REPUBLICAN HERMAN CAIN SUSPENDS PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN

[Ulysses G.]

while Cain is an idiot

An "idiot". Hardly.

"Herman Cain (born December 13, 1945) is a business executive,[3][4][5] industry lobbyist,[6] syndicated columnist, and radio host from Georgia. Cain was chairman and CEO of Godfather's Pizza from 1986 to 1996, deputy chairman of the board of directors of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City from 1992 to 1994, and chairman from 1995 to 1996.[7] Cain was president and CEO of the National Restaurant Association from 1996 to 1999.[8] Before his business career, he worked as a mathematician in ballistics as a civilian employee of the United States Navy.[9][10]"

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

Edited December 4, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[Wallaby]

while Cain is an idiot

An "idiot". Hardly.

"Herman Cain (born December 13, 1945) is a business executive,[3][4][5] industry lobbyist,[6] syndicated columnist, and radio host from Georgia. Cain was chairman and CEO of Godfather's Pizza from 1986 to 1996, deputy chairman of the board of directors of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City from 1992 to 1994, and chairman from 1995 to 1996.[7] Cain was president and CEO of the National Restaurant Association from 1996 to 1999.[8] Before his business career, he worked as a mathematician in ballistics as a civilian employee of the United States Navy.[9][10]"

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Herman_Cain

Only an idiot would think it a good idea to run for office with that many bones rattling in the closet.

[Credo]

I am assuming that the word 'idiot' is being used to refer to something other than his intelligence. The man is quite intelligent, but choses not to use it constructively. His problem is he is arrogant. He does not read people well.

[Jingthing]

Sorry, I hate the man's guts. He is virulently anti-gay. He blames all unemployed people for their own problems in the US when MOST want to work but the work is simply not there. He insists they take responsibility for their pain and "get a job" in an environment where there are hundreds of applicants for each opening, while at the same time denies ANY responsibility for his own meltdown, when it is obvious at least some of the charges are true. He has obviously scammed his wife who is some kind of brainwashed Stepford wife. Who could believe a married man giving money to a single woman (and not telling his wife) for well over a decade isn't having sex with her? I don't care about the consensual sex, it's the sham that he is Mr. Christian holier-than-thou moral when he's a baldfaced hypocrite and liar. While I do think it would have been a cinch for Obama to cream Cain, still the fact that he even had a chance for the white house is chilling.

The Cain Train. It's HISTORY:

Edited December 4, 2011 by Jingthing

[metisdead]

Off topic posts have been removed.

[Scott]

Try not to be so subtle, JT. There are posters who might not be able ascertain how you really feel!

[Credo]

My feelings aren't quite as strong as yours, but to a lesser degree, I agree with you, Jingthing.

[Jingthing]

Another thing. Did you watch the speech. He wore DARK SUNGLASSES the whole time. So we wouldn't see his eyes ... obviously. That's what total liars do.

[Credo]

A good liar doesn't need to wear sunglasses. They can look anyone straight in the eye and lie. Perhaps his future's so bright he has to wear shades?

No longer constrained by the need to please, he can pursue other avenues of power and fame.

Edited December 4, 2011 by Credo

[koheesti]

Another thing. Did you watch the speech. He wore DARK SUNGLASSES the whole time. So we wouldn't see his eyes ... obviously. That's what total liars do.

Liars have to read every line from a teleprompter.

[Jingthing]

Another thing. Did you watch the speech. He wore DARK SUNGLASSES the whole time. So we wouldn't see his eyes ... obviously. That's what total liars do.

Liars have to read every line from a teleprompter.

The topic is CAIN. OK?

The best 2012 GOP Clown Car wreck by far, Cain stood there bloviating with dark sunglasses obscuring his lyin’ eyes (with his wife Gloria beside him).

http://pamshouseblend.firedoglake.com/

[koheesti]

Another thing. Did you watch the speech. He wore DARK SUNGLASSES the whole time. So we wouldn't see his eyes ... obviously. That's what total liars do.

Liars have to read every line from a teleprompter.

The topic is CAIN. OK?

We both seem to agree Cain wasn't up for the job, just that you harbour this uncontrollable rage about the man. To me it was obvious he wasn't going to make it through so all of your anger is puzzling. Now that Cain is out of the race, you should be able to relax now.

[endure]

I thought Cain was the only hope and he is the only one that knows how to run a business and make money.

Is that a necessary qualification for a Presidential candidate? Serious question.

[Jingthing]

We both seem to agree Cain wasn't up for the job, just that you harbour this uncontrollable rage about the man. To me it was obvious he wasn't going to make it through so all of your anger is puzzling. Now that Cain is out of the race, you should be able to relax now.

It's quite controllable, thank you for your concern. As far as relaxing, still have the rest of his extremist right wing party to defeat. Cain with his disgusting demonization of the poor and unemployed represented the exact opposite of the Occupy movement. Although time will tell, unlike some, I think the value of the Cain brand has been damaged by his farcical presidential effort rather than enhanced. No, he'll never starve. Of course, I don't wish him well. A man who tried to gain power by dissing poor people and denying rights to gay people deserves zero respect.

Edited December 4, 2011 by Jingthing

[geriatrickid]

It's difficult to compare Clinton and Cain on the issue. Clinton had his share of allegations, so his antics in the White House closet were really not all that surprising. He never set himself out as a conservative strong family-values oriented type of president.

He also paid a big price for his indiscretions, including impeachment.

It is inappropriate and misleading to use the term impeachment in the context that you have. President Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives, but acquitted on the impeachment by the Senate. He continued in his position of POTUS. The impeachment proceedings were of a political nature. Unlike the impeachment proceedings against former President Nixon, the House conducted no investigations of its own into Clinton's alleged wrongdoing, and there were no detailed, lengthy non partisan hearings into the allegations. Instead the House relied upon the Republican appointed special investigator's allegations. Impeachment was a key strategy of the Republican party in order to regain control of the WH.

The Clinton scenario is quite different from that of the Cain case. as the political overtones arose from Mr. Cain's own party and it was his political opponents that repeatedly raised the issue. The Democrats were content to sit back and watch the man get hoisted by his own petard and to swing in the wind. Mr. Cain was to a large extent the author of his own political flameout. The Cain episode also highlights the differences in the integrity and character of several of Mr. Cain's opponents. Messrs. Huntsman and Paul were discreet and didn't go into the subject, whereas Messrs. Perry and Romney are now covered in mud. Mr. Gingrich with a history of infidelity, demonstrated uncharacteristic restraint on the issue.

Mr. Cain got his 10 minutes of fame, but thankfully this man that is in favour of torture got tossed under the bus.

Goodbye and good riddance to the man.

Edited December 4, 2011 by Scott
formatting

[Credo]

Thanks for the clarification, Geriatrickid. My intention wasn't to mislead, only to point out that Cain isn't the only person to get caught in a web of lies/misinformation of his own making.

Cain held himself up as a beacon of conservative family values oriented morals. The mud that stuck to him is well deserved.

He was destined to go down in flames. Thank God it happened now and not later.

[maidu]

I've found that, in general, the people who pontificate the loudest about 'family and Christian values' are sometimes the same people who privately noodle around.

Examples from a couple decades ago: Two bible thumping TV preachers: Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Baker. Swaggart was shown popping in and out of red light districts. The evidence was so overwhelming, he didn't even try to deny it . Granted, Baker wasn't necessarily a 'womanizer,' but he and his mascaraed wife were slick salespeople who sucked in millions of dollars from little old ladies who thought he was going to spend the money on good deeds (which he didn't). There are innumerable other examples.

Even in my private life, I've seen the blatant hypocracy (sp?). A woman I dated briefly in the US was an arch Christian and right wing conservative. She had 3 daughters and 3 pervious husbands (why do right wingers have so many spouses?) and she was only 31 at the time. Each one of her husbands sexually abused her dauthers, one afer another. In manic frustration, she sent her girls to be taken care of by her preacher father, the girls' grandparents. Lo and behold, even the old man abused the girls.

My older brother is a Bible thumper, and he's got at least 6 ex-wives and enough abaondoned kids to fill a 3/4 ton pick up truck. So, next time you hear someone on a pedestal espousing 'family and/or Christian values' you're forgiven for grinning and imagining them being as corrupt as your Uncle Bernie stoked on Ripple.

[koheesti]

Cain held himself up as a beacon of conservative family values oriented morals. The mud that stuck to him is well deserved.

This is the second time this has come up in this thread. Are you and the other guy saying that it's ok for a liberal to sexually harass women and have affairs because to do so wouldn't be considered hypocritical? I know a few liberals and some of them take family values seriously.

Back to Cain suspending his campaign. I wonder if the day will come when he annouces that he has actually quit the race? OR, he decides for some reason to start it again. It must be hard to raise campaign contributions.

[JemJem]

You think any of the remaining candidates would want Cain's endorsement ?

Well, seriously, who do you think Cain will endorse ?

Jem

[Credo]

Harassment is not OK. Having affairs is probably not OK either. If, however, you are going to hold yourself out on a certain issue, it's going to be a lightening rod if you violate those issues. A little like one of those anti-gay, anti-drug Evangelist ministers, who was bonking a rent boy while using meth.

[chuckd]

So now this thread has devolved into Christian bashing. It is not the first time, but I find it particularly disgusting. Why are atheists and agnostics any more moral than Christians? What is the divorce rate of Christians as opposed to non-believers? It would seem this thread has degenerated into simply another TV forum display of out of control liberalism.

Flail away, but if the best proof you can offer that somebody is lying is because they are wearing dark glasses and claim to be Christian, I would not recommend you give up your day job to become a prosecuting attorney.

[Ulysses G.]

You think any of the remaining candidates would want Cain's endorsement ?

Well, seriously, who do you think Cain will endorse ?

Jem

Newt Gingrich. Pleny of voters like Cain and respect his opinion on other candidates. They just do not want Cain to be POTUS.

Edited December 5, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[TAWP]

As far as relaxing, still have the rest of his extremist right wing party to defeat.

Since you use incorrect labels based on a hyperbolic argument position I have every faith in you that you will allow the 'other sides' to do the same about you and the party you seemingly support. Well, no, I do not. But it would be funny to see you be less hypocritical.

The republican party isn't 'right wing extremist' by any sense of the modern usage of the word. The last 20 years they have in many positions u-turned and seated themselves right next to the Democrats, in terms of Big Government, expansive foreign policy including interventionism on foreign land.

Granted they have a bigger share of people talking about 'family values' but they don't have them all. Nor is a stance as some religious person extreme right wing.

[geriatrickid]

So now this thread has devolved into Christian bashing. It is not the first time, but I find it particularly disgusting. Why are atheists and agnostics any more moral than Christians? What is the divorce rate of Christians as opposed to non-believers? It would seem this thread has degenerated into simply another TV forum display of out of control liberalism.

Flail away, but if the best proof you can offer that somebody is lying is because they are wearing dark glasses and claim to be Christian, I would not recommend you give up your day job to become a prosecuting attorney.

Perhaps there are Christians that find the conduct of Mr. Cain disturbing. Mr. Cain was quick to quote the bible and to refer to the need for moral values, He condemned those that did not meet his moral criteria. It is a shame that Mr. Cain did not pick up his bible and read John 8.2-11 It's the part where it states "let he who is without sin, cast the first stone" In this incident Jesus was the only person present that was free of sin,and the only one who had the right to "cast the first stone." Yet, Jesus did not stone the accused woman. Instead he forgave her and told her to "sin no more." Had Mr. Cain read his bible and paid heed to that passage and the parts about adultery, he would not be in the mess that he is now. It really is impossible to defend Mr. Cain. If there is a hell, I believe he's got a reservation in the aisle where everything is on fire and burning with a ferocity, a ferocity reserved for the hypocrites that claim the word of the Lord as their own and who twist it for their perverted means.

I always knew my Church of England education would come in handy one day.

[Jingthing]

As far as relaxing, still have the rest of his extremist right wing party to defeat.

Since you use incorrect labels based on a hyperbolic argument position I have every faith in you that you will allow the 'other sides' to do the same about you and the party you seemingly support. Well, no, I do not. But it would be funny to see you be less hypocritical.

The republican party isn't 'right wing extremist' by any sense of the modern usage of the word. The last 20 years they have in many positions u-turned and seated themselves right next to the Democrats, in terms of Big Government, expansive foreign policy including interventionism on foreign land.

Granted they have a bigger share of people talking about 'family values' but they don't have them all. Nor is a stance as some religious person extreme right wing.

I am talking about the current candidates and presumed platform, obviously. Extreme right wing? Absolutely. They are all to the right of Bush. But now Bush would be unacceptable. Paul is kind of an oddball, being a libertarian isolationist, but I don't really count him as he is not a serious candidate in the sense that he had zero chance of the nomination from day one.

Republican positions (forgetting irrelevant Paul):

Death penalty -- yes

Tax increases -- no

Tax cuts for the wealthy -- yes

Equal rights for gays -- no

Abortion rights -- no

Legalize marijuana -- no

Universal health care access -- no

Reform prison system -- no

Increase funds for education -- no

Government money to seed strategic businesses -- no

Increase military budget -- yes

Support the most right wing factions in Israel unconditionally -- yes

Additional humanitarian aid for the long term unemployed -- no

Promote the false idea of America as a Christian nation -- yes

Action to address global climate change -- no

Believe man is partly responsible for above -- no

Support goals of occupy wallstreet -- no

Teach unscientific Christian ideology about man's creation in science classes -- yes

etc, etc, etc.

Edited December 5, 2011 by Jingthing

[GentlemanJim]

As far as relaxing, still have the rest of his extremist right wing party to defeat.

Since you use incorrect labels based on a hyperbolic argument position I have every faith in you that you will allow the 'other sides' to do the same about you and the party you seemingly support. Well, no, I do not. But it would be funny to see you be less hypocritical.

The republican party isn't 'right wing extremist' by any sense of the modern usage of the word. The last 20 years they have in many positions u-turned and seated themselves right next to the Democrats, in terms of Big Government, expansive foreign policy including interventionism on foreign land.

Granted they have a bigger share of people talking about 'family values' but they don't have them all. Nor is a stance as some religious person extreme right wing.

I am talking about the current candidates and presumed platform, obviously. Extreme right wing? Absolutely. They are all to the right of Bush. But now Bush would be unacceptable. Paul is kind of an oddball, being a libertarian isolationist, but I don't really count him as he is not a serious candidate in the sense that he had zero chance of the nomination from day one.

Republican positions (forgetting irrelevant Paul):

Death penalty -- yes

Tax increases -- no

Tax cuts for the wealthy -- yes

Equal rights for gays -- no

Abortion rights -- no

Legalize marijuana -- no

Universal health care access -- no

Reform prison system -- no

Increase funds for education -- no

Government money to seed strategic businesses -- no

Increase military budget -- yes

Support the most right wing factions in Israel unconditionally -- yes

Additional humanitarian aid for the long term unemployed -- no

Promote the false idea of America as a Christian nation -- yes

Action to address global climate change -- no

Believe man is partly responsible for above -- no

Support goals of occupy wallstreet -- no

Teach unscientific Christian ideology about man's creation in science classes -- yes

etc, etc, etc.

Good points Jingthing.

What it needs is every Democrat in the country to temporarily register as a Republican and vote in Ron Paul. He is the only possible salvation for the US, truly!

[Jingthing]

I doubt most democrats would agree with Ron Paul's dogma that sick people without health insurance should be allowed to just suffer and die, in keeping with his absurdly radical libertarian ideology. So forget your idea.

[endure]

How does this 'registration' thing work in the US? If you're registered as a Democrat aren't you allowed to vote Republican?

[GentlemanJim]

How does this 'registration' thing work in the US? If you're registered as a Democrat aren't you allowed to vote Republican?

Seems not. My understanding is that you need to be registered one way or the other, so its all about how many pitch up on voting day really. It is why gerrymandering is such a contagion in US politics.

[Jingthing]

How does this 'registration' thing work in the US? If you're registered as a Democrat aren't you allowed to vote Republican?

It's state by state. Generally in most states, for PRIMARIES, you must be a registered member of that party to help select the nominee for your party in a party primary vote (or caucus, etc.). In a general election of course, all voters can vote for any party candidate. It's primary stage now. Obama has no challenger for the democratic party nomination. When the republicans pick their victim, it will then be Obama vs. the republican.

Edited December 5, 2011 by Jingthing