Cain Reassessing Candidacy Amid New Allegations

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by August

Well no offense Skybird but when you quote something without indicating that you disagree with it the reasonable assumption is that you do agree with it. All I was trying to point out that Gingrich and Romney do not fit Speigels stereotype. Would you agree?

Actually when leaving a link pretty much uncommented, I either agree with a Spiegel - or other source - comment I post, or I think it is speaking for itself. It makes no sense to write long essays if the article I link to imo is correct or says most of the important things. I tend to add comments when I think more specifications or explanations on where I disagree are needed.

In this case, I think all the Republican candidates on display are representative for the best of the best of idiots the Republican party has to offer. The article has all laughs at their costs - and they deserve them.

Your gospel remark was a statement of a more general direction than just the context you now claim.

[mookiemookie]

I think Spiegal's right on in their assessment, however they leave something out:

They lie. They cheat. They exaggerate. They bluster. They say one idiotic, ignorant, outrageous thing after another. They've shown such stark lack of knowledge -- political, economic, geographic, historical -- that they make George W. Bush look like Einstein and even cause their fellow Republicans to cringe.

That's every politician, R or D. They're all circus clowns.

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Actually when leaving a link pretty much uncommented, I either agree with a Spiegel - or other source - comment I post, or I think it is speaking for itself. It makes no sense to write long essays if the article I link to imo is correct or says most of the important things. I tend to add comments when I think more specifications or explanations on where I disagree are needed.

In this case, I think all the Republican candidates on display are representative for the best of the best of idiots the Republican party has to offer. The article has all laughs at their costs - and they deserve them.

So in other words you do agree with the article. Was that so hard to say?

Your gospel remark was a statement of a more general direction than just the context you now claim.

In the 6 or 7 years i've known you not once have I seen you disagree with Speigel. Not saying you haven't but that I have never seen it. To me that justifies the gospel quote. Sorry if my use of religious terms offends you.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by August

So in other words you do agree with the article. Was that so hard to say?

Was it so hard to see in the first?

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Was it so hard to see in the first?

Well yes because I figured you were smarter than to actually believe that!

No way could anyone accurately describe either Romney or Gingrich as "displaying a basic lack of knowledge" or "Ignoramuses". Both of them are very intelligent people with many accomplishments. There is plenty to dislike about either of them for without having to resort to falsehoods.

Speigel is doing what foreign news always does when it reports on my countries politics. Misrepresent, over-simplify, stereotype and generally leave the reader with a completely inaccurate impression of the subject or situation. I am not claiming that our media reports Europeans any more accurately though which is why I generally refrain from using domestic media when talking about your side of the pond. You might consider doing the same.

[Skybird]

Then there's Newt Gingrich, the current favorite. He's a political dinosaur, dishonored and discredited. Or so we thought. Yet just because he studied history and speaks in more complex sentences than his rivals, the US media now reflexively hails him as a "Man of Ideas" (The Washington Post) -- even though most of these ideas are lousy if not downright offensive, such as firing unionized school janitors, so poor children could do their jobs.
Pompous and blustering, Gingrich gets away with this humdinger as well as with selling himself as a Washington outsider -- despite having made millions of dollars as a lobbyist in Washington. At least the man's got chutzpah.
The hypocrisy doesn't end here. Gingrich claims moral authority on issues such as the "sanctity of marriage," yet he's been divorced twice. He sprang the divorce on his first wife while she was sick with cancer. (His supporters' excuse: It's been 31 years, and she's still alive.) He cheated on his second wife just as he was pressing ahead with Bill Clinton's impeachment during the Monica Lewinsky affair, unaware of the irony. The woman he cheated with, by the way, was one of his House aides and 23 years his junior -- and is now his perpetually smiling third wife.
Americans have a short memory. They forget, too, that Gingrich was driven out of Congress in disgrace, the first speaker of the house to be disciplined for ethical wrongdoing. Or that he consistently flirts with racism when he speaks of Barack Obama. Or that he enjoyed a $500,000 credit line at Tiffany's just as his campaign was financially in the toilet and he ranted about the national debt. Chutzpah, indeed.
Yet the US media rewards him with a daily kowtow. And the Republicans reward him too, by having put him on top in the latest polls. Mr. Hypocrisy, the bearer of his party's hope.
"I think he's doing well just because he's thinking," former President Clinton told the conservative online magazine NewsMax. "People are hungry for ideas that make some sense." Sense? Apparently it's not just the Republicans who have lost their minds here.

Which leaves Mitt Romney, the eternal flip-flopper and runner-up, who by now is almost guaranteed to clinch the nomination, even though no one in his party seems to like or want him. He stiffly delivers his talking points, which may or may not contradict his previous positions. After all, he's been practicing this since 2008, when he failed to snag the nomination from John McCain. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
As an investor, Romney once raked in millions and, like Cain, killed jobs along the way. So now he says he's the economy's savior. To prove that, he has presented an economic plan that the usually quite conservative business magazine Forbes has labeled "dangerous," asking incredulously, "About Mitt Romney, the Republicans can't be serious." Apparently they're not, but he is, running TV spots against Obama already, teeming with falsehoods.

Well. That'S just that. I am not their biography writer and so forgot so many quotes of theirs and news references that made them look like stupids. But I remember that they left me so often just shaking my head, wide grin on my face. So I have no intention to see them being excluded from the flattery list of adjectives Der Spiegel used on the Reps' candidates. That has little to do with anti-americanism or stereotypes, but with lack of integrity in the candidates, lack of ethics, lack of scruples and also a lack of reasonable ammount of intelligence.

[Takeda Shingen]

Sky, I'm not so sure about Gingrich's alleged racism, but the rest of what you quoted is, in my opinion, an accurate depiction of the two of them. Of course, I don't identify with either of them or their philosophy, so I may be less willing to play apologist for them than others.

[August]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

Sky, I'm not so sure about Gingrich's alleged racism, but the rest of what you quoted is, in my opinion, an accurate depiction of the two of them. Of course, I don't identify with either of them or their philosophy, so I may be less willing to play apologist for them than others.

But apparently you aren't above making snide comments about those who you think do identify with them right?

[August]

Those two quotes prove my point.

For example:

even though most of these ideas are lousy if not downright offensive, such as firing unionized school janitors, so poor children could do their jobs

What Gingrich actually advocated was allowing kids to earn money helping to clean up their school. My first job was raking leaves and sweeping floors at May A Gallagher Junior High School when I was a kid. Darn good money for a 13 year old. Eliminating just one high paying low performing union janitor job would provide a bunch of kids like me a hard to find source of income, not to mention teaching us a few valuable lessons about the value of a buck.

But oh no. Speigel, deems that "offensive". That makes me believe that rags like der Speigel are what is wrong with our society.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by August

Those two quotes prove my point.

For example:


What Gingrich actually advocated was allowing kids to earn money helping to clean up their school. My first job was raking leaves and sweeping floors at May A Gallagher Junior High School when I was a kid. Darn good money for a 13 year old. Eliminating just one high paying low performing union janitor job would provide a bunch of kids like me a hard to find source of income, not to mention teaching us a few valuable lessons about the value of a buck.

But oh no. Speigel, deems that "offensive". That makes me believe that rags like der Speigel are what is wrong with our society.

For a 13 year old kid who is still a kiod and no part of the adult working force, it is pocket money. For the adult doing the joib for low wage, probably, but still as a formnal job - it is the basis of his living and income.

I have worked in a storehouse for years, and saw that happening to. Trained staff got firted when becoming too old (avoidjg pensions), or when organising in any way the trust leadership saw as interference with its own god-like status. To replace them, school-boys and girls and young students got hired for the most, wortking a few hours per week only and with much smaller social insurance obligations and with smaller wages per hour.

And then there is the big rest of what is written about Gingrich - and which you comfortably ignore - while years ago having made oh so big a story of Clinton and Levisnky and how untrustworthy a president is when he does lie about having had a BJ in office.

You asked why I did not comment ont he article, and then did a lot of typing yourself trying to get me entangled in something. But the simple fact that you started with is that were you started with me not commenting and being oin love with the gospel the Spiegel is for me, you could have been so much clearer yourself - by simply saying that you think the descriptions are false and the arguments are fakes and that you thereforedo not agree, and that you probably like Gingrich. But no, some sneaking was what followed, some attempt of trapping...

Okay, you do not like Der Spiegel, I know that since years. Next time simply say so, but don't play games. I did not buy it from the beginning on. Me, I think Spiegel has it right in some of their essays, and is very wrong in others. They can be very independent in their analysis, and even conservative, hostile to the left, or the govenrment as well. Then another author of theirs gets published, and they make themselves sound terribly left and europhile again.

Seen that way De rSpiegel covers a wider variety of the spectrum of poltical oipinions maybe, than most other newspapers (or weekly magazines, which the printed Spiegel in reality is).

[vienna]

Back on to the topic...

...And the hits just keep on coming:


Herman Cain says wife didn't know about payments to Ginger White

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...tory?track=rss


It's is going to be interesting to see what happens when Cain meets his wife face-to-face at the end of the week...

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Originally Posted by vienna

It's is going to be interesting to see what happens when Cain meets his wife face-to-face at the end of the week...

It maybe meeting his ex-wife if all (or even most of) these stories about Mr. Cain's loyalty prove to be correct...

Originally Posted by vienna

Is that your girlfriend Vienna?

[vienna]

Is that your girlfriend Vienna?

No, I have been very fortunate to have avoided that type. I have only one ex-wife and, although we have drifted apart over the years, we were on friendly terms. I have also been fortunate to have not had any rancourus partings with my oter long term realtionships. I have shied away from serious relationships in recent years because I discoverd a distubing pattern: my first wife has blonde hair, blue eyes and is left-handed (I just realized, if I were still married to her, next year would have been our 40th wedding aniversary ; my next serious relationship (over 7 years long) was with a lady who had blue eyes, was left-handed, and blonde (though at the time I met her, her hair was dyed red); my last serious relationship was with a model from Belgium (Flemish is a beautiful language when a beautiful woman whispers it in your ear). One day, I noticed she was writing with her left hand, someting I hadn't really noticed before. Then it occurred to me she was also blonde and had blue eyes. I had inadvertently settled on a type of woman. After her. I decided I would either seek a right-handed brunette or an ambidextrous redhead; I still haven't found the right one yet...

Anyway, I belive you may be right:

It maybe meeting his ex-wife if all (or even most of) these stories about Mr. Cain's loyalty prove to be correct...

[Platapus]

So you are advising staying away from sinister women?