There's some Republicans who can't help but flip and flop all over the place :::cough, cough, Romney, cough ::: when confronted with a particular crowd they want to suck up to.
But, I've never seen a Republican presidental candidate flip flop within seconds simply because he's too stupid to know that he is flip flopping.
This is just unbelievable.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JD-sBPBzpmE
Of course, this got Cain into a bit of trouble, and he had to clarify his position on abortion. I can't imagine why, given his completely contradictory statements.
This seemed to have gotten on Cain's nerves, and he went on a minute long tirade about being "pigeon holed".
But what followed next is just fabulous. Pay attention to what Cain says here, after 51 seconds into the video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uy_Kp6uBHQw
Here's my question: If you're going to have the audacity to run for President of the United States, don't you think you'd have the decency to bother to learn the difference between a bill passed by Congress and a Constitutional Amendment?
Willy, his comments as well as those of nearly everyone else appear to be partly the result of reporters setting people up with trickery in their questions. If you listen carefully, you'll see that the context of the questions elicits the slightly different response. The same thing has happened to Romney, Paul, Perry, and Obama.
The real dipshits are the reporters who by and large have embarked on a mission to stir up shit by asking questions that really have very little to do with qualifications for POTUS. Questions are developed simply to trip a candidate up into saying something that can then become headlines as controversial. Think about this. What does the POTUS really have to do with abortion? Who gives a shit if Romney hired a company to cut his grass years ago and that company had some illegals employed? So fucking what if somebody is a Catholic, Mormon, Non believer, etc....
Yet, this is the kind of crap being stirred up by a bunch of dumbass reporters.
Check the video link below on why the famed GOP advisor thinks Cain is not ready for "primetime"--------Damn-----the "Cain cultist" pw has brought me out of my hiatus-----gonna have to learn to ignore his brainwashed threads-----
-- Modified on 10/25/2011 7:05:23 AM
Damn dude, if Rove told you to lick his ass, would you do it? If Obama told you to suck his dick would you do it? Or how about if Michele told you to drink her piss, would you? You just can't get away from sucking up to the commentators can you? Go ahead, suck some dick and drink some piss.. LOL Now try coming up with your own original thought, try to defend your own position, and quit being such a puppet.
Karl Rove was "Bush's brain" the mastermind who was responsible for getting GWB elected twice---I detest the guy, but, PW, when it comes to politics, he's forgotten more than you know--if he says Cain is too dumb to be a GOP POTUS candidate, I can't help if that offends your "mangina cult sensitivities". But, then again, you have the same "inbred philosophies" as your fellow "Atlantans" mrnogood & Madison O Hare; why don't you round up TJ & the 4 of of you
can "pull a train" to the nearest Godfather pizza store-------
-----LMAO !
Lastly, my $ 100 bet on Cain never being POTUS is still open--care to take me up on it ?
I'll have you know that TJ delivers one of best bj's in the world. Her pussy and the way she uses it will delight even the most timid among us. And, her ass will turn even the strongest amongst us into a one minute man for sure. So, with all that going for her, who gives a shit what she thinks... LOL ... O ya, who gives a shit what the commentators say either.
Hypocrite.
If you dislike Karl Rove, then I cannot think of a better endorsement for Herman Cain.
I'll be the first to admit that Obama said something stupid when he referred to the Austrian language, and I'm sure Snow would like to pull out the 57 state quote, dispite that it's not stupid at all when viewed in context, but I really wouldn't blame reporters for some of these dumb as shit comments, Pwilley.
I mean, even Newt Gingrich lamented that far too many Republicans are dumb shits. Remember Christine O'Donnell asking her opponent in a debate, "what? is that in the Constitution?" when referring to the separation of church and state. You have people like Michele Bachman who doesn't know which state where the Revolutionary War began. You have people like Rick Perry who doesn't even know what century our revolution began, and you have people like Sarah Palin who doesn't know the job duties of the federal office she sought.
These are not exactly "gotcha" questions. It's one thing to be too dumb to know what the Bush Doctrine is. It's quite another to not know how a bill is made a law or how the Constitution is amended, or to not know what century the American Revolution took place. I would expect every American citizen to know this. My nephew who's still in grade school knows this.
Well, yes, I don't disagree with your assessment of the quotes you mention. My point is that just about none of that has a damn thing to do with being POTUS. Since when does knowledge of the date of the American Revolution have any bearing on how the POTUS deals with unemployment, healthcare, etc.? And who really gives a shit if a candidate doesn't associate with the term "Bush Doctrine", whatever in the hell that is? And so what if Obama mistakenly said 57 States? Does any of that tell us what the candidate is going to do in office? Looking back, we heard the simplistic but good sounding comments from Obama when he was campaigning about healthcare. Who in their wildest dreams would have thought we would end up with the Obamacare legislation debacle?
If reporters spent their time investigating a candidates plans for what he/she intends to do in office, how they plan to do it, review the details in all their glory, well then OK. But that's not what goes on. Instead reporters are constantly baiting the candidates with meaningless crap all designed to stir up headlines which have next to nothing to do with what a candidate can or will do in office.
Pwilley, I don't disagree that what journalists are doing for the most part is trying to create headlines. Investigating a candidate, and their positions, and their history, etc, I think is useful and has a purpose, but I do agree that isn't exactly what they're doing. But what's worse, IMO are candidates who don't know the basics about governance. It's even worse when they're dumber than a 5th grader.
Wait a sec....you said, "And who really gives a shit if a candidate doesn't associate with the term 'Bush Doctrine', whatever in the hell that is?"
Do you not know what the Bush Doctrine is? Dear Jesus, I hope that's not what you're saying. I mean, you're aware, aren't you, that the Bush Doctrine was laid out in a speech to the US public after 9/11 that any nation that harbors terrorists will be seen as terrorists themselves?
If you expect to be the Commander in Chief, don't you think you should know what US foreign policy is?
-- Modified on 10/25/2011 8:14:45 AM
Great example regarding the so-called "Bush Doctrine". Prior to the set up question by that reporter, the world pretty much knew that the policy of the United States was such and such, as you described. But, except for the backpage reporter articles, it wasn't widely called the "Bush Doctrine". In deed, Bush himself disclaimed it to be his policy opting instead to say it was the United States policy. Thus, when the reporter posed the "gotcha" question alluding to the "Bush Policy" is was pointless. Now if the question had been "the policy of the US regarding harboring terrorists", instead of the vague "Bush Policy" there wouldn't have been any headline.
If reporters had pressed Obama to explain his healthcare plan and how he would pay for it, how businesses would pay for it, how doctors would react to it, etc... perhaps we wouldn't have Obamacare as we know it. We all have short memories, myself included, but one thing is for sure, the repubs did actually predict exactly what would be the true impact of Obamacare, and thusfar, every single prediction is coming true. Scarey. But I digress. Yes, having some ability to govern is in deed a desireable trait for a prospective POTUS but electing the right candidate in large part is a function of the kinds of questions posed by reporters and thusfar, they fail miserably.
Here, I'll give you an example of a gotcha question:
"Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"
Asking someone who wishes to be the Vice President what the Bush Doctrine IS, is not a gotcha question. It's an idiot test. I knew what it was, and I didn't get a degree in political science. I just follow politics.
It's not like she was asked something rather obscure like to recite verbatim the National Security Memorandum #68. If you're seeking the Vice Presidency following the Bush administration you should know not what the "Bush Policy" is, but what the Bush Doctrine is.
Don't you think that Eisenhower and Nixon knew what the Truman Doctrine was? Don't you think that John Quincy Adams knew what the Monroe Doctrine was? Don't you think that Clinton and Gore knew what the Reagan Doctrine was?
It's not like this is very complicated stuff.
-- Modified on 10/25/2011 10:31:11 AM
Yes willy. You got it WRONG. The Bush Doctrine according to Charles Gibson, (Mr. Let me look down my nose at Sarah Palin), is NOT what you had in mind when he asked Mrs. Palin that question. After she somewhat correctly responded with "In what respect, Charlie?", Gibson explained it was the peremptory striking of Iraq or as Gibson put it, "the right of anticipatory self defense.
There have been several definitions laid out as the Bush Doctrine but if you're going to ridicule someone for offering the wrong answer you should at least be sure to get it correct yourself.
When criticizing me, you should make sure you know what you're talking about.
Secondly, you should know how to spot an idiot who's desperately searching for an answer. There was nothing correct about Mrs. Palin's answer. Listen to the tone of her voice and look at her body language. She had no clue what he was talking about. No vague answer she could pull out of her ass, because she didn't have a clue what it was.
-- Modified on 10/26/2011 2:57:04 AM
You were chastising PW for not know the definition of The Bush Doctrine when in fact YOU didn't know it in the context of the Palin question.
The question posed to Palin defined it as X. You defined it as Y. Even your wiki-source admits there are several definitions. Yes, your definition is part of what is now considered the overall multi-pronged doctrine, but in the context of the "Palin question" yours wasn't there.
In true form to dishonest debating you now attempt to redefine my position as one of defending Palin in attempt to deflect your shame. You might notice I qualified my characterization of Palin's answer as "somewhat correct." A better answer would have been "Which One", but that of course is irrelevant.
This is about YOU BEING WRONG while criticizing others for not knowing.
Don't you think if you want to be POTUS, one has to be samrter than the reporters? Just asking.
having fun! He's serious about the issues, but doesn't take himself too seriously, like many on this board seem to do. Plus, he's pretty smart. He's using his campaign money to travel around selling his book. That shows an ability to conserve resources. And, when appearing to flip-flop, regarding the electrified fence, he attributed it to not wanting to offend anyone. Now, how could you not like a guy like that!
Obviously his message has scared enough Democrats that as soon as he went up in the polls, they went on the attack.
Typical politics. Nothing more, nothing less.
Only polls that count, but I'll give you credit, because you accurately predicted this :
There's some question about whether Herman Cain is even serious in his own mind about running for President. If you look at his campaign organization, it looks like it's just a ruse to sell books and sell his brand.
he is an insider with the Federal Reserve and doesn't want to audit. Let's please look at agendas and just take the race and religion out for a minute. The debates are so silly, when asked a real question by an attendee "how much of each dollar I make, do you think I should be able to keep?" they all had to huddle up on that one and no one answered the question. Sigh.
As opposed to the current leadership qualities from the current Dipshit in Chief? A guy who hasn't had a job in the private sector, (other than the summer where he claimed to to be "a spy behind enemy lines"?) but feels free to lecture us on Capitalism? I think Cain has far more in the way of leadership qualities than does/did Obama.
I don't support Cain's views on abortion. But Cain's views on abortion will not continue to destroy our economy. Besides, I vote my wallet. What good is having the right to get an abortion if nobody can afford to get one?
And Obama is no stranger to flip floppin'. When were we going to have all of our troops home? Didn't I hear a promise of 6 months on the campaign trail? And why was the Bush Tax Cuts a bad idea, then a good idea, and now a bad idea?
The the guy is a fraud and a hypocrite.
But, I've never seen a Republican presidental candidate flip flop within seconds simply because he's too stupid to know that he is flip flopping.
This is just unbelievable.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JD-sBPBzpmE
Of course, this got Cain into a bit of trouble, and he had to clarify his position on abortion. I can't imagine why, given his completely contradictory statements.
This seemed to have gotten on Cain's nerves, and he went on a minute long tirade about being "pigeon holed".
But what followed next is just fabulous. Pay attention to what Cain says here, after 51 seconds into the video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uy_Kp6uBHQw
Here's my question: If you're going to have the audacity to run for President of the United States, don't you think you'd have the decency to bother to learn the difference between a bill passed by Congress and a Constitutional Amendment?
Oh I guess not, my line was "what good is having a legalized hobby if no one can afford it?"
Well same thing IMO, and I agree with you. Abortion is far from a litmus test for me. I don't see even the most fervent anti abortion presidetial candidate undoing Roe v Wade. Although I will say that Romney's prior view on the subject make me more, not less likely to vote for him, but there are a lot more important issues to me than a woman's right to choose.
I did. Your quote was succinct and summed up my political point of view much more eloquently than I could have done. Thanks for allowing me to plagiarise.
Well same thing IMO, and I agree with you. Abortion is far from a litmus test for me. I don't see even the most fervent anti abortion presidetial candidate undoing Roe v Wade. Although I will say that Romney's prior view on the subject make me more, not less likely to vote for him, but there are a lot more important issues to me than a woman's right to choose.
Cain is a corporate tool of the Koch Bros & a moron unfit to be POTUS. All polls show him consistently trailing Obama----I say he will never be POTUS--------wanna take me up on my bet ?
"ElGuano" is more like it-----
I assume you are not suggesting a straight bet.
-- Modified on 10/25/2011 4:55:07 PM
I think Pri thinks he can goad, pressure, or insult someone into taking his bet. His "bet" is not quite as bad as Willy's feeble attempt at "socializing" gambling, but it's close, and almost as insulting.
It was $50 he would never make the ticket.
Now what do you find in his actual post to disagree with?
Are you claiming that Obama actually knows what he is doing in regards to running anything, much less the largest economy in the world? Or maybe you are claiming that our current "Dipshit in Chief" hasn't ever flip flopped? Or are you claiming that maybe Obama was better qualified as a "community organizer" and Freshman Senator who spent virtually his entire term in office campaigning for his next job, than a man who has actually successfully run a large company?
Fling all the insults you like, but I would like for you to point out what part of his post you actually find fault with. Or have you resorted to Pri's tactics of simply insulting people when they are inconveniently correct?
Whether or not you like Herman Cain, he actually has credentials and has done something in the private sector. Unlike our "community organizer in charge"
Check my recent posts out; quite the contrary.
My assertion is that Cain is so intellectually dim
( check my Karl Rove link above ) that I would find he'd make a WORSE POTUS thatn BHO. As for his "corporate savvy", it certainly deserted him when he pushed a sales tax that would be 17% or higher in most states. NEVER fly. Dumb beyond belief.
Funny-----I can admit that I've never voted for A GOP POTUS nominee in the general ; but I can certainly see myself considering voting for Romney; at least he "appears" to be moderate & has a chance to beat BHO.
Not so with Cain----if he's in the general, he'll get his ass kicked. If primary voters want to go on ideological "kamikazi run', they'll be handing election to BHO.
I'm pushing a "straight bet" on Cain---any takers ?
Lastly, GaG, the fact you said that it would be "dumb" for anyone to accept my bet speaks volumes about the "viability" of Cain's candidacy.
-- Modified on 10/25/2011 5:24:59 PM
all I see is name calling and sidestepping.
First of all, I was riffing on the movie "The Three Amigos" in which El Guapo was the villain and Ned Niederlander (Martin Short) called him "son of a motherless goat." Unlike you, anyone using an El Guapo handle or alias would get that. BUT, since you mentioned it, I also find his charges against Obama to be grossly distorted.
Primarily, if you check the record, Obama campaigned from the beginning to have our troops out of Iraq by the end of this year. And the deadline was one originally agreed to by Bush. The only reason several thousand won't be left as trainers is the failure of the Iraqi gov't. to agree the trainers would have immunity from Iraqi law. You can choose to blame the Iraqis or to blame Obama. El Guapo, clearly being an Obama hater, chooses to blame him. But a case can be made on the other side that the Shi'ite gov't. of Iraq caved in to the Saaderists to get us out of the country when we agreed to. So it's reasonable to believe there was no deal to be made.
Since I don't have ElGuapo's post in front of me right now, that's the only one of his charges I can recall and rebut. If you care, please read my next post below his and I'll rebut the rest of them.
Oh, and FYATWYRIO.
1. My accusations against Obama are legitimate. 6 months, and he would have our troops home. Unemployment would NOT go above 8%. Making the excuse that Obama was/is way over his head (and a mistake) is far less spurious than the anti-Cainites who claim that Herman Cain has no experience. Obama literally had 144 actual work days of experience as a US Senator. To me, that is not impressive. To me, his entire CV is lacking. If I were hiring for the CEO of the United States, I wouldn't give Obama's resume a second look. There are far too many people out there with actual experience.
Of course, an apologist could say he was just unsophisticated, or naïve to make such claims. A cynic would say that Obama isn't stupid, and knew exactly what he was saying to people that wanted to hear him say it. I don't think Obama is stupid. I think he, like a majority of politicians, would say anything to get and stay elected. Hence his sudden embrace of the previously hated and maligned George W Bush tax cuts when it was politically expedient for him. Now he says, not again. (why not? If it is bad policy the first time, he should never have signed the bill.)
2. I don't hate Obama. I don't care for his policies. He might well be the nicest guy on the planet. Who knows? If Obama wasn't an enemy of Capitalism, (the "spy" quote in his book) and the water carrier for big, intrusive government, I would likely vote for him. Unfortunately, his world view is that there is no problem that the appropriate amount of government force cannot fix. I think government is the problem, not the solution.
3. While anonymity on the internet allows for a certain amount of brash and hot-headed accusations and name-calling to take place, I rarely take part. If the same conversation online cannot take place in a diner over pancakes and scrambled eggs, I am not interested.
"Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you are still retarded".
http://photos.commongate.com/11/38441_7dtr2scy8f_l.jpg
I saw the movie, but my alias has nothing to do with it. Though I did like this quote...
Rosita: I was thinking later, you could kiss me on the veranda.
Dusty Bottoms: Lips would be fine...
1) Cain's "leadership qualities?" LMAO! He was a successful CEO of a pizza company. How does that suit him to be CEO of this country? At least Obama had been a Senator for a couple of years before running for office ( in my opinion, not enough, actually). But Cain makes Trump seem qualified. Most people say Cain is really on a book and lecture tour and isn't a serious candidate.
2) "Destroy the economy?" Are you kidding? The worst you can say is Obama hasn't been able to single-handedly pull the country out of the worst slide since the Great Depression. This slide started under Bush and was caused by years of bi-partisan mistakes that go back to Clinton. You can say Obama owns the economy now, but to blame him for the recession is ludicrous. If there'd been no TARP (done under Bush but supported by Obama) and no stimulus package (most of which were tax cuts and extension of umemployment benefits, not boondoggle spending -- you could look it up.) we'd be in much worse shape. In fact, much of the problems in our economy and markets now are the result of uncertainty over Greece and European banks. You could look that up, too. What does Obama have to do with that? Hint: it's a rhetorical question.
3) If Obama ever said he'd have our troops out of Iraq six months after his election, please show me where he said that. And, as I pointed out below, Bush already had an agreement with the Iraqis to have our troops out at the end of this year. Obama was obliged to respect that agreement.
4) Obama never flip-flopped on tax cuts. He always said he wanted the tax cuts for the middle class to remain and the tax cuts for those making more than $250,000 to expire. But by then the Reps. had taken over the House and would not agree. So Obama cut a deal to extend all of the tax cuts in return for getting an extension of unemployment benefits. He never, ever said it was a deal he loved and he has continued to say the tax cuts for the most wealthy should expire as part of any deficit-cutting deal.
So, you calling him a fraud and a hypocrite because you mis-characterize his positions is...fraudulent and hypocritial. Sorry, Gambler made me do it. I still love "The Three Amigos."
"Remember when we, uh, raped the horses, and, uh, rode off on the women?"
-- Modified on 10/25/2011 8:47:00 PM
You're telling me Obama is more qualified than Cain because he was a Senator for 2 years. Look, I have no plans on voting for Cain, but with respect to a resume vs resume comparison, Cain is just a bit more qualified than a community organizer and sometime "present" Senator.
Yes, Cain was the CEO of Godfather Pizza. Plus he was on the Federal Reserve Board of Kansas City. He had management jobs with Pillsbury and Coca-Cola. Trust me Inicky, if you were working for a search firm, and were reviewing these two resumes for just about any job on planet Earth, including the Presidency, and these were your only 2 resumes, you would pick Cain based on his experience.
-- Modified on 10/25/2011 6:09:48 PM
I don't really have any intentions of voting for him either, or any illusions (delusions) of him ever becoming POTUS. It's just this "pants shitting" (sorry mrnt) fear and loathing of a guy immensely more qualified than our current POTUS because of some hysterical fear of his perceived dismantling of our current tax system just strikes me as disengenuous at best.
And so what? But Cain isn't running against Obama of 2008. Obama now has a record to run on and one which ElGuapo distorted. If the best you can do is point out that Obama was wet behind the ears when he ran, I consider that vindication of the rest of my argument. Thanks!
But, no, if I were looking at Presidential resumes I would not pick Cain based on what you cite. I might consider him for President of Coca Cola or General Mills. Not President of the United States.
Is Cain qualified in 2012? More than Obama in 2008. Actually, I still think Obama is not qualified, but we can move on to point #2 if you like.
I agree, Obama didn't destroy the economy. But at the same time, he has done nothing to help it. The one area that Obama can excel at is being a cheerleader for U.S. businesses, large and small. Even Steve Jobs, who voted for Obama, told him to stop the anti-business rhetoric. I realize he does it to consolidate his progressive base, but it does nothing to provide confidence within the private sector.
TARP, you know we both agree. 1st Stimulus was poorly designed. And now he is touting and threatening (well Biden is doing his best Rae Lewis impression - crime will increase if there is no football) with his second Stimulus, which is also poorly designed.
There are so many things Obama can do, that doesn't cost us any money. Why did it take 3 years for the 3 trade agreements to be signed, and why now? We lose $15B a year in tourism due to the State Department delaying tourist visas.
He has blamed the GOP, Japan, Europe, Greece, Arab Spring, rich people, and not once, has he admitted any fault in the economy. But I guess taking responsibility is no longer an American characteristic. Well except in athletics. At least they acknowledge defeat.
-- Modified on 10/25/2011 7:20:50 PM
the problem is my argument is unprovable because it's impossible to say what kind of shape we'd be in without the stimulus and his other efforts. As for taking responsiblity, c'mon, this is politics. Nobody takes responsibility for anything, on either side. They just play the blame game. In this case, I believe the Republicans have been obstructionists from Day One and have been happy to help keep the economy stagnant so they can better run against Obama. They have controlled Congress for more than 18 months and have yet to produce a single jobs bill (which is what they ran on). All they do is vote against Obama's jobs bill. Is it such a leap to believe they don't want to create any jobs until after the 2012 election (presuming they win it)?
say right before there will be more murders, rapes and assaults in Flint, that Obama owns the economy, and the blame lies with him. So in that respect, kudos for Dumbo for taking responsibility (lol).
Look, we can agree to disagree. I just have one small point on Obama's jobs bill, and it shows his liberal bias where it really has no place in this bill, but it's an example of the way the bill is drafted. "If a business with 15 or more employees refused to hire a person because of the individual’s status as unemployed,
unsuccessful job applicants could sue and recover damages for violations, just as when an employer discriminates on the basis of a person’s race, color, religion, sex or national origin". I believe those are the exact words from the bill.
Just think about that stipulation. What do you think someone from HR, hiring manager, whatever their position will do? Do you think they are going to expose their company to a discrimination lawsuit? They are going to take that resume and drop in the trash can, and never interview the candidate. That component is a job's bill for lawyers.
P.S. The Jets had a nice comeback against the Chargers. I sure didn't understand the last sequence of plays to end the game.
-- Modified on 10/25/2011 8:09:05 PM
Saint, I'll plead ignorance on that part of the bill. As for the Jets/Chargers, I saw it and was stupified. I have never seen more clueless clock management from a supposedly top coach and quarterback.
PS: What about your Raiders? Can't wait to see that sissyboy whiner Palmer try to play in that zoo!
It's a Thursday nite game. I'm making the 100 mile plus drive down south to SD for the game. I may have given you the impression I am a Raider fan. I was a Raider fan when they were in LA, and for a few years after they left, until about 2000. I've been attending about 2 Charger games a year since. I'm still warming to the Chargers.
Every time the Raiders come to San Diego, I can't count the number of fights, arrests for all kinds of shit, and this is pre-game. Plus this is a night game, so I assume half the fans will be packing. Those 2 teams and fans hate each other, and it all goes back to the old AFL days.
P.S. I was ready to put my fist through the TV and hit Rivers. Twice he threw these little 3 yard out passes. The receivers can't get out of bounds, no timeouts. And it looks like Rivers is making excuses to Norv Turner on the sideline. Nice to see your ex-con receiver do well, and he didn't shoot himself in the leg (lol).
-- Modified on 10/25/2011 8:22:28 PM
The man is rocket scientist. This is on top of the business acumen that you stated. He is supremely more qualified than Senator Obama was when he was a Presidential candidate. I do like what Mr. Cain said the other day. He said: "Stupid people are ruining America". He is right. We are allowing to many stupid people to be in positions of power.
Carter was a nuclear engineer who worked with Adm. Rickover and most of us believe he was a lousy POTUS. But I do think the Reps. are doing one really good thing, which is putting forth proposals for re-writing the tax code. I don't know if any of them are workable but I do know our present code is awful and needs to be torn up. So the debate is a healthy one.
Well, it proves that Herman Cain has a long and varied resumé. If I were to compare Herman Cain's CV with just about anyone elses for the position of CEO of the United States, I would say he would make the short list.
He definitely is not unqualified.
And a lazy asshole as well......he's got nothing better to do than post youtube videos on the taxpayers' dime. Oh yeah, this reply has nothing to do with Herman Cain, although I do like his positions on several things.
Ad hominem attack?....You betchum, Red Rider.
Ad hominem attack?....You betchum, Red Rider.
I'm glad my GOP Veteran papa isn't alive to see this race. He'd die of shame.
how ashamed he must be. He survived the Great Depression, survived WWII, worked a full-time job and was a full-time farmer also until a few years ago, voted every election. It makes me sad that he thought my brother wouldn't have to go Afghanistan after Osama was killed. It is really sad for both parties, what has happened to our country.
You say, "what has happened to this country". Actually, the country is "we the peeps" and it is sad that for the most part, "we the peeps", are a bunch of idiots who are too lazy to do any research about what candidates say, how they will do what they say, and hold them accountable for the results. Instead we flip on our favorite news channel because we like the banner they fly with their political bias, and we go off and regurgitate whatever those commentators say as if it was somehow complete and gospel.
Case in point, remember when Obama lied through his teeth about broadcasting the healthcare debate so that everyone could see exactly what was said, by whom, and why. Now we're in the election cycle again and we actually have folks who still think Obama is an upstanding sort of chap. How can anyone forget the outrageous manner in which healthcare was rammed down our throats and how Obama promised you could keep your current plan... more lies.... Many pointed out how this was all impossible and that healthcare reform would be a disaster for just about everyone except those who didn't have it and would have to pay for it under his plan. Well, guess what, all that doom and gloom is becoming true. Yet, why are we even considering re-electing this liar again? We wish to criticize all the repubs for the most miniscule BS, and seem willing to give the current POTUS a pass on all the crap and lies that he has pulled. Yes, "we the peeps" are certainly failing and as a result, the country as we once knew it, is failing too.
Granted, I also think "Obamacare" was a big mistake, but, PW, omitting Bush's unjustified war & nearly 5,000 brave US soldiers who needlessly died, show what a partisan dope you are.
Have you forgotten the "fact" that the United Nations passed several resolutions supporting what was done? Have you forgotten that 53 other countries using their own intel arrived at the same conclusion that Bush had? Hindsight is always pretty perfect, but to claim that Bush single handed attacked Iraq without cause based on what was believed by so many is pretty lame. But most importantly, what in the fuck does that have to do with anything at this point in time. We're talking about the present and it's future, not what Bush did... Nobody voted for Bush because he said he was gonna attack Iraq, it wasn't even on the radar at the time. As a matter of fact, if you wish to compare apples and apples, tell me what Bush said during his election campaign that he didn't honor? What did he say to the peeps to get elected that he later regigged on? Now compare that with all the lies that Obama blasted us with.
The main reason the UN voted to support Iraqi intervention was the presentation made by Colin Powell in which he provided "proof" of Iraqi WMD programs. It turned out later that much of it had been fabricated with CIA and Cheney/Libby involvement. Powell has since said he was embarassed at being used like that and considers his presentation at the UN one of his low points.
And where did you get your info that "53" countries had similar info. That's a very odd number and isn't believable.
We have also failed to mention Nixon's Watergate coverup and Harding's Tea Pot Dome scandal of 1923 because none of it has a fucking thing to do with THIS election.
Talk about fucking dopes, Bush took us into Iraq almost a decade ago, try to keep up.
Obamacare is something THIS POTUS rammed down the throats of the American people, and he is the one running for reelection, the dems were successful in running against Bush in 2008, it won't fly in 2012. Obama can't run against a man that will have been out of office for almost four years.
Explained in thread above.