Anonymous
11/15/2011 23:08
Subject: Re:Burn Cain!! Slowly. And. Surely.
Anonymous wrote:Y'all keep talking about Mr. Cain. Meanwhile, we're still kicking much ass in the Iowa polls.
Oh, you are so in denial. He's one point away from Ron Paul, with only 20% of the vote. Does that sound like kicking ass?
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-fourway-tie-20111115,0,1559119.story?track=rss
Anonymous
11/15/2011 22:01
Subject: Re:Burn Cain!! Slowly. And. Surely.
Y'all keep talking about Mr. Cain. Meanwhile, we're still kicking much ass in the Iowa polls.
Anonymous
11/15/2011 15:40
Subject: Burn Cain!! Slowly. And. Surely.
takoma wrote:Odd thing is that the part that catches the eye, the pausing, and the obvious mental thumbing through the notes, are not really the most significant part (IMO). I think the fact that when you come down to it, his one substantive statement is that he would have done a better job of assessing the opposition when, in fact, there is no available information about Obama's assessment, which is surely not something that is or should be public.
Of course, he is not the only one who plays that game; even Newt, who surely knows better, made a big fuss about how much more covert activity he would institute in Iran, when, by definition, we have no idea what covert activities are going on now. And which should surely not be telegraphed in advance by someone who might become president.
I mostly agree.
Except that the odds-on bet is that we are woefully deficient in on-the-ground intelligence. We have our Middle East people all over the map right now - Iraq, Afghanistan, a bunch of countries we won't admit to where terrorists operate. And that has to hurt. Second, we know during the most recent uprising in Iran we were complaining about lack of on-the-ground intelligence. It is probably real. Last, we had the same problem in Iran in the 70's. It's a safe bet that we did not improve things after the Shah fell.
But as for whether it is a real criticism, I'd have to reply "get us out of these fucking wars and then you will have people to devote to the countries who pose an actual threat to us".
takoma
11/15/2011 14:04
Subject: Burn Cain!! Slowly. And. Surely.
Odd thing is that the part that catches the eye, the pausing, and the obvious mental thumbing through the notes, are not really the most significant part (IMO). I think the fact that when you come down to it, his one substantive statement is that he would have done a better job of assessing the opposition when, in fact, there is no available information about Obama's assessment, which is surely not something that is or should be public.
Of course, he is not the only one who plays that game; even Newt, who surely knows better, made a big fuss about how much more covert activity he would institute in Iran, when, by definition, we have no idea what covert activities are going on now. And which should surely not be telegraphed in advance by someone who might become president.
Of course, he is not the only one who plays that game; even Newt, who surely knows better, made a big fuss about how much more covert activity he would institute in Iran, when, by definition, we have no idea what covert activities are going on now. And which should surely not be telegraphed in advance by someone who might become president.
Anonymous
11/15/2011 13:29
Subject: Burn Cain!! Slowly. And. Surely.
Anonymous wrote:Cain is just delusional. He can't even admit that the Libya clip is embarrassing. He's saying something like, it's a compliment that people are examining my pauses. There's a pattern here: When he doesn't like the way his behavior is perceived, he just pretends whatever happened, didn't. Pompous, narcissistic ass.
Precisely.
Anonymous
11/15/2011 11:34
Subject: Burn Cain!! Slowly. And. Surely.
Cain is just delusional. He can't even admit that the Libya clip is embarrassing. He's saying something like, it's a compliment that people are examining my pauses. There's a pattern here: When he doesn't like the way his behavior is perceived, he just pretends whatever happened, didn't. Pompous, narcissistic ass.
Anonymous
11/15/2011 08:43
Subject: Re:Burn Cain!! Slowly. And. Surely.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Wonder why republicans don't like Huntsman? Or Santorum? They are both way more intelligent than Cain and Perry. Further, if they do decide to settle with Romney, how much crossover support (from indepens and moderate dems) do they expect? I can't imagine too much...
Romney believes in magic underwear. Fundamental Christians aren't even okay with Mormons. America has never elected a man named "Mit" to be President of anything.
But Herm and Newt are just fine. Hmmm. BTW we don't know what he think about magic underwear.
Anonymous
11/15/2011 07:49
Subject: Re:Burn Cain!! Slowly. And. Surely.
Anonymous wrote:Wonder why republicans don't like Huntsman? Or Santorum? They are both way more intelligent than Cain and Perry. Further, if they do decide to settle with Romney, how much crossover support (from indepens and moderate dems) do they expect? I can't imagine too much...
Huntsman - too liberal, Mormon (Seriously, the former governor of Utah is too liberal for today's GOP. Utah. Bet you never thought you'd hear Utah and too liberal in the same sentence, did you? Of course the GOP's patron saint Ronald Reagan would be considered a complete squish in today's GOP and would be polling at about 5%.)
Santorum - has a chance to make some headway in the next few months. I predict he'll be the next rising star after Gingrich fades (again). He checks all the social conservative boxes, and can have a reasonably intelligent foreign policy discussion. Note - he's a completely batshit crazy social conservative who is unelectable in a general election.
Anonymous
11/15/2011 01:08
Subject: Re:Burn Cain!! Slowly. And. Surely.
Anonymous wrote:Wonder why republicans don't like Huntsman? Or Santorum? They are both way more intelligent than Cain and Perry. Further, if they do decide to settle with Romney, how much crossover support (from indepens and moderate dems) do they expect? I can't imagine too much...
Romney believes in magic underwear. Fundamental Christians aren't even okay with Mormons. America has never elected a man named "Mit" to be President of anything.
Anonymous
11/15/2011 00:21
Subject: Re:Burn Cain!! Slowly. And. Surely.
A bumbling JACKASS in a bright red tie -- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/14/herman-cain-libya-question_n_1093425.html
Anonymous
11/15/2011 00:04
Subject: Re:Burn Cain!! Slowly. And. Surely.
Wonder why republicans don't like Huntsman? Or Santorum? They are both way more intelligent than Cain and Perry. Further, if they do decide to settle with Romney, how much crossover support (from indepens and moderate dems) do they expect? I can't imagine too much...
Anonymous
11/14/2011 23:59
Subject: Burn Cain!! Slowly. And. Surely.
Anonymous wrote:Racist
I'm OP. I'm black (too). And, I'm not racist.
Anonymous
11/14/2011 22:02
Subject: Burn Cain!! Slowly. And. Surely.
Wow, I don't expect him to know the president of Uz-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan (heck I don't know who that is either) but to be foggy about what happened in Libya and about what Obama did? Wow. He's totally clueless.
"I'm Herman Cain. Make me president even though I don't have a flying f#%k what Libya is and why we were involved." He is really insulting our intelligence.
"I'm Herman Cain. Make me president even though I don't have a flying f#%k what Libya is and why we were involved." He is really insulting our intelligence.
Anonymous
11/14/2011 21:37
Subject: Burn Cain!! Slowly. And. Surely.
Pathetic. Neither he nor Perry has bothered to memorize the policy statements that have been written for them.
You almost expect them to say "is this going to be on the final?"
You almost expect them to say "is this going to be on the final?"
takoma
11/14/2011 19:15
Subject: Re:Burn Cain!! Slowly. And. Surely.