Jump to content

Powell: If elected, Obama will face "crisis" in January


1tallbassguy

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 118
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

I'm not disputing your point, I'm saying it isn't applicable to 1tall's point and that's simply because you're missing the context of the statements. You don't "generate" a global financial crisis to peak on a particular date to coincide with the swearing in of a new president.
:D

D'accord. But I wonder if dealing with the bulk of the financial crisis is shaping up to fall in the new administration's lap. The crisis itself doesn't have to peak at that point.

 

Edit: I reread and agree with you even more. My guess is outside the context that 1tallbassguy set up in the OP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • CMS Author

 

Well it is my opinion, and that is "much" to me.


Is it necessary for you to make a statement to discount the worth of my opinion?

 

 

When you've been posting a seemingly never-ending string of this type of stuff, do you really expect anything else?

 

I'm still trying to understand why you reject common sense and solid evidence and accept nearly any unsubstantiated theory that crosses your path.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Well it is my opinion, and that is "much" to me.


Is it necessary for you to make a statement to discount the worth of my opinion?

 

 

If you want to discuss it, yes. If you don't want a discussion, don't ask for one. If we are going to talk about these issues, I will discuss them with you and let you know that the conclusions you make based on the evidence you present indicates you are easily swayed by conspiracy theories and/or irrationalities; so much so that it is difficult to take you seriously. If you don't want to be taken seriously, it won't matter to you. If you do care about being taken seriously, it should matter to you. It doesn't matter to me whether you are taken seriously or not, so none of it matters to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Is it necessary for you to make a statement to discount the worth of my opinion?

 

 

Kindness is not discounting your opinion simply because it is your opinion. He is discounting it because, like most things you post, it is unsubstantiated by any reliable evidence...He would give roughly the same weight to any such unsubstantiated opinion...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

When you've been posting a seemingly never-ending string of this type of stuff, do you really expect anything else?


I'm still trying to understand why you reject common sense and solid evidence and accept nearly any unsubstantiated theory that crosses your path.

 

 

Where did I reject common sense?

" " " " solid evidence? Since I have not drawn any conclusions, only speculated.

I simply posted what folks have said, including "Generated crisis".

I didnt accept a theory, I simply heard and read the statements, and made a determination from that info.

 

Why dont you explain to me what a generated crisis is. How should the average citizen take that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

He just means why you would draw the conclusions you do. They don't follow logically. The quotes all indicate that it is a reasonable prediction based on world events, past and present, that the new president will be tested quickly. Some are also making the point that those tests might be artificially generated to occur near the inauguration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Think about what you just wrote and try to explain why you aren't being a racist just now. I know a couple of native Canadians that might show you if you don't get it.


Perhaps you ought to read Powell's comments again. Oh, and John McCain says Rush Limbaugh is wrong about Powell.

 

 

That was just a little Joe this and Joe that humor.Granted it's not politically correct but I hate that PC crap anyway so I'm not going to apologize.If you think that makes me a racist so be it.I know better than to waste my time trying to convince anyone to change their mind.I don't need to read Powell's comments again.I watched the entire show/interview when it aired Sunday.Fact is it sounded to me like it was written for him by one of Obama's strategists right down the line point by point.As to what McCain says regarding Rush he can say whatever he wants but that doesn't mean his supporters have to agree with him.He refuses to make an issue of Pastor Wright as well and that's his prerogative.I think he's wrong but I cant change that either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

That was just a little Joe this and Joe that humor.Granted it's not politically correct but I hate that PC crap anyway so I'm not going to apologize.If you think that makes me a racist so be it.I know better than to waste my time trying to convince anyone to change their mind.I don't need to read Powell's comments again.I watched the entire show/interview when it aired Sunday.Fact is it sounded to me like it was written for him by one of Obama's strategists right down the line point by point.As to what McCain says regarding Rush he can say whatever he wants but that doesn't mean his supporters have to agree with him.He refuses to make an issue of Pastor Wright as well and that's his prerogative.I think he's wrong but I cant change that either.

 

 

I thought it was ironic of you to make racist comments while accusing someone else of racist behaviour by way of Rush Limbaugh.

 

Not to mention a little hypocritical: By your own logic you should endorse Powell for what Rush accuses him of. After all, he didn't cow-tow to 'PC crap' when he 'chose Obama because he is black'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

There is no significant peace in the history of man that was not forged by war or the threat of war. To deny
any
peace thus made is to deny
all
peace.

So you're saying the only way to make peace is to wage war?

 

BY that logic, there can be no conquest of a peaceful state.

 

Alexander the Great did not "make peace" - he conquered nations.

 

Hitler did not "make peace" - he conquered nations.

 

Occupation and war against a state that does not threaten your peace, cannot possibly create peace.

 

Forceful opposition to such occupations, creates peace. :idea:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
IMO bipartisan political thinking is a bull{censored} hockey team construct that keeps society from dealing with issues with the sophistication those issues demand.


Issues are not inherently either left or right, and true solutions to them are often mired by attempting to put them in those boxes.



Bravo.

Well said. :thu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
So you're saying the only way to make peace is to wage war?



No, that isn't what I said. It's not even a reasonable extension of my statement since it explicitly contradicts what I said.

BY that logic, there can be no conquest of a peaceful state.



Your interpretation of my statement is explicitly incorrect. Your logical extension is thus as well.

Alexander the Great did not "make peace" - he conquered nations.


Hitler did not "make peace" - he conquered nations.



I did not say "all war makes peace", so why are you refuting that which I did not say?

Forceful opposition to such occupations, creates peace.
:idea:



Violent opposition isn't "war"?

Since when has organized military violence not been "war"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

There is no significant peace in the history of man that was not forged by war or the threat of war.


To deny any peace thus made is to deny all peace.

 

The ends does not justify the means.

 

I choose freedom over the promise of peace.

 

The threat of war, unbridled with concern for humanity, is a paving stone on the road to tyranny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
The ends does not justify the means.



I did not claim that it did.

I choose freedom over the promise of peace.



What does that even mean? :confused:

The threat of war, unbridled with concern for humanity, is a paving stone on the road to tyranny.



That's nice.

However, considering no one has mentioned "war, unbridled with concern for humanity", it's not exactly relevant.


Perhaps it would be best if you responded the words that people actually choose to express their thoughts, rather than what you (often erroneously) interpret their hidden intentions or implications to be? ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
The ends does not justify the means.


I choose freedom over the promise of peace.


The threat of war, unbridled with concern for humanity, is a paving stone on the road to tyranny.



Hey man....pass some of that {censored} my way. I promise i'll just smoke it and shut up. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

1. Obviously Colin Powell is talking about the multiple crises of worldwide economic emergency, warfare in Iraq etc. The talk was begun in that context and was worded to that context.

 

2. From your link, with CNN commentary expunged:

"Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy,"


"The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America."


"Watch, we're going to have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."


"I promise you it will occur. As a student of history and having served with seven presidents, I guarantee you it's going happen. I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate."


"I promise you, you all are going to be sitting here a year from now going, 'Oh my God, why are they there in the polls, why is the polling so down, why is this thing so tough?' We're going have to make some incredibly tough decisions in the first two years," said Biden. "I'm asking you now, be prepared to stick with us. Remember the faith you had at this point because you're going to have to reinforce us."

 

Biden is uncertain of which crisis will test Obama but has a sense that one of them will almost certainly test his mettle in an international arena. I don't have any problem with this. Many things are coming to a head which will require adept people skills with other nations.

 

3. Lieberman is clearly expounding on a hunch that a terrorist act will test the new president early, given previous acts when previous presidents took office. His point is that McCain is just the person to handle such an occurrence. He plainly doesn't know, but doesn't hesitate to use the fear angle to try and sway the vote. :mad:

 

There isn't any great secret being hidden here. Just people explaining that whoever gets the ticket will likely be in for a very rough first few months. My answer to the people in the videos/articles, given the current status of world economy and conflict, would be "No {censored}, Sherlock.". It doesn't take a genius to figure out that it's going to be a long cold winter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...