Herman Cain, "I can jump start the economy" if elected president, Rightonline 2011

Youtube ^ | 6/19/11 | Herman Cain

[C. Edmund Wright]

“......Number of jobs is an objective measurement. Obama claimed his plan would reduce the unemployment to 8%. He was wrong. His plan didn’t work....”

It is an objective measurement, WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT A PREDICTION IS SIMPLY A PREDICTION. ONLY A STATIST IDIOT THINKS SUCH THINGS CAN BE ACCURATELY PREDICTED. His plan did not work because it CANNOT work because it is socialism and never works.

“....The number of jobs is what separates a plan from bullcrap....”

That is a nonsensical statement. A prediction of this sort is bull crap, because a liberty based plan would never claim to micro manage us. That’s not what liberty does. You either believe in liberty or you don’t. You sound more and more like you do not and more and more like you want daddy government to come take care of everything and to predict exactly when it will do so. Liberty does not work that way.

Sorry, it just doesn’t.

[fwdude]

If you really are a conservative, it is highly incumbent on you to be as critical as possible in assessing a candidate's positions and philosophy. If you don't do this, you can't rightly be called a conservative.

I have said nothing to disparage Herman, but have only examined what I have HEARD him say and judged it appropriately in the light of conservative values. If that's a crime, than I guess I'm guilty.

[fwdude]

He qualified his statement and said that he woudl demand that they were willing to pledge allegiance to the US. That sharia would not be part of America.

A multitude of problems with that statement:
- Sharia IS a core belief of Islam.
- Muslims have been given a special dispensation to LIE to advance the cause of Islam. A pledge would be worthless.
- If Herman Cain isn't aware of the above two facts, his inexcusable ignorance casts serious doubt on his ability to protect this country as President.

[C. Edmund Wright]

You are only guilty of shamelessly bending context to the point to make points you are too gutless to admit you want to make. If you think Cain will appoint anyone that has anything to do with Sharia Law, you are willfully ignorant. Willfully. Ignorant.

OR, and I suspect this is the case, you are for whatever reason anti-Cain (and that’s your right) and are pretending to be this great objective observer while you prostitute context to beyond recognition to support your “objective” analysis.

Nice try though.

[fwdude]

If we can’t believe a candidates WORDS, what can we believe?

[C. Edmund Wright]

‘....If we can’t believe a candidates WORDS, what can we believe?....”

You’re kidding again, right?
How about, for starters: logic, history, a candidate’s life, a candidate’s track record, common sense, economics 101, human nature.

Or, you could just invest in a candidate’s words and ignore all of the other.

[ex-snook]

I want to measure one plan against another. That’s good business practice. Plan your work, work your plan and measure results. Hope isn’t a plan nor is political or economic theory.

[Servant of the Cross]

If we can’t believe a candidates WORDS ...

However, you have taken Herman Cain's words and 'shamelessly bent and prostituted their context' to slander him.

Herman Cain is as pro-life, anti-homosexual agenda and anti-Jihadist as anyone running for the 2012 GOP POTUS nomination. He's gotten in 'PC trouble' on each of these issues and has not backed down.

[fwdude]

Herman Cain is as pro-life, anti-homosexual agenda and anti-Jihadist as anyone running for the 2012 GOP POTUS nomination.

That could all well be so. but his obvious inability to communicate these qualities to some potential voters through his words is a serious flaw. And miscommunicate he definitely has! Otherwise, we wouldn't be having these discussions.

[C. Edmund Wright]

“....I want to measure one plan against another. That’s good business practice. Plan your work, work your plan and measure results....”

If you need a “prediction” of jobs as a way of measuring one plan against another, then you must lack core economic convictions. I guess you were surprised that Obama’s plan did not keep UE at 8% with the stim bill.

I hate to break it to you, but I, and almost everyone else here, could have told you it wouldn’t do it. Why you are obsessed with a specific prediction is just almost comical. Good day.

[ex-snook]

"I hate to break it to you, but I, and almost everyone else here, could have told you it wouldn’t do it. Why you are obsessed with a specific prediction is just almost comical. Good day."

Obviously, if a candidate can't determine how his plan would change the unemployment rate [and all who agree with that boob bait for the bubbas] are just political charlatans who want to duck responsibility for their positions. Good Day to you too.

[UCANSEE2]

Again, for the learning challenged, "advance" means to move a bill forward into law. The signing of a bill by the President advances this process.

Accepted. But what does that have to do with Cain not ADVANCING the bill, because of a legal issue?

You seem to be IMPLYING that CAIN should just have signed off/voted for the bill even though he disagreed with the legal wording in the bill, BECAUSE it was a bill whose issue he supported.

Isn't THAT exactly how we got INTO THIS MESS in the first place? Our elected officials either NOT READING or IGNORING what was in a bill, because the bill was one that they liked and wanted in place.

Are you saying CAIN should have ignored what he thought was a conflict of law, because only the GOAL is important, not the MEANS?.

Let me know if this isn't clear, I'll explain it as many times as you require.

Oh, it's quite clear. You had made up your mind (before having the facts given by other posters in response) that CAIN must be GUILTY of SOMETHING if he didn't vote FOR the bill. It wouldn't matter if it was this, or something else.

Goody two goody two goody goody two shoes
Goody two goody two goody goody two shoes
Don't drink don't smoke - what do you do
Don't drink don't smoke - what do you do
Subtle innuendos follow
There must be something he's hiding

[Munz]

I am aware of these things and *BECAUSE* of the way that Cain handled this I think he is as well.

That is why he said at first he wouldn’t allow them to be on his staff then recanted. because he KNOWS that they can’t really meet the standard.