I saw some of the comments of Colin Powell about the Rep party and couple that with things he has said in the past, plus he voted for Obama and endorsed him too, I wonder what is he paying back for.
I was totally against invading Iraq when we did so I remember CP's speech before the UN and knew that most of what he said was BS that had already been proven to be false. For a long time I felt that Bush sacrificed CP in his determination to invade Iraq. I know it was not for the reasons stated before the UN. I will concede that there may have been a very good reason to invade, but I do not believe we have ever been told what that might be.
My strongest conviction that weapons of mass destruction was not really the reason is not based on the fact we found none but when prewar reporting talked or showed our troops on the boarder of Iraq sitting close enough that they could see Iraqis soldiers on the other side of the border. If they really believed that Iraq could unleash these weapons why would you make it so easy for them to do so preemptively?
I think CP realizes that when he was sent to the UN any chance he had of become the 1st African American president evaporated. Toss in that the war was conducted more like Viet Nam than the first war with Iraq and well any political ambitions he might have had were gone.
So do you think he is attempting to pay back the party that ruined his career and reputation or and this just occurred to me, is he setting the table in case Kerry is not given the Sect of State. It is a long shot that, that could happen but it costs him nothing to set himself up as the fall back position.
No matter what the reason is, I am amazed at how mute all the media is about how he can decry how racist the party is when he was able to reach very high rank in the military and then was selected as Sect of State by of all things the Rep party. Seems he is a success story and not a story of a man held back because of racism.
I'm think that Powell always was a lib.
I don't think it has anything to do with Bush at all. He just wouldn't have been able to let his lib flag fly, and attain the positions within the military and the government, that he was able to.
Now that he's out, he can truly be himself, and come out of the closet.
A true conservative wouldn't be able to just become a lib for revenge; he's been a lib all along.
Quote from: kramarat on January 15, 2013, 07:25:39 AM
I'm think that Powell always was a lib.
I don't think it has anything to do with Bush at all. He just wouldn't have been able to let his lib flag fly, and attain the positions within the military and the government, that he was able to.
Now that he's out, he can truly be himself, and come out of the closet.
A true conservative wouldn't be able to just become a lib for revenge; he's been a lib all along.
I agree. Poswell is a living example of the definition of RINO.
Why not change parties then? Not saying either of you are wrong as I can only guess and really have not followed his career and thought he sold out when he went to the UN so figured that was that for him. But if you are indeed correct he really hid it well because I think that most that are labeled RINO have some conservative values. He has to realize his comments are not words of advice but are indictments of the party and since they came from him they carry more weight. I mean he knows that the common interpretation is that if an African American who was Sec of State in a Republican White House says that this is the truth about the party well then it must be true.
Of course the far left already believes what he said and even if he said the exact opposite they would not change their view and those in the middle have to wonder what the hell he is saying. I mean he achieved so much inside of the Rep party one has to ask what discrimination is he talking about.
Yeh, he's just another Arlen Sphincter. Only with a great military resume that gives him fake cred, that the leftists ride all the way to the bank.
I'm not sure how he himself benefits from pretending to be GOP......other than he probably comes from a conservative (military) background & family, and is too ashamed to come out of the closet as a leftist who dislikes America just as Obama & Co. do.
I think that all makes sense, except I do not understand why he has not at least changed to an independent and made a conscious effort to make sure that everyone knew he is still a Rep. Arlen changed in an attempt to keep his office and in my view is just a government leach that is willing to do what ever is necessary to keep that cushy job. If you are a slime ball it is an easy job, just vote for whatever is going to serve your self interest the best. No need to get passionate or upset because everything is just a facade to allow you to collect what ever you can through your position. I have to think that a majority of the people in office there are not much better.
It is few and far between that they go into office not a wealthy man and leave in about the same condition as they came in and only grew in wealth in an amount equal to what they are paid.
Forget term limits. I say if they are in office, any money or investments they have go into a blind trust and no money can come his way other than his salary. Any money he might make outside of the office has to go to charities that are again not under his control. They go to office to serve the country and not to make themselves wealthy. As I recall the founders felt that once you gained wealth you were in a sense obligated to do the best you could to serve your country. They did not go there so that they could get a fat pension and make themselves rich.
Bush did nothing. Powell fell in love with picking up the NY Times in the morning, and reading them saying nice things about him. Think about the life of the average military officer; they spend most of their adult live in thankless service to their country, often making great sacrifices, often in almost total anonymity. The only the praise they ever receive is within their particular service, often no more than a: "good job" and a nice fitness report. Forty years or more of service to their country, and you wouldn't know them if you passed them on the street. Is it any surprise how he reacts to constant public praise? Must be as addictive as a drug.
Quote from: raptor5618 on January 15, 2013, 10:24:10 AM
Why not change parties then? Not saying either of you are wrong as I can only guess and really have not followed his career and thought he sold out when he went to the UN so figured that was that for him. But if you are indeed correct he really hid it well because I think that most that are labeled RINO have some conservative values. He has to realize his comments are not words of advice but are indictments of the party and since they came from him they carry more weight. I mean he knows that the common interpretation is that if an African American who was Sec of State in a Republican White House says that this is the truth about the party well then it must be true.
Of course the far left already believes what he said and even if he said the exact opposite they would not change their view and those in the middle have to wonder what the hell he is saying. I mean he achieved so much inside of the Rep party one has to ask what discrimination is he talking about.
Powell is not African American, unless you consider Jamaica Africa.
Powell may claim Pub status, but his voting for a Marxist is proof he is anything but a Pub, his actions as well as words say he's a lib, but even many libs are abandoning the Dim party.
I wouldn't even call Powell a RINO, he's far worse.
Quote from: raptor5618 on January 15, 2013, 10:24:10 AM
Why not change parties then? Not saying either of you are wrong as I can only guess and really have not followed his career and thought he sold out when he went to the UN so figured that was that for him. But if you are indeed correct he really hid it well because I think that most that are labeled RINO have some conservative values. He has to realize his comments are not words of advice but are indictments of the party and since they came from him they carry more weight. I mean he knows that the common interpretation is that if an African American who was Sec of State in a Republican White House says that this is the truth about the party well then it must be true.
Of course the far left already believes what he said and even if he said the exact opposite they would not change their view and those in the middle have to wonder what the hell he is saying. I mean he achieved so much inside of the Rep party one has to ask what discrimination is he talking about.
Powell is outside of politics, and is now a private citizen. I think everyone has doubts about someone that switches parties.
Which is going to get more attention, bang for the buck, and high priced speaking engagements?
A high profile republican that tells everyone how
wonderful Obama is, or a turncoat that is now a registered democrat, doing the same thing?
This has probably been discussed within the administration and the dem party. If that's the case, it would probably also have been determined that Powell would be more effective by sticking to his republican roots. It packs a much better punch.
Powell made his way to where he got in the Bush administration, because he is a self centered political opportunist; ironically that is also the definition of a liberal.
He may well have become disillusioned with the republican party; most of us have. But by openly backing Obama, he has shown that he also thinks nothing of the country, or the constitution.
I really hate to say that about a military man, but unfortunately, his actions warrant it.................much like John Kerry.
There's one other very good reason for Powell not to switch parties.......
If obama taps him for a position in his administration, he would be able say that he is reaching across the aisle. Much like his choice of Hagel for defense.
Talks about the GOP being racist yet he owes his career to white republicans...
Quote from: The Boo Man... on January 15, 2013, 01:25:58 PM
Talks about the GOP being racist yet he owes his career to white republicans...
<insert more evidence that whitey rules the world here>
Quote from: supsalemgr on January 15, 2013, 07:45:54 AM
I agree. Poswell is a living example of the definition of RINO.
If Powell had showed his true liberal colors earlier in his career he wouldn't be no four star general today. It was all political!
Quote from: kramarat on January 15, 2013, 07:25:39 AM
I'm think that Powell always was a lib.
I don't think it has anything to do with Bush at all. He just wouldn't have been able to let his lib flag fly, and attain the positions within the military and the government, that he was able to.
Now that he's out, he can truly be himself, and come out of the closet.A true conservative wouldn't be able to just become a lib for revenge; he's been a lib all along.
Bingo
I think this "feud" between W and Colin Powell is largely a product of the MSM's active imagination. If Powell were really upset about being "used" by the Bush Administration to provide a "false" excuse for the invasion of Iraq, he wouldn't have stayed on until the end of Bush's 1st term.
He would have either resigned as soon as it was obvious that no WMDs were found or, if he really wanted to get back at Bush, he could have resigned during the height of the 2004 election!
No, I believe that Bush and Powell are pretty much Project for a New American Century type Republicans who are seriously into use of the U.S. military for "nation building". It is pretty obvious that neither one is a Conservative.
I also don't think that Bush, or Powell, or, really, anybody of any importance knew that Saddam Hussein was playing a WMD version of Texas Hold 'em! Like it or not, the only way to find out that he was bluffing was to call him on it, and that is just what W and Colin Powell did.
It's not their fault that Hussein was just holding a pair of deuces!
I see Obama has started a new trend.
Powell is Black
Powell can do no wrong on his own
Therefore, It must be Bush's fault!
Quote from: Yawn on January 16, 2013, 03:01:43 AM
I see Obama has started a new trend.
Powell is Black
Powell can do no wrong on his own
Therefore, It must be Bush's fault!
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Seriously though I am SO SO SO TIRED of hearing it's Bush's fault I want to BARF everytime I hear it. When will the MEDIA or a LIB PLEASE step up and say enough it's on you OBLAMER!!!!!!!!!!!! Man this is OLD as H*LL!
Quote from: kramarat on January 15, 2013, 10:56:21 AM
Powell is outside of politics, and is now a private citizen. I think everyone has doubts about someone that switches parties.
Which is going to get more attention, bang for the buck, and high priced speaking engagements?
A high profile republican that tells everyone how wonderful Obama is, or a turncoat that is now a registered democrat, doing the same thing?
This has probably been discussed within the administration and the dem party. If that's the case, it would probably also have been determined that Powell would be more effective by sticking to his republican roots. It packs a much better punch.
Powell made his way to where he got in the Bush administration, because he is a self centered political opportunist; ironically that is also the definition of a liberal.
He may well have become disillusioned with the republican party; most of us have. But by openly backing Obama, he has shown that he also thinks nothing of the country, or the constitution.
I really hate to say that about a military man, but unfortunately, his actions warrant it.................much like John Kerry.
I can buy this as a good logical explanation of why he would not switch parties and also explains why he tries so hard to point out that he is still a republican. No general, became a general without being able to play politics. So it is no surprise that he would stay with the party that would be most advantageous to his career. As far as Powell being upset with W, that is just my opinion as I can only watch MSNBC for a few minutes and the humor of it starts to go away because they actually seem serious. At that time I knew that most of what he said was not true and I find it hard to imagine that he had less information than me.
I have no idea if they had information that they did not talk about and I guess when you hear Clinton say that he believed they had WMD well I cannot say they did or did not. I can only say that what they said in front of the UN was decidedly not proof that they had WMD. I further assume that he was willing to say those things with a view that the war would be managed well and that victory would be quick and decisive. It started well but I think they really were not sure what the real goal was. All hypothetical thinking on my part and some of the views expressed here sound really valid.
In any case, I think that it really is scary for this country that he can go on record saying something that makes no sense at all, and our media passes it on as if it is a factual statement and does nothing to question its validity. I think a large part of the mess this country is in, stems from the fact that the media is a propaganda organization that has no interest in presenting both sides nor in questioning anything that the Dem's say. Then you get a community organizer who I really think is not all that smart and certainly lacking a work ethic that is willing to say anything to get his way and you get the idiocy that is going on now.
The discussion on the fiscal cliff had nothing to do with the cliff and the outcome had no positive components to it other than attempting to punish the so called "RICH". I heard Gephart on CNBC this morning and even though he is a Dem he made a whole lot of sense. Said the goal should be economic growth, our corporate tax rates are too high and that they have to pass a budget. Said they need to start with what the ration of Govt expenses to GDP should be, he liked 20 percent, and then they need to determine how to raise that money in tax and what services the government can do for that same amount. Said they are not doing their job because they never talk about the real issues that will not be easy to resolve.
Iraq was a strategic decision.
Sadam had been murdering his own people, boasted that he had WMDs, and had no friends in the area.
We needed a staging area for the war on terrorism, and Iraq fit the bill perfectly. Turkey was a close ally, and had no love for Sadam. We needed Turkey's cooperation to move troops and supplies into the region, which we got.
While we may have embellished a bit on the reasoning to go into Iraq, there is no doubt in my mind that Powell was a big part of the planning team that made the decision....................so he really wouldn't be justified over being "sour grapes" over his talk to the UN.
One can only speculate on Powell's liberal views and backing of Obama, but I suspect the liberalism started long ago..........quite possibly with his experiences in Vietnam. Lots of libs were born in those days.
I would never call Obama stupid. He's got a twisted worldview............but he ain't stupid.
Obama's about the most self serving, evil little bastard to ever sneak into the White House.
Right there with FDR, Clinton, and unfortunately a Republican in Nixon.
He's on a roll, riding the full force of racial politics, political correctness, and the complete moral & ethical collapse of the media.
He's luckier than the others in that regard.
Also the periodic upswing of interest in soialism, and revival of the normally under-the-radar communists to boot.
There's been a periodic, series of forays by the communists in America. Seems like every 30-40 years or so. They popped up strongly in the 30's, then the 60's-70's, and now again today.
I was surprised that Hollywood portrayed all the communist violence and activities in the movie about J. Edgar Hoover, in the 30's. It was a good reminder that they are always out there, looking for a chance that their revolution has a good environment to try yet again.
Lot of America, religion, capitalism, and constitution haters in power today, just as there were in the 50's, 60's and 70's.
They like to rant about a mythical "evil Joe McCarthy", but the guy was 100% correct in his beliefs / efforts. He may have been a bit ham-handed, but he was dead-on with the threat assessment.
Quote from: kramarat on January 15, 2013, 10:56:21 AM
Powell is outside of politics, and is now a private citizen. I think everyone has doubts about someone that switches parties.
Which is going to get more attention, bang for the buck, and high priced speaking engagements?
A high profile republican that tells everyone how wonderful Obama is, or a turncoat that is now a registered democrat, doing the same thing?
This has probably been discussed within the administration and the dem party. If that's the case, it would probably also have been determined that Powell would be more effective by sticking to his republican roots. It packs a much better punch.
Powell made his way to where he got in the Bush administration, because he is a self centered political opportunist; ironically that is also the definition of a liberal.
He may well have become disillusioned with the republican party; most of us have. But by openly backing Obama, he has shown that he also thinks nothing of the country, or the constitution.
I really hate to say that about a military man, but unfortunately, his actions warrant it.................much like John Kerry.
I didn't know why Raptor posted about Powell, now I get the OP, I didn't know Powell was back in the news and pandering to the left.
Perhaps calling Obama stupid is incorrect but I think he operates on a sense of ideology and not some intuitive genius. He was touted as being exceedingly intelligent and I do not see how he operates as being the result of a higher level of intellect allowing him to beat all opponents down who cannot grasp the reality of the moment.
While I probably will get bashed for saying it, I think Clinton was intelligent and no matter how liberal he might have been he also was pragmatic enough to find a way to achieve some good results. I could care less about what he did for fun and believe that during his administration was the last time we had an effective government. Granted I did not follow as closely then and the internet was not as pervasive so I will not claim to be very knowledgeable but when he first ran I swore I would leave the country if he won and then I voted for him for a second term. For some reason my opinion of him changed.
I think that W was a disaster for the GOP. I think let me name the ways is appropriate when talking about so many of the actions of his administration that were just wrong. I think it is kind of funny how the Dem's blame him for all of the current problems when I view him as more of a democratic president than a Rep. Perhaps that is one clear demonstration of how screwed up the way of the liberal is and now we find ourselves doubling down on the failures of W.
I agree that there was more to the decision than what was said at the UN and I hope that those reasons were good enough for what it cost us. I was around during the Viet Nam war, and agree that it was a pretty liberal time but at that time there also was a major distrust of the government. So why he would back someone who essentially is the poster child for the belief that the government is the only thing that can protect you and save you.
Ultimately I guess it does not matter if he was always a lib or just supports their cause because of some wrong that he thinks was done to him. He has positioned himself in a very sweet spot for lecturing on the college circuit.
Quote from: raptor5618 on January 16, 2013, 09:28:45 AM
Perhaps calling Obama stupid is incorrect but I think he operates on a sense of ideology and not some intuitive genius. He was touted as being exceedingly intelligent and I do not see how he operates as being the result of a higher level of intellect allowing him to beat all opponents down who cannot grasp the reality of the moment.
While I probably will get bashed for saying it, I think Clinton was intelligent and no matter how liberal he might have been he also was pragmatic enough to find a way to achieve some good results. I could care less about what he did for fun and believe that during his administration was the last time we had an effective government. Granted I did not follow as closely then and the internet was not as pervasive so I will not claim to be very knowledgeable but when he first ran I swore I would leave the country if he won and then I voted for him for a second term. For some reason my opinion of him changed.
I think that W was a disaster for the GOP. I think let me name the ways is appropriate when talking about so many of the actions of his administration that were just wrong. I think it is kind of funny how the Dem's blame him for all of the current problems when I view him as more of a democratic president than a Rep. Perhaps that is one clear demonstration of how screwed up the way of the liberal is and now we find ourselves doubling down on the failures of W.
I agree that there was more to the decision than what was said at the UN and I hope that those reasons were good enough for what it cost us. I was around during the Viet Nam war, and agree that it was a pretty liberal time but at that time there also was a major distrust of the government. So why he would back someone who essentially is the poster child for the belief that the government is the only thing that can protect you and save you.
Ultimately I guess it does not matter if he was always a lib or just supports their cause because of some wrong that he thinks was done to him. He has positioned himself in a very sweet spot for lecturing on the college circuit.
You make a good point about Bush and liberalism, Bush was more liberal than Conservative and all the things he did that were completely wrong and liberal, are the exact same things the left is bashing him for.
The enemy really knows how to use the media...
Both Bushes were remarkably similar. They both started as legitimate Reaganesque conservatives, wrt to taxes, military, social issues, opinions on govt......then as their time went along they gave into their blueblood, country club, worldly desire to care for the poor unwashed masses.
Somehow they both meandered into some silly ass worry that they wouldn't be remembered as being kind & sweet & giving to the masses, and figured that a series of liberal capitulations would cause them to be remembered as beautiful, caring overlords.
Then their SC justices (Breyer, Roberts) went from conservative to liberal, as icing on the cake. Though I guess Scalia, Thomas, and Alito have stood the test of time.
It's funny how the liberals never fail to install a lifelong raving, howling socialist when their shot comes.
Quote from: raptor5618 on January 16, 2013, 09:28:45 AM
Perhaps calling Obama stupid is incorrect but I think he operates on a sense of ideology and not some intuitive genius. He was touted as being exceedingly intelligent and I do not see how he operates as being the result of a higher level of intellect allowing him to beat all opponents down who cannot grasp the reality of the moment.
While I probably will get bashed for saying it, I think Clinton was intelligent and no matter how liberal he might have been he also was pragmatic enough to find a way to achieve some good results. I could care less about what he did for fun and believe that during his administration was the last time we had an effective government. Granted I did not follow as closely then and the internet was not as pervasive so I will not claim to be very knowledgeable but when he first ran I swore I would leave the country if he won and then I voted for him for a second term. For some reason my opinion of him changed.
I think that W was a disaster for the GOP. I think let me name the ways is appropriate when talking about so many of the actions of his administration that were just wrong. I think it is kind of funny how the Dem's blame him for all of the current problems when I view him as more of a democratic president than a Rep. Perhaps that is one clear demonstration of how screwed up the way of the liberal is and now we find ourselves doubling down on the failures of W.
I agree that there was more to the decision than what was said at the UN and I hope that those reasons were good enough for what it cost us. I was around during the Viet Nam war, and agree that it was a pretty liberal time but at that time there also was a major distrust of the government. So why he would back someone who essentially is the poster child for the belief that the government is the only thing that can protect you and save you.
Ultimately I guess it does not matter if he was always a lib or just supports their cause because of some wrong that he thinks was done to him. He has positioned himself in a very sweet spot for lecturing on the college circuit.
That's where I've lost my lib friends.
They're still my friends, but we always
used to have a mutual distrust in government. Now that they have a bigger reason than ever to be distrustful, they are fine with Obama. I don't get it. :confused:
As far as Clinton goes............I'd pay money to have him back in office right now. This is utter insanity. :sad:
Quote from: kramarat on January 16, 2013, 09:55:52 AM
That's where I've lost my lib friends.
They're still my friends, but we always used to have a mutual distrust in government. Now that they have a bigger reason than ever to be distrustful, they are fine with Obama. I don't get it. :confused:
As far as Clinton goes............I'd pay money to have him back in office right now. This is utter insanity. :sad:
It's funny in a way, compared to Bohenor, Clinton is a conservative. :scared:
What did Bush do to Powell? Elevate his career.
Ungrateful bastard.
Quote from: raptor5618 on January 16, 2013, 09:28:45 AM
Perhaps calling Obama stupid is incorrect but I think he operates on a sense of ideology and not some intuitive genius. He was touted as being exceedingly intelligent and I do not see how he operates as being the result of a higher level of intellect allowing him to beat all opponents down who cannot grasp the reality of the moment.
He is stupid; you have to be to be a devout Marxist. Hussein Obama has no skill that anyone would pay for in a productive society, and I think that has to do with low intelligence. I think deep down, he was scared of having to be on his own, so he adopted ideology -- and bought into it -- of groups and circles that would carry him along if he remained devoted. Everything he does, from his actions now, down to the way he shoots a basketball, tells me he has absolutely zero skill and zero work ethic, or basic understanding how anything works -- nor does he care. I know enough people like that who talk and talk but don't have the ability to do. He looks good and has a great voice, but the substance ends there.
Quote
While I probably will get bashed for saying it, I think Clinton was intelligent and no matter how liberal he might have been he also was pragmatic enough to find a way to achieve some good results. I could care less about what he did for fun and believe that during his administration was the last time we had an effective government. Granted I did not follow as closely then and the internet was not as pervasive so I will not claim to be very knowledgeable but when he first ran I swore I would leave the country if he won and then I voted for him for a second term. For some reason my opinion of him changed.
I don't think many will try and make the case that Clinton wasn't intelligent. He has an incredible memory and can compile and recite data in nanoseconds. I think you give Clinton too much credit, when you should be giving the credit to the Republican congress. They saved Clinton from himself, and pretty much all positive aspects of Clinton's presidency are a tribute to Gingrich.
Quote
I think that W was a disaster for the GOP. I think let me name the ways is appropriate when talking about so many of the actions of his administration that were just wrong. I think it is kind of funny how the Dem's blame him for all of the current problems when I view him as more of a democratic president than a Rep. Perhaps that is one clear demonstration of how screwed up the way of the liberal is and now we find ourselves doubling down on the failures of W.
I'm not the biggest Bush fan. He signed more liberal legislation that started the spending climb.
Quote
I agree that there was more to the decision than what was said at the UN and I hope that those reasons were good enough for what it cost us. I was around during the Viet Nam war, and agree that it was a pretty liberal time but at that time there also was a major distrust of the government. So why he would back someone who essentially is the poster child for the belief that the government is the only thing that can protect you and save you.
Ultimately I guess it does not matter if he was always a lib or just supports their cause because of some wrong that he thinks was done to him. He has positioned himself in a very sweet spot for lecturing on the college circuit.
If we go to war, we go to war. I do think Bush thought it was the right thing to do, so I supported it. The reason I would support Bush versus Hussein Obama is because Bush is an American, and I do believe with all his failures, he wouldn't try to harm the country; the opposite goes for Hussein.
Quote from: Solar on January 16, 2013, 09:57:39 AM
It's funny in a way, compared to Bohenor, Clinton is a conservative. :scared:
Obama's a true believer and just incompetent enough to go for broke on a lot of the marxist/ islamist / reparations issues.
Both Clintons were dedicated socialists, with the requisite disdain for America.....but they were the most selfish, self promoting SOB's ever, so they actually let a lot of conservative stuff fly, if they thought they would get credit for it.
Clinton also had a totally undeserved dotcom economy, and had to give in to Newt's economics, so he ended up looking like the world's greatest capitalist president. While being just another marxist leftist at heart, lmao.
The libs have been lucky in the last 30 years. Clinton shows up only thanks to Perot splitting the vote, and gets credit for everyone else's successes, then Obama shows up thanks to RINO incompetence, and gets no blame whatsoever for his massive failures and criminal behaviors.
Taxed, I do not think I said anything that suggested that I would prefer Obama to Bush. I think Bush did what he felt was the right thing to do and I think he followed his principles. I disagree with most of what he did but I do respect that he at least acted in what he felt was the best interest of the country. However, I think the GOP would be better served to point out the mistakes he made and why they believe that things need to be done differently.
As far as Clinton goes, of course he did not operate in a vacuum and the GOP's in congress were able to find a common ground on which they all were successful. Pragmatic to me means that you are able to evaluate the opinions of the other side in a somewhat objective manner. Obama has his distorted view and any view that runs counter to that he views as being the view of a fool, a traitor or a racist. The list could go on.
I still am still in shock that the US voter could be so stupid to vote this clown into office. But after talking to my kids I really saw that they are not going to do a whole lot of research on what is going on so they rely on what they see in the news paper or on the news. The media says Obama is saving children and the GOP does not care if children get killed and the poor starve and if that is all that you hear who would you vote for.
I there view, the GOP was going to take away all the rights of women, hand out money to the rich, raise taxes on everyone else, wanted the elderly to die sooner and the poor to starve. The GOP has not found a way to raise their voice to fight these outrageous lies. The Dem's fight like this is a cage match to the death and the GOP fights like they are in a friendly round of golf. shhh quiet the other player is about to hit his ball.
Quote from: AndyJackson on January 16, 2013, 10:24:55 AM
Obama's a true believer and just incompetent enough to go for broke on a lot of the marxist/ islamist / reparations issues.
Both Clintons were dedicated socialists, with the requisite disdain for America.....but they were the most selfish, self promoting SOB's ever, so they actually let a lot of conservative stuff fly, if they thought they would get credit for it.
Clinton also had a totally undeserved dotcom economy, and had to give in to Newt's economics, so he ended up looking like the world's greatest capitalist president. While being just another marxist leftist at heart, lmao.
The libs have been lucky in the last 30 years. Clinton shows up only thanks to Perot splitting the vote, and gets credit for everyone else's successes, then Obama shows up thanks to RINO incompetence, and gets no blame whatsoever for his massive failures and criminal behaviors.
All true, yet Clinton still comes off looking more conservative than Boner.
I've posted about this before, but look up Fabian Socialists and their belief system.
Husein is a true Marxist that has completely bought into the Fabian approach to Marxism.
It's literally a step by step instruction book to creating a Marxist idealist society, and Husein is following it to the T.
Quote from: raptor5618 on January 16, 2013, 10:32:47 AM
Taxed, I do not think I said anything that suggested that I would prefer Obama to Bush.
Nor did I say you did...
Quote
I think Bush did what he felt was the right thing to do and I think he followed his principles. I disagree with most of what he did but I do respect that he at least acted in what he felt was the best interest of the country. However, I think the GOP would be better served to point out the mistakes he made and why they believe that things need to be done differently.
I can't see the GOP doing that. They have been compromised by the anti-American Marxists.
Quote
As far as Clinton goes, of course he did not operate in a vacuum and the GOP's in congress were able to find a common ground on which they all were successful. Pragmatic to me means that you are able to evaluate the opinions of the other side in a somewhat objective manner. Obama has his distorted view and any view that runs counter to that he views as being the view of a fool, a traitor or a racist. The list could go on.
It was more Clinton went along with the GOP than finding mutual common ground.
Quote
I still am still in shock that the US voter could be so stupid to vote this clown into office. But after talking to my kids I really saw that they are not going to do a whole lot of research on what is going on so they rely on what they see in the news paper or on the news. The media says Obama is saving children and the GOP does not care if children get killed and the poor starve and if that is all that you hear who would you vote for.
I there view, the GOP was going to take away all the rights of women, hand out money to the rich, raise taxes on everyone else, wanted the elderly to die sooner and the poor to starve. The GOP has not found a way to raise their voice to fight these outrageous lies. The Dem's fight like this is a cage match to the death and the GOP fights like they are in a friendly round of golf. shhh quiet the other player is about to hit his ball.
Yeah, and I'm afraid this won't change until we figure out how to salvage the voting system. When real Americans are represented and heard, with term limits, I think we can then get our arms around things. Until then, the testicles of the GOP will be like their appendixes; they have them, but aren't of any use.
I'm not a Bush fan, but boy has this "blaming Bush" thing real come full circle. Even on one of the most conservative website on the net, we even blame Bush. WTG.
I blame Bush for abandoning his core conservative values, because he did. But that's all.
He's not to blame for any war - democrats and the UN agreed on all threats.
He's not to blame for the financial crash - Clinton, Dodd, Frank,. etc. are the main culprits.
At least we conservatives can tell the truth about our own folks. Liberals and Marxists never do.
I believed and believe that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq under Sadam Hussein. (Where have I heard the name, Hussein, before?) I further believe that those very weapons of mass destruction are being readied by the government of Syria, where they were transferred. As far as Syria goes, it's none of our business. If we intervene on behalf of the rebels, we will just be establishing another Anti-American, Islamic, Sharia terrorist state like we did in Egypt and Libya.
If I were to intervene, it would be on the side of the Syrian government. Anything to prevent the Muslim Brotherhood, friends of the White House, controlling another country.
Quote from: Charliemyboy on January 16, 2013, 02:52:44 PM
If we intervene on behalf of the rebels, we will just be establishing another Anti-American, Islamic, Sharia terrorist state like we did in Egypt and Libya.
If I were to intervene, it would be on the side of the Syrian government. Anything to prevent the Muslim Brotherhood, friends of the White House, controlling another country.
You're a wise man. Sorry to see so many "conservatives" accept the notion that these rebels are "freedom fighters." They are far worse than the Assad government., but our Islamic President and the whole Demonrat Party favors Islamo-Nazis.
Quote from: Yawn on January 16, 2013, 04:51:10 PM
You're a wise man. Sorry to see so many "conservatives" accept the notion that these rebels are "freedom fighters." They are far worse than the Assad government., but our Islamic President and the whole Demonrat Party favors Islamo-Nazis.
Yawn, Charliemyboy is a wise young
lady as I remember.