Can anyone come up with a good reason why Herman Cain would not be a great president in 2012?

[CatholicCrusader]

Krugman is a boob.

I love your deep, and not superficial at all, economic argument against him. :sarcastic

I am from the "Less Is More" school of thought.

 

[linwood]

We don't need tanks in the street like in Egypt.

If we keep electing people like this guy our children may very well see those tanks in the street.

 

[CatholicCrusader]

We don't need tanks in the street like in Egypt.

If we keep electing people like this guy our children may very well see those tanks in the street.

I am new in the conversation. You mean like Obama? If so, I agree.
But the election of Obama is a symptom of something far worse in our culture. The idea that so many people still worship him after everything he has revealed himself to be says more about much of our population than it does about Obama.

 

[linwood]

I am new in the conversation. You mean like Obama? If so, I agree.

Pretending to misunderstand my simple straightforward statement in order to twist it to be "cute" ....... isn`t.

Mark my words, the middle class will not stand for the abuse the conservatives are pummeling it with for an entire generation.

I agree with Lavas earlier statement in this thread.
We may indeed need another revolution...I hope not but it may be necessary.

 

[Mister Emu]

We may indeed need another revolution...I hope not but it may be necessary.

You know conservatives will win any revolution we have

 

[YmirGF]

I think Cain blew it with his anti-Muslim rhetoric. I'm more inclined to go with a Palin/West ticket.
That said, I don't think they would win, but it would be worth it just to see the Liberal Left collectively explode in horror ala
"[youtube]0x1j1BxL1-I[/youtube]
Scanners".

 

[Darkness]

I am from the "Less Is More" school of thought.

Haha... good come back. I am a Krugmanite Disciple, so I will defend him to the end.

I am new in the conversation. You mean like Obama? If so, I agree.
But the election of Obama is a symptom of something far worse in our culture. The idea that so many people still worship him after everything he has revealed himself to be says more about much of our population than it does about Obama.

As a leftist, it is my opinion that President Obama has revealed himself to be a centre-right politician, not a transformative left-wing President.

 

[YmirGF]

As a leftist, it is my opinion that President Obama has revealed himself to be a centre-right politician, not a transformative left-wing President.

I see him more as a centre-Wrongist, myself.

 

[CatholicCrusader]

I am new in the conversation. You mean like Obama? If so, I agree.
But the election of Obama is a symptom of something far worse in our culture. The idea that so many people still worship him after everything he has revealed himself to be says more about much of our population than it does about Obama.

Pretending to misunderstand my simple straightforward statement in order to twist it to be "cute" ....... isn`t.

Mark my words, the middle class will not stand for the abuse the conservatives are pummeling it with for an entire generation......<snip>

I was not "Pretending to misunderstand."

But to your point.... ...well, your point is pure nonsense. Conservatives stand for small government (like the Founding Fathers did), for traditional familiy and traditional values. The notion that somehow all of a sudden those things are bad is ridiculous. The idea that somehow the new-fangled moralities of murdering children in their mothers' wombs, homosexual marriage and massive government that borders on tyranny is somehow good is 100% insane. In fact, I contend that anyone who embraces those things has a hidden agenda of actually wanting to see America destroyed - and many people do, which is no secret.

We need to return to our roots, not rip up and dismantle those roots.

 

[CatholicCrusader]

I think Cain blew it with his anti-Muslim rhetoric......<snip>

Right. How dare he insult a religion that covers their women up in sheets, stones them to death for sex, treats everyone like its the stone age, and teaches its children to make Jihad on the Infidel. That Cain just ain't right, it is so obviously a religion of peace. <rolls eyes>

I mean, we really need to go after those Buddhists and Lutherans and stuff: They blow up WAY more buildings and do WAY more terrorists acts than the Muslims do, right?

 

[Darkness]

I was not "Pretending to misunderstand."

But to your point.... ...well, your point is pure nonsense. Conservatives stand for small government (like the Founding Fathers did), for traditional familiy and traditional values. The notion that somehow all of a sudden those things are bad is ridiculous. The idea that somehow the new-fangled moralities of murdering children in their mothers' wombs, homosexual marriage and massive government that borders on tyranny is somehow good is 100% insane. In fact, I contend that anyone who embraces those things has a hidden agenda of actually wanting to see America destroyed - and many people do, which is no secret.

We need to return to out roots, not rip up and dismantle those roots.

First of all, it is simply wrong to say that the Founding Fathers stood for limited government. In their day and age, many of the Fathers, such as George Washington and Alexander Hamilton were seen as big government advocates. The Federalists were pro-big-government and the anti-Federalists were against big-government. Secondly, it is absurd to state that, say, destroying a small collection of cells through an emergency contraceptive is anything akin to murder. A few-celled organism is not a person. If so, God is the greatest murderer of all, since 50-70 per cent of conceptions end in natural abortions.

Thirdly, give me a rational argument against same-sex marriage. Everyone I have met who is anti-gay has not been able to give a logical reason to be opposed to it. Being anti-gay is essentially the same as being a racist. It is bigotry all the same. Fourthly, your perceptions of what conservatives are all about it wrong. Traditional conservatives are not against government, nor even big government. Conservatives are all about localism and following tradition. You are confusing conservatism without conservative liberalism (the ideology of the Republican Party). Edmund Burke, who I respect greatly, argued that reform is preferable to revolution. In that tradition, I would argue that same-sex marriage is acceptable in a conservative framework, because it is a minor reform to the institution of marriage (just as monogamy was a minor reform on the polygamy arrangement predominate in the ancient days). It is thus that some conservative support same-sex marriage. Remember, following tradition does not mean that we must be slaves to it. Rather that we must respect it and slowly build upon it. Same-sex marriage is a slow evolution, built upon traditional marriage.

Lastly, I love how arrogant you are to tell me that I secretly want to destroy America. I want to reform the United States, not see it destroyed. The history of America has been a work in progress: the granting of citizenship after the civil war to African Americans, the right of women to vote and the Civil Rights Act. So, I have to ask, what does it mean to follow tradition? If it is not in the slowly evolutionary sense that Burke advocated, then how does it operate? Can we every change any laws and rules? Should we abolish the Civil Rights Act and repeal the Right of Women to vote?

 

[CatholicCrusader]

First of all, it is simply wrong to say that the Founding Father stood for limited government......<snip>

That's a joke, right?

 

[Revoltingest]

Some of the founders were big gov't types, but the consensus (as borne out in the USSC) was for limited gov't.
I'm glad they prevailed at the time, but it looks to be a losing battle. Gov't at all levels is a malignant thing.

 

[CatholicCrusader]

Some of the founders were big gov't types, but the consensus (as borne out in the USSC) was for limited gov't.

Sounds accurate.

 

[Darkness]

Right. How dare he insult a religion that covers their women up in sheets, stones them to death for sex, treats everyone like its the stone age, and teaches its children to make Jihad on the Infidel. That Cain just ain't right, it is so obviously a religion of peace. <rolls eyes>

Likewise, will you hold Christianity (and Catholicism in particular) to account for the Crusades, the Inquisition and the deaths of countless innocences? Would you like me to hold Christianity accountable for the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda, which rapes children? You cast too wide a net. Much of Islam is regressive and conservative. There is much to criticise. However, not all practitioners of Islam support those beliefs. Many Muslims' version of Islam is a religion of peace. I guess these Bosniaks are wearing the Burqa and do not know it. Maybe a reversal of the emperor without any clothes.

I mean, we really need to go after those Buddhists and Lutherans and stuff: They blow up WAY more buildings and do WAY more terrorists acts than the Muslims do, right?

Nothing like holding an entire group of people accountable for the actions of a few. Hey, I have an idea! Let's hold all Catholics accountable for the actions of the Irish Republican Army. Now that Usama Bin Ladin is dead, we need a new group of people to fear and hate. And guess what, the majority of illegal immigrants to this country are... *gasp*... Roman Catholic!