Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 6/29/2003 7:02:30 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/29/2003 7:03:10 AM EDT by jrzy]
There are two canidates running for the office of the President of the united states in 2008,one is a liberal democrat and the other is a conservative republican,here are your two choices. 1- Hillary Rodham Clinton 2- Colin L. Powell My vote would go to Colin L. Powell, no explanation needed.
Link Posted: 6/29/2003 7:08:37 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/29/2003 7:09:01 AM EDT
I would prefer NOT to vote or move to russia if those are the choices.
Link Posted: 6/29/2003 7:09:17 AM EDT
In my mind powell and clinton are one and the same. Powell is no friend of our community, and could possibly be an enemy. Clinton is a non-quantity, there woudl be no suprises there. Of course, I thought bush was a known quantity also... But, I don't think the answer to this question is meaningful as a racist test.
Link Posted: 6/29/2003 7:14:24 AM EDT
DoubleFeed That is so true, I hope you understand that this thread is about making people take a brief look and examine how they feel about racism when you are forced to look at the other alternative as in this question. It was not meant to be a baiting question and I hope it stays open for a little while anyway.
Link Posted: 6/29/2003 7:29:21 AM EDT
Originally Posted By hielo: In my mind powell and clinton are one and the same. Powell is no friend of our community, and could possibly be an enemy. But, I don't think the answer to this question is meaningful as a racist test.
View Quote
You see thta's what I'm talking about, you make these comments with nothing to explain or back up that statement, well what do ya got? And you're right about it not being a very scientific test, it's meant as a barometer of how much you will let your racism get in the way of rational thought.
Link Posted: 6/29/2003 7:36:21 AM EDT
This is not a real good "Are you a racist?", question. Everyone here would more than likely vote for Powell. A better question to determine this would be to ask,"Do you hate all members of this race group(black, white,asian,etc)?". If your answer is no then you are not a racist. You have the freedom to hate/dislike certain people in particular groups for the way they act and the things they do, and you are not racist in this regard. Frankly I'm tired of all these dumbass racist threads. You either hate people because of their color, which is the only way to be a racist, or you can hate particular people because of their lifestyle choices, which does not make you a racist. These are the only two options, pick one and get on with it. Bill3508
Link Posted: 6/29/2003 7:38:32 AM EDT
Originally Posted By jrzy: You see thta's what I'm talking about, you make these comments with nothing to explain or back up that statement, well what do ya got? And you're right about it not being a very scientific test, it's meant as a barometer of how much you will let your racism get in the way of rational thought.
View Quote
Actually jrzy you are assuming that one wouldn't chose either person based solely on racism. That assumption alone renders any response insignificant. There are a myriad of reasons I wouldn't chose one or the other, and none of them have anything to do with racism. But your question does not allow for anything but a racial response. Your question is not an assessment of rational thought processes. TT [wave]
Link Posted: 6/29/2003 7:41:58 AM EDT
Originally Posted By bill3508: This is not a real good "Are you a racist?", question. Everyone here would more than likely vote for Powell. A better question to determine this would be to ask,"Do you hate all members of this race group(black, white,asian,etc)?". If your answer is no then you are not a racist. You have the freedom to hate/dislike certain people in particular groups for the way they act and the things they do, and you are not racist in this regard. Frankly I'm tired of all these dumbass racist threads. You either hate people because of their color, which is the only way to be a racist, or you can hate particular people because of their lifestyle choices, which does not make you a racist. These are the only two options, pick one and get on with it. Bill3508
View Quote
Good post.
Link Posted: 6/29/2003 7:46:57 AM EDT
How about Condi Rice V. Colin Powell? I take Condi anyday. I would also "hit it". Hows that for a president, hittable and presedential.
Link Posted: 6/29/2003 7:47:50 AM EDT
Another vote for Condi! I'm in!
Link Posted: 6/29/2003 7:48:42 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/29/2003 7:51:10 AM EDT by Andreuha]
CLP is the better candidate hands down. In the second vote... Whats Rice's political stance (dont hear much of her). Anyway, who cares who you vote for, HRC's soccer mom buddies are counting. "It's not the people who vote that count. It's the people who count the votes." (Joseph Stalin)
Link Posted: 6/29/2003 7:51:30 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/29/2003 7:52:17 AM EDT
The first is a socialist, the second a globalist. Either way, we lose.
Link Posted: 6/29/2003 7:56:09 AM EDT
Originally Posted By jrzy: There are two canidates running for the office of the President of the united states in 2008,one is a liberal democrat and the other is a conservative republican,here are your two choices. 1- Hillary Rodham Clinton 2- Colin L. Powell My vote would go to Colin L. Powell, no explanation needed.
View Quote
Other than the fact yer an ignoramus!! [:D] Other than color, and gender, there's NO difference between the two, (and one COULD question those!!). BOTH will take the Nation further from the Constitution. There are ALWAYS more than 2 choices for president. Colin Powell, is NOT America's friend....
Link Posted: 6/29/2003 8:00:34 AM EDT
Other thought experiments: Would you let a black doctor operate on your kids, if there was a white doctor available, but she was not as well qualified? Which would you rather be? A rich black man or a poor white man? Who would you rather marry? The fat, ugly white chick with no teeth, or Halle Berry? If you're in a fox hole and get shot, would it matter if the medic was black? How about the guys covering your ass while they evacuate you? Care what color they are? Would you eat dinner with them in the mess hall? [%|]
Link Posted: 6/29/2003 8:00:54 AM EDT
Originally Posted By liberty86: Colin Powell, is NOT America's friend....
View Quote
OK liberty86, show me why he's no friend to America.
Link Posted: 6/29/2003 8:29:45 AM EDT
Originally Posted By jrzy:
Originally Posted By liberty86: Colin Powell, is NOT America's friend....
View Quote
OK liberty86, show me why he's no friend to America.
View Quote
Colin Powell is a well known Globalist, brought up, by Frank Carlucci. Do some research, you'll see what I mean.... He's for gun control, and affirm action..Check him out, before you say you'll vote for him.
Link Posted: 6/29/2003 8:43:48 AM EDT
If those are our only 2 choices I'd say SCROTUM has made another of their extraordinary decisions. Not a snowballs chance in hell I'd vote for either.
Link Posted: 6/29/2003 8:47:54 AM EDT
If Colin Powell is no friend of gun rights, he is no friend of mine.
Link Posted: 6/29/2003 9:00:44 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/29/2003 9:08:37 AM EDT
jrzy....Colin Powell. [url]http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1995/vo11no06/vo11no06_powell.htm[/url] Anyone doesn't like the source, tough, dispute the facts.
Link Posted: 6/29/2003 9:18:13 AM EDT
In light of world events during the last 3 years, I thought I'd post an excerpt from my link above...
A Ruling Elite Naturally, for "political polish, the deft feel needed to advance an agenda" in Washington, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is the place to go. Indeed, so important is the CFR cachet considered in Washington, Richard Barnet (CFR) wrote some 20 years ago that "failure to be asked to be a member of the Council has been regarded for a generation as a presumption of unsuitability for high office in the national security bureaucracy." More recently, Richard Harwood accurately observed in an October 30, 1993 column for the Washington Post that CFR members "are the nearest thing we have to a ruling establishment in the United States." Harwood then ran down a partial list of CFR members in the Clinton Administration, which began with the President himself and virtually all of his Cabinet secretaries. "This is not a retinue of people who 'look like America,' as the president once put it," said Harwood, "but they very definitely look like the people who, for more than half a century, have managed our international affairs and our military-industrial complex" in both Republican and Democratic Administrations. And what is wrong with that? A great deal, obviously, not the least of which is the disastrous way they have "managed" our international and military affairs over the last few decades. Even more strikingly odious, however, is the reality of a small, self-perpetuating coterie holding power and pursuing a private, hidden agenda unknown to the public at large. The Council protests that it has no agenda, that it is merely a pluralistic study society, a patently fraudulent claim that is easily disproved by an examination of the words and actions of the CFR and its members. The late Admiral Chester Ward, a former Judge Advocate General of the Navy who was himself a member of the CFR for 16 years, charged that the group was formed for the "purpose of promoting disarmament and submergence of U.S. sovereignty and national independence into an all-powerful one-world government." The leadership of the group, Ward wrote, "is composed of the one-world-global-government ideologists -- more respectfully referred to as the organized internationalists." Moreover, he charged, the "lust to surrender the sovereignty and independence of the United States is pervasive throughout most of the membership .... The majority visualize the utopian submergence of the United States as a subsidiary administrative unit of a global government...."
View Quote
It may be worth noting, how Rumsfeld, and Powell, often "seem" to be at odds. Nothing is further from the truth.
Link Posted: 6/29/2003 9:21:31 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/29/2003 9:22:22 AM EDT by The_Macallan]
Hillary "the beast" Clinton!!! Colin "new world order" Powell!!! Harry "open borders" Browne!!! Ross "round up the guns" Perot!!! Clem "never held executive office" Kadiddlehopper!!! What's the difference? [rolleyes] I think Condi's equally competent but more of a constitutionalist than Powell so I'd vote for her.
Link Posted: 6/29/2003 9:42:46 AM EDT
A better test would be when you turn on the 5 o'clock news do you say to yourself, "I'm sure glad I don't live around dem Black peoples." [@:D] hehehe
Link Posted: 6/29/2003 10:19:11 AM EDT
Powell would get my vote. I vote on the basis of who's shown the most noble, & moral life style. If that's what they live, that's what they will give to America. I know that my sound simplistic, but it works for me.[:D]
Link Posted: 6/29/2003 11:35:29 AM EDT
Condi is a globalist as well, but I would vote for her before Powell or HRC. Course I would rather see Ron Paul, JC Watts, Tancredo, Musgrave, Gibbons, or Ensign. I know this, I am not voting for GW this next time around, that I am sure of......
Link Posted: 6/29/2003 11:45:56 AM EDT
Originally Posted By thedave1164: I know this, I am not voting for GW this next time around, that I am sure of......
View Quote
John Kerry thanks you for your support.
Link Posted: 6/29/2003 1:05:57 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/29/2003 1:07:02 PM EDT by Donith]
I personaly would've liked Alan Keys to have gotten the nomination. I don't recall him saying anything I didn't like when he was running and he said plenty to piss off the liberals in both parties. Replace Powell with Keys and it would be a better test.
Link Posted: 6/29/2003 1:12:09 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Donith: I personaly would've liked Alan Keys to have gotten the nomination. I don't recall him saying anything I didn't like when he was running and he said plenty to piss off the liberals in both parties. Replace Powell with Keys and it would be a better test.
View Quote
Agreed
Link Posted: 6/29/2003 1:13:42 PM EDT
JC Watts before them all. Watts before bush. Watts over anyone the republicans put forward. JC is the man, and would do good by our country. JC is the only politician whom I would trust to watch my kids.
Link Posted: 6/29/2003 1:42:31 PM EDT
If you had to watch one show....Oprah or Katie Couric? Matt Lauer or Bryant Gumbel? Best rock guitarist......Jimi or Stevie? Best all time golfer.....Tiger or Nicklaus? Best heavyweight champion...Marciano or Ali? Best comedian ...Cosby or Hope?
Link Posted: 6/29/2003 1:58:52 PM EDT
[size=6][red][b]WALTER WILLIAMS 2008!!![/b][/red][/size=6]
Link Posted: 6/29/2003 2:04:08 PM EDT
It is interesting where the Republican candidate will come from, in 2008. No one knows.
Link Posted: 6/29/2003 2:12:10 PM EDT
niether. I aint votin for no whore an I aint votin for no ****** [red]edited for content[/red] LOL just kidding.
Link Posted: 6/29/2003 2:22:59 PM EDT
I am just gonna write in Alan Keyes and call it good.
Link Posted: 6/29/2003 4:14:03 PM EDT
I think it would be great (maybe not Powell, given the info above) for the Republicans to run the first viable minority candidate. Hell, the Dems haven't even been able to run a viable female (Ferraro, come on!). Maybe Alan Keyes can marry a half Hispanic, half Asian lady and run for President--wouldn't that give the Dems the runs. AFARR
Link Posted: 6/29/2003 4:27:16 PM EDT
They are one in the same. Powell is as much of a republican as Mccain is. If Powell was elected he does support more gun control and he would surly start up more programs to help the "poor oppressed black people". But hay, he's just trying to level the playing feild! Tough question! The lesser evil MIGHT be Powell.
Top Top