Herman Cain: Liberals Want to Destroy America

[dust1n]

Seems more like they both favor the constitution, but have different interpretations of it.

What I want to know is why they can't simply take the best of both ideologies and combine them.

I don't many of either who have actually even read it, let alone invested time to understand it.

 

[dust1n]

Somebody is having a great deal of fun talking to themselves over here.

G'night.

Honestly, it's tedious. BTW, I'm addressing all the people I quoted. I know it may seem like "I'm talking to myself" when you are too baffled by basic language to ever coherently reply to people (and not just me), but really it's just a reflection of your uselessness in a discussion. This is why you will never actually reply to any text I provide in response to your dribble, as legitimate feedback or contribute to anything great in your life. HooRay.

 

[dust1n]

So, I was watching Meet the Press this morning, and was quite shocked to learn that Herman Cain believes that the objective of liberals is to destroy this country.

Really, Mr. Cain?

I mean, I completely understand if you believe that the policies that liberals pursue will destroy this country, or are destroying this country. But it is a different thing all together to claim that the destruction of this country is their purpose.

So much for civil discourse and attempt at understanding.

I saw a few posts about this discussion, but I've become all too familiar with the discourse of an RF thread. In reply to the topics of the OP: Herman Cain a rich black man who, like, makes a lot of pizzas indirectly, and is a mouth piece with the connotation as being a rich black man to trick the public, and [he's] a tool by much richer men of all sorts of race who help set him by setting up media events and giving him gifts to be their rich black mouth piece, which, not surprisingly, uses the same meaningless, double-crossing rhetoric you'd expect anytime from basically anyone who is trying to improve their public imagine.

 

[Shermana]

For such a tool of the Rich, he's barely got less than 1.5 million (about 3 million raised) to work with in his campaign chest, much of it his own personal funds. You'd think the Koch brothers would have funneled him more funds by now. Calling his ideas "meaningless rhetoric" is meaningless rhetoric.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Electi...-the-money-but-Herman-Cain-has-9-9-9-momentum

And of course, Obama's not a tool for the rich with his 70 million he's "earned" so far. He would never trick the public of course.

And of course, they took out the word "Economically" to save space and ink, because they had no other words they could have replaced, and it was for "limited attention spans". I guess you admit that their intended audience have limited attention spans. I agree.

 

[Kathryn]

Somebody is having a great deal of fun talking to themselves over here.

G'night.

Somebody doesn't know how to respond to more than one quote at a time, apparently.

Honestly, it's tedious. BTW, I'm addressing all the people I quoted. I know it may seem like "I'm talking to myself" when you are too baffled by basic language to ever coherently reply to people (and not just me), but really it's just a reflection of your uselessness in a discussion. This is why you will never actually reply to any text I provide in response to your dribble, as legitimate feedback or contribute to anything great in your life. HooRay.

LOL if you think it's tedious writing it out, you oughtta try reading it.

Why don't you use multiple quotes in one response - like this response you're reading?

I mean, I know it takes a bit more effort but most things of better quality do.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's a stupid question anyways.

I vigorously disagree. The simple fact that politicians, economists & lefties tout the benefits of stimulus & bail-outs without
subtracting the costs is a big reason this runaway freight train is heading over the falls. (Like my mixed metaphor?) It's much
like the cry, "We need more banking regulation!". Little thought is given to the consequences of such new restrictions, so now
we not only have capital becoming less available for new loans, but we also have existing loans being sent to foreclosure because
we borrowers don't qualify for the money we already borrowed. What sense does it make to prevent banks form working with
customers to mutually maximize rates of return?

 

[dust1n]

For such a tool of the Rich, he's barely got less than 1.5 million (about 3 million raised) to work with in his campaign chest, much of it his own personal funds. You'd think the Koch brothers would have funneled him more funds by now. Calling his ideas "meaningless rhetoric" is meaningless rhetoric.

LOL. So he's a cheap tool.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/President/2011/1015/Rick-Perry-has-the-money-but-Herman-Cain-has-9-9-9-momentum

What, was I suppose find something other than meaningless rhetoric here?

[/quote]And of course, Obama's not a tool for the rich with his 70 million he's "earned" so far. He would never trick the public of course.[/quote]

You be barkin' up the wrong tree.

And of course, they took out the word "Economically" to save space and ink, because they had no other words they could have replaced, and it was for "limited attention spans". I guess you admit that their intended audience have limited attention spans. I agree.

Even CSM has a high school reading level.

 

[dust1n]

LOL if you think it's tedious writing it out, you oughtta try reading it.

Then don't read it.

Why don't you use multiple quotes in one response - like this response you're reading?

Because I didn't know when or how many times I would be responding and to whom and when I do that, there is a heavy chance I will mess up cutting and pasting, backing and forwarding, and waste effort. Do it too often. The response I'm ready isn't attempting to respond to 20 separate posts.

[/quote] I mean, I know it takes a bit more effort but most things of better quality do.[/quote]

Oh well.

 

[dust1n]

I vigorously disagree. The simple fact that politicians, economists & lefties tout the benefits of stimulus & bail-outs without
subtracting the costs is a big reason this runaway freight train is heading over the falls. (Like my mixed metaphor?) It's much
like the cry, "We need more banking regulation!". Little thought is given to the consequences of such new restrictions, so now
we not only have capital becoming less available for new loans, but we also have existing loans being sent to foreclosure because
we borrowers don't qualify for the money we already borrowed. What sense does it make to prevent banks form working with
customers to mutually maximize rates of return?

Well, I meant in the sense that the question was loaded and one-sided. It was basically a rhetorical question.

No disagreement involving corporate bailouts.

 

[Revoltingest]

Because I didn't know when or how many times I would be responding and to whom and when I do that, there is a heavy chance I will mess up cutting and pasting, backing and forwarding, and waste effort.

"A man's got to know his limitations." Harry Callahan

 

[Majikthise]

Honestly, it's tedious. BTW, I'm addressing all the people I quoted. I know it may seem like "I'm talking to myself" when you are too baffled by basic language to ever coherently reply to people (and not just me), but really it's just a reflection of your uselessness in a discussion. This is why you will never actually reply to any text I provide in response to your dribble, as legitimate feedback or contribute to anything great in your life. HooRay.

Is english your second language?

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, I meant in the sense that the question was loaded and one-sided. It was basically a rhetorical question.

Well, I'm the one asking, & I know for certain that I'm not being rhetorical.

No disagreement involving corporate bailouts.

Woo hoo!
Let'm fail!

 

[dust1n]

Well, I'm the one asking, & I know for certain that I'm not being rhetorical.

I know you weren't. The question I was originally addressing that you replied to was rhetorical.

Woo hoo!
Let'm fail!

They pulled it off in Thailand and South Korea and eventually America.

When people gonna realize that bailouts for companies only prevent rich people from defaulting on dangerous short term speculation, leaving citizens to foot the bill?

Too big to fail? Where's FDR? Too big to exist.

 

[dust1n]

Is english your second language?

Nah, but disrespectful, empty one-liners is, so you might have to slow down a bit for me.

 

[Alceste]

This gives me an idea! If they took less in taxes, it could stay in the economy all along.
We'd be less dependent on government then.
Alas, that would cut their power...& what politician wants that?

Public spending is PART OF the economy. So, your idea has already been implemented: The money government collects and allocates through taxation is in the economy at all times. It's only the money the rich put in their big vaults to roll around in naked that is "removed from the economy".

 

[Alceste]

Jeez, just finished reading the whole thread. What is this, troll Dust1n day? Is it too much trouble to come up with a rebuttal to a couple of his points?

It doesn't do the image of American conservatism any favours for the bulk of American conservatives to be incapable of debating ideas rather than simply attacking thinkers.

 

[dust1n]

Jeez, just finished reading the whole thread. What is this, troll Dust1n day? Is it too much trouble to come up with a rebuttal to a couple of his points?

It doesn't do the image of American conservatism any favours for the bulk of American conservatives to be incapable of debating ideas rather than simply attacking thinkers.

Haha, aw. I'm use to it.

 

[Revoltingest]

Public spending is PART OF the economy. So, your idea has already been implemented: The money government collects and allocates through taxation is in the economy at all times.

The point is that they aren't really stimulating the economy if there's no net change in how much money is circulating.
government claims that what it spends is added, without subtracting what is taken (either by taxation, currency dilution or borrowing).

 

[Copernicus]

The point is that they aren't really stimulating the economy if there's no net change in how much money is circulating.
government claims that what it spends is added, without subtracting what is taken (either by taxation, currency dilution or borrowing).

Alceste was right. There is a net change in how much money is circulating when there is capital growth. The superwealthy are like monetary vacuum cleaners. They suck huge amounts of money out of the economy, which they do not reinvest in job-growing activities. They simply do not consume enough to make a dent in demand, which is one of the factors that drives economic growth. The government (if it is doing its job right) spends money on job growth when the economy is weak or in recession.

 

[T-Dawg]

Public spending is PART OF the economy. So, your idea has already been implemented: The money government collects and allocates through taxation is in the economy at all times. It's only the money the rich put in their big vaults to roll around in naked that is "removed from the economy".

Is that actually what the rich do with their money?

I was always wondering what someone could possibly do with billions of dollars...