Posted on 11/05/2011 3:16:26 PM PDT by blueyon
Republican 2012 presidential candidates Republican 2012 presidential candidates Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich met in a Lincoln-Douglas style debate on current economic and social issues facing the U.S.
Hank...
While they are at it, make them also do...
* Taguci
* Kazien Events
* Get their ISO 9000 Certs....
Half of them would quit rather than go through the painful changes, nevermind downsizing 40 or 50% they might self downsize. This is what the real world went through just to stay profitable and deal with Washington's insane regulations, turnabout would be fair-play at this point....
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.
Yep. That's kind of the irrefutable truth of the thing, isn't it?
Interesting that our Perry supporting friend stayed up all night posting tens of thousands of words at me, to try and convince me otherwise.
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.
LOL And here I thought I was the only person in America who saw it that way!
They don’t want vetting. I’m resigned that this will be the election where supposed conservatives will be acting as the liberals did in the past. A result of being so pompous that it couldn’t happen to them, as they are so well informed.
He's a moron with it.
Touche’.
Sorry, but I feel no obligation to read some poster's rambling, thousand word screeds. Those were articles, not posts. Better to make your point with a few pertinent facts, and link back to more in-depth research.
Here's the irrefutable truth: Cain took a company that was operating in the red to the tune of billions of dollars annually, and made it profitable again. Say what you will, but I think that's better than average performance for a CEO.
took a company that was operating in the red ...
I understand the talking points. A look at the record contradicts your assertion, but obviously you’re not interested in facts. Godfather’s Pizza situation was like many companies: way too complex to narrow down to a simplistic talking point that is accurate. Since I’m not a True Believer, I prefer to get facts on candidates.
AMEN!!! I'm excited to vote FOR Newt!
I agree with you!.
“I agree completely Cain/Gingrich is the winning ticket that will not only destroy the zero but will save our country.”
I’m tending toward the same conclusion.
“Who “won” the debate? The American people—by listening to two leaders who care deeply about the future of this great nation.”
Hoo-rah! I think we have a team ladies and gentlemen.
“They compliment each other..it’s almost uncanny.”
Yes, they seem to. And very importantly...they seem to get along well and have for some time.
“So... nobody’s allowed here who isn’t a Cain/Newt supporter?”
It’s just a no troll zone. I note that you haven’t ridden the lightning yet. Jim certainly is tolerant, isn’t he?
You just post personal opinion, bias. Not convincing.
I said I wouldn’t respond to whatever you wrote over there, and I kept my word to you.
I also owe you an apology, because at least once I said you were a Cain supporter, and in at least one response you said you were not and that was an unsupported assumption on my part.
Except everything I said I lifted from one of my several posts in the other thread where I answered this question both for you and for at least one other freeper.
And I didn't admit an error in this referenced post, I admitted I was pretty rude to you, and in the interest of comity, I apologized. It wasn't an error -- I certainly intended to be rude, which is why I apologized.
In a post in that other thread, I apologized to you for answering your posts in order, which meant I did not look for your responses until I got to them -- this isn't itself an error, but I started complaining that you weren't answering MY questions either, when you already had, so that was an error. But I apologized for that back then in the other thread. I merely mentioned in this thread that I had apologized.
On the other hand, it's pretty uncivilized to start a flame war with someone simply because you don't think they have answered a question. The reason I was rude to you in that thread was in part because you were harassing another freeper who wouldn't answer your question. I thought that was inappropriate -- not pointing out that they hadn't answered, but harrassing them until you get some answer.
I still think it was bad form to drag that discussion over here. We could have just as easily completed this over there, had you pinged me over there to say you didn't think I had answered your question yet.
I realise that wouldn't have served your purpose here.
You may have had pure motives, although given your demeanor I doubt that. But the rules of this forum are that you don't post anything defending Romney. Since that rule was established, I have followed it meticulously. There is no way I could answer your question without defending my beliefs about Romney in 2008, which would violate the rules.
And if you didn't report it, I'm sure someone would. As I do not support Romney in any way, shape or form, it would really suck to get banned for him.
Democrats and liberals get massively upset when conservatives bring up past statements and positions on issues when they become relavant.
That is not a trait unique to liberals and democrats. Cain supporters get pretty upset with me if I quote something Cain said that isn't the "latest" clarification on a subject. Or put in a more positive light, people will also get upset if they have denounced a prior opinion and others falsely accuse them of still holding that position.
Charles gets massively upset when I bring up his past statements and positions on issues when they become relavant
Actually, I have not gotten upset at all over you bringing up my past statements. I even asked you to link to them so everybody could read them, and offered my entire posting history to the thread. I have plenty to regret, but nothing to hide. I don't hide my identity, and know that the web is forever.
Note complaints over supposed ‘rules violations’ made on this very thread
That wasn't a complaint. I was NOT complaining about the rules put in place regarding Romney. I was EXPLAINING to you why I could not answer your question. I pinged Jim because they are his rules, so if you didn't like them, you could take it up with him, and so if someone later suggested I was breaking the rules, Jim would already be aware of the conversation and see that I was studious in avoiding the appearance of violating the rules he has established. Please don't suggest I complained about the rules -- I have not.
Notice also the attempt to ‘blame’ me on any number of things so far.
I preemptively blamed you for trying to get me in trouble. I apologize, because now that I have had some sleep, I once again know that I am not a mindreader, and would not know your motives. I cannot answer your question, and I have explained why. You are wrong that it has anything to do with me being upset, or that I complained about the rules or that I cite the rules to save me from answering your question.
I welcome people to look up my past statements on positions and issues and my past post history shows me making that very comment MANY times
I'm not sure what "comment" you are refering to here, so I cannot look up to see, nor do I think anything I've said would have any bearing on any prediliction on your part to make a comment repeatedly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.