Cain is driving them nuts!

[CCTAU]

He just won''t go down. They keep throwing anything against the wall trying to get it to stick.

Herman Cain is defending himself from sexual harassment allegations, but that didn't stop him from joking about Anita Hill, the college professor who made similar allegations against Clarence Thomas during his Supreme Court nomination hearings 20 years ago.

A Fox News camera captured Cain laughing about Hill during a campaign stop in Kalamazoo, Mich., Thursday, when a supporter brought up the professor's name.

"You hear the latest news today? Anita Hill is going to come …" a man told Cain, the conclusion of his statement muffled by the crowd.

"Is she going to endorse me?" Cain joked, as he and the crowd laughed heartily.

You can watch the video here, courtesy Fox News.

Cain insisted Friday he wasn't trying to insult Hill.

"We walked into this room and ... one of my supporters said, 'Anita Hill was trying to contact you' and my response was, 'Is she going to endorse me?'" Cain told New York Post columnist Fred Dicker, per Politico. "He said it in a humorous way. I gave a humorous response."

Cain continues to fend off allegations that he sexually harassed four women when he was head of the National Restaurant Association in the 1990s.

Cain came under fire again Wednesday for making a condescending remark about House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, when he referred to her as "Princess Nancy" during a Republican presidential debate in Michigan. He later admitted he "probably shouldn't have" made the comment.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/herman-cain-caught-camera-joking-anita-hill-165414641.html

[djsimp]

I thought that was pretty funny. I know Cain should probably be more aware of the rats in the corner but damn, he is still a human being. Any person with common sense knows that the only reason why this shit is out there is because Cain is a serious contender.

In other news, Gingrich is gaining some ground it seems.

[Kaos]

In other news, Gingrich is gaining some ground it seems.

I hope not.  Fail of all fails.  No chance in hell of bumping off The Exalted One.

[djsimp]

I hope not.  Fail of all fails.  No chance in hell of bumping off The Exalted One.

Well it came as a surprise to me. I'm not real sure the depth of this though for I just scanned over the article.
As much some don't like his style and some of the shit he has done, I do think that he needs to be in the Republican cabinet somewhere dealing with the financial shit storm this country has been facing.

[Token]

I love Herman Cain, but I'm becoming worried that he's too good to be true.

While Cain maintained he was against torture, he said he would call on the "judgment of our military leaders to determine what is torture and what is not torture." Cain says he does not consider waterboarding to be torture - and instead called it an "enhanced interrogation technique."

[GarMan]

I love Herman Cain, but I'm becoming worried that he's too good to be true.

Hush yo mouf!  This is one of the few times that we have a regular guy running for the office.  His personal values and beliefs align with many, for a change. 

[GH2001]

Hush yo mouf!  This is one of the few times that we have a regular guy running for the office.  His personal values and beliefs align with many, for a change.

THIS.

And I hate to say this but Gingrich sounds better than he did 6 months ago. I still would rather him be a cabinet member/economic advisor but would take either of these guys over Romney/Perry.

[AUChizad]

This is why "regular guys you want to have a beer with" is not criteria for President.



And this is seriously his response.

http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/herman-cain-on-his-libya-gaffe-999/62frged

 

Do you guys really think this guy will out-debate Obama? Until Republicans drop this infatuation with "regular Joe's" (aka dumbasses who are unqualified for the office of President of the United States, aka Sarah Palin, Rick Perry), they will continue to lose popular elections.

Sadly, Jon Huntsman and to a larger degree Gary Johnson, have never once been considered legitimate candidates, while dispshits continue to shuffle in and out of the frontrunner position.

Of those that are even hovering near the top of the polls, Romney is the only candidate with a snowball's chance in hell of winning over the general population.

Don't shoot the messenger.

[AUChizad]

I should say that of all the "serious" contenders, Gingrich is probably the only one eloquent enough to out-debate Obama.

Personally, I'm still not a fan. Comes across as a crotchety old asshole.

[GH2001]

I should say that of all the "serious" contenders, Gingrich is probably the only one eloquent enough to out-debate Obama.

Personally, I'm still not a fan. Comes across as a crotchety old asshole.

For the record, there's no probably. Gingrich would rip Obama's asshole out in a debate and there would be carnage. It wouldnt even be close. Blood on walls, body bags.....bad scene.

[Kaos]

This is why "regular guys you want to have a beer with" is not criteria for President.



And this is seriously his response.

http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/herman-cain-on-his-libya-gaffe-999/62frged

 

Do you guys really think this guy will out-debate Obama? Until Republicans drop this infatuation with "regular Joe's" (aka dumbasses who are unqualified for the office of President of the United States, aka Sarah Palin, Rick Perry), they will continue to lose popular elections.

Sadly, Jon Huntsman and to a larger degree Gary Johnson, have never once been considered legitimate candidates, while dispshits continue to shuffle in and out of the frontrunner position.

Of those that are even hovering near the top of the polls, Romney is the only candidate with a snowball's chance in hell of winning over the general population.

Don't shoot the messenger.

Don't be an elitist. 

I'm telling you that anybody who is intelligent enough to take a struggling business and turn it around, anybody who has the guts and determination to make his own way in the world like Cain has? 

He can fix bigger shit too. 

For all of Obama's "debate prowess" what the fiddling fuck has he done?  Who gives a FUCK how well Obama debates?  The question is can the empty shirt back up his words with action.  Answer?  Resounding No. 

Cain has.  And can. 

I like the fact that he doesn't have some glib, scripted response and doesn't know the answer, frankly.  Why?  Because in a situation where he is presented with the facts, has everything in front of him, I trust him to make the right decision based on what he's given more than I do some carefully polished fuck who runs poll numbers before deciding which direction he should take. 

I APPLAUD his lack of knowledge. 

BTW?  George Wallace thinks you're insane. 

[AUTiger1]

I should say that of all the "serious" contenders, Gingrich is probably the only one eloquent enough to out-debate Obama.

Personally, I'm still not a fan. Comes across as a crotchety old asshole.

Do you honestly think that was his serious response?  I watched it and thought it was him being an asshole to the guy asking the question b/c he had probably heard that question too many times before and was tired of it. 

Could you imagine a a Lincoln/Douglas debate format for Newt and Obama?   I am positive that Obama really wouldn't want to debate with Newt.  He would get his ass handed to him pretty bad. 

As someone who used to teach Social Sciences.......it would almost be "fap worthy". 

[Saniflush]

Until Republicans drop this infatuation with "regular Joe's" (aka dumbasses who are unqualified for the office of President of the United States, aka Sarah Palin, Rick Perry), they will continue to lose popular elections.

You mean like community organizer's?

[CCTAU]

You mean like community organizer's?

Nah. It has to be a lawyer. They are qualified!

[AUChizad]

I like the fact that he doesn't have some glib, scripted response and doesn't know the answer, frankly.  Why?  Because in a situation where he is presented with the facts, has everything in front of him, I trust him to make the right decision based on what he's given more than I do some carefully polished fuck who runs poll numbers before deciding which direction he should take. 

I APPLAUD his lack of knowledge. 

Seriously?

Let's break down what we saw there:

"Do you agree with President Obama on Libya or not?"

"Ok, Libya...(long pause)...President Obama...supported...the uprising...correct? Just wanted to make sure we're talking about the same thing before I say yes I agreed, or no I didn't agree."

Ok, first of all, if you're running for President, you should be more up on foreign policy than I am. We're not talking about some obscure foreign policy question about applying the Mahanian theory to Pyongyang. We're talking about the fucking War with Libya, and whether or not he agreed with the President's stance. Poll 10 random people off the street, and 9 of them will have a more coherent answer than that. And he's stalling like it's a spelling bee and he's asking to use it in a sentence and the etymological origin.

"I do not agree with the way he handled it for the following reason.......nope, that's a different one."

"A different one"?!?!? what the fuck is he talking about? A different "glib, scripted response" as Kaos puts it? "Oh, I thought of an answer, but it was in case you asked me about Italy's economy..."

"(Longer pause)Um...(mumbles)I gotta go back...see..uh...got all this stuff twirlin around in my head...Specifically, what are you asking about did I agree or disagree with?"

"Craig was asking you about the Bush foreign policy, so I was taking a specific example from the Obama administration that was controversial within his own administration on what he should have done or not done, and I was wondering if you agreed with what he did or if you would have responded differently. You know, it's an issue that has come up since you've been running, and I was wondering how you would have handled it.

"Here's what I would have done...I would have done a better job of determining who the opposition is. And I'm sure that our intelligence people had that information. Based upon who made up that opposition, might have caused me to make some decisions about how we participated. Secondly, no I do not agree with Qadaffi killing his citizens. Absolutely, I did not. So something had to...I would have supported many of the things that they did in order to help stop that. It's not a simple yes/no because there are different pieces, and I would have gone about assessing the situation differently, which might have caused us to end up in the same place. But where I think more could have been done was, what’s the nature of the opposition?"

So in other words "I know that it is my party's stance that I have to be completely contrarian to everything Obama does, so I would have done something different, I assure you. Specifically...well...I agree Qadaffi is bad...and...yeah, I might have done the exact same thing...but I would have assessed it, which I'm sure he did...but I just would have done it differently. We would have ended up at the same place, but he did it wrong, and I would have done it right."

"Many Republicans supported and congratulated him for how he handled that. You would not have been among that group?"

"I'm not criticizing him, I'm just saying, I just don't think enough was done, relative to assessing the opposition, before everything...you know...exploded, that's what I'm saying. (More rambling)"

Ok...

Then it's all more fail from there about how he "would have assessed the situation" as if the President just threw a dart at a map and was like "Let's bomb that shit."

[AUChizad]

You mean like community organizer's?

Or like a state legislator and U.S. Senator.

[Kaos]

Or like a state legislator and U.S. Senator.

Not real jobs. 

Which one of those is responsible for his own welfare?  Which one of those creates or produces something of value?  Which one of those must rely on their own ability to earn a living? 

Fail. 

[CCTAU]

I don't really give a shit about Libya in any terms except how it affects us financially. The next guy I vote for president will be the one who says not shit mattes except getting the USA back on solid financial footing. Everything else is a non-starter.

If someone attacks the US or goes against boundaries that have been set, bomb them. Do not send troops. Bomb them. Have them spend too much time digging out of the rubble to push the envelope. Stay at home and bomb them.

Feed our own before we feed others. Loosen the noose around businesses' necks. Get the slugs off welfare.

Cain is not running on foreign policy. He is running on getting the business of the US back on track. There are plenty of advisors to get the right information if a foreign issue comes up.

The only qualification for being a president is that you must have common sense enough to not be controlled by those who are already part of the machine. Cain fits this bill easily.

[Kaos]

Seriously?

Let's break down what we saw there:

"Do you agree with President Obama on Libya or not?"

"Ok, Libya...(long pause)...President Obama...supported...the uprising...correct? Just wanted to make sure we're talking about the same thing before I say yes I agreed, or no I didn't agree."

Ok, first of all, if you're running for President, you should be more up on foreign policy than I am. We're not talking about some obscure foreign policy question about applying the Mahanian theory to Pyongyang. We're talking about the fucking War with Libya, and whether or not he agreed with the President's stance. Poll 10 random people off the street, and 9 of them will have a more coherent answer than that. And he's stalling like it's a spelling bee and he's asking to use it in a sentence and the etymological origin.

"I do not agree with the way he handled it for the following reason.......nope, that's a different one."

"A different one"?!?!? what the fuck is he talking about? A different "glib, scripted response" as Kaos puts it? "Oh, I thought of an answer, but it was in case you asked me about Italy's economy..."

"(Longer pause)Um...(mumbles)I gotta go back...see..uh...got all this stuff twirlin around in my head...Specifically, what are you asking about did I agree or disagree with?"

"Craig was asking you about the Bush foreign policy, so I was taking a specific example from the Obama administration that was controversial within his own administration on what he should have done or not done, and I was wondering if you agreed with what he did or if you would have responded differently. You know, it's an issue that has come up since you've been running, and I was wondering how you would have handled it.

"Here's what I would have done...I would have done a better job of determining who the opposition is. And I'm sure that our intelligence people had that information. Based upon who made up that opposition, might have caused me to make some decisions about how we participated. Secondly, no I do not agree with Qadaffi killing his citizens. Absolutely, I did not. So something had to...I would have supported many of the things that they did in order to help stop that. It's not a simple yes/no because there are different pieces, and I would have gone about assessing the situation differently, which might have caused us to end up in the same place. But where I think more could have been done was, what’s the nature of the opposition?"

So in other words "I know that it is my party's stance that I have to be completely contrarian to everything Obama does, so I would have done something different, I assure you. Specifically...well...I agree Qadaffi is bad...and...yeah, I might have done the exact same thing...but I would have assessed it, which I'm sure he did...but I just would have done it differently. We would have ended up at the same place, but he did it wrong, and I would have done it right."

"Many Republicans supported and congratulated him for how he handled that. You would not have been among that group?"

"I'm not criticizing him, I'm just saying, I just don't think enough was done, relative to assessing the opposition, before everything...you know...exploded, that's what I'm saying. (More rambling)"

Ok...

Then it's all more fail from there about how he "would have assessed the situation" as if the President just threw a dart at a map and was like "Let's bomb that shit."

None of that bothers me. 

When you run a business your job is to take information that's put in front of you, assess it, make a decision and move on to the next one. 

Asking him a nebulous question about how Obama handled Libya and expecting him to rattle off responses like some trained political seal (as with all the others) says nothing about his ability to make decisions.

I would have preferred that he said "There are so many issues domestic and foreign that we, as candidates, must consider that keeping the specifics of each separated and on the tip of your tongue is a difficult proposition.  Before I can answer that specifically I'd need to have the same information available to the President and at this stage of the game I don't.  I'm glad that the dictator was removed, but I can't speak to the specific method in which the US responded without full knowledge of the facts on both sides."

And in his own "I'm being forced to give an answer" way, that's pretty much what he said. 

I liked it. 

[GH2001]

You mean like community organizer's?

If Sarah Palin is dumb, what does that make Joe Biden considering she ripped him apart in their only debate? 

People seem to be overlooking how dumb Biden is and how inexperienced and naive Obama was/is.

I guess they get a free pass since they align with the mainstream ideology. But yeah Herman Cain, what a dumbass. He could never successfully run a corporation or a busin...wait...what?