On other issues. The whole political correctness with the muslim is not stupid or bad, neither is it illegal. It's a bit paranoid, but he doesn't actually go after muslims as a whole, if anything, he's complimenting the terrorists (or overestimating, however you want to put that). It's not correct, but it shouldn't be taken as a "deal breaker" or such.
Are you serious ?? You just gave reason there as to why it should be taken as a deal breaker.
1.Paranoid? Of having a muslim in his office ? Seriously ? and him saying because some % muslims are bad. Hey, fyi some christians are bad dont put them on your administration either. 2. Complimenting terrorist ? - Lulwut? How is it a compliment to them to say that some muslims are bad people. 3. Of course its not illegal but its extremely immoral to say " I won't hire a muslim because some of them are bad " Didn't hitler himself say he was christian or promote christianity(even if it was a lie to have more followers) ?
Well, he said he's nervous when he sees muslims. Is this good? No. Is it realistically accurate? No. Is it blatantly racist... I don't think so. It's not right per se, but he's nowhere near hitler's level.
On other issues. The whole political correctness with the muslim is not stupid or bad, neither is it illegal. It's a bit paranoid, but he doesn't actually go after muslims as a whole, if anything, he's complimenting the terrorists (or overestimating, however you want to put that). It's not correct, but it shouldn't be taken as a "deal breaker" or such.
Are you serious ?? You just gave reason there as to why it should be taken as a deal breaker.
1.Paranoid? Of having a muslim in his office ? Seriously ? and him saying because some % muslims are bad. Hey, fyi some christians are bad dont put them on your administration either. 2. Complimenting terrorist ? - Lulwut? How is it a compliment to them to say that some muslims are bad people. 3. Of course its not illegal but its extremely immoral to say " I won't hire a muslim because some of them are bad " Didn't hitler himself say he was christian or promote christianity(even if it was a lie to have more followers) ?
Well, he said he's nervous when he sees muslims. Is this good? No. Is it realistically accurate? No. Is it blatantly racist... I don't think so. It's not right per se, but he's nowhere near hitler's level.
What part of that was comparing him to Hitler? Last I check the argument was that is it just as stupid to fear Muslim because of Osama as it would be to fear Christian because of Hitler.
On other issues. The whole political correctness with the muslim is not stupid or bad, neither is it illegal. It's a bit paranoid, but he doesn't actually go after muslims as a whole, if anything, he's complimenting the terrorists (or overestimating, however you want to put that). It's not correct, but it shouldn't be taken as a "deal breaker" or such.
Are you serious ?? You just gave reason there as to why it should be taken as a deal breaker.
1.Paranoid? Of having a muslim in his office ? Seriously ? and him saying because some % muslims are bad. Hey, fyi some christians are bad dont put them on your administration either. 2. Complimenting terrorist ? - Lulwut? How is it a compliment to them to say that some muslims are bad people. 3. Of course its not illegal but its extremely immoral to say " I won't hire a muslim because some of them are bad " Didn't hitler himself say he was christian or promote christianity(even if it was a lie to have more followers) ?
Maybe it's a better idea to stop bringing up Hitler.
In any case, I don't really believe in identity politics in a modern democracy such as the USA. From a certain point of view the republicans are completely about identity politics, because even their economic policy consists of catering to a specific set of people - and the same goes for education, energy, civil rights. You can't just say that if Herman Cain says bigoted things about gays he's doing it only to get elected, because in the United States it means that if he has to be bigoted that way, he has to go all the way and also be afraid of Muslims, hate liberals, want to destroy civil liberties, i.e. all the awful ideas that are forced on republican candidates precisely because they always play identity politics.
I honestly doubt he really believes in homosexuality being a choice. I mean, he can read the scientific evidence against it himself if he wants to and he should be smart enough to do it. Rather, this whole choice debacle is about repeating some marginally accepted mantra to please the republican base. If they wanted him to tell that we need to watch out for witch covens' influence on teenage girls or something he would have done it too.
On other issues. The whole political correctness with the muslim is not stupid or bad, neither is it illegal. It's a bit paranoid, but he doesn't actually go after muslims as a whole, if anything, he's complimenting the terrorists (or overestimating, however you want to put that). It's not correct, but it shouldn't be taken as a "deal breaker" or such.
Are you serious ?? You just gave reason there as to why it should be taken as a deal breaker.
1.Paranoid? Of having a muslim in his office ? Seriously ? and him saying because some % muslims are bad. Hey, fyi some christians are bad dont put them on your administration either. 2. Complimenting terrorist ? - Lulwut? How is it a compliment to them to say that some muslims are bad people. 3. Of course its not illegal but its extremely immoral to say " I won't hire a muslim because some of them are bad " Didn't hitler himself say he was christian or promote christianity(even if it was a lie to have more followers) ?
Well, he said he's nervous when he sees muslims. Is this good? No. Is it realistically accurate? No. Is it blatantly racist... I don't think so. It's not right per se, but he's nowhere near hitler's level.
Like most things about Cain, I think it's simply honesty. And for the majority of Americans, whether they are conscious of it or not, that type of covert racism/discrimination resides within them as well. Whether it's clutching a bag more tightly when walking past a black person, spending extra time staring at supposed middle easterners at the airport, or simply being unable to look a handicapped person in the eyes. We don't throw bananas at black people, but discrimination is still abound, and he's admitting to his own.
But it's also symptomatic of an unexperienced and ignorant world view and it is illegal in hiring practices. He's 'complimenting terrorists' by sharing the same thinking paradigm as them. Us against them, good vs. evil, arguments are stupid, but they're shared by neo-conservatives and religious terrorists alike. There's a disagreement as to who gets the good pieces and who gets the bad pieces, but they both agree that they're playing the same game. The belief in that game is the biggest problem for both sides.
I'm fond of parsimony, but Cain's simplicity should only be seen as a flaw in the election. The term 'clusterfuck' applies to an enormous range of issues across the government, and nuance and complexity is required to sort them out. Relateability is nice in some aspects, but more important are brilliance and depth. Why is it that people demand our SC2 casters be analytic and intelligent like Artosis, rather than dull and unknowledgeable like Doa, yet don't demand the same characteristics out of their president?
On other issues. The whole political correctness with the muslim is not stupid or bad, neither is it illegal. It's a bit paranoid, but he doesn't actually go after muslims as a whole, if anything, he's complimenting the terrorists (or overestimating, however you want to put that). It's not correct, but it shouldn't be taken as a "deal breaker" or such.
Are you serious ?? You just gave reason there as to why it should be taken as a deal breaker.
1.Paranoid? Of having a muslim in his office ? Seriously ? and him saying because some % muslims are bad. Hey, fyi some christians are bad dont put them on your administration either. 2. Complimenting terrorist ? - Lulwut? How is it a compliment to them to say that some muslims are bad people. 3. Of course its not illegal but its extremely immoral to say " I won't hire a muslim because some of them are bad " Didn't hitler himself say he was christian or promote christianity(even if it was a lie to have more followers) ?
Well, he said he's nervous when he sees muslims. Is this good? No. Is it realistically accurate? No. Is it blatantly racist... I don't think so. It's not right per se, but he's nowhere near hitler's level.
Like most things about Cain, I think it's simply honesty. And for the majority of Americans, whether they are conscious of it or not, that type of covert racism/discrimination resides within them as well. Whether it's clutching a bag more tightly when walking past a black person, spending extra time staring at supposed middle easterners at the airport, or simply being unable to look a handicapped person in the eyes. We don't throw bananas at black people, but discrimination is still abound, and he's admitting to his own.
But it's also symptomatic of an unexperienced and ignorant world view and it is illegal in hiring practices. He's 'complimenting terrorists' by sharing the same thinking paradigm as them. Us against them, good vs. evil, arguments are stupid, but they're shared by neo-conservatives and religious terrorists alike. There's a disagreement as to who gets the good pieces and who gets the bad pieces, but they both agree that they're playing the same game. The belief in that game is the biggest problem for both sides.
I'm fond of parsimony, but Cain's simplicity should only be seen as a flaw in the election. The term 'clusterfuck' applies to an enormous range of issues across the government, and nuance and complexity is required to sort them out. Relateability is nice in some aspects, but more important are brilliance and depth. Why is it that people demand our SC2 casters be analytic and intelligent like Artosis, rather than dull and unknowledgeable like Doa, yet don't demand the same characteristics out of their president?
Well said. I honestly fight my own desires to add to the statement about simplicity. In the video, he speaks of Obama's(I'm not a O supporter) failed policies. I'd consider looking forward, ignoring backwards one of Obama's failed policies(Torture, Finance crimes.). When did those banks take your money? way back in 08!! So sit your ass down. That's what I hear! Let us handle it, cause we won't. The inside trader who just got convicted is a massive example of cluster...
"And while I’m not surprised in the least that the Bush DOJ chose not to prosecute Rajaratnam for insider trading (indeed, the implication of the Rose story is that the Obama DOJ is still ignoring a lot of insider trading that doesn’t have a terrorism aspect), the entire story suggests that the FBI was tracking a prominent trader’s alleged financing of terrorism for 7 years and not only never pursued him for that, but didn’t indict him for it when they got around to indicting on insider trading, even though at that same point DOJ was sending non-bankster material supporters to jail for 65-year sentences." Source
What is being learned on that case is the guy was allowed to continue for nearly 7 years and possibly was only prosecuted because he was considered a material supporter of the wrong terrorist. Cain's perspective , if he is really only as sharp as he portrays himself, if frightenly simplistic
I like Cain the best out of the republican candidates, as a foreigner, simply for his bluntness and honesty. It's refreshing.
I disagree with nearly every word that comes out of his mouth, but at least he doesn't giftwrap his message in order to make it seem nicer. That's an admirable quality in any politician.
On other issues. The whole political correctness with the muslim is not stupid or bad, neither is it illegal. It's a bit paranoid, but he doesn't actually go after muslims as a whole, if anything, he's complimenting the terrorists (or overestimating, however you want to put that). It's not correct, but it shouldn't be taken as a "deal breaker" or such.
Are you serious ?? You just gave reason there as to why it should be taken as a deal breaker.
1.Paranoid? Of having a muslim in his office ? Seriously ? and him saying because some % muslims are bad. Hey, fyi some christians are bad dont put them on your administration either. 2. Complimenting terrorist ? - Lulwut? How is it a compliment to them to say that some muslims are bad people. 3. Of course its not illegal but its extremely immoral to say " I won't hire a muslim because some of them are bad " Didn't hitler himself say he was christian or promote christianity(even if it was a lie to have more followers) ?
1. So your saying that he has no right to be afraid that a terrorist organization made up only of a certain religion is intelligent enough to try to get one of their members as a high ranking official when (it is known) that such attempts have been done in various countries? btw, on your christain thing, when christians start suicide bombing and running airplanes into civilian buildings, i'll take that comment seriously. 2. I was saying he believes that the terrorist organization is strong enough/intelligent enough to get one of their members in running for a high office that would give them extremely high clearance and/or access. Thus, complimenting/overestimating them. 3. Security reasons imo, thats all.
On October 15 2011 12:39 neversummer wrote: I think everyone else has already touched on this.... but this is a man who rejects reading "long" bills, rejects the notion of admitting Muslims to his cabinet for fear they may be terrorists, and whose only accreditation derives from managing a pizza company. Anyone who believes Herman Cain is a viable candidate for the presidency is nothing more than delusional.
You've gotta be kidding me. No politician reads the bills. That isn't to say that I agree with that. But rather, if you think Cain is unique in that respect, you're the delusional one.
I think he is unique. I haven't fully researched this, but I've heard repeatedly that he refuses to even *sign* long bills. It's not just that he won't read them, it's that he thinks wordy bills are inherently bad.
Well that's actually a lot better than what I originally thought you meant. I'd tend to agree with him. I've never really thought it through so I'm just shooting from the hip, but wordy bills are how you hide the pork. Look at our constitution. Isn't it like 7 or 8 thousand words?? That's tiny compared to some crap that's thrown out there nowadays.
People don't write big bills because they want to hide stuff....? wtf this isn't cartoon network with the miniature writing in the bottom left that nobody can see. The reason bills/laws tend to be long is because they have to inform you of all the do's and don't without any exploitable loopholes. Just look at insurance policy papers they're huge, but they have to do it to make it understandable/clear despite its longevity.
Then why do bills get longer as things get more corrupt? Why is there always hidden crap in them that we end up having to pay for? Simplicity is a good thing.
On October 15 2011 12:39 neversummer wrote: I think everyone else has already touched on this.... but this is a man who rejects reading "long" bills, rejects the notion of admitting Muslims to his cabinet for fear they may be terrorists, and whose only accreditation derives from managing a pizza company. Anyone who believes Herman Cain is a viable candidate for the presidency is nothing more than delusional.
You've gotta be kidding me. No politician reads the bills. That isn't to say that I agree with that. But rather, if you think Cain is unique in that respect, you're the delusional one.
I think he is unique. I haven't fully researched this, but I've heard repeatedly that he refuses to even *sign* long bills. It's not just that he won't read them, it's that he thinks wordy bills are inherently bad.
Well that's actually a lot better than what I originally thought you meant. I'd tend to agree with him. I've never really thought it through so I'm just shooting from the hip, but wordy bills are how you hide the pork. Look at our constitution. Isn't it like 7 or 8 thousand words?? That's tiny compared to some crap that's thrown out there nowadays.
People don't write big bills because they want to hide stuff....? wtf this isn't cartoon network with the miniature writing in the bottom left that nobody can see. The reason bills/laws tend to be long is because they have to inform you of all the do's and don't without any exploitable loopholes. Just look at insurance policy papers they're huge, but they have to do it to make it understandable/clear despite its longevity.
Then why do bills get longer as things get more corrupt? Why is there always hidden crap in them that we end up having to pay for? Simplicity is a good thing.
Bills get longer as society gets more complex. Bills being too long can be a bad thing but bills being too short can be even worse. If the bill isn't 100% clear and makes sure to focus on every possible situation, people will find ways to work around it. Any ambiguity will be abused.
On October 15 2011 12:39 neversummer wrote: I think everyone else has already touched on this.... but this is a man who rejects reading "long" bills, rejects the notion of admitting Muslims to his cabinet for fear they may be terrorists, and whose only accreditation derives from managing a pizza company. Anyone who believes Herman Cain is a viable candidate for the presidency is nothing more than delusional.
You've gotta be kidding me. No politician reads the bills. That isn't to say that I agree with that. But rather, if you think Cain is unique in that respect, you're the delusional one.
I think he is unique. I haven't fully researched this, but I've heard repeatedly that he refuses to even *sign* long bills. It's not just that he won't read them, it's that he thinks wordy bills are inherently bad.
Well that's actually a lot better than what I originally thought you meant. I'd tend to agree with him. I've never really thought it through so I'm just shooting from the hip, but wordy bills are how you hide the pork. Look at our constitution. Isn't it like 7 or 8 thousand words?? That's tiny compared to some crap that's thrown out there nowadays.
People don't write big bills because they want to hide stuff....? wtf this isn't cartoon network with the miniature writing in the bottom left that nobody can see. The reason bills/laws tend to be long is because they have to inform you of all the do's and don't without any exploitable loopholes. Just look at insurance policy papers they're huge, but they have to do it to make it understandable/clear despite its longevity.
Then why do bills get longer as things get more corrupt? Why is there always hidden crap in them that we end up having to pay for? Simplicity is a good thing.
Bills get longer as society gets more complex. Bills being too long can be a bad thing but bills being too short can be even worse. If the bill isn't 100% clear and makes sure to focus on every possible situation, people will find ways to work around it. Any ambiguity will be abused.
I agree with what you say. I disagree where the line is.
On other issues. The whole political correctness with the muslim is not stupid or bad, neither is it illegal. It's a bit paranoid, but he doesn't actually go after muslims as a whole, if anything, he's complimenting the terrorists (or overestimating, however you want to put that). It's not correct, but it shouldn't be taken as a "deal breaker" or such.
Are you serious ?? You just gave reason there as to why it should be taken as a deal breaker.
1.Paranoid? Of having a muslim in his office ? Seriously ? and him saying because some % muslims are bad. Hey, fyi some christians are bad dont put them on your administration either. 2. Complimenting terrorist ? - Lulwut? How is it a compliment to them to say that some muslims are bad people. 3. Of course its not illegal but its extremely immoral to say " I won't hire a muslim because some of them are bad " Didn't hitler himself say he was christian or promote christianity(even if it was a lie to have more followers) ?
1. So your saying that he has no right to be afraid that a terrorist organization made up only of a certain religion is intelligent enough to try to get one of their members as a high ranking official when (it is known) that such attempts have been done in various countries? btw, on your christain thing, when christians start suicide bombing and running airplanes into civilian buildings, i'll take that comment seriously. 2. I was saying he believes that the terrorist organization is strong enough/intelligent enough to get one of their members in running for a high office that would give them extremely high clearance and/or access. Thus, complimenting/overestimating them. 3. Security reasons imo, thats all.
I didn't say he doesnt have a right to feel a certain way, to each their own. I guess he doesn't have confidence in this nations security or even confidence in himself enough to think that he might mistakenly appoint someone who is a terrorist.
I won't even begin to start pulling up articles/sources about how many people from different religions ( not only muslims) that have doing outrages things such as bombs, mass killings, etc. Apparently you've been living under a rock with a t.v. that does not have access to international news.
It's normal to feel a certain way about certain people depending on our individual experiences and knowledge to the point that we may look at some types of people in a different light but to blatantly discriminate against an entire religion is absurd. If he want's to feel more secure about hiring certain people or people in general as it should be then impose a more thorough hiring process. We all have the right to feel certain ways but there's a right and wrong way about going about them and saying he wont appoint a muslim on his administration is not the right way.
On October 15 2011 12:39 neversummer wrote: I think everyone else has already touched on this.... but this is a man who rejects reading "long" bills, rejects the notion of admitting Muslims to his cabinet for fear they may be terrorists, and whose only accreditation derives from managing a pizza company. Anyone who believes Herman Cain is a viable candidate for the presidency is nothing more than delusional.
You've gotta be kidding me. No politician reads the bills. That isn't to say that I agree with that. But rather, if you think Cain is unique in that respect, you're the delusional one.
I think he is unique. I haven't fully researched this, but I've heard repeatedly that he refuses to even *sign* long bills. It's not just that he won't read them, it's that he thinks wordy bills are inherently bad.
Well that's actually a lot better than what I originally thought you meant. I'd tend to agree with him. I've never really thought it through so I'm just shooting from the hip, but wordy bills are how you hide the pork. Look at our constitution. Isn't it like 7 or 8 thousand words?? That's tiny compared to some crap that's thrown out there nowadays.
People don't write big bills because they want to hide stuff....? wtf this isn't cartoon network with the miniature writing in the bottom left that nobody can see. The reason bills/laws tend to be long is because they have to inform you of all the do's and don't without any exploitable loopholes. Just look at insurance policy papers they're huge, but they have to do it to make it understandable/clear despite its longevity.
Then why do bills get longer as things get more corrupt? Why is there always hidden crap in them that we end up having to pay for? Simplicity is a good thing.
Politicians in America are corrupt because the organizations that made them president/senators force them to do so. Its not because bills are long...? Simplicity is a good thing I agree but how do you explain to politicians who have no idea about terms in something other than their major. You can either have a simple bill which makes no sense whatsoever to the normal politician or you can have an understandable but long bill.
p.s. funny how he's a black racist. How easy we forget what happened 50 years ago.
On October 15 2011 12:39 neversummer wrote: I think everyone else has already touched on this.... but this is a man who rejects reading "long" bills, rejects the notion of admitting Muslims to his cabinet for fear they may be terrorists, and whose only accreditation derives from managing a pizza company. Anyone who believes Herman Cain is a viable candidate for the presidency is nothing more than delusional.
You've gotta be kidding me. No politician reads the bills. That isn't to say that I agree with that. But rather, if you think Cain is unique in that respect, you're the delusional one.
I think he is unique. I haven't fully researched this, but I've heard repeatedly that he refuses to even *sign* long bills. It's not just that he won't read them, it's that he thinks wordy bills are inherently bad.
Well that's actually a lot better than what I originally thought you meant. I'd tend to agree with him. I've never really thought it through so I'm just shooting from the hip, but wordy bills are how you hide the pork. Look at our constitution. Isn't it like 7 or 8 thousand words?? That's tiny compared to some crap that's thrown out there nowadays.
People don't write big bills because they want to hide stuff....? wtf this isn't cartoon network with the miniature writing in the bottom left that nobody can see. The reason bills/laws tend to be long is because they have to inform you of all the do's and don't without any exploitable loopholes. Just look at insurance policy papers they're huge, but they have to do it to make it understandable/clear despite its longevity.
Then why do bills get longer as things get more corrupt? Why is there always hidden crap in them that we end up having to pay for? Simplicity is a good thing.
Politicians in America are corrupt because the organizations that made them president/senators force them to do so. Its not because bills are long...? Simplicity is a good thing I agree but how do you explain to politicians who have no idea about terms in something other than their major. You can either have a simple bill which makes no sense whatsoever to the normal politician or you can have an understandable but long bill.
p.s. funny how he's a black racist. How easy we forget what happened 50 years ago.
wait what... I never said politicians are corrupt because they write long bills. I'm saying long bills allow them to get away with the root of everything that is wrong with this country. Literally.
I'm afraid to ask this but how is he a racist? That's such an overused (and misused) word in this country, it's not even funny. It's actually kind of despicable the way that word gets thrown around.
On October 02 2011 06:45 Letho wrote: " Anyway, you get the picture; would love to hear what you guys think as well.
I have been following Herman for years and have been an avid listener of his radio program. If anyone has any questions about his positions, I should be able to answer them. If you want to debate liberal / conservative ideology, then I may or may not respond to you.
I will ask that you do not make dumb posts like "Cain sux b/c he duzznt sepport teh abortionz our teh homoshecks." You are right, and we like it that way. Actually, for these social issues, Cain defers to the States, and would never pass any Federal regulation that would interfere with this tenet of the Constitution.
As I read this I was trying to figure out why you posted this. I wanted to engage so I was looking for your motive so I could address my opinions properly. Then I come to the above noted quotes and feel kinda weird that they are basically telling me:
a) "I want to hear what people think of the fact that Cain is going to be the next president"
b)I know a lot about this guy. I can give you more information about him if need be. I will not respond to anything vaguely liberal sounding, so you probably shouldn't bother posting it. "We" like him to be pro-life and homophobic. "We" because I am obviously speaking for every conservative out there, because I'm only one human being and can't read minds. Now I'll say a weird defensive comment to show you that I'm getting on the defense already because you crazy liberals love to argue."
So, what are you really looking for? People to go "hey man how long has Cain done ______" or "Hey, I care about Cain too, cause its interesting".
Political threads spawn political discussion and spawn political debate no matter what. If you can't handle a few terrible posters, than why are you opening this topic up to the table? Go to a conservative forum if you only want approval.
On October 15 2011 07:41 eits wrote: and to say Ron Paul is unelectable is ignorant, that man want's to do more for the country than any of the other people trying to run, and he actually HAS plans. He doesn't just spout what other want to hear and flip flop his view points 24/7.
To say Ron Paul is not electable is to say you were awake in 2008. Granted, he has a massive amount of internet support, but that has historically translated very poorly to actual voters coming out for him in the primaries.
As far as Cain, he's the flavor of the month that won't even last as long as Bachmann and Perry's boons have.
2008 is far different than 2011, and 2012. The political landscape has shifted dramatically. Ron would easily win the Primary nomination if it wasn't for the fact that the media consistently ignores, manipulates, and lies in their coverage, and many times non-coverage. One easy example of about a billion.
So the problem is the media, not the Republican base. I foresee this election being reminiscent of the 1964 GOP primary with the conservative(paleo)/libertarian faction going up against the liberal/Neo-con/moderate faction. The animosity is palpable similar to 1964.
I just can't believe the fools who are against TARP and support Cain an insider Bankster, supporter of TARP, derider of those opposed to TARP, and promoter of Alan Greenspan! This is the power of the media. Time for Americans to wake up and realize the Media is a Propaganda outfit. Stop letting them choose the candidate of their choice for you. It's infuriating.
Ron Paul won the California Straw Poll and is also a boss for doing so well despite barely having media coverage. But if you insist on letting Fox News choose the best presidential candidate then go right ahead and vote for Cain.
The only one who speaks to my heart in the debates is Ron Paul, it's a shame because he has a whole bunch of stuff I don't agree with, but when you put them all in a room, you can tell he is the only one willing to take the discussion where it needs to go and doesn't do a political round-about around questions.
EPT
