PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Herman Cain refuses to appoint a Muslim to his cabinet. Or the federal judiciary.


healthpellets
03-28-2011, 05:19 PM
This is gonna be used against him...but it shouldn't hurt him with the base anyway.

<object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/aDXCwd65R5o&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/aDXCwd65R5o&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object>

orange
03-28-2011, 05:29 PM
Herman Cain is not a serious candidate. The question is, who is this horse stalking for?

healthpellets
03-28-2011, 05:37 PM
Herman Cain is not a serious candidate. The question is, who is this horse stalking for?

not gonna lie. you taught me something new today.

though, i don't have an answer for you. not sure it necessarily has to be any particular person/group. he's been a talk show host for a while and is just another rich guy that wants to be president.

though why do you presume he can't be a serious candidate?

alnorth
03-28-2011, 05:52 PM
though why do you presume he can't be a serious candidate?

He's about as serious as Alan Keyes. Just some token black face under the GOP banner with no relevant experience as a legislator or governor. On top of that, his political views are a little out there. If Cain were white, almost no one would pay attention to him.

Trump probably has a better shot than him due to sheer fame and force of personality, and he's got virtually no chance.

orange
03-28-2011, 05:52 PM
though why do you presume he can't be a serious candidate?

Herman Cain is not a fool. And before you invest millions of dollars and two years of your life in some enterprise, a person who is not foolish will at least take a long hard look at how realistic his chances are.

HC can count the votes Ron Paul got in 2008, and at all the other failed outsider candidates. If he's serious, he should try becoming an insider, perhaps following the Reagan approach, lurking and learning for a few years, if he has no stomach for a Senate run or the like.

alnorth
03-28-2011, 05:53 PM
HC can count the votes Ron Paul got in 2008, and at all the other failed outsider candidates. If he's serious, he should try becoming an insider, perhaps following the Reagan approach, lurking and learning for a few years.

He can start by winning an election to a lower office.

orange
03-28-2011, 05:56 PM
He can start by winning an election to a lower office.

Always wait a few seconds before quoting an orange post.

orange - master of the Edit button

Chocolate Hog
03-28-2011, 06:02 PM
Herman Cain is not a fool. And before you invest millions of dollars and two years of your life in some enterprise, a person who is not foolish will at least take a long hard look at how realistic his chances are.

HC can count the votes Ron Paul got in 2008, and at all the other failed outsider candidates. If he's serious, he should try becoming an insider, perhaps following the Reagan approach, lurking and learning for a few years, if he has no stomach for a Senate run or the like.

You do know that Ron Paul is polling at about 10% right?

orange
03-28-2011, 06:04 PM
You do know that Ron Paul is polling at about 10% right?

You do know that Ron Paul actually WON straw votes in 2007-2008, right?

orange
03-28-2011, 06:05 PM
You do know that ...

STRAW votes


This side of Paul has made him the candidate of many people, on both the right and the left, who hope that something more consequential than a mere change of party will come out of the 2008 elections. He is particularly popular among the young and the wired. Except for Barack Obama, he is the most-viewed candidate on YouTube. He is the most “friended” Republican on MySpace.com. Paul understands that his chances of winning the presidency are infinitesimally slim. He is simultaneously planning his next Congressional race. But in Paul’s idea of politics, spreading a message has always been just as important as seizing office. “Politicians don’t amount to much,” he says, “but ideas do.” Although he is still in the low single digits in polls, he says he has raised $2.4 million in the second quarter, enough to broaden the four-state campaign he originally planned into a national one.

July 22, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/22/magazine/22Paul-t.html

Don't tell me you were taking him as a serious candidate.

Chocolate Hog
03-28-2011, 06:58 PM
You do know that Ron Paul actually WON straw votes in 2007-2008, right?

Cain won't even get 2% of the vote and Paul actually stands for something. Don't insult Paul like that.

The Mad Crapper
03-28-2011, 07:32 PM
If Cain were white, almost no one would pay attention to him.

You could have said the same thing about Black Jimmah.

Mmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmm!

http://thepeoplescube.com/images/Obama_Coin_ExactChange_160.gif

Hopey Change™

alnorth
03-28-2011, 07:41 PM
You could have said the same thing about Black Jimmah.

Mmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmm!

http://thepeoplescube.com/images/Obama_Coin_ExactChange_160.gif

Hopey Change™

To be fair, thats probably right. He would have been a bright young rising star senator from Illinois who can give a good speech, but he probably would not have been urged to run, and would have stayed out of Hillary's way. People would probably keep him in mind for the mid or late 2010's when he was older.

Once he was nominated, it was all his political skill and McCain/Palin's bad campaign, but he probably would not have been nominated if he were white.

Saul Good
03-28-2011, 07:58 PM
Cain won't even get 2% of the vote and Paul actually stands for something. Don't insult Paul like that.

He'll probably only get 1.6% like that one old guy from Texas did in the 2008 Republican primaries.

Chocolate Hog
03-28-2011, 09:19 PM
He'll probably only get 1.6% like that one old guy from Texas did in the 2008 Republican primaries.

I keep forgetting this is the new Republican party so it's not about what you know. So yea maybe this idiot Cain will stand a chance and if not him they can elect that other dude who just got elected to congress whos biggest accomplishment was committing a war crime.

shirtsleeve
03-28-2011, 10:36 PM
STRAW votes


This side of Paul has made him the candidate of many people, on both the right and the left, who hope that something more consequential than a mere change of party will come out of the 2008 elections. He is particularly popular among the young and the wired. Except for Barack Obama, he is the most-viewed candidate on YouTube. He is the most “friended” Republican on MySpace.com. Paul understands that his chances of winning the presidency are infinitesimally slim. He is simultaneously planning his next Congressional race. But in Paul’s idea of politics, spreading a message has always been just as important as seizing office. “Politicians don’t amount to much,” he says, “but ideas do.” Although he is still in the low single digits in polls, he says he has raised $2.4 million in the second quarter, enough to broaden the four-state campaign he originally planned into a national one.

July 22, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/22/magazine/22Paul-t.html

Don't tell me you were taking him as a serious candidate.

I did. I voted for him in the primary. I knew he did not stand a chance of nomination. But like he said, its about the idea he promotes. Unless a more charismatic candidate surfaces with his views, I will again. But I am from Massachusetts. Obama will win 90% of the vote in my county again, so all I can do is vote my conscience and shake my head.

donkhater
03-29-2011, 08:39 AM
While publicly Ron Paul will disagree with those who says he isn't a threat to win the GOP nomination, I think he is smart enough to know that the two party system will never allow someone who disagrees with their world view on US politics to be their candidate.

Although the origin of the Tea party is credited to others, I, like many, feel that it's true origins were from Dr. Paul's run through the GOP primary. It certainly got conservatives like myself, who were growing tired of Bush, to ask exactly what we really did believe in. The answer was simply a true conservative approach, not a GOP-endorsed version dressed up and marketed as conservatism.

If Dr. Paul didn't state that he was serious about a run and his chances to win, he would be even more ignored by the GOP and not included in debates. Because of his previous run and the rise of the Tea party, to not include him GOP debates this time around would be nearly impossible.

His previous run did what it was intended to do. To start a conversation about the true role of our federal government. The elections of 2010 an the conversations about our budget and foreign policy were in large part do to his previous run. Make no mistake about that.

patteeu
03-29-2011, 10:19 AM
I don't have a problem with this. I wouldn't want him to have any nazis, union bosses, communists or democrats in his administration either. I'm OK with legal immigrant mexicans though, as long as they aren't members of La Raza.

patteeu
03-29-2011, 10:25 AM
And I wouldn't let any Ron Paul supporters near the Defense or State Departments. They could work in my Treasury or in HHS though.

shirtsleeve
03-29-2011, 12:46 PM
And I wouldn't let any Ron Paul supporters near the Defense or State Departments. They could work in my Treasury or in HHS though.

Paul would not destroy national defense. He would definitely eliminate the defense dept's pork laden congressional incestuous relationship with defense contractors building hardware and weapons systems we dont even use any more tho. He would also slash the "flag" positions in the pentagon to put them back to pre wwII ratios. He would also look to bring troops home from redundant bases overseas.

patteeu
03-29-2011, 12:53 PM
Paul would not destroy national defense. He would definitely eliminate the defense dept's pork laden congressional incestuous relationship with defense contractors building hardware and weapons systems we dont even use any more tho. He would also slash the "flag" positions in the pentagon to put them back to pre wwII ratios. He would also look to bring troops home from redundant bases overseas.

Destroy? Probably not.

Damage? Definitely.

BucEyedPea
03-29-2011, 01:09 PM
While publicly Ron Paul will disagree with those who says he isn't a threat to win the GOP nomination, I think he is smart enough to know that the two party system will never allow someone who disagrees with their world view on US politics to be their candidate.

Although the origin of the Tea party is credited to others, I, like many, feel that it's true origins were from Dr. Paul's run through the GOP primary. It certainly got conservatives like myself, who were growing tired of Bush, to ask exactly what we really did believe in. The answer was simply a true conservative approach, not a GOP-endorsed version dressed up and marketed as conservatism.

If Dr. Paul didn't state that he was serious about a run and his chances to win, he would be even more ignored by the GOP and not included in debates. Because of his previous run and the rise of the Tea party, to not include him GOP debates this time around would be nearly impossible.

His previous run did what it was intended to do. To start a conversation about the true role of our federal government. The elections of 2010 an the conversations about our budget and foreign policy were in large part do to his previous run. Make no mistake about that.


I concur. It's the power of ideas—something Paul is a big believer in. I am too.
The Rs are already stealing some of his lines. There's still a disconnect between being able to have what they envision for small govt, low taxes and freedom and our current mad foreign policy
of endless wars of choice. Or what free-market capitalism is versus the crony state capitalism we have and men like Koch brothers seek. Or free-market imperialism. Still a ways to go.

shirtsleeve
03-29-2011, 01:11 PM
Destroy? Probably not.

Damage? Definitely.

Not at all. Its a Constitutional responsibility that the Federal Govt. maintain a strong national defense, capable of repelling any foreign enemy. Just getting rid of congressional pork funded defense contractors, the excess "flag" pentagon positions and their huge staff, and eliminating duplication of efforts overseas would cut our defense budget in half. I will dig up the links I posted elsewhere with data, but those generally unimportant reward positions in the pentagon are many times higher than at the peak of ww2 and we have about a tenth the boots on the ground as then. Its a ratio of @100:1 more now then then. Thats pork. They also each have staffs. Junior officers, admin assistants, secretaries, etc. This is big big money. Then there are systems like the GE engine that no one wants, but gets produced because some congressman nailed it to a defense budget. This stuff has to stop. The Congressional pork, feeding defense contractors, making this stuff that our military doesn't even use is big business. Then these systems are sold overseas to our puppet third world buddies, who use our subsidies and foreign aid money to purchase. So we buy them twice. At premium price, to boot.
Then there are bases in England, Germany, etc. Side by side bases run by us or NATO, which is largely funded and staffed by us. Why both? That is redundant. Minimally pull out of the NATO base, and let the EU fund their own defense, and we will keep a small maintenance and support staff at our own base that can be upsized in case of need. Time to stop paying for everyone elses security.

None of that weakens us in any way. we could scale up ops in hours to those bases to present or larger levels. Yet we are not on the hook for everyone elses defense budgets.

These changes alone will cut about 60% or more from our defense budget, and we are NO weaker for it.

Chocolate Hog
03-29-2011, 01:13 PM
And I wouldn't let any Ron Paul supporters near the Defense or State Departments. They could work in my Treasury or in HHS though.

Couldn't hurt us anymore than the neo-cons like yourself already have.

patteeu
03-29-2011, 01:18 PM
I think you're having trouble seeing the forest for the trees. Some of those procurement and organizational reform ideas are fine, but Ron Paul would go well beyond those in weakening our defense.

Chocolate Hog
03-29-2011, 01:20 PM
I think you're having trouble seeing the forest for the trees. Some of those procurement and organizational reform ideas are fine, but Ron Paul would go well beyond those in weakening our defense.

He made it pretty clear at CPAC.....

BucEyedPea
03-29-2011, 01:20 PM
Couldn't hurt us anymore than the neo-cons like yourself already have.

Would a Paul-run treasury do the bidding of the WH or keep it's mouth shut about it?

Somehow I doubt it.

orange
03-29-2011, 02:43 PM
... those generally unimportant reward positions in the pentagon are many times higher than at the peak of ww2 and we have about a tenth the boots on the ground as then.

A lot of that is the price of an all-volunteer armed force. We don't have millions of draftees like we did at the peak of WW2, either. If you want good people to join and stay, you have to pay and promote.

Paul isn't suggesting a draft, is he?

There's also been a significant change in America's warfare since then. Logistics is the name of the game, now. We couldn't move overwhelming force around the globe overnight then like now.

Amnorix
03-30-2011, 06:40 AM
Not at all. Its a Constitutional responsibility that the Federal Govt. maintain a strong national defense, capable of repelling any foreign enemy. Just getting rid of congressional pork funded defense contractors, the excess "flag" pentagon positions and their huge staff, and eliminating duplication of efforts overseas would cut our defense budget in half. I will dig up the links I posted elsewhere with data, but those generally unimportant reward positions in the pentagon are many times higher than at the peak of ww2 and we have about a tenth the boots on the ground as then. Its a ratio of @100:1 more now then then. Thats pork. They also each have staffs. Junior officers, admin assistants, secretaries, etc. This is big big money. Then there are systems like the GE engine that no one wants, but gets produced because some congressman nailed it to a defense budget. This stuff has to stop. The Congressional pork, feeding defense contractors, making this stuff that our military doesn't even use is big business. Then these systems are sold overseas to our puppet third world buddies, who use our subsidies and foreign aid money to purchase. So we buy them twice. At premium price, to boot.
Then there are bases in England, Germany, etc. Side by side bases run by us or NATO, which is largely funded and staffed by us. Why both? That is redundant. Minimally pull out of the NATO base, and let the EU fund their own defense, and we will keep a small maintenance and support staff at our own base that can be upsized in case of need. Time to stop paying for everyone elses security.

None of that weakens us in any way. we could scale up ops in hours to those bases to present or larger levels. Yet we are not on the hook for everyone elses defense budgets.

These changes alone will cut about 60% or more from our defense budget, and we are NO weaker for it.

Look, you won't find a stronger proponent of military tax cuts than me -- except for those who think we really don't need any military -- but your post is an absurd joke.

I'm not going to go on and on, but you may have noticed that there are just a FEW differences in the military art from WWII to now. Our strike power is exponentially greater with FEWER boots on the ground. How? The unfortunately massive logistical tail and the ability to attack remotely. All of which takes a hell of a lot of people.

You want to launch IBCMs at people, that takes people who aren't "boots on the ground."

Tomahawk strike Libya? Fine, but that takes people who aren't "boots on the ground."

Review satellite images to detect nuclear power plants being built in North Korea. That takes people who aren't "boots on the ground."

Respond to call for help from boots on the ground with precision air strikes? That takes alot of people behind the guy flying the plane/helicopter who may or may not be counted as a "boot on the ground".

The most efficient military, in your view, would be the Native Americans with no logistical tail and EVERYBODY was a boot on the ground. Great. Very efficient. But your military sucks because all you have is spears or bows and arrows. You want to fight and win in 2011 and your logistical tail is going to be far more massive than the pointy spear-tip of "boots on the ground".

Sealift and airlift capacity to respond to threat zones around the world? Infrastructure at military bases around the world so we can more readily respond to threats? The list is endless.

That isn't to say the DoD isn't bloated to hell, and that the military-industrial complex isn't absolutely frightening. It is and it is. But to say you can cut 60% of the budget while losing nothing is just ridiculous. So far beyond ridiculous as to defy description.