EPTHerman Cain - Page 10
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
deth2munkies
United States4051 Posts
| ||
|
Batssa
United States154 Posts
| ||
|
turdburgler
England6749 Posts
On October 14 2011 11:12 Kaitlin wrote: 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: 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 | ||
|
Orpheos
United States1663 Posts
i really just dont understand. | ||
|
ziggurat
Canada847 Posts
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. | ||
|
Diks
Belgium1880 Posts
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. | ||
|
abominare
United States1216 Posts
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. | ||
|
abominare
United States1216 Posts
On October 14 2011 22:32 ziggurat wrote: 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. | ||
|
Orpheos
United States1663 Posts
On October 14 2011 22:32 ziggurat wrote: 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. >_< | ||
|
Maxtor
United Kingdom273 Posts
| ||
|
scaban84
United States1080 Posts
On October 14 2011 20:56 turdburgler wrote: 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 -_- 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. | ||
|
HardCorey
United States709 Posts
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 | ||
|
turdburgler
England6749 Posts
On October 15 2011 00:03 scaban84 wrote: 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" ;/ | ||
|
Dekoth
United States527 Posts
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. | ||
|
Amber[LighT]
United States5078 Posts
Seriously I don't know why anyone wants to indulge him for the next 2 months. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7028 Posts
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. | ||
|
BioNova
United States598 Posts
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. | ||
|
abominare
United States1216 Posts
On October 15 2011 00:32 BioNova wrote: 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. | ||
|
Derez
Netherlands6068 Posts
On October 15 2011 00:03 scaban84 wrote: 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. | ||
|
BioNova
United States598 Posts
On October 15 2011 00:45 Derez wrote: 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. | ||
| ||
