink:

I would argue that when some Republicans (read: Dick Cheney and good ol' Rush) start painting fellow moderate Republicans as traitors to the party, the tent is shrinking. It's one thing to be firmly pro-choice. It's another thing to refuse to let anyone pro-choice into the same political party.

The real issue here is what kind of candidates the RNC plans to run in the 2010 election. If they follow Cheney and Limbaugh's advice, it looks like they'll turn completely to strict social conservatives who can't win in some states. I sincerely doubt this will happen, but it remains worrisome. I think this is what Colin Powell was getting at, and I think this lies at the heart of the GOP's near future.
 
Slippery Slope said:
I'm not going to waste time reading all 3 pages of bickering over how Powell is really just a liberal.

Instead I'd just like to say, please ignore Powell and anyone else who thinks the CCCP needs to move back toward the center. They are all liberal commy athiests who want to steal xmas and replace it with Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton day. :happy:
Click to expand...

-That isn't what people were arguing about
-You're assuming that a party is one belief rather than a range of beliefs
-You're assuming that the "CCCP" started out centrist, and can only appeal to centrists by having one universal platform that is towards the center
-You're assuming that moderates left the party because it is getting farther right, not the other way around
-You're assuming that a party with a conservative platform can't appeal to moderates
-For that matter, you're assuming that a party with a liberal platform can't do the same thing
-You're ignoring the fact that, despite the Dems choosing a leftist candidate for President and the Republicans choosing a moderate, more moderates voted for the leftist
-You're ignoring the fact that moderates decide elections, and therefore leave corrupted parties and join popular ones
 
Last edited:
Zyphlin said:
McCain's nomination in the primary is a diverse thing.

For one, you had "The base" split between Romney, Huck, and Paul with some also leaning towards Rudy and McCain. However, for the most part, moderates seemed pretty set on McCain and Rudy, but Rudy was non-existant for the most part in this so you had McCain.

It canibalized itself, with in the end it falling essentially between McCain and Huck, with the social conservatives backing Huck and the rest going "oh god...I'm not sure about either of these" andp robably taking a chance McCain had a better shot at beating Obama or Hillary.



In a word, yes.

I'm advocating Duopoly because Monopoly of political ideas is bad. Its the same reason that I do NOT want moderates completely purged from the Republican party. You need the other side within any movement, or country, to keep things moderated a bit and to keep you continually re-examining things.

You've got the Dems, and lets call them Coke.

Then you have the Reps, and they have two choices to be...Diet Coke or Mountain Dew.

The voters are the consumers, and for the sake of things lets say the consumers key thing is taste. Most of those consumers may not mind Diet Coke, but why buy Diet Coke when you can buy real Coke and get the full taste instead of the watered down sweetner? Sure, a few people may prefer the taste of Diet Coke but most people that want Coke are going to go full out for the real thing.

With Mountain Dew you may very well find some people that go "Ugg, I don't like this at all" because its nothing like Coke at all. However, there's a better chance of getting a larger following than with Diet Coke because all those people that are going "I don't like Coke at all, but this seems interesting and I like it" are suddenly all gung ho for you.

I'm advocating that the Republican foundation must be solidly conservative because without it there will be no national conservative message and no national debate other than to be Left or More Left and I don't think that's good...no more than I would think Right or More Right would be a good thing.



Perhaps they are. Actually, I think that's EXACTLY what they're trying for....and I rebel against it, fight against it, and will happily try to remove those that are doing so because I think they are doing a detriment to the party, the ideology, and the country by doing so. I as a voter want a national party that represents my ideals at least in a majority way. I want a conservative party that is actually viable on a national scene and I'll be damned if I'm going to sit by and just go "Well, some big talking heads in washington want to dictate to us little people whats 'really best for us' so I'll just shut up and move along". **** no. Let them try to purge the staunch conservatives. If the Republican party is going to be of any use to this country, to conservatives, and to the majority of its base in the next 5 to 10 years that purge needs to be faught against and fail or we're condemned to probably 15 to 20 years of unthinking, unchecked, and absolutely worthless years of Left or More Left.
Click to expand...

Truly a very good post Zyph. Obviously I disagree with you on some of your points, and I'll not belabor them...but I just wanted to say thanks for the intelligent, articulate, and well tempered post. You expressed your partisanship in a thoughtful way, taking a relative high road as compared to the gutter that some on this forum often fall into when expressing a difference of political ideals.

It's guys like you that will rescue your party, even I'm not necessarily about all that. :cool:
 
What are Powell's views on specific issues? Does anyone here know?

And by the way, Powell and any other so called moderate who wants to move the GOP to the left must explain why, when the ideal moderate Republican candidate (John McCain) was there to be elected, they chose to vote for Obama.
 
Truth Detector said:
Once again no one in the United States has ever taken a position that suggests we just topple any regime that is not a Democracy. The case of Afghanistan and Iraq were born out of events that surrounded 9-11 and the realization that a declaration of war on our society by those who would attack us should be taken seriously and that UN resolutions against a despot like Saddam should actually finally be enforced.

The notion that we have been doing that since WWII requires willful ignorance of history. What were doing was supporting regimes/governments that were resisting direct forcible Communist attempts take over their nation’s governments. Now maybe you think Communists should have taken over the Middle East, Asia and South America by force, but a vast majority would disagree with your assertions.

Communism was a violent and despotic one party system that was desirous of our destruction as a nation based on our Democratic ideals.
Click to expand...

Do you ever have any idea what you are talking about? I never asserted that we have been doing so since WWII, to the contrary I was asserting the negative in response to another post. Read before you react please. And the whole enforcement of the Saddam thing is another thread, and yes once again you are wrong on that as well.
 
bhkad said:
What are Powell's views on specific issues? Does anyone here know?

And by the way, Powell and any other so called moderate who wants to move the GOP to the left must explain why, when the ideal moderate Republican candidate (John McCain) was there to be elected, they chose to vote for Obama.
Click to expand...

Let's see:

He voted for a:

Guy who sought out and worked with a domestic terrorist.
Had a race baiting mentor or two.
Is praised by Saul Alinsky's son for a Rules for Radicals Job well done.
Has a wife that leaks the toxic mess they believe in.
Believes in "spreading the wealth around".
Thinks of much of the country as "bitter clingers".
Was the point man behind infanticide legislation.

Voting for that mess tells me Powell is off the reservation and has to support much of the Obama economic policies as well as those Obama and McCain shared.

How can a Republican intellectually square voting for Obama with that freight train of baggage?
And as an alternative he has A MODERATE REPUBLICAN he could have voted for and endorsed, but NO! Powell had to go with the Marxist.

This has Intellectual FAIL written all over it.

.
 
Last edited:
zimmer said:
Let's see:

He voted for a:

Guy who sought out and worked with a domestic terrorist.
Had a race baiting mentor or two.
Is praised by Saul Alinsky's son for a Rules for Radicals Job well done.
Has a wife that leaks the toxic mess they believe in.
Believes in "spreading the wealth around".
Thinks of much of the country as "bitter clingers".
Was the point man behind infanticide legislation.

Voting for that mess tells me Powell is off the reservation.
How can a Republican intellectually square voting for Obama with that freight train of baggage?
And as an alternative he has A MODERATE REPUBLICAN he could have voted for and endorsed, but NO! Powell had to go with the Marxist.

This has Intellectual FAIL written all over it.

.
Click to expand...

Amazing what trivial crap you can dig up about an obviously competent president, while at the same time defending a man so inept he couldn't watch tv and eat pretzels at the same time.
 
WillRockwell said:
Amazing what trivial crap you can dig up about an obviously competent president, while at the same time defending a man so inept he couldn't watch tv and eat pretzels at the same time.
Click to expand...

Let's see, I state a series of facts, words he said and associations he had... and you present none.

And you call mine "trivial crap"?
LOL.

.
 
I thought by now we would actually be debating policy on this forum, but so far it is nothing but the same back and forth from the election. Some are actually using the same rhetoric from the election. No more partisan garbage, let's actually discuss policy without resorting to name calling or politician labelling. At least I hope this is achievable.
 
WillRockwell said:
Amazing what trivial crap you can dig up about an obviously competent president, while at the same time defending a man so inept he couldn't watch tv and eat pretzels at the same time.
Click to expand...

You need to fix your post. It's missing an "in", and you need to put it between "obviously" and "competent".
 
tlmorg02 said:
I thought by now we would actually be debating policy on this forum, but so far it is nothing but the same back and forth from the election. Some are actually using the same rhetoric from the election. No more partisan garbage, let's actually discuss policy without resorting to name calling or politician labelling. At least I hope this is achievable.
Click to expand...

You're kidding, right? The thread is about Skippy's use of race as a criteria to endorse a presidential candidate. Of course it's going to bring issues from the election back to the surface.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
You're kidding, right? The thread is about Skippy's use of race as a criteria to endorse a presidential candidate. Of course it's going to bring issues from the election back to the surface.
Click to expand...

I was just venting in this thread, but you could argue why and present evidence as to your claims. At least then it would appear more intelligent than simply calling him Skippy and assuming that because Powell is black he voted for Obama.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
You're kidding, right? The thread is about Skippy's use of race as a criteria to endorse a presidential candidate. Of course it's going to bring issues from the election back to the surface.
Click to expand...

Bull****. Prove it or retract. You're starting to sound like an ignorant bigot.
 
tlmorg02 said:
I was just venting in this thread, but you could argue why and present evidence as to your claims. At least then it would appear more intelligent than simply calling him Skippy and assuming that because Powell is black he voted for Obama.
Click to expand...

He makes statements like he does because he's ignorant about who Colin Powell is. He's ignorant about many subjects.
 
tlmorg02 said:
I was just venting in this thread, but you could argue why and present evidence as to your claims. At least then it would appear more intelligent than simply calling him Skippy and assuming that because Powell is black he voted for Obama.
Click to expand...

He calls himself Skippy. Perhaps you've paid less attention to him than I have, perhaps you just happened to miss that one Late Night With David Letterman in 1996 when he was pushing a book, in which he stated that "Skippy" is what he liked to be called. Or it could have been Leno, it wa a long time ago, but he did say it.

Since he stated he liked to be called "Skippy", I call him that, since he's a little too chubby to be a Peter Pan.

Now that we've resolved that issue to my satisfaction, you could note that I went through the link provided by a person who claims Skippy had "real" reasons for endorsing the Kenyan Kandidate, and found those reasons to be non-existent or shallow. Race would seem to be the only overriding factor.
 
Lerxst said:
Bull****. Prove it or retract. You're starting to sound like an ignorant bigot.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not a Democrat.

I sound like a person who went through the "evidence" provided by the people claiming Skippy had a real reason and proved that none of the reasons presented were valid.

Do you have a different reason Skippy provided in some other source, one that might actually have merit?

No?

Then you haven't disproved the obvious contention that Skippy endorsed an unqualified boob merely because he was black.

A lot of white Democrats did the same thing, didn't they? Since Obama has no qualifications to be president, it's clear they weren't citing qualifications to choose him, so what were they basing their choice on?

====

The thread is about Skippy's use of race as a criteria to endorse a presidential candidate.
Click to expand...

On second view, I see that this statement is itself not correct, true enough.

This thread is about Skippy's incorrect belief that the left-leaning Republican party shouldn't throw the lefties overboard and continue to list in the wrong direction.

I can understand how Powell could say this. Anyone that would endorse an extreme left-wing presidential merely on the basis of his race lacks much in the way of political acumen.

It's clear the problem with the GOP these last few years is their liberal president and their liberal actions in the House and Senate. Not moving to the right is the correct thing for the party to do if they want to keep losing elections and making Skippy happy.
 
Last edited:
disneydude said:
Did Powell actually claim to be a conservative or did he say he was Republican? I have never thought of Powell as a "conservative", so if he claims that he is, I would have to agree with you there.
Click to expand...


Why didn't Colin Powell rush to assist the moderate John McCain early on in the campaign then? Why did General Powell allow his moderate compadre to languish among all of the barbs, slings and arrows of the narrow-minded Republicans who eventually pulled him under and forced him to incorporate Sarah Palin in to the scheme?

What does Colin Powell really believe? Can somebody actually come up with a definitive list of his policy positions? If he's going to break from the Republicans, insisting that they must break from the old chains that bind them; isn't it incumbent on that person to illustrate what steps must be taken - what policies must be adopted to accomplish this?
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Race would seem to be the only overriding factor.
Click to expand...

Wrong again. I've already provided a very good set of reasons as to why Powell would vote for Obama. You've been suspiciously absent in addressing my points. Wonder why that is? Powell is a soldier, first and foremost. That was his life. He was one of the most influential American general's in history when it came to finishing out the post-Vietnam reorganization of the American military. When you dissect his career and his military philosophy it becomes very clear as to why Powell voted for Obama. Race has nothing to do with it.

Lerxst said:
Powell supported Obama because of Powell's own strategic vision for the U.S. For the love of God I wish some people on this forum would actually READ A BOOK or at least do some intense internet research on a man's politics before they launch accusation like "Powell voted on race."

Powell did no such thing and not a single person on this forum can prove otherwise. John McCain promised more of the same with regard to his foreign policy. If you study Powell's career and his military philosophy what Bush did and McCain signaled he would do was in stark contrast to Powell's better judgment and overall strategic vision.

Obama was absolutely the best choice among the two because he was the most likely to actually follow Powell's own strategy on foreign policy and military use.
Click to expand...

There you go. Have at it.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
No, I'm not a Democrat.

I sound like a person who went through the "evidence" provided by the people claiming Skippy had a real reason and proved that none of the reasons presented were valid.

Do you have a different reason Skippy provided in some other source, one that might actually have merit?

No?

Then you haven't disproved the obvious contention that Skippy endorsed an unqualified boob merely because he was black.

A lot of white Democrats did the same thing, didn't they? Since Obama has no qualifications to be president, it's clear they weren't citing qualifications to choose him, so what were they basing their choice on?

====



On second view, I see that this statement is itself not correct, true enough.

This thread is about Skippy's incorrect belief that the left-leaning Republican party shouldn't throw the lefties overboard and continue to list in the wrong direction.

I can understand how Powell could say this. Anyone that would endorse an extreme left-wing presidential merely on the basis of his race lacks much in the way of political acumen.

It's clear the problem with the GOP these last few years is their liberal president and their liberal actions in the House and Senate. Not moving to the right is the correct thing for the party to do if they want to keep losing elections and making Skippy happy.
Click to expand...

And apparently you don't actually read the threads you take a dump in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom