The second thought is that Obama the Amateur has had an extremely high turnover rate amongst his closest confidants. There is a reason why they bail out as fast as they do = instant gratification of “hope and change” is pretty much bullshit.
Don’t stay truthie and faithful to the myth/cause…just split to the more hospitable climates of academia, union/community organizing and other safe havens, far from personal responsibility and accountability!!
But they’re all on payroll for Obama 2012. The Hate Machine knows these things…
**against our current President, a man who has a problem putting together a coherent sentence without a teleprompter. **
America is getting used to this.
Someone (Saltman?) challenged me to take a look at Obama in the previous debates, after I questioned Obama’s abilities (due to the ever-present teleprompter. Obama was very good in speaking extemporaneously during the debates. I do think that Romney would do fine against him, and Gingrich would eat him alive, but not sure how Cain would come off, as his command of some issues thus far, just has not seemed as “broad”, if that makes sense.
Just watch. I guarantee you libs will start mocking and attacking his ;folksie’ southern vernacular. Racism at it’s finest. Mark my words.
I’ll point out that you were the first to mention his race. In fact you seem downright obsessed with his race for some reason, bringing it up out of nowhere.
Thoughts Mopey, Ya-Hater…?
I got his back, here. I pronounce in Mojo-fashion that the Tea Party is effectively neutered. Both Cain and Romney unapologetically backed TARP in this last debate, and weren’t shy about it. Cain even backhandedly-backed the GM/Chrysler bailouts, with his only criticism being that the funds should have come from somewhere else (instead of TARP). Cain is also a former Federal Reserve boardmember who gushes about Alan Greenspan being the ideal Fed chairman. Allan West, who was supposed to be the tip of the spear for the Tea Party, broke ranks with the Tea Party Caucus hardcore and voted for the debt ceiling increase, and labelled subsequent Tea Party criticism as “shizophrenia.”
So the Tea Party was basically born on anger of the TARP bailouts, the Fed-caused bubble, and debt. Right? No one appears to give a shit anymore.
Cain, West, and Romney are racing to meet Obama in the middle. As we get closer to primary time their differences from Obama on monetary, fiscal, social, and foreign policies are subtlely becoming differences of execution rather than differences of principle. I think the only remaining checkbox to be labelled a “real conservative” is promising to repeal ObamaCare.
Which is great. Cain, like any successful businessman, knows that success is about adapting rapidly to market conditions. To grab Obama’s marketshare, you have to be palatable to people who voted for Obama. It’s working on me. I kinda like the guy. Cain-Christie would be pretty bad-ass.
Well the answer to Mopdal’s question is, we don’t need another nuclear arms treaty, we need a POTUS that knows how to get the economy back on it’s feet. Cain and Romney both have some economic chops, and this does not bode well for Obama, as he has utterly failed on this front.
Judging Cain by his tax proposal, his “chops” are overdone.
As opposed to the inexperienced fool who is driving the country into a ditch right now!
While I appreciate your attempt at revisionist history, the actual course of events under GW’s admin contradict your position.
I get it; you can’t stand Obama & think anyone else would be better. And general Obama v To-Be-Named-Repub polls back your position. Unfortunately, once the Repub is actually named in the polls, and the public recoils in horror, the numbers dramatically change against your party.
Willard is the best shot the Repubs have, and he is a very, very weak candidate: he can’t break 30% preference in any of the Repub primary polls—basically 70% of the R base is saying “anyone but him”. You don’t win POTUS elections with <30% support of your base. Levine, Rush, Hannity are all actively campaigning against “the Republican establishment” (hint, that’s Willard) in part b/c they know that he has demonstrated absolutely zero adherence to conservative dogma. You thought Kerry was painted as a flip-flopper? Wait till team Obama gets done with Romney.
Job destroyer.
“Architect” of Obamacare.
Panderer.
Any of the above 3 are enough to depress the R base and/or generate enough hit pieces to paint Romney as an elitist (and this is before the pics of his $10m house in San Diego start flooding the news) & part of the corporate/Wall Street pantheon that caused the current recession.
There is a 15 point spread on Intrade right now b/t Obama & Romney. No other Repub is in double digits (Cain @ 5% chance). Unless a serious double-dip recession occurs, its Obama’s to lose.
And as I’ve offered multiple times before, I’m happy to accept any wager to the contrary…of course you like talking with your mouth & not your wallet…or you really don’t believe that Obama will lose & are just whining like a little bitch.
I have not looked much into Cain’s policy and really haven’t watched much of him.
That being said what I have seen of him has been down to earth, straight forward and genuine. I don’t think you should underestimate that, especially since that’s 90% of the reason that Obama was elected.
Add the above with the fact the guy has real business experience and is a black Republican and I think you’re vastly overestimating with your “Bloodbath” statement.
Debate #1, Q1: so how exactly does running the 9th largestpizza chain make you qualified to negotiate nuclear arms treaties?
Answer: Just like a person negotiates any number of deals in a successful business, better than 90% of the treaties that are negotiated by politicians and community organizers.
Really?? I don’t see that being at all likely. Cain has exhibited so much racism on his own it’s pretty easy to shoot him down using his own muslim-hating anti-first amendment statements.
I predict Cain may be the front runner for a bit, but you won’t ever hear top-level democrats say anything about him until he actually wins because it’s such an easy balloon to pop.
What’s the big issue with a telepromter? Is he supposed to remember every number and every detail of his speech? How about if he had note cards, would that be better? Or a folded piece of paper with talking points, does that make someone smart? Your judgement of what makes someone intelligent is really skewed.
Every CEO in America uses a teleprompter, every politician uses one. What’s the big deal? What gives?
like I said in the other thread–if you’d like to play semantics about it then fine. I’ll accept whatever term you propose. The man made hateful statements about a group of people based on stereotypes and other false ideas, and proposed depriving them of their rights. What would you suggest calling that?
***The second thought is that Obama the Amateur has had an extremely high turnover rate amongst his closest confidants. ***
Should we take a stroll down memory lane and identify all the “closest confidants” that bailed on Bush? That list is endless, including people that got convicted of felonies.
The man made hateful statements about a group of people based on stereotypes and other false ideas, and proposed depriving them of their rights. What would you suggest calling that?
I’d have to see the statements in order to answer that. I’d have to see them first-hand, in context, not as described to me by someone with an ax to grind. (Preferably in textual form, since I don’t have access to youtube.)
I think by any definition being a law school professor would make someone highly intelligent. Highly intelligent people can make the wrong choices, but to insinuate that B. Obama is not highly intelligent is ironically, just plain stupid.
C’mon Rob; Mr. Cain’s anti-mulsim statements are pretty well documented. He has even had to come forward and apologize for them. He began by saying he wouldn’t hire a Muslim for his administration. He then backtracked to say he’d make any Muslim applicant to his Administration take a loyalty oath (as if that’s better somehow).
Here’s what he had to say on FOX, in support of a town that wanted to legally ban the building of a mosque:
CAIN: They could say that. Chris, lets go back to the fundamental issue that the people are basically saying they’re objecting to. They’re objecting to the fact Islam is both a religion and a set of laws, Sharia law. That’s the difference between any one of our other traditional religions where it’s just about religious purposes. The people in the community know best, and I happen to side with the people in Murfreesboro.
WALLACE: You’re saying any community, if they want to ban a mosque
CAIN: Yes. They have a right to do that. That’s not discriminating based upon religion.
So, it’s NOT religious discrimination to legally ban a group of religious people from building a house of worship based solely on the brand of religion in question? He actually contended that it was an infringement on religious freedom for the people in that town to be forced to allow the mosque to be built. When he talked about this case, he cited the lawyer who brought the suit to block building the mosque; the same attorney who accused Pres Obama of flying the black flag of Sharia law over the White House.
He has since apologized for his statements, which could mean any of a few things. Maybe he really changed his viewpoint. On the other hand, maybe he never felt that way to begin with, but was trying to pander to the Republican voter using the fairly offensive assumption that Republican voters hate Muslims and don’t support religious freedom. Or may he always felt like his statements would seem to indicate, and is now just apologizing to cover his ass.
He’s running for office. You decide which of the options above seems most likely.
I heard Cain give a speach about 6-8 months ago maybe? From then on I knew he would be the man to beat. I couldn’t find a single person who even knew who he was until about a month ago. At least he knows what he doesn’t know, I think I got a fortune cookie the other day that recommended that. For everyone who doesn’t like how the US goes around the globe trying to empose its will, I don’t see why those people are against someone who wants to focus on the problems within our country.
Like the 2008 election were so many jumped ship from the Pubs. party because of a bad Prez. The same will happen with Team Donkey. You can see and hear it more and more everyday. I predict by Nov. 2012 the great people of this country will be ready to vote for a orange juice can over Obama.
The bigger worry about Cain’s statements regarding a special oath is that he want’s to have a job where he defends the constitution but doesn’t seem to know what’s in it. Article 6 prohibits exactly what he is proposing. It’s not too much to ask that the president of the U.S. know what is in the Constitution of the U.S.
His stance on the building of mosques may be up for legal scrutiny, so I’m less enthusiastic about saying he’s just poorly informed on that one. However that stance is evil. And I think we should avoid electing evil people when possible (easier said than done, I know)
Okay, then to answer jpb’s original question, I would say that the claim that a community has the right to use the power of the state to ban a mosque isn’t a racist comment, but rather a statist one. Whatever label you want to put on it, it’s deplorable.
OTOH, if one were to criticize Sharia law, for example, that’s neither racist nor statist. In fact, certain aspects of Sharia ought to be regarded negatively by any rational person, and the fact that there happen to be whole cultures that subscribe to them does not make them immune from such criticism. The unfortunate fact is that many have the knee-jerk reaction that any such criticism must be “racist” and therefore unacceptable. That kind of reflexive reaction, I believe, is a major impediment to intelligent thinking–which is why figuring out what “racism” means is an issue much more important than “semantics,” as jpb calls it.
The bigger worry about Cain’s statements regarding a special oath is that he want’s to have a job where he defends the constitution but doesn’t seem to know what’s in it. Article 6 prohibits exactly what he is proposing. It’s not too much to ask that the president of the U.S. know what is in the Constitution of the U.S.
In his defense, at least he knows how many states are in the US
