Cain - 2012

[stebo0728]

Oh and I meant to also clarify, as far as Cain being "my guy", I have listened to him on radio for the past 6 years, and so I've gotten to know a good bit more about him. Also, a LARGE part of my support for him is his unbridled support of the FairTax.

Now in case you hadnt heard, Cain announced today his official intent to seek the republican nomination.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHomZF3JGBg[/youtube]

[stebo0728]

And here is a rebuttal to the "no muslims" issue. It may not appease you, but it certainly appeases me, and pay particular attention to his last question/answer

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgD74d44kqE[/youtube]

[bigbadberry3]

Not appeased by the no Muslims. Not even close.

[heliochrome85]

And here is a rebuttal to the "no muslims" issue. It may not appease you, but it certainly appeases me, and pay particular attention to his last question/answer

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgD74d44kqE[/youtube]

you know what? f*** you. yes, us muslims are treasonous. and we piss on the declaration of independence and constitution. tell those muslims in all three branches of the military who are dying for your right to say the s*** you say. tell it to the muslims who translate for the cia and nsa so that you dont have a 9/11 on an annual basis. we couldn't possibly be true patriots. that you don't have issue with his answers to the question, is not surprising at all. you are a bigoted, feeble minded cretin. you prove it in thread after thread.

[stebo0728]

And I launch personal attacks in how many threads?

[heliochrome85]

And I launch personal attacks in how many threads?

you may not physically light the cross on fire, but you sure as hell arent upset by it.

[stebo0728]

Did you even take time to listen and critically analyze his response? Or did you just preconceive your response based on your own biased assumptions?

No not all muslims are as he describes, and if you had any critical reasoning skills left after being personally insulted, you'd understand that he wasnt saying that either.

[heliochrome85]

Did you even take time to listen and critically analyze his response? Or did you just preconceive your response based on your own biased assumptions?

No not all muslims are as he describes, and if you had any critical reasoning skills left after being personally insulted, you'd understand that he wasnt saying that either.

i watched the video. you must take me for a much dumber person than i am. he said that he didnt want muslims in the cabinet because there are many who want to pass sharia law. ill have you know that 0 bills have been introduced in any state legislature to bring sharia law to power. this is akin to the bigoted arguments against hiring catholics in government in the 50s because they might listen to the pope more than the constitution. doesnt change the fact that there have always been catholics in the army, navy, marines, intelligence, courts, congress, and other positions of power, faithfully serving their country with courage and honor. good thing kennedy didnt suspend the constitution and replace it with papal law.

[AZhitman]

^ That.

Now, here's my take: I really wish Cain HADN'T said that. Because other than that, I like him. Unfortunately, that ONE ignorant statement screams louder than anything else he's said.

And I simply can't support someone who says something that ignorant, just like I can't listen to someone saying, "Finally, we got a Black president!"

[heliochrome85]

it isnt that he just said it, its more telling that when given the opportunity to recant it, or clarify it, he took no efforts to actually clarify it. id much rather he just said that he wouldnt hire muslims. saying that he wouldnt because we arent patriotic enough to defend the constitution is just downright offensive. that stebo has no issue with that, is more telling of him than it is of cain. prideful bigotry on full display. it has no place here.

[Cold_Zero]

Mitch Daniels will not seek the nomination for 2012.

[HashiriyaS14]

Mitch Daniels will not seek the nomination for 2012.

Nominee Pawlenty it is then!

Romney is doing pretty well at fundraising though, so maybe I shouldn't count him out.

[IBCoupe]

I like to give Stebo the benefit of the doubt. It's not that he endorses Cain's racist tendencies so much as it is that Cain's racist tendencies don't overcome his prior endorsement.

I don't think Stebo's bigoted, but I do think he's able to rationalize Cain's bigotry to the degree necessary to avoid internal conflict over his endorsement of Cain.

[heliochrome85]

I like to give Stebo the benefit of the doubt. It's not that he endorses Cain's racist tendencies so much as it is that Cain's racist tendencies don't overcome his prior endorsement.

I don't think Stebo's bigoted, but I do think he's able to rationalize Cain's bigotry to the degree necessary to avoid internal conflict over his endorsement of Cain.

hitler was a good guy too if you remove the whole holocaust issue. doesnt make it any less offensive to hear someone talk about his good qualities while rationalising his racist tendencies.

[IBCoupe]

Nominee Pawlenty it is then!

It's too bad he's gone all derpish recently. I miss the old Pawlenty.

[stebo0728]

I like to give Stebo the benefit of the doubt. It's not that he endorses Cain's racist tendencies so much as it is that Cain's racist tendencies don't overcome his prior endorsement.

I don't think Stebo's bigoted, but I do think he's able to rationalize Cain's bigotry to the degree necessary to avoid internal conflict over his endorsement of Cain.

Thanks for coming to my rescue ;-)

And you're right, I'm not bigotted, well at least not nearly as much as T seems to think. Im born and raised southerner, so NOT being a bigot is about like expecting a blonde chick to never utter the work "like" before a statement. I think I've brought myself above my environment pretty well in that regard.

Now, to you're assessment of my position here, you are again correct, this is non issue for me as it does not negate my endorsement. Do I wish he hadn't brought it up? Sure. Do I wish he'd have backpedaled and stumbled all over himself to correct it? NO. Thats one thing I admire about Herman, he sticks to his guns, right or wrong, and does not flutter about in the political wind. Would I hold the same position as he? No I don't think I would. But if you arent knocked down immediately by personal insult when listening to his response, you would start to understand his position a little bit more. Yes he stepped in a bit of muck with the whole "unpatriotic" part, but again he was speaking in generalization. Does the generalization hold? Answer that for yourself. The main part to understand, is that we have been plagued by presidents surrounding themselves with unsavory people. Herman is different, a large part of his success in the corporate world came from his ability to assemble the right team for the job. He's not going to just hire folks to have enough of every race to look nice, he's going to hire the right people. As he stated, to date he does not know any muslims who fit the bill for a team member in his staff. I support his right and ability to assemble his team any way he sees fit, and if he does not feel completely comfortable about trusting someone to do a job as critical as the ones he'll be filling, then he doesnt need to hire them. I dont expect you to be all full of joy abuot him, seeing how little you know about him, but I do hope you can keep an open mind, and not let personal insult guide you. You may not like the guy, and I'm not particularly counting on your vote for him, but lets dial down the vitriol a bit.

[stebo0728]

And so you know, my intention of this thread is to bring anything about Cain to light, that includes the negative. Below is an article about his "right of return" blunder this weekend.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/herma ... ion-50393/

[IBCoupe]

Professor Paul Bader was my instructor for the second half of my lawyering process class, and I'm starting class with him tonight in Legal Ethics. He said there are smart lawyers, and there are stupid lawyers. There are lazy lawyers, and there are industrious lawyers. He went on to explain that if you are smart and industrious, you will find professional success. You can also find success if you are lazy, but smart, or stupid, but industrious. But god help you if you are both lazy and stupid.

Stebo, ask yourself this question: is there any generalization about the loyalty of a given group of people that would hold up if that group of people are connected only by the name of their religious faith?

Cain's first sin was bigotry, but that wasn't, in my view, his worst. His greater sin was ascribing to and espousing a position that is the very depiction of a logical fallacy. That goes from being "wrong" to being evidence that he lacks basic skills in critical thinking. And "sticking to his guns" on that point isn't political bravery, it's intellectual failure. It is absolutely not something to be praised. It's something we should hold up for children everywhere as an example of how not to think.

And the right of return blunder shows that, in addition to being stupid, Cain is lazy. It would take no more than an hour of basic reading for anyone to familiarize themselves with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, to the point that they wouldn't have to ask for clarification. But even supposing he didn't want to answer the question incorrectly, he still got the Israeli position backwards upon clarification. That suggests that he can't bring himself to brush up on the most prominent issues facing today's Executive branch.

[stebo0728]

Some generalizations are meatier than others.

The thing about Cain is, when it comes to creating a political presence for himself, he falls short. If anything is his downfall, it will be that. Not any individual issue, but a culmination of not being able to create the proper image for himself with America. And I dont mean creating the proper false image, but just creating the proper true image. He's had the avenue to do this for Atlanta, you'd be hard pressed to find alot of people in Atlanta that are against him. But now he doesnt have a radio show. He has to find the way to properly present himself to America. That may well be the Achilles Heal.

I can understand the arguments you bring forth regarding his rationalization skills, and cant really give any good argument against them other than to tell you that he does have what it takes. I can only hope that in the next 18 months he can find a way to show America what he's shown Atlanta already. If he fails, this will be why.

Also, I'm still sticking with my original theory, that this campaign will be about the underdog. I just dont see Newt or Romney making it. Time will tell. Cain may not be the underdog that makes it, though I dont see his failure yet, but if he does fizzle, then perhaps Pawlenty?

[stebo0728]

Here is his official statement seeking to clarify his "right of return" statements made Sunday.

http://secure.campaigner.com/Campaigner ... yBR-eH60S8

I have long been a vocal and unwavering supporter of our friend and ally, Israel.

All Israeli governments have rejected the "right" of large numbers of Arabs or Palestinians to return to what is now the state of Israel. Such an en masse return would unbalance Israel's demographic makeup as the world's sole Jewish state.

In this light, should the "right of return" "be negotiated," as I said, "if that is a decision that Israel wants to make"? Certainly, and to reiterate, it's Israel's call. Israel has a long record of being more gracious to its enemies than its enemies are to it, and this would be yet another example of that. But is the "right of return" a moral imperative? Is it something Israel must grant? Is it something the United States ought to encourage?

The answer is no on every count.

Our policy on Palestinian affairs must be wholly a function of our policy on Israeli affairs. Israel is a friend. Israel is an ally. Israel shares common values with us. Israel shares common interests with us, especially in the eradication of terrorism and the need for bringing peace to the region. As President, I will never lose sight of these basic facts. Any aspirant to the Presidency must have the unshakable US-Israeli alliance at the core of his or her strategic vision in the Middle East.

As your President, I would.

[Cold_Zero]

Can we institute a moratorium on the word ‘Patriot’? It is a buzz word over used by people like Hannity to define uber Americans and has Nationalistic overtones. Also, it is a very slippery slope to start questioning people’s patriotism, loyalty or love for this country based off of a common religious association. To be honest, we went through the very same thing during World War I with this country’s fear of German American and which side they were loyal to. Many stopped speaking their mother tongue, they felt obligated to install American flags in their sanctuaries that are still there to this day and they dare not verbalize their pride for their German heritage. Even though there were German concentration camps in the United States, to a lesser extent there was harassment inside this country during World War II for German Americans.

I am really ready for this Islamic boogie man fear mongering to be put to bed. Hannibal ad portas!

[AZhitman]

........ "you've got political experience in place now, hows that workin out for ya?"

Very well thank you very much

Bin Laden dead

Affordable healthcare bill passed

Somali priates dead

Financial markets back up

Job numbers up

Telcoman

unemployment remains unbearable
gas prices skyrocketing
Gitmo still open
food prices climbing daily
still in Afghanistan
government spending out of control
"ObamaCare" unconstitutional
health care costs increasing, not dropping

Yeah. Big applause for that.

[srellim234]

All good reasons for throwing both parties out and starting over with new players. Including Cain, to run on a Democratic or Republican ticket for ANY office in Washington, D.C. you have to be a "sellout" to the party. If, somehow, you weren't, the political parties in place would force the sellout on you once you got there. True change is not going to happen until people quit voting for Republicans and Democrats. No matter what they say they stand for or they claim are their stances on issues.

[stebo0728]

All good reasons for throwing both parties out and starting over with new players.

I have great support for that notion. Unfortunately the elections rotate

Of course a complete reset would be an interesting time, and would open us to a great deal of vulnerability from both foreign and domestic threats.

But instead of replacing them all, how about we just drop partisan politics? Start dealing with ideals rather than platforms.

[stebo0728]

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011 ... n+Central)

First, I'm ALL for ending ethanol subsidies, there's much more productive things to do with corn than to pour it into energy technology that AT BEST breaks even on energy gain, and in most cases takes more energy to produce than it yields.

With that said, how risky is it for Pawlenty to take this stance, and especially in Iowa.

[HashiriyaS14]

All good reasons for throwing both parties out and starting over with new players.

^^
Utter Derpspeak

Every election cycle is a chance for people to do this, and yet they do not. Don't like the two major parties? Don't vote for them. Vote for someone or something else.

The more people feel like they have to vote for a major party for their vote to count, the more we will see potentially competitive third party candidates eschewing this path to run with major parties, as they feel like it's their only chance to win. All this does is create uncomfortable coalitions like the current GOP where half cares about deficit reduction and half does not.

This general attitude of "throw it all out and start over" is utter idiocy. We have a system that works in that it accurately reflects the will of the majority. If the two main parties remain in power it's because people are choosing for them to be. If you don't want them to be, then you are probably in the minority, and if you're in the minority you can't have any realistic expectation of the system to serve your interests. Sorry.

[stebo0728]

Well to be fair, I think what he means is throw out the "tools" not the "process". But then you would have to modify the process to save the process, which in itself is a conundrum.

One of the biggest problems is the attitude of "all these rat b*stards need to go NOW, well but my guy's doing pretty well, he can stay". You just wont get anywhere like that, and then that begs the questions, if everyone's "my guy" is doing ok, wheres the problem?

Dayum politics, u scary!

[HashiriyaS14]

One of the biggest problems is the attitude of "all these rat b*stards need to go NOW, well but my guy's doing pretty well, he can stay". You just wont get anywhere like that, and then that begs the questions, if everyone's "my guy" is doing ok, wheres the problem?

And you've hit just on what seems to frustrate people.

-Whether or not you like YOUR GUY is up to you.

-Whether or not you like our current government IN AGGREGATE is utter chance. It forms whatever coalition it forms by happenstance and you're either a part of it or you're not.


Before you rant that "the government doesn't stand for you", find out where your fellow citizens stand on that particular issue, relative to you. If you're in the minority, you're stuffed. You have nothing to be angry about, all you can hope to do is convince people, change minds gradually, and someday find yourself in the majority.

It is NOT the duty of an effective government to represent YOU (or me), only to represent the majority. Society is mob rule.

[srellim234]

Gerrymandering prevents the government from truly representing the majority. Allow the districts to fall where they may and you would find much different representation in this country. Here in California, where major attempts have been made to revise the gerrymandering process, the Republicans and Democrats managed to seize the power on the new "independent" redistricting commission before it ever made it to the ballot. Despite a majority of the electorate now declining to state a political party, the commission is comprised of 5 Democrats, 5 Republicans and only 4 declared "decline to state" or some other party. Those numbers were written into the law before it ever made it to the ballot.

Without the two parties controlling the gerrymandering process you would see a lot more independent and third party candidates running and winning because they would be in a fair fight.

[IBCoupe]

unemployment remains unbearable
gas prices skyrocketing
Gitmo still open
food prices climbing daily
still in Afghanistan
government spending out of control
"ObamaCare" unconstitutional
health care costs increasing, not dropping

Yeah. Big applause for that.

Loathe as I am to side with Telco, Greg, your claims here are a bit specious.

Aside from a new WPA, which I'm sure you'd oppose, there's little the executive branch can do to stimulate job growth. Eliminating all taxes wouldn't begin to affect unemployment, and the costs to society's infrastructure would hurt it in the short and long term. The government, let alone the President, can't do much, which is why Democrats keep asking the Republicans where the jobs are - Republicans made a promise in the campaigns that they lacked the power to keep.

Gas prices are rising due to Mideast turmoil. There isn't enough easily accessible oil in other regions to affect this effect. Food prices are rising because gas prices are rising.

We're in Afghanistan first because even if the death of OBL marked the end of our purpose there, it'd likely be physically impossible for us to be out of there.

Government spending is high, but in a recession it should be, and it's not markedly different than the trends leading up to President Obama's first term. Further, we're currently working towards shrinking the deficit, which should be your primary concern, not "spending." As a percentage of our GDP, where do you think spending is? In relation to the past?

Congress made it impossible for President Obama to close Gitmo in the 2010 Defense Reauthorization bill.

Obamacare is not unconstitutional. We've gone into this at length, and it's just not.

Obamacare won't fully come into effect for a few more years, so why would you look for healthcare cost decreases now?