Herman Cain

gamby wrote:

bludroptop wrote: If Bill Clinton had been able to keep his wiener in his pants, he might have gone into the history books as the best President we've had in a lifetime - hard to argue with 8 years of peace and prosperity, with a budget surplus. Mebbe we should get him a couple of Charlie Sheen hookers and prop him back up in the White House.

I'd gladly take 4-8 more years of Bill.

You do know that just because the wars he was fighting and the people he was killing went under/unreported.. that doesn't mean it wasn't happening right?

and it sounds to me like you want newt back but whada I know?

In reply to fritzsch:

gleckmans analysis is intellectually dishonest.

" Because businesses could deduct all their capital purchases, capital income would be tax free. But wages would be taxed—again and again and again. First, directly through the individual flat tax and then, because firms can’t deduct wages as an expense, twice more through the business tax and the sales tax. "

How is this different from now? Why bring it up under Cain's plan as tho its something new? wages are the sole point of taxation on down for individuals now, but at a higher rate than Cain's plan, so why try to play it up like this?

ronholm wrote: You do know that just because the wars he was fighting and the people he was killing went under/unreported.. that doesn't mean it wasn't happening right?

Man, you Bush fans are still sour.

I love Cain's plan. Nobody wants to tax the rich, so, hey, let's tax the poor!

That's the kind of out of the box thinking we need! Where do I send my check to the Cain primary campaign?!

You can tax the "rich" 100% and it would run the federal gov't for 15 days.

Feel good and poorly thought out taxation won't put a dent in the terrible decisions made by our gov't. People have to realize it is the decisions made by whoever is the next president that will let us sink or swim.

A candidate running on the platform of "more herion for everyone!" would hurt the country less then one running on a platform of jobs bills and bailouts.

Fast eddie, you'll notice that encompases the last two presidents... you didnt think the two were any different, did you?

fast_eddie_72 wrote: In reply to madmallard: Yeah, that could be, I guess. It does create a quandry for people who want to leverage the race thing.

Seems to me that Cain's existence presents plenty of opportunity for people to leverage the race thing.

Liberals (including in this thread) are doing an outstanding job of it.

Oh wait, did you mean the KKK? I'm sorry, I thought you were talking about the "educated" elite who would much rather point out everbody's skin color than discuss candidate's actual strengths and platform.

What do you think the South will be awash with a sea of angry people in white sheets riding horses and lynching people if there are 2 African Americans to choose between? That's pretty stupid.

Claims of "racism" don't seem to know the difference between racism and bigotry. They are basically used as an ideological trump card to try to make some E36 M3 stick to the evil Republicans. It's a smokescreen to cover liberal biases.

Otto Maddox wrote: In reply to racerdave600: I don't disagree with any of that. I just think we are going to need a scalpel rather than a machete to cut spending without sending us into a tailspin.

I appreciate your reasoned approach.

I think we are past the scalpel. We need a tourniquet, and there is a legitimate risk of loosing a limb. That's sad, but failure to do so will risk the patient's life.

That's the kind of leadership decision that is sometimes necessary. It was necessary for Godfather's Pizza, and it is necessary for our country. Because of his decision to cut the staff by 1/2, 18,000 people kept their jobs.

We've got a lot of pansy leaders. Will will die pretty quickly if we don't get some rough rider style leadership.

But I am not a big Cain fan.

SVreX wrote: I thought you were talking about the "educated" elite who would much rather point out everbody's skin color than discuss candidate's actual strengths and platform.

Are you suggesting the 9-9-9 plan is a "strength"?

Do people honestly believe a guy making 10k and paying no income tax is suddenly able to afford 9% as easily as someone making 100k and still feed himself? When you run on "No Loopholes" your flat tax cannot make one for the poor. Any flat tax with no loopholes has a larger impact on those least able to afford it and gets easier all the way up. It is a "tax the poor" plan just as Fast Eddie pointed out.

Cain is a flash in the pan - but while you are pointing fingers at Ivory Tower Liberals on racism... don't overlook that a black republican gives the right a safe cover to hide behind for slinging mud at a black president. In a win at all costs battle there are no ethics.

No. I don't like it.

But I do think having proposed it is a strength worth noticing and discussing.

Is there a reason that you again tried to look at his race as an excuse for Republican racism? That's exactly what I am talking about.

Republicans do not need anything to hide behind to sling mud at Mr. Obama. His policies and leadership give them ample fodder.

Liberals are using "racism" as a scapegoat to try to overlook the ineptitude of the current administration's policies and leadership.

Conservatives prefer Mr. Cain's policies to those of Mr. Obama. Why is that hard to understand?

I think it is very significant that the ONLY people who have mentioned race in this thread are not supporters of Mr. Cain, or the Republican Party.

edit: Well, I guess I mentioned it too!

edit #2: But I'm not a supporter of Cain, or the Republicans.

SVreX wrote: No. I don't like it. But I do think having proposed it is a strength worth noticing and discussing. Is there a reason that you again tried to look at his race as an excuse for Republican racism? That's exactly what I am talking about. Republicans do not need anything to hide behind to sling mud at Mr. Obama. His policies and leadership give them ample fodder.

Well, you might note that I was replying to you - and you did initiate that. The word racism appears right in your post. It would be strange if I replied to a subject that you initiated by saying "Yes, but penguins have no knees". We would be have to different discussions with no common ground.

In fact, the way you tried to turn that table is EXACTLY why I think Cain is excellent cover for legitimate (and mud) criticism of Obama to stick without the typical stigma of white republican racism. If the right attacks Obama the dems block with "Racist" regardless of the purity of the criticism because they can. It is easy - and it works. To counter that block move, what do you do? Or more specifically... what does a political animal like Carl Rove do? It really has nothing to do with race - it is all about winning. Hurt the dems by planting seeds so your real front runner has the attack legitimized when Cain runs out of gas. Remember SC for McCain?

Stem cells, abortion, gay marriage... all of it juxtapositioning.

I think you need to check your definition of racism.

Democratic charges of "racism" are illegitimate, but they use them because they stick. Like you said, it's about the win.

Are you suggesting that stem cells, abortion, gay marriage are not legitimate planks or discussion?

So, people who hate black people are going to vote for one so they can throw mud at the black guy in office they hate, right?

That makes perfect sense.

SVreX wrote: So, people who hate black people are going to vote for one so they can throw mud at the black guy in office they hate, right? That makes perfect sense.

Cain has no shot - but you can bet the R's have a plan and that he will be leveraged while his 15 minutes of fame lasts.

I don't need to check the definitions - but perhaps you ought to note how elections are won in this country. There are no real issues. There are inflammatory ones to position one candidate a certain way to the audience who write the checks. If you cannot see how issues like gay marriage and stem cell research were paper tigers to drum up a certain demographic or to steal/split support then you are the guy they are appealing to.

This is just an observation but... I notice that you have used "race", racism" and "bigotry" in every post on this page while somehow trying to make the point that people are injecting it where it does not belong. I would say that qualifies as irony.

I'm shaking my head in disbelief at the people idolizing Clinton. I suppose the thinking is if no bad E36 M3 happened on their watch that they must have been a good President. Never mind that he laid the groundwork for the current E36 M3 storm.

Irony duly noted. I also previously noted it above.

I agree Cain has no shot. I also agree about how elections are won.

So, you are suggesting that there are no real issues. Therefore we should not discuss anything, or vote for anyone based on anything, right?

So, your point is that Cain is a good guy, right?

My point is that Liberals are pretty persistent at trying to frame Cain as somehow playing into a race game. See the irony?

I'd rather look at his (or anyone's) platform.

1988RedT2 wrote: I'm shaking my head in disbelief at the people idolizing Clinton. I suppose the thinking is if no bad E36 M3 happened on their watch that they must have been a good President. Never mind that he laid the groundwork for the current E36 M3 storm.

+1000

SVreX wrote: What do you think the South will be awash with a sea of angry people in white sheets riding horses and lynching people if there are 2 African Americans to choose between? That's pretty stupid.

It is shocking, and pretty damned offensive, what people not from the south seem to "know" about southerners.

I agree.

As a Northerner who has lived in the South for more than 1/2 my life, it took a long time for me to confront my own Northern biases and discrimination.

SVreX wrote: Are you suggesting that stem cells, abortion, gay marriage are not legitimate planks or discussion?

IMHO everytime those issues have been brought up in recent years it has been solely drum up support of parties' "bases".

DILYSI Dave wrote:

SVreX wrote: What do you think the South will be awash with a sea of angry people in white sheets riding horses and lynching people if there are 2 African Americans to choose between? That's pretty stupid.

It is shocking, and pretty damned offensive, what people not from the south seem to "know" about southerners.

+100000.

SVreX wrote: So, you are suggesting that there are no real issues. Therefore we should not discuss anything, or vote for anyone based on anything, right?

Well, there ARE real issues. They just won't impact the outcome of this election. We can discuss them just as we did before the last election but the power in this country goes to great lengths to make sure the voting majority is not presented with any radical changes to business as usual.

I realize I sound jaded and cynical but, really, there is no choice. Elections are pomp and circumstance for our viewing pleasure; like professional wrestling. The money that bought and paid for these elected officials has no term limit nor political bias. It can have a long term plan spanning multiple presidents because it is always there and can always just keep buying red or blue boxes as necessary. Until something radical happens we all might as well sit back and enjoy the show (or get a little something radical cooking to shake the status quo up a bit).

We decide the candidate who wins - but what he does when he gets there is already decided.

Herman Cain last night - Wall Street didn't put in failed economic policies. Wall Street didn't spend a trillion dollars that didn't do any good. Wall Street isn't going around the country trying to sell another $450 billion.

He is partially right. You can blame congress/Bush/Obama (depending on whatever bias you have) for the failed economic policies. Whether the stimulus worked or not is debatable. The one thing we do know is that Wall Street just cashed in on the misery, raking in record profits while the rest of the country suffered. And as far as I can tell, Cain is all for continuing that.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

SVreX wrote: So, you are suggesting that there are no real issues. Therefore we should not discuss anything, or vote for anyone based on anything, right?

Well, there ARE real issues. They just won't impact the outcome of this election. We can discuss them just as we did before the last election but the power in this country goes to great lengths to make sure the voting majority is not presented with any radical changes to business as usual. I realize I sound jaded and cynical but, really, there is no choice. Elections are pomp and circumstance for our viewing pleasure; like professional wrestling. The money that bought and paid for these elected officials has no term limit nor political bias. It can have a long term plan spanning multiple presidents because it is always there and can always just keep buying red or blue boxes as necessary. Until something radical happens we all might as well sit back and enjoy the show (or get a little something radical cooking to shake the status quo up a bit). We decide the candidate who wins - but what he does when he gets there is already decided.

Exactly correct.

Otto Maddox wrote: Herman Cain last night - Wall Street didn't put in failed economic policies. Wall Street didn't spend a trillion dollars that didn't do any good. Wall Street isn't going around the country trying to sell another $450 billion. He is paritally right. You can blame congress/Bush/Obama (depending on whatever bias you have) for the failed economic policies. Whether the stimulus worked or not is debatable. The one thing we do know is that Wall Street just cashed in on the misery, raking in record profits while the rest of the country suffered. And as far as I can tell, Cain is all for continuing that.

How do you figure? He's saying that wall street benefited, but the cause is Washington.