Meet the real Herman Cain

[Prometheus]

Prometheus,

Can you cite a reference or present the original information that shows he did as accused? Not saying he didn't, but the article is short on proof. I have been in a leadership position in several organizations that turned out ideas or policies in direct contra-indication of what I argued for. People probably thought I supported those ideas.

Just sayin.

Are you aware of how the FED is structured? There are 12 banks (systems), responsible for everything that occurs in each of the 12 regions. He was in charge of one of those 12. Arguably one of the 13 most powerful men in banking in the country, let alone the world...

Uhhhhh, what was your question again?

 

[peloe16]

I'll vote for him.

 

[g00n24]

He worked for the FED?!?!?!...But that means he isn't Ron Paul. That means he automatically hates America and every thread of freedom we have left.
We better throw him under the bus, I mean...only the most absolutely conservative (I use that term loosely because I don't believe Paul is conservative on several issues, that isn't calling him a lib it is just disagreeing with some of his views when juxtaposed to some of the founders' ideas) candidate should even be considered, no matter how unelectable they make themselves.

 

[hornadylnl]

He worked for the FED?!?!?!...But that means he isn't Ron Paul. That means he automatically hates America and every thread of freedom we have left.
We better throw him under the bus, I mean...only the most absolutely conservative (I use that term loosely because I don't believe Paul is conservative on several issues, that isn't calling him a lib it is just disagreeing with some of his views when juxtaposed to some of the founders' ideas) candidate should even be considered, no matter how unelectable they make themselves.

And by what the republican party considers electable, none of the founding fathers would be electable today. If Ron Paul is unelectable, then we as a country deserve everything coming to us. We are getting the government the people are asking for.

 

[KLB]

It will be interesting to see who is still around by the time the Indiana primary gets here. I plan to keep an eye on all of them and hope that there is still someone I want to vote for when I get the chance.

 

[g00n24]

And by what the republican party considers electable, none of the founding fathers would be electable today. If Ron Paul is unelectable, then we as a country deserve everything coming to us. We are getting the government the people are asking for.

Its not just the republican party. It is America as a whole what would consider him unelectable. And you are right...that is scary, especially since they voted for Obummer. I think more people would consider him if only his domestic policies were looked at, he loses too many people with his foreign policy (myself included). This isn't meant to be an argument against the man's policies, more of an observation of why I believe he will never win the primary.
My first post was to point out that just because someone isn't as staunchly adherent to the Constitution (at least how Ron Paul reads it) as Paul is on the issues that are debatable (i.e. foreign policy) doesn't automatically make them a RINO, or someone who we should dismiss as being a "fake" conservative. Obviously there are several "fake" conservatives in the field right now. I believe as long as we keep outing the actual "fake" ones (Romney, Huntsman, Perry...) and supporting the few that are "real" conservatives (Paul included, however he has no chance) we will still end up with a candidate that will win next year and set the country back on the right track.
Hell, even if one of the less conservative candidates wins the nomination we are still going to have big time senate and house victories where real conservatives can really make a difference undoing much of the **** that has been done.

 

[hornadylnl]

Its not just the republican party. It is America as a whole what would consider him unelectable. And you are right...that is scary, especially since they voted for Obummer. I think more people would consider him if only his domestic policies were looked at, he loses too many people with his foreign policy (myself included). This isn't meant to be an argument against the man's policies, more of an observation of why I believe he will never win the primary.
My first post was to point out that just because someone isn't as staunchly adherent to the Constitution (at least how Ron Paul reads it) as Paul is on the issues that are debatable (i.e. foreign policy) doesn't automatically make them a RINO, or someone who we should dismiss as being a "fake" conservative. Obviously there are several "fake" conservatives in the field right now. I believe as long as we keep outing the actual "fake" ones (Romney, Huntsman, Perry...) and supporting the few that are "real" conservatives (Paul included, however he has no chance) we will still end up with a candidate that will win next year and set the country back on the right track.
Hell, even if one of the less conservative candidates wins the nomination we are still going to have big time senate and house victories where real conservatives can really make a difference undoing much of the **** that has been done.

Wanna buy the Brooklyn bridge? I've got the deed in hand. JFK was probably too conservative to win the repub nomination.

You honestly believe that an "electable" republican president and a new republican senate majority will turn back a single thing? If so, anwer this simple question. Was the government bigger in January 2001 or January 2007?

 

[88GT]

Too old? seriously?

Seriously. Paul will be older when he takes office than Reagan was when he left office. And we all know how Reagan's age was such an issue, particularly his last term.

$10 says Cains kicks the bucket before Paul. Age isn't more important than health.

It is to ignorant Americans who generally see the world in the same sound-bytes dispensed to them from the standard media outlets.

Nobody wants to bet on the horse that can't finish the race. And 'may not finish' is almost as bad as can't.

 

[jfw46544]

I am still trying to figure out what was so bad about this? Leave out the guilt by association part.

Cain was a class 3 director.

Class C
Three Class C directors also represent the public, but are appointed by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. This adds another layer to the blending of public and private control over the nation’s central bank. The Board of Governors also selects both the chairman and deputy chairman of each regional Federal Reserve Bank’s Board of Directors from among the Class C directors. These directors are highly insulated from banking relationships. They may not be an officer, director or employee of a bank or bank holding company. Additionally, these directors may not own stock in a bank or a bank holding company.
Cain was selected due to his business acumen.
Furthermore, these voluntary directors usually meet every 2 weeks, not a great sphere in my opinion. The FR of 1994,1995 was far different from the FR today.It was more conservative and the federal deficit was far less than it is today.

 

[g00n24]

Wanna buy the Brooklyn bridge? I've got the deed in hand. JFK was probably too conservative to win the repub nomination.

You honestly believe that an "electable" republican president and a new republican senate majority will turn back a single thing? If so, anwer this simple question. Was the government bigger in January 2001 or January 2007?

So voting for a bunch of libertarians who stand zero chance at winning anything other than maybe a local school board election is better than voting for true conservatives? You might as well be punching your ticket for Obama...like it or not that is the REALTY we live in. And barring some kind of unforeseen circumstances that is the way it is going to be for a long time.
Where in my post did I say to vote for republicans? I said CONSERVATIVES, quit falling for lies that say they are the same.
I also did not say get in line with the status-quo, vote for conservatives that have a chance of winning if you want to change anything, if they don't live up to their promises then vote in different ones.
Sure govt got bigger, but it is different...there was no Tea Party in 2001 or 2007, the people were asleep, now they have at least 1 eye open.
Im sorry realty sucks so much, but the fact is national libertarian candidates will not gain any traction any time soon. Im not happy about it either, I have lots of libertarian ideals and would gladly vote for many of them before voting for many republicans, but I know they will not win. The world isn't perfect so we have to do the best we can with what we have. That, again, is not saying just take what the republican party shoves down our throats. The fact is, however, there will never be enough people moving over to the libertarian side in this country, so our best bet for securing a future for freedom is getting back to our conservative roots, and there is only one party that will entertain those thoughts.
Maybe getting more libertarians will join up with the repubs like Paul and be able to change things, however there isn't a media outlet out there with more than a few thousand followers that will present him as an electable candidate...just the way it is. Im not saying we should just live with that, but until that changes there is definitely no chance for guys like Paul.

 

[Prometheus]

Sure govt got bigger, but it is different...there was no Tea Party in 2001 or 2007, the people were asleep, now they have at least 1 eye open.

The tea party failed. Most of those elected by "the tea party" stabbed them in the back several times over since the midterm.

I don't expect much to change in the next cycle either. I'd be happy if there was, but I doubt it.

In April before the midterm the tea party was in Valpo and almost 500 people turned out. The following April, with the GOP in control of the house and spending worse than ever, none of those "flash pan" idiots were out protesting.

Why? Because it was "their guys" who were doing the spending, so they turned a blind eye.

Maybe only 5% of them were genuine, the rest just wanted an excuse to protest obama and dems, not to actually fight for a smaller and fiscally conservative government.

 

[PistolBob]

I ran across this attempting to google similar comments made by Paul (I was unsucessful in that regard):
Herman Cain’s First Big Gaffe? Says Gun Control is States Issue

I still like Cain, but I did found his stance on the issue surprising...

If Paul is too old, would Paul with Cain as VP be worthy of a vote? Vice versa?

Let me see if I can make myself more clear.

I belong to the ABO party. Here at ABO we don't care if Hillary Clinton gets the republican nomination, we'll vote for her as long as she is running against the incumbent, President Obama. So yes, if Ron Paul gets the nomination and chooses Cain as a VP...I will vote for him. If Ron Paul gets the nomination and chooses Curtis Painter to be his VP, I'm voting for him.

If they nominate a Apple IIe to run against Obama, I'm voting for the 8 bit computer.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

So voting for a bunch of libertarians who stand zero chance at winning anything other than maybe a local school board election is better than voting for true conservatives? You might as well be punching your ticket for Obama...like it or not that is the REALTY we live in. And barring some kind of unforeseen circumstances that is the way it is going to be for a long time.
Where in my post did I say to vote for republicans? I said CONSERVATIVES, quit falling for lies that say they are the same.
I also did not say get in line with the status-quo, vote for conservatives that have a chance of winning if you want to change anything, if they don't live up to their promises then vote in different ones.
Sure govt got bigger, but it is different...there was no Tea Party in 2001 or 2007, the people were asleep, now they have at least 1 eye open.
Im sorry realty sucks so much, but the fact is national libertarian candidates will not gain any traction any time soon. Im not happy about it either, I have lots of libertarian ideals and would gladly vote for many of them before voting for many republicans, but I know they will not win. The world isn't perfect so we have to do the best we can with what we have. That, again, is not saying just take what the republican party shoves down our throats. The fact is, however, there will never be enough people moving over to the libertarian side in this country, so our best bet for securing a future for freedom is getting back to our conservative roots, and there is only one party that will entertain those thoughts.
Maybe getting more libertarians will join up with the repubs like Paul and be able to change things, however there isn't a media outlet out there with more than a few thousand followers that will present him as an electable candidate...just the way it is. Im not saying we should just live with that, but until that changes there is definitely no chance for guys like Paul.

Gotta agree. When the Dems are no longer a factor, I'll start voting Libertarian or its political equivalent at the time. Until then, I'll continue to vote for the most conservative Republican I can find.

 

[88GT]

The tea party failed. Most of those elected by "the tea party" stabbed them in the back several times over since the midterm.

I don't expect much to change in the next cycle either. I'd be happy if there was, but I doubt it.

In April before the midterm the tea party was in Valpo and almost 500 people turned out. The following April, with the GOP in control of the house and spending worse than ever, none of those "flash pan" idiots were out protesting.

Why? Because it was "their guys" who were doing the spending, so they turned a blind eye.

Maybe only 5% of them were genuine, the rest just wanted an excuse to protest obama and dems, not to actually fight for a smaller and fiscally conservative government.

Failed? What would success look like?

I believe your problem with American is defined something like this: People don't think/act the way I want them to so they're all stupid and ignorant and lazy.

 

[Prometheus]

Failed? What would success look like?

I believe your problem with American is defined something like this: People don't think/act the way I want them to so they're all stupid and ignorant and lazy.

You forgot a few, some are corrupt or just want the destruction of America....

Success? Voting against the largest tax increase in history would have been a success. Voting against the largest increase in spending in history would have been a success. Voting against the largest debt increase in history would have also been a victory.

There are three blatant failures right there.

 

[benkrebs]

Sorry to come into the thread late, but I would just like to state that while I am going to vote for Ron Paul in the primary, Herman Cain is my number two guy and I would have no problem voting for him if he won the primary. I see a lot of similarities with RP and Cain.

EDIT: Prom, I tried to rep you for your post on why the Tea Party was a failure but I must spread it around first.

 

[88GT]

You forgot a few, some are corrupt or just want the destruction of America....

Success? Voting against the largest tax increase in history would have been a success. Voting against the largest increase in spending in history would have been a success. Voting against the largest debt increase in history would have also been a victory.

There are three blatant failures right there.

And that's the tea party's fault?

 

[hornadylnl]

So voting for a bunch of libertarians who stand zero chance at winning anything other than maybe a local school board election is better than voting for true conservatives? You might as well be punching your ticket for Obama...like it or not that is the REALTY we live in. And barring some kind of unforeseen circumstances that is the way it is going to be for a long time.
Where in my post did I say to vote for republicans? I said CONSERVATIVES, quit falling for lies that say they are the same.
I also did not say get in line with the status-quo, vote for conservatives that have a chance of winning if you want to change anything, if they don't live up to their promises then vote in different ones.
Sure govt got bigger, but it is different...there was no Tea Party in 2001 or 2007, the people were asleep, now they have at least 1 eye open.
Im sorry realty sucks so much, but the fact is national libertarian candidates will not gain any traction any time soon. Im not happy about it either, I have lots of libertarian ideals and would gladly vote for many of them before voting for many republicans, but I know they will not win. The world isn't perfect so we have to do the best we can with what we have. That, again, is not saying just take what the republican party shoves down our throats. The fact is, however, there will never be enough people moving over to the libertarian side in this country, so our best bet for securing a future for freedom is getting back to our conservative roots, and there is only one party that will entertain those thoughts.
Maybe getting more libertarians will join up with the repubs like Paul and be able to change things, however there isn't a media outlet out there with more than a few thousand followers that will present him as an electable candidate...just the way it is. Im not saying we should just live with that, but until that changes there is definitely no chance for guys like Paul.

So who are the "true conservatives" in the repub primary now? The 1 or 2 that I see are the most hated and bashed by the repubs and tgeir establishment. Us conservatives who refused to vote McCain were blamed for the fall of the republic after the last election. News flash, a McCain presidency would look almost exactly like the Obama presidency. How many of those bashing us for not voting for McCain will refuse to vote for Paul if he wins the nomination?

 

[slackerisme]

Are you aware of how the FED is structured? There are 12 banks (systems), responsible for everything that occurs in each of the 12 regions. He was in charge of one of those 12. Arguably one of the 13 most powerful men in banking in the country, let alone the world...

Uhhhhh, what was your question again?

So your understanding of the internal operations of the Fed is reason enough to believe everything some cut rate blogger has to say about the man?

 

[GREEN607]

The tea party failed.

In April before the midterm the tea party was in Valpo and almost 500 people turned out. The following April, with the GOP in control of the house and spending worse than ever, none of those "flash pan" idiots were out protesting.

Why? Because it was "their guys" who were doing the spending, so they turned a blind eye.

Maybe only 5% of them were genuine, the rest just wanted an excuse to protest obama and dems, not to actually fight for a smaller and fiscally conservative government.

Again, you make an awful lot of assumptions..... about people (Tea Party members of the House, as well as citizens who make up the voting constituant of the Tea Party), that you've never met or talked to, or even done any 'research' on their voting history. You're very opinionated on this subject. And everyone is, of course, entitled to an opinion. Problem is, it's not an 'educated' opinion on your part. You apparently read and listen to, what agrees with your pre-set notion..... and disregard the rest of the facts.

What's your source, for your claim that only 5% were genuine? Show me your research on this. Show me a relatively factual link. How many Tea Party members have you personally interviewed, that told you....."oh we were just blowing off steam. We're really just sheeple who go along with DC, when the fight gets tough."

The Tea Party members I know, were voting to replace some the 'old guard' Republicans, too. They actually succeeded in some of the primaries, too And they do want a balanced budget and smaller government......