We need to nominate, then elect Herman Cain!

Jarod said:
No, I mean a If you practice a specific religen I will not consider you for positions in my government.
Click to expand...

and you believe, being opposed to abortion requires practicing a specific religion?......as I recall, there are atheists on this board who are opposed to abortion.....
 
Dixie said:
Can anyone give me one good reason we shouldn't?

Cain has a record of results-oriented private sector success in business better than anyone in this race, perhaps one of the best of anyone ever to run for president. He is not a career politician, at a time where the electorate finds both political parties, and politicians in general, unsuitable and unpalatable, this would seem to be exactly what we want. His credentials with business are impeccable compared with Romney, he only lacks experience holding political office. So what? Is there suddenly some prerequisite that one must hold political office to obtain political office? Are we saying that someone who has been corrupted by politics for a certain number of years or terms, is somehow a 'better' choice to serve? The ONLY bad mark Cain gets, is for not having enough experience being a politician... but is that really a 'bad' mark?

Disgruntled Libertarians... Defiant Independents... Disenfranchised Conservative Democrats... If ever there is a hope to bust up the GOP establishment, and elect someone who is truly a conservative and believes in Conservatism over Republicanism, this is your man! If ever there is someone who believes in the Constitution and Constitutional roles of government, etc... here is your candidate! If you are realistic enough to understand we aren't going to see an emerging third party, and if we did, they wouldn't be able to effectively govern with a D/R congress... Cain presents a unique chance to revive the founding principles of government by the people.

Finally, there is the issue of race. May as well talk about it, the left plans to attack with it, so let's face reality on this. If John McCain could have picked up the same percentage of black votes as Bush gained in 2000 and 2004, he would have won the election. Cain offers conservatives a unique chance to articulate conservatism to blacks in America, who may otherwise dismiss what the "republican" had to say. It also completely short-circuits the left-wing "racist" allegations, as Cain is actually MORE African-American than Obama. Taking their Race card is HUGE, it is what they use to bludgeon conservatives with 24/7/365... it is their Shield of Deflection for Obama's trail of failed policies, and by extension, their own policies of Liberalism.
Click to expand...

I never heard a more ignorant and small-minded negro. If n-word, truly signifies "ignorant and dumb", then it truly fits him to a "t".
 
DamnYankee said:
Poor Charver. He just found out that predictions found under a beer glass aren't reliable. :(
Click to expand...

Yes, SM, a prediction that Herman Cains is going nowhere near the Whitehouse is absolutely ridiculous.

They might as well just let him move in now.
 
poet said:
I never heard a more ignorant and small-minded negro. If n-word, truly signifies "ignorant and dumb", then it truly fits him to a "t".
Click to expand...

apparently you aren't as opposed to racism as you thought......you're actually willing to engage in it when it suits your purpose......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
apparently you aren't as opposed to racism as you thought......you're actually willing to engage in it when it suits your purpose......
Click to expand...

Listen. If you wanted to endorse a KKK'er, or demean him, I wouldn't consider it racism, on your part. That a KKK'er is racist, by definition, is entirely different from your endorsement or rejection of him (or her). I can separate the two. Why can't you?
N-word, is a word I normally never use. In fact I shouldn't be surprised by the innuendo and the alludes to it here. But a black person calling another black person the n-word, is entirely different from your using the terminology, quiet as it's kept. The intricacies and context seems to elude Caucasians...so why trouble yourself with things beyond your comprehension. Forgive my condescension. No purpose was sought. I was imparting a truth, and attempting to enlighten you. Try as you may, you're not more cleverer than I.
 
poet said:
Listen. If you wanted to endorse a KKK'er, or demean him, I wouldn't consider it racism, on your part. That a KKK'er is racist, by definition, is entirely different from your endorsement or rejection of him (or her). I can separate the two. Why can't you?
N-word, is a word I normally never use. In fact I shouldn't be surprised by the innuendo and the alludes to it here. But a black person calling another black person the n-word, is entirely different from your using the terminology, quiet as it's kept. The intricacies and context seems to elude Caucasians...so why trouble yourself with things beyond your comprehension. Forgive my condescension. No purpose was sought. I was imparting a truth, and attempting to enlighten you. Try as you may, you're not more cleverer than I.
Click to expand...

You are a racist, pure and simple.
 
Dixie said:
Can anyone give me one good reason we shouldn't?

Cain has a record of results-oriented private sector success in business better than anyone in this race, perhaps one of the best of anyone ever to run for president. He is not a career politician, at a time where the electorate finds both political parties, and politicians in general, unsuitable and unpalatable, this would seem to be exactly what we want. His credentials with business are impeccable compared with Romney, he only lacks experience holding political office. So what? Is there suddenly some prerequisite that one must hold political office to obtain political office? Are we saying that someone who has been corrupted by politics for a certain number of years or terms, is somehow a 'better' choice to serve? The ONLY bad mark Cain gets, is for not having enough experience being a politician... but is that really a 'bad' mark?

Disgruntled Libertarians... Defiant Independents... Disenfranchised Conservative Democrats... If ever there is a hope to bust up the GOP establishment, and elect someone who is truly a conservative and believes in Conservatism over Republicanism, this is your man! If ever there is someone who believes in the Constitution and Constitutional roles of government, etc... here is your candidate! If you are realistic enough to understand we aren't going to see an emerging third party, and if we did, they wouldn't be able to effectively govern with a D/R congress... Cain presents a unique chance to revive the founding principles of government by the people.

Finally, there is the issue of race. May as well talk about it, the left plans to attack with it, so let's face reality on this. If John McCain could have picked up the same percentage of black votes as Bush gained in 2000 and 2004, he would have won the election. Cain offers conservatives a unique chance to articulate conservatism to blacks in America, who may otherwise dismiss what the "republican" had to say. It also completely short-circuits the left-wing "racist" allegations, as Cain is actually MORE African-American than Obama. Taking their Race card is HUGE, it is what they use to bludgeon conservatives with 24/7/365... it is their Shield of Deflection for Obama's trail of failed policies, and by extension, their own policies of Liberalism.
Click to expand...

"Can anyone give me one good reason we shouldn't?"

I can. The government is not a business so what does business experience have to do with anything? According to the "Right" government has no business with business. Isn't that what the Right calls Socialism, governments getting involved in business?

Businesses look at the bottom line, money. Their only concern about employees is whether or not they're making money for the company. What has that experience got to do with government?

Perhaps a degree in psychology, understanding individuals and groups, would be much more beneficial.
 
Onceler said:
It's my understanding that Cain supports making abortion illegal even in the case of rape.

So, he won't be the nominee.
Click to expand...

The president CAN'T make abortion illegal any more than they could have made it legal before Roe V. Wade. If they could, everyone elected president since Roe, would have tried, since they all went on record as being opposed to abortion. (Even pro-choice presidents have opposed the practice of abortion.) The simple fact of the matter is, and what the stupid and ignorant people of the world don't comprehend, is the president has very very little to do with abortion or whether it is legal or illegal or to what degree. This is determined by Congress and the Supreme Court, not the President. So, it really doesn't matter what Herman Cain is personally for or against, regarding abortion.
 
Damocles said:
Well, the circular reasoning I am currently hearing is that any person who supports Cain is a racist because he is black and because they don't support Obama who is black...
Click to expand...

My reasoning is that folks who don't support The Obama are "obviously" racist, so the same standard should apply to those who don't support Cain. :)
 
Damocles said:
Well, the circular reasoning I am currently hearing is that any person who supports Cain is a racist because he is black and because they don't support Obama who is black...
Click to expand...

Please. The difference is Herman Cain supports the Republican and Tea Party Platform, which, in and of itself, is "racist". He is espousing the exact same views of a white racist (read : conservative Republican) , which is ironic, in and of itself. President Obama is the polar opposite. Herman Cain is a house negro, doing the slavemaster's work. Are you kidding? Look how fast he backed down from criticizing, justifiably, Rick Perry's N-head controversy. Stevie Wonder could see it.
 
Damocles said:
Well, the circular reasoning I am currently hearing is that any person who supports Cain is a racist because he is black and because they don't support Obama who is black...
Click to expand...

Well, you can't accuse me of racism because i don't support either of them because they are black.

Oh...hang on a minute...
 
Been away for the weekend, but it's nice to see my thread sparked such lively debate. Let me take this opportunity to address some of the comments:

Southern Chicken: Dixie, the Ajc here in Atlanta does a factcheck on Herman Cain every time he speaks.

We have adopted this practice of "FACTCHECK" (sounds like something out of George Orwell's 1984) where a biased and politicized media outlet PRETENDS to be unbiased and objective in their analysis. The fact that they use the term "FACTCHECK" is supposed to ensure whatever they say is without question and 100% truth. This is just simply inaccurate and factually not true. I went to the link you posted and read through their supposed list of "facts" on Cain, most of which are being taken out of context or distorted to begin with, and then analyzed in a biased and distorted way. One of the most liberal newspapers in the country, has put together what should be libelous propaganda, and presented it to the public as "FACTCHECK" which is supposed to denote that facts have actually been checked. The only "FACT" we can take away from the AJC is that they are biased, liberal, and not supportive of ANY republican candidate.

For a good example of this, we can look at one of the AJC's chosen "facts" they supposedly "checked." Cain has made the statement that China holds 26% of US debt... AJC says this is not true, because if you count "domestic debt" then China holds much less than 26%. But when we are debating US debt, it is the FOREIGN debt we are concerned with. Anyone who has borrowed $20 from their children can tell you, "domestic debt" is nowhere near as problematic or vulnerable, than debt owed outside the domicile. Cain is referring to FOREIGN debt, not DOMESTIC debt... but because the AJC can parse his words and take them completely out of context, they can pretend Cain has not told the truth.

poet: He is a bona fide homophobe and Neanderthal. A misogynist. No foreign policy experience. Never having held a political office before (isn't that the one they used on Barack Obama?)

And how can you determine who and who is not "more African-American", given the history that once upon a time, the "one drop rule" was the law of the land?

No, they didn't use 'never held public office before' or 'lack of political experience' on Obama, because he was a state senator, as I recall. In fact, most of Obama's experience is being a politician seeking office. Homophobe and misogynist are ad homs... no basis whatsoever. Neanderthal? They have been extinct for thousands of years.

And I can determine that someone born of two African-American parents, is "more African American" than someone who is born of one black and one white parent, because that is how genetics work. Both Obama and Cain have "more than one drop" of African American blood.

Onzies: It's my understanding that Cain supports making abortion illegal even in the case of rape.

Addressed this earlier, but again... presidents can't make abortion illegal. Your point is completely academic.

Jarhead: So should we nominate and elect a person who advocates a religous litmus test for Judgships and cabinent positions?

I think we already have a series of "litmus tests" for every appointment by every president, and it's been that way for a while now. Perhaps it's not "PC" to come out and say it, but yeah... every president is going to have their own "litmus test" ...you don't think Obama had one for Sotomayor or Kagan?

Apple: The government is not a business so what does business experience have to do with anything?

Everything. The president doesn't run the government, so why would it matter the government is not a business?
 
Dixie said:
Been away for the weekend, but it's nice to see my thread sparked such lively debate. Let me take this opportunity to address some of the comments:

Southern Chicken: Dixie, the Ajc here in Atlanta does a factcheck on Herman Cain every time he speaks.

We have adopted this practice of "FACTCHECK" (sounds like something out of George Orwell's 1984) where a biased and politicized media outlet PRETENDS to be unbiased and objective in their analysis. The fact that they use the term "FACTCHECK" is supposed to ensure whatever they say is without question and 100% truth. This is just simply inaccurate and factually not true. I went to the link you posted and read through their supposed list of "facts" on Cain, most of which are being taken out of context or distorted to begin with, and then analyzed in a biased and distorted way. One of the most liberal newspapers in the country, has put together what should be libelous propaganda, and presented it to the public as "FACTCHECK" which is supposed to denote that facts have actually been checked. The only "FACT" we can take away from the AJC is that they are biased, liberal, and not supportive of ANY republican candidate.

For a good example of this, we can look at one of the AJC's chosen "facts" they supposedly "checked." Cain has made the statement that China holds 26% of US debt... AJC says this is not true, because if you count "domestic debt" then China holds much less than 26%. But when we are debating US debt, it is the FOREIGN debt we are concerned with. Anyone who has borrowed $20 from their children can tell you, "domestic debt" is nowhere near as problematic or vulnerable, than debt owed outside the domicile. Cain is referring to FOREIGN debt, not DOMESTIC debt... but because the AJC can parse his words and take them completely out of context, they can pretend Cain has not told the truth.

poet: He is a bona fide homophobe and Neanderthal. A misogynist. No foreign policy experience. Never having held a political office before (isn't that the one they used on Barack Obama?)

And how can you determine who and who is not "more African-American", given the history that once upon a time, the "one drop rule" was the law of the land?

No, they didn't use 'never held public office before' or 'lack of political experience' on Obama, because he was a state senator, as I recall. In fact, most of Obama's experience is being a politician seeking office. Homophobe and misogynist are ad homs... no basis whatsoever. Neanderthal? They have been extinct for thousands of years.

And I can determine that someone born of two African-American parents, is "more African American" than someone who is born of one black and one white parent, because that is how genetics work. Both Obama and Cain have "more than one drop" of African American blood.

Onzies: It's my understanding that Cain supports making abortion illegal even in the case of rape.

Addressed this earlier, but again... presidents can't make abortion illegal. Your point is completely academic.

Jarhead: So should we nominate and elect a person who advocates a religous litmus test for Judgships and cabinent positions?

I think we already have a series of "litmus tests" for every appointment by every president, and it's been that way for a while now. Perhaps it's not "PC" to come out and say it, but yeah... every president is going to have their own "litmus test" ...you don't think Obama had one for Sotomayor or Kagan?

Apple: The government is not a business so what does business experience have to do with anything?

Everything. The president doesn't run the government, so why would it matter the government is not a business?
Click to expand...

Apple: The government is not a business so what does business experience have to do with anything?

Dixie: Everything. The president doesn't run the government, so why would it matter the government is not a business?

Huh? You say it has "everything" and then say the President doesn't run the government. What's your point?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top