Ok, so I have been thinking about this. I think that this will really help Obama alot. Why? Because it actually has calmed a few fears of mine about Obama.

I know part of Powells endorsement was racial, but I do not think that Powell is the type of person that is petty enough to endorse him just because of race. I think Powell really does think Obama would be good for America. I think the role that race has played in it is that Powell would not have crossed party lines if Obama was a white guy. This obviously would not change my vote but does ease my worries as I see obama leading in the polls.

There are still a few things that hold me back from Obama-

1. His Socialist tendencies

2. I think he would try and limit our free speech. I have noticed a pattern with him that whenever someone attacks him he goes after them. He did it with WGN, and now he is trying it with Foxnews. I also believe he supports the fairness doctrine. Which would be a violation of free speech.

The Positives-

1. He would help our Image WW ( I think mccain would be fine there too, but Obama would be better)

2. He is good at commincating with the american people, as long as he does as he said he would and is bipartison when he is pres I think it could work out ok.

Still what it comes down to is his policies are too liberal.

Repost, only this version is full of crap.

Colin Powell endorsed Obama for the same reason that Christopher Buckley endorsed Obama, they both know McCain very well and realize that it would be better to vote for the opposing party than let the country suffer.

And when are we going to talk about Adam Smith's socialist tendencies?  Yeah, Adam Smith's ideas that the rich should pay more taxes than the poor puts him right in there with Karl Marx.

1. what do you mean by help?  will it get him more votes? ...probably not.  will republicans fear him a bit less?  i hope so.

2. welcome to politics...if you can find me a politician that hasn't used that tactic to ward off critizism i will literally mail you a cookie.

btw...can you go into further detail about the fairness doctrine you brought up.

my 10 second internet search came up with this.

"The Fairness Doctrine was introduced in the U.S. in 1949 (Report on Editorializing by Broadcast Licensees, 13 F.C.C. 1246 [1949]). The doctrine remained a matter of general policy, and was applied on a case-by-case basis until 1967, when certain provisions of the doctrine were incorporated into FCC regulations.[3] It did not require equal time for opposing views, but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented. The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows or editorials."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

His socialist tendencies? Come on, man, McCain opposed the Bush tax cuts for the same reason Obama opposes them...they disproportionately favor the wealthy. McCain also advocated the same bailout that Obama did. They are both "socialists."

McCain also votes to limit free speech. He was a co-sponsor of the Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002-McCain-Feingold Act-.

If there's any party that would love nothing more than to remove our rights and abolish free speech, it's the Republicans.

 What the fuck are you talking about, repost? I am fucking saying that I am lightening up on Obama, I was just giving my reasons why I am still holding back my vote.

And quit this Adam Smith bs- he was a Laisse Faire capitalist, how the heck are you going to compare him to Obama?

The socialism go further than just a progessive tax system. It is his whole ideology of bigger government. Now if we want to keep talking Smith we can. I believe when it came to gov he believed its only purpose was to defend its citizens... he believed in no regulation. I believe that if people actually used his system it would work the best, but it would lead to monopolies (it did). I think a hybrid of his system is best. No regulation, but with strict oversight, which would kinda fit his system still because all oversight would be is protect the people.

Also, Powell said that his vote was not a vote against McCain... there goes your theory about Powell = Buckley down the shitter.

I freaking said that Powell truly did believe Obama was a better pick and I trust Powells judgement. I said the only difference was that if Obama was the same guy but white, Powell would have not felt compelled to risk his neck and endorse him.

The fact that he defends himself against personal attacks means you think he would limit our free speech?  I don't get how you can come to that conclusion.  And how is this different than the McCain camp going after the bi-partisan commision that was investigating Palin.  Or going after any media outlet besides Fox for their "gotcha" journalism.

The reason Obama has come out strong against the personal attacks is because he saw what happened to Kerry when he didn't in the last election.

So how do you feel about the Patriot Act?  This should terrify you if you are worried about freedoms.

There is a difference between defending yourself and going after all who oppose you. Think about every media outlet is in the tank for Obama except 1.... and he goes after them.

The patriot act? We gave our freedoms up in a time of crisis out of fear. Much like we are doing with the bailouts and Obama.

The Patriot act pisses me off.

Think about it in history.... all of the drastic changes made in crisis are usually bad (not always, the American revolution turned out well)

bad ones in the last 200 years that come to mind....

Lenin, Hitler, Napolean, Mussilini, Social Programs during the great depression were are now stuck with... those are the big ones. I am sure there are more

did you just lump social security in the same category as the holocaust?