http://www.videosift.com/video/Colin-Powell-Endorses-Barack-Obama-on-Meet-The-Press#comment-549810

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
>> ^blankfist:
Republicans are left, not right. Foreign interventionism, nation-building, and larger government are leftist ideals. We have two left parties in the majority.


According to whose dictionary? Certainly the Republicans do not claim the term.

Somehow, bf, our disagreements seem to always stem from the definition of words. I think generally we have a schism on the definition of definition: I think words mean what we decide them to mean, and you're more of an etymological archaeologist.

Let me out-dictionary you. The French Parliament defined "The Right" as supporting aristocratic, royal, or clerical interests (because that's the side of the room the aristocrats, nobels, and priests sat in), while "The Left" implied opposition to the same (because that's where rubes like me would be permitted to park their keyster).

The Democratic platform opposes aristocratic, royal, and clerical interests.
The Republican platform supports aristocratic, royal, and clerical interests.

The Republicans continue to move further and further right.

It's funny, the "old" definition of left and right actually fits better than the colloquial one. It's not about the size of government at all, that's just a distraction, it's about whose interests government serves, and that definition is alive and well.

Powell had stated a year ago that he'd wait until after the debates to announce whom he would personally support.

>> ^Trancecoach:
The fact that he took so long to voice his support for either candidate suggested that his support was going to Obama.

>> ^blankfist:
Republicans are left, not right. Foreign interventionism, nation-building, and larger government are leftist ideals. We have two left parties in the majority.


According to whose dictionary? Certainly the Republicans do not claim the term.

Somehow, bf, our disagreements seem to always stem from the definition of words. I think generally we have a schism on the definition of definition: I think words mean what we decide them to mean, and you're more of an etymological archaeologist.

Let me out-dictionary you. The French Parliament defined "The Right" as supporting aristocratic, royal, or clerical interests (because that's the side of the room the aristocrats, nobels, and priests sat in), while "The Left" implied opposition to the same (because that's where rubes like me would be permitted to park their keyster).

The Democratic platform opposes aristocratic, royal, and clerical interests.
The Republican platform supports aristocratic, royal, and clerical interests.

The Republicans continue to move further and further right.

It's funny, the "old" definition of left and right actually fits better than the colloquial one. It's not about the size of government at all, that's just a distraction, it's about whose interests government serves, and that definition is alive and well.

>> ^blankfist:
Republicans are left, not right. Foreign interventionism, nation-building, and larger government are leftist ideals. We have two left parties in the majority.


Oh, bullshit Blankfist.

Interventionism for what? Human rights? Or mineral rights?

Nation-building? For what? A democratic oasis in the desert? Or a puppet government pliable to corporate interests?

Larger government? For whom? The common man, or the biggest military contractors?

I'm quite sure Schwarzkopf was the leader of the Army that left Saddam in power. And who was the president who decided Hussein wasn't a threat, because he left him in power? Some Democrat, probably. Right?

How did Powell undermine the Iraq War, exactly?

Appeaser? You're actually going to call Obama that? I know you enjoy skulking around like a sockpuppet of Sean Hannity, but seriously...an appeaser?

>> ^quantumushroom:
FAILIN' Powell.
"Left Saddam in power; undermined Iraq War and now prefers an appeaser as Commander in Chief."

>> ^Crosswords:
^Unfortunately his credibility as a politician was destroyed by the Bush administration. If he were to ever run for an office of importance any opponent would have all the relevant ammo they would ever need.


At least one of my conservative-leaning independent friends is a huge fan of Powell. I'd already gotten her into the lean-Obama category, and she said if Powell endorses, she's gonna head down to the polls and vote early for Obama.

Wonder if she'll go today or tomorrow.

Powell's reputation was tarnished by Bush, but it's far from destroyed.

Here's the endorsement: http://www.videosift.com/video/Colin-Powell-Endorses-Barack-Obama-on-Meet-The-Press

>> ^shuac:
>> ^zombieater:
More importantly, he stated that his endorsement was about specific issues and not about race, which many critics would charge to be the reason for the endorsement.

Critics will do this anyway. Just watch.

Yeah. Unfortunately, I think you're right.

>> ^NetRunner:
^ Republicans are not moving left at all. They have done nothing but become more and more extreme during my entire lifetime.
They may be abandoning conservative values, but you're a fool if you think the Republican party was really interested in conservative philosophy after Reagan got elected.
In America, "right" doesn't imply conservative, small government, it just means government aimed at the rich, no willingness for diplomacy on the world stage, a denial of global warming, and god, guns, gays, and abortion.
On that scale, the Republicans have just gone further and further right.
news


If republicans have denied those last 5 things, they've denied them all along. They haven't become more extreme, because they haven't argued for the new and extreme laws that attempt to "fix" those things. And ya'll are the leftists who deny "god," so that one is especially confusing.

Wow, this is even better than the Meet the Press endorsement!

>> ^zombieater:
More importantly, he stated that his endorsement was about specific issues and not about race, which many critics would charge to be the reason for the endorsement.


Critics will do this anyway. Just watch.

Holy shit.
I saw his vid on Meet the Press, and dont get me wrong, it was a biggun...but this just raises the discourse to a whole new level.

Hes cut right to the bone.

The issues are what matter, how the country is going to be run over the next 4-8 years, how they are going to be seriously looked at and handled is priority number one, not some petty character assassination in a vein attempt to avoid dealing with the mess that his own party created.

I have a ton of respect for Colin Powell, the minute he resigned his office you just knew its because he thought that the party had lost its way, and he was pressured into going into Iraq.

Ive read his auto-bio, and one thing that stood out to me when he resigned, was a section that read that he would never even consider going into battle, be it a small skirmish, or an entire invasion force, without plans to get the troops out.

You could see it all over his face, he did not want to be a part of Iraq, but was dragged along for the ride by the politicians.

>> ^bamdrew:
Oh Meet the Press... thanks, Mr. Russert. You'll be missed.


Wrong sift?
http://www.videosift.com/video/Tom-Brokaw-Reporsts-on-the-death-of-Tim-Russert

Oh Meet the Press... thanks, Mr. Russert. You'll be missed.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'russert, obit, browkaw, meet the press' to 'russert, obit, brokaw, meet the press' - edited by calvados