|
On October 05 2011 12:43 Romantic wrote:
Are people seriously trying to equate Islamic fundamentalism as it exists today with some bible thumping Christians? ...
Going to have to strangely agree with xDaunt on this one. Lefties are all too eager to make excuses for Islam they won't for a much more benign modern Christianity.
Not really, I'm not equating them anyway, but we're talking about your average conservative American Muslim, not a terrorist. A radical fundamentalist wouldn't make it through the vetting process of any appointment. It's important to note where terrorism comes from anyway, Islam doesn't make people crazy or create terrorists. Radicals use it to promote their causes, but the roots of terrorism are far more practical and political than religious. I don't think I need to expand on that, as we've been over it a lot of times, but I can if somebody wishes.
Just because a judge, or a politician, or a surgeon is Muslim doesn't mean that their values are so different that they will be bad at their job.
edit: Either way, I'd like to get back on topic as well. This issue might come back to bite Herman in the general election, but it won't really hurt him with Republicans in the primary. Like I said, the constituency he's courting for the most part agrees with him, for better or worse.
|
On October 05 2011 09:02 xDaunt wrote:I don't think that Cain's a biggot, and, quite frankly, I basically agree with what he was trying to say about appointing Muslims to courts or to his cabinet. If I were making appointments, I would feel compelled to scrutinize Muslims more than I would people of some other faiths. Conservative Muslims present problems and complications that conservative Christians and Jews generally do not. This difference is purely a function of their faith and beliefs when expressed in their more conservative forms. It is what it is. Whatever, flame away and call me a biggot like I know you probably want to. I don't really have time for being politically correct about these types of things.
Believe what you want that is fine. However it is very very very much not legal to have any sort of religious test for federal office. If you are denying somebody office because of their religion, you are violating the constitution. Plain and simple. As the party which loves the constitution so, you'd think Republicans would be against something like this. Ofc we know the constitution only matters if it helps your case (see Health Care bad, states policing the border good).
So in this sense it is more than just a preference question. It is a question of whether or not Cain abides by the law of the land.
|
On October 05 2011 12:43 Romantic wrote:
Are people seriously trying to equate Islamic fundamentalism as it exists today with some bible thumping Christians? ...
Going to have to strangely agree with xDaunt on this one. Lefties are all too eager to make excuses for Islam they won't for a much more benign modern Christianity.
You base this on nothing.
I dislike "fundamentalism" as a word for a host of reasons, because it implies that whatever religion it is you espouse and practice is a return to some essence integral to the religion. Rather, in both cases, people who represent a very small and zealous and fringe faction of a varied and widespread faith adopt a few key phrases, not even ideas but sentences, as axiomatic fundamentals whereupon they construct a brick shithouse castle that flies in the face of all other sentences, phrases, ideas, and facets of the surrounding core texts. Whether you're Bachmann with the Bible or bin Laden with the Qu'ran and Hadith, this is what is happening.
Fact is that to reduce Islam to even something like Wahhabi terrorism, when the terrorists who routinely bomb Iraq, for example, are equally (or even more) motivated by historical, regional, cultural, and political conflicts than mere religious ones, is to miss a whole spectrum of the faith and its adherents. Domestic terrorism in the West, even if it's perpetrated by a Muslim, less rises from faith or even character within the faith than these other factors: compare the perpetrators of the 2005 London subway bombings, who were inspired by Al-Qaeda but responding to geopolitical conflicts, with the perpetrator of the 2011 Oslo/Utoya bombing/shooting, who was certainly fascinated with the Knights Templar and the Crusades and was motivated by Islamophobia and anti-immigration. (9/11 had more to do with Israel and decades of US meddling in the Middle East than any "clash of civilizations" BS.)
In the United States, the victims of this ludicrous fear of Islamic fundamentalism are so scared and beaten into the submission you literally have nothing to worry about. An observant Muslim in the US poses no threat whatsoever, because Wahhabiism, the theocratic wing of Islam to which Al-Qaeda subscribes, allows one to transgress and to shatter literally every moral and ethical ruling Islam posits in service of (their) Jihad. Besides, homegrown terrorism from natural-born citizens driven insane by what they think is wrong with the world and how they believe their sole act will combat it, like Jared Lee Loughner, is far more likely than terrorist insurgency, and whatever religious, ideological, philosophical, artistic, etc. inspirations touched that off mean diddly-squat.
But ultimately religious fundamentalism, in the sense that exists, however it exists, hurts the most at home. Christian fundamentalism plagues the United States like a slow cancer, eats at human rights, economic policy, environmental policy, and standards of education, and that it does not assume the same forms as Islamic fundamentalism's drain on the Middle East, this is thanks to different economic, political, cultural, etc. conditions. Were conditions half as harsh as the Middle East can be, the United States would be like Anglo-Saxon England with guns.
|
On October 05 2011 15:07 jon arbuckle wrote:
But ultimately religious fundamentalism, in the sense that exists, however it exists, hurts the most at home. Christian fundamentalism plagues the United States like a slow cancer, eats at human rights, economic policy, environmental policy, and standards of education, and that it does not assume the same forms as Islamic fundamentalism's drain on the Middle East, this is thanks to different economic, political, cultural, etc. conditions. Were conditions half as harsh as the Middle East can be, the United States would be like Anglo-Saxon England with guns.
Not to mention scientific advancement (e.g. stem-cell research, abortion laws).
|
On October 05 2011 12:43 Romantic wrote:
Are people seriously trying to equate Islamic fundamentalism as it exists today with some bible thumping Christians? ...
Going to have to strangely agree with xDaunt on this one. Lefties are all too eager to make excuses for Islam they won't for a much more benign modern Christianity.
why not compare them?
yes people aren't going over to suicide bomb middle-east, but that's because they don't have to, our government is strong enough to do it for them, and they are doing it to some extent.
Not to say that I blame all wars against middle-east on american christian fundamentalists, but they're certainly a group that supports it... If they support wars in which we are carelessly invading countries to spread our believes and ideals, then why are they any less responsible for the damage done then those that are doing damage to us? we have a democracy after all no?
|
On October 05 2011 15:36 Kiarip wrote:
Not to say that I blame all wars against middle-east on american christian fundamentalists
Any and all rhetoric constructing these conflicts as a "clash of civilizations" is definitely linked to if not solely caused by Christian fundamentalist ideology. Right now the sinking tide favours isolationism (or, with less detail, "costly wars," "wars we can't pay for," etc.), so the domestic "bash those wogs" mentality is an avatar of the same spirit, from which Herman Cain's anti-Islam hysteria comes, whether Cain is religious or not.
|
On October 05 2011 14:02 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2011 09:02 xDaunt wrote:On October 05 2011 07:55 On_Slaught wrote:
You support blatant bigots? I don't think that Cain's a biggot, and, quite frankly, I basically agree with what he was trying to say about appointing Muslims to courts or to his cabinet. If I were making appointments, I would feel compelled to scrutinize Muslims more than I would people of some other faiths. Conservative Muslims present problems and complications that conservative Christians and Jews generally do not. This difference is purely a function of their faith and beliefs when expressed in their more conservative forms. It is what it is. Whatever, flame away and call me a biggot like I know you probably want to. I don't really have time for being politically correct about these types of things. Believe what you want that is fine. However it is very very very much not legal to have any sort of religious test for federal office. If you are denying somebody office because of their religion, you are violating the constitution. Plain and simple. As the party which loves the constitution so, you'd think Republicans would be against something like this. Ofc we know the constitution only matters if it helps your case (see Health Care bad, states policing the border good). So in this sense it is more than just a preference question. It is a question of whether or not Cain abides by the law of the land.
No one is suggesting a "religious" test or that any member of any religion be categorically excluded from these positions. Also, you have the issue of constitutionality backwards. The real issue is whether the nominees for these positions will keep their oaths to uphold and defend the Constitution. If their beliefs tend to prevent them from doing that, then a little more scrutiny is necessary.
|
Sorry to interject, not sure if this belongs in the joke thread or the republican nominations. I LoL'd. Too much Wolfenstien back in my youth.
If Only Herman Cain Were German
Posted by Laurence Vance on October 2, 2011 05:50 PM
Corporate Income Tax - NEIN; Personal Income Tax - NEIN; National Sales Tax - NEIN.
|
Fact is that to reduce Islam to even something like Wahhabi terrorism, when the terrorists who routinely bomb Iraq, for example, are equally (or even more) motivated by historical, regional, cultural, and political conflicts than mere religious ones, is to miss a whole spectrum of the faith and its adherents. Domestic terrorism in the West, even if it's perpetrated by a Muslim, less rises from faith or even character within the faith than these other factors: compare the perpetrators of the 2005 London subway bombings, who were inspired by Al-Qaeda but responding to geopolitical conflicts, with the perpetrator of the 2011 Oslo/Utoya bombing/shooting, who was certainly fascinated with the Knights Templar and the Crusades and was motivated by Islamophobia and anti-immigration. (9/11 had more to do with Israel and decades of US meddling in the Middle East than any "clash of civilizations" BS.)
I think that you are wrong. Islamic terrorists do not view religion, culture and politics as being separated in the fashion you do, and this cripples your analysis beyond repair.
I also think that you have not read enough of their own words, if you hold the opinion you do.
Or that you hold an accurate understanding of the intersection of religion, culture, and politics in the Middle East, and how wide that intersection is, much wider than it is in the West.
Any and all rhetoric constructing these conflicts as a "clash of civilizations" is definitely linked to if not solely caused by Christian fundamentalist ideology. Right now the sinking tide favours isolationism (or, with less detail, "costly wars," "wars we can't pay for," etc.), so the domestic "bash those wogs" mentality is an avatar of the same spirit, from which Herman Cain's anti-Islam hysteria comes, whether Cain is religious or not.
And I say those things above mostly because of this quote, if you really believe that a "clash of civilizations" concept is in great or large part a creation of "Christian fundamentalist theology," then you are 2/3 right. Replace "Christian" with "Islamist" and you would be batting 1.000. Again, it seems like you don't know much about Qutb, or Zawahiri's relations with him and his acolytes, or his or bin Laden's own pronouncements regarding their ideology. It sits upon a theological foundation which to them also encompasses the cultural and political factors which you insist are separate.
To Islamists they are not, and if you do not realize this, you are not going to reach a worthwhile understanding of their mindset.
It may also be trendy to try to twist things around and say that isolationism is increasing (let's ignore the post hoc rationalization of Americans' unease with Muslims as being related to this alleged "sinking tide"), but Americans have consistently expressed a very narrow and vague kind of isolationism in recent years ("expensive costly wars") while being generally supportive of all the other parts of the American foreign policy apparatus. Liberal internationalism is still alive and well in both parties and in the great bulk of the public.
|
On October 06 2011 01:14 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2011 14:02 On_Slaught wrote:On October 05 2011 09:02 xDaunt wrote:On October 05 2011 07:55 On_Slaught wrote:
You support blatant bigots? I don't think that Cain's a biggot, and, quite frankly, I basically agree with what he was trying to say about appointing Muslims to courts or to his cabinet. If I were making appointments, I would feel compelled to scrutinize Muslims more than I would people of some other faiths. Conservative Muslims present problems and complications that conservative Christians and Jews generally do not. This difference is purely a function of their faith and beliefs when expressed in their more conservative forms. It is what it is. Whatever, flame away and call me a biggot like I know you probably want to. I don't really have time for being politically correct about these types of things. Believe what you want that is fine. However it is very very very much not legal to have any sort of religious test for federal office. If you are denying somebody office because of their religion, you are violating the constitution. Plain and simple. As the party which loves the constitution so, you'd think Republicans would be against something like this. Ofc we know the constitution only matters if it helps your case (see Health Care bad, states policing the border good). So in this sense it is more than just a preference question. It is a question of whether or not Cain abides by the law of the land. No one is suggesting a "religious" test or that any member of any religion be categorically excluded from these positions. Also, you have the issue of constitutionality backwards. The real issue is whether the nominees for these positions will keep their oaths to uphold and defend the Constitution. If their beliefs tend to prevent them from doing that, then a little more scrutiny is necessary.
No, he's got it perfectly right. Do you know how many muslims there are in the world? Do you know what fraction of that are Islamic terrorists? Herman Cain is your typical Republican bigot vying for office.
|
On October 06 2011 04:55 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +Fact is that to reduce Islam to even something like Wahhabi terrorism, when the terrorists who routinely bomb Iraq, for example, are equally (or even more) motivated by historical, regional, cultural, and political conflicts than mere religious ones, is to miss a whole spectrum of the faith and its adherents. Domestic terrorism in the West, even if it's perpetrated by a Muslim, less rises from faith or even character within the faith than these other factors: compare the perpetrators of the 2005 London subway bombings, who were inspired by Al-Qaeda but responding to geopolitical conflicts, with the perpetrator of the 2011 Oslo/Utoya bombing/shooting, who was certainly fascinated with the Knights Templar and the Crusades and was motivated by Islamophobia and anti-immigration. (9/11 had more to do with Israel and decades of US meddling in the Middle East than any "clash of civilizations" BS.) I think that you are wrong. Islamic terrorists do not view religion, culture and politics as being separated in the fashion you do, and this cripples your analysis beyond repair.
I can't tell if you misunderstood his point or if you think bin Laden represents Islam. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the former. It's not that all those factors are separate, nothing can truly be separate, and of course Islamic terrorists use Islam to justify terrorism, but the real roots of terrorism don't lie in any religion. Our foreign policy creates terrorists, and without the real life factors that give desperate people no recourse, extremists wouldn't gain any popular support at all. Yes, Islamic terrorists abuse Islam, but blaming Islam is like blaming Christianity for the guy that ripped his own eyes out in Italy, or the KKK, or that guy in Norway, or that "Angel of Death" thing a few years ago. Sometimes people are just crazy. The appeal of terrorism has more practical roots than religious ones.
Say, for example, America was occupied by China. Chinese companies extract all our resources, making billions while we live in poverty. They kill more civilians than insurgents and show no regard for our Christian traditions or landmarks. They even overthrow one of our presidents because he advocates nationalism, and install a brutal dictator. They bomb our cities, killing mostly civilians, to punish our oppressive dictator. They impose sanctions and half a million children die as a direct result, and China's secretary of state is quoted saying "it's worth it". Our military is utterly powerless and there are no diplomatic solutions because the international community is on China's side. Many peope would become freedom fighters, or terrorists. It's a dramatic comparison and obviously not everything translates directly, but try to focus on the basic premise. Desperate people will resort to terrorism when put under these circumstances. Even still, the vast majority of Muslims want nothing to do with Al Qaeda and they see such actions as contrary to the tenets of Islam.
To quote Fareed Zakaria, "The ideological watchdogs have spent so much time with the documents of jihad that they have lost sight of actual Muslim societies. Were they to step back, they would see a frustration with fundamentalists, a desire for modernity (with some dignity and cultural pride for sure), and a search for practical solutions — not a mass quest for immortality through death. When Muslims travel, they flock by the millions to see the razzle-dazzle of Dubai, not the seminaries of Iran. The minority that wants jihad is real, but it operates within societies where such activities are increasingly unpopular and irrelevant." (The Post-American World, 2009)
|
Palin just announced that she's not running. Thank God.
|
Terrorism is the poor man's war.
|
Terrorism is the poor man's war.
Guerilla warfare used to be the poor man's war. Civilians were not usually the main targets.
You cite the devolving of that to terrorism as if it is some kind of justification =/
I can't tell if you misunderstood his point or if you think bin Laden represents Islam. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the former. It's not that all those factors are separate, nothing can truly be separate, and of course Islamic terrorists use Islam to justify terrorism, but the real roots of terrorism don't lie in any religion. Our foreign policy creates terrorists, and without the real life factors that give desperate people no recourse, extremists wouldn't gain any popular support at all. Yes, Islamic terrorists abuse Islam, but blaming Islam is like blaming Christianity for the guy that ripped his own eyes out in Italy, or the KKK, or that guy in Norway, or that "Angel of Death" thing a few years ago. Sometimes people are just crazy. The appeal of terrorism has more practical roots than religious ones.
No no no I wasn't trying to suggest that something about Islam is inherently terrorist in nature, that's silly.
Say, for example, America was occupied by China. Chinese companies extract all our resources, making billions while we live in poverty. They kill more civilians than insurgents and show no regard for our Christian traditions or landmarks. They even overthrow one of our presidents because he advocates nationalism, and install a brutal dictator. They bomb our cities, killing mostly civilians, to punish our oppressive dictator. They impose sanctions and half a million children die as a direct result, and China's secretary of state is quoted saying "it's worth it". Our military is utterly powerless and there are no diplomatic solutions because the international community is on China's side. Many peope would become freedom fighters, or terrorists. It's a dramatic comparison and obviously not everything translates directly, but try to focus on the basic premise. Desperate people will resort to terrorism when put under these circumstances. Even still, the vast majority of Muslims want nothing to do with Al Qaeda and they see such actions as contrary to the tenets of Islam.
The basic premise is correct and I will explain where I think you take it too far.
There were four main groups of insurgents/terrorists in Iraq. Independent Shiite militias (Badr Brigade and others), The Mahdi Army, Sunni nationalists, and al-Qaeda. For 3 years the independent Shiites were quiet and the Sunnis and al-Qaeda and the Mahdis were generally allied and mostly attacked the American military, tried to gain open control of large areas of territory (Falujah, Baquba, Kufa, Najaf, etc.). This was pretty much a nationalist insurgency by the former rulers of the country against the foreigners who had invaded and put the former oppressed group in power, plus Muqtada al-Sadr obeying the orders of his Iranian semi-masters to kill American soldiers.
In 2005 al-Qaeda started to increase attacks on civilians, mostly Shiites, in Baghdad and elsewhere. The Mahdi Army and the independent Shiite militias started killing Sunnis in return in small numbers. Then al-Qaeda blew up the dome of the al-Askari mosque and the Madhis and other Shiite militias started killing dozens or hundreds of Sunnis a night while al-Qaeda killed dozens or hundreds, mostly Shiites, in bombings during the day.
The Sunni nationalists were not too happy with things, al-Qaeda was going on a holy war against Shiites and the only result was lots of Sunnis shot in the night and most of Sunni Baghdad being ethnically cleansed by the Mahdi Army. Also they were tired of getting hunted by the US military. Most of these nationalist groups switched sides in 2006 and most of them are now official units of the Iraqi Army.
al-Qaeda is a group more motivated to violence by theocratic ideology than modern political science theories of political violence. They do not fight for territory itself save as safe ground to operate from. They are a response to Westernism coming into "their" lands, but not solely because of something so simplistic as "imperialism." Any presence or influence of ours whatsoever in "their lands" is imperialism to them. They think they should be the ones influencing us, not the other way around. They want all Muslim countries to overthrow their governments simply because all of them have some secular aspects, and replace them with Sunni Islamic Republics more theocratic in nature even than Iran's Shiite theocracy or Saudi Arabia's Sunni one.
To quote Fareed Zakaria, "The ideological watchdogs have spent so much time with the documents of jihad that they have lost sight of actual Muslim societies. Were they to step back, they would see a frustration with fundamentalists, a desire for modernity (with some dignity and cultural pride for sure), and a search for practical solutions — not a mass quest for immortality through death. When Muslims travel, they flock by the millions to see the razzle-dazzle of Dubai, not the seminaries of Iran. The minority that wants jihad is real, but it operates within societies where such activities are increasingly unpopular and irrelevant." (The Post-American World, 2009)
His last sentence is right, but Fareed Zakaria is kind of a rootless cosmopolitan to me, he's broad but shallow.
There was a transition of Muslim public opinion in the middle of the last decade from being generally supportive of groups like al-Qaeda, not actively supportive but "I support them fighting the Americans, soldier or civilian" kind of thing, to generally disapproving of it, and this was caused not by Western bells and whistles, but because al-Qaeda came to be associated with lots of Muslims dying with no good end. We Americans weren't the only ones who came to think we were stuck in a destructive pointless war. Muslims around the world thought that al-Qaeda was too, and they especially did not approve of how most of the victims of al-Qaeda's attacks were other Muslims.
Both Americans and Muslims (except the Taliban) are tired of fighting. The Muslim world is pretty insular, what most Muslims think is important to the Muslims who are terrorists and especially to Muslims who actively support terrorists. The Muslims in Indonesia feel they are part of a community that includes the Muslims in Morocco, Egypt, Iraq, Pakistan, etc., the way Americans and Canadians and Europeans do, but even more so. Not in an overt political sense but in shared beliefs, values, big parts of their culture is the same, etc. Muslims want to see other Muslims do well, and that doesn't include endless terrorism wars with the West.
This unfortunately is separate from all the anti-semitic propaganda they are fed all the time and all the problems that causes.
Palin just announced that she's not running. Thank God.
You can make a lot more money giving speeches and blinking at a Fox News camera than you can as president! And people say she's dumb.
|
Cain's blanket statement about Muslims was rather ill-conceived, as most statements of the sort are. Obviously not all Muslims are terrorists, in fact, the majority of Muslims aren't. So such a statement showed poor judgement on Cain's part.
But let us be realistic, and logical about this entire situation. Political Correctness is a luxury, one we cannot afford if lives are possibly at stake. Obviously the chances of meeting an Islamist who is plotting against the United States is incredibly low, and if one were to rise to such a position of power that they could be appointed by the President himself, the chances are exponentially lower.
However, ask yourselves, if Israel launched an attack on the United States, would you personally appoint someone of that religion to one of the most powerful positions in our country without some forethought? Would you not have the least bit hesitation?
But let's not take religion as itself, let us assume China launched an attack on the United States, would you appoint a former Chinese citizen to your Cabinet without careful consideration?
This difference is close enough to be a reasonable comparison. Radical Islamist attacked the United States, and have since waged War against us. Many other attacks on our soil have been plotted, and thankfully have failed. Why then, knowing this information would we NOT take it into account when judging a person for a position of power?
Should it alone disqualify a man from a position? I don't personally believe so, but I DO believe such a man/woman would give me cause for a second glance at them. And let's be honest, if I moved to Iraq and applied for a job, I, as a Christian-raised (Though fairly non-religious) individual would expect to be treated with increased suspicion.
Would such suspicion offend some Muslims? Yes. Do I care? Not particularly. I'm offended by many things each day, yet I simply shrug my shoulders, lose a bit more of my faith in humanity, and move along as usual.
In conclusion; Cain's statements were foolish, but NOT misguided. Anyone who doesn't understand the basic position behind said statements is simply in denial of the current state of the world, or refuses to see past their own political positions. Does this mean you have to agree with it? No not at all! But people are acting like his statements are unfounded, which they are not.
|
On October 07 2011 10:53 Warsaurus wrote:
Cain's blanket statement about Muslims was rather ill-conceived, as most statements of the sort are. Obviously not all Muslims are terrorists, in fact, the majority of Muslims aren't. So such a statement showed poor judgement on Cain's part.
But let us be realistic, and logical about this entire situation. Political Correctness is a luxury, one we cannot afford if lives are possibly at stake. Obviously the chances of meeting an Islamist who is plotting against the United States is incredibly low, and if one were to rise to such a position of power that they could be appointed by the President himself, the chances are exponentially lower.
However, ask yourselves, if Israel launched an attack on the United States, would you personally appoint someone of that religion to one of the most powerful positions in our country without some forethought? Would you not have the least bit hesitation?
But let's not take religion as itself, let us assume China launched an attack on the United States, would you appoint a former Chinese citizen to your Cabinet without careful consideration?
This difference is close enough to be a reasonable comparison. Radical Islamist attacked the United States, and have since waged War against us. Many other attacks on our soil have been plotted, and thankfully have failed. Why then, knowing this information would we NOT take it into account when judging a person for a position of power?
Should it alone disqualify a man from a position? I don't personally believe so, but I DO believe such a man/woman would give me cause for a second glance at them. And let's be honest, if I moved to Iraq and applied for a job, I, as a Christian-raised (Though fairly non-religious) individual would expect to be treated with increased suspicion.
Would such suspicion offend some Muslims? Yes. Do I care? Not particularly. I'm offended by many things each day, yet I simply shrug my shoulders, lose a bit more of my faith in humanity, and move along as usual.
In conclusion; Cain's statements were foolish, but NOT misguided. Anyone who doesn't understand the basic position behind said statements is simply in denial of the current state of the world, or refuses to see past their own political positions. Does this mean you have to agree with it? No not at all! But people are acting like his statements are unfounded, which they are not.
This is probably the longest post I've ever read after a politician made a dumb statement and someone tries to rationalize why it's not dumb.
Cain is misguided and you are in trying to justify his criticisms. Everyone should receive the same scrutiny when being appointed to positions. If extra scrutiny is what reveals someone to have a questionable history, then you are not analyzing the background of the individual enough in order to confirm their legitimacy in taking a position involving a high amount of power and responsibility.
Current state of the world: People pissed off because we're invading their soil.
|
I think I'm going to vote for Cain because I've been trained the past couple of years that if I oppose the African-American candidate I would be racist, and I'm not racist. Go Herman Cain !!!
|
Well compared to the known radicial affiliations and positions of Obama, I cant help but find the fixation on cains [something id consider race baiting rather than a conviction] remarks rather bizarre. Obamas radicalism is tried and tested, we know it. Cain said a few remarks about a very small minority in what I can say was fairly obviously just an attempt to get his face out there and get votes- it didnt work at all. He's still an accomplished businessmen and IMO far more suitable for the presidency than Obama is.
|
Current state of the world: People pissed off because we're invading their soil.
it would be so nice if some people realized this is 2011 and not 2003 and the world has moved on even if they havent
|
On October 07 2011 16:08 lizzard_warish wrote:
Well compared to the known radicial affiliations and positions of Obama, I cant help but find the fixation on cains [something id consider race baiting rather than a conviction] remarks rather bizarre. Obamas radicalism is tried and tested, we know it. Cain said a few remarks about a very small minority in what I can say was fairly obviously just an attempt to get his face out there and get votes- it didnt work at all. He's still an accomplished businessmen and IMO far more suitable for the presidency than Obama is.
Please, enlighten me on his radical affiliations and positions + the sources.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
