Quick Links to Posts By Category

,
, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Monday, October 20, 2008

Colin Powell - Still Credible After All These Jeers?

Headline from Yahoo! News:

Obama: Powell will have a role in adminstration


I'm a little confused - isn't Colin Powell the Bushitler Stoog who participated in the big Iraqi WMD fraud? And yet, this man is still a credible figure to Obama and the leftist minions who worship him?

I need a scorecard to keep up with which Bush administration officials were sincerely lying about WMDs and which officials were just witless dupes. Obama apparently sees Powell as the latter, which makes him perfect for which administration role? Court jester?

9 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

You're wrong. Powell is a moderate Republican, which essentially means that he doesn't have to tow the party line or be party slaves like the rest of you. So what if he endorsed Obama? He is a free-thinker and shouldn't have to endorse a lousy candidate that he doesn't believe in. Just look at what happened with the second failed Bush policy. Loads of Republicans had their doubts about him but did not speak out, and now look where we are.

From what I saw of his statement, Powell was disappointed in McCain's theatrics during our financial crisis. He was also disappointed in the radical neo-conservative base focusing on petty issues, such as Bill Ayers, instead of the ones that are going to affect our money and our way of life. And with an economy in shambles, how can any of you trust a man who doesn't know much about economics?

As Fox News points out, one could argue that he is fed up with the extreme right-wing of his party, being an African-American. This would be morally wrong, right? Wrong, because of the hidden and inherent racism shown by some McCain supporters, especially those expressed on this ridiculous blog. Right Hook - while your writing is linguistically great, it is full of logical and informal fallacies which alienate your readers. As you will learn in the "liberal" schooling system, fallacies cause the neutral reader to stop listening, which makes your real points irrelevant to them. Obama's middle name, "Hussein", is NOT a relevant issue to anyone but those with deep racist convictions. Who cares if the guy is Black, has a funny middle name, or has known shady people? Who cares if he worked as a community organizer? That is a great thing. He has worked to bring people together. It shows more about the content of his character than the rest of you.

It's almost laughable... yes, Bill Ayers is a terrible person, yet with all their resources, the Republican party has only been able to link the two as serving on a school board together! Look at yourselves. Is this stuff more important than the issues or just a distraction? Nobody is cracking jokes about Sarah "Heath" Palin's middle name. No, because that would be sexist to imply that she is a man because of her middle name. Plus it would make us look immature and silly. Also, nobody would listen to us, as you guys feel like nobody is listening to you this election. Wonder why?

I am a independent. I have voted for both parties because I think that they are equally hypocritical on what they stand for. The individual candidate gets my vote, not the political party. This is how the deciders of each election think. We take a look at both candidates and vote for the lesser of the two evils. On November 4th, voters will remember the last 8 years, and reasonably hold the responsible part(ies) responsible. Obama will win, and win by a landslide.

10/20/2008 11:22 PM  
Blogger Right Hook said...

Powell's reasoning for supporting Obama is very shallow at best. Several pundits have pointed out that Polwell has a track record throughout his career of avoiding to commit to any position and eventually gravitate toward what he thinks is the winning side. It is well know he drove Cheney and Rumsfeld nuts with his lack of preparedness to present his position leading up to the Iraq invasion and then whined that nobody listened to him. Face it, he was not a very good Secretary of State or advisor. He is also a liberal as far as I can tell.

As pointed out yesterday by Rush, Mark Levine, Jason Lewis, and others on the right Powell telegraphed as early as April that he was going to support Obama and they are on record as noting it. As usual, the great "moderate" had to give himself an out just in case things went bad. And what would the mainstream media's reaction have been if Powell had endorsed McCain? Just another Bushie holding the line.

As far as the Ayers situation, the relationship was much deeper. Ayers introduced Obama into the Chicago political machine and entrusted him with the money to run their failed enterprise to radicalize Chicago schools. Obama can't get his story straight as details of the relationship seep out.

My pieces are opinion and I admittedly use a few techniques to draw emphasis and reaction (as well as Google hits - they don't teach you that in the public school). The question posed by Fred Thompson at the convention, "Who is Barack Obama?", is very much a relevant issue. The origin of his middle name and his putting it off limits is one place to get people to start looking, and the more one honestly looks into BHO's background the less likely they are to vote for him.

Obama may win, but until it actually happens we on the right who feel he will do deep damage to our country and our way of life will continue to all we can to convice those who don't pay attention why this guy is bad news.

Thanks for reading, agree or disagree.

10/21/2008 7:25 AM  
Anonymous G-PoK said...

You nailed this one! Powell was hated by the left until it was revealed he might support Obama. Suddenly he's a hero. He still stands by the decision to invade Iraq based on the evidence available. What does Obama think about that? It's interesting that anonymous used "slave" in his response, since that's how Harry Belafonte referred to Powell for standing with Bush. But suddenly he's a good guy....

I was honestly never sure what his political allegiances were. I seem to remember doubt as to what party he'd run with if he ever ran for office (before joining Bush's cabinet). I don't think he's a bad guy overall, but he basically said he likes McCain and agrees with him on many issues but is endorsing Obama because McCain is mean. That's a really weak move. I'm not particularly fond of McCain, but I'm supporting him because his views are far closer to mine than are Obama's. A nice guy who's going to take the country the wrong way is still going to take the country the wrong way. Issues matter.

10/21/2008 3:37 PM  
Blogger Thrifty Scot said...

wrong about what, exactly? Powell was hated by the left as just another Bushitler liar for his UN testimony re: Iraqi WMDs. Now he's to be welcomed with open arms? I suppose if Karl Rove endorsed Obama that would be welcomed by the left, too.

I guess credibility can be regained with the left by touching the hem of The One.

10/22/2008 5:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Read it again. I never said that I was a fan of Colin Powell, I was just recognizing his ability to be objective within his party. Country first, right? The ability to have an open mind. No political party is always correct in their thinking, so why should you still tow the party line when you cease to believe in their direction? But for the record, I have never liked his way of thinking when it comes to War. I like that he was one of the only high-profilers to realize that this country needs a new direction before our country is further damaged by the people in charge.

10/23/2008 12:07 AM  
Blogger Right Hook said...

Anonymous -

We've had a new direction since Ronald Reagan left office in Bush-41/Clinton/Bush-43 and it has not worked. Bush-41 got us off of the road of prosperity, Clinton veered farther off to the left, and Bush-43 corrected course in some ways but also wandered aimlessly back in the wrong direction in others.

This country would be better off if we had continued in the pro-growth, strong defense, low taxes condition Reagan left us at and had attempted to shrink the size of government (Reagan tried to do this and unfortunately had just scratched the surface by the time he left office).

The "kinder, gentler nation", Clinton's self-aggrandizing frat party, and "compassionate Conservatism" has taken us far off the road of prosperity and led to a liberal majority in Congress. To his credit, Bush-43 has picked up much of the mess of 9/11 that was largely enabled by Clinton policy (though he was fought by the left and their willing accomplices in the media almost all of the way) and his tax cuts led us out of the Clinton downturn and helped to create a robust economy for 6 years in spite of 9/11.

The election of a liberal Congress, along with the largely Democrat-set mortgage timebomb triggering (courtesy of Upchuck Schumer), and subsequent demagoging by the Obama campaign with the aid of the mainstream media has put us in a world of hurt.

Obama's policy of getting us on the road to socialism instead of back on the road of prosperity is exactly the wrong thing to have now and is akin to throwing gasoline on a fire. McCain is not the greatest candidate he is a much better choice as that he at least brings some sand and water. He may not be able to fully put the fire out but at least has a chance of containing it.

10/23/2008 8:07 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Give it up already. Obama is not a Socialist. His health-care plan is the closest thing that you guys have on that argument. To make sure we are on the same page, I do NOT think that universal healthcare will work for America. It is too big of an economy and there are too many people against it. BUT, I do believe that healthcare is a right in our country, and should be universal in the land of prosperity. We have that Christian moral responsibility when we are earning way more than we need to be comfortable...even if we worked hard for our money. It is in the Bible. Matthew 22:15-22...I'll let you all read it for yourselves. Basically it states, that through taxes, we have an obligation to help our fellow citizens who are not as fortunate as us. I realize that that is a fundamental difference between me and the owners of this blog.

The statistics will show that the White man is the largest recipient of welfare in our country, well ahead of any other race. I am white myself: but with gov't subsidies, tax breaks, and school grants and loans, we are. Just to point that out. And welfare recipients are not all lazy as well, some just do not get the benefit of a good starting point in our society as others.

This country desperately needs a fundamental change. The war in Iraq has made us more unsafe than we were before we invaded. Our standing in the world has diminished, and we are no longer greatly respected. That fact CAUSES more terrorism than it defeats. I strongly believe that.

Reganism, while a great time of prosperity for America, is no longer plausible living in today's world. There are too many problems, too much greed, and too much hurt coming from the have-nots. The middle class of Regan's time has greatly shrunk, and there is a huge disparity between the rich and the poor. Regan had great ideas and the country prospered, there is no denying that. But it just can't work again until after we fix our other major problems with our flawed deregulated "no rules" system, and yes, Democrat Barney Frank deserves as much of the blame as Bush does.

We NEED to take care of one another. We need to address more important issues than someone's name, race, and religion. We need to get our economy back on track. We need to stop screwing our environment (this is where our kids will grow up!) in the name of a profit. Obama is not the best candidate, but I beleive that he will work better for the majority of Americans, 100 times better than McCain would. He takes no (or very few) money from special interests, and he is more concerned about "Joe the Plumber" than McCain is.

It is time for our country to start caring about more than money.

When Obama wins, we will still be a capitalist society. There will still be incentive for achievement when one is earning more than $250K. 98% of small businesses won't be affected. The 2% that will, will not be able to cut more jobs than what is sustainable for their business. Way less jobs than are being cut today. Most plausible, they will just have to cut their CEO and administrative salaries. The economy will prosper again just like it did under Regan and Clinton. The middle-class and working-class will have more money to spend, thus stimulating the economy.

And always remember...

As mother always said... "money doesn't make you happy." It's obviously causing a world of hurt on both sides in this election.

10/24/2008 1:20 AM  
Blogger Right Hook said...

Anonynous -

So many misconceptions, so little time. The Obama talking points have so contaminated rational thinking.

Health care is a right? Why not a home? Why not food? Rights are not defined by the government mandating the delivery of goods and services from one citizen to another.

Al-Qaeda is on the ropes due to our efforts in Iraq - not gone but severely damaged in their capability to cause terror on a mass scale. Obummer's stated unilateral disarmament policy is not going to cause fear and/or respect from potential adversaries - actually quite the opposite.

I also resent any twisting of Scripture to advance the cause of the welfare state and taxes. We as individuals and communities certainly have a moral obligation to take care of those of us who are less fortunate, but this does not mean an obligation for a massive transfer of wealth by the force of government. There is no biblical justifaction to enslave one group (producers) to the service of another (non-producers). Voluntary charity is virtuous. Forced charity is downright immoral.

Our ecomony was going along just fine until the timebomb of liberal policies was detonated, whether or not it was intentional or politically motivated. The prospect of the government owning banks and mortgages should scare the hell out of anyone who cherishes freedom.

Reagan's ideas will still work as they are based on the immutable laws of free market economics. Obama ("spread the wealth around") certainly is a socialist, whether he calls himself one or not. The air waves this week have been full of business leaders who are scared to death of Obummer's policies and the prospect of a unchecked liberal Congress, and with good reason. The small business I work for will certainly be impacted by his tax scheme.

The ecomony didn't take off during the Clinton years until the Republican Congress of '94 that implemented capital gains tax cuts and at least promised shrinking government. Clinton pretty much rode the wave of the Reagan expansion and the DotCom explosion. Obummer's policies will put us back to an environment more like the Carter years (yuck!).

Throw in things like his demostrated propensity to limit speech through intimidation, his anti-second amendment record, his support of the "Fairness" Doctrine, his radical associations, and his complete lack of understanding of foriegn policy and economics, all with a free pass from the liberal media and the prospect of an Obummer administration is a disaster looming on the horizon.

We will survive, but it will be a bumpy ride.

10/24/2008 6:40 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Right on, Right Hook! Way to put the liberal on the canvas.

Not to worry though as the lib will revive after another shot or two of the Obama Kool-aid although it's probably too much to hope that he will wake up to the danger Obama poses.

10/24/2008 8:16 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

 

MOB Logo

Powered by Blogger