Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
As a policy I don't recognize actors' right to exist much less their thoughts. But since you asked:
He didn't endorse the opposing candidate TWICE to be the head of the US government and the most powerful politician in the world.
Had he endorsed Obama to be President I'd say he's not a Republican too.

Your opinion is actually worth less than what you think their opinion is worth, it would seem, than.

 Frazzled wrote:
At least I'm not sayign drum him out of the party like the Democrats did Lieberman.

Of course you aren't endorsing kicking them out of the party, you are already saying they aren't members; you can't drum someone out of a party they are not a member of.

Everyone's attacking poor Frazzled today. Thats ok. Like it or not I'm right. You can't be a player in one political party and endorse the other guy for the highest office in the land. That makes you unperson in that party. Everyone's acting like that's new and Frazzled's nuts, but as noted Leiberman was kicked out. Other's have been kicked out. If you root for the other side your reception in the dugout is pretty icy. If you think otherwise wherever you're living, it sure isn't planet Earth.

Please continue to attack me and the worth of my opinions however, at your leisure. Its fun to watch.

So people should never challenge or change there political beliefs, OK understood.

It's almost like people aren't completely beholden to a single political idealogy in this country.

 Cheesecat wrote:
So people should never challenge or change there political beliefs, OK understood.

You should also ignore any instances that prove your point as being incorrect and act like you are under attack when people disagree with you.

If Powell was running... I'd vote for him .

I thought he wanted to stay out of politics...

I don't know if it was ever determined if he had intentions to run. Either way, the mass unpopularity of the Bush presidency made running at that time a risky venture, and now he's lost recognition.

 LordofHats wrote:
I don't know if it was ever determined if he had intentions to run. Either way, the mass unpopularity of the Bush presidency made running at that time a risky venture, and now he's lost recognition.

Yeah... that was my point.

Is this his attempt to disengage himself from the unpopular repbulican for future political aspirations?

Doubt it.

Collin is was born in the 30's. EDIT: Checked. He's 75. He'll be 79 by the next election. He's too old to make a good run I think.

He chosed his family over politics. Read his bio. Its a good read

Mattman154 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Things change once you have your feet under the desk in the Oval Office.

Yeah this. It helps that, assuming Romney wins, he's head of one of the most economically and militarily powerful countries in the world. Tends to get a man some street cred when walking down the mean streets of international politics.

It's not that, really.

He will be constrained by the realities of the situation.

What realities would that be?

Congress.

And the economy, the world situation, etc.

The president may be The Chosen One but he isn't God.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
So people should never challenge or change there political beliefs, OK understood.

You should also ignore any instances that prove your point as being incorrect and act like you are under attack when people disagree with you.

Is this directed at me (not that I'm mad or anything just curious)?

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Mattman154 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Things change once you have your feet under the desk in the Oval Office.

Yeah this. It helps that, assuming Romney wins, he's head of one of the most economically and militarily powerful countries in the world. Tends to get a man some street cred when walking down the mean streets of international politics.

It's not that, really.

He will be constrained by the realities of the situation.

What realities would that be?

Congress.

And the economy, the world situation, etc.

The president may be The Chosen One but he isn't God.

Right... but *I* believe he's the wrong man for the job...

Every Prez has to deal with those realities.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
So people should never challenge or change there political beliefs, OK understood.

You should also ignore any instances that prove your point as being incorrect and act like you are under attack when people disagree with you.

Is this directed at me (not that I'm mad or anything just curious)?

I'm just expanding on your point.

 Ahtman wrote:

I'm just expanding on your point.

Thanks for clearing that up.

 whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Mattman154 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Things change once you have your feet under the desk in the Oval Office.

Yeah this. It helps that, assuming Romney wins, he's head of one of the most economically and militarily powerful countries in the world. Tends to get a man some street cred when walking down the mean streets of international politics.

It's not that, really.

He will be constrained by the realities of the situation.

What realities would that be?

Congress.

And the economy, the world situation, etc.

The president may be The Chosen One but he isn't God.

Right... but *I* believe he's the wrong man for the job...

Every Prez has to deal with those realities.

Exactly. That is why Romney if elected will find his current intentions will not be able to be carried out as planned and his relationship with the rest of the world will most likely be better than predicted by the chart.

Sobbing from another thread brought back home.

 Frazzled wrote:
I've been informed my opinion doesn't matter

If it hurt your feeling so much that you must carry the tears around like a suitcase being dragged around by a tired salesman boarding his fourth flight, maybe you should have brought it up in the appropriate thread or PM'd people instead of thread jumping. If you wanted to know how you laid out the argument that your own opinion doesn't matter, this would have been the place to redress your grievance over your own words.


Eastwood's (and other actors as well, including Ronald Reagan) words and opinions actually have the ability to make people listen, and even possibly reconsider things on occasion, and are respected on a national level. In other words they have gravitas. You say they are meaningless.

Your words sway no one, and don't even have an effect on state politics, let alone national or even global. So if someone whose opinion actually has influence, power, and heft is meaningless, then someone's opinion that has none of those things would seem to be worth even less.

Or we could recognize how silly it is to dismiss other citizen's thoughts and opinions based solely on their occupation, but I doubt that is going to happen.

Also Dachshunds are weird

Dachshunds are cool.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Dachshunds are cool.

What happens if a dachshund is wearing a bow tie?

 Ahtman wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Dachshunds are cool.

What happens if a dachshund is wearing a bow tie?

Then it has achieved 00 status.

So, if several of you are saying you'd vote for Colin Powell, does his endorsement of Obama and rejection of Romney give you pause in your voting choice?

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
So, if several of you are saying you'd vote for Colin Powell, does his endorsement of Obama and rejection of Romney give you pause in your voting choice?

nope

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
So, if several of you are saying you'd vote for Colin Powell, does his endorsement of Obama and rejection of Romney give you pause in your voting choice?

Na. You can agree with someone on 90% of issues. Even if Powell does make some choices you disagree with, his overall positions are worthwhile.

At least that's the position of rational people. Irrational people will declare him a traitor to his party and would never vote for Powell because of this endorsement.

 labmouse42 wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
So, if several of you are saying you'd vote for Colin Powell, does his endorsement of Obama and rejection of Romney give you pause in your voting choice?

Na. You can agree with someone on 90% of issues. Even if Powell does make some choices you disagree with, his overall positions are worthwhile.

At least that's the position of rational people. Irrational people will declare him a traitor to his party and would never vote for Powell because of this endorsement.

^^^ ditto

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
So, if several of you are saying you'd vote for Colin Powell, does his endorsement of Obama and rejection of Romney give you pause in your voting choice?

No I just think that a C average student from CCNY could do a better job running this country than two clowns from Harvard.

This is Colin Powell. I vote for him regardless if he's a republican or democrat.

 Jihadin wrote:
This is Colin Powell. I vote for him regardless if he's a republican or democrat.

yup... me to.

 Frazzled wrote:
In some ancient time he may have been a registered republican, like when he worked for Bush Sr., but when you publicly endorse the opposing party you're no longer a member of the other party.

In a world where tribal alliegances and yay my team boo your team matter more than anything, then sure.

But in a world where a person believes first and foremost in his country, and happens to believe that classic Republican policies are the best way forward, then it's entirely possible to be a true Republican and realise that right now the party has lost its way, and the policies of the other side are better right now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
HE endorsed the enemy to the most powerful position in the land. He is personan nongrata in the Republican party. Sorry. Thats life.

They're not enemies, they're political rivals.

Pretending they must be bitter enemies who never grant quarter is what the politicians tell the electorate, to get the tribalist nitwits all riled up and ready to vote to beat the evil other.

Party solidarity is important but that doesn't mean you should be a yes man.

 whembly wrote:
So... given this chart... what would happen if hypotetically Romney won?

Nothing much. I mean, it'd be a bit squirmish for the Australian Treasurer, who said the Republican Party was being taken over by kooks and crazies, but then that guy's got enough of a track record that odds are he'll have said at least five things to cause himself more trouble by then.

Basically business would go on. Possibly university students around the world would suddenly get more noisy about Gitmo, now there's a right winger to attack, but that's about it.

I mean, what is the world supposed to do? Not trade with the richest nation in the world?

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
So... given this chart... what would happen if hypotetically Romney won?

Nothing much. I mean, it'd be a bit squirmish for the Australian Treasurer, who said the Republican Party was being taken over by kooks and crazies, but basically business would go on.

Possibly university students around the world would suddenly get more noisy about Gitmo, now there's a right winger to attack, but that's about it.

Yeah... I agree...

It's just interesting to find out how much more popular Obama is outside of the US... that's all i was pointing out.