Raising Cain

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I've not once said that they cannot be socially conservative. I have said that it is a deal killer for me if that is where they draw the line rather than on the fiscal issues. We cannot have somebody willing to compromise on fiscal issues.

And we also can't have someone willing to compromise on social conservatism, because social conservative values are the root foundation to conservatism in general. Where we have made a mistake in judgement often, is assuming a social conservative is also a fiscal conservative, and that is just often not the case. I'll pick on Bush here, since everyone know I love my Blue Jean Boy... Bush was a social conservative above everything else. Pure Social Conservatives like Bush, tend to also be very fiscally liberal. Their values are cloaked in compassion for others, they want to help, they feel compelled to spend lots of money, helping the poor, doing for others, etc. Their social conservatism gets in the way of their fiscal responsibility, when they obtain power. This is what gave us "Compassionate Conservatism" ....an amalgamation of social conservatism and fiscal liberalism. To much the same degree, Carter was also a social conservative and fiscal liberal.

I understand what you are saying in this context, as I have explained it. We don't need a pure social conservative, because they will inevitably turn out to be more of a fiscal liberal than we need at this time. That said, we don't need a social liberal who is fiscally conservative either. While that may be better than Obama (a social AND fiscal liberal), it doesn't reflect the values of the majority of America. We are a center-right nation, and what conservatives really need, is someone who can bridge the gap between the secular libertarian types (social liberal) and those who seek a pure fiscal conservative. I believe this comes naturally, if you understand the foundational basis for social values as it pertains to conservatism. Reagan is a good example of someone who could bridge that gap, to make the case for why our social values are paramount and necessary to implement fiscal conservative policy. It's a connection that has been missing, sadly, from the conservative message of late. Many people who simply don't understand the fundamental importance, want to abandon the core principles, because they have a bad taste in their mouth from the most recent social conservative, who was anything BUT a fiscal conservative.

 

[Canceled2]

I've not once said that they cannot be socially conservative. I have said that it is a deal killer for me if that is where they draw the line rather than on the fiscal issues. We cannot have somebody willing to compromise on fiscal issues.

No, what you have said is that you would not vote for another Bush, as if his social conservatism was a part of his spending troubles...it just simply was not. The detriment for Bush was his war spending and his spending on fiscally liberal policies, not his actual beliefs as a man of faith. In fact I found his liberal policy spending evidence of his social liberalism-which I think Romney, not Cain, would follow.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

How's that Trump campaign going?

​

 

[Damocles]

No, what you have said is that you would not vote for another Bush, as if his social conservatism was a part of his spending troubles...it just simply was not. The detriment for Bush was his war spending and his spending on fiscally liberal policies, not his actual beliefs as a man of faith. In fact I found his liberal policy spending evidence of his social liberalism-which I think Romney, not Cain, would follow.

Bush is an example of somebody who was willing to compromise fiscal issues to get other priorities filled, we cannot afford that. Even if you don't blame his social conservatism for it, the example is valid. I absolutely would not vote for another Bush. And it has never been my point that Cain is one of these people, it has been that any candidate who I believe will compromise on fiscal issues will not gain my support in any primary.

Your focus is way too much on my belief that Bush's social conservatism was a problem. IMO, it was. That had the war not usurped his priority, the policy advising Evangelical ministers would certainly have gained a larger foothold in his policy. But that is actually not here nor there, I will not vote for any candidate in the primary whom I believe will compromise on fiscal issues, it is absolutely the most important issue in this campaign and we have to keep our eye on the prize. One thing is certain, we could not afford even Bush at this time. We need to get our fiscal policy in line with reality or we are ceding our nation to fiscal insolvency.

 

[Canceled2]

Bush is an example of somebody who was willing to compromise fiscal issues to get other priorities filled, we cannot afford that. Even if you don't blame his social conservatism for it, the example is valid. I absolutely would not vote for another Bush. And it has never been my point that Cain is one of these people, it has been that any candidate who I believe will compromise on fiscal issues will not gain my support in any primary.

Your focus is way too much on my belief that Bush's social conservatism was a problem. IMO, it was. That had the war not usurped his priority, the policy advising Evangelical ministers would certainly have gained a larger foothold in his policy. But that is actually not here nor there, I will not vote for any candidate in the primary whom I believe will compromise on fiscal issues, it is absolutely the most important issue in this campaign and we have to keep our eye on the prize. One thing is certain, we could not afford even Bush at this time. We need to get our fiscal policy in line with reality or we are ceding our nation to fiscal insolvency.

That's all good an fine, but you are the one who tied his "social conservatism" to his spending, not me. We do not live in the realm of theory Damo, but of fact and the facts, with regards to Bush's spending, are as I have laid out. If not for the wars all kinds of possible theories exist-including not being in a recession- but who knows, there are those who claim the housing market would have been worse if not for the wars employing so many. In the realm of facts we can look at a Romney candidacy and see much more of Bush then what we know of Cain. Bush being friendly with the Evangelical community could have been a good thing...again all speculation and theory.

 

[Damocles]

That's all good an fine, but you are the one who tied his "social conservatism" to his spending, not me. We do not live in the realm of theory Damo, but of fact and the facts, with regards to Bush's spending, are as I have laid out. If not for the wars all kinds of possible theories exist-including not being in a recession- but who knows, there are those who claim the housing market would have been worse if not for the wars employing so many. In the realm of facts we can look at a Romney candidacy and see much more of Bush then what we know of Cain. Bush being friendly with the Evangelical community could have been a good thing...again all speculation and theory.

You read too much into it, I tied his compromising on fiscal issues to skewed priorities.

And again, the sentence, "If he shows signs of willingness to compromise on fiscal issues to support other priorities he would lose my support." does not mean any of the following:

1. That I have made a decision already.
2. That I have seen any evidence of such.
3. That you need to circle the wagons to defend Cain, and especially not Bush.
4. Will be successful in promoting your idea that his fiscal idiocy wasn't caused by a willingness to compromise on that issue because it was less important than other issues with higher priority for him...

Now, can you get past Bush? He doesn't matter here.

I will say it without Bush so that you can think again.

"If any candidate shows that they have any issue to which they lend a higher priority than they do for Fiscal Conservatism, they will lose my support."

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Killer Cain:

Herman Cain, a newcomer to politics, traded on his business background to argue that he'd be better to tackle the nation's economic problems. ​

​

​

He was the only candidate on stage who did not raise his hand when the debaters were asked which of them would release pictures of the dead bin Laden.​

​

​

Cain on why he's not backing Romney -- his candidate four years ago: "He did not win."​

​

​

​

"We need to get the government out of the way, including trying to tell a company where they should build a new plant."​

​

​

​

​

"I don’t believe Arizona went too far, they were simply trying to protect themselves.’’​

​

​

​

​

​

"We have the resources we need in this country right now to establish energy independence. Get our own oil out of the ground."​

​

​

​

​

​

​

http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/social-conservatives-libertarians-and-newcomer-businessman-kick-off-the-2012-campaign-in-first-gop-debate-20110505​

​

​

​

​

 

[Canceled2]

You read too much into it, I tied his compromising on fiscal issues to skewed priorities.

Which skewed priorities? The war? The pill bill? NCLB? Your comments suggested it was due to his "social conservatism"-my point was that it was not.

 

[Damocles]

Which skewed priorities? The war? The pill bill? NCLB? Your comments suggested it was due to his "social conservatism"-my point was that it was not.

Bush was an example of somebody willing to compromise on the issues that are most important to us right now for other priorities. I absolutely will not vote for somebody willing to do that again.

 

[Canceled2]

Bush was an example of somebody willing to compromise on the issues that are most important to us right now for other priorities. I absolutely will not vote for somebody willing to do that again.

And that had what to do with his social conservatism? I know you dislike being pegged on something Damo-but you often do this kind of thing. If Bush's social conservatism had nothing to do with his spending policies-and indeed apart from war spending were socially liberal policies, then it's a worthy discussion in light of your comments...that is all I have been driving at. i do understand that you may have personally disliked his heart felt positions socially with regards to gay marriage-but he created no new policy on the matter...that was socially liberal Clinton who did that.

As to war spending- I am not convinced Bush had to compromise to get it, but it seems a fairly worthy rationale to do so if it truly was his only option. The debate over whether we should have ever been there is the real debate imo, though it remains one, only, in the most academic sense.

 

[Damocles]

And that had what to do with his social conservatism? I know you dislike being pegged on something Damo-but you often do this kind of thing. If Bush's social conservatism had nothing to do with his spending policies-and indeed apart from war spending were socially liberal policies, then it's a worthy discussion in light of your comments...that is all I have been driving at. i do understand that you may have personally disliked his heart felt positions socially with regards to gay marriage-but he created no new policy on the matter...that was socially liberal Clinton who did that.

As to war spending- I am not convinced Bush had to compromise to get it, but it seems a fairly worthy rationale to do so if it truly was his only option. The debate over whether we should have ever been there is the real debate imo, though it remains one, only, in the most academic sense.

One more time, he was an example of somebody willing to compromise what is most important for skewed priorities. It absolutely doesn't matter which priorities those are. I will not vote again, ever, for another candidate willing to compromise on that issue. We're too far in the hole for that to make any sense at all.

Now, ask me again what it has to do with Social Conservatism. To which I will answer again: Bush was simply an example of a President willing to compromise that which we can no longer afford compromise on. I will not vote for any candidate willing to do that, ever again.

Then please. Ask again what it had to do with Social Conservatism. I will answer again: Bush was simply an example of a President willing to compromise on an issue that we cannot afford any more compromise on....

Can you see the pattern developing here?

 

[Damocles]

It's the beginning of the campaign season, those issues which we hold as priority will be held by the candidates in the primary. We absolutely must hold their feet to the fire on this. Bush's focus was not on fiscal policy, he is an example of a candidate that shouldn't survive even the first rounds of this primary. Thankfully Bush isn't running.

 

[Canceled2]

One more time, he was an example of somebody willing to compromise what is most important for skewed priorities. It absolutely doesn't matter which priorities those are. I will not vote again, ever, for another candidate willing to compromise on that issue. We're too far in the hole for that to make any sense at all.

Now, ask me again what it has to do with Social Conservatism. To which I will answer again: Bush was simply an example of a President willing to compromise that which we can no longer afford compromise on. I will not vote for any candidate willing to do that, ever again.

Then please. Ask again what it had to do with Social Conservatism. I will answer again: Bush was simply an example of a President willing to compromise on an issue that we cannot afford any more compromise on....

Can you see the pattern developing here?

You know Damo acting exasperated does not cover the fact that you entered Bush into the equation as some sort of spendthrift due to his "social conservatism" and then pretend like that was not what you did; otherwise why discuss his "social conservatism" at all with regards to spending???.

Now you are suggesting what exactly by this?: "One more time, he was an example of somebody willing to compromise what is most important for skewed priorities. It absolutely doesn't matter which priorities those are. I will not vote again, ever, for another candidate willing to compromise on that issue. We're too far in the hole for that to make any sense at all."

How can you or anyone know if the next 9/11 is around the corner and what a sitting president will compromise to deal with it? I ask because you seem to think there was some sort of predictor for Bush? If so, what was his spending predictor?

 

[Canceled2]

It's the beginning of the campaign season, those issues which we hold as priority will be held by the candidates in the primary. We absolutely must hold their feet to the fire on this. Bush's focus was not on fiscal policy, he is an example of a candidate that shouldn't survive even the first rounds of this primary. Thankfully Bush isn't running.

We were not in a "fiscal crisis" when Bush ran-though he did implement tax cuts in his first year. He ran as a reform candidate. His reform priorities were taxes and education. I agree that the reform candidate this next election, and yes that should be the platform, needs to be all about spending cuts and shrinking government.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I want someone who isn't willing to compromise on ANY principle!

 

[apple0154]

http://citizens4cain.com/site/blog/...and-running-for-president-with-bryan-fischer/

Aside from the abortion issue, Cain has supported the military's ban on homosexuals and says he would have never repealed it as president. As for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA - a proposed bill that would prohibit "discrimination" against workers on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity), the conservative commentator explains that he "would veto that relative to special rights to homosexuals."

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=1275518

“You can’t separate social issues from domestic issues. They go hand in hand.”

http://cubachi.com/2011/03/08/herma...s-from-domestic-issues-they-go-hand-in-hand”/

I listened to his speech at http://www.therightscoop.com/full-speech-herman-cain-at-iowa-faith-freedom-coalition/

4:28 to 5:10 he talks about moving from an entitlement society to an empowerment society. Restructure the programs and give the States the responsibility and authority to deal with the problems. Get our arms around the costs.

Where has he been all his life? Has he ever read a history book? The States had the responsibility and authority to deal with medical care. What did they do? The States had the responsibility and authority to deal with the homeless and the unemployed. What did they do?

The costs are a result of implementing numerous programs begrudging helping anyone rather than an all-encompassing program such as a minimum income program. The costs are a result to finding ways to deny people the help they need. Is one to expect empowerment programs will be run differently? How will "empowerment" be gauged? What, exactly, will be the States' obligation? Will their reply to the hungry be, "Sorry, but we tried to empower you"?

Restructure? Just another way of saying he wants the needy to receive less help. Just another way of saying the Federal Government will wash it's hands of the poor in order to save money.

He claims that's the "American way". Is it?

 

[Rune]

I listened to his speech at http://www.therightscoop.com/full-speech-herman-cain-at-iowa-faith-freedom-coalition/

4:28 to 5:10 he talks about moving from an entitlement society to an empowerment society. Restructure the programs and give the States the responsibility and authority to deal with the problems. Get our arms around the costs.

Where has he been all his life? Has he ever read a history book? The States had the responsibility and authority to deal with medical care. What did they do? The States had the responsibility and authority to deal with the homeless and the unemployed. What did they do?

The costs are a result of implementing numerous programs begrudging helping anyone rather than an all-encompassing program such as a minimum income program. The costs are a result to finding ways to deny people the help they need. Is one to expect empowerment programs will be run differently? How will "empowerment" be gauged? What, exactly, will be the States' obligation? Will their reply to the hungry be, "Sorry, but we tried to empower you"?

Restructure? Just another way of saying he wants the needy to receive less help. Just another way of saying the Federal Government will wash it's hands of the poor in order to save money.

He claims that's the "American way". Is it?

Jeez apple, let the losers have their hope. It is the only thing they have left.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

He claims that's the "American way". Is it?

According to the Constitution, yes, it is!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Jeez apple, let the losers have their hope. It is the only thing they have left.

I think winning back the House, nearly winning back the Senate, and removing over 600 Democrat butts from statehouse seats across the nation in 2010, officially qualifies us as something besides "losers" ....but I am content with your gross underestimation.

 

[apple0154]

According to the Constitution, yes, it is!

As I asked in another thread, "How does one twist the intent of the Constitution to mean that even if America can feed the hungry and house the homeless and look after the ill the Founding Fathers would have preferred they suffer and die?