Herman Cain the Black Walnut

[mav]

In his revised plan, Cain said that people who now do not earn enough to pay tax would pay nothing in income tax under his revised plan. "If you are at or below the poverty level, your plan isn't 9-9-9 it is 9-0-9," Cain said. "Say amen y'all. 9-0-9."

I find all of these changes to Cain's 9-9-9 plan quite telling. Initially his 9-9-9 plan was touted as being revenue neutral. Due to pandering to certain groups, the plan is being continually altered. We now have some people who will be on the 9-0-9 plan, and others in "empowerment zones" will be on the 3-3-3 plan, etc... If the original plan was revenue neutral, how could it possibly be now considering that some will being be paying lower rates than others? The simple answer is it can't. Once Washington realizes this, guess what, the rates will go up. However, the rates won't go up on those at the bottom because that isn't "fair" under Washington and the media's definition of fairness. Everyone on the 9-9-9 plan will have to pay more to compensate for those paying less. Eventually, the 9-9-9 plan will morph into a progressive tax structure like what we currently have, except we will now have a national sales tax to go along with it, which could be changed to a European-style VAT. I am 100% for tax reform. However, major tax restructuring should not even be in the debate; there is a far more pressing matter.

Mr. Cain sells himself as a problem solver, and is always talking about working on the "right" problems. Considering Mr. Cain is making his 9-9-9 plan the crown jewel of his candidacy, I would say that he does not understand what this country's primary problem is. Spending, spending, spending! In all fairness to Cain, all of the other candidates outside of one, maybe two, do not understand that spending is the primary concern.

A week or so ago I was watching Mr. Cain on Piers Morgan's show. I picked up on something that I had suspected for quite some time. Mr. Cain is a quasi big government corporatist. I use the term quasi because I don't think he is full blown. A lot of stuff he says I agree with, but some of it I am left just scratching my head thinking, "He is nuts."

Congressman Paul is hated by a lot within the conservative establishment primarily due to his foreign policy views. I often hear how great Paul is on domestic/fiscal issues, but is a disaster and/or dangerous for foreign policy. Even Mark Levin, who hates Paul, thinks he has the right ideas on fiscal policy. Once Paul brought forth his economic plan, Rush Limbaugh stated that this was exactly what was needed. Well... during Cain's interview with Morgan, Cain stated that he respected Paul the least out of the candidates running. Why? Was it his foreign policy views? Nope. Cain stated that he respected Paul the least because of his fiscal policies. Cain claims that Paul would be a bad president because Paul advocates ending or eliminating government programs, i.e. cutting spending. Cain believes that a lot of government programs can be fixed instead of eliminated.

We (government) need to fix a lot of thing is this country. I don't believe in throwing out the baby with the bath water.

We (government) have more things we can fix than totally eliminate.

The view that government can solve the problems if the right person is in office is a big government mentality. It is my contention that government cannot solve the problems we are facing. They will only make it worse. All we have to do is look at the current situation in Europe which was caused by big government run amok. I'm sorry Mr. Cain, but the only way to fix a lot of our problems is by cutting the size of government.

I mentioned earlier that major tax restructuring should not even be in the debate. I feel that tax restructuring is not something that should be done quickly. This should be a long process to make absolutely sure that we are not creating something that is, or has the possibility of being, worse than what we currently have. However, we can do many things very quickly to spur our economy and create a more competitive environment.

Repeal Obamacare, Dodd/Frank, Sarbanes/Oxley

Extend (or preferably make permanent) the Bush tax cuts

Lower the corporate tax rate

Eliminate capital gains tax

Eliminate the death tax

Eliminate tax on personal savings

The above is not an exhaustive list by any stretch of the imagination, but these are things that can be done extremely fast. Next, we could work on a bunch of other things such as tort reform, removing onerous regulations, entitlement reform, and most importantly, slash federal spending. Once we have a growing economy and have federal spending under control, then we can (and should) look at reforming our entire tax code.

My harping on Cain is not meant to piss anyone off. There are many things he says that I agree with, and if he wins the nomination, I will vote for him (although I will hold my nose doing so) in the general election. Any of the candidates are better than Obama. However, I don't want to delude anyone, which a lot of people are doing, into believing that Cain is some grand conservative Washington outsider who has the answers. I'm sorry, he is not. Don't take my word for it or some a$$hole on a blog. Go back and listen very carefully to what he is saying. He is conservative on some issues, and on others he is equal to Romney in that they both believe in big government solutions. Ultimately Cain, like most of the other candidates, will not lead and turn this country in the right direction because they do not grasp that the fundamental problem(s) in this country were brought about an overly large federal government and spending.

Edited October 23, 2011 by mav

[Guest Lester Weevils]

All of the flat tax and fair tax plans include exemptions for the poor. They all have progressive elements on the low end of the income scale to avoid being "regressive" taxes which "unfairly punish" those most in need.

I'm not defending Cain's plan(s). Just pointing out that most of the tax reform plans have the same kind of low-end exemptions. Dunno if it is from a sense of "fairness" of the plan designers, or if it is pragmatic realization that you can't conceivably pass a tax plan where people on the low end have to choose between paying tax versus eating. Such a plan would never have a chance of passing.

For instance in Boortz' conception of the fair tax, the gov would send every citizen a monthly check, big enough to cover the fair tax on a poverty-line income. Seems kinda weird that a libertarian plan would have the gov sending everybody including Bill Gates a monthly check, but it is a feature of the plan unless it has been lately revised.

[Guest President Fernatt]

I find all of these changes to Cain's 9-9-9 plan quite telling. Initially his 9-9-9 plan was touted as being revenue neutral. Due to pandering to certain groups, the plan is being continually altered. We now have some people who will be on the 9-0-9 plan, and others in "empowerment zones" will be on the 3-3-3 plan, etc... If the original plan was revenue neutral, how could it possibly be now considering that some will being be paying lower rates than others? The simple answer is it can't. Once Washington realizes this, guess what, the rates will go up. However, the rates won't go up on those at the bottom because that isn't "fair" under Washington and the media's definition of fairness. Everyone on the 9-9-9 plan will have to pay more to compensate for those paying less. Eventually, the 9-9-9 plan will morph into a progressive tax structure like what we currently have, except we will now have a national sales tax to go along with it, which could be changed to a European-style VAT. I am 100% for tax reform. However, major tax restructuring should not even be in the debate; there is a far more pressing matter.

Mr. Cain sells himself as a problem solver, and is always talking about working on the "right" problems. Considering Mr. Cain is making his 9-9-9 plan the crown jewel of his candidacy, I would say that he does not understand what this country's primary problem is. Spending, spending, spending! In all fairness to Cain, all of the other candidates outside of one, maybe two, do not understand that spending is the primary concern.

A week or so ago I was watching Mr. Cain on Piers Morgan's show. I picked up on something that I had suspected for quite some time. Mr. Cain is a quasi big government corporatist. I use the term quasi because I don't think he is full blown. A lot of stuff he says I agree with, but some of it I am left just scratching my head thinking, "He is nuts."

Congressman Paul is hated by a lot within the conservative establishment primarily due to his foreign policy views. I often hear how great Paul is on domestic/fiscal issues, but is a disaster and/or dangerous for foreign policy. Even Mark Levin, who hates Paul, thinks he has the right ideas on fiscal policy. Once Paul brought forth his economic plan, Rush Limbaugh stated that this was exactly what was needed. Well... during Cain's interview with Morgan, Cain stated that he respected Paul the least out of the candidates running. Why? Was it his foreign policy views? Nope. Cain stated that he respected Paul the least because of his fiscal policies. Cain claims that Paul would be a bad president because Paul advocates ending or eliminating government programs, i.e. cutting spending. Cain believes that a lot of government programs can be fixed instead of eliminated.

The view that government can solve the problems if the right person is in office is a big government mentality. It is my contention that government cannot solve the problems we are facing. They will only make it worse. All we have to do is look at the current situation in Europe which was caused by big government run amok. I'm sorry Mr. Cain, but the only way to fix a lot of our problems is by cutting the size of government.

I mentioned earlier that major tax restructuring should not even be in the debate. I feel that tax restructuring is not something that should be done quickly. This should be a long process to make absolutely sure that we are not creating something that is, or has the possibility of being, worse than what we currently have. However, we can do many things very quickly to spur our economy and create a more competitive environment.

Repeal Obamacare, Dodd/Frank, Sarbanes/Oxley

Extend (or preferably make permanent) the Bush tax cuts

Lower the corporate tax rate

Eliminate capital gains tax

Eliminate the death tax

Eliminate tax on personal savings

The above is not an exhaustive list by any stretch of the imagination, but these are things that can be done extremely fast. Next, we could work on a bunch of other things such as tort reform, removing onerous regulations, entitlement reform, and most importantly, slash federal spending. Once we have a growing economy and have federal spending under control, then we can (and should) look at reforming our entire tax code.

My harping on Cain is not meant to piss anyone off. There are many things he says that I agree with, and if he wins the nomination, I will vote for him (although I will hold my nose doing so) in the general election. Any of the candidates are better than Obama. However, I don't want to delude anyone, which a lot of people are doing, into believing that Cain is some grand conservative Washington outsider who has the answers. I'm sorry, he is not. Don't take my word for it or some a$$hole on a blog. Go back and listen very carefully to what he is saying. He is conservative on some issues, and on others he is equal to Romney in that they both believe in big government solutions. Ultimately Cain, like most of the other candidates, will not lead and turn this country in the right direction because they do not grasp that the fundamental problem(s) in this country were brought about an overly large federal government and spending.

Well, congratulations on pointing out the all the problems we face. That is very productive. Now, provide a solution...which candidate do you support? ...I have a sneaking feeling I already know the answer...and it sounds like Ron Paul

OH, and 1 more thing...The "empowerment zones" have been in the plan the ENTIRE time. The media outlets and other candidates simply didn't know...Why? Because they never read the analysis themselves. I'm sure you haven't either. The only "change" is the name. Instead of empowerment zones they are now called opportunity zones. This is a transition from the current to the new tax code. It can't be done all at once because the people who are in poverty would absolutely collapse in on themselves. Cain is providing a transition from Government dependency to independency. You need to gain knowledge from his analysis, what it takes to be qualified for the opportunity zones, the new responsibilities placed on those unwilling to work, and the eventual trasition to a complete fair tax. Be realistic, you can't simply end all taxes and replace them with Fair tax because it wont work. There has to be a gradual but precise change and that is exactly what 9.9.9 does.

Edited October 24, 2011 by President Fernatt

[mav]

Well, congratulations on pointing out the all the problems we face. That is very productive. Now, provide a solution...which candidate do you support? ...I have a sneaking feeling I already know the answer...and it sounds like Ron Paul

First off, there is no need for the snarky attitude. Reasonable people can have an intelligent discussion or debate without the sarcasm. That is one of the things that is wrong with the current political discourse. People have lost the skill of disagreeing without being disagreeable.

In regards to who I currently support, there is no need to have a sneaking feeling. I have made it quite clear on numerous posts who I will support in the primaries. Yes, it is Congressman Paul. However, don't make the mistake, which a lot people do, thinking my support for Paul makes me a Ronulan who believes that Paul is the Second Advent of Christ; that is not the case. My support for Paul in the primaries is base entirely on principles of a limited government working within the confines of the constitution. If Paul does not win the primary, I will be supporting whoever the republican candidate will be. If Paul chooses to run third party, I will disregard my principles and still vote for the republican candidate (Cain included).

You got so mad at my initial criticism of Cain's plan in my first paragraph (hence the sarcasm in your initial response) that you completely overlooked the last sentence of the first paragraph and the next paragraph in my post.

However, major tax restructuring should not even be in the debate; there is a far more pressing matter.

Mr. Cain sells himself as a problem solver, and is always talking about working on the "right" problems. Considering Mr. Cain is making his 9-9-9 plan the crown jewel of his candidacy, I would say that he does not understand what this country's primary problem is. Spending, spending, spending! In all fairness to Cain, all of the other candidates outside of one, maybe two, do not understand that spending is the primary concern.

Did you read the rest of my post? I laid out some legitimate criticisms of Cain's views, and I also provided some solutions that can be enacted almost immediately (as you asked about). My conclusions in regards to Mr. Cain were not formulated by reading some blog or listening to a commentator on tv or radio. Actually, most of the blogs and websites I read actually support Cain, and hate Ron Paul. I drew my conclusions about Mr. Cain by carefully (more than once) listening to what he said in the debates and in interviews.

Back to my original point, we can have all the tax reform in the world, but it still is not going to solve the primary problems of spending and debt. The government has gotten too big and out of control, and the only way to "fix" it is by cutting it and then cutting some more. So far, there is only one candidate who is making that their number one priority (Gingrich has talked a little about it), and that is the reason I am voting for him in the primary.

As a final thought, if someone criticizes your candidate, don't get so upset about it. If someone on the same side of the aisle as you gets you a little riled, how are you going to be if your candidate wins the nomination? The administration and the media are going to throw everything they have at whoever the nominee is. Due to Obama's vulnerability, I predict that this is going to be the nastiest election in our history.

[Guest President Fernatt]

First off, there is no need for the snarky attitude. Reasonable people can have an intelligent discussion or debate without the sarcasm. That is one of the things that is wrong with the current political discourse. People have lost the skill of disagreeing without being disagreeable.

In regards to who I currently support, there is no need to have a sneaking feeling. I have made it quite clear on numerous posts who I will support in the primaries. Yes, it is Congressman Paul. However, don't make the mistake, which a lot people do, thinking my support for Paul makes me a Ronulan who believes that Paul is the Second Advent of Christ; that is not the case. My support for Paul in the primaries is base entirely on principles of a limited government working within the confines of the constitution. If Paul does not win the primary, I will be supporting whoever the republican candidate will be. If Paul chooses to run third party, I will disregard my principles and still vote for the republican candidate (Cain included).

You got so mad at my initial criticism of Cain's plan in my first paragraph (hence the sarcasm in your initial response) that you completely overlooked the last sentence of the first paragraph and the next paragraph in my post.

Did you read the rest of my post? I laid out some legitimate criticisms of Cain's views, and I also provided some solutions that can be enacted almost immediately (as you asked about). My conclusions in regards to Mr. Cain were not formulated by reading some blog or listening to a commentator on tv or radio. Actually, most of the blogs and websites I read actually support Cain, and hate Ron Paul. I drew my conclusions about Mr. Cain by carefully (more than once) listening to what he said in the debates and in interviews.

Back to my original point, we can have all the tax reform in the world, but it still is not going to solve the primary problems of spending and debt. The government has gotten too big and out of control, and the only way to "fix" it is by cutting it and then cutting some more. So far, there is only one candidate who is making that their number one priority (Gingrich has talked a little about it), and that is the reason I am voting for him in the primary.

As a final thought, if someone criticizes your candidate, don't get so upset about it. If someone on the same side of the aisle as you gets you a little riled, how are you going to be if your candidate wins the nomination? The administration and the media are going to throw everything they have at whoever the nominee is. Due to Obama's vulnerability, I predict that this is going to be the nastiest election in our history.

It seems in the beautiful age of technology that textualized (yeah, I just made that word up) conversations tend to often be misread. I did not get mad, upset, snarky, or attitudinal

I happen to love dark,dry humor with a heavy heaping of sarcasm. It's not an attitude, it's my personality. I read your full statement but unfortunately I was completely distracted by my hatred for Ron Paul. The elderly gentleman from Texas wants to end nearly every governmental institution, defund troops, defund America, let the value of the $ plummet even lower, rip away borders, legalize all drugs, and says it is our actions that brought on 9-11.

Now unless an individual desires a complete Anarchist society where there is no law or governing body, where foreign influences begin reigning supreme, where our traditional and spiritual values corrode away proper behavior, and where their lives are reduced to living off the land due to the collapse of America...I simply can't fathom why anyone would support Paul...even in the primaries.

[sigmtnman]

It seems in the beautiful age of technology that textualized (yeah, I just made that word up) conversations tend to often be misread. I did not get mad, upset, snarky, or attitudinal

I happen to love dark,dry humor with a heavy heaping of sarcasm. It's not an attitude, it's my personality. I read your full statement but unfortunately I was completely distracted by my hatred for Ron Paul. The elderly gentleman from Texas wants to end nearly every governmental institution, defund troops, defund America, let the value of the $ plummet even lower, rip away borders, legalize all drugs, and says it is our actions that brought on 9-11.

Now unless an individual desires a complete Anarchist society where there is no law or governing body, where foreign influences begin reigning supreme, where our traditional and spiritual values corrode away proper behavior, and where their lives are reduced to living off the land due to the collapse of America...I simply can't fathom why anyone would support Paul...even in the primaries.

Sounds like you don't understand Dr. Paul's positions. Were the Founding Fathers anarchists? No, they just understood that a strong central government == Tyranny.

He wants to actual enforce our borders unlike what we have now, where anyone can walk across as long as they wave a mexican flag. He wants to make the $ stronger by actually backing it with Gold, so that it can not be devalued by printing. He wants to make our security stronger, by making sure we don't go bankrupt like all other empires of the past have done, who try to police the entire world. He feels the States have a better idea of what the citizens wants and needs are as opposed to a Fed run by corporations. He believes in God, guns, Property rights, doing away with the federal reserve and the IRS.

But I reckon if you support baby killing, policing the world, inflation and hiding your head in the sand so the .gov can hold your hand, he is not your man.

[TMF]

That is one of the things that is wrong with the current political discourse. People have lost the skill of disagreeing without being disagreeable.

But I reckon if you support baby killing, policing the world, inflation and hiding your head in the sand so the .gov can hold your hand, he is not your man.

[sigmtnman]

Just responding in kind.

Now unless an individual desires a complete Anarchist society where there is no law or governing body, where foreign influences begin reigning supreme, where our traditional and spiritual values corrode away proper behavior, and where their lives are reduced to living off the land due to the collapse of America...I simply can't fathom why anyone would support Paul...even in the primaries.

[mav]

Just what are you trying to say?

[TMF]

Just responding in kind.

Just what are you trying to say?

Haha, sorry I just couldn't resist.

[Guest President Fernatt]

Sounds like you don't understand Dr. Paul's positions. Were the Founding Fathers anarchists? No, they just understood that a strong central government == Tyranny.

He wants to actual enforce our borders unlike what we have now, where anyone can walk across as long as they wave a mexican flag. He wants to make the $ stronger by actually backing it with Gold, so that it can not be devalued by printing. He wants to make our security stronger, by making sure we don't go bankrupt like all other empires of the past have done, who try to police the entire world. He feels the States have a better idea of what the citizens wants and needs are as opposed to a Fed run by corporations. He believes in God, guns, Property rights, doing away with the federal reserve and the IRS.

But I reckon if you support baby killing, policing the world, inflation and hiding your head in the sand so the .gov can hold your hand, he is not your man.

Please don't attempt to compare him to our founding fathers.

I may be full of disagreement but I can admit when I am wrong. I was wrong on his immigration stance. He actually has much tougher beliefs than I would enact... (deporting over 6 million illegals?) What are we gonna do; bring immigration control vehicles up and down the streets ripping illegals out of their homes and breaking up their families as we ship the parents back to their countries while leaving the "american" children in state custody? That's not a viable option. We should secure the borders then determine the most humane and just way to deal with the illegals we currently have.

I'm a baby killer? Cain states he will enanct pro-life policies, nominate pro-life judges, and protect the life of the unborn at all costs. Ron Paul says he is pro-life but states that the Feds have no right to impede on states rights...normally I would agree but not on abortion. Paul is basically saying if all states say abortions are ok then he is fine with that and will do nothing to change it.

You are correct that I am for policing the World. We are and should remain the most influential military power on Earth. If that takes remaining in other countries in order to gain great mobilization and noticeable presence...I'm good with that.

How are we going to back our money up with gold? We would be spending tons of our de-valued currency on a minimal amount of gold. The Federal Reserve is a great thing that has been completely mishandled. I'm good with the IRS being gone though.

Furthermore, I would rather the gov not hold my hand. I work, I pay my way through college, and I have no insurance because I can't afford it but I realize that is my problem...not the governments. I expect no hand holding and no hand outs. If anything, Ron Paul is the man for hand-holding. He says free market will drive the price of healthcare down. I agree but certainly not by following his method of change...plus, it would take 15 years for prices to adjust through competition alone. As for the handouts, he says any patient who can't afford healthcare should be given free care because it is the doctors' duty. Yeah, ok...that will be successful.

I'm not trying to be narrow-minded. I, like you, have a specifc set of opinions which I have gained from years of political activity and research. I simply don't like Ron Paul due to his inability to be a realistic candidate and his cult following (not speaking of you...I'm talking about his revolutionaries who vote for him in the general election and steal meaningful votes from the Republican Nominee.) I also take issue with his continual 'possibly' ego driven attempts to be president. He has been running for years and years... He just needs to hang it up and start a non-profit or something that will create real impact on those he hopes to help. If he runs again he certainly shouldn't cloud up the Republican debates. He needs to run as an independent and stay away from the GOP. He is just getting tiresome and really wearing out his welcome on the National stage.

I believe he has a genuine desire to help America and despite the fact that I feel his attempts are flawed, I feel he could be of use to Americans...just not in the political forum. As I said before, his sincerity is beginning to come into question and it appears his ego is now driving his campaigns; he needs to become active on a smaller scale with charities, non-profits, free clinics, etc to show his real compassionate intent.

[sigmtnman]

Please don't attempt to compare him to our founding fathers.

Why? They wrote the Constitution and Dr. Paul is the only candidate who believes in it.

I may be full of disagreement but I can admit when I am wrong. I was wrong on his immigration stance. He actually has much tougher beliefs than I would enact... (deporting over 6 million illegals?) What are we gonna do; bring immigration control vehicles up and down the streets ripping illegals out of their homes and breaking up their families as we ship the parents back to their countries while leaving the "american" children in state custody? That's not a viable option. We should secure the borders then determine the most humane and just way to deal with the illegals we currently have.

How does allowing illegals to live here keep us safe and secure? Why should they be able to stay if they got here through illegal means? Would you feel the same if those 6 million were terrorists?

I'm a baby killer? Cain states he will enanct pro-life policies, nominate pro-life judges, and protect the life of the unborn at all costs. Ron Paul says he is pro-life but states that the Feds have no right to impede on states rights...normally I would agree but not on abortion. Paul is basically saying if all states say abortions are ok then he is fine with that and will do nothing to change it.

Please direct me to these stances by Cain as the only thing I have read says he is pro-life, but believes in pro-choice for others.

You are correct that I am for policing the World. We are and should remain the most influential military power on Earth. If that takes remaining in other countries in order to gain great mobilization and noticeable presence...I'm good with that.

With today's missle technology and our blue sea Navy, why do we have to have a presence around the world?

How are we going to back our money up with gold? We would be spending tons of our de-valued currency on a minimal amount of gold. The Federal Reserve is a great thing that has been completely mishandled. I'm good with the IRS being gone though.

The price of gold would be revalued to match the number of dollars in circulation. It was done with the original Bretton Woods, so it has been done before and it is the only way to fend off the sort of inflation printing money causes.

Furthermore, I would rather the gov not hold my hand. I work, I pay my way through college, and I have no insurance because I can't afford it but I realize that is my problem...not the governments. I expect no hand holding and no hand outs. If anything, Ron Paul is the man for hand-holding. He says free market will drive the price of healthcare down. I agree but certainly not by following his method of change...plus, it would take 15 years for prices to adjust through competition alone. As for the handouts, he says any patient who can't afford healthcare should be given free care because it is the doctors' duty. Yeah, ok...that will be successful.

Why shouldn't the Free Market drive healthcare? How does a free market == hand holding. Please elaborate. I've watched my health insurance prices quadruple over the last 10 years, so your point is lost on me. Dr. Paul is a doctor after all and understands health care.

I'm not trying to be narrow-minded. I, like you, have a specifc set of opinions which I have gained from years of political activity and research. I simply don't like Ron Paul due to his inability to be a realistic candidate and his cult following (not speaking of you...I'm talking about his revolutionaries who vote for him in the general election and steal meaningful votes from the Republican Nominee.) I also take issue with his continual 'possibly' ego driven attempts to be president. He has been running for years and years... He just needs to hang it up and start a non-profit or something that will create real impact on those he hopes to help. If he runs again he certainly shouldn't cloud up the Republican debates. He needs to run as an independent and stay away from the GOP. He is just getting tiresome and really wearing out his welcome on the National stage.

So, if you vote for who you feel is the best candidate, you are stealing votes away from the viable candidates? What? You should not pick your candidate like you do a sports team. Or even worse, based on who you think can win or are told can win. You vote for who you want. I appreciate that you have amassed a wealth of experience in your 3 years of voting though and you are allowed to vote for who you would like, but don't misrepresent candidates views who you don't like.

I believe he has a genuine desire to help America and despite the fact that I feel his attempts are flawed, I feel he could be of use to Americans...just not in the political forum. As I said before, his sincerity is beginning to come into question and it appears his ego is now driving his campaigns; he needs to become active on a smaller scale with charities, non-profits, free clinics, etc to show his real compassionate intent.

Which of his attempts are flawed? Would that be when he said there was a housing bubble? Or would it be when he said we would experience inflation and we did? Would it be it where he exposed the 16 trillion the Federal Reserve loaned to US and foreign banks? Would it be that he was the only one who didn't support the bailouts?

How has his sincerity come into question? Go look at his voting record.

Edited October 25, 2011 by sigmtnman

[Guest President Fernatt]

Sweet Lord, I genuinely tried to be civil that time. I could sit here and debate this all night but in all reality there is not one single chance that you will concede on any point. The purpose would be lost. If you were on the brink and unsure of your stance then I would certainly try my best at guiding you in the right direction but that is not the case. You are stuck on one precise view and fail to give any ground even when valid points are offered. I don't have the time nor the desire to have a philosophical discussion. This is the primary reason behind my earlier statement of: "I have nothing to say to the Ron Paul revolutionaries." They are trapped in an idealistic realm of existence and refuse to support a nominee with real-world potential. Mark Twain advised to never argue with a fool because onlookers may not be able to tell the difference. I'll bow out of the forum with that applicable advice in mind. -Much Love,Be Blessed-

Back to the original thread's purpose...Black Walnut 2012!

[kieefer]

perhaps sigman could revive the "why Ron Paul can't get elected" thread?

[HARRISUSAF]

Cain is part of the problem- Chair of the Kansas City Federal Reserve- they stole our country in 1913 and want to take even more in 2013. Cain wants to add a sales tax? I want less taxes not more- a nat'l sales tax will finish the job of these bankers who started 100 years ago with an income tax- remember that the income tax started as a 1% tax. Let's wake up and understand that Cain is just a salesman and I am not falling for it. Ron Paul 2012

[kieefer]

Oh no, the Ronulans are going to attack

Here you go in case you have a hard time finding it -

http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/national-politics-legislation/61096-ron-paul-cant-get-elected-sorry.html

Edited October 25, 2011 by kieefer

[sigmtnman]

Sweet Lord, I genuinely tried to be civil that time. I could sit here and debate this all night but in all reality there is not one single chance that you will concede on any point. The purpose would be lost. If you were on the brink and unsure of your stance then I would certainly try my best at guiding you in the right direction but that is not the case. You are stuck on one precise view and fail to give any ground even when valid points are offered. I don't have the time nor the desire to have a philosophical discussion. This is the primary reason behind my earlier statement of: "I have nothing to say to the Ron Paul revolutionaries." They are trapped in an idealistic realm of existence and refuse to support a nominee with real-world potential. Mark Twain advised to never argue with a fool because onlookers may not be able to tell the difference. I'll bow out of the forum with that applicable advice in mind. -Much Love,Be Blessed-

Back to the original thread's purpose...Black Walnut 2012!

Actually I am very open to change my mind, but not without evidence.

I've pointed out fallacies in your understanding of Paul's positions and of how free markets work.

I've asked questions and you didn't answer, but instead chose to use strawman arguments, ad Hominem and logical fallacies.

Perhaps you should read Matthew 5:22 before before using your Mark Twain quote...

[sigmtnman]

Oh no, the Ronulans are going to attack

Here you go in case you have a hard time finding it -

http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/national-politics-legislation/61096-ron-paul-cant-get-elected-sorry.html

So little to add to the discussion?

I don't care who can "get elected", I care about voting for the best candidate.

Reading the quote in your signature by John Adams, I'm curious if you understand the difference between Austrian economics and keynesian economics?

[Guest President Fernatt]

Actually I am very open to change my mind, but not without evidence.

I've pointed out fallacies in your understanding of Paul's positions and of how free markets work.

I've asked questions and you didn't answer, but instead chose to use strawman arguments, ad Hominem and logical fallacies.

Perhaps you should read Matthew 5:22 before before using your Mark Twain quote...

You're an adorable little bundle of sunshine sir. You're welcome to your political opinions, I simply share different ones.

With response to the last statement:

Ordinarily an individual should be concerned with that scripture concerning the fires of Hell. Luckily, I became a Christian when I was 12. I have the security of knowing that I will never have to face the flames because someone named Jesus made that sacrifice for me. I am not perfect, in fact, I am full of sin...but I do attempt to follow Christ's example and I hope that is a sufficient answer to your questioning of my relationship with God. I'll no longer pander to your misguided, personal, off-topic comments.

In other (actually related to this thread) news!

From Cain's facebook page:

"The pundits say I have had a tough week. The people say we're about to hit 300,000 fans and nearly 2,000 people have donated to my campaign today alone. Share this with your friends and/or donate. Do what you can do and together we can renew the USA."

[sigmtnman]

You're an adorable little bundle of sunshine sir. You're welcome to your political opinions, I simply share different ones.

With response to the last statement:

Ordinarily an individual should be concerned with that scripture concerning the fires of Hell. Luckily, I became a Christian when I was 12. I have the security of knowing that I will never have to face the flames because someone named Jesus made that sacrifice for me. I am not perfect, in fact, I am full of sin...but I do attempt to follow Christ's example and I hope that is a sufficient answer to your questioning of my relationship with God. I'll no longer pander to your misguided, personal, off-topic comments.

In other (actually related to this thread) news!

From Cain's facebook page:

"The pundits say I have had a tough week. The people say we're about to hit 300,000 fans and nearly 2,000 people have donated to my campaign today alone. Share this with your friends and/or donate. Do what you can do and together we can renew the USA."

I never intended to question your relationship with the Lord, but was rather pointing out a verse which is appropriate with regard to your usage of the Mark Twain quote.

Matthew 5:22

But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Edited October 25, 2011 by sigmtnman

[mav]

I don't mean to interrupt y'alls argument.

Mark Twain advised to never argue with a fool because onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.

I don't think anyone is going to have a hard time with that determination.

I must congratulate you. You have managed to insult quite a few people on the forum with your crass remarks. Ron Paul voters are fools. Even worse, the ones who vote for him in the general election are thieves since they are "stealing meaningful votes away from the Republican nominee." The last one is so bad, I don't even know how to comment on it.

Let me paint a nasty scenario for you which I pray does not happen. The public is totally disgusted with the government (both parties). The public is war weary, and they are tired of sending all of this money overseas in the form of foreign aid. The Tea Party, who gave Republicans control of the House, is ticked at Boehner and company for not making good on a lot of issues. The economy, unemployment, healthcare costs, and the housing industry still suck. Gas prices are very high, and food prices have been steadily increasing. What you have there is a ticking bomb waiting to explode, and when it does, there is a possibility that some voters will say to hell with both parties and vote independent or just stay home.

Although I think it is unlikely Paul will run a third party candidacy (I hope I am correct), he does have the infrastructure, support, and money to do it. If that happens, he doesn't have enough voters to win, but he has enough to act as a spoiler, thus yielding four more years of Obama. It has happened before, when you were two.

In my mind, this election is nothing more than stopping Obama and voting him out of office. That is my primary concern. Do I feel some candidates would be better than others? Of course I do. Nonetheless, ousting Obama is of the utmost concern, regardess of who gets the nomination. Insulting supporters of other candidates, and making off the wall statements is by no means a way to influence people in supporting your candidate, assuming he wins and their's loses. Spite, oftentimes, is a good motivator. Just something to think about.

Okay, I'm done. Continue on with your debating.

[TMF]

What you have there is a ticking bomb waiting to explode, and when it does, there is a possibility that some voters will say to hell with both parties and vote independent or just stay home.

I'm already there! No incumbent will get my vote until the country is back on track. I would love for a national movement to abolish the two parties via voting power to get some momentum.

[Guest President Fernatt]

Nah, No more pointless philosophical continuation for me...I just said a few comments back that I am done speaking about Ron Paul to Ron Paul'ers. There are a few great threads devoted purely to defending Paul, however, and a link was provided by a gracious gentleman earlier.

Why Herman Cain Has The Potential To...Win - Forbes

[Guest President Fernatt]

I'm already there! No incumbent will get my vote until the country is back on track. I would love for a national movement to abolish the two parties via voting power to get some momentum.

Herman Cain is technically refered to as a 3rd party candidate because of the Tea Party. They seem to favor Newt Gingrich as well. Gingrich and Cain are going to have a 2 man, tea party debate in Texas. I doubt it will be shown on any networks though. It would be an interesting debate!

[wjh2657]

I'm already there! No incumbent will get my vote until the country is back on track. I would love for a national movement to abolish the two parties via voting power to get some momentum.

You are right on track. We need to return to the Constitution and the original system for representation. If you read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist it is pretty obvious that it was never intended for the creation of “career re-elections”. A Congressman should get 2 years, a senator 6 years and a President 4 years, PERIOD! The argument that “they need more experience”is the source of all of today’s problems. Experience= corruption.

My own belief is that Congressmen should go on to Senator (thus bringing some experience) and that Governors should be the candidates for President. But everybody gets just one tour in any one office. This election I am voting against all incumbents, regardless of party. Will it disrupt the “Government(in actuality the two parties)? Sure will, and that is exactly what we need.