Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
The Library => The SGA => Topic started by: CCTAU on November 11, 2011, 02:58:17 PM
-
He just won''t go down. They keep throwing anything against the wall trying to get it to stick.
Herman Cain is defending himself from sexual harassment allegations, but that didn't stop him from joking about Anita Hill, the college professor who made similar allegations against Clarence Thomas during his Supreme Court nomination hearings 20 years ago.
A Fox News camera captured Cain laughing about Hill during a campaign stop in Kalamazoo, Mich., Thursday, when a supporter brought up the professor's name.
"You hear the latest news today? Anita Hill is going to come …" a man told Cain, the conclusion of his statement muffled by the crowd.
"Is she going to endorse me?" Cain joked, as he and the crowd laughed heartily.
You can watch the video here, courtesy Fox News.
Cain insisted Friday he wasn't trying to insult Hill.
"We walked into this room and ... one of my supporters said, 'Anita Hill was trying to contact you' and my response was, 'Is she going to endorse me?'" Cain told New York Post columnist Fred Dicker, per Politico. "He said it in a humorous way. I gave a humorous response."
Cain continues to fend off allegations that he sexually harassed four women when he was head of the National Restaurant Association in the 1990s.
Cain came under fire again Wednesday for making a condescending remark about House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, when he referred to her as "Princess Nancy" during a Republican presidential debate in Michigan. He later admitted he "probably shouldn't have" made the comment.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/herman-cain-caught-camera-joking-anita-hill-165414641.html
-
I thought that was pretty funny. I know Cain should probably be more aware of the rats in the corner but damn, he is still a human being. Any person with common sense knows that the only reason why this shit is out there is because Cain is a serious contender.
In other news, Gingrich is gaining some ground it seems.
-
In other news, Gingrich is gaining some ground it seems.
I hope not. Fail of all fails. No chance in hell of bumping off The Exalted One.
-
I hope not. Fail of all fails. No chance in hell of bumping off The Exalted One.
Well it came as a surprise to me. I'm not real sure the depth of this though for I just scanned over the article.
As much some don't like his style and some of the shit he has done, I do think that he needs to be in the Republican cabinet somewhere dealing with the financial shit storm this country has been facing.
-
I love Herman Cain, but I'm becoming worried that he's too good to be true.
While Cain maintained he was against torture, he said he would call on the "judgment of our military leaders to determine what is torture and what is not torture." Cain says he does not consider waterboarding to be torture - and instead called it an "enhanced interrogation technique."
-
I love Herman Cain, but I'm becoming worried that he's too good to be true.
Hush yo mouf! This is one of the few times that we have a regular guy running for the office. His personal values and beliefs align with many, for a change.
-
Hush yo mouf! This is one of the few times that we have a regular guy running for the office. His personal values and beliefs align with many, for a change.
THIS.
And I hate to say this but Gingrich sounds better than he did 6 months ago. I still would rather him be a cabinet member/economic advisor but would take either of these guys over Romney/Perry.
-
This is why "regular guys you want to have a beer with" is not criteria for President.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=WW_nDFKAmCo
And this is seriously his response.
http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/herman-cain-on-his-libya-gaffe-999/62frged
:facepalm:
Do you guys really think this guy will out-debate Obama? Until Republicans drop this infatuation with "regular Joe's" (aka dumbasses who are unqualified for the office of President of the United States, aka Sarah Palin, Rick Perry), they will continue to lose popular elections.
Sadly, Jon Huntsman and to a larger degree Gary Johnson, have never once been considered legitimate candidates, while dispshits continue to shuffle in and out of the frontrunner position.
Of those that are even hovering near the top of the polls, Romney is the only candidate with a snowball's chance in hell of winning over the general population.
Don't shoot the messenger.
-
I should say that of all the "serious" contenders, Gingrich is probably the only one eloquent enough to out-debate Obama.
Personally, I'm still not a fan. Comes across as a crotchety old asshole.
-
I should say that of all the "serious" contenders, Gingrich is probably the only one eloquent enough to out-debate Obama.
Personally, I'm still not a fan. Comes across as a crotchety old asshole.
For the record, there's no probably. Gingrich would rip Obama's asshole out in a debate and there would be carnage. It wouldnt even be close. Blood on walls, body bags.....bad scene.
-
This is why "regular guys you want to have a beer with" is not criteria for President.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=WW_nDFKAmCo
And this is seriously his response.
http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/herman-cain-on-his-libya-gaffe-999/62frged
:facepalm:
Do you guys really think this guy will out-debate Obama? Until Republicans drop this infatuation with "regular Joe's" (aka dumbasses who are unqualified for the office of President of the United States, aka Sarah Palin, Rick Perry), they will continue to lose popular elections.
Sadly, Jon Huntsman and to a larger degree Gary Johnson, have never once been considered legitimate candidates, while dispshits continue to shuffle in and out of the frontrunner position.
Of those that are even hovering near the top of the polls, Romney is the only candidate with a snowball's chance in hell of winning over the general population.
Don't shoot the messenger.
Don't be an elitist.
I'm telling you that anybody who is intelligent enough to take a struggling business and turn it around, anybody who has the guts and determination to make his own way in the world like Cain has?
He can fix bigger shit too.
For all of Obama's "debate prowess" what the fiddling fuck has he done? Who gives a FUCK how well Obama debates? The question is can the empty shirt back up his words with action. Answer? Resounding No.
Cain has. And can.
I like the fact that he doesn't have some glib, scripted response and doesn't know the answer, frankly. Why? Because in a situation where he is presented with the facts, has everything in front of him, I trust him to make the right decision based on what he's given more than I do some carefully polished fuck who runs poll numbers before deciding which direction he should take.
I APPLAUD his lack of knowledge.
BTW? George Wallace thinks you're insane.
-
I should say that of all the "serious" contenders, Gingrich is probably the only one eloquent enough to out-debate Obama.
Personally, I'm still not a fan. Comes across as a crotchety old asshole.
Do you honestly think that was his serious response? I watched it and thought it was him being an asshole to the guy asking the question b/c he had probably heard that question too many times before and was tired of it.
Could you imagine a a Lincoln/Douglas debate format for Newt and Obama? I am positive that Obama really wouldn't want to debate with Newt. He would get his ass handed to him pretty bad.
As someone who used to teach Social Sciences.......it would almost be "fap worthy".
-
Until Republicans drop this infatuation with "regular Joe's" (aka dumbasses who are unqualified for the office of President of the United States, aka Sarah Palin, Rick Perry), they will continue to lose popular elections.
You mean like community organizer's?
-
You mean like community organizer's?
Nah. It has to be a lawyer. They are qualified!
-
I like the fact that he doesn't have some glib, scripted response and doesn't know the answer, frankly. Why? Because in a situation where he is presented with the facts, has everything in front of him, I trust him to make the right decision based on what he's given more than I do some carefully polished fuck who runs poll numbers before deciding which direction he should take.
I APPLAUD his lack of knowledge.
Seriously?
Let's break down what we saw there:
"Do you agree with President Obama on Libya or not?"
"Ok, Libya...(long pause)...President Obama...supported...the uprising...correct? Just wanted to make sure we're talking about the same thing before I say yes I agreed, or no I didn't agree."
Ok, first of all, if you're running for President, you should be more up on foreign policy than I am. We're not talking about some obscure foreign policy question about applying the Mahanian theory to Pyongyang. We're talking about the fucking War with Libya, and whether or not he agreed with the President's stance. Poll 10 random people off the street, and 9 of them will have a more coherent answer than that. And he's stalling like it's a spelling bee and he's asking to use it in a sentence and the etymological origin.
"I do not agree with the way he handled it for the following reason.......nope, that's a different one."
"A different one"?!?!? what the fuck is he talking about? A different "glib, scripted response" as Kaos puts it? "Oh, I thought of an answer, but it was in case you asked me about Italy's economy..."
"(Longer pause)Um...(mumbles)I gotta go back...see..uh...got all this stuff twirlin around in my head...Specifically, what are you asking about did I agree or disagree with?"
"Craig was asking you about the Bush foreign policy, so I was taking a specific example from the Obama administration that was controversial within his own administration on what he should have done or not done, and I was wondering if you agreed with what he did or if you would have responded differently. You know, it's an issue that has come up since you've been running, and I was wondering how you would have handled it.
"Here's what I would have done...I would have done a better job of determining who the opposition is. And I'm sure that our intelligence people had that information. Based upon who made up that opposition, might have caused me to make some decisions about how we participated. Secondly, no I do not agree with Qadaffi killing his citizens. Absolutely, I did not. So something had to...I would have supported many of the things that they did in order to help stop that. It's not a simple yes/no because there are different pieces, and I would have gone about assessing the situation differently, which might have caused us to end up in the same place. But where I think more could have been done was, what’s the nature of the opposition?"
So in other words "I know that it is my party's stance that I have to be completely contrarian to everything Obama does, so I would have done something different, I assure you. Specifically...well...I agree Qadaffi is bad...and...yeah, I might have done the exact same thing...but I would have assessed it, which I'm sure he did...but I just would have done it differently. We would have ended up at the same place, but he did it wrong, and I would have done it right."
"Many Republicans supported and congratulated him for how he handled that. You would not have been among that group?"
"I'm not criticizing him, I'm just saying, I just don't think enough was done, relative to assessing the opposition, before everything...you know...exploded, that's what I'm saying. (More rambling)"
Ok...
Then it's all more fail from there about how he "would have assessed the situation" as if the President just threw a dart at a map and was like "Let's bomb that shit."
-
You mean like community organizer's?
Or like a state legislator and U.S. Senator.
-
Or like a state legislator and U.S. Senator.
Not real jobs.
Which one of those is responsible for his own welfare? Which one of those creates or produces something of value? Which one of those must rely on their own ability to earn a living?
Fail.
-
I don't really give a shit about Libya in any terms except how it affects us financially. The next guy I vote for president will be the one who says not shit mattes except getting the USA back on solid financial footing. Everything else is a non-starter.
If someone attacks the US or goes against boundaries that have been set, bomb them. Do not send troops. Bomb them. Have them spend too much time digging out of the rubble to push the envelope. Stay at home and bomb them.
Feed our own before we feed others. Loosen the noose around businesses' necks. Get the slugs off welfare.
Cain is not running on foreign policy. He is running on getting the business of the US back on track. There are plenty of advisors to get the right information if a foreign issue comes up.
The only qualification for being a president is that you must have common sense enough to not be controlled by those who are already part of the machine. Cain fits this bill easily.
-
Seriously?
Let's break down what we saw there:
"Do you agree with President Obama on Libya or not?"
"Ok, Libya...(long pause)...President Obama...supported...the uprising...correct? Just wanted to make sure we're talking about the same thing before I say yes I agreed, or no I didn't agree."
Ok, first of all, if you're running for President, you should be more up on foreign policy than I am. We're not talking about some obscure foreign policy question about applying the Mahanian theory to Pyongyang. We're talking about the fucking War with Libya, and whether or not he agreed with the President's stance. Poll 10 random people off the street, and 9 of them will have a more coherent answer than that. And he's stalling like it's a spelling bee and he's asking to use it in a sentence and the etymological origin.
"I do not agree with the way he handled it for the following reason.......nope, that's a different one."
"A different one"?!?!? what the fuck is he talking about? A different "glib, scripted response" as Kaos puts it? "Oh, I thought of an answer, but it was in case you asked me about Italy's economy..."
"(Longer pause)Um...(mumbles)I gotta go back...see..uh...got all this stuff twirlin around in my head...Specifically, what are you asking about did I agree or disagree with?"
"Craig was asking you about the Bush foreign policy, so I was taking a specific example from the Obama administration that was controversial within his own administration on what he should have done or not done, and I was wondering if you agreed with what he did or if you would have responded differently. You know, it's an issue that has come up since you've been running, and I was wondering how you would have handled it.
"Here's what I would have done...I would have done a better job of determining who the opposition is. And I'm sure that our intelligence people had that information. Based upon who made up that opposition, might have caused me to make some decisions about how we participated. Secondly, no I do not agree with Qadaffi killing his citizens. Absolutely, I did not. So something had to...I would have supported many of the things that they did in order to help stop that. It's not a simple yes/no because there are different pieces, and I would have gone about assessing the situation differently, which might have caused us to end up in the same place. But where I think more could have been done was, what’s the nature of the opposition?"
So in other words "I know that it is my party's stance that I have to be completely contrarian to everything Obama does, so I would have done something different, I assure you. Specifically...well...I agree Qadaffi is bad...and...yeah, I might have done the exact same thing...but I would have assessed it, which I'm sure he did...but I just would have done it differently. We would have ended up at the same place, but he did it wrong, and I would have done it right."
"Many Republicans supported and congratulated him for how he handled that. You would not have been among that group?"
"I'm not criticizing him, I'm just saying, I just don't think enough was done, relative to assessing the opposition, before everything...you know...exploded, that's what I'm saying. (More rambling)"
Ok...
Then it's all more fail from there about how he "would have assessed the situation" as if the President just threw a dart at a map and was like "Let's bomb that shit."
None of that bothers me.
When you run a business your job is to take information that's put in front of you, assess it, make a decision and move on to the next one.
Asking him a nebulous question about how Obama handled Libya and expecting him to rattle off responses like some trained political seal (as with all the others) says nothing about his ability to make decisions.
I would have preferred that he said "There are so many issues domestic and foreign that we, as candidates, must consider that keeping the specifics of each separated and on the tip of your tongue is a difficult proposition. Before I can answer that specifically I'd need to have the same information available to the President and at this stage of the game I don't. I'm glad that the dictator was removed, but I can't speak to the specific method in which the US responded without full knowledge of the facts on both sides."
And in his own "I'm being forced to give an answer" way, that's pretty much what he said.
I liked it.
-
You mean like community organizer's?
If Sarah Palin is dumb, what does that make Joe Biden considering she ripped him apart in their only debate?
People seem to be overlooking how dumb Biden is and how inexperienced and naive Obama was/is.
I guess they get a free pass since they align with the mainstream ideology. But yeah Herman Cain, what a dumbass. He could never successfully run a corporation or a busin...wait...what?
-
Seriously?
Let's break down what we saw there:
Ok, first of all, if you're running for President, you should be more up on foreign policy than I am. We're not talking about some obscure foreign policy question about applying the Mahanian theory to Pyongyang. We're talking about the fucking War with Libya, and whether or not he agreed with the President's stance. Poll 10 random people off the street, and 9 of them will have a more coherent answer than that. And he's stalling like it's a spelling bee and he's asking to use it in a sentence and the etymological origin.
"A different one"?!?!? what the fuck is he talking about? A different "glib, scripted response" as Kaos puts it? "Oh, I thought of an answer, but it was in case you asked me about Italy's economy..."
So in other words "I know that it is my party's stance that I have to be completely contrarian to everything Obama does, so I would have done something different, I assure you. Specifically...well...I agree Qadaffi is bad...and...yeah, I might have done the exact same thing...but I would have assessed it, which I'm sure he did...but I just would have done it differently. We would have ended up at the same place, but he did it wrong, and I would have done it right."
Ok...
Then it's all more fail from there about how he "would have assessed the situation" as if the President just threw a dart at a map and was like "Let's bomb that shit."
What about a President that said we have 57 states?
Or one who aligns with domestic terrorists and racist black liberation/supremecy 'preachers'?
And you think Cain's semantics and opinions on Libya alone make him unqualified?
If the 3rd statement bothers you more and the first 2 don't, then there isn't much anyone on here can say to help you.
-
Let's break down what we saw there:
Ok, first of all, if you're running for President, you should be more up on foreign policy than I am. We're not talking about some obscure foreign policy question about applying the Mahanian theory to Pyongyang. We're talking about the fucking War with Libya, and whether or not he agreed with the President's stance. Poll 10 random people off the street, and 9 of them will have a more coherent answer than that. And he's stalling like it's a spelling bee and he's asking to use it in a sentence and the etymological origin.
Hold on... There are some things that you may not understand. The first gaffe was the fact that Herman's campaign put him in a room with an editorial board of a Wisconsin newspaper. Never has that been done before with a candidate running for President. He was hammered question after question across topics that were all over the place. Could he have been better prepared for a question like this? Absolutely... But, he shouldn't have been there in the first place. By the way, is this the only gaffe coming out of a 45 minute meeting? Is this the only thing you can hang your had on???
"A different one"?!?!? what the fuck is he talking about? A different "glib, scripted response" as Kaos puts it? "Oh, I thought of an answer, but it was in case you asked me about Italy's economy..."
Oh come on... Granted, Obama didn't get us into two wars like that evil Bush did, but he's sent troops troops to several areas of the world and has plans to do so in the near future. Yay! He's bringing the troops home from Iraq!!! But, while he gleefully announced the end of Iraq operations, he forgot to mention that he'll also be increasing troop deployments throughout the Persian Gulf region. In other words, we'll still be in the same neighborhood with a sizeable military presence. And, what are we doing in Uganda? While I appreciate the successes of our operations in Pakistan along with the assassination of an American citizen, shouldn't we at least try to play nice with their government? By the way, we're still in Kosovo too. And, why did we team up with the UN in Libya and do nothing in Egypt? Yeah... There are different ones, many different ones in fact. Those are just a handful.
So in other words "I know that it is my party's stance that I have to be completely contrarian to everything Obama does, so I would have done something different, I assure you. Specifically...well...I agree Qadaffi is bad...and...yeah, I might have done the exact same thing...but I would have assessed it, which I'm sure he did...but I just would have done it differently. We would have ended up at the same place, but he did it wrong, and I would have done it right."
Not a perfect response... I'll give you that, but his answer was essentially correct. We teamed up with the UN without understanding the opposition or defining a clear purpose for our intervention. That sets a horrible precedent. Oh, we were supposed to protect the protesters... By protecting the protesters from Quaddafi's military, didn't we essentially enable them to kill Quaddafi, his son and many others? There were a series of events that could have been handled differently, whether you're willing to agree with that or not. Personally, I don't believe that it was our place to get involved. If we had maintained a centrist position with the uprisings in Egypt, we should have maintained a centrist position with Libya's uprisings. The O'bama administration has not provided us with a clear explanation of why we got involved.
Ok...
Then it's all more fail from there about how he "would have assessed the situation" as if the President just threw a dart at a map and was like "Let's bomb that shit."
More rambling... Well like I said before, he shouldn't have been there in the first place. I believe the goal was an olive branch to the media, but the media will always take advantage of any opportunity. They cannot and should not be trusted. His core response was correct, whether you like it or not. He should have been better prepared to articulate his responses, but when you jump into a room with an editorial board, they're going to get you.
This is why "regular guys you want to have a beer with" is not criteria for President.
The criteria being...?
Do you guys really think this guy will out-debate Obama? Until Republicans drop this infatuation with "regular Joe's" (aka dumbasses who are unqualified for the office of President of the United States, aka Sarah Palin, Rick Perry), they will continue to lose popular elections.
I don't believe your measure of a person's ability to serve as President aligns with most sane and reasonable people. The President is supposed to be a "regular Joe". That's why we did away with monarchies.
Sadly, Jon Huntsman and to a larger degree Gary Johnson, have never once been considered legitimate candidates, while dispshits continue to shuffle in and out of the frontrunner position.
Like I said, your measure of a person's qualifications don't align with many...
Of those that are even hovering near the top of the polls, Romney is the only candidate with a snowball's chance in hell of winning over the general population.
That's kind of a nonsensical assessment. I don't think that anyone has a chance of winning over the general population. Not even the exaulted one was able to accomplish that.
Don't shoot the messenger.
Well, don't be a dipshit then... Sharing facts is one thing, but your colored commentary deserves criticism.
-
What about a President that said we have 57 states?
Or one who aligns with domestic terrorists and racist black liberation/supremecy 'preachers'?
And you think Cain's semantics and opinions on Libya alone make him unqualified?
If the 3rd statement bothers you more and the first 2 don't, then there isn't much anyone on here can say to help you.
Roflcopters.
Anywho, not that it matters, but this thread is full of hilarious hypocrisy.
1. Kaos saying he wants a business man/average Joe as President. The majority of you voted for Bush twice and think he was a good President. Fine, but he ran the Texas Rangers into the ground before he had to sell them...along with other business failures. You choose to ignore that.
2. About the sexual assault shit. I don't care, but I find it funny that you guys are all hurrah about Cain throwing it in their faces and what not... Meanwhile, 14 years ago, you wanted Clinton crucified for getting a blow job from a fat girl while in the White House.
I'm not saying I agree with any of the arguments and what not posted above...Just wanted to say don't be hypocritical...Makes you look dumb.
-
Roflcopters.
Anywho, not that it matters, but this thread is full of hilarious hypocrisy.
1. Kaos saying he wants a business man/average Joe as President. The majority of you voted for Bush twice and think he was a good President. Fine, but he ran the Texas Rangers into the ground before he had to sell them...along with other business failures. You choose to ignore that.
2. About the sexual assault shit. I don't care, but I find it funny that you guys are all hurrah about Cain throwing it in their faces and what not... Meanwhile, 14 years ago, you wanted Clinton crucified for getting a blow job from a fat girl while in the White House.
I'm not saying I agree with any of the arguments and what not posted above...Just wanted to say don't be hypocritical...Makes you look dumb.
I don't like Bush and I dont think he was a great president. I've reiterated that several times. Bush had a long record of failing businesses. Cain does not. I think there's a difference.
Also didn't want Clinton crucified for getting a bj. The lying under oath, however did bother me. And I'm really not sure what that has to do with the price of tea in china.
Please show me some hypocrisy instead of just rattling it off as a talking point.
-
1. Kaos saying he wants a business man/average Joe as President. The majority of you voted for Bush twice and think he was a good President. Fine, but he ran the Texas Rangers into the ground before he had to sell them...along with other business failures. You choose to ignore that.
Business man, yes. Somebody who has run a business and understands economic realities. Somebody who has had to rely on his own work to put food on the table. In Obama's case he's never had to. Money is made by other people and he just takes it. Fuck that. Fuck that ten ways to Sunday.
As for Bush, he was the lesser of two evils.
Al Gore? Are you shitting me? He's a fucking babbling lunatic. If my choices were Al Gore or George Bush today I'd vote for Bush again. Vote twice in Florida.
John Fucking Kennedy Kerrey? Are you shitting me? Silver spoon fuck who threw his medals back? Nah. No thanks. Bush beats that, too.
Didn't like a lot of the things Bush did. But I never questioned his loyalty to the US or his patriotism. I can't say that about Clinton, Gore, Kerrey. Nothing but doubt when it comes to Obama.
IMO he is the absolute worst president of my lifetime. It's not even close. And I lived through LBJ (don't remember), Nixon, Ford, Carter... He's the Barrett Trotter of presidents. He fucking sucks so bad I'm to the point I'd take Carter back before suffering another day of his malfeasance and having to withstand his ugly fat ass wife's sasquatch mug telling me to exercise.
-
Not to jump on here...
Roflcopters.
Anywho, not that it matters, but this thread is full of hilarious hypocrisy.
1. Kaos saying he wants a business man/average Joe as President. The majority of you voted for Bush twice and think he was a good President. Fine, but he ran the Texas Rangers into the ground before he had to sell them...along with other business failures. You choose to ignore that.
If that's what you believe, then you haven't been paying attention. Bush sucked. I routinely tell everyone that he was our first Socialist President with some of the shit that he supported. Obama is our first Communist President. Bush was a horrible business man too. There's no hypocrisy here.
2. About the sexual assault shit. I don't care, but I find it funny that you guys are all hurrah about Cain throwing it in their faces and what not... Meanwhile, 14 years ago, you wanted Clinton crucified for getting a blow job from a fat girl while in the White House.
Yeah... You weren't paying attention then either... Clinton lied about it. Cain isn't lying about anything.
I'm not saying...
You're not saying much of anything. You simply don't understand what you're talking about.
-
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/17/cain-says-we-need-a-leader-not-a-reader/
Then he added: “Who knows every detail of every country or every situation on the planet? Nobody!”
“We’ve got plenty of experts,” he said. “We need a leader, not a reader.”
The crowd responded with chants of “Amen!” and “Yes, we Cain.”
:facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
Why don't we cut to the chase and just elect Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho.
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Jtn-G9o6Kw0/TL-mz3slyAI/AAAAAAAAthE/G_630mo_09M/s1600/camachocopy.jpg)
-
I routinely tell everyone that he was our first Socialist President with some of the shit that he supported. Obama is our first Communist President.
You say a lot of things. Doesn't make them remotely accurate.
-
You say a lot of things. Doesn't make them remotely accurate.
I see we are back to the old Beta male debate again......
-
I see we are back to the old Beta male debate again......
We are about to be anyway. But in Chizad's defense, this time around he will have Eastwood on his side.
-
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/17/cain-says-we-need-a-leader-not-a-reader/ :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
Why don't we cut to the chase and just elect Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho.
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Jtn-G9o6Kw0/TL-mz3slyAI/AAAAAAAAthE/G_630mo_09M/s1600/camachocopy.jpg)
I have to ask, what part are you facepalming. The fact that he asked who knew every detail? B/c I can assure you that no one does. Or the we need a leader, not a reader comment. Obama is no leader, hell he is doing a lot worse than Bush and this coming from someone that hated him. Or is it the crowd?
-
Again, I agree with Cain.
I don't want somebody who has memorized a list of statistics and figures and has no idea how they connect. I don't want a stuffed shirt who can rattle off nonsense and do absolutely nothing but make things worse.
I want somebody who can look at the facts presented at the time, review the process that led to that point and then make clear, rational decisions on how to proceed.
That doesn't require the ability to rattle off anything. And it's something Cain has.
He won't get elected because even the conservatives are being driven away by the left-leaning media which will eviscerate him out of fear. They'll tell you he has no chance. They'll create their own polls that say he's losing ground. The sheep will herd as they always do. And yes, Fox leans left, too. Just less left than MSNBC.
-
He won't get elected because even the conservatives are being driven away by the left-leaning media which will eviscerate him out of fear. They'll tell you he has no chance. They'll create their own polls that say he's losing ground. The sheep will herd as they always do. And yes, Fox leans left, too. Just less left than MSNBC.
THIS part..All of it.
Fox and Rove are pretty much trying to destroy any conservative candidtate who has a remote chance in favor of the liberal Republicans (Mitt RomneyCare). They want a neocon, another Bush or Ford. Newt and Cain come to mind as those that Rove has railed against. As much as I disagree with his foreign policy, they do it to Ron Paul too. All 3 of those people have a lot of people worried about the establishment crumbling and it scares them. Seriously, think about it - an Obama/Gingrich debate. Blood would be everywhere. And it wouldnt be Newt's. It would be Reagan/Mondale all over again from a debate perspective. And I would love every minute of that asshole getting embarrassed on national tv.
BTW - I just reported myself to attackwatch.com.
-
You say a lot of things. Doesn't make them remotely accurate.
Well, not in your feable mind and naive perspective of how the world works... I'll give you that.
-
I see we are back to the old Beta male debate again......
Nahhh... I don't think we'll need to go there. You just have to keep in mind that Chad's political knowledge comes from Jon Stewart, HRC and Joy Behar.
-
I have to ask, what part are you facepalming. The fact that he asked who knew every detail? B/c I can assure you that no one does. Or the we need a leader, not a reader comment. Obama is no leader, hell he is doing a lot worse than Bush and this coming from someone that hated him. Or is it the crowd?
All three of those things are entitled to their very own :facepalm:
No, no one "knows everything." I happen to know that the answer to the answer to the ultimate question of life the universe and everything is 42, but I digress. What apparently no one sees a problem with is that we're talking about a guy running for President of the United States, that was completely fucking bumfuzzled over a question about a U.S. war that ended less than a month ago. Like he'd never even heard of it. All he knows is he disagrees with Obama on it.
We need leader not a reader? Are you shitting me? "Obama's edumacated! Don't he know readin's for fags? I'm just the dumbass America needs to be its commander in chief! I don't read shit!"
Look, I'm not the leftist strawman many of you have built for me, but I can't get behind this celebration of ignorance. I guess that makes me a readin' fag.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRwK_XVfm0I
Hey man, what's the capital of Zaire?' 'Shoot, I don't know that shit!' Keepin it real!
And yes, Fox leans left, too.
(http://i567.photobucket.com/albums/ss111/christyj12/gifs/fbm9so.gif)
-
Look, I'm not the leftist strawman many of you have built for me, but I can't get behind this celebration of ignorance. I guess that makes me a readin' fag.
No... I just think that you're hopelessly unreasonable and narrow-minded. I know that you're not a Leftist, but your periodic whining does align fairly well with the latest rants of the Left. You simply echo the same gripes you hear on those news and media outlets. Perhaps, you're just more of a sheep than anything else...
-
Look, I'm not the leftist strawman many of you have built for me
We didn't build it, you did.
-
All three of those things are entitled to their very own :facepalm:
No, no one "knows everything." I happen to know that the answer to the answer to the ultimate question of life the universe and everything is 42, but I digress. What apparently no one sees a problem with is that we're talking about a guy running for President of the United States, that was completely fucking bumfuzzled over a question about a U.S. war that ended less than a month ago. Like he'd never even heard of it. All he knows is he disagrees with Obama on it.
We need leader not a reader? Are you shitting me? "Obama's edumacated! Don't he know readin's for fags? I'm just the dumbass America needs to be its commander in chief! I don't read shit!"
Look, I'm not the leftist strawman many of you have built for me, but I can't get behind this celebration of ignorance. I guess that makes me a readin' fag.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRwK_XVfm0I
Hey man, what's the capital of Zaire?' 'Shoot, I don't know that shit!' Keepin it real!
(http://i567.photobucket.com/albums/ss111/christyj12/gifs/fbm9so.gif)
The we need a leader not a reader is a shot at Obama and the teleprompter. It was, I say it was a joke son. You know, a funny?
I happen to agree with that. Take it away and we see how he bumbles and stumbles through a speech. Face it, Obama is horrible. He hasn't done much leading and has done more campaigning than he has done anything since he has been in office. He is worse than Bush and that is really saying something. I have no issues with him calling out Obama for being an empty suit.
I think he should have been up to speed a little better on Libya, but as someone who is campaigning and worrying about his run for POTUS his staff should have better prepared him. He is right though, no one know every detail of everything and he isn't privy to the info that Obama is. That's just a fact and he is right for stating it, but it doesn't take away from the fact that he fucked up in that interview.
The crowd, well, even though I think it is unoriginal (Yes We Can!), it's usually stupid catch phrases that catch on and stick.
-
Not to jump on here...
If that's what you believe, then you haven't been paying attention. Bush sucked. I routinely tell everyone that he was our first Socialist President with some of the shit that he supported. Obama is our first Communist President. Bush was a horrible business man too. There's no hypocrisy here.
Yeah... You weren't paying attention then either... Clinton lied about it. Cain isn't lying about anything.
You're not saying much of anything. You simply don't understand what you're talking about.
I <3 selective memory and the ability to completely miss a point. Arrogance and ignorance is a bad combination, sir.
-
I have selective memory and the ability to completely miss a point.
FTFY...
Regarding Clinton, you kidz didn't get it then, and you still don't get it. You're trying to equate the two situations when they are completely different. That's a common problem with your generation. Weak... Shallow... Sad...
-
Hate to declare this as my personal opinion, but....
Cain is most likely done.
I don't believe the accusations but the damage that was intended was done and can't be undone. Congrats Karl Rove, you did it. You eliminated someone you had a personal and political vendetta against. Hope you are happy you Bush loving fat piece of shit.
Now, I want to see Rove try the same thing with Newt. I don't think it will end the same if he does.
-
Hate to declare this as my personal opinion, but....
Cain is most likely done.
I don't believe the accusations but the damage that was intended was done and can't be undone. Congrats Karl Rove, you did it. You eliminated someone you had a personal and political vendetta against. Hope you are happy you Bush loving fat piece of shit.
Now, I want to see Rove try the same thing with Newt. I don't think it will end the same if he does.
Yeah... I know. I cannot believe the extent of all of this BS. Newt worries me. I'm certain that he would destroy Barry, but I don't know if he can be trusted to be a true Conservative.
-
Yeah... I know. I cannot believe the extent of all of this BS. Newt worries me. I'm certain that he would destroy Barry, but I don't know if he can be trusted to be a true Conservative.
Obama will mop the floor with Newt on voting day. The man has no chance in hell.
-
Obama will mop the floor with Newt on voting day. The man has no chance in hell.
Agree. Newt is eloquent and will fare well in the debates, but in the end his likeability will lose the general election.
And Republicans have given up on Cain, mainly because of these sex scandals, but then gravitate to Newt Gingrich? Who we know had at least two affairs, with would become his second and third wives. The first of which he brought divorce papers to her hospital bed while she was battling cancer.
Jon. Huntsman.
-
Agree. Newt is eloquent and will fare well in the debates, but in the end his likeability will lose the general election.
And Republicans have given up on Cain, mainly because of these sex scandals, but then gravitate to Newt Gingrich? Who we know had at least two affairs, with would become his second and third wives. The first of which he brought divorce papers to her hospital bed while she was battling cancer.
Jon. Huntsman.
1. Your last point is actually an urban legend. The real story has been cleared up and told. Its one of those that changed a little every time it changed hands. By the time the media got it, it was so far removed from what really happened. I believed it too until I heard otherwise.
2. I actually like Huntsman. He is smart like Gingrich and polished like Romney. If Cain is done and Gingrich falls through, I hope Huntsman can surge. He is in the my top 3 personally. I used to like Paul more, but his foreign policy statements are just too far out there and false for my blood.
-
Obama will mop the floor with Newt on voting day. The man has no chance in hell.
Possible. Very possible.
But will Newt have inflicted more damage on Obama leading up to election day than Obama can overcome? That's gonna be the key. He has already challenged him to 7 Lincoln/Douglas style debates. 3 hours each, no moderator. He claims that if Obama turns down the offer, he will follow him around like Lincoln did Douglas. Not sure how serious he is, but strategically he puts Obama in a lose-lose with this.
-
I actually like Huntsman. He is smart like Gingrich and polished like Romney. If Cain is done and Gingrich falls through, I hope Huntsman can surge. He is in the my top 3 personally. I used to like Paul more, but his foreign policy statements are just too far out there and false for my blood.
I'm baffled why he is getting little to no support.
He's the most conservative of the bunch, fiscally. He's pro-life as well. He's eloquent, intelligent, and a likeable personality.
Originally I was 1) Paul, 2) Gary Johnson, 3) Jon Huntsman, but I too have begun to realize Paul is a bit too far out there on some things. Johnson is less so, but still a bit extreme, and I guess as a result of that was never considered a serious candidate. Never invited to the debates.
Anyway, if Jon Huntsman is elected, I, an independent voter, will vote for him over Obama. If it's Cain, Perry, or Bachmann (and hypothetically Palin), I'm voting for Obama. Pretty indifferent about Romney or Gingrich, but would slightly lean to them. Completely indifferent to the rest.
-
I'm baffled why he is getting little to no support.
He's the most conservative of the bunch, fiscally. He's pro-life as well. He's eloquent, intelligent, and a likeable personality.
Originally I was 1) Paul, 2) Gary Johnson, 3) Jon Huntsman, but I too have begun to realize Paul is a bit too far out there on some things. Johnson is less so, but still a bit extreme, and I guess as a result of that was never considered a serious candidate. Never invited to the debates.
Anyway, if Jon Huntsman is elected, I, an independent voter, will vote for him over Obama. If it's Cain, Perry, or Bachmann (and hypothetically Palin), I'm voting for Obama. Pretty indifferent about Romney or Gingrich, but would slightly lean to them. Completely indifferent to the rest.
Johnson has a nice wit to his responses and I like him for the most part but he kind of lost me at "I don't believe in tariffs at all and never will". Very absurd statement.
Until Ron Paul stops sounding like an Alex Jones, tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist - he will never garner more than 10-15% in any election. His foreign poilicy is shit.
-
Obama will mop the floor with Newt on voting day. The man has no chance in hell.
I think so too, but if we are still in the shitty shape on election day that we are in now, I think the GOP can run another Bush and he would beat Obama.
Johnson has a nice wit to his responses and I like him for the most part but he kind of lost me at "I don't believe in tariffs at all and never will". Very absurd statement.
Until Ron Paul stops sounding like an Alex Jones, tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist - he will never garner more than 10-15% in any election. His foreign poilicy is shit.
Actually I would say that his foreign policy is ideal, but the world is not ideal. If it was, I would have no issues telling the rest of the world to fuck off, pull all troops home and close up our borders, but we all know that isn't possible, I think Ron Paul is the only one that doesn't. Well him and his 15% supporters.
-
I'm baffled why he is getting little to no support.
He's the most conservative of the bunch, fiscally. He's pro-life as well. He's eloquent, intelligent, and a likeable personality.
Originally I was 1) Paul, 2) Gary Johnson, 3) Jon Huntsman, but I too have begun to realize Paul is a bit too far out there on some things. Johnson is less so, but still a bit extreme, and I guess as a result of that was never considered a serious candidate. Never invited to the debates.
Anyway, if Jon Huntsman is elected, I, an independent voter, will vote for him over Obama. If it's Cain, Perry, or Bachmann (and hypothetically Palin), I'm voting for Obama. Pretty indifferent about Romney or Gingrich, but would slightly lean to them. Completely indifferent to the rest.
I would vote for a steaming pile of dog shit before I would ever vote for Obama. Just saying
-
I would vote for a steaming pile of dog shit before I would ever vote for Obama. Just saying
With that said, I would vote for ANYONE - even Rick Perry - before I would Obama. I would vote for Hillary over Obama. Anyone right now is more QUALIFIED than him. To be cliche, we cannot afford 4 more years. Perry and Romney are the Bush choice for us this time. Not ideal, but would still be better than Obama. His entire body of work just sucks giraffe bollucks.
-
Perry and Romney are the Bush choice for us this time.
I still fear this is going to be 2004 in reverse. The GOP can run a number of candidates and should stomp Obama, but they are going to run a Kerry/Edwards style ticket and probably hand Obama the keys to the White House for another four years.
This field of candidates are seriously lacking.
-
Gingrich isn't all that bad.
http://reason.com/blog/2011/12/02/newt-gingrich-savior-of-internet-porn
Newt Gingrich, Savior of Internet Porn?
Peter Suderman | December 2, 2011
She turned him into a Newt. What’s the Internet for? As anyone who’s seen Avenue Q knows, it’s for porn. And for that, we may owe at least partial thanks to fast-rising GOP primary contender Newt Gingrich.
At Mother Jones, Tim Murphy reports on 1995 legislation put forth by Democratic Sen. Jim Exon intended to tamp down on Internet “indecency”:
Exon introduced an amendment to the Communications Decency Act criminalizing the transmission of "indecent" materials over the internet. In case any stone remained unturned, it went after internet service providers as well: Email or distribute nude photos—or even just type one of the "seven words you can't say on television"—and you could face a $100,000 fine or up to two years in prison.
To illustrate the danger of internet porn, Exon compiled an album of graphic images he'd found on the web—including one of a man engaging in intercourse with a German shepherd—in a blue binder with a red "caution" sticker, and invited his colleagues to take a look.
Exon's measure passed the Senate with 86 votes. The appeal was clear: No elected official wanted to be seen as voting for smut. The Contract With America—Republicans' promise to voters in advance of their landslide win in the 1994 elections—had even contained a provision vowing to crack down on child pornography.
But the bill wasn’t narrowly targeted at child pornography. Indeed, it might have made all sorts of popular culture illegal to distribute on the web.
...As Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) pointed out in a particularly inspired floor speech, the law could even have criminalized the online distribution of Gingrich's first novel, 1945, in which a "pouting sex kitten"—who is also a Nazi—seduces a White House aide in order to extract classified information. It would also have prohibited most non-Will Smith forms of hip-hop.
"[The amendment] is clearly a violation of free speech and it's a violation of the right of adults to communicate with each other," Gingrich said at the time. "I don't agree with it…" In an interview with British journalist David Frost, he elaborated on his position. "I think there you have a perfect right on a noncensorship basis to intervene decisively against somebody who would prey upon children. And that I would support very intensely. It's very different than trying to censor willing adults."
With Gingrich's support, Rep. Chris Cox (R-Calif.) and Rep. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) crafted an alternative proposal that eschewed punitive measures for online wardrobe malfunctions and expletives, and instead emphasized private, parental education initiatives. The bill passed the House overwhelmingly. Although the Senate's version was part of the law that eventually passed, it was overturned by the Supreme Court the next year in Reno v. ACLU. What remained was Gingrich's language.
I suspect this was more a product of Gingrich’s geeky enthusiasm for technology than an ardent belief in the absolute right to free speech. Indeed, in other circumstances, he’s pushed to restrict freedom of expression, suggesting, as Jacob Sullum noted yesterday, that we ought to have a “serious debate about the First Amendment” focused on ways to reduce terrorists “capacity to use free speech.” And in 1987, he cosponsored the Fairness in Broadcasting Act, which was an attempt to codify the Fairness Doctrine—a speech regulation which required broadcasters to devote equal time to discussions of political issues—just as the FCC was abandoning it.
On the other hand, maybe Gingrich just has a healthy respect for porn: In 2009, his Business Defense and Advisory Council named the president of a porn DVD superstore entrepreneur of the year. Gingrich’s staff later indicated that the award was a mistake.
Read Jacob Sullum on Gingrich's less-than-spectacular civil liberties record.
-
Does this help or hurt Newt?
http://news.yahoo.com/herman-cain-endorse-newt-gingrich-100226976.html
..Herman Cain Will Endorse Newt Gingrich
By Dashiell Bennett | The Atlantic Wire
......In a move that is not totally unsurprising, but that could provide a big boost of energy to his surging campaign, Newt Gingrich is about to receive an endorsement from recently deposed presidential candidate Herman Cain. Fox5 Atlanta was the first to report the story, which says that announcement could comes as soon as today — right after Gingrich meets with Donald Trump, of course.
If you were off the grid this weekend, you may not have noticed that Cain "suspended" his campaign on Saturday, even while continuing to deny the allegations of the 13-year affair that are forced him to quit. Gingrich was already hoping to be the beneficiary of Cain supporters looking for a new horse to back, but now the pizza magnate looks set to officially throw his weight, such as it is, behind Newt.
However, it's unclear that Gingrich is prepared to turn this endorsement into votes. He continued to rise in the polls this weekend, and is now the one clear challenger remaining to threaten Mitt Romney's inevitability as the Republican nominee. But as Trip Gabriel and Jeff Zeleny write in The New York Times today, Gingrich simply does have not the organization, manpower, or money needed to turn that ethereal support into actual votes. Mitt Romney has essentially been building his state-by-state organization since bowing out in 2004, and Newt has less than a month remaining to play catch-up. He and Cain both have the fans, but without "boots on the ground" won't amount to much on primary days. Even if he manages surprises in Iowa and New Hampshire, will he be prepared to go toe-to-toe with Romney in 50 states?
Also, what might have been even more valuable than Cain's endorsement, was the distraction that he provided when he was still running. His various scandals and missteps conveniently took much of the negative spotlight away from Gingrich, who is now fully under the microscope of voters and the media. The worst thing that can happen to Gingrich right at this moment is for voters to take a serious look as his viability (and his glaring weaknesses) to decide if he's truly the best candidate for the party. All his faults are now on display and Cain won't be there to take the bullets anymore.
-
Does this help or hurt Newt?
http://news.yahoo.com/herman-cain-endorse-newt-gingrich-100226976.html
Help. By the way, thats a horribly written article. I hope he meant "since bowing out in 2008". What that dickhead doesn't understand is that you don't have to go toe to toe in 50 states to win it. If he takes 4 of the first 5 states from Romney (which he probably will), the momentum and surge will be unreal. Funds will flow in, people will volunteer in other states. This happened to McCain. His campaign was dead in the water. He won a few of the first states and the momentum snowballed. Romney was beat then by an old hack. He can certainly be beat now by someone with better credentials than McCain.
Cain is a very likeable guy and despite what many in the media say, very popular. 90% of the Cain supporters will go to Newt. Unless he does something miraculous, Romney is done as well. This is Newt's race to lose. He should get near the 50% mark in the polls with still 6-7 people left in the race. Not bad. The media and the neocon establishment are hell bent on securing Romney the nomination. I hope the public doesn't go for it.
And I agree on that point Chizad. I think that was a good stance for Newt in regards to free speech and the internet. Adults should be allowed to do whatever they wish so long as they are no obviously harming anyone else. The main thing I like about Newt (and maybe the only thing, but MOST important) is that he has a track record economically and he knows how to get economic results. Huntsman is really the only other candidate who can show REAL results of economic improvement.
-
This field of candidates are seriously lacking.
I asked a while back, does anybody know how the to be POTUS? I just don't think so. Like you, I think Obama has done a shitty job, but I don't see a candidate that can unfuck anything that his predecessors have fucked up. Some of them have good plans for this, that, or the other, but nobody has that great of an overall plan IMO. It's just sad, really.
-
I asked a while back, does anybody know how the to be POTUS? I just don't think so. Like you, I think Obama has done a shitty job, but I don't see a candidate that can unfuck anything that his predecessors have fucked up. Some of them have good plans for this, that, or the other, but nobody has that great of an overall plan IMO. It's just sad, really.
I think some of them have a clue and what it will be like to an extent, but I don't think any of them actually know what kind of shit storm they are stepping into.
To be honest, I think Newt has more of a clue than any of the others. Why? B/c he is exactly what I bitch about. A beltway insider that has been there long enough that he knows how it works. He is smart, no doubt and he is smuggy as hell. A "deal with it" kind of person, but I think he has to much Neo-Con in him to make a good run.
I like certain things about certain candidates, but you are correct, no one has a great enough plan overall that makes me giddy. Still pissed about the fact that out of all the candidates I have had the choice of voting for in my voting lifetime, they have all sucked.
-
I think some of them have a clue and what it will be like to an extent, but I don't think any of them actually know what kind of shit storm they are stepping into.
To be honest, I think Newt has more of a clue than any of the others. Why? B/c he is exactly what I bitch about. A beltway insider that has been there long enough that he knows how it works. He is smart, no doubt and he is smuggy as hell. A "deal with it" kind of person, but I think he has to much Neo-Con in him to make a good run.
I like certain things about certain candidates, but you are correct, no one has a great enough plan overall that makes me giddy. Still pissed about the fact that out of all the candidates I have had the choice of voting for in my voting lifetime, they have all sucked.
I think its funny that Newt called Romney a Rockefeller Republican. Tis true too.
I don't think it's as bad as RWS post illustrates. Problem now is you have the internet and a 24/7 news cycle. There is going to be dirt, no matter how small or big, on EVERY SINGLE CANDIDATE...and its nauseating. Even Reagan in today's world would have some dirt exposed and the news media would cause people to have doubts about him. That's what dirt digging and negative campaigning will do. I think Newt is very economically sound. Right now, thats about ALL that matters to me. He has the track record as speaker and could do it again. Ive spoke ill of him in the past but in the last 2-3 months Ive listerned to him more and actually read every word of his economic plan online. The guy makes sense where it counts.
At this point I just dont really care about how many women he fucked in the 80s. He would create jobs. He would get the economy sorted out. End of story.
-
I think its funny that Newt called Romney a Rockefeller Republican. Tis true too.
That's a bad thing? Especially in the current economic climate?