It was funny at first but now its just painful to watch...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6an4zSj8LhU
Printable View
It was funny at first but now its just painful to watch...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6an4zSj8LhU
I was banned for 3 days I forgot I wanted to reply to this.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
So basically you quoted me from an earlier thread and the point I was making about the racism was different from the part you quoted from. My argument which I posted in this thread was that the racism comes from the GOP leadership who blatantly push out a black man into the spotlight when they want to deflect allegations of being the rich, white man party or for other political purposes. My main example was Steele. Most GOP voters, like Democratic voters, will vote whoever the establishment tells them too. So when the GOP and Fox News started hyping up Cain, everyone suddenly went, "oh yeah, he is a candidate and he looks good.". I am not saying the voters are the racist ones, although like I said in the part you quoted, they are there. And no, I don't think it is the hardcore southerner's supporting Cain. Just because he has the most support in the south doesn't mean it's the hardcore ones supporting him. Fact is that despite the GOP establishment hyping up Perry since his Jesus speech, he is actually looking pretty dumb out there and has been dropping like a rock. Those people went and attached to the "new thing", Cain.
EDIT: Hasn't Bachmann been polling lower than Ron Paul ever since the GOP establishment ditched her for Perry? I don't think she will be lasting another 6 months.
Oh my GOD :laugh4::laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
How in the world is that racism?Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
How is it not? They don't actually care for Cain's policies, they are using him for the color of his skin and once he serves their purpose, they discard him by making him irrelevant. Using him for his skin color is racist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
No it isn't :dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
What does using someone for their skin color have to do with racism?
That's pretty much a racist thing to do. It is what it is. Denying or giving something undue to someone based on race alone is racist. It doesn't need to have hate involved.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
That literally has nothing to do with racism. When colleges put a diverse group of people on their brochures it isn't racism either.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
They are not giving anybody anything undue to them by putting more minorities on a brochure. When the GOP and Fox news make Cain relevant after several months of just standing around being that guys who hates muslims, they give him votes, just because he was a black candidate they can use for their purposes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
There's NO racism there. I can't fathom why you think there is. Something isn't racist just because someone who is a minority is wronged.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Maybe I see it now, you mean that the fact that they never had a black candidate before is the evidence that they are racist, and that the cain nomination doesn't disprove it because they are making the decision cynically or something.
That isn't what I am saying at all. It is racist if the minority in question is wronged solely due to his race.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
When a minority cuts someone off on the highway and that guy says the black person is an ***. That isn't racism. But if he is walking down the sidewalk and a black guys bumps into him and he is angered solely because a black man touched me, that is racism.
So the situation that we are talking about is this:
If Cain was popular because he was a good candidate who happened to be black, that's fine.
But Cain is popular solely because he is black. That's the difference. It all comes down to the reasoning. Lets make Cain popular. Because he has good ideas? No. Because he a strong candidate? No. Because he is black? Yes. That is racism.
As for the second statement, that wasn't what I was saying, but I would agree with that statement as well.
Wait, you think the GOP establishment is pushing Cain?Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
I think we need to define the 'GOP establishment', because I don't believe they ever backed Bachmann either.Quote:
EDIT: Hasn't Bachmann been polling lower than Ron Paul ever since the GOP establishment ditched her for Perry? I don't think she will be lasting another 6 months.
The establishment (party strategists, DC insiders, beltway pundits, etc) traditionally backs moderate, electable candidates with an eye on the general. They were holding their breath for Christie and then fell in line behind Romney after the former declined to run.
The people who are bouncing between the Bachmann, Perry, and Cain are the anti-establishment, Tea Party types. They believe the GOP's problem is that it doesn't run candidates that are conservative enough, and they hope to unseat the establishment 'RINOs" and replace them with more ideologically pure candidates. They're the ones that cost the GOP the senate last cycle in places like Delaware, Nevada, and Colorado.
ibogaine is one hell of a drug....or so I hear.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
Wow. Examine your argument. Consider what party advocates that the most.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
I think the only reason you're convinced of the other stuff you are saying is because of that...making a cynical advertising move is not racism and never will be.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
I take this back. It's disgusting that someone like that can even get on that stage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
I know what you are getting at and I agree with you. Problem?Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
The gaffe about the agency Perry made on stage was no worse than the horde of flubs by Bush, and he was elected. Twice. I think Perry will be the next president, unless we are someohow suggesting we Learned a Lesson last time, which will immediately be forgotten when the next offspring of a politically connected family runs.
makes you wonder if the idea proposed in this video might be true:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqI2i_fIdP0
*warning - mild offensive language used in a comedic setting - expect a couple of F bombs.
"We can go dumber".
Wow...Cain and Perry are such jokes, how are they on stage?
Also I felt like Romney didn't really know what he was talking about with the china currency manipulation stuff.
You gang will "love" this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WW_nDFKAmCo
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
He was far worse in the debate, that interview isn't as revealing because it's such a dumb format for a question.
He really doesn't give any foreign policy except "I'll get all the information from a bunch of smart people and I'll compile it and then I'll decide what to do".
But I was not trying to “top” that, this is merely the latest funny event in the Republican campaign :bow:
Personally, I find astonishing his inability to lie his way out of it and being rendered as speechless as a seven year old. No eloquence, no fast thinking from his part. Don’t get me wrong, over here we have much worse politicians; as human beings; amoral, vapid, callous. But almost to the last one they’re able to talk a Scotsman out of a penny as the Brits say. It’s the only requirement to run for elected office nowadays. But it is the one you can’t do without. You can get by without an educated opinion, but not without naturally faking it, if you allow me the oxymoron. This chap is just slow.
(emphasis mine)
This is actually an essential part of Herman Cain's success, and maybe the defining element of his campaign. I'd wager it's not so much his ability as his inclination; he simply doesn't want to dissimulate the way other politicians do. And what's wrong with that? Why should it be a requirement for politicians to be able to dissimulate their way out of nasty questions from the press?Quote:
Originally Posted by Nowake
That video is a case study in the exact opposite sort of attitude. It's easy to say that no one would pretend to be like that, but it goes further: Cain's not even bothered by his slow start-up. And it is the start-up, after the 1:15 mark he's fine and zeroes in on the key problem with Libya: the nature of the Libyan rebels we helped install. While I certainly would have preferred it without those long pauses in the beginning, I don't find this particularly troubling because once he gets rolling he gives what I'd say is a very good answer.
I get where you’re coming from. I think honesty can be seductive; in politics, you can always count upon it as the element of surprise. But I begin my train of thought from the premise that, when confronted with non-republican debaters (namely Obama) his lack of genuine concern and his pursuit of political power will show throughout, especially since his talking points coincide too much with the ones of too easily vilified pressure groups. Or at least, that is the way it will be framed and it is comfortably doable. Thus is there much hope for this strategy to pan out in the long term? It would be better to display constant intellectual confidence and wit; the current campaign lacks the display of statesmanship from the more visible candidates after all.Quote:
This is actually an essential part of Herman Cain's success, and maybe the defining element of his campaign.
Why should it be a requirement for politicians to be able to dissimulate their way out of nasty questions from the press?
As to his eventual comment on Libya, hmm, I disagree. He asserts that he does not agree with Obama insofar he would have made sure he evaluated the Libyan opposition very carefully, and then ends up by saying he doesn’t actually know the depth of the governments’ analysis on the matter. To translate, “He is my opponent so I’ll say he mishandled it at least partially, but I don’t really know what I’m talking about.” Doesn't come through at all.
Quote:
[Cain] defended his view that presidents and presidential candidates don't need to be immersed in the fine print of world affairs - they simply need to be leaders who can surround themselves with the right people and sift through their advice.
"I'm not supposed to know anything about foreign policy. Just thought I'd throw that out," he said, a dig at his critics.
:mellow:
American Republican political moves are such a fun micro cosmos nowadays.....is there anywhere else where ignorance could be played as a campaign card?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
P.S. - just remembered an example on the Democrats side: Kerry's campaign and it's downplay of his wife's international knowledge..like it was the mark of the beast or something.
The more coverage I've heard of this so-called Libya gaffe the more ridiculous it seems. I've listened to that clip again a few times, even watched the full interview, and I think he did a fine job. I have no problem with him pausing to put his thoughts in order, nor do I think it's a display of ignorance to confirm basic facts as a way to fill in the silence while you're thinking. And when he got rolling, he zeroed in on the important aspects of the quest. But that's just my opinion.
If you were look at the media, both 'mainstream' and 'conservative,' you'd think that the opposite opinion is simply a matter of fact, as if it had been confirmed by some higher authority that Herman Cain made a gaffe. But in the end that's their opinion as well, and I wish they'd recognize it. If there's one thing I've learned from this is that conservative media is capable of using the same dirty tricks as the MSM.
Well nobody can see into man's heart, so all we can do is disagree on whether his pursuit of political power is the same as other politicians'. At least I can say that there's no lack of intellectual confidence on his part (which seems to bother/amuse his detractors), and I don't mind saying I'm satisfied with his wit as well. In regards to his comments, I don't think anyone can know exactly what the government's analysis was unless they were "in the room" so to speak. So they're be no way for him to know the depth of the government's analysis. And given all the Al-Queda flags flying in Libya now, I'd say Cain's right on the money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nowake
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Hj7hVEenjY0
I guess this goes here...
Not sure what to make of Michelle Bachmann, the comic book.