Obama's (and the DNC's) worst nightmare.

[4G63]

Just think, an African American who speaks to the issues without a Teleprompter. Too bad he's a Conservative that'll open some minds. Add in some Allen West as VP and you've got an Unbeatable combination!!

Cain/West 2012! :usa:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZDkacOveF0

[AirFlacco]

LOL - The old teleprompter.

Won't matter, the DEMs will find a way to rig the election.






I NEVER USE A TELEPROMPTER!


BRUCE CUNNINGHAM


LOL

[TLaMana]

I found out about Cain a couple of years ago. It will take a lot of effort to get his message out if he intends to run.

[4G63]

Absolutely Herman....they ARE scared of you!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7354AsuLng

[NCRAVEN]

This thread is racist, you guys would only vote for him cause he's black

[Galen Sevinne]

I was getting ready to add Cain to my "Another GOP 2012 Prez. Cand. Bites the Dust" thread but that thread is getting too long wth all the GOP candidates killing their chances with idiotic comments.

Here is the now infamous candidacy killing comment Cain recently said on the record:

KEYES: You came under a bit of controversy this week for some of the comments made about Muslims in general. Would you be comfortable appointing a Muslim, either in your cabinet or as a federal judge?

CAIN: No, I will not. And here’s why. There is this creeping attempt, there is this attempt to gradually ease Sharia law and the Muslim faith into our government. It does not belong in our government. This is what happened in Europe. And little by little, to try and be politically correct, they made this little change, they made this little change. And now they’ve got a social problem that they don’t know what to do with hardly.

The question that was asked that “raised some questions” and, as my grandfather said, “I does not care, I feel the way I feel.” I was asked, “what is the role of Islam in America?” I thought it was an odd question. I said the role of Islam in America is for those that believe in Islam to practice it and leave us alone. Just like Christianity. We have a First Amendment. And I get upset when the Muslims in this country, some of them, try to force their Sharia law onto the rest of us.

"No I will not" even consider a Muslim. So go ahead and tell me how that is not bigotry? Please, I am all ears connies.

I think there is a little legal issue there as well.

Just the fact that someone would go on the record with such a heinous remark really cuts to his temperment and judgement.

Of course, every connie response will somehow defend this bigot.

Bring it boys.

[4G63]

It was wrong but he can backtrack, just like 0bama did when he said he was going to see his 57th State. :D

There's no legal issue unless he actively denies a Muslim appointee. There's not Affirmative Action with Presidential appointees so it'll never happen should he be elected. He'll be fine should he decide to run.

[Galen Sevinne]

It was wrong but he can backtrack, just like 0bama did when he said he was going to see his 57th State. :D

There's no legal issue unless he actively denies a Muslim appointee. There's not Affirmative Action with Presidential appointees so it'll never happen should he be elected. He'll be fine should he decide to run.

wow Obama's 57 state defense...never saw that one coming!

i was more awaiting Traps defense of Cain's bigotry to be my dislike of Palin and how I am therefore bigoted towards women (nothing like generalizing an entire population from one person:grbac:) but that's Trap.

In regards to comparing Cains intended bigoted comments aginst Muslims with Obama's unintended moment of not paying attention. Very different.

[TheExtraPoint]

The guy both calls liberals "stupid" and berates them for name-calling in the same speech... Impressive.

But seriously, any time an African-American discriminates against people of another background, race, religion, or ethnicity, it highlights how narrow their appreciation for their own history in fact is. I think it's sad.

I also find it ironic that you'd be willing to excuse Cain's commentary when he "takes it back", but wouldn't offer our current President the same leniency when he offers an utterly insignificant freudian slip. If you honestly believe the former editor of the Harvard Law Review doesn't know how many states are in the US, I'd think any reasonable discussion about any issue regarding him is hopeless.

You are in fact right however; Cain will be unaffected by these comments. Conservative republicans will undoubtedly forgive him. Not because he's all of a sudden "right" (because a significant portion of his base likely agrees with the original comments he may or may not ultimately take back), but instead simply because he's a conservative republican.

In reality, there is no difference between the now infamous Glen Beck "10 percent of Muslims are terrorists" gem, and Cain's comments about not appointing Muslims strictly on the basis of being Muslim.

The sad fact is this - a significant faction of conservative politicians and pundits have tremendous difficulty discerning the difference between a radicalized fraction of a religion, and the vast majority of it's followers. And it is precisely that very ignorance that fosters the angst of the noticeable minority we all rightfully should fear.

Personally, I don't expect Mr. Cain to have very much success earning the Republican nomination. I think it's an uphill climb though I don't necessarily disagree with everything he says. In fact, I admire his sense of humor and oratorical composure. I'm not surprised he's been a success in business whatsoever. I also totally agree with the notion that we are over-legislated.

But comments like these speak to a person's core values. In the case of Mr. Cain, they at best indicate ignorance, and at worst, inexplicable intolerance given his own background.

[4G63]

The guy both calls liberals "stupid" and berates them for name-calling in the same speech... Impressive.

But seriously, any time an African-American discriminates against people of another background, race, religion, or ethnicity, it highlights how narrow their appreciation for their own history in fact is. I think it's sad.

When their religion is the basis for everything they do legally, you'll start to get it. His problem isn't the religion but rather the Sharia that comes with it.

I also find it ironic that you'd be willing to excuse Cain's commentary when he "takes it back", but wouldn't offer our current President the same leniency when he offers an utterly insignificant freudian slip. If you honestly believe the former editor of the Harvard Law Review doesn't know how many states are in the US, I'd think any reasonable discussion about any issue regarding him is hopeless.

I'll give him leniency. I'm sure he was tired when he said that but that doesn't excuse that he said it. Words have meanings and all of those in the public eye need to be held equally accountable to them. Let me ask you this: Do you think John McCain or more importantly, Sarah Palin would have gotten the "oh, he/she's tired" attitude by the media if they had said the same thing before the election? Don't bother answering as I already know what it is.

Did you know that the Editor of the Harvard Law Review is an appointed position, by the faculty? His was based on "merit" and not by any extraordinary writings or ideas. Did you also know that 0bama never published a single article while Editor?

You are in fact right however; Cain will be unaffected by these comments. Conservative republicans will undoubtedly forgive him. Not because he's all of a sudden "right" (because a significant portion of his base likely agrees with the original comments he may or may not ultimately take back), but instead simply because he's a conservative republican.

In reality, there is no difference between the now infamous Glen Beck "10 percent of Muslims are terrorists" gem, and Cain's comments about not appointing Muslims strictly on the basis of being Muslim.

Its not the Muslim, its the Sharia! Why does every Democrat/Liberal always assume that when a Republican/conservative talks about Muslims they're only talking about terrorist ones? Do Democrats/Liberals not see that France, Holland, Germany, and Spain have issues with Sharia? We mustn't talk about Theo van Gogh's death for defending Muslim women against Muslim men using Sharia against them. Just continue to bury your heads in the sand as Sharia law rears its ugly head worldwide...

The sad fact is this - a significant faction of conservative politicians and pundits have tremendous difficulty discerning the difference between a radicalized fraction of a religion, and the vast majority of it's followers. And it is precisely that very ignorance that fosters the angst of the noticeable minority we all rightfully should fear.

Again, Sharia...not Terrorists! The fact that you think Sharia cannot be imposed when its already happening (and will likely continue) right here in the US lets me know you're uninformed on the subject. I'm here to fill you in. Even recent SCOTUS appointee Elena Kagan removed Constitutional Law as a requirement and substituted International/Comparative law to graduate Harvard Law School. Really?!? No ConLaw to graduate Harvard Law School?

Personally, I don't expect Mr. Cain to have very much success earning the Republican nomination. I think it's an uphill climb though I don't necessarily disagree with everything he says. In fact, I admire his sense of humor and oratorical composure. I'm not surprised he's been a success in business whatsoever. I also totally agree with the notion that we are over-legislated.

But comments like these speak to a person's core values. In the case of Mr. Cain, they at best indicate ignorance, and at worst, inexplicable intolerance given his own background.

He was wrong because the Constitution states nobody will be discriminated based on race or faith. As I said before, Presidential appointees can be anyone and aren't subject to affirmative action or any barometer other than political ones. Van Jones was appointed by 0bama as the green jobs czar but was removed when his communist/socialist worldview was put to video for all to see. 0bama had no choice but to unceremoniously remove him from his position. 0bama has numerous czars that I oppose based on their core beliefs. Cass Sunstein, Carol Browner, and John Holdren are on that list but you really can't do anything about them. What are their religions? Atheist? Catholic? Hindi? Does it matter?

[TheExtraPoint]

So a woman in New Jersey is originally denied a restraining order against her husband who she claimed RAPED her. The IDIOT judge (and believe me, there are a lot of those) who ruled against her was overruled at the appellate level for obvious reasons. Rape is illegal in the United States, and this country American law supersedes religion. The justice system got this one right, though it took longer than it should have I grant you. I can't fathom why any woman who asks for a restraining order shouldn't be granted one immediately - certainly not one who alleges rape no matter the circumstance. The judge in this instance is an IDIOT, a fact reinforced at the appellate level.

This is the strength of your argument? A judicial misinterpretation of the law that was eventually and correctly addressed by the law?

The difference between the freedom to practice Islam and the supposed desire to impose Sharia law is fundamental. It's explained flawlessly by the only Muslim congressmen in the United States, Keith Ellison, a democrat from Minnesota:

When asked by Beck about his opinion on "Muslim extremists" Ellison replied, "They're criminals. But I think that people who commit criminal acts should be treated like criminals, regardless of their faith."[93]

That's the point that YOU'RE missing.

Not to mention, Sharia law will never govern this country because the overwhelming majority of people in this country aren't Muslim, and because even a Muslim politician (or in the President's case, a suspected one) recognizes that American law governs citizens of this country, not religious law. Meanwhile, those laws implicitly allow for religious freedom so long as it doesn't violate law or the rights of others.

Less than 1% of the population in this country is Muslim, and less still would ever even advocate for Sharia principles to be instituted for the masses in this country. Outside of Anwar Al-Alawki (a terrorist by every possible definition), where are the Muslim-American voices advocating for Sharia Law in this country? Or are they COMING (said in a boogeyman voice, of course).

Do you really believe that Kareem Abdul-Jabbar would justify rape or violence towards women in the name of his faith? Or Keith Ellison? Or the former Cat Stevens? Or Fareed Zakaria? Or Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, an American-Muslim killed serving his country in Iraq? I don't know any of them personally, but I'm skeptical.

In the same link you provided:

Saleem Quraishi, president of the American Muslim Association of Oklahoma City insists that Islam does not allow for men to mistreat women, and that the New Jersey case involved a "crazy, loony man, unfortunately a Muslim. That is not Islam," he said.

The vast majority of Muslim practitioners live in and worship in peace, respect others' right to their own religious worship, and use their religion to inform their approach to everyday life in precisely the same way that a Catholic or Jew or Buddhist or Atheist would. Violent interpretations of the Qur'an, the Bible, or any other religious text are bastardizations of the religion itself, and nothing more. If that fuels criminal behavior, that criminality should be addressed, no matter the religious undertones.

Ellison continued;

He told those in attendance that the principles of Islam guide his life, but he has no intention of imposing his faith on others, "I'm not a religious leader, I've never led religious services of any kind. I'm not here to be a preacher, but in terms of political agenda items, my faith informs me." He addressed the Quran Oath controversy of the 110th United States Congress and said that "religion should be something that unites, rather than divide people...'They've never actually tried to explore how religion should connect us, they're into how religion divides us. ...They haven't really explored...how my faith connects me to you.'"[62]

You can let the paranoia about the big, scary religion creep in on you if you choose... I don't blame you. Modern religion scares the bejeesus out of me too. That's why I love America - because I'm free to not subscribe to any of them if I choose. But the notion that this country will ever be governed by Sharia law is nonsensical. The links you provided about Europe involved:

In France, peaceful religious assembly, which I'm told is tolerated here as well. France is 10% Muslim, by the way. And if they are disturbing the peace or violating law, THAT should be addressed. If French politicians are too spineless to address it or lack the public relations savvy, that highlights their own political weakness, not our's.

In Germany, we have the legal protection of Muslims from having to handle alcohol in a store. The real question is, if they won't do it, why are you hiring them to do that job?

In Spain, nine men were ARRESTED for conspiring to MURDER someone. That's how the legal system works in the civilized world. Violent people go to jail and don't come out until the law says so. We don't do the whole stadium jumbotron decapitation thing in the West.

We're not talking about legally protected rape or murder - either here or in Europe - and that's precisely because it does not, and never will exist in any place but the dreams of of the frightened.

You call me uninformed on the subject, while using totally incidental examples to bolster your argument that Sharia is on the rise, when in fact, it's not any more prevalent than the imposition of Christian or Jewish values on American governance. In reality, it's actually far less significant.

Ellison has also said, "Osama bin Laden no more represents Islam than Timothy McVeigh represented Christianity."[94]

Or than the Neo-Nazi movement represents my mom's family. Or the Jewish Defense League represents my dad's.

IMO, it is in fact western ignorance, hostility and paranoia towards Islam that drives its radical minority (that alongside our asinine presence in their lands, and our historically blind support of Israel), not the core of the religion itself. You can choose to believe that every Muslim in this country is an operative of hate and terror if you please; I know far better.

Cain said Muslim. If he meant imposition of Sharia, he should have said it, because there is a difference. Like you said, words have meaning. He SAID one thing, you HEARD another.

Oppose the imposition of Sharia Law and you're talking about upholding the constitution, and that's just fine by me. But talk about discriminating against all Muslims and impugning their integrity or credibility on the political scene strictly on the basis of the actions of a select few is, to borrow a phrase, "stupid".

[NCRAVEN]

I am not trying to get in the middle of The EP and 4G's discussion or speak for 4G. I just want to point out I think the argument is not Sharia being the laws that Govern America but the law which Muslims follow themselves.

Which leads me to think/believe. If they are devout Muslims than their faith is which guides them and trumps all else, which do you think they will turn to when a choice needs to be made, their faith or the laws of America?

Just my two cents