Herman Cain quotes Pokemon 2000.

Quillion

Quillion

CAGiversary!
Feedback
2 (100%)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=Dvq2tha6heU

He wanted to be the very best. Like no-one ever was.
To catch those votes was his real test - to win them was his cause.
He would travel across the land, searching far and wide -
For Her-man Cain to understand the power that's inside.
HER-MAN CAIN!
It's you and me. I know it's your destiny!
HER-MAN CAIN!
OOOooooh - you're my best friend.
America we must defend!
 
Old story, but still pretty funny. He thought he was quoting some philosopher, when it was some Diana Ross Pokemon movie song.
 
Wasn't his 9-9-9 tax plan from Sim City as well? (Swore I saw this reported somewhere)

Herman Cain. Geek Brother on the DL.
 
[quote name='Clak']Yep, he dropped out, surprise.[/QUOTE]

After he got his wife's permission.

Clinton screwed around for years during his first 1992 campaign (Gennifer with a G) and we gave him a pass.

Cain had a few annonymous accusers and one woman claiming an affair and so he's not qualified?

I had no intention of voting for the guy, but it just seems wrong to focus on his sexual dalliances if he's running for president.
 
[quote name='eldergamer']After he got his wife's permission.

Clinton screwed around for years during his first 1992 campaign (Gennifer with a G) and we gave him a pass.

Cain had a few annonymous accusers and one woman claiming an affair and so he's not qualified?

I had no intention of voting for the guy, but it just seems wrong to focus on his sexual dalliances if he's running for president.[/QUOTE]
I don't care one way or the other, he wasn't qualified for plenty of other reasons. But when you say "we" gave Clinton a pass, who are you referring to?
 
[quote name='Clak']I don't care one way or the other, he wasn't qualified for plenty of other reasons. But when you say "we" gave Clinton a pass, who are you referring to?[/QUOTE]

He must be talking about us frugal gamers who for the most part were in Junior High when it happened.
 
Yeah...no idea who "we" is.

The fact that Clinton had affairs is clearly unprofessional and I would define it as sexual harrassment because of power dynamics of relationships, BUT there was consentual activity on both parties. Whereas Cain was accused of shoving someone's face in his crotch without consent and without solicitation because harrassment is different from assault. Big difference there.

That said, Cain faced similar treatment to another one of our favorite black conservatives, Clarence Thomas. The problem is that we attack white republican males in sex scandals WAY differently than we do black ones and if you're a democrat, you're just plain fucked. There are clearly different standards at play.
 
[quote name='Chicken_Finger_Sub84']Last thing this nation needs is another bongo fest in the white house[/QUOTE]
Care to elaborate on that?

edit: wow, quick ban on that one.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I love how it gets wrapped up in this nice little bow that Cain was unqualified because of harrassment allegations. Her eis why he's unqualified:
1.) While the GOP seems to get mad that govt doesn't operate like a business, they business people that they do find to be politicians aren't very good business people. Look, a guy who ran the second to last national pizza chain isn't the guy you want running the country. Maybe, MAYBE, if he had brought it up to the second most succesful it could be debated, but really the guy did nothing with the company that was handed to him.
2.) His ideas sucked. Plain and simple. The tax plan was outrageous... And this: http://www.hermancain.com/issue/foreign_policy_national_security well shit dude if that doesn't make you realize that the guy has no qualifications whatsoever you may as well be the one blowing him.
3.) Lacking a prior voting record, he's only rhetoric with nothing to back it up. He can say literally anything he wants with no culpability whatsoever.
 
[quote name='eldergamer']Clinton screwed around for years during his first 1992 campaign (Gennifer with a G) and we gave him a pass.[/QUOTE]

Hell, Clinton had multiple allegations of rape against him and was given a free pass...

But, anywhoo, Cain said some pretty stupid stuff regarding those of the Muslim faith - so, no big loss.
 
He said some pretty stupid stuff, period. Seems like every election cycle has a joke candidate, he must have been it.
 
There are more than one joke candidate this cycle.

The news has been talking about Newt as "the smartest man in the room" like he trademarked the damned phrase, FFS.

I graduated valedictorian of clown college.
 
[quote name='Clak']I don't care one way or the other, he wasn't qualified for plenty of other reasons. But when you say "we" gave Clinton a pass, who are you referring to?[/QUOTE]

I think he just meant voters in general--i.e. that he still won two terms and was thus electable.

Personally I've never seen the big deal. I couldn't care less about politicians sex lives. Then again I don't give a crap about the institution of marriage in general. *shrugs*
 
same comment I made on Yahoo I'll make here:
It's rather telling that the (R) crowd is saying that personal attacks on Obama are "too dangerous" and not "pointless". Modern politics is broken and has become pro-wrestling in its overdramatizing of every single act. Why bother attacking someone on personality when it's so easy to "attack" (or as I like to call it point out in a civil manner) that Obama is little more than Bush's 3rd term?
 
As I'm reading nasum's post, msnbc is playing in the background and they're using the same "politics has become pro wrestling" rhetoric.

I've been saying as much for over a decade now.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I think he just meant voters in general--i.e. that he still won two terms and was thus electable.

Personally I've never seen the big deal. I couldn't care less about politicians sex lives. Then again I don't give a crap about the institution of marriage in general. *shrugs*[/QUOTE]

yeah, I meant voters/american public. I liked Clinton and most of his policies, but he was pretty sleazy. Hillary should have left him, but that might have cost him the election.

Newt's treatment of women is FAR worse, in my opinion. You divorce your wife in the hospital?

At least Cain brought some new ideas and showed a plurality of Black thought.

Even if the 9-9-9 plan was crazy, and most importantly the President doesnt introduce tax legislation!
 
[quote name='eldergamer']yeah, I meant voters/american public. I liked Clinton and most of his policies, but he was pretty sleazy. Hillary should have left him, but that might have cost him the election.

Newt's treatment of women is FAR worse, in my opinion. You divorce your wife in the hospital?

At least Cain brought some new ideas and showed a plurality of Black thought.

Even if the 9-9-9 plan was crazy, and most importantly the President doesnt introduce tax legislation![/QUOTE]
You're kidding right?
 
I think he meant that there could possibly be two black men running for president? Otherwise the sentence doesn't make sense.
 
[quote name='eldergamer']yeah, I meant voters/american public. I liked Clinton and most of his policies, but he was pretty sleazy. Hillary should have left him, but that might have cost him the election.

Newt's treatment of women is FAR worse, in my opinion. You divorce your wife in the hospital?

At least Cain brought some new ideas and showed a plurality of Black thought.

Even if the 9-9-9 plan was crazy, and most importantly the President doesnt introduce tax legislation![/QUOTE]
What good are new ideas when they're all bad? I'd like to hear a little more about what you think black thought is though.
 
[quote name='Clak']What good are new ideas when they're all bad? I'd like to hear a little more about what you think black thought is though.[/QUOTE]

Have to have the bad ideas to at least reinforce how good the good ideas are.

Cain at least shows that all of Black america isn't along a liberal/democratic thought divide. (Although I didnt really see any Black people supporting him)
 
[quote name='nasum']I think he meant that there could possibly be two black men running for president? Otherwise the sentence doesn't make sense.[/QUOTE]

I happen to know what plurality means, but that just makes it seem more nonsensical.
 
[quote name='eldergamer']Have to have the bad ideas to at least reinforce how good the good ideas are.

Cain at least shows that all of Black america isn't along a liberal/democratic thought divide. (Although I didnt really see any Black people supporting him)[/QUOTE]

You've never heard of Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, and fucking Michael Steele? You're a fucking moron.

[quote name='Msut77']I happen to know what plurality means, but that just makes it seem more nonsensical.[/QUOTE]
This is actually what I was getting at...lolz.
 
[quote name='dohdough']You've never heard of Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, and fucking Michael Steele? You're a fucking moron.


This is actually what I was getting at...lolz.[/QUOTE]

Sowell's the only guy I haven't heard of. Thomas (aside from the recent Supreme court health care possible ruling) and Steele havent been heart from much lately at all.

After losing the RNC chairman job Steele has pretty much dropped out of sight (thankfully).

Really worth the "fucking moron" comment?

Wound kind of tight, aren't you?
 
[quote name='eldergamer']

Even if the 9-9-9 plan was crazy, and most importantly the President doesnt introduce tax legislation![/QUOTE]

Isn't adding a national sales tax adding tax legislation?
 
[quote name='eldergamer']Sowell's the only guy I haven't heard of. Thomas (aside from the recent Supreme court health care possible ruling) and Steele havent been heart from much lately at all.[/quote]
Just because you're not familiar with any black conservatives doesn't mean that they don't exist.

After losing the RNC chairman job Steele has pretty much dropped out of sight (thankfully).
Click to expand...
Actually, it's pretty damn problematic, but judging from your statement about plurality and "black thought." I don't expect you to understand why.

Really worth the "fucking moron" comment?
Click to expand...
Why yes, it was. Thanks for asking.

Wound kind of tight, aren't you?
Click to expand...
I'm not the one that said this:

Cain at least shows that all of Black america isn't along a liberal/democratic thought divide.
Click to expand...

It says much more about you than me calling you a fucking moron.
 
[quote name='eldergamer']Sowell's the only guy I haven't heard of. Thomas (aside from the recent Supreme court health care possible ruling) and Steele havent been heart from much lately at all.

After losing the RNC chairman job Steele has pretty much dropped out of sight (thankfully).

Really worth the "fucking moron" comment?

Wound kind of tight, aren't you?[/QUOTE]
Also don't forget Tim Scott, Colin Powell, Allen West, Leo Mackay Jr (only know of him because his job in the VA), and the black flower in the white house that is Condoleezza Rice.
 
[quote name='eldergamer']

Cain at least shows that all of Black america isn't along a liberal/democratic thought divide. (Although I didnt really see any Black people supporting him)[/QUOTE]
What, you actually thought that was the case? Although why any minority would support conservatives is beyond me.
 
[quote name='Clak']What, you actually thought that was the case? Although why any minority would support conservatives is beyond me.[/QUOTE]

Hm.
You believe that entire groups of people should think a particular way based on their race?
 
[quote name='Clak']What, you actually thought that was the case? Although why any minority would support conservatives is beyond me.[/QUOTE]
There are plenty of Republican Latinos where I live, and they hate illegal immigrants more than anyone else.

I'm no conservative as I steal my favorite parts from each ideology to serve my own agenda, but I'm not sure why questioning how any minority could support conservatives isn't called out as a horrid and offensive thing to say by people who seek out horrible and offensive things to be offended about (I'm not offended by it). But then again, liberals consider minorities to be their burden and expect to be rewarded for dolling out all those handouts.

The hard working minorities that I live with (who aren't that minor anymore!) don't need those handouts. I'm reminded of what Malcolm X said in this video: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2a9_1178512785

He makes the perfect case for not supporting progressives.
 
It is a stupid thing to say, just like any generalization.

But it's just a sentiment of frustration over how many people vote for parties/candidates who hurt their interests rather than bolster them.

Be it poor people voting for republicans who'll cut their services and put in place tax breaks than mainly benefit the wealthy, or minorities voting for conservatives who want to further restrict immigration, do away with affirmative action policies, take funding away from poor urban areas etc. etc. etc.
 
Right-o. It's not just any minority, but how could any median wage-earning person vote Republican? How could any GLBT person vote Republican?

It does, I'll admit, get trotted out mostly in terms of race - but there are plenty of other groups who do vote Republican against their own self-interests. Frequently.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']
Be it poor people voting for republicans who'll cut their services and put in place tax breaks than mainly benefit the wealthy, or minorities voting for conservatives who want to further restrict immigration, do away with affirmative action policies, take funding away from poor urban areas etc. etc. etc.[/QUOTE]

You say that poor people are voting against their own best interests by voting for conservatives. I agree with that insomuch as we are talking about the way conservatism is practiced today. Conservatives are all about big government and handouts as much as the next politician.

At the same time, and I know you didn't say this but I'm going to, poor people and minorities are not necessarily voting in their own best interests by voting for democratic candidates. An American black or Hispanic voter does not need free-flowing immigration, affirmative action or federal dollars to thrive. It might even hurt them by taking away incentives to be the very best you can be. Have you ever heard someone say that are better off on welfare than getting a job? That's just one example of what happens.

If there were a real candidate with traditional conservative ideals such as limited government and had enough sense to stay out of social issues (get the government out of marriage altogether), I'd vote for them.
 
For a political party that often gets demonized for being greedy and self-absorbed, there seem to be a lot of people in it that vote for something other than their own self-interests.
 
[quote name='Spokker']Have you ever heard someone say that are better off on welfare than getting a job? That's just one example of what happens.
[/QUOTE]

That's just the typical conservative welfare queen stereotype.

To put it the realistic way, have you heard someone say they were better off unemployed with no or insufficient public services to make ends meet and support their family while looking for a new job?

The fact that some abuse welfare, rather than use it as a crutch while they try to get their lives back on track, doesn't change the fact that it's a good for society as a whole.

We don't want families starving and living on the streets because we don't have a sufficient social safety net. Both for moral reasons and all the other social ills like crime, disease and other public health problems etc. that cluster with such abject poverty in the absence of proper social services.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']For a political party that often gets demonized for being greedy and self-absorbed, there seem to be a lot of people in it that vote for something other than their own self-interests.[/QUOTE]

The wealthy who run and control the party are 100% in it for their own self interests.

They've unfortunately managed to hoodwink millions of others into supporting their party despite the fact that a party based on the interests of the wealthiest in society doesn't give a shit about the middle class and below--especially the poorest segments of society.

Case in point:

TrickleDown.jpg
 
[quote name='Clak']What, you actually thought that was the case? Although why any minority would support conservatives is beyond me.[/QUOTE]
I feel the same because of how conservatives view people of color, but many people of color lean right mostly on social/religious issues rather than economic ones. Although, it can also split along class lines.

[quote name='UncleBob']Hm.
You believe that entire groups of people should think a particular way based on their race?[/QUOTE]
It's more complicated than that, so don't start playing dumb like you usually do.

[quote name='Spokker']There are plenty of Republican Latinos where I live, and they hate illegal immigrants more than anyone else.[/quote]
You can bet that the divide is made along class lines. There is also a social aspect to it as well because they know that they will be categorized with "less desirables," but that's just symptom of larger issues that conservatives are not interested in solving.

I'm no conservative as I steal my favorite parts from each ideology to serve my own agenda, but I'm not sure why questioning how any minority could support conservatives isn't called out as a horrid and offensive thing to say by people who seek out horrible and offensive things to be offended about (I'm not offended by it).
Click to expand...
There's a reason why Republicans don't have the Latino vote despite the trends of Latinos to be social conservatives. There's also a reason for black people to not vote Republican even though they were the party to "free" the slaves.

It's only horrid if you decide to throw out over 400 years of historical racism and oppression that continue to this day.

But then again, liberals consider minorities to be their burden and expect to be rewarded for dolling out all those handouts.
Click to expand...
What the fuck does this even mean?

The hard working minorities that I live with (who aren't that minor anymore!) don't need those handouts. I'm reminded of what Malcolm X said in this video: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2a9_1178512785

He makes the perfect case for not supporting progressives.
Click to expand...
Nice way to completely misinterpret and pervert what Malcolm X is talking about. First off, liberal does not equal white people. He's talking about how systemic racism isn't solved by giving a handful of black people a couple of hand-ups that all white people get because whites aren't really interested in true equality.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']That's just the typical conservative welfare queen stereotype.[/QUOTE]

Except, in some cases, it's true.

I've witnessed people coming to management, complaining that they need their hours cut back because they have too many and they're at risk of losing some benefit or another.

Anecdotal, sure... but, I guess on a forum where the burden of proof can be met by posting photos with made up captions for them, it's pretty good proof.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Except, in some cases, it's true.

I've witnessed people coming to management, complaining that they need their hours cut back because they have too many and they're at risk of losing some benefit or another.[/QUOTE]

I clearly said later in the post that some do abuse the system, but that doesn't outweigh the greater good of the system for society.

The stereotype/myth is that the welfare queens are the norm, rather than just being a minority of recipients who abuse the system while not trying to become self sufficient.

And yes, as we've discussed before, the system needs to do more to help people become self sufficient rather than being so focused on just providing financial assistance. A lot more could be done in terms of education, job training, job placement programs etc. for welfare recipients.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']
The fact that some abuse welfare, rather than use it as a crutch while they try to get their lives back on track, doesn't change the fact that it's a good for society as a whole.[/quote]It's not abuse at all. I call these people rational individuals who chose the best-case scenario for themselves. It doesn't mean that government has to foster a situation in which it is better to not work and stay on the public dole.

We don't want families starving and living on the streets because we don't have a sufficient social safety net.
Click to expand...
A social safety net is good. But when you have people jumping on the net for fun, it's eventually going to snap.
 
And that's why it's abuse and why the system needs tweaked to focus more on being temporary assistance while helping people get back on their feet, rather than indefinite financial handouts that don't give people a lot of incentive to get off of welfare and back to gainful employment.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dohdough']He's talking about how systemic racism isn't solved by giving a handful of black people a couple of hand-ups that all white people get because whites aren't really interested in true equality.[/QUOTE]
Yes, he spoke often about the hypocrisy of white liberals before the Nation of Islam had him killed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top