Faster horses
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2005
- Messages
- 30,239
- Reaction score
- 1,422
Wow. Be sure to read the comments after the article. They are HOT.
--from Cowboybyte
http://cowboybyte.com/942/perry%e2%80%99s-debate-performance-costs-him-support-among-the-party-faithful/
Some further background on Herman Cain:
Sue says:
September 24, 2011 at 5:49 pm
Having read all of the pros and cons re: Romney, Perry, Paul, etc., I am wondering why Cain is not being mentioned more often. He has the experience both in the business world and the government world. Perhaps he should talk about his past moreso than just the "pizza man" aspect of his experience. Before pizza he saved Burger Kings that were failing in PA. He's a mathematician !!
Cain is a former deputy chairman (1992–94) and chairman (1995–96) of the board of directors to the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. Before his business and economics career he worked as a mathematician in ballistics for the United States Navy. He has a MASTER's degree from Purdue. He was awarded the Horatio Alger Award in 1996. He was on the board of directors of Aquila, Inc. from 1992 to 2008, and also served as a board member for Nabisco, Whirlpool, Reader's Digest, and AGCO, Inc.
Herman Cain took an active role in defeating the Clinton health care plan. He transformed the debate when he challenged Clinton at a town meeting in Kansas City, Mo. He asked the president what he was supposed to say to the workers he would have to lay off because of the cost of the "employer mandate". Clinton responded that there would be plenty of subsidies for small businessmen but Cain responded by saying, "Quite honestly, your calculation is inaccurate. In the competitive marketplace it simply doesn't work that way."
Cain was a senior economic advisor to the Dole/Kemp presidential campaign in 1996.
Cain supports a non-federally subsidized efficient economic stimulus rather than a "spending bill" which is what he called Obama's plan. Cain said, "We could grow this economy faster if we had bolder, more direct stimulus policies…meaningful stimulus through permanent tax cuts".
He will not be getting any Muslim votes since he openly stated that he fears the Muslims in that he doesn't know which ones are here to "kill the infidels" versus those who have been, for lack of a better word I will say "Americanized". He strongly opposes any thoughts about Sharia law sneaking its way into our courts and he is well versed on which cases throughout America have been based on Sharia law. He's not happy about that and neither am I. We are a Republic and we have our own laws !!!
Last, but definitely not least, the race card issue could not be the main focal point of the Obama campaign or any other campaign.
And some reasons Newt would make a good Conservative President:
silverscribler says:
September 24, 2011 at 1:18 pm
I agree regarding Perry and Romney. I like Bachmann, but I'm afraid the media is deliberately stacking the field against her because they don't want a conservative woman in office, no matter how good she might be. I think we need to begin taking a real serious look at Gingrich. yeah, I know they talk about him having "baggage," but I think that can be overcome. Some may say he is another rino, but we need to reconsider that sentiment. He didn't get a chance to make much of a performance in either debates because the groups pretty much turned boh of them into a Perry–Romney show. The rules say that if another person is named, that person gets a rebuttal. Well, notice Perry and Romney consistently named each other and very seldom named any of the other candidates–so the other folks had very little opportunity to express themselves.
As for Gingrich, he is one of the most knowledgeable persons in the country on American history–real American history, not the watered down, politically correct crap our kids are getting. Check out his "City on a Hill, which is the story of American exceptionalism. In the debates, he has been consistently poised and in control of whatever question they put to him, even putting the moderators in place on behalf of other candidates when they deliver the "gotcha" questions. He doesn't act like he thinks he needs to show off (as Perry does), or like he feels the need to be constantly proving something (as Romney does.) He doesn't endlessly come back to his "pet issue", no matter what the question is, as do Bachman and Ron Paul–especially Ron Paul. I think he would secure the American border and do what's right in our defense but without feeling the need to keep fighting endless unwinnable wars–as Santorum seems to feel. He has been in business himself and has his own record of balancing the budget during the Clinton years to stand behind him. Since he was speaker of the house, he understands the procedures and the crappy way things work in DC (or don't work) and he knows what it will take to turn the country around. I like his idea of using lean six sigma to clean up Washington. If he can get a congress to buy into that, a whole lot of political, money grubbing, regulation cranking organizations—like the dept of Education and the EPA–would have their doors closed. Most importantly, Gingrich believes that the Constitution is the rule of law and that the government needs to abide by it.
I'm not saying everyone needs to just categorically jump on board with him. What I am saying, is we may have a gold mine in our midst and we need to take the cap off and give him a chance to show us the real stuff so we can see for ourselves if he could be the real deal or if it is just fools' gold.
--------------------------
A little about Ron Paul:
I am a Texan, and have "watched" and listened to Ron Paul FOR YEARS!!!! And I'm here to tell you, and all who read this, that listening to him all these years has scared the hell out of me!!!!!
In the past [he surely wouldn't repeat it during an election run] he has said that, as President, he would "strip" the federal government to the "bare bones." By that he later went on to say, he would fire something like 80-90% of federal employees, ELEMINATE the IRS AND ALL TAXES, and eleminate most of the federal government functions.
That would effectively destroy this nation and its infrastructure. Just think about that; no highway maintence, no bridge maintence [that's bad enough already, without removal of ALL funds by Paul!], no control at all of Interstate Commerce [hundreds of thousands of uninspected, unsafe trucks running the dilapadated highways with no safety enforcement, and on and on with the list of horrors we would face without benefit of ANY government.
I have several Libertarian friends, acquaintences, and even a couple of relatives, who all agree that what Paul wants is right, NO government, and thus ANARCHY.
I shudder to even think of Paul as our Chief Executive.
IF you think Bush's and obummer's abuse of the Executive Order has been bad, it would be incredibly worse under Ron Paul as he would totally disassemble federal government!!!!!
The Chief Executive's "job" is to "run the country" and execute the laws provided by the Congress. Paul would simply refuse to enforce any law he didn't "think" was "Constitutional" [whether it is or not], and by Executive Order nullify any law he "didn't like," and there would be NOTHING anyone could do to stop him!
Ron Paul, and the Libertarians scare the living hell outa me!
George says:
September 24, 2011 at 9:15 pm
Ron Paul is indeed a nut case. While he's very good on domestic issues, his foreign policy position is an utter travesty. The first and formost job of the Federal government is national defense and foreign relations. I would not trust Ron Paul with that. Anyone who is comfortable with Iran's possessing nuclear weapons when they seek to spread their power throughout the Middle East and to destroy our good ally Israel is not worthy of consideration.
Millicent says:
September 25, 2011 at 3:04 pm
Ron Paul is a nut.
--from Cowboybyte
http://cowboybyte.com/942/perry%e2%80%99s-debate-performance-costs-him-support-among-the-party-faithful/
Some further background on Herman Cain:
Sue says:
September 24, 2011 at 5:49 pm
Having read all of the pros and cons re: Romney, Perry, Paul, etc., I am wondering why Cain is not being mentioned more often. He has the experience both in the business world and the government world. Perhaps he should talk about his past moreso than just the "pizza man" aspect of his experience. Before pizza he saved Burger Kings that were failing in PA. He's a mathematician !!
Cain is a former deputy chairman (1992–94) and chairman (1995–96) of the board of directors to the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. Before his business and economics career he worked as a mathematician in ballistics for the United States Navy. He has a MASTER's degree from Purdue. He was awarded the Horatio Alger Award in 1996. He was on the board of directors of Aquila, Inc. from 1992 to 2008, and also served as a board member for Nabisco, Whirlpool, Reader's Digest, and AGCO, Inc.
Herman Cain took an active role in defeating the Clinton health care plan. He transformed the debate when he challenged Clinton at a town meeting in Kansas City, Mo. He asked the president what he was supposed to say to the workers he would have to lay off because of the cost of the "employer mandate". Clinton responded that there would be plenty of subsidies for small businessmen but Cain responded by saying, "Quite honestly, your calculation is inaccurate. In the competitive marketplace it simply doesn't work that way."
Cain was a senior economic advisor to the Dole/Kemp presidential campaign in 1996.
Cain supports a non-federally subsidized efficient economic stimulus rather than a "spending bill" which is what he called Obama's plan. Cain said, "We could grow this economy faster if we had bolder, more direct stimulus policies…meaningful stimulus through permanent tax cuts".
He will not be getting any Muslim votes since he openly stated that he fears the Muslims in that he doesn't know which ones are here to "kill the infidels" versus those who have been, for lack of a better word I will say "Americanized". He strongly opposes any thoughts about Sharia law sneaking its way into our courts and he is well versed on which cases throughout America have been based on Sharia law. He's not happy about that and neither am I. We are a Republic and we have our own laws !!!
Last, but definitely not least, the race card issue could not be the main focal point of the Obama campaign or any other campaign.
And some reasons Newt would make a good Conservative President:
silverscribler says:
September 24, 2011 at 1:18 pm
I agree regarding Perry and Romney. I like Bachmann, but I'm afraid the media is deliberately stacking the field against her because they don't want a conservative woman in office, no matter how good she might be. I think we need to begin taking a real serious look at Gingrich. yeah, I know they talk about him having "baggage," but I think that can be overcome. Some may say he is another rino, but we need to reconsider that sentiment. He didn't get a chance to make much of a performance in either debates because the groups pretty much turned boh of them into a Perry–Romney show. The rules say that if another person is named, that person gets a rebuttal. Well, notice Perry and Romney consistently named each other and very seldom named any of the other candidates–so the other folks had very little opportunity to express themselves.
As for Gingrich, he is one of the most knowledgeable persons in the country on American history–real American history, not the watered down, politically correct crap our kids are getting. Check out his "City on a Hill, which is the story of American exceptionalism. In the debates, he has been consistently poised and in control of whatever question they put to him, even putting the moderators in place on behalf of other candidates when they deliver the "gotcha" questions. He doesn't act like he thinks he needs to show off (as Perry does), or like he feels the need to be constantly proving something (as Romney does.) He doesn't endlessly come back to his "pet issue", no matter what the question is, as do Bachman and Ron Paul–especially Ron Paul. I think he would secure the American border and do what's right in our defense but without feeling the need to keep fighting endless unwinnable wars–as Santorum seems to feel. He has been in business himself and has his own record of balancing the budget during the Clinton years to stand behind him. Since he was speaker of the house, he understands the procedures and the crappy way things work in DC (or don't work) and he knows what it will take to turn the country around. I like his idea of using lean six sigma to clean up Washington. If he can get a congress to buy into that, a whole lot of political, money grubbing, regulation cranking organizations—like the dept of Education and the EPA–would have their doors closed. Most importantly, Gingrich believes that the Constitution is the rule of law and that the government needs to abide by it.
I'm not saying everyone needs to just categorically jump on board with him. What I am saying, is we may have a gold mine in our midst and we need to take the cap off and give him a chance to show us the real stuff so we can see for ourselves if he could be the real deal or if it is just fools' gold.
--------------------------
A little about Ron Paul:
I am a Texan, and have "watched" and listened to Ron Paul FOR YEARS!!!! And I'm here to tell you, and all who read this, that listening to him all these years has scared the hell out of me!!!!!
In the past [he surely wouldn't repeat it during an election run] he has said that, as President, he would "strip" the federal government to the "bare bones." By that he later went on to say, he would fire something like 80-90% of federal employees, ELEMINATE the IRS AND ALL TAXES, and eleminate most of the federal government functions.
That would effectively destroy this nation and its infrastructure. Just think about that; no highway maintence, no bridge maintence [that's bad enough already, without removal of ALL funds by Paul!], no control at all of Interstate Commerce [hundreds of thousands of uninspected, unsafe trucks running the dilapadated highways with no safety enforcement, and on and on with the list of horrors we would face without benefit of ANY government.
I have several Libertarian friends, acquaintences, and even a couple of relatives, who all agree that what Paul wants is right, NO government, and thus ANARCHY.
I shudder to even think of Paul as our Chief Executive.
IF you think Bush's and obummer's abuse of the Executive Order has been bad, it would be incredibly worse under Ron Paul as he would totally disassemble federal government!!!!!
The Chief Executive's "job" is to "run the country" and execute the laws provided by the Congress. Paul would simply refuse to enforce any law he didn't "think" was "Constitutional" [whether it is or not], and by Executive Order nullify any law he "didn't like," and there would be NOTHING anyone could do to stop him!
Ron Paul, and the Libertarians scare the living hell outa me!
George says:
September 24, 2011 at 9:15 pm
Ron Paul is indeed a nut case. While he's very good on domestic issues, his foreign policy position is an utter travesty. The first and formost job of the Federal government is national defense and foreign relations. I would not trust Ron Paul with that. Anyone who is comfortable with Iran's possessing nuclear weapons when they seek to spread their power throughout the Middle East and to destroy our good ally Israel is not worthy of consideration.
Millicent says:
September 25, 2011 at 3:04 pm
Ron Paul is a nut.
