Herman Cain for President?

AlBell said:
Your point?
Click to expand...

My point was really just to see if you'd overreact to me saying that. But I guess there is something in there somewhere about seeing the alienation of Other as a rational systemic control making more sense in the context of your responses.
 
So far "on the street" I have not heard any negative comments about Cain.

Here, of course, we hear the views of wacko left fringe and wacko left moderate.

Nice to here the arguments parsing (otherwise known as "wailing and gnashing of teeth")...
 
mhaze said:
So far "on the street" I have not heard any negative comments about Cain.

Here, of course, we hear the views of wacko left fringe and wacko left moderate.

Nice to here the arguments parsing (otherwise known as "wailing and gnashing of teeth")...
Click to expand...

I'm having a lot of difficulty trying to make the train of thought in this post make sense.
 
mhaze said:
Nice to here the arguments parsing (otherwise known as "wailing and gnashing of teeth")...
Click to expand...

We have just been pointing out that what little Cain has said sounds like more of the same BS that got us where we are today with a few extrra treats for the useless money shufflers who have benefitted from it.

And then there is the part about his dragging his own religious prejudices into how he would hire people. And that moron expects us to believe that he believes in the constitution .

I don't know what street you hang out on, but out here in the real world, Cain sounds likke a total nutter. It looked to me like he was too nuts-o for Bill-O. Oy!
 
mhaze said:
So far "on the street" I have not heard any negative comments about Cain.

Here, of course, we hear the views of wacko left fringe and wacko left moderate.

Nice to here the arguments parsing (otherwise known as "wailing and gnashing of teeth")...
Click to expand...

What do you think, mhaze? Is it acceptable to blatantly discriminate against Muslims?
 
A Laughing Baby said:
Realistically, I'm confused mostly by the idea that disagreeing with Cain's stance on religious discrimination means that one is wailing and gnashing teeth. Would it not be a measured, Constitutionally-backed position to take that he is wrong or misinformed in his opinions?
Click to expand...

It's kind of like arguing with a twoofer at times. Because we Democrats call Cain a pompous ass and a far less astute constitutional scholar than he thinks himself, his fans conclude that he must be right if peole with whom they disagree point out that everything he is saying is wrong.

That the constitution prohibits a religious test for public office holders is irrelevant to their script.
 
Or, to put it another way -- No one calls him an idiot outside the context of the idiotic things he says.
 
Keep it to the topic. The topic is not the other posters.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: kmortis
 
I Am The Scum said:
What do you think, mhaze? Is it acceptable to blatantly discriminate against Muslims?
Click to expand...
I've listened to the section of Cain's speech where he discusses this matter. IIRC the question was whom he would nominate for various positions, such as federal judges.

Since the POTUS has the ability to nominate anyone he chooses, I'm not sure where and how you can assert the presence of a negative factor in the selection of a nominee.

Example.

Obama ONLY NOMINATES far left liberal Supreme Court nominees who are non Muslim.

Cain ONLY NOMINATES xyz Supreme Court nominees who are non Muslim.

Do you have a point?

:)
 
mhaze said:
I've listened to the section of Cain's speech where he discusses this matter. IIRC the question was whom he would nominate for various positions, such as federal judges.

Since the POTUS has the ability to nominate anyone he chooses, I'm not sure where and how you can assert the presence of a negative factor in the selection of a nominee.

Example.

Obama ONLY NOMINATES far left liberal Supreme Court nominees who are non Muslim.

Cain ONLY NOMINATES xyz Supreme Court nominees who are non Muslim.

Do you have a point?

:)
Click to expand...

I do have a point. I think the post you quoted made it clear, but you haven't really responded to it. I'll be more clear.

Cain lays out his position quite clearly in this excerpt.

The Monday after the news broke, Cain recounted what he said on Fox News’ "Your World with Neil Cavuto."

"A reporter asked me ‘Would I appoint a Muslim to my administration?’ I did say ‘no,’ " Cain told Cavuto.

"And here’s why ... I would have to have people totally committed to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. And many of the Muslims, they’re not totally dedicated to this country," he said.

The above shows blatant discrimination and prejudice. Cain is clearly disparaging a large number of people. But why? Is there a rational basis for all of this? Is he doing so because he is familiar with Islam, and from this knowledge, he can conclude that such discrimination is actually the wise choice? Well, let's see what he himself has to say:

Herman Cain said:
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.
Click to expand...

So that's obviously not the case.

There are so many things wrong with this. We have a politician making very important decisions based on what he admits to be ignorance. A man promising to engage in blatant religious discrimination. That same individual then later goes on to dishonestly claim that he didn't do anything of the sort.

I'm not asking if this is legal. I'm not asking if it's possible. I'm questioning the moral and intellectual character of the candidate. If these questions are unwelcome, then just say so.

I'll ask again: Is Cain's discriminatory policy acceptable, or is it not?
 
I Am The Scum said:
"And here’s why ... I would have to have people totally committed to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. And many of the Muslims, they’re not totally dedicated to this country," he said.[/i]
Click to expand...

This leaves aside the point that half of the drongos running for POTUS on the Greedy Old Perverts ticket are just fine with the idea of officially recognizing that America is a Christian nation.

Bleedin' morons have a reading comprehension problem.

The above shows blatant discrimination and prejudice. Cain is clearly disparaging a large number of people. But why? Is there a rational basis for all of this? Is he doing so because he is familiar with Islam, and from this knowledge, he can conclude that such discrimination is actually the wise choice? Well, let's see what he himself has to say:



So that's obviously not the case.
Click to expand...

No kidding. That snarling sociopath needs to sit down and read "The Cow" (Second Surah.)

Like most of the far right, the bozo has no clue what he is taling about, but demands absolute loyalty to his concept of what America is.

Knowing how to turn a profit from a business that sells stuff people want does not make a ganeff like him fit to run an operation that finds ways to do things that cost money with no immediate profit.

He should go back to tossing pizzas and leave governance to people with a conscience.
 
Is it too much to ask a candidate for the office of president of the United States to say something about foreign policy that's slightly more sophisticated than what a schoolboy would come up with: "You mess with my little brother, you mess with me. It's that simple."

Herman Cain lays out his Doctrine in Israel: "You mess with Israel, you are messing with the United States of America. It's that simple."
Click to expand...

Others are starting to notice too:
Herman Cain, Foreign Policy Ignoramus At Large

This is more or less Herman Cain’s moment as a populist favorite among the Republican presidential hopefuls. His charm lies in his straight talking style and common sense business experience. But since he is running for the post of commander-in-chief at a time when the United States is involved in two shooting wars (Afghanistan and Iraq), a NATO intervention in Libya and the ongoing war against international Islamist terrorism, his ignorance about foreign policy isn’t merely embarrassing, it’s pathetic.

You may recall that at the South Carolina GOP presidential debate he said he had no idea what to do about Afghanistan but would consult with experts about it. Later he said he would come up with a plan sometime between his election in November 2012 and his inauguration the following January. Then he was asked about the Palestinian right of return by Chris Wallace on Fox News and had no idea what he was talking about. He later said that he was reading a book about Israel but wouldn’t say what book it was. This week he said he would go to Israel to join a Glenn Beck rally.

Last night, as The Hill notes, Cain went on the Bill O’Reilly show to further showcase the fact that he knows about as much about the dangers facing the world abroad as many of us do about the intricacies of managing a fast food franchise. O’Reilly asked him what he would do to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and all he could say in reply was that he would work for energy independence for the United States. That’s a good cause but as O’Reilly tried to put out to Cain, it wouldn’t do anything about the terrible danger to the West that Iranian nukes pose.
Click to expand...

There's a pattern here. No laws longer than three pages? Can't say anything about foreign policy? Crude, simplistic and bigoted statements about Muslims? I'm just going to say it: The man is a simpleton. He's out of his depth. He doesn't belong on the same debate stage with the other candidates for president.
 
Last edited:
Distracted1 said:
Another Republican with his own copy of the "Constitution", who doesen't seem to realise that it is'nt the "Declaration of Independance".
Click to expand...
The last few elections have taught me that when a politician claims constitutional expertise and/or waves the constitution with great fervor, it's a reliable indicator that said politician is a raving ignoramus.
 
varwoche said:
The last few elections have taught me that when a politician claims constitutional expertise and/or waves the constitution with great fervor, it's a reliable indicator that said politician is a raving ignoramus.
Click to expand...

Oh please! If we used that criterion we'd have to believe that Michelle Bachman and Sarah Plain are raving ignoramuses.

Oh. Um, nevermind. Carry on, there.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom