The Attacks on Cain Begin

[red states rule]

Now that Herman Cain is becoming a threat to Obama, the left starts their attacks

This from the Joyless Behar show

<IFRAME title="MRC TV video player" height=360 src="http://www.mrctv.org/embed/106426" frameBorder=0 width=640 allowfullscreen></IFRAME>

[red states rule]

Herman Cain is a class act in his response to the attacks

<IFRAME title="MRC TV video player" height=360 src="http://www.mrctv.org/embed/106425" frameBorder=0 width=640 allowfullscreen></IFRAME>

[Gunny]

Now that Herman Cain is becoming a threat to Obama, the left starts their attacks

This from the Joyless Behar show

<iframe title="MRC TV video player" src="http://www.mrctv.org/embed/106426" allowfullscreen="" width="640" frameborder="0" height="360"></iframe>

What a shock. Rather amusing to me that the left is as obvious as sunlight; yet, think no one can see their game. The game that's been the same since the 80s when the widely "successful" James Earl Carter was the first modern-day former President to ridicule a sitting President (for fixing his f*ck-ups). The left hasn't let up since.

Besides, now that Palin has formally dropped out, it's left a vast void in the left's rhetoric. They've been so hot and heavy going after her for buttering her bread on the wrong side they don't know what to do. Oh yeah, they just pick another Republican/conservative. Not to mention they should be REAL busy working on damage control from their Wall Street debacle.:laugh:

[red states rule]

What a shock. Rather amusing to me that the left is as obvious as sunlight; yet, think no one can see their game. The game that's been the same since the 80s when the widely "successful" James Earl Carter was the first modern-day former President to ridicule a sitting President (for fixing his f*ck-ups). The left hasn't let up since.

Besides, now that Palin has formally dropped out, it's left a vast void in the left's rhetoric. They've been so hot and heavy going after her for buttering her bread on the wrong side they don't know what to do. Oh yeah, they just pick another Republican/conservative. Not to mention they should be REAL busy working on damage control from their Wall Street debacle.:laugh:

Yet where ws Harry when Obama talked about the Intercontinental Railroad and the 57 states?
Oh, you were a racist if you brought those topics up

[Gunny]

Yet where ws Harry when Obama talked about the Intercontinental Railroad and the 57 states?
Oh, you were a racist if you brought those topics up

Oh please. You left out the "properly inflating your tires will offset ANY oil we could possibly drill for in the Gulf".:laugh:

What enquiring minds wants to know is .... am I racist against his the black half of his ass? Or the white (Barry) half?

[red states rule]

Oh please. You left out the "properly inflating your tires will offset ANY oil we could possibly drill for in the Gulf".:laugh:

What enquiring minds wants to know is .... am I racist against his the black half of his ass? Or the white (Barry) half?

Everyone was telling us how qualified Obama was during the 2008 election. One poster here bellowed about his "shitload" of economic experience

Well, I found this on another site and I want to share the background of Mr Cain. Compare this to Obama's background

I would love to see Cain debate Obama one on one!




What you may not know about Herman Cain who is running for president….
He’s not a career politician (in fact he has never held political office). He’s known as a pizza guy, but there’s a lot more to him. He’s also a computer guy, a banker guy, and a rocket scientist guy.

Here’s his bio:

Bachelor’s degree in Mathematics.

Master’s degree in Computer Science.
Mathematician for the Navy, where he worked on missile ballistics (making him a rocket
scientist).

Computer systems analyst for Coca-Cola.

VP of Corporate Data Systems and Services for Pillsbury (this is the top of the ladder in the computer world, being in charge of information systems for a major corporation).

All achieved before reaching the age of 35. Since he reached the top of the information systems world, he changed careers!

Business Manager. Took charge of Pillsbury’s 400 Burger King restaurants in the Philadelphia area, which were the company’s poorest performers in the country. Spent the first nine months learning the business from the ground up, cooking hamburger and yes, cleaning toilets. After three years he had turned them into the company’s best performers.

Godfather’s Pizza CEO. Was asked by Pillsbury to take charge of their Godfather’s Pizza chain (which was on the verge of bankruptcy). He made it profitable in 14 months.

In 1988 he led a buyout of the Godfather’s Pizza chain from Pillsbury. He was now the owner of a restaurant chain. Again he reached the top of the ladder of another industry.

He was also chairman of the National Restaurant Association during this time. This is a group
that interacts with government on behalf of the restaurant industry, and it gave him political experience from the non-politician side.

Having reached the top of a second industry, he changed careers again!

Adviser to the Federal Reserve System. Herman Cain went to work for the Federal Reserve Banking System advising them on how monetary policy changes would affect American businesses.

Chairman of the Kansas City Federal Reserve Bank. He worked his way up to the chairmanship of a regional Federal Reserve bank. This is only one step below the chairmanship of the entire Federal Reserve System (the top banking position in the country). This position allowed him to see how monetary policy is made from the inside, and understand the political forces that impact the monetary system.

After reaching the top of the banking industry, he changed careers for a fourth time!

Writer and public speaker. He then started to write and speak on leadership. His books include Speak as a Leader, CEO of Self, Leadership is Common Sense, andThey Think You’re Stupid.

Radio Host. Around 2007—after a remarkable 40 year career—he started hosting a radio show on WSB in Atlanta (the largest talk radio station in the country).

He did all this starting from rock bottom (his father was a chauffeur and his mother was a maid). When you add up his accomplishments in his life—including reaching the top of three unrelated industries: information systems, business management, and banking—

Herman Cain may have the most impressive resume of anyone that has run for the presidency in the last half century.

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/10/10/new-poll-shows-obama-losing-to-herman-cain/#comments

[Gunny]

Everyone was telling us how qualified Obama was during the 2008 election. One poster here bellowed about his "shitload" of economic experience

Well, I found this on another site and I want to share the background of Mr Cain. Compare this to Obama's background

I would love to see Cain debate Obama one on one!

I wouldn't trust Obama with my freaking bank account. That dude can write a hot check faster than my ex.:laugh:

[johnwk]

Herman Cain is a class act in his response to the attacks
So tell me, my friend, what do you think of Herman Cain’s “empowerment zones” under which folks in government get to pick winners and losers like Obama has done with the Solyndra money laundering operation?

Herman’s “empowerment zones” would create unequal tax law and would relieve one economic class from contributing their tax burden, which must then be made up by another economic class. I’m sure Obama would be proud of Herman Cain’s pinko version of class warfare carried out under the innocuous title of “empowerment zones”.

Cain’s “Empowerment Zones” would give special tax deductions for businesses that employ residents living in designated lower-income “empowerment zones”, as well as income tax deductions for residents living in those zones.

What part of Federalist No. 45 does Herman Cain not understand?:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

And why have our “conservative” talk show hosts not questioned Herman’s intentions to pick winners and losers using the force of government and in the process play the class warfare game? Has Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Schnitt, Mark Levin, Dennis Prager, Bill O'rielly, Mike Gallagher, Lee Rodgers, Neal Boortz. Tammy Bruce, Monica Crowley …. WHO?

JWK

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.___ Tenth Amendment

[fj1200]

So tell me, my friend, what do you think of Herman Cain’s “empowerment zones” under which folks in government get to pick winners and losers like Obama has done with the Solyndra money laundering operation?

Herman’s “empowerment zones” would create unequal tax law and would relieve one economic class from contributing their tax burden, which must then be made up by another economic class. I’m sure Obama would be proud of Herman Cain’s pinko version of class warfare carried out under the innocuous title of “empowerment zones”.

Cain’s “Empowerment Zones” would give special tax deductions for businesses that employ residents living in designated lower-income “empowerment zones”, as well as income tax deductions for residents living in those zones.

[JWK's copy paste rightfully deleted as it has nothing to do with the thread at hand.]

Empowerment zones have been tried before with questionable results; Jack Kemp was a big proponent. They are an effort that is probably worth the trouble because they reduce government regulation/taxation and encourage private enterprise. This is completely different than Solyndra, unless he's talking about loan guarantees, because government doesn't "pick the winner" rather it just targets a geographic area for reducing government involvement.

[Noir]

Mildly ridiculous comments being made about Cain, however, i don't like how his response seemed to of been cut off mid-sentence, got the full comment?

Also, he has displayed prejudices towards muslims just because they are muslims, i don't much like the sound of that.

[jimnyc]

Mildly ridiculous comments being made about Cain, however, i don't like how his response seemed to of been cut off mid-sentence, got the full comment?

Also, he has displayed prejudices towards muslims just because they are muslims, i don't much like the sound of that.

He's been very good working with the muslim community, both before and after his apology. He's adamant about not allowing shariah law being brought into our government in any way. I'm on his side about that one, and many muslims and leaders have already stated that they think they should be allowed to use shariah law in their communities. So, IMO, his comments and reservations are spot on.

[Noir]

He's been very good working with the muslim community, both before and after his apology. He's adamant about not allowing shariah law being brought into our government in any way. I'm on his side about that one, and many muslims and leaders have already stated that they think they should be allowed to use shariah law in their communities. So, IMO, his comments and reservations are spot on.

He assumes all Muslims are anti-constituional until proven otherwise. I'm know everyone will be more than aware about my feelings on legislation by religion, so i shouldn't need to state that. But to make assumptions that then makes it the responsibility of the assumed to prove otherwise ain't right IMO.

[jimnyc]

He assumes all Muslims are anti-constituional until proven otherwise.

He stated this? I don't recall that... He's probably right the majority of the time, but I do know some muslims that have assimilated here just fine and believe in our laws and constitution. But I don't recall Cain making that statement in the manner you are stating.

[Noir]

He stated this? I don't recall that... He's probably right the majority of the time, but I do know some muslims that have assimilated here just fine and believe in our laws and constitution. But I don't recall Cain making that statement in the manner you are stating.

He makes it clear as an unmudded lake here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8jGnpbED9E&feature=youtube_gdata_player

He assumes by default that all Muslims are not commuted to the constitution. They then have to prove that they are in order for him to consider them as appointabl. Now being a politician he flares up being anti-political correctness as his smoke screen, a suttle but very clear move, but it in no way detracts from the initial statement.

[jimnyc]

He makes it clear as an unmudded lake here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8jGnpbED9E&feature=youtube_gdata_player

He assumes by default that all Muslims are not commuted to the constitution. They then have to prove that they are in order for him to consider them as appointabl. Now being a politician he flares up being anti-political correctness as his smoke screen, a suttle but very clear move, but it in no way detracts from the initial statement.

ANY American running for office should be committed to the Constitution. He said "many of the muslims", NOT ALL. And he said many are not committed to OUR constitution, and he's 100% correct. We already have muslims in our nation striving to have shariah law integrated into our own laws - and because of that alone I wouldn't put a muslim on my team either.

[Noir]

ANY American running for office should be committed to the Constitution. He said "many of the muslims", NOT ALL. And he said many are not committed to OUR constitution, and he's 100% correct. We already have muslims in our nation striving to have shariah law integrated into our own laws - and because of that alone I wouldn't put a muslim on my team either.

Indeed all should be. However, he assumes all Christians, Jews etc are already are. He makes a distinction with Muslims, and assumes before knowing anything else that they are not supportive of the constitution.

That is a perfect example of prejudice, and regardless of his politics, it's something I personally wouldnt look for in a leader.

[jimnyc]

Indeed all should be. However, he assumes all Christians, Jews etc are already are. He makes a distinction with Muslims, and assumes before knowing anything else that they are not supportive of the constitution.

That is a perfect example of prejudice, and regardless of his politics, it's something I personally wouldnt look for in a leader.

Christians and Jews aren't looking to implement a different judicial system and they also have no issue assimilating to the American way of life when they come to America. Many Muslims immigrating here, and American Muslims, would like to see Shariah implemented, and are extremely loyal to Islamic laws and aren't committed to those here in America. I would be very leery myself in bringing a Muslim onto my team, unless he/she was vetted properly and I know he/she was dedicated to America and her way of life.

With that said, I don't think every single Muslim alive should automatically be denied solely based on their faith. But I have no problem ensuring a further look at those of that faith. And I would expect a leader to ensure ANY person coming onto his team puts America and the US Constitution first and foremost.

[red states rule]

Even a black liberal (and Obama supporter) step up and admits the truth about the attacks on Mr Cain

<IFRAME title="MRC TV video player" height=360 src="http://www.mrctv.org/embed/106456" frameBorder=0 width=640 allowfullscreen></IFRAME>

[red states rule]

I wouldn't trust Obama with my freaking bank account. That dude can write a hot check faster than my ex.:laugh:


Me Cain correctly points out Obama has NEVER been part of the black experience in America

<IFRAME height=421 marginHeight=0 src="http://videos.mediaite.com/embed/player/?layout=&playlist_cid=&media_type=video&content=GF5TBG25B03VBKYC&read_more=1&widget_type_cid=svp" frameBorder=0 width=420 allowTransparency marginWidth=0 scrolling=no></IFRAME>

[PostmodernProphet]

Mildly ridiculous comments being made about Cain, however, i don't like how his response seemed to of been cut off mid-sentence, got the full comment?

Also, he has displayed prejudices towards muslims just because they are muslims, i don't much like the sound of that.

is saying he would not appoint a Muslim who supported Sharia law in a judicial capacity a prejudice against Muslims because they are Muslims?......

[Noir]

is saying he would not appoint a Muslim who supported Sharia law in a judicial capacity a prejudice against Muslims because they are Muslims?......

It is unless he does the same for say Catholics. ie to a Catholic which is more important, American law or Papal law. If anyone said papal law they should be taken out of the equation.

[Kathianne]

It is unless he does the same for say Catholics. ie to a Catholic which is more important, American law or Papal law. If anyone said papal law they should be taken out of the equation.

Umm, that was addressed by JFK and Al Smith that ran before him. In every case the answer has been, "I would take the vow to uphold the Constitution and laws of the US to the best of my ability." That is what is being asked. Just like non-Catholics that believe that abortion is wrong, whoever is in public office must enforce the laws of the US.

That doesn't mean that they cannot attempt to right through the process changes, just like there are those who agree with some of the protesters that the minimum wage should be $20 an hour. They can work for it, but they cannot punish those that are hiring at what is the current law.

[Noir]

Umm, that was addressed by JFK and Al Smith that ran before him. In every case the answer has been, "I would take the vow to uphold the Constitution and laws of the US to the best of my ability." That is what is being asked. Just like non-Catholics that believe that abortion is wrong, whoever is in public office must enforce the laws of the US.

That doesn't mean that they cannot attempt to right through the process changes, just like there are those who agree with some of the protesters that the minimum wage should be $20 an hour. They can work for it, but they cannot punish those that are hiring at what is the current law.

So because say JFK put the Constitution before Papal law, all Catholics will? Maybe some won't/don't. In any case if you are going to ask all Muslims this under the assumption they are going to put their faith before the constitution its is (at the very least) consistent to do the same with all, no?

[Kathianne]

So because say JFK put the Constitution before Papal law, all Catholics will? Maybe some won't/don't. In any case if you are going to ask all Muslims this under the assumption they are going to put their faith before the constitution its is (at the very least) consistent to do the same with all, no?

Any Catholic running for office is still asked that by their constituents. Indeed the only Catholic office holders that have a problem with the Church are those like John Kerry that make a point of being pro-abortion. He has every right as the US citizen to take that stand and fight for what he thinks is right, but not so with the Church, thus the statement by the bishop. On the other hand, those that are pro-life have every right to be so, however if they bring the Church into their argument, they most likely will not be re-elected, the constituents in most areas would reject them.

[Noir]

Any Catholic running for office is still asked that by their constituents. Indeed the only Catholic office holders that have a problem with the Church are those like John Kerry that make a point of being pro-abortion. He has every right as the US citizen to take that stand and fight for what he thinks is right, but not so with the Church, thus the statement by the bishop. On the other hand, those that are pro-life have every right to be so, however if they bring the Church into their argument, they most likely will not be re-elected, the constituents in most areas would reject them.

So why is Cain singling out Muslims as different? All he'd need to say is 'anyone regardless of their faith (or lack of) will take the oath that confirms that the constitution is king (as I assume they have to do anyways) and that's it. Should anyone, Muslim, Catholic or otherwise, not want to take the oath then they can't be appointed. Simple.

Instead they whole thing has now been blurred with 'Islamism/Anti-PC/Discriminatory' drivel that does nothing but get Cain attention (which, I guess, may be the whole point.)

[Kathianne]

So why is Cain singling out Muslims as different? All he'd need to say is 'anyone regardless of their faith (or lack of) will take the oath that confirms that the constitution is king (as I assume they have to do anyways) and that's it. Should anyone, Muslim, Catholic or otherwise, not want to take the oath then they can't be appointed. Simple.

Instead they whole thing has now been blurred with 'Islamism/Anti-PC/Discriminatory' drivel that does nothing but get Cain attention (which, I guess, may be the whole point.)

Good reason, Keith Ellison. No bringing up of religion or Sharia and guess what? No more mistakes like that one.

[Noir]

Good reason, Keith Ellison. No bringing up of religion or Sharia and guess what? No more mistakes like that one.

Did he take an oath to say he put the constitution before his faith?

[Kathianne]

Did he take an oath to say he put the constitution before his faith?

Took the same oath as every other congressional member, hasn't been acting in the supremacy of Constitution however.

[Noir]

Took the same oath as every other congressional member, hasn't been acting in the supremacy of Constitution however.

Indeed, so he may well of been lying when he took the oath, in the same way a Catgolic could do exactly the same.

[Kathianne]

Indeed, so he may well of been lying when he took the oath, in the same way a Catgolic could do exactly the same.
Catgolic? Hmmm.

As I said, that is up to the constituents to decide. In this case though, he might as well be an Irish Catholic from Beantown.

[Noir]

Catgolic? Hmmm.

As I said, that is up to the constituents to decide. In this case though, he might as well be an Irish Catholic from Beantown.

Typo, am currently typing this while on my phone and in work so my thumbs are having to move at quite a rate and I dont have too long to re-read before hitting submit ^,^

In any case, Cain has somewhat pointlessly bright this on himself, but too likey work in his Cavour.

[johnwk]

Does adding a new tax to feed the beast in Washington as proposed by Herman Cain really make sense? Herman Cain is promoting the continuation of two forms of income taxation and adding an additional national sales tax of 9 percent on top which would tax the necessities of life working people purchase in addition to taxing their earned wages.

How many working people who are now barely meeting their own economic needs will be forced onto the public dole under Herman’s proposed national sales tax which keeps alive two forms of an existing oppressive tax which is used to strangle America’s businesses, industries and working class people?

What makes sense is to answer the following question which none of the candidates, including Herman Cain have answered. How do we encourage Congress to adopt sound fiscal policies which are beneficial to America’s businesses, industries and America’s working class people? Our founding fathers addressed that very issue when framing our Constitution. Unfortunately, perhaps not one in ten thousand Americans fully understand the thinking behind our Constitution’s original tax plan and how it helped to pave the way for America to become the economic marvel of the world.

And, what is even more disappointing is, instead of the American people trying to figure out the specific reasons as to how our Constitution’s original tax plan worked to control Congress and set the stage for a free market system to flourish, they enjoy attacking and mocking those who defend our founder’s wisdom and prefer to yield to ramblings of granting a new taxing power to Congress which most certainly would be used by Congress to further tighten its iron fist around the necks of America’s businesses, industries and working class people.

The cure to our nation’s economic suffering is not to be found with a new tax to be exercised by Congress as suggested by Herman Cain. The question which must be answered is, how to control the actions of Congress and encourage Congress to adopt sound fiscal policies! And that is the question our founders addressed and answered.

Here is a “bold” solution:

The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money

These words would put an end to the Marxist income tax and a return us to our Constitution’s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN (http://townshipnews.org/?p=1360) which would remove the Washington Establishment’s grip from the necks America’s businesses and working class people.

JWK

“…a national revenue must be obtained; but the system must be such a one, that, while it secures the object of revenue it shall not be oppressive to our constituents.”___ Madison, during the creation of our Nation’s first revenue raising Act (http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=55)

[Gaffer]

Indeed, so he may well of been lying when he took the oath, in the same way a Catgolic could do exactly the same. It's a fact that muslims lie. It's permitted in the koran. Lying to an infidel is perfectly okay in order to achieve your goal. I'm with Cain. No muslims in the administration. Anyone that doesn't like it is free to move to the muslim country of their choice.

[fj1200]

Does adding a new tax...

You don't REALLY want to have a conversation do you?

[chloe]

So why is Cain singling out Muslims as different?

because he's running against one that's already in office.....:laugh2:couldn't resist.......

[Noir]

It's a fact that muslims lie. It's permitted in the koran. Lying to an infidel is perfectly okay in order to achieve your goal. I'm with Cain. No muslims in the administration. Anyone that doesn't like it is free to move to the muslim country of their choice.

Wow, if you don't see the irony here there is no hope lol

[logroller]

Typo, am currently typing this while on my phone and in work so my thumbs are having to move at quite a rate and I dont have too long to re-read before hitting submit ^,^

In any case, Cain has somewhat pointlessly bright this on himself, but too likey work in his Cavour.

Not to say all muslims feels that way, or all terrorists are muslim, but terrorism has some pretty clear islamic ties. If a pres feels those ties are best not left alone in his consideration of appointments, in order for him to create a panel of loyalists to the constitution, that is an executive privilege he enjoys. Of course, we are free not to vote for him, for that or any other reason, so I'm not quite sure what the hubbub is about jew this or catholic that-- last I checked, executive privilege is enjoyed in all matters which have an impact on national security, they are not subject to EEOC guidelines; to which presidential appointees to the Cabinet, his closest confidants, are positions which certainly have an impact on our national security. That much is quite clear; as to appointees to SCOTUS; I don't think I'd have a hard time making the same argument stick-- after all, to whom would you argue its constitutionality-- the Supreme Court-- they would need to excuse themselves for having an personal interests in the outcome. It all starts getting very confusing-- that's why the prez can nominate anyone he wishes, for whatever reasons; it is left to Congress to approve the nominee-- as this is a Constitutional power vested solely in those branches-- subsequent laws on fairness and equality can be forsaken if they affect those solemn duties. (and I think SCOTUS would agree:salute:)

[red states rule]

While doing an interview on his 9-9-9 plan, ABC called Mr Cain the "pizza man" Talk about a clear lack of respect by the liberal media


<IFRAME title="MRC TV video player" height=360 src="http://www.mrctv.org/embed/106488" frameBorder=0 width=640 allowfullscreen></IFRAME>

[red states rule]

Took the same oath as every other congressional member, hasn't been acting in the supremacy of Constitution however.

I remember when he was sworn into office he refused to use a Bible, and used a Quran

Very telling about him and who intends to represent in Congress

[red states rule]

Excellent article on how Mr. Cain exposes the left when it comes to race and conservative blacks




As an observer on the national scene lo these many years, I have noted time and again that in a discussion of politics, the first person to inject the topic of race into the discussion is often the racist. Though that person almost always affects to be without bigotry, in fact, he invariably is a racist and hopes to emerge from the fracas as the moral colossus. Those who have followed the careers of the Rev. Jesse Jackson (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/jesse-jackson/) and his Holiness Al Sharpton (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/al-sharpton/) will get my drift. These frauds would have to be debating George Wallace to be the lesser racists and, frankly, I think the contests would be too close to call.

Last week, we observed the phenomenon once again. This time it was in a discussion of politics on MSNBC (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/msnbc/) led by Lawrence O'Donnell (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/lawrence-odonnell/), who interviewed Herman Cain (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/herman-cain/), the surprising “nonpolitician” who is fast becoming a powerful contender for the Republican presidential nomination. Mr. O'Donnell (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/lawrence-odonnell/) is a white liberal. Mr. Cain (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/herman-cain/) is a black conservative. Mr. O'Donnell (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/lawrence-odonnell/) clearly was the racist as he led the discussion with a series of questions that most civilized people would find bizarre. Mr. O'Donnell (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/lawrence-odonnell/) also was a bully and a creep. The way his eyes rarely moved while he was directing a clearly offensive line of questioning to Mr. Cain (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/herman-cain/) suggests that he probably was not aware that his behavior was offensive. Sociopaths can be TV interviewers, too.

Since Mr. Cain (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/herman-cain/) came in second in a straw poll in Florida, his star has been in the ascendency. Now he is polling ahead of Mitt Romney in South Carolina. He has pulled even in Virginia and is on the march almost everywhere. I say another appearance with the racist Mr. O'Donnell (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/lawrence-odonnell/) and he will be preparing to move into the White House (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/white-house/).

Mr. O'Donnell (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/lawrence-odonnell/)’s line in interviewing Mr. Cain (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/herman-cain/) is typical of how liberals treat conservative blacks, and white America does not like it. I doubt black America does, either. Mr. O'Donnell (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/lawrence-odonnell/) might actually be a unifier, uniting all America once and for all against those who try to divide us along the lines of race. His lines of attack were breathtaking in their hypocrisy.

First he attacked Mr. Cain (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/herman-cain/) for dodging the draft when Mr. Cain (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/herman-cain/) was working for the Navy (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/navy/) in field ballistics and was asked by the Navy (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/navy/) to continue his work as a civilian. He did. Mr. O'Donnell (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/lawrence-odonnell/), for his part, never wore a uniform and never served in any branch of the armed forces. He got a deferment. Then he accused Mr. Cain (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/herman-cain/) of not supporting the civil rights movement by obeying his father and finishing high school and college. Mr. O'Donnell (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/lawrence-odonnell/) never aided the civil rights movement and did not perform particularly well in college. Still he accused Mr. Cain (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/herman-cain/) of standing on the sidelines during the civil rights movement. Mr. O'Donnell (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/lawrence-odonnell/) was in the bleachers.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/oct/12/cain-blows-up-liberal-creed-on-race/

[fj1200]

I remember when he was sworn into office he refused to use a Bible, and used a Quran

Very telling about him and who intends to represent in Congress

So? He's not a Christian and doesn't believe in the bible.

[Noir]

I remember when he was sworn into office he refused to use a Bible, and used a Quran

Very telling about him and who intends to represent in Congress

a) would you rather he was forced to use a bible?

b) by this logic are you saying all members of conrgess only represent Christians?

[jimnyc]

Wow, if you don't see the irony here there is no hope lol

Noir, with all due respect, can I ask a serious question without making you angry?

You seem to come to the defense of Muslims whenever discussions of them are brought up. You may defend them lightly depending on the subject, or in this case you'll defend them as a whole. But then I'll see you enter the religion forum and find every reason possible to agitate or question the faith of Christians/Catholics.

Why is it you never defend the Catholics if it's someone else "talking smack" about them? Why is it you never have anything nice to say about Catholics? Why is it you very rarely criticize in the same manner the muslims or their beliefs?

As I ask abso - there are hundreds of stories about abuse and terror attacks DAILY involving muslims, but I don't see you going after those stories, unless it's here and to occasionally defend them. If it's one story per week about Catholics, and it's not even abuse or terror, you're always their to question anothers faith....

For an atheist, I would think you would have equal "questions" of all faiths... and even more so about muslims due to the outright current savagery and barbaric acts happening in the name of their faith...

But it sure seems you're more "offended" by Catholics and haven't much of an interest in the "religion of peace" that commit terror attacks daily. Is it because of the abundance of Catholics/Christians posting here?

Don't be offended either, just curious, buddy!

[Noir]

Noir, with all due respect, can I ask a serious question without making you angry?

This would imply i get angry often which i certainly don't think i do =/


You seem to come to the defense of Muslims whenever discussions of them are brought up. You may defend them lightly depending on the subject, or in this case you'll defend them as a whole. But then I'll see you enter the religion forum and find every reason possible to agitate or question the faith of Christians/Catholics.

How am i defending them as a whole? They point that Gaffer just made was that in order to protect the constitution you must do something unconstitutional lol, i think the focus would be better put on people intentionally attacking just one religion. I'd say exactly the same if gaffer was saying that about christians, but of course he never will, nor is it ever likey to happen on this board, so you prob won't see that.


Why is it you never defend the Catholics if it's someone else "talking smack" about them? Why is it you never have anything nice to say about Catholics? Why is it you very rarely criticize in the same manner the muslims or their beliefs?

I don't have anything nice to say about any religions, as far as i'm concerned institutionalised Religion is vile and the people who follow it are fools. That doesn't mean a Muslim should be denied the same privileges a Jew is getting on death row. You must treat them the same. And of course i would be saying the same if it was the Jew that was not getting the meat killed the way he wanted, but that was not the topic, nor reality.


As I ask abso - there are hundreds of stories about abuse and terror attacks DAILY involving muslims, but I don't see you going after those stories, unless it's here and to occasionally defend them. If it's one story per week about Catholics, and it's not even abuse or terror, you're always their to question anothers faith....

This board is mostly a Christian board, its must easier to have a discussion about Christianity (where there is debate to be had) than about Islam or Hinduism etc. However, you'll not be too surprised to hear (i hope) on forums that i was on where the majority posters were muslim i was constantly called out for specifically attacking islam in a way i didn't attack christians etc.


For an atheist, I would think you would have equal "questions" of all faiths... and even more so about muslims due to the outright current savagery and barbaric acts happening in the name of their faith...

And i do, but as i said, their is little point in me arguing whether or not Mohammed (misery be upon him) was a pedophile or not, thats best reserved for Muslim boards. Also all faiths carry out plenty of savage acts just in different ways, i.e. the Jews deciding (and everyone else agreeing its cool) to mutilate the genitals of new born babies, is not the same kind of savagery as a suicide bombing, but its savagery none the less, but a savagery that i'm sure many on the board will have no concerns about.


But it sure seems you're more "offended" by Catholics and haven't much of an interest in the "religion of peace" that commit terror attacks daily. Is it because of the abundance of Catholics/Christians posting here?

Don't be offended either, just curious, buddy!

Indeed, as i said above, thats pretty much it. Also if you knew me irl you'd know i *much* prefer to debate face to face with muslims because they have (what i see to be) as an impossible system of beliefs to defend in a way that seems consistent with a free society, and i know i've posited here before about when i lived in a majority muslim area and went out of my way (to their mosques and community meetings etc) to challenge them.

I even once had an argument with a Buddhist in a book store because my girlfriend was shopping and i got bored and went in and the guy was standing flicking through books on Buddhism and for an opener i went with 'you don't believe in all that rubbish, do you?'

There are some groups i dislike more than others; Creationists, Catholics, Muslims, Spiritual healers, people that can 'talk to the dead' etc. but on the whole i'd say i give them all similar treatment, it just so happens the most of what you guys see is Christian related.

[jimnyc]

Noir, maybe you don't see it as it's your own posts - but you defend muslims many times, for various subjects/reasons, and you rarely, if ever, do the same with Catholics. In fact, it's 99.99% negative. Just seems odd to me that there's such a huge difference in your "tone" between the 2. I'm confident I'm not the only one who thinks you "attack" Catholics/Christians, but give "respect" at times or defense towards muslims.

[jimnyc]

arguing whether or not Mohammed (misery be upon him) was a pedophile or not,

Btw, loved this part! Fuck that (pbuh) crap muslims write. He nailed A NINE (9) year old LITTLE GIRL! Damn right he was a pedophile. People can say different time, but fuck that, no matter what era it is an immature child, and he HAD to have been fucked in the head to have sex with a CHILD. "Aisha" was her name, and the poor thing was violated by muhammed, the pedoprophet.

[Noir]

Btw, loved this part! Fuck that (pbuh) crap muslims write. He nailed A NINE (9) year old LITTLE GIRL! Damn right he was a pedophile. People can say different time, but fuck that, no matter what era it is an immature child, and he HAD to have been fucked in the head to have sex with a CHILD. "Aisha" was her name, and the poor thing was violated by muhammed, the pedoprophet.

Indeed, that one line got me banded from a Muslim board, everyone posted as "Mohammed PBUH" were i went with MBUH and eventually someone asked what it was, and when i said 'misery' it was isnta-ban >,>

and yeah, he clearly was a pedo, undeniably so, as the only way it can be denied is to suggest that several of the core haddiths are wrong, which is somewhat cutting off your nose to spite your pedophile loving face.

[Noir]

Noir, maybe you don't see it as it's your own posts - but you defend muslims many times, for various subjects/reasons, and you rarely, if ever, do the same with Catholics. In fact, it's 99.99% negative. Just seems odd to me that there's such a huge difference in your "tone" between the 2. I'm confident I'm not the only one who thinks you "attack" Catholics/Christians, but give "respect" at times or defense towards muslims.

Mkays, if it looks like that, but if theres one thing to be sure of its that i don't have the slightest shred of respect for Muslims, nor anyone of religion because of their religion.

[red states rule]

Mr Cain is now shifting things into high gear with his campaign.

Can you see a one on one debate between Mr Cain and Obama? I knwo taking on Obama without his teleprompter would be taking on an unarmed man - but it would be fun to watch




Seizing modest momentum in the race for the Republican presidential nomination, businessman Herman Cain (http://www.debatepolicy.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=news&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=) promised to invest in additional staff and campaign more aggressively in New Hampshire and Iowa.

"We have run this very lean by design. We are now going to ramp up," he told reporters near the New Hampshire State House (http://www.debatepolicy.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=news&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=) Wednesday afternoon. "We now have the money to do so. I didn't want to get out in front and commit to spending a whole lot of money before I knew that the American people were going to say, 'You know what? This long shot may not be such a long shot.'"

Cain, the former chief executive of Godfather's Pizza, has jumped into second place in some national polls following the repeated stumbles of Texas Gov. Rick Perry (http://www.debatepolicy.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=news&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=).

But unlike Perry, Cain has put little effort into visiting early voting states or building a ground game in the states where presidential contests are typically won and lost. Cain launched a recent book tour that fueled speculation he was more interested in profiting from his growing national profile than winning the election.

"The book tour is over," Cain declared Wednesday, vowing to add staff in New Hampshire and Iowa and bring his campaign bus to the Granite State in the coming weeks. He hadn't visited New Hampshire since midsummer.

But there are signs that New Hampshire Republicans are open to a Cain candidacy.

http://www.chron.com/news/article/Cain-vows-to-add-staff-campaign-more-aggressively-2215076.php

[red states rule]

Does adding a new tax to feed the beast in Washington as proposed by Herman Cain really make sense? Herman Cain is promoting the continuation of two forms of income taxation and adding an additional national sales tax of 9 percent on top which would tax the necessities of life working people purchase in addition to taxing their earned wages.

How many working people who are now barely meeting their own economic needs will be forced onto the public dole under Herman’s proposed national sales tax which keeps alive two forms of an existing oppressive tax which is used to strangle America’s businesses, industries and working class people?

What makes sense is to answer the following question which none of the candidates, including Herman Cain have answered. How do we encourage Congress to adopt sound fiscal policies which are beneficial to America’s businesses, industries and America’s working class people? Our founding fathers addressed that very issue when framing our Constitution. Unfortunately, perhaps not one in ten thousand Americans fully understand the thinking behind our Constitution’s original tax plan and how it helped to pave the way for America to become the economic marvel of the world.

And, what is even more disappointing is, instead of the American people trying to figure out the specific reasons as to how our Constitution’s original tax plan worked to control Congress and set the stage for a free market system to flourish, they enjoy attacking and mocking those who defend our founder’s wisdom and prefer to yield to ramblings of granting a new taxing power to Congress which most certainly would be used by Congress to further tighten its iron fist around the necks of America’s businesses, industries and working class people.

The cure to our nation’s economic suffering is not to be found with a new tax to be exercised by Congress as suggested by Herman Cain. The question which must be answered is, how to control the actions of Congress and encourage Congress to adopt sound fiscal policies! And that is the question our founders addressed and answered.

Here is a “bold” solution:

The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money

These words would put an end to the Marxist income tax and a return us to our Constitution’s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN (http://townshipnews.org/?p=1360) which would remove the Washington Establishment’s grip from the necks America’s businesses and working class people.

JWK

“…a national revenue must be obtained; but the system must be such a one, that, while it secures the object of revenue it shall not be oppressive to our constituents.”___ Madison, during the creation of our Nation’s first revenue raising Act (http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=55)





http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/bg101311dAPR20111013084517.jpg







http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/mrz101311dAPR20111013044516.jpg

[revelarts]

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/DnhKgdxK0pY?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" height="360" width="640"></object>

Full Cain Quote from radio
<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/932E2e6rB14?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/932E2e6rB14?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>

[fj1200]

Wow, I didn't think I could like Cain any more. Thanks rev.

[red states rule]

Liberal racism on display at DNCTV (aka MSNBC)


<IFRAME height=421 marginHeight=0 src="http://videos.mediaite.com/embed/player/?layout=&playlist_cid=&media_type=video&content=XQYLD53RJF2F1W6Y&read_more=1&widget_type_cid=svp" frameBorder=0 width=420 allowTransparency marginWidth=0 scrolling=no></IFRAME>

[red states rule]

and to make sure he has all the bases covered, Chris Matthews say R's will/won't vote for Mr Cain because they are racist


<IFRAME height=315 src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/eRl_c0LiwQg" frameBorder=0 width=420 allowfullscreen></IFRAME>

[red states rule]

More of the same from the race baiting left


<IFRAME title="MRC TV video player" height=360 src="http://www.mrctv.org/embed/106619" frameBorder=0 width=640 allowfullscreen></IFRAME>