What impact will Colin Powell's endorsement have?
 

Powell speaks up. Will it have an impact?

I was most interested in Powell's comments about inspired leadership, and the importance of working across international boundaries. Very similar to Gordon Brown's message of the last few days.

Watch the video.....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081019/ap_on_el_pr/powell

It is probably the most important endorsement this political season.

I don't really think it will make that much of a difference. I would say a lot of people have their minds made up at this point. He is highly respected though, generally speaking.

Should have done it sooner, but very important nonetheless.

He's under orders from Cheney.

No surprise. This is what Colin Powell said earlier.

"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".

That said it is not about race. Yeah Right.


http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archi...5/1403219.aspx

That wasn't the question. Do you think it will have an impact? How about with those that don't just vote for candidates of their own race?

Seems to me you aren't giving Powell much credit.

Here we go again...

Yeah, and it wasn't about race when Joe Libermann jumped party lines to support McCain. You see how stupid that sounds? Sounds like you are the one who is hung up on this issue.

There were several Conservatives/Republicans who threw their support behind Barack well before Powell made his announcement.

How come it is not an issue when white folks support each other. However when one prominent black person supports another, it must be racially motivated?

From listening to Powell's endorsement he seemed to have thought carefully about his choice, and laid out his reasons in plain, rational terms.

Excuse me...Colin Powell was the first one to pull the "Race" card. Note the quote where he emphasizes "African American" President. Funny that he clarifies his position after the fact that has nominating has "Nothing" to do with race. Why then did he emphasize the fact that his "African American" heritage was the "electrifying" factor?

Hey Krimson...You need to focus your rage at Colin Powell who made this a racial issue in the first place.

Lieberman did not say prior to his support of John McCain that electing another "White" man would electrify the world.

You'll need to find another example if you want to make a point.

Gotta agree here....the good General put it on the table. He used great logic and gave a detailed explanation for supporting Obama. Why must there always be a racial undertone when a black supports Obama?......Phil

PLEASE...I'm not letting you off that easy.

"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

Please show me what part of this exact quote prior to his endorsement mention Obama by name or his qualifications to be President of the United States?

Before any of you Obama supporters say I'm cherry picking please explain how Colin Powell's above quote does not qualify as a racially motivated.

I'm anxiously waiting.

Ok let's try and stay on track.....

"What impact will Colin Powell's endorsement have?"

I'll honestly answer your question if you answer mine.

Nice way to avoid the difficult question though...

Now to clarify all of this.......

Mr. Powell made these statements on Sept 15th.

Appearing today at George Washington University with four other former US Secretaries of State -- Madeleine Albright, James Baker, Warren Christopher, and Henry Kissinger -- Powell and the panel were asked by a student whether they thought America electing Obama president would send a more powerful image overseas than John McCain.

Baker and Albright spoke first and said they both thought it would be significant, but Baker noted he was still voting Republican. “I think electing the first African-American president would send a powerful message not just abroad but in this country as well. Having said that I have, of course, endorsed Sen. McCain,” Baker said to much laughter.

Albright followed up and got a huge round of applause from the college audience for her presidential choice. “I think it would send a huge message in terms of what America stands for and in terms of diversity and potential. And I, of course, am supporting Sen. Obama,” she said.

Then came Powell. “[T]o send that kind of a message, I think would be electrifying,” he said, “but at the same time, we have to make a judgment here ... which of the candidates blends a right measure of experience and judgment? I have been watching both of these individuals, and I know them both extremely well and I have not decided who I’m going to vote for yet.”

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you blame Mr. Powell for playing the race card ( which is the dumbest statement you could make in this case) Then you have to blame all of them for doing the same.

But let's be realistic. If it was the first Irish American, or the first German American, or the first Native American, Or the first Polish American would it matter as much as it being the first African American?

Wouldn't it be just as important if it was the first of any specific ethnic group. I mean really how immature it is to take the comments that someone makes and assume their playing a race card because their ethnic background is being mentioned.

Come on folks "GROW UP" You make yourself very small by dwelling on this as if it's a negative issue. If you have any class why not try to find something good about it.....:nanana:

After the fact...Nice try tough.

Dude i don't mean to be disrespectful but i believe you have a serious problem and need some help. This thread was not about race but it appears you decided to make it so. You have a right to express your opinion but really I'm finding that you seem to suffer from excesses in racial and other trivialities. Perhaps you might consider upgrading the content of your comments to include something more substantial than irrevelant issues like "who's playing the race card". Try answering the question that started this thread..

Thanks

Figures;

Just like a little kid..... Grow up bro

I think it will certainly sway some people. While Powell is certainly not a very popular individual, most of those who do not like him will already be voting for Obama. And those who do like him -- those who were and still are supporters of the Iraq War -- are mostly McCain suppoters. So maybe some of them will be swayed. It's not going to have a huge effect though.

Colin Powell made this issue about race when he made the comment. If you're trying to play me off as some type of Racist you would be far off the mark. I am gender and race neutral and I could care less the color of Obama's skin. Quite the opposite is true...I can't stand when someone makes a statement like Powell and then turns around and accuses others or making this racial. I have a good friend who is black and in-fact is voting for Obama. Not because he is black but because he is Liberal. I'm OK with that.

So you're happy...No. I don't think his endorsement will change anything. Obama is still going to win and in exchange for all of his spending I'm going to get a $500 tax cut. Big Deal.

Fwiw, Powell is listed as half Afro-American and half Jamaican American...

This is the same guy who told the UN that there were WMD's in Iraq, right? Wouldn't it be hypocritical of those who oppose the war for this reason to now be excited that Powell is on their side?

Obama has been spending money like it is going out of style on his campaign. I think he is outspending McCain 4 to 1 or something. He has even bought space in video games. He is trying his best to buy this election and everywhere you turn there is something with his face on it. That is why I don't think Powell's endorsement will actually sway many voters at this point. He can't possibly be in the media anymore than he has been and at this point the country is so Obama'ed out that it is just a ripple in the pond. Oprah backing Obama will sway more voters than this.

I don't think it goes either way. Had he supported McCain it would have made no difference, same as supporting Obama. People have made up their minds, we'll know the result in less than 20 days.

Shh. When he said it it was on bad Intel, when Bush said it he was lying to the American people...didn't you get the memo from Michael Moore?

Yes, that was his speech to the UN. I think he feels sold out by the current administration.

I don't think that it is about being excited to have Powell on 'their side' whatever side that is. I think that Powell's endorsement probably strikes at the core issues about foreign relations, military experience, etc, that McCain has been attacking Obama on. I respect Powell myself, but I don't know how he is perceived throughout the US. I think he probably gets more traction with the Republicans than the Democrats, so it seems like a significant endorsement to me.

MLG, this wasn't a race post. You can't claim that Powell brought it up first and made it about race, he was simply asked a question by a moderator. All the panelists answered the question. They all agreed (even the white ones...). The comment by the black panellist made the headlines. Get over it. Highlighting it makes you look small. I don't think that tolerating your black friend voting for Obama is a good defence against the concern about your focus on race. I am not accusing you of being a racist. I simply think that in your rush to trivialize and discount the endorsement, you seized on an inappropriate fact to try and negate it.

Either way, I think it is too late to have a significant impact. He should have done this earlier if he wanted to make a big difference, IMO.

Would not the endorsement have some effect on the "still" undecided voters? I am guessing yes it would.

Anyone still undecided should be embarrassed then hit themselves in the head with a brick :)

It may have some impact on them, but is it going to be the deciding factor? I don't think so. It is a positive thing for Obama, but not that big of a deal.

I am on the fence and I respect Powell, so his support does mean something to me. I have to agree thought that Obama being Black might be a factor in Powell support of Obama.

There is no way you are going to have your mind made up by election day, blue. :rofl: :stickpoke

:rofl:

See Post #31. :nanana:

Now that's funny............:rofl:

:iagree: ........My point exactly

There is about 6-8% of undecided voters.
They are the ones that not happy with republican due to obvious reasons and still not sold on OBAMA. All talking heads on all channels (MSNBC to FOX) are expecting that this segment will break heavily toward McCain on Election Day. This endorsement could help in minimizing the pro-McCain split in this segment!

PS. It was refreshing to listen to Mr. Powel yesterday. He was first person (if I'm not mistaken) who spoke openly about the current environment of vilifying Muslim Americans.

:iagree:

I don't like the Republicans but don't like higher taxes, Obama is a great new hope but he scares me with regard to taxes and who he defines as rich.

The cost of living is higher in NY than most areas and a income of $250,000 plus is really middle class.

Perhaps it is the demographic on this board, but I struggle with a definition of middle class that is making over $250,000 per year. Maybe that is the upper middle, I don't know. Isn't the median wage in the US around $50k? If $250k is the cutoff for the top 5% (just guessing at that figure) then that is a pretty broad middle.

I've been searching for that definition this whole campaign season.

I agree w/JCL, as I have posted often that this Board is not WalMartNation,
income-wise. (Well, except for me & QwkAg. ;) )

A quick GOOG shows US Median Household Income to be ~$48Gs, per 2006
stats. Not a lot of dough...:rolleyes:

Say upper middle class, I still don't want higher taxes and the cost of living in NYC is high.

Trying to clasify a nation by income that ranges from $0 to more than a billion (some hedge fund managers) into three simple categories is difficult by nature.

:iagree:

I believe the correct figure is more like 2%. And yes, it is a pretty broad middle to consider people within the top 5% to be "middle class".

They all lied. This is no longer speculation, but has been confirmed. Perhaps you need to read the foreign press...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...ar-428545.html

Unlike us, our friends across the pond actually investigate their leaders when they are suspected of lying.

Here is the question of the thread....is it playing the race card when a non black votes for a non black? If in your mind somewhere you say of course not, then why is it an issue when a black supports a black. Do you believe that blacks have no substance and intelligence, therefore they make decisions based on ethnicity? Why can't General Powell just disagree with the direction that McCain wants to go. I hope that all of you political scholars take the time to make your opinion count. Go Vote!!!!!!............Phil

Sure, in some cases it is. Look, we are kidding ourselves if we say that there isn't a percentage of white and black voters that will vote for the candidate of their color before they vote for the other candidate. I guess we will never know what the percentages actually are. Therefore, arguements will be made on either side.

By the way, all the headlines I have seen in the past day or so indicate that the race is tightening, so would that indicate that Powell has not had a significant impact?

It is actually starting to look like Obama may have peaked too soon and McCain is gaining ground. Obama spent the money on advertising and has been in the media like crazy, but it will be interesting to see just how many people hit the polls. Democratic voters have a history of not showing up when push comes to shove.

Yeah, I've noticed :thumbup:

But do you draw the line at less than $250 k per annum, or more?

And 'who dis' in your avatar?

And what happened to our official political pundit?

Well, as the postulator of the question of the thread, I honestly had no idea this would turn into a race discussion. It simply hadn't occured to me. I thought the question was about a respected Republican, strong in some of the specific areas that Obama is criticized in, breaking ranks with his party and endorsing the opposition. There were some good points made in the subsequent posts, and only a few descents into partisan politics. I just found it surprising that there was so much focus on race.

Ryder: I agree with you, everyone now needs to go vote. We voted in Canada this past week (after a nice and short 4 week campaign) and we have a new prime minister (same old guy, another minority government). My guy got in locally, so all is good, but voting is what matters.

I dont think so. Remember most blacks support the democratic party.

But we need to stop viewing this thing in black and white. I am a black person and i would never vote for Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson.


Back to the question. I think Powell's endorsement will definitely play a big role among the undecided voters and sway them toward the D-party.

Once again, have you guys seen the polls lately?

Yes. Today's summary of the national polls, from USAelectionpolls.com:

That is funny. Everything I have read on CNN, FOX, etc said Mccain was tightening the gap from a few weeks ago. I guess one will always be able to find something to the contrary.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/...oll/index.html

Depends where you get your news. The url I provided shows the CNN poll results, the Rasmussen results, and lots of others. Updated regularly. The number of polls (and their biases) tend to get averaged out. Now you can check how independent your favourite media outlet is.

They we can debate whether people who answer polls will turn out to vote on November 4th.

Here is my problem with Powell's endorsement of Obama. Powell is a Republican and though he tends to be more moderate than his party he is still a Conservative.

ULTRA LIBERAL----------------- Centrist -------------ULTRA CONSERVATIVE

Obama is on the far Left of this spectrum and the House is run by Nancy Pelosi another Ultra Liberal. Harry Reid is not far behind. Any Conservative even the moderate Conservatives have NOTHING to identify with when it comes to Obama and his Ultra Liberal politics. So...When Powell endorses Obama and makes the racial comment he made it looks bad. Even moderate news sources are questioning his motives.

That said Powell was given a raw deal in the Bush Administration. I could and do understand his frustration with the Republican party. But Obama is so far Left it does not pass the intellectual honesty test.

Besides...Nobody in the media is mentioning the 4 other surviving Secretary of States who are endorsing McCain. Why...Skin color.

You mean this Rasmussen?

FOX News/Rasmussen Reports state polling this week shows a slightly improved situation for John McCain compared to a week ago.

It goes on to state that Obama still has the advantage but;

The results are also consistent with national polling that shows the race might have tightened somewhat over the past week. The Rasmussen Reports daily presidential tracking poll has generally shown Obama up by four or five points nationally during the past week. Prior to that, Obama had consistently enjoyed a five-to-eight point lead.

Here is the whole article.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10...-florida-ohio/

Like I said, everything I have seen says thing have gotten better for McCain over the past few weeks.

You are right about debating whether people who answer these polls will actually show up to vote. That is where the Republicans should gain some more ground, IMO.

Yep...McCain pulling ahead in Ohio and Florida. He still has a huge uphill battle on his hands and I don't believe he will win in the end. Way too many new young voters this time around who don't have home phones to get polled. The ACORN votes alone should put Obama in the White House.

By the way, the Rasmussen Report Daily Presidential Tracking Poll also suggests that the race may be tightening (just a hiar).

From reading the results and analysis, I understood that some national polls will show McCain closing but that it won't necessarily help him. The state by state results apparently don't show the same trend. The logic used was that he has been campaigning in states he has a lead in, to hold on to them. The suggestion was that he has strengthened his numbers (in a defensive move) but it won't help him overall, that he has too steep a hill to climb.

Or all that could be wrong.

McCain has gained in Ohio and Florida this week, which are important battle ground states, right?

They were not states he had in his pocket.

Which racial comment are you referring to? The only one contained in this thread is in your post near the start, in bold print. There is just one problem: it isn't a quote, it is a newspaper headline that you put in quotation marks. It isn't what Powell said.

Read your own link, which you provided to support your position. Here is an excerpt from it, with Powell responding to the interviewer's question about electing a black president, and what message it would send to the world:

The article goes on to talk about Powell saying he would not be voting for McCain because of being friends for 25 years, and not be voting for Obama due to colour.

I didn't see Powell make a racial comment. You've got to get past the race issue.

Some polls have him gaining in Ohio. However, the link I provided (usaelectionpolls.com) shows him falling behind in Ohio on a 7 day moving average. I provided the analysis text above.

I only used that site because it sorted through all the separate polls. I don't know that it is better than others. I figured that so many polls were using 1000 person samples, and not necessarily from all areas within a geography, so averaging the polls provided a more statistically significant result.

Believe which ones you like, however, I can't ensure that one is better than another.

As Powell would clarify and place in context the statement above - not just "any" African American as US president would be electrifying for the world (you can have your Clarence Thomas Mr. Lab Guy), but rather Obama as an African American and as US President will electrify the world.

Obama raises the political discourse to the level where it should be - a focus on the issues. He seeks to build bridges between those of opposite persuasion to bring forward a solution that promotes the goals for both sides. He is not a liberal seeking a liberal agenda, rather he is a liberal that is seeking moderate solutions because we a moderate America.

I also agree with Powell in that the politics of the Republican party needs to come more to the center if they are to remain a single, viable political party as time marches on... In short, we are witnessing the last gasps of a generation and politics that no longer serves all Americans. :popcorn:

You ignored my point about Powell being a Moderate Republican with nothing in common with Obama's politics.

Case in point...Powell in a recent interview.

Powell told Tom Brokaw that he still believes that war was the right course of action, on the basis of what he and other officials knew -- or thought they knew -- at the time. He said he believes the war was mishandled. And he said he still opposes a "deadline" for withdrawing U.S. troops, though he added that a "timeline" for withdrawal is beginning to emerge.

Sure does not sound like a man who believes Obama and his policy will be better for America.

LOL...That's right...Obama is going to "Change the World"! You are starting to sound like Louis Farrakhan and making Obama out to be some sort of savior or as Farrakhan says the next Messiah.

As for Obama reaching across the isle to moderate America...Please. Show me ONE example of him reaching across the isle. Obama is an Ultra Liberal and his policies speak for themselves. Besides...With the White House, Congress and the Senate being in the hands of the FAR LEFT there will be no need to reach across. Get ready for a Reach Around America.

Here's one example of Obama having conservative appeal from a quick Google search - [Obama's] first television ad buy in Iowa included testimony from a Republican state lawmaker from Illinois talking up Obama and his ability to reach across party lines. Obama appeals to Christopher Buckley, Michael Smerconish, among other conservatives of influence - as with me, their support has nothing to do with Obama's race, and everything to do with his intellect and ability. :bmw:

You've got me there...That is proof positive that Obama is going to "Change the World".

Come on Nov 5th, come on Nov 5th.

What four "surviving Secretaries of State" are you referring to? Do you include Madeleine Albright? She is supporting Obama.

Albright is still pissed Bush threw her N.Korea deal off the table :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: That was in the link MLG provided as well, but I didn't highlight it because I figured that if we couldn't get the invented quote right, how could we agree how to count to four? Or, since it is apparently all about skin colour, maybe she has changed hers.

Plus there are more than four surviving Sec. of State, not including Condi Rice.

How many endorsements does it take to be Pres of the US? :rofl:

I think Nike should sponsor Bob Barr, would that count :rofl:

BTW, did anyone catch the tie/tails dinner with Obama and McCain joking around?

McCain stands up and says "..I know there are many Democrats here, but I can't help but feel that some of you are pulling for me. Hillary, glad to see you made it"

Obama "as many of you know my name is Barack Obama, my middle name..well some of your are confused, it is actually Steve. Barack Steve Obama"

McCain "..I'd like to thank groups like ACORN for helping disenfranchised voters get recognized, like 2 year olds, dead people and cartoon characters"

Obama "..of course I wasn't alive to know your grandfather, but John tells me he was a great man. In fact he said they had some great times hanging out together"

Condi Rice is supporting OBAMA.......
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: Just kidding.

Wouldn't that be a hoot. :D

The walls of Jericho would come tumbling down!

It was great! McCain is a funny guy... unfortunately at inappropriate times, though.

Sorry I'm not up on my list of ex-Sectaries of State currently living. Endorsing McCain are Henry Kissinger, James A. Baker III, Lawrence Eagleburger and Alexander Haig.

Off the top of your head list the surviving Secretaries of the Interior. :rolleyes:

Oh, you mean the four white republican guys that are supporting McCain? How racists of them to choose McCain because of the color of his skin. Their choice, including Albright, has nothing to do wit political affiliation or ideology.

I might buy that if they were all Liberal Democrats. Colin Powell is a Republican who served in a Republican administration and supported the war in Iraq even today. Not much in common with Obama but...

Keep up

So shame on Powell for breaking party line and ideology. The nerve of that Uppity Negro.

Obama<--------------------------------------------------------Ideology------------------------------------------------------------------------>Powell

I was offended by the racism :tsk:

Powell has rarely seen eye-to-eye with either party. IMO he was a BS SoS when appointed. But that is hindsight. As I stated, he probably had zippy impact as all the talk radio programs I've listened to still have people asking the exact same questions as were brought up prior to that announcement.

So am I. You can't tell me that you think those are my words and my feelings? The unfortunate fact is that it is being said on the conservative talk radio circuit yesterday and today.

The republican party is upset at the endorsement. Will it have a major impact? I'd have to agree with you, but important, nontheless.

What was said? I haven't heard that on any program I listen to.

Mark Levin and G. Gordon Liddy. Not the host, per se, but their listeners and call ins have been pretty hateful. In addition, the talk is that Powell, by his choosing to endorse Obama has betrayed the Republican Party after all they have done for him. Also they have been referring to him as Benedict Powell and a "Race Patriot" in Blackface:

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/...ict-powell.jpg

I wouldn't have a clue who your past Secretaries of State were, except for the link you conveniently provided in which one of them declared her support for Obama. It was your link; you repudiated your own claim!

You do realize that we don't have Secretaries of State up in the GWN, let alone Secretaries of the Interior?

So a listener called in and said that, well that blows. Kind of like the Obama fans interviewed by Howard Stern who loved his pick of Palin for VP :rofl:

Actually the Republican party treated Collin Powell poorly and in fact abandoned him. Regardless of his MASSIVE shift to the Ultra Left I still respect him for his service and think the photo above is tasteless.

I agree. People who aren't in the know think he betrayed the party.

But isn't being abandoned by your party a good enough reason to support a candidate from the opposing party? I would think that Powell would have endorsed Hillary before McCain with facts like those. Don't you agree?

Honestly I could see any Republican supporting a moderate Democrat. I'm not sure Hillary fits into that category but plenty of Democrats are middle of the road. Obama is just too Liberal and unknown to take that chance especially with Nanci Pelosi and Harry Reid holding the gavels. So no...Anyone with a shred of Conservative values would need to vote McCain and hold their nose, independent or not vote at all.

I could easliy support a Democrat for President and have in the past.

Didn't we discuss above how Powell has been a centralist?

Here is the problem of referring to people like Obama as Ultra Left; IMO it says more about the speaker than Obama. Essentially, it describes your position. Those on the far right think Obama is a communist. Those on the far left think Republicans are fascists. Neither extreme view helps.

Those on the real left would never recognize Obama's policies.

I am reminded of the phrase "when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail"

I'm sure the Haig endorsement really pulls in lots of votes. :rofl:

You all keep saying this, but I just don't see it. I'm very liberal and I don't like the guy at all. He is too moderate for my tastes. Just look at his stances on some major issues:

1. Health care -- he is NOT in favor of a single payer system, which is the liberal position

2. Iraq War -- he is NOT in favor of immediate withdrawal, the liberal position. Instead he favors the "timeline" which is the moderate position also held by many moderate Republicans and most recently by the Bush Administration who just negotiated such a deal with the Iraqi government

3. Defense -- he is NOT in favor of large cuts to the bloated Defense budget

Nader and McKinney are the extreme liberals in this election. Obama is about as liberal as McCain is conservative. I really do wish there was a real liberal running from one of the two main parties, since I would love to vote for someone who has a chance to win, but unfortunately the last time the Democratic Party nominated someone who was very liberal was a year before I was born.

I'm betting he is really ALL for what you listed from his past involvement and the company he kept. He does not come out and say he's for these things because he could not get elected. I'll guess we'll have to wait and see who is right.


BTW...You are off the chart Liberal and I'd say you are a Socialist. Obama is Ultra Liberal.

Obama is an Ultra Left Democrat and you can't really argue that point based on his life experience, work experience, world view and policy while in his Senate Seat.

Like I've said...I voted for Bill Clinton twice and worked on his campaign in both elections. I'm not religious, I could care less if guys married guys or girls married girls. I'm not against abortion though I do want it to be regulated and avoided if possible.

So go ahead and make me out to be some Far Right Extremest. You'd be guilty of that which you accuse me.

I tell you Obama doesn't scare me nearly as much as dems in the whitehouse and congress do. Obama with a Republican run Congress, fine. McCain is actually pretty dangerous with a Dem Congress as well. I'm sure Piglosi could bend him over the tax barrel once or twice.

Psss...Bob Barr...pss...Bob Barr :) Sorry I only have a few weeks left :)

You've convinced me...I'm voting Barr come November. I'm in California which is in the Bag for Obama so my Republican vote does not matter.

Funny story though...I go into make an appointment at a child's haircut place in Northern California and the owner asks me if I'm a Republican or a Democrat immediately upon opening the door. I looked over and noticed an Obama pin on her jacket on the chair and immediately walked out of the business.

Pretty dumb mixing business with Politics I'm a great tipper with a 2 year old so she really missed out. The pin alone was no big deal but to grill me before the door closed was inexcusable.

I hope you are right.


I'd say you are right. :thumbup:

Since when is being a socialist some kind of radical extremist?

Social Security, Unemployment Benefits, Medicaid/Medicare, Minimum Wage, Workmans Comp -- all socialist policies

Fire Department, Police Department, Post Office -- all nationalized/socialized organizations

Last I checked, most of our politicians, even most Republicans, support most of these policies/organizations. But just don't use the "S" word!!!

Socialism is what liberalism is all about. The two are one and the same. Remember back when Bush Sr. ran for president and "Liberal" was a dirty word?? haha :rofl:

How things have changed....

:wow: ...:rofl:

You really take this stuff seriously Huh......:bustingup

It was bad business. You don't ambush a patron with a litmus test the moment he walks in the door. I'm not paying $35 for a haircut for my 2 year old from someone who is going to put me on the spot like that. What was I to say? I'm a Republican...Now go ahead and take a sharp object to my sons head? Liberals in the San Francisco Bay Area are NUTS at times.

The correct answer should have been "I'm not here to discuss politics I'm a man looking to get a great haircut for my son.

Diplomacy my friend not confrontation. Trust me it works with liberals in the San Francisco Bay Area also.

Diplomacy :bustingup I should have used my stun gun. :D Instead I spoke with my feet.

Too funny.... Like i said You really take this stuff seriously. LOL

Eric you have an amazing ability to mix crap together to make your point. Sure your name isn't Karl?

http://gerald-massey.org.uk/jones/images/karl_marx.jpg

You've lumped any and every tax together as the same item to create a socialist inspired Utopia. Again, if everyone played fair, that would be great.

Social Security, Unemployment Benefits, Medicaid/Medicare, Minimum Wage, Workmans Comp

SS = Democratic socialist policy inspired by the Great Depression and resulting in continued depression of the economy and status of the state for decades after

Unemployment Benefits, Minimum wage, Workmans Comp = All items that could survive on their own without any socialist influence. Free market system, you're looking for a job..one company offers these benefits, another does not, you choose.

Fire/Police = Ah, public safety is not socialist. And why didn't you throw the entire military in with that too?

Medicare/cade = HUGE joke. Politicians took the easy road instead of coming up with some type of solution to health care, they simply supplemented it. (aka what John McCain will attempt to do)

Why didn't you throw in FDIC, SEC and other Democratic policies? And this socialist debate in the states has been raging long before you and I roamed the planet, 1930's and earlier. So this is nothing new.

Most liberals respect the right to vote for the candidate of your choice.
Go back and wear a political pin of your choice I bet everything will be fine.:thumbup:

Eric = ;owned;

Great in theory, but it doesn't work. Prior to the government passing these laws, none of the jobs offered these things. As a result, you had 7 year old kids working 6 days a week, 12 hours a day, in dangerous conditions, for pennies an hour. And if they got hurt on the job and could no longer work due to the injury, too bad.



Interesting to hear you say that, as you have argued that it is in the past. Other items that fall under "public safety" are health care, pollution, safe working conditions, safe vehicles, and many other such things.

How about the FDA? Isn't that a socialist organization? Can't the "free market" serve the same purpose as the FDA? If a drug doesn't work, then people will stop buying it....right? If a certain food is unhealthy, then people won't buy it anymore, right? All good in theory, but doesn't work.

"public safety" = anything that helps keep the public safe, whether it be something that protects them from illness, hunger, accident, weather/nature, or violent harm.



Agreed. The other 95% of the industrialized world has figured this out already. We are lagging way behind.

Prior to the govt...prior to the govt.... :tsk: That is no excuse for socialism. I would guarantee, just from my line of work alone, that any company that offered these benefits, would be chosen over another. You DO NOT need the government to provide this as a "rule". And thusly, the free-market would work..as usual.

Why you insist government is a required crutch, I'm not sure. But you constantly go back to that. And I have NEVER argued that you didn't need safety :tsk: And YOU DON'T need safety enforced by the government. Look at the 'bang up job' done by the FDA. According to your logic, this government oversight should have made it all better. According to socialist structures, Fannie and Freddie should have made home buying 'all better'. Facts are facts, long term socialist programs fail..and fail badly. I'm sure your response, prior to reading this sentence, would have been "well they were corrupt", news flash....any socialist institution will lead to corruption as it is one hundred percent dependent on people playing by the rules.

Same way I feel about labor unions, great ideas when the concepts didn't exist. Now that they exist...remove the government RULE.

So you are saying that the government is needed to start these policies, and once the policies are in the marketplace, then you can get rid of the laws?

Interesting concept.

However, I suspect that over time these policies would gradually disappear and eventually things would be back to the way they were before.

As for labor unions, our government has consistantly acted on the side of industry and has passed laws to limit what labor unions are allowed to negotiate. If you are in favor of having a "free market", then labor unions should be allowed to negotiate without government interference.


A big issue with all of this is enforcement of anti-trust laws. Anti-trust laws have pretty much been ignored for the last 50+ years. I would be much more willing to accept what the "free market" dictates if there was indeed a free market. But when large companies form monopolies over industry, you no longer have a free market. In these cases, without government enforced legislation to protect public safety, there will be none.

Ah once people have these policies, try taking them away. You're a business owner, right? You should understand that if you pulled all your benefits away, anyone offering the benefits would have a better shot at your employees (of course you would have to offer benis first :rofl:) There are millions of lawyers, I'm sure more than one of them would be willing to take your "anti-trust" case :)

Government should be used to kick off a policy idea, sure. Hence credits for R&D, tax incentives for new energy practices, however the government should not 'mandate' them. And if mandating them is necessary to move forward there should be a very clear time table on when such items would no longer be in effect. Now that would be "change you can believe in" without subjecting the tax payer to drawn out, piss poor managed, entitlement programs. Social Security has proven that such programs are DOOMED. Yet for some reason, we like to blindly assume 'if we just had more gov involvement' it would be better :confused: