Colin Powell Denies Affair with Romanian Politician

[TheGreatGatsby]

Excuse me?

I am berating nobody.

I'm using the term somewhat liberally. But, this is like the 4th time you've came around to tell us your quasi-nonsense that we're not supposed to care about the issue.

I , me, myself care .... I am saying that people should leave other people's bedrooms alone...

Like the hacker on the OP ... was the hacker under Powell's bed? everything was told in glowing detail... how many times they kissed? and how? and how?

C'mon now. Grow up.

Frankly, I hardly care about the details of Colin Powell's affairs. I barely even looked at the article. I'm just dismissing the idea that the public has no vested interest in the affairs of public figures. That's hogwash. I find it perfectly acceptable that people want to discuss the potential ramifications. If you think you're above the implied fray, then be above it. But, I don't really see the point of your preaching, as if it's going to change people's outlooks.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Don't hate GreatGatsby.

Good advice. I'll consider it.

 

[Connery]

I'm using the term somewhat liberally. But, this is like the 4th time you've came around to tell us your quasi-nonsense that we're not supposed to care about the issue.

TGG you are absolutely right I am more concerned with expired coupons for cut rate shoes and Powell's love for Corvettes.

You're a troll that brings dead issues to conversations and I'd block you, but I'm not allowed to block mods. So instead, I'll just issue a heart **** off.

You got a lot of "sole" Gatsby to continuously berate someone for bringing relevance and reason to this aspect of the thread. Don't be a "heel", who really cares about Powell's proclivities towards fast cars and faster women there is no expiration date on those issues.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

TGG you are absolutely right I am more concerned with expired coupons for cut rate shoes and Powell's love for Corvettes.

You're a troll that brings dead issues to conversations and I'd block you, but I'm not allowed to block mods. So instead, I'll just issue a heart **** off.

You got a lot of "sole" Gatsby to continuously berate someone for bringing relevance and reason to this aspect of the thread. Don't be a "heel", who really cares about Powell's proclivities towards fast cars and faster women there is no expiration date on those issues.

Whatever dickface.

 

[Connery]

You're a troll that brings dead issues to conversations and I'd block you, but I'm not allowed to block mods. So instead, I'll just issue a heart **** off.

You got a lot of "sole" Gatsby to continuously berate someone for bringing relevance and reason to this aspect of the thread. Don't be a "heel", who really cares about Powell's proclivities towards fast cars and faster women there is no expiration date on those issues.

Whatever dickface.

No it was a Romanian Politician , a Corvette stingray and pair of Payless shoes. The dickface stuff came later according to unverified sources.

 

[Pogo]

The reality is that the adulterous affairs of public figures will always be newsworthy. You can cry your little eyes out while you pursue your "agenda" that it should not be. And you can try and make your ad hominem attacks against me and you still won't be changing the reality.

You don't have the foggiest idea what "ad hominem" means, do you?

And no, holding the position that there is no there there is not an "agenda". It's the absence of one.

Actually, I do. And you just made another ad hominem attack, IDIOT.

.... QED ^^

 

[dilloduck]

You don't have the foggiest idea what "ad hominem" means, do you?

And no, holding the position that there is no there there is not an "agenda". It's the absence of one.

Actually, I do. And you just made another ad hominem attack, IDIOT.

.... QED ^^

Keep bumping this thread. Colin's wife thanks you for it.

 

[Pogo]

Actually, I do. And you just made another ad hominem attack, IDIOT.

.... QED ^^

Keep bumping this thread. Colin's wife thanks you for it.

See -- that ^^ is exactly what I'm talking about. Not only do you presume to speak for Alma but you do so on a matter you know nothing about.

I don't.

That's the difference.

Hell you prolly didn't even know her name until now.

 

[dilloduck]

.... QED ^^

Keep bumping this thread. Colin's wife thanks you for it.

See -- that ^^ is exactly what I'm talking about. Not only do you presume to speak for Alma but you do so on a matter you know nothing about.

I don't.

That's the difference.

Hell you prolly didn't even know her name until now.

She's my new best friend now too. She say adultery is bad for the country.

 

[Pogo]

Keep bumping this thread. Colin's wife thanks you for it.

See -- that ^^ is exactly what I'm talking about. Not only do you presume to speak for Alma but you do so on a matter you know nothing about.

I don't.

That's the difference.

Hell you prolly didn't even know her name until now.

She's my new best friend now too. She say adultery is bad for the country.

And again... QED.

This really is the low hanging fruit thread.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

You don't have the foggiest idea what "ad hominem" means, do you?

And no, holding the position that there is no there there is not an "agenda". It's the absence of one.

Actually, I do. And you just made another ad hominem attack, IDIOT.

.... QED ^^

The irony is that you don't know what an ad hominem attack is while you accuse me of not knowing. You made a personal putdown while not listing your logic. That's the very definition of ad hominem, you ******* moron.

 

[Pogo]

Actually, I do. And you just made another ad hominem attack, IDIOT.

.... QED ^^

The irony is that you don't know what an ad hominem attack is while you accuse me of not knowing. You made a personal putdown while not listing your logic. That's the very definition of ad hominem, you ******* moron.

.... The QED2

There she blows.

 

[Misty]

Most of your post is fallacy. From snopes.

"According to George and Laura: Portrait of an American Marriage, Laura Welch did not find out that the driver of the other vehicle had died at the scene until later when she and her girlfriend were being treated at the hospital. And she did not learn his identity until later still, when her parents arrived and broke the news to her. It shattered her.*

She was barely 17 and she had taken the life of a friend. She has since carried the weight of this, and it changed her, at least according to those who knew her before and after. Only rarely has she spoken of this with the press (although she has often been asked), but even on those occasions her answers have been oblique, almost as if she cannot bear to think of it, let alone speak of it. "

The kid was driving a*Corvair sedan. The car Ralph Nadar tried to get banned. I think he succeeded. Not sure.*

snopes.com: Laura Bush Car Accident

First, I am applauding the part of the post which I bolded. I found it to be very clever, the literary allusion.

Second, world leaders are human beings. If you expect them to be perfect paragons of virture, you will always be disappointed. For example: GW Bush was a drunk and a drug addict at one time. As well, he dodged conscription during the Vietnam war. Hardly someone of high moral integrity. His wife killed someone in an auto accident because she was an irresponsible teenage driver. She got away without punishment because of her father's position of power in their community. Hardly a paragon of moral integrity. What is important about world leaders is that they do their job as a world leader with responsiblity and integrity. Their sex lives or love lives are not our business. Your knee jerk need to call people with whom you disagree 'idiots' shows the lack of integrity you possess.

First, You probably should've quoted the part then, rather than bold. Seems like it would have eliminated the confusion. (I had never even seen his original post and had figured he had bolded his own words. People do that all the time).

Second, there is no documentation that GWB was a drug addict. Nor have I seen anything to state that he was an alcoholic, though I find it believable that he could have a sordid past. Regardless, he seemed to have done a great job of putting that in his past well before he entered the public arena. And he managed to continue on that path while in office.

Third, you continued with your cheap shots of the Bushes. Laura was in an 'accident.' There was no criminal negligence and it appears that you're just taking partisan hack shots.

Fourth. Really? Politicians sex lives are not our business? Because those same politicians seem to think that our anything is our business when they're performing their warrantless searches. I may not have the right to know anyone's sex lives, but let's not pretend that such occurrences don't speak to people's lack of character.

Fifth, you'll judge my character on a message board post, but say we shouldn't judge politicians who cheat on their spouses? Okay, lady. If you say so.

There is all kinds of information that GW Bush was alcoholic and doing cocaine. He admitted to it. And why didn’t you mention he dodged the draft? Because he did that well before he entered politics? What hypocrisy. Laura Bush's 'accident' was negligence. She went straight through a red light because she was chatting with someone in her car and not paying attention. It was a teenage Saturday night out. She was negligent!!! And she killed someone. And she did not get in trouble because her father pulled strings to keep her out of trouble. It was no 'accident.' Anyone else would have been in big trouble because she drove straight through a red light.

People's personal sex lives generally have no bearing on how they do their jobs. If they do, then it is reasonable to be concerned, but when it has no effect on job performance, it is no one's business. It's funny that it is always the Right, who are supposedly so concerned about their right to live without government and others' interference who are so interested in and obsessed with controlling others' personal lives.

I was assessing your character as it pertains to your debate strategies on this message board, an assessment which is appropriate. If Powell's or anyone else's love life is directly affecting how they do their job, then it is pertinent. Your debate strategy of calling anyone with whom you disagree an idiot is pertinent here.

BTW, both drivers ran the stop sign too.

No, no, no...the other driver did not go through a red light or stop sign. No way. She did. She is the only one who went through a red light/stop sign. She killed him, outright; there is no doubt about it and no fault on the part of the other driver.

 

[depotoo]

You apparently don't understand what fallacious thinking is. You are side stepping the issue regarding the inappropriateness of making an issue of a politician's personal sexual life. Also, inserting what is against the law is a red herring. Whether or not something is public opinion is not relevant to whether or not they are doing their job. Being a gossip and judging people on their personal behavior is one thing; saying someone doesn't have the right to hold a job because of their personal behavior is another. Assuming that it's okay to judge anyone based on what they might have done "when it gets out there" is completly without any logical or rational basis. And more name calling really does indicate the inability to think and to express yourself in rational, logical terms rather than using ad hominems. Done here. Some people are not worth the effort to debate. And that is not an ad hominem: it is truly what I think. I have no patience to spend my effort trying to reason with someone who is not capable of intellectually honest and reasoned thought.

do you not see the foolhardy of a public official, particularly within our state department, having an affair, particularly with foreigners? Do you not see the fact they are now in a position that if that person overhears anything, sees anything, can now use it as blackmail? Or they could sell that info to the highest bidder? Or they could possibly be a spy?

Apparently the feeling is "hands off". I'm really curious as to why we feel this need to protect Colin.

Me, too. Sadly, many don't think or seem to care what the implications of these affairs could have on officials.

 

[depotoo]

You apparently don't understand what fallacious thinking is. You are side stepping the issue regarding the inappropriateness of making an issue of a politician's personal sexual life. Also, inserting what is against the law is a red herring. Whether or not something is public opinion is not relevant to whether or not they are doing their job. Being a gossip and judging people on their personal behavior is one thing; saying someone doesn't have the right to hold a job because of their personal behavior is another. Assuming that it's okay to judge anyone based on what they might have done "when it gets out there" is completly without any logical or rational basis. And more name calling really does indicate the inability to think and to express yourself in rational, logical terms rather than using ad hominems. Done here. Some people are not worth the effort to debate. And that is not an ad hominem: it is truly what I think. I have no patience to spend my effort trying to reason with someone who is not capable of intellectually honest and reasoned thought.

do you not see the foolhardy of a public official, particularly within our state department, having an affair, particularly with foreigners? Do you not see the fact they are now in a position that if that person overhears anything, sees anything, can now use it as blackmail? Or they could sell that info to the highest bidder? Or they could possibly be a spy?

Once again -- baseless paranoia. You've got no evidence, no indication, no nuttin'. Hell, you don't even know there was an affair. To proclaim some scenario is theoretically possible doesn't make it factual, or even likely.

IT doesn't even have to be an affair, don't you see that? If he doesn't want to be found out it can be held over his head! Geeesh. Why are some so blind?? And all it takes is for it to happen to just one person of importance and the links they are willing to go to hide it, versus doing what is damaging to this country in any way. Only one. And if they are morally corrupt enough to cheat then they most certainly could also be morally corrupt enough to damage this country.

 

[dilloduck]

do you not see the foolhardy of a public official, particularly within our state department, having an affair, particularly with foreigners? Do you not see the fact they are now in a position that if that person overhears anything, sees anything, can now use it as blackmail? Or they could sell that info to the highest bidder? Or they could possibly be a spy?

Once again -- baseless paranoia. You've got no evidence, no indication, no nuttin'. Hell, you don't even know there was an affair. To proclaim some scenario is theoretically possible doesn't make it factual, or even likely.

IT doesn't even have to be an affair, don't you see that? If he doesn't want to be found out it can be held over his head! Geeesh. Why are some so blind?? And all it takes is for it to happen to just one person of importance and the links they are willing to go to hide it, versus doing what is damaging to this country in any way. Only one. And if they are morally corrupt enough to cheat then they most certainly could also be morally corrupt enough to damage this country.

He's a black liberal. Anything he does gets a pass. He could get high on Purple Drank, hop in an F-16 and strafe the White House without being arrested.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

.... QED ^^

The irony is that you don't know what an ad hominem attack is while you accuse me of not knowing. You made a personal putdown while not listing your logic. That's the very definition of ad hominem, you ******* moron.

.... The QED2

There she blows.

Nothing like an idiot who is fully wrong and still feels the need to mock. But, that's been your theme for virtually all of the thread.

Critical thinking requires something called rigors. When they're not followed, fallacies occur. It's actually a very precise method of communication and frankly morons like yourself would be well advised to not pretend that you are an authority on the matter.

 

[ScienceRocks]

There's no honor anymore. Really sad.

 

[Kooshdakhaa]

There's no honor anymore. Really sad.

When exactly WAS there honor? When did it end? Just wondering.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

There's no honor anymore. Really sad.

When exactly WAS there honor? When did it end? Just wondering.

LOL. History is always glorified. A lot of the same stuff that is happening now, happened in the 20th century, 19th century, 18th century....

From an American p.o.v. I think the difference is corruption has exponentially increased. Integrity used to mean a lot more IMO. But again, I do see a lot of the same things. Hoover/FDR is eerily similar to Bush/Obama.