WHO IS Colin Powell?!?!?!

[Keller]

A man who endorses a man who launched his political career in the home of a terrorist? I think we need to be more cautious of this Powell fellow. Is he an Arab?

_______________________________________________

WASHINGTON (AP) - Former Secretary of State Colin Powell has endorsed Democrat Barack Obama for president, describing the Illinois senator as a "transformational figure."


Powell says both Obama and Republican John McCain are qualified to be commander in chief. But, in an interview Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press," he said Obama is better suited to handle the nation's economic problems as well as help improve it's standing in the world.
Powell expressed disappointment in the negative tone of McCain's campaign, as well as in his choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as the Republican vice presidential nominee. Powell says he does not believe Palin is ready to take over as president, if necessary.

Link: http://www.breitbart.com/print.php?id=D93TJF5O1&show_article=1

[Mabus]

A man who endorses a man who launched his political career in the home of a terrorist? I think we need to be more cautious of this Powell fellow. Is he an Arab?

Was he holding up a vial of powder and pointing at a diagram of a truck when he did so?

[Keller]

Was he holding up a vial of powder and pointing at a diagram of a truck when he did so?


Powder?

He's a black man.

It was a vial of rocks.

[Mabus]

Powder?

He's a black man.

It was a vial of rocks.
Racist.

[Parkbandit]

So Powell is part of the 95% of blacks supporting Obama?

Shocking. Really.

[Mabus]

So Powell is part of the 95% of blacks supporting Obama?

Shocking. Really.
I heard Jesse Jackson endorsed him too!

Jackson even said, "Zionists who have controlled American policy for decades" remain strong, they will lose much of their clout when Obama enters the White House."

[Tea & Strumpets]

I'm sure this will be the nail in the coffin for Obama's campaign. Every Democrat knows that Colin Powell is an Uncle Tom that lies for George Bush to the United Nations.

[Keller]

I'm sure this will be the nail in the coffin for Obama's campaign. Every Democrat knows that Colin Powell is an Uncle Tom that lies for George Bush to the United Nations.

I've always held Powell in very high regard for the way he handled that situation.

He quietly resigned and never wrote a book after being abused by the administration. That was about the most professional way he could have handled that disgraceful situation.

[Keller]

So Powell is part of the 95% of blacks supporting Obama?

Shocking. Really.

Out of curiousity, what percent of blacks supported Kerry?

[Tsa`ah]

Out of curiousity, what percent of blacks supported Kerry?

You should know better than to ask him about facts.

[Parkbandit]

I'm sure this will be the nail in the coffin for Obama's campaign. Every Democrat knows that Colin Powell is an Uncle Tom that lies for George Bush to the United Nations.


Exactly.

Powell was nothing but a victim of the evil George W Bush empire.

[Parkbandit]

You should know better than to ask him about facts.

You should have an excellent view.. living in that glass house, Shit4Brains.

PS - Are you STILL humping my leg?

[Tsa`ah]

Exactly.

Powell was nothing but a victim of the evil George W Bush empire.

The choice of Powell was to legitimize, or give credibility, the the rest of Bush's cabinet.


You should have an excellent view.. living in that glass house, Shit4Brains.

PS - Are you STILL humping my leg?

Get a new insult. The current selection makes you appear worse than the person you're insulting.


http://www.fotosearch.com/comp/phd/phd427/dog-humping-a-womans-leg-~-92041.jpg

Also ... repeating another person's insult only shows your lack of creative thought.

[Parkbandit]

The choice of Powell was to legitimize, or give credibility, the the rest of Bush's cabinet.


http://www.fotosearch.com/comp/phd/phd427/dog-humping-a-womans-leg-~-92041.jpg

[Keller]

Powell is KILLING it on Meet the Press.

Wow.

Watch it on YouTube if you missed it.

[Parkbandit]

The choice of Powell was to legitimize, or give credibility, the the rest of Bush's cabinet.



Get a new insult. The current selection makes you appear worse than the person you're insulting.



Also ... repeating another person's insult only shows your lack of creative thought.

Actually, making fun of someone's stupid comment makes it funny. And it makes it even funnier that you somehow think you invented the ol' "Humping my leg" insult. "IT WAS MY INSULT FIRST!!!"

Makes you look even more foolish, doesn't it Shit4Brains...

I know.. I've done the impossible.. made you look MORE foolish. JUST when we thought you had hit the lowest possible mark on the foolish meter..

[Keller]

Actually, making fun of someone's stupid comment makes it funny. And it makes it even funnier that you somehow think you invented the ol' "Humping my leg" insult. "IT WAS MY INSULT FIRST!!!"

Makes you look even more foolish, doesn't it Shit4Brains...

I know.. I've done the impossible.. made you look MORE foolish. JUST when we thought you had hit the lowest possible mark on the foolish meter..

In that case: Could you please stop humping Tsa'ah's leg?

You're truly providing the perfect example of hypocricy.

[Mabus]

Out of curiousity, what percent of blacks supported Kerry?
Around 88% if I remember.

[Mabus]

Powell is KILLING it on Meet the Press.
His hacking, coughing and looking like a stooge did not impress me. He has a "caught in the headlights" look that made me wonder what position he was offered.

The leading questions from Brokaw also show why they need someone new.

Powell also showed that this was a timed event meant to influence people near the end of the election. He mentioned he has come to this decision "in the last couple of months" (paraphrasing).

Political theater.

Here is some of my own:
Brokaw: Isn't Obama wonderful!

Powell: My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence.

Brokaw: Are you sure McCain should not be president?

Powell: There is no doubt in my mind that John McCain has WMD's in his pants.

Boring, staged and predictable.

[Mabus]

In that case: Could you please stop humping Tsa'ah's leg?
Careful, You'll make Keller jealous. Then he will post in another topic about you!
;)

[Tsa`ah]

You're kidding right? Brokaw saying Obama is wonderful, without being sarcastic?

[Mabus]

You're kidding right? Brokaw saying Obama is wonderful, without being sarcastic?
The last portion was theater, read the post.

For why I viewed Brokaw that way, watch the interview.

[Parkbandit]

His hacking, coughing and looking like a stooge did not impress me. He has a "caught in the headlights" look that made me wonder what position he was offered.

The leading questions from Brokaw also show why they need someone new.

Powell also showed that this was a timed event meant to influence people near the end of the election. He mentioned he has come to this decision "in the last couple of months" (paraphrasing).

Political theater.

Here is some of my own:
Brokaw: Isn't Obama wonderful!

Powell: My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence.

Brokaw: Are you sure McCain should not be president?

Powell: There is no doubt in my mind that John McCain has WMD's in his pants.

Boring, staged and predictable.

That show used to be one of my favorite Sunday morning rituals.. I can't bear to watch it anymore. NBC ruined a very unique political show that was one of the most unbiased political shows on TV.

They should just let Keith Olbermann moderate it after Brokaw retires again.

[Mabus]

That show used to be one of my favorite Sunday morning rituals.. I can't bear to watch it anymore. NBC ruined a very unique political show that was one of the most unbiased political shows on TV.

They should just let Keith Olbermann moderate it after Brokaw retires again.
I will say it again:
Gwen Ifill

I believe she could bring that show back to being a worthwhile form of political media. She is an admitted Democrat, but she has always been fair in every interview I have ever seen her do.

[Keller]

His hacking, coughing and looking like a stooge did not impress me. He has a "caught in the headlights" look that made me wonder what position he was offered.

The leading questions from Brokaw also show why they need someone new.

Powell also showed that this was a timed event meant to influence people near the end of the election. He mentioned he has come to this decision "in the last couple of months" (paraphrasing).

Political theater.

Here is some of my own:
Brokaw: Isn't Obama wonderful!

Powell: My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence.

Brokaw: Are you sure McCain should not be president?

Powell: There is no doubt in my mind that John McCain has WMD's in his pants.

Boring, staged and predictable.

http://divisionstreet.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/crybaby.jpg

[Gan]

Isnt it funny how everyone who ever speaks about Obama, or when Obama speaks at a rally or debate - "he kills/is killing it!".

:rah:
:jerkit:

I like Powell - but he's a man. He has done some good things, but he's still a man.

And yes Mabus. This is political theater.

[Gan]

http://divisionstreet.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/crybaby.jpg

And you make fun of PB breaking out the jpegs.

:rofl:

[Parkbandit]

I will say it again:
Gwen Ifill

I believe she could bring that show back to being a worthwhile form of political media. She is an admitted Democrat, but she has always been fair in every interview I have ever seen her do.


I disagree 100%.

[Parkbandit]

And you make fun of PB breaking out the jpegs.

:rofl:

http://www.vaq34.com/vaq34/wtf-cat.jpg

PS - GOD, I just googled WTF and saw some chick with 2 assholes. Seriously.. WTF!?

[Gan]

http://www.vaq34.com/vaq34/wtf-cat.jpg

PS - GOD, I just googled WTF and saw some chick with 2 assholes. Seriously.. WTF!?

Just pointing out a little hypocrisy for you. The D-Team loves to throw out the jpeg/picture slur when they say your argument is breaking down and you have to resort to pictures.

[875000]

I'm sure this will be the nail in the coffin for Obama's campaign. Every Democrat knows that Colin Powell is an Uncle Tom that lies for George Bush to the United Nations.

Funny. That is what Daily KoS and MoveOn have been arguing for the last several years.

[ElanthianSiren]

I didn't see Powell saying much less or more than what quite a few people have said. McCain fine. Palin, are you fucking kidding me? Paraphrasing.

In that sense, I can't help but echo his sentiment.

[Parkbandit]

Just pointing out a little hypocrisy for you. The D-Team loves to throw out the jpeg/picture slur when they say your argument is breaking down and you have to resort to pictures.

I know.. I was feigning disbelief.

[Keller]

I know.. I was feigning disbelief.

There is a minor distinction between a single jpeg and a pattern of posting jpegs when cornered as you do.

But your ability to quote Gan in a predictable manner is cute.

[DeV]

Race aside, Powell appeals to Moderates and Independents. He has always held a bastion of respect among black intellectuals so a minority of blacks who considered him an "Uncle Tom" were always a minority within a minority. Disliking a man's ideology is one thing, expecting him to automatically shift with the tide as a direct result of his race is quite another. Fuck 'em.

It's more telling that he's a high profile Republican endorsing Obama than a black man, IMHO. I guess we need to sit back and wait for Condi Rice to endorse Obama to really put the nail in the coffin while at the same time highlighting the inherent racism in black people.

[Mabus]

It's more telling that he's a high profile Republican endorsing Obama than a black man, IMHO.
RINO.

He said we did not need 2 more conservative justices in SCOTUS.

[crb]

I find it humorus that Powell cited Obama's "steadiness" and "not changing his positions"

Uh huh. He tax policy has been entirely rewritten about 4 times since the campaign began, and his foreign policy has changed entirely. Energy policy as well.

How convenient it must be for Obama supporters, he has had such variation in official policy you can trick yourself into ignoring the ones you don't like, and latching onto the version you like, and then assume that when elected he'll follow the version you like, rather than any of the other ones that were his official line at some point in the campaign.

[crb]

I didn't see Powell saying much less or more than what quite a few people have said. McCain fine. Palin, are you fucking kidding me? Paraphrasing.

In that sense, I can't help but echo his sentiment.
Did you hear she had Harry Potter banned in 1995?

Honestly... most of what people think they know about Palin is BS.

[Gan]

There is a minor distinction between a single jpeg and a pattern of posting jpegs when cornered as you do.

But your ability to quote Gan in a predictable manner is cute.

And yet the only distinction that is notable when you make fun of someone posting jpegs and then do the exact same thing is that its called hypocrisy.

Pot meet kettle.

[DeV]

RINO.Loyal to the end.


He said we did not need 2 more conservative justices in SCOTUS.Smart man.

[Gan]

Did you hear she had Harry Potter banned in 1995?

Honestly... most of what people think they know about Palin is BS.

Honestly, you can learn everything you need to know about Palin from watching Tina Fey. Get with the program.

[Gan]

He said we did not need 2 more conservative justices in SCOTUS.

Balance is always a good thing. Having 2 more conservative judges - possibly 3 would not represent balance IMO.

No thanks.

[Mabus]

Balance is always a good thing. Having 2 more conservative judges - possibly 3 would not represent balance IMO.

No thanks.
I prefer strict constructionists.

I do not like justices that believe "the meaning of the words changes over time".

It doesn't.

[Stretch]

Colin Powell does not care about black people.

http://xbb.xanga.com/767c8a2014733216516813/m169394519.jpg

[Ilvane]

I think it's great Powell endorsed him. Considering he hasn't come out with other elections and been willing to endorse anyone, I think it's pretty interesting, and nice to know that he thinks Obama can lead better.

Angela

[Warriorbird]

I always assumed white people liked Colin Powell better than black people did. Useful endorsement. Hope it helps enable a slide through the finish line with independents.

[Euler]

I do not like justices that believe "the meaning of the words changes over time".

It doesn't.

Here Here! Words do not change in meaning! If we could get a bunch conservative justices, the country could go back to be being gay.

"All men created equal" means straight, white, land-owning, christian MALES. The rest of you should go back to where you came from.


ooohh...a party full of nothing but white males......Gay old Party indeed...

[diethx]

Here Here! Words do not change in meaning! If we could get a bunch conservative justices, the country could go back to be being gay.

"All men created equal" means straight, white, land-owning, christian MALES. The rest of you should go back to where you came from.


ooohh...a party full of nothing but white males......Gay old Party indeed...

I don't think Mabus would like that.

[Stanley Burrell]

He's the only African American who can speak Yiddish.

He's also Caucasian. Ever since the racial draft.

[Mabus]

Here Here! Words do not change in meaning! If we could get a bunch conservative justices, the country could go back to be being gay.

"All men created equal" means straight, white, land-owning, christian MALES. The rest of you should go back to where you came from.


ooohh...a party full of nothing but white males......Gay old Party indeed...
Skipping the utter nonsense of your post:

The US Constitution should be interpreted as written by the founders, not for passing fads. It is not meant to be some vastly flexible document that each generation can reinterpret to suit their present needs.

There is a way to alter the Constitution, built in; Amendments. If we as a nation see the need to change what the Constitution says we can amend it.

That is the way it is supposed to change.

[Nieninque]

I heard Jesse Jackson endorsed him too!

Jackson even said, "Zionists who have controlled American policy for decades" remain strong, they will lose much of their clout when Obama enters the White House."

You have too many speech marks in that sentence. It makes my eyes bleed.

Re-write it!

[DeV]

Considering he hasn't come out with other elections and been willing to endorse anyone

AngelaServing under 3 Republican presidents wasn't endorsement enough? Let's also not forget he campaigned for Bush during the 2000 presidential election.

[Nieninque]

In that case: Could you please stop humping Tsa'ah's leg?

You're truly providing the perfect example of hypocricy.

Hypocrisy.

[Nieninque]

The choice of Powell was to legitimize, or give credibility, the the rest of Bush's cabinet.


l2proofread.

[Nieninque]

Here is some of my own:
Brokaw: Isn't Obama wonderful!


That would be a question rather than a statement and therefore a question mark should be found at the end of the sentence, not an exclamation mark.

[Nieninque]

Here is some of my own:
Brokaw: Isn't Obama wonderful!


Not to mention it should be "Here are some of my own", rather than "Here is some of my own."

[ElanthianSiren]

Honestly... most of what people think they know about Palin is BS.

Then perhaps she sequestered herself for far too long in the beginning of the campaign. Most people know the interviews she gave and know what she shared at the debate and what she has said in campaign. How is that BS?

I'm not going to sit down with her and ask her what her favorite flavor of jello is because, personally, I don't care.

[Nieninque]

I find it humorus that Powell cited Obama's "steadiness" and "not changing his positions"

Uh huh. He tax policy has been entirely rewritten about 4 times since the campaign began, and his foreign policy has changed entirely. Energy policy as well.

How convenient it must be for Obama supporters, he has had such variation in official policy you can trick yourself into ignoring the ones you don't like, and latching onto the version you like, and then assume that when elected he'll follow the version you like, rather than any of the other ones that were his official line at some point in the campaign.

Fail

[Nieninque]

You're welcome!

[Euler]

The US Constitution should be interpreted as written by the founders,



It is not meant to be some vastly flexible document that each generation can reinterpret to suit their present needs.

so what...we get one shot at guessing what the old men wanted and then that is it? So Dred Scott for example...no fair going back to that decision? Sorry, the constitution has bein interpreted in regards to that matter. Stop re-interpreting to suit your passing fad of equality?

I think maybe interpret does not mean what you think it means. Of course the constitution must be constantly framed in the context of current times and issues.

I guess then that you believe the Roe v. Wade debate is over, right? I mean...our duely appointed justices interpeted the constitution in that matter already...no fair getting your conservative activist judges overthrowing it....right?

Or maybe it is possible that the constitution is a document that could be interpreted differently by two people even if both of them are rational and because of this it is important to continuosly re-examine it as times and situations change?

[Sean of the Thread]

What percentage of the actual voters are black just out of curiosity? I'm too lazy to look it up.

[Stanley Burrell]

What percentage of the actual voters are black just out of curiosity? I'm too lazy to look it up.

Rougly 0.1% (source: Drudge.)

[Moist Happenings]

Fail

Alright either say something remotely constructive pertaining to the topic of the thread or just shut the fuck up.

With that bit of rage out of my system: I like you. I see you make some very informed, intelligent posts on a variety of subjects, but it's this kind of forum troll bullshit that half your posts are made up of that make it very difficult for me to even read anything you post. I'm not saying that I'm entirely innocent of doing that sort of stuff myself, but I think you take it just a little too far and do it a little too often.

On topic:

I think Colin Powell has always and continues to show a lot of class in what he does. He's taken a lot of heat of late for being part of an utterly failed administration, but without knowing for sure the details on it all, I would guess that he would have done things a bit differently if he were the one calling all the shots. He'd have made a good presidential candidate aside from all of this stuff lately.

[Nieninque]

Alright either say something remotely constructive pertaining to the topic of the thread or just shut the fuck up.

With that bit of rage out of my system: I like you. I see you make some very informed, intelligent posts on a variety of subjects, but it's this kind of forum troll bullshit that half your posts are made up of that make it very difficult for me to even read anything you post. I'm not saying that I'm entirely innocent of doing that sort of stuff myself, but I think you take it just a little too far and do it a little too often.


Boo fucking hoo.
This thread was stupid from start to end. I at least gave it some functionality.
You would thank me if you weren't such a stupid cunt.
Once again,
You're welcome.

[Moist Happenings]

Boo fucking hoo.
This thread was stupid from start to end. I at least gave it some functionality.
You would thank me if you weren't such a stupid cunt.
Once again,
You're welcome.

If you don't like a thread or its topic, just don't read it, much less post useless drivel in it. That's what forum trolls do, and you're better than that.

[Nieninque]

If you don't like a thread or its topic, just don't read it, much less post useless drivel in it. That's what forum trolls do, and you're better than that.


If you dont like my posts, just dont read them, much less respond to them with your banal fenian crap.

[Moist Happenings]

If you dont like my posts, just dont read them, much less respond to them with your banal fenian crap.

That's a bit of the pot calling the kettle black what with you having responded flamingly to every post I made in any thread for about two weeks after our argument, but it's good advice that I'm going to listen to from now on. Live and let live (even if you are a loyalist bitch. :P ).

[Nieninque]

You must have made one post then. I'm pretty sure that's the number of your posts I have responded to since your pathetic proclamation that the IRA were "a good bunch of guys."

[Moist Happenings]

You must have made one post then. I'm pretty sure that's the number of your posts I have responded to since your pathetic proclamation that the IRA were "a good bunch of guys."

I'm not going to get back into that argument with you again. We have a difference of opinion. I can accept that. I suggest you do the same. There were four posts if memory serves correctly. If you like I'd be happy to dig them up and PM them to you.

[Nieninque]

Post them here. I dont like to enter into private messaging discussions with nasty fenian bastards.

[Moist Happenings]

Post them here. I dont like to enter into private messaging discussions with nasty fenian bastards.

I understand completely that you'd rather attempt to make me look stupid on a forum rather than actually have a conversation.

I am not going to post them here. We've already derailed this thread and others more than we should. The reason I continued to request to have the argument if we're going to have it in PMs is that nobody cares what sort of shots we'd like to take at each other. If it was some manner of group argument, sure, let's have put it in a thread and have at it. It's not. It's a disagreement between you and I, and we are the only people who care to hear or read about it.

I apologize for making my original post here. I should have known that it would just open up a can of worms. I'm going to let you do your thing, and I'll do mine.

[Nieninque]

I understand completely that you'd rather attempt to make me look stupid on a forum rather than actually have a conversation.

I am not going to post them here because I can't. They don't exist.

That's big of you to admit.

[Nieninque]

Just to clarify further.
You attempted to make a point by claiming that I have followed you around the forum, rabidly responding to every post you make.
You then claimed there were four.
I remember one.
If you think there were more than that, please point them out. I am quite happy to say I am wrong, if presented with the evidence to demonstrate. Otherwise, fuck off and die.
Painfully.
In a gutter.



I apologize for making my original post here. I should have known that it would just open up a can of worms. I'm going to let you do your thing, and I'll do mine.

But isn't that what you do? Start threads or discussions and then say "Oh, I didnt mean to start this thread/discussion and I have nothing to say on the matter." and then run off with your tail between your legs?

[Moist Happenings]

Just to clarify further.
You attempted to make a point by claiming that I have followed you around the forum, rabidly responding to every post you make.
You then claimed there were four.
I remember one.
If you think there were more than that, please point them out. I am quite happy to say I am wrong, if presented with the evidence to demonstrate. Otherwise, fuck off and die.
Painfully.
In a gutter.

Sigh. Alright. Two stick out in my mind right away. When I have time to do so I'll go through old threads and probably come up with more.

In response to a general statement about future generations:


Meh. It WAS mostly kids that played video games. You know. Us. Then we got older and didn't stop playing. Now our kids play, and our kids kids..well they might not have such luxuries unless we fix what we fucked up with the economy.


Your kids have kids?
I thought you were 25?
Fucking pikeys.


In response to:




This isn't going to help you, but I despise specialists, and I still go to my family doctor for everything from gyno to hemaglobin A1Cs, to other endocrine things. I feel I get straighter answers from him than specialists (and trust me, I've seen my share).

IMO it's more important that the doctor not give you the creep out vibes (my first endo went so far as to walk into my hospital room on our first meeting and do a gown check -- he got fired quickly), be accredited, be willing to listen to you, and know wtf they're talking about. You should hear some of the debates I've gotten into with dieticians over the years about why it's okay to prescribe that diabetics eat no sugar, but we're going to say they should eat white starch. But I digress.

The sex of the person isn't important to me as long as they're not creepy, accredited, willing to listen open mindedly, and know wtf they're talking about.

It's in my book.

You officially get:

-10 Woman-ish crazy points
+10 Awesome points.

In other words, that makes a lot of sense to me. If only the secretaries I was talking to were so smart.

For anyone interested, Tayre still has the lead for most woman-ish crazy points ever accrued.



You are no judge of smart.
And if we are talking about personal preference, there is no right or wrong answer.
Take the stick out of your arse and accept that you know shit. life will be far more tolerable for you once you reach that point.

[Moist Happenings]

But isn't that what you do? Start threads or discussions and then say "Oh, I didnt mean to start this thread/discussion and I have nothing to say on the matter." and then run off with your tail between your legs?

I didn't start this thread. I did make a remark that I should have kept to PMs in the first place if I was going to say it, but I was also speaking on the topic of the thread.

All I've done since is realize my mistake and attempt not to derail the thread from its intended discussion. If you'd like to view that as running away with my tail between my legs, that's your prerogative.

[Ravenstorm]

Can we please get back to discussing how all those black people stick together? Racism, pure and simple.

[Moist Happenings]

Can we please get back to discussing how all those black people stick together? Racism, pure and simple.

Seriously! It's them and their black panther parties and their large genitals that are trying to take this nation over!

Repent! The time to atone for the sins of our slave-owning ancestors is close at hand!

[Parkbandit]

I'm not going to get back into that argument with you again.

For someone who said they weren't going to get into an argument.. sure looks like you did.

[Moist Happenings]

For someone who said they weren't going to get into an argument.. sure looks like you did.

I didn't say I wouldn't get into an argument. I said I wouldn't get into THAT argument, which I didn't.

[Ravenstorm]

Getting into an argument about the argument is clearly different.

[Moist Happenings]

Getting into an argument about the argument is clearly different.

Pssht. Clearly. Heh. Honestly I only intended to say that I wasn't going to get back into the argument about the I.R.A. and its merits, or lack thereof, because the both of us have exhausted our opinions of it, and it's clear that there can be no resolution.

As far as another argument, well, I'm all for a healthy debate. Just not one without hope of some sort of resolution.

[Mabus]

That's big of you to admit.
You misquoted him.

Fail.

[Mabus]

Getting into an argument about the argument is clearly different.
I could argue about that.

[Mabus]

so what...we get one shot at guessing what the old men wanted and then that is it?
It is not a guess. You look at their writings, their debates, their definitions and their inspirations surrounding the formation of the document.

So Dred Scott for example...no fair going back to that decision? Sorry, the constitution has bein interpreted in regards to that matter. Stop re-interpreting to suit your passing fad of equality?
That is a specific case, not the Constitution itself.

You do know the difference, correct?

In that case he had no standing, as the Constitution did not consider him a citizen. That was changed by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Even then, "statutory construction" and "statutory interpretation" are very different from "constitutional interpretation".

I think maybe interpret does not mean what you think it means. Of course the constitution must be constantly framed in the context of current times and issues.
You seem to be putting forward "if we, as a society, can just change the meaning if our words then we have changed our previously existing laws and Constitution". I see that as utter nonsense.

I guess then that you believe the Roe v. Wade debate is over, right? I mean...our duely appointed justices interpeted the constitution in that matter already...no fair getting your conservative activist judges overthrowing it....right?
Wrong.

Or maybe it is possible that the constitution is a document that could be interpreted differently by two people even if both of them are rational and because of this it is important to continuosly re-examine it as times and situations change?
Nope.

There was original meaning to the words, and original intent of our founders, within the document.

If the times, society and situations change to where we as a society feel we need to alter the Constitution we must do so through Amendments, not through some "well, let's just change the meaning again" scheme. The latter method is dangerous to all of us.

[Warriorbird]

If you'd really spent '30 year studying the Constitution' versus Internet pretended to you'd question the interpretive biases behind 'strict construction' even more, Mabus. But since you're Internet pretending you're content to use it in the 'code for being pro life, pro torture, and anti gay marriage' sense.

[Mabus]

If you'd really spent '30 year studying the Constitution' versus Internet pretended to you'd question the interpretive biases behind 'strict construction' even more, Mabus. But since you're Internet pretending you're content to use it in the 'code for being pro life, pro torture, and anti gay marriage' sense.
I was studying the Constitution before there was an internet. Strike 1.

I am not anti-gay or pro-torture. That is strike 2 and strike 3.


You're out!
:club:


I am Pro-life. If that is meant as some slight, it certainly does not bother me to be called "pro life".

I would be willing to discuss any of those issues (gay marriage, torture, aversion to baby killing) or the Constitution further. Start a thread. I will see you there.

You failed to discuss any of the issues of the post, the previous post quoted or the OP's post. Even then you were incorrect in three assumptions in two badly constructed sentences.

But a troll like you wouldn't care about that, would you?

[Warriorbird]

I do it for the lulz.

What do you do over 1000 posts of Obama hate for?

If you've been studying the Constitution pre DARPAnet... what the fuck are you doing here?

[Mabus]

I do it for the lulz.

What do you do over 1000 posts of Obama hate for?
You equate truth, facts and political discussion with hate. That shows a lot about you.

[Mabus]

If you've been studying the Constitution pre DARPAnet... what the fuck are you doing here?
To address your edit:

OLD GS addict. Sue me.

[Warriorbird]

When you focus your output on a message board solely to attacking one specific politician... I wonder what you're going for? You've surely got better things to do with your time being such a huge Constitutional scholar.

Your own 'strict constructionalist' views tend to run counter to nearly all of the conservative wing of the court.

[Mabus]

When you focus your output on a message board solely to attacking one specific politician... I wonder what you're going for? You've surely got better things to do with your time being such a huge Constitutional scholar.
If you want to have an off topic conversation with me please take it to PM's.

If you want to score some imaginary points by bringing up a failed tactic of yours (oh my gosh, you post about a politician you disagree with!) please do continue.

[Mabus]

Your own 'strict constructionalist' views tend to run counter to nearly all of the conservative wing of the court.
Again, to address your edit:
I am an Originalist, not a "strict constructionalist" (whatever that is supposed to mean). There is a difference.

[Warriorbird]

Ah... so who do you think on the court backs your view of things? Do you think that the judges that McCain would appoint would?

[Mabus]

Ah... so who do you think on the court backs your view of things? Do you think that the judges that McCain would appoint would?
Scalia is close to my views, though he does use some more liberal thought then I would like when dealing with the Constitution.

:thinking:

[Warriorbird]

I guess my critique of that whole theory is that while he may espouse it (and quite eloquently) I don't feel as though it is actually running through all of his opinions. I also find 'original meaning' sets the judge up as some sort of oracle. The Federalist Society may shout that kind of thing from the rooftops but I don't feel it has much bearing on the practical ways things get decided on the Court.

[Davenshire]

I've always held Powell in very high regard for the way he handled that situation.

He quietly resigned and never wrote a book after being abused by the administration. That was about the most professional way he could have handled that disgraceful situation.



Agree completely.

[Nieninque]

Sigh. Alright. Two stick out in my mind right away. When I have time to do so I'll go through old threads and probably come up with more.

In response to a general statement about future generations:

In response to:

Very good. You found two responses. One fails to meet the "flamingly" description, but you can count that just the same.

So far that's a long way from "what with you having responded flamingly to every post I made in any thread for about two weeks after our argument"

Keep looking.

[TheEschaton]

In that case he had no standing, as the Constitution did not consider him a citizen. That was changed by the Fourteenth Amendment.

So, in the case of Dred Scott, you're saying the decision came out correctly? Because Dred Scott had no standing because he was considered a piece of property, the Court was right to deny his claim?

Originalists like you scare me. Most of the founding fathers were racists and small-minded people. There are literally maybe a handful who rose above it, and yet they still owned slaves.

If you can't see how original intent is a flawed constitutional construct, I have nothing to say to you. This is like saying the Bible said 2000 years ago that we shouldn't wear blended fabrics, and thus, it should apply today. The people who follow original intent in the Muslim world, for example, are the same people you call terrorists now.

-TheE-

[Mabus]

So, in the case of Dred Scott, you're saying the decision came out correctly? Because Dred Scott had no standing because he was considered a piece of property, the Court was right to deny his claim?
Constitutionally, yes.

Does that make it morally, ethically or otherwise correct? Of course not.

That is why (one of the reasons, at least) we Amended the Constitution to redefine citizenship with the 14th Amendment.

Originalists like you scare me. Most of the founding fathers were racists and small-minded people. There are literally maybe a handful who rose above it, and yet they still owned slaves.
I am not descended from slave owners, nor have I ever owned slaves.


If you can't see how original intent is a flawed constitutional construct, I have nothing to say to you.
Happy days are here again!

Is that a promise?


This is like saying the Bible said 2000 years ago that we shouldn't wear blended fabrics, and thus, it should apply today. The people who follow original intent in the Muslim world, for example, are the same people you call terrorists now.
Complete and utter bullshit you are spouting there.

The US Constitution is one of the most amazing documents in the history of humanity. Part of its beauty is the defined structure it set, and part is the ability to change that structure only through Amendments.

[TheEschaton]

And if you can't see the current day political climate and scope of the country as untenable for making Amendments, and that the Founding Fathers could not have foreseen a country like this, there's something wrong with you.

Secondly, I never called you a slave owner or descended from one. However, you are advocating a constitutional standard that says the best way is to interpret the Constitution through the INTENT of the original Founding Fathers; I am pointing out that most of those men saw fit to own slaves, therefore I would suggest the fallacy of constitutional scholarship based on their intent.

Thirdly,


The US Constitution is one of the most amazing documents in the history of humanity. Part of its beauty is the defined structure it set, and part is the ability to change that structure only through Amendments.

And it was written by flawed men, just like the Bible (which is why I made the analogy). It is not only subject to be mistaken, it is and WAS mistaken. Included in this ability to be flawed might very well be the structure, including but not limited to the ability to make Amendments.

-TheE-

[Warriorbird]

He probably believes every word of the Bible is perfect too, E.

[Tsa`ah]

I laugh at the notion that Mabus is a constitutional scholar. I've never seen such scholar of such a specific field fail so often at it.

[Warriorbird]

I can buy that he's a high school government teacher or somebody who's a Federalist Society member somewhere.

[Mabus]

And if you can't see the current day political climate and scope of the country as untenable for making Amendments, and that the Founding Fathers could not have foreseen a country like this, there's something wrong with you.
Which shows why it works so well.

Only when a majority of the states can agree to change the Constitution can it be altered. This is what makes it amazing. Much better then "And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed—if all records told the same tale — then the lie passed into history and became truth.", no?

You are a minority of one.

Secondly, I never called you a slave owner or descended from one.
That may be the first sensible thing you have not done.


However, you are advocating a constitutional standard that says the best way is to interpret the Constitution through the INTENT of the original Founding Fathers; I am pointing out that most of those men saw fit to own slaves, therefore I would suggest the fallacy of constitutional scholarship based on their intent.
They were not "prefect", no.

And we still commit infanticide, put the innocent to death, place citizens in the hell holes we call prisons, wage war on nations and pray to the almighty dollar.

Point to a perfect civilization.

We are the longest lasting Constitutional Republic in the history of the world. The men that worked on and wrote that piece of paper were absolute geniuses, and the fact that we still stand proves it.


And it was written by flawed men, just like the Bible (which is why I made the analogy).
It is a highly flawed analogy.

If you are trying to push some religious intent off on me, skip it. You have the wrong person.


It is not only subject to be mistaken, it is and WAS mistaken.
It was and is the greatest stride for human freedom that mankind has ever taken.

Name a better one?


Included in this ability to be flawed might very well be the structure, including but not limited to the ability to make Amendments.
First, this makes no sense and has no basis in fact.

Second, what are you proposing instead? That we return to some dictatorial system where all liberty dies, and all power belongs to the state "for our greater good"?

Insanity.

[Mabus]

He probably believes every word of the Bible is perfect too, E.
You ever post anything correct?

Missed again.

[Tsa`ah]

Your last two posts have been full of "fail".

[Mabus]

I laugh at the notion that Mabus is a constitutional scholar. I've never seen such scholar of such a specific field fail so often at it.
Point to the failures, Feces (or would you rather be called "Bac"?).

If you cannot point the failures, then go back to what you know best; comments male genitalia.

[Mabus]

Your last two posts have been full of "fail".
Gee, another fine post!

I can see why you are so proud and full of shit.

[Tsa`ah]

That post was full of fail as well. I think you need to stick to being a self-proclaimed constitutional scholar ... even though you fail.

[Warriorbird]

Mabus... I'm surprised that with your 30+ years of Constitutional experience you aren't capable of grasping me making fun of you.

:)

[Mabus]

That post was full of fail as well. I think you need to stick to being a self-proclaimed constitutional scholar ... even though you fail.
Yeah, bad day at the office? The boys didn't like your new shirt? I feel pity for you, Feces. I really do.

Point to the exact disagreements with what I posted. Name and post references from the founders. Acctually read the Constitution.

Or continue to post one liners while you twiddle with your favorite word.

:jerkit:

[TheEschaton]

I would say its inability to change its structure and adapt to the times is a flaw which the Founding Fathers would never have intended. To see this, you only have to see what the FOunding Fathers wrote on the tyranny of the majority, and how they tried to protect against it.

Furthermore, you say "It was and is the greatest stride for human freedom that mankind has ever taken," as if this somehow negates the fact that it is often mistaken and needs to be changed. You accuse others of setting strawmen, but that's ALL YOU DO.

And again, power in the state is only bad if you believe government is bad. I, and people on my side, believe that it has great potential for good.

-TheE-

[Tsa`ah]

Yeah, bad day at the office? The boys didn't like your new shirt? I feel pity for you, Feces. I really do.

Point to the exact disagreements with what I posted. Name and post references from the founders. Acctually read the Constitution.

Or continue to post one liners while you twiddle with your favorite word.

:jerkit:

This post, as with your other posts, fails badly. Not only do you fail at constructing sentences, but at spelling ... all too often to be any sort of scholar, let alone to be taken seriously as some sort of self-important, self-proclaimed intellectual.



p.s. William Timmons

[Mabus]

I would say its inability to change its structure and adapt to the times is a flaw which the Founding Fathers would never have intended.
It has changed and adapted over time. It has been amended.


To see this, you only have to see what the FOunding Fathers wrote on the tyranny of the majority, and how they tried to protect against it.
And what are you proposing instead?
A tyranny of the minority.

You would have a minority of people decide "the common good" and we would all fall in line, like lemmings.

Who would choose these people that you want to decide the issues? Should they have a specific educational background? Perhaps a specific party leaning?

Our system does work fine, just as it is, until a small few in power attempt to change what was allowed by the Constitution. FDR, Nixon and the current Bush are certainly examples of executives that have attempted to subvert the Constitution.


Furthermore, you say "It was and is the greatest stride for human freedom that mankind has ever taken," as if this somehow negates the fact that it is often mistaken and needs to be changed.
Name the parts that you feel need changed.

Don't skimp, don't skip it. Post exactly what you feel " is often mistaken and needs to be changed" within the Constitution.

[Mabus]

This post, as with your other posts, fails badly. Not only do you fail at constructing sentences, but at spelling ... all too often to be any sort of scholar, let alone to be taken seriously as some sort of self-important, self-proclaimed intellectual.



p.s. William Timmons
Fail.

[TheEschaton]

Well "the common good," if you believe in morality, is part of natural law, and arises naturally in the soul of the human being, and thus can be discerned by all.

Believe me, Mabus, I am an optimist that, as Gandhi said, "Everyone has the opportunity to do great things."

-TheE-

[TheEschaton]

First, to start, I think restricting Congress's part to merely legislating interstate commerce is a huge, huge problem.

[Mabus]

Well "the common good," if you believe in morality, is part of natural law, and arises naturally in the soul of the human being, and thus can be discerned by all.

Believe me, Mabus, I am an optimist that, as Gandhi said, "Everyone has the opportunity to do great things."

-TheE-
Define "Common Good", and then be specific about who gets to decide what this is.

[Mabus]

First, to start, I think restricting Congress's part to merely legislating interstate commerce is a huge, huge problem.
That is not the only duty of Congress.

See Article-1 Section 8.

[TheEschaton]

THe beauty of the common good is that it is, as your beloved Founding Fathers said, it is self-evident.

I will use someone else's definition of the common good:

[The common good is] "the sum of those conditions of social life which allow social groups and their individual members relatively thorough and ready access to their own fulfillment." The common good, then, consists primarily of having the social systems, institutions, and environments on which we all depend work in a manner that benefits all people. Examples of particular common goods or parts of the common good include an accessible and affordable public health care system, and effective system of public safety and security, peace among the nations of the world, a just legal and political system, and unpolluted natural environment, and a flourishing economic system. Because such systems, institutions, and environments have such a powerful impact on the well-being of members of a society, it is no surprise that virtually every social problem in one way or another is linked to how well these systems and institutions are functioning.


-TheE-

[Ravenstorm]

Scott McClellan, former Bush press secretary, is endorsing Obama (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/23/AR2008102302786.html). Of course, we all know the only reason he's doing that is because he's black. So are the Goldwaters (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cc-goldwater/why-mccain-has-lost-our-v_b_137150.html). And Christopher Buckley (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-10-10/the-conservative-case-for-obama).

On a more serious note, anyone who really considers themselves libertarian or conservative needs to vote for Obama as being the better choice. It's why so many others are voting for him.

[Parkbandit]

OMG! IF SCOTT IS VOTING FOR OBAMA, THEN HOLY SHIT THAT JUST CHANGED MY MIND!!!!

[Ravenstorm]

Screw Scott. Listen to some of the leading conservatives in the country. McClellan is just amusing.

[Parkbandit]

Screw Scott. Listen to some of the leading conservatives in the country. McClellan is just amusing.


I'm still not sure who I'm voting for.

I think it would be a 'riot' if Obama didn't get elected.. after all the media fanfare and rigged polling... but I can't stand McCain and personally, I think the next 4 years are going to suck for either one of them.. so why not let the socialist fuck up for 4 years and then get kicked out on his ear ala Jimmy Carter.. and maybe we'll actually get a conservative majority back in Congress.

[Mabus]

Scott McClellan, former Bush press secretary, is endorsing Obama. Of course, we all know the only reason he's doing that is because he's black.
Wow!

Scott McClellan!

You should go buy his book!

Next thing you know the conservative New York Times will endorse Obama!

[Mabus]

I think it would be a 'riot' if Obama didn't get elected..
It will likely be a "riot" either way.

I wonder which way less TV's will be stolen...

[droit]

Next thing you know the conservative New York Times will endorse Obama!

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/opinion/24fri1.html?hp

[Mabus]

Shocking!

NRA-PVF Endorses John McCain and Sarah Palin for President and Vice-President (http://www.nrapvf.org/news/Read.aspx?ID=11654)

"NRA members and gun owners will not allow Barack Obama to hide his radical record of opposition to our constitutional rights," said Cox. "Obama has voted to make self-defense with a firearm in the home illegal, has voted to ban the most commonly owned hunting shotguns, has voted to ban commonly owned hunting ammunition, and has supported a 500% tax increase on guns and ammunition. We will remind voters every single time he pretends that his anti-gun record doesn't exist."

[Daniel]

It will likely be a "riot" either way.

I wonder which way less TV's will be stolen...

I'll only riot when he gets assassinated.

But hey! That explains your hard on for Obama.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Shocking!

NRA-PVF Endorses John McCain and Sarah Palin for President and Vice-President (http://www.nrapvf.org/news/Read.aspx?ID=11654)

"NRA members and gun owners will not allow Barack Obama to hide his radical record of opposition to our constitutional rights," said Cox. "Obama has voted to make self-defense with a firearm in the home illegal, has voted to ban the most commonly owned hunting shotguns, has voted to ban commonly owned hunting ammunition, and has supported a 500% tax increase on guns and ammunition. We will remind voters every single time he pretends that his anti-gun record doesn't exist."

Unrelated, but your avatar totally reminds me of this:

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/portrayal_of_obama_as_elitist

"You really have to give credit to the American people for being able to look past Obama's skin color to see the Harvard-educated smart ass underneath!"

[Mabus]

I'll only riot when he gets assassinated.
How about the rest of the country?

If he loses, will there be "riots"?
(think Los Angeles riot of 1992)

If he wins, will there be "riots"?
(think Chicago Bulls riot of 1992)

It's just a question the some people in the news have been batting around.

Maybe all those rednecks will be looting the liquor stores?

[Mabus]

"You really have to give credit to the American people for being able to look past Obama's skin color to see the Harvard-educated smart ass underneath!"
:rofl:

[Daniel]

How about the rest of the country?

If he loses, will there be "riots"?
(think Los Angeles riot of 1992)

If he wins, will there be "riots"?
(think Chicago Bulls riot of 1992)

It's just a question the some people in the news have been batting around.

Maybe all those rednecks will be looting the liquor stores?

I don't know mabus. Who do you think will riot and why?

[Parkbandit]

It will likely be a "riot" either way.

I wonder which way less TV's will be stolen...

You honestly believe that there will be riots if Obama is elected? I don't.

[Parkbandit]

I'll only riot when he gets assassinated.

But hey! That explains your hard on for Obama.

Did you already pick out the size TV you will take?

[Ravenstorm]

Next thing you know the conservative New York Times will endorse Obama!

How about the conservative Chicago Tribune? The newspaper which has NEVER endorsed a Democrat for President? Until now. The list of conservative endorsements is longer than you can count even naked.

[Keller]

I don't know mabus. Who do you think will riot and why?

That's a good question.

Mabus, care to give us specifics?

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Did you already pick out the size TV you will take?

Pft, had you watched the WTO protests you'd know that liberals tend to loot Starbucks and gap stores.

" “This activity lasted for over 5 hours and involved the breaking of storefront windows and doors and defacing of facades. Slingshots, newspaper boxes, sledge hammers, mallets, crowbars and nail-pullers were used to strategically destroy corporate property and gain access (one of the three targeted Starbucks and Niketown were looted). "

http://www.carolmoore.net/sfm/seattle.html

[Parkbandit]

How about the conservative Chicago Tribune? The newspaper which has NEVER endorsed a Democrat for President? Until now. The list of conservative endorsements is longer than you can count even naked.


Could it be that Obama is from CHICAGO? OMG! A PAPER SUPPORTING THE HOME TOWNER! SAY IT'S NOT SOOOO!!!

[Stanley Burrell]

Mabus, can you just say you don't like other races as much instead of hiding behind political X-posts? It would save you time.

[Keller]

Could it be that Obama is from CHICAGO? OMG! A PAPER SUPPORTING THE HOME TOWNER! SAY IT'S NOT SOOOO!!!

Are you implying that all conservatives are just cheerleaders?

[Mabus]

Mabus, can you just say you don't like other races as much instead of hiding behind political X-posts? It would save you time.
Don't you have some silly nonsense to post elsewhere?

[Stanley Burrell]

Don't you have some silly nonsense to post elsewhere?

Yes.

Still though, you're closet racist scum.

[Mabus]

That's a good question.

Mabus, care to give us specifics?

Police fear riots if Barack Obama loses US election (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/johnmccain/3248961/Police-fear-riots-if-Barack-Obama-loses-US-election.html).

An exceprt from near the end of the article:

"Meanwhile, in a blog posting entitled 'A McCain "Win" Will Be Theft, Resistance Is Planned', David Swanson, Washington director of Democrats.com and a board member of Progressive Democrats of America, writes: "If your television declares John McCain the president elect on the evening of November 4th, your television will be lying.

"You should immediately pick up your pre-packed bags and head straight to the White House in Washington, DC, which we will surround and shut down until this attempt at a third illegitimate presidency is reversed.

"We may be there for days or weeks or months. But we must be there. We must be there by the millions. We must show each other, and the nation, and the world that we have had enough, that we will not stand for one more stolen election, that we will not give in to fear, lies, theft, and intimidation.""

[Keller]

Police fear riots if Barack Obama loses US election (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/johnmccain/3248961/Police-fear-riots-if-Barack-Obama-loses-US-election.html).

An exceprt from near the end of the article:

"Meanwhile, in a blog posting entitled 'A McCain "Win" Will Be Theft, Resistance Is Planned', David Swanson, Washington director of Democrats.com and a board member of Progressive Democrats of America, writes: "If your television declares John McCain the president elect on the evening of November 4th, your television will be lying.

"You should immediately pick up your pre-packed bags and head straight to the White House in Washington, DC, which we will surround and shut down until this attempt at a third illegitimate presidency is reversed.

"We may be there for days or weeks or months. But we must be there. We must be there by the millions. We must show each other, and the nation, and the world that we have had enough, that we will not stand for one more stolen election, that we will not give in to fear, lies, theft, and intimidation.""

Does the tin foil hat get any radio signals?

[Mabus]

Does the tin foil hat get any radio signals?
Only if you are voting for Obama do you get the tin-foil hat of change.

McCain's campaign does not provide tin foil hats. They spent all the money on shoes!

[TheEschaton]

That sounds like a sit-in, not a riot.

And, oh, btw, I'm pretty sure the Boston Herald (the conservative "answer" to the liberal Boston Globe) didn't endorse Kerry, and he's a Bostonian if there ever was one.

-TheE-

[Parkbandit]

That sounds like a sit-in, not a riot.

And, oh, btw, I'm pretty sure the Boston Herald (the conservative "answer" to the liberal Boston Globe) didn't endorse Kerry, and he's a Bostonian if there ever was one.

-TheE-

No one implied that it happens in every instance.. but that when it DOES happen, it shouldn't be viewed as news.

[DeV]

It's news because the Tribune broke a 161 year tradition. That's pretty much the basis of the "oh no they di'int" reaction. Believe it or not there's a small, but distinct conservative base in Chicago and surrounding suburbs.

Whether or not Obama is from Chicago, the paper is Conservative, Pro-Republican and they went against the grain for the first time since... forever. It might not be news to the rest of the country, but it certainly was news here.

$0.02

[Ravenstorm]

It's just because he's from Chicago.

And it's just because he's black.

And it's just because...

It can't possibly be because he's the better choice even for some of the most prominent conservatives in the country.

But hey, Palin has great tits right?

[Mabus]

Yes.

Still though, you're closet racist scum.
Really?

What race am I?

[Tsa`ah]

It's news because the Tribune broke a 161 year tradition. That's pretty much the basis of the "oh no they di'int" reaction. Believe it or not there's a small, but distinct conservative base in Chicago and surrounding suburbs.

You're being too conservative in your description.

[DeV]

Really?

What race am I?:rofl:

Racism is not bound to any one particular race. Dur.

[DeV]

You're being too conservative in your description.I tried.

[Parkbandit]

It's just because he's from Chicago.

And it's just because he's black.

And it's just because...

It can't possibly be because he's the better choice even for some of the most prominent conservatives in the country.

But hey, Palin has great tits right?

It's an opinion.. nothing more. You are trying to pass this off as something spectacular.. and it's still not. Do I need to post some prominent liberals now backing McCain for you to understand it means nothing but shows a personal decision?

[Warriorbird]

Joe Liebermann != prominent liberal

[Keller]

Joe Liebermann != prominent liberal

??

You recoginze he was the VP nominee in 2000, right?

[Tsa`ah]

??

You recoginze he was the VP nominee in 2000, right?

That only aids the argument of VPs not meaning anything in a GE campaign.

[Nieninque]

Really?

What race am I?

hahahahahahahahahahahaahahahaha

You are a twat. Is that a race?

[Tsa`ah]

Score?

[Keller]

hahahahahahahahahahahaahahahaha

You are a twat. Is that a race?

Maybe. You brits keep coming up with new words and bastardizing the language we've attempted to keep pure.

[Parkbandit]

Joe Liebermann != prominent liberal

I didn't think of him.. but I would most certainly classify him as a prominent liberal.

[Warriorbird]

Ha ha ha.

[Parkbandit]

Ha ha ha.

Awesome retort. I guess you don't have any factual basis to back up your really stupid argument.. so "Ha Ha Ha" is probably the best alternative.

Feel free to back up your claim that either Liebermann isn't prominent or a liberal... otherwise, just throw up another 1 line "zinger" like "Ha Ha Ha"

[Warriorbird]

I'd say that people who leave a party and speak at the opposing party's convention fall under 'prominent traitor.'

[Tsa`ah]

Awesome retort. I guess you don't have any factual basis to back up your really stupid argument.. so "Ha Ha Ha" is probably the best alternative.

Feel free to back up your claim that either Liebermann isn't prominent or a liberal... otherwise, just throw up another 1 line "zinger" like "Ha Ha Ha"

Irony ... pure unadulterated irony. Some would suggest an idiot savant if they hadn't read more than 10 of your posts.

[Keller]

I'd say that people who leave a party and speak at the opposing party's convention fall under 'prominent traitor.'

That's a terrible argument, especially in this context.

[Tsa`ah]

I'd say that people who leave a party and speak at the opposing party's convention fall under 'prominent traitor.'

Lieberman lost his senate primary and chose to run as an independent ... and won. That only proves that CT democrats were woefully ill-informed about the voter base in CT.

Since then he has caucused with the dems .... endorsing McCain doesn't make him a traitor. I question his judgement, but since he's not a Dem he's not a traitor.

If the polling for the senate races hold true through Nov 4, Lieberman will have to seek out admittance to the GOP caucus ... or just have plenty of spare time.

[Warriorbird]

He's consistently to the right of the Democratic party... and if you look at an updated analysis he's more conservative than some liberal conservatives.

(Though I'm sure most Republicans would call Lincoln Chafee all sorts of bad things)

Not what I'd call a prominent 'liberal.'

[Tsa`ah]

He doesn't have a party.

[Warriorbird]

He claimed to during the convention but yes... you are correct.

[Gan]

I'd say that people who leave a party and speak at the opposing party's convention fall under 'prominent traitor.'

The irony of this statement appearing in this very thread. A thread titled WHO IS Colin Powell?!?!?!

:lol:

[Parkbandit]

Irony ... pure unadulterated irony. Some would suggest an idiot savant if they hadn't read more than 10 of your posts.


Oh Tsa'ah, are you humping my leg once again? Seriously Shit4Brains.. if there is ONE individual that shouldn't use the term "idiot" in any post.. it's you. Makes you look foolish.

Then again.. that's never stopped you before, has it...

[Warriorbird]

If Colin Powell were a politician that'd have more bite... but I'm sure the Democrats would take him.

[Tsa`ah]

Oh Tsa'ah, are you humping my leg once again? Seriously Shit4Brains.. if there is ONE individual that shouldn't use the term "idiot" in any post.. it's you. Makes you look foolish.

Then again.. that's never stopped you before, has it...

LOL

Keep them coming spanky.

[Parkbandit]

If Colin Powell were a politician that'd have more bite... but I'm sure the Democrats would take him.


We shall see.... I imagine there was a reason Colin Powell came out to support Obama... and that reason had everything to do with Colin Powell and very little to do with McCain or Obama.

Senate maybe? A post in Obama's Administration?

Well, we shall see, but make no mistake... it was all self serving.

[Parkbandit]

LOL

Keep them coming spanky.


Clearly, sarcasm is well above your intelligence level.

And you wonder why your "nick name" here is Shit4Brains....

[Keller]

Well, we shall see, but make no mistake... it was all self serving.

Because of anyone to come out of Washington in the last 20 years, we all know Powell is among the most self-serving of the bunch.

Oh wise one, please tell us more!


.....

Seriously, we all need a good laugh.

[Tsa`ah]

Clearly, sarcasm is well above your intelligence level.

And you wonder why your "nick name" here is Shit4Brains....

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j7/tijay2k/motivator9803031.jpg

[Daniel]

We shall see.... I imagine there was a reason Colin Powell came out to support Obama... and that reason had everything to do with Colin Powell and very little to do with McCain or Obama.

Senate maybe? A post in Obama's Administration?

Well, we shall see, but make no mistake... it was all self serving.

senate?? Really?

[Tsa`ah]

bump because the image didn't link

[Parkbandit]

senate?? Really?


You missed the term "maybe".. or did you just simply not understand it?

[Parkbandit]

bump because the image didn't link


Wait, I did forget to link a pic for you.

Sorry Shit4Brains

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e6/belike53/shit_for_brains_kerry.jpg

[Daniel]

You missed the term "maybe".. or did you just simply not understand it?

you do understand that senators are not appointed officials right?

[Keller]

you do understand that senators are not appointed officials right?

And that Powell would beat 90% of sitting senators with or without endorsing Obama.

[Parkbandit]

you do understand that senators are not appointed officials right?

Show me where I said he would be appointed to the Senate.

Seriously, do you need new glasses? Did the tape finally break?

Here's my quote again..


We shall see.... I imagine there was a reason Colin Powell came out to support Obama... and that reason had everything to do with Colin Powell and very little to do with McCain or Obama.

Senate maybe? A post in Obama's Administration?

Well, we shall see, but make no mistake... it was all self serving.

You see that space between "Senate maybe?" and "A post in Obama's Administration?" See how the first sentence was ended with the ?.. and the next sentence started with a capital letter "A"? That wasn't done on accident.. it was to separate the two so people like you wouldn't get confused.

Clearly, I put too much faith in you.

[Daniel]

And an endorsement of Obama does what for a republican in a senate campaign? Nothing good. that's for sure.

[Parkbandit]

And an endorsement of Obama does what for a republican in a senate campaign? Nothing good. that's for sure.

It "clears" his name with those he believes he needs to clear it with.

We'll see. If Powell doesn't seek office or get a nice spot in an Obama administration.. you'll be right.

[Keller]

It "clears" his name with those he believes he needs to clear it with.

We'll see. If Powell doesn't seek office or get a nice spot in an Obama administration.. you'll be right.

Powell could write his own job description in any organization, public or private, in the United States.

I still have no idea why you keep implying that he needed to do something like this for political capital.