EPTHe's on par for intelligence w/ Michelle Bachman.
So, no.
Herman Cain - Page 5
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
wei2coolman
United States60033 Posts
He's on par for intelligence w/ Michelle Bachman. So, no. | ||
|
Diablo3
46 Posts
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/05/herman-cain-aquila-lawsuit-2012 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 | ||
|
Hikko
United States1126 Posts
On October 02 2011 13:32 Russano wrote: 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. | ||
|
pyaar
United States423 Posts
On October 02 2011 13:27 Gnial wrote: 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. | ||
|
Omnipresent
United States871 Posts
On October 02 2011 13:04 Senorcuidado wrote: What? Ron Paul is the only conservative running for president, and he was conservative before it was cool to pretend to be conservative. If you're complaint is that he isn't a neo-con then okay. But neo-conservatism is not very conservative. Herman Cain is pretty conservative in most departments, and he is growing on me with his charming personality. But we have a thread for this anyway... http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=255487 Strictly speaking, Paul is not conservative (or rather, is only fiscally conservative). He's a libertarian. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/dMHNZ.jpg) 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. | ||
|
Alethios
New Zealand2765 Posts
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). | ||
|
Spray
United States402 Posts
| ||
|
Froadac
United States6733 Posts
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 ![[image loading]](http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/usprimaries_2008.png) 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. | ||
|
Gamegene
United States8308 Posts
Gotta say though he has a lot personality. He calls himself the Herminator. lol. | ||
|
Omnipresent
United States871 Posts
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). | ||
|
mrafaeldie12
Brazil537 Posts
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  | ||
|
Alethios
New Zealand2765 Posts
On October 02 2011 14:07 Froadac wrote: 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. EDIT: On October 02 2011 14:12 Omnipresent wrote: 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. | ||
|
docvoc
United States5491 Posts
| ||
|
BlackJack
United States9912 Posts
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. | ||
|
mrafaeldie12
Brazil537 Posts
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. Also paragraphs are your friend  | ||
|
Takezou
United States320 Posts
On October 02 2011 13:41 wei2coolman wrote: Can't tell if serious. He's on par for intelligence w/ Michelle Bachman. So, no. Not that I am a fan of Cain but you are giving Michelle too much credit. | ||
|
Voltaire
United States1485 Posts
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. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States9912 Posts
On October 02 2011 14:30 Voltaire wrote: 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. | ||
|
Craton
United States17183 Posts
http://www.gallup.com/poll/118937/republican-base-heavily-white-conservative-religious.aspx | ||
|
cerebralz
United States443 Posts
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. | ||
| ||
