• 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

Truth Detector

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Messages
8,706
Reaction score
1,400
Location
Ventura California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
While this debate is an OBVIOUS Liberal media campaign to support the idiotic notion that this Country is moving LEFT and Democrats are apparently seizing power that will lead to a two decade majority; I would like to send this message to misguided person like Powell who CLAIM they have not left the Republican Party and that the Party must look more like the Democrats to be relevant.

Nothing could be further from the TRUTH Mr. Powell; and while I did have great respect for your service under two Republican Presidents, your position and claims are false and indeed farcical.

First your claim that you are a Republican; I assure you that NO ONE with Conservative Values could have endorsed an inexperienced community Organizing Liberal Leftist like Obama. The notion that you have a Conservative bone left in your body requires the willful suspension of disbelief.

Secondly, your claims that Cheney and Rush Limbaugh are somehow causing a rightward lurch in the Republican Party require an equal suspension of disbelief.

Rush and Dick Cheney didn't invent Conservatism; they represent it in their comments and statements and are 100% correct about your political positions.

The notion that the Republicans should become MORE like the Democrats for the pure reason to "appeal" to more voters in order to get elected is light-years’ away from what the ideology represents. The notion that I or any other TRUE Conservative would be a member of a party that parrots Democrats in trying to be anything you want it to be for the pure purpose of getting "elected" is the reason you SHOULD take Dick's advice and just change your affiliation. The notion that you have a say in Republican primaries concerns me.

We do not NEED to become LIKE the Democrats; the Republican Party NEEDS to go back to its core principles and become Conservative again.

I am always amused by moderates like you who fall for the Liberal media's false portrayal of people like Bush. They claim he was a BIG spender and just Democrat "light." Then on the other hand brand him as some incarnation of evil for actually doing what he says he will do.

Colin, trust me when I say this; Rush speaks more for my views and values than YOU will ever do and which is the reason he has so much influence among REAL Conservatives. So do yourself and the Republicans a favor; sign up with the Democrats whom you now endorse and support. We don't want or need you or people like you in the party and if it means we should wander in the political wilderness until people can be reminded why Liberals should be relegated to the fringes of political power again; so be it.

Carry on sir and thank you for your great service to this Great Nation; I am sure the Democrats will welcome you with open arms just as they did with Alen Spector and use your defection as propaganda to suggest that the nation is now Liberal.


Powell cautions against a GOP slide to the right
The former secretary of State aims his remarks at conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh, who he says is stifling debate on the party's future.

Reporting from Washington -- Former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell warned Sunday that ideological conservatives, particularly radio commentator Rush Limbaugh, had gained a hold over the Republican Party that risked driving the GOP into an extended exile from power.

Powell cautions against a GOP slide to the right - Los Angeles Times
 
I have always believed that Colin Powell was a covert member of our left wing conspiracy to destroy America. Glad you confirmed it for me.
 
There are still a handful of hold-outs that insist that the GOP needs to go the hard right to gain back the support of the American people. What they can't seem to get into thier thick skulls is, that is how they lost the people in the first place.

Oh well. :roll: There aren't enough of them to worry about anyways. Maybe there are enough of them left to maintain Rush's salary, but not enough of them to elect a dog catcher.

But they can always come here to vent. We'll listen. <snicker.>








Let 'em whine. Who cares? America has spoken. Get over it.
 
I have always believed that Colin Powell was a covert member of our left wing conspiracy to destroy America. Glad you confirmed it for me.

I have no idea how you can attribute such an absolute pile a BS to anything I have stated above; but then honesty and substance have never been your MO during your short time on DP. :2wave:
 
Hey Truth Detector, there just one line of truth

in your entire rant and this is it =
"Rush and Dick Cheney didn't invent Conservatism

the restis, well let's just say that we do not use those type of words in polite company!!! LOL
 
The only conservatives that I feel will even stand a chance are real fiscal conservatives. War hungry Neo-cons and social conservatives are dead as doornails politically. RIP
 
There are still a handful of hold-outs that insist that the GOP needs to go the hard right to gain back the support of the American people. What they can't seem to get into thier thick skulls is, that is how they lost the people in the first place.

Oh well. :roll: There aren't enough of them to worry about anyways. Maybe there are enough of them left to maintain Rush's salary, but not enough of them to elect a dog catcher.

But they can always come here to vent. We'll listen. <snicker.>

Let 'em whine. Who cares? America has spoken. Get over it.

I am curious about this perception of "hard right" however. Who is defining these formerly Liberalist political beliefs that were expressed during the founding of this nation as being something remotely close to "hard right?"

Here is what the definition of Liberalism is which I am highlighting the principles I think best describes Conservative Principles and best represented by the Republican Party and where it needs to get back to, but I hardly believe in the notion it is "hard right:"

Main Entry: liberalism !li-b(u-)ru-+li-zum
Pronunciation: \ ˈli-b(ə-)rə-ˌli-zəm \
Function: noun
Date: 1819
Results

1. 1 the quality or state of being liberal

2 a. often capitalized a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity b. a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard c. a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties d. capitalized the principles and policies of a Liberal party
 
The only conservatives that I feel will even stand a chance are real fiscal conservatives. War hungry Neo-cons and social conservatives are dead as doornails politically. RIP

Exactly... Goldwater conservatives are what we need. Not these psuedo-conservative, self-rightous, nosey, anti-American, busy-bodies that want to dictate to all how they should live.
 
Re: Hey Truth Detector, there just one line of truth

in your entire rant and this is it =
"Rush and Dick Cheney didn't invent Conservatism

the restis, well let's just say that we do not use those type of words in polite company!!! LOL

I see that not only do you NOT attempt to deal in coherent or substantive thoughts, but you also misuse the term "rant" in a deliberate attempt to provoke:

Main Entry: rant !rant
Pronunciation: \ ˈrant \
Function: verb
Etymology: obsolete Dutch ranten, randen
Date: 1601
Results
intransitive verb
1601
1. to talk in a noisy, excited, or declamatory manner

2. to scold vehemently transitive verb

transitive verb
to utter in a bombastic declamatory fashion


Come back when you can do more than blather such uninformed provocative hyperbole.
 
Colin Powell had a moderate, if not left-wing, Republican in John McCain to support this election, yet he chose to support Barack Obama instead.

Why?

(this very question was posed by Rush Limbaugh himself on his radio program, but since none of the people who bash him on a daily basis actually listen to talk radio, I'll post his question here.)

P.S. You can call me a fat, drug addict if it makes you feel any better.
 
The only conservatives that I feel will even stand a chance are real fiscal conservatives. War hungry Neo-cons and social conservatives are dead as doornails politically. RIP

I am confused by this notion of war hungry Neo-Cons. This is nothing more than hyperbolic blather which has no substance in REALITY or the FACTS.

Were Kennedy and Johnson war hungry Neo-Cons when they got us into Vietnam on entirely specious and false circumstances to fight Communism too?
 
Colin Powell had a moderate, if not left-wing, Republican in John McCain to support this election, yet he chose to support Barack Obama instead.

Why?

(this very question was posed by Rush Limbaugh himself on his radio program, but since none of the people who bash him on a daily basis actually listen to talk radio, I'll post his question here.)

P.S. You can call me a fat, drug addict if it makes you feel any better.

This is a terrific point; but do not expect an honest answer for it.
 
Exactly... Goldwater conservatives are what we need. Not these psuedo-conservative, self-rightous, nosey, anti-American, busy-bodies that want to dictate to all how they should live.

Most definitely, if Obama's deficit spending does not payback in spades with more job creation, revenue increases, cheaper healthcare and the like, a solid fiscal conservative, with a middle stance on the other issues will be in a good position to win the office.
 
I am curious about this perception of "hard right" however. Who is defining these formerly Liberalist political beliefs that were expressed during the founding of this nation as being something remotely close to "hard right?"

Here is what the definition of Liberalism is which I am highlighting the principles I think best describes Conservative Principles and best represented by the Republican Party and where it needs to get back to, but I hardly believe in the notion it is "hard right:"

Main Entry: liberalism !li-b(u-)ru-+li-zum
Pronunciation: \ ˈli-b(ə-)rə-ˌli-zəm \
Function: noun
Date: 1819
Results

1. 1 the quality or state of being liberal

2 a. often capitalized a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity b. a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard c. a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties d. capitalized the principles and policies of a Liberal party

To make my point more clear, until the GOP un-hooks their wagon from the social conservatives, whom a resounding percentage of Americans reject, (nay, detest,) and return to their fiscal conservative roots and re-adopt a Goldwater "live and let live" brand of conservatism, not entangled with the religious zealots, they ain't gonna get anywhere.

As the song says, "But when you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, you ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow." (But in this case, the picture is, perhaps, Rush Limbaugh or Dick Cheney. :lol:)
 
Colin Powell had a moderate, if not left-wing, Republican in John McCain to support this election, yet he chose to support Barack Obama instead.

Why?

(this very question was posed by Rush Limbaugh himself on his radio program, but since none of the people who bash him on a daily basis actually listen to talk radio, I'll post his question here.)

P.S. You can call me a fat, drug addict if it makes you feel any better.

At a guess, it would be because he felt Obama would make a better president than McCain.

Josh darn that Powell going with his beliefs instead of blind party loyalty...
 
This is a terrific point; but do not expect an honest answer for it.

I'll give you an honest answer. I think Powell supported Obama because Obama is considered to be an African-American.

And somehow that's ok?
 
At a guess, it would be because he felt Obama would make a better president than McCain.

Josh darn that Powell going with his beliefs instead of blind party loyalty...

Oh, I'm SURE that's the reason. :roll:

Not.
 
I am confused by this notion of war hungry Neo-Cons. This is nothing more than hyperbolic blather which has no substance in REALITY or the FACTS.

Were Kennedy and Johnson war hungry Neo-Cons when they got us into Vietnam on entirely specious and false circumstances to fight Communism too?

Once again you are wrong. Neo-conservatives are defined as a sect of conservatives who believe that U.S. military and economic might should be used to spread democracy throughout the world.

And yes, Kennedy and Johnson were both fools for engaging in us is Vietnam. I agreed with the type of support we provided in Afghanistan during the Soviet Invasion, and wished that was our roll in Vietnam.
 
For the record, specifically for those who refuse to understand:

"Social Conservatives" only seek to maintain what has been referred to as the "civil society". A properly functioning "civil society" needs very little Government interference. The preservation of the "civil society" was the aim of the framers who drafted a Constitution of largely negative rights (things that the Government is not allowed to do to you.).


If you can point to instances where the aims & beliefs of social conservatives -order, private property, Natural Law, de-centralization, custom, convention & tradition have lead to an expanse in government, you may have a point about social Conservatism being at odds with people like Barry Goldwater.
 
At a guess, it would be because he felt Obama would make a better president than McCain.

Josh darn that Powell going with his beliefs instead of blind party loyalty...
If that's what Powell believed, then he's an idiot.

Which would explain his Anti-Republican leanings.
 
For the record, specifically for those who refuse to understand:

"Social Conservatives" only seek to maintain what has been referred to as the "civil society". A properly functioning "civil society" needs very little Government interference. The preservation of the "civil society" was the aim of the framers who drafted a Constitution of largely negative rights (things that the Government is not allowed to do to you.).


If you can point to instances where the aims & beliefs of social conservatives -order, private property, Natural Law, de-centralization, custom, convention & tradition have lead to an expanse in government, you may have a point about social Conservatism being at odds with people like Barry Goldwater.

Well, with a little viligence, we won't have any issues to point out as long as we can keep the social conservatives at bay as we have been able to do so far.

I am somewhat socially conservative myself. I am pro-life, therefore I stood responsible for my offspring. But you don't see me picketing abortion clinics. I have several social conservative traits. I have several liberal traits. I have no right to shove either down the throat of my neighbors.

I got no problem with social conservatives, per se. It's only when they want to push their own particular, favored, brand of morals off on other people who don't want to buy them. Especially when they want to change the constitution or enact laws that follow their own line of archaic thinking and force them upon the generations to follow.

If left to run the hen-house, it wouldn't surprise me to see them add a God Squad Department in Homeland Security. Much like in Saudi Arabia.

But America says, "Homey don't play dat."
 
Last edited:
Well, with a little viligence, we won't have any issues to point out as long as we can keep the social conservatives at bay as we have been able to do so far.

I am somewhat socially conservative myself. I am pro-life, therefore I stood responsible for my offspring. But you don't see me picketing abortion clinics.

I got no problem with social conservatives, per se. It's only when they want to push their own particular, favored, brand of morals off on other people who don't want to buy them. Especially when they want to change the constitution or enact laws that follow their own line of archaic thinking and force them upon the generations to follow.

If left to run the hen-house, it wouldn't surprise me to see them add a God Squad Department in Homeland Security. Much like in Saudi Arabia.

But America says, "Homey don't play dat."

If a social conservative seeks to blunt the Government-mandated secularization of our culture ("civil society") in the political realm where it is being waged it can appear as though the social Conservative is seeking to install a theocracy, ecclisiocracy, monarchy etc... That couldn't be further from the truth.

Just because someone may cite religious freedom to combat a secularist's Government mandate doesn't mean that person wants everyone to kowtow to their particular religion or take on morality.
 
To make my point more clear, until the GOP un-hooks their wagon from the social conservatives, whom a resounding percentage of Americans reject, (nay, detest,) and return to their fiscal conservative roots and re-adopt a Goldwater "live and let live" brand of conservatism, not entangled with the religious zealots, they ain't gonna get anywhere.

As the song says, "But when you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, you ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow." (But in this case, the picture is, perhaps, Rush Limbaugh or Dick Cheney. :lol:)

While I do not prescribe to your description of them as religious zealots and am hardly one myself, you do realize that these "zealots" make up a vast majority of the Republican Party and also a vast silent majority of the American people right?

Now, that stated, is your argument that re-defining what is meant by marriage and on-demand abortion should not be part of the moral fabric of the Republican Party?

I have never seen gay marriage or abortion on any Republican Platform. I have seen many of the leaders express their honest views on the topic, but it is hardly a litmus test. That idea has primarily been the expressed views of the mainstream media who are obviously in the tank for Democrat politicians.

But all these issues aside, do you think that the vast majority of Christian Americans should have NO voice in our politics and should just succumb to Liberals views in order to get political power?

You see to me there is a HUGE difference between Liberal Democrats and Conservative Republicans when it comes to compromise; Liberal Democrats idea of compromise requires one to give up their position and accept theirs and if not, they will shout you down and demagogue the issue. Conservatives welcome an open debate on those issues and in many cases lead to compromise in order to get things done.

During Bush's Administration, we saw the most bi-partisan congress we have had in decades; yet all that it got him was the label of being nothing different from Democrats, Democrat Light or big spending Democrat from BOTH sides of the aisle. I am confused how this worked for him.

Now we see a severely divided congress and nation where the Democrats are basically saying if you do not agree with them, tough ****sky.
 
I'll give you an honest answer. I think Powell supported Obama because Obama is considered to be an African-American.

And somehow that's ok?

I agree with your assessment to a certain degree; but I also think he must also prescribe to the notion that BIG Government can also lead to a more prosperous nation.
 
Well, with a little viligence, we won't have any issues to point out as long as we can keep the social conservatives at bay as we have been able to do so far.

I am somewhat socially conservative myself. I am pro-life, therefore I stood responsible for my offspring. But you don't see me picketing abortion clinics. I have several social conservative traits. I have several liberal traits. I have no right to shove either down the throat of my neighbors.

I got no problem with social conservatives, per se. It's only when they want to push their own particular, favored, brand of morals off on other people who don't want to buy them. Especially when they want to change the constitution or enact laws that follow their own line of archaic thinking and force them upon the generations to follow.

If left to run the hen-house, it wouldn't surprise me to see them add a God Squad Department in Homeland Security. Much like in Saudi Arabia.

But America says, "Homey don't play dat."

I think that you have described a vast majority of Conservatives.
 
Back
Top Bottom