ot: Colin Powell

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=cvk][quote]How valid is that criticism when applied to a soldier?

Mind you I don’t necessarily disagree but the purpose of the military is to follow orders and enact policy of the civilian leaders, not to think critically or create policy themselves.
He was a part of the civilian leadership at the time you mention but that was not his background.
[/quote]

You’re correct, he wasn’t a soldier at the time, so the criticism is entirely valid.

But even if he were still a soldier, he’d still be culpable.

The concept that soldiers are free of consequences for their actions provided that they are following orders from superiors was thrown out in WW2 when german soldiers tried to use it to escape responsibility for their roles in the ethnic cleansing of the jews. [/quote]
Okay but gas chambers are a far cry from following US rules of engagement (as a soldier) let alone debating your boss on dealing with a country you think has WMD’s (as a civilian adminstrator).

For the record: I can’t believe you have me defending the Iraq war.

I mean you can’t advise soldiers that they are paid to kill and that they will be charged for following orders. You just have to say when some types of killing are inappropriate and out of bounds.

Similarly, the dude towed the party line as an administrator (which was his job) and then quit when it got sufficiently bad (which is appropriate in an administrative position). The only valid criticism I see here is that he did his job by towing the line and then not quitting soon enough.

Again, I can’t believe you are putting me in a situation to defend a pro-war position.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=arraya]Rush and his ilk are terrorists. Guardians to their kleptocratic masters playing on peoples fears and insecurities while distracting them from the systemic looting that is going on.[/quote]

As a hater of Rush I have to ask:
Isn’t it a contradiction to be both a terrorist and a member of the kleptocracy?

Also, if looting is systematic, isn’t that just a withdrawal??

Fun post though.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=arraya]Rush and his ilk are terrorists. Guardians to their kleptocratic masters playing on peoples fears and insecurities while distracting them from the systemic looting that is going on.[/quote]

As a hater of Rush I have to ask:
Isn’t it a contradiction to be both a terrorist and a member of the kleptocracy?

Also, if looting is systematic, isn’t that just a withdrawal??

Fun post though.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=arraya]Rush and his ilk are terrorists. Guardians to their kleptocratic masters playing on peoples fears and insecurities while distracting them from the systemic looting that is going on.[/quote]

As a hater of Rush I have to ask:
Isn’t it a contradiction to be both a terrorist and a member of the kleptocracy?

Also, if looting is systematic, isn’t that just a withdrawal??

Fun post though.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=arraya]Rush and his ilk are terrorists. Guardians to their kleptocratic masters playing on peoples fears and insecurities while distracting them from the systemic looting that is going on.[/quote]

As a hater of Rush I have to ask:
Isn’t it a contradiction to be both a terrorist and a member of the kleptocracy?

Also, if looting is systematic, isn’t that just a withdrawal??

Fun post though.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=arraya]Rush and his ilk are terrorists. Guardians to their kleptocratic masters playing on peoples fears and insecurities while distracting them from the systemic looting that is going on.[/quote]

As a hater of Rush I have to ask:
Isn’t it a contradiction to be both a terrorist and a member of the kleptocracy?

Also, if looting is systematic, isn’t that just a withdrawal??

Fun post though.

[Arraya]

[quote=urbanrealtor][quote=arraya]Rush and his ilk are terrorists. Guardians to their kleptocratic masters playing on peoples fears and insecurities while distracting them from the systemic looting that is going on.[/quote]

As a hater of Rush I have to ask:
Isn’t it a contradiction to be both a terrorist and a member of the kleptocracy?

Also, if looting is systematic, isn’t that just a withdrawal??

Fun post though.
[/quote]

ha… You have a point. All I’ll say is we live in a world of paradoxes.

[Arraya]

[quote=urbanrealtor][quote=arraya]Rush and his ilk are terrorists. Guardians to their kleptocratic masters playing on peoples fears and insecurities while distracting them from the systemic looting that is going on.[/quote]

As a hater of Rush I have to ask:
Isn’t it a contradiction to be both a terrorist and a member of the kleptocracy?

Also, if looting is systematic, isn’t that just a withdrawal??

Fun post though.
[/quote]

ha… You have a point. All I’ll say is we live in a world of paradoxes.

[Arraya]

[quote=urbanrealtor][quote=arraya]Rush and his ilk are terrorists. Guardians to their kleptocratic masters playing on peoples fears and insecurities while distracting them from the systemic looting that is going on.[/quote]

As a hater of Rush I have to ask:
Isn’t it a contradiction to be both a terrorist and a member of the kleptocracy?

Also, if looting is systematic, isn’t that just a withdrawal??

Fun post though.
[/quote]

ha… You have a point. All I’ll say is we live in a world of paradoxes.

[Arraya]

[quote=urbanrealtor][quote=arraya]Rush and his ilk are terrorists. Guardians to their kleptocratic masters playing on peoples fears and insecurities while distracting them from the systemic looting that is going on.[/quote]

As a hater of Rush I have to ask:
Isn’t it a contradiction to be both a terrorist and a member of the kleptocracy?

Also, if looting is systematic, isn’t that just a withdrawal??

Fun post though.
[/quote]

ha… You have a point. All I’ll say is we live in a world of paradoxes.

[Arraya]

[quote=urbanrealtor][quote=arraya]Rush and his ilk are terrorists. Guardians to their kleptocratic masters playing on peoples fears and insecurities while distracting them from the systemic looting that is going on.[/quote]

As a hater of Rush I have to ask:
Isn’t it a contradiction to be both a terrorist and a member of the kleptocracy?

Also, if looting is systematic, isn’t that just a withdrawal??

Fun post though.
[/quote]

ha… You have a point. All I’ll say is we live in a world of paradoxes.

[Kilohana]

[quote=DWCAP][quote=Kilohana]
Yes, the Rush quotes were real. Does context really matter when the the topic is the so-called merits of slavery? How about praising the assassin of an American icon and Civil Rights leader? Is there *any* context in which this would be appropriate?

Is this type of dialogue good for America? Is this really who we are?[/quote]

I am a history lover, and yes, the context of those quotes most definiatley does matter. Slavery did have some positive merits. I wont say there were any for those who were enslaved, but for those who were not there were some. To fully understand slavery, and the civil war which ended it, you must understand why people were willing to put their lives on the line to continue slavery. We cannot and must not judge the past upon todays morals. That is revisonist and uninstightful. We dont judge tribes in the Amazon by London standards, and that is about the same reasoning to look back 160 years and use today’s logic.
An “acceptable” context would be to understand today’s roots of racism and how to combat it. Most whites were little better economically than many blacks in the pre-civil war south. However, They were “free” men, and better than the black slaves for it, and were willing to die for it. I fully believe we cannot understand modern racism without abject analysis of this time, and that includes the context in which they thought.
There is no jusdication for the praising a murder. Ever. But it can help to understand why they were driven to murder. That is where my hair stood up. The man deserved nothing but analysis and condemination. I hope by learning from what happened we can avoid it happening again. [/quote]

I see your point, though I am not sure you considered the speaker and intent as part of the overall context. You’re addressing the topic directly – that it can be argued that slavery had some merits…

Fair enough, but even on a purely academic level, many basic arguments in support of this statement would raise a few eyebrows. I’d expect historians to use historical context in phrasing these arguments, however. Now looking at Rush’s actual (entire) quote – the one for which I believe there is NO appropriate forum:

“I mean, let’s face it, we didn’t have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: slavery built the South. I’m not saying we should bring it back; I’m just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark.”

Safer after dark? He’s not saying we should bring slavery back…so what IS he saying? Just that there were merits? No… He’s leaving it out there for listeners to draw their own conclusions about slavery…. because the streets were safer. This wasn’t some random blurb. He was making a point. The full quote – as is and without parsing is deplorable.

The problem is we all know that Rush is NOT an historian and his intent was NOT to provide complex economical and historical context for his listeners. To put it simply, he was stirring the pot. He gets paid to make provocative comments. Further, he has a track record of race-baiting.

Look, I’m not trying to be the PC police. I just believe that a known race-baiter has NO credibility when he claims that others – like Colin Powell – are motivated by racism. That would be the pot calling the kettle…uh…. attractive and articulate. Zing!

Why didn’t Powell endorse Alan Keyes – or Al Sharpton or Jessie Jackson? I tend to believe it’s because he did not agree with their platforms. Occam’s Razor, etc…

In his endorsment of Obama, Powell gave specific arguments – arguments that were echoed on Monday by fellow GOP party member, Ken Adleman. To put it simply, Powell made it clear that McCain lost his endorsement through his own policies and actions. Otherwise, Powell would have come out much, much earlier to support a brotha. 😉

[Kilohana]

[quote=DWCAP][quote=Kilohana]
Yes, the Rush quotes were real. Does context really matter when the the topic is the so-called merits of slavery? How about praising the assassin of an American icon and Civil Rights leader? Is there *any* context in which this would be appropriate?

Is this type of dialogue good for America? Is this really who we are?[/quote]

I am a history lover, and yes, the context of those quotes most definiatley does matter. Slavery did have some positive merits. I wont say there were any for those who were enslaved, but for those who were not there were some. To fully understand slavery, and the civil war which ended it, you must understand why people were willing to put their lives on the line to continue slavery. We cannot and must not judge the past upon todays morals. That is revisonist and uninstightful. We dont judge tribes in the Amazon by London standards, and that is about the same reasoning to look back 160 years and use today’s logic.
An “acceptable” context would be to understand today’s roots of racism and how to combat it. Most whites were little better economically than many blacks in the pre-civil war south. However, They were “free” men, and better than the black slaves for it, and were willing to die for it. I fully believe we cannot understand modern racism without abject analysis of this time, and that includes the context in which they thought.
There is no jusdication for the praising a murder. Ever. But it can help to understand why they were driven to murder. That is where my hair stood up. The man deserved nothing but analysis and condemination. I hope by learning from what happened we can avoid it happening again. [/quote]

I see your point, though I am not sure you considered the speaker and intent as part of the overall context. You’re addressing the topic directly – that it can be argued that slavery had some merits…

Fair enough, but even on a purely academic level, many basic arguments in support of this statement would raise a few eyebrows. I’d expect historians to use historical context in phrasing these arguments, however. Now looking at Rush’s actual (entire) quote – the one for which I believe there is NO appropriate forum:

“I mean, let’s face it, we didn’t have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: slavery built the South. I’m not saying we should bring it back; I’m just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark.”

Safer after dark? He’s not saying we should bring slavery back…so what IS he saying? Just that there were merits? No… He’s leaving it out there for listeners to draw their own conclusions about slavery…. because the streets were safer. This wasn’t some random blurb. He was making a point. The full quote – as is and without parsing is deplorable.

The problem is we all know that Rush is NOT an historian and his intent was NOT to provide complex economical and historical context for his listeners. To put it simply, he was stirring the pot. He gets paid to make provocative comments. Further, he has a track record of race-baiting.

Look, I’m not trying to be the PC police. I just believe that a known race-baiter has NO credibility when he claims that others – like Colin Powell – are motivated by racism. That would be the pot calling the kettle…uh…. attractive and articulate. Zing!

Why didn’t Powell endorse Alan Keyes – or Al Sharpton or Jessie Jackson? I tend to believe it’s because he did not agree with their platforms. Occam’s Razor, etc…

In his endorsment of Obama, Powell gave specific arguments – arguments that were echoed on Monday by fellow GOP party member, Ken Adleman. To put it simply, Powell made it clear that McCain lost his endorsement through his own policies and actions. Otherwise, Powell would have come out much, much earlier to support a brotha. 😉

[Kilohana]

[quote=DWCAP][quote=Kilohana]
Yes, the Rush quotes were real. Does context really matter when the the topic is the so-called merits of slavery? How about praising the assassin of an American icon and Civil Rights leader? Is there *any* context in which this would be appropriate?

Is this type of dialogue good for America? Is this really who we are?[/quote]

I am a history lover, and yes, the context of those quotes most definiatley does matter. Slavery did have some positive merits. I wont say there were any for those who were enslaved, but for those who were not there were some. To fully understand slavery, and the civil war which ended it, you must understand why people were willing to put their lives on the line to continue slavery. We cannot and must not judge the past upon todays morals. That is revisonist and uninstightful. We dont judge tribes in the Amazon by London standards, and that is about the same reasoning to look back 160 years and use today’s logic.
An “acceptable” context would be to understand today’s roots of racism and how to combat it. Most whites were little better economically than many blacks in the pre-civil war south. However, They were “free” men, and better than the black slaves for it, and were willing to die for it. I fully believe we cannot understand modern racism without abject analysis of this time, and that includes the context in which they thought.
There is no jusdication for the praising a murder. Ever. But it can help to understand why they were driven to murder. That is where my hair stood up. The man deserved nothing but analysis and condemination. I hope by learning from what happened we can avoid it happening again. [/quote]

I see your point, though I am not sure you considered the speaker and intent as part of the overall context. You’re addressing the topic directly – that it can be argued that slavery had some merits…

Fair enough, but even on a purely academic level, many basic arguments in support of this statement would raise a few eyebrows. I’d expect historians to use historical context in phrasing these arguments, however. Now looking at Rush’s actual (entire) quote – the one for which I believe there is NO appropriate forum:

“I mean, let’s face it, we didn’t have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: slavery built the South. I’m not saying we should bring it back; I’m just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark.”

Safer after dark? He’s not saying we should bring slavery back…so what IS he saying? Just that there were merits? No… He’s leaving it out there for listeners to draw their own conclusions about slavery…. because the streets were safer. This wasn’t some random blurb. He was making a point. The full quote – as is and without parsing is deplorable.

The problem is we all know that Rush is NOT an historian and his intent was NOT to provide complex economical and historical context for his listeners. To put it simply, he was stirring the pot. He gets paid to make provocative comments. Further, he has a track record of race-baiting.

Look, I’m not trying to be the PC police. I just believe that a known race-baiter has NO credibility when he claims that others – like Colin Powell – are motivated by racism. That would be the pot calling the kettle…uh…. attractive and articulate. Zing!

Why didn’t Powell endorse Alan Keyes – or Al Sharpton or Jessie Jackson? I tend to believe it’s because he did not agree with their platforms. Occam’s Razor, etc…

In his endorsment of Obama, Powell gave specific arguments – arguments that were echoed on Monday by fellow GOP party member, Ken Adleman. To put it simply, Powell made it clear that McCain lost his endorsement through his own policies and actions. Otherwise, Powell would have come out much, much earlier to support a brotha. 😉

[Kilohana]

[quote=DWCAP][quote=Kilohana]
Yes, the Rush quotes were real. Does context really matter when the the topic is the so-called merits of slavery? How about praising the assassin of an American icon and Civil Rights leader? Is there *any* context in which this would be appropriate?

Is this type of dialogue good for America? Is this really who we are?[/quote]

I am a history lover, and yes, the context of those quotes most definiatley does matter. Slavery did have some positive merits. I wont say there were any for those who were enslaved, but for those who were not there were some. To fully understand slavery, and the civil war which ended it, you must understand why people were willing to put their lives on the line to continue slavery. We cannot and must not judge the past upon todays morals. That is revisonist and uninstightful. We dont judge tribes in the Amazon by London standards, and that is about the same reasoning to look back 160 years and use today’s logic.
An “acceptable” context would be to understand today’s roots of racism and how to combat it. Most whites were little better economically than many blacks in the pre-civil war south. However, They were “free” men, and better than the black slaves for it, and were willing to die for it. I fully believe we cannot understand modern racism without abject analysis of this time, and that includes the context in which they thought.
There is no jusdication for the praising a murder. Ever. But it can help to understand why they were driven to murder. That is where my hair stood up. The man deserved nothing but analysis and condemination. I hope by learning from what happened we can avoid it happening again. [/quote]

I see your point, though I am not sure you considered the speaker and intent as part of the overall context. You’re addressing the topic directly – that it can be argued that slavery had some merits…

Fair enough, but even on a purely academic level, many basic arguments in support of this statement would raise a few eyebrows. I’d expect historians to use historical context in phrasing these arguments, however. Now looking at Rush’s actual (entire) quote – the one for which I believe there is NO appropriate forum:

“I mean, let’s face it, we didn’t have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: slavery built the South. I’m not saying we should bring it back; I’m just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark.”

Safer after dark? He’s not saying we should bring slavery back…so what IS he saying? Just that there were merits? No… He’s leaving it out there for listeners to draw their own conclusions about slavery…. because the streets were safer. This wasn’t some random blurb. He was making a point. The full quote – as is and without parsing is deplorable.

The problem is we all know that Rush is NOT an historian and his intent was NOT to provide complex economical and historical context for his listeners. To put it simply, he was stirring the pot. He gets paid to make provocative comments. Further, he has a track record of race-baiting.

Look, I’m not trying to be the PC police. I just believe that a known race-baiter has NO credibility when he claims that others – like Colin Powell – are motivated by racism. That would be the pot calling the kettle…uh…. attractive and articulate. Zing!

Why didn’t Powell endorse Alan Keyes – or Al Sharpton or Jessie Jackson? I tend to believe it’s because he did not agree with their platforms. Occam’s Razor, etc…

In his endorsment of Obama, Powell gave specific arguments – arguments that were echoed on Monday by fellow GOP party member, Ken Adleman. To put it simply, Powell made it clear that McCain lost his endorsement through his own policies and actions. Otherwise, Powell would have come out much, much earlier to support a brotha. 😉

[Author]

Posts