It is official: Powell Endorse Obama

[HAL 9000 96]

Well I am surprised that there are no connections between Obama and Louis Farrakan given the latest round of guilt by association lunacies. I mean, in the same neighborhood you have Obama, Ayers, Farrakan, Former Senator Mosley-Braun, Nobel Prize-winning scientists, etc.

Oh... across the street from Obama's house there's a Synagogue. That must be it.

Even though that was a "softball" waiting to be hit, McCain knew to "go there" would quickly spin out of control.

The Left "owns the race-card" for McCain to point out Barak went to a Racist church would have been way to Risky.

If you doubt this you tell me what White person could have sat in a Church from like 20 years that

on it's membership paperwork Preaches "Black values" (IE; doing business with blacks etc).

\What white could survive attending a Church who Honors as a brother a leader who hold as a tenant that Black are descended from the devil (As the Nation of Islam believes about whites).

one could go one and on about his Church and the things it says about Barak, but's it's all "off the table" now and a little boring to believers of "The Obama Nation".

What Racist Church would that be? He sat there literally for 20 years? Is he publically professing the hatred?

Wasn't there also a White Guilt excuse some folks want to use to replace any logical discussion for actual history and its consequences or can we ignore that one just for kicks? Because if we want to use it I am sure that hateful church could theoretically accomodate a few token white folks that hate their own race.

Really... maybe you don't realize that cheap rhetoric doesn't translate to more votes for McCain in this election- or so it seems. In fact it looks like its turning votes off from McCain, increasing the margin for his opponent.

Well, Danno. Denial is the typical answer. I'll be satisfied to sit back and let them feel the sorry consequences of what they believed about Obama, in contrast to reality, coz you can't tell them otherwise.

So many voters would therefore have to be in la la land.

Or in other words... given the unstoppable amount of proof Obama is a racist because he went to church...

Yeah... get over it.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Well I am surprised that there are no connections between Obama and Louis Farrakan given the latest round of guilt by association lunacies. I mean, in the same neighborhood you have Obama, Ayers, Farrakan, Former Senator Mosley-Braun, Nobel Prize-winning scientists, etc.

Oh... across the street from Obama's house there's a Synagogue. That must be it.

Even though that was a "softball" waiting to be hit, McCain knew to "go there" would quickly spin out of control.

The Left "owns the race-card" for McCain to point out Barak went to a Racist church would have been way to Risky.

If you doubt this you tell me what White person could have sat in a Church from like 20 years that

on it's membership paperwork Preaches "Black values" (IE; doing business with blacks etc).

\What white could survive attending a Church who Honors as a brother a leader who hold as a tenant that Black are descended from the devil (As the Nation of Islam believes about whites).

one could go one and on about his Church and the things it says about Barak, but's it's all "off the table" now and a little boring to believers of "The Obama Nation".

What Racist Church would that be? He sat there literally for 20 years? Is he publically professing the hatred?

Wasn't there also a White Guilt excuse some folks want to use to replace any logical discussion for actual history and its consequences or can we ignore that one just for kicks? Because if we want to use it I am sure that hateful church could theoretically accomodate a few token white folks that hate their own race.

Really... maybe you don't realize that cheap rhetoric doesn't translate to more votes for McCain in this election- or so it seems. In fact it looks like its turning votes off from McCain, increasing the margin for his opponent.

Well, Danno. Denial is the typical answer. I'll be satisfied to sit back and let them feel the sorry consequences of what they believed about Obama, in contrast to reality, coz you can't tell them otherwise.

So many voters would therefore have to be in la la land.

Or in other words... given the unstoppable amount of proof Obama is a racist because he went to church...

Yeah... get over it.

There's plenty of evidence that Obama is a racist, but it would be lost on you.

[HAL 9000 96]

Well I am surprised that there are no connections between Obama and Louis Farrakan given the latest round of guilt by association lunacies. I mean, in the same neighborhood you have Obama, Ayers, Farrakan, Former Senator Mosley-Braun, Nobel Prize-winning scientists, etc.

Oh... across the street from Obama's house there's a Synagogue. That must be it.

Even though that was a "softball" waiting to be hit, McCain knew to "go there" would quickly spin out of control.

The Left "owns the race-card" for McCain to point out Barak went to a Racist church would have been way to Risky.

If you doubt this you tell me what White person could have sat in a Church from like 20 years that

on it's membership paperwork Preaches "Black values" (IE; doing business with blacks etc).

\What white could survive attending a Church who Honors as a brother a leader who hold as a tenant that Black are descended from the devil (As the Nation of Islam believes about whites).

one could go one and on about his Church and the things it says about Barak, but's it's all "off the table" now and a little boring to believers of "The Obama Nation".

What Racist Church would that be? He sat there literally for 20 years? Is he publically professing the hatred?

Wasn't there also a White Guilt excuse some folks want to use to replace any logical discussion for actual history and its consequences or can we ignore that one just for kicks? Because if we want to use it I am sure that hateful church could theoretically accomodate a few token white folks that hate their own race.

Really... maybe you don't realize that cheap rhetoric doesn't translate to more votes for McCain in this election- or so it seems. In fact it looks like its turning votes off from McCain, increasing the margin for his opponent.

Well, Danno. Denial is the typical answer. I'll be satisfied to sit back and let them feel the sorry consequences of what they believed about Obama, in contrast to reality, coz you can't tell them otherwise.

So many voters would therefore have to be in la la land.

Or in other words... given the unstoppable amount of proof Obama is a racist because he went to church...

Yeah... get over it.

There's plenty of evidence that Obama is a racist, but it would be lost on you.

Forget about me- focus, focus, focus on the millions of other voters that think different and more so, that bringing it up is little more than petty cheap politics.

Including a sizeable portion of the Republican Party.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Forget about me- focus, focus, focus on the millions of other voters that think different and more so, that bringing it up is little more than petty cheap politics.

Including a sizeable portion of the Republican Party.

The American electorate is enormously reactionary. Still, while you can have your own opinion, you can't have your own facts. Obama is a racist and his own words and acts are the best evidence of that.

[HAL 9000 96]

Forget about me- focus, focus, focus on the millions of other voters that think different and more so, that bringing it up is little more than petty cheap politics.

Including a sizeable portion of the Republican Party.

The American electorate is enormously reactionary. Still, while you can have your own opinion, you can't have your own facts. Obama is a racist and his own words and acts are the best evidence of that.

Reason will put it this way in this particular example:

Logic and millions of voters vs your logic.

I am soothed more by the reassurance that Obama is neither racist, nor Powell isn't a Democrat than by your opinion in the matter- be it informed in the 'evidence' that only you and a minority of the voting Republican Party believes.

I wouldn't write off the American electorate, being yourself a member of it as being reactionary, unless you are prepared to accept that your interpretations based on hearsay, associations, and your own personal distoritons of reality, inform your decision making process. Good luck with that, though. Not that I as an individual particularly care for any of it.

Bottom line is, its an election, and votes are what count. Not what one person believes along with a very small group of people- given all the attention the matter has been given.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Forget about me- focus, focus, focus on the millions of other voters that think different and more so, that bringing it up is little more than petty cheap politics.

Including a sizeable portion of the Republican Party.

The American electorate is enormously reactionary. Still, while you can have your own opinion, you can't have your own facts. Obama is a racist and his own words and acts are the best evidence of that.

Reason will put it this way in this particular example:

Logic and millions of voters vs your logic.

I am soothed more by the reassurance that Obama is neither racist, nor Powell isn't a Democrat than by your opinion in the matter- be it informed in the 'evidence' that only you and a minority of the voting Republican Party believes.

I wouldn't write off the American electorate, being yourself a member of it as being reactionary, unless you are prepared to accept that your interpretations based on hearsay, associations, and your own personal distoritons of reality, inform your decision making process. Good luck with that, though. Not that I as an individual particularly care for any of it.

Bottom line is, its an election, and votes are what count. Not what one person believes along with a very small group of people- given all the attention the matter has been given.

You don't know what the majority believes. You only think you know what the majority believes. I could say the same thing about how your interpretations are based on hearsay, associations, and your own personal distoritons of reality, informing your decision making process, and be just as accurate as you are.

The media is in bed with Obama. That is obvious by the way they are so negative toward McCain and so loving and softball toward Obama. If this is the way you want to be informed and are ready to accept such piss poor journalism as a hallmark of the Obama age, then good luck with that. I won't be so easily lead.

Edited October 20, 2008 by Virtual wife

[HAL 9000 96]

Forget about me- focus, focus, focus on the millions of other voters that think different and more so, that bringing it up is little more than petty cheap politics.

Including a sizeable portion of the Republican Party.

The American electorate is enormously reactionary. Still, while you can have your own opinion, you can't have your own facts. Obama is a racist and his own words and acts are the best evidence of that.

Reason will put it this way in this particular example:

Logic and millions of voters vs your logic.

I am soothed more by the reassurance that Obama is neither racist, nor Powell isn't a Democrat than by your opinion in the matter- be it informed in the 'evidence' that only you and a minority of the voting Republican Party believes.

I wouldn't write off the American electorate, being yourself a member of it as being reactionary, unless you are prepared to accept that your interpretations based on hearsay, associations, and your own personal distoritons of reality, inform your decision making process. Good luck with that, though. Not that I as an individual particularly care for any of it.

Bottom line is, its an election, and votes are what count. Not what one person believes along with a very small group of people- given all the attention the matter has been given.

You don't know what the majority believes. You only think you know what the majority believes. I could say the same thing about how your interpretations are based on hearsay, associations, and your own personal distoritons of reality, informing your decision making process, and be just as accurate as you are.

The media is in bed with Obama. That is obvious by the way they are so negative toward McCain and so loving and softball toward Obama. If this is the way you want to be informed and are ready to accept such piss poor journalism as a hallmark of the Obama age, then good luck with that. I won't be so easily lead.

OK. I don't know.

So? Neither do you.

I'm not talking about the liberal media... Focus on the electorate. The same electorate you now are apparently willing to insult by calling reactionary. Your words- not mine.

[nowhereman 1]

Too bad he has lost all respect as far as I am concerned. He was a distinguished person but now I dont respect him. He could have made a great politician. But he bent over to the Evil Bush administration and kissed ###, then he felt guilty or something , and left it. Well I lost all respect for him, he stood by while the whole country bellieved LIE after LIE after Lie and because of that innocent people have been dieing in IRaq.

So his endorsement means nothing to me, but that politicians play a good game , even Obama.

He wouldn't make a good politician, he is a soldier. There is a reason he won't run for public office. He didn't kiss a$$, he said and did what he felt was right with the information that he had available to him. That information was wrong.

Powell was a great military leader and an outstanding Secretary of State (200X better than Rice). I can see why some people lost respect for him after the WMD presentation & yes that was a low point as Secretary of State, but it's obvious that the Bush administration used him (Powell had credibility & Bush tapped into that). As I see it Powell is still a great man & he understands the complexities of foreign policy more than the vast majority of his peers. We all make mistakes & someone should be judged on the body of their accomplishments & failures, not just one incident.

There are two Republicans I would have voted for & Powell is one.... the other is Arnold S and he's not eligible because he's a naturalized citizen. As for the reason he didn't run for president I heard that his wife has mental health issues & Powell didn't want his wife to be subjected to the inherent scrutinity that a run for president entails.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I'm not talking about the liberal media... Focus on the electorate. The same electorate you now are apparently willing to insult by calling reactionary. Your words- not mine.

Reactionary is not an insult, it's a description. If you think that much of the electorate is not being reactionary this year, all I can say is WOW!, just WOW!

[nowhereman 1]

I'm not talking about the liberal media... Focus on the electorate. The same electorate you now are apparently willing to insult by calling reactionary. Your words- not mine.

Reactionary is not an insult, it's a description. If you think that much of the electorate is not being reactionary this year, all I can say is WOW!, just WOW!

Reactionary = Right of ####### Cheney (scary)

Radical = Left of Michael Moore (equally scary)

Moderate= Where most reasonable people (regardless of party) are.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

Powell was a great military leader and an outstanding Secretary of State (200X better than Rice). I can see why some people lost respect for him after the WMD presentation & yes that was a low point as Secretary of State, but it's obvious that the Bush administration used him (Powell had credibility & Bush tapped into that). As I see it Powell is still a great man & he understands the complexities of foreign policy more than the vast majority of his peers. We all make mistakes & someone should be judged on the body of their accomplishments & failures, not just one incident.

There are two Republicans I would have voted for & Powell is one.... the other is Arnold S and he's not eligible because he's a naturalized citizen. As for the reason he didn't run for president I heard that his wife has mental health issues & Powell didn't want his wife to be subjected to the inherent scrutinity that a run for president entails.

I would vote for Powell over McCain or Obama. I think it should be obvious that Bush tapped into Powell's credibility for the WMD speech at the UN. I think he believed that Iraq had WMD. He was given faulty intelligence info. Who knows, maybe even Bush thought the info was true. I think he has been a man true to himself and his country.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Powell was a great military leader and an outstanding Secretary of State (200X better than Rice). I can see why some people lost respect for him after the WMD presentation & yes that was a low point as Secretary of State, but it's obvious that the Bush administration used him (Powell had credibility & Bush tapped into that). As I see it Powell is still a great man & he understands the complexities of foreign policy more than the vast majority of his peers. We all make mistakes & someone should be judged on the body of their accomplishments & failures, not just one incident.

There are two Republicans I would have voted for & Powell is one.... the other is Arnold S and he's not eligible because he's a naturalized citizen. As for the reason he didn't run for president I heard that his wife has mental health issues & Powell didn't want his wife to be subjected to the inherent scrutinity that a run for president entails.

I would vote for Powell over McCain or Obama. I think it should be obvious that Bush tapped into Powell's credibility for the WMD speech at the UN. I think he believed that Iraq had WMD. He was given faulty intelligence info. Who knows, maybe even Bush thought the info was true. I think he has been a man true to himself and his country.

[HAL 9000 96]

I'm not talking about the liberal media... Focus on the electorate. The same electorate you now are apparently willing to insult by calling reactionary. Your words- not mine.

Reactionary is not an insult, it's a description. If you think that much of the electorate is not being reactionary this year, all I can say is WOW!, just WOW!

Well perhaps I'll give you the benefit of the doubt... in redefining what the term means. Or we can do what any rational people can do- refer to the dictionary for the meaning of the word reactionary:

link 1

–adjective 1.of, pertaining to, marked by, or favoring reaction, esp. extreme conservatism or rightism in politics; opposing political or social change. –noun 2.a reactionary person.

(giving you the advantage and benefit of it being a descriptor, hence- and adjective)

with six other definitions and related definitions, all pertaining to the same political context you use to describe the American electorate in mass.

your grade: FAIL

extra credit for corroboration:

link 2

link 3

link 4

Conclusion:

Since the majority of the American electorate is subscribed to your self-described Dimocratic Party, and you don't use that in a light tone, plus your redefinition of the American electorate as massively reactionary- which its not, you actually have a quagmire in terms.

So yeah... most definitely, WOW.

I'm not talking about the liberal media... Focus on the electorate. The same electorate you now are apparently willing to insult by calling reactionary. Your words- not mine.

Reactionary is not an insult, it's a description. If you think that much of the electorate is not being reactionary this year, all I can say is WOW!, just WOW!

Reactionary = Right of ####### Cheney (scary)

Radical = Left of Michael Moore (equally scary)

Moderate= Where most reasonable people (regardless of party) are.

Indeed brother nowhere.