Wrong! He has been very consistent on where he stands all along, and his loyalty is not to Party but to the Republic. Go back and read the transcripts of his appearances at Republican conventions, his support for the Buffalo soldiers and his work for education of all Americans. You make it sound like he is just ungrateful, you know because he stuck to his principles instead of going along with the bile that spewing from the Palin/McCain campaign.

Oh and about switching party lines, may be you should ask Jim Webb about that, current Democratic senator from the state of Virginia and former Undersecretary of the Navy under Reagan. You should ask all those nice white folks that have jettisone...

Wrong! He has been very consistent on where he stands all along, and his loyalty is not to Party but to the Republic. Go back and read the transcripts of his appearances at Republican conventions, his support for the Buffalo soldiers and his work for education of all Americans. You make it sound like he is just ungrateful, you know because he stuck to his principles instead of going along with the bile that spewing from the Palin/McCain campaign.

Oh and about switching party lines, may be you should ask Jim Webb about that, current Democratic senator from the state of Virginia and former Undersecretary of the Navy under Reagan. You should ask all those nice white folks that have jettisoned the Bush/Cheney/GOP insane machine over the years, like a certain former Secretary of Labor, one head of FEMA and dozens of CIA and defense analyst. Come to think of it, maybe we should also throw in Bob Barr to, just for kicks.

Who says they're adding social programs for lazy people? Lazy, rich Republicans? They should talk. Republicans just instituted the ultimate social program for lazy people; the buyout of many of the major investment banks.

The Democrats are about giving power back to the people, and away from the superrich minority that currently have absolute control of the government. I'm sure you wouldn't be whining about Unemployment Insurance if Republican shenanigans took away your job and gave it to someone overseas. The very plain fact is that everyone, except the ultra-rich prosper more under Democrats than they do under Republicans. The Republican Propaganda Machine has fed you a lie that only they...

Who says they're adding social programs for lazy people? Lazy, rich Republicans? They should talk. Republicans just instituted the ultimate social program for lazy people; the buyout of many of the major investment banks.

The Democrats are about giving power back to the people, and away from the superrich minority that currently have absolute control of the government. I'm sure you wouldn't be whining about Unemployment Insurance if Republican shenanigans took away your job and gave it to someone overseas. The very plain fact is that everyone, except the ultra-rich prosper more under Democrats than they do under Republicans. The Republican Propaganda Machine has fed you a lie that only they value your work, and it's nothing but a lie.

The Republicans are the party of lies, hatred and intolerance. I'd like to think that you're better than that, bellea

I'm tired of you ignoring the question and attempting to shift the blame to someone else. Do you or do you not think that loans should be given to people who cannot afford to pay them back?
And as for the economic bailout that you claim the Republicans just pushed through to benefit the rich banks, it seems to me that the party in control of Congress is the one to blame for that. And who is in control of Congress at the moment? It's the Repub...no...wait, that's right, it's the Democrats O.o! The House Republicans (with a few intelligent Democrats) blocked passage of the bailout on its first attempt though the House. It was liberals like Nancy Pelosi who had to beg the party she was l...

I'm tired of you ignoring the question and attempting to shift the blame to someone else. Do you or do you not think that loans should be given to people who cannot afford to pay them back?
And as for the economic bailout that you claim the Republicans just pushed through to benefit the rich banks, it seems to me that the party in control of Congress is the one to blame for that. And who is in control of Congress at the moment? It's the Repub...no...wait, that's right, it's the Democrats O.o! The House Republicans (with a few intelligent Democrats) blocked passage of the bailout on its first attempt though the House. It was liberals like Nancy Pelosi who had to beg the party she was leading to get on board with Democratic leaders so that would pass. Seriously, how can it be the Republicans' fault when the Democrats control both the House and the Senate, and PLEASE don't try to blame it on the lame duck President. You're better than that...

First of all, what you're sating is not fact, it is just an opinion. Second the answer is all the people that have in fact endorse Obama who are in the military and are not black. Like I said in another clip, race maybe a factor, but it is far from the controlling factor. Certainly Powell's loyalties lie first with the Republic not with Republicans. Second, scores of military personnel, including 20 retired senior military officers openly endorsed Obama, so much so that the lined up behind him, literally when he gave his acceptance speech. And they expressed similar sentiments about Obama's qualifications as Powell did:

David McGinnis, a retired Army brigadier general and combat
inf...

First of all, what you're sating is not fact, it is just an opinion. Second the answer is all the people that have in fact endorse Obama who are in the military and are not black. Like I said in another clip, race maybe a factor, but it is far from the controlling factor. Certainly Powell's loyalties lie first with the Republic not with Republicans. Second, scores of military personnel, including 20 retired senior military officers openly endorsed Obama, so much so that the lined up behind him, literally when he gave his acceptance speech. And they expressed similar sentiments about Obama's qualifications as Powell did:

David McGinnis, a retired Army brigadier general and combat
infantryman, spoke of meeting Obama for the first time and spending
three hours discussing a broad range of military issues. "Here's a man
who wanted to learn how to be commander-in-chief and was willing to
listen and was willing to be held accountable," he said. "That's what
you want in a leader."

McGinnis was also impressed with Obama's efforts on behalf of
veterans dealing with mental health issues, substance abuse and
homelessness.

James A. Kelley, a retired Army major general, cited Obama's support
of greater funding for the Army and increased intelligence assets, both
of which McCain opposed. Obama voted for "up-armoring vehicles and
personnel gear," Kelley said. "Senator McCain voted against that. "In his final assignment, Deputy Commanding General of the Third Army
in the Middle East, Kelley met Obama when the senator visited Kuwait in
200Na5. He recalled Obama's meeting individual soldiers, shooting
baskets with them and taking the time to meet them in small groups or
one to one. No cameras, no reporters. Obama stayed until the last
soldier left. "I'm not for this war," Obama told Kelley at the time, "but I am for these soldiers. I will support them."

Cont...

"Here's a man who wanted to learn how to be commander-in-chief and was willing to listen and was willing to be held accountable," he said. "That's what you want in a leader."

McGinnis was also impressed with Obama's efforts on behalf of veterans dealing with mental health issues, substance abuse and homelessness.

James A. Kelley, a retired Army major general, cited Obama's support of greater funding for the Army and increased intelligence assets, both of which McCain opposed. Obama voted for "up-armoring vehicles and personnel gear," Kelley said. "Senator McCain voted against that."

In his final assignment, Deputy Commanding Genera...

read more»

Cont...

"Here's a man who wanted to learn how to be commander-in-chief and was willing to listen and was willing to be held accountable," he said. "That's what you want in a leader."

McGinnis was also impressed with Obama's efforts on behalf of veterans dealing with mental health issues, substance abuse and homelessness.

James A. Kelley, a retired Army major general, cited Obama's support of greater funding for the Army and increased intelligence assets, both of which McCain opposed. Obama voted for "up-armoring vehicles and personnel gear," Kelley said. "Senator McCain voted against that."

In his final assignment, Deputy Commanding General of the Third Army in the Middle East, Kelley met Obama when the senator visited Kuwait in 200Na5. He recalled Obama's meeting individual soldiers, shooting baskets with them and taking the time to meet them in small groups or one to one. No cameras, no reporters. Obama stayed until the last soldier left.

"I'm not for this war," Obama told Kelley at the time, "but I am for these soldiers. I will support them."

Funny these gentlemen are not black yet they share the same assessment as another career officer and public servant, former Joint Chief of Staff and Secretary of Defense. It just so happens that Powell is black and therefore he must have, had to back the black candidate. But if he backed McCain, would that have been because McCain is white?

Of course not. The whole race thing is to blunt the impact of this endorsement an endorsement by a man that knows what a real leader looks like and also knows what happens when you back the wrong candidate.

Because the inexperienced white candidate that he supported for President the last time was none other than George W. Bush.

There you go again, shifting focus away from the question at hand. Citing other people who are military and have endorsed Obama does not answer the question about Powel. All it does is attempt to draw attention away from the fact that Powel has supported inexperienced liberals in only one instance: Barak Obama. I am not saying that race is the only reason Powel gave for his support. Even Rush Limbaugh could come up with reasons that sound good if he decided to switch sides. But let me ask you this: Are there any other Democrats who support the military or endorse programs that would benefit veterans? Of course there are. So why hasn't Powel ever endorsed them? That would be the consi...

There you go again, shifting focus away from the question at hand. Citing other people who are military and have endorsed Obama does not answer the question about Powel. All it does is attempt to draw attention away from the fact that Powel has supported inexperienced liberals in only one instance: Barak Obama. I am not saying that race is the only reason Powel gave for his support. Even Rush Limbaugh could come up with reasons that sound good if he decided to switch sides. But let me ask you this: Are there any other Democrats who support the military or endorse programs that would benefit veterans? Of course there are. So why hasn't Powel ever endorsed them? That would be the consistent thing to do. The difference is that this is a high profile position and that Obama is black. Ignoring race as the mitigating factor in this endorsement requires that you turn a blind eye to Powel's record, and that makes no sense.

I named him: Barak Obama. He's an extreme leftist who associates with extreme leftists (yes, he associates with centrist democrats and republicans too). Now I guess we'll get to debate whether or not we agree with that statement. Don't we have to start a new thread for that?
And by the way, if Republicans are the big bad wolf in the financial crisis and their deregulation is soley to blame for our current crisis, then why have the Democrats done nothing to stop it in the 2 years they have had the majority in the House and the Senate? And while we're talking about increasing regulation, McCain called for increased regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2003, 2005, and 2006. The Dem...

I named him: Barak Obama. He's an extreme leftist who associates with extreme leftists (yes, he associates with centrist democrats and republicans too). Now I guess we'll get to debate whether or not we agree with that statement. Don't we have to start a new thread for that?
And by the way, if Republicans are the big bad wolf in the financial crisis and their deregulation is soley to blame for our current crisis, then why have the Democrats done nothing to stop it in the 2 years they have had the majority in the House and the Senate? And while we're talking about increasing regulation, McCain called for increased regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2003, 2005, and 2006. The Democrats are the ones who opposed him.
I find it extremely ironic that Barak Obama has been blaming McCain and the Republicans for this financial crisis while accepting huge campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. So while those organizations were dealing dirty in the housing market and misleading the government and the public about their books they were also giving him money to run for office. When they finally tanked and took the rest of the economy with them, Obama blames the Republicans. You know, you're probably right, we do need a lot more regulation. We need to start regulating our government and start kicking these corrupt politicians out of office, starting with Barak Obama and his cronies. It's amazing to me that you can ignore this kind of information and continue spouting Obama's garbage about change and how everything is the Republicans' fault.

Specifically who are being paid by the crooks? Please give some names and some evidence for this. Obama has received campaign contributions from "the crooks." This has been documented by reporters and you can find it easily online. I make that statement because it is supported by evidence. Making blanket statements like "The Republicans are still getting paid by the crooks..." without any supporting evidence is simply poisoning the well, and it shows that you, not I, are the one spouting off media talking points. Your info just comes from the liberal media instead of the conservative media.
Do some research and get back to me. I'm sure there are some dirty Republicans out there, bu...

Specifically who are being paid by the crooks? Please give some names and some evidence for this. Obama has received campaign contributions from "the crooks." This has been documented by reporters and you can find it easily online. I make that statement because it is supported by evidence. Making blanket statements like "The Republicans are still getting paid by the crooks..." without any supporting evidence is simply poisoning the well, and it shows that you, not I, are the one spouting off media talking points. Your info just comes from the liberal media instead of the conservative media.
Do some research and get back to me. I'm sure there are some dirty Republicans out there, but interestingly enough, with all the smear pieces that have come out about McCain, none of them have tied him to money that has come out of the financial crisis. Obama HAS been shown to have received money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, even as they were in the process of making bad loans and bleeding money.
And you still haven't answered the point that McCain has repeatedly led the push for tighter regulations of the housing industry. Obama did not speak out against those practices until the current crisis. Why? Because before he was benifiting from the practices of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and now he can capitolize on our financial crisis. And it was Democrats who opposed McCain when he pushed for regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Those two organizations did a lot of dirty things, and it was Democrats like and including Barak Obama that benefitted from them.

Wow, Dark, I guess it doesn't matter how many times I say this, you're still not going to hear it. Support your arguments. I have offered arguments with evidence attached. Your response is to call Republicans or John McCain dirty and then fail to provide supporting proof. You don't support your own beliefs with fact, so your response is to call my sources "tainted." The only thing tainted about my sources is that they don't agree with your point of view. At least I'm providing some sources to begin with. If your response to evidence that doesn't agree with your worldview is to simply deny its credibility on the grounds that it can't be right if it isn't left (haha!) then you can't be ...

Wow, Dark, I guess it doesn't matter how many times I say this, you're still not going to hear it. Support your arguments. I have offered arguments with evidence attached. Your response is to call Republicans or John McCain dirty and then fail to provide supporting proof. You don't support your own beliefs with fact, so your response is to call my sources "tainted." The only thing tainted about my sources is that they don't agree with your point of view. At least I'm providing some sources to begin with. If your response to evidence that doesn't agree with your worldview is to simply deny its credibility on the grounds that it can't be right if it isn't left (haha!) then you can't be reasoned with. I don't expect you to ultimately agree with all my arguments (if it were that simple we wouldn't have 2 parties in government), but I had been expecting intelligent and informed debate. You have failed to provide that, so I'm done wasting my time. I'll find another topic to sink my time into.
And as far as the socialism argument goes, it's not a stretch or a scare tactic to bring up the socialist policies Obama throws around. I guess if you're comfortable with living in a socialist country, then you should be comfortable with Obama supporting such policies. America was not founded in those principals, and many of us are not yet ready to give up our will and turn our decisions over to the government.

And finally, it is such a cliche' and false argument to say that conservatives and capitalists don't care about the people. This argument plays well with poor, uninformed voters, but it doesn't hold up to scrutinty of the real world. In the 3 generations since the New Deal, how has poverty been aleviated in this country? How have the Democrats actually helped poor minorities in this country? By giving them more money? All they have done is thrown more and more money into a culture of poverty and entitlement, and that changes nothing. Rather than empowering the poor to grow out of their situation, liberal policies have given them incentives to stay poor. A single mom is given more gover...

And finally, it is such a cliche' and false argument to say that conservatives and capitalists don't care about the people. This argument plays well with poor, uninformed voters, but it doesn't hold up to scrutinty of the real world. In the 3 generations since the New Deal, how has poverty been aleviated in this country? How have the Democrats actually helped poor minorities in this country? By giving them more money? All they have done is thrown more and more money into a culture of poverty and entitlement, and that changes nothing. Rather than empowering the poor to grow out of their situation, liberal policies have given them incentives to stay poor. A single mom is given more government money and subsidies for each kid she has, therefore she remains single and has more kids.
I counter your argument that conservatives hate the poor and challenge you with the statement that if liberals really cared about improving the condition of the poor and not just about securing their votes, they would seek laws that get away from entitlement programs and begin to encourage financial, familial, and ethical responsibility. The conservative mantra of "if you don't work you don't eat" is what fostered the American dream and caused so many people to dream of what they might achieve. The dream the liberals are now encouraging is "if you don't work then it must be mean society's fault, so we'll pay you while you stay home by taxing the successful." The poor are being harmed less by the greedy fat cats of Wall St, and much much more by politicians who gain the vote of the poor minorities by throwing money at them, encouraging them to remain poor, and then telling them how hard the Democrats are fighting for them. The Democrats lost the moral high ground regarding the poor a long time ago. Your constituents are just too entrenched in the broken system to see it.

many of us are not yet ready to give up our will and turn our decisions over to the government.

Alas, my dear, you already have. .
It's called corporatism. It's called greed capitalism. Both parties do the bidding of lobbyists and powerful corporations and of the military industrial complex. Do you really think otherwise? In 2007 America spent 43% of all taxes collected, on the war machine. You'd get way more bang for your buck if you put that money into education, infrastructure, healthcare, etc. There's MORE than enough money, but you decide it should go to more bombs. Nice. Does that make sense to you?

Not only that.., does the Patriot Act or the MCA ring a bell? Who o...

many of us are not yet ready to give up our will and turn our decisions over to the government.

Alas, my dear, you already have. .
It's called corporatism. It's called greed capitalism. Both parties do the bidding of lobbyists and powerful corporations and of the military industrial complex. Do you really think otherwise? In 2007 America spent 43% of all taxes collected, on the war machine. You'd get way more bang for your buck if you put that money into education, infrastructure, healthcare, etc. There's MORE than enough money, but you decide it should go to more bombs. Nice. Does that make sense to you?

Not only that.., does the Patriot Act or the MCA ring a bell? Who owns you, eh? Bush does. And the corporations do. And the next "Decider" will too. And you let them.

Don't tell me about giving up. American citizens gladly gave up their power and turned over their liberties and freedoms to their corporate and now fascist government a looong time ago.

Thank God social democracies let the people decide their own fate and not the elite.