PDA

View Full Version : Colin Powell endorses Obama



artie
10-19-2008, 02:19 PM
After speaking well of JM, Colin Powell endorses Obama. Seems he believes the Republican Party has become too "narrow" in its core principles for the good of America.
He also cites the selection of Palin as one of the deciding factors.
My question to anyone...What are your thoughts about the timing of this endorsement?

west4567
10-19-2008, 02:30 PM
If you're going to endorse a candidate, it's fair enough to do so when you think it will have the most impact. It's a free country. I presume that's what he thought.

Whether it's true? If he'd announced on Friday the 31st, with Obama ready to run ads in all the swing-state markets for three days, that might have been more effective.

large
10-19-2008, 02:49 PM
Actually he didn't say the Republican party is "too Narrow", he said it had moved "Too far to the right" . . what the Hell does he mean by that? McCain is and has had a hell of a time keeping the right of the party behind him . . That's what Palin was for, I thought . . to bring the right to him . . Not alienate the center!

I guess it shows us, while Colin Powell isn't a racist, he might be a chauvinist! Not a hell of a lot of difference!

Sandra
10-19-2008, 03:55 PM
pfffft!

birds of a feather, people -- birds of a feather.

large
10-19-2008, 04:01 PM
OK, say it . . 95% . . Ninety five percent! Ninety five percent of the Black population say they're voting for Obama . . Do they all believe him or what he stands for? Hell no . . but they're voting for the first Black Presidential Candidate ever to run for President!

artie
10-19-2008, 04:47 PM
seems early, but with all the early voting, who knows? I'm intrigued also, with Palin on SNL last night at this moment in time. When is Obama doing his half hour infomercial?

Dean.Barnett
10-19-2008, 09:06 PM
pfffft!

birds of a feather, people -- birds of a feather.Hmm. . . a 71 year old career military man and senior official in two Republican administrations chooses to endorse a 48 year old Harvard Law School grad Democrat in his 1st Senate term.

Birds of what feather, exactly?

Sandra
10-19-2008, 10:13 PM
Dean, first - these are two BUSH Republican administrations - so consider the source there.

And as for birds of a feather, need I remind you of his role in the Iran contra affair?

BornInPueblo
10-19-2008, 10:17 PM
I have a lot of respect for Colin Powell. At one time I thought he would have made a good candidate for President. I changed my mind when he testified before the U.N. in making the Bush administration's false case against Iraq, which I believe he knew to be either false or at least a significant stretch beyond the knowable and proven facts at the time. General Powell is still a man deserving of respect for his service to this country, but I think should still be held culpable for that testimony.

Digger Dan
10-20-2008, 05:44 AM
It was Bush's team that lied to Colin Powell. That's why he left the Bush administration.

Large you are dead wrong about Powell. Most people knew he would never support McCain and the Republicans after Rumsfeldt and Chaney's fiasco.

The "Right" sounds very narrow to me---just as narrow as the "left" most republicans pander to the right just as most Democrats pander to the Left. That's why supporters of the right and left are Donkeyphants.

Do remember that Powell earned his stripes the hard way and not by who his father was.

McCain deserves to be honored. He earned his manhood the hard way in the Hanoi Hilton. But his age and relationship to Bush dooms him. We know he feels the same way as Powell relative to Rumsfeldt and Chaney.

large
10-20-2008, 06:56 AM
Actually, Colin Powell is just another of the "Good Ole Boys' in DC . .

While he IS a military Man, he's spent far too much time in Washington, and what got him "Crossways" with Cheney and Rumsfield was his "Powell Doctrine' of massive forces or maintaining the "Leviathan" for small wars . . Neither have proved to be right, and Iraq has proven that . .

Powell's greatest mistake was going into politics and the administration on either side, especially as Secretary of State . . again, his Military doctrine did not mesh with the duties and potential views of SecState. As for the Bush Admin lying to him about WMD, again, he knew more about Saddam's Weapons Programs than Congress did and Congress gave Saddam the money to buy them from the Europeans, specifically the Germans and the French!

Currently, Powell is no more than another "Politician", hoping that Obama will give him a job . . He shoulda stayed outta politics and written a book!

Sandra
10-20-2008, 03:51 PM
DiggerDan, this was long before the Bush administration - the Iran Contra affair actually dates back to the Carter administration and goes into the Reagan administration.

Reagan was lied to by members of his own cabinet and those working under them, including Colin Powell (who served under Casper Weinberger) who full well knew the truth. They all figured that they wouldn't look bad, but that the President would. Another party involved, who actually went to prison for his role was Oliver North, who later received a full pardon by the first Bush.

It was after the Iran Contra affair that Powell became Reagan's Chief Security Advisor during Reagan's second term.

While there are some things he may be respectable for, there is one thing he isn't. I am very surprised to see that he would endorse the likes of a sheetwad like Obama, though. It's certainly not going to change my mind about who I'm supporting, that's for certain.

Sandra
10-20-2008, 03:52 PM
By the way, for those of you who don't know - Colin Powell isn't African American, he's Jamaican American.

large
10-20-2008, 04:26 PM
The D.C. connection . . .

Powell earned an MBA at George Washington University in Washington, DC, and after being promoted to major, won a White House fellowship. Powell was assigned to the Office of Management and Budget during the administration of President Nixon, and here he made a lasting impression on the Director and Deputy Director of the Office: Casper Weinberger and Frank Carlucci. Both of these men were to call on Powell when they served as Secretary of Defense and National Security Advisor, respectively, under President Ronald Reagan.

Powell, now a Colonel, followed his term as White House Fellow with service as a battalion commander in Korea and with a staff job at the Pentagon. After study at the Army War College, he was promoted to Brigadier General and commanded a Brigade of the 101st Airborne Division. In the administration of President Jimmy Carter, Powell was an assistant to the Deputy Secretary of Defense, and to the Secretary of Energy. He was promoted to Major General. He again assisted Frank Carlucci at the Defense Department during the transition from the Carter administration to that of Ronald Reagan.

Powell served as assistant commander and deputy commander of infantry divisions in Colorado and Kansas before returning to Washington to become senior military assistant to Secretary of Defense Casper Weinberger, whom he assisted during the invasion of Grenada and the air strikes against Libya. Powell was called upon to testify before Congress in private session about the covert shipment of American arms to Iran; he was one of only five persons in the Pentagon who knew about the operation. Powell was not implicated in any wrongdoing in the matter.
In 1986, Powell left Washington to serve as commander of the Fifth Corps in Frankfurt, Germany, but was recalled to Washington to serve as deputy to Frank Carlucci, after Carlucci was appointed national security adviser in the wake of the Iranian arms scandal. A year later, Carlucci was appointed Secretary of Defense and Powell, now a Lieutenant General, became the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. In this capacity, he coordinated technical and policy advisers during President Reagan's summit meetings with Soviet President Gorbachev. He was the first African American to serve in this position, as he has been in every office he has held since.

In 1991, as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under President George H.W. Bush, Powell became a national figure during the successful Desert Shield and Desert Storm operations which expelled the Iraqi army from Kuwait. General Powell continued as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs during the first months of the Clinton administration, publicly disagreeing with President Clinton over the President's plan to permit gay men and women to serve in the military, although he eventually accepted a compromise on the issue. Powell retired from the military shortly thereafter and returned to private life. In 1994, Powell joined former President Carter and Senator Sam Nunn on a last-minute peace-making expedition to Haiti, which resulted in the end of military rule and the peaceful return to power of the elected government of that country.
In his years of military service, General Powell never disclosed his political sympathies; he was registered to vote as an independent. Although he was known to have supported the 1964 campaign of President Lyndon Johnson, a Democrat, he had served in both Republican and Democratic administrations. In the 1990s, the General's great popularity led many people to urge him to run for President. In 1995 he announced that he had registered as a Republican, and he received a thunderous ovation when he spoke at the Republican convention the following year. Although he did not forswear future political involvement, thus far he has declined to seek elective office. For the rest of the decade, he concentrated on his work with young people as Chairman of America's Promise: the Alliance for Youth.

In 2001, newly elected President George W. Bush appointed Colin Powell to be Secretary of State. To date, this is the highest rank ever held by an African American in the United States government. In his first months in office, Powell won praise for his efficient administration of the State Department, and cordial relations with other governments. Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Secretary Powell took a leading role in rallying America's allies for military action in Afghanistan.
It was reported that Powell had serious misgivings about President Bush's subsequent plan to invade Iraq and topple the regime of Saddam Hussein. Nevertheless, Powell appeared before the Security Council of the United Nations, where he presented evidence purporting to prove that Iraq had concealed concealing an ongoing weapons development program, in violation of UN resolutions. Powell's testimony was instrumental in persuading many members of the U.S. Congress to support military action against Iraq. Some of this evidence was later discredited, and when American forces no evidence of a weapons program in Iraq, Secretary Powell was subjected to harsh criticism.

It would appear that Powell spent almost half his military career in Washington, D.C. in one administration or another. While he never stated his preferred partisanship and registered as an Independent, before he entered the Army, he worked for LBJ's campaign . . Apparently old beliefs die hard . .

Loren Swelk
10-20-2008, 04:56 PM
Bhoogren, does gravitas mean "balls" in some language I am not familiar with? If not, it should.

Sandra
10-20-2008, 05:03 PM
You know, I didn't mention this, but Colin Powell went to City College of New York and obtained a BS in Geology with a "c" average. According to their website, there are 90 languages spoken on campus, so they hail themselves as the most diverse college in NY. They appear to also be the most liberal.

No word on his GPA when obtaining his MBA, though, from GWU.

So it's apparent that Powell's educational experience may be comparable to Palin's.

large
10-20-2008, 05:33 PM
I dunno if he's any smarter (or not as smart as) than Palin, but she's gotten to the civilian equivalent of "General" a lot sooner than he did ! And she didn't have to kiss a single Democrat's a$$ to get there!

Dean.Barnett
10-20-2008, 06:05 PM
Another party involved, who actually went to prison for his role was Oliver North, who later received a full pardon by the first Bush.Perhaps you're confusing Scooter Libby with Ollie?


North was tried in 1988 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_North) in relation to his activities while at the National Security Council. He was indicted on sixteen felony counts and on May 4, 1989, he was initially convicted of three: accepting an illegal gratuity, aiding and abetting in the obstruction of a congressional inquiry, and destruction of documents (by his secretary, Fawn Hall, on his instructions). He was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Gerhard A. Gesell on July 5, 1989, to a three-year suspended prison term, two years probation, $150,000 in fines, and 1,200 hours community service.

However, on July 20, 1990, with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU),[7] North's convictions were vacated, after the appeals court found that witnesses in his trial might have been impermissibly affected by his immunized congressional testimony.[

Sandra
10-20-2008, 06:30 PM
Perhaps you're confusing Scooter Libby with Ollie?

You don't know your history very well, do you? No, I'm not.

Google Colin Powell you'll see his involvement with the Iran Contra affair all over the place. And G Bush Senior, too.

I will say I was wrong on one thing, he didn't receive a Pardon from Bush, but there was talk of it.

none
10-20-2008, 07:59 PM
I dunno if he's any smarter (or not as smart as) than Palin, but she's gotten to the civilian equivalent of "General" a lot sooner than he did ! And she didn't have to kiss a single Democrat's a$$ to get there!
yeah, partiality to cronies especially as evidenced in the appointment of political hangers-on to office without regard to their qualifications seems more appropriate, but I could be wrong....

Dean.Barnett
10-20-2008, 08:00 PM
I will say I was wrong on one thing, he didn't receive a Pardon from Bush, but there was talk of it."You don't know your history very well, do you? No, I'm not" making fun of you. But with so many criminals in recent Republican administrations, it's easy to be confused. (NOTE: I hasten to add that the sole reason we haven't seen as many Democrats in the dock is because they haven't held enough power to be corrupted by it.)

Sandra
10-20-2008, 08:10 PM
As if there are no criminals who are Dems?

Most of the NAMBLA members are Dems
Most of the domestic terrorists have been or have been associated with Dems
Obama is a friend to terrorists, and he's a Dem...

none
10-20-2008, 08:52 PM
As if there are no criminals who are Dems?

Most of the NAMBLA members are Dems
Most of the domestic terrorists have been or have been associated with Dems
Obama is a friend to terrorists, and he's a Dem...
I just went to www.fbi.gov and didn't see anything.

Dean.Barnett
10-20-2008, 09:04 PM
Most of the NAMBLA members are Dems"National Association of Marlon Brando Look-Alikes"?

Sandra
10-21-2008, 06:47 AM
Don't play dumb with me, Dean. Google it if you don't know what it is.

large
10-21-2008, 07:43 AM
Jeeezus, Sandra, You have to be a little left of center to be a "Moderate Democrat" and anything left of that . . Are "Democrats" or Socialists . . out on the fringes, completely opposite the radical fundies, are the radical left . . who, generally are really, really, close to communists and urban terrorists. The riots at the 1969 Democratic Convention was all about the left not being left enough!

And IF . . You are really a "Moderate Democrat", the Democrats won't claim you . . .

Loren Swelk
10-21-2008, 09:47 AM
Sandra, lately you have been sounding Libertarian. Much better than the "moderate Democrat" moniker.

And on the other end I am almost as far to the right as Atilla the Hun. (may he rest in peace)

Sandra
10-21-2008, 12:13 PM
okokay...nambla is north american man boy love association. It's a really perverted group that many of our own US Senators were involved in especially back in the 1970's.

Do I really sound Libertarian? I'm not sure if I should take that as a compliment or an insult, I'm a card carrying Republican, but I do not like what the Republican party has become.

At the same time, I do not like the socialist turn that the Democratic party has taken over the years.

Each side used to serve to balance the system, now all it's done is turn it into a whopping case of governmental bi-polar disorder, where there is no stability - no middle ground, things are either far left or far right. There's no balance in that, it's out of control.

You know, one of our US Presidents almost 100 years ago, now, did more to single handedly destroy this country than any invading country could possibly do. He caused this nation to become increasingly dependent on the government, giving more power to the government than it should ever have had.

There is no turning back from this damage, and while we sit here and discuss issues and point out the bad things the Dems have done or that the Reps have done, what we fail to realize is that each side really has tried to do something to fix this problem but the end result is that no matter what we do or how hard we try, it just makes matters worse.

What we need to do is stop pointing fingers and figure out what we can do to stabilize ourselves and move on from there. I call it damage control.

The few of us left in this country who actually believe in the vote seem to forget that when we vote for someone with a less than desireable background, they take that background with them into office.

A man who was raised as a racist and who has surrounded himself with terrorists ALL HIS LIFE should NOT be in office because no matter how fine he talks, he still carries his own ways wherever he goes.

I'm sure you're familiar with the phrase, "wherever you go, you take yourself with you". Well, same applies in politics. Wherever we put someone - whatever seat we elect them to - they take that seat along with themselves and their friends and so on.

When a girl gets married, she doesn't only marry the man, she marries his family and his nosey mother might just do more to break up that marriage than help it. The same with politics. You elect a man into office, you also elect his influences and his habits. That could do more to destroy that position than anything.

Just a little food for thought.

Sandra
10-21-2008, 12:14 PM
By the way where did you guys get the idea that I'm a moderate democrat? Or is it because of my assing around in the donkeyphants topic?

Just wondering...

large
10-21-2008, 04:47 PM
yeah, partiality to cronies especially as evidenced in the appointment of political hangers-on to office without regard to their qualifications seems more appropriate, but I could be wrong....

And you probably are . . She's an elected governor, popular with over 80% approval of her constituents, and has bucked both the Democrats and Republicans in cleaning up her state government . .

Something neither of the Presidential Candidates, nor the Dem VP Candidate can come close to claiming . . The august body of government they hail from just received a resounding 4% popularity rating from the American people . . Something you can't even hand off to Dubya . . He's still at 27% . .

Loren Swelk
10-21-2008, 06:25 PM
Sandra, I believe your posts are much more conservative now than they were 6 months ago. I haven't gone back to verify it, but I believe it to be the case.

artie
10-21-2008, 07:08 PM
What I started this thread for was to explore all ya'lls thoughts about the timing of Powell's endorsement. Was it calculated that last Sunday was an optimum time to make a splash? I ask that because the night before Palin hits SNL.
Those in the know must be computing the early voting factor or something. (Or maybe it's all random.)

Dean.Barnett
10-21-2008, 07:22 PM
What I started this thread for was to explore all ya'lls thoughts about the timing of Powell's endorsement. Was it calculated that last Sunday was an optimum time to make a splash? I ask that because the night before Palin hits SNL.
Those in the know must be computing the early voting factor or something. (Or maybe it's all random.)Funny how the timing works out, isn't it? Bad news that might embarrass gets dumped Friday evening after all the regular press has called it a day; big news gets out Sunday mornings on the chat shows.

With any other endorsement this late in the process, I'd bet nobody at ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN or Faux would book prime Sunday AM airwaves for the announcement, but Powell's a force unto himself. I'd guess he wanted to do his endoresement in the most public way possible, not only to help Obama, but also as a little payback for BushCo's little mendacity-dance at the UN with the WMD, anthrax, secret labs, etc. With an honorable guy like Powell, being used to transmit lies to the world must chafe. If that was part of the motive, a good tactical move by Powell.

Bush never did understand war. At least now he's had a lesson from a master.

Sandra
10-21-2008, 08:18 PM
OH, okay, Loren. Well, I've always been a little on the conservative side, but there's balance there. For example, you see my ideas on the health care issues, and those are anything but conservative, although my reasons for those ideas are very conservative.

artie
10-22-2008, 05:51 PM
Does anyone understand the thrust of the two latest posts?

large
10-22-2008, 06:00 PM
Lessee ? ? OMIGAWD! It's HISTORY . . ! ! ! ! ! Artie . . that's why all you dumb Sh*ts keep blaming Bush for the Iraq War . . He just inherited what his Father, Bill Clinton and all Five Congresses created for him . . And he acted on it . .

Reading instructions . . Start at Post #36, page 4 . . And . . if you can argue it, go ahead . . if not . . apologize nicely . .

Digger Dan
10-23-2008, 07:17 AM
The biggest mistake Colin Powell made was not resigning when he discovered Bush was hogtied and managed by Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Karl Rove and President Bush made the greatest mistake of his life by not listening to his dad about Cheney. Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rove were never loyal to the President, they were his handlers and before Bush realized it, it was too late.
If McCain had won against Bush he would have never allowed those three to advise him about anything. McCain was my choice against Bush and it is unfortunate for McCain that he is suffering because of Bush's handlers and thus history will pass him by as president. He will, however be a positive force in Washington and will be loyal to the new president regardless of present campaigning. McCain has more respect for Obama and Obama for McCain than is displayed in the vicious attacks against both by others.

large
10-23-2008, 07:51 AM
Hold on . . basically, Powell's military doctrine of an overwhelming leviathan force Vs Rumsfield's (and Bush's) new "Small Light force" military was a major clash, almost immediately after Powell accepting the cabinet position of SecState. And Powell felt that, while he was the head cheese in the pentagon, prior to retirement, his legacy was . . "The Powell Doctrine", and it should not have been abandoned by Bush . . His feelings were hurt, and it has continued to fester . . There are few four Stars who aren't Prima Donnas when their doctrines are challenged . . History will tell you that . . And they really get antisocial when their doctrines are abandoned completely!

Bush (and his staff, including Rummy) only really understood a portion of what their new Military doctrine demanded . . And Bush stupidly misled the American people when he said, in his speech after 9/11, that he would not engage in country building . . In the 21st Century, we have to fix what we break. Winning the War in Afghanistan, against Russia with a surrogate Army, and then walking away, should have told us that, if anything . . Iraq was another example. You cannot just go in, blow sh*t up, depose the government and then leave . . Nation/states in turmoil create big world problems . . again, 20 years after walking away from Afghanistan, we're getting Americans killed there. And if we continue to pursue the route we're currently taking, we'll spend a lot of American youths on a war we cannot win, nor walk away from. Which, in a couple of years, will be what the media, the public and probably the economy will demand. Just as in Iraq, and any other long term (apparently over a week) conflict the American Military has been sent into . .

IF Obama is elected, we will know almost immediately what kind of security he will offer. Should he be wise enough to leave Robert Gates as SecDef then we will know he's better informed than most believe. However should he select either Wesley Clark or Powell . . he blew it!

Neither are qualified to manage or advise on matters pertaining to the military the USA needs today . . Nor will they be willing to confront the EU about the defense of Europe and the major NATO members . . We will remain the world's Policeman, at our expense, and will go broke doing it!

I can only hope, that if McCain is elected, he's wise enough to understand this . . but he certainly hasn't acknowledged it if he does . .

Henryk
10-23-2008, 11:23 PM
Lessee ? ? OMIGAWD! It's HISTORY . . ! ! ! ! ! Artie . . that's why all you dumb Sh*ts keep blaming Bush for the Iraq War . . He just inherited what his Father, Bill Clinton and all Five Congresses created for him . . And he acted on it . .

Reading instructions . . Start at Post #36, page 4 . . And . . if you can argue it, go ahead . . if not . . apologize nicely . .
A bit off the subject but,is Powell looking for work? In any case he endorses Obama so what! He has one vote like the rest of us. His opinion counts once in the booth no more.Have a good TGIF.

artie
10-24-2008, 05:20 AM
Lessee ? ? OMIGAWD! It's HISTORY . . ! ! ! ! ! Artie . . that's why all you dumb Sh*ts keep blaming Bush for the Iraq War . . He just inherited what his Father, Bill Clinton and all Five Congresses created for him . . And he acted on it . .

Reading instructions . . Start at Post #36, page 4 . . And . . if you can argue it, go ahead . . if not . . apologize nicely . .

The two posts to which I was referring have been nuked.

Digger Dan
10-24-2008, 06:16 AM
"We will remain the world's Policeman, at our expense, and will go broke doing it!" -----Large

Amen to that!! So we better get with building a stronger America and dry up the excess money we are pumping into Iraq---make em spend their own reserves.

large
10-24-2008, 07:13 AM
I don't think you understand much of what I've been saying . . or you're just parsing the parts you like . .

History will tell you that "Getting out' of someplace we have gone doesn't work if not done properly . . You cannot depose a government and then walk out and close the door behind you . . again . . Hasn't our 25 year romance with Afghanistan taught you anything? Iraq isn't the biggest problem, it's continuing to spend billions defending The EU . . Those people continue to belittle this country, but depend upon us to defend them and their world commerce . . Do we need to be putting Defensive missiles in East Poland to protect Europe from the Iranians and their missiles? I don't think so . . for several reasons . .

Do we need to stop the Genocide in Northern Africa? (as Obama and Joe Biden have already spoken of) There's a "Military Involvement" we don't even want to go near . . But if the Democrats get both the Executive and Legislative controls, the Democrats have to repay the hollywood Elite who have been harping about Darfur for over 5 years . . "We need to stop the genocide!" they continue to cry . . Sorry, world, it ain't our job . . That's (or should be) between China and the EU (again) . . between the two of those entieties, they're the cause and the solution. All we can do is spend a lot of money on hardware and get a lot of Americans Killed! And in all likelyhood, we won't save a single soul . .

As for Iraq, we're almost done, security is improving each day, the Iraqi economy is beginning to work and sooner or later they'll settle on a government that works . . currently there's more people dying by violence in Mexico than in Iraq . . so basically, that's no longer an excuse . .

And in these kind of "Wars" there is no "WIN" . . it's a realization that we've kicked out an old corrupt and dangerous Leader and stabilized a country well enough for them to function on their own . . But there sure as Hell is a "LOSE" . . That's when we have to go back into a country that we (or another Country) has Invaded, occupied, and then left with neither leadership or economic assistance . .

Currently, Afghanistan, Somalia and several other "Failed States" are good examples of political and Military "Meddling" by both the US and other countries, including several European countries, Russia and China . . They have benefitted at one time or another from those places and then, just as the average American (who apparently knows little) advocates, walked out and closed the door behind them . . and letting the rest of the world suffer the consequences . .

Digger Dan
10-24-2008, 07:52 AM
You are right Large, I am supporting what I like about your statements. Most of what you have written comes from a foreign policy that has primarily failed while genocide runs rampant in parts of Africa. Hmmm Naw just get involved where the Corprats and their politico buddies can enrich themselves and use "saving the world for Democracy" as the battle cry. To hell with the starving and shot up mothers and little kids in Africa.

large
10-24-2008, 08:24 AM
Look, here's the deal with Africa . . As well as the western part of the Middle East and Eastern Europe . . while I, in no way want to advocate isolationism (the world's gotten too small for that) we must cease policing the world, especially in areas that we have no or little interest . . Eastern Europe, and Russia's involvement is Europe's concern because it's where their major source of energy comes from . . Why in the Hell do we need to be protecting them from Iran? Iran is another of Russia's business customers (not partners, there is a difference) so Russia isn't going to let much happen to Europe (their biggest energy customer) other than to let Iran make lots of racket about shutting down "The World's Oil Supply". This "stirring of the pot" keeps Oil prices high, and Europe has to pay through the nose . .

As for Africa . . Lack of education, blood lines and tribalism dominate the continent, and with radical islam as the catalyst, the future of Africa as a whole is bleak. Globalization is a hoped for solution, but as in any country in the world, that is ruled by the guy with the most guns, any money spent on the continent is generally used to kill off the people of the other tribe or family . . add oil, diamonds, natural gas or several other natural resources and the recipe for violence and genocide is complete. The injection of a half a million troops is not going to do much but get a large number of those troops killed and maimed, Several trillion dollars spent, and more political finger pointing, as well as the liberals accusing the conservatives of starting a war with no end . . And we'd end up supporting a welfare state we couldn't afford! While that welfare state would continue selling it's natural resources to China at bargain prices!

Currently, there's the Pirates off Somalia . . The United States Navy is literally the only presence in the adjoining gulf . . until the pirates boarded a Ukranian Ship loaded with Tanks . . The Soviets dispatched ONE Cruiser . . and as far as I know, it still hasn't gotten there . . The EU, nor any of the other Core countries have provided or even offered to assist in controlling this piracy, where over 55 ships, this year, have been boarded and held for millions in Ransom from either the country of flag or the insuror . . Why is this OUR problem?

Europe created Northern Africa's states and those of the Middle East as well . . why are they not being charged with any of the responsibility to police them? And . . the unstability of these countries, for over 50 years, exemplify exactly what happens when a power leaves a country to it's own means after governing it for a period of years . .

Digger Dan
10-25-2008, 07:00 AM
"As for Africa . . Lack of education, blood lines and tribalism dominate the continent, and with radical islam as the catalyst, the future of Africa as a whole is bleak. Globalization is a hoped for solution, but as in any country in the world, that is ruled by the guy with the most guns, any money spent on the continent is generally used to kill off the people of the other tribe or family . . add oil, diamonds, natural gas or several other natural resources and the recipe for violence and genocide is complete. The injection of a half a million troops is not going to do much but get a large number of those troops killed and maimed, Several trillion dollars spent, and more political finger pointing, as well as the liberals accusing the conservatives of starting a war with no end . ." ----------Large

Sounds like a good description of the Middle East, and in particular Iraq.

When I lived and worked in Kenya a number of Brits and Americans were helping the Nandi and others help themselves. American and UK help was working then Nixon came along and American lights went off there. Tribalism is, as you said Large, associated with genocide in many areas. Europe certainly has not done its fair share. Your are right when you state that most African states and Middle Eastern States were the creation of European powers. Europe dropped the ball from day one and went to war over their "colonial empires" and the Americans shoot them out of two world wars and Marshaled them out of the chaos of the last one. Now it's time they returned the favor. The Brits have so far been out only true ally.

We gotta lot of fence fixen' and mendin' to do but Europe better take heed because for the most part they may are the first in the line of fire. We got hit big time on 9-11, but the hits since then have been every where else but America. Maybe they will get a clue.

large
10-25-2008, 08:23 AM
We gotta lot of fence fixen' and mendin' to do but Europe better take heed because for the most part they may are the first in the line of fire. We got hit big time on 9-11, but the hits since then have been every where else but America. Maybe they will get a clue.

The "Fence Fixin" started about three weeks ago . . IF the idiots who inherit the Administration take the ball and carry it . . Basic mathematics will tell you (or anyone with any sense) that we can no longer AFFORD to project our military power beyond the direct protection of our interests . .

Human Rights concerns should be the responsibility of the countries that are providing the money from trade with those countries and those who created the pickle in the first place . .

IF the Hollywood Elite and certain Rich folks want the killing in Darfur to stop, they should take their money, hire mercenaries and go do it . . or perhaps convince Britain, France, Spain and Portugal to fix what they caused 90 years ago with their colonialism . . While I certainly feel for those over there, we have neither the People or money to sacrifice for their well being . . China is buying the natural resources of the country, let them pay the bill . . .

As for the Brits and their status as "Allies" . . Kinda . . but as we have also seen, don't wait for them in a pinch . . They'll send a battalion when a division is needed . . and then pull it out when Bonnie Prince Harry is threatened (Literally) because the British population gets uneasy.

Digger Dan
10-26-2008, 06:26 AM
"Human Rights concerns should be the responsibility of the countries that are providing the money from trade with those countries and those who created the pickle in the first place . ." -----Large

You got it right there. Exploiters never shoulder responsibility; they just suck the well dry.

By the way Brit politicians send their own son's off to military service at a much higher rate than do our politician's. And Large I think the nature of the pinch was a determining factor in the Brits response to Iraq. It took a hell of a lot to get Uncle Sam to help the Brits when they stood alone against Hitler. On the other hand its difficult to trust any politician when push comes to shove and right now we are up to our ears in DonkeyPhant foreign policy do-do and the economics it has produced. Dems and Repubs allowed the over extension of nearly every American vice and/or policy: over extension of credit, over extension of foreign trade without reciprocity, over extension of illegal entry, over extension of outsourcing jobs and in sourcing workers, over extension of the military, over extension of welfare for calloused behinds, over extension of awarding Federal contracts without bidding, and over extension of free money to fat cats at the top and lazy cats at the bottom. The list goes on and on---and finally over extension of credit to the federal government. U.S. government’s politicos and bureaucrats are the greatest exploiters of the legit taxpayers. All we have to do is look at the tax loopholes. That's when we discover that the man and woman with the calloused hand is in reality paying more in taxes than those with a calloused behind. Donkeyphants and their allies are so busy searching out every dollar that they don't realize the goose is getting shafted. If the goose doesn't shut off the eggs it's a goner. Time for the goose to shut off the eggs and raise the flag of liberation and prepare to battle the "calloused behinds".

The well's running dry!

large
10-26-2008, 09:44 AM
"Over Extension" is basically defined in your missive as "Talk but Do Nothing"?

Pretty much . .

But there's a problem here, about the taxes . . Currently, the rich pay about 80% of the taxes our government spends. True, if you and your wife make much over $40k you're gonna pay some, but nowhere near 35% across the board . . Also, people under the $35k level pay little or NO taxes and those under $28k generally get a "negative rebate" if they understand how to file correctly . .

Now, currently, both candidates are in a big discussion over tax cuts and the "Middle Class" . . which causes one to wonder, "Just Who are they talking about when they speak of The Middle Class?" I know people who gross over $500k a year, who are by Obama's definition "Rich" but don't live that much differently than you or I . . And they are definitely "Middle Class", just like they were when they were doing without so their business could grow . . And any more, I can point to some who are worth at least a Million Dollars if they were to liquidate when the economy's right . . but, again, they're "Middle Class" because of how they live and the fact that when the net is figured out, they're not doing any better than you or I . .

Even Bill Gates . . I can't put him in the puddle with the "Rich" . . simply because he does so much good with his wealth. He just puts it where it will do the most good as he sees it, not where Obama or John wants to waste it on something less important . .

The Rich, as I see it, are those who risk other people's money, and are protected by the government from losing their own . . Those are the same people who make payments to the Legislators to get re elected . . and there's entirely too many of both . . Sure they ought to pay more . . but to single them out would be unconstitutional . . wouldn't it?

masonranch
10-26-2008, 02:14 PM
I know people who gross over $500k a year, who are by Obama's definition "Rich" but don't live that much differently than you or I . . And they are definitely "Middle Class", just like they were when they were doing without so their business could grow . . And any more, I can point to some who are worth at least a Million Dollars if they were to liquidate when the economy's right . . but, again, they're "Middle Class" because of how they live and the fact that when the net is figured out, they're not doing any better than you or I . .

Even Bill Gates . . I can't put him in the puddle with the "Rich" . . simply because he does so much good with his wealth. He just puts it where it will do the most good as he sees it, not where Obama or John wants to waste it on something less important . .



I think what you are trying to say is that money can be used for personal necessity, comfort, and Aggrandizement in which case it is Wealth or it can be used to build a business, build factories, or innovation in which case it is Capital and it creates jobs. The "Rich" person who lives frugally should not have his "capital" taken away, that is his ability to grow the economy to the benefit of all, from him but only be taxed on his high living, if any. That's exactly what the "Fair Tax" does. It taxes Consumption (Wealth) and leaves capital and productive efforts completely alone to flower completely. Both are Money and in an instant can be used either way. In an instant the Fair Tax taxes on personal consumption not depending on what the expediture is for.

But then it saps power from the legislative elite and isn't politically correct.

large
10-26-2008, 02:33 PM
Well, Mike, I don't ever foresee a "Fair Tax" being legislated . . Primarily, it's too simple . . It's hard to hide "Hidden taxes' in it, and "passing it down" to the consumer is far more difficult . . Plus, the guys who need favors from the legislators would find it either harder or more expensive to get them as deductions or tax credits . .

Gotta ask, as I don't totally understand the intricacies of the "Fair Tax", how do tax credits and subsidies work? And if they don't . . how are the Politicians going to subsidize the wind, ethanol and solar power deals? There certainly won't be any money in those deals without subsidies!