# Colin Powell



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Wow, I am surprised. It was Colin Powell who stood before the UN with vials in his hand and said he had proof that Iraq had WMD's. He was one of the most staunch supporters of the Iraq war. I put great credability in what the man had to say. Now he supports Obama and Obama's goals are so out of line with the goals Powell at one time projected that I can come to only one conclusion. My conclusion is he is supporting him for the same reason 90% of black people do. When the numbers are that skewed I say racism is raising it's ugly head.



> WASHINGTON - Former Secretary of State Colin Powell endorsed Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., for president on Sunday, criticizing his own Republican Party for what he called its narrow focus on irrelevant personal attacks over a serious approach to challenges he called unprecedented.
> 
> Powell, who for many years was considered the most likely candidate to become the first African-American president, said in an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press" that he was not supporting Obama because of his race. He said he had watched both Obama and his Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, for many months and thought "either one of them would be a good president."


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

If you still aren't convinced that Obama has sealed up this election, Colin Powell's endorsement of Barack Obama should do the trick. Powell says that Obama is a "transformational figure ... He is a new generation coming ... onto the world stage and on the American stage."

Another key reason why Powell says he will vote for Obama is because he doesn't want two more conservative appointments to the Supreme Court. :eyeroll:

And naturally, you get the race argument ... people saying that the only reason Powell would support Obama is because he is black. But Powell says that this is not about race. He says, "I can't deny that it will be a historic event when an African-American becomes president ... And should that happen, all Americans should be proud - not just African-American, but all Americans - that we have reached this point in our national history where such a thing could happen. It would also not only electrifythe country, but electrify the world."

Powell's endorsement is huge, but the endorsement coupled with his thoughts on the McCain campaign really may put the nail in the coffin. Powell says that he was "troubled" by McCain's pick of Governor Palin as his VP. He was also upset with the McCain campaign's attempts to link Barack Obama to domestic terrorist Bill Ayers. Here it is in a nutshell: "Now I understand what politics is all about - I know how you can go after one another. And that's good. But I think this goes too far. And I think it has made the McCain campaign look a little narrow. It's not what the American people are looking for. And I look at these kinds of approaches to the campaign, and they trouble me. And the party has moved even further to the right, and Gov. Palin has indicated a further rightward shift."

Sorry, Secretary Powell, but associations do count. You can judge a man's character by the type of people he surrounds himself with. Look at Obama. You have William Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, Tony Rezko. If Obama were applying for a security clearance these associations would probably disqualify him. That's right. This may be the first time in history that the President of the United States wouldn't qualify for a security clearance if he were a private citizen.

While we are on the topic of political endorsements ... the Chicago Tribune also endorsed Barack Obama. This is the first time the paper has ever endorsed a Democrat for president in 161 years.


----------



## JustAnotherDog (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote found on MSNBC:



> Colin Powell, the first African-American Secretary of State, said this afternoon that electing an *African-American US president would be "electrifying" for the world*, but he said he still remains undecided between McCain and Obama.


but race had nothing to do with it.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Yes, he keeps telling us race has nothing to do with it. He says it so often that it becomes apparent that race has a lot to do with it. He says race has nothing to do with it, then goes on to say how great it would be to have a black president. Ya, right race has nothing to do with it, and I am ten foot tall and bullet proof. 

I am disturbed that Powell would be afraid of two more conservatives to the Supreme Court. It is evident that conservative judges interpret the constitution while liberal judges bastardize the constitution with activist decisions. Decisions tainted with their political view rather than constitutional based.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

no-bama has stated he will be giving Powell a post in his administration.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

hunter9494 said:


> no-bama has stated he will be giving Powell a post in his administration.


Well that explains it. I guess if you have no conscience you can sell out your country and your integrity if you think personal power is worth it.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

I really dont think race is a factor for Powell. I still like the man even though hes backing Obama. I think hes just a little disgruntled with the republican party. I think he would be a FARR better choice than Obama. Hes just never seemed like the kind of guy that puts stock in "race" or plays the race card. And, maybe having Powell in that administration would be a good thing. A somewhat conservative voice of reason amongst a bunch of libby dbags.

And even if it was about race, he'd NEVER EVER come out and say that.


----------



## JustAnotherDog (Oct 16, 2005)

Stolen from another board:



> Rush is getting attacked because when he was asked about whether or not Powell's decision for Obama was based on race. He said he didn't know, but he would research and try and find out how many inexperienced, extreme liberal white people Powell had endorsed. The media is pitching a fit, but it was a damn fine response.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

JustAnotherDog, I heard a few minutes of Rush today and heard him talking about that. If Powell didn't want it to be taken the way Rush took it he shouldn't have played up how great a black president will be. It's his own fault. Racist or stupid neither one is good.


----------



## JustAnotherDog (Oct 16, 2005)

Someone please tell me what, in Obama's past makes him a choice for president. He voted "present" how many times? 130 times?

He's suave and makes great promises?

He has endorsements? From foreign people that have attacked the united states, guess that makes him an international kind of guy. Colin Powell joins with Kadahfi, wow!


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

I have lost a lot of respect for Powell due to this, but it does shed some light on some other possible reasons why he left Bush's administration. And driving that possibility home is the part of his announcement that bothered me the most......that the republican party has moved too far to the right.

If he truly believes that, then it's not hard to understand why he's picking Obama.

If McCain is too far right, I'm 10' taller than Plainsman !!!!!

Give me a break !!!!! :eyeroll:

And at the risk of offending Bob, if you are expecting truly conservative appointees if McCain were to miraculously pull this out......please don't hold your breath! Although they would be less likely to condone bombings on US soil as a political "tool", they would be a far cry from what I believe you and I want to see.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Pat Buchanan pontificates and takes the low road just like many here have:






And _when_ Obama (who has always insisted that his campaign isn't about race) wins, how much do you want to bet Buchanan and company will be on television claiming _*Obama*_ brought up the race issue to get elected? I guess when it is the only argument you have other than what the man says are his reasons, you have to go back to attacking the messenger (Obama or Powell) instead of his message. Classic. All of you folks were such HUGE Powell supporters in the past. Flip. flop. Flip. flop.

Ohh... and in case you haven't seen it yet, check out this interview with Powell after he appeared on Meet the Press. He shreds McCain's campaign and provides more reasons for supporting Obama, none of which are related to skin tone.






Powell clearly explains exactly what I have done on this forum, about what the real issues of this Presidential race are all about. All of the dirty politics of the Republicans has just annoyed the majority of the American people, especially the swing voters. They want change and they want it now.

Glad to see you Powell apologists are all getting on the same page with your excuses and talking points ...

:lol:


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

its a big game ryan, don't you get it? the government is taking control of the people's lives.......455 elected officials are going to manipulate the people into thinking they are going to be better off....we won't be, in the end, the rich and powerful will be the only class that experiences gain and they will exercise endless power over the people, all the while selling them a bill of goods..read my latest post......it all makes perfect sense. the housing bubble, the bank defaults, the bailout.....it is ALL PART OF THE PLAN. NO-bama is part of the plan, a big part....don't you get it??


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

The Powell clip posted by Ryan says a LOT. I had not seen it, but it certainly gives us a look inside him we hadn't seen before. I wonder if he meant to get on a roll like that?

It also tells me the only thing in question about his endorsement was when he was going to announce it.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Sounds like Powell made the right choice to me. :beer:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Powell clearly explains exactly what I have done on this forum


Your to full of yourself Ryan. I have never seen a good point or a answer without liberal spin. You talk about spewing hatred, then forget all about your posts about Palin. 
Obama was the first to bring up race. I watched Powell on TV and he talked about how wonderful it would be to have our first black president. Both Obama and Powel brought up race. Race neither makes them right or wrong, it is their policies that make them wrong. 
Usually when we talk policies Ryan you talk about the Letterman show, how many houses McCain has or some other trivial meaningless "earth shattering point". 
I think people are drooling over the free money from the working class. I think if you follow the money you will know why people are for Obama. Federal employees of which I was one drool thinking of the money they will get. The lazy drool thinking of the money they will get. Other than Hollywood you will find few successful individuals in the private sector that will vote for Obama. I have had some people tell me they make a bundle and support Obama, but I think they were just braggers full of bs. They are drooling over the free money. 
People who are socialists will love Obama. The funny thing about socialists is they are normally people who don't want to earn their own way. We see in socialist and communist countries how the work ethic declines. Why would anyone work hard when you get paid the same sitting on your duff, or pretending to work hard?


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Plainsman said:


> > Powell clearly explains exactly what I have done on this forum
> 
> 
> Your to full of yourself Ryan. I have never seen a good point or a answer without liberal spin. You talk about spewing hatred, then forget all about your posts about Palin.
> ...


Plainsman, I am simply amazed at how cynical you are. To think that you have all the democrats all summed up is stunning. To think that "other than Hollywood, you will find few successful individuals in the private sector that will vote for Obama" is jaw dropping. This forum is more comedy than anything anymore.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Well seabass like many things in life I just say follow the money. I think we are in the last stages of democracy where some who find they can vote themselves prosperity will vote for who gives them the most. That's what the democrat party is all about. That's why Obama will take from the productive and give to the lazy. I wonder if we sill become socialist, or jump right over that to a dictatorship. 
Yes, I do think I have the liberals summed up. Higher taxes, more social programs, give illegal aliens drivers license, implement draconian firearms laws, use our tax dollars to buy votes from the lazy, etc. I don't have to guess, it is the democrat already established record. 
If a party takes from the productive and gives to the unproductive are they not the favored party for the losers?


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Plainsman said:


> Well seabass like many things in life I just say follow the money. I think we are in the last stages of democracy where some who find they can vote themselves prosperity will vote for who gives them the most. That's what the democrat party is all about. That's why Obama will take from the productive and give to the lazy. I wonder if we sill become socialist, or jump right over that to a dictatorship.
> Yes, I do think I have the liberals summed up. Higher taxes, more social programs, give illegal aliens drivers license, implement draconian firearms laws, use our tax dollars to buy votes from the lazy, etc. I don't have to guess, it is the democrat already established record.
> If a party takes from the productive and gives to the unproductive are they not the favored party for the losers?


I have friends making just under the 250k mark and friends over the 250k mark. All democrats. All successful. All willing to pay more in taxes to provide some relief to others who are struggling to get by. No, of course, they don't work for the government; they are private sector people. But see, they don't see the trickle down effect working. They figure we all benefit if we can give citizens easier access to affordable health care, a high quality education, etc., etc. etc. They may not directly benefit, but society will. It's easy to point fingers at "the lazy" and use that as fodder for the end of all social programs. But they (the lazy) represent a fraction of the people who are hard-working yet benefit greatly from tax relief. The much maligned pork that is talked about is also a tiny fraction of the entire budget, but of course it gets all the attention. McCain wants to axe all government spending because it sounds and feels good. It is a mistake. We have too many good programs out there to hatchet them all. You have told us on several occasions how much benefit citizens have received from your position as a federal biologist. Do you think your position should be done away with? I know several scientists that have saved farmers millions of dollars because they found ways to save on pesticides used. Do you think private research (eg. chemical companies) would give this result?

It must get old to be a constant doomsdayer.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I have friends making just under the 250k mark and friends over the 250k mark. All democrats. All successful.


I had a fellow from Texas tell me that you could get on a train in east Texas at sunrise, ride all day, and when the sun set you were still in Texas. I told him "heck we have trains just as slow in North Dakota". My response to your friends making 250K who are democrat is "hey, I have friends just as stupid".



> represent a fraction of the people who are hard-working yet benefit greatly from tax relief.


Tax relief? Do you mean like when Clinton gave people back $6000 when they had only paid in $1000? That's not tax relief that's welfare. I don't have problems with welfare for the needy, but I have problems with the needy thinking they have an entitlement to the products of my hard work.



> McCain wants to axe all government spending because it sounds and feels good.


That's very easy to repudiate. It isn't true. As a matter of fact it's ludicrous. Outlandish statements don't gain anyone credability.



> You have told us on several occasions how much benefit citizens have received from your position as a federal biologist. Do you think your position should be done away with? I know several scientists that have saved farmers millions of dollars because they found ways to save on pesticides used.


There are many worthwhile programs out there no one is denying that. There are some welfare programs that are worthwhile. Taxes for infrastructure we all benefit from. Taxes for education, environmental, new energy sources etc are all worth while. Money going to ACORN and other corrupt political organizations is not worthwhile. 
As a federal employee most of the work was worthwhile. Much of the training was worthless. Why? Because when budgets were tight (even when they were not) training like diversity took priority over training to do your job better. A little liberal politically correct influence in government there. Often the trainer knew less than those he thought he was training. I grew up on the Spirit Lake Nation, my neighbors were native American. Pre school I walked through the pasture to gather milk cows with a man by the name of Jimmy Little Ghost. Do you think I learned much about native American culture from a Chicago inner city federal employee? 
Yes I was a federal employee, and the closer you get to Washington the more screwed up priorities become. I don't now why government always responds to the political correct crowd. They even respond to PETA. When collecting salamanders we are not supposed to put specimens directly into alcohol which kills them almost instantly because it might be painful. Instead they must be put into 10% alcohol for I think it was about half an hour. I guess some idiot thought that they would become intoxicated and not notice the straight alcohol when we threw them into it. Well my response is try jumping into 10% alcohol and see how your eyes feel. Your back end may not like it either. Some non-biologist emotional fool created torture thinking he was brilliant. :eyeroll: 
So you see some government programs are great while others are not worth the doggy due you try scrape from your shoe. It takes someone like McCain at the top and not Obama to ensure our hard earned tax dollars are not wasted.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

> My response to your friends making 250K who are democrat is "hey, I have friends just as stupid".


Thanks for making my point.  They are _not_ stupid people. I'd love for you to meet them so you could illustrate how stupid they are. 



> I don't have problems with welfare for the needy, but I have problems with the needy thinking they have an entitlement to the products of my hard work.


Again, I wonder about what % you of people you are blaming this on relative to how many people are "truly" needy.



> Do you think I learned much about native American culture from a Chicago inner city federal employee?


But plainsman, do all Federal employees have your background? Should the feds have one training program for you and another for everyone else? huh? :withstupid:



> Instead they must be put into 10% alcohol for I think it was about half an hour. I guess some idiot thought that they would become intoxicated and not notice the straight alcohol when we threw them into it.


I don't believe you on this. Show me the statement from the government that said this needed to be done. or show me the publication where it comes from. If there was a purpose for putting salamanders in 10% ethanol, it wasn't under the guise of making it less painful for the salamander. You show me the proof, I'll acknowledge it.



> It takes someone like McCain at the top and not Obama to ensure our hard earned tax dollars are not wasted.


We've had Bush for 8 years along with republican controlled house and senate for much of those... we've given you all a chance at the top. It doesn't appear to be working.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> But plainsman, do all Federal employees have your background? Should the feds have one training program for you and another for everyone else? huh?


There are hundreds available. When one increases your knowledge of your job and the other is worthless to a particular employee which should be mandatory? Who is with :withstupid: Your passing judgement on something you know absolutely nothing about simply for political advantage. There are hundreds upon hundreds of training classes available from one hour to week long supervisory training sessions. Some you must travel for, some are on the computer. Your way out on a limb with no knowledge what so ever of the subject.



> Again, I wonder about what % you of people you are blaming this on relative to how many people are "truly" needy.


The percentage is perhaps low, but still they are a leach on society. Just because it's low is no reason to accept it. I'm not advocating dropping everyone. I am advocating a program that reduces abuse. I am advocating a program that those who use it know it's welfare and not something they are entitled to.



> I don't believe you on this. Show me the statement from the government that said this needed to be done.


I'm not at work anymore so don't have that available to me anymore, but please don't call me a liar again, there is no need for the extreme rudness. Also, it isn't available for you to see. You may request it from the Library of Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center or any other federal biological institution, if you seriously want to know. I doubt it. The procedure is described under the standard operating procedure in the animal care and welfare standards. PM me if you would like a contact.



> We've had Bush for 8 years along with republican controlled house and senate for much of those... we've given you all a chance at the top. It doesn't appear to be working.


True, but who has been in charge since gas prices went out of sight, since the lending agencies started to fall? [/quote]


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

> Your way out on a limb with no knowledge what so ever of the subject.


You'd be surprised how much I know on this very subject. However, I'm not going into any details on this forum, that's for sure.



> The percentage is perhaps low, but still they are a leach on society. Just because it's low is no reason to accept it. I'm not advocating dropping everyone. I am advocating a program that reduces abuse. I am advocating a program that those who use it know it's welfare and not something they are entitled to.


Everyone advocates for a program with no abuse. You'll find no argument for anyone on that. But it's a huge issue to try to divide the needy from those who aren't. And how do you quanitify how much one person's need are from another? I have a friend whose young (28 year old) daughter had a stroke and thus far cannot work at the position she went to school for... yet doesn't qualify for social security because she _would_ be able to do telemarketing from her home and make $1000/month. Now, I think she should be able to qualify for a reasonable amount of time to continue her therapy and get back to her pre-stroke condition so she can work as she used to. I fear that with mccain at the helm, we will see even tighter rules that already employed.



> I'm not at work anymore so don't have that available to me anymore, but please don't call me a liar again, there is no need for the extreme rudness.


 :huh: Are you serious? How hard could it be to provide the information? I simply do not believe your example is true. Sorry that seems so rude to you.



> True, but who has been in charge since gas prices went out of sight, since the lending agencies started to fall?


right. it's the dems fault. For sure.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Are you serious? How hard could it be to provide the information? I simply do not believe your example is true. Sorry that seems so rude to you.


I will not display federal publications publicly. I hesitate to send it to you in Canada because I fail to see why it is any of your business. However, this is the publication you want. Send me your email and I will send you the page on Euthanasia. Since you have publicly questioned my integrity and my truthfulness twice now please do the right thing when you recieve this publication.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

Seabass, what would you think if I said I didn't believe you when you said you had friends who were both rich AND smart who all voted Democrat, and went on to state that you had to prove all 3 points to me before I would acknowledge you had any credibility on the subject?

Actually you would have to prove FOUR points....the other being that you had friends !!!!!!! :lol:

I'm obviously trying to be funny while reminding you of something that I'm sure a man as smart as you already knows. That being that telling a man you don't believe something he has stated as fact is the same as calling him a liar...at least the way I was raised, and no one appreciates that. I have seen guys make a trip to the hospital for it.

Maybe you didn't mean it like it came off. :wink:

While I've got you, there is something I would like for you to help me to understand. I see here a lot how people on your side of the aisle say everything is Bush's fault. But I also see on here...and by many of those same people, how stupid he is.

My question is how can both be true?

How can such a stupid man control an entire economy and/or country, with all those smart democrats (who HAVE been in control for almost 2 years, as stated) watching him so closely?

Please note I'm not trying to be a smartass, and I don't expect a debate, just a light-hearted explanation to help me understand your perspective a little better.

Thanks in advance...

Dan


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Plainsman, first off, I don't question your integrity or truthfulness. I simply do not believe that salamanders were put into 10% ethanol because of some liberal democrat's bend that it was better for the salamander! You stated:


> When collecting salamanders we are not supposed to put specimens directly into alcohol which kills them almost instantly *because it might be painful*. Instead they must be put into 10% alcohol for I think it was about half an hour. I guess some idiot thought that they would become intoxicated and not notice the straight alcohol when we threw them into it.


I went to the NPWRC to see what I could find, but couldn't find the paper you mention. I did find this: "We recommend preserving amphibian eggs and larvae by placing them in a small vial filled with a 10% formalin solution. Alcohol is more pleasant to work with and safer than formaldehyde, but tends to dehydrate specimens."

But they aren't talking about salamanders. Who would have guessed we'd be talking about salamanders on the politics forum, eh? I'm in the business of science so I find this sort of stuff intriguing. So, when you told me why you put salamanders in 10%, I got interested.

Anyway, I'll drop it. Again, I don't doubt that is how you guys did it, but I just can't imagine that it was some liberal's idea to do it. Also, publications by federal employees are not copyrightable... so, it wouldn't be a problem sending me something.

Secondly, I'm not in Canada.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Csquared said:


> Maybe you didn't mean it like it came off. :wink:


Yeah, I guess I didn't. Because of course plainsman remembers how they did it. No one called anyone a liar. I question his reasoning for why it was done. In the context of teh statement, he was saying that the 10% made the salamander's drunk and that this was pushed from liberals.

Hey, I thought it was us dems who had thin skin!

We don't say it is all Bush's fault. It's obviously a very compolicated situation. But, let's be honest, Bush came into things when we had a sailing economy. The republicans had a majority in the house and senate... Bush et al. lowered tax rates on corporations to stimulate the trickle down effect. Maybe it's just me, but I don't see it working. We've had 8 years to test it, right? Is that not long enough? Maybe it truly isn't, but my thoughts are that enough is enough. Let's end the Iraq war responsibily, and move on. Full steam ahead on getting Osama, however... we should have never let our eyes off that prize in the first place, but that's another topic.

So, if we had several years of republican controlled presidency, house, and senate, why not let us have a shot at full control?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Seabass, I didn't say it was because of democrats or liberals that we had to use 10 percent alcohol. I said it was government responding to whoever it is that pushes these things. I do know that PETA tries to influence these things. 
The standard operating procedures are not meant for public access. They are for our use and standards. However, the offer remains to send the paragraph concerning euthanasia of amphibians. 
If you have a hard time with something in the future just say it's tough one to believe, not that you don't' believe someone. I and Bob both demand that all are treated with respect. Including you. The only people I give a little hard time are those who brag to much about themselves. My parents raised me to be humble, and I just can't choke down bragging very well. I hope you can understand that.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Okay, from now on, I will not say:



> I don't believe you on this.


and instead say:



> it's tough one to believe


Did I get that right?

You also called my friends stupid for being democrats, right? c'mon don't I get respect too?

tit for tat?

Does that paragraph state that PETA was responsible? if not, why does it pertain?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

No it does't say PETA was involved that would never be said even if they were. I know they always look over the shoulder of state and federal institution thinking a mouse might get hurt. They try to influence many things pertaining to the treatment of animals. My whole point is I guess is that touchy feely isn't always right, and that politically correct is simply a waste of time. Or some such what was the subject again training?

Yes, I suppose your friends are not stupid. There are many liberal extremely rich people in Hollywood, but they are radical left. To tell the truth I can't figure it out.

Where did I get the idea you were in Canada? Are there two names closely related on here. I thought there was a seabass from NDSU. I haven't seen that name for a long time. Maybe it was Cbass. I don't know. I'm trying to find where on my computer I filed some scientific publications he sent me. Darn memory. :x

Oh, I will get a little different attitude about you. I was wondering why some guy in Canada was so interested in the United States and giving us a bunch of guff from across the border. Sorry about that. I thought heck your socialist already what the heck business is it of yours that were still free.  I thought you were just a socialist who couldn't mind their own business.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

Seabass wrote:


> But, let's be honest, Bush came into things when we had a sailing economy.


If honesty is your goal, don't let yourself forget the facts. Bush inherited a failing economy. Everyone knew it was turning, and had been for awhile. It was so obvious that even my liberal co-workers stopped arguing about it and acknowledged that whoever won in 2000 would take the blame for the fall.

I'm somewhat sensitive to that topic because I also remember well the direction of the economy when Clinton took over from Sr in '92, but who got all the credit? Now the leftists here can read whatever they want into those statements...I truly don't care, but all I'm saying is the info used to gauge the economy was all pointing up in the fall of 1992, and down in 2000. Although they didn't make it the opening topic like they do now when unemployment goes up a half of a percent, even the NBC Nightly News acknowledged both trends.

I'm not defending Bush. I can barely stand to see him talk. But compared to our choices at the time.....I'm glad he's there. And although I know almost as much about painting toenails as I do about economics, I did pay attention in social studies class (that's what they called it back in my day) enough to understand how the executive branch of the government works, and consequently, who to blame for bad economic policy.

Sewabass also wrote:


> Full steam ahead on getting Osama, however... we should have never let our eyes off that prize in the first place, but that's another topic


Does that mean we can count on hearing the same from you as soon as the next one makes himself known.....whomever he may be? I just want to know if you are echoing Obama's tough (and politically correct) talk or really believe all dangerous terrorists should be hunted down until caught. I'd like to know the same of Obama, but I have a better chance of getting a leftover porkchop from Rosie O'Donnell's Obama victory celebration party than I do a clear answer from him! :eyeroll:


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Right, that is why I said that for what, six of eight years, we have' republican controlled house, senate and presidency... I dont' have a Ph.D. in economics and even those who do have that Ph.d. don't agree, but you'd think that trickle down economics should have worked better if it was the panacea that you hear it is.

csquared, why didn't we continue going after Osama the whole time instead of flaring off to Iraq? Can you say, distraction?

Csquared, can I count on you to hold the course after the next terrorist event and not get side-tracked to invade some other nearby country while the mastermind is hiding in some cave? I just want to know if you are going to echo something reminiscent of president Bush's mantra about WMDs and axis of evil. I'd like to know the same of McCain, but I have a better chance of Bill o'reilley giving a homeless person a spare nickel than I do clear answer from him 8)


----------



## southdakbearfan (Oct 11, 2004)

seabass, go look at the history of the US tax code and find a time when increasing taxes has helped increase the economy.

It can't be done because it has never happened. Increasing taxes has always decreased the economy. Now decreasing taxes, almost always helps the economy, but that is pretty much dependant on what inflation is at the time. If inflation is high at the time of the decreases, a period of disinflation messes with the economy.

Increasing taxes increases the amount of the GDP that has to flow through the gov't. With every dollar that flows through the gov't, the value of the dollar decreases due to waste within that gov't. Those dollars wasted can't be spent again because they are not entered into the economy.

The period of boom of the 90's and early turn of the century were possible because of the trickle down economy put into effect during reagan's years which brought money and investments full circle into the economy along with creating the footwork for unprecidented advances in technology.

The tax cuts of 2001 helped the economy, but runaway spending has halted all those gains along with the deregulation of the finacial industries which was put into effect by clinton and not changed by anyone else in power since.

Fact is, tax cuts work. The top 5% pay 95% of the taxes. So, basically, if you cut taxes, you are cutting taxes for the so called rich. Increasing taxes works, if you want to centralize more power in the gov't, decrease economic oppurtunities for all americans, and make more people reliant on the gov't for their well being.

But, it is a double edged sword, if you cut taxes, you must prepare to cut gov't spending.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

I didn't mean to rattle your chain seabass. If you read my post you should see I'm not a Bush fan, so don't waste too much time trying to tie me to him.

And you don't have to thank me for the heads up :wink:

I can't give you an intellectual answer on the Iraq thing, but I can give you my stance on it. I was steadfastly against it at the beginning. Ignoring all that was good about declaring war on a country that had not attacked us first (and I'm talking about Germany in 1941 :wink: ), I was concerned of the future ramifications of the preemptive aspect. I'm from the school of thought that prefers to wait until they throw the first punch, then counter that with a force as close to the equal of the wrath of God Himself as we can muster.

However, as I've learned more and more about the subject in general, and more specifically about jhad, my opinion has changed somewhat. Much has been written about why many believe we are in Iraq. Look into Samuel Huntington and Larry Abraham for starters if you want to learn another perspective on a "war for oil". There is another man who's name escapes me right now who vehemently challenges some of Mr. Abraham's details, but still overwhelmingly agrees with his basic context.

And just for the record, we saw evidence of Hussein's weapons on the national news when they showed dead women and children, and men I know who have been there saw more than most want to talk about....pertaining to types of weapons, I mean. But I do not believe that's why we are there.

Would be a good question for Colin Powell now that he no longer has to worry about offending those darned republicans. Wasn't he the one that supposedly had proof in his hand as he testified before Congress?

Were we lied to? Sure

Is it the first time? :wink:

I think I have responded to each of your points. If not, please don't hesitate to hold me to the fire. 

Oh, and I actually believe Mr. O'Reilly has given much more than pocket change to the homeless, so please forward McCain's answer ASAP.

:beer:


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

Oh, I jut read bearfan's post and realized I forgot your point about trickle down. You're a scientist, right? So please enlighten me on how gravity is allowed to take a break while something trickles UP?

I can't believe no one laughed outloud when Obama said the economy is fixed from the bottom up. So when I get laid off I go ask my buddies for work!!!!!!!!

What's the union rate for raking leaves, anyway?

I don't know how old you are or if you even remember the 80's, but I do, and many people I know temporarily moved to Colorado and Texas for work in the early 80's, but were back home..and WORKING by Reagan's second term. So in your opinion trickle down doesn't work, but in my opinion...and more importantly in my LIFE...it worked beautifully. Not to mention while also winning one of the most important wars in our country's history without putting a single soldier in the line of fire.

But as you say, that's another topic.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Csquared, my chain isn't rattled :-? I'm not trying to make any points, just answer your question.

Oil and WMDs aside, I was amazed when I started to realize that we were going to go for Saddam instead of going for Osama. To me, it was a ploy at the time and I still believe it was. Period. I'm all for doing what it takes to get the guy who caused 9/11


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Has the trickle down worked these last 8 years? Just curious.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

I ask you as a friend to read Abraham and Huntington, then let me know if it affected you either way. I'll warn you, it's deep, but should be no problem for you.

Good luck!

:beer:


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Csquared said:


> I ask you as a friend to read Abraham and Huntington, then let me know if it affected you either way. I'll warn you, it's deep, but should be no problem for you.
> 
> Good luck!
> 
> :beer:


Fair enough -- I'll get one of the books. Give me your favorite and I'll give it a read. I work a lot of hours and have a young one, but I'll try to get it done sometime soon.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

> Has the trickle down worked these last 8 years? Just curious.


I assume this is directed to me.

I'm no where near qualified to answer that question in general terms. To quote your chosen one, "it's above my pay grade". But I can speak to it in a personal sense just like I did about the 80's above, and say YES, it has worked wonderfully for me. Each year I have made considerably more money than the last during those eight years, and my company has work logged through 2009, and the only money I owe is on a new truck at 0% interest. So yeah, things are good for Dan.

As to the general sense? Well, approximately 600 people who created these problems, or at least allowed them to happen, are arguing what has caused those very problems as we speak. You obviously infer those problems are a result of Bush's version of "trickle down", but I know you know it's much more complicated than that.

But time will tell. It always does!

And partisan people will continue to ignore it.... :wink:

:beer:


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

Read Abraham's first. I think his is the most recent. It's very easy to find online. Just Google "The Clash of Civilizations", and it should be somewhere on the first page.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

It's directed at anyone. Like you, it's above my pay grade. But I don't think this talk about recession is a fantasy. So, it begs one to question the fundamentals of this policy.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Csquared said:


> Read Abraham's first. I think his is the most recent. It's very easy to find online. Just Google "The Clash of Civilizations", and it should be somewhere on the first page.


Did you really read it on line?


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

I PM'd you with more info. We're kinda takin over here :wink:


----------



## MSG Rude (Oct 6, 2003)

Getting back to the thread....

Powell is a joke and adding to the list is of retired disgracful people I would add Barry R McCaffrey. He was another fellow riding the coat-tails until they retired and then stabbed the back of the person wearing the coat. And yes folks, I am speaking metaphorically and yes to the next question you might ask. I have worked with and for both of them and not indirectly either.

I am physically disgusted every time I see one of them on the boob tube.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

99% of blacks supported Obama against hillary why???racial bias period. Hillary and the Clintons were extremely popular among blacks yet virtually all the blacks went for Obama.

Now considering their history in America, and the fact their ignorance of issues is even worse than most whites that is understandable.

Whats funny is now that Obama is going to win the last few blacks that didn't support him because they thought he would lose are trying to jump on the bandwagon to regain some credibility in black society.

Shows how shallow they are.

It is like the swing people are now supposedly still on the fence about who they support, how could anybody be that oblivious and stupid at this point in the process.


----------



## nesika308 (Oct 23, 2008)

Wow .....What a thread.

If I vote Mr McCain I may be racist and if I vote Mr Obama I may have to say that I would be on the otherside of this problem. As fo the VP's well then God help us should our president not complete their term.

I am the new guy on here and can say I will 100% support the man elected, but I wish I had a R. Reagan to put trust and faith into.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

Welcome...and good point.

Who would Reagan vote for? :wink:


----------

