It's about time, sir.

This could be big.

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.

Wow.. That was incredible, concise, and devastating.

The republicans have moved to the right? When did this happen?

Since Bush, the party has moved more and more to the left.

Now Mr. Powell says they've moved to the right.

That is the opposite of established fact.

^ 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

Adding video to channels (News) - requested by NetRunner.

I think that "going right" is a perversion of the reality, just as "going left" is, and does neither the left nor the right political spectrum justice by associating their political ideals with what the republican party has morphed into over the past 8 years.

They've gone full retard.

God, Gays, Guns, Government-entangled-corporation, global-warming-denying, science dissenting, full blown retards.

How in the fuck did this happen ?

Its like they live and govern for a totally different reality, where any of that shit actually works to progress society in any meaningful way.

>> ^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.

That was brilliant. And as Time magazine writes:

"...the indisputable benefit that Powell brings Obama is that the former Secretary of State and general is sure to block out any chance McCain has of winning the next two or three days of news coverage, as the media swoons over the implications of the choice. It is simple political math: McCain has 15 days to close a substantial gap, and he will now lose at least one fifth of his total remaining time."

Link ->http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1851832,00.html?cnn=yes

>> ^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.

>> ^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.

Powell seriously, you couldn't have run for president?

Bush could not have used him worse.

I knew he had it in him. Good show, Colin.

^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.

The fact that he took so long to voice his support for either candidate suggested that his support was going to Obama. I said to a friend on Friday that, if he hadn't made a choice by now, he's probably supporting Barack.

>> ^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.

zomgwtfpwnt

The notion that the Republicans have shifted to the left over the past eight years is nothing short of delusional.

I'm glad General Powell made the right choice.

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

The story about the Muslim soldier who died fighting for America is especially important. I'd like to see Palin go around small-town America with a picture of an Arlington tombstone embossed with a crescent and star, and then listen to her seed the doubt of Obama's faith.

FAILIN' Powell.

"Left Saddam in power; undermined Iraq War and now prefers an appeaser as Commander in Chief."

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."

I think Powell's timing on this was very specific (after the debates had dropped off a little from the news). He was fairly ousted by the rest of the Bush administration and I feel that this is as much a backhanded statement against Bush as it is against McCain. Powell is brilliant here - he makes a statement of patriotism as opposed to partisanship, and that's going to speak to a lot of people.

>> ^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?

>> ^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.

I gave the exact same answer two weeks ago when asked by the local media at an Obama rally, "Why are you supporting senator Obama for president?"

Wait, maybe I said "Palin is a fuckwad."

Either way, I am pretty sure this is what I meant to say.

Well done sir.

Neocons, which is what the Republican base is now, are interventionists just like Woodrow Wilson, FDR and Clinton. And I'm not making it up when I say they are left.

[addendum] From wikipedia:
Left-wing past of neoconservatives
Author Michael Lind argues that "the organization as well as the ideology of the neoconservative movement has left-liberal origins".
The neoconservative desire to spread democracy abroad has been likened to the Trotskyist theory of permanent revolution. Lind argues that the neoconservatives are influenced by the thought of former Trotskyists such as James Burnham and Max Shachtman, who argued that "the United States and similar societies are dominated by a decadent, postbourgeois 'new class.'" He sees the neoconservative concept of "global democratic revolution" as deriving from the Trotskyist Fourth International's "vision of permanent revolution." He also points to what he sees as the Marxist origin of "the economic determinist idea that liberal democracy is an epiphenomenon of capitalism," which he describes as "Marxism with entrepreneurs substituted for proletarians as the heroic subjects of history."



From Liberal Hawk on Wikipedia:
The term liberal hawk refers to an individual generally described as politically liberal who supports a hawkish foreign policy, as opposed to a foreign policy of not using force to intervene with conflicts around the world. Past U.S. presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson have been described as liberal hawks for their roles in bringing about America's status as the world's premier military power. The Clinton Doctrine can also be considered as consistent with this vision. Modernly the term is most frequently used to describe liberals and leftists who supported or still support the decision to invade Iraq in 2003, which was authorized by the United States Congress and ordered by a conservative president, George W. Bush.

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, I've lost a lot of respect for you.

You are lying to yourself. You are ignoring reality.

Neoconservatism is based, overwhelmingly, on the teachings of Leo Strauss, and the fact that you chose to leave that name out of your definition says a lot about your honesty, or lack of it.

Does this sound left wing to you?

Strauss wrote that "just because Germany has turned to the right and has expelled us (Jews), it simply does not follow that the principles of the right are therefore to be rejected. To the contrary, only on the basis of principles of the right – fascist, authoritarian, imperial – is it possible in a dignified manner, without the ridiculous and pitiful appeal to ‘the inalienable rights of man’ to protest against the mean nonentity (Nazism).

(ibid)

Simmer down there boiling water. You're getting all huffy over something insignificant. Just because I'm not aligning with your partisan rhetoric doesn't mean I deserve to be blasted. Where's that liberal tolerance I keep hearing about?

I do research beyond pro-Obama YouTube videos and the Huffington Post. Maybe those who don't shouldn't label others as "lying" to themselves or "ignoring reality". I dislike both parties, rougy, and mainly because I don't see much difference in them. I've given proof that I'm not making up this connection between neconservatism and liberalism, but if that's too difficult for your fragile liberal sensibilities to handle then please feel free to continue to downvote my comments.

Blankfist,

Your claim that both parties are "left" and in particular that the Republicans are "left" is specious at best.

I'm not getting huffy. It's just the facts, man. When you say that the Bush administration is leftist, you are flat out lying to yourself.

The Neoconservatives and their bellicose doctrine have been the bedrock of the Bush administration, and there is nothing "leftist" about it.

And, yes, I take issue with your claim that there is.

You think I can't open a page of a newspaper or walk into a room with a television and not see the likes of Fox News or George Will or Cokie Roberts, et al?

You think that I am not inundated every fucking day by the wave of rightwing talking points?

You are flat out wrong to claim that this administration in any way represents the ideals and goals of the left.

>> ^blankfist:
Neocons, which is what the Republican base is now, are interventionists just like Woodrow Wilson, FDR and Clinton. And I'm not making it up when I say they are left.

I didn't say you're making it up, I said you're mixing labels up to suit your own devious agenda.

It's true there's a leftist history to interventionism. I'm no fan of the Cold War-era intervention done by both parties. However, I don't think Clinton's interventions were of a piece with arming the Muhajadeen and our old friends Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.

Even so, it doesn't make interventionism a defining characteristic of the modern American political left. What non-interventionists there are in politics are all on the left, or wanking off to the idea of 3rd party victories.

Painting both parties as left is completely innaccurate, since the common usage of the term is as shorthand for Democrat and Republican -- or failing that, the people who think government can help, and the people who think it can't.

Much as you cry out that they're all part of the same big fat conspiracy to stifle the original libertarian roots of the country, calling them both left is still incorrect, even if you go with the original meaning of the term.

You have to make up a new definition for left where left = interventionist (by the by, now I have accused you of making it up).

Rather than really descending into a semantic battle, help me out with the blankfist lexicon: what words would you tolerate others using to describe the differences in philosophy between the current-day Democratic party, and current-day Republican party?

Maybe progressives and social conservatives?

I generally use good and evil, but I don't think that's commonly accepted (yet).

>> ^rougy:
Blankfist,
Your claim that both parties are "left" and in particular that the Republicans are "left" is specious at best.
I'm not getting huffy. It's just the facts, man. When you say that the Bush administration is leftist, you are flat out lying to yourself.
The Neoconservatives and their bellicose doctrine have been the bedrock of the Bush administration, and there is nothing "leftist" about it.
And, yes, I take issue with your claim that there is.
You think I can't open a page of a newspaper or walk into a room with a television and not see the likes of Fox News or George Will or Cokie Roberts, et al?
You think that I am not inundated every fucking day by the wave of rightwing talking points?
You are flat out wrong to claim that this administration in any way represents the ideals and goals of the left.


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

>> ^rougy:
You think that I am not inundated every fucking day by the wave of rightwing talking points?

In fairness, I think he's talking about history, not modern propaganda. It's a finer vintage of propaganda, often making you more woozy than the pisswater that emanates from the TV.

It can even lead people to become cynical libertarians posting cat-fart videos.

An elegant endorsement and certainly sounds well thought out. And of course he's right about Palin. She's not ready to be President.

When he stood with a laser pointer, a powerpoint show and a lie I hated the guy. I knew, as many others, that those claims of weapons of mass destruction were wrong. That said, in all his recent interviews, he has redeemed himself to me.

Thanks NetRunner, I'll take that into consideration.

Cute, Blankfist - a self-referencing reference. Good thing you're not in the Matrix.

You know why I've never liked Libertarians? Because they are the anarchists of conservatism.

They are the people who finally woke up and saw what a sham the Republican party was, but were still too spineless to denounce it outright.

So they simply claimed that it wasn't conservative enough for them.

Not one real leftist was for the invasion of Afghanistan or Iraq.

Not one of us was for the torture of "enemy combatants."

Not one of us was for unwarranted domestic surveillance.

Not one of us was for giving the military industrial complex (e.g. Haliburton, KBR, Blackwater, and all of those other leaches) power over our politics, foreign and domestic.

You call the Bush administration "leftist" simply because you cannot bear to face the fact that you sided with the devil.

If Bush is “left” what am I? A commie?

^What on god's green earth are you blathering about? How did I side with the devil? I never voted for Bush. You're some piece of work. I suppose if you cannot win a lame ass argument with the truth, you're willing to create your own truth. Brilliant.

No a$$grav33 at rougy's gold party? How depressing.

>> ^blankfist:
^What on god's green earth are you blathering about? How did I side with the devil? I never voted for Bush. You're some piece of work. I suppose if you cannot win a lame ass argument with the truth, you're willing to create your own truth. Brilliant.

Extremely well said... One of the few people whoever danced with the Devil and i believe can still return to the light...

Very glad to hear him say this...

This is the same Colin Powell who stood in front of the world and presented satellite photos of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, chemical bomb making factories, and the infamous 'dodgy dossier' copied off the internet by the UK government.

He has no credibility or integrity whatsoever, and he can fuck right off.

Bottom line is that that was the best unpaid or paid 7 minutes Obama could have asked for at this stage. Very well put, and by explaining his rational Powell surely cemented many votes of centrist republicans across this country onto the already growing foundation Barack has amassed.

Bravo!

>> ^blankfist:
^What on god's green earth are you blathering about? How did I side with the devil? I never voted for Bush. You're some piece of work. I suppose if you cannot win a lame ass argument with the truth, you're willing to create your own truth. Brilliant.


The lame ass argument is coming from you, Blankfist.

Claiming that the neocons and the Bush administration are leftists is like claiming the sky is red.

There is no logical way to dissuade you from making that claim, other than to state that you are now using the word 'red' to indicate what everybody else in the world can see is 'blue.'

^lame.

If Powell was just trying to endear himself to me after letting the rest of the Bush cabinet walk over him for so long... it worked.

Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing Powell resume his post as Obama's Secretary of State and let him make up for what the Neocons had him do. He knew damn well that what he helped happen was wrong, which is why he got the hell out. Bush, unfortunately, tarnished his career, but he's still a good man, and an intelligent and insightful leader. He would do well in Obama's cabinet.

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?

Bush 41 sought Failin's counsel on whether to get Saddam. Failin' sided with the worthless UN-types who said No. Schwarzy caved in but it wasn't his call to make. And Bush 41 lost the election for acting like a liberal.

How did Powell undermine the Iraq War, exactly?

See above.

Appeaser? You're actually going to call Obama that?

This guy wanted to pull out more than Oscar Wilde out of a vagina, and still does.

I know you enjoy skulking around like a sockpuppet of Sean Hannity, but seriously...an appeaser?

That's what Obama is: member of a racist church, appeaser, voter to the left of Ted Kennedy, no real legislative achievements, cult of personality.

I don't need Hannity or more than 1/4 of my brain to argue against liberal corruption. Report to Olbermann for debriefing.

^since when did being a liberal become a bad thing? You have to remember that we're all well intentioned and want what's best for this country

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


In the US, both parties are firmly in the authoritarian right.
See here http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008

Since when did being a liberal become a bad thing?

Since the far left hijacked the Democratic Party.

You have to remember that we're all well intentioned and want what's best for this country.

The road to hell is paved with good/well intent. If the policies one supports do more harm than good in exchange for making their promoters feel good about themselves, that's chaos. Doing the right thing often hurts, therefore a political party that wants an "equality of happiness and outcomes" only breeds more chaos.

Well obviously this proves Colin Powell is a communist and a traitor.

@blankfist and rougy
Your whole argument is based on false pretenses. You cannot say that a party is "left" or "right". It depends on the different issues. Each issue also has it's own definition of left and right.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-right_politics#Definitions

It very quickly becomes a muddy debate, because even the US has very socialist based redistribution of wealth through taxes, for instance.

*1stTube

Adding video to channels (1sttube) - requested by Grimm.

*promote ?

Invocations (promote) cannot be called by charliem because charliem is not privileged - sorry.