PDA

View Full Version : Colin Powell set to endorse Obama (?)



Sidney Bliss
18-10-2008, 21:35
Colin Powell expected to endorse Obama | World news | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/18/uselections2008-barackobama)

Tomasky talk: Will Colin Powell endorse Barack Obama on Meet the Press? | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/2008/oct/17/uselections2008-barackobama)

Judge
18-10-2008, 21:41
Everyone is getting on the Obama bandwagon now..
The Chicago Tribune, LA Times And Republican States Are All Swinging Towards Barack Obama | World News | Sky News (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/The-Chicago-Tribune-LA-Times-And-Republican-States-Are-All-Swinging-Towards-Barack-Obama/Article/200810315123520?lpos=World_News_First_World_News_Article_Teaser_Region_4&lid=ARTICLE_15123520_The_Chicago_Tribune%2C_LA_Times_And_Republican_States_Are_All_Swinging_Towards_Barack_Obama)

''Perhaps the most important backing comes from The Chicago Tribune, the most powerful newspaper in his home state, which is read by 1.7 million people each day.

It is the first time the paper has ever backed a Democrat for president and a further blow to Republican hopes on November 4.''

McCain might as well call it a day..I can see the biggest landslide in US elections coming up..

Transparent Theatre
18-10-2008, 23:14
That's Obama's chances gone, then.

What a bit of bad luck for him.

DDT
18-10-2008, 23:43
Everyone is getting on the Obama bandwagon now..
The Chicago Tribune, LA Times And Republican States Are All Swinging Towards Barack Obama | World News | Sky News (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/The-Chicago-Tribune-LA-Times-And-Republican-States-Are-All-Swinging-Towards-Barack-Obama/Article/200810315123520?lpos=World_News_First_World_News_Article_Teaser_Region_4&lid=ARTICLE_15123520_The_Chicago_Tribune%2C_LA_Times_And_Republican_States_Are_All_Swinging_Towards_Barack_Obama)

''Perhaps the most important backing comes from The Chicago Tribune, the most powerful newspaper in his home state, which is read by 1.7 million people each day.

It is the first time the paper has ever backed a Democrat for president and a further blow to Republican hopes on November 4.''

McCain might as well call it a day..I can see the biggest landslide in US elections coming up..
I hate to break it to you but the Chicago Trib and the LA Times have always backed the Democrats. They are well known to be biased to the Left, and we all knew that they were pulling for Obama as they would have been if it was Hilary instead, anyway. This is not particularly breaking news, other that the fact that a Newspaper has no business formally endorsing candidates!

PS Collin Powell was never a Conservative, and imo, a poor choice for any of the offices he was appointed to by the gullible Republicans.

MissAnnElk
19-10-2008, 00:05
Funny that we didn't hear you saying that when the Johnson County Sun endorsed McCain...

DDT
19-10-2008, 00:21
Two wrongs don't make a right......I don't keep up on what newspapers do, anymore. I find them irrelevant to the actual facts, and only relevant because of the subliminal bias they produce. More accurate and encompassing news is to be found on the Web, these days.

Transparent Theatre
19-10-2008, 00:25
I don't keep up on what newspapers do, anymore.

Yet you're stuffed full of information about the LA Times and the Chicago Trib???

BWAAAAAAAAAAAhahaha, you get stupider every day.

Judge
19-10-2008, 02:05
I hate to break it to you but the Chicago Trib and the LA Times have always backed the Democrats. They are well known to be biased to the Left, and we all knew that they were pulling for Obama as they would have been if it was Hilary instead, anyway. This is not particularly breaking news, other that the fact that a Newspaper has no business formally endorsing candidates!

PS Collin Powell was never a Conservative, and imo, a poor choice for any of the offices he was appointed to by the gullible Republicans.

I'm just going by what it says in the link.People are saying ''Chicago Tribune's historic endorsement of Sen. Barack Obama''.

''And, in a column discussing the Chicago Tribune's historic endorsement of Sen. Barack Obama for president, Paul Weingarten, a member of the paper's editorial board, wrote on Friday:
"Of all the articles that appear in this newspaper, few are as mysterious to readers as its presidential endorsements. Readers ask Tribune editorial board members all the time how those decisions are reached. Was there a lot of shouting? And finally, who really decided?
"This year, with the Tribune's endorsement of its first Democrat, Sen. Barack Obama, we expect even more questions.
"A lot of readers will be surprised by the decision to endorse Obama. But maybe you don't know the Tribune as well as you think. So let us remind you of the paper's long record of independent thought, of reporting - and sometimes making - history''.
''"Yes, the paper has stood for Republican principles for a long time. In 1855, a young politician named Abraham Lincoln wandered into the offices of the Tribune on Clark Street. Lincoln handed over $4 for a subscription and complimented the new co-owner and managing editor, Joseph Medill, on his stand against intolerance. 'I didn't like it before you boys took hold of it,' he said of the Tribune."



From what I'm reading in the news,it looks like McCain is fighting for his political life ..
Look what I just found...:floating::floating:
John McCain fights for life in Florida as Barack Obama takes battle to Republican territory - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/johnmccain/3223718/John-McCain-fights-for-life-in-Florida-as-Barack-Obama-takes-battle-to-Republican-territory.html)

fenrir
19-10-2008, 09:50
I can see the biggest landslide in US elections coming up..

Obama may or may not win big but he will never match Reagan's landslide victory.

DDT
19-10-2008, 12:58
Three main Independent polls put both Obama and McCain between 2 to 5 points from each other, at a week and a half before the election. In the past people with double digit leads in the polls, have lost in the election.

People like to get stuff for free! Obama knows this and has said that he will give free stuff to people if he is elected the Pres. So far he has proposed about a trillion bucks of free stuff for the good sheeple of America. That's a lotta money ...and it's the kind of talk that gets votes. It will be interesting to see the faces of the sheeple when they realize how much the free stuff actually costs them in higher taxes! Hmm...! I might just have to stick around to watch the show.

Scrat335
19-10-2008, 13:43
Obama may or may not win big but he will never match Reagan's landslide victory.

Completely irrelevant. As is I believe, his legacy.

Transparent Theatre
19-10-2008, 16:57
I frankly doubt it makes any difference which of them wins.

Policies will continue exactly the same.

Q: Who shrapnel-bombed civilian targets in Serbia? Who used Agent Orange on Vietnam? Who led America into the Korean War?

A: Democrats.

You are kidding yourselves if you expect any policy reversals.

Transparent Theatre
19-10-2008, 17:46
US election: Colin Powell endorses Barack Obama for president | World news | guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/19/colin-powell-endorses-barack-obama)

What's "good" about the endorsement of a washed-up fool who lied about the WMD evidence and sent an army to Iraq on a fool's errand to die in the sand for nothing?

Powell is one of America's biggest numpties.

Adamodeus
20-10-2008, 10:19
PS Collin Powell was never a Conservative, and imo, a poor choice for any of the offices he was appointed to by the gullible Republicans.
I can't disagree more with you on Colin Powell. He had been the only voice of reason in the Bush administration, until they finally grabbed him by the balls.

Transparent Theatre
20-10-2008, 16:02
I can't disagree more with you on Colin Powell. He had been the only voice of reason in the Bush administration, until they finally grabbed him by the balls.

Regrettably I have to agree with DDT.

Powell may or may not have been a good soldier - I'm not in a position to assess that.

But as a politician he consistently lied about the WMD and then lied about the lies about the WMD; he supported Guantanamo; he supports torture; he sent troops to Iraq in the full knowledge that there were no WMDs and no links to 9/11. What a gutless piece of scum Colin Powell is!!

And now he is endorsing Obama despite disagreeing with all his policies - merely to get his revenge on the neocons who dissed him? Spineless and hopeless.

Adamodeus
20-10-2008, 18:12
Regrettably I have to agree with DDT.

But as a politician he consistently lied about the WMD and then lied about the lies about the WMD;
This is odd. The way I remember it is that he was the only one opposed to war and opposed to making up information about the WMDs. Then, a few weeks before the war, he - all of a sudden - had a complete change of heart. He suddenly came out in strong support of the war and gave that infamous presentation about the WMDs at the UN. His outlook changed seemingly overnight!

I figured that they just had a serious talk with him and made him understand that someone in his position ought to support the President, so, like a good soldier, he did.

At least that's the way it looked to me.

Transparent Theatre
20-10-2008, 19:22
I figured that they just had a serious talk with him and made him understand that someone in his position ought to support the President, so, like a good soldier, he did.

At least that's the way it looked to me.

But what kind of "good soldier" knowingly sends his men into an unwinnable situation against impossible odds, without the right equipment, and tells them lies about reason for the campaign and their military objectives??

Powell claimed he had the map-coordinates of known WMD sites. "This is not speculation! This is solid intelligence!".

But it turned out that there was nothing at those locations, and never had been anything,

It was all lies. And he knew it was lies, as you correctly say! And now a proven liar, who sent the US Army on a suicide mission, is backing Barack Obama??

DDT
20-10-2008, 19:27
What makes you believe that he didn't have map coordinates? What makes you think that the lies aren't even bigger than you suppose? Why did Bush wait so long before going in? The Israelis have intelligence that WMDs were moved.

Sidney Bliss
20-10-2008, 20:06
The Israelis have intelligence that WMDs were moved.

I've seen a copy of the map where "X" marks the new spot. Keep it to yourself, but they're now buried 6 feet under a grassy knoll somewhere in Dallas.

Transparent Theatre
20-10-2008, 21:42
What makes you believe that he didn't have map coordinates?

Duuuuuuuh! The total absence of WMD finds, even when they were made to look morons internationally because they'd found ZERO, NOTHING, NADA.


The Israelis have intelligence that WMDs were moved.

Sure! With an Squadron of Flying Cargo-Pigs!! ROFL!!!

Your lies get more and more obvious with every post you make.

Kvartiraokhotnik
20-10-2008, 21:53
I've seen a copy of the map where "X" marks the new spot. Keep it to yourself, but they're now buried 6 feet under a grassy knoll somewhere in Dallas.

Thats the spirit Sidney :applause:

I knew there was a conspiracy nutter hiding somewhere inside you, just waiting to get out!!!!!

Carbo
21-10-2008, 13:42
Obama may or may not win big but he will never match Reagan's landslide victory.
Didn't Nixon win against McGovern by landslide for re-election? After one term of Tricky, Americans awarded him every state but Massachusetts (spelling???) or something.

So what? Partisan nonsense, that's what.

I would really love McCain to get voted in so he could bomb, bomb, bomb Iran and Iran could bomb, bomb, bomb oil and American military installations in Iraq, and test to survivability of your blue water navy and carrier groups against coordinated missile and suicide attacks. That way, the price of oil would rocket, probably to somewhere approaching 200 dollars a barrel, Russia would laugh all the way to the bank, America would get drawn into a war far more difficult to win than the two wars it hasn't been able to win in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they would be utterly overstretched, fighting a war on three fronts, forcing a re-institution of the draft, which along with the high price of oil and increased military spending and overstretch, would further embolden Russia and wrack the US with economic, political and social strife, at which point, McCain, the law averages dictate, would have died and we would have Sarah Palin to sort out the mess.

Can't wait.

kirk10071
21-10-2008, 16:53
All Obama has to do is get one more vote than McCain, which is more than Bush did against Gore.

The idea that McCain might win, and then die within a month, is a scenario that has be waking up screaming. I would have voted for him were it not for her. He managed to secure the loyalty of people who never in a million years would have voted for Obama and lost those who might not have really wanted to. I would vote for McCain, but not for Palin. Unfortunately they come as a package.

It's no surprise Powell endorsed Obama. Maybe he's bucking for a cabinet post. I think he tried to be a voice of reason in the first GWB administration and they pushed him around and hung him out to dry. If he had had a spine, though, he would have resigned and make a public announcement that it was all smoke and mirrors. He had a moral responsibility to stand up and call a halt, nothwithstanding the risk that Cheney would pull a pistol and dispatch him right there in the Oval Office, a la Beria. Now he's trying to redeem himself and to get back at his former playmates. But he lost my respect the day of the invasion when he went home to bed.

DDT
21-10-2008, 21:38
McCain maybe may likely to live longer than Obama. Both Obama's parents are dead. His dad died in a car accident at 40, probably because he was wreckless and his mummy already died of cancer at 52. McCain's mother is still alive well into her 90s.

Transparent Theatre
21-10-2008, 21:52
His dad died in a car accident at 40, probably because he was wreckless

Actually I think it was specifically because he wasn't wreckless that he died in the wreck.

I have never heard of car accidents being called hereditary before. That's quite a theory you have there. You should send it in to Arthur C Clarke.

Why can't neocons spell?

DDT
21-10-2008, 21:59
After that, Brokaw showed clips of Powell at the 2000 Republican National Convention, where he was telling Americans that Dick Cheney was going to be a fantastic Vice President, and praised Governor Bush’s leadership.

After watching those clips, my question to General Powell is quite simple:

What are you going to say after you realize that you’ve been bamboozled and hoodwinked, yet again?
First Iraq, Now Barack | SAVAGE POLITICS (http://savagepolitics.com/?p=2240)

Transparent Theatre
22-10-2008, 13:14
Now even Boris Johnson is backing Obama:

Barack Obama: Why I believe he should be the next President - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/10/21/do2101.xml)

Reverend
23-10-2008, 13:39
Two wrongs don't make a right......I don't keep up on what newspapers do, anymore. I find them irrelevant to the actual facts, and only relevant because of the subliminal bias they produce. More accurate and encompassing news is to be found on the Web, these days. Then you are deceiving yourself. The web is no more accurate than the average newspaper. You might find a particularly good website, just as you might find a particularly good periodical, but there's an awful lot of poor, misleading, and fraudulent information on the web.

Reverend
23-10-2008, 13:45
Actually I think it was specifically because he wasn't wreckless that he died in the wreck.

I have never heard of car accidents being called hereditary before. That's quite a theory you have there. You should send it in to Arthur C Clarke.

Why can't neocons spell? If it had been McCain's dad who did in the car accident I think DDT would be questioning whether it was actually an "accident" or part of a liberal conspiracy by the brie-eating, chardonnay sipping, educated, literate, well-read, liberal elite.

Funny how Obama's Harvard education is seen by the neo-cons as uppity while Bush's Yale education is just natural for a dumb white boy of oil fortunes from Texas.

Adamodeus
23-10-2008, 17:31
But what kind of "good soldier" knowingly sends his men into an unwinnable situation against impossible odds, without the right equipment, and tells them lies about reason for the campaign and their military objectives??

Powell claimed he had the map-coordinates of known WMD sites. "This is not speculation! This is solid intelligence!".

But it turned out that there was nothing at those locations, and never had been anything,

It was all lies. And he knew it was lies, as you correctly say! And now a proven liar, who sent the US Army on a suicide mission, is backing Barack Obama??
They are all very fair points that are hard to argue, from a civilian's perspective. But "in Powell's defense", military officers are constantly required to lie in the name of national security. For a career general, it would mean to disobey a direct order from his Commander-in-Chief when he'd been taught for 30 years never to question orders issued by superiors. Plus, we all know, had he disobeyed, his career would have gone down the toilet, but they would still have come up with a different liar in his stead the very same day.

Gypsy
23-10-2008, 18:56
Hardly a plus to have a man known throughout the whole world as a liar on your side.

But maybe it is Powell's shot at redemption.

DDT
25-10-2008, 23:44
Then you are deceiving yourself. The web is no more accurate than the average newspaper. You might find a particularly good website, just as you might find a particularly good periodical, but there's an awful lot of poor, misleading, and fraudulent information on the web.
True, that there is a lot of BS on the web, but it is also true that NO major unbiased news outlet exists on TV or Print. So if you want real facts you will HAVE to go the Internet and Talk Radio sources.
If you are only watching CNN, BBC, ABC, and reading NY/LA Times etc.....good luck to you!

MissAnnElk
26-10-2008, 00:14
True, that there is a lot of BS on the web, but it is also true that NO major unbiased news outlet exists on TV or Print. So if you want real facts you will HAVE to go the Internet and Talk Radio sources.

Like NPR? I doubt it.

I'm going to think any Talk Radio source you cite is looney tunes.

DDT
26-10-2008, 06:24
Like NPR? I doubt it.

I'm going to think any Talk Radio source you cite is looney tunes.
Yeah I know you are, but that just tells me how much faulty information has already been implanted into you already, that you won't even step out of your comfort zone.
Remember, I get all the mainstream influence thrown at me too, but I also go to other sources....do you? I guess not, by your response. You keep doing to the same thing over and over again.....and getting the same results...and we know what Einstein said about people who do that!

Yes, I also listen to NPR and Air America too!

Carbo
27-10-2008, 12:40
As anyone noticed that the chorus to Barbara Allen, which McCain hijacked to Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran, also works well with Ban Ban Ban, Ban Dee Dee Tee...?

Transparent Theatre
27-10-2008, 16:17
As anyone noticed that the chorus to Barbara Allen, which McCain hijacked to Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran, also works well with Ban Ban Ban, Ban Dee Dee Tee...?

Long overdue. An obvious troll, who uses racial hatred and gaybashing as his tools.

Should have been banned from these forums months ago.

MissAnnElk
27-10-2008, 16:23
But then what would all of you talk about? :eh:

Look, I understand the need to stand up in the face of what can be viewed as fascism and hate-mongering. I understand the passions that these discussions can incite. But I still think we can disagree with one another without venom. Be smarter than your opponent.

goose0069
27-10-2008, 16:28
All Obama has to do is get one more vote than McCain, which is more than Bush did against Gore.

The idea that McCain might win, and then die within a month, is a scenario that has be waking up screaming. I would have voted for him were it not for her. He managed to secure the loyalty of people who never in a million years would have voted for Obama and lost those who might not have really wanted to. I would vote for McCain, but not for Palin. Unfortunately they come as a package.

It's no surprise Powell endorsed Obama. Maybe he's bucking for a cabinet post. I think he tried to be a voice of reason in the first GWB administration and they pushed him around and hung him out to dry. If he had had a spine, though, he would have resigned and make a public announcement that it was all smoke and mirrors. He had a moral responsibility to stand up and call a halt, nothwithstanding the risk that Cheney would pull a pistol and dispatch him right there in the Oval Office, a la Beria. Now he's trying to redeem himself and to get back at his former playmates. But he lost my respect the day of the invasion when he went home to bed.
It doesn't matter who the Vice President is John McCain lost it when he said we could be in Iraq for a 100 years and he voted with George Bush 90% of the time. Average Americans who are worried about losing their jobs, houses, bank accounts could give a flying sh#t about Iraq. I don't blame them. Iraq will get a trillion U.S. dollars and we will never see a dime of that back. You might have voted for him, but your not the majority of Americans living paycheck to paycheck praying they don't come in to work to find out their jobs are gone, and they are going to be jobless with two or three children to support. John McCain should be thankful he is running against Obama because if it would have been anyone else it wouldn't even be close. Americans are not happy with George Bush and the Republican party. The Republicans could run this country for eons but they had to keep that numnuts in for 8 years. Republicans have no one to blame but themselves.

Transparent Theatre
27-10-2008, 17:09
But then what would all of you talk about? :eh:



We'd talk about the things we usually discussed, hopefully with the swathe of members who have left recently because of the uncontrolled trolling that's been permitted.

Either trolling is banned, or it isn't. At the moment there is one rule for one, and another rule for the rest of us.

Many, many members who were active contributors to an online COMMUNITY have left because of the trolling of ONE member, and the hate-speech, racism and gay-bashing which have been mysteriously tolerated.

You are hearing this from LOTS of members now.

Time to act - while there still ARE lots of members.

There is space here for every viewpoint that stays within the rules. But the rules have been a sad mockery recently.

What would you call a member who posts on only one topic, persistently, attacks other members with ad-hominem flame attacks, viciously abuses other beliefs and those who hold them, believes that being gay is in itself a reason to flame another member and invalidate their views in public??

T-R-O-L-L.

You banned Sal for doing all of the above. So where is the consistency???

DDT
04-11-2008, 00:03
Maybe they left because of you TT. But here, you get your wish. Have the forum to yourself. Other members silence on this is deafening. Good-bye.

But I leave you with this funny video.
YouTube - How Can We Believe Colin Powell? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHYflWr-SDk&eurl=http://www.thenoseonyourface.com/)

AstroNoodle
04-11-2008, 02:44
That was funny DDT. The broccoli was rubbery -- hahahah -- but everyone knows the George Bush I banned broccoli in the White House (seriously). So perhaps there was a rift we did not know about.

Now my video to share: "WMD's in Iraq -- Endorse Barack Obama -- Crazy Talk Time!" Watch, because it is funny.

YouTube- Red State Update: Colin Powell Endorses Obama