Cain on Foreign Policy

[BSB]

This thread won't let me post anything more than a few words.

[Michael Tee]

<<This thread won't let me post anything more than a few words.>>

That's funny, it usually doesn't let me post anything less than a few hundred.

[sirs]

<<Can always count at the lunatic left to profess how much smarter, greater, and better they are, to those, who aren't>>

Those remarks weren't addressed to you, and if they had been, I would have used different words,  but I never spoke of being either smarter or greater.  The "moron" reference was not to intelligence but to moral understanding and responsibility.

Those remarks have indeed been mentioned on a choice few other occasions, to others, myself included, proclaiming how much smarter you are, how much "better" you see yourelf to be, than those who don't share your racist fringe ideology

[BSB]

Blowhard, if you're trying to show yourself to be a morally superior person, you're doing a very shitty job.

Look, lets cut to the chase. You're in here because you feel diminished in some way. You feel like you're less, didn't accomplish, whatever. In order to compensate you go around in here telling everyone how low they are and how high you are. That's all you do in here. This women is a whore, that person is morally less, this person is an Uncle Tom, that lady is an Aunt Jemima. I mean, like, dude, it's pathetically obvious. You aren't even an American, further, you don't even live here. Why the hell else would you waste your time, and ours, in here, except but to fill some neurotic need? 

BSB

[Plane]

   Kramer , you can enjoy my absolute opprobrium for this.

Stuck along the side of the road, Nigger WeWe, and Blowhard, try to unstick their agenda filled wooden carts as the days events speed past them.


BSB

I will always have a leg up on you no matter what you say.

[Amianthus]

Cain's alleged to be a fucking pervert and the facts known so far, which I've detailed in other posts, all support that conclusion.

Is this as accurate as your conclusions against the Duke players a few years ago?

[Michael Tee]

<<Those remarks have indeed been mentioned on a choice few other occasions, to others, myself included, proclaiming how much smarter you are, how much "better" you see yourelf to be, than those who don't share your racist fringe ideology>>

I will make a well-meant constructive debating suggestion to you, which is that you confine yourself to debating what is in the same thread as your comment, because I personally have enough on my hands keeping up with current threads and I am NOT going to be put on the defensive against McCarthy-like accusations concerning undefined statements made at unspecified times to you "and others" (nameless of course) about my purported attributes and "racist fringe ideology."  I know you're a good fascist and the late and unlamented Joe McCarthy would be proud indeed to see your style of "debate," but let's just leave it at this:  you've amply demonstrated your crypto-fascist "debating" credentials for the ghost of Tail-Gun Joe, but I'm not going to get sucked into an open-ended borderless free-for-all with you that will go on forever to no good end.  Nice try, though.   Three cans of mud and a long-handled throwing spoon for you, you earned them. 

[Michael Tee]

<<Blowhard, if you're trying to show yourself to be a morally superior person, you're doing a very shitty job. >>

Schmuck, I am not "trying to show myself to be a morally superior person," I AM a morally superior person, and I don't give a flying fuck whether you agree with that or not.  You are totally unqualified to pass moral judgment on a fucking snake, let alone a human being.

<<Look, lets cut to the chase. You're in here because you feel diminished in some way. You feel like you're less, didn't accomplish, whatever. In order to compensate you go around in here telling everyone how low they are and how high you are. >>

Well, that would be a good theory if "everyone" really meant "everyone," but apparently in your specialized psychopathic lingo, "everyone" seems to equate to "BSB."  BSB is a pathetically conceited (for no good reason) ass-hole who thinks he has a God-given entitlement to dish it out, while at the same time enjoying a God-given immunity to any counter-criticism.  As in this thread, for example:  I am blinded by a black curtain of revenge (nice figure of speech, actually) stuck in the mud with Wee Wee the Nigger [sic] while enlightened souls such as yourself "WOOOOOSH" past on the highway of life.  That, I guess, passes for legitimate "debating" style.  However, if I should dare to suggest that you are "WOOSHING" blindly on to nowhere with no concern for justice for past crimes and atrocities, which OBVIOUSLY makes you my moral inferior, then I come in for a shitstorm of infantile abuse, and some free armchair psychoanalysis from a moron no less.

<<That's all you do in here. This women is a whore, that person is morally less, this person is an Uncle Tom, that lady is an Aunt Jemima. I mean, like, dude, it's pathetically obvious. >>

What is pathetically obvious is that your country sucks.  The reason your country sucks is (a) people like you, (b) leaders or would-be leaders like Cain, who ARE both Uncle Toms and serial sexual predators, (c) moral imbeciles like you and many others, (d) foreign allies who are whores, (e) whoever else I labelled as a whore, as morally less, as an Uncle Tom or as an Aunt Jemima.  Your country is full of them.  THEY are the problem.  Which is why I labelled them.  There is no shortage of them.  If you think I bad-mouth a lot of people in my postings, dude I have a major surprise for you:   I haven't even begun to scratch the surface.  I didn't even label 1% of the one per cent.

<<You aren't even an American, further, you don't even live here. >>

I know more about your fucking country, its crimes and its atrocities, than you will ever know.  You should be thanking me for exposing the bullshit and the lies of your leaders and your media.

<<Why the hell else would you waste your time, and ours, in here, except but to fill some neurotic need?  >>

Because of idiots like you.  You are so fucking stupid and pathetic, that I feel you need to hear some real home truths, whether you like them or not. 

[Plane]

  Well, today,

    An accuser stepped forward and actually delineated the scope of her accusation.

     It sounds exactly like the stuff  Bill Clinton was accused of , more serious than the accusations against Clarence Thomas by quite a bit.  More serious than what Gary Heart was accused of even.


    So now it comes down to who can be more convincing, The accusations against Gary Heart cost him his chance to be a presidential nominee when they were proven true , the worser accusations against Bill Clinton were proven true too late to spare us his election. The accusations against Clarence Thomas never came with any proof and became more and more disbeleavable as time passed .

     I don't think that these accusations should be belieaved on face value alone, I don't see any proof or disproof being offered, so lacking proof Herman Cain still has a chance. The presumption of innocence is not only a grand principal of law, it is culturally accepted as proper.

      But the last thing I want is a Republican version of Bill Clinton! If the accusers do come forward with proof , or perhaps even a rather more believable version of events , more pursuesive than the denials of Herman Cain, then the man is a has been just that fast.

      On the other hand , supposing that the accustions are not only untrue, but provably so, then the backlash will be egg on the face of all Democrats and Herman Cain will have the vote of everyone not determined to vote for a vanilla face.

[sirs]

<<Those remarks have indeed been mentioned on a choice few other occasions to others, myself included, proclaiming how much smarter you are, how much "better" you see yourelf to be, than those who don't share your racist fringe ideology>>

I will make a well-meant constructive debating suggestion to you, which is that you confine yourself to debating what is in the same thread as your comment, because I personally have enough on my hands keeping up with current threads and I am NOT going to be put on the defensive against McCarthy-like accusations concerning undefined statements made at unspecified times to you "and others" (nameless of course) about my purported attributes and "racist fringe ideology."  I know you're a good fascist and the late and unlamented Joe McCarthy would be proud indeed to see your style of "debate," but let's just leave it at this:  you've amply demonstrated your crypto-fascist "debating" credentials for the ghost of Tail-Gun Joe, but I'm not going to get sucked into an open-ended borderless free-for-all with you that will go on forever to no good end.  Nice try, though.    

Speaking of nice try....putting aside the same lame SOP garbage of throwing around the facist term, when the racist term isn't working, nothing MacCarthy about highlighting your all too frequent efforts & references into thinking you're just that much smarter, just that much better, than those who aren't, you're only fooling yourself and anyone else ignorant enough to buy into your racist Anti-American rants

And it's priceless watching you proclaim how your racist references to Uncle Tom aren't racist because.....you say so, because, you're not a racist, because .....you say so, so they can't be.  Red is blue, up is down, yada yada

News flash, as recalled by a recent post of yours, not too long ago...if the shoe fits

[Plane]

Again, WTF do any of Clinton's alleged misdeeds have to do with Cain's case?  This is just a blatant red herring, a pure distraction, and there is absolutely no point in being dragged off in that direction.

   Standards !   

  By one vote in the Senate Clinton avoided being tossed out .

    And so a standard is set.

     I do not expect any of these canadates to be perfection incarnate, and I want to have the best availible of the flawed .

     But even when the choice is between the more or lessor evil there ought to be a lower limit below which no further consideration is given.

  For Democrats the bar is pretty low, but they can't be much worse than Bill Clinton.

    And Herman Cain is a Republican, therefore I want him to meet a higher standard. If I didn't I might as well be a Democrat.

     If Herman Cain did something I would not do, I might forgive, if he did something Bill Clinton would not do nobody will vote for him.

[Michael Tee]

<<Standards !   

  <<By one vote in the Senate Clinton avoided being tossed out .

    <<And so a standard is set.>>

 ROTFLMFAO!  That is the most complete and utter bullshit I have seen to date on this subject.  It's pure nonsense.  How can anyone set a standard by non-conviction, whether by one vote or twenty?

From Wikipedia on the impeachment of Bill Clinton:

<<[Clinton] was impeached by the House of Representatives on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice on December 19, 1998, but acquitted by the Senate on February 12, 1999. Two other impeachment articles, a second perjury charge and a charge of abuse of power, failed in the House. >>

So on four charges totally unrelated to sexual harassment and sexual assault (which is what Herm the Perv is now said to have committed) Congress found that no impeachable offences had been committed.  You don't set standards by what the guy was acquitted of, because the acquittal means he didn't do anything.  Or at least, he didn't do anything that the Congress of the United States should penalize him for.  The margin of acquittal is meaningless - - a differently constituted Congress might have acquitted by a wider margin, or might even have kicked him out of office.  It's all pure speculation.  The Congress, as duly constituted at the time, DID NOT FIND that any impeachable offence had been committed.

I think your real argument is non-existent.   This whole non-stop attempt to drag Clinton into a case which has absolutely nothing to do with him - - the American people will set their own "standards" for who they want as President and the party sets its own standard for who it wants as its candidate - - is pure distraction.  Clinton's case is clearly a red herring and as such should be ignored in the context of this discussion.


Clinton was NOT tossed out, so nothing that he allegedly did sets any standard, because none of it was admitted in the impeachment proceedings.  The offences for which impeachment was instituted, BTW, were obstruct justice and

[Plane]

  Clinton was not innocent of what he was accused of in any way.
   Sexual Harrassment
    Purjury


    Guilt well established by the time the Senate voted.

    So he was not exonerated , the senate found instead that his actions did not amount to an impeachable offence.

     So from that point Sexual harrasment ,... Purjury.... are within the standards acceptable to the Presidency of the United States.

[Michael Tee]

Sexual harassment did not form part of any charges against Clinton in the impeachment proceedings.  I already posted in this thread the part of the Wikipedia article that specified all four charges.  Two perjury, one each of obstruction of justice and abuse of power.

IIRC, by dismissing the indictment, the Congress did not distinguish between "never happened" and "NBD."  Therefore, the Congress in its impeachment proceedings made no findings at all that (a) the alleged offences had occurred or (b) that the alleged offences, if committed, were not serious enough to warrant any kind of penalty.

Which is why, in the first place, I said that you could not establish standards based on what a person is not convicted of.

[Xavier_Onassis]

On the balance, Clinton was very close to being a truly great president. The Monica affair was a defect in his character, I suppose, but a defect that was not uncommon to other presidents, like Cleveland, Harding, FDR, and JFK and I am sure LBJ as well.

Cain does not have a lot of beneficial public service on his plus side. I can't say that Cain is better than Clinton, though.

As I said, I am all for him staying in the race. Perhaps it will be good for the country to have the voters, rather than the press, decide what the penalty for this sort of thing should be.

But as a candidate, I think that is is toast.