Taking Cain Seriously

jmc wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: Speaking only for myself, I don't want another moderate candidate from my party, I want a Jeffersonian Republican this time around.

Get ready for Romney. Obama was a slightly smarter Bush and Romney would be a slightly more conservative Obama. You want a States rights conservative? Find me one, we are not a loose collection of states. Your time has passed, If you want to rule the world you cannot be a weak confederation of states. IMHO, of course.

A weak confederation of states was exactly the problem the Constitution, with its coordinate power structure, addressed. What the Constitution gave us was a progressive form of government that was light years beyond both other centrally governed nations and the weak confederation of states that was originally devised.

That is one of the problems with consolidation of power advocates, they see only two alternatives. The first is one government with the complete power of governing, the other is a jealous confederation of states where there is really no actual central power at all. No jmc, I see a need for a strong federal government in the areas of foreign and federal relations, but I see no need for an all powerful national government. If we attempt to rule the world, as every other empire has done, we will simply be the latest addition to the scrapheap of governments who have attempted to do so in the past with varying degrees of success. That is why the founders of this nation flat out rejected establishing a central government - they knew that doing so would eventually result in this nation being nothing more than the latest nation of empire which failed in the attempt. Endless wars fought which accomplished little more than depleting the nation's treasury and enslaving the populace to the despotism of that central government are the natural result of consolidation whether that endless war is against another nation/state or a concept such as poverty or terror.

Consolidation of power, a monopoly of power if you will, is as, if not more, dangerous in government as it is in banking, or energy, or telephones, or automobile manufacturing, or airline travel, or in any other realm. Avoidance of monopoly of power is, and always will be, a judicious path to follow regardless of what sphere is being talked about and an absolute necessity when it is the sphere of governing that is the subject.

Why does this remind me of how liberals hate Walmart because they helped wipe out the little guy, but they are fine with the Fed Gov't getting larger and reducing the power of the states?

The larger the government, the smaller the citizen.

PrintSmith wrote:

jmc wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: Speaking only for myself, I don't want another moderate candidate from my party, I want a Jeffersonian Republican this time around.

Get ready for Romney. Obama was a slightly smarter Bush and Romney would be a slightly more conservative Obama. You want a States rights conservative? Find me one, we are not a loose collection of states. Your time has passed, If you want to rule the world you cannot be a weak confederation of states. IMHO, of course.

A weak confederation of states was exactly the problem the Constitution, with its coordinate power structure, addressed. What the Constitution gave us was a progressive form of government that was light years beyond both other centrally governed nations and the weak confederation of states that was originally devised.

That is one of the problems with consolidation of power advocates, they see only two alternatives. The first is one government with the complete power of governing, the other is a jealous confederation of states where there is really no actual central power at all. No jmc, I see a need for a strong federal government in the areas of foreign and federal relations, but I see no need for an all powerful national government. If we attempt to rule the world, as every other empire has done, we will simply be the latest addition to the scrapheap of governments who have attempted to do so in the past with varying degrees of success. That is why the founders of this nation flat out rejected establishing a central government - they knew that doing so would eventually result in this nation being nothing more than the latest nation of empire which failed in the attempt. Endless wars fought which accomplished little more than depleting the nation's treasury and enslaving the populace to the despotism of that central government are the natural result of consolidation whether that endless war is against another nation/state or a concept such as poverty or terror.

Consolidation of power, a monopoly of power if you will, is as, if not more, dangerous in government as it is in banking, or energy, or telephones, or automobile manufacturing, or airline travel, or in any other realm. Avoidance of monopoly of power is, and always will be, a judicious path to follow regardless of what sphere is being talked about and an absolute necessity when it is the sphere of governing that is the subject.

If you really believe what you just posted , how can you support the Republican party?

CivilBill wrote:

Conservative Voice wrote:

CivilBill wrote: The last two comments are exactly why racism will always be an issue for this country. Too many people thinking they know what is in the hearts and minds of others. Oh no, if you're conservative, you must be a racist and would only prop up a black man to prove you are not a racist. The most ignorant among us will not let racism die.

So it was just a coincidence that the first black president gets elected and all of a sudden, for the first time in history, the Republican Party puts a black guy in charge?

Who put Cain in charge again? Ar you really that clueless? Cain made his own success through the debates where he was given a voice and it struck a cord with those of us who are sick and tired of politicians (which he is not). He started out as a nobody and his words and personal success story have elevated him to the top...this was no Republican plan. Obama also was elevated over the more experienced and politically savy Clinton because of his words and personal story...not because of any political accomplishments (or career accomplishments for that matter).

Do you really want a pizza guy as head of the world's greatest superpower?

Conservative Voice wrote:

CivilBill wrote:

Conservative Voice wrote:

CivilBill wrote: The last two comments are exactly why racism will always be an issue for this country. Too many people thinking they know what is in the hearts and minds of others. Oh no, if you're conservative, you must be a racist and would only prop up a black man to prove you are not a racist. The most ignorant among us will not let racism die.

So it was just a coincidence that the first black president gets elected and all of a sudden, for the first time in history, the Republican Party puts a black guy in charge?

Who put Cain in charge again? Ar you really that clueless? Cain made his own success through the debates where he was given a voice and it struck a cord with those of us who are sick and tired of politicians (which he is not). He started out as a nobody and his words and personal success story have elevated him to the top...this was no Republican plan. Obama also was elevated over the more experienced and politically savy Clinton because of his words and personal story...not because of any political accomplishments (or career accomplishments for that matter).

Do you really want a pizza guy as head of the world's greatest superpower?

You really need to get off the "pizza guy" thing. You obviously ignore this man's entire career and education and condense it down to "pizza guy" just belittle his accomplishments. WTF is so high and nobel about your career wayne that you should be so judgemental about someone else? Put Obama's accomplishments up against Cain's and then get back to me. (You won't find the info in the HuffPo)

Wayne is not running for Prez.

CivilBill wrote:

Conservative Voice wrote:

CivilBill wrote:

Conservative Voice wrote:

CivilBill wrote: The last two comments are exactly why racism will always be an issue for this country. Too many people thinking they know what is in the hearts and minds of others. Oh no, if you're conservative, you must be a racist and would only prop up a black man to prove you are not a racist. The most ignorant among us will not let racism die.

So it was just a coincidence that the first black president gets elected and all of a sudden, for the first time in history, the Republican Party puts a black guy in charge?

Who put Cain in charge again? Ar you really that clueless? Cain made his own success through the debates where he was given a voice and it struck a cord with those of us who are sick and tired of politicians (which he is not). He started out as a nobody and his words and personal success story have elevated him to the top...this was no Republican plan. Obama also was elevated over the more experienced and politically savy Clinton because of his words and personal story...not because of any political accomplishments (or career accomplishments for that matter).

Do you really want a pizza guy as head of the world's greatest superpower?

You really need to get off the "pizza guy" thing. You obviously ignore this man's entire career and education and condense it down to "pizza guy" just belittle his accomplishments. WTF is so high and nobel about your career wayne that you should be so judgemental about someone else? Put Obama's accomplishments up against Cain's and then get back to me. (You won't find the info in the HuffPo)

For the same reason you reduce Obama to the "community organizer"... Cain's qualifications for office is that he's the "pizza guy" who understands business? God help us all...

jmc wrote:

PrintSmith wrote:

jmc wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: Speaking only for myself, I don't want another moderate candidate from my party, I want a Jeffersonian Republican this time around.

Get ready for Romney. Obama was a slightly smarter Bush and Romney would be a slightly more conservative Obama. You want a States rights conservative? Find me one, we are not a loose collection of states. Your time has passed, If you want to rule the world you cannot be a weak confederation of states. IMHO, of course.

A weak confederation of states was exactly the problem the Constitution, with its coordinate power structure, addressed. What the Constitution gave us was a progressive form of government that was light years beyond both other centrally governed nations and the weak confederation of states that was originally devised.

That is one of the problems with consolidation of power advocates, they see only two alternatives. The first is one government with the complete power of governing, the other is a jealous confederation of states where there is really no actual central power at all. No jmc, I see a need for a strong federal government in the areas of foreign and federal relations, but I see no need for an all powerful national government. If we attempt to rule the world, as every other empire has done, we will simply be the latest addition to the scrapheap of governments who have attempted to do so in the past with varying degrees of success. That is why the founders of this nation flat out rejected establishing a central government - they knew that doing so would eventually result in this nation being nothing more than the latest nation of empire which failed in the attempt. Endless wars fought which accomplished little more than depleting the nation's treasury and enslaving the populace to the despotism of that central government are the natural result of consolidation whether that endless war is against another nation/state or a concept such as poverty or terror.

Consolidation of power, a monopoly of power if you will, is as, if not more, dangerous in government as it is in banking, or energy, or telephones, or automobile manufacturing, or airline travel, or in any other realm. Avoidance of monopoly of power is, and always will be, a judicious path to follow regardless of what sphere is being talked about and an absolute necessity when it is the sphere of governing that is the subject.

If you really believe what you just posted , how can you support the Republican party?

I'm much more likely to get a variation of what I believe in with the party that seeks a republican solution than I am with a party that seeks a tyranny of the majority, or a democratic solution. The two major parties are aptly named according to their expressed purposes even if the one I belong to sometimes tends to look more like the one I don't belong to than I would prefer it to. The first priority is getting this ship of state back on a rough republican tack instead of the one it has been following for the last 80 or so years. One we get the general direction of the ship settled properly, the fine tuning of the course can be done, but we have to get the general heading straightened out first.

CivilBill wrote:

Conservative Voice wrote: Do you really want a pizza guy as head of the world's greatest superpower?

You really need to get off the "pizza guy" thing. You obviously ignore this man's entire career and education and condense it down to "pizza guy" just belittle his accomplishments. WTF is so high and nobel about your career wayne that you should be so judgemental about someone else? Put Obama's accomplishments up against Cain's and then get back to me. (You won't find the info in the HuffPo)

Your argument would carry more weight if you had said something when Obama was being belittled as a "community organizer."

But to answer your question, I am a U.S. citizen with the right to question the credentials of anyone running for president, just as you can.

Conservative Voice wrote:

CivilBill wrote:

Conservative Voice wrote: Do you really want a pizza guy as head of the world's greatest superpower?

You really need to get off the "pizza guy" thing. You obviously ignore this man's entire career and education and condense it down to "pizza guy" just belittle his accomplishments. WTF is so high and nobel about your career wayne that you should be so judgemental about someone else? Put Obama's accomplishments up against Cain's and then get back to me. (You won't find the info in the HuffPo)

Your argument would carry more weight if you had said something when Obama was being belittled as a "community organizer."

But to answer your question, I am a U.S. citizen with the right to question the credentials of anyone running for president, just as you can.

Sorry wayne, but I never belittled him for being a community organizer, but I did have serious doubts about voting for someone with little if any real world experience and I stand by that. Tell you what, make a list of Obama's real world accomplishments (Before he was Pres.) and work history and I'll do the same for Cain. Then we can debate the substance of both.