I noticed that you sent your last voluminous post at 4:17 AM CST. The one prior to that was at 3:47 AM. Why? Why are you staying up all night battering your keyboard to smithereens over this? Are you really that invested in trying to save Rick Perry from himself?
I hope you don't think I'm going to read all that. It's not communication. It's bludgeoning with text. Those are articles, not forum posts. Put 'em up on a blog and see if you can build an audience.
Too bad you didn’t read it. The research backs up the assertion that Cain was, at best, an average CEO. There’s a talking point that Cain was some superstar CEO, which he clearly wasn’t. That doesn’t lessen his resume, but just sheds additional light on his ACTUAL accomplishments, not his campaign back story. A man with no political record has nothing but rhetoric and a work background. Vetting is good.
I realize people disagree regarding the "factuallness" of what I say. But I care about the truth, which is why I both ask people to point out exactly what they think is wrong in what I post, and why I spend so much time explaining my position when my facts are questioned -- because if I've made a mistake, I want to know about it and correct it. I want to make my own informed decision about a candidate. I don't "love" any candidate, nor am I related to any candidate, which means I'm not "invested" in any candidate.
In that regard, I did appreciate your bringing up the profit question. That was the type of thing which could change my argument. I was short with you about that last night, and I apologize -- I had already been through that before, so it wasn't in fact new to me, but you would have no way of knowing and it was a helpful addition to the evidence pool.
Anyway, to summarize -- you may read or not read. Another freeper was questioned as to their statement that Cain's CEO'ship wasn't as hot as some say, and I held a similar view, and stated that view. I was questioned as to the facts I stated, and as to whether I had taken into account other measurements, so I offered a detailed response showing what I had taken into consideration. As I have taken a lot into consideration, the resulting post was very long. I thank you for your interest, and for helping me seek the truth.
OK, I tried so hard to be succinct there that I cut off my own post.
I am trying to do three things for Perry: 1) correct factual misrepresentations. 2) put the real issues people have with a few of his actions in context. 3) Dissuade people from abandoning Perry simply because his poll numbers are low.
I’ve got no beef with people who don’t want Perry. Everybody has to make their own choices. I think we could do that without all the snide comments and childish namecalling, but whatever. I do want people to make that decision with the best evidence available. Thats a much for me as anybody. When someone posts something negative about a candidate, I go research it. If it’s true, I want to know; if it is false, or just misleading, I need to know that as well, and feel others should also care.
So I have a particular disdain for posters who attack me when I try to correct something I see as wrong, by telling me Perry is toast so I’m hurting people by defending him (not you — just a random observation).