This dickhead could've been President had he run in the 90s. Probably not a good one, but better than the soft tyrant in office now.

As long as Repubicans are going to act like statist Democrats--Powell and McCain are prime examples--they deserve to lose.

^That first comment was very jarring when I finished watching.

After listening to someone eloquently convey their opinions, you dismissing this man with a few crude words was shameful and ignorant. If you want people to see your point of view, playground insults aren't going to work.

Can I downvote more than once?

^ 100+ days in office and already we have a "soft tyrant".

Where do people come up with this stuff?

@quantummushroom: You are a fucking douchebag.

Now, separate from that:

This general gave up his reputation for the 'betterment' of the Republican party. This general took the entire blame for the Bush administration's lies that took the US into war in Iraq. He sacrificed himself and his name for your president's bullshit. I cannot believe... man... I simply don't understand in any way how you, who so vigorously defended the atrocious policies of the Bush administration, could turn on this man after his amazing sacrifice.

It will take the country a long time to trust General Powell again, and though he deserves it for his actions, it's clear that he still has far more honor than either Bush or Cheney. However, me saying that really has no bearing on your despicable 180 degree turn on this formerly great man. He sacrificed himself for your party and you call him a dickhead.

@quantummushroom: You are a fucking douchebag.

Can we all just agree that QM is a fucking douchebag? I think we can.

He's advocating critical self-analysis. Obviously not a republican.

Having blocked QMs comments long ago, I see it was worth it. As tempted as I am to unblock temporarily to see what just pissed off everyone else, I'll abstain =P

What I was going to originally comment on was the craziness of Dick Cheney's experience. Rush over Powell? Really?!? Wow, never thought I'd ever hear anyone, even a diehard neocon say something that nuts.

The republican party will continue to decline as the number of old white men continue to decline.

On the one side you have guys like Colin Powell. Powell is a RINO. RINOs are Republicans only by politics. To Powell, the Republican party is a vehicle to hitch ride to office in. Everything he says in the vid screams that he's approaching the debate politically. He's parsing voting blocs, gerrymandering, and 'strategerizing' as a way to run for party office. He ISN'T taking a stand on principles.

Opposite him, is Limbaugh. Limbaugh is an idealist who stands on issues and principles. That's easy for him to do since he doesn't run for office I guess. If an issue comes up, he looks at it as an issue of what is 'right' in terms of his conservative beliefs. "National Health Care" means bigger taxes, larger government, and less freedom, therefore it is wrong. He isn't approaching the issue as a political game per se. He's taking a stand on what he believes is right.

Powell is saying, "Here's what the party should do to win politically..." and Limbaugh is saying, "Here's what the party should do if it wants to do the right thing...". Powell seems like a nice guy, but I tend to agree philosophically with Limbaugh here. The Republican party isn't going to win the next cycle by co-opting liberal positions. They're going to win by taking a stand on priciples such as (1) opposing a radical social agenda (2) trying to stop the alarming increases in federal power (3) condeming the quadrupling of our national debt, etc... etc...

Let's put is simply... John McCain is a RINO just like Colin Powell. RINO candidates suck. They don't win elections.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
The Republican party isn't going to win the next cycle by co-opting liberal positions. They're going to win by taking a stand on priciples such as (1) opposing a radical social agenda (2) trying to stop the alarming increases in federal power (3) condeming the quadrupling of our national debt, etc... etc...


I'm curious if you opposed the "alarming increases in federal power" and were for "condeming [sic] the...(increase)...of our national debt" while Bush was in power? Or are these hallow, hot-air, partisan ramblings from you?

Let be honest here. Neither Republican or Democratic are for small government. Both have and will increase spending dramatically until the people stop paying attention to the magician's hands...

GW and the neocons spent enough money on Iraq and Afghanistan to send manned missions to mars and back... twice? But that's cool, no problem, because ultimately, if we're killing brown people, it's all good, right WP?

Spending lots of money on our own country? BAD BAD BAD.

I'm curious if you opposed the "alarming increases in federal power" and were for "condeming [sic] the...(increase)...of our national debt" while Bush was in power? Or are these hallow, hot-air, partisan ramblings from you? Let be honest here. Neither Republican or Democratic are for small government.

Unlike others who CLAIM to be non-partisan, I actually am... I heartily condemn many things Bush did in his term. Federal power did increase alarmingly under Bush. He expanded government in ways that should have never been allowed. Does that satisfy you? Both parties suck. We need at least ONE party to take a stand though and start paring back the size, scope, and power of government. That sure isn't going to be Obama's democrat party though.

GW and the neocons spent enough money on Iraq and Afghanistan to send manned missions to mars and back... twice? But that's cool, no problem, because ultimately, if we're killing brown people, it's all good, right WP? Spending lots of money on our own country? BAD BAD BAD.

As well as being ignorant, it seems you're also quite the racist. Unlike you, I don't place arbitrary value on human beings based on how much melanin is in their skin.

Regardless, Bush's rampant over-spending was horrible for the country. However, the bulk of Bush spending was NOT on the Iraq war. It was on massive increases to government social programs. But Obama makes Bush look like he was a miser, quintupling America's debt in 5 months. Spending 1.4 trillion we don't have? BAD BAD BAD!

I note wryly that neo-libs were all fired up about our deficit while Bush was in office. They could care less about it now. That as much as anything proves to me that most neo-libs are ignorant zombies who only care about an issue when some neo-lib flack tells them to care. Obama has told them to stop caring about debt spending, so the zombies have dutifully agreed. Pathetic.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Unlike others who CLAIM to be non-partisan, I actually am... I heartily condemn many things Bush did in his term. Federal power did increase alarmingly under Bush. He expanded government in ways that should have never been allowed. Does that satisfy you? Both parties suck. We need at least ONE party to take a stand though and start paring back the size, scope, and power of government. That sure isn't going to be Obama's democrat party though.

I agree, but it isn't going to be *insert name here*'s Republican party either.

yes vote to this

"QM is a fucking douchebag? I think we can."

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Limbaugh is an idealist who stands on issues and principles.

roflmao. Yeah he "stands" on them alright, then he scrapes them off his shoe and throws them in the trash

But i do agree we need to promote Limbaugh and the other far right lunatics as being the True Leaders of Republicanism, and do it as often as possible. Limbaugh is the liberal Democrat's best friend.

total class act... truly virtuous man, and while he doesn't rival obama in his ability to give a speech or inspire people, he would be a great leader and has decades of experience... candidate for 2012? I vote yay.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
As well as being ignorant, it seems you're also quite the racist. Unlike you, I don't place arbitrary value on human beings based on how much melanin is in their skin.

Good one missing the sarcasm in my post. The cons were happy to throw money away when the cause at hand was punishing brown people for 911. They're very upset now that we're spending money to help our own country. That was my point.

You claim to be non-partisan, and yet you so clearly aren't.

Yeah he "stands" on them alright, then he scrapes them off his shoe and throws them in the trash

If you're a neo-lib then I suppose you'd see it that way. But from all I can tell, Limbaugh's primary core principle is 'small government'. Everything he talks about appears to be viewed through that prism. Therefore when he talks about a subject - whatever it is - it is discussed from the position that less government involvement would be better. He violates that for some things like abortion, which means it isn't 100% consistent. However by and large that's where his tent is staked.

To a neo-lib, that position 'tramples' a lot of liberal core values.

After listening to someone eloquently convey their opinions, you dismissing this man with a few crude words was shameful and ignorant. If you want people to see your point of view, playground insults aren't going to work.

Can I downvote more than once?


I just skipped the rest of the comments to address this one, cause I figured the rest are chock full of the personal attacks the left is infamous for.

Bottom line: Powell endorsed Obama, loudly and publicly. From a conservative perspective, his actions countermand conservatism in favor of liberalism.

Liberals hated Powell when he worked for Bush. Now many 'love' him as they love all "moderate" Repubicans who act like Democrats. That's their choice, and mine is to say to hell with all turncoats, you lefties can have him!

QM: You decry the 'personal attacks' the 'left' is infamous for? After calling Colin Powell a 'dickhead'? And then you call Obama a 'tyrant'? Oh, god. The humor is strong with this one!