Point 2 - http://www.gallup.com/poll/election.aspx <--- Herman Cain is the only candidate who has consistently held a high Positive Intensity score; in fact I don't think that anyone has beaten him yet since he announced. Also, he is still under 50% recognition and is already within 5 points of beating Obama; by far the only candidate with such an amazing ratio.
Point 3 - the other candidates are weak. Romney will never be president as he is too close to Bush; you can bet that the liberals are getting the astroturf ready to destroy him if he gets the nomination. Perry has some of the same problems; he could probably win, but people don't love him like they do Herman Cain. Paul is unelectable and not a conservative. Bachmann, well we already know. Huntsman, same as Paul, Santorum same as Bachmann, Gingrich is awesome but has too much history. Anyway, you get the picture; would love to hear what you guys think as well.
Bottom line, the man is incredibly intelligent, and has successfully turned around two major corporations. Best of all, at least for me, is that he has never been a politician. I know that this is a detractor to some people, and would love to address your specific concerns. The bottom line is that we already have too many politicians, and not enough people who can actually make hard decisions without worrying about reelection and stepping on the wrong toes.
Also, he is black. The only way that Obama can possibly win in 2012 (short of a miraculous economic recovery, which he seems to be doing everything to prevent, lol) is if he can capture the minority vote again. A Cain / Rubio ticket would absolutely blow this out of the water.
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.
Also, http://www.facebook.com/groups/52944254947/ - here is a Facebook group dedicated to breaking news and discussions. We try to keep it clear of irrelevant stuff and garden-variety anti-Obama jokes, hate and the like, so that people have more room to talk; please feel free to join in.
There's some kind of appeal to Cain's 9-9-9 proposal, but it doesn't really make sense upon any kind of scrutiny.
The current tax code sucks, but replacing it with 9% corporate income tax, 9% personal income tax, and 9% sales tax...really now. There was already some flat tax debate with Huckabee four years ago.
edit: okay, so any type of liberal is going to balk hard at this type of tax code. It's the opposite of a progressive tax code.
And then looking at how much (little) revenue this produces, conservatives would have a strong fear that those 9% numbers would creep upwards in practice.
On October 02 2011 06:50 Myrmidon wrote: There's some kind of appeal to Cain's 9-9-9 proposal, but it doesn't really make sense upon any kind of scrutiny.
The current tax code sucks, but replacing it with 9% corporate income tax, 9% personal income tax, and 9% sales tax...really now. There was already some flat tax debate with Huckabee four years ago.
There's a lot to be said about flat taxes. Before I spend too much time educating, please look here for a full explanation and rebuttal of common arguments. Please pay particular attention to the prebates as they are discussed; this will in no way result in a regressive taxation system.
inb4 partisans have a shitstorm debate in this thread not realizing the two parties are almost practically the same shit and forget why they complain about every president being the same as the last one.
Unless Herman Cain turns out to be a nutjob crazy religious/"moral" fascist like the Colonels (see late 1960s Greek history), then I don't really care about him other than for the comedy from listening to political bs'ing every now and then.
No one seems intelligent or innovative enough to get the US out of its steady decline, and even if there was, the interests of big corporations and financial institutions come first.
Your introduction is kind of misleading. I feel like you are saying without any doubt that Herman Cain has already won. I'm sorry but it is too early to tell. I feel like yes he has his chance, but he has a long way to go before he becomes the front runner. And the media isn't pushing him into the spot light like they have with Bachmann, then Rommey, and now Perry.
I think you have an over optimistic view of what Republican primary voters are looking for. Cain's a bigger force than the media gives him credit for. But he doesn't have the anger, he'll show the same weaknesses on his right flank that Perry, et. al. have shown.
Unelectibilty makes him unelectable. It appears to me that Republicans have too many litmus tests. Any of a number of issues makes you undesirable to a large number of Republican activists (see: Perry & immigration). Basically NO candidate can meet the demands of the modern Republican electorate. But they have to nominate someone. Enter the guy who pays lip service, is a little oily, but that's viewed as acceptable because he's more 'electable' (and known). And I'm not just talking about Romney here, McCain had the same aura. Previous run, not beloved, but acceptable as a chance at victory.
When no candidate can meet the standards of the electorate, the one who seems like they'll win carrying your standard - even though you know you don't like him - will win.
Herman Cain needs one of two things to be true to gain the nomination. Either he has to be farther to the right than virtually any other candidate in the race and never have been otherwise. Or I have to be wrong, and the Republican party is not so hung up on principles and standards that any deviation from (insert position here) is seen as near-treason.
Point 2 - http://www.gallup.com/poll/election.aspx <--- Herman Cain is the only candidate who has consistently held a high Positive Intensity score; in fact I don't think that anyone has beaten him yet since he announced. Also, he is still under 50% recognition and is already within 5 points of beating Obama; by far the only candidate with such an amazing ratio.
Point 3 - the other candidates are weak. Romney will never be president as he is too close to Bush; you can bet that the liberals are getting the astroturf ready to destroy him if he gets the nomination. Perry has some of the same problems; he could probably win, but people don't love him like they do Herman Cain. Paul is unelectable and not a conservative. Bachmann, well we already know. Huntsman, same as Paul, Santorum same as Bachmann, Gingrich is awesome but has too much history. Anyway, you get the picture; would love to hear what you guys think as well.
Bottom line, the man is incredibly intelligent, and has successfully turned around two major corporations. Best of all, at least for me, is that he has never been a politician. I know that this is a detractor to some people, and would love to address your specific concerns. The bottom line is that we already have too many politicians, and not enough people who can actually make hard decisions without worrying about reelection and stepping on the wrong toes.
Also, he is black. The only way that Obama can possibly win in 2012 (short of a miraculous economic recovery, which he seems to be doing everything to prevent, lol) is if he can capture the minority vote again. A Cain / Rubio ticket would absolutely blow this out of the water.
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.
Also, http://www.facebook.com/groups/52944254947/here is a Facebook group dedicated to breaking news and discussions. We try to keep it clear of irrelevant stuff and garden-variety anti-Obama jokes, hate and the like, so that people have more room to talk; please feel free to join in.
Don't think he will the be nomination. Why are we discussing this? It's over a year away the election.
Also I find it funny you had to actually address that on your Facebook grp page that you don't allow Anti-Obama jokes/hate. Been having problems with that lately?
He has never been a politician and that's a good thing?
That simply means that when elected he's going to have to get used to being president of the US and also with the complexities of the political system.
Politics is a trade, a give and take. I scratch your back you scratch mine. I give a vote for your plan, you give a vote for mine.
That's how politics works. I don't see how having no experience in the political system is a plus.
It seems to be similar to people wanting "a guy they can have a beer with" instead of "one o them Harvard elites".
On an ending note i find it rather peculiar that you would make an opening post discussing a candidate and proceed to place limits on where you feel the debate can and cannot go. If the guy supports anti-gay sentiments then people should be able to be critical on him for that.
Trying to keep a discussion from going off-topic is entirely different from saying that you don't want people to dicuss a candidate's position on certain issues.
While we're on the topic, does it seem to anyone else that Huntsman is running for vice president? He seems to be focused on keeping his name in the media and appearing more LIBERAL than any other presidential candidate. He was also known as a moderate in Utah. Just the sort of person that might be picked up by a conservative candidate looking to de-crazify the ticket after the primary.
Edit: Zooper, haha, you are so right on conservative groups having to specify the no offensive, pure-hate content.
On October 02 2011 06:55 Empyrean wrote: There is no way this joke of a candidate is going to secure the Republican nomination.
Agreed. He needs way to much to get going. The media is going to push him down like they have every other candidate other than Perry/Romney
I would argue that is part of the problem with our system. The news stations essentially decide our nominees for us. They decide who gets more air time.
Either way, it is too early to tell. Bachmann had her surge and fall. Perry had his surge, and appears to be falling, even though it is still too early to tell. Romney isn't really going anywhere, and probably never will. Other candidates seem to be a vote 'against' Romney, if anything.
On flat taxes: conservatives don't like tax hikes and they don't like cutting military or security funding. Or defaulting on debt service, or cutting most of the budget, really. (See: rise in gov't spending in every Republican administration for the past 50 years save Bush I.) Flat taxes sound great but even Republicans will never pass an actual flat tax proposal because it will either
a) be incredibly unpopular due to the tax hike for most Americans
or
b) require massive government spending cuts or a credit default followed by massive government spending cuts (and I'm not talking about cuts to the tiny discretionary non-military slice of the pie)
It's really really easy to cut the income tax: raise the corporate income tax or capitals gains tax or balloon the deficit. Guess which option has been the Republican preference for 40 years.
I agree that Herman Cain would be a better president than Obama. How much better though? One of my main complaints about Obama is his experience. He's a community organizer for Pete's sake! One could argue that Cain is a "business man". But is running a pizza company, albeit a large one, really good experience for running a nation? I, for one, support Mit Romney and/or Ron Paul, because of their experience.
Doubt he'll get the Republican nomination. Kinda biffed it when he talked about Muslims in his administration, or operating on him.
The 9-9-9 he talks about is good in theory. In practice, congress & future administrations will punch the 9% personal income tax / corporate tax full of holes and exemptions, and take the new national sales tax as another point they can do tax increases on.
[QUOTE]On October 02 2011 06:45 Letho wrote:Point 3 - the other candidates are weak. Romney will never be president as he is too close to Bush; you can bet that the liberals are getting the astroturf ready to destroy him if he gets the nomination. Perry has some of the same problems; he could probably win, but people don't love him like they do Herman Cain. Paul is unelectable and not a conservative. Bachmann, well we already know. Huntsman, same as Paul, Santorum same as Bachmann, Gingrich is awesome but has too much history. Anyway, you get the picture; would love to hear what you guys think as well./QUOTE]
I wouldn't be so sure that this point is as important in the republican primary as you make it out to be. While nominating a candidate that has no chance to win against Comrade Barry is the height of stupidity, I sadly do not believe that is it a feat beyond the ability of the far right. The Tea Party has been very, very vocal about ideological purity, and there is a very good chance that Romney will do a better job of collecting supporters fleeing the sinking ships of Bachman and Perry.
While the utter collapse of Bachman, and the slower but still significant waning of Perry has been very good for Cains prospects, it is also good news for Romney, who is also starting with more support then Cain.
Of course, anything can happen. Christie has apparently rejected the RNCs appeals for the fat man to waddle into the race. Ron Paul has no shot at winning the primary himself, but he has a very loyal and vocal core of supporters that would almost certainly full their full support behind any candidate that takes him as their running mate. It is interesting to note that about this time before the last election, Guliani was the republican front-runner.
While Cain has a very good shot at the primary, I am not convinced that he will succeed in taking much of the minority vote from Obama. Much more likely, I imagine, is that minority voters will just stay home in 2012 like they did in 2010, which is the only way the republicans could possibly hold Barry to one term. I'm not betting on the right, but the race has gotten a lot closer then it would be if Perry secured the nomination.
Somehow I think your hypothesis that being black automatically means minorities will vote for cain is fundamentally flawed. I mean, its not like the african american community routinely votes >90% for D candidates regardless of color.
Besides that, Cain is utterly unelectable. It's difficult to seen a real path to the Republican nomination for him, and impossible to conceive of him winning the general.
Remember, straw polls are notoriously terrible predictors of who the eventual nominee will actually be. They're conducted by small groups of loyal republican party members, and are not a representative sample. While I don't know a ton about the Florida poll that Cain won, many straw polls are also corrupt.
Cain has virtually no concrete positions on anything, no foreign policy experience, and no experience in government (a positive in the primary but a negative in the general). Even conservative groups are laughing at his absolutely mad 9-9-9 plan.
As much as I wish I didn't have to point this out, the republican base has a powerful and vocal racist faction. They're likely a minority, but it's a large enough contingency to seriously hamper Cain's chances at the nomination.
I'm sorry, but any guy who is so overtly racist really shouldn't not reach the White House, ever, lest catastrophic consequences occur. It is quite funny to see the Republican candidates fall over each other to out-villfiy Muslims, yet if they ever get into the White House, would probably co-operate with them.
I want Ron Paul to win. He has so odd stances, but also is the most grounded in reality and isn't willing to state the uncomfortable truths.
On October 02 2011 09:58 ZeaL. wrote: Somehow I think your hypothesis that being black automatically means minorities will vote for cain is fundamentally flawed. I mean, its not like the african american community routinely votes >90% for D candidates regardless of color.
It's closer to 2/3rds to 3/4ths, but yeah... Most African Americans have determined which party is likely to work for their interests: the Democrats. Like most voters, they vote their interests.
There's also a strong historical component. Democrats gave up the Southern vote in the 60's with the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act, but they gained loyalty of previously disenfranchised black voters.
whoa... what? I'm sorry, but I don't see how somebody so obviously bigoted can possibly be in any way electable. Blatant ignorance of that degree shouldn't be permitted within any broad definition of politics.
On October 02 2011 09:58 ZeaL. wrote: Somehow I think your hypothesis that being black automatically means minorities will vote for cain is fundamentally flawed. I mean, its not like the african american community routinely votes >90% for D candidates regardless of color.
It's closer to 2/3rds to 3/4ths, but yeah... Most African Americans have determined which party is likely to work for their interests: the Democrats. Like most voters, they vote their interests.
There's also a strong historical component. Democrats gave up the Southern vote in the 60's with the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act, but they gained loyalty of previously disenfranchised black voters.
Clinton got 84% in 96, Gore 90%, Kerry 88%, Obama 95%, so maybe not 90% but >85%
whoa... what? I'm sorry, but I don't see how somebody so obviously bigoted can possibly be in any way electable. Blatant ignorance of that degree shouldn't be permitted within any broad definition of politics.
That's because he's not electable. Though you should know, those remarks will score him some real points within his party, and that's all you need to get the nomination. He's still unlikely to be the nominee, but some of his more controversial statements help him more than they hurt at this stage.
whoa... what? I'm sorry, but I don't see how somebody so obviously bigoted can possibly be in any way electable. Blatant ignorance of that degree shouldn't be permitted within any broad definition of politics.
From the article: Cain opposed the building of an Islamic Center for a Muslim community at a site in Tennessee, claiming that it was "an infringement and an abuse of our freedom of religion"
Incredible! I thought the film Machete (compelling political drama... Right?) contained some absurd humour, but it seems it's genuinely satirical. I can empathise with Americans wanting to disassociate themselves with this part of their country.
On October 02 2011 10:26 Coramoor wrote: But he'll be killed in the actual election for the remarks, the one that matters, so i fail to see why anyone thinks he will win
Every single candidate has at least a week where everyone thinks they can win. Then people realize the person is a total loser and has no shot. Eventually they are just going to have to bite their tongue and chose Romney.
On October 02 2011 10:26 Coramoor wrote: But he'll be killed in the actual election for the remarks, the one that matters, so i fail to see why anyone thinks he will win
Every single candidate has at least a week where everyone thinks they can win. Then people realize the person is a total loser and has no shot. Eventually they are just going to have to bite their tongue and chose Romney.
Basically the GOP is trying desperately to find someone who's not Romney, hype up one of the competitors and see if it sticks. Unfortunately for them they're finding that their party is basically batshit crazy.
We already had a "Cain" run for president and that was McCain. We already had a black guy run for president and that was Obama. This guy isn't unique at all.
Herman Cain is a banker candidate. He is actually worse than Rick Perry and Perry went to Bilderberg.
He supports the patriot act, supports secret military tribunals, supports the TSA, supports affirmative action, is "racist" towards Muslims and is uncomfortable around them, hates their religion, supports the wars, was the former deputy chairman (1992–94) and chairman (1995–96) of the board of directors to the federal reserve bank, was involved in a corruption scandal at Aquila.
The OP is ridiculously misleading. He's nowhere close in the polls, has a lot of baggage that nobody has brought up because he's not a frontrunner. And your analysis is terrible. Paul fares better against obama than this guy. In fact, Paul probably has a better chance of getting elected than this guy (looking only at polls)
Flat tax is super regressive, easy target for a populist candidate (obama becoming increasingly populist)
Oh, and Bachmann won a straw poll. She's sure to win...........
His talking points are very good, but once things get deeper...
On October 02 2011 11:44 Froadac wrote: The OP is ridiculously misleading. He's nowhere close in the polls, has a lot of baggage that nobody has brought up because he's not a frontrunner. And your analysis is terrible. Paul fares better against obama than this guy. In fact, Paul probably has a better chance of getting elected than this guy (looking only at polls)
Flat tax is super regressive, easy target for a populist candidate (obama becoming increasingly populist)
Oh, and Bachmann won a straw poll. She's sure to win...........
His talking points are very good, but once things get deeper...
Actually look above I pretty much showed you 60% percent of the dirt on Cain. The other 40%, people probably won't believe it even with sources so no point showing it.
Maybe someone else finishes my post and posts the rest of it, with more sources than I have.
On October 02 2011 11:44 Froadac wrote: Flat tax is super regressive, easy target for a populist candidate (obama becoming increasingly populist)
A flat income tax is not regressive. It may not be progressive, but that does not make it regressive by default. A flat sales tax, on the other hand, would be regressive.
On October 02 2011 07:08 DannyJ wrote: Anyone who says he wouldnt allow muslims in his cabinet because one of em might be a terrorist doesnt have a good shot in a general election.
I have to agree. I never knew who Herman Cain was, but the first time I heard him say this crazy stuff in the debate, I immediately scratched him from my list of considerations.
The problem is, I've scratched them all of, except maybe Ron Paul. They say he's "unelectable," but still, I'd rather vote for someone like Paul... I mean Obama and Bush were both "electable," and look what we got... lol.
On October 02 2011 06:59 MisterFred wrote: While we're on the topic, does it seem to anyone else that Huntsman is running for vice president? He seems to be focused on keeping his name in the media and appearing more LIBERAL than any other presidential candidate. He was also known as a moderate in Utah. Just the sort of person that might be picked up by a conservative candidate looking to de-crazify the ticket after the primary.
I watched all those videos, though Im canadian and dont really have serious input here. I have to say that I 100% agree with his stance on muslims. He points out that europe has had an issue, I would love some people from the europe to coment(if theyve had some experiance with these things).
I have no idea what a 9 9 9 tax means to america, I just know the kinda tax we pay up here, and it works for me.
Id love to see ron paul get elected, he might be the only person who knows the true problem(banks/federal reserve). And the reason I care about any of this is that americas well being directly impacts my own/my country.
On October 02 2011 06:45 Letho wrote: So, I thought that I would make a thread discussing the next President of the United States.
For anyone who is not yet convinced that he will get the Conservative nomination:
I can't tell if you are being intentionally overzealous/optimistic about Herman Cain's chances because you want to spark discussion, or whether you just readily jump to conclusions based sweeping generalizations and a couple polls.
I don't know anything about Herman Cain, but your certainty (whether you end up being right or not) is either trolling or ridiculous.
On October 02 2011 12:04 worosei wrote: hmm 9-9-9, sounds like a bad terran build...
Yeah, Terran can barely afford what they need for the 1/1/1 and they have mules. How can you possibly afford something 9 times that without mules.
Yeah, I don't see him getting the nomination. If he gains momentum, then he'll be the new target at every debate and all of his flaws will be emphasized, as has happened with every candidate.
Also, what's with the attitude, OP? You couldn't just make a thread about him, you had to assert that he'll be the next president and then suggest that posts that highlight his less-attractive side are "dumb"
"And based upon the little knowledge that I have of the Muslim religion, you know, they have an objective to convert all infidels or kill them," Cain said.
Later, Bachmann says being "involved in the gay and lesbian lifestyle" amounts to "personal bondage, personal despair and personal enslavement." She also describes homosexuality as "sexual anarchy." She goes on to lament efforts by gay rights advocates to convince Americans that homosexuality is "just another thing, with a shrug of their shoulders."
"Is it the Mitt Romney that was on the side of — against the Second Amendment before he was for the Second Amendment? Was it — was before — he was before the social programs from the standpoint of — he was for standing up for Roe v. Wade before he was against first — Roe v. Wade?”
On October 02 2011 06:45 Letho wrote: Paul is unelectable and not a conservative.
I don't see how you say this... Do you know what conservative means? He's probably the most conservative republican. Most Rep's are centrists, big government and big war supporters, and not conservative at all. Ron Paul wants less government, and to restore previous standards for laws regarding war, foreign policy and financial policy. If Cain supports these ideas than he is conservative too and that's great! Furthermore, you cite straw polls falling in favour of Cain but actually Paul won a great number of those polls too, and came in second frequently as well.
And yeah, i'm canadian so I can't vote, but I know what kind of neighbours i like to see in the south. It makes me sad that american politics gets so stagnant because of the 2party system, but this time around I think we're seeing some real independent ideas start to creep into the debates.. I'd love to see someone elected fix the american dollar, as its declining value vs our dollar really affects Canadian exports. I don't really see anyone but Ron Paul actually fixing that.
edit: ban all mosques? uh... ok. thats not politically conservative at all.
On October 02 2011 06:45 Letho wrote: Paul is unelectable and not a conservative.
And yeah, i'm canadian so I can't vote, but I know what kind of neighbours i like to see in the south. It makes me sad that american politics gets so stagnant because of the 2party system, but this time around I think we're seeing some real independent ideas start to creep into the debates.. I'd love to see someone elected fix the american dollar, as its declining value vs our dollar really affects Canadian exports. I don't really see anyone but Ron Paul actually fixing that.
In total pessimistic honesty, its more like a 1 party system. At least it sure feels that way at times.
he's not gotten the treatment of a front runner yet.. just wait a few weeks until all his little secrets start popping out.. he's not gonna last.. besides, half of the repub base will never vote for a black man for president.. in a way, they want to get rid of Obama because he's half black too.
On October 02 2011 12:51 Mysticesper wrote: In total pessimistic honesty, its more like a 1 party system. At least it sure feels that way at times.
yeah, i totally agree with that, but there's a lot people who actually believe in the left/right paradigm. I think being involved in politics in other countries helps you see it more clearly.. though I understand why a lot of Americans don't/can't be skeptical of their own political system.
What a biggot how could anyone think this person is remotely capable of being the president. The last thing we need is a outspoken muslim basher as president.
On October 02 2011 12:51 Mysticesper wrote: In total pessimistic honesty, its more like a 1 party system. At least it sure feels that way at times.
yeah, i totally agree with that, but there's a lot people who actually believe in the left/right paradigm. I think being involved in politics in other countries helps you see it more clearly.. though I understand why a lot of Americans don't/can't be skeptical of their own political system.
Well idk about the one party thing...for sure though that once candidates get into office they tend to be more moderate than they appear during their campaign.
Just saying but I really dont think Cain is going to be that electable for the Republican party. Chances of him beating Obama are pretty low...he isnt really gonna have any moderate appeal during the general election lol. Also, flat tax rate is extremely unpopular amongst party politicians not because it isnt effective (in fact it would be less costly on the government to just institute a flat tax) but because politicians like to play with tax rates to help their own base. Also the fact that he isn't a politician doesn't really appeal. I mean yeah he may not be a politician, but in that sense he's even deeper in the corporation's interests than politicians already are -_-. Also in the modern day world with so many high risk interactions with other powerful countries like China and Russia having a completely inexperienced politician wouldn't exactly help.
I don't get how someone would ever vote for someone like that, America could really do with some more time without a muslim hating ultra right wing nutter in charge
This guys a complete dipshit. The only thing thing that doesn't get him laughed out of the political arena is that you're forced to compare him to the rest of the awful awful republicans in this race.
His ideas aren't good, and he'd probably ban Islam in America if he could.
Not to mention he's totally unelectable by Republicans because he's black.
Huntsman would make the best president out of this entire bunch, despite being a republican. However he actually sounds like a smart rational person, so theres absolutely no way republicans would ever vote for him.
On October 02 2011 13:16 Russano wrote: This guys a complete dipshit. The only thing thing that doesn't get him laughed out of the political arena is that you're forced to compare him to the rest of the awful awful republicans in this race.
His ideas aren't good, and he'd probably ban Islam in America if he could.
Not to mention he's totally unelectable by Republicans because he's black.
Huntsman would make the best president out of this entire bunch, despite being a republican. However he actually sounds like a smart rational person, so theres absolutely no way republicans would ever vote for him.
So let me make sure I got all of this...
Republicans are racist, Republicans are irrational, and Republicans are stupid, and the Republican candidates are awful. Oh, and Herman Cain is a dipshit.
You know, you sound a little too sensible and moderate. Get some convictions and partisan fervor in you! lol...
On October 02 2011 13:21 cz wrote: How'd OP get banned?
From the ban thread, it looks like he was a previously banned user.
Why are people afraid of a lay person becoming president? That is the way our system is supposed to work. As if Obama had any real-world experience. W barely had some.
"And based upon the little knowledge that I have of the Muslim religion, you know, they have an objective to convert all infidels or kill them," Cain said.
It's disheartening.
Did someone tell you that the Quran says otherwise?
It definitely has parts which, if construed literally, require the killing of non-believers.
Quran: 4.89, 9.5, 9.123
Obviously the vast majority of Muslims don't want anything to do with this, and do not interpret it in this way. That said, I took a 4th year Philosophy course on Courage. To be courageous in the Quran is to be fully dedicated to Allah. This dedication to Allah, if interpreted literally, may require killing others based solely on their non-belief.
They're called muslim "extremists" for a reason...wouldn't surprise me if at least some of these extremists adopted this interpretation of the Quran.
If in that quote Cain was generalizing to all Muslims...well, thats just faulty.
On October 02 2011 13:16 Russano wrote: This guys a complete dipshit. The only thing thing that doesn't get him laughed out of the political arena is that you're forced to compare him to the rest of the awful awful republicans in this race.
His ideas aren't good, and he'd probably ban Islam in America if he could.
Not to mention he's totally unelectable by Republicans because he's black.
Huntsman would make the best president out of this entire bunch, despite being a republican. However he actually sounds like a smart rational person, so theres absolutely no way republicans would ever vote for him.
So let me make sure I got all of this...
Republicans are racist, Republicans are irrational, and Republicans are stupid, and the Republican candidates are awful. Oh, and Herman Cain is a dipshit.
You know, you sound a little too sensible and moderate. Get some convictions and partisan fervor in you! lol...
On October 02 2011 13:21 cz wrote: How'd OP get banned?
From the ban thread, it looks like he was a previously banned user.
No, these republicans are. Bachman, Perry, and Cain are all bigoted twats. The republican party as a whole isn't racist, but they sure as hell wouldn't vote in a black or islamic president.
Ron Paul just plain isn't popular enough, some of his ideas are absolutley spot on and sound, while others are completely insane, he at least has proper convictions and ideas that don't get sidetracked by the Tea Party
Huntsman and Romney are clearly the only decent candidates they have, and you know your party is totally fucked when the people you are making look sane are the Mormons. Romney's probably got the best shot of actually being the nomination, despite Republicans constantly scrambling for the "Not Romney" candidate, be it Perry, Bachman, Christie, or whomever.
"And based upon the little knowledge that I have of the Muslim religion, you know, they have an objective to convert all infidels or kill them," Cain said.
It's disheartening.
Did someone tell you that the Quran says otherwise?
It definitely has parts which, if construed literally, require the killing of non-believers.
Quran: 4.89, 9.5, 9.123
Obviously the vast majority of Muslims don't want anything to do with this, and do not interpret it in this way. That said, I took a 4th year Philosophy course on Courage. To be courageous in the Quran is to be fully dedicated to Allah. This dedication to Allah, if interpreted literally, may require killing others based solely on their non-belief.
They're called muslim "extremists" for a reason...wouldn't surprise me if at least some of these extremists adopted this interpretation of the Quran.
What's your point? Defending that a religion is batshit by saying another accepted religion is as batshit, doesn't make the first religion any less crazy. It just makes them both crazy.
You don't want one imbed with corruption running a country. Plus he was deputy chairman and chairman of the federal reserve bank, which is actually a private banking cartel with 12 members of which only 3 are selected by the president of the United States and the rest are all private bank CEO's and owners.
EDIT: Forgot to mention that he was the guy that cut 60% of the jobs in Godfather's pizza: "Cain over a 14-month period reduced the company from 911 stores down to 420". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Cain
On October 02 2011 13:16 Russano wrote: This guys a complete dipshit. The only thing thing that doesn't get him laughed out of the political arena is that you're forced to compare him to the rest of the awful awful republicans in this race.
His ideas aren't good, and he'd probably ban Islam in America if he could.
Not to mention he's totally unelectable by Republicans because he's black.
Huntsman would make the best president out of this entire bunch, despite being a republican. However he actually sounds like a smart rational person, so theres absolutely no way republicans would ever vote for him.
So let me make sure I got all of this...
Republicans are racist, Republicans are irrational, and Republicans are stupid, and the Republican candidates are awful. Oh, and Herman Cain is a dipshit.
You know, you sound a little too sensible and moderate. Get some convictions and partisan fervor in you! lol...
On October 02 2011 13:21 cz wrote: How'd OP get banned?
From the ban thread, it looks like he was a previously banned user.
No, these republicans are. Bachman, Perry, and Cain are all bigoted twats. The republican party as a whole isn't racist, but they sure as hell wouldn't vote in a black or islamic president.
Ron Paul just plain isn't popular enough, some of his ideas are absolutley spot on and sound, while others are completely insane, he at least has proper convictions and ideas that don't get sidetracked by the Tea Party
Huntsman and Romney are clearly the only decent candidates they have, and you know your party is totally fucked when the people you are making look sane are the Mormons. Romney's probably got the best shot of actually being the nomination, despite Republicans constantly scrambling for the "Not Romney" candidate, be it Perry, Bachman, Christie, or whomever.
we love you too, buddy.
All of the Tea Party people are nutjobs, especially Bachman. Although I'd generally at least look around if the Republicans were decent, but I think I'm sticking to Obama this year if Romney doesn't win the primary.
"And based upon the little knowledge that I have of the Muslim religion, you know, they have an objective to convert all infidels or kill them," Cain said.
It's disheartening.
Did someone tell you that the Quran says otherwise?
It definitely has parts which, if construed literally, require the killing of non-believers.
Quran: 4.89, 9.5, 9.123
Obviously the vast majority of Muslims don't want anything to do with this, and do not interpret it in this way. That said, I took a 4th year Philosophy course on Courage. To be courageous in the Quran is to be fully dedicated to Allah. This dedication to Allah, if interpreted literally, may require killing others based solely on their non-belief.
They're called muslim "extremists" for a reason...wouldn't surprise me if at least some of these extremists adopted this interpretation of the Quran.
If in that quote Cain was generalizing to all Muslims...well, thats just faulty.
The fact of the matter is that only the radicals of Islam, like you said, adhere to these parts of the Quran. By referring to it as "the Muslim religion" I'm assuming he means the one that the majority of people who call themselves Muslim follow. That's what I'm calling him out on.
Consider the Bible. If the relevant parts of it are taken literally, it forbids the eating of ritually unclean animals, touching menstruating women, and blending cloth and wool in clothes. Would it be fair to say that "the Christian religion" forbids eating pigs, touching women on their period, or wearing basically any piece of modern clothing? If you're going to take the religion's text as the basis for generalizations, then yes, but otherwise no.
edit: I guess you thought I didn't know sections of the Quran do outline what Cain described. What I was getting at, though, is that he only has "little knowledge" of the Muslim religion and still feels that he knows enough from this monstrously distorted image to block the construction of mosques and publicly denounce moderate Muslims. Cain's ignorance is palpable on multiple levels.
Strictly speaking, Paul is not conservative (or rather, is only fiscally conservative). He's a libertarian. This is pretty much what western politics look like, though the words used to describe each ideology vary ("liberal" means "libertarian" in a lot of contexts). Obviously this is a rough approximation, and we can argue about the exact place each candidate falls on this chart. Also, most issues are really both economic and social, so a candidates position on a given issue can be difficult to predict based only on a chart like this.
Wow. Thats one skewed political landscape you've got there...
Most places in the world would put Obama on the socially conservative right, with Cain even further along that scale. (while Paul is admittedly a true libertarian).
On October 02 2011 14:03 Alethios wrote: Wow. Thats one skewed political landscape you've got there...
Most places in the world would put Obama on the socially conservative right, with Cain even further along that scale. (while Paul is admittedly a true libertarian).
Yeahh
Paul isn't even that libertarian, at least according to this.
In regards to the guy who says he cut jobs. He cut jobs because the business was too large in the free market. If it goes under due to large size and employment NOBODY has a job.
On October 02 2011 14:03 Alethios wrote: Wow. Thats one skewed political landscape you've got there...
Most places in the world would put Obama on the socially conservative right, with Cain even further along that scale. (while Paul is admittedly a true libertarian).
I put Obama in the place where I thought it would cause the least controversy. I think he's a bit more conservative than that on fiscal issues.
I think I've placed him pretty poorly on the social scale. He's obviously much more conservative on things like suspension of habeas corpus and the patriot act, but he's liberal on other issues like gay rights and immigration.
Like I said, we can argue about where people belong on the chart. Paul isn't quite as hardcore libertarian as the chart suggests, depending on what level of government you're talking about. Frankly, I took about 30 seconds placing the names (i.e. I barely even thought about it).
He wont be elected.Obamas deemed to take the 2012 election.It's Obama vs a bunch of nutjobs,its like ,you have to vote for him,even his own pre-campaign ads are conveying that message.
Someone who claims that their fellow african american were brainwashed and claims that he would allow no muslim(the constituition abides no religious test will be ever conducted) on his cabinet is not an american president.
But don't worry i'm sure Rick Perry's prayers will get him a neat 8th place in the standings
On October 02 2011 14:03 Alethios wrote: Wow. Thats one skewed political landscape you've got there...
Most places in the world would put Obama on the socially conservative right, with Cain even further along that scale. (while Paul is admittedly a true libertarian).
Yeahh
Paul isn't even that libertarian, at least according to this.
That site probably gives a better standardized idea of the true positions, but still drastically over simplifies the positions of the actual people. Such labels are only useful up to a point (where they become divisors and breed an "us and them" type of thinking).
I haven't been following American politics as much as I should, but either the site is wrong about Ron Paul or his positions have changed over the last 3 years. As far as I can tell, he essentially advocates the complete dissolution of government, from drug laws to economic regulation.
On October 02 2011 14:03 Alethios wrote: Wow. Thats one skewed political landscape you've got there...
Most places in the world would put Obama on the socially conservative right, with Cain even further along that scale. (while Paul is admittedly a true libertarian).
I put Obama in the place where I thought it would cause the least controversy. I think he's a bit more conservative than that on fiscal issues.
I think I've placed him pretty poorly on the social scale. He's obviously much more conservative on things like suspension of habeas corpus and the patriot act, but he's liberal on other issues like gay rights and immigration.
Like I said, we can argue about where people belong on the chart. Paul isn't quite as hardcore libertarian as the chart suggests, depending on what level of government you're talking about. Frankly, I took about 30 seconds placing the names (i.e. I barely even thought about it).
Yeah fair enough. You just wanted to give people the general run down.
You are really really assuming a lot about the american public. you think they remember bush? nope, we still hate socialism though thats what got us out of the depression with the new deal and that was a while ago, we barely remember the monica lewinsky affair. Bush is in the back of our minds and most who don't over scrutinize him only remember the 9/11 response and not the long, long war we waged. Also one huge reason Obama won was the black vote, he got 97% of that (it was +,- something like 4% but i believe it was an Economist survey) Cain may get something similar, but (i live in a very african american centric city also one of the top cititeis of crime and poverty) the racial look is about 60% african america, 30% caucasian, 10% other, and a lot of the people here are not for the black part, they vote for the charity money and tax reductions given. The thing is that Obama was a novelty with a novel use of the internet and the use of college age and highschool kids. Kids are the worst voting populace, they are impossible to round up and I'll not be the first to say Obama got very, very lucky that the kids came out (obamazombies as they were called). Cain is not going to get those votes and that is what won Obama the election, he also had the luck of having a fairly poor opponent, McCain made some huge gafs and had the amazing help of the liberal network system to spam it all across the media and lets not even talk about Palin. Cain isn't going to get these luxuries and luck out like Obama did.
I was extremely surprised to learn Herman Cain was a mathematician. All I heard of him was from the debates and he seemed like an idiot. He seems like a 12 year old that got a crash course on all of the issues. That's why his rhetoric is so simplistic and black and white. "Israel is our friend!" "Taxes are bad!" "Can I have a cookie, mommy?!"
That's why he's always saying something stupid and then the next day his campaign has to release a statement that says he didn't mean to say what he said. Examples: No Muslims in the cabinet, Bills that are only 2 pages long, Not knowing what Palestinian Right of Return is, etc.
He seems like a smart guy in his field but it's obvious he is a complete moron when it comes to politics.
On October 02 2011 14:13 docvoc wrote: You are really really assuming a lot about the american public. you think they remember bush? nope, we still hate socialism though thats what got us out of the depression with the new deal and that was a while ago, we barely remember the monica lewinsky affair. Bush is in the back of our minds and most who don't over scrutinize him only remember the 9/11 response and not the long, long war we waged. Also one huge reason Obama won was the black vote, he got 97% of that (it was +,- something like 4% but i believe it was an Economist survey) Cain may get something similar, but (i live in a very african american centric city also one of the top cititeis of crime and poverty) the racial look is about 60% african america, 30% caucasian, 10% other, and a lot of the people here are not for the black part, they vote for the charity money and tax reductions given. The thing is that Obama was a novelty with a novel use of the internet and the use of college age and highschool kids. Kids are the worst voting populace, they are impossible to round up and I'll not be the first to say Obama got very, very lucky that the kids came out (obamazombies as they were called). Cain is not going to get those votes and that is what won Obama the election, he also had the luck of having a fairly poor opponent, McCain made some huge gafs and had the amazing help of the liberal network system to spam it all across the media and lets not even talk about Palin. Cain isn't going to get these luxuries and luck out like Obama did.
Can you link fonts to all the facts that you just cited?Specially about the part where full fledged socialism saved america.
On October 02 2011 14:23 BlackJack wrote: I was extremely surprised to learn Herman Cain was a mathematician. All I heard of him was from the debates and he seemed like an idiot. He seems like a 12 year old that got a crash course on all of the issues. That's why his rhetoric is so simplistic and black and white. "Israel is our friend!" "Taxes are bad!" "Can I have a cookie, mommy?!"
That's why he's always saying something stupid and then the next day his campaign has to release a statement that says he didn't mean to say what he said. Examples: No Muslims in the cabinet, Bills that are only 2 pages long, Not knowing what Palestinian Right of Return is, etc.
He seems like a smart guy in his field but it's obvious he is a complete moron when it comes to politics.
He dumbs it down to such simple points because that's what the mass of the Republican party wants these days. That's the most effective way to do it. Short and sweet statements like "We'll cut your taxes" and "Read my lips: no new taxes" are what sells to the right these days.
As others have said, the 999 plan sounds like something right out of a pizza advertisement.
On October 02 2011 14:23 BlackJack wrote: I was extremely surprised to learn Herman Cain was a mathematician. All I heard of him was from the debates and he seemed like an idiot. He seems like a 12 year old that got a crash course on all of the issues. That's why his rhetoric is so simplistic and black and white. "Israel is our friend!" "Taxes are bad!" "Can I have a cookie, mommy?!"
That's why he's always saying something stupid and then the next day his campaign has to release a statement that says he didn't mean to say what he said. Examples: No Muslims in the cabinet, Bills that are only 2 pages long, Not knowing what Palestinian Right of Return is, etc.
He seems like a smart guy in his field but it's obvious he is a complete moron when it comes to politics.
He dumbs it down to such simple points because that's what the mass of the Republican party wants these days. That's the most effective way to do it. Short and sweet statements like "We'll cut your taxes" and "Read my lips: no new taxes" are what sells to the right these days.
As others have said, the 999 plan sounds like something right out of a pizza advertisement.
Well it's obvious that Romney is doing that, I'm not convinced Cain is doing that.
For example look at the right of return thing I mentioned.
Starts at 1:15
It really seems like he has no idea what that is, which is rather deplorable for someone trying to become President of the United States.
Herman Cain is just another representative of the old-boy network of corporate owned politicians.
There is only one issue that really matters in this country. Whether or not to end the Federal Reserve and bring the country back to using real money. The Fed is a cartel of International private banks, to which we have neither knowledge of who they really are, or have authority to oversee or audit them, or determine their motives. They print fake money, or conjure it up from nothing, to which they then lend to the public, at interest. It is at the point where all the income taxes they can collect cannot even match the interest payment on all that debt.
Ron Paul is the only candidate offering a solution. Guess what? he's been preaching the same message for 30+ years, not because it's popular and gets him power, but because it's right and what the founders intended. From the inception of this country the foreign banks have always sought to gain control of the US money supply and they have, right under our noses.
Ask questions, seek answers, and realize this country is a puppet for the mega corporations no matter what party is in power. That is, unless we elect real change, not just a changing of the guard.
he definitely got the 9-9-9 plan from the Domino's Pizza 5-5-5 deal, he even worked in the pizza business before so there's no excuse, he just ripped off his competitor's plan just like he's ripping off of other candidate's ideas
If this guy is the next "president" of the USA, I have no idea what to say..........From the little background check I did on him, this guy felt the abuse of being discriminated against as a "black" American in the bus, but then he goes around and says "He has stated that he was "uncomfortable" when he found that the surgeon operating on his liver and colon cancer was Muslim". What a despicable/ungrateful man.
On October 02 2011 07:29 AegonC wrote: I agree that Herman Cain would be a better president than Obama. How much better though? One of my main complaints about Obama is his experience. He's a community organizer for Pete's sake! One could argue that Cain is a "business man". But is running a pizza company, albeit a large one, really good experience for running a nation? I, for one, support Mit Romney and/or Ron Paul, because of their experience.
Community organizer, teacher of constitutional law, state senator, national senator, not such a bad resume compared to a guy who runs a pizza company.
Strictly speaking, Paul is not conservative (or rather, is only fiscally conservative). He's a libertarian. This is pretty much what western politics look like, though the words used to describe each ideology vary ("liberal" means "libertarian" in a lot of contexts). Obviously this is a rough approximation, and we can argue about the exact place each candidate falls on this chart. Also, most issues are really both economic and social, so a candidates position on a given issue can be difficult to predict based only on a chart like this.
I don't care for the way definitions have become skewed over the years, but I know what you mean as far as contemporary western politics. My point is that conservatism supposedly means a small government that stays out of people's lives as much as possible. Being pro-war is not conservative, especially when we pay for these wars by going into debt; and trying to use the government to impose your social values should not be considered conservative either, although that's what it has come to mean on the spectrum. Neo-cons don't want a small government. They just want a slightly smaller government that prioritizes spending in stuff that they care more about. So the choice is between two big government parties that either want more social welfare programs or more defense spending and Christian values. For all the blustering of men in nice suits, the differences between them are pretty superficial. They have more in common with each other than they do with any of us.
On October 02 2011 22:55 cerebralz wrote: Herman Cain is just another representative of the old-boy network of corporate owned politicians.
There is only one issue that really matters in this country. Whether or not to end the Federal Reserve and bring the country back to using real money. The Fed is a cartel of International private banks, to which we have neither knowledge of who they really are, or have authority to oversee or audit them, or determine their motives. They print fake money, or conjure it up from nothing, to which they then lend to the public, at interest. It is at the point where all the income taxes they can collect cannot even match the interest payment on all that debt.
Ron Paul is the only candidate offering a solution. Guess what? he's been preaching the same message for 30+ years, not because it's popular and gets him power, but because it's right and what the founders intended. From the inception of this country the foreign banks have always sought to gain control of the US money supply and they have, right under our noses.
Ask questions, seek answers, and realize this country is a puppet for the mega corporations no matter what party is in power. That is, unless we elect real change, not just a changing of the guard.
this is dumb. The value of gold is just as arbitrary as paper money. It has value because we assign value to it (just like paper money). You need something like this in society otherwise we would all just be barterers.
On October 02 2011 22:55 cerebralz wrote: Herman Cain is just another representative of the old-boy network of corporate owned politicians.
There is only one issue that really matters in this country. Whether or not to end the Federal Reserve and bring the country back to using real money. The Fed is a cartel of International private banks, to which we have neither knowledge of who they really are, or have authority to oversee or audit them, or determine their motives. They print fake money, or conjure it up from nothing, to which they then lend to the public, at interest. It is at the point where all the income taxes they can collect cannot even match the interest payment on all that debt.
Ron Paul is the only candidate offering a solution. Guess what? he's been preaching the same message for 30+ years, not because it's popular and gets him power, but because it's right and what the founders intended. From the inception of this country the foreign banks have always sought to gain control of the US money supply and they have, right under our noses.
Ask questions, seek answers, and realize this country is a puppet for the mega corporations no matter what party is in power. That is, unless we elect real change, not just a changing of the guard.
this is dumb. The value of gold is just as arbitrary as paper money. It has value because we assign value to it (just like paper money). You need something like this in society otherwise we would all just be barterers.
The primary argument for gold is that it is finite in nature, whereas printing technically has no upper limit. But yes, they are both arbitrary in terms of value.
On October 02 2011 22:55 cerebralz wrote: Herman Cain is just another representative of the old-boy network of corporate owned politicians.
There is only one issue that really matters in this country. Whether or not to end the Federal Reserve and bring the country back to using real money. The Fed is a cartel of International private banks, to which we have neither knowledge of who they really are, or have authority to oversee or audit them, or determine their motives. They print fake money, or conjure it up from nothing, to which they then lend to the public, at interest. It is at the point where all the income taxes they can collect cannot even match the interest payment on all that debt.
Ron Paul is the only candidate offering a solution. Guess what? he's been preaching the same message for 30+ years, not because it's popular and gets him power, but because it's right and what the founders intended. From the inception of this country the foreign banks have always sought to gain control of the US money supply and they have, right under our noses.
Ask questions, seek answers, and realize this country is a puppet for the mega corporations no matter what party is in power. That is, unless we elect real change, not just a changing of the guard.
this is dumb. The value of gold is just as arbitrary as paper money. It has value because we assign value to it (just like paper money). You need something like this in society otherwise we would all just be barterers.
this is dumb. the inherent value of gold is much higher than that of paper. take 2 identical pieces of paper, print $100 on one and $1 on another and that $100 paper is "worth" 100x more, even if you are getting the same amount of paper and ink. take a 1oz bar of gold and print 100oz on one and 1oz on the other and see if that changes the value of it.
The value of paper is affected by its face value, which can be placed there arbitrarily. You can't change the weight/purity of a piece of gold and still pass muster.
I really hate that I am someone who believes this now, but I really think the next president has already been chosen. If it is never happened in the past, I think our country has degraded and been split apart enough for the wealthiest to control it.
On October 02 2011 22:55 cerebralz wrote: Herman Cain is just another representative of the old-boy network of corporate owned politicians.
There is only one issue that really matters in this country. Whether or not to end the Federal Reserve and bring the country back to using real money. The Fed is a cartel of International private banks, to which we have neither knowledge of who they really are, or have authority to oversee or audit them, or determine their motives. They print fake money, or conjure it up from nothing, to which they then lend to the public, at interest. It is at the point where all the income taxes they can collect cannot even match the interest payment on all that debt.
Ron Paul is the only candidate offering a solution. Guess what? he's been preaching the same message for 30+ years, not because it's popular and gets him power, but because it's right and what the founders intended. From the inception of this country the foreign banks have always sought to gain control of the US money supply and they have, right under our noses.
Ask questions, seek answers, and realize this country is a puppet for the mega corporations no matter what party is in power. That is, unless we elect real change, not just a changing of the guard.
this is dumb. The value of gold is just as arbitrary as paper money. It has value because we assign value to it (just like paper money). You need something like this in society otherwise we would all just be barterers.
this is dumb. the inherent value of gold is much higher than that of paper. take 2 identical pieces of paper, print $100 on one and $1 on another and that $100 paper is "worth" 100x more, even if you are getting the same amount of paper and ink. take a 1oz bar of gold and print 100oz on one and 1oz on the other and see if that changes the value of it.
The value of paper is affected by its face value, which can be placed there arbitrarily. You can't change the weight/purity of a piece of gold and still pass muster.
wut.
Neither gold or paper is a human necessity. Gold, in particular, is one of the least necessary commodities to human survival and its existence as a whole. Its monetary value is completely arbitrary.
Your example itself is flawed because it isn't consistent. For your comparison to hold you would have to take a 1oz bar of gold and designate it's value as $1 and take another identical 1oz bar of gold and designate it's value as $100. It is not as if we are taking one piece of paper and saying that it is, in itself, 100 pieces of paper.
You don't really seem to understand that the value of money in paper has almost no relation at all to the actual price of paper. The fact that paper bills are made of paper is almost entirely irrelevant. It is simply that paper lends itself to be convenient to be used as the medium for this abstract concept of liquid value. It is the same when it comes to coins.
On October 02 2011 22:55 cerebralz wrote: Herman Cain is just another representative of the old-boy network of corporate owned politicians.
There is only one issue that really matters in this country. Whether or not to end the Federal Reserve and bring the country back to using real money. The Fed is a cartel of International private banks, to which we have neither knowledge of who they really are, or have authority to oversee or audit them, or determine their motives. They print fake money, or conjure it up from nothing, to which they then lend to the public, at interest. It is at the point where all the income taxes they can collect cannot even match the interest payment on all that debt.
Ron Paul is the only candidate offering a solution. Guess what? he's been preaching the same message for 30+ years, not because it's popular and gets him power, but because it's right and what the founders intended. From the inception of this country the foreign banks have always sought to gain control of the US money supply and they have, right under our noses.
Ask questions, seek answers, and realize this country is a puppet for the mega corporations no matter what party is in power. That is, unless we elect real change, not just a changing of the guard.
this is dumb. The value of gold is just as arbitrary as paper money. It has value because we assign value to it (just like paper money). You need something like this in society otherwise we would all just be barterers.
You are actually very wrong. It has value because it only has limited quantities, its not infinite. So you need to dig it out, process it and refine it. That is why it has value. Also man kind have used gold as money for thousands of years, do you want to say that you or anyone else right now is more knowledgeable about goal, than all those people who've used it for thousands and thousands of years?
But about Ron Paul for example is that he want's to either use gold pr tie the paper money back to gold so it can't be devalued or print out of thin air.
And everything is perception to humans, so its not an argument for anything.
On October 02 2011 22:55 cerebralz wrote: Herman Cain is just another representative of the old-boy network of corporate owned politicians.
There is only one issue that really matters in this country. Whether or not to end the Federal Reserve and bring the country back to using real money. The Fed is a cartel of International private banks, to which we have neither knowledge of who they really are, or have authority to oversee or audit them, or determine their motives. They print fake money, or conjure it up from nothing, to which they then lend to the public, at interest. It is at the point where all the income taxes they can collect cannot even match the interest payment on all that debt.
Ron Paul is the only candidate offering a solution. Guess what? he's been preaching the same message for 30+ years, not because it's popular and gets him power, but because it's right and what the founders intended. From the inception of this country the foreign banks have always sought to gain control of the US money supply and they have, right under our noses.
Ask questions, seek answers, and realize this country is a puppet for the mega corporations no matter what party is in power. That is, unless we elect real change, not just a changing of the guard.
this is dumb. The value of gold is just as arbitrary as paper money. It has value because we assign value to it (just like paper money). You need something like this in society otherwise we would all just be barterers.
this is dumb. the inherent value of gold is much higher than that of paper. take 2 identical pieces of paper, print $100 on one and $1 on another and that $100 paper is "worth" 100x more, even if you are getting the same amount of paper and ink. take a 1oz bar of gold and print 100oz on one and 1oz on the other and see if that changes the value of it.
The value of paper is affected by its face value, which can be placed there arbitrarily. You can't change the weight/purity of a piece of gold and still pass muster.
wut.
Neither gold or paper is a human necessity. Gold, in particular, is one of the least necessary commodities to human survival and its existence as a whole. Its monetary value is completely arbitrary.
Your example itself is flawed because it isn't consistent. For your comparison to hold you would have to take a 1oz bar of gold and designate it's value as $1 and take another identical 1oz bar of gold and designate it's value as $100. It is not as if we are taking one piece of paper and saying that it is, in itself, 100 pieces of paper.
You don't really seem to understand that the value of money in paper has almost no relation at all to the actual price of paper. The fact that paper bills are made of paper is almost entirely irrelevant. It is simply that paper lends itself to be convenient to be used as the medium for this abstract concept of liquid value. It is the same when it comes to coins.
No, I'm pretty sure that I "understand that the value of money in paper has almost no relation at all to the actual price of paper," because that's exactly the point I was trying to make in my post. You also ignore the sheer volume of monetary transactions that don't involve paper at all because they're conducted electronically. So clearly it's not the paper I have a problem with, but rather the fact that the money is backed by nothing. You seem to have trouble comprehending this issue so I'll use the term fiat currency instead of paper money.
lol @ calling a commodity arbitrarily priced. I'm pretty sure it's the market that dictates the value of a quantity of gold. Whereas the face value of fiat currency is dictated by whoever issues it, because you can just print it out of thin air (or even type numbers in a computer).
What is that fiat currency backed by? Nothing. Gold has inherent value to various industries. What if money was backed by gold? I have no problem with paper money as long as it's backed by something.
On October 02 2011 22:55 cerebralz wrote: Herman Cain is just another representative of the old-boy network of corporate owned politicians.
There is only one issue that really matters in this country. Whether or not to end the Federal Reserve and bring the country back to using real money. The Fed is a cartel of International private banks, to which we have neither knowledge of who they really are, or have authority to oversee or audit them, or determine their motives. They print fake money, or conjure it up from nothing, to which they then lend to the public, at interest. It is at the point where all the income taxes they can collect cannot even match the interest payment on all that debt.
Ron Paul is the only candidate offering a solution. Guess what? he's been preaching the same message for 30+ years, not because it's popular and gets him power, but because it's right and what the founders intended. From the inception of this country the foreign banks have always sought to gain control of the US money supply and they have, right under our noses.
Ask questions, seek answers, and realize this country is a puppet for the mega corporations no matter what party is in power. That is, unless we elect real change, not just a changing of the guard.
this is dumb. The value of gold is just as arbitrary as paper money. It has value because we assign value to it (just like paper money). You need something like this in society otherwise we would all just be barterers.
You are actually very wrong. It has value because it only has limited quantities, its not infinite. So you need to dig it out, process it and refine it. That is why it has value. Also man kind have used gold as money for thousands of years, do you want to say that you or anyone else right now is more knowledgeable about goal, than all those people who've used it for thousands and thousands of years?
But about Ron Paul for example is that he want's to either use gold pr tie the paper money back to gold so it can't be devalued or print out of thin air.
And everything is perception to humans, so its not an argument for anything.
You also have to cut down trees, process it to make paper, then print bills on the paper through stringent requirements. Paper is also limited, and so it ink. Everything in the goddamned planet has limited quantities.
Also, human societies have used cheque systems for over a thousand years, which are the precursors of modern fiat money. Paper money itself has been around less than a thousand years ago in China.
On October 03 2011 12:44 Flamingo777 wrote: The second link depicts Palin as the highest rated candidate, being a rational thinker, I really can't assess the validity of 'Gallup.com'.
Gallup is a pretty well-respected polling organization. Also when I click the link I see Cain having the highest positive intensity, followed by Perry, Giuliani, Romney, and then Palin 5th.
It's so early to really say how Cain's numbers will hold up - just weeks ago Republicans appeared ready to nominate Perry, now his stock is falling. Who knows what will happen with Cain.
One thing's for sure, Romney is holding steady. He may simply outlast all of the other candidates.
On October 03 2011 12:44 Flamingo777 wrote: The second link depicts Palin as the highest rated candidate, being a rational thinker, I really can't assess the validity of 'Gallup.com'.
The republican field is all over the place at the moment, its still way too far to tell anything concrete about anything. As far as the candidates themselves, I think the lot of them are a big collective punch line.
On October 02 2011 11:43 Diablo3 wrote: Herman Cain is a banker candidate. He is actually worse than Rick Perry and Perry went to Bilderberg.
He supports the patriot act, supports secret military tribunals, supports the TSA, supports affirmative action, is "racist" towards Muslims and is uncomfortable around them, hates their religion, supports the wars, was the former deputy chairman (1992–94) and chairman (1995–96) of the board of directors to the federal reserve bank, was involved in a corruption scandal at Aquila.
Finally, 3 pages in to find someone who knows what they're talking about. Cain was a deputy chairman and chairman of the Federal Reserve board from 1992 - 1996. The federal reserve is one of the most important issues effecting our economy today.
I used to listen to Cains radio show on my way home from work a couple years ago, I liked it. I like listening to talk radio, that's just me - I'm odd. I thought Cain was a good guy, but I noticed as time went on and more specifically as the Tea Party became more popular he changed. It was obvious he was going to make a run because his entire personality seemed to change.
I do not identify as a republican, but I also don't mind listening to opposing views as long as their well constructed and Cain -did- do a good job of explaining his point without it sounding like it was mostly fluff and talking points.
I became disenfranchised with Cain after seeing his beliefs change when it became obvious he was going to run.
He's not any different as far as what you would get if he got in.
Sarah Palin is a rare bird(being nice, had my coffee!!), but may actually be thinking rational for a change. See Rick Perry's support before he had to get on TV and debate, now look at it. Palin waiting to enter, and lessening her exposure to questions may be the genius move of this election, unless she chooses Christine O'Donnell as her running mate. Then again, if announced on halloween in some sexy witch outfits, we would be back in the genius pile again. Confusing
On October 03 2011 12:44 Flamingo777 wrote: The second link depicts Palin as the highest rated candidate, being a rational thinker, I really can't assess the validity of 'Gallup.com'.
Gallup is a pretty well-respected polling organization. Also when I click the link I see Cain having the highest positive intensity, followed by Perry, Giuliani, Romney, and then Palin 5th.
It's so early to really say how Cain's numbers will hold up - just weeks ago Republicans appeared ready to nominate Perry, now his stock is falling. Who knows what will happen with Cain.
One thing's for sure, Romney is holding steady. He may simply outlast all of the other candidates.
Might have interpreted the graph wrong. T__T Assumed the graph would show numbers moving upward in an ascending fashion.
On October 03 2011 12:44 Flamingo777 wrote: The second link depicts Palin as the highest rated candidate, being a rational thinker, I really can't assess the validity of 'Gallup.com'.
Gallup is a pretty well-respected polling organization. Also when I click the link I see Cain having the highest positive intensity, followed by Perry, Giuliani, Romney, and then Palin 5th.
It's so early to really say how Cain's numbers will hold up - just weeks ago Republicans appeared ready to nominate Perry, now his stock is falling. Who knows what will happen with Cain.
One thing's for sure, Romney is holding steady. He may simply outlast all of the other candidates.
Might have interpreted the graph wrong. T__T Assumed the graph would show numbers moving upward in an ascending fashion.
Ah ha. Yeah they had it so up-down was name recognition (Palin is highest there), left-right was "positive intensity."
This guy is totally unelectable. It's a far shot that he'll get nominated, but past that there's absolutely no chance he will be elected president. Just look at all of the racist things he's said about muslims.... the dems and independents would never consider him and for good reason.
"Cain sux b/c he duzznt sepport teh abortionz our teh homoshecks." You are right, and we like it that way.
Anyone else read this???
Are you implying he doesn't support abortion/homosexuals and you (republicans since you generalized your position) are all supporting that?
Its 2011 grow the fuck up, seems like all these nominations we're born ass backwards and forgot to live in the time, and that time is equality... Or atleast humanitys best attempt thus far.
Obama might not be doing the best job, but with what he was thrown into atleast it isn't complelty gone, all of these runners need to be replaced with an iq above their combined total (that's above 100 I'd guess)
On October 04 2011 04:17 MERLIN. wrote: "Cain sux b/c he duzznt sepport teh abortionz our teh homoshecks." You are right, and we like it that way.
Anyone else read this???
Are you implying he doesn't support abortion/homosexuals and you (republicans since you generalized your position) are all supporting that?
Its 2011 grow the fuck up, seems like all these nominations we're born ass backwards and forgot to live in the time, and that time is equality... Or atleast humanitys best attempt thus far.
Obama might not be doing the best job, but with what he was thrown into atleast it isn't complelty gone, all of these runners need to be replaced with an iq above their combined total (that's above 100 I'd guess)
If you weren't an uneducated dolt you'd realize he didn't imply that at all.
He said that Cain doesn't give a rat's ass RIGHTFULLY it is not the job of the president elect to dabble in these matters as they are to be handled on a State level.
When the entire global economy is on the verge of collapse and we are still debating inane things like abortion and gay marriage on a federal level I weep for the future. That's the OPs point and clearly you missed it due to your bipartisan, emotional and uneducated opinions.
On October 04 2011 04:17 MERLIN. wrote: "Cain sux b/c he duzznt sepport teh abortionz our teh homoshecks." You are right, and we like it that way.
Anyone else read this???
Are you implying he doesn't support abortion/homosexuals and you (republicans since you generalized your position) are all supporting that?
Its 2011 grow the fuck up, seems like all these nominations we're born ass backwards and forgot to live in the time, and that time is equality... Or atleast humanitys best attempt thus far.
Obama might not be doing the best job, but with what he was thrown into atleast it isn't complelty gone, all of these runners need to be replaced with an iq above their combined total (that's above 100 I'd guess)
If you weren't an uneducated dolt you'd realize he didn't imply that at all.
He said that Cain doesn't give a rat's ass RIGHTFULLY it is not the job of the president elect to dabble in these matters as they are to be handled on a State level.
When the entire global economy is on the verge of collapse and we are still debating inane things like abortion and gay marriage on a federal level I weep for the future. That's the OPs point and clearly you missed it due to your bipartisan, emotional and uneducated opinions.
IF**** That is what he was implying, then I have nothing negative to say, how I took it was simply
"cain doesnt support gays, ppl who complain are right in assuming that, and we don't give a fuck about you" How did I take it that way? First he insulted anyone who would complain about someone not supporting gays, secondly he said "you are right, we don't give a fuck" and as i described above it could be seen that way.
Sorry, through his attempts to "troll" people who are pro-rights by implying we all sound like imbeciles I took slight offence to that.
BUT if that wasn't what he was trying to imply, then I admit I'm wrong : P.
" bipartisan, emotional and uneducated opinions"
It is possible, that one may take things completely differently, and with almost all of the republican cand. thus far stating slurs/things against gay people (Ms. B comes to mind) it's hard to be able to take a stance that isn't of great offence, but no reason to state my opinions are uneducated merely on an emotional response to a subject. And also, since you already made one wrong claim, I'm also not Bipartisan at all... I might swing right on 1 or 2 VERY small occasions, but I don't leave the left corner to often.
So please, don't bash my post when obviously it wasn't just some random troll, you could see how that could be seen differently.
On October 04 2011 04:17 MERLIN. wrote: "Cain sux b/c he duzznt sepport teh abortionz our teh homoshecks." You are right, and we like it that way.
Anyone else read this???
Are you implying he doesn't support abortion/homosexuals and you (republicans since you generalized your position) are all supporting that?
Its 2011 grow the fuck up, seems like all these nominations we're born ass backwards and forgot to live in the time, and that time is equality... Or atleast humanitys best attempt thus far.
Obama might not be doing the best job, but with what he was thrown into atleast it isn't complelty gone, all of these runners need to be replaced with an iq above their combined total (that's above 100 I'd guess)
If you weren't an uneducated dolt you'd realize he didn't imply that at all.
He said that Cain doesn't give a rat's ass RIGHTFULLY it is not the job of the president elect to dabble in these matters as they are to be handled on a State level.
When the entire global economy is on the verge of collapse and we are still debating inane things like abortion and gay marriage on a federal level I weep for the future. That's the OPs point and clearly you missed it due to your bipartisan, emotional and uneducated opinions.
Actually, those are federal issues and need to be dealt with on a country-wide level. The economy is a problem, but freedoms don't take a backseat just because of financial issues. Both their economic strategy and their rights values are very important matters in my vote.
So basically instead of using the Republican nominations thread you decided that the candidate you support needed a thread of his own. Like, someone who supported Romney would have the arrogance to decide to post a separate thread just so that their biased opinion wouldn't get lost in the many other valid opinions in the general Republican nominees thread.
On October 04 2011 04:17 MERLIN. wrote: "Cain sux b/c he duzznt sepport teh abortionz our teh homoshecks." You are right, and we like it that way.
Anyone else read this???
Are you implying he doesn't support abortion/homosexuals and you (republicans since you generalized your position) are all supporting that?
Its 2011 grow the fuck up, seems like all these nominations we're born ass backwards and forgot to live in the time, and that time is equality... Or atleast humanitys best attempt thus far.
Obama might not be doing the best job, but with what he was thrown into atleast it isn't complelty gone, all of these runners need to be replaced with an iq above their combined total (that's above 100 I'd guess)
If you weren't an uneducated dolt you'd realize he didn't imply that at all.
He said that Cain doesn't give a rat's ass RIGHTFULLY it is not the job of the president elect to dabble in these matters as they are to be handled on a State level.
When the entire global economy is on the verge of collapse and we are still debating inane things like abortion and gay marriage on a federal level I weep for the future. That's the OPs point and clearly you missed it due to your bipartisan, emotional and uneducated opinions.
User was warned for this post
you think the economy is more important than human rights?
really?
also you're last sentence is so ironic it hurts ;/
I'd just like to point out that *someone* edited out the "Controversial Remarks" section of his wikipedia page. If you want to read them, here's the old version:
On October 14 2011 08:29 Uranium wrote: I'd just like to point out that *someone* edited out the "Controversial Remarks" section of his wikipedia page. If you want to read them, here's the old version:
He's already been caught in a web of lies, much like Obama was caught flip-flopping long before he ever was president. Of course, the public at that point have already been sold on the idea that he already won the election.
He's against Muslims, he's afraid to audit the Fed, his 9-9-9 tax plan is ludicrous, doesn't want to end the wars we are currently in, and he wants to pick a fight with Iran. If he becomes the Republican Nominee/President, I'm moving to Sweden or Switzerland or somethin'
Ron Paul is the strongest candidate, but I would vote for Cain. Refreshing that someone with an Economics and Business background becomes a viable candidate.
I don't think his "controversial remarks" are of any significance, he just stated the obvious about the Muslim religion.
On October 14 2011 09:33 scaban84 wrote: Ron Paul is the strongest candidate, but I would vote for Cain. Refreshing that someone with an Economics and Business background becomes a viable candidate.
I don't think his "controversial remarks" are of any significance, he just stated the obvious about the Muslim religion.
What's so obvious about Islam? Please enlighten me.
On October 14 2011 09:33 scaban84 wrote: Ron Paul is the strongest candidate, but I would vote for Cain. Refreshing that someone with an Economics and Business background becomes a viable candidate.
I don't think his "controversial remarks" are of any significance, he just stated the obvious about the Muslim religion.
What's so obvious about Islam? Please enlighten me.
Seconding this. If I'm not mistaken, Cain's remarks were ill-informed and could very well be regarded as offensive.
Point 2 - http://www.gallup.com/poll/election.aspx <--- Herman Cain is the only candidate who has consistently held a high Positive Intensity score; in fact I don't think that anyone has beaten him yet since he announced. Also, he is still under 50% recognition and is already within 5 points of beating Obama; by far the only candidate with such an amazing ratio.
Point 3 - the other candidates are weak. Romney will never be president as he is too close to Bush; you can bet that the liberals are getting the astroturf ready to destroy him if he gets the nomination. Perry has some of the same problems; he could probably win, but people don't love him like they do Herman Cain. Paul is unelectable and not a conservative. Bachmann, well we already know. Huntsman, same as Paul, Santorum same as Bachmann, Gingrich is awesome but has too much history. Anyway, you get the picture; would love to hear what you guys think as well.
Bottom line, the man is incredibly intelligent, and has successfully turned around two major corporations. Best of all, at least for me, is that he has never been a politician. I know that this is a detractor to some people, and would love to address your specific concerns. The bottom line is that we already have too many politicians, and not enough people who can actually make hard decisions without worrying about reelection and stepping on the wrong toes.
Also, he is black. The only way that Obama can possibly win in 2012 (short of a miraculous economic recovery, which he seems to be doing everything to prevent, lol) is if he can capture the minority vote again. A Cain / Rubio ticket would absolutely blow this out of the water.
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.
Also, http://www.facebook.com/groups/52944254947/ - here is a Facebook group dedicated to breaking news and discussions. We try to keep it clear of irrelevant stuff and garden-variety anti-Obama jokes, hate and the like, so that people have more room to talk; please feel free to join in.
lol you think that just because he is black means he is going to get the minority vote? He is constantly putting black people down saying we are "brainwashed" by the democratic agenda. He says that if you are not rich and if you dont have a job then its your own fault.... -_- he is an uncle tom who says what republicans want to hear. Minorities hate him.
Ron Paul will take the nomination. Cain is a moron. His fiscal policies are utter rubbish. The only reason Cain is doing well in the polls is because the media is ignoring Ron Paul who is consistently winning straw polls. IS Ron Paul a republican.. maybe not.. Ron Paul is a Libertarian. Is Ron Paul a conservative? YES! More so than any other republican candidate.
I'm no expert in economics but the new yorkers argument seems valid. I'd love to see Cain engage in an intellectual debate on the facts but we know that will never, ever happen.
I'd like to see if any more conservative economists actually support this plan. I doubt many will put their reputations on the line for something so shady.
I know there are a large number of independants registering as republicans just to vote for Ron Paul so this Cain guy doesn't get in, because he is ri-gosh-darn-diculous.
On October 14 2011 09:33 scaban84 wrote: Ron Paul is the strongest candidate, but I would vote for Cain. Refreshing that someone with an Economics and Business background becomes a viable candidate.
I don't think his "controversial remarks" are of any significance, he just stated the obvious about the Muslim religion.
What's so obvious about Islam? Please enlighten me.
It's the most immature religion? They probably commit more murders than the rest of the other religions combined, seeing how every other religion has matured.
I'm not a Cain fan, but I really think the criticism of his 9-9-9 plan is unfair. I mean, you really need to contrast these kind of proposals with what we have currently.
If any candidate were to stand up and say
"My tax plan is to have a system of tax code that is tens of thousands of pages long and is so complicated that thousands of people will have to devote their entire education and career to studying it and figuring out how to work it. There will be countless provisions made for individual companies to create exceptions and special privileges, endless loopholes that can be exploited, and hundreds of measures designed to benefit certain groups at the expense of others, based upon the fiat of politicians,"
would hopefully be laughed out of the entire political arena, or perhaps committed to a mental institution. The plans people advocate to reform the system are never going to be perfect, but in comparison to the nonsensical system we have now would almost always represent a move in the right direction.
On October 14 2011 11:26 jdseemoreglass wrote: I'm not a Cain fan, but I really think the criticism of his 9-9-9 plan is unfair. I mean, you really need to contrast these kind of proposals with what we have currently.
If any candidate were to stand up and say
"My tax plan is to have a system of tax code that is tens of thousands of pages long and is so complicated that thousands of people will have to devote their entire education and career to studying it and figuring out how to work it. There will be countless provisions made for individual companies to create exceptions and special privileges, endless loopholes that can be exploited, and hundreds of measures designed to benefit certain groups at the expense of others, based upon the fiat of politicians,"
would hopefully be laughed out of the entire political arena, or perhaps committed to a mental institution. The plans people advocate to reform the system are never going to be perfect, but in comparison to the nonsensical system we have now would almost always represent a move in the right direction.
Economists have and the majority think it's a horrible plan. Cain's economy adviser doesn't even have a degree in economics. His plan benefits the rich and puts a burden on the middle class, and still doesn't manage to create the revenue we need. Not to mention his plan is oddly similar to sim city.
On October 14 2011 09:33 scaban84 wrote: Ron Paul is the strongest candidate, but I would vote for Cain. Refreshing that someone with an Economics and Business background becomes a viable candidate.
I don't think his "controversial remarks" are of any significance, he just stated the obvious about the Muslim religion.
What's so obvious about Islam? Please enlighten me.
It's the most immature religion? They probably commit more murders than the rest of the other religions combined, seeing how every other religion has matured.
Islam = immature.
I'm seriously hoping this is sarcasm or a troll or something
On October 14 2011 09:33 scaban84 wrote: Ron Paul is the strongest candidate, but I would vote for Cain. Refreshing that someone with an Economics and Business background becomes a viable candidate.
I don't think his "controversial remarks" are of any significance, he just stated the obvious about the Muslim religion.
What's so obvious about Islam? Please enlighten me.
It's the most immature religion? They probably commit more murders than the rest of the other religions combined, seeing how every other religion has matured.
On October 14 2011 09:33 scaban84 wrote: Ron Paul is the strongest candidate, but I would vote for Cain. Refreshing that someone with an Economics and Business background becomes a viable candidate.
I don't think his "controversial remarks" are of any significance, he just stated the obvious about the Muslim religion.
What's so obvious about Islam? Please enlighten me.
It's the most immature religion? They probably commit more murders than the rest of the other religions combined, seeing how every other religion has matured.
Islam = immature.
crusades?eta? FARC? George bush and co?
George Bush even claimed God told him to attack Iraq.......wonder how that turned out.
On October 14 2011 09:33 scaban84 wrote: Ron Paul is the strongest candidate, but I would vote for Cain. Refreshing that someone with an Economics and Business background becomes a viable candidate.
I don't think his "controversial remarks" are of any significance, he just stated the obvious about the Muslim religion.
What's so obvious about Islam? Please enlighten me.
It's the most immature religion? They probably commit more murders than the rest of the other religions combined, seeing how every other religion has matured.
Islam = immature.
A strict interpretation of the Islamic holy book would lead one to conclude that it is indeed a very violent religion. But, it's not really fair unless you take a look at other religions, too. So unless Cain wants to be inconsistent he's going to have to turn down all mainstream religions, not just Muslims.
Do Muslim's commit terrorist crimes because their religion tells them to? Absolutely. And not just crazy Muslim's. Many of those big bad terrorists who flew planes into buildings had college degrees. Do Christian's also commit acts of violence because their religion tells them to? Yep. Visited any abortion clinics lately? Seen any gay teens committing suicide because of harassment?
Point I'm making here is that Cain isn't being fair at all. And your point that other religions have matured is false. The books that they are based on haven't changed at all. Current cultural values have just influenced people to take certain aspects of the books less seriously. Muslim's raised in American society are going to have different cultural values from those in the middle east.
"Don't blame Wall Street. Don't blame the big banks. If you don't have a job and you're not rich, blame yourself. It's not a person's fault because they succeeded. It is a person's fault if they failed. And so this is why I don't understand these demonstrations and what is it that they're looking for."
On October 14 2011 12:09 Telcontar wrote: "Don't blame Wall Street. Don't blame the big banks. If you don't have a job and you're not rich, blame yourself. It's not a person's fault because they succeeded. It is a person's fault if they failed. And so this is why I don't understand these demonstrations and what is it that they're looking for."
lol. For some reason, I don't think this guy will make a good president.
Cain just needed to add two more sentences to make this correct: It is not a bank's fault if they failed. It is not Wall Street's fault if they failed.
On October 14 2011 09:33 scaban84 wrote: Ron Paul is the strongest candidate, but I would vote for Cain. Refreshing that someone with an Economics and Business background becomes a viable candidate.
I don't think his "controversial remarks" are of any significance, he just stated the obvious about the Muslim religion.
What's so obvious about Islam? Please enlighten me.
It's the most immature religion? They probably commit more murders than the rest of the other religions combined, seeing how every other religion has matured.
Islam = immature.
Thank you, so much, for existing.
Hey guys, using the logic from the Occupy Wall Street thread, this guy is proof that all Herman Cain supporters are insanely ignorant, right?
...okay okay, of course that isn't true. I still think he might be a troll, and if he is, well done :D
ron paul should be the nominee. he has consistently said end or at least audit the unaccountable (they don't answer to anyone, but control our monetary situation.) federal reserve.
"American businessman, syndicated columnist, and radio host from Georgia. He is the former chairman and CEO of Godfather's Pizza and a former Chairman (Omaha Branch board 1989-91), deputy chairman (1992–94) and chairman (1995–96) of the board of directors of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.[2] Before his business career he worked as a mathematician in ballistics as a civilian employee of the United States Navy.[3][4] He lives in the Atlanta suburbs, where he also serves as an associate minister at Antioch Baptist Church North."
Cain's 999 plan manages to be the second dumbest economic policy of any candidate, republican or democrat, which is quite a feat. His arbitrary, regressive taxrates that will actually increase income tax for the middle-class are both sub-par and against what most of the republican base wants; the other candidates are obviously choosing to avoid demolishing it until it's propping up his entire campaign. Of course, he's incredible at beating the phrase into the ground to the point where the base might just ignore the actual effects of his plan in favor of buying empty rhetoric anyway - it certainly is the standard procedure for nominees anyway (for all the problems with Obama's time in the oval office, he has lowered taxes and done absolutely nothing about gun rights, but the candidates attack him for 'raising taxes' and 'wanting to take away your guns' anyway). But I doubt it, this is THE one issue he's harping on and the one where he has an advantage in, if the other candidates manage to even somewhat turn the base off his plan he will lose on other topics where his inexperience in politics hurt him.
Still 90%+ chance of Romney getting the republican nomination I'd say, who knows what might happen though.
It's the most immature religion? They probably commit more murders than the rest of the other religions combined, seeing how every other religion has matured.
Islam = immature.
i don't think you can top christianity, pal (no offense, christians)... more specifically, the roman catholic empire, which is still racking up kills. know your history. religion = immature.
I can't stand Cain, his policies or his attitude. If Cain wins the nomination Obama wins in 2012, simple as. Romney needs to be nominated if you republicans want to beat Obama
On October 14 2011 13:00 Insurrectionist wrote: Cain's 999 plan manages to be the second dumbest economic policy of any candidate, republican or democrat, which is quite a feat. His arbitrary, regressive taxrates that will actually increase income tax for the middle-class are both sub-par and against what most of the republican base wants; the other candidates are obviously choosing to avoid demolishing it until it's propping up his entire campaign. Of course, he's incredible at beating the phrase into the ground to the point where the base might just ignore the actual effects of his plan in favor of buying empty rhetoric anyway - it certainly is the standard procedure for nominees anyway (for all the problems with Obama's time in the oval office, he has lowered taxes and done absolutely nothing about gun rights, but the candidates attack him for 'raising taxes' and 'wanting to take away your guns' anyway). But I doubt it, this is THE one issue he's harping on and the one where he has an advantage in, if the other candidates manage to even somewhat turn the base off his plan he will lose on other topics where his inexperience in politics hurt him.
Still 90%+ chance of Romney getting the republican nomination I'd say, who knows what might happen though.
I don't disagree with you. I do ponder if Cain, is trying to deflect by making the Islam comment.
The plan has few outright supporters so far, and I have not seen the dynamic independent study Cain said was done. Still hasn't released it.
On October 14 2011 11:13 Zealotdriver wrote: Lulz. The 9-9-9 build will never work and doesn't even pass the revenue-neutral test despite Cain's claims.
Makes sense that the pizza candidate would be the one to think of a build even cheesier than 1-1-1.
On October 14 2011 12:09 Telcontar wrote: "Don't blame Wall Street. Don't blame the big banks. If you don't have a job and you're not rich, blame yourself. It's not a person's fault because they succeeded. It is a person's fault if they failed. And so this is why I don't understand these demonstrations and what is it that they're looking for."
lol. For some reason, I don't think this guy will make a good president.
Pretty much
He lost when he backed Alan Greenspan. I can't believe he said that he was a great fed chairman. The guy who basically oversaw the economy crash is a good guy in cain's book. I think his poll numbers are going to drop faster than ole Ricky. Then it will be back to the biggest liar in the race as the front runner Mitt (please don't call me John Kerry) Romney.
Once again the vote for president will be a complete sham. I voted for Obama to end the wars and change and all I got was 3 more wars and inflation. Everyday Obama makes George W look like a good president. American politics are beyond corrupt.
Cain, just like the rest of them, is just a clueless actor. He has no in-depth knowledge of anything, no set of moral principles and understands no values. He will say whatever he thinks will bring him more power. His job is to project charisma and parrot empty lines some marketing team feeds him.
as some comment on youtube puts it:
"It's Real Simple, I got other people doing my Shit, Because I don't know WTF this all Means. I did not know back then, and I Don't know Now. Heck my Advisors Don't know so It will be more of the Same..."
He's getting a lot of wind in his sails because conservatives are kinda stuck with him at this point. Romney prattles on defending Romneycare and you better believe it that not just a handful of conservatives think he isn't gonna be aggressive rolling back Obamacare, if elected. Perry's got his own issues with illegal alien funding, which I could let go by, if he would just articulate himself well in debates. So the supposed frontrunners are too wishy washy for conservatives, and everybody keeps saying that Romney is doomed to get it.
I would vote tomorrow's blueberry bagel in an ballot against Obama. If I'm stuck with Romney, I'm voting for Romney. But God ... please no. I'd take Cain over him.
On October 14 2011 15:07 Danglars wrote: He's getting a lot of wind in his sails because conservatives are kinda stuck with him at this point. Romney prattles on defending Romneycare and you better believe it that not just a handful of conservatives think he isn't gonna be aggressive rolling back Obamacare, if elected. Perry's got his own issues with illegal alien funding, which I could let go by, if he would just articulate himself well in debates. So the supposed frontrunners are too wishy washy for conservatives, and everybody keeps saying that Romney is doomed to get it.
I would vote tomorrow's blueberry bagel in an ballot against Obama. If I'm stuck with Romney, I'm voting for Romney. But God ... please no. I'd take Cain over him.
You'd trade a liar for a liar? I'll take the blueberry bagel.
On October 14 2011 15:07 Danglars wrote: He's getting a lot of wind in his sails because conservatives are kinda stuck with him at this point. Romney prattles on defending Romneycare and you better believe it that not just a handful of conservatives think he isn't gonna be aggressive rolling back Obamacare, if elected. Perry's got his own issues with illegal alien funding, which I could let go by, if he would just articulate himself well in debates. So the supposed frontrunners are too wishy washy for conservatives, and everybody keeps saying that Romney is doomed to get it.
I would vote tomorrow's blueberry bagel in an ballot against Obama. If I'm stuck with Romney, I'm voting for Romney. But God ... please no. I'd take Cain over him.
You'd trade a liar for a liar? I'll take the blueberry bagel.
at least with a blueberry bagel, you know what you are getting.
On October 14 2011 15:07 Danglars wrote: He's getting a lot of wind in his sails because conservatives are kinda stuck with him at this point. Romney prattles on defending Romneycare and you better believe it that not just a handful of conservatives think he isn't gonna be aggressive rolling back Obamacare, if elected. Perry's got his own issues with illegal alien funding, which I could let go by, if he would just articulate himself well in debates. So the supposed frontrunners are too wishy washy for conservatives, and everybody keeps saying that Romney is doomed to get it.
I would vote tomorrow's blueberry bagel in an ballot against Obama. If I'm stuck with Romney, I'm voting for Romney. But God ... please no. I'd take Cain over him.
You'd trade a liar for a liar? I'll take the blueberry bagel.
at least with a blueberry bagel, you know what you are getting.
Everybody knows that Blueberry Bagel is in the pocket of the Bakers' Unions. Without them he would be nothing -_-
On October 14 2011 14:52 Nausea wrote: I have a hard time seeing the republicans electing a black man. (not intended to offend any republican with a brain)
I'm not as cynical as you, but I think even the openly bigoted Republicans would have an easier time with a black Christian than a white Mormon. The fact that both are front runners right now is pretty cool. The Mormon thing came up a lot in 2008, but not much at all so far this time around. <2
I don't know if anyone pointed this out already, but one of the biggest detractors for voters in terms of Romney is that he is Mormon. More of a concern to the general populace than his ties to Bush. We's Americans hate us dem none Christians.
On October 14 2011 08:05 turdburgler wrote: you think the economy is more important than human rights?
You do need an economy to pay for things like protecting human rights.
While in general, human rights > economy, there's a minimum threshold for both.
if you value you the human rights, no one needs protecting
Not everybody gives two shits about human rights. We don't live in a Utopia.
no, you live in america, not some 3rd world country with dictatorships and stuff. you dont need much money to defend the basic human rights of americans -_-
On October 14 2011 09:33 scaban84 wrote: Ron Paul is the strongest candidate, but I would vote for Cain. Refreshing that someone with an Economics and Business background becomes a viable candidate.
I don't think his "controversial remarks" are of any significance, he just stated the obvious about the Muslim religion.
What's so obvious about Islam? Please enlighten me.
It's the most immature religion? They probably commit more murders than the rest of the other religions combined, seeing how every other religion has matured.
Islam = immature.
User was warned for this post
christianity openly advocates killing heathens and heretics, and yet when people who follow islam, which believes in basically the same god, kill heretics you call them immature :D
Lol im so amused by this 9-9-9 bullshit. its like the most blatant example of how the republicans are exploiting their base. its a party controlled by super rich financial conservatives that leverages their ties to religious/socially conservative poor people. 9-9-9 is just strictly better for the rich. like SO much better for the rich. and the dumb poor people in the party just eat that shit up. oooo anti government, simple tax code, simple laws. all leading to them getting the shaft.
On October 14 2011 21:57 Orpheos wrote: Lol im so amused by this 9-9-9 bullshit. its like the most blatant example of how the republicans are exploiting their base. its a party controlled by super rich financial conservatives that leverages their ties to religious/socially conservative poor people. 9-9-9 is just strictly better for the rich. like SO much better for the rich. and the dumb poor people in the party just eat that shit up. oooo anti government, simple tax code, simple laws. all leading to them getting the shaft.
i really just dont understand.
At least in 2008, democrats had more big money support than republicans. Your stereotype that republicans are the party of the super rich is just not accurate.
"Paul is unelectable and not a conservative." Can you please explain why you think that ?? He got more support from personal donations than any other and his ideas are truly conservatives in the american sense that he wants to come back to the constitution principles. Please share your point of view on this one because it doesn't make sense to me.
On October 14 2011 22:40 Diks wrote: "Paul is unelectable and not a conservative." Can you please explain why you think that ?? He got more support from personal donations than any other and his ideas are truly conservatives in the american sense that he wants to come back to the constitution principles. Please share your point of view on this one because it doesn't make sense to me.
Because he likes to pretend that giant chunks of the constitution don't exist?
Because his economic and foreign policies are out right dangerous?
Because he thinks the gilded age was the best point in american history?
The only upside to Ron Paul is that 99% of the shiat he wants he couldn't actually make happen as president.
On October 14 2011 21:57 Orpheos wrote: Lol im so amused by this 9-9-9 bullshit. its like the most blatant example of how the republicans are exploiting their base. its a party controlled by super rich financial conservatives that leverages their ties to religious/socially conservative poor people. 9-9-9 is just strictly better for the rich. like SO much better for the rich. and the dumb poor people in the party just eat that shit up. oooo anti government, simple tax code, simple laws. all leading to them getting the shaft.
i really just dont understand.
At least in 2008, democrats had more big money support than republicans. Your stereotype that republicans are the party of the super rich is just not accurate.
This isn't a question of demographics, its a question of policy. The republican doctrine of the last 30 years has been tax cuts for the rich, the poor only get tax cuts if the bill won't pass without some democrat support, or in Cain's plan cuts for the rich, massive tax increases on the poor and elderly.
On October 14 2011 21:57 Orpheos wrote: Lol im so amused by this 9-9-9 bullshit. its like the most blatant example of how the republicans are exploiting their base. its a party controlled by super rich financial conservatives that leverages their ties to religious/socially conservative poor people. 9-9-9 is just strictly better for the rich. like SO much better for the rich. and the dumb poor people in the party just eat that shit up. oooo anti government, simple tax code, simple laws. all leading to them getting the shaft.
i really just dont understand.
At least in 2008, democrats had more big money support than republicans. Your stereotype that republicans are the party of the super rich is just not accurate.
yea you can fudge and mislead with numbers all you want. I look at the policies.
*edit lol the guy above me pretty much said the same thing with more detail. >_<
People may be caught by the style of american election campaigns, Its more about image than substance, Look at how people think that this man is possibly the next president however has very little to no knowledge of legislation, his idea of "short bills" that anything over 3 pages he wont sign is beyond rediculous, anyone that has studied law for more than several hours will tell you how bad of an idea that is but people still think this man is knowledgable.
On October 14 2011 08:05 turdburgler wrote: you think the economy is more important than human rights?
You do need an economy to pay for things like protecting human rights.
While in general, human rights > economy, there's a minimum threshold for both.
if you value you the human rights, no one needs protecting
Not everybody gives two shits about human rights. We don't live in a Utopia.
no, you live in america, not some 3rd world country with dictatorships and stuff. you dont need much money to defend the basic human rights of americans -_-
On October 14 2011 09:33 scaban84 wrote: Ron Paul is the strongest candidate, but I would vote for Cain. Refreshing that someone with an Economics and Business background becomes a viable candidate.
I don't think his "controversial remarks" are of any significance, he just stated the obvious about the Muslim religion.
What's so obvious about Islam? Please enlighten me.
It's the most immature religion? They probably commit more murders than the rest of the other religions combined, seeing how every other religion has matured.
Islam = immature.
User was warned for this post
christianity openly advocates killing heathens and heretics, and yet when people who follow islam, which believes in basically the same god, kill heretics you call them immature :D
explain this to me please
Here goes the typical "Defend Islam by attacking Christianity" argument. Cain was referring to how there is a concerted effort to accomodate Shariah law in Western governments. It has already happened in the UK.
The word "awesome" and the name newt gingrich should really never be used in the same sentence.
Herman Cain is very interesting though. However I think his success is more of a result of the general disapproval of the republican candidates. I'm going up to NH to campaign for Obama this weekend as the primary season is gearing up. Its all getting quite exciting
On October 14 2011 08:05 turdburgler wrote: you think the economy is more important than human rights?
You do need an economy to pay for things like protecting human rights.
While in general, human rights > economy, there's a minimum threshold for both.
if you value you the human rights, no one needs protecting
Not everybody gives two shits about human rights. We don't live in a Utopia.
no, you live in america, not some 3rd world country with dictatorships and stuff. you dont need much money to defend the basic human rights of americans -_-
On October 14 2011 11:24 briskisbestest wrote:
On October 14 2011 10:55 TOloseGT wrote:
On October 14 2011 09:33 scaban84 wrote: Ron Paul is the strongest candidate, but I would vote for Cain. Refreshing that someone with an Economics and Business background becomes a viable candidate.
I don't think his "controversial remarks" are of any significance, he just stated the obvious about the Muslim religion.
What's so obvious about Islam? Please enlighten me.
It's the most immature religion? They probably commit more murders than the rest of the other religions combined, seeing how every other religion has matured.
Islam = immature.
User was warned for this post
christianity openly advocates killing heathens and heretics, and yet when people who follow islam, which believes in basically the same god, kill heretics you call them immature :D
explain this to me please
Here goes the typical "Defend Islam by attacking Christianity" argument. Cain was referring to how there is a concerted effort to accomodate Shariah law in Western governments. It has already happened in the UK.
changes in law to reflect the wishes of the people you govern is nothing to do with christianity or islam. and yes, im attacking christianity by showing how it shares holy text, deities and other things with islam, and yet this blind hate train against it is allowed to exist in modern america because "9/11 changed everything" ;/
This guy makes me ashamed to be living in Atlanta. Honestly, I don't have anything positive to say about the man and some of the utterly insane things coming out of his mouth. How anyone could support him and that asinine 999 plan who isn't extremely wealthy is beyond me. That plan utterly and completely screws over the middle class and does even more damage to those below that. Not to mention the plethora of other garbage coming out of him.
I really hate Obama, but this guy is going to put us on the fast track to a complete economic collapse if he somehow gets elected.
It's funny how both the thread starter of this and the republican nominations threads have been banned.
By the way, I don't think there's a difference in social and fiscal policy. I don't see how you can feel comfortable with the economic policy of people who think gays are subhuman, knowing just about all policy is about 1. following advice of experts 2. making choices that affect some parts of the population more than others. How can you expect them to make obviously bad choices in one of those areas and then also count on them making better choices in others.
On October 15 2011 00:07 HardCorey wrote: The word "awesome" and the name newt gingrich should really never be used in the same sentence.
I have seen two awesome statements by Gingrich recently.
"there is no question ron paul was the first serious national leader to take on federal reserve history will recognize him" from his twitter
and
If they want to really change things, the first person to fire is Bernanke, who is a disastrous chairman of the Federal Reserve. The second person to fire is Geithner.
Everybody – everybody in the media who wants to go after the business community ought to start by going after the politicians who have been at the heart of the sickness which is weakening this country and ought to start with Bernanke, who has still not been exposed for the hundreds of billions of dollars.
And I'm going to say one last thing. I want to repeat this. Bernanke has in secret spent hundreds of billions of dollars bailing out one group and not bailing out another group. I don't see anybody in the news media demanding the kind of transparency at the Fed that you would demand of every other aspect of the federal government. And I think it is corrupt and it is wrong for one man to have that kind of secret power.
~ Former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Newt Gingrich
Is that a confession Newtie?
Cain looked annoyed with Chuck Todd. Still waiting to see a Cain release his study. If it ends up being in crayon, i'm heading over to comedy central to wait for Jon Stewart.
On October 15 2011 00:07 HardCorey wrote: The word "awesome" and the name newt gingrich should really never be used in the same sentence.
I have seen two awesome statements by Gingrich recently.
"there is no question ron paul was the first serious national leader to take on federal reserve history will recognize him" from his twitter
and
If they want to really change things, the first person to fire is Bernanke, who is a disastrous chairman of the Federal Reserve. The second person to fire is Geithner.
Everybody – everybody in the media who wants to go after the business community ought to start by going after the politicians who have been at the heart of the sickness which is weakening this country and ought to start with Bernanke, who has still not been exposed for the hundreds of billions of dollars.
And I'm going to say one last thing. I want to repeat this. Bernanke has in secret spent hundreds of billions of dollars bailing out one group and not bailing out another group. I don't see anybody in the news media demanding the kind of transparency at the Fed that you would demand of every other aspect of the federal government. And I think it is corrupt and it is wrong for one man to have that kind of secret power.
~ Former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Newt Gingrich
Is that a confession Newtie?
Cain looked annoyed with Chuck Todd. Still waiting to see a Cain release his study. If it ends up being in crayon, i'm heading over to comedy central to wait for Jon Stewart.
I've been under the assumption that newt is actually trying to run for vice president. Theres not a lot that comes out of his mouth I'd agree on, and hes certainly a slimy fellow. However, the man knows all the legalese workings of washington, hes bringing your used cars salesman 'friend' to help you haggle.
This of course would break a rather long run tradition since the last president to be assassinated, that has served to better protect presidents. That is always appointing a VP who comes off as so incompetent, ignorant, a walking gaffe, with enough crazy that anyone even insane enough to try to assassinate a president would still look at the vp and decide for better or worse to jsut stick with the current president.
On October 14 2011 08:05 turdburgler wrote: you think the economy is more important than human rights?
You do need an economy to pay for things like protecting human rights.
While in general, human rights > economy, there's a minimum threshold for both.
if you value you the human rights, no one needs protecting
Not everybody gives two shits about human rights. We don't live in a Utopia.
no, you live in america, not some 3rd world country with dictatorships and stuff. you dont need much money to defend the basic human rights of americans -_-
On October 14 2011 11:24 briskisbestest wrote:
On October 14 2011 10:55 TOloseGT wrote:
On October 14 2011 09:33 scaban84 wrote: Ron Paul is the strongest candidate, but I would vote for Cain. Refreshing that someone with an Economics and Business background becomes a viable candidate.
I don't think his "controversial remarks" are of any significance, he just stated the obvious about the Muslim religion.
What's so obvious about Islam? Please enlighten me.
It's the most immature religion? They probably commit more murders than the rest of the other religions combined, seeing how every other religion has matured.
Islam = immature.
User was warned for this post
christianity openly advocates killing heathens and heretics, and yet when people who follow islam, which believes in basically the same god, kill heretics you call them immature :D
explain this to me please
Here goes the typical "Defend Islam by attacking Christianity" argument. Cain was referring to how there is a concerted effort to accomodate Shariah law in Western governments. It has already happened in the UK.
I'm assuming you're referring to mediation by what the right wing describes as 'sharia courts'. They're not actual courts and have no jurisdiction whatsoever.
They are in fact a form of binding mediation, where both parties agree beforehand to the 'rules of the game', in this case an interpretation of the conflict in religious islamic terms. Christians/Jews do the same thing, as does judge judy. It's not new, nor is it an infringement on anyone's rights. If anything, its an extension of your personal freedom to be able to resolve your conflicts that way.
There's a concerted effort going on by right wing lunatics to constantly paint anything that muslims do as trying to take over the world/change western society. This while the vast majority of muslims in the west agree with the rule of law and the democratic systems. Even in the middle east, most of the organisations that are more extreme (muslim brotherhood, hamas, hezbollah) subscribe to democratic norms, it's just that you don't agree with the way they want to democratically order their society.
On October 14 2011 08:05 turdburgler wrote: you think the economy is more important than human rights?
You do need an economy to pay for things like protecting human rights.
While in general, human rights > economy, there's a minimum threshold for both.
if you value you the human rights, no one needs protecting
Not everybody gives two shits about human rights. We don't live in a Utopia.
no, you live in america, not some 3rd world country with dictatorships and stuff. you dont need much money to defend the basic human rights of americans -_-
On October 14 2011 11:24 briskisbestest wrote:
On October 14 2011 10:55 TOloseGT wrote:
On October 14 2011 09:33 scaban84 wrote: Ron Paul is the strongest candidate, but I would vote for Cain. Refreshing that someone with an Economics and Business background becomes a viable candidate.
I don't think his "controversial remarks" are of any significance, he just stated the obvious about the Muslim religion.
What's so obvious about Islam? Please enlighten me.
It's the most immature religion? They probably commit more murders than the rest of the other religions combined, seeing how every other religion has matured.
Islam = immature.
User was warned for this post
christianity openly advocates killing heathens and heretics, and yet when people who follow islam, which believes in basically the same god, kill heretics you call them immature :D
explain this to me please
Here goes the typical "Defend Islam by attacking Christianity" argument. Cain was referring to how there is a concerted effort to accomodate Shariah law in Western governments. It has already happened in the UK.
I'm assuming you're referring to mediation by what the right wing describes as 'sharia courts'. They're not actual courts and have no jurisdiction whatsoever.
They are in fact a form of binding mediation, where both parties agree beforehand to the 'rules of the game', in this case an interpretation of the conflict in religious islamic terms. Christians/Jews do the same thing, as does judge judy. It's not new, nor is it an infringement on anyone's rights. If anything, its an extension of your personal freedom to be able to resolve your conflicts that way.
There's a concerted effort going on by right wing lunatics to constantly paint anything that muslims do as trying to take over the world/change western society. This while the vast majority of muslims in the west agree with the rule of law and the democratic systems. Even in the middle east, most of the organisations that are more extreme (muslim brotherhood, hamas, hezbollah) subscribe to democratic norms, it's just that you don't agree with the way they want to democratically order their society.
It's no different than American/UK oil workers in Saudi Soil. If sharia was ever given exemption from common law in the UK, then I would see the fuss.
I predict that Herman cain will lose the nomination but barely, his obvious financial savvy that he has shown with his running and more or less flipping a couple major organizations, is important and will be hyped on, however his comment on Islam has drawn quite a bit of criticism that will surely be constantly mentioned and thought througout the rest of his campaign. I don't know alot about his stance on social issues, but if it is similiar to Bachman it will be GG sir. For him to be a viable candidate in the general election he would have to portray himself as a fiscal conservative, and social liberal. Or else he will not be able to garner up a majority.
In other words Fiscal Conservative thought and Social Liberal thoughts FTW. side note, this whole delio about this thread becoming about Islam vs Christianity vs democracy is straight up idiotic, shut up and talk about the real topic for this thread which is herman cain
On October 15 2011 01:00 Obstikal wrote: 1. I thought poll results didnt mean shit when it comes to getting nominated or elected. 2. Isn't this the guy that thinks being gay is a choice ?
"I believe homosexuality is a sin because I'm a Bible-believing Christian. But I know that some people make that choice. That's their choice...I believe this is a choice." -- so he's a religious whacko. Great guy to have as most powerful person in the world.
On October 15 2011 01:00 Obstikal wrote: 1. I thought poll results didnt mean shit when it comes to getting nominated or elected. 2. Isn't this the guy that thinks being gay is a choice ?
"I believe homosexuality is a sin because I'm a Bible-believing Christian. But I know that some people make that choice. That's their choice...I believe this is a choice." -- so he's a religious whacko. Great guy to have as most powerful person in the world.
George Bush had the same ideas, it didn't stop him getting elected two times, don't underestimate the power of religious fanatics.
ok so the main problem with Obama everyone said was his lack of experience to run the country. Far as I know Herman Cain has no political experience what so ever and his claim to fame was being the CEO of GodFather's Pizza here in America. You really think the pizza man will get the vote from the RNC to be their candidate over Perry and Romney, two men who push their conservative agenda way further than Cain and actually have political experience? that's shitting in the wind.
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.
On October 15 2011 01:00 Obstikal wrote: 1. I thought poll results didnt mean shit when it comes to getting nominated or elected. 2. Isn't this the guy that thinks being gay is a choice ?
"I believe homosexuality is a sin because I'm a Bible-believing Christian. But I know that some people make that choice. That's their choice...I believe this is a choice." -- so he's a religious whacko. Great guy to have as most powerful person in the world.
George Bush had the same ideas, it didn't stop him getting elected two times, don't underestimate the power of religious fanatics.
I thought or hoped rather that we as a nation moved on from being that narrow minded. It was 8years ago since he was last elected and I thought we moved on from that mindset or at least a majority of people.
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.
hes definitively the most charismatic of the noms but do we really want another smooth talker and barely any political experience to be president? its sad to hear you guys complain about peoples personal religious beliefs, when that reaaaaally shouldnt matter when it comes to actually running the government.
On October 15 2011 01:00 Obstikal wrote: 1. I thought poll results didnt mean shit when it comes to getting nominated or elected. 2. Isn't this the guy that thinks being gay is a choice ?
"I believe homosexuality is a sin because I'm a Bible-believing Christian. But I know that some people make that choice. That's their choice...I believe this is a choice." -- so he's a religious whacko. Great guy to have as most powerful person in the world.
Does this even matter? This is pure identity politics. The argent religious will favor it and the cosmopolitan will dislike it, but it's hardly the criteria to eliminate candidates by. In the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter.
On October 15 2011 01:00 Obstikal wrote: 1. I thought poll results didnt mean shit when it comes to getting nominated or elected. 2. Isn't this the guy that thinks being gay is a choice ?
"I believe homosexuality is a sin because I'm a Bible-believing Christian. But I know that some people make that choice. That's their choice...I believe this is a choice." -- so he's a religious whacko. Great guy to have as most powerful person in the world.
Obviously, "they have the choice" is a "whacko" statement. There are many actual religious "whackos" who say god kills US soldiers because of gays in America. Why don't you focus more on hating them, and less on hating someone who doesn't support homosexuality, but isn't exactly trying to cull them from the country.
On October 15 2011 01:00 Obstikal wrote: 1. I thought poll results didnt mean shit when it comes to getting nominated or elected. 2. Isn't this the guy that thinks being gay is a choice ?
"I believe homosexuality is a sin because I'm a Bible-believing Christian. But I know that some people make that choice. That's their choice...I believe this is a choice." -- so he's a religious whacko. Great guy to have as most powerful person in the world.
Does this even matter? This is pure identity politics. The argent religious will favor it and the cosmopolitan will dislike it, but it's hardly the criteria to eliminate candidates by. In the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter.
Although I do agree with you, I can't see myself voting for someone who has these types of beliefs. I mean if this person had some solid idea's and I truly felt he could make the change we need his personal beliefs wouldn't matter much. Unless they started to impact his decisions which would then make it a reason not to vote for that person.
With all that said I honestly don't think Cain will do that well. I don't see what he has going for him, but maybe i'm being ignorant.
On October 15 2011 01:00 Obstikal wrote: 1. I thought poll results didnt mean shit when it comes to getting nominated or elected. 2. Isn't this the guy that thinks being gay is a choice ?
"I believe homosexuality is a sin because I'm a Bible-believing Christian. But I know that some people make that choice. That's their choice...I believe this is a choice." -- so he's a religious whacko. Great guy to have as most powerful person in the world.
Does this even matter? This is pure identity politics. The argent religious will favor it and the cosmopolitan will dislike it, but it's hardly the criteria to eliminate candidates by. In the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter.
Of course it matters. Would someone who believes homosexuality is a choice and a sin, and explicitly says so, repeal DADT? It's the gradual overturning of retarded rules like that that will bring tolerance.
Oh god, i just read up on this guy and watched some interwievs with him...
Disgusting. Thats probably the best word, DISGUSTING. How can anyone capable of rational thinking even consider this person fit to run a country. Ever since 2006 when the conservative political parties came to power in Sweden its gone downhill but comparing our current government to what could happen in USA almost makes me appreciate them.
On October 15 2011 09:23 Snusdosa wrote: Oh god, i just read up on this guy and watched some interwievs with him...
Disgusting. Thats probably the best word, DISGUSTING. How can anyone capable of rational thinking even consider this person fit to run a country. Ever since 2006 when the conservative political parties came to power in Sweden its gone downhill but comparing our current government to what could happen in USA almost makes me appreciate them.
If our conservatives were to run in the US they would be called socialists and would have a hard time even being accepted into the democratic party.
Luckily this buffoon killed his chances of becoming a contender for the vice presidency or a high position in government the second he said "nation wide sales tax".
Bet the staffers had a good time coming up with "the devil's in the details" and "$9.99" for their candidates.
Does anyone really think a white guy with Herman Cain's credentials would even be in the running right now?
He's the new Sarah Palin, except he has a horrible tax plan. He wants to "broaden the base" by making people who scrape by as it is every week without paying income tax pay a 9% national sales tax for commodities and impose a 9% income tax on them as well?
The money that would raise is a drop in the bucket, and the impact on the working poor in this country would be devastating.
Here's an idea, instead of talking about how he's going to tax us, why doesn't he live up to his political platform and tell us where he's going to cut spending instead. Maybe he can get some advice from his senior economic adviser (some guy with a bachelors in economics) who drew up his ridiculous pizza price tax plan.
Herman Cain is just a big joke put forth by the republicans to answer the whole "we accept having a black president" thing.
His constant playing of the race card is such obvious pandering to republican base (of which the vast majority is white), because when he says "race is not an issue holding anyone back anymore" or that black people don't like him because he's successful, he can get away with it, and racist republicans agree. A white politician saying the things he does would be political suicide. And for him it's acceptable? As per usual, nice double-standard republicans, too bad we see right through it.
sickening. what a joke. get this guy off the stage.
sorry for all the editing, I got a little angry writing this and forwent using proper grammar.
On October 15 2011 09:52 hipsterHobbit wrote: Does anyone really think a white guy with Herman Cain's credentials would even be in the running right now?
He's the new Sarah Palin, except he has a horrible tax plan. He wants to "broaden the base" by making people who scrape by as it is every week without paying taxes pay 9% national sales tax for commodities on top of state sales tax? And give them a 9% income tax too?
Yeah. The largest problem in the US today is apparently that the rich aren't rich enough and that the poor aren't poor enough.
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.
Historically? He's only run for President once since the web has existed, and he has an order of magnitude more support this year than he did in 2008. Also, the Internet as a platform for Presidential campaigns is at most 12 years old, and 2000 barely counts. Howard Dean was the front-runner for the Democratic party in 2004 with a strong base of Internet supporters; his campaign only tanked because the corporate media doctored a video of him after the Iowa caucus that made him look crazy and then ran it twice an hour for a few weeks. There simply isn't enough data to suggest that Internet support is worthless in an actual election.
As for his electability, he's been elected ~12 times to the House of Representatives. I don't think his district in Texas is significantly different than the average Republican primary voter.
Herman Cain would be a terrible choice.. 9 - 9 - 9 gives the government a new avenue to tax the people, one that will be abused.. He supports the wars in the middle east and he doesnt give two craps about the Federal reserve or the war on drugs. Status quo more of the same.. get this pizza guy out of here.
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.
Historically? He's only run for President once since the web has existed, and he has an order of magnitude more support this year than he did in 2008. Also, the Internet as a platform for Presidential campaigns is at most 12 years old, and 2000 barely counts. Howard Dean was the front-runner for the Democratic party in 2004 with a strong base of Internet supporters; his campaign only tanked because the corporate media doctored a video of him after the Iowa caucus that made him look crazy and then ran it twice an hour for a few weeks. There simply isn't enough data to suggest that Internet support is worthless in an actual election.
As for his electability, he's been elected ~12 times to the House of Representatives. I don't think his district in Texas is significantly different than the average Republican primary voter.
On October 15 2011 12:09 LaLLsc2 wrote: Herman Cain would be a terrible choice.. 9 - 9 - 9 gives the government a new avenue to tax the people, one that will be abused.. He supports the wars in the middle east and he doesnt give two craps about the Federal reserve or the war on drugs. Status quo more of the same.. get this pizza guy out of here.
9-9-9 is not perfect, but it would mean a complete re-writing of the tax code, which is mostly what has caused destructive collusion between government and business. It would simplify things and be something no other president has accomplished.
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.
On October 15 2011 13:11 BushidoSnipr wrote: If this guy gets elected as president, I will leave the country.
Don't worry, its just another Republican candidate in the race for the sake of making Mitt Romney look less crazy once everyone sees the alternatives :p
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.
This guy's just in the election to get all that PAC money, like Sarah Palin. She's a pro at stealing money from idiots. She didn't even need to run to sucker a bunch of people into making her even more rich.
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.
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.
I'm a georgian, and have heard of/seen Cain around for a while.
I think he's actually one of the better choices for at least the republican nomination. While the pizza company thing is overplayed in relation to economy, the 9-9-9 is simply a meant as a rewrite of the tax system. ANY REWRITE IS A GOOD REWRITE. I say this because it a. Opens the door for more major tax reforms b. Is better then the current system by far. It also does what all you idiots seem to want, tax the 1%.
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.
On "rejection of long bills"
this is actually a misconception of what he has said. He beleives that any bill of importance or that should go through should be able to summarize, detail the major points, and give a conclusion within the first few pages. He's not going to not read a bill just because it's long, he's not going to read a long bill because it's full of shit. People have to realize that some of the bills that go through house/senate can have more then 50 pages, do you really expect him to read through ALL of this?
On supporting the wars, i believe it's more a support the soldiers thing, and the idea that since we have started it, we need to finish it (at least in iraq and similar). I have not read enough of his viewson this to say more then that on an "i believe". I am also fairly ignorant of the Federal Reserve and the War on Drugs take of his. Though if his lack of focus on the war on drugs removes the shit about weed thats a + in my book, since that just mean all the weed busts will shift to the stuff that actually matters.
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.
While you are right, to put in place a blanket declaration that he refuses to sign anything over a certain length is too far in the other direction. The number I've heard for that length is 3 pages. That is absurdly short for any kind of document that requires specific enough language to be the kind of law that I consider effective.
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.
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) ?
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.
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.
I'm sorry (well, not really), but this is a fucking terrible post...I'm actually having trouble understanding what the fuck you were thinking when you wrote that last part up... I mean it started off fairly modest, but then it got retarded.
Figuratively or not, It's good to know that you don't throw bananas at black people, it's so good that i'll use this phrase for the first time in my life...
Cool story bro.
Low quality post warrants low quality response. Perhaps, instead of being such a self-important person so focused on objectivity that you lose grasp of what is fucking sensible and what isn't, you can just post like a normal person (that's what you are, right?).
And the sad part is, you and your buttbuddy mod friends will ban me, then "go eat cheetos" (yeah real nice kennigit, I laughed my ass off in that one thread, you should become a comedian.....)
Can you ban yourself please? Actually, put a word in to the big guy to generate some sort of bot that's based on mod behaviour, so then even you retards can get banned. LOL
While I think Herman Cain is trash (as a candidate, as I support Ron Paul), HOWEVER, one cannot deny how well Herman Cain can lie just like a seasoned politician.
I think herman would be a great tool for republicans and corporate interests, though I don't think the majority of them could bring themselves to vote for a black person, even if he proves to them that he's extremely biggoted and racist himself. Doesn't this guy just strike you as a gigantic tool?
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.
So the media is biased, but a video from a Ron Paul website isn't? *cue eyeroll*
Seriously, all that video proves is that Fox loves them some flavor of the month Republican candidates. Did you stop to consider that the reason the California straw poll result was insignificant is because any Republican candidate is incredibly unlikely to win a pretty solidly Democratic state? Or because Paul has done fairly well in straw polls but hasn't been able to translate that into primary wins? One of those clips that supposedly demonstrates bias was literally just a newscaster saying "Herman Cain" without any additional context; the newscaster may as well have been saying "Herman Cain juggles babies and chainsaws - more at 11!"
The problem with internet support is that it's quite hard to accurately gauge. True, he's raking in money like no other on the internet (just like 2008), but he's still lagging behind the front-runners. If you really want to discount what happened 4 years ago, go right ahead. Meanwhile, play up the whole conspiracy theory angle and forget that Mr. Paul has done all this before and still lost very, very convincingly. Honestly, with Perry in the race, will he even win the primary in the state he represents?
Isn't there already a Ron Paul thread? This one's getting derailed pretty hard.
On October 16 2011 17:13 Shaetan wrote: Can anyone explain to me why the SimCity tax plan won't cripple low-income families? And why it is in anyway a solution to our deficit problem?
Listen to Peter Schiff's explanation in the youtube link above: poor people selfishly spend all their money on things for themselves such as food and insurance, while rich people selflessly use their money for the benefit of society by investing it into businesses. Furthermore, rich people are on a higher moral plane, delaying gratification of spending to savor more delicate purchases such as yachts, unlike the parasites who spend it right away.
I think I got everything from the first three minutes, I couldn't listen to it anymore after that.
On October 16 2011 17:13 Shaetan wrote: Can anyone explain to me why the SimCity tax plan won't cripple low-income families? And why it is in anyway a solution to our deficit problem?
Listen to Peter Schiff's explanation in the youtube link above: poor people selfishly spend all their money on things for themselves such as food and insurance, while rich people selflessly use their money for the benefit of society by investing it into businesses. Furthermore, rich people are on a higher moral plane, delaying gratification of spending to savor more delicate purchases such as yachts, unlike the parasites who spend it right away.
I think I got everything from the first three minutes, I couldn't listen to it anymore after that.
Well there's your problem. The Wadsworth constant tells you to ignore that part!
On October 16 2011 17:13 Shaetan wrote: Can anyone explain to me why the SimCity tax plan won't cripple low-income families? And why it is in anyway a solution to our deficit problem?
Listen to Peter Schiff's explanation in the youtube link above: poor people selfishly spend all their money on things for themselves such as food and insurance, while rich people selflessly use their money for the benefit of society by investing it into businesses. Furthermore, rich people are on a higher moral plane, delaying gratification of spending to savor more delicate purchases such as yachts, unlike the parasites who spend it right away.
I think I got everything from the first three minutes, I couldn't listen to it anymore after that.
Well there's your problem. The Wadsworth constant tells you to ignore that part!
It gets even worse after that though. I watched until he started talking about Occupy Wall Street, and how OWS people are solely protesting the bank bailouts. Then he started speaking on that assumption and it was all very unbearable.
I think my favorite part though was where he said that if poor people didn't pay tax on savings, they would start saving more. Like it's all just a choice. Not to mention the fact that a consumption tax would probably cost the very poor MORE money than the current system, because they still have to buy shit.
Isn't there already a Ron Paul thread? This one's getting derailed pretty hard.
That's barely a question worth answering.
The problem with this thread, is it's so bold in the OT as to declare the next president of the US. Super, I'm glad you have confidence in Mr Cain, his advisors, and his masters. Is it biased?
"Please remake with more content (a personal appeal? Why you like Ron Paul?). Right now this is basically just a YouTube thread."- a quote from a Mod in a closed RP thread.
Ok No Problem. This thread wins. It has a personal appeal. Which is bias you are trying to convey.
I made a thread for the RP crowd, so they could be ushered into a thread by themselves. It was a lil biased like the mod suggested.
"Unfortunately you came into this with very visable bias. You already derailed your own thread - we try to avoid this stuff since it never ends well (religion, "fringe" politics (even though there is a concious war by media against Paul))."
Last edit: 2011-10-12 05:03:36 Kennigit
I've been thru the TL Ten commandments and I'm positive that despite attempting to follow the rules and mod advice that you are just going to get shat upon for making a Paul Thread.
Edit: For a fun time, have a MOD make a RP thread, but with a twist. Like a Mad Lib, except instead of fill in the blank, have restricted words, like constitution, rule of law, and federal reserve. Would be a hoot.
On October 16 2011 17:13 Shaetan wrote: Can anyone explain to me why the SimCity tax plan won't cripple low-income families? And why it is in anyway a solution to our deficit problem?
Listen to Peter Schiff's explanation in the youtube link above: poor people selfishly spend all their money on things for themselves such as food and insurance, while rich people selflessly use their money for the benefit of society by investing it into businesses. Furthermore, rich people are on a higher moral plane, delaying gratification of spending to savor more delicate purchases such as yachts, unlike the parasites who spend it right away.
I think I got everything from the first three minutes, I couldn't listen to it anymore after that.
EDIT: ok i'm sorry I'll edit it:
Here's the real argument, stop putting words in people's mouths that they're not saying.
Liberals are arguing that a flat sales tax forces the poor to pay more... but in reality this isn't true, it's a flat tax...
The rich can only ENJOY their wealth if they SPEND IT. So if you have a sales tax whenever someone spends they WILL pay the taxes....
what's good of having tons of money if you can't spend it? The whole point of getting rid of income tax and instead relying on sales tax is that the money that's not spent is the money that grows the economy...
So if the sales tax only taxes the money that people use on themselves not the money that ends up growing the economy... sure the rich can get even richer with the money they have, but once they go to SPEND that money they will still pay the same proportionate taxes as the poor...
Can anyone explain to me why the SimCity tax plan won't cripple low-income families? And why it is in anyway a solution to our deficit problem?
It's not. the solution to defecit is to cut spending.
But the reason that sales taxes are better than income taxes, is because contrary to what Keynesian philosophy has been teaching us (and failing us for so long) -- that money spent is money that helps the economy, it is in fact money SAVED that grows the economy.
If someone makes a million a year and only spends 100,000 a year consistently, what's the difference between that person and a person that's making 100,000 and spending all of his money? Well in terms of how much they can enjoy their wealth, there's really no difference, each person receives 100,000 dollars worth of stuff... Just having money doesn't bring wealth/prosperity... SPENDING money brings wealth. When a money isn't spent it's probably in a bank or is invested somewhere, meaning that it eventually get lended to people that are trying to create or grow their businesses, which will invevitably create jobs. By removing the income tax and replacing it with sales tax, the government only collects money from the portion that people spend on themselves, the portion that ends up helping the economy, and creating jobs isn't taxed.
I don't see how you can say that Romney is not electable in comparison to the other nominees. He is the only relatively moderate nominee (excepting Paul and Cain who are radically different than those competing). He definitely is more palatable for independents than Perry, who no doubt would make a fool of himself at least once during debates.
I don't have a problem with Cain, I am skeptical if his 9-9-9 tax would work, but i do agree that all of the exemptions within the U.S. tax system is ridiculous. I don't mind the flat tax on income, but I guess the sales tax can be viewed as regressive. As long as he counterbalances that by some other program, i don't have a problem with that.
On October 17 2011 06:32 jjbothman wrote: I don't see how you can say that Romney is not electable in comparison to the other nominees. He is the only relatively moderate nominee (excepting Paul and Cain who are radically different than those competing). He definitely is more palatable for independents than Perry, who no doubt would make a fool of himself at least once during debates.
I don't have a problem with Cain, I am skeptical if his 9-9-9 tax would work, but i do agree that all of the exemptions within the U.S. tax system is ridiculous. I don't mind the flat tax on income, but I guess the sales tax can be viewed as regressive. As long as he counterbalances that by some other program, i don't have a problem with that.
I used to liek Cain, but he's coming off extremely disingenious and populist now that he actually gets to talk.
Ron Paul can definitely take some democrat votes away from Obama with some of his stances, and Perry also has a good chance to win against Obama.
I don't know how I feel about Perry to be honest, I definitely don't like Cain though.
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.
I'm sorry (well, not really), but this is a fucking terrible post...I'm actually having trouble understanding what the fuck you were thinking when you wrote that last part up... I mean it started off fairly modest, but then it got retarded.
Figuratively or not, It's good to know that you don't throw bananas at black people, it's so good that i'll use this phrase for the first time in my life...
Cool story bro.
Low quality post warrants low quality response. Perhaps, instead of being such a self-important person so focused on objectivity that you lose grasp of what is fucking sensible and what isn't, you can just post like a normal person (that's what you are, right?).
And the sad part is, you and your buttbuddy mod friends will ban me, then "go eat cheetos" (yeah real nice kennigit, I laughed my ass off in that one thread, you should become a comedian.....)
Can you ban yourself please? Actually, put a word in to the big guy to generate some sort of bot that's based on mod behaviour, so then even you retards can get banned. LOL
User was banned for this post.
you remind me of me. thanks bro. i appreciate your post
peter schiff discusses what 9 9 9 plan actually does
I thought this guy was pretty cool after the whole "Peter Schiff was right" video but this is just so dumb. He basically starts by saying "liberals think this is a regressive tax but their is a flaw in that thinking." What's the flaw that he goes on to describe? That the rich are the job creators and they need more money to create more jobs. That's not a flaw in the logic, that's just saying "yes it is a regressive tax but regressive taxes are awesome!"
The truth is there is no flaw in the logic. Poor people spend 100% of their income and rich people don't. Their tax rate will be higher, period. Too bad he couldn't just come out and tell the truth instead of trying to spin it like any other piece of crap politician.
On October 02 2011 06:57 zalz wrote: He has never been a politician and that's a good thing?
That simply means that when elected he's going to have to get used to being president of the US and also with the complexities of the political system.
Politics is a trade, a give and take. I scratch your back you scratch mine. I give a vote for your plan, you give a vote for mine.
That's how politics works. I don't see how having no experience in the political system is a plus.
It seems to be similar to people wanting "a guy they can have a beer with" instead of "one o them Harvard elites". .
Exactly.And you know what US(EU) needs right now?Leader,Not politics.
Also i heard some ehm "conspirative prophesy" about Cain(you know bible,reincarnation and stuff) becoming president of Us.I was like..haha McCain is gone..now this guy shows up. A bit chilling in night and with bit of imaginative mind(i like that)
peter schiff discusses what 9 9 9 plan actually does
I thought this guy was pretty cool after the whole "Peter Schiff was right" video but this is just so dumb. He basically starts by saying "liberals think this is a regressive tax but their is a flaw in that thinking." What's the flaw that he goes on to describe? That the rich are the job creators and they need more money to create more jobs. That's not a flaw in the logic, that's just saying "yes it is a regressive tax but regressive taxes are awesome!"
The truth is there is no flaw in the logic. Poor people spend 100% of their income and rich people don't. Their tax rate will be higher, period. Too bad he couldn't just come out and tell the truth instead of trying to spin it like any other piece of crap politician.
... yeah there IS a flaw in logic.
Because if a rich person is spending as much as a poor person, he's only getting as much benefit out of his "rich-ness" as much as a poor person is getting out of his....
Money in itself isn't wealth, it's what you spend the money ON that's wealth. If a rich person wants to over-indulge and spend his income, then he will pay more taxes than a person who's poorer, but if he's not spending his money... he's not actually BENEFITTING from his wealth, so why should he be taxed?
peter schiff discusses what 9 9 9 plan actually does
I thought this guy was pretty cool after the whole "Peter Schiff was right" video but this is just so dumb. He basically starts by saying "liberals think this is a regressive tax but their is a flaw in that thinking." What's the flaw that he goes on to describe? That the rich are the job creators and they need more money to create more jobs. That's not a flaw in the logic, that's just saying "yes it is a regressive tax but regressive taxes are awesome!"
The truth is there is no flaw in the logic. Poor people spend 100% of their income and rich people don't. Their tax rate will be higher, period. Too bad he couldn't just come out and tell the truth instead of trying to spin it like any other piece of crap politician.
... yeah there IS a flaw in logic.
Because if a rich person is spending as much as a poor person, he's only getting as much benefit out of his "rich-ness" as much as a poor person is getting out of his....
Money in itself isn't wealth, it's what you spend the money ON that's wealth. If a rich person wants to over-indulge and spend his income, then he will pay more taxes than a person who's poorer, but if he's not spending his money... he's not actually BENEFITTING from his wealth, so why should he be taxed?
Bill Gates could spend 1% of his income and I am sure he will get more benefit out of his richness than a poor person that spends 100%.
But again, that is not an argument that it's not a regressive tax. I'm not even sure what that is an argument for. Like I said, there is no flaw in thinking that this is a regressive tax because IT IS a regressive tax.
On October 17 2011 07:35 Kiarip wrote: Money in itself isn't wealth, it's what you spend the money ON that's wealth.
I don't necessarily disagree that we should be moving more towards a consumption based tax, but I don't believe your statement is what is known as a a technical definition. Seems more like a false assumption to prove your points.
Does your "unspent" money also involve things like cash in interest bearing accounts or invesments?
On October 17 2011 07:35 Kiarip wrote: Money in itself isn't wealth, it's what you spend the money ON that's wealth.
I don't necessarily disagree that we should be moving more towards a consumption based tax, but I don't believe your statement is what is known as a a technical definition. Seems more like a false assumption to prove your points.
Does your "unspent" money also involve things like cash in interest bearing accounts or invesments?
Ok, but even if you have interest on your CASH... it's still worthless to you until you spend it, and if you get mroe of it via investing, and then spend more than you originally had you're gonna pay more taxes, because you're spending more.
And lets not forget that while the money is being saved in the bank or w.e for the interest, it's put to use by having people loan it and try to start/expand their businesses.
peter schiff discusses what 9 9 9 plan actually does
I thought this guy was pretty cool after the whole "Peter Schiff was right" video but this is just so dumb. He basically starts by saying "liberals think this is a regressive tax but their is a flaw in that thinking." What's the flaw that he goes on to describe? That the rich are the job creators and they need more money to create more jobs. That's not a flaw in the logic, that's just saying "yes it is a regressive tax but regressive taxes are awesome!"
The truth is there is no flaw in the logic. Poor people spend 100% of their income and rich people don't. Their tax rate will be higher, period. Too bad he couldn't just come out and tell the truth instead of trying to spin it like any other piece of crap politician.
... yeah there IS a flaw in logic.
Because if a rich person is spending as much as a poor person, he's only getting as much benefit out of his "rich-ness" as much as a poor person is getting out of his....
Money in itself isn't wealth, it's what you spend the money ON that's wealth. If a rich person wants to over-indulge and spend his income, then he will pay more taxes than a person who's poorer, but if he's not spending his money... he's not actually BENEFITTING from his wealth, so why should he be taxed?
Bill Gates could spend 1% of his income and I am sure he will get more benefit out of his richness than a poor person that spends 100%.
But again, that is not an argument that it's not a regressive tax. I'm not even sure what that is an argument for. Like I said, there is no flaw in thinking that this is a regressive tax because IT IS a regressive tax.
Well a regressive tax is just what people in favor of the "progressive tax" call the flat tax.
It's in fact a flat tax. i do think that maybe it's reasonable given the shitpile we're currently in to temporarily institute a "progressive tax," as long as it's also spending and not income based.
peter schiff discusses what 9 9 9 plan actually does
I thought this guy was pretty cool after the whole "Peter Schiff was right" video but this is just so dumb. He basically starts by saying "liberals think this is a regressive tax but their is a flaw in that thinking." What's the flaw that he goes on to describe? That the rich are the job creators and they need more money to create more jobs. That's not a flaw in the logic, that's just saying "yes it is a regressive tax but regressive taxes are awesome!"
The truth is there is no flaw in the logic. Poor people spend 100% of their income and rich people don't. Their tax rate will be higher, period. Too bad he couldn't just come out and tell the truth instead of trying to spin it like any other piece of crap politician.
... yeah there IS a flaw in logic.
Because if a rich person is spending as much as a poor person, he's only getting as much benefit out of his "rich-ness" as much as a poor person is getting out of his....
Money in itself isn't wealth, it's what you spend the money ON that's wealth. If a rich person wants to over-indulge and spend his income, then he will pay more taxes than a person who's poorer, but if he's not spending his money... he's not actually BENEFITTING from his wealth, so why should he be taxed?
Bill Gates could spend 1% of his income and I am sure he will get more benefit out of his richness than a poor person that spends 100%.
But again, that is not an argument that it's not a regressive tax. I'm not even sure what that is an argument for. Like I said, there is no flaw in thinking that this is a regressive tax because IT IS a regressive tax.
Well a regressive tax is just what people in favor of the "progressive tax" call the flat tax.
It's in fact a flat tax. i do think that maybe it's reasonable given the shitpile we're currently in to temporarily institute a "progressive tax," as long as it's also spending and not income based.
The numbers are flat for everyone but what people actually pay in taxes won't be flat for everyone.
peter schiff discusses what 9 9 9 plan actually does
I thought this guy was pretty cool after the whole "Peter Schiff was right" video but this is just so dumb. He basically starts by saying "liberals think this is a regressive tax but their is a flaw in that thinking." What's the flaw that he goes on to describe? That the rich are the job creators and they need more money to create more jobs. That's not a flaw in the logic, that's just saying "yes it is a regressive tax but regressive taxes are awesome!"
The truth is there is no flaw in the logic. Poor people spend 100% of their income and rich people don't. Their tax rate will be higher, period. Too bad he couldn't just come out and tell the truth instead of trying to spin it like any other piece of crap politician.
... yeah there IS a flaw in logic.
Because if a rich person is spending as much as a poor person, he's only getting as much benefit out of his "rich-ness" as much as a poor person is getting out of his....
Money in itself isn't wealth, it's what you spend the money ON that's wealth. If a rich person wants to over-indulge and spend his income, then he will pay more taxes than a person who's poorer, but if he's not spending his money... he's not actually BENEFITTING from his wealth, so why should he be taxed?
Bill Gates could spend 1% of his income and I am sure he will get more benefit out of his richness than a poor person that spends 100%.
But again, that is not an argument that it's not a regressive tax. I'm not even sure what that is an argument for. Like I said, there is no flaw in thinking that this is a regressive tax because IT IS a regressive tax.
Well a regressive tax is just what people in favor of the "progressive tax" call the flat tax.
It's in fact a flat tax. i do think that maybe it's reasonable given the shitpile we're currently in to temporarily institute a "progressive tax," as long as it's also spending and not income based.
The numbers are flat for everyone but what people actually pay in taxes won't be flat for everyone.
With respect to what they spend it's flat. With respect to they earn it can be but probably won't... nothing wrong with encouraging people to save anyways.
The 9% sales tax is what is considered to be regressive as poorer individuals spend a greater percentage of their income thus causing them to pay a greater effective percentage of their income on sales taxes
On October 17 2011 08:55 jjbothman wrote: The 9% sales tax is what is considered to be regressive as poorer individuals spend a greater percentage of their income thus causing them to pay a greater effective percentage of their income on sales taxes
Well you can call it whatever you want I guess. It's still more economically sound.
He put his foot completely in his mouth with the muslim comment and I'm sure plenty more gems will be dug up now that hes thrown himself into the spotlight.
His policies also seem retarded. It's easy to make grand promises but I don't think they will stand up to the reality test.
On October 17 2011 08:09 Kiarip wrote: And lets not forget that while the money is being saved in the bank or w.e for the interest, it's put to use by having people loan it and try to start/expand their businesses.
Yeah I agree that the financial system exists to facilitate transactions that don't want to spend money now and those that do (for houses/small businesses, whatever). I don't disagree with you there. Although its an oversimplification to suggest that deposits necessarily go towards starting/expanding businesses and giving out loans. The current system isn't perfect. It allows much of these deposits to go toward proprietary trading, but I think I'm going on a tangent...
You are basically arguing that by incentivizing increased deposits we are in fact increasing loans to business to improve the economy, but I think this is logically fallacious. By incentivizing increased deposits you are actually .... incentivizing increased deposits! People would rather park that money at the bank than start new businesses themselves. What you really want to do is make parking money at the bank no better than keeping it under your mattress: you gain no interest so why not put your money in places where you CAN get returns like a small business. This is actually along the lines of what Bernanke is trying to do (disincentivize holding cash because it gains so little interest so people consume/invest and companies can cheaply take out loans to better infrastructure).
Again, I'm not really against a tax that is more consumption based (depending on what you consider to be "consumption"). I just don't understand how you can argue that money is "worthless" until you "spend" it when it seems to serves a purpose as a vehicle for investing in other products or as a vehicle for liquidity.
On October 17 2011 08:11 Kiarip wrote: Well a regressive tax is just what people in favor of the "progressive tax" call the flat tax.
It's in fact a flat tax. i do think that maybe it's reasonable given the shitpile we're currently in to temporarily institute a "progressive tax," as long as it's also spending and not income based.
Progressive tax = as your income increases, you pay a higher % Flat tax = no matter what your income, you pay the same % Regressive tax = as your income increases, you pay a lower %
Wanting to tax the rich more is as morally bankrupt as wanting to tax the poor, or the middle income earners more. The goal is not to tax anyone, especially not to raise taxes on anyone. What it boils down to is your philosophy on what the role of Government ought to be. We could get rid of the Federal Income Tax and go back to the year 2000 spending and have a surplus. There should never be any reason ever, to either increase taxes on anyone, or to institute a new tax. In politics today there is usually a false dichotomy portrayed by people who are unable to see through the forest.
It is either increase taxes on the rich, or on the non-rich (rich is subjective and is different for each person, thereby giving rise to societal conflict when people look to the Gun (the Government is the Gun)). The actual solution is to confine Government, especially the Federal Government to limited precise purposes (such as to ensure Free-Trade amongst the states, or in their times, to regulate interstate commerce (regulate = to make regular in 1789!), maintain a limited Navy, and establish commerce and peaceful relations to other Nations). In doing so we return power to the individual and to communities, and thus, can eliminate the vast majority of Federal taxation. The problem is an expenditure problem which is a symptom of the appetite of the average American for an out of control Government whether it is Warfare or Welfare. Ideally, a return to Confederated States would be optimal (An improved Articles of Confederation that does not centralize Government like the Constitution -- more akin to Swiss Confederation and Independent Cantons (States/Communities)).
This requires a profound enlightenment among the people. Put down the TV folks, and start picking up books on philosophy, economics, morality, the State, etc. In order to improve the country, your community, or even just your next-door neighbor, you have to improve yourself as an individual. Without individual desire and change, nothing will get accomplished.
Every American should be reading Voltaire, De Tocqueville, Locke, Etienne De la Boetie, William Graham Sumner, the Anti-Federalist Papers, Richard Overton and the Levellers, Frederic Bastiat, Leonard Read, Carl Menger, etc.
On October 17 2011 08:09 Kiarip wrote: And lets not forget that while the money is being saved in the bank or w.e for the interest, it's put to use by having people loan it and try to start/expand their businesses.
Yeah I agree that the financial system exists to facilitate transactions that don't want to spend money now and those that do (for houses/small businesses, whatever). I don't disagree with you there. Although its an oversimplification to suggest that deposits necessarily go towards starting/expanding businesses and giving out loans. The current system isn't perfect. It allows much of these deposits to go toward proprietary trading, but I think I'm going on a tangent...
You are basically arguing that by incentivizing increased deposits we are in fact increasing loans to business to improve the economy, but I think this is logically fallacious. By incentivizing increased deposits you are actually .... incentivizing increased deposits! People would rather park that money at the bank than start new businesses themselves. What you really want to do is make parking money at the bank no better than keeping it under your mattress: you gain no interest so why not put your money in places where you CAN get returns like a small business. This is actually along the lines of what Bernanke is trying to do (disincentivize holding cash because it gains so little interest so people consume/invest and companies can cheaply take out loans to better infrastructure).
Again, I'm not really against a tax that is more consumption based (depending on what you consider to be "consumption"). I just don't understand how you can argue that money is "worthless" until you "spend" it when it seems to serves a purpose as a vehicle for investing in other products or as a vehicle for liquidity.
Oh yes I agree. But if everyone puts money in bank and no one wants to take loans, then the banks will be forced to lower rates, and then people will consider to take out loans to actually invest, because lower interest rates means that there's less incentive to save money. But this will only happen once there's in fact a large supply of money.
Notice that right now the rates are low, when they should be high, the debt is huge so logically the supply of moeny should be really low, and so banks should charge more for loans, but they don't becasue the FED suppresses the rates.
The rates will first need to rise dramatically, and then when there's finally a larger supply of money (which corresponds to a supply of unused resources in the marketplace) the rates will drop and peopel will take out money to buy up these resources and try to do something with them (which can result in job creation.)
Note that right now the rates are low which does in fact signify a large supply of money (the FED printing it,) but the large supply of money does NOT correspond to a large supply of resources or products, in facts the productivity is down, but the savings aren't up so if anything there's a lack of resources in the marketplace, but the easy money supply has resulted in the enormous debts and mal-investments which resulted in bubbles.
So yeah, you're right a sales tax will encourage savings for everyone, so the money won't be immediately borrowed, but if people stop wanting to borrow money then the savings will accumulate and the banks will decrease the interest rates, which will result in real growth, so eventually the money IS going to be lent out.
On October 20 2011 02:50 CurLy[] wrote: \/ Open me \/ + Show Spoiler +
This looks like a good plan....
if you an aspiring millionaire.
Do you know anything about how stats and numbers are manipulated so they look cool in a chart for people like you to parade around on the internet?
Those amounts are in actual dollars, not % or share or anything like that. A flat decrease across the board would generate a similar chart simply because the top 1% pay more because they make more. Understand? If everybody got a 5% tax break, but you put it in actual dollar amounts on the chart, it would look like it's extremely skewed in the rich's favor, even though everybody got the same tax break.
Not to mention he's conservative, of course he wants the rich to pay less than they currently are.
On October 20 2011 02:50 CurLy[] wrote: \/ Open me \/ + Show Spoiler +
This looks like a good plan....
if you an aspiring millionaire.
Do you know anything about how stats and numbers are manipulated so they look cool in a chart for people like you to parade around on the internet?
Those amounts are in actual dollars, not % or share or anything like that. A flat decrease across the board would generate a similar chart simply because the top 1% pay more because they make more. Understand? If everybody got a 5% tax break, but you put it in actual dollar amounts on the chart, it would look like it's extremely skewed in the rich's favor, even though everybody got the same tax break.
Not to mention he's conservative, of course he wants the rich to pay less than they currently are.
But this chart shows it's not an actual tax break and that 80% of people will actually pay more of their income in taxes. If all of the numbers went down, you might have a point. But they don't.
On October 20 2011 02:50 CurLy[] wrote: \/ Open me \/ + Show Spoiler +
This looks like a good plan....
if you an aspiring millionaire.
Do you know anything about how stats and numbers are manipulated so they look cool in a chart for people like you to parade around on the internet?
Those amounts are in actual dollars, not % or share or anything like that. A flat decrease across the board would generate a similar chart simply because the top 1% pay more because they make more. Understand? If everybody got a 5% tax break, but you put it in actual dollar amounts on the chart, it would look like it's extremely skewed in the rich's favor, even though everybody got the same tax break.
Not to mention he's conservative, of course he wants the rich to pay less than they currently are.
I can tell you about what I see... I'll have to pay around 4k more a year in taxes if Cain's plan goes through
On October 20 2011 02:50 CurLy[] wrote: \/ Open me \/ + Show Spoiler +
This looks like a good plan....
if you an aspiring millionaire.
Do you know anything about how stats and numbers are manipulated so they look cool in a chart for people like you to parade around on the internet?
Those amounts are in actual dollars, not % or share or anything like that. A flat decrease across the board would generate a similar chart simply because the top 1% pay more because they make more. Understand? If everybody got a 5% tax break, but you put it in actual dollar amounts on the chart, it would look like it's extremely skewed in the rich's favor, even though everybody got the same tax break.
Not to mention he's conservative, of course he wants the rich to pay less than they currently are.
Seems to me that no matter how you put it, most people will be paying more in taxes out of this. The only break is for people that already have more money than is needed to live comfortably.
Why did that guy smoke? Why did herman cain do a troll-face?
I seriously think Cain is just trolling the GOP. If he were to win the nomination and be all like Y'ALL GOT TROLLED he would be the king of the internet.
It worked for bush. I agree with occupy not really knowing what they are trying to do, but good job defending investment banking with the whole that happened 3-8 years ago never mind that it still is raping the economy today.
It worked for bush. I agree with occupy not really knowing what they are trying to do, but good job defending investment banking with the whole that happened 3-8 years ago never mind that it still is raping the economy today.
Anti-capitalism, lol. I'll tell you what's anti-capitalism: Too big to fail. I can't believe the absurd things that come out of his mouth. "That was 2008, this is 2011." Yea, uh, okay...
There's no way he will win anything with rhetoric like this. Obama's playing it safe, the warrior of the "middle class". He embraces occupy wall street, saying the people are "frustrated, and rightfully so" while at the same time using double speak and defending wall street. But then you've got Cain basically blasting not only poor people but everyone in the middle class that lost their jobs because some company went overseas or the economic collapse caused downsizing... who is going to vote for him?
And the best tax plan he has is to increase the burden on poor people, while at the same time telling them that it's their fault they're poor? That's what he's trying to sell to voters? No, sir, we do not like this product.
I say Obama's got this in the bag if Cain gets anywhere near the GOP nomination.
Please, America, don't elect Cain. Whereas Obama and Romney won't make your country any more livelier and better off, at least they won't ruin the whole world like Cain would.
I was just browsing around and saw several clips from news channels that 1) questioned his intelligence and 2) questioned his attitude towards even his own race. He "jokes" that he will install an electrified Mexico border fence, only to insist its a joke, but then it might be serious, but then really, he just wants to offend nobody. He categorically hates Muslims, and identifies with white and fanatically conservative group who actually have more in common with the 99% but somehow are supporting his 9-9-9 which will benefit the 1% more than all else (flat taxes are regressive, that's the end of it, and OP's fairtax.org link is a group headed by businessmen, also, I believe Laffer's endorsement is in terms of overall tax revenue, not the equality facet of taxation (I do, however, share his view that taxes should be lower overall)).
Plus despite the focus on the economic side of the presidency, we mustn't forget about foreign policy. Obama's economic inability has overshadowed his diplomatic prowess. He handled Libya deftly, not committing until Gaddaffi was good as defeated, and only jumping in at the last moment to claim all the friendship of the NTC. He embraces his black minority heritage and uses that to befriend Africa and Muslims. His pulling out of Iraq will surely win him favours in the UN, and in all, he doesn't make foreigners hate him. Whereas Cain wouldn't know the name of the President of Nigeria (I don't know either, but I'm not running for President), he'll increase tensions between America and Islam who are already mired in generations of misunderstanding (you can live in peace if you actually tried), and he'll probably start a trade war with China only for it to backfire spectacularly. (Romney will, too, but that's another rant for another thread )
That's not the first time I've ranted about Cain, but I do hope it's the last.
This guy is ridiculous. How is he so close to the GOP nomination? I would personally want Ron Paul or Jon Huntsman to take the nomination but theyre too principled and/or too moderate for most Republicans to vote for them. As long as they dont vomit out talking points they really dont stand a chance
That's apparently an ad. The smoking is funny, but the end is just too much.
LOL. That ad is too ****ing funny. Herman Cain's campaign chief of staff is trying to promote smoking??? And the creepy face at the end really made laugh out loud.
On October 16 2011 17:13 Shaetan wrote: Can anyone explain to me why the SimCity tax plan won't cripple low-income families? And why it is in anyway a solution to our deficit problem?
Listen to Peter Schiff's explanation in the youtube link above: poor people selfishly spend all their money on things for themselves such as food and insurance, while rich people selflessly use their money for the benefit of society by investing it into businesses. Furthermore, rich people are on a higher moral plane, delaying gratification of spending to savor more delicate purchases such as yachts, unlike the parasites who spend it right away.
I think I got everything from the first three minutes, I couldn't listen to it anymore after that.
EDIT: ok i'm sorry I'll edit it:
Here's the real argument, stop putting words in people's mouths that they're not saying.
Liberals are arguing that a flat sales tax forces the poor to pay more... but in reality this isn't true, it's a flat tax...
The rich can only ENJOY their wealth if they SPEND IT. So if you have a sales tax whenever someone spends they WILL pay the taxes....
what's good of having tons of money if you can't spend it? The whole point of getting rid of income tax and instead relying on sales tax is that the money that's not spent is the money that grows the economy...
So if the sales tax only taxes the money that people use on themselves not the money that ends up growing the economy... sure the rich can get even richer with the money they have, but once they go to SPEND that money they will still pay the same proportionate taxes as the poor...
Can anyone explain to me why the SimCity tax plan won't cripple low-income families? And why it is in anyway a solution to our deficit problem?
It's not. the solution to defecit is to cut spending.
But the reason that sales taxes are better than income taxes, is because contrary to what Keynesian philosophy has been teaching us (and failing us for so long) -- that money spent is money that helps the economy, it is in fact money SAVED that grows the economy.
If someone makes a million a year and only spends 100,000 a year consistently, what's the difference between that person and a person that's making 100,000 and spending all of his money? Well in terms of how much they can enjoy their wealth, there's really no difference, each person receives 100,000 dollars worth of stuff... Just having money doesn't bring wealth/prosperity... SPENDING money brings wealth. When a money isn't spent it's probably in a bank or is invested somewhere, meaning that it eventually get lended to people that are trying to create or grow their businesses, which will invevitably create jobs. By removing the income tax and replacing it with sales tax, the government only collects money from the portion that people spend on themselves, the portion that ends up helping the economy, and creating jobs isn't taxed.
Or it could throw us into a deflationary spiral. No big deal.
On October 17 2011 04:58 Kiarip wrote: It's not. the solution to defecit is to cut spending.
But the reason that sales taxes are better than income taxes, is because contrary to what Keynesian philosophy has been teaching us (and failing us for so long) -- that money spent is money that helps the economy, it is in fact money SAVED that grows the economy.
If someone makes a million a year and only spends 100,000 a year consistently, what's the difference between that person and a person that's making 100,000 and spending all of his money? Well in terms of how much they can enjoy their wealth, there's really no difference, each person receives 100,000 dollars worth of stuff... Just having money doesn't bring wealth/prosperity... SPENDING money brings wealth. When a money isn't spent it's probably in a bank or is invested somewhere, meaning that it eventually get lended to people that are trying to create or grow their businesses, which will invevitably create jobs. By removing the income tax and replacing it with sales tax, the government only collects money from the portion that people spend on themselves, the portion that ends up helping the economy, and creating jobs isn't taxed.
I have a HUGE issue with what you say here. It goes against common business logic.
You simply CANT grow a business on equity or debt alone. Yea, people who are willing to lend or invest into businesses can help to grow them immensely. There is no doubt about that. However, it is the consumers Spending money that actually allows them to continue their operations. If a business borrows a lot of money, sure they get a huge inflow of cash in the short term. However, eventually the lenders will ask for their money back (plus interest). How will the companies pay back the lenders if they dont make sales (aka. if consumers dont SPEND)?
Or if people just invest equity into businesses, they will start looking for returns. Obviously they cant demand the same way a lender could, but people will realize that the business is an awful investment if there are no sales and thus no returns for the money they invest. Of course, they could just ask for more equity investment to pay off the old investors, but that would be a Ponzi scheme.
Sales are the absolute, bottom-line, essential for business growth, NOT investing. If people arent SPENDING, businesses will not gain the revenues needed to pay their lenders/investors back and eventually people will stop putting their money into the businesses. Investment aids growth, but Spending is the thing that actually facilitates it.
Edit:
On October 17 2011 04:58 Kiarip wrote: EDIT: ok i'm sorry I'll edit it:
Here's the real argument, stop putting words in people's mouths that they're not saying.
Liberals are arguing that a flat sales tax forces the poor to pay more... but in reality this isn't true, it's a flat tax...
The rich can only ENJOY their wealth if they SPEND IT. So if you have a sales tax whenever someone spends they WILL pay the taxes....
what's good of having tons of money if you can't spend it? The whole point of getting rid of income tax and instead relying on sales tax is that the money that's not spent is the money that grows the economy...
So if the sales tax only taxes the money that people use on themselves not the money that ends up growing the economy... sure the rich can get even richer with the money they have, but once they go to SPEND that money they will still pay the same proportionate taxes as the poor...
A flat tax WILL make poor people pay more.
For example, lets look at a low income, single guy making 20K a year. Under our current tax system, he could take a Standard Deduction ($5,800) and a Personal Exemption ($3,650). He is then taxed on the remaining $10,550. The first $8,500 is taxed at 10%, the rest is taxed at 15%. This means his tax burden is ($8,500 * 0.10) + ($2,050 * 0.15) = $1,157.50. His effective tax rate is therefore ($1,157.50 / $20,000) = 5.79%.
Unless a flat tax is incredibly low, the poor people of this country will be paying more taxes. If were talking about Cain's 999 plan, not only would the 9% be higher than the example above, we would also need to add on a 9% sales tax as well. This would hurt low and middle-income Americans a lot.
That's apparently an ad. The smoking is funny, but the end is just too much.
LOL. That ad is too ****ing funny. Herman Cain's campaign chief of staff is trying to promote smoking??? And the creepy face at the end really made laugh out loud.
The smoking is significant because there's a backstory to it.
Herman Cain is quite unlikely to get the nomination. Just about every serious candidate so far has gotten a "boom", look what happened to Rick Perry when he got in the spotlight. Cain has totally butchered his own position on abortion, and the 9/9/9 plan is getting hammered in every media-outlet there is, rightfully so. Even if the guy is to win the nomination, which I sincerely doubt is even possible at this point, he's gonna lose to Obama (imo). On another hand, every republican candidate there is has issues and seem to be unfit for the office, so who the hell knows. What is kind of funny is that you now have eight candidates, and people were cheering for Christie to join the race. That just tells you how weak this line-up is, and Cain is no exception.
On October 17 2011 04:58 Kiarip wrote: It's not. the solution to defecit is to cut spending.
But the reason that sales taxes are better than income taxes, is because contrary to what Keynesian philosophy has been teaching us (and failing us for so long) -- that money spent is money that helps the economy, it is in fact money SAVED that grows the economy.
If someone makes a million a year and only spends 100,000 a year consistently, what's the difference between that person and a person that's making 100,000 and spending all of his money? Well in terms of how much they can enjoy their wealth, there's really no difference, each person receives 100,000 dollars worth of stuff... Just having money doesn't bring wealth/prosperity... SPENDING money brings wealth. When a money isn't spent it's probably in a bank or is invested somewhere, meaning that it eventually get lended to people that are trying to create or grow their businesses, which will invevitably create jobs. By removing the income tax and replacing it with sales tax, the government only collects money from the portion that people spend on themselves, the portion that ends up helping the economy, and creating jobs isn't taxed.
I have a HUGE issue with what you say here. It goes against common business logic.
You simply CANT grow a business on equity or debt alone. Yea, people who are willing to lend or invest into businesses can help to grow them immensely. There is no doubt about that. However, it is the consumers Spending money that actually allows them to continue their operations. If a business borrows a lot of money, sure they get a huge inflow of cash in the short term. However, eventually the lenders will ask for their money back (plus interest). How will the companies pay back the lenders if they dont make sales (aka. if consumers dont SPEND)?
No this isnt' true. It's true that if one particular thing no longer gets bought by customers, then yes that business is gonna suffer losses, but if people start saving their money, then it constricts the monetary supply in rotation, thus increasing the value of currency with respect to products available in the marketplace that are trying to get sold, so the prices will have to drop across the board.
Think about it, if the rich are just simply sitting on their money right now, but then all of them decide to spend all of it all of a sudden will ti be good or bad for the average joe? The amount of products in the marketplace won't increase.. but the amount of money will, that means all the people that DOn"T have all that money saved up will simply get priced out of the market by the people that have a lot more, becasue as the supply of money increases for all the products (since the rich are sitting on such a significant portion of total equity,) all the prices will go up considerably, and then people that don't have all that mone won't be able to afford anything.
You're right about having to pay back interests, but that's why it's not a good time to grow the economy right now, and why stimuli will continue to fail and only make the situation worse. When the majority of people have debt it should create the natural free market incentive to save money and pay off debts (via higher interest rates,) Then when money is saved up, banks will ahve to lower rates in order to remain in business (otherwise the banks justh ave to keep paying the interest rates.) So when money is saved up interest rates drop, and borrowing becomes worthwhile again, so people try to make businesses, adn if they have a good business model other peopel will use their money to buy the businesses' products.
This isn't the situation we're in right now however, right now we're in a situation where people don't have much money. The rich have money. Small business owners don't have much money either. if the rich come in to buy out all the resources for their own investments, then all the small business owners won't be able to buy the resources necessary to maintain their business, then they will go out of business, other people will lose jobs, and then when ti coems to the rich trying to get back the return on their investment, they will fall short, because they have less than expected customers.
Meanwhile if the rich sit on their money, the money supply in rotation is constrained, the prices go down (hedging inflation or even causing some deflation,) this resulting in people who DON'T have debt having a significant gain in theri purchasing power. Obviously people with debt, are going to be in trouble and may have to default, which will result in banks having to default, but this is nearly inevitable at this point, because the federal reserve has been burrying the banks now for a long time by forcing them to give out such low interest loans.
Or if people just invest equity into businesses, they will start looking for returns. Obviously they cant demand the same way a lender could, but people will realize that the business is an awful investment if there are no sales and thus no returns for the money they invest. Of course, they could just ask for more equity investment to pay off the old investors, but that would be a Ponzi scheme.
Which is why, while people are in debt (which is a direct result of the forced low interest rates,) it's not a good idea to invest in anything, because debt implies decreased consumption in the future.
So we don't need to worry about taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor, because if we do that it will simply increase the amount of money that people in total are willing to spend on what's already in the market, but ti won't increase the productivity, it will simply increase the inflation (price per existing good.) Instead you want to allow interest rates to go up, and let hte economy correct itself, by having people save money and repay their debt, or force them to default on it (instead of continually borrowing more money to pay the interest for their pre-existing principles which in the end once again will only burry the banking institutions, which as you may have guessed I am strongly against bailing out)
Sales are the absolute, bottom-line, essential for business growth, NOT investing. If people arent SPENDING, businesses will not gain the revenues needed to pay their lenders/investors back and eventually people will stop putting their money into the businesses. Investment aids growth, but Spending is the thing that actually facilitates it.
People shouldnt have to put money into businesses in order for businesses to exist, only in order for them to grow. Otherwise you have a shitty business model, a business needs to be not only self-sustainable, but profitable. Of course it's hard for a business to be profitable when there's so little people that could spend money, but that's what all these mal-investments driven by the FED have resulted in... You need to allow the economy to correct itself before you can start trying to business again, trying to force growth will only result in more bubbles.
A flat tax WILL make poor people pay more.
For example, lets look at a low income, single guy making 20K a year. Under our current tax system, he could take a Standard Deduction ($5,800) and a Personal Exemption ($3,650). He is then taxed on the remaining $10,550. The first $8,500 is taxed at 10%, the rest is taxed at 15%. This means his tax burden is ($8,500 * 0.10) + ($2,050 * 0.15) = $1,157.50. His effective tax rate is therefore ($1,157.50 / $20,000) = 5.79%.
Unless a flat tax is incredibly low, the poor people of this country will be paying more taxes. If were talking about Cain's 999 plan, not only would the 9% be higher than the example above, we would also need to add on a 9% sales tax as well. This would hurt low and middle-income Americans a lot.
Last edit: 2011-10-27 06:17:18
I agree, the poor can't afford to pay more right NOW. I'm saying in general sales tax is better for economy than income tax. Right now, we need to cut taxes in general, and cut spending even more, while removing regulations which make our businesses uncompetitive.
I haven't done a lot of research on the candidates yet. But I like Cain from what I've seen of him. It actually seems like we might have a candidate who will defend our individual rights for once. Even though he contradicts that hope of mine by not being supportive of abortion or gay marriage.
how is status quo better than radical given the situation we've been falling into with consistently status quo presidents?
Indeed. What America needs most right now is a radical for Capitalism and the free market. We've had enough of the liberals' radical socialism and the conservatives' cowardly appeasement.
On October 27 2011 06:40 Amaroq64 wrote: I haven't done a lot of research on the candidates yet. But I like Cain from what I've seen of him. It actually seems like we might have a candidate who will defend our individual rights for once. Even though he contradicts that hope of mine by not being supportive of abortion or gay marriage.
how is status quo better than radical given the situation we've been falling into with consistently status quo presidents?
Indeed. What America needs most right now is a radical for Capitalism and the free market. We've had enough of the liberals' radical socialism and the conservatives' cowardly appeasement.
Change for the sake of change...the basis for every campaign.
From what I've seen, Herman Cain seems no better or different than any of the other candidates. He just says and does whatever he thinks will get him votes. That makes sense if you only care about winning, but it means he ends up being inconsistent and spouts a ton of nonsense.
I kinda hope he does get elected, not that I agree with anything he has to say or that I think any of his policies are helpful in the short or long term either, it would just be great from have president 1-43 be white and have 2 in a row be black and for them to have about as opposing views as two candidates can have. I also think there is no chance in hell he will win but that's what I thought about Bush W in '04 and well...Please RNC at least put this guy on the ticket! But on a serious note its kinda sad the republicans who have controlled this country and its policies for the better part of 50 years seem to have no candidates capable of actually winning a general election. Oh how the mighty have fallen.
On October 27 2011 06:58 Romulox wrote: I kinda hope he does get elected, not that I agree with anything he has to say or that I think any of his policies are helpful in the short or long term either, it would just be great from have president 1-43 be white and have 2 in a row be black and for them to have about as opposing views as two candidates can have. I also think there is no chance in hell he will win but that's what I thought about Bush W in '04 and well...Please RNC at least put this guy on the ticket! But on a serious note its kinda sad the republicans who have controlled this country and its policies for the better part of 50 years seem to have no candidates capable of actually winning a general election. Oh how the mighty have fallen.
the republicans haven't controlled the country for the past 50 years.
I haven't done a lot of research on the candidates yet. But I like Cain from what I've seen of him. It actually seems like we might have a candidate who will defend our individual rights for once. Even though he contradicts that hope of mine by not being supportive of abortion or gay marriage.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- how is status quo better than radical given the situation we've been falling into with consistently status quo presidents? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed. What America needs most right now is a radical for Capitalism and the free market. We've had enough of the liberals' radical socialism and the conservatives' cowardly appeasement
Cain is a corporotist not a capitalist. He hasn't done anything to defend individuals' rights... simply beign black doesn't count, and he's for militarism.
also like it has been said he simply says what will get him the most support, which makes him appear extremely self-contradicting, I don't know why he hasn't been picked apart on this matter yet.
I doubt Herman Cain can even win the nomination. These guys are so out of touch with reality its ludicrous. Herman cain can't even properly answer some of the most basic conservative issues. His tax plan is retarded and extremely regressive.
Agree or disagree with Obama presidency but hes one badass candidate. The fact that not one democrat is enough of a heavy hitter to challenge Obama supports this notion. When it comes to the republicans, none of these chumps have a chance or the power to rally their party behind them. The notion of the flavor of the month clearly shows the conservatives don't like their own republican field. We need our presidents to be exceptional people. Half of these candidates cant even answer questions that even highschoolers can knock out of the park. Give me a break, its a joke.
On a side note, I don't include Ron Paul with these clowns. As a progressive, I have huge issues with Ron Paul but he is one of the very few politicians with integrity, other being Bernie Sanders. The only problem with these guys is they'll get chewed up in the office. The corporate machine and the bought congress is too much for any person to overcome.
So i did some 5 minutes research and correct me if i'm wrong but it seems like at the moment the republican nomination race is between Cain and Romney and that really makes me sad i just hope that at the end you keep Obama.
I watched this video, and I don't think Herman Cain listened to the whole song. His views seem antithetical to it, actually. I mean, he's basically attacking the poor people for protesting, and then you have lines like this in the song. What was he thinking?
"pay no attention to the people in the street crying out for accountability, make a joke out of what we believe, say we don't matter cause you disagree"
That ad brought me to this thread XD, really come on smoking in between that ad is like wtf... i'm wondering why he was event allowed to do that. That was almost a smoking ad not an election ad
On October 17 2011 04:58 Kiarip wrote: It's not. the solution to defecit is to cut spending.
But the reason that sales taxes are better than income taxes, is because contrary to what Keynesian philosophy has been teaching us (and failing us for so long) -- that money spent is money that helps the economy, it is in fact money SAVED that grows the economy.
If someone makes a million a year and only spends 100,000 a year consistently, what's the difference between that person and a person that's making 100,000 and spending all of his money? Well in terms of how much they can enjoy their wealth, there's really no difference, each person receives 100,000 dollars worth of stuff... Just having money doesn't bring wealth/prosperity... SPENDING money brings wealth. When a money isn't spent it's probably in a bank or is invested somewhere, meaning that it eventually get lended to people that are trying to create or grow their businesses, which will invevitably create jobs. By removing the income tax and replacing it with sales tax, the government only collects money from the portion that people spend on themselves, the portion that ends up helping the economy, and creating jobs isn't taxed.
I have a HUGE issue with what you say here. It goes against common business logic.
You simply CANT grow a business on equity or debt alone. Yea, people who are willing to lend or invest into businesses can help to grow them immensely. There is no doubt about that. However, it is the consumers Spending money that actually allows them to continue their operations. If a business borrows a lot of money, sure they get a huge inflow of cash in the short term. However, eventually the lenders will ask for their money back (plus interest). How will the companies pay back the lenders if they dont make sales (aka. if consumers dont SPEND)?
No this isnt' true. It's true that if one particular thing no longer gets bought by customers, then yes that business is gonna suffer losses, but if people start saving their money, then it constricts the monetary supply in rotation, thus increasing the value of currency with respect to products available in the marketplace that are trying to get sold, so the prices will have to drop across the board.
Think about it, if the rich are just simply sitting on their money right now, but then all of them decide to spend all of it all of a sudden will ti be good or bad for the average joe? The amount of products in the marketplace won't increase.. but the amount of money will, that means all the people that DOn"T have all that money saved up will simply get priced out of the market by the people that have a lot more, becasue as the supply of money increases for all the products (since the rich are sitting on such a significant portion of total equity,) all the prices will go up considerably, and then people that don't have all that mone won't be able to afford anything.
You're right about having to pay back interests, but that's why it's not a good time to grow the economy right now, and why stimuli will continue to fail and only make the situation worse. When the majority of people have debt it should create the natural free market incentive to save money and pay off debts (via higher interest rates,) Then when money is saved up, banks will ahve to lower rates in order to remain in business (otherwise the banks justh ave to keep paying the interest rates.) So when money is saved up interest rates drop, and borrowing becomes worthwhile again, so people try to make businesses, adn if they have a good business model other peopel will use their money to buy the businesses' products.
This isn't the situation we're in right now however, right now we're in a situation where people don't have much money. The rich have money. Small business owners don't have much money either. if the rich come in to buy out all the resources for their own investments, then all the small business owners won't be able to buy the resources necessary to maintain their business, then they will go out of business, other people will lose jobs, and then when ti coems to the rich trying to get back the return on their investment, they will fall short, because they have less than expected customers.
Meanwhile if the rich sit on their money, the money supply in rotation is constrained, the prices go down (hedging inflation or even causing some deflation,) this resulting in people who DON'T have debt having a significant gain in theri purchasing power. Obviously people with debt, are going to be in trouble and may have to default, which will result in banks having to default, but this is nearly inevitable at this point, because the federal reserve has been burrying the banks now for a long time by forcing them to give out such low interest loans.
Or if people just invest equity into businesses, they will start looking for returns. Obviously they cant demand the same way a lender could, but people will realize that the business is an awful investment if there are no sales and thus no returns for the money they invest. Of course, they could just ask for more equity investment to pay off the old investors, but that would be a Ponzi scheme.
Which is why, while people are in debt (which is a direct result of the forced low interest rates,) it's not a good idea to invest in anything, because debt implies decreased consumption in the future.
So we don't need to worry about taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor, because if we do that it will simply increase the amount of money that people in total are willing to spend on what's already in the market, but ti won't increase the productivity, it will simply increase the inflation (price per existing good.) Instead you want to allow interest rates to go up, and let hte economy correct itself, by having people save money and repay their debt, or force them to default on it (instead of continually borrowing more money to pay the interest for their pre-existing principles which in the end once again will only burry the banking institutions, which as you may have guessed I am strongly against bailing out)
Sales are the absolute, bottom-line, essential for business growth, NOT investing. If people arent SPENDING, businesses will not gain the revenues needed to pay their lenders/investors back and eventually people will stop putting their money into the businesses. Investment aids growth, but Spending is the thing that actually facilitates it.
People shouldnt have to put money into businesses in order for businesses to exist, only in order for them to grow. Otherwise you have a shitty business model, a business needs to be not only self-sustainable, but profitable. Of course it's hard for a business to be profitable when there's so little people that could spend money, but that's what all these mal-investments driven by the FED have resulted in... You need to allow the economy to correct itself before you can start trying to business again, trying to force growth will only result in more bubbles.
I like your laissez-faire perspective, a lot of the problems in the economy are caused by poor anti-cyclical monetary and fiscal policy-making, mostly by politicians trying to further their popularity at the polls at the cost of the economy (Continuing the debt consumption binge in the middle of a boom is a bad idea for when you wake up to find your economy in shambles).
However, savings-->growth (ie Solow Growth Model) is quite simplistic and rudimentary, ignores a lot of the instruments of modern economics and finance. The best thing for the economy would be to increase consumption and investment through lower interest rates (which are controlled by the Fed, you seemed to imply it's endogenous, my bad if I misunderstood). Inflation isn't a worry at the moment because aggregate demand in the economy is so damned low, and there's enough surplus productive capacity to satisfy the extra demand.
As for business growth, it's not to do with whether a company's business plan is good or bad, as you said, "if one particular thing no longer gets bought by customers", but right now, nothing is selling as much as they used to or could be, because demand is lacklustre. To remedy this, we need make the people spend. One great way to do this is, coincidentally, reduce taxes, but because of the higher marginal propensity to consume for poorer people, demand is more responsive to tax cuts for poorer people, while the rich are likely to spend a lower proportion of what they receive. Which is why a flat tax and sales tax, both regressive taxes, are bad ideas. (In other words, does Herman Cain and Rick Perry honestly think encouraging the wealthy to buy more Ferraris is better for the economy than just helping the poor put proper food on their table from Wal-Mart?)
My assessment of the situation is that America (and Europe, but their consumers less so) is addicted to debt, and all the wonderful things the bank can buy you seemingly for free. If we cut out all debt the economy will suffocate and suffer for a long time. It is much better to let the economy heal itself, and when it can handle it, reduce the debt level by encouraging saving, hopefully resulting in healthier, more organic growth based on technological progress not financial wizardry.
cain is a FED insider. he will NOT be trying to audit or reduce (let alone remove) the federal reserve, which is unaccountable and does not answer to anyone in government but themselves.
On October 27 2011 19:27 fenix404 wrote: ron paul ftw!
cain is a FED insider. he will NOT be trying to audit or reduce (let alone remove) the federal reserve, which is unaccountable and does not answer to anyone in government but themselves.
also,
"Paul is unelectable and not a conservative."
OP, please explain.
I'd be interested to know why "Fed insider" is one of the most common conservative insults.
In my opinion, both Cain and Paul are both conservatives who have very little concept of how to run a country.
On October 27 2011 19:27 fenix404 wrote: ron paul ftw!
cain is a FED insider. he will NOT be trying to audit or reduce (let alone remove) the federal reserve, which is unaccountable and does not answer to anyone in government but themselves.
also,
"Paul is unelectable and not a conservative."
OP, please explain.
I'm not sure what he meant by that comment either...
But look at how the last elections went. He dominated the debates, which was followed by the media doing everything they can to make him seem irrelevant, and he wasnt even put through.
It's a shame too. He's the only republican that actually follows the blueprint of what a republican is "supposed" to be about. That speaks loudly about what politics have become these days... and as long as things are like this it doesnt really matter who wins the election...
Whoever wins isnt going to be able to do shit because the only way you get support is taking sides, and anyone who tries to disturb the current balance won't get far. Even if it's Ron Paul, it's inevitable that our next president won't be able to do half of what they promise, just like is happening with Obama now. The current system won't let them.
Oh, and it's kind of silly to say Ron Paul is not conservative... maybe not if your talking the "modern" definition of conservative... but look at what the conservative and the republican party are SUPPOSED to be about traditionally and you will see his views are more conservative than probably everyone else up there.
I watched this video, and I don't think Herman Cain listened to the whole song. His views seem antithetical to it, actually. I mean, he's basically attacking the poor people for protesting, and then you have lines like this in the song. What was he thinking?
"pay no attention to the people in the street crying out for accountability, make a joke out of what we believe, say we don't matter cause you disagree"
Ugh. I like how Cain takes firm, ballsey stances on the things he believes in. But his stance on abortion is vile. Who on earth can claim to be pro-life when they're so ready to force women and/or young couples into the obligation of taking care of a child that they can't afford to care for. Even without counting the expenses to rear a child, even giving birth to one is very expensive.
A fetus is a potential life. A woman is an actual life. Eighteen years of toil shouldn't be forced on an unwilling human being for the sake of something that isn't even a life of its own yet. Once the baby is capable of living outside of the human body, then and only then does it have the same rights as other living humans.
In reference to some other stuff being posted here. I'm so glad that there's at least one other rational voice here who knows that Keynesian economics has failed and cannot do anything but fail. I explicitly believe that Laissez-Faire Capitalism is the ideal social system.
On October 28 2011 06:08 Amaroq64 wrote: Ugh. I like how Cain takes firm, ballsey stances on the things he believes in. But his stance on abortion is vile. Who on earth can claim to be pro-life when they're so ready to force women and/or young couples into the obligation of taking care of a child that they can't afford to care for. Even without counting the expenses to rear a child, even giving birth to one is very expensive.
A fetus is a potential life. A woman is an actual life. Eighteen years of toil shouldn't be forced on an unwilling human being for the sake of something that isn't even a life of its own yet. Once the baby is capable of living outside of the human body, then and only then does it have the same rights as other living humans.
In reference to some other stuff being posted here. I'm so glad that there's at least one other rational voice here who knows that Keynesian economics has failed and cannot do anything but fail. I explicitly believe that Laissez-Faire Capitalism is the ideal social system.
No, a fetus is definitely as much "a life" as the mother.
Now the fetus may not be as intelligent as the mother or be able to have the social interactions the mother can, but there are plenty of people that have minimal intelligence/social interaction (or only have Potential intelligence/social interactions). Say a newborn... they are about as helpless as a fetus, why do we force a woman to raise a child for 18 years instead of just throwing it in the dumpster?
Some conjoined twins are not capable of "living outside another human being" do they get not get rights?
PS (he did not say he would force the woman to care for the child for 18 years... social services typically takes children away from parents that try to murder them.)
Yep. He can tell it, he can explain it, he aint ashamed of it. Where others give lip service to conservatism, he actually embodies it. Where others just wanna strike a 50% compromise with Democrats, you get the feeling he wants to push that farther right. The answer to a desired trillion+ dollar stimulus is not starting negotiations from 500 billion. Answer for this horrible health care bill that got passed is not searching for the bits and pieces that are good in it, but repealing the piece of nonsense and start over.
On October 28 2011 06:08 Amaroq64 wrote: Ugh. I like how Cain takes firm, ballsey stances on the things he believes in. But his stance on abortion is vile. Who on earth can claim to be pro-life when they're so ready to force women and/or young couples into the obligation of taking care of a child that they can't afford to care for. Even without counting the expenses to rear a child, even giving birth to one is very expensive.
A fetus is a potential life. A woman is an actual life. Eighteen years of toil shouldn't be forced on an unwilling human being for the sake of something that isn't even a life of its own yet. Once the baby is capable of living outside of the human body, then and only then does it have the same rights as other living humans.
In reference to some other stuff being posted here. I'm so glad that there's at least one other rational voice here who knows that Keynesian economics has failed and cannot do anything but fail. I explicitly believe that Laissez-Faire Capitalism is the ideal social system.
No, a fetus is definitely as much "a life" as the mother.
Now the fetus may not be as intelligent as the mother or be able to have the social interactions the mother can, but there are plenty of people that have minimal intelligence/social interaction (or only have Potential intelligence/social interactions). Say a newborn... they are about as helpless as a fetus, why do we force a woman to raise a child for 18 years instead of just throwing it in the dumpster?
Some conjoined twins are not capable of "living outside another human being" do they get not get rights?
PS (he did not say he would force the woman to care for the child for 18 years... social services typically takes children away from parents that try to murder them.)
And Republicans are notorious for their social support of women. A fetus is as much "a life?" I say half of the world disagrees with you. And you justification is so weak I shouldn't even mention it. Intelligence? They literally can't even think until the third trimester. You can believe in "the sanctity of life," but saying they're equal in status to born human? What if the mother's life was in danger? These are cliche arguments, but it sounds like you haven't even considered them. Bottom line, it's not possible to care for every single child conceived. Which means being raped and impregnated is the end of your productive life if you're poor.
Yep. He can tell it, he can explain it, he aint ashamed of it. Where others give lip service to conservatism, he actually embodies it. Where others just wanna strike a 50% compromise with Democrats, you get the feeling he wants to push that farther right. The answer to a desired trillion+ dollar stimulus is not starting negotiations from 500 billion. Answer for this horrible health care bill that got passed is not searching for the bits and pieces that are good in it, but repealing the piece of nonsense and start over.
Haha.. Herman Cain is so bad. His 9-9-9 plan would put a larger burden on both the lower class and the middle class.. He's a sexual deviant and constantly brings up the "race" card to score attention.. (which is working may I add). Plus his foreign policy is a bust, and knowledge of the federal reserve is severely lacking lol..
On October 28 2011 06:08 Amaroq64 wrote: A fetus is a potential life. A woman is an actual life. Eighteen years of toil shouldn't be forced on an unwilling human being for the sake of something that isn't even a life of its own yet. Once the baby is capable of living outside of the human body, then and only then does it have the same rights as other living humans..
I wonder how common the view is that the fetus isn't alive. Of course it's alive, it executes metabolism and growth just like the rest of us! Nothing changes at birth, the fetus just changes location and uses a different modality to get oxygen into the bloodstream. That's it, nothing magical there.
On October 28 2011 06:08 Amaroq64 wrote: A fetus is a potential life. A woman is an actual life. Eighteen years of toil shouldn't be forced on an unwilling human being for the sake of something that isn't even a life of its own yet. Once the baby is capable of living outside of the human body, then and only then does it have the same rights as other living humans..
I wonder how common the view is that the fetus isn't alive. Of course it's alive, it executes metabolism and growth just like the rest of us! Nothing changes at birth, the fetus just changes location and uses a different modality to get oxygen into the bloodstream. That's it, nothing magical there.
Sure, I am fine with you defining life this way. But now i want to see you preaching for the abolition of disabling respirators for brain-dead patients. These "alive" human beings have just as much cognitive capability as a fetus, the only real difference is they use a different modality to get oxygen into the bloodstream... oh yeah and their location.
On October 28 2011 06:08 Amaroq64 wrote: A fetus is a potential life. A woman is an actual life. Eighteen years of toil shouldn't be forced on an unwilling human being for the sake of something that isn't even a life of its own yet. Once the baby is capable of living outside of the human body, then and only then does it have the same rights as other living humans..
I wonder how common the view is that the fetus isn't alive. Of course it's alive, it executes metabolism and growth just like the rest of us! Nothing changes at birth, the fetus just changes location and uses a different modality to get oxygen into the bloodstream. That's it, nothing magical there.
Plants also execute metabolism and growth. Does it mean that plants are sentient and able to develop self-awareness?
On October 27 2011 19:39 fenix404 wrote: ^^ that's what people said about obama... at least the articulating part...
It's different when the principles you believe are practical timeless ones and not socialist theorycrafting that creeps into popularity once every generation until people realize how bad it is.
Self-incriminated himself too? His inexperience with actual elections is showing.
Also, for everyone talking about his stance on abortion, he's been flip flopping on that damn thing for a while now.
"I am against it but think it's each women's personal choice"
Get flak on it from the right
"I AM AGAINST ABORTION! ALL FORMS OF ABORTION! LIFE STARTS AT CONCEPTION!"
(Psst, if life started a conception then women's bodies have been committing murders for years what with all the eggs that doesn't implant correctly in the uterus.)
On November 03 2011 12:16 chaoser wrote: (Psst, if life started a conception then women's bodies have been committing murders for years what with all the eggs that doesn't implant correctly in the uterus.)
Psst "Bodies" don't commit murders.. bodies can cause death, but they don't commit murder (otherwise a horribly large number of people have been murdered by their own bodies aging on them)
The only difference between a pregnant woman and her child and pair of conjoined twin is the pregnant woman consists of 2 genetically different beings that will eventually separate without any medical intervention.
The only difference between a fetus and a newborn is that one of them is detatched from someone else. (If a fetus doesn't qualify as "human life" due to low brain functioning, then neither does a newborn... and probably not a preschooler either, or many adult mentally handicapped, and possibly not adolescents (full reasoning ability isn't present until mid twenties))
............. lines are necessary but "birth" is a really crappy one philosophically, scientifically, etc. (although it is good emotionally, it is harder to kill something you can see) ........
but back on topic, that statement of his was incredibly wierd. (although it was in a classic Republican tradition, Lincoln thought slavery was wrong, but he wasn't going to up and outlaw it necessarily.)
On November 03 2011 12:16 chaoser wrote: (Psst, if life started a conception then women's bodies have been committing murders for years what with all the eggs that doesn't implant correctly in the uterus.)
Psst "Bodies" don't commit murders.. bodies can cause death, but they don't commit murder (otherwise a horribly large number of people have been murdered by their own bodies aging on them)
The only difference between a pregnant woman and her child and pair of conjoined twin is the pregnant woman consists of 2 genetically different beings that will eventually separate without any medical intervention.
The only difference between a fetus and a newborn is that one of them is detatched from someone else. (If a fetus doesn't qualify as "human life" due to low brain functioning, then neither does a newborn... and probably not a preschooler either, or many adult mentally handicapped, and possibly not adolescents (full reasoning ability isn't present until mid twenties))
............. lines are necessary but "birth" is a really crappy one philosophically, scientifically, etc. (although it is good emotionally, it is harder to kill something you can see)
Psst, I'm talking about life at conception aka egg meeting the sperm, not fetuses. Ectopic pregnancies happen enough that hundreds of women will die each year if stupid shit like "life starting is defined as when conception occurs" is put into law. Doctors won't be able to operate on women to try to take the fertilized egg out and "kill it" to save the woman's life since they'd be murdering the "new life". Also most forms of birth control will be illegal since they work to "kill" the fertilized fetus.
But hey, what do I know? I'm just in medical school.
On November 03 2011 12:16 chaoser wrote: (Psst, if life started a conception then women's bodies have been committing murders for years what with all the eggs that doesn't implant correctly in the uterus.)
Psst "Bodies" don't commit murders.. bodies can cause death, but they don't commit murder (otherwise a horribly large number of people have been murdered by their own bodies aging on them)
The only difference between a pregnant woman and her child and pair of conjoined twin is the pregnant woman consists of 2 genetically different beings that will eventually separate without any medical intervention.
The only difference between a fetus and a newborn is that one of them is detatched from someone else. (If a fetus doesn't qualify as "human life" due to low brain functioning, then neither does a newborn... and probably not a preschooler either, or many adult mentally handicapped, and possibly not adolescents (full reasoning ability isn't present until mid twenties))
............. lines are necessary but "birth" is a really crappy one philosophically, scientifically, etc. (although it is good emotionally, it is harder to kill something you can see)
Psst, I'm talking about life at conception aka egg meeting the sperm, not fetuses. Ectopic pregnancies happen enough that hundreds of women will die each year if stupid shit like "life starting is defined as when conception occurs" is put into law. Doctors won't be able to operate on women to try to take the fertilized egg out and "kill it" to save the woman's life since they'd be murdering the "new life". Also most forms of birth control will be illegal since they work to "kill" the fertilized fetus.
But hey, what do I know? I'm just in medical school.
I always thought it was fairly agreed upon that if the mother's life is in danger, it is okay to abort the fetus / egg.
On November 03 2011 12:16 chaoser wrote: (Psst, if life started a conception then women's bodies have been committing murders for years what with all the eggs that doesn't implant correctly in the uterus.)
Psst "Bodies" don't commit murders.. bodies can cause death, but they don't commit murder (otherwise a horribly large number of people have been murdered by their own bodies aging on them)
The only difference between a pregnant woman and her child and pair of conjoined twin is the pregnant woman consists of 2 genetically different beings that will eventually separate without any medical intervention.
The only difference between a fetus and a newborn is that one of them is detatched from someone else. (If a fetus doesn't qualify as "human life" due to low brain functioning, then neither does a newborn... and probably not a preschooler either, or many adult mentally handicapped, and possibly not adolescents (full reasoning ability isn't present until mid twenties))
............. lines are necessary but "birth" is a really crappy one philosophically, scientifically, etc. (although it is good emotionally, it is harder to kill something you can see)
Psst, I'm talking about life at conception aka egg meeting the sperm, not fetuses. Ectopic pregnancies happen enough that hundreds of women will die each year if stupid shit like "life starting is defined as when conception occurs" is put into law. Doctors won't be able to operate on women to try to take the fertilized egg out and "kill it" to save the woman's life since they'd be murdering the "new life". Also most forms of birth control will be illegal since they work to "kill" the fertilized fetus.
But hey, what do I know? I'm just in medical school.
An activity to save one life at the expense of another is defendable (particularly if the other one would die anyways... ie cojoined twins, if they are both in danger of dying you can perform an operation that would kill one to save the other.) I'm not sure of any case where the mother is going to die but you can save the baby that early in the pregnancy [later on then it becomes a possibility, and it gets to be a complicated judgement call]
It would prevent many forms of birth control if conception was the line.
That makes conception an inconvenient line, just like plantation economies made all humans an inconvenient line for emancipation.
I don't even see how conservatives could like this guy when he flip flops like a fish out of water. Conservatives should be the ones that are most suspicious of him because it seems like he is just trying to abuse what is the flavour of the month among conservative circles. There are other republican candidates that are far more consistent and articulate.
On November 03 2011 12:16 chaoser wrote: (Psst, if life started a conception then women's bodies have been committing murders for years what with all the eggs that doesn't implant correctly in the uterus.)
Psst "Bodies" don't commit murders.. bodies can cause death, but they don't commit murder (otherwise a horribly large number of people have been murdered by their own bodies aging on them)
The only difference between a pregnant woman and her child and pair of conjoined twin is the pregnant woman consists of 2 genetically different beings that will eventually separate without any medical intervention.
The only difference between a fetus and a newborn is that one of them is detatched from someone else. (If a fetus doesn't qualify as "human life" due to low brain functioning, then neither does a newborn... and probably not a preschooler either, or many adult mentally handicapped, and possibly not adolescents (full reasoning ability isn't present until mid twenties))
............. lines are necessary but "birth" is a really crappy one philosophically, scientifically, etc. (although it is good emotionally, it is harder to kill something you can see)
Psst, I'm talking about life at conception aka egg meeting the sperm, not fetuses. Ectopic pregnancies happen enough that hundreds of women will die each year if stupid shit like "life starting is defined as when conception occurs" is put into law. Doctors won't be able to operate on women to try to take the fertilized egg out and "kill it" to save the woman's life since they'd be murdering the "new life". Also most forms of birth control will be illegal since they work to "kill" the fertilized fetus.
But hey, what do I know? I'm just in medical school.
I always thought it was fairly agreed upon that if the mother's life is in danger, it is okay to abort the fetus / egg.
Not with new laws that are in place to be passed in Mississippi and a few other states. They're trying to get past Roe v Wade by trying to redefine when life actually starts. By saying life starts at conception they can throw away Roe v Wade since all abortions will be considered murder. This means life threatening pregnancies and even rape/incest pregnancies will be illegal. As some of the supporters of Prop 26 in Ol' Miss like to say, "Even if you get a baby from being raped, it's a gift from God and you should cherish it"
Bush is smiling, too, in the video she made to support as restrictive an abortion ban as any state has voted on, Initiative 26, or the Personhood Amendment, which faces Mississippi voters on Nov. 8. "It doesn't matter whether you're rich or poor, black or white, or even if your father was a rapist!" she trills.
Most forms of hormonal birth control such as the Pill would also be illegal if this is passed since they work by destroying the fertilized egg's chances of implanting. And Cain supports it given his most recent statements on abortion.
On November 03 2011 12:16 chaoser wrote: (Psst, if life started a conception then women's bodies have been committing murders for years what with all the eggs that doesn't implant correctly in the uterus.)
Psst "Bodies" don't commit murders.. bodies can cause death, but they don't commit murder (otherwise a horribly large number of people have been murdered by their own bodies aging on them)
The only difference between a pregnant woman and her child and pair of conjoined twin is the pregnant woman consists of 2 genetically different beings that will eventually separate without any medical intervention.
The only difference between a fetus and a newborn is that one of them is detatched from someone else. (If a fetus doesn't qualify as "human life" due to low brain functioning, then neither does a newborn... and probably not a preschooler either, or many adult mentally handicapped, and possibly not adolescents (full reasoning ability isn't present until mid twenties))
............. lines are necessary but "birth" is a really crappy one philosophically, scientifically, etc. (although it is good emotionally, it is harder to kill something you can see) ........
but back on topic, that statement of his was incredibly wierd. (although it was in a classic Republican tradition, Lincoln thought slavery was wrong, but he wasn't going to up and outlaw it necessarily.)
Policy should be written such that we minimise any potential suffering involved in the abortion of a fetus. However to endow human life as something sacred is to allow religion to seep into politics. We are nothing more than clever mammals who seem to have very little complaint causing or allowing the suffering of other animals, of which we know are far more capable of suffering and distress than a fetus.
On November 03 2011 13:34 koreasilver wrote: I don't even see how conservatives could like this guy when he flip flops like a fish out of water. Conservatives should be the ones that are most suspicious of him because it seems like he is just trying to abuse what is the flavour of the month among conservative circles. There are other republican candidates that are far more consistent and articulate.
Agreed, it may be due the the fact that he is an extreme political novice, but the fact that he can't clearly articulate a plan or position (besides 9-9-9) means that he is unlikely going to be able to Do anything. (and if he is actually incredibly good at getting stuff done, its not quite certain what that would be)
On November 03 2011 13:34 koreasilver wrote: I don't even see how conservatives could like this guy when he flip flops like a fish out of water. Conservatives should be the ones that are most suspicious of him because it seems like he is just trying to abuse what is the flavour of the month among conservative circles. There are other republican candidates that are far more consistent and articulate.
You obviously don't know how America's political system works. Its a theatre to the maximum degree.. talking points and constant debate about issues that carry no weight in one of the worlds most serious economic periods in history.. it's completely whack.. Cain is a joke, Bachman is a joke, Romney is a joke, Perry is a joke, Gingrich is a joke, Huntsman is a joke and Johnson is a joke. If you catch my drift..
On November 03 2011 13:34 koreasilver wrote: I don't even see how conservatives could like this guy when he flip flops like a fish out of water. Conservatives should be the ones that are most suspicious of him because it seems like he is just trying to abuse what is the flavour of the month among conservative circles. There are other republican candidates that are far more consistent and articulate.
Agreed, it may be due the the fact that he is an extreme political novice, but the fact that he can't clearly articulate a plan or position (besides 9-9-9) means that he is unlikely going to be able to Do anything. (and if he is actually incredibly good at getting stuff done, its not quite certain what that would be)
9-9-9 raises the tax burden on the lower and middle class, that sounds like a sick joke considering what's going on right now.
On November 03 2011 12:16 chaoser wrote: (Psst, if life started a conception then women's bodies have been committing murders for years what with all the eggs that doesn't implant correctly in the uterus.)
Psst "Bodies" don't commit murders.. bodies can cause death, but they don't commit murder (otherwise a horribly large number of people have been murdered by their own bodies aging on them)
The only difference between a pregnant woman and her child and pair of conjoined twin is the pregnant woman consists of 2 genetically different beings that will eventually separate without any medical intervention.
The only difference between a fetus and a newborn is that one of them is detatched from someone else. (If a fetus doesn't qualify as "human life" due to low brain functioning, then neither does a newborn... and probably not a preschooler either, or many adult mentally handicapped, and possibly not adolescents (full reasoning ability isn't present until mid twenties))
............. lines are necessary but "birth" is a really crappy one philosophically, scientifically, etc. (although it is good emotionally, it is harder to kill something you can see) ........
but back on topic, that statement of his was incredibly wierd. (although it was in a classic Republican tradition, Lincoln thought slavery was wrong, but he wasn't going to up and outlaw it necessarily.)
Policy should be written such that we minimise any potential suffering involved in the abortion of a fetus. However to endow human life as something sacred is to allow religion to seep into politics. We are nothing more than clever mammals who seem to have very little complaint causing or allowing the suffering of other animals, of which we know are far more capable of suffering and distress than a fetus.
Why minimize suffering? or rather... why minimize Something else's "suffering"? [other than the empathy factor... if you can avoid empathy with something else, then why should you care about its "suffering"]
Nazi policy minimized suffering from the Holocaust (they didn't butcher the Jews in the street, at least not often).
On November 03 2011 12:16 chaoser wrote: (Psst, if life started a conception then women's bodies have been committing murders for years what with all the eggs that doesn't implant correctly in the uterus.)
Psst "Bodies" don't commit murders.. bodies can cause death, but they don't commit murder (otherwise a horribly large number of people have been murdered by their own bodies aging on them)
The only difference between a pregnant woman and her child and pair of conjoined twin is the pregnant woman consists of 2 genetically different beings that will eventually separate without any medical intervention.
The only difference between a fetus and a newborn is that one of them is detatched from someone else. (If a fetus doesn't qualify as "human life" due to low brain functioning, then neither does a newborn... and probably not a preschooler either, or many adult mentally handicapped, and possibly not adolescents (full reasoning ability isn't present until mid twenties))
............. lines are necessary but "birth" is a really crappy one philosophically, scientifically, etc. (although it is good emotionally, it is harder to kill something you can see) ........
but back on topic, that statement of his was incredibly wierd. (although it was in a classic Republican tradition, Lincoln thought slavery was wrong, but he wasn't going to up and outlaw it necessarily.)
Policy should be written such that we minimise any potential suffering involved in the abortion of a fetus. However to endow human life as something sacred is to allow religion to seep into politics. We are nothing more than clever mammals who seem to have very little complaint causing or allowing the suffering of other animals, of which we know are far more capable of suffering and distress than a fetus.
Why minimize suffering? or rather... why minimize Something else's "suffering"? [other than the empathy factor... if you can avoid empathy with something else, then why should you care about its "suffering"]
Nazi policy minimized suffering from the Holocaust (they didn't butcher the Jews in the street, at least not often).
Wait... what? Nazi policy minimized suffering? I'm not sure you're talking about the same Nazi Germany that the rest of us are familiar with.
On November 03 2011 12:16 chaoser wrote: (Psst, if life started a conception then women's bodies have been committing murders for years what with all the eggs that doesn't implant correctly in the uterus.)
Psst "Bodies" don't commit murders.. bodies can cause death, but they don't commit murder (otherwise a horribly large number of people have been murdered by their own bodies aging on them)
The only difference between a pregnant woman and her child and pair of conjoined twin is the pregnant woman consists of 2 genetically different beings that will eventually separate without any medical intervention.
The only difference between a fetus and a newborn is that one of them is detatched from someone else. (If a fetus doesn't qualify as "human life" due to low brain functioning, then neither does a newborn... and probably not a preschooler either, or many adult mentally handicapped, and possibly not adolescents (full reasoning ability isn't present until mid twenties))
............. lines are necessary but "birth" is a really crappy one philosophically, scientifically, etc. (although it is good emotionally, it is harder to kill something you can see) ........
but back on topic, that statement of his was incredibly wierd. (although it was in a classic Republican tradition, Lincoln thought slavery was wrong, but he wasn't going to up and outlaw it necessarily.)
Policy should be written such that we minimise any potential suffering involved in the abortion of a fetus. However to endow human life as something sacred is to allow religion to seep into politics. We are nothing more than clever mammals who seem to have very little complaint causing or allowing the suffering of other animals, of which we know are far more capable of suffering and distress than a fetus.
Why minimize suffering? or rather... why minimize Something else's "suffering"? [other than the empathy factor... if you can avoid empathy with something else, then why should you care about its "suffering"]
Nazi policy minimized suffering from the Holocaust (they didn't butcher the Jews in the street, at least not often).
Because, for whatever reason, nature has given me the ability understand the suffering of others, human or otherwise. I am aware that in nature, pleasure is preferred over suffering in all beings. I feel that because I am capable of understanding these things I should act so that I cause the least suffering in others which will ultimately yield a better existence for both myself and others.
I won't respond to your Nazi analogy because it is ridiculous.
On November 03 2011 12:16 chaoser wrote: (Psst, if life started a conception then women's bodies have been committing murders for years what with all the eggs that doesn't implant correctly in the uterus.)
Psst "Bodies" don't commit murders.. bodies can cause death, but they don't commit murder (otherwise a horribly large number of people have been murdered by their own bodies aging on them)
The only difference between a pregnant woman and her child and pair of conjoined twin is the pregnant woman consists of 2 genetically different beings that will eventually separate without any medical intervention.
The only difference between a fetus and a newborn is that one of them is detatched from someone else. (If a fetus doesn't qualify as "human life" due to low brain functioning, then neither does a newborn... and probably not a preschooler either, or many adult mentally handicapped, and possibly not adolescents (full reasoning ability isn't present until mid twenties))
............. lines are necessary but "birth" is a really crappy one philosophically, scientifically, etc. (although it is good emotionally, it is harder to kill something you can see) ........
but back on topic, that statement of his was incredibly wierd. (although it was in a classic Republican tradition, Lincoln thought slavery was wrong, but he wasn't going to up and outlaw it necessarily.)
Policy should be written such that we minimise any potential suffering involved in the abortion of a fetus. However to endow human life as something sacred is to allow religion to seep into politics. We are nothing more than clever mammals who seem to have very little complaint causing or allowing the suffering of other animals, of which we know are far more capable of suffering and distress than a fetus.
Why minimize suffering? or rather... why minimize Something else's "suffering"? [other than the empathy factor... if you can avoid empathy with something else, then why should you care about its "suffering"]
Nazi policy minimized suffering from the Holocaust (they didn't butcher the Jews in the street, at least not often).
It is official people. The internet has jumped the shark, I repeat the internet has jumped the shark!
I suspect a few million people would disagree with you, if they could.
On November 03 2011 12:16 chaoser wrote: (Psst, if life started a conception then women's bodies have been committing murders for years what with all the eggs that doesn't implant correctly in the uterus.)
Psst "Bodies" don't commit murders.. bodies can cause death, but they don't commit murder (otherwise a horribly large number of people have been murdered by their own bodies aging on them)
The only difference between a pregnant woman and her child and pair of conjoined twin is the pregnant woman consists of 2 genetically different beings that will eventually separate without any medical intervention.
The only difference between a fetus and a newborn is that one of them is detatched from someone else. (If a fetus doesn't qualify as "human life" due to low brain functioning, then neither does a newborn... and probably not a preschooler either, or many adult mentally handicapped, and possibly not adolescents (full reasoning ability isn't present until mid twenties))
............. lines are necessary but "birth" is a really crappy one philosophically, scientifically, etc. (although it is good emotionally, it is harder to kill something you can see) ........
but back on topic, that statement of his was incredibly wierd. (although it was in a classic Republican tradition, Lincoln thought slavery was wrong, but he wasn't going to up and outlaw it necessarily.)
Policy should be written such that we minimise any potential suffering involved in the abortion of a fetus. However to endow human life as something sacred is to allow religion to seep into politics. We are nothing more than clever mammals who seem to have very little complaint causing or allowing the suffering of other animals, of which we know are far more capable of suffering and distress than a fetus.
Why minimize suffering? or rather... why minimize Something else's "suffering"? [other than the empathy factor... if you can avoid empathy with something else, then why should you care about its "suffering"]
Nazi policy minimized suffering from the Holocaust (they didn't butcher the Jews in the street, at least not often).
Wait... what? Nazi policy minimized suffering? I'm not sure you're talking about the same Nazi Germany that the rest of us are familiar with.
They minimized the suffering involved with killing millions of Jews. They made sure to dehumanize them so that other Germans wouldn't feel empathic suffering. They also rounded them up and did the killing in out of the way locations (so that the people didn't have to pay as much attention to what was going on), and they even mechanized+industrialized the killing process so that even the executioners would have minimized suffering. Now they didn't perfectly minimize the suffering involved, but they were in the middle of a war so their resources were limited. (and there will be some suffering involved when you destroy millions of entities that are almost exactly like you)
On November 03 2011 12:16 chaoser wrote: (Psst, if life started a conception then women's bodies have been committing murders for years what with all the eggs that doesn't implant correctly in the uterus.)
Psst "Bodies" don't commit murders.. bodies can cause death, but they don't commit murder (otherwise a horribly large number of people have been murdered by their own bodies aging on them)
The only difference between a pregnant woman and her child and pair of conjoined twin is the pregnant woman consists of 2 genetically different beings that will eventually separate without any medical intervention.
The only difference between a fetus and a newborn is that one of them is detatched from someone else. (If a fetus doesn't qualify as "human life" due to low brain functioning, then neither does a newborn... and probably not a preschooler either, or many adult mentally handicapped, and possibly not adolescents (full reasoning ability isn't present until mid twenties))
............. lines are necessary but "birth" is a really crappy one philosophically, scientifically, etc. (although it is good emotionally, it is harder to kill something you can see) ........
but back on topic, that statement of his was incredibly wierd. (although it was in a classic Republican tradition, Lincoln thought slavery was wrong, but he wasn't going to up and outlaw it necessarily.)
Policy should be written such that we minimise any potential suffering involved in the abortion of a fetus. However to endow human life as something sacred is to allow religion to seep into politics. We are nothing more than clever mammals who seem to have very little complaint causing or allowing the suffering of other animals, of which we know are far more capable of suffering and distress than a fetus.
Why minimize suffering? or rather... why minimize Something else's "suffering"? [other than the empathy factor... if you can avoid empathy with something else, then why should you care about its "suffering"]
Nazi policy minimized suffering from the Holocaust (they didn't butcher the Jews in the street, at least not often).
Wait... what? Nazi policy minimized suffering? I'm not sure you're talking about the same Nazi Germany that the rest of us are familiar with.
They minimized the suffering involved with killing millions of Jews. They made sure to dehumanize them so that other Germans wouldn't feel empathic pain. (and they rounded them up and did the killing in an out of the way, and mechanized+industrialized the killing process so that even the executioners would have minimized suffering). Now they didn't perfectly minimize the suffering involved, but they were in the middle of a war so their resources were limited. (and there will be some suffering involved when you destroy millions of entities that are almost exactly like you)
The reason they did that is because it is much harder to torture someone incessantly until they die than to mass-suffocate hundreds. What you're saying is in some ways correct, indeed they could have maximised suffering as much as possible, but I don't feeling you're hitting on anything interesting. They still set out to end the lives of millions of people for the sake of an ideology with no rational excuse, doesn't seem ethical to me.
On November 03 2011 12:16 chaoser wrote: (Psst, if life started a conception then women's bodies have been committing murders for years what with all the eggs that doesn't implant correctly in the uterus.)
Psst "Bodies" don't commit murders.. bodies can cause death, but they don't commit murder (otherwise a horribly large number of people have been murdered by their own bodies aging on them)
The only difference between a pregnant woman and her child and pair of conjoined twin is the pregnant woman consists of 2 genetically different beings that will eventually separate without any medical intervention.
The only difference between a fetus and a newborn is that one of them is detatched from someone else. (If a fetus doesn't qualify as "human life" due to low brain functioning, then neither does a newborn... and probably not a preschooler either, or many adult mentally handicapped, and possibly not adolescents (full reasoning ability isn't present until mid twenties))
............. lines are necessary but "birth" is a really crappy one philosophically, scientifically, etc. (although it is good emotionally, it is harder to kill something you can see)
Psst, I'm talking about life at conception aka egg meeting the sperm, not fetuses. Ectopic pregnancies happen enough that hundreds of women will die each year if stupid shit like "life starting is defined as when conception occurs" is put into law. Doctors won't be able to operate on women to try to take the fertilized egg out and "kill it" to save the woman's life since they'd be murdering the "new life". Also most forms of birth control will be illegal since they work to "kill" the fertilized fetus.
But hey, what do I know? I'm just in medical school.
Last I checked, life definitely starts at conception. A fertilized egg has the ability to grow and divide. I suppose the U.S. government has sidestepped the issue of taking a life by redefining when life begins, but that doesn't change the fact that abortion is the murder of a living being.
With that being said, the government also has the power to establish when it is legal to take a life (ie capital (capitol?) punishment). Even if laws were passed stating that life starts at conception (which it does) the government would still have the ability to declare abortion legal, although it would look a lot worse.
More on topicish: Herman Cain is pretty fucked now with all these sexual harassment complaints. Republicans seem increasingly desperate to find a suitable candidate whose name is not Mitt Romney but appear unable to do so.
On November 03 2011 12:16 chaoser wrote: (Psst, if life started a conception then women's bodies have been committing murders for years what with all the eggs that doesn't implant correctly in the uterus.)
Psst "Bodies" don't commit murders.. bodies can cause death, but they don't commit murder (otherwise a horribly large number of people have been murdered by their own bodies aging on them)
The only difference between a pregnant woman and her child and pair of conjoined twin is the pregnant woman consists of 2 genetically different beings that will eventually separate without any medical intervention.
The only difference between a fetus and a newborn is that one of them is detatched from someone else. (If a fetus doesn't qualify as "human life" due to low brain functioning, then neither does a newborn... and probably not a preschooler either, or many adult mentally handicapped, and possibly not adolescents (full reasoning ability isn't present until mid twenties))
............. lines are necessary but "birth" is a really crappy one philosophically, scientifically, etc. (although it is good emotionally, it is harder to kill something you can see) ........
but back on topic, that statement of his was incredibly wierd. (although it was in a classic Republican tradition, Lincoln thought slavery was wrong, but he wasn't going to up and outlaw it necessarily.)
Policy should be written such that we minimise any potential suffering involved in the abortion of a fetus. However to endow human life as something sacred is to allow religion to seep into politics. We are nothing more than clever mammals who seem to have very little complaint causing or allowing the suffering of other animals, of which we know are far more capable of suffering and distress than a fetus.
Why minimize suffering? or rather... why minimize Something else's "suffering"? [other than the empathy factor... if you can avoid empathy with something else, then why should you care about its "suffering"]
Nazi policy minimized suffering from the Holocaust (they didn't butcher the Jews in the street, at least not often).
Wait... what? Nazi policy minimized suffering? I'm not sure you're talking about the same Nazi Germany that the rest of us are familiar with.
They minimized the suffering involved with killing millions of Jews. They made sure to dehumanize them so that other Germans wouldn't feel empathic pain. (and they rounded them up and did the killing in an out of the way, and mechanized+industrialized the killing process so that even the executioners would have minimized suffering). Now they didn't perfectly minimize the suffering involved, but they were in the middle of a war so their resources were limited. (and there will be some suffering involved when you destroy millions of entities that are almost exactly like you)
The reason they did that is because it is much harder to torture someone incessantly until they die than to mass-suffocate hundreds. What you're saying is in some ways correct, indeed they could have maximised suffering as much as possible, but I don't feeling you're hitting on anything interesting. They still set out to end the lives of millions of people for the sake of an ideology with no rational excuse, doesn't seem ethical to me.
I'm not talking about the suffering of the Jews, I'm talking about the suffering of the Other Germans. The Nazis worked to minimize that suffering (they dehumanized the Jews and the process so "Other Germans" wouldn't suffer empathically)
btw, Why does it not seem ethical to end the lives of millions of people? (the original point of this tangent) .......
or to the OP what type of politician says ... I oppose murdering people/hate crimes/slavery/theft/fraud but it's your choice.
On November 03 2011 12:16 chaoser wrote: (Psst, if life started a conception then women's bodies have been committing murders for years what with all the eggs that doesn't implant correctly in the uterus.)
Psst "Bodies" don't commit murders.. bodies can cause death, but they don't commit murder (otherwise a horribly large number of people have been murdered by their own bodies aging on them)
The only difference between a pregnant woman and her child and pair of conjoined twin is the pregnant woman consists of 2 genetically different beings that will eventually separate without any medical intervention.
The only difference between a fetus and a newborn is that one of them is detatched from someone else. (If a fetus doesn't qualify as "human life" due to low brain functioning, then neither does a newborn... and probably not a preschooler either, or many adult mentally handicapped, and possibly not adolescents (full reasoning ability isn't present until mid twenties))
............. lines are necessary but "birth" is a really crappy one philosophically, scientifically, etc. (although it is good emotionally, it is harder to kill something you can see) ........
but back on topic, that statement of his was incredibly wierd. (although it was in a classic Republican tradition, Lincoln thought slavery was wrong, but he wasn't going to up and outlaw it necessarily.)
Policy should be written such that we minimise any potential suffering involved in the abortion of a fetus. However to endow human life as something sacred is to allow religion to seep into politics. We are nothing more than clever mammals who seem to have very little complaint causing or allowing the suffering of other animals, of which we know are far more capable of suffering and distress than a fetus.
Why minimize suffering? or rather... why minimize Something else's "suffering"? [other than the empathy factor... if you can avoid empathy with something else, then why should you care about its "suffering"]
Nazi policy minimized suffering from the Holocaust (they didn't butcher the Jews in the street, at least not often).
Wait... what? Nazi policy minimized suffering? I'm not sure you're talking about the same Nazi Germany that the rest of us are familiar with.
They minimized the suffering involved with killing millions of Jews. They made sure to dehumanize them so that other Germans wouldn't feel empathic pain. (and they rounded them up and did the killing in an out of the way, and mechanized+industrialized the killing process so that even the executioners would have minimized suffering). Now they didn't perfectly minimize the suffering involved, but they were in the middle of a war so their resources were limited. (and there will be some suffering involved when you destroy millions of entities that are almost exactly like you)
The reason they did that is because it is much harder to torture someone incessantly until they die than to mass-suffocate hundreds. What you're saying is in some ways correct, indeed they could have maximised suffering as much as possible, but I don't feeling you're hitting on anything interesting. They still set out to end the lives of millions of people for the sake of an ideology with no rational excuse, doesn't seem ethical to me.
I'm not talking about the suffering of the Jews, I'm talking about the suffering of the Other Germans. The Nazis worked to minimize that suffering (they dehumanized the Jews and the process so "Other Germans" wouldn't suffer empathically)
btw, Why does it not seem ethical to end the lives of millions of people? (the original point of this tangent) .......
or to the OP what type of politician says ... I oppose murdering people/hate crimes/slavery/theft/fraud but it's your choice.
What are you guys talking about? Take it to PM unless it has something to do with Cain.. This thread needs to die, everyone knows Cain is a joke when you get into the real issues..
On November 03 2011 12:16 chaoser wrote: (Psst, if life started a conception then women's bodies have been committing murders for years what with all the eggs that doesn't implant correctly in the uterus.)
Psst "Bodies" don't commit murders.. bodies can cause death, but they don't commit murder (otherwise a horribly large number of people have been murdered by their own bodies aging on them)
The only difference between a pregnant woman and her child and pair of conjoined twin is the pregnant woman consists of 2 genetically different beings that will eventually separate without any medical intervention.
The only difference between a fetus and a newborn is that one of them is detatched from someone else. (If a fetus doesn't qualify as "human life" due to low brain functioning, then neither does a newborn... and probably not a preschooler either, or many adult mentally handicapped, and possibly not adolescents (full reasoning ability isn't present until mid twenties))
............. lines are necessary but "birth" is a really crappy one philosophically, scientifically, etc. (although it is good emotionally, it is harder to kill something you can see) ........
but back on topic, that statement of his was incredibly wierd. (although it was in a classic Republican tradition, Lincoln thought slavery was wrong, but he wasn't going to up and outlaw it necessarily.)
Policy should be written such that we minimise any potential suffering involved in the abortion of a fetus. However to endow human life as something sacred is to allow religion to seep into politics. We are nothing more than clever mammals who seem to have very little complaint causing or allowing the suffering of other animals, of which we know are far more capable of suffering and distress than a fetus.
Why minimize suffering? or rather... why minimize Something else's "suffering"? [other than the empathy factor... if you can avoid empathy with something else, then why should you care about its "suffering"]
Nazi policy minimized suffering from the Holocaust (they didn't butcher the Jews in the street, at least not often).
Wait... what? Nazi policy minimized suffering? I'm not sure you're talking about the same Nazi Germany that the rest of us are familiar with.
They minimized the suffering involved with killing millions of Jews. They made sure to dehumanize them so that other Germans wouldn't feel empathic pain. (and they rounded them up and did the killing in an out of the way, and mechanized+industrialized the killing process so that even the executioners would have minimized suffering). Now they didn't perfectly minimize the suffering involved, but they were in the middle of a war so their resources were limited. (and there will be some suffering involved when you destroy millions of entities that are almost exactly like you)
The reason they did that is because it is much harder to torture someone incessantly until they die than to mass-suffocate hundreds. What you're saying is in some ways correct, indeed they could have maximised suffering as much as possible, but I don't feeling you're hitting on anything interesting. They still set out to end the lives of millions of people for the sake of an ideology with no rational excuse, doesn't seem ethical to me.
I'm not talking about the suffering of the Jews, I'm talking about the suffering of the Other Germans. The Nazis worked to minimize that suffering (they dehumanized the Jews and the process so "Other Germans" wouldn't suffer empathically)
btw, Why does it not seem ethical to end the lives of millions of people? (the original point of this tangent) .......
or to the OP what type of politician says ... I oppose murdering people/hate crimes/slavery/theft/fraud but it's your choice.
I believe in a principle of pleasure maximisation and suffering minimisation while maintaining a necessary (but conditional) respect for 'personhood' (or, to extend to animals, the capacity for meaningful suffering). I believe that killing millions of people would be an act of maximised suffering (maybe a little good could come from it, but the sum would be negative) and would deny a respect for personhood. Of course scenario may dictate that 2 million need to die for the sake of 1 billion, then I have no problem with that.
To apply this to abortion: Abortion doesn't deny personhood, they're not autonomous or 0aware of anything. Their destruction will be a relatively quick 'flash' of pain which they may or may not be actually aware of. The positive is that a mother unwilling or incapable of correctly raising a child may continue to live her life on her own terms and eventually, when ready, have a child in a situation where she can truly cherish and nourish it. I perceive no problem with this unless you impose an unfounded sacredness onto human life.
On topic: From my understanding the whole set of candidates are very sketchy at best. Ron Paul is the only person I believe to have a shred of honesty and capability in properly participating in the political process. Then again from what I understand is he's an unleashed voice of dissent to any kind of govt. spending and has exceptionally backward views on science and politics. Obama seems to be the only reasonable choice, I guess not much more can be asked for in American politics.
He will get eaten up by this sexual abuse allegation, I guarantee it. Besides, he's bat shit crazy just like most of the Republican candidates, and not to mention in the pockets of the Koch Brothers.
I was so wrong about jokingly comparing him to Bill Cosby in his seriousness. As days go by I could only probably be surprised if Ving Rhames came popping out of his trunk all tied up with the ball-in-mouth(Pulp) at his next press conference. What a circus. I'll bet it was Cain backstage, not Justin Beiber(sarcasm and a dash of salt)
With Perry's whatever-the-hell that was in New Hampshire, it's become the akward moment...
Alone..
With Romney..
He looks at you and says Hello... and you can't even believe he even means it. Lol
Cain should get someone to pay a woman to accuse Cain of sexual harassment. Then get her to admit that it was a lie and she did it for publicity / tv offers. It would destroy the credibility of all the other women accusing Cain.
On November 03 2011 12:16 chaoser wrote: (Psst, if life started a conception then women's bodies have been committing murders for years what with all the eggs that doesn't implant correctly in the uterus.)
Psst "Bodies" don't commit murders.. bodies can cause death, but they don't commit murder (otherwise a horribly large number of people have been murdered by their own bodies aging on them)
The only difference between a pregnant woman and her child and pair of conjoined twin is the pregnant woman consists of 2 genetically different beings that will eventually separate without any medical intervention.
The only difference between a fetus and a newborn is that one of them is detatched from someone else. (If a fetus doesn't qualify as "human life" due to low brain functioning, then neither does a newborn... and probably not a preschooler either, or many adult mentally handicapped, and possibly not adolescents (full reasoning ability isn't present until mid twenties))
............. lines are necessary but "birth" is a really crappy one philosophically, scientifically, etc. (although it is good emotionally, it is harder to kill something you can see) ........
but back on topic, that statement of his was incredibly wierd. (although it was in a classic Republican tradition, Lincoln thought slavery was wrong, but he wasn't going to up and outlaw it necessarily.)
Policy should be written such that we minimise any potential suffering involved in the abortion of a fetus. However to endow human life as something sacred is to allow religion to seep into politics. We are nothing more than clever mammals who seem to have very little complaint causing or allowing the suffering of other animals, of which we know are far more capable of suffering and distress than a fetus.
Why minimize suffering? or rather... why minimize Something else's "suffering"? [other than the empathy factor... if you can avoid empathy with something else, then why should you care about its "suffering"]
Nazi policy minimized suffering from the Holocaust (they didn't butcher the Jews in the street, at least not often).
Uh oh, according to Godwin's Law its about time to shut her down boys.
On November 08 2011 08:20 BlackJack wrote: Cain should get someone to pay a woman to accuse Cain of sexual harassment. Then get her to admit that it was a lie and she did it for publicity / tv offers. It would destroy the credibility of all the other women accusing Cain.
On November 08 2011 08:20 BlackJack wrote: Cain should get someone to pay a woman to accuse Cain of sexual harassment. Then get her to admit that it was a lie and she did it for publicity / tv offers. It would destroy the credibility of all the other women accusing Cain.
There's no such thing as the "moment" of conception. Conception, meaning the fertilization of the egg by the sperm, takes about 22 hours to complete. And thus it's open to all the usual slippery slope objections that the argument is meant to avoid.
Im not from United States, so its sometimes rather hard for me to wrap my head around how another countrys political affairs work and whatnot. Whos popular and who can still be voted or what party selected who to run for them.
That being said : still theres one thing I do not understand, how come Ron Paul is not elected yet. If I could, I would SNATCH Ron Paul from US and make him president of Finland. That much of an great of a guy he seems. Everything what he says has reason, guy has seen more wars than I prolly have fingers left and he really seems to address some politically flammable issues again & again. He has life experience, he has seen how stuff work & dont work.
I could list here half-a-dozen things what Ron Paul has voted against in US gongress multiple times but this is turning to be rather long wall of txt already so I leave it up to people to dig up & search for themselfs if interested in.
I must also add that, Im not just pulling Ron Paul out of my hat to derpderp here. Back in 2008 if someone remembers, Ron Paul raised millions of dollars money for his campaing. Wich was almost every cent of it just valuntareely given. People all over the world - Europe - Asia - etc, donated millions of dollars money. I cant belive the US media shuts this guy down so much.
On November 08 2011 16:09 iksi wrote: Im not from United States, so its sometimes rather hard for me to wrap my head around how another countrys political affairs work and whatnot. Whos popular and who can still be voted or what party selected who to run for them.
That being said : still theres one thing I do not understand, how come Ron Paul is not elected yet. If I could, I would SNATCH Ron Paul from US and make him president of Finland. That much of an great of a guy he seems. Everything what he says has reason, guy has seen more wars than I prolly have fingers left and he really seems to address some politically flammable issues again & again. He has life experience, he has seen how stuff work & dont work.
I could list here half-a-dozen things what Ron Paul has voted against in US gongress multiple times but this is turning to be rather long wall of txt already so I leave it up to people to dig up & search for themselfs if interested in.
I must also add that, Im not just pulling Ron Paul out of my hat to derpderp here. Back in 2008 if someone remembers, Ron Paul raised millions of dollars money for his campaing. Wich was almost every cent of it just valuntareely given. People all over the world - Europe - Asia - etc, donated millions of dollars money. I cant belive the US media shuts this guy down so much.
If I could, I would vote for Ron Paul.
He's still kinda a loon, but I can see his appeal to some Europeans. Theres some noticeable difference in management when you start talking about the structure of government for a country of our physical numerical size but I'll try to translate one of his more silly concepts.
Since your from finland I'm going to assume you're proud of the school there. At least you should be finland leads the western world in compulsory school levels. Ron Paul basically has the view point that our Dept of Education should be completely abolished. In finland this would be the equivalent of saying that each school was free to do whatever the hell they wanted, if they didn't want to teach science facts they were encouraged to go ahead.
Suddenly every school district is free to flail about however they want and not provide a seemingly basic standard of education. This would be like letting our fifty states have complete control of education. It may seem silly that a school would go out of its way to you know say that evolution isn't worth teaching and to just say its all fake, but in the US that would actually happen in most of the country, Ron Paul thinks thats a swell idea.
Ron Paul also thinks its a swell idea for states to institute mandatory religions, discriminate voters at free will, and to make sure that pollution isn't something you can regulate, its best left to the actual manufacturers to decide how much they want to pollute and where.
On November 08 2011 16:09 iksi wrote: Im not from United States, so its sometimes rather hard for me to wrap my head around how another countrys political affairs work and whatnot. Whos popular and who can still be voted or what party selected who to run for them.
That being said : still theres one thing I do not understand, how come Ron Paul is not elected yet. If I could, I would SNATCH Ron Paul from US and make him president of Finland. That much of an great of a guy he seems. Everything what he says has reason, guy has seen more wars than I prolly have fingers left and he really seems to address some politically flammable issues again & again. He has life experience, he has seen how stuff work & dont work.
I could list here half-a-dozen things what Ron Paul has voted against in US gongress multiple times but this is turning to be rather long wall of txt already so I leave it up to people to dig up & search for themselfs if interested in.
I must also add that, Im not just pulling Ron Paul out of my hat to derpderp here. Back in 2008 if someone remembers, Ron Paul raised millions of dollars money for his campaing. Wich was almost every cent of it just valuntareely given. People all over the world - Europe - Asia - etc, donated millions of dollars money. I cant belive the US media shuts this guy down so much.
If I could, I would vote for Ron Paul.
What? I think you have a deep misunderstanding of what Ron Paul's philosophies are. He's a hardcore free market guy, IE government should have nothing to do with the private sector, and the government should be shrunk to a level as to which it would not hinder the economy. He opposes almost any sort of socialism and is pro-capitalism to an extreme, meaning he believes the free market should determine everything from the safety of products to the price.
Finland on the other hand, which you probably already know, is the opposite extreme, although it works quite well as I hear Finland is one of the best places in the world to live. Healthcare is provided by the government, and everyone is taxed heavily to fund the (outstanding) education system, the train system and other parts of the government. Ron Paul is basically trying to do everything to make America as opposite from Finland as he possibly can.
I suppose if you don't like the policies of Finland at all then I can see why you would vote for him?
On November 08 2011 16:09 iksi wrote: Im not from United States, so its sometimes rather hard for me to wrap my head around how another countrys political affairs work and whatnot. Whos popular and who can still be voted or what party selected who to run for them.
That being said : still theres one thing I do not understand, how come Ron Paul is not elected yet. If I could, I would SNATCH Ron Paul from US and make him president of Finland. That much of an great of a guy he seems. Everything what he says has reason, guy has seen more wars than I prolly have fingers left and he really seems to address some politically flammable issues again & again. He has life experience, he has seen how stuff work & dont work.
I could list here half-a-dozen things what Ron Paul has voted against in US gongress multiple times but this is turning to be rather long wall of txt already so I leave it up to people to dig up & search for themselfs if interested in.
I must also add that, Im not just pulling Ron Paul out of my hat to derpderp here. Back in 2008 if someone remembers, Ron Paul raised millions of dollars money for his campaing. Wich was almost every cent of it just valuntareely given. People all over the world - Europe - Asia - etc, donated millions of dollars money. I cant belive the US media shuts this guy down so much.
If I could, I would vote for Ron Paul.
You....
You do understand that Ron Paul and his worldview are literally the opposite of everything Finland is today right?
Iv readed throu Ron Paul policies. Not every word of it, neither prolly did I understand everything, everywhere 100% - but people make this a lot "extreme" than it actually is.
Never did I ever mention anything about Finlands methods doing things. It wasnt part of spesific topic. All Im saying is, for time being, available canditates at your hand, as bad as they all are - I would vote for Ron Paul.
And when people talk about his policies, like I said earlier, people tend to take them into extremes. Im not an forum person, this is my second time ever posting in forums, so I dont know if its somekind of "thing" what people are suppose to do here always, to over exaggerated everything what they say and impliment. But I dont see Ron Paul even half as bad as people make him to be.
But then again, like I said. Maybe its cultural thing. You think he is horrible. I dont. USA in huge debt, some others aint. So I dont know. Maybe theres something more into these things. Have anyone even checked into Ron Pauls policies about debt & spending.
Ill leave it here. Funny thou, how people dragged Finn's policies into this by assuming several things without even knowing by fact if I was for or against them, or what I think is good in it and bad. However. If you dont like Ron Paul, its fine. Maybe Iv seen him in too bright light, and Ill will look into more to this since now ppl raised doubt in me. So I thank you for that.
On November 08 2011 16:09 iksi wrote: Im not from United States, so its sometimes rather hard for me to wrap my head around how another countrys political affairs work and whatnot. Whos popular and who can still be voted or what party selected who to run for them.
That being said : still theres one thing I do not understand, how come Ron Paul is not elected yet. If I could, I would SNATCH Ron Paul from US and make him president of Finland. That much of an great of a guy he seems. Everything what he says has reason, guy has seen more wars than I prolly have fingers left and he really seems to address some politically flammable issues again & again. He has life experience, he has seen how stuff work & dont work.
I could list here half-a-dozen things what Ron Paul has voted against in US gongress multiple times but this is turning to be rather long wall of txt already so I leave it up to people to dig up & search for themselfs if interested in.
I must also add that, Im not just pulling Ron Paul out of my hat to derpderp here. Back in 2008 if someone remembers, Ron Paul raised millions of dollars money for his campaing. Wich was almost every cent of it just valuntareely given. People all over the world - Europe - Asia - etc, donated millions of dollars money. I cant belive the US media shuts this guy down so much.
If I could, I would vote for Ron Paul.
He's still kinda a loon, but I can see his appeal to some Europeans. Theres some noticeable difference in management when you start talking about the structure of government for a country of our physical numerical size but I'll try to translate one of his more silly concepts.
Since your from finland I'm going to assume you're proud of the school there. At least you should be finland leads the western world in compulsory school levels. Ron Paul basically has the view point that our Dept of Education should be completely abolished. In finland this would be the equivalent of saying that each school was free to do whatever the hell they wanted, if they didn't want to teach science facts they were encouraged to go ahead.
Suddenly every school district is free to flail about however they want and not provide a seemingly basic standard of education. This would be like letting our fifty states have complete control of education. It may seem silly that a school would go out of its way to you know say that evolution isn't worth teaching and to just say its all fake, but in the US that would actually happen in most of the country, Ron Paul thinks thats a swell idea.
Ron Paul also thinks its a swell idea for states to institute mandatory religions, discriminate voters at free will, and to make sure that pollution isn't something you can regulate, its best left to the actual manufacturers to decide how much they want to pollute and where.
You're imputing a level of responsibility on the Department of Education that's way beyond what they actually do. They're mostly in charge of school privacy issues, civil rights, student loans, and supplementary funding. School curricula are still almost entirely set by the states and local school boards. The only meddling they've done have been recent things like No Child Left Behind, Race to the Top, and the Common Core State Standards Initiative, all of which have been abject failures.
If you think our educational system is going to go to shit without the ED, keep in mind that it didn't even exist as a separate department until 1979, which is about when people started complaining that American public schools sucked. You're just imagining a fantasy doomsday scenario that has no basis in fact. It's right up there with "ending the war on terror will cause terrorist attacks on America" and "ending the war on drugs will cause everyone to become drug addicts."
On November 08 2011 18:10 iksi wrote: Iv readed throu Ron Paul policies. Not every word of it, neither prolly did I understand everything, everywhere 100% - but people make this a lot "extreme" than it actually is.
Never did I ever mention anything about Finlands methods doing things. It wasnt part of spesific topic. All Im saying is, for time being, available canditates at your hand, as bad as they all are - I would vote for Ron Paul.
And when people talk about his policies, like I said earlier, people tend to take them into extremes. Im not an forum person, this is my second time ever posting in forums, so I dont know if its somekind of "thing" what people are suppose to do here always, to over exaggerated everything what they say and impliment. But I dont see Ron Paul even half as bad as people make him to be.
But then again, like I said. Maybe its cultural thing. You think he is horrible. I dont. USA in huge debt, some others aint. So I dont know. Maybe theres something more into these things. Have anyone even checked into Ron Pauls policies about debt & spending.
Ill leave it here. Funny thou, how people dragged Finn's policies into this by assuming several things without even knowing by fact if I was for or against them, or what I think is good in it and bad. However. If you dont like Ron Paul, its fine. Maybe Iv seen him in too bright light, and Ill will look into more to this since now ppl raised doubt in me. So I thank you for that.
People don't make it into extremes, Ron Paul is a very extreme end of the spectrum candidate.
If you live in Finland im sure you don't agree a 100% with everything but saying you would want to have Ron Paul run in your country is basically saying you hate everything Findland currently is. All of Ron Pauls policies are directly opposed to what Finland is.
So no people aren't taking anything into the extreme. Ron Paul is just a very extreme candidate and almost nobody seems to understand this.
On November 08 2011 20:32 johanngrunt wrote: Is this Herman Cain campaign some kind of elaborate practical joke you 'mericans are pulling on the rest of the world?
I read your initial paragraph, Letho, and while I do fundamentally disagree with many of Cains philosophies, I have more of an issue with the manner in which he conducts himself.
For one, he constantly contradicts himself, and at this point, I don't actually believe HE knows what he's saying. Additionally, his 'blunder' that was "Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan" leaves me befuddled as to why people think he would be a good representation as the leader of our country.
On November 08 2011 20:32 johanngrunt wrote: Is this Herman Cain campaign some kind of elaborate practical joke you 'mericans are pulling on the rest of the world?
On November 08 2011 20:32 johanngrunt wrote: Is this Herman Cain campaign some kind of elaborate practical joke you 'mericans are pulling on the rest of the world?
On November 08 2011 20:32 johanngrunt wrote: Is this Herman Cain campaign some kind of elaborate practical joke you 'mericans are pulling on the rest of the world?
It really is hilarious that people can take him seriously after things like this.
Please don't beleive everything you see in the media, you have to learn to use your head. Do you really think someone running for president would intentionally watch and then steal words from a pokemon show? Come on now.
It's pretty disgusting what the media is doing to Herman Cain right now, whether hes innocent or not. Not only is our government ruining this country but also the media is with all the filth they call "news" every day.
Wouldn't it be amazing if Herman Cain was just a massive troll? That would be the greatest pseudo-political coup in history. Still waiting for him to unveil HotBid as his campaign coordinator.
Wow i've seen this msnbc link and i have to wonder aswell if this guy is some sort of comedian pulling the biggest practical joke politics has ever seen. Else i have to doubt the sanity of him and everyone supporting such a guy.
On November 08 2011 22:22 SensFaiL wrote: It's pretty disgusting what the media is doing to Herman Cain right now, whether hes innocent or not. Not only is our government ruining this country but also the media is with all the filth they call "news" every day.
It is kind of sad that this is what the media is focusing on when there's so much more ridiculous shit about Cain they could focus on.
On November 08 2011 20:32 johanngrunt wrote: Is this Herman Cain campaign some kind of elaborate practical joke you 'mericans are pulling on the rest of the world?
It really is hilarious that people can take him seriously after things like this.
Please don't beleive everything you see in the media, you have to learn to use your head. Do you really think someone running for president would intentionally watch and then steal words from a pokemon show? Come on now.
two options here: 1) cain or an associate looked up good quotes and did not verify the source... making him a tool 2) cain is putting the joke on us by intentionally quoting from pokemon... making him a fucking awesome troll
either way this dude is hilarious and he has my vote owing entirely to his comedic value. for all our influence the US doesn't know what the fuck we're doing, so might as well enjoy the confusion and applaud brilliant audacity when you see it.
On November 08 2011 22:22 SensFaiL wrote: It's pretty disgusting what the media is doing to Herman Cain right now, whether hes innocent or not. Not only is our government ruining this country but also the media is with all the filth they call "news" every day.
... Herman Cain's sexual harrassment allegations come out --> THE MEDIA IS TRYING TO DEFAME HIM WITH CONSTANT COVERAGE!
Anthony Weiner's sexual twitter pictures come out --> JON STEWART DIDN'T BAG ON HIM HARD ENOUGH ON THE DAY THE STORY BROKE!/Silence cause a 24/7 whole month news cycle is totally necessary for that story
On November 08 2011 20:32 johanngrunt wrote: Is this Herman Cain campaign some kind of elaborate practical joke you 'mericans are pulling on the rest of the world?
It really is hilarious that people can take him seriously after things like this.
Please don't beleive everything you see in the media, you have to learn to use your head. Do you really think someone running for president would intentionally watch and then steal words from a pokemon show? Come on now.
That's pretty much exactly what someone running for president would do in our country. Except that's not nearly as bad as what they'll do if they actually become the president.
He either didn't do his research, or he's trolling us. The same goes for every single blunder he's made so far, although some of them are clearly intentional (e.g. making fun of a country's name).
If this guy gets elected it just proves that democracy doesn't work anymore. People are becoming too stupid and ignorant and can no longer be allowed to vote.
On November 08 2011 22:24 maoiste wrote: Wow i've seen this msnbc link and i have to wonder aswell if this guy is some sort of comedian pulling the biggest practical joke politics has ever seen. Else i have to doubt the sanity of him and everyone supporting such a guy.
We're talking about the same people that elected George "The Decider" Bush.
If it is comedy, the joke's on the rest of us. -_-
On November 08 2011 22:55 Longshank wrote: If this guy gets elected it just proves that democracy doesn't work anymore. People are becoming too stupid and ignorant and can no longer be allowed to vote.
It doesn't prove that the democracy doesn't work because there is no democracy, there's just a reality show.
Democracy works fine when you keep the clowns in theaters, crazy people in mental institutions, and people involved in corruption and fraud in jail. However when you actually let them run things... then I can't see how ANY system would "work".
On November 08 2011 22:22 SensFaiL wrote: It's pretty disgusting what the media is doing to Herman Cain right now, whether hes innocent or not. Not only is our government ruining this country but also the media is with all the filth they call "news" every day.
It is kind of sad that this is what the media is focusing on when there's so much more ridiculous shit about Cain they could focus on.
Well there might be more important stuff to focus on and surely more serious shows will fill your need for that. But taken the humoristic nature of this show into consideration you might agree that those more serious topics might not quite fit into the format of the "rachel maddow show", or at least are very hard to implement. And the mockery aside, this piece still shows that hermann caine has major flaws in his knowledge of political issues, concerning both national and international affairs.
On November 08 2011 22:55 Longshank wrote: If this guy gets elected it just proves that democracy doesn't work anymore. People are becoming too stupid and ignorant and can no longer be allowed to vote.
Simple ten-question test required before voting. Need 7 out of 10 correct to be eligible to vote.
On November 08 2011 22:55 Longshank wrote: If this guy gets elected it just proves that democracy doesn't work anymore. People are becoming too stupid and ignorant and can no longer be allowed to vote.
Simple ten-question test required before voting. Need 7 out of 10 correct to be eligible to vote.
On November 08 2011 22:24 maoiste wrote: Wow i've seen this msnbc link and i have to wonder aswell if this guy is some sort of comedian pulling the biggest practical joke politics has ever seen. Else i have to doubt the sanity of him and everyone supporting such a guy.
We're talking about the same people that elected George "The Decider" Bush.
If it is comedy, the joke's on the rest of us. -_-
On November 08 2011 22:55 Longshank wrote: If this guy gets elected it just proves that democracy doesn't work anymore. People are becoming too stupid and ignorant and can no longer be allowed to vote.
It doesn't prove that the democracy doesn't work because there is no democracy, there's just a reality show.
Democracy works fine when you keep the clowns in theaters, crazy people in mental institutions, and people involved in corruption and fraud in jail. However when you actually let them run things... then I can't see how ANY system would "work".
nono. democracy works. i would vote for this guy. and i would vote for bush again too. why? because in the current political climate it really doesn't matter who the president is. our government is so gridlocked and bought out that nothing changes when you replace the guy at the top. we all get the guy we vote for, it's just that he can't actually do anything. so because of that, might as well vote for someone who is entertaining to read about on the news. like bush was fucking funny. he pissed a lot of people off but it made for great comedy fodder. same with cain. this guy is a riot. he's a complete 180 from the boring obama administration, which is boring as hell to follow. now as far as congressional elections, those are important, because that's where shit actually gets done. put clowns in congress (as we have done) and you don't get jack shit.
On November 08 2011 18:10 iksi wrote: Iv readed throu Ron Paul policies. Not every word of it, neither prolly did I understand everything, everywhere 100% - but people make this a lot "extreme" than it actually is.
Never did I ever mention anything about Finlands methods doing things. It wasnt part of spesific topic. All Im saying is, for time being, available canditates at your hand, as bad as they all are - I would vote for Ron Paul.
And when people talk about his policies, like I said earlier, people tend to take them into extremes. Im not an forum person, this is my second time ever posting in forums, so I dont know if its somekind of "thing" what people are suppose to do here always, to over exaggerated everything what they say and impliment. But I dont see Ron Paul even half as bad as people make him to be.
But then again, like I said. Maybe its cultural thing. You think he is horrible. I dont. USA in huge debt, some others aint. So I dont know. Maybe theres something more into these things. Have anyone even checked into Ron Pauls policies about debt & spending.
Ill leave it here. Funny thou, how people dragged Finn's policies into this by assuming several things without even knowing by fact if I was for or against them, or what I think is good in it and bad. However. If you dont like Ron Paul, its fine. Maybe Iv seen him in too bright light, and Ill will look into more to this since now ppl raised doubt in me. So I thank you for that.
People don't make it into extremes, Ron Paul is a very extreme end of the spectrum candidate.
If you live in Finland im sure you don't agree a 100% with everything but saying you would want to have Ron Paul run in your country is basically saying you hate everything Findland currently is. All of Ron Pauls policies are directly opposed to what Finland is.
So no people aren't taking anything into the extreme. Ron Paul is just a very extreme candidate and almost nobody seems to understand this.
The only thing more extreme than Ron is idiots willing to vote for any other republican expecting anything to actually , really get addressed.
I guess on your side of the Atlantic. Extreme is unelected, unheard-of bureaucrats that tell your Presidents "Nice Try, vote again children."
Extreme is Central Bankers becoming the new Greek PM.
The people who 'understand' Ron, tend to understand facts and trends, things other politicians only consider when bombs drop, or the value of our currency, or a shiny new crisis to cement some legislation in to place. Krugamn--wrong, missed crisis, Bernacke, wrong missed it. Tell me, as housing prices start dropping again, with a new student loan bubble on the table now. More bailouts coming for amercians(FED) buy EU junk bonds. How extreme is true spending cuts when you are broke?
Dude, I'm thinking we'll just tax your family 85% to pay for our stuff, not like your going to stop us right? Ron doesn't have to win. He already won. Ideas live longer than donations, or Moldovian Girls trafficed to Amsterdam. Good Morning!
On November 08 2011 23:11 zachMEISTER wrote: Why is Ron Paul unelectable?
Two words: foreign policy.
Isn't it also because he wants to legalize certain drugs (or, at least, he's super lenient on drug policy), prostitution, and gay marriage?
He's never going to get socially-conservative votes. And a lot of (most?) Republicans happen to be socially-conservative as well, partially because of religion.
On November 08 2011 18:10 iksi wrote: Iv readed throu Ron Paul policies. Not every word of it, neither prolly did I understand everything, everywhere 100% - but people make this a lot "extreme" than it actually is.
Never did I ever mention anything about Finlands methods doing things. It wasnt part of spesific topic. All Im saying is, for time being, available canditates at your hand, as bad as they all are - I would vote for Ron Paul.
And when people talk about his policies, like I said earlier, people tend to take them into extremes. Im not an forum person, this is my second time ever posting in forums, so I dont know if its somekind of "thing" what people are suppose to do here always, to over exaggerated everything what they say and impliment. But I dont see Ron Paul even half as bad as people make him to be.
But then again, like I said. Maybe its cultural thing. You think he is horrible. I dont. USA in huge debt, some others aint. So I dont know. Maybe theres something more into these things. Have anyone even checked into Ron Pauls policies about debt & spending.
Ill leave it here. Funny thou, how people dragged Finn's policies into this by assuming several things without even knowing by fact if I was for or against them, or what I think is good in it and bad. However. If you dont like Ron Paul, its fine. Maybe Iv seen him in too bright light, and Ill will look into more to this since now ppl raised doubt in me. So I thank you for that.
People don't make it into extremes, Ron Paul is a very extreme end of the spectrum candidate.
If you live in Finland im sure you don't agree a 100% with everything but saying you would want to have Ron Paul run in your country is basically saying you hate everything Findland currently is. All of Ron Pauls policies are directly opposed to what Finland is.
So no people aren't taking anything into the extreme. Ron Paul is just a very extreme candidate and almost nobody seems to understand this.
The only thing more extreme than Ron is idiots willing to vote for any other republican expecting anything to actually , really get addressed.
I guess on your side of the Atlantic. Extreme is unelected, unheard-of bureaucrats that tell your Presidents "Nice Try, vote again children."
Extreme is Central Bankers becoming the new Greek PM.
The people who 'understand' Ron, tend to understand facts and trends, things other politicians only consider when bombs drop, or the value of our currency, or a shiny new crisis to cement some legislation in to place. Krugamn--wrong, missed crisis, Bernacke, wrong missed it. Tell me, as housing prices start dropping again, with a new student loan bubble on the table now. More bailouts coming for amercians(FED) buy EU junk bonds. How extreme is true spending cuts when you are broke?
Dude, I'm thinking we'll just tax your family 85% to pay for our stuff, not like your going to stop us right? Ron doesn't have to win. He already won. Ideas live longer than donations, or Moldovian Girls trafficed to Amsterdam. Good Morning!
Ron Paul is one of the few candidates I've ever sat down and read their whole platform. He may seem "extreme" in some cases. But when you're in a rut such as ours, extreme measures are used to pull us one way or another. Libertarians are all about individual freedom and small government. Why can't people see the broad scheme of his platform and understand he is only viewed as "extreme" because everyone else is staunchly liberal, or solidly conservative, neither wanting to meet in the middle.
He's never going to get socially-conservative votes. And a lot of (most?) Republicans happen to be socially-conservative as well, partially because of religion.
He's too socially liberal for a Republican.
His social policy is about individual freedom. As long as you're doing what you want and not impeding on others, you're free to do heroin, cocaine, meth, suck a pepe, hire a hooker. All forms of individual freedom. Not because he supports the use of drugs or the legalization of prostitution, but because he believes in YOU being able to do what YOU want.
On November 08 2011 23:11 zachMEISTER wrote: Why is Ron Paul unelectable?
Two words: foreign policy.
Foreign Policy should be the least of our worries ATM. Domestic problems > Foreign problems.
He's not electable because Republicans view him as anarchist-lite and democrats view him as libertarian anti-social security welfare state + anti-abortion.
Basically he'd never win a primary in the two parties and would need to run on a third-party platform (which he has done before). Even then he'd lose the general election due to his anti-federal government stance. States are already fucking up with issues such as abortion and immigration (look at Mississippi, Arizona, Alabama), they'd fuck up even more with a minialistic federal government.
On November 08 2011 23:21 Junichi wrote: This Rachel Maddow Show is brilliant. Cain has to be an artist...
I hope you're kidding if you take this left wing rhetoric seriously or consider it to be "brilliant." Unless, of course, you are taking it as humor, as it should be taken. Its no worse than the conspiracy theories that Glen Beck spins.
Its sad that these types of shows are on what people consider to be "news channels."
He's never going to get socially-conservative votes. And a lot of (most?) Republicans happen to be socially-conservative as well, partially because of religion.
He's too socially liberal for a Republican.
His social policy is about individual freedom. As long as you're doing what you want and not impeding on others, you're free to do heroin, cocaine, meth, suck a pepe, hire a hooker. All forms of individual freedom. Not because he supports the use of drugs or the legalization of prostitution, but because he believes in YOU being able to do what YOU want.
I know that, and I agree with him.
I'm merely explaining why social conservatives won't vote for him, as that was the question asked.
On November 08 2011 23:11 zachMEISTER wrote: Why is Ron Paul unelectable?
Two words: foreign policy.
Foreign Policy should be the least of our worries ATM. Domestic problems > Foreign problems.
He's not electable because Republicans view him as anarchist-lite and democrats view him as libertarian anti-social security welfare state + anti-abortion.
He's never going to get socially-conservative votes. And a lot of (most?) Republicans happen to be socially-conservative as well, partially because of religion.
He's too socially liberal for a Republican.
His social policy is about individual freedom. As long as you're doing what you want and not impeding on others, you're free to do heroin, cocaine, meth, suck a pepe, hire a hooker. All forms of individual freedom. Not because he supports the use of drugs or the legalization of prostitution, but because he believes in YOU being able to do what YOU want.
I know that, and I agree with him.
I'm merely explaining why social conservatives won't vote for him, as that was the question asked.
Sorry, kinda overzealous when trying to sympathize and explain political views beyond DERPH DERPH CONSERVATION NO MATTER WHAT and LOLOL GOVT GIVE ME EVERYTHING PLZ.
Ron Paul is not electable because most people are dumb and are afraid of change specially when it comes to this issues like drug legalization that they have been brainwashed to fear since they were born.
On November 08 2011 23:53 KevinBacon wrote: Ron Paul is not electable because most people are dumb and are afraid of change specially when it comes to this issues like drug legalization that they have been brainwashed to fear since they were born.
I didn't realize generalization of an entire group of people who are against a particular candidate into "dumb sheep who are against drug legalization" was a valid argument point but thanks for bringing it to my attention! /sarcasm
There are a multitude of reasons for why people would be against Ron Paul and drug legalization is just one of the drops into that bucket
On November 09 2011 00:31 nathangonmad wrote: It was to my understanding Obama is the most popular president since Clinton, do you guys think he's not going to get a second term?
The economy is terrible (it Could be worse, but it could always be worse), and the government is in massive debt partially due to having bailed out major corporations.
Not to mention he 'lost' the elections in 2010.
He Might get reelected, but he's not popular (even on the left, many think he wasn't 'left' enough)
On November 09 2011 00:31 nathangonmad wrote: It was to my understanding Obama is the most popular president since Clinton, do you guys think he's not going to get a second term?
He was extremely popular back when he was speaking about doing things and not actually doing things. His popularity has been in decline ever since getting elected.
Obama isn't on the left with many issues(this is somewhat off topic, but there you have it). Increases in proxy wars, targeted assassinations and other para-legal activities make his status questionable as the best thing to happen to the left.
On November 09 2011 05:17 RoyW wrote: It continuously shocks me how any American could seriously consider any of the conservative candidates for election.
It's not that Europeans like Obama it's that anything to the right of him is like electing a far-right Nationalist party. A lot of outsiders wish the 'choice' in the US was between Democrat and even-more-left-than-Democrat.
On November 09 2011 00:31 nathangonmad wrote: It was to my understanding Obama is the most popular president since Clinton, do you guys think he's not going to get a second term?
Most popular to people not living in America sadly. His popularity tapered off very quickly in the states.
On November 09 2011 00:31 nathangonmad wrote: It was to my understanding Obama is the most popular president since Clinton, do you guys think he's not going to get a second term?
Clinton was not THAT popular. Clinton failed to get half the vote in either of his two elections. Al Gore and John Kerry got more votes for president than Clinton did when he ran.
Clinton's strength was that he had a decent approval rating when he finished his second term, which is rare. Even the best Presidents are usually bruised after two terms, but he had a fairly strong economy which kept his popularity high.
Since 1900 Democrats have won 13 elections for President. Roosevelt won 4 of those with decisive margins. LBJ won once decisively with only 1 year of experience, and then was so unpopular he was forced to resign by his own party.
After that Obama was the most popular Democrat. No other Democrat got more than 50.1% of the vote.
Clinton, JFK, Truman and Wilson managed to win a combined six elections without ever actually winning a majority of the vote.
For these reasons I think it is fair to say that Obama is most popular Democrat since FDR. LBJ could claim to be more popular, but given how his own party forced him out, I think Obama gets the edge.
On November 09 2011 05:31 meadbert wrote: Since 1900 Democrats have won 13 elections for President. Roosevelt won 4 of those with decisive margins. LBJ won once decisively with only 1 year of experience, and then was so unpopular he was forced to resign by his own party.
After that Obama was the most popular Democrat. No other Democrat got more than 50.1% of the vote.
Clinton, JFK, Truman and Wilson managed to win a combined six elections without ever actually winning a majority of the vote.
For these reasons I think it is fair to say that Obama is most popular Democrat since FDR. LBJ could claim to be more popular, but given how his own party forced him out, I think Obama gets the edge.
ZING. However, his popularity has been greatly reduced. Especially with him being quoted bashing Netanyahu
What did Obama say about Netanyahu? (who is unpopular in his own country, by the way - and not very popular in the USA I imagine - and who has also commented on how he likes to manipulate the United States)
On November 09 2011 05:17 RoyW wrote: It continuously shocks me how any American could seriously consider any of the conservative candidates for election.
This. They're all morons, and Cain seriously seems like the worse, if you look at some of the answers he's given in interviews and GOP debates he seems more clueless than Palin. I actually think I might be smarter than him. But maybe this sort of naive ignorance is looked on as endearing and relatable. Also the recent sexual harassment allegations aren't going to help him at all, even if they could be entirely fabricated.
So fill me in here, besides running once for Congress in 2003, and declaring to his campaign manager beforehand about the sexual harassment (which he has conveniently forgotten about since)scandal with the NRA (food not guns), and previously running a pizza chain, why is this guy electable? Or are the polls also run by comedians?
And when they ask me 'whos the president of Uz-beki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan', I'm gonna say 'you know, I don't know; do you know?' and then I'm going to say ' hows that going to create one job?'
On November 09 2011 05:17 RoyW wrote: It continuously shocks me how any American could seriously consider any of the conservative candidates for election.
This. They're all morons, and Cain seriously seems like the worse, if you look at some of the answers he's given in interviews and GOP debates he seems more clueless than Palin. I actually think I might be smarter than him. But maybe this sort of naive ignorance is looked on as endearing and relatable. Also the recent sexual harassment allegations aren't going to help him at all, even if they could be entirely fabricated.
There is a difference between remembering that something happened in general and remembering details of it.
On November 09 2011 09:00 Dental Floss wrote: 'And if someone asks me 'who the president of Uz-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan is', I'll say 'I don't know; do you? And how is that going to create one job?!"
Herman Cain rules!
lmao this guy is starting to grow on me.
And I honestly think this bullshit about sexual harassment is purely responsive to him starting to dominate the other Republicans in polls. Its a bit too coincidental that once he starts owning face, he's groping bitches.
And pretty ballsy coming out and saying he'll take a lie detector to prove its bullshit. Either bluffing or really is falling victim to the same tactics we see used on other people.
On November 09 2011 09:00 Dental Floss wrote: 'And if someone asks me 'who the president of Uz-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan is', I'll say 'I don't know; do you? And how is that going to create one job?!"
Herman Cain rules!
lmao this guy is starting to grow on me.
And I honestly think this bullshit about sexual harassment is purely responsive to him starting to dominate the other Republicans in polls. Its a bit too coincidental that once he starts owning face, he's groping bitches.
And pretty ballsy coming out and saying he'll take a lie detector to prove its bullshit. Either bluffing or really is falling victim to the same tactics we see used on other people.
You realize that he "groped bitches" in the nineties, and that the National Restaurant Association paid off said "bitches," right?
On November 09 2011 09:00 Dental Floss wrote: 'And if someone asks me 'who the president of Uz-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan is', I'll say 'I don't know; do you? And how is that going to create one job?!"
Herman Cain rules!
lmao this guy is starting to grow on me.
And I honestly think this bullshit about sexual harassment is purely responsive to him starting to dominate the other Republicans in polls. Its a bit too coincidental that once he starts owning face, he's groping bitches.
And pretty ballsy coming out and saying he'll take a lie detector to prove its bullshit. Either bluffing or really is falling victim to the same tactics we see used on other people.
Lie detectors are literally science-fiction. They are used to trick people and for nothing else.
On November 09 2011 09:00 Dental Floss wrote: 'And if someone asks me 'who the president of Uz-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan is', I'll say 'I don't know; do you? And how is that going to create one job?!"
Herman Cain rules!
lmao this guy is starting to grow on me.
And I honestly think this bullshit about sexual harassment is purely responsive to him starting to dominate the other Republicans in polls. Its a bit too coincidental that once he starts owning face, he's groping bitches.
And pretty ballsy coming out and saying he'll take a lie detector to prove its bullshit. Either bluffing or really is falling victim to the same tactics we see used on other people.
Lie detectors are literally science-fiction. They are used to trick people and for nothing else.
And that is nowhere near true, lie detectors show to a reasonable degree of verifiability if someone is lying. The problem is the very small margin of error, coupled with the ability for someone to intentionally fool it to skew the readings.
(one method i know is tightening your ass holeyo, which manipulates the readings due to the physiological effect that hole tightening or "heightening" has)
Cain willing to take lie detector test Do they still use those things? I thought they were rather inaccurate because it only measures physiological responses which can be thrown off by either being stressed by the environment or the question and therefore reads as though they are lying. Or alternatively a compulsive liar has no physiological response because lying is what they always do.
In any event, at the point that there are 4 women accusing basically the same thing, I do think it's time to look beyond conspiracy sabotage theories from the Left or the Right. I sometimes wonder how how many accusers and defenders were entirely the other way during the Bill Clinton scandal. That is how many are morally outraged or else defensive to possible sabotage simply based on political ideology. I've started seeing the 'well, Clinton did it' excuse on a couple news comments section, which seems to be the inevitable admission to a lost cause.
Edit. As for why Herman is "suddenly groping women." Well, that's more what the gauntlet that all frontrunners seem to go through. The so-called vetting process where all your dirty laundry gets aired. Perry got the same treatment. Obama certainly got it and switched churches over it, in addition to Ayers. (After listening to the full sermon, I don't think J Wright was too off-base with that particular controversy.) In some cases the media vetting can be pretty over the top, but if the accusations are true, I think it is pertinent as sexual harassment is a serious problem.
On November 09 2011 00:31 nathangonmad wrote: It was to my understanding Obama is the most popular president since Clinton, do you guys think he's not going to get a second term?
Well there's only been one other President since Clinton to compare him to, but his approval numbers have been below Bush's at comparable time points in their presidency. Bush wasn't that unpopular in his first term. Obama's approval rating is in the high 30s last I checked, which is practically unelectability for an incumbent. He's quite unpopular at this time, mostly weighed down by the bad economy. Republicans see how vulnerable Obama is and that's why some of these crazies have a shot: they think they can still win even with a Cain.
I disagree, but that's Obama's best shot. If Republicans nominate a standard candidate like Romney I don't see how Obama overcomes the bad economy to win.
On November 09 2011 09:00 Dental Floss wrote: 'And if someone asks me 'who the president of Uz-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan is', I'll say 'I don't know; do you? And how is that going to create one job?!"
Herman Cain rules!
lmao this guy is starting to grow on me.
And I honestly think this bullshit about sexual harassment is purely responsive to him starting to dominate the other Republicans in polls. Its a bit too coincidental that once he starts owning face, he's groping bitches.
And pretty ballsy coming out and saying he'll take a lie detector to prove its bullshit. Either bluffing or really is falling victim to the same tactics we see used on other people.
Lie detectors are literally science-fiction. They are used to trick people and for nothing else.
And that is nowhere near true, lie detectors show to a reasonable degree of verifiability if someone is lying. The problem is the very small margin of error, coupled with the ability for someone to intentionally fool it to skew the readings.
(one method i know is tightening your ass holeyo, which manipulates the readings due to the physiological effect that hole tightening or "heightening" has)
On November 09 2011 09:13 Falling wrote: Cain willing to take lie detector test Do they still use those things? I thought they were rather inaccurate because it only measures physiological responses which can be thrown off by either being stressed by the environment or the question and therefore reads as though they are lying. Or alternatively a compulsive liar has no physiological response because lying is what they always do.
In any event, at the point that there are 4 women accusing basically the same thing, I do think it's time to look beyond conspiracy sabotage theories from the Left or the Right. I sometimes wonder how how many accusers and defenders were entirely the other way during the Bill Clinton scandal. That is how many are morally outraged or else defensive to possible sabotage simply based on political ideology. I've started seeing the 'well, Clinton did it' excuse on a couple news comments section, which seems to be the inevitable admission to a lost cause.
So far there is no evidence that these claims have any merit and each one is suspicious.
The last case is extremely suspicious where the woman was seen months later hugging him, taking a picture with him, and whispering in his ear after a speech he gave, not something you would do to your sexual assaulter. Also how she is acting publicly not seeming to recall a horrific ordeal she went through, but enjoying her time in the lime light. Her having money troubles and the timing of her coming out is suspicious as well.
On November 09 2011 00:31 nathangonmad wrote: It was to my understanding Obama is the most popular president since Clinton, do you guys think he's not going to get a second term?
Well there's only been one other President since Clinton to compare him to, but his approval numbers have been below Bush's at comparable time points in their presidency. Bush wasn't that unpopular in his first term. Obama's approval rating is in the high 30s last I checked, which is practically unelectability for an incumbent. He's quite unpopular at this time, mostly weighed down by the bad economy. Republicans see how vulnerable Obama is and that's why some of these crazies have a shot: they think they can still win even with a Cain.
I disagree, but that's Obama's best shot. If Republicans nominate a standard candidate like Romney I don't see how Obama overcomes the bad economy to win.
Obama's approval rating is more deserved though, bush's approval rating were shot though the roof up till 2004 after all could use 9/11 as an excuse for everything pretty sure bush could have punched a woman and said she was a terrorist and saw his approval rating go up. You try keeping your approval rating up after you've been handed a battered economy people vote with their wallets. obama's rating only dipped in the 30's in august and rises as republicans make each other looks insane during political debates the avg is around 45 gallup puts it at 44 approval 48 disapproval http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Approval-Center.aspx
On November 09 2011 09:00 Dental Floss wrote: 'And if someone asks me 'who the president of Uz-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan is', I'll say 'I don't know; do you? And how is that going to create one job?!"
Herman Cain rules!
lmao this guy is starting to grow on me.
And I honestly think this bullshit about sexual harassment is purely responsive to him starting to dominate the other Republicans in polls. Its a bit too coincidental that once he starts owning face, he's groping bitches.
And pretty ballsy coming out and saying he'll take a lie detector to prove its bullshit. Either bluffing or really is falling victim to the same tactics we see used on other people.
Lie detectors are literally science-fiction. They are used to trick people and for nothing else.
And that is nowhere near true, lie detectors show to a reasonable degree of verifiability if someone is lying. The problem is the very small margin of error, coupled with the ability for someone to intentionally fool it to skew the readings.
(one method i know is tightening your ass holeyo, which manipulates the readings due to the physiological effect that hole tightening or "heightening" has)
No the brief suggestion of placebo in that article was given as a explanatory theory that has not been proven, merely suggested, and the article itself only emphasises what we already know. That Lie Detectors are flawed.
To take from that article and the evidence they present that Lie Detectors have zero validity and are nothing more than placebo boxes then you have to have read it, cut letters out of newspapers dotted around your house, and prit sticked them covering the screen until it says "Lie Detector = Placebo Box, Science Proves!"
On November 09 2011 09:00 Dental Floss wrote: 'And if someone asks me 'who the president of Uz-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan is', I'll say 'I don't know; do you? And how is that going to create one job?!"
Herman Cain rules!
lmao this guy is starting to grow on me.
And I honestly think this bullshit about sexual harassment is purely responsive to him starting to dominate the other Republicans in polls. Its a bit too coincidental that once he starts owning face, he's groping bitches.
And pretty ballsy coming out and saying he'll take a lie detector to prove its bullshit. Either bluffing or really is falling victim to the same tactics we see used on other people.
Lie detectors are literally science-fiction. They are used to trick people and for nothing else.
And that is nowhere near true, lie detectors show to a reasonable degree of verifiability if someone is lying. The problem is the very small margin of error, coupled with the ability for someone to intentionally fool it to skew the readings.
(one method i know is tightening your ass holeyo, which manipulates the readings due to the physiological effect that hole tightening or "heightening" has)
No the brief suggestion of placebo in that article was given as a explanatory theory that has not been proven, merely suggested, and the article itself only emphasises what we already know. That Lie Detectors are flawed.
To take from that article and the evidence they present that Lie Detectors have zero validity and are nothing more than placebo boxes then you have to have read it, cut letters out of newspapers dotted around your house, and prit sticked them covering the screen until it says "Lie Detector = Placebo Box, Science Proves!"
They are flawed and not admissible in court, in practice lie detectors are used to pressure people into a confession on the idea that they work and thus will be caught even though police know they don't work.
In terms of republican politics, he is not a strong candidate. He has a lack of political experience, his tax plan is catchphrase-based, and, I hate to say it, he's black. I'd like to think the Republican party and its followers have gotten past their WASPiness but their track record still stands.
Now, just considering the 999 tax plan and the history of the flat tax agenda, it is not at all economically feasible or popular. It turns out that when CEOs want to pay the same proportion of taxes as someone on the poverty line, they tend not to get support from voters. Republicans simply at this point can not run a campaign on economic issues because they continue to support lower taxes for million and billion dollar industries. Until the practice what they preach, as in benefiting small businesses and pushing for greater restrictions on corproate lobbying, the party and candidates like Cain are more of the same. 999 is simply a rebranded flat tax from Dole and Reagonomics. Ask anyone in the 1980s earning less than $20,000 a year what they thought of Reagonomics. I'm sure you'll get some curse words in their answer ans ome BM.
Semantics at what point have I said they are not flawed, are admissible in court (or should be), and that they are not used to pressure people into confessions?
You've misread my posts if you've somehow got to that conclusion, I was only arguing against that guys idea that Lie Detectors are completely void of any scientific validity. They are not.
On November 09 2011 09:31 XeliN wrote: Semantics at what point have I said they are not flawed, are admissible in court (or should be), and that they are not used to pressure people into confessions?
You've misread my posts if you've somehow got to that conclusion, I was only arguing against that guys idea that Lie Detectors are completely void of any scientific validity. They are not.
Who said that placebos don't have scientific validity? Its a scientific reference point designed around people changing their behavior based on their preconceptions. A placebo does work better than random chance and does work better or worse depending on your belief in it.
This is getting abit tedious now, although I was abit tedious in getting into it in the first place ^^
No-one has said placebos don't have scientific validity. You've taken the semantic line of seemingly responding to an argument I haven't made. You 2 should team up and become team Placebo! you can garrotte people with the floss of a thousand suns whilst semantic slowly demoralises your enemies with discussions about the meaningfullness of discussions on the meaning of meaning.
But anyway. My point is LD tests have validity beyond simply that of the placebo effect of them on the person being tested. And as I countered earlier your only suggestion to the contrary was the brief part in that article where someone proffers a placebo comparison as a potential influence on their "effectiveness".
Show me the part in that article, or anywhere, that it has been evidentially shown that Lie Detector tests have no validity beyond that of their potential for a Placebo effect on the "suspect". You won't find it, because your talking out of your Dental Flosser
On November 09 2011 09:49 XeliN wrote: This is getting abit tedious now, although I was abit tedious in getting into it in the first place ^^
No-one has said placebos don't have scientific validity. You've taken the semantic line of seemingly responding to an argument I haven't made. You 2 should team up and become team Placebo! you can garrotte people with the floss of a thousand suns whilst semantic slowly demoralises your enemies with discussions about the meaningfullness of discussions on the meaning of meaning.
But anyway. My point is LD tests have validity beyond simply that of the placebo effect of them on the person being tested. And as I countered earlier your only suggestion to the contrary was the brief part in that article where someone proffers a placebo comparison as a potential influence on their "effectiveness".
Show me the part in that article, or anywhere, that it has been evidentially shown that Lie Detector tests have no validity beyond that of their potential for a Placebo effect on the "suspect". You won't find it, because your talking out of your Dental Flosser
Okay here is a study published in the Journal of Speech, Language and the Law called "Charlatanry in Forensic speech science: A problem to be taken seriously." The APA article was written with a very restrained tone because Lie-detector manufacturers have been well known to sue any scientist who do reserach on the efficacy of lie-detector tests.
After you consider that, check out this first hand testomonial from a polygraph operator who describes how they REALLY work
The fake card trick was not the only ploy built into the school curriculum to give the examiner some help in reaching his conclusion. One such item was a serious plea to the testee to go to the washroom and scrub both hands thoroughly - because “the instruments won’t give me good results unless your hands are spotlessly clean.” When the person goes to the empty bathroom by himself, the examiner spies on his activity through a one-way mirror. If the individual seems intent on foiling the examination by failing to wash the hands, the examiner gets a pretty good hint that he is not a truthful person. Often one hears the water running and sees the individual pretending to wash his or her hands.
A similar stunt is to leave him/her in the room alone with the polygraph itself, always laying on a stern injunction not to touch or even breathe on the equipment because “it’s so delicately balanced it will screw up all my results if it’s moved or shaken.” Once again a one-way mirror comes into play. It is amazing how many times one sees a wise-guy trying to loosen a wire or otherwise shake-up the instruments.
In addition to a number of such physical procedures, there are numerous psychological traps designed to indicate truth or deception. For example, suppose we take a simple case of a man accused of car theft. A fake phone call is received by the examiner, who then turns to the subject and says, “What if I tell you that our identification technician just reported that he found your fingerprint on the car?”
The innocent person will say something like, “That’s utterly and completely impossible.” The lying person may say something like, “Well you know anything is possible. I may have walked by the car in a parking lot or shopping center and accidently brushed against it.”
The second of your links calls into question the techniques employed in conjunction with the use of a lie detector test in order to deceive or unbalance, and not on the validity of the LD itself.
The first however seems to be fairly forthright in claiming the lack of validity on the lie detectors themselves. And considering you have presented 3 outside examples to try support your claim and the only evidence I've offered is "LOL U WRONG" then I will concede this argument.
I am still quite skeptical on the idea that LD tests have zero validity whatsoever beyond their placebo influence of the tested. It seems to me something that would be widely known if they were genuinely to have no scientific validity whatsoever, but lacking evidence (and too lazy to search xD) to the contrary I concede this round. U winz
I sure hope that he gets the Republican nomination. Despite what's come up about him in recent days, I still believe he's best suited (at least out of the rest of the nominees) to represent the Republican Party. I have a hard time believing what these women say, and the fact is that PAC's, interest groups, and the like have been known to prop these people up, and we end up later finding out that they were paid off to lie.
Watch too much tv...also the police like it any tool that is believed to work in telling if you're lieing helps them put pressure on people and get a confession. US police are completely allowed to lie to you during cross examination in some states allowed to secretly record you as it only takes 1 person knowing that they are being recorded for it to be legal ie the police officer, they employ a lot of tricks in order to decern if you're guilty or not and if they should put more pressure on you in order to get an answer.
Yeah, every psychology course I ever took ripped into the validity of Lie Detection tests. However it remains ingrained in the imagination of the general public as a valid measurement.
The more I learn about the republican primaries the more America scares me.
I enjoy the irony that people who are denying that this guy molested women, despite multiple accounts, overwhelming evidence etc, are from the same party that tried to discredit Obama by claiming he was born outside of the US, and continued to deny it after he showed you all his birth certificate. The only candidate who seems remotely sane is Ron Paul, and when I say remotely sane I mean remotely sane.
Lastly, please don't call me a liberal, or a democrat, as I am neither.
On November 09 2011 10:48 Gako wrote: The more I learn about the republican primaries the more America scares me.
I enjoy the irony that people who are denying that this guy molested women, despite multiple accounts, overwhelming evidence etc, are from the same party that tried to discredit Obama by claiming he was born outside of the US, and continued to deny it after he showed you all his birth certificate. The only candidate who seems remotely sane is Ron Paul, and when I say remotely sane I mean remotely sane.
Lastly, please don't call me a liberal, or a democrat, as I am neither.
It helps if you view individual people as individual people, instead of lumping them all together into "parties" and what not, but from my experience that is very difficult for people to handle. Some people questioned Obama's birth, and some people questioned the allegations towards Cain.
I never questioned Obama's birth place, but I question seriously the allegations against Cain. I'm an individual, not a party. It's funny you are worried about people calling you liberal or a democrat... We foster guilt by association these days. That's how they took down the tea party at least.
On November 09 2011 10:48 Gako wrote: The more I learn about the republican primaries the more America scares me.
I enjoy the irony that people who are denying that this guy molested women, despite multiple accounts, overwhelming evidence etc, are from the same party that tried to discredit Obama by claiming he was born outside of the US, and continued to deny it after he showed you all his birth certificate. The only candidate who seems remotely sane is Ron Paul, and when I say remotely sane I mean remotely sane.
Lastly, please don't call me a liberal, or a democrat, as I am neither.
Overwhelming evidence? There has been NO evidence besides he said she said..
On November 09 2011 11:03 Romulox wrote: Man I hope this guy gets a shot to go vs Obama 1 on 1 in front of this country and the world in a debate. let the entertainment begin.
Really looking forward to it. I don't see him losing the support of the Tea Party anytime soon. I don't see this sexual harassment junk taking him down either. How soon would you think you'd have two African Americans fighting for the presidency?
I highly suspect Cain will eventually leverage his polling to gain a position in another candidate's administration. The republican establishment has been favoring Romney as the candidate since the beginning, and that probably won't change anytime soon.
It's kind of like Ron Paul... people love him, they express admiration for his policies, they advocate for him, but when it comes time to vote they hold their nose and vote for whoever the party has put up, whoever they think has a real shot at winning. That's part of the reason the two party system has lasted so long. Being in a majority is more important than than having the candidate you like.
ATLANTA (CBS ATLANTA) - Private investigator TJ Ward said presidential hopeful Herman Cain was not lying at a news conference on Tuesday in Phoenix.
Cain denied making any sexual actions towards Sharon Bialek and vowed to take a polygraph test if necessary to prove his innocence.
Cain has not taken a polygraph but Ward said he does have software that does something better.
Ward said the $15,000 software can detect lies in people's voices.
CBS Atlanta's Mike Paluska played Cain's speech for Ward into the software and watched as it analyzed Cain's every word.
If he is hiding something this thing would have spiked way down here," said Ward. "He is being truthful, totally truthful. He is a man with integrity and he talked directly about not knowing any incident he is accused of."
The software analyzes the stress level and other factors in your voice. During the speech, when Cain denied the claims, the lie detector read "low risk." According to Ward, that means Cain is telling the truth.
During the section of Bialek's news conference where she says, "He suddenly reached over put his hand on my leg under my skirt and reached for my genitals he also grabbed my head brought it towards his crotch."
During the analysis of that section the software said "high risk statement." Ward said that means she is not telling the truth about what happened.
"I don't think she is fabricating her meetings," said Ward. But, she is fabricating what transpired."
Ward said nearly 70 law enforcement agencies nationwide use the voice software, including the Forsyth County Sheriff's Office.
Ward said the technology is a scientific measure that law enforcement use as a tool to tell when someone is lying and that it has a 95 percent success rate.
After listening to Cain's speech and analyzing it, Ward said there is no doubt, Cain is innocent.
"When he directly talks about the allegations against him there is no high risk," said Ward. "It is low risk, which tells me he is being truthful in his conversations to the public."
Note that polygraphs aren't accurate enough to be used in a court of law as evidence, so even suggesting that they should be used in anything other than a superficial way is laughable.
Just the number of these people coming out of the woodworks is pretty suspect that Cain was behaving shady. I hate to say it, but I wonder if this Victor guy will lend far greater credibility because for whatever reason, it seems women speaking out about these sorts of things get brushed aside too easily.
Between this and his answers on foreign policy as of late (Libya video) I think this guy is done. But then again, Gingerich is getting his second life, so who knows. If people dislike Romney enough, some of these guys might end up with as many political lives as a cat.
No way is Cain a legitimate candidate. 1. The sex scandal will never go away, and lots of people won't elect him because of it. Not only that but Cain handled this "accusation" horribly, saying that he had never wronged anyone ever. Which is a blatant lie for any human being. 2. He doesn't have a real big campaign behind him. Which is apparent. 3. He is a complete IDIOT who's foreign and economic policy has little to no thought, and is trying to change that around into saying that it would be easier for the american public to understand and "read over the dinner table"
Cain will never get the GOP nomination or the presidency.
Lol I predict he will be the next fox new contributor, like Palin was after her failed campaign. I like the guy, but if you're suspending your campaign over the allegations, there's probably some truth to it.
On December 04 2011 04:57 Playguuu wrote: Lol I predict he will be the next fox new contributor, like Palin was after her failed campaign. I like the guy, but if you're suspending your campaign over the allegations, there's probably some truth to it.
Or he wanted to sell his books, so he runs for president.
The past couple of months where various posters in this forum supported this guy so wholeheartedly was pretty much a live action case study on how people are played like goddamned puppets by the media circus show, and how their supposed clairvoyance and "reasoned" reasons for supporting such an idiotic candidate, the serious praise that people showed for the "999" plan, and all such inanity was nothing but an utter stupidity. You fellows have done nothing but dance on the palms of these people and you should all be incredibly ashamed of being such goddamned idiots. I wish I could have compiled all your idiotic posts the past few months, but really, what is the point when you fellows don't give a fuck all about what is actually real.
well just the fact you justify him as a valid candidate to presidency because of race already proves to me he's not worth voting for. when did race somehow dictate a person's value? it should always be purely about their values and their intelligence. there is nothing "intelligent" about the fact he's black or any race for that matter.
I told you this was going to happen. I told you the media was going to come out and crucify him. They are going to take out their fucking knives and stab him to death. IT'S A CAIN MUTINY. I told you this was going to happen, that they were going to take advantage of lies and they were going to tell lies about Herman Cain; he's my Lord. IT'S A CAIN MUTINY. Cain Mutiny. A CAIN MUTINY. They're going to throw him against the wall just because of what he believes in even though what he belives in is what's right for our country! IT'S A CAIN MUTINY!
Well, the mans a clown who runs a pizza chain or something. He couldn't articulate his own economic plan. 20 years ago he wouldn't of been allowed on the stage to debate real presidential candidates.
It doesn't take much to run for President these days - say the most outrageous things possible, disparage the current President (Whomever he/she may be) using the most incendiary language possible, run as far to your right/left possible to get the wing-nuts excited, avoid actual real questions as much as possible, and rake in as much money as possible from every lobbyist, corporation, PAC, super-PAC ... That's about it.
If anyone had any doubt why the country is in so much trouble, this current crop of candidates is a perfect example. The vast majority of them would fit in better on Jerry Springer than a Presidential debate. As bad as the Democratic party is, it at least tries to give the impression of respectability. The Republican party has slid so far into the depths of its own debauchery, and outside the mainstream of the country, most voters must wonder why they bother to pay attention to the clown show.
As for the economy - the countries entire financial system should have collapsed three years ago. The entire financial infrastructure was over-leveraged to the point of resembling a casino more than a stable country. Its miraculous unemployment only dropped to nine percent.
Any notion that the current President, or any candidate among the current GOP candidates could fix a 15 trillion dollar, free market, private sector economy, is beyond ignorant and shows the complete lack of understanding of how the economy works. The government doesn't run the economy. Its job is to manage debt and regulate properly thus setting the stage for the private sector to create the circumstances for economic growth. Unfortunately, it's failed at both in spectacular fashion.
The average financial crisis takes 5 years to recover from. The Japan crisis in the 90's took 10. This current crisis will likely take more than 5 years to recover from, and then some drastic measures to fix the debt situation, both including drastic cuts, and tax hikes, but of course only when the bond markets finally stop lending to us at the current rates and it reaches crisis status. Our politicians are too gutless, and the political system too broken to fix the problem without a crisis. And there's really nothing Obama, Romney, Cain, or anyone else can do under current circumstances. .
PS - The conservatives may not like Romney, but he has a shot to beat Obama. The rest of the clown show have no shot. Gingrich is one of the most unlikable people on the planet and will get crushed. CRUSHED. The 2012 map is favorable to Obama, he's got unlimited money, the best organization in the history of politics, one of the best campaigners in Presidential history, and he knows how to win. The more likable person has won every Presidential election since I've been alive, and there's nobody in the current republican field more likable than Obama. Sure people aren't happy with him now, but come election time it'll be Obama vs somebody, and its highly possible the "Somebody" won't be what voters had in mind to replace him. Just ask John Kerry.
He got hammered. Feel so bad for the guy. Hopefully he can rise above it but if not, Gingrich is the next President. It's funny I called those two to be the last two, but it looks like Gingrich might run away with it.
On December 04 2011 07:24 MasterBlasterCaster wrote: He got hammered. Feel so bad for the guy. Hopefully he can rise above it but if not, Gingrich is the next President. It's funny I called those two to be the last two, but it looks like Gingrich might run away with it.
Considering your post lately in other threads and the fact that you thought Cain stood a chance, I'm gonna go ahead and take that as an indication and and hopeful view that your call on Gingrich is gonna be just as bad.
Gary, Huntsman, and Paul are the only logical choices yet the media will veer them all out of the race because they don't represent the real interest of the GOP.
I would just like to chime in to say that I love that the title of the thread is just "Herman Cain." Because, really, is there anything else that needs to be said? Herman Cain is pretty self explanatory with all he's managed to... achieve(?)... so far.
Edit: Do you think some of these guys, who really have no chance, know it ahead of time? Does their PR department just say, "Look, you'll end up looking like an idiot, but at least then everyone will have heard of you! And think about it, after everyone makes fun of you, there will probably be quite a few people who will at least feel bad for you or empathize, and you can make a lot of money off of that!" Or maybe they just sell them on the idea that some fame, even for being an idiot, is better than no fame at all.
So the hat and the white shoes had a meaning to it after all.. will miss the circus too. Romney will probably get the nomination by default.. Gingrich has a lot of shit to explain about his past. lobbying for Fanny Mae Freddy Mac, cheating scandals WHILE his wife was very sick, hypocrisy, and so on.. if he gets the nomination it's gonna be only because he won the Murdock primaries -- the FOX people LOVE him or better said, they hate Romney's guts so much they are supporting a serial cheater for president.
On December 04 2011 07:24 MasterBlasterCaster wrote: + Show Spoiler +
He got hammered. Feel so bad for the guy. Hopefully he can rise above it but if not, Gingrich is the next President. It's funny I called those two to be the last two, but it looks like Gingrich might run away with it.
Considering your post lately in other threads and the fact that you thought Cain stood a chance, I'm gonna go ahead and take that as an indication and and hopeful view that your call on Gingrich is gonna be just as bad.
He's out already btw.
I don't know who you are, or care, but I do think that you should look at yourself in the mirror and ask yourself why you think I care what some dipwad who doesn't know the first thing about me or the Republican nomination thinks?
He suspended the campaign, that doesn't mean he's out. Oh and BTW, Gingrich is polling at 45%+...
On December 04 2011 06:36 koreasilver wrote: The past couple of months where various posters in this forum supported this guy so wholeheartedly was pretty much a live action case study on how people are played like goddamned puppets by the media circus show, and how their supposed clairvoyance and "reasoned" reasons for supporting such an idiotic candidate, the serious praise that people showed for the "999" plan, and all such inanity was nothing but an utter stupidity. You fellows have done nothing but dance on the palms of these people and you should all be incredibly ashamed of being such goddamned idiots. I wish I could have compiled all your idiotic posts the past few months, but really, what is the point when you fellows don't give a fuck all about what is actually real.
It's called FOX news. It's sad that pretty much all conservative leaning persons watch and listen that channel almost exclusively... now FOX is manipulating viewers into voting for Gingrich.. if you don't believe this, just watch the last interview of both Romney - Brett Bier -- and Gingrich -- Hannity -- on FOX.. it's hard to explain away the favoritism there.
This isn't news... first it was Perry, then they built up Cain, now it's Gingrich, then he's gonna get torn down for being a hypocritical conniving snake, and they're gonna move onto someone else.
They're never gonna support Romeny, obviously because he's basically a democrat, and they're not gonna support Paul either because they're stupid so....
On December 04 2011 08:18 Kiarip wrote: This isn't news... first it was Perry, then they built up Cain, now it's Gingrich, then he's gonna get torn down for being a hypocritical conniving snake, and they're gonna move onto someone else.
They're never gonna support Romeny, obviously because he's basically a democrat, and they're not gonna support Paul either because they're stupid so....
You're right except the last part, they won't support Paul because his values don't match up with either the moderate or conservative Republican bases. I think he's a Republican a lot of Democrats (and foreigners in less conservative countries) would like to have.
It's a shame they hate Romeny for being a sensible person. The guy got boo'd when saying he opposes all forms of torture whilst all other republican candidates endorsed it. This is disgusting and if you disagree you really need to read up on how human rights and spiraling revenge works.
Anyway, Cain never really had a huge chance of winning the nomination, and I think pretty much everyone knew it. Same goes for Bachmann and Gingrich. Maybe Perry had a chance before he started mucking up, but really the only true candidate this whole time has been Romney. As much as I would LOVE to support Paul, he's not viable either, unfortunately.
One day though, the Republicans will have their modern Reagan. I imagine it will be a hybrid, the principles and beliefs of Paul, coupled with the political sense and public relations of Romney. Or maybe it's better if they don't find that candidate, so the Republican party can dissolve once and for all.
But I suspect the US will do neither, and will be in the same place Greece is in just a matter of years. It's a real shame.
On December 04 2011 09:46 liberal wrote: lol that's some nice propaganda above me.
well I wouldn't call the truth "propaganda" :>
It's true that only in America do people twist words and labels in politics? Nonsense. It occurs everywhere, even in the quote itself, when it suggests that people are things like "pro-landmines" or "pro-torture." Get out of your partisan mentality please.
On December 04 2011 09:46 liberal wrote: lol that's some nice propaganda above me.
well I wouldn't call the truth "propaganda" :>
It's true that only in America do people twist words and labels in politics? Nonsense. It occurs everywhere, even in the quote itself, when it suggests that people are things like "pro-landmines" or "pro-torture." Get out of your partisan mentality please.
all that was done in the name of a republican government who does after all represent a big enough amount of people to be able to rule the country. while I am sure that there are people who vote republican and dont support torture or landmines, a representative democracy does not account for those people. After you gave your vote you consented to everything in the parties agenda and what the government will do in the future, which can lead to quotes like that one beneath the picture.
I just thought it was really odd that in a thread that was specifically about Herman Cain, someone would be allowed to post a random, giant image designed to stereotype Republicans as being essentially "pro-death." But I guess any thread related to anything Republican will just turn into a bash circle jerk.
Personally I like to discuss ideas and arguments, and calling people pro-war and pro-torture and pro-landmines just seems like the lowest order of partisan smearing I can come up with. But I guess that's why I've always hated partisan politics, and always preferred the label "independent."
On December 04 2011 08:18 Kiarip wrote: This isn't news... first it was Perry, then they built up Cain, now it's Gingrich, then he's gonna get torn down for being a snake, and they're gonna move onto someone else.
They're never gonna support Romeny, obviously because he's basically a democrat, and they're not gonna support Paul either because they're stupid so....
It would almost be better if they didn't nominate a hypocritical, closed-minded, conniving, back handed, incompetent, corrupt snake.
But why would the Republicans nominate a Democrat for president? Seems redundant.
On December 04 2011 10:42 liberal wrote: I just thought it was really odd that in a thread that was specifically about Herman Cain, someone would be allowed to post a random, giant image designed to stereotype Republicans as being essentially "pro-death." But I guess any thread related to anything Republican will just turn into a bash circle jerk.
Personally I like to discuss ideas and arguments, and calling people pro-war and pro-torture and pro-landmines just seems like the lowest order of partisan smearing I can come up with. But I guess that's why I've always hated partisan politics, and always preferred the label "independent."
Show me two things in that poster which aren't essentially true and ill admit that it is a smear.
On December 04 2011 10:42 liberal wrote: I just thought it was really odd that in a thread that was specifically about Herman Cain, someone would be allowed to post a random, giant image designed to stereotype Republicans as being essentially "pro-death." But I guess any thread related to anything Republican will just turn into a bash circle jerk.
Personally I like to discuss ideas and arguments, and calling people pro-war and pro-torture and pro-landmines just seems like the lowest order of partisan smearing I can come up with. But I guess that's why I've always hated partisan politics, and always preferred the label "independent."
Show me two things in that poster which aren't essentially true and ill admit that it is a smear.
Don't you realize that words themselves can be designed as smears?
When people call themselves "pro-life," they are implicitly suggesting the other side is "anti-life." When people call themselves "pro-choice," they are implicitly suggesting the other side is "anti-choice." The words themselves are designed to smear the other side. Just because your partisan perspective may agree with one set of labels over the other, doesn't mean that one set of labels are "truthful" and "accurate" and the other labels aren't. It's all just how we choose to define things.
On December 04 2011 10:42 liberal wrote: I just thought it was really odd that in a thread that was specifically about Herman Cain, someone would be allowed to post a random, giant image designed to stereotype Republicans as being essentially "pro-death." But I guess any thread related to anything Republican will just turn into a bash circle jerk.
Personally I like to discuss ideas and arguments, and calling people pro-war and pro-torture and pro-landmines just seems like the lowest order of partisan smearing I can come up with. But I guess that's why I've always hated partisan politics, and always preferred the label "independent."
Show me two things in that poster which aren't essentially true and ill admit that it is a smear.
Don't you realize that words themselves can be designed as smears?
When people call themselves "pro-life," they are implicitly suggesting the other side is "anti-life." When people call themselves "pro-choice," they are implicitly suggesting the other side is "anti-choice." The words themselves are designed to smear the other side. Just because your partisan perspective may agree with one set of labels over the other, doesn't mean that one set of labels are "truthful" and "accurate" and the other labels aren't. It's all just how we choose to define things.
Pretty much all of the differences in opinion in politics stem from differences in definitions. You've hit the nail on the head.
On December 04 2011 09:46 liberal wrote: lol that's some nice propaganda above me.
well I wouldn't call the truth "propaganda" :>
It's true that only in America do people twist words and labels in politics? Nonsense. It occurs everywhere, even in the quote itself, when it suggests that people are things like "pro-landmines" or "pro-torture." Get out of your partisan mentality please.
Well, regardless of how literal the words are meant to be, the phrases "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are simply titles for party platforms usually attributed to the Republican, and Democratic parties of the United States, respectively.
On December 04 2011 09:46 liberal wrote: lol that's some nice propaganda above me.
well I wouldn't call the truth "propaganda" :>
It's true that only in America do people twist words and labels in politics? Nonsense. It occurs everywhere, even in the quote itself, when it suggests that people are things like "pro-landmines" or "pro-torture." Get out of your partisan mentality please.
Well the image makes no statement about people twisting words and labels in politics in general, it's about one specific type of mentality which seems to be particularly prominent in the US. Of course other countries have their issues, sometimes similar to this, but you have to admit that that particular image does draw a nice picture of the strange situation in the US where somehow people are fine with torturing alleged terrorists and using landmines to gain an edge during war (hence pro-torture and pro-landmines), not to mention death penalty and whatnot, but those same people give an arguably unjustified importance to a fetus, to the point where some of them are willing to force full grown women to give birth to their rape-baby.
Propaganda you say? Propaganda for humanity and propaganda for progress perhaps, this "partisan mentality" is fucking glorious.
"Propaganda for humanity and progress" lmao... Ok, I give up. I know I'm supposed choose one party and hate the other, but I honestly can't help but hate them both. And I would say the economic dangers are far greater than the militaristic ones, but economic dangers don't quite have the same emotional impact as "pro-torture" rhetoric.
On December 04 2011 14:54 liberal wrote: "Propaganda for humanity and progress" lmao... Ok, I give up. I know I'm supposed choose one party and hate the other, but I honestly can't help but hate them both. And I would say the economic dangers are far greater than the militaristic ones, but economic dangers don't quite have the same emotional impact as "pro-torture" rhetoric.
Anyone can use the word "propaganda". If Kim Jong Il caught wind of reasonable ideas and hope for democracy traveling on paper in their country, his government would call it propaganda. The word itself seems derogatory because it gets used by bad governments to brainwash their population, but it isn't always bad. Propaganda that defies ridiculous ideas and literally backwards and dangerous doctrines is good.
Also, the image has little to do with parties, it's core is about ideology. I didn't mention that the first time when you talked about how the image had something to do with being a "partisan" of some sort when in reality, it only seems to make fun of republicans by proxy, even though their logo is on it. It actually ridicules an ideology that tea-partiers and the most backwards GOP-partisans only happen to share. Obviously it can be viewed as an attack in the same way that if someone made fun of gun nuts and religious people, some folks might think it's an attack directed at the GOP simply because that political party happens to have more partisans who happen to be gun nuts and/or religious folks.
On December 04 2011 14:54 liberal wrote: "Propaganda for humanity and progress" lmao... Ok, I give up. I know I'm supposed choose one party and hate the other, but I honestly can't help but hate them both. And I would say the economic dangers are far greater than the militaristic ones, but economic dangers don't quite have the same emotional impact as "pro-torture" rhetoric.
No, you are supposed to hate both parties, but one slightly more than the other. Then, you criticize your party among other party members, but defend it to the death against outsiders. It is like a tribe or a sports team, except that the irrational loyalty comes back to hurt us all, in the end.
On December 04 2011 14:54 liberal wrote: "Propaganda for humanity and progress" lmao... Ok, I give up. I know I'm supposed choose one party and hate the other, but I honestly can't help but hate them both. And I would say the economic dangers are far greater than the militaristic ones, but economic dangers don't quite have the same emotional impact as "pro-torture" rhetoric.
No, you are supposed to hate both parties, but one slightly more than the other. Then, you criticize your party among other party members, but defend it to the death against outsiders. It is like a tribe or a sports team.
Is this a new concept of American party 'hipster'-ism?
On November 03 2011 15:04 Sensator wrote: He will get eaten up by this sexual abuse allegation, I guarantee it. Besides, he's bat shit crazy just like most of the Republican candidates, and not to mention in the pockets of the Koch Brothers.
Woa now, are you kidding? Michele Bachmann is *hilarious* and Rick Perry's full of cognitive dissonance and fail.
Hell, even Mitt Romney has an ad quoting Obama saying "If we keep talking about the economy, we're going to lose", when actually Obama was quoting the Palin/McCain campaign's words. (If you don't understand, Mitt Romney's campaign is basically putting Palin/McCain's stupid words in Obama's mouth to make him look bad!)
Edit: Oh, he was kidding. Guess I need to wait a few minutes after waking up before jumping on TL.
On December 04 2011 16:34 CurLy[] wrote: I feel bad for John stewart, he was hoping for some easy prey
It's too bad none of the other republican candidates are good comedic fodder.
Woa now, are you kidding? Michele Bachmann is *hilarious* and Rick Perry's full of cognitive dissonance and fail.
Hell, even Mitt Romney has an ad quoting Obama saying "If we keep talking about the economy, we're going to lose", when actually Obama was quoting the Palin/McCain campaign's words. (If you don't understand, Mitt Romney's campaign is basically putting Palin/McCain's stupid words in Obama's mouth to make him look bad!)
On December 04 2011 16:34 CurLy[] wrote: I feel bad for John stewart, he was hoping for some easy prey
It's too bad none of the other republican candidates are good comedic fodder.
Woa now, are you kidding? Michele Bachmann is *hilarious* and Rick Perry's full of cognitive dissonance and fail.
Hell, even Mitt Romney has an ad quoting Obama saying "If we keep talking about the economy, we're going to lose", when actually Obama was quoting the Palin/McCain campaign's words. (If you don't understand, Mitt Romney's campaign is basically putting Palin/McCain's stupid words in Obama's mouth to make him look bad!)
On December 04 2011 08:18 Kiarip wrote: This isn't news... first it was Perry, then they built up Cain, now it's Gingrich, then he's gonna get torn down for being a snake, and they're gonna move onto someone else.
They're never gonna support Romeny, obviously because he's basically a democrat, and they're not gonna support Paul either because they're stupid so....
It would almost be better if they didn't nominate a hypocritical, closed-minded, conniving, back handed, incompetent, corrupt snake.
But why would the Republicans nominate a Democrat for president? Seems redundant.
Ron Paul is a republican... I have no idea what democrat you're talking about though... there isn't one that wants to run for president unless you consider ralph nader a democrat, which he's not.
On December 08 2011 06:19 BestZergOnEast wrote: It's no surprise that Herman Cain's campaign faltered... there's just simply no way that America is ready for a black president.
Bullshit. The fact that he led several of the polls prior to the sex allegations show that the generally regarded as racist (at least in terms of immigration) Republicans were ready to accept him based on the 'merits' of his tax policy and not on the negroness of his skin. The fact that you don't accept Obama as a black President also shows your racism. Does an Asian-American with one Asian parent and one Caucasian parent not count as an Asian?
On December 08 2011 06:19 BestZergOnEast wrote: It's no surprise that Herman Cain's campaign faltered... there's just simply no way that America is ready for a black president.
Bullshit. The fact that he led several of the polls prior to the sex allegations show that the generally regarded as racist (at least in terms of immigration) Republicans were ready to accept him based on the 'merits' of his tax policy and not on the negroness of his skin. The fact that you don't accept Obama as a black President also shows your racism. Does an Asian-American with one Asian parent and one Caucasian parent not count as an Asian?
No, half-Asians are not Asians, they are mutts worthy of neither respect or rights. They're not even human, really.
On December 08 2011 06:19 BestZergOnEast wrote: It's no surprise that Herman Cain's campaign faltered... there's just simply no way that America is ready for a black president.
Bullshit.
America isn't ready for a black president, what do you not understand?
America currently has a black president. What do you not understand?
Point 2 - http://www.gallup.com/poll/election.aspx <--- Herman Cain is the only candidate who has consistently held a high Positive Intensity score; in fact I don't think that anyone has beaten him yet since he announced. Also, he is still under 50% recognition and is already within 5 points of beating Obama; by far the only candidate with such an amazing ratio.
Point 3 - the other candidates are weak. Romney will never be president as he is too close to Bush; you can bet that the liberals are getting the astroturf ready to destroy him if he gets the nomination. Perry has some of the same problems; he could probably win, but people don't love him like they do Herman Cain. Paul is unelectable and not a conservative. Bachmann, well we already know. Huntsman, same as Paul, Santorum same as Bachmann, Gingrich is awesome but has too much history. Anyway, you get the picture; would love to hear what you guys think as well.
Bottom line, the man is incredibly intelligent, and has successfully turned around two major corporations. Best of all, at least for me, is that he has never been a politician. I know that this is a detractor to some people, and would love to address your specific concerns. The bottom line is that we already have too many politicians, and not enough people who can actually make hard decisions without worrying about reelection and stepping on the wrong toes.
Also, he is black. The only way that Obama can possibly win in 2012 (short of a miraculous economic recovery, which he seems to be doing everything to prevent, lol) is if he can capture the minority vote again. A Cain / Rubio ticket would absolutely blow this out of the water.
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.
Also, http://www.facebook.com/groups/52944254947/ - here is a Facebook group dedicated to breaking news and discussions. We try to keep it clear of irrelevant stuff and garden-variety anti-Obama jokes, hate and the like, so that people have more room to talk; please feel free to join in.
Point 2 - http://www.gallup.com/poll/election.aspx <--- Herman Cain is the only candidate who has consistently held a high Positive Intensity score; in fact I don't think that anyone has beaten him yet since he announced. Also, he is still under 50% recognition and is already within 5 points of beating Obama; by far the only candidate with such an amazing ratio.
Point 3 - the other candidates are weak. Romney will never be president as he is too close to Bush; you can bet that the liberals are getting the astroturf ready to destroy him if he gets the nomination. Perry has some of the same problems; he could probably win, but people don't love him like they do Herman Cain. Paul is unelectable and not a conservative. Bachmann, well we already know. Huntsman, same as Paul, Santorum same as Bachmann, Gingrich is awesome but has too much history. Anyway, you get the picture; would love to hear what you guys think as well.
Bottom line, the man is incredibly intelligent, and has successfully turned around two major corporations. Best of all, at least for me, is that he has never been a politician. I know that this is a detractor to some people, and would love to address your specific concerns. The bottom line is that we already have too many politicians, and not enough people who can actually make hard decisions without worrying about reelection and stepping on the wrong toes.
Also, he is black. The only way that Obama can possibly win in 2012 (short of a miraculous economic recovery, which he seems to be doing everything to prevent, lol) is if he can capture the minority vote again. A Cain / Rubio ticket would absolutely blow this out of the water.
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.
Also, http://www.facebook.com/groups/52944254947/ - here is a Facebook group dedicated to breaking news and discussions. We try to keep it clear of irrelevant stuff and garden-variety anti-Obama jokes, hate and the like, so that people have more room to talk; please feel free to join in.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/dMHNZ.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/usprimaries_2008.png)
![[image loading]](http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_296w/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/ezra-klein/StandingArt/Average-tax-change-from-9-9-9-plan-10-18-2011-OPT.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.thecomicstrips.com/properties/candorville/art_images/cg4eb1d289e3074.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/vBnfm.jpg)
