Monday, November 28, 2011

Colin Powell thinks the Tea Party is the "problem"

So the communist objective jourrrrnalist, Christiane Amanpour interviews Colin Powell a few days ago.
AMANPOUR:  ... but what about the fact that, in fact, it is one of the political parties, although -- or rather the big political influence, which is the Tea Party, which quotes left and right the Founding Fathers? They say compromise is a dirty word, and they try to point to the Founding Fathers and the Constitution.

POWELL: They compromised -- the Founding Fathers compromised on slavery. They had to in order to create a country. They compromised on the composition of the Senate, of the House, of the Supreme Court, of a president -- what are the president's powers? Can you imagine more difficult compromises today?

Compromise is how this country was founded, and unless two people in disagreement with each other don't find a way to reach out to one another and make compromises, you don't get a consensus that allows you to move forward  But the Tea Party point of view is not a point of view that will eventually produce a presidential candidate who will win..

The whole interview (with video) here at Newsbusters:

Right, soooooo, no ... I'm not going to be able to let this go.

First of all, I'm not interesting in compromising my principles, POWELL.  That's the unique characteristic ... the defining quality ... the very NATURE of a "principle." Of course, I don't expect a dumbass lib to know a damn thing about principles (or anything at all to do with logic, fact, and reason.)  This is how I keep my sanity.

Secondly, they didn't compromise on slavery.  They wanted to END SLAVERY.  That's not really a "compromise."  Did they not insert, into the constitution, a "date certain," for banning the importation of slaves?  Why, yes, I think they did.  Was anyone of note  expecting the immediate cessation of slavery?  No, everyone knew it would take time.  If you call that a "compromise" then you and I remember history a little differently.

See, the Tea Party is the same way ... they've "compromised" for decades and they're tired of it.  Sayyyy,  what if the Tea Party says they want taxes cut by  two trillion bux ... would the Democratics offer a trillion?  No?  So they wouldn't be willing to "compromise?"  See this is what he's saying ... if you don't agree with HIM, then you won't "compromise." 

Oh, and by the way, since you insist on calling it a compromise, how did it work out?  Perhaps you'll recall a little war in the late 1800's killing over a half million people because some people still wanted to "compromise" and others did not ... the "others" being the northern states.  What about that time, POWELL?  Should they have "compromised" then? ... you braying jackass.


WOMBAT said...

It has been well-established that Ms. Amanpour is a Lib. If you study her first sentence in this post, "but what about the fact that, in fact, it is one of the political parties, although -- or rather the big political influence," you might find it a bit confusing. I suggest that rather than libs being better at "understanding" complexity, they're actually just better at "creating" complexity. Frequently in a way that serves their ideology.

ragweed said...

well said and I agree

Post a Comment