Posted on 10/19/2008 11:14:56 AM PDT by nobamanada
Rush Limbaugh to Politico on Powell's Endorsement "Rush Limbaugh suggested Powell's move was very much related to Obama's status as the first African-American with a chance to become president." "'Secretary Powell says his endorsement is not about race,' Limbaugh wrote in an email. 'OK, fine. I am now researching his past endorsements to see if I can find all the inexperienced, very liberal, white candidates he has endorsed. I'll let you know what I come up with.'" "'I was also unaware of his dislike for John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Antonin Scalia. I guess he also regrets Reagan and Bush making HIM a 4-star and Secretary of State AND appointing his son to head the FCC. Yes, let's hear it for transformational figures.'"
(Excerpt) Read more at thepage.time.com ...
But you can never can tell around this place. Perhaps I am taking this stuff a bit too seriously. :-)
Secondly, that is why I posted that it can be found on the DOJ website. Why didn't you just go there yourself? Shouldn't you do some research on your own?
The actual number is 37460 for black on white rape and 0 for white on black. You must multiply the percentages out for the answer, although multiplying by zero is easy.
Here's the link DOJ crime stats. Select 2005 from the right hand side of the pdf. Bear in mind, when the full weight of these actual crime stats hits, that while a woman is being actually raped every 15 minutes, what do we hear about from politicians and the media - nooses and other caricatures, not real victims.
If it was really that his pride and feeling were hurt why did he give money to McCain and the Republican Leadership Council?
http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/donor_lookup.php?name=powell,%20colin
At least you admit you jumped the gun.
Thanks for the link, and I did check it.
That stat you quote has an asterisk, which is explained in the footnotes as representing an *estimated* percentage based on a small sample of representative cases, "small" being 10 cases or fewer. (You'd think they could have checked 20-30 cases each year out of the 150,000+ rapes and sexual assaults, to get us a sounder percentage. But that is their slackness, not yours.)
Your stat is true for both 2005 and 2004, which I also looked at; other years had similarly very small percentages of white-on-black rape as a percentage of all rapes suffered by black women.
Going the other way, about 15-20% of all white rape victims are victimized by black perpetrators and another 15-20% by "other" assailants. About 60% of the assailants are white men. Which means white women have a problem with being "raped on" by members of minority groups. So what's up with that?
These percentages, 15% or so, produce really big numbers, since there are about 130,000 rapes of white women each year. There are a lot of rapes, about 150,000/year, and minority offenders are definitely overrepresented, so there is your point.
I looked at the 2003 numbers as well, and it appears that of the total number of rapes committed by black assailants, half were on black women (who suffer an incidence of rape twice that of their white fellow-citizens) and half were on white women -- "raping out" -- which has to be saying something that the statisticians don't want to say.
I'll bet Cynthia Tucker, famous black-racist newspaper editor (or is that "editrix" or maybe "editress"?) of the Atlanta Constitution, doesn't want to go there.
ummmm, on what grounds
This thread contains the link to the source story:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2104867/posts
One wildcard with the threat of criminal probes is to which side would Powell come down on, witness for the prosecution or defense?
Race is a too simplistic answer for the people operating at these levels. For them, it’s all about the power (control) and money.
Could he have once again been called upon to be the good soldier and word as the ambassador between the old and new regime?
Who stands to lose and needs Powell either in the loop with the new regime on point?
Who stands to lose money or more importantly, who with money needs to curry favor with the new regime and can make use of Powell?
RUM and a BUD?
A: Yeah, it hurt. Let me point out that the same intelligence I provided that's subject to so much controversy—that's the same intelligence that the Senate and House used four months earlier to vote for a resolution. It's the same information the President thought was accurate after his director of intelligence told him it was a slam dunk. And it was the same kind of intelligence that President Clinton used to bomb Iraq in 1998. But nevertheless there was no spotlight on this issue like the spotlight I had on me at the UN. I wasn't alone in believing those stockpiles were there—our commanders believed they were there, and they were prepared to fight through chemical attacks to get to Baghdad—and our President believed it and Congress believed it. So when it turned out that part of that information was wrong, the spotlight was on me. And I'm disappointed. I'm sorry it happened and wish those who knew better had spoken up at the time. But there isn't anything else I can say about it. When people ask me, "Is this a blot on your record?" Yeah, okay, fine, it's a blot on my record. But do you want me to walk around saying I have a blot on my record every day? I have a blot on my record. There it is. It's there for everybody to see forever.
This is what I was referring to about his feelings being hurt.
Why did he donate to a McCain cause, I have no idea.
Maybe he likes McCain?.)
It is historic for a lightweight such as Obama to have gone this far in the election process.
And he was talking about a U.S. prosecution, not a "war crimes" prosecution, which would presumably be brought by an international tribunal (all such "war crimes" iirc have always been before international tribunals).
And if they want to play this way, then fine, let's all start making witness lists and just go after everybody in open court. Starting with Nancy Pelosi and Henry Waxman, just on general principles. I'm sure they've done something, don't you think? </sarc>
Powell is, and always has been, a liberal. To curry favor with the media and Blacks, Republicans promoted him to the general officer rank, to National Security Advisor, and then to Sec’y of State - all for political reasons. With few exceptions, he has been a purely political animal, and a royal pain to the Republican Party that created him.
Powell has to know about B. Hussein’s domestic terrorist associations and about the Odinga connection. I would have thought he loved his country too much to do this.
If you think about what these stats mean - for instance, how is a white woman raped every 15 minutes by a black man even when, for the most part, the communities live separately?
To some extent, white women must be being hunted by blacks because there are probably too many rapes to be just by "convenience" (i.e. the person next door or at work).
The disturbing thing to me is how this travesty of crime is completely not addressed by politicians and the media. In fact, how many people might believe that these statics are actually reversed? You yourself did not believe the zero white-on-black figure for 2005 when I posted it.
I think no matter how it is spun, Powells endorsement is certifiably racist.
Powel is furious against ALL conservatives.
His actions in the statedepartment were borderline anti-american. Remember when he was pushing the annan plan to reunify cyprus? when the plan was voted down by the free citizens of the Republic of Cyprus, he swore he would “get back at them.”
They denied him the nobel peace prize and his chance to show up the Bush Iraq effort.
He was always the obvious source of “dissent” in the bush administration.
Not to be trusted by any measure.
He always struck me as the kind of person who might be very technically competent but you could never ever ever trust.
(though in keeping the the PC playbook we should thank him for his military service, etc. etc.)
Of course thats why Powell endorsed him and most Americans know it. Its no big deal. I’m sure they expected it. The media will make a big deal out of it, though.
Cute.
What I got from the quotes is not that he is endorsing Obama but that he is rejecting the Republicans and McCain. It was tortured logic and a strange interview because there was nothing dramatic about Obama, other than his skin color, that Powell was citing as an overwhelming reason. I was not convinced and then he cited this economic neltdown and I was waiting for Powell to tell us what Obama did after McCain tried to do something. Obama did nothing, he just blamed Bush - and by proxy Powell?
This is primarily about race. These are small complaints against a life of John McCain. Ayers? Sarah Palin? Did he resign because Bush I had Dan Quayle. What Barbara Streisand.
Powell got a little revenge here, he never got over going before the UN on WMD and being an excuse for the unending war - he is getting back at Bush and Cheney.
He had already crossed party lines to support an African-American candidate - Doug Wilder of Virginia. It is nothing new.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.