The founder of the tea party has asked Herman Cain to drop out of the
campaign for the Republican nomination after his incredible blunder
answering the question of whether he agreed with Obama's handling of
Libya.

Seems Herman has finally and completely imploded. I'm feeling so sad
for Canook and others here who saw so much promise in Herman.

How people ever took this buffoon seriously is beyond reason.

On 11/16/11 2:13 AM, jps wrote:

The founder of the tea party has asked Herman Cain to drop out of the
campaign for the Republican nomination after his incredible blunder
answering the question of whether he agreed with Obama's handling of
Libya.

Seems Herman has finally and completely imploded. I'm feeling so sad
for Canook and others here who saw so much promise in Herman.

How people ever took this buffoon seriously is beyond reason.

Cain, Perry and Bachmann seem creepier every time they speak.

Be of strong heart, Repubs...Newt the Grinch will save your party from
Romneyism. Newtie promises a Tiffany's gift card for every GOP delegate,
paid for by cutting food stamps for impoverished children.

On 16/11/2011 4:28 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 11/16/11 2:13 AM, jps wrote:

The founder of the tea party has asked Herman Cain to drop out of the
campaign for the Republican nomination after his incredible blunder
answering the question of whether he agreed with Obama's handling of
Libya.

Seems Herman has finally and completely imploded. I'm feeling so sad
for Canook and others here who saw so much promise in Herman.

How people ever took this buffoon seriously is beyond reason.

Cain, Perry and Bachmann seem creepier every time they speak.

Be of strong heart, Repubs...Newt the Grinch will save your party from
Romneyism. Newtie promises a Tiffany's gift card for every GOP delegate,
paid for by cutting food stamps for impoverished children.

Why, you think they need cash so they can do dope instead?

Nothing to stop you from opening your wallet. Using government to open
other peoples wallets by IRS extortion isn't very respectful of others
financial liberty.

Now that US has fewer billionaires, fewer millionaires, fewer wealth
producing jobs and businesses, you might want to ask will the government
look out for your social assistance when no one is paying for it?
Historically governments worry about their own fat ass first, right into
the free-falls like the Roman Empire. Times haven't changed that much.

A good conservative value for the times, plan for the worst while hoping
for the best.
--
The reason government can't fix the economic problems as government is
the problem.

On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 11:16:32 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 15 Nov 2011 23:13:36 -0800, jps wrote:


The founder of the tea party has asked Herman Cain to drop out of the
campaign for the Republican nomination after his incredible blunder
answering the question of whether he agreed with Obama's handling of
Libya.

Seems Herman has finally and completely imploded. I'm feeling so sad
for Canook and others here who saw so much promise in Herman.

How people ever took this buffoon seriously is beyond reason.

The strange thing was that after his minute and a half "pause" he did
come up with a fairly reasoned response on Libya. It was just too late
for this instant gratification public.
I do agree Cain is in over his head here but so was Obama, he was just
smoother about it.

Two different cases entirely. Obama was in over his head from the
perspective of maturity and having the years of hand to hand combat in
Washington. Herman Cain has management maturity but no depth of
knowledge. I agree his answer was good but what the **** was going on
in that head for a minute and a half? Obama would have reeled that
off in seconds flat.

I saw him at the Australian press announcement yesterday (joint
military excercises, closer ties) and he was incredible. He knew
everything about the plan, the strategy, relationships within the
region, etc. He made me proud that we have a president with a brain
and I'm looking forward to him using his balls a little more during
his next term.

"jps" wrote in message
...


Two different cases entirely. Obama was in over his head from the
perspective of maturity and having the years of hand to hand combat in
Washington. Herman Cain has management maturity but no depth of
knowledge. I agree his answer was good but what the **** was going on
in that head for a minute and a half? Obama would have reeled that
off in seconds flat.

I saw him at the Australian press announcement yesterday (joint
military excercises, closer ties) and he was incredible. He knew
everything about the plan, the strategy, relationships within the
region, etc. He made me proud that we have a president with a brain
and I'm looking forward to him using his balls a little more during
his next term.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Still trying to keep an open mind but for me it's coming down to this:

With the possible exception of Romney and Huntsman, there are no
viable GOP candidates worth considering. Cain is unqualified as are
Bachman, Perry, Paul and Santorum.

Romney is a decent man but his flip-flops indicate someone more
focused on his desire to be called "President Romney" than someone
truly qualified. His recent statement about not allowing Iran to
acquire nukes was just plain dumb and simply indicates someone
trying to appeal to ultra right-wingers.

Huntsman is just too damn bashful and timid to be POTUS.

Newt is probably qualified in terms of experience and brainpower
but I could never vote for him. Too sleazy and arrogant for me.

I don't necessarily agree with Obama's plans to spend ourselves
out of recession. I am too fiscally conservative to understand
that, let alone support it. However, I think that in terms of
leadership
qualities, he has had a crash course over the past couple of years
and is much better qualified today that he was when he took office.
The
fact that he has backed off on some "changes" promised in his
first campaign means maybe he has learned something during the
execution of his responsibilities. There's nothing wrong with
changing
course when it proves to be either undoable or when new facts are
factored
into the equation.

In his first campaign Obama developed strong support among hard core
liberals or "progressives" as they now like to be called. His stump
speeches
were full of promises that emotionally connected to many ... and
basically
got him elected. Since then he has moved away from the hard core
liberal rail
as he has learned first hand how Washington works, has been briefed on
the
reality of global political issues and now seems to have more
realistic and
practical positions.

If the GOP can shed some of the TeaParty influences and start acting
like responsible
conservatives, the check and balance system of Congress and the
Executive branch
of our government would work just fine.

I can live with that.

On 17/11/2011 3:47 AM, Eisboch wrote:


"jps" wrote in message ...


Two different cases entirely. Obama was in over his head from the
perspective of maturity and having the years of hand to hand combat in
Washington. Herman Cain has management maturity but no depth of
knowledge. I agree his answer was good but what the **** was going on
in that head for a minute and a half? Obama would have reeled that
off in seconds flat.

I saw him at the Australian press announcement yesterday (joint
military excercises, closer ties) and he was incredible. He knew
everything about the plan, the strategy, relationships within the
region, etc. He made me proud that we have a president with a brain
and I'm looking forward to him using his balls a little more during
his next term.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Still trying to keep an open mind but for me it's coming down to this:

With the possible exception of Romney and Huntsman, there are no
viable GOP candidates worth considering. Cain is unqualified as are
Bachman, Perry, Paul and Santorum.

Romney is a decent man but his flip-flops indicate someone more
focused on his desire to be called "President Romney" than someone
truly qualified. His recent statement about not allowing Iran to
acquire nukes was just plain dumb and simply indicates someone
trying to appeal to ultra right-wingers.

Huntsman is just too damn bashful and timid to be POTUS.

Newt is probably qualified in terms of experience and brainpower
but I could never vote for him. Too sleazy and arrogant for me.

I don't necessarily agree with Obama's plans to spend ourselves
out of recession. I am too fiscally conservative to understand
that, let alone support it. However, I think that in terms of leadership
qualities, he has had a crash course over the past couple of years
and is much better qualified today that he was when he took office. The
fact that he has backed off on some "changes" promised in his
first campaign means maybe he has learned something during the
execution of his responsibilities. There's nothing wrong with changing
course when it proves to be either undoable or when new facts are factored
into the equation.

In his first campaign Obama developed strong support among hard core
liberals or "progressives" as they now like to be called. His stump
speeches
were full of promises that emotionally connected to many ... and basically
got him elected. Since then he has moved away from the hard core liberal
rail
as he has learned first hand how Washington works, has been briefed on the
reality of global political issues and now seems to have more realistic and
practical positions.

If the GOP can shed some of the TeaParty influences and start acting
like responsible
conservatives, the check and balance system of Congress and the
Executive branch
of our government would work just fine.

I can live with that.

Since you have eliminated the few with some scruples, then the choice is
dog **** corruption, and more dog **** corruption unless someone runs
independently.

Problem is people will not give up voting for corrupt professional
politicians. Best presidents USA ever had were not professional
politicians. A professional politician like 0bama, Romney, Perry are
all bottom feeding pond scum, abet better choices than 0bama, Reid and
Pelosi.

Looks like no savior for the USA in 2012....just more corruption.
--
The reason government can't fix the economic problems as government is
the problem.

On 11/17/11 4:02 PM, Canuck57 wrote:


Since you have eliminated the few with some scruples...


None of the candidates you favor have scruples...

On 17/11/2011 2:09 PM, X ` Man wrote:
On 11/17/11 4:02 PM, Canuck57 wrote:


Since you have eliminated the few with some scruples...


None of the candidates you favor have scruples...

None of yours do.

--
The reason government can't fix the economic problems as government is
the problem.

On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 05:47:20 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:



"jps" wrote in message
.. .


Two different cases entirely. Obama was in over his head from the
perspective of maturity and having the years of hand to hand combat in
Washington. Herman Cain has management maturity but no depth of
knowledge. I agree his answer was good but what the **** was going on
in that head for a minute and a half? Obama would have reeled that
off in seconds flat.

I saw him at the Australian press announcement yesterday (joint
military excercises, closer ties) and he was incredible. He knew
everything about the plan, the strategy, relationships within the
region, etc. He made me proud that we have a president with a brain
and I'm looking forward to him using his balls a little more during
his next term.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Still trying to keep an open mind but for me it's coming down to this:

With the possible exception of Romney and Huntsman, there are no
viable GOP candidates worth considering. Cain is unqualified as are
Bachman, Perry, Paul and Santorum.

Romney is a decent man but his flip-flops indicate someone more
focused on his desire to be called "President Romney" than someone
truly qualified. His recent statement about not allowing Iran to
acquire nukes was just plain dumb and simply indicates someone
trying to appeal to ultra right-wingers.

Huntsman is just too damn bashful and timid to be POTUS.

Newt is probably qualified in terms of experience and brainpower
but I could never vote for him. Too sleazy and arrogant for me.

I don't necessarily agree with Obama's plans to spend ourselves
out of recession. I am too fiscally conservative to understand
that, let alone support it. However, I think that in terms of
leadership
qualities, he has had a crash course over the past couple of years
and is much better qualified today that he was when he took office.
The
fact that he has backed off on some "changes" promised in his
first campaign means maybe he has learned something during the
execution of his responsibilities. There's nothing wrong with
changing
course when it proves to be either undoable or when new facts are
factored
into the equation.

In his first campaign Obama developed strong support among hard core
liberals or "progressives" as they now like to be called. His stump
speeches
were full of promises that emotionally connected to many ... and
basically
got him elected. Since then he has moved away from the hard core
liberal rail
as he has learned first hand how Washington works, has been briefed on
the
reality of global political issues and now seems to have more
realistic and
practical positions.

If the GOP can shed some of the TeaParty influences and start acting
like responsible
conservatives, the check and balance system of Congress and the
Executive branch
of our government would work just fine.

I can live with that.


I don't think he ever had a liberal streak in him. He's always been
MOR and wanted to govern from there from the start.

Fair analysis otherwise. Wish the GOP would get their **** together
and challenge the Dems with some good ideas. Tax cuts, gays and
abortion is old and dried up.

On 16-Nov-2011, wrote:

I do agree Cain is in over his head here but so was Obama, he was just
smoother about it.

Bravo! Nothing like some ebonics to encourage the lemmings!