A HERMAN CAIN READER: A RUTHFULLY FAVORITE
THE GOP’S NEW GODFATHER: HERMAN CAIN
With the 2012 elections on the horizon, many conservatives are uneasy about the lack of an obvious front-runner for the job of denying President Obama a second term. While the GOP field lacks clarity, it does provide a platform for new talent to stand out and wow the party faithful. According to a Zogby […]
CAIN SLAMS OBAMA FOR BRINGING “POISONOUS” RAPPER TO THE WHITE HOUSE
Breaking from Newsmax.com Cain Slams Obama for Bringing ‘Poisonous’ Rapper to White House Presumptive presidential candidate and talk-show host Herman Cain says the controversial rapper known as Common, who has glorified police killers and sang about burning President George W. Bush, would not be invited to his White House. Cain also indicated Wednesday on Steve […]
ROBERT COSTA: INTRODUCING HERMAN CAIN….SEE NOTE PLEASE
Introducing Herman Cain I AM A CONFIRMED ENTHUSIASTIC “HERMANA”….MEANS SISTER IN SPANISH…RSK The former Godfather’s Pizza head takes the GOP primary by storm. ‘How many of you think Herman Cain won the debate?” Twenty hands shot up. “Well, we can stop right there,” said Frank Luntz, a fast-talking political consultant, as he paced before a […]
WHY NOT HERMAN CAIN? KYLE-ANN SHRIVER
The word on the street among the right’s intelligentsia and punditocracy is that Herman Cain cannot, should not, and will not be the Republican nominee for president in 2012. Hmmm. Now, dear readers, those “never-will-happen,” 100%-certain predictions made by mere mortals — and there seem to be more and more of them these days […]
CITIZEN CAIN….WINNNER OF THE FIRST DEBATE MATTHEW MAY….SEE NOTE PLEASE
By Matthew May I MET AND CHATTED WITH HERMAN CAIN AT THE CORE DINNER A FEW MONTHS AGO….HE IS SIMPLY DAZZLING, CHARMING, ARTICULATE AND HAS A GREAT SELF DEPRECATING SENSE OF HUMOR. IS HE PRESIDENTIAL? YOU NEVER KNOW….STACKED UP NEXT TO PAWLENTY, DANIELS, ROMNEY…HE SURE LOOKS AND SOUNDS GREAT…..RSK Now is the […]
HERMAN CAIN: THE TRILLION THAT GOT AWAY
HERMAN CAIN: OIL DEPENDENCE: AN UNNECESSARY SECURITY RISK
Oil Dependence: An Unnecessary Security Risk By HERMAN CAIN In the early 1970s, America’s dependence on foreign oil was a little over 20%. Today, our dependence on foreign oil is over 65%. We have become more and more energy dependent because we have never had a serious energy independence strategy, and we still do […]
No, I’m not.
Not true.
That’s what they are.
Objective is my middle name.
All pure fantasy.
The hell I don’t!
No, it wasn’t.
Damn straight!
I did nothing of the sort. You absolutely were NOT right, but terribly wrong.
And are still wrong.
You don’t give a rusty screw for the truth.
This ought to be elementary for you, AE; though it clearly isn’t. Everybody HAS an ego — a conscious self — but when its own vanity is its focus, we call that egotism, and it’s not in its nature truthful. Nor does it conduce to truthfulness in your correspondents, but rather tempts them to vanity & egotism as well.
You can CALL them ‘strawmen.’
You can CALL them spaghetti & meatballs, but that won’t make them spaghetti & meatballs
Nor will calling them “strawmen,” or “unsubstantiated assumptions,” or any other kind of “assumptions,” make them those things.
I’m sorry, AE, but you wouldn’t recognize ‘objectivity’ if it bit you.
If you rely on your intellect for guidance, you have no basis of objectivity, nor any point of reference for judging BETWEEN two (or more) inwardly consistent & rational lines of consideration. The intellect contains, of itself, no link to any objective point-of-reference. It’s a horizontal function, good for communicating between one finite mind and another, but when it comes to making or receiving guidance from an objective source, it’s lost and has no option but to focus in upon itself. You’re in a mental cul-de-sac.
That’s just it: The truth DOESN’T matter to you.
The truth is just a tool for you.
Because your vanity only stands as a temptation and a goad to his vanity. Your words don’t do a damned thing to encourage him to consider the truth that you purportedly spout. And why should he, when it’s so glaringly apparent that you offer it only as a weapon to hit him over the head with, to illustrate your claimed ‘superiority’? You do it again & again, Eagle — and not only with Yamit. It’s pretty much SOP with you, your modus operandi.
Bullshit. I ‘made up’ nothing.
Follow the thread:
EAGLE: May 25, 2:55 am
DWELLER : May 25, 3:18 am
EAGLE: May 25, 11:21 pm
DWELLER: May 26, 1:35 pm
As anybody can see, I restored the top line in the above blockquote, which you had removed — to give yourself an excuse to complain about your ‘favorite failing’ of Yamit’s (“quoting scripture to support a political argument”).
The hell you do. I just finished illustrating — in some detail, immediately above — an instance of your excising the surrounding remarks so you could sound off on a favorite gripe without reference to its specific context. It is a practice so common to your posts, I could almost call it compulsive — if I did not suspect that even you are at least somewhat aware that you do, in fact, do it. (Though I doubt that, even at that, you’ve no idea just how MUCH you do it.)
But it certainly was tangential to the point above.
Whether the quoting of scripture to buttress politics is, or is not, common to Yamit’s style
and whether that’s GENERALLY a pernicious thing or a constructive thing,
— it was, in any event, not germaine to my response to your original remark from May 25, 2:55 am: “If [Yamit] made a practice of refraining from misrepresenting well known facts, he would hear nothing from me [AE].”
In reply, I said, in essence, that you can’t just assert that somebody is misrepresenting or ignoring facts, without showing how, merely to give yourself a pretext for a preset conclusion. That had nothing to do with him (or anybody else) quoting scripture, and you had no business jumping off to that when there was no connection to it. Instead, if you had no examples to SHOW him ignoring or misstating facts, then you should’ve licked your wounds & moved on.
I’M grasping at straws? — Right.
— Pure projection, and nothing but.
Rongrand, if your claim is correct it is an indictment of Ted Belman and Israpundit, who has dismissed members in the past for such stunts.
Secondly, your response, “Get lost”, was so breathtakingly brilliant that I was induced to respond to save you any further embarrassment, but mostly to educate Michael or the man behind his mask with some recent credible information.
Similar studies of media coverage on cable TV during the 2008 presidential elections showed that Fox News had been scrupulously fair in their positive and negative comments about both candidates with about the same for both, whereas CNN favored Obama by 3 to 1 and MSNBC favored Obama by 5 to 1.
The minute you hear someone claim that Fox News favors one side or the other it immediately tells you that they either do not watch the channel or are liberal or Democrat stooges.
What confuses liberals and makes it seem to them that Fox news leans conservative is that Fox News does have more conservative voices when compared to CNN and MSNBC, and the liberals are not used to such balance. They are more familiar with the proven liberal slant on CNN and MSNBC and think that is the norm.
AE, you need not respond for me. First of all michael is only one of a number of names he or she uses when commenting on this site. A real fraud.
By the way my comment was in reference to a number of postings regarding FOX not being fair and balanced.
Michael,
I’m not sure why Rongrand was unable to provide a coherent clarification, but see if this helps you or not:
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/05/20/poll-fox-oreilly-most-trusted-news-sources
Quote:
In a stunning rejection of network news and nightly news anchors, cable news, driven by the Fox News Channel and mouthy Bill O’Reilly, is now the top most trusted source—by a mile.
In a new poll from Boston’s Suffolk University, more than a quarter of the nation says Fox is tops when it comes to who they trust the most and O’Reilly is the most believable.
Unquote.
Quote:
The key finding in the telephone poll of 1,070 likely voters is that network news is dying. Some 28 percent say that they trust Fox News the most, followed by CNN at 18 percent. After that, the trust in TV news nose dives. NBC was third, at 10 percent, MSNBC fourth at 7 percent, CBS and ABC tied at fifth with just 6 percent.
Suffolk offered 28 different TV news personalities for poll takers to decide from on the trust question. As a result, the results were in single digits.
Unquote.
Quote:
But of the top 10 most trusted new sources, O’Reilly is king, at 9 percent. CNN’s Anderson Cooper followed at 6 percent, Fox’s Mike Huckabee at 4 percent, Fox’s Sean Hannity at 4 percent, Wolf Blitzer was sixth at 3 percent, followed by MSNBC’s Chris Matthews at 3 percent, NBC newsman Tom Brokaw at 3 percent, CBS anchor Katie Couric at 3 percent and ABC’s Diane Sawyer at 3 percent.
Unquote.
Thanks for admitting that I was right. What difference does it make if I have an ego or not. The truth is what matters.
Much of the time you make unsubstantiated assumptions, which I have called straw men.
An objective analysis of your writings whould prove that it is precisely what you do.
If exposing Yamit’s misrepresentations shows me to be vain, so be it. Only the truth matters.
You have made up some context after the fact, again out of thin air.
I always stick to the subject which is why I clearly identify what I am responding to. Quoting scriptures to make political points is CENTRAL to what Yamit and his gang do to try and shut down debate on their terms not based on any facts on the ground, NOT TANGENTIAL at all.
This is because you are typically grasping for straws to build your straw men instead of focusing on the essentials of a discussion.
Sheer diversion, deliberately off-point.
You’re off-point (again): I didn’t say that your remark [“Only I {AE} stand in his way…”] was “true” OR “untrue.”
The point at issue was NOT the ‘truthfulness’ (or lack of same) to what you wrote.
Rather, the point at issue was the evident motive for the writing of it [“Only I {AE} stand in his way..”].
Hence, my observation: “That’s your ego speaking.”
So do I…
I don’t presume to do either of those things.
On the other hand, WHATEVER IT IS THAT I DO, apparently it works — as I seem to have “read” your mind in this matter; most evident from your scramble to diversionary tactics.
The reason he ‘heard from [you]’ was not BECAUSE it was “true.”
That is:
He didn’t “hear from [you]” BECAUSE “he made a practice of… misrepresenting well known facts.”
He heard from you BECAUSE his purported ‘misrepresentation’ afforded your personal vanity a vehicle for drawing attention to itself.
You’re off-point again, AE; changing the subject. My above-comment [re: “Anybody can claim that their ‘facts’ are being ignored… etc”] was a direct response to your immediately-prior remark concerning Yamit’s purportedly “misrepresenting well known facts.” But you neatly cut away the CONTEXT of my remark (which I have restored, above), so that you could make that non-sequitur comment re quoting scriptures.
Whether he does or doesn’t quote scriptures to buttress his politics is tangential to that specific point about how anybody can claim their ‘facts’ are being ignored.
Stick to the subject, Eagle.
Don’t make your posts a laundry list of all the gripes you have of other people’s political styles; it’s pure distraction & not freakin’ constructive.
As true as anything written by Moses.
I always accept credible sources. I never accept idle speculation or reading people’s minds, both of which are staples when you write.
So what? It’s also true.
Quoting scriptures to support a political argument is hardly a claim on “facts”.
I always sound like a filty liar to filthy liars – these two morons also spout scripture as “facts” in political arguments.
Thanks, that was great Shy. I haven’t seen green acres in a coons age.
OK but this is gonna cost yah!
No Shy, you are speaking for me also…
Just speaking for myself, you are a filthy liar.
That’s a little too easy. Anybody can claim that their ‘facts’ are being ignored to justify what they already want to conclude.
A favorite gambit in forensics & debate.
No sale.
Yours. [May 24, 3:38 am]
If you don’t acknowledge the existence (let alone, validity) of my evidence & sources, then by precisely the same token, YOU likewise have no way to know whether I do or don’t have a way of knowing if it’s your ego or not.
And even if it were true, as you maintain — i.e., even if it WERE true that ‘only you’ stand in Yamit’s way (a proposition I do not concede, but even if it were a fact) — if your ego IS in on the act, then surface appearances to the contrary notwithstanding, there is no positive good that can come of it: not without your manner generating as much confusion as it arrests.
Dweller, you an expert at idle speculation with absolutely NO basis in any facts. I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion no matter how stupid, even as stupid as Yamit’s, but not entitled to their own facts. If he made a practice of refraining from misrepresenting well known facts, he would hear nothing from me.
I’ve no doubt that without you to clash with, he’d find somebody else with the same compulsiveness, just as you’d find a foil of your OWN if he weren’t handy. I just find beholding the whole nuttiness as disappointing, tiresome and ultimately counter-productive.
And it’s a safe bet that I speak for more than just myself in that respect.
The difference is that you wear yourself out against me (a fact you’ve acknowledged, and not long ago), because there’s no emotionalism in my responses to you. Thus, forced to rely strictly on your own “fuel,” you eventually come up dry. With AE, the M.O. is comparable. You & he have the same vitality sources, and (unconsciously perhaps) they recognize each other as kindred spirits.
Sorry, Yamit but no one on this forum is as stupid as you, and your handlers in Gaza are very pleased.
Why don’t you go ahead with your libels against the US and the Republicans and anyone who supports Israel and your defense of the liberal Jews who gave us Imam Obama as well as the Imam himself. Like a toothless mutt, the louder you bark, the less credibility you have. Even Moses cannot change that.
Dweller, be a smart chap – even if this is difficult for you – and identify whose excerpt you are posting and responding to.
Re. the excerpt above, you have no way to know whether it is my ego speaking or not, but it also happens to be true because most of you run and hide under your desks when the faux-Rabbit Yamit is on one of his rants. If it weren’t for Moses he would have no facts or logic to offer:-))
Unfortunately, they are also the ones lurking in the shadows ready to strike at the unsuspecting innocent who may wander by. As you can imagine, they are very happy when Israpundits attack their Big Satan. Maybe you cannot imagine.
My objective is to make their infamous charter part of the discussion so that the Israeli leaders can quit spinning their wheels hoping some Palestinian will please talk to them.
One can’t make an equal claim on veracity where there is none as I have shown time and time again in this and other discussions. Facts are hard things to simply claim and move on.
The foils have been in place since Israel was founded and beyond. You may pretend otherwise by burying your head in the sand.
Not true!! There is always YOU.
I already showed you that this was a red herring, a distraction not germane to the discussion in the first place. And in any case, I had already addressed it before you ever entered the thread: “Only the People can change something deep-seated that.” (Re-read the posts from the beginning, and you’ll see; then move on.)
That’s your ego speaking.
Hamas is hardly in need of exposure on this blogsite (of all places!). You just use your ‘exposure’ of it as an easy vehicle by which to establish your bona fides to be taken seriously in relation to this site’s overall mission.
An assertion that he too can make, and with equal claim to veracity.
In some part this is true, but his hubris would starve without the foil it finds in your hubris.
You have already been colored black and blue with red thrown in for embarrassment that your game is up. Only a moron would compare someone writing on my own behalf in an Internet forum with an alleged leader speaking on behalf of an entire country. So, let’s color you moronic as well:-))
Wrong, you like to use the word I a lot. Color me surprised that you didn’t get it.
Actually, I support Israel, the USA, and American conservatism, unlike you, Shy Guy and faux-Rabbit Yamit. You all also support or defend the liberal American Jews who voted for Obummer, whom I have described as morons who don’t care for the secutity of Israel. Therefore it is you three who have much more in common with Obummer whereas I have nothing in common with him.
This is for the idiots who try to demonize Fox News without even listening to it:
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/05/20/poll-fox-oreilly-most-trusted-news-sources
Quote:
In a stunning rejection of network news and nightly news anchors, cable news, driven by the Fox News Channel and mouthy Bill O’Reilly, is now the top most trusted source—by a mile.
In a new poll from Boston’s Suffolk University, more than a quarter of the nation says Fox is tops when it comes to who they trust the most and O’Reilly is the most believable.
Unquote.
Quote:
The key finding in the telephone poll of 1,070 likely voters is that network news is dying. Some 28 percent say that they trust Fox News the most, followed by CNN at 18 percent. After that, the trust in TV news nose dives. NBC was third, at 10 percent, MSNBC fourth at 7 percent, CBS and ABC tied at fifth with just 6 percent.
Suffolk offered 28 different TV news personalities for poll takers to decide from on the trust question. As a result, the results were in single digits.
Unquote.
Quote:
But of the top 10 most trusted new sources, O’Reilly is king, at 9 percent. CNN’s Anderson Cooper followed at 6 percent, Fox’s Mike Huckabee at 4 percent, Fox’s Sean Hannity at 4 percent, Wolf Blitzer was sixth at 3 percent, followed by MSNBC’s Chris Matthews at 3 percent, NBC newsman Tom Brokaw at 3 percent, CBS anchor Katie Couric at 3 percent and ABC’s Diane Sawyer at 3 percent.
Unquote.
If that is so, let me correct what I wrote, “Only if you liberal Christians vote for him again, Dawg.”
You can stop coughing, Shy Guy. I fixed the problem.
Seems you have something in common with obummer…
***cough***
Dawg is a christian. One of you.
***cough***
There is no “rot” that can’t be fixed. The US has experienced worse before and come out on top. That would be terrible news for Yamit.
Every discussion in Israeli politics has the shadow of Hamas in the background. Anything that weakens Israel strengthens Hamas.
Poppycock. This is like saying that exposing Hamas fuels their fire.
More dog-poo. The difference is that everything I support strengthens Israel and its ability to defend itself. His misguided comments are all slanted towards weakening Israel by weakening the alliance with its only ally. The only ones to benefit from his posture are the Palestinian terrorists. Don’t fool yourself that he has the best interests of Israel at heart. At best it is his own hubris.
He most certainly was off-point.
I had said there was ample time for a “dark horse” nominee to take what Dawg referred to as the “present inhabitant” out of the Oval Office — because Dawg was concerned that, apart from the three ‘candidates’ whom Laura designated (in the very first post on this thread) as her “top three choices,” there was nobody to replace the Mahatmabama.
The discussion hadn’t had anything to do with the ability of such an individual replacement to “correct the rot” that Yamit had peripherally interposed, later, as an issue. Nor did the discussion have anything to do with Hamas either.
You don’t stand in his way.
You fuel his fire.
Just as he fuels yours.
Your mutual rancor energizes eachother.
Sometimes I think that if you didn’t have one another to spit at,
neither one of you would have the strength to lift a fork.
Only if you liberal Jews vote for him again, Dawg.
Compared to whom, Laura?
A conservative TV channel like Fox News is bad news for Yamit and his liberal gang working so hard to make the anti-Israeli philosophy on MSNBC rule!
Rongrand is right. Of course Yamit will do everything he can to tear down the most conservative and pro-Israeli TV cable channel in the world. I don’t know what Laura was thinking, or whom she is comparing Fox News to. This is how half-assed libel against Fox News gets started.
The guys in Gaza are chuckling at THEIR useful idiot:-))
Sounds like something that could be written by Ismail Haniyeh himself:-))
Dweller, were you born last night? Yamit is right on point – the point Hamas would like him to make. Look for more of the same as we go into 2012. Anyone who supports Israel will immediately become a target for Yamit and his gang. Mark my words. He has already fooled the Mighty Belman, and now he is working on the rest of you. Lsura is silent in the face of his blather. Only I stand in his way, so watch for more personal attacks directed at me and Christians – who are the biggest supporters of Israel. See how this works? It’s almost like the British disinformation campaigns in WW-II.
You’re off-point, Yamit.
I said there was ample time for a dark horse to take what Dawg referred to as the “present inhabitant” out of the Oval Office, because Dawg was concerned that, apart from the three ‘candidates,’ there was nobody to replace the Mahatmabama.
The discussion had nothing to do with the ability of such an individual replacement to “correct the rot.”
But then, I have NEVER credited any politician with that potential.
Only the People can change something deep-seated that.
Who says I regard intellect as ‘distasteful’?
(Have you always been given to pomposity & bombast?)
Wouldn’t that expression constitute something on the order of an oxymoron from your perspective?
Where do you get the idea that I do “credit any politician” which such capability?
Apparently not as you still seem to credit the political system with the ability for self correction. Using that distasteful commodity of intellect and Google with a bit of normative intuition would give you a picture of America and the world at odds with your obvious pathological stasis, I call self delusion, rather than outright stupidity.
Economically America is beyond repair, The rot is irreversible. Any serious attempt for correction will bring on a civil war and at best dictatorship. To credit any politician with the abilities to correct the rot is lending yourself to the very human trait of relying on FALSE HOPE
But I ALWAYS practice what I preach.
Time to heed your own advice.
Steady.
Desire makes a tip-top energizer but a piss-poor counselor — and notwithstanding what Good Master of the Holy Hope’n’Changen would have you believe, not ALL hope is worthwhile.
Before true hope can emerge, it is often necessary to first dispel FALSE hope.
We have to be clear-sighted about this stuff, Dawg. What I was saying (above), is that the three (undeniably attractive) candidates that Laura named are simply not realistic prospects, at least for this election cycle. There is, however, still ample time for a dark horse candidate (with good funding prospects) to show his face, and I’m certain that several are weighing their options even as we write.
Laura, Yamit (Uncle Nahum) you cut me to the quick.
You may say what you want but FOX is the only fair and balanced network out there. Forget, NBC,MSNBC, CNN and the rest.
Laura, Neil didn’t say the PM was rude, he was asking Cain if he thought so.
FOX does present but sides and sometimes I find they offer more time to the liberal pundits than the conservatives. Besides, check them out and you will no doubt find most of the liberal left democratic strategists are Jewish (they are heavy drinkers of the Obama kool-aid)
As I stated in the past there isn’t enough coverage, good coverage of Israel and the problems she faces with the Palestinians and Arab world.
Listen I would like to see Mark Levin and Laura host a show on FOX giving more exposure to Israel.
Alan Colmes could have had a shot at it but he is so liberal and to the left he can’t even stand up straight. He was a stand up comedian, in fact he still is.
Just think Obama tries to act like one. In just about every speech he acts like a clown while showing his ignorance.
Obama and Colmes should take their comedy show on the road. They could be the “Barry and Alan Liberal Liars” They could begin with Alan telling Barry Obama “liar, liar pants on fire” and Obama could do a pants on fire dance.
BTW, the PM did scold that boy (clown) in the oval office. He had it coming to him. He has no business even suggesting any terms to Israel.
Israel is our only true, trusted friend and ally in the ME while all her neighbors and the rest of the Arab world has the worst human rights violations and hate us.
We need to 1.- start treating Israel as are partner and not as a step child.
2.- Stop providing aid to the Palestinians and the Arab world until they clean up their human rights violations, especially against women and stop terrorizing Israel and the rest of the world. (don’t look for that to happen too soon).
It’s not space science to figure out who the guys in the white and black hats are.
Nothing!!!! But Fox is worse than all the others because they cultivate the image of the conservative right. They are scamming and duping the conservative mob who are willing useful idiots.
Where Fox is weak in hard news content, they are strong in entertainment value. I love their Blond of the week, few seem to last very long though.
Cavuto is an ass. He thinks its rude for Bibi to have told Obama that Israel will not commit national suicide. And of course there was Wallace claiming that the Jews “threw out” the arabs from their homes. And we are told that FOX is “right wing”. How much different is FOX from the rest of the networks? Outside of Beck and Hannity, I fail to see what is conservative about FOX these days.
The above makes it sound like we’ll end up w/our present inhabitant, all over again.
Palin is the mother of a special needs child.
That’s a full-time job for a mother, even with a reliable man on-hand.
West is too near the beginning of his political career to be a real candidate this time out.
Cain has good presence, but no electoral experience as yet at the national or gubernatorial level.
These are all interesting people to watch.
But for a president to enter the Oval Office in January 2013, look elsewhere.
Rep. Allen West is in a class by himself. He truly understands the threat from Islam and he has the knowledge, experience and, most importantly, the toughness to do what needs to be done to protect the U.S. There is no one else like Rep. West in American politics.
I like Cain and he is solidly pro-Israel. He is probably the best of a weak field of candidates. He has definite leadership abilities and is unafraid to speak the truth on many issues. But he didn’t have any idea regarding the so-called Palestinian “right of return” when asked about it on Fox News Sunday this morning. And he has no opinion on the American involvement in Afghanistan until he becomes President and sees the intelligence.
Rep. West has come out against the awful waist of lives and money in Afghanistan and does not favor “nation building.”
Palin, West and Cain are my top three choices.