Powell does a 180?

POSTED BY: whozit
UPDATED: Thursday, July 30, 2009 01:56
VIEWED: 1719
PAGE 1 of 1

WHOZIT

Saturday, July 4, 2009 4:28 PM

I think he see's a hole in the Republican Party HE wants to fill. I wonder when he'll say, I was wrong, FOLLOW ME!

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/03/powell-airs-doubts-on-
obama-agenda/

GINOBIFFARONI

Saturday, July 4, 2009 5:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by whozit:

I think he see's a hole in the Republican Party HE wants to fill. I wonder when he'll say, I was wrong, FOLLOW ME!

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/03/powell-airs-doubts-on-
obama-agenda/

Why would he say he was wrong?

should he have stood with Bush and ilk when he felt they were wrong, out of party loyalty....

do we really want mindless yes men around?

for the same reason why support McCain when you feel that the republican agenda has been hijacked or at least damaged by people following a path different to yours ?

If the Repubs are going to come back, ( and even with Obama messing up left and right ) they need a new message, and they need to cut some people out of power.

Seems to me Powell is calling things as he sees them, and if that is wrong then your country is beyond hope.

" I don't believe in hypothetical situations - it's kinda like lying to your brain "

" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson

Lets party like its 1939

WHOZIT

Saturday, July 4, 2009 6:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Quote:
Originally posted by whozit:

I think he see's a hole in the Republican Party HE wants to fill. I wonder when he'll say, I was wrong, FOLLOW ME!

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/03/powell-airs-doubts-on-
obama-agenda/

Why would he say he was wrong?

should he have stood with Bush and ilk when he felt they were wrong, out of party loyalty....

do we really want mindless yes men around?

for the same reason why support McCain when you feel that the republican agenda has been hijacked or at least damaged by people following a path different to yours ?

If the Repubs are going to come back, ( and even with Obama messing up left and right ) they need a new message, and they need to cut some people out of power.

Seems to me Powell is calling things as he sees them, and if that is wrong then your country is beyond hope.

" I don't believe in hypothetical situations - it's kinda like lying to your brain "

" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson

Lets party like its 1939

He gave money to McCain then backed Barry. He wants to be Prez.

GINOBIFFARONI

Saturday, July 4, 2009 7:40 PM

Alot of people supported John McCain at first....

but the people around McCain began to show a little too much influence once McCain got the nomination.

and Sarah Palin..... once that call was made ( not by McCain, but by the party ) many more began to question the path.

When you lose someones support, do you blame the supporter, or ask what about your own message made them doubt you.

I think Powell would be a better choice than either Obama or McCain.... but you need party support to get on the ticket, and that is something no honest man is going to get.

" I don't believe in hypothetical situations - it's kinda like lying to your brain "

" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson

Lets party like its 1939

ANTIMASON

Saturday, July 4, 2009 8:47 PM

IMO, theres no such thing as a moderate republican(what he considers himself). Powells a liberal, theres no skirting around it. the republican party serves no purpose if they do not stand for social conservatism and economic libertarianism. anyone who thinks Americans want more government and taxes is a central planning, social engineering liberal.

GINOBIFFARONI

Saturday, July 4, 2009 10:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
IMO, theres no such thing as a moderate republican(what he considers himself). Powells a liberal, theres no skirting around it. the republican party serves no purpose if they do not stand for social conservatism and economic libertarianism. anyone who thinks Americans want more government and taxes is a central planning, social engineering liberal.

Why not be more centralist ? Why can you not be an conservative on economic issues and liberal on social issues ?

Arnold seems to be walking that line with some success in California, why not on a national level ?

Why be a slave to ideology ?

" I don't believe in hypothetical situations - it's kinda like lying to your brain "

" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson

Lets party like its 1939

ANTIMASON

Saturday, July 4, 2009 10:48 PM

Quote:
GinoBiffaroni- Why not be more centralist ? Why can you not be an conservative on economic issues and liberal on social issues ?

well.. more Americans identify themselves as conservative then liberal, whenever a candidate runs as economically/socially conservative, they win(even democrats). its a good position to take

you can run as a centrist, but politically its an inconsistent position to take. it would be hard to be economically conservative, low taxes, reduced government size/intervention/interference, and yet pay for socially liberal programs like wellfare, or climate change initiatives. such policies require a big government structure to facilitate them

but name a politically successfull moderate, centrist republican? does anyone here like Bush? if you take Arnold... he's useless on economic policy as a republican, because he supports climate change legislation, which would be a regressive tax on energy, the means of production. same with McCain... he lost because he wasnt consistently conservative. if people want hair brained schemes and wishy-washy, political expediency, theyll vote democrat.

i dont mean that as a partisan insult per se either, but the 'left' exists in the realm of ideas, theyre theorizers, they believe in social tinkering and engineering. theyre central planners. the 'right' by contrast, should be rigidly defined by principles, the constitution, and inalienable rights granted by our Creator

the far 'left' doesnt believe in property rights, whereas the 'right' believes that one is entitled to the fruits of his labor, as granted by our Creator. the 2nd amendment is another example. IMO, it just turns out that any grey area becomes a slippery slope leftwards

KWICKO

Sunday, July 5, 2009 3:42 AM

Quote:

but name a politically successfull moderate, centrist republican? does anyone here like Bush? if you take Arnold... he's useless on economic policy as a republican, because he supports climate change legislation, which would be a regressive tax on energy, the means of production. same with McCain... he lost because he wasnt consistently conservative.

Name me a fiscally conservative, economically libertarian Republican president in the last 40 years.

Quote:
if people want hair brained schemes and wishy-washy, political expediency, theyll vote democrat.

In droves, going by the last election...

Quote:
the 'right' by contrast, should be rigidly defined by principles, the constitution, and inalienable rights granted by our Creator

In that case, the "right" doesn't exist in this country, at least not on any kind of national political scale.

Quote:

the far 'left' doesnt believe in property rights, whereas the 'right' believes that one is entitled to the fruits of his labor, as granted by our Creator. the 2nd amendment is another example. IMO, it just turns out that any grey area becomes a slippery slope leftwards

And there's no "far left" in this country that I can see, either.

And from recent examples, I'd have to say that any "grey area" becomes a slippery slope leading sharply to the right.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

CANTTAKESKY

Monday, July 6, 2009 6:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Why not be more centralist ? Why can you not be an conservative on economic issues and liberal on social issues ?

That is what I am. But I call myself a libertarian, not a centralist.

--------------------------
Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it.
-- George Bernard Shaw

KWICKO

Monday, July 6, 2009 11:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Why not be more centralist ? Why can you not be an conservative on economic issues and liberal on social issues ?
That is what I am. But I call myself a libertarian, not a centralist.

--------------------------
Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it.
-- George Bernard Shaw

This is why I keep saying that the Republican party is ripe for a takeover from within, by a faction of libertarians/centrists. I have to believe there are many more of you than there are the fundamentalist evangelicals who have hijacked the party for the last 25-30 years.

You can try to vault a third party over the Republican party right now, but it's far easier to just take the party from within and return it to its ideals of fiscal conservatism and social liberalism. It's got "brand recognition", it's got no clear leadership, it's got intense political infighting right now; in short, it's got the strengths and weaknesses that make it prime for a takeover.

Of course, it could be argued that the same things that make the Republican party a candidate for takeover also make it unattractive for a takeover; why not just use this weakness to launch a viable third party? If Ross Perot had had a Republican party this weak to go up against in '92, he'd have won the presidency.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

CANTTAKESKY

Monday, July 6, 2009 3:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
I have to believe there are many more of you than there are the fundamentalist evangelicals who have hijacked the party for the last 25-30 years.

I hate to disappoint you, but that is not correct. The numbers of fundies are overwhelmingly larger than the numbers of libertarians within the party and outside the party put together.

Not only that, but they are exceptionally well organized, politically savvy, and religiously driven. They have a natural network through their churches by which they can organize massive responses. They have their own fully staffed institutions for training political leaders to push the fundie agenda. And they use it.

So they are not just big in number. They are politically powerful and MUST be taken seriously. I used to be a fundie, so I know what that community is like. It would be a mistake to dismiss their political prowesss.

GINOBIFFARONI

Monday, July 6, 2009 4:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
I have to believe there are many more of you than there are the fundamentalist evangelicals who have hijacked the party for the last 25-30 years.
I hate to disappoint you, but that is not correct. The numbers of fundies are overwhelmingly larger than the numbers of libertarians within the party and outside the party put together.

Not only that, but they are exceptionally well organized, politically savvy, and religiously driven. They have a natural network through their churches by which they can organize massive responses. They have their own fully staffed institutions for training political leaders to push the fundie agenda. And they use it.

So they are not just big in number. They are politically powerful and MUST be taken seriously. I used to be a fundie, so I know what that community is like. It would be a mistake to dismiss their political prowesss.

Perhaps if the numbers can't be bolstered from the right, maybe elements from the left might slide over if they are not satisfied with Obamas performance. That is the great thing about the center, one.. you can draw support from either side and two.. beats the hell out of being on the edge.

" I don't believe in hypothetical situations - it's kinda like lying to your brain "

" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson

Lets party like its 1939

PARTICIPANT

Wednesday, July 29, 2009 12:19 PM

Colin Powell on arrest of Prof. Henry Louis Gates: You don't argue with cops

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2009/07/29/2009-07-29_colin_p
owell_on_gates_you_dont_argue_with_cops.html#ixzz0MeNLijoC

ANTHONYT

Thursday, July 30, 2009 1:54 AM

""When you're faced with an officer trying to do his job and get to the bottom of something, this is not the time to get in an argument with him," Powell told CNN's "Larry King Live."

"I was taught that as a child. You don't argue with a police officer."

Gates flew off the handle July 16 when a cop investigating a reported break-in asked him to prove he lived in his own house.

"I think he should have reflected on whether or not this was the time to make that big a deal," Powell said.

But he also questioned why Gates, a frail 58-year-old who is one of the nation's most prominent black intellectuals, was handcuffed and hauled downtown after it was clear he hadn't done anything.

"I would have thought at that point some adult supervision would have stepped in and said, 'Okay, look, it is his house. Come on, let's not take this any further. Take the handcuffs off,'" Powell said. "

Hello,

This is very reasonable, and very much my thoughts on the issue. A) cooperate with the dude who is trying to secure your property. B) Don't arrest someone once you know they haven't committed a crime bigger than bruising your ego.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

KWICKO

Thursday, July 30, 2009 1:56 AM

Quote:

Hello,

This is very reasonable, and very much my thoughts on the issue. A) cooperate with the dude who is trying to secure your property. B) Don't arrest someone once you know they haven't committed a crime bigger than bruising your ego.

--Anthony

You are far too reasonable.