I watched the entire debate and was impressed with Mr. Herman Cain… He obviously won…
T-Paw came in a close second…
look out Team Obama… 2012 shall be a lot of fun…

This also would not be the first time that Paul followers have insisted that if Paul didn’t win the contest, it was fixed. Now if it were an online poll, the correct result (Ron Paul – Eleventy million, everyone else combined – 13) would have been achieved.

That would be Abel.

Unless you meant to put a play on the name and then it wasn’t that good of a headline. :)

Pablo said:
This also would not be the first time that Paul followers have insisted that if Paul didn’t win the contest, it was fixed. Now if it were an online poll, the correct result (Ron Paul – Eleventy million, everyone else combined – 13) would have been achieved.

I wish Fox would put out how they “recruited” the audience. There was too much hollering for RP. I think he bought out some people or something. Instead of going on Hannity’s show after, he went to some Tea Party.

Hmm…this could be a real problem for the Democrats. If Cain becomes a 2012 front runner, how are they going to label him as a racist for daring to challenge Obama?

Note to Paul followers:
his foreign policy makes him unelectable…

Look. All this talking……meaningless. Here’s the important question. How soon are we going to get some free pizza?

WCinWI said:
Unless you meant to put a play on the name and then it wasn’t that good of a headline. :)

No one, uh asked you anything ever so whomever’s name is Toby, why don’t you take a letter opener and stick it in your skull?

errxn said:
Hmm…this could be a real problem for the Democrats. If Cain becomes a 2012 front runner, how are they going to label him as a racist for daring to challenge Obama?

How can you be so naive? He’s an Uncle Tom, of course! Haven’t you learned anything about leftists? :)

I boo at your punnage, Alex! (Nice Bible reference, lol.)

I felt that Cain won the debate with the rest doing fairly well.

errxn said:
Hmm…this could be a real problem for the Democrats. If Cain becomes a 2012 front runner, how are they going to label him as a racist for daring to challenge Obama?

errxn said:
Hmm…this could be a real problem for the Democrats. If Cain becomes a 2012 front runner, how are they going to label him as a racist for daring to challenge Obama?

There’s also a clip of him standing up to Bill Clinton at a Town Hall and talking about his health care plan that he wanted to implement.

errxn said:
Hmm…this could be a real problem for the Democrats. If Cain becomes a 2012 front runner, how are they going to label him as a racist for daring to challenge Obama?

he’s an anti-woman type bigot////
pro-life makes hims evil///

I really liked Cain. I do wish Ron Paul wasn’t so “out there” with some of his platform ideas, since a lot of what he says really resonates with me.

I will say at this point, I am cautiously optimistic that their will be a 100% better candidate to run against Obama in 2012 than John McCain was.

im_lovin_it said:
Look. All this talking……meaningless. Here’s the important question. How soon are we going to get some free pizza?

No one, uh asked you anything ever so whomever’s name is Toby, why don’t you take a letter opener and stick it in your skull?

It’s good to know who’s a liberal and who’s not. Nice to see that you’ve finally accepted that you’re a lib. Enjoy it while you can. :) I wouldn’t want my political party to approve of the type of rhetoric that you used – quite racist.

skoorbekim said:
he’s an anti-woman type bigot////
pro-life makes hims evil///

That’s not the same thing as “racist.” They have to be consistent with the labeling, or else it’s not as effective a tool for brainwashing the masses.

skoorbekim said:
he’s an anti-woman type bigot////
pro-life makes hims evil///

Do you enjoy the 9% unemployment spin that they’re trying to tamper down? I find it hilarious.

skoorbekim said:
pro-life makes hims evil

It’s really hard to wrap ones head around that statement.

errxn said:
That’s not the same thing as “racist.” They have to be consistent with the labeling, or else it’s not as effective a tool for brainwashing the masses.

you would think that would be the case… maybe they’ll go with the Clarence Thoma type racism chant: “not a real black…”

WCinWI said:
Do you enjoy the 9% unemployment spin that they’re trying to tamper down? I find it hilarious.

Insane – Highest unemployment claims number in 8 months, 9% unemployment, and yet, we ADDED 244k jobs? And the market rallies. Wall Street apparently buys the spin!

Herman is a good man.
In fact , all five are accomplished men .

Not a union hack or community organizer in the bunch .

WCinWI said:
Do you enjoy the 9% unemployment spin that they’re trying to tamper down? I find it hilarious.

25% of jobs added came from McD’s…
enter that goof Goolsbee to explain thins for us///

skoorbekim said:
Note to Paul followers:
his foreign policy makes him unelectable…

I can’t believe I’m going to “defend” Paul, but can you explain what Herman Cain’s foreign policy is?

Because I remember very well him being asked that and pretty much saying “I don’t know”.

He said he was going to ask the “experts”, and the “generals” before he comes up with one. Riiight. So he has no policies, ideas, anything about the world?

That was a pretty embarrassing moment.

WCinWI said:
There’s also a clip of him standing up to Bill Clinton at a Town Hall and talking about his health care plan that he wanted to implement.

Yup. Here.

tgk said:
Insane – Highest unemployment claims number in 8 months, 9% unemployment, and yet, we ADDED 244k jobs? And the market rallies. Wall Street apparently buys the spin!

And as is said in another post, take away 62,000 of them (McD’s jobs). I’m unemployed now, but I haven’t added myself to the docket of people taking money (fortunate to have moved back home and am working on a potential 3rd degree option). The high school kids and the college kids graduating are gonna face a hard reality.

ElCapitanAmerica said:
I can’t believe I’m going to “defend” Paul, but can you explain what Herman Cain’s foreign policy is?

Because I remember very well him being asked that and pretty much saying “I don’t know”.

He said he was going to ask the “experts”, and the “generals” before he comes up with one. Riiight. So he has no policies, ideas, anything about the world?

That was a pretty embarrassing moment.

Dude – He hasn’t held political office so I don’t expect him to be perfect. Plus, if he states an opinion now, he gets hammered by people like you and other liberals in the media. Why do you think hardly any GOP members showed up? Blame your press. It’s certainly not the media outlets that I trust.

ElCapitanAmerica said:
So he has no policies, ideas, anything about the world?

No. He’s saying he doesn’t know what we’re doing in A’stan, and that he’d review the whole mess before deciding what to do about it. You might recall that Obama did that too, and then did it again. Except Cain is saying that his review would produce 3 things: A clear view of our interests there, a clear mission to fulfill those interests (ie, a way to know when we’re done) and a plan to make it happen.

Can you find those three things in our current A’stan strategy? I can’t.

WCinWI said:
It’s good to know who’s a liberal and who’s not. Nice to see that you’ve finally accepted that you’re a lib. Enjoy it while you can. :) I wouldn’t want my political party to approve of the type of rhetoric that you used – quite racist.

Hey, if the GOP can put forth a good candidate I’ll vote for them. Nice to see guys like Paul and Johnson get some traction.

Thing is every morning on talk radio I’m hearing how Obama must be defeated or we’re all doomed. Well, don’t you think there would be a little more noise at this point? By noise I don’t mean Sarah Palin’s Tweet of the Week or the Trump-O-Tron

ElCapitanAmerica said:
I can’t believe I’m going to “defend” Paul, but can you explain what Herman Cain’s foreign policy is? Because I remember very well him being asked that and pretty much saying “I don’t know”. He said he was going to ask the “experts”, and the “generals” before he comes up with one. Riiight. So he has no policies, ideas, anything about the world? That was a pretty embarrassing moment.

Paul just says pull out… pull out of Korea, pull out of Japan, pull out of NATO…

Cain’s foreign policy is much more honest than cadidate Obama’s in 2008…
although I did notice your point last night… but I found it refreshing because he is a capable leader…

ElCapitanAmerica said:
I can’t believe I’m going to “defend” Paul, but can you explain what Herman Cain’s foreign policy is?

Because I remember very well him being asked that and pretty much saying “I don’t know”.

He said he was going to ask the “experts”, and the “generals” before he comes up with one. Riiight. So he has no policies, ideas, anything about the world?

That was a pretty embarrassing moment.

After completing his master’s degree, Cain left the Department of the Navy and began working for Coca-Cola as a business analyst. In 1977, he joined Pillsbury
where he rose to the position of vice president by the early 1980s. He left his executive post to work for Burger King – a Pillsbury subsidiary at the time – managing 400 stores in the Philadelphia area. Under Cain’s leadership, his region went from the least profitable for Burger King to the most profitable in three years. This prompted Pillsbury to appoint him president and CEO of Godfather’s Pizza, another of their then-subsidiaries. Within 14 months, Cain had returned Godfather’s to profitability. In 1988, Cain and a group of investors bought Godfather’s from Pillsbury. Cain continued as CEO until 1996, when he resigned to become CEO of the National Restaurant Association – a trade group and lobby organization for the restaurant industry – where he had previously been chairman concurrently with his role at Godfather’s.[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Cain

WCinWI said:
Unless you meant to put a play on the name and then it wasn’t that good of a headline. :)

It could have been “Will Cain be Able?”

skoorbekim said:
Paul just says pull out… pull out of Korea, pull out of Japan, pull out of NATO…

Cain’s foreign policy is much more honest than cadidate Obama’s in 2008…
although I did notice your point last night… but I found it refreshing because he is a capable leader…

RP is too nutty for me. He’s a truther and his “fans” are too rude. And he’s too isolationist to me. I’d prefer a more nuanced libertarianism like Rand Paul and Palin’s.

WCinWI said:
Dude – He hasn’t held political office so I don’t expect him to be perfect. Plus, if he states an opinion now, he gets hammered by people like you and other liberals in the media. Why do you think hardly any GOP members showed up? Blame your press. It’s certainly not the media outlets that I trust.

I’m not a “liberal” and I’ve never held political office, but I sure have opinions about the world and what areas we should be focusing on. It is a fair question to ask for a foreign policy before you hold office, if you want to stay away from certain areas because of lack of security briefings that is fine, but that doesn’t mean you can just draw a blank.

Why blame the press? He didn’t answer the question, that’s his fault.

And I think Ron Paul is a bit too much of an isolationist, but you know what, at least he is consistent and is not afraid to put his ideas out there in foreign policy … as much as I don’t really agree with him (I think the US can’t just disengage from the world like he wants).

skoorbekim said:
Paul just says pull out… pull out of Korea, pull out of Japan, pull out of NATO…

Cain’s foreign policy is much more honest than cadidate Obama’s in 2008…
although I did notice your point last night… but I found it refreshing because he is a capable leader…

Hey I don’t like Paul’s isolationist stance, I was just pointing out that at least he has some ideas … even if I think they’re the wrong ones.

That was Cain’s weakest moment, obviously not his area of expertise, that’s OK but doesn’t mean he did well in that one question.

WCinWI said:
After completing his master’s degree, Cain left the Department of the Navy and began working for Coca-Cola as a business analyst. In 1977, he joined Pillsbury
where he rose to the position of vice president by the early 1980s. He left his executive post to work for Burger King – a Pillsbury subsidiary at the time – managing 400 stores in the Philadelphia area. Under Cain’s leadership, his region went from the least profitable for Burger King to the most profitable in three years. This prompted Pillsbury to appoint him president and CEO of Godfather’s Pizza, another of their then-subsidiaries. Within 14 months, Cain had returned Godfather’s to profitability. In 1988, Cain and a group of investors bought Godfather’s from Pillsbury. Cain continued as CEO until 1996, when he resigned to become CEO of the National Restaurant Association – a trade group and lobby organization for the restaurant industry – where he had previously been chairman concurrently with his role at Godfather’s.[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Cain

I didn’t say he wasn’t a good businessman (I kind of like that we both have a masters in the same area of study), but that doesn’t mean he had a good answer to that question.

Godfather’s Pizza CEO “Raises Cain”

WCinWI said:
RP is too nutty for me. He’s a truther and his “fans” are too rude. And he’s too isolationist to me. I’d prefer a more nuanced libertarianism like Rand Paul and Palin’s.

Rand has a very bright future. Ron has…his twilight years.

skoorbekim said:
he’s an anti-woman type bigot////pro-life makes hims evil///

You mean anti-Muslim.

That’s going to be the knife that Progressives can twist. He’s already made comments that can be used against him in that regard.

ElCapitanAmerica said:
He didn’t answer the question, that’s his fault.

Yes, he did.

im_lovin_it said:
Hey, if the GOP can put forth a good candidate I’ll vote for them. Nice to see guys like Paul and Johnson get some traction.

Thing is every morning on talk radio I’m hearing how Obama must be defeated or we’re all doomed. Well, don’t you think there would be a little more noise at this point? By noise I don’t mean Sarah Palin’s Tweet of the Week or the Trump-O-Tron

1. I don’t want you voting in my party. I don’t like the personality types of you affecting the conservative nature of my party. RP and GJ will never have a chance. Tonight was their moment of exposure so enjoy it while you can. If you were truly into libertarianism, you would put your support behind Palin because she has that under lock. Now, as I said, stick to your own kind (liberals) and don’t meddle in mine (conservative).

Perhaps you should step away from the talk radio. I don’t because I understand where talk radio comes from. There is no one mainstream in the radio that is saying that all of the GOP candidates need to be in the game right now. That’s beyond silly and a crappy political strategy – and yes I worked in politics a bit. I’ll look forward to volunteering my time in the future – for the right candidate.

Now go be misogynistic and racist to someone else. You’ve filled your quota with me.

Uh oh, Tea Baggers are not going to like this.

Kitsune said:
You mean anti-Muslim. That’s going to be the knife that Progressives can twist. He’s already made comments that can be used against him in that regard.

very true, i forgot the “no muslim in my administrtion” quote…

Pablo said:
Yes, he did.

A satisfactory or serious answer, how about that.

It’s not serious to say “I don’t have a foreign policy because I’m not in govt. and don’t have access to security briefings”.

How about you have some rough ideas based on the reality of what is going on? Like most of the population?

We decide, you agree.

lobodons said:
Uh oh, Tea Baggers are not going to like this.

why?

ElCapitanAmerica said:
I’m not a “liberal” and I’ve never held political office, but I sure have opinions about the world and what areas we should be focusing on. It is a fair question to ask for a foreign policy before you hold office, if you want to stay away from certain areas because of lack of security briefings that is fine, but that doesn’t mean you can just draw a blank.

Why blame the press? He didn’t answer the question, that’s his fault.

And I think Ron Paul is a bit too much of an isolationist, but you know what, at least he is consistent and is not afraid to put his ideas out there in foreign policy … as much as I don’t really agree with him (I think the US can’t just disengage from the world like he wants).

He answered the question just fine for me. Can you tell me Obama’s foreign policy standards? Do tell – I’ll love hearing this.

Kitsune said:
You mean anti-Muslim.

Translation: “He was against the mosque.”

Like 70% of the nation was, son.

skoorbekim said:
very true, i forgot the “no muslim in my administrtion” quote…

I wonder if he had this policy at Godfather’s pizza.

WCinWI said:
He answered the question just fine for me. Can you tell me Obama’s foreign policy standards? Do tell – I’ll love hearing this.

You are saying candidate Obama in 2008 would say he had “no foreign policy” at all? Even Sarah Palin claims to have a “foreign policy”. Feel free to use google to read any of his speeches on anything to do with that, I’m sure you won’t agree (it sounds like you skipped that election) but I’ve never seen anybody answer that question in such a clueless manner.

“I want to be president of the United States of America, but I have NO foreign policy at all”, “Nothing to offer, nada”.

ElCapitanAmerica said:
I wonder if he had this policy at Godfather’s pizza.

I wonder if Obama had any policy in any form of a business management position.

notsofast said:
Translation: “He was against the mosque.”

Like 70% of the nation was, son.

No, he said he wouldn’t appoint anybody in his administration that was a Muslim.

——————————————
For those who can’t view the video, Herman Cain is asked whether he would be willing to appoint a Muslim as a Cabinet officer or judge.

“No. I will not,” he said. “And here’s why: There’s this creeping attempt — there’s this attempt to gradually ease Sharia law and the Muslim faith into our government.” According to Cain, many American Muslims “are trying to force their Sharia law onto the rest of us.”
——————————————

Somebody should ask him what other religions are banned from cabinet positions.

WCinWI said:
I wonder if Obama had any policy in any form of a business management position.

That’s your answer? You think saying not wanting to appoint somebody because of their religious beliefs is OK?

Wow.

ElCapitanAmerica said:
A satisfactory or serious answer, how about that.

It’s not serious to say “I don’t have a foreign policy because I’m not in govt. and don’t have access to security briefings”.

How about you have some rough ideas based on the reality of what is going on? Like most of the population?

Let me ask this again.

Pablo said:
Except Cain is saying that his review would produce 3 things: A clear view of our interests there, a clear mission to fulfill those interests (ie, a way to know when we’re done) and a plan to make it happen.

Can you find those three things in our current A’stan strategy? I can’t.

Can you? Can most of the population?

ElCapitanAmerica said:
but I sure have opinions about the world and what areas we should be focusing on.

Of course you do. But you do not have access to a LOT of information to base your opinions upon. Obama had a whole lot of “ideas” and opinions during the campaign. But once elected, well…… you see how THAT changed don’t you?

ElCapitanAmerica said:
You are saying candidate Obama in 2008 would say he had “no foreign policy” at all? Even Sarah Palin claims to have a “foreign policy”. Feel free to use google to read any of his speeches on anything to do with that, I’m sure you won’t agree (it sounds like you skipped that election) but I’ve never seen anybody answer that question in such a clueless manner.

“I want to be president of the United States of America, but I have NO foreign policy at all”, “Nothing to offer, nada”.

I asked you to lay out for me his foreign policy stances as he would approach the global world? That’s not my duty to find it. He’s not the person that I voted for so I don’t care in the matter. All I know is that I saw nothing as it relates to foreign policy.

Can you tell me why he’s in Libya? As I said, I welcome this discussion. Conservatives had Obama’s back initially in a war, but libertarians don’t like to be in unfunded and unwarranted wars just cuz. Sorry.

RP is too isolationist for me. I’d rather a candidate who demonstrated his stances in essence (foreign aid being rescinded and so on), but not in such a cutthroat way of “It ends tomorrow”….more “It will end after we’ve evaluated our relationship with X country” (knowing that X country’s money will be rescinded). That’s called nuance.

WCinWI said:
1. I don’t want you voting in my party. I don’t like the personality types of you affecting the conservative nature of my party. RP and GJ will never have a chance. Tonight was their moment of exposure so enjoy it while you can. If you were truly into libertarianism, you would put your support behind Palin because she has that under lock. Now, as I said, stick to your own kind (liberals) and don’t meddle in mine (conservative).

Perhaps you should step away from the talk radio. I don’t because I understand where talk radio comes from. There is no one mainstream in the radio that is saying that all of the GOP candidates need to be in the game right now. That’s beyond silly and a crappy political strategy – and yes I worked in politics a bit. I’ll look forward to volunteering my time in the future – for the right candidate.

Now go be misogynistic and racist to someone else. You’ve filled your quota with me.

Well, you forgot the “2,” so I had a tough time making it through your post. Furthermore, I have no idea what was racist or misogynistic in my post. Is your name Toby Flenderson?

Also, a response like yours is a great example of why our political process is so fractured. If there is a villain here it’s divisive types like yourself. Why do you hate America?

ElCapitanAmerica said:
No, he said he wouldn’t appoint anybody in his administration that was a Muslim.

——————————————
For those who can’t view the video, Herman Cain is asked whether he would be willing to appoint a Muslim as a Cabinet officer or judge.

“No. I will not,” he said. “And here’s why: There’s this creeping attempt — there’s this attempt to gradually ease Sharia law and the Muslim faith into our government.” According to Cain, many American Muslims “are trying to force their Sharia law onto the rest of us.”
——————————————

Somebody should ask him what other religions are banned from cabinet positions.

HERMAN CAIN, CEO, THE NEW VOICE: Hey, Neil, a reporter asked me would I appoint a Muslim to my administration? I did say no. And here’s why. But the reporter didn’t tell you this.

I would have to have people totally committed to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of this United States. And many of the Muslims, they are not totally dedicated to this country. They are not dedicated to our Constitution. Many of them are trying to force Sharia law on the people of this country.

And, so, yes, I did say it, and that is because I don’t have time to be watching someone on my administration if they are not totally committed to the Declaration and the Constitution of the United States and the laws of this country.

CAVUTO: So, what if they told you, a prospective Cabinet member in a Cain administration, look, I’m Muslim, but I — I would honor all of the above and I would not be necessarily for Sharia law?

CAIN: Then, in that case, I would certainly consider that individual.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/your-world-cavuto/transcript/herman-cain-defends-controversial-muslim-comments#ixzz1LXkLn33e

ElCapitanAmerica said:
Somebody should ask him what other religions are banned from cabinet positions.

Would you appoint a Satanist?

Move over CHARLIE SHEEN because the Proud American Patriots on that stage last night were WINNING all over the place!!!!!!111 ANY ONE of them could mop the FLOOR with the 0bamessiah and his socialist marxist Kenyan MUSLIN terrorist-loving Chicago-style union thug community organizer CRONIES!!!!111 Of COURSE I loved Cain because I love PIZZA almost as much as I hate the SHARIA LAW that the MUSLINS are trying to infiltrate our American Freedoms with!!!!!!!111 CAIN/PAPA JOHN ’12!!!!!!!!!!111

tgk said:
Of course you do. But you do not have access to a LOT of information to base your opinions upon. Obama had a whole lot of “ideas” and opinions during the campaign. But once elected, well…… you see how THAT changed don’t you?

I don’t understand.

I’m saying Herman Cain had a poor answer to a question about foreign policy, basically an “I don’t know”. And the answer/excuse for it is disagreements you all have with the current administration? Even if I disagreed 100% with the admins foreign policy (which is not the case), why does that justify Herman Cain saying such a stupid thing?

ElCapitanAmerica said:
That’s your answer? You think saying not wanting to appoint somebody because of their religious beliefs is OK?

Wow.

No. I just like that Cain has business experience and Obama doesn’t.

It’s not my fault that you assume things into my statements – typical lib fashion. Sorry but we can’t all be boxed into demographics like you want us to be.

ElCapitanAmerica said:
I wonder if he had this policy at Godfather’s pizza.

so the Left is/will be calling him a bigot?

im_lovin_it said:
Well, you forgot the “2,” so I had a tough time making it through your post. Furthermore, I have no idea what was racist or misogynistic in my post. Is your name Toby Flenderson?

Also, a response like yours is a great example of why our political process is so fractured. If there is a villain here it’s divisive types like yourself. Why do you hate America?

Bye. :)

Pablo said:
Would you appoint a Satanist?

Yep. This country’s going to Hell anyways, right? At least we could have a good reception party planned for when we fall into Lucifer’s rec room.

notsofast said:
Translation: “He was against the mosque.” Like 70% of the nation was, son.

And here we are. Looks like I’ve done it. Made enemies out of the Progressives AND the Conservatives.

Pablo said:
No. He’s saying he doesn’t know what we’re doing in A’stan, and that he’d review the whole mess before deciding what to do about it. You might recall that Obama did that too, and then did it again. Except Cain is saying that his review would produce 3 things: A clear view of our interests there, a clear mission to fulfill those interests (ie, a way to know when we’re done) and a plan to make it happen. Can you find those three things in our current A’stan strategy? I can’t.

You know there is a lot to be said when a successful business person looks at a situation and makes a judgement based not on politics but on what would work best.

I liked the way Cain answered that question. I’m married to a successful business man with an armchair interest in politics but he seems to be able to separate the wheat from the chaff no matter who’s talking. He sat on a few kitchen cabinets and refused to be drawn into it any further. Rather refreshing to hear him financially analyze a situation rather than politicizing it.

WCinWI said:
No. I just like that Cain has business experience and Obama doesn’t.

It’s not my fault that you assume things into my statements – typical lib fashion. Sorry but we can’t all be boxed into demographics like you want us to be.

The irony of this statement is baffling since you’re the one assigning a political label (incorrectly) when you have no idea what 90% of my political opinions are.

I’m not talking about his business experience, I think it looks OK (although I’m wondering about his hiring practices based on people’s religions), I was criticizing one thing … his answer to the foreign policy question. You keep changing the subject, that’s all I was commenting on.

Kitsune said:
And here we are. Looks like I’ve done it. Made enemies out of the Progressives AND the Conservatives.

don’t forget the Libertarians…

ElCapitanAmerica said:
I don’t understand.

I’m saying Herman Cain had a poor answer to a question about foreign policy, basically an “I don’t know”. And the answer/excuse for it is disagreements you all have with the current administration? Even if I disagreed 100% with the admins foreign policy (which is not the case), why does that justify Herman Cain saying such a stupid thing?

Are you privy to the military intel at the WH? If so, then you can comment on foreign policy. If not, you can merely put in the parameters in which you would consider. Does he need to provide more detail in future debates? Sure. But I don’t expect any candidate to be perfect.

I expect them to be credible. Cain is credible. Obama is not. Simple as that.

ElCapitanAmerica said:
I don’t understand.

I’m saying Herman Cain had a poor answer to a question about foreign policy, basically an “I don’t know”. And the answer/excuse for it is disagreements you all have with the current administration? Even if I disagreed 100% with the admins foreign policy (which is not the case), why does that justify Herman Cain saying such a stupid thing?

You talk about the Admin’s policy like there is one. So please share with the rest of us, what it is. We’d really like to have a starting point for debate. :)

ElCapitanAmerica said:
I was criticizing one thing … his answer to the foreign policy question.

so you would not listen to your generals?
his answer was a standard new candidate response…

I’ll take my PIZZA Chicago-style – NOT my politics!!!!!!!!!1111 CAIN/PAPA JOHN ’12!!!!!!!!!!!111

errxn said:
Hmm…this could be a real problem for the Democrats. If Cain becomes a 2012 front runner, how are they going to label him as a racist for daring to challenge Obama?

They’ll just call him an ‘uncle tom’… or ‘traitor’ I am sure they have a committee already tucked away in a little room digging up dirt, manufacturing witty little derogatory slogans and all sort so fun stuff to hit back at GOP candidates.

WCinWI said:
Are you privy to the military intel at the WH? If so, then you can comment on foreign policy. If not, you can merely put in the parameters in which you would consider.

All adults should have informed opinions on what they think our foreign policy should be. You don’t need to have a security briefing to have opinions about our wars, what countries we should be doing trade agreements with, general ideas to achieve peace, engage or disengage?

Does he need to provide more detail in future debates? Sure. But I don’t expect any candidate to be perfect.

I’m not saying he’s a horrible person or that he should be perfect, just pointing out that this was a poor answer in my opinion to that question. You typed a lot of stuff to basically agree with me without saying so, phew …

ElCapitanAmerica said:
I don’t understand. I’m saying Herman Cain had a poor answer to a question about foreign policy, basically an “I don’t know”. And the answer/excuse for it is disagreements you all have with the current administration? Even if I disagreed 100% with the admins foreign policy (which is not the case), why does that justify Herman Cain saying such a stupid thing?

My answer has nothing to do with me agreeing or disagreeing with Obama’s policies. You wouldn’t accept that Cain says he will wait and gather intelligence, talk to experts, etc before saying exactly what his strategy would be. YOU wouldn’t accpet that because even you have opinions on what we should be doing.
My point was your opinions are based upon only information AVAILABLE to you.

Talking about Obama, I was pointing out the change from the campaign trail to the actual job. He continued many of the Bush policies, did not shut down Gitmo, etc. and more than likely that is because as president he then had access to more information and experts he had not previously had.

WCinWI said:
Bye. :)

You know, I’m not as partisan as you think. At all. Harry Reid? Nancy Pelosi? Jokes. They should be gone. Unions? Need to realize what the realities of our situation. NPR? Pay for it through donations. Sure.

I could go on, but you’ve already written me off. I think it’s because you’re scared. Scared of people who think freely and aren’t programmed to see only what they want to see. I can laugh at absurd things like Sarah Palin desecrating a flag and inventing words without having to defend “my team.” Which gives me a comfortable advantage over hopeless partisans. So, I’ll be around………..

ElCapitanAmerica said:
The irony of this statement is baffling since you’re the one assigning a political label (incorrectly) when you have no idea what 90% of my political opinions are.

I’m not talking about his business experience, I think it looks OK (although I’m wondering about his hiring practices based on people’s religions), I was criticizing one thing … his answer to the foreign policy question. You keep changing the subject, that’s all I was commenting on.

You said that you supported RP. Well, RP is a Lefty in my eyes. He’s like our Bernie Sanders – the crazy uncle.

im_lovin_it said:
of why our political process is so fractured. If there is a villain here it’s divisive types like yourself. Why do you hate America?

Sorry but I had to chuckle over that. You don’t even see what you just said and then accused someone of “hating America”.

You think that’s a good talking point? If someone doesn’t agree with you they hate America? Any other choices available? Perhaps just not seeing things your way.

tgk said:
My answer has nothing to do with me agreeing or disagreeing with Obama’s policies. You wouldn’t accept that Cain says he will wait and gather intelligence, talk to experts, etc before saying exactly what his strategy would be. YOU wouldn’t accpet that because even you have opinions on what we should be doing.
My point was your opinions are based upon only information AVAILABLE to you.

This was a fair question for a PRESIDENTIAL candidate, and his answer was poor. Of course you’re going to “talk to experts”, etc, but you are running for the most important position in the world, you have to have some ideas.

I interview a lot of people, let me give you a hint. If you come with the standard “I don’t really have an opinion until I talk to the experts/managers/employees” in that area, you’re not going to impress anybody.

ElCapitanAmerica said:
The irony of this statement is baffling since you’re the one assigning a political label (incorrectly) when you have no idea what 90% of my political opinions are.

I’m not talking about his business experience, I think it looks OK (although I’m wondering about his hiring practices based on people’s religions), I was criticizing one thing … his answer to the foreign policy question. You keep changing the subject, that’s all I was commenting on.

He answered the foreign policy question. You’re merely deflecting.

Tell me Obama’s foreign policy stances and then we might have a discussion. Otherwise, you’re comparing apples to apples.

Herman Cain, huh? This is your guy? This is going to be fun!

TrollJuice said:
Herman Cain, huh? This is your guy? This is going to be fun!

name a candidate you would NOT say that about…

WCinWI said:
You said that you supported RP. Well, RP is a Lefty in my eyes. He’s like our Bernie Sanders – the crazy uncle.

***Please quote where I said I supported Ron Paul,*** I’d love to see that. And please, let’s remember that you said I was the one here assuming things about what your politics are.

ElCapitanAmerica said:
All adults should have informed opinions on what they think our foreign policy should be.

So, what should we be doing in A’stan? How would we know that we’ve done it? Please explain.

ElCapitanAmerica said:
All adults should have informed opinions on what they think our foreign policy should be. You don’t need to have a security briefing to have opinions about our wars, what countries we should be doing trade agreements with, general ideas to achieve peace, engage or disengage?

I’m not saying he’s a horrible person or that he should be perfect, just pointing out that this was a poor answer in my opinion to that question. You typed a lot of stuff to basically agree with me without saying so, phew …

Will you be voting in the GOP primary or the GOP election? If not, then why do you care? If so, this is the first debate. My goodness.

Explain to me how Obamas’s going to fix 9% unemployment. And his foreign policy stances. What’s the Obama doctrine?

skoorbekim said:
name a candidate you would NOT say that about…

A candidate from the current batch, or can we pick any Republican?

only in a modern republican debate will you have 3/5 of the candidates openly support torture.

wow.

and imagine the minds of those in the audience who actually *cheered*

seek said:
Sorry but I had to chuckle over that. You don’t even see what you just said and then accused someone of “hating America”.

You think that’s a good talking point? If someone doesn’t agree with you they hate America? Any other choices available? Perhaps just not seeing things your way.

In the legal world, I think we would call this a mistaken reversal. And there are tons of flaws in his arguments.

skoorbekim said:
name a candidate you would NOT say that about…

you said it, not me!

lol

seek said:
Sorry but I had to chuckle over that. You don’t even see what you just said and then accused someone of “hating America”.

You think that’s a good talking point? If someone doesn’t agree with you they hate America? Any other choices available? Perhaps just not seeing things your way.

Well I’m being a smartass on the internet for fun. The “leftists” on this site? They’re just as bad. STUPID TEABAGGERS!!! If I were a Tea Party person I wouldn’t even respond to that. Just a simple, “Go f*ck yourself.”

There hasn’t been intelligent political discourse in this country since Bill Clinton got into office. Maybe even before that.

WCinWI said:
Will you be voting in the GOP primary or the GOP election? If not, then why do you care? If so, this is the first debate. My goodness.

I can’t vote in any primary, I’m registered as independent.

I’m very interested in the GOP nominating a serious candidate, our political system deserves good competition so we have good choices. So while it would be funny to see Trump as the GOP candidate for comedic purposes, that’s not the healthiest thing for the country and I rather have a good competition.

ElCapitanAmerica said:
I interview a lot of people, let me give you a hint. If you come with the standard “I don’t really have an opinion until I talk to the experts/managers/employees” in that area, you’re not going to impress anybody.

And if I came in and told you how I was going to change your company based SOLEY on the first interview I don’t think you’d hire me either would you?

WCinWI said:
In the legal world, I think we would call this a mistaken reversal. And there are tons of flaws in his arguments.

Or mistaken negation. My brain doesn’t want to think yet. More coffee is needed. :)

Herman Cain was on stage at a small Tea Party gathering when this thrilling , beautiful thing happened :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9_bP219ehQ&feature=pyv&ad=5593809645&kw=star%20spangled%20banner&gclid=CPWS9s_z-6QCFZVc2god0EA9ig

as the vast majority of americans support:

1. tax increases on wealthy americans
2. medicare/medicaid/social security
3. an end to iraq/afghanistan

then there is simply no way any of these republicans can defeat obama

these candidates (incl paul, but for different reasons) are total war-mongering, gay-bashing, torture-loving kooks
who make bush look like a pragmatic centrist

ElCapitanAmerica said:
***Please quote where I said I supported Ron Paul,*** I’d love to see that. And please, let’s remember that you said I was the one here assuming things about what your politics are.

I am waiting for the Obama doctrine explanation. You are merely deflecting.

We can all disagree on Cain’s answer to foreign policy at this stage of the game. Cain’s not my ideal candidate but I prefer him over RP. Simple as that.

Now…..Obama’s doctrine. Explain.

darladoon said:
only in a modern republican debate will you have 3/5 of the candidates openly support torture. wow. and imagine the minds of those in the audience who actually *cheered*

Yeah, they should have asked how many would support shooting ‘em in the face instead, then you’d be impressed right?

darladoon said:
only in a modern republican debate will you have 3/5 of the candidates openly support torture. wow. and imagine the minds of those in the audience who actually *cheered*

you support murder of unarmed terrorist, but not torture of unarmed terrorist……..you are amazing

tgk said:
And if I came in and told you how I was going to change your company based SOLEY on the first interview I don’t think you’d hire me either would you?

I don’t interview CEOs, but I would expect you to have interesting rough ideas and past experiences to come up with answers for situations you’ve never faced before. If you come up with ideas that are different to ours but sound reasonable, or just demonstrate that you have potential and a great thought process, then the job might be yours.That’s why we hire people, bring in fresh ideas, we’re not going to get that if you clam up and say “I need to consult the experts” and then leave it there.

ElCapitanAmerica said:
A candidate from the current batch, or can we pick any Republican?

name a candidate that you think could beat Oama…

darladoon said:
only in a modern republican debate will you have 3/5 of the candidates openly support torture. wow. and imagine the minds of those in the audience who actually *cheered*

It got Osama…

ElCapitanAmerica said:
I can’t vote in any primary, I’m registered as independent.

I’m very interested in the GOP nominating a serious candidate, our political system deserves good competition so we have good choices. So while it would be funny to see Trump as the GOP candidate for comedic purposes, that’s not the healthiest thing for the country and I rather have a good competition.

Then I’m sure you would like Palin to be a nominee in the process. If you like folks like RP then Palin is gonna be the closest thing for a person with libertarian leanings. That’s why I like Palin. She’s got a libertarian vibe. I welcome the debate between her and Obama. It would be epic.

But you can’t deny the fact that you haven’t presented Obama’s doctrine. Why not?

skoorbekim said:
name a candidate that you think could beat Oama…

Mitt Romney could. He needs to quit acting like something he’s not, though.

The Lantern of Truth said:
Herman Cain was on stage at a small Tea Party gathering when this thrilling , beautiful thing happened :

yeah, thrilling (not)

darladoon said:
as the vast majority of americans support:
1. tax increases on wealthy americans

not true…
Michael Moore Democrats maybe…
Marxists sure…
but not most Americans…

skoorbekim said:
don’t forget the Libertarians…

I haven’t done anything to piss them off yet, somehow.

cjd ohio 1 said:
you support murder of unarmed terrorist, but not torture of unarmed terrorist……..you are amazing

I’ve never thought of that point. That’s interesting. And a warranted talking point. :)

darladoon said:
only in a modern republican debate will you have 3/5 of the candidates openly support torture. wow. and imagine the minds of those in the audience who actually *cheered*

cjd ohio 1 said:
you support murder of unarmed terrorist, but not torture of unarmed terrorist……..you are amazing

lol

skoorbekim said:
name a candidate that you think could beat Oama…

Hum … that’s a good question.

I’ll say these people have “potential”, higher chances top of the list;

* Chris Christie
* Rick Perry
* Paul Ryan (even when I totally disagree with his economic plan)

There’s probably more, but the governors are the ones the GOP should be leveraging in my opinion.

im_lovin_it said:
Mitt Romney could. He needs to quit acting like something he’s not, though.

Romney would never beat Obama.

Bye again.

skoorbekim said:
It got Osama…

dude, every major publication, former defense administrator, et al, said this is absolutely not true

the only people who believe that are you, and hannity

and even if it were true, it still doesn’t matter. torture is illegal.

it is a very serious crime.

so again, you prove my point: you are not interested in laws or morals.

im_lovin_it said:
Mitt Romney could. He needs to quit acting like something he’s not, though.

in 2008 he could have…

Obama is in big trouble in 2012…
He’s struggling to maintain PA… that says it all…

Kitsune said:
I haven’t done anything to piss them off yet, somehow.

Libertarians? I’m sure you have…

I forgot to add Romney, yes he has potential (I don’t think he would beat the president), but has potential.

Problem with Romney is that he won’t likely get the GOP nomination in the current climate.

cjd ohio 1 said:
lol

am i on the record saying i support “murder” of an unarmed terrorist?

no, i’m not.

ElCapitanAmerica said:
Hum … that’s a good question. I’ll say these people have “potential”, higher chances top of the list; * Chris Christie* Rick Perry* Paul Ryan (even when I totally disagree with his economic plan) There’s probably more, but the governors are the ones the GOP should be leveraging in my opinion.

Rick Perry?
are you from TX?

ElCapitanAmerica said:
Hum … that’s a good question.

I’ll say these people have “potential”, higher chances top of the list;

* Chris Christie
* Rick Perry
* Paul Ryan (even when I totally disagree with his economic plan)

There’s probably more, but the governors are the ones the GOP should be leveraging in my opinion.

Chris Christie would only win with Dems voting for him. He’s not a conservative dude.

Rick Perry I like. It’s long been said that it would be a Palin/Perry or Perry/Palin ticket.

And I like Paul Ryan. He lives in a Democratic district, but is a member of the Tea Party so I give him some leeway with his more liberal votes. That said, if there’s a more credible candidate, I want Paul Ryan to stay where he’s at as he can do more good as either the President or a person on the Banking Committee.

WCinWI said:
Then I’m sure you would like Palin to be a nominee in the process. If you like folks like RP then Palin is gonna be the closest thing for a person with libertarian leanings. That’s why I like Palin. She’s got a libertarian vibe. I welcome the debate between her and Obama. It would be epic.

I don’t like Ron Paul, I said he at least answer the question and was consistently (wrong).

Sarah Palin has no chance winning the presidency, whatsoever.

But you can’t deny the fact that you haven’t presented Obama’s doctrine. Why not?

I’m not going to waste my time.

skoorbekim said:
Rick Perry?
are you from TX?

Not at all, it’s slim pickings dude, give me a break :-)

darladoon said:
am i on the record saying i support “murder” of an unarmed terrorist? no, i’m not.

so you disaprove of what obama order?

skoorbekim said:
not true…
Michael Moore Democrats maybe…
Marxists sure…
but not most Americans…

72% of americans support tax increases on the wealthy:

from TPM muckracker:

“The Washington Post/ABC News survey asked American adults whether they supported or opposed a list of proposals to reduce the deficit. Seventy-two percent of all respondents said they supported raising taxes on annual income over $250,000, including 54% of respondents who said they “strongly” supported that position. Democrats were most supportive of that proposal (91%), but so too were a majority of independents (68%) and Republicans (54%.)”

that’s a huge number.

ElCapitanAmerica said:
I don’t like Ron Paul, I said he at least answer the question and was consistently (wrong).

Sarah Palin has no chance winning the presidency, whatsoever.

I’m not going to waste my time.

Haha I knew you would say those things. You’re a liberal. Just vote in the D primary. It suits you well. You don’t add anything to the conservative cause.

You can’t even provide Obama’s doctrine. Thanks for proving my point about you. I knew I would get to it eventually.

read that: “a majority of republicans” support tax increases

of REPUBLICANS.

but skoorbiem wants to live in his cheeto-laden fantasy bubble

darladoon said:
72% of americans support tax increases on the wealthy:

from TPM muckracker:

“The Washington Post/ABC News survey asked American adults whether they supported or opposed a list of proposals to reduce the deficit. Seventy-two percent of all respondents said they supported raising taxes on annual income over $250,000, including 54% of respondents who said they “strongly” supported that position. Democrats were most supportive of that proposal (91%), but so too were a majority of independents (68%) and Republicans (54%.)”

that’s a huge number.

Was the following question also asked?

Do you understand that those that make over $250,000 file as small, individual business owners?

If not, who cares about polls? People that guide their morals and convictions with polls shouldn’t be in politics.

darladoon said:
72% of americans support tax increases on the wealthy: from TPM muckracker: “The Washington Post/ABC News survey asked American adults whether they supported or opposed a list of proposals to reduce the deficit. Seventy-two percent of all respondents said they supported raising taxes on annual income over $250,000, including 54% of respondents who said they “strongly” supported that position. Democrats were most supportive of that proposal (91%), but so too were a majority of independents (68%) and Republicans (54%.)” that’s a huge number.

link it…

skoorbekim said:
in 2008 he could have…

Obama is in big trouble in 2012…
He’s struggling to maintain PA… that says it all…

If MItt Romney could survive getting out of the GOP Primary he could do it. Of course, that will never happen.

Furthermore, all these polls about Obama are moot at this point. Still a year and half till the Election, right? Plus, I know everybody says that Obama is “always campaigning” but you have to admit when the guy is laying it on he can lay it on. So when he’s out there in real campaign mode…..much more difficult.

Plus….who is the GOP going to put out? Try to remove your own biases, too. Of course you think a stray cat could win. Who’s going to get everybody else on board? I can tell you that Donald Trump, Herman Cain, and Sarah Palin are not going to cut it.

Cain was impressive. We are just getting started though. Let the fun begin!!

darladoon said:
read that: “a majority of republicans” support tax increases
of REPUBLICANS.
but skoorbiem wants to live in his cheeto-laden fantasy bubble

link the poll…

cjd ohio 1 said:
so you disaprove of what obama order?

no, i don’t

WCinWI said:
Haha I knew you would say those things. You’re a liberal. Just vote in the D primary. It suits you well. You don’t add anything to the conservative cause.

I don’t consider myself a conservative either. The liberal/conservative label used in modern America is too cartoonish.

I’m not sure, so if I think Sarah Palin has no chance of *ever* winning the presidency that makes me a liberal?

I’m not going to go into a litany of the foreign policy of the current admin because it has nothing to do with anything that I was talking about, and you’re just using it to waste time. I’m not even in full agreement with the admins total foreign policy in the first place, so why do you want me to enumerate it and defend it.

Stop building strawmans.

skoorbekim said:
link it…

I know I saw a poll about people approving of tax increases because who doesn’t want to see taxes increase on corporations? However, if you don’t follow-up with legit questions, who cares about the polling results.

Skoor – I welcome them to increase the prices on corporations. See how the economy tanks then. :)

skoorbekim said:
link the poll…

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/04/large-majority-of-americans-including-most-republicans-support-raising-taxes-on-the-wealthy.php

overwhelming majorities are also opposed to cuts to medicare and SS

WCinWI said:
Chris Christie would only win with Dems voting for him. He’s not a conservative dude. Rick Perry I like. It’s long been said that it would be a Palin/Perry or Perry/Palin ticket. And I like Paul Ryan. He lives in a Democratic district, but is a member of the Tea Party so I give him some leeway with his more liberal votes. That said, if there’s a more credible candidate, I want Paul Ryan to stay where he’s at as he can do more good as either the President or a person on the Banking Committee.

I really like Mitch Daniels as he has done wonderful things for my state since taking over as governor. Unfortunately, the hardcore conservatives will never let him through the primary because of his stance on putting aside social issues long enough to get our house in fiscal order.

I don’t know if his signing the bill to defund Planned Parenthood in Indiana can or would redeem him or not.

darladoon said:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/04/large-majority-of-americans-including-most-republicans-support-raising-taxes-on-the-wealthy.php

overwhelming majorities are also opposed to cuts to medicare and SS

I don’t know why you bother linking to the poll when they’re just going to criticize the poll or claim bias in it. Stop wasting your time.

WCinWI said:
I know I saw a poll about people approving of tax increases because who doesn’t want to see taxes increase on corporations? However, if you don’t follow-up with legit questions, who cares about the polling results.

Skoor – I welcome them to increase the prices on corporations. See how the economy tanks then. :)

how is this question not already succinct?

“do you support tax increases on those making more than 250,000/year?”

ElCapitanAmerica says:

Just fess up, you’re a far left loon troll.

WCinWI said:
Skoor – I welcome them to increase the prices on corporations. See how the economy tanks then. :)

the economy already tanked: because of egregious tax cuts and multiple wars

not because bush or obama asked the wealthiest to pay their fair share

darladoon said:
no, i don’t

well, sh*t, you wont have anyone to vote for in 2012 then

ElCapitanAmerica said:
I don’t consider myself a conservative either. The liberal/conservative label used in modern America is too cartoonish.

I’m not sure, so if I think Sarah Palin has no chance of *ever* winning the presidency that makes me a liberal?

I’m not going to go into a litany of the foreign policy of the current admin because it has nothing to do with anything that I was talking about, and you’re just using it to waste time. I’m not even in full agreement with the admins total foreign policy in the first place, so why do you want me to enumerate it and defend it.

Stop building strawmans.

It’s really ok for you to claim that you’re a D. Accept it and move on. :)

im_lovin_it said:
If MItt Romney could survive getting out of the GOP Primary he could do it. Of course, that will never happen. Furthermore, all these polls about Obama are moot at this point. Still a year and half till the Election, right? Plus, I know everybody says that Obama is “always campaigning” but you have to admit when the guy is laying it on he can lay it on. So when he’s out there in real campaign mode…..much more difficult. Plus….who is the GOP going to put out? Try to remove your own biases, too. Of course you think a stray cat could win. Who’s going to get everybody else on board? I can tell you that Donald Trump, Herman Cain, and Sarah Palin are not going to cut it.

Nobody’s going to make it through the Media Grinder, if a Republican has to win the approval of the Media to be considered a legitimate candidate.

ElCapitanAmerica said:
I don’t know why you bother linking to the poll when they’re just going to criticize the poll or claim bias in it. Stop wasting your time

I love picking apart polls…
it all starts with the sample weight…
like the famous NYT/ABC poll showing support for Obamacare at 70% during the debate…

skoorbekim said:
I love picking apart polls…

Yet you were just saying how much “trouble” Obama is in?

More Liberty5 said:
You are not very intelligent are you. The economy tanked for many reasons, but most had to do with corporatism and the housing bubble.

Banks didn’t collapse because the federal government wasn’t confiscating enough from individuals.

the single greatest cause of our structural deficit was: the bush tax cuts

that is a fact.

and “taxation” is not “confiscation”

tgk said:
I really like Mitch Daniels as he has done wonderful things for my state since taking over as governor. Unfortunately, the hardcore conservatives will never let him through the primary because of his stance on putting aside social issues long enough to get our house in fiscal order.

I don’t know if his signing the bill to defund Planned Parenthood in Indiana can or would redeem him or not.

I lived in Indiana right when he was just about to start his Governorship. I went to one of Indiana’s Big 10 universities. :)

My reasons Mitch are the following. I could possibly get over them, but I don’t know how much volunteer time I would put in to a campaign and I think that’s important.

- His contemplation of a VAT
- His personality is not exactly charismatic (this is something I could get over, but some can’t)
- I don’t know if he has the ability to personally take the “battle” to/against Obama. We need a fighter with a record past to run on. I don’t know if he has the ability to put up with the fight that will come from liberals across the country.

darladoon said:
how is this question not already succinct?

“do you support tax increases on those making more than 250,000/year?”

When it comes to succinct topics, the economy and taxes isn’t one.

darladoon said:
the economy already tanked: because of egregious tax cuts and multiple wars

not because bush or obama asked the wealthiest to pay their fair share

What state do you live in?

darladoon said:
72% of americans support tax increases on the wealthy:

72% support raising taxes on those making over $250K…
only 21% of the poll participants made over $100K…
51% made less than 50K…
20% less than 20K…

More Liberty5 said:
(Stop Corporatism – it’s not real capitalism)

Thank you.

As an aside (and not directed to you, Liberty), I would like to point out that, while the DP poster’s comment of Luntz as a ‘joke’ is nothing more than ad hominem, he/she would have been correct if they had referred to a televised focus group as such. Televised focus groups are nothing more than an exercise of the observer effect.

darladoon said:
the single greatest cause of our structural deficit was: the bush tax cuts

that is a fact.

and “taxation” is not “confiscation”

So then you’re going to not vote for Obama in 2012. Awesome. That’s a start. :)

WCinWI said:
When it comes to succinct topics, the economy and taxes isn’t one.

there’s only one topic in that question:

“do you support tax increases on the wealthy?”

that’s a simple yes/no question

the only people opposed to tax increases are:

*the heritage foundation

*the bottom of the barrel tea party members (as if the top of the barrel are any better)

im_lovin_it said:
Yet you were just saying how much “trouble” Obama is in?

he barely won in 2008…

WCinWI said:
I lived in Indiana right when he was just about to start his Governorship. I went to one of Indiana’s Big 10 universities. :) My reasons Mitch are the following. I could possibly get over them, but I don’t know how much volunteer time I would put in to a campaign and I think that’s important. – His contemplation of a VAT- His personality is not exactly charismatic (this is something I could get over, but some can’t)- I don’t know if he has the ability to personally take the “battle” to/against Obama. We need a fighter with a record past to run on. I don’t know if he has the ability to put up with the fight that will come from liberals across the country.

I think in order to make any inroads with young people (again, 18-34), a candidate is going to have to be snarky and have a sharp tongue. You don’t see that out of Republicans.

FIRST OF ALL:

We need to stop calling these “libertarians” libertarians if they’re RUNNING AS REPUBLICANS.

THEY ARE REPUBLICANS

WCinWI said:
So then you’re going to not vote for Obama in 2012. Awesome. That’s a start. :)

i would prefer someone run against obama from the left

skoorbekim said:
he barely won in 2008…

HahahahahahahahahahahHahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Someone needs to take the delorean back in time since your memory is going…

Kitsune said:
I think in order to make any inroads with young people (again, 18-34), a candidate is going to have to be snarky and have a sharp tongue. You don’t see that out of Republicans.

Yes. I’m younger. And I prefer a bit of snark over the typical elite fashion. I’d ideally like a blend of each.

darladoon said:
there’s only one topic in that question: “do you support tax increases on the wealthy?” that’s a simple yes/no question the only people opposed to tax increases are: *the heritage foundation *the bottom of the barrel tea party members (as if the top of the barrel are any better)

did you know that the debt ceiling limit has bee pushed back to August because of the influx of revenue after Obama extended the Bush tax rates… lower rates = more tax revenue…
Why would Obama extend the tax rates on the wealthy if 72% of America wanted them raised? hmmmm….

Herman Cain is probably the most qualified, business savy, people person, government experienced, charismatic, cash on hand, all around everyman in America today.

He is the perfect Republican candidate to lead America back to not only solvency, but to lead us on the road to ” exceptionalism ” and prosperity once more.

He can deal with Wall Street, federal and state governments from a position of strength and power not found in your typical polititian.

Dealing with China, OPEC and the like would be a natural evolution for him too.

Hopefully as the debates get going the establishment insiders realize their shortcomings and come around to doing what’s best for America not their personal egos for a change.

darladoon said:
there’s only one topic in that question:

“do you support tax increases on the wealthy?”

that’s a simple yes/no question

the only people opposed to tax increases are:

*the heritage foundation

*the bottom of the barrel tea party members (as if the top of the barrel are any better)

You didn’t get my point. Typical lib. :)

darladoon said:
i would prefer someone run against obama from the left

no going to happen, sorry, so you have not much to vote for

Who to the Left of Obama would win with anybody over 34? Alan Grayson? Nancy Pelosi? Barney Frank? They’re probably even more divisive than Barry is.

WCinWI said:
You didn’t get my point. Typical lib. :)

i’m not a liberal. i’m an anarchist.

skoorbekim said:
lower rates = more tax revenue…

quote of the day

Kitsune said:
Who to the Left of Obama would win with anybody over 34? Alan Grayson? Nancy Pelosi? Barney Frank? They’re probably even more divisive than Barry is.

Russ Feingold is the only person I could see getting drafted in.

skoorbekim said:
he barely won in 2008…

Ummm….barely?

WCinWI said:
Yes. I’m younger. And I prefer a bit of snark over the typical elite fashion. I’d ideally like a blend of each.

Yeah, you sure seem like a real hip character. I mean, what person under 34 would recognize a quote from some old fart show like The Office?

darladoon said:
i’m not a liberal. i’m an anarchist.

quote of the day

Wow.

Then move overseas.

darladoon said:
the economy already tanked: because of egregious tax cuts and multiple wars

Nothing to do with Barney Frank’s Fannie and Freddie. (remember the one Bush was trying to fight)

Are you for real?

Oh yes and then you bright wonders re-elected that completely pathetic excuse for a human. (Only in America could a complete moron like Frank get in again)

tax cuts my sorry butt – they’re not tax cuts. That’s just the liberal talking point that nobody ever says “what the hell are you talking about tax cuts?”

Get a job – pay some taxes and quit looking at the other guy to pay your way.

im_lovin_it said:
Ummm….barely?

Yeah, you sure seem like a real hip character. I mean, what person under 34 would recognize a quote from some old fart show like The Office?

I don’t watch The Office so I have no clue why that was even brought up.

WCinWI said:
Wow.

Then move overseas.

so american of you

i didn’t realize it was illegal to be an anarchist, and why moving overseas would benefit me

darladoon said:
quote of the day

it is an economic fact…

how much tax revenue would you accure with a 100% tax rate?

darladoon said:
i didn’t realize it was illegal to be an anarchist,

saying you are one is not… having the balls to be one might be…

darladoon said:
so american of you

i didn’t realize it was illegal to be an anarchist, and why moving overseas would benefit me

Name a country where anarchy has worked.

I thought Cain and Pawlenty were horrible. Cain gave only vague talking points and had a laughable habit of counting his fingers when “outlining” his naive talking points. Pawlenty was a huge disappointment. He actually seemed to be trying to channel John Edwards….. at a REPUBLICAN DEBATE. He came off as a shallow politician that was highlighted by his shoulder shrugging answer to his former advocacy for Cap and Trade. I don’t see him rising from his current 3% polling.

See? And you people thought us conservatives and libertarians were racist. I may call Obama a Marxist Mulatto, but I will refer to Herman Cain as a real Red, White, and Blue and Black man. See? I’m no racist, I hate people on the basis of ideology. I love black libertarians, Republicans and independents while hating black and white and yellow liberals and progressives.

WHAT IS A RACIST?
http://libertarians4freedom.blogspot.com/2011/02/what-is-racist.html

ModerateMan said:
I don’t see him rising from his current 3% polling.

next week he and Cain will be polling in double digits…

skoorbekim said:
it is an economic fact…

how much tax revenue would you accure with a 100% tax rate?

skoorbiem—

do some research, please:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

there is a point at which revenue would decrease, but your 100% rate is a strawman

here’s another interesting tidbit:

http://blogs.marketwatch.com/fundmastery/2010/07/02/does-hiking-tax-rates-raise-more-revenue/

ModerateMan said:
I thought Cain and Pawlenty were horrible. Cain gave only vague talking points and had a laughable habit of counting his fingers when “outlining” his naive talking points. Pawlenty was a huge disappointment. He actually seemed to be trying to channel John Edwards….. at a REPUBLICAN DEBATE. He came off as a shallow politician that was highlighted by his shoulder shrugging answer to his former advocacy for Cap and Trade. I don’t see him rising from his current 3% polling.

Pawlenty’s flip-flopping is an unfortunate symptom of actively trying to be the guy that gets through the Media Meat Grinder, the guy that MSNBC, the Washington Post, the New York Times, etc… takes it relatively easy on compared to everyone else.

Republicans “know” that if they want to survive to make it to the general election, they pretty much have to come off as a Progressive, and once they make it there, they’re going to lose, because if people are going to vote for a Progressive, they’re going to vote for the lifelong Progressives in the Democrat party.

WCinWI said:
Name a country where anarchy has worked.

anarchy has nothing to do with “countries”

darladoon said:
skoorbiem—
do some research, please:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve
there is a point at which revenue would decrease, but your 100% rate is a strawman

I was citing the Laffer Curve in which 100% is used to prove the point that lower rates can equal higher revenue…

That is not a strawman argument… it is part of the economic graph…

darladoon said:
here’s another interesting tidbit:
http://blogs.marketwatch.com/fundmastery/2010/07/02/does-hiking-tax-rates-raise-more-revenue/

that link supports my point…

skoorbekim said:
next week he and Cain will be polling in double digits…

Didn’t you just say that Obama barely won in 2008? I’d be remiss if I didn’t question your math skills if 10 million and over 330 out of a possible 538 equates to barely winning to you. Gotta say that’s not very smart of you.

errxn said:
Hmm…this could be a real problem for the Democrats. If Cain becomes a 2012 front runner, how are they going to label him as a racist for daring to challenge Obama?

HeeHee!

Bill Huggins said:
FIRST OF ALL:

We need to stop calling these “libertarians” libertarians if they’re RUNNING AS REPUBLICANS.

THEY ARE REPUBLICANS

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
Didn’t you just say that Obama barely won in 2008? I’d be remiss if I didn’t question your math skills if 10 million and over 330 out of a possible 538 equates to barely winning to you. Gotta say that’s not very smart of you.

Since you’re taking a general statement as a more specific statement, can you tell me what Obama’s doctrine is?

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
skills if 10 million

it was 8M… and that was with a fawning media and cult of personality following…
just with the new census #’s shift another 14 electoral votes moved away from the 2008 total…
Obama is underwater against generic GOP opponents in FL, OH, VA, NC…
Team Obama is in trouble and they know it…

Gotta go everybody…
be well!

skoorbekim said:
Gotta go everybody…
be well!

Yeppers. I’m headed off too! Have a nice day! :)

I like Paul, but now I’m leaning toward Cain. Because of Cain’s business experience he has a lot of people skills that are going to be needed when running the country. I don’t think Trump or Palin will be running. I do feel Cain is going to have a tough time winning in the south, but at this point he is the best candidate.

skoorbekim said:
it was 8M… and that was with a fawning media and cult of personality following…just with the new census #’s shift another 14 electoral votes moved away from the 2008 total…Obama is underwater against generic GOP opponents in FL, OH, VA, NC…Team Obama is in trouble and they know it…

They’re _sort of_ in trouble, but not really. They still have a MASSIVE advantage when it comes to exposure and promotion, but WITH that advantage, Barry should be WAY more ahead than he is. He’s still ahead enough to win, but he should be running away with it with 70% or more, what with the advantages he’s got.

Typical. The Republican candidate who “won” the debate is the guy who made his millions paying minimum wage to his employees and providing no benefits. He’s their guy, all right.”

lobodons said:
Uh oh, Tea Baggers are not going to like this.

Don’t think that the TP’s support just one candidate, do ya? Where do you people hide during the day? Under a rock?
http://theothermccain.com/2010/10/08/virginia-tea-party-herman-cain-video/

WCinWI said:
Since you’re taking a general statement as a more specific statement, can you tell me what Obama’s doctrine is?

Thank you for asking, notsosmart.
OUR President hasn’t laid out a specific doctrine, so it’s not really clear. There are no tenets to adhere to as there was with Bush’s. The President has said it’s not the job of the military to solve humanitarian problems in other countries. In 2008 he said he wanted to “end the war in iraq responsibly, finishing the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban; securing all nuclear weapons and materials from terrorists and rogue states; achieving true energy security; and rebuilding our alliances to meet the challenges of the 21st century” However, there is still no explicit statement. Those are all what has been referred to by the media as the “Obama Doctrine”. Have I satisfied your curiosity or shall I go on?

Maureen A. Meyer said:
Typical. The Republican candidate who “won” the debate is the guy who made his millions paying minimum wage to his employees and providing no benefits. He’s their guy, all right.”

…and thus it starts. At least you couldn’t throw the racist card out.

skoorbekim said:
Gotta go everybody…
be well!

WCinWI said:
Yeppers. I’m headed off too! Have a nice day! :)

Interesting. Jack and jill both leap down the hill spouting the same moronic bullshit.

I can’t be the only one that thinks that these are fake and scripted… right? I feel like the GOP picks what these people will say, they are trying to push Herman Cain, I think.

It’d be crazy if both parties had a strong black man leading them, times are a-changing, maybe soon most of the Republicans will be black! you never know!

Maureen A. Meyer said:
Typical. The Republican candidate who “won” the debate is the guy who made his millions paying minimum wage to his employees and providing no benefits. He’s their guy, all right.”

Good one.

skoorbekim said:
it was 8M… and that was with a fawning media and cult of personality following…
just with the new census #’s shift another 14 electoral votes moved away from the 2008 total…
Obama is underwater against generic GOP opponents in FL, OH, VA, NC…
Team Obama is in trouble and they know it…

Blah blah blah notsosmart bullshit. The man won fair and square and by a large margin. Generic candidates whose results go down when shifted to specific candidates, none of which can hold a candle to the man on the issues. Whereas Obama has results all they have is talking points. You can try going against him with talking points, but I would implore you to remember the smack down he gave all of the House Republicans who did so. It was a mistake to allow cameras in there ring a bell?

Maureen A. Meyer said:
Typical. The Republican candidate who “won” the debate is the guy who made his millions paying minimum wage to his employees and providing no benefits. He’s their guy, all right.”

Racist.

WCinWI said:
I don’t know if he has the ability to personally take the “battle” to/against Obama. We need a fighter with a record past to run on. I don’t know if he has the ability to put up with the fight that will come from liberals across the country.

100% agree with you here and I think that’s why he hasn’t committed to running. I don’t think he has the “stomach” for the fight. At this point, I would actually be surprised to see him get in the race.

Cain? Haahahahahahaaa….gmafb already. Way to keep on taking your talking points from media kool-aid drinkers! Oh how funny…you’ll drag the polar opposite not at all liberal media through mud every chance you get, but notice, how you still fail to think for yourself and forever and ever take your cues from the frign talking heads on tv.

Now, I don’t know just how drastically dependent you are on the tv for your every thought, but I assure you…developing the ability to think for yourself will be the best thing you can do for your life in this world of zombies, lemmings and sheep.

I’ll give you a hint…if fox is pushing a candidate, that’s your clue to look anywhere else but whoever that den of manipulators airing nincompoops is endorsing.

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
Those are all what has been referred to by the media as the “Obama Doctrine”. Have I satisfied your curiosity or shall I go on?

The Obama Doctrine.

darladoon said:
so american of you

i didn’t realize it was illegal to be an anarchist, and why moving overseas would benefit me

Anarchists For Tax Hikes. Heh.

Yer doing it wrong.

Snowspot said:
I can’t be the only one that thinks that these are fake and scripted… right? I feel like the GOP picks what these people will say, they are trying to push Herman Cain, I think.

It’d be crazy if both parties had a strong black man leading them, times are a-changing, maybe soon most of the Republicans will be black! you never know!

Frank just knows what he is doing he has been setting up these focus groups for a while. I just hope one day I will be on Frank’s panel because he has a lot of insights on what is going on out there.

darladoon said:
so american of you

i didn’t realize it was illegal to be an anarchist, and why moving overseas would benefit me

Whether or not it’s legal or not is moot when talking of anarchists……..they don’t believe in law.

Regarding why the remark was made about moving overseas>>>>>>http://anarchistnews.org/?q=node/12185
They act out regularly over there.

Pablo said:
Anarchists For Tax Hikes. Heh. Yer doing it wrong.

I don’t see how one can say they’re an Anarchist, with NO sense of irony, when they support gigantic government and massive government spending….

….oh, right. Frances Piven. Collapse the system and induce chaos :P

One might even refer to this debate as… Cain Enabling.

You’re welcome.

ImNotBlue said:
The Obama Doctrine.

Unfortunately your post once again says and does nothing. A Doctrine corresponds to a set of unifying ideals that they act by with regards to foreign policy. As your source says Obama doesn’t have that rather it’s very erratic and differs with the situation as a rational response should. Ergo, there is no Obama Doctrine at this time, am I wrong? If so, please form your own supported response. By the way, thank you for proving my point.

Kitsune said:
I don’t see how one can say they’re an Anarchist, with NO sense of irony, when they support gigantic government and massive government spending….

….oh, right. Frances Piven. Collapse the system and induce chaos :P

Another moron babbling about some non existent conspiracy?

Luntz is staging a focus group? Unheard of! Cain is just another POS with a talk radio show, a right wing token version of Obama.

jakester said:
Another moron babbling about some non existent conspiracy?

Conspiracy? No. It’s not a conspiracy when Piven is going on internet radio shows and giving speeches at school saying how much she wants a revolution.

Don’t kid yourself, after the fuss over Obama conservatives are not going to put another black face in the White House.

jakester said:
Another moron babbling about some non existent conspiracy?

Also, get your mouth off of Cass Sunstein’s shaft. It’s unbecoming, even for you.

A lot of really stupid shallow people being led around by a master manipulator, that is what I saw. Everyone was talking in slogans and cliches.

Kitsune said:
Also, get your mouth off of Cass Sunstein’s shaft. It’s unbecoming, even for you.

That was a really crude ugly remark but since you are a crude ugly pig spouting a bunch of paranoid conspiracy nonsense,. that is probably the best your little mind could upchuck.
Hey sfb, show me one bit of evidence that what Piven proposed in the 1960s has anything relevant to today. Oh right, some paranoid dirtbag posted some nonsense on the American Nonthinker and Beck talked about it, so the Piven conspiracy must be true!

share with you a very good website

http://www.legendstrade.com

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
Unfortunately your post once again says and does nothing. A Doctrine corresponds to a set of unifying ideals that they act by with regards to foreign policy. As your source says Obama doesn’t have that rather it’s very erratic and differs with the situation as a rational response should. Ergo, there is no Obama Doctrine at this time, am I wrong? If so, please form your own supported response. By the way, thank you for proving my point.

I only posted an article in reference to your conversation. I did not take an opinion.

You need to relax.

jakester said:
A lot of really stupid shallow people being led around by a master manipulator, that is what I saw. Everyone was talking in slogans and clichés.

Yes, this election cycle, when it comes to slogans and clichés, we can only HOPE things will CHANGE.

Hey now… that’s catchy…

Herman Cain made a big impression last night and I’m sure that the PMSnbc racist bigots are choking on their extremely radical left wing talking points about now. The real sicko racist over at PMSnbc, Gay Draft Dodger Lawrence O’Donnell, showed his hand yesterday with that childishly juvenile rant and temper tantrum he went through with the very dignified former Secretary of State Condi Rice. That was about the most pathetic display of anger and hatred by a PMSnbc talking idiot yet. Comcast really needs to get rid of O’Donnell before the whole ship goes down.

And not as bad on the anger scale but, still very racists was Chris Mathews saying GOP candidates at the FOX News debate last night were second tier and jokes & clowns who couldn’t come close to Obama. Didn’t that idiot Mathews say much the same last November and the next day the Republicans and Tea Party candidates cleaned old Chrissy’s Liberal House of about 75-80 Democrats. Missy Matthews better watch out because 2012 just may finish off what is left of the wacko left in both Houses as well as the White House. The bin Laden bounce won’t last long. Washington better get with the people’s program of getting the Budget balanced, jobs for those out of work, etc.

jakester said: Cain is just another POS with a talk radio show, a right wing token version of Obama.

I’m no Racer, but that actually is racist.

George Lopez offers advice to Sarah Palin over the dead bin Laden photo.
http://www.tbs.com/video/index.jsp?eref=google&oid=250771

WildMan said:
Herman Cain made a big impression last night and I’m sure that the PMSnbc racist bigots are choking on their extremely radical left wing talking points about now. The real sicko racist over at PMSnbc, Gay Draft Dodger Lawrence O’Donnell, showed his hand yesterday with that childishly juvenile rant and temper tantrum he went through with the very dignified former Secretary of State Condi Rice. That was about the most pathetic display of anger and hatred by a PMSnbc talking idiot yet. Comcast really needs to get rid of O’Donnell before the whole ship goes down.

And not as bad on the anger scale but, still very racists was Chris Mathews saying GOP candidates at the FOX News debate last night were second tier and jokes & clowns who couldn’t come close to Obama. Didn’t that idiot Mathews say much the same last November and the next day the Republicans and Tea Party candidates cleaned old Chrissy’s Liberal House of about 75-80 Democrats. Missy Matthews better watch out because 2012 just may finish off what is left of the wacko left in both Houses as well as the White House. The bin Laden bounce won’t last long. Washington better get with the people’s program of getting the Budget balanced, jobs for those out of work, etc.

The ship is already going done. It’s pure comedy hour for me. I heard Mathews will be moving to Fox in late 2011.

WCinWI said:
Do you enjoy the 9% unemployment spin that they’re trying to tamper down? I find it hilarious.

Beats the double digit unemployment if the cons were in charge. How’s the self-fulfilling prophecy of American Decline working out for you? Cut the state workers wages and benefits, driving down middling class wages and benefits, and then say: “Told ya so!”.

WildMan said:
Herman Cain made a big impression last night and I’m sure that the PMSnbc racist bigots are choking on their extremely radical left wing talking points about now. The real sicko racist over at PMSnbc, Gay Draft Dodger Lawrence O’Donnell, showed his hand yesterday with that childishly juvenile rant and temper tantrum he went through with the very dignified former Secretary of State Condi Rice. That was about the most pathetic display of anger and hatred by a PMSnbc talking idiot yet. Comcast really needs to get rid of O’Donnell before the whole ship goes down. And not as bad on the anger scale but, still very racists was Chris Mathews saying GOP candidates at the FOX News debate last night were second tier and jokes & clowns who couldn’t come close to Obama. Didn’t that idiot Mathews say much the same last November and the next day the Republicans and Tea Party candidates cleaned old Chrissy’s Liberal House of about 75-80 Democrats. Missy Matthews better watch out because 2012 just may finish off what is left of the wacko left in both Houses as well as the White House. The bin Laden bounce won’t last long. Washington better get with the people’s program of getting the Budget balanced, jobs for those out of work, etc.

I suppose you hated Rumsfeld’s criticism of her as well?!?

PLEASE put Herman Cain against Obama. Hahahahahaha

Republicans will never let it happen though: LOOK AT HIM.

Can you say: birth certificate? HahahahahahahahA

If you’re a registered Republican,’and you’re taking part in the REPUBLICAN debate: don’t call yourself a LIBERTARIAN because YOU’RE NOT.

ModerateMan said:
I’m no Racer, but that actually is racist.

You forget, it’s OK for Progressives to be racist, as long as it means they win elections.

It’s also OK for them to take their marching orders directly from Cass Sunstein and play the “Call everyone who disagrees with you a conspiracy theorist, no matter what happens.” card.

I love to watch teagaggers get excited about a candidate only to see them get humiliated off the national stage.

First Palin, then Trump, now Cain.

I wonder who will be next?

_______________________________________________________________
CAUTION: BE ON THE LOOKOUT FOR THESE EX-BIRTHERS, THEY ARE ARMED AND IGNORANT…

Dem4Ever, The Lantern of Truth, juan, Arkansas Steve, murf, Jaurez
WCinWI, Barack Must Go, NOBAMA, Colorado_Conservative, gordonbloyershow
TeaPartyPatriot, notsofast, Severian, Dronetek, TfT, mitchflorida, skoorbekim
mdanielson, Harry Flashman, OxyCon and NORBIT

BeckFinallyDemoted said:
I love to watch teagaggers get excited about a candidate only to see them get humiliated off the national stage. First Palin, then Trump, now Cain. I wonder who will be next?

John Edwards.

ImNotBlue said:
John Edwards.

Wow, you guys are going to support Edwards next?

YOU REALLY ARE DESPERATE!!!!

_______________________________________________________________
CAUTION: BE ON THE LOOKOUT FOR THESE EX-BIRTHERS, THEY ARE ARMED AND IGNORANT…

Dem4Ever, The Lantern of Truth, juan, Arkansas Steve, murf, Jaurez
WCinWI, Barack Must Go, NOBAMA, Colorado_Conservative, gordonbloyershow
TeaPartyPatriot, notsofast, Severian, Dronetek, TfT, mitchflorida, skoorbekim
mdanielson, Harry Flashman, OxyCon and NORBIT

jim bronson 990cc said:
Cut the state workers wages and benefits, driving down middling class wages and benefits, and then say: “Told ya so!”.

In 2010, the union membership rate–the percent of wage and salary workers who were
members of a union–was 11.9 percent, (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm)

That’s a pretty small percentage for you to make such a broad statement about the “middle Class” workers. And to my knowledge only public unions have been affected which would even further reduce your broad statement.

Now the leftstream media has a new target. Let the “Demonize Cain” campaign begin.

StandUp said:
Now the leftstream media has a new target. Let the “Demonize Cain” campaign begin.

Of course. They can’t stand anyone who will beat Obama. You know I used to be a Democrat years ago. Came from a family historically Democratic. Saw through their hypocrisy, left the party and haven’t looked back. The reason?

Crap like this.

tgk said:
In 2010, the union membership rate–the percent of wage and salary workers who were
members of a union–was 11.9 percent, (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm)

That’s a pretty small percentage for you to make such a broad statement about the “middle Class” workers. And to my knowledge only public unions have been affected which would even further reduce your broad statement.

Came from a family with union membership, too. They were thugs then and still haven’t changed. My dad was a member because he had to work. Period. He didn’t want to, but he had to work. I remember the violence when someone crossed a picket line to work to support his family. (Not everyone could go for 3-4 mos without work!) They’d get their beat up, their heads bashed in with a bat, their car windows would be bricked, and they wouldn’t be able to get a Union job anywhere in the U.S. for the rest of their lives. It wasn’t the workers doing this………it was the union thugs that were shipped in to enforce the strike. Some pretty big companies.

Doncha just love the unions?

I wish that all the administration and thugs would fall down a long flight of stairs and fall upon their forked tongues..

BeckFinallyDemoted said:
I love to watch teagaggers get excited about a candidate only to see them get humiliated off the national stage.

First Palin, then Trump, now Cain.

I wonder who will be next?

And, you’ve got who?………………………….Obama who can’t make up his mind if bin ladin was armed or not, threw his wife at the troops or not, in favor of Gitmo or not, likes the advantage of “advanced interrogatio* or not (but sure likes the victories he can claim from the technique), not sure if he likes the raise the debt ceiling or not. ” Mr Solid,-Vote- For- Me,- whatever- I’m -saying- at-the- moment- is -correct-and-hope-your-memory-isn’t-that-long. Or, -not. Just- vote- for- me- anyway-cause-I-got-a-big-ole-D-behind-my-name.”

I was struck by the bad acting in the back row … one after another in quick succession seemed to be spouting spoon fed talking points supporting Mr. Cain.

My take as a disability advocate at a rehabilitation center in PA is this. To me it doesn’t matter won the first Republican pres. debate. What the Repubs are doing in the guise of preventing voter fraud is horribly wrong.
Republican politicos throughout the US are insisting on photo IDs for voter registration. The problem with this is how many poor persons own a passport. Plus one can lose a birth certificate and it may be difficult, or too costly for these voters to obtain a new one. I strongly suspect in the guise of protecting honest voting , the Republicans are doing their utmost to disenfranchise mostly Democratic voters.

Photo IDs will bring on new hardships to election administrators. This very well could mean a very real possibility of more poll workers, the updating of election and other relevant forms, websites, training on the processing of provisional ballot processes and possibly other burdens. And of course more expenses for deficit strapped states.

Many studies nationwide show that voter fraud is quite a rare happening and virtually never because of the fault of faulty voter IDs. A little over ten percent of otherwise eligible voters don’t possess the currently acceptable photo ID forms. Minorities such as African Americans, Hispanics, new immigrants are much less likely to own such IDs.

My take as a disability advocate at a rehab center in Philadelphia, PA is this. It may be quite difficult for people who are low income to produce a photo ID. This includes many people who are disabled, seniors and college students. Besides quite a few seniors, by virtue of getting older are handicapped. There just arn’t that many folks who are poor who possess passports. Plus there are a significant number of people with disabilities who can’t get drivers licenses because their disabilities. There are many states who don’t require photo ID with little or no problems in voter fraud and/or voter registration. The point is that a lot of these photo IDs are very difficult for people with low incomes, ie, disabled, seniors and others on fixed incomes to get. This population mostly votes Democratic. Hmmm Pattern?

The time and money used to get a photo ID is like a poll tax – a barrier long used to deny African-Americans the vote. The photo ID bill is a biased, modern-day power grab

Here is a partial list of states that don’t require a photo ID. This information is as of April 28,2011. The non photo ID requirement states are as follows: Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Minnosota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin. There is something else these states hold in common. To implement the new photo ID legislations the cost would literally be in the millions in each state. In the environment of deficits, rising costs, do we really need the expense to implement photo ID requirements. Some Republicans are proposing to pay for those without enough money to obtain such forms of identifications. Can you imagine what the cost would be to implement this? In the meantime thirty five states and Puerto Rico are suffering from serious shortfalls in this fiscal year. Some gaps in some states as high as 32% NJ 26%, NC, close to 5%. Can we really pay for the implementation of those photo ID proposals. I’m experiencing real doubts here.

Below is what the Brennen Law Center says on the so called problem of voter fraud and requiring photo IDs to vote. While it’s certainly true that voter fraud is a terrible crime literally effecting the outcome of the integrity of elections, the actual incidence of such crimes are rather minimal.
Voter ID The Solution in Search of a Problem. Source Brennan Law Center.

Some of what they wrote is paraphrased by yours truly. Rest assure I did not change any meaning or message. Presently there are eight states requiring some form of ID. They are Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, S.D. There are 20 or so states who require an ID but not necessarily a photo type. There are proposals in over 30 states to show tangible proof of citizenship.

Politicos who are pro photo ID claim they want to cut down on voter fraud. The Brennan Center for Justice study shows individual voter fraud is extremely rare. Many reports of suposed voter fraud were later proven to be untrue. The claimsof voter fraud and/or misconduct must be carefully studied before there is any decision for action, especially legal action. Photo IDs won’t solve voting fraud but will make it harder for some groups of eligible voters to vote in elections on any level. That is be it municipal, state or federal.

As many as 12 percent of eligible voters in the U.S. do not have a government-issued photo ID. The percentage is even higher for seniors, people of color, people with disabilities, low-income voters, and students. Getting an ID often requires that you already have one.

Besides making it harder for eligible citizens to vote, ID requirements are expensive to states to implement. This in light of the fact many states are at serious deficits. The education of voters, election workers and officials is quite costly. Plus there is a very real possibility of costly challenges in court. One typical example is MO $.10,000.000

Brennan Law Center site. “Based on a comprehensive review of every court case in which a photo ID law has been challenged, the Brennan Center produced a report outlining the costs (PDF) states will incur if they decide to implement photo ID requirements for voters. While the results of lawsuits challenging photo ID laws have been mixed, several basic principles have been established:”

Photo IDs sufficient for voting must be available free of charge for all those who don’t possess them. States cannot limit free IDs to those who swear they are indigent. Photo IDs must be accessible at all times to every voter sans hardship or burden. At the very least most states will probably need to expand the number of ID-issuing offices and stretch operating hours to meet this need. Republicans claim they will provide photo ID. My question is this. What is the cost involved for this endeavor. I think it would be much cheaper and easier to permit non Photo IDs to vote. This goes for the cost of voter outreach and education if this law is enacted in the states its being proposed in.
Some courts may require states to ensure that all the documents required in order to obtain photo IDs are free and easily available to prospective voters.
Lastly the official organization for election reform and fair elections, “Common Cause” is totally against requiring Photo IDs to vote.

Run Herman, Run! Woo-hoo!

Where do the ‘Lican keep getting these guys?

(Luntz as a producer of TV comedy? — don’t give up your day job. About as credible as Paris Hilton, or Perez Hilton for that matter.)

artemesia said:
My take as a disability advocate at a rehabilitation center in PA is this. To me it doesn’t matter won the first Republican pres. debate. What the Repubs are doing in the guise of preventing voter fraud is horribly wrong.
Republican politicos throughout the US are insisting on photo IDs for voter registration. The problem with this is how many poor persons own a passport. Plus one can lose a birth certificate and it may be difficult, or too costly for these voters to obtain a new one. I strongly suspect in the guise of protecting honest voting , the Republicans are doing their utmost to disenfranchise mostly Democratic voters.

Photo IDs will bring on new hardships to election administrators. This very well could mean a very real possibility of more poll workers, the updating of election and other relevant forms, websites, training on the processing of provisional ballot processes and possibly other burdens. And of course more expenses for deficit strapped states.

Many studies nationwide show that voter fraud is quite a rare happening and virtually never because of the fault of faulty voter IDs. A little over ten percent of otherwise eligible voters don’t possess the currently acceptable photo ID forms. Minorities such as African Americans, Hispanics, new immigrants are much less likely to own such IDs.

My take as a disability advocate at a rehab center in Philadelphia, PA is this. It may be quite difficult for people who are low income to produce a photo ID. This includes many people who are disabled, seniors and college students. Besides quite a few seniors, by virtue of getting older are handicapped. There just arn’t that many folks who are poor who possess passports. Plus there are a significant number of people with disabilities who can’t get drivers licenses because their disabilities. There are many states who don’t require photo ID with little or no problems in voter fraud and/or voter registration. The point is that a lot of these photo IDs are very difficult for people with low incomes, ie, disabled, seniors and others on fixed incomes to get. This population mostly votes Democratic. Hmmm Pattern?

The time and money used to get a photo ID is like a poll tax – a barrier long used to deny African-Americans the vote. The photo ID bill is a biased, modern-day power grab

Here is a partial list of states that don’t require a photo ID. This information is as of April 28,2011. The non photo ID requirement states are as follows: Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Minnosota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin. There is something else these states hold in common. To implement the new photo ID legislations the cost would literally be in the millions in each state. In the environment of deficits, rising costs, do we really need the expense to implement photo ID requirements. Some Republicans are proposing to pay for those without enough money to obtain such forms of identifications. Can you imagine what the cost would be to implement this? In the meantime thirty five states and Puerto Rico are suffering from serious shortfalls in this fiscal year. Some gaps in some states as high as 32% NJ 26%, NC, close to 5%. Can we really pay for the implementation of those photo ID proposals. I’m experiencing real doubts here.

Below is what the Brennen Law Center says on the so called problem of voter fraud and requiring photo IDs to vote. While it’s certainly true that voter fraud is a terrible crime literally effecting the outcome of the integrity of elections, the actual incidence of such crimes are rather minimal.
Voter ID The Solution in Search of a Problem. Source Brennan Law Center.

Some of what they wrote is paraphrased by yours truly. Rest assure I did not change any meaning or message. Presently there are eight states requiring some form of ID. They are Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, S.D. There are 20 or so states who require an ID but not necessarily a photo type. There are proposals in over 30 states to show tangible proof of citizenship.

Politicos who are pro photo ID claim they want to cut down on voter fraud. The Brennan Center for Justice study shows individual voter fraud is extremely rare. Many reports of suposed voter fraud were later proven to be untrue. The claimsof voter fraud and/or misconduct must be carefully studied before there is any decision for action, especially legal action. Photo IDs won’t solve voting fraud but will make it harder for some groups of eligible voters to vote in elections on any level. That is be it municipal, state or federal.

As many as 12 percent of eligible voters in the U.S. do not have a government-issued photo ID. The percentage is even higher for seniors, people of color, people with disabilities, low-income voters, and students. Getting an ID often requires that you already have one.

Besides making it harder for eligible citizens to vote, ID requirements are expensive to states to implement. This in light of the fact many states are at serious deficits. The education of voters, election workers and officials is quite costly. Plus there is a very real possibility of costly challenges in court. One typical example is MO $.10,000.000

Brennan Law Center site. “Based on a comprehensive review of every court case in which a photo ID law has been challenged, the Brennan Center produced a report outlining the costs (PDF) states will incur if they decide to implement photo ID requirements for voters. While the results of lawsuits challenging photo ID laws have been mixed, several basic principles have been established:”

Photo IDs sufficient for voting must be available free of charge for all those who don’t possess them. States cannot limit free IDs to those who swear they are indigent. Photo IDs must be accessible at all times to every voter sans hardship or burden. At the very least most states will probably need to expand the number of ID-issuing offices and stretch operating hours to meet this need. Republicans claim they will provide photo ID. My question is this. What is the cost involved for this endeavor. I think it would be much cheaper and easier to permit non Photo IDs to vote. This goes for the cost of voter outreach and education if this law is enacted in the states its being proposed in.
Some courts may require states to ensure that all the documents required in order to obtain photo IDs are free and easily available to prospective voters.
Lastly the official organization for election reform and fair elections, “Common Cause” is totally against requiring Photo IDs to vote.

Now you understand what the REAL GOP is all about. Of course they’re gonna try to suppress minority votes.

Herman Cain is the Alan Keyes of 2012. He’s there to show that the GOP has “diversity.” He will be done right after Iowa…if he makes it that far.

–Cobra

Im more curious on what they feed these guys over at FOX. I mean they have the best looking women, but then they put on luntz, and dick morris all the time, plus old huck is gaining back his weight as well, is a buffet part of their compensation plan?

Cobra said:
Now you understand what the REAL GOP is all about. Of course they’re gonna try to suppress minority votes.

Herman Cain is the Alan Keyes of 2012. He’s there to show that the GOP has “diversity.” He will be done right after Iowa…if he makes it that far.

–Cobra

Right on cue. ;)

There’s nothing the GOP can do that will sit right with you guys, is there? Only the Dems can a “black” candidate and it be legitimate. Right? LOL!

How dumb is that you guys can’t see the absolute blind foolish tripe (full of hatred, BTW) that you all put out, and hope that others not on your side will swallow it??!!! Keystone cops not only live in the WH, they live in the hinter lands as well.

for sale high quality n i k e shoes and other sporting goods.

FREE SHIPPING AND PAYPAL ACCEPT

http://zapposer.com

&%$#@

Cain And Able? Breakout Star Of Inaugural GOP President Debate Was Herman Cain

Should have read “Cain IS Able.” I’d vote FOR this guy (as opposed to voting AGAINST -0bama), in a NY second.