Archive

Republican candidates for 2012

  • O-Trap
    I Wear Pants;931833 wrote:I just thought it was funny. And the thing says "supports state bans" as in, he'd leave it up to the states but would support states banning it.
    Which is what makes it funny. There is a very obvious slant to it, as he would support a state doing either.

    But hell, nothing wrong with laughing about it, though.
  • Cleveland Buck
    I Wear Pants;931833 wrote:I just thought it was funny. And the thing says "supports state bans" as in, he'd leave it up to the states but would support states banning it.
    Well, leaving it up to the states means he would also support states allowing it, which pretty much wipes out his whole list except the planned parenthood part, which I don't think he called for it to be closed, just not funded with federal money.
  • O-Trap
    Cleveland Buck;931837 wrote:Well, leaving it up to the states means he would also support states allowing it, which pretty much wipes out his whole list except the planned parenthood part, which I don't think he called for it to be closed, just not funded with federal money.
    Yeah, he is cool with a privately funded Planned Parenthood.
  • Cleveland Buck
    Cain's Enron
    http://atlantapost.com/2011/05/25/a-real-reason-to-be-mad-at-herman-cain/
  • QuakerOats
    This sentence ...... "while at the same time shifting their business model from straightforward energy generation to risky energy trading – the kind of corporate greed that infamously brought down Enron, Mother Jones reports" .......... causes the article to lose credibility. There is nothing inherently greedy whatsoever in trading energy contracts; it is a perfectly legal, and necessary, business, that is not at all necessarilly risky. The author made a huge (but not atypical for a dumb liberal 'reporter) leap, apparently for smear reasons as opposed to legitimate reasons. Next.
  • majorspark
    So it begins.

    This story has been out there for a while. Now that Cain is the frontrunner in many polls the left leaning media outlets are repackaging the story. Wildly stretching facts and making invalid comparisons. Its no surprise the Ronulans have jumped on board with the left. They are beside themselves that their canidate just can't get any traction. Ron Paul would serve himself better if he just stuck to pressing his message. He is going to look real desperate clinging to these wild accusations.
  • Skyhook79
    http://www.redstate.com/wbf/2011/10/09/herman-cains-enron-esque-disaster/


    [LEFT]"I came across this story back when Cain first got noticed by the Ronulans who constantly post all sorts of bad things about opponents.So here is what I found in research.I’ve actually read the original opinion article posted at MotherJones. I took down much of the information that was claimed and researched it. Here are some of the facts I found.Herman Cain served on the board of directors for Utilicorp United Inc. from 1992 to 2003. Aquila Energy Corp.–as PSI Inc. was later renamed–was made a subsidiary of UtiliCorp, and in addition to its marketing functions, expanded into such related, but unregulated, areas as natural gas storage and transmission. By 1990 Aquila was responsible for 21 percent of UtiliCorp’s earnings.In 1992, Congress enacted the Energy Policy Act. This legislation allowed utilities and other entities to build electric generators and to sell the power produced at unregulated prices on the wholesale market. In doing so, it unleashed a series of changes in the previously staid utility industry unmatched since its birth about a century previously. This also lead to the Emergence of Enron and other energy trading companies competing in the natural gas market for electric generation. Natural gas prices had doubled by November 2000, and then crashed by February 2001.In December of 2000, Utilicorp announced a plan to spin off Aquila, and had sold off 20% in stock. However after the crash of the NG prices in 2001, Aquila started to collapse without the force of structure of Utilicorp. So Utilicorp announced it would buy back stock in Aquila to try and save it. Utilicorp assumed the name of Aquila Inc. after the re-merger. This crash in the prices of natural gas along with the recession hit the entire company hard in both stock and net worth. This was during the same time Enron went down in flames.The lawsuit against Aquila was a result of employees wanting to invest too much of their matching stock into the company, which was showing huge returns. The employee retirement fund had over 50% of it’s holding in company stock, but regulations from 1933 was supposed to limit this to no more than 20%. Employees in the lawsuit claim that the company either encouraged them or didn’t prevent them from investing too much directly into the company.The board of directors had separated itself into three committees to oversee different aspects of the company early on. Herman Cain was the chairman of the compensation committee that oversaw pay and bonus’ for executives and other positions. The bonuses that he approved were in line for the time when the entire company was seeing high profits in the late 90′s. Bonus’s are based on the previous year performance. The financial problems with Aquila didn’t show up until mid 2001 during the recession.There was a Pension and Benefits committee and a retirement committee. Herman Cain was not on either one of those. Thus Cain didn’t come across the activity and paperwork to see what was going on with these committees. The lawsuit that was filed named all sorts of people at the top, even if they didn’t have basic oversight at issue with the lawsuit. It even named people who came on board later after the period named in the lawsuit. Class action lawsuits tend to ensnare anyone and everyone that might be remotely responsible in the hopes of catching something.The MotherJones article author took a few general details and then made all sorts of claims that weren’t in the lawsuit they referenced. It is typical of writers being lazy. Here is the link to the lawsuit paperwork. https://motherjones.com/files/1232_cid_3_amended_consolidated_complaint.pdf"[/LEFT]
  • Cleveland Buck
    majorspark;932307 wrote:So it begins.

    This story has been out there for a while. Now that Cain is the frontrunner in many polls the left leaning media outlets are repackaging the story. Wildly stretching facts and making invalid comparisons. Its no surprise the Ronulans have jumped on board with the left. They are beside themselves that their canidate just can't get any traction. Ron Paul would serve himself better if he just stuck to pressing his message. He is going to look real desperate clinging to these wild accusations.
    Ron Paul didn't say anything about it.
  • Ty Webb
    [h=2]Obama Still Leads Potential Rivals[/h]Despite sweeping pessimism about the economy and a 44% approval rating, President Obama leads his top three potential Republican rivals, according to a new Time poll.

    Obama leads Mitt Romney, 46% to 43% among likely voters. He crushes Rick Perry, 50% to 38%, and tops Herman Cain, 49% to 37%.

    Key finding: "In each case, the President was buoyed by his performance among female voters. Women prefer Obama over Romney by eight percentage points (49% to 41%), by 17 points over Perry (53% to 36%) and by 21 points over Cain (53% to 32%)."

    Similar findings in the new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll: Obama leads Romney, 46% to 44%, tops Perry 51% to 39%, and beats Cain, 49% to 38%.
  • majorspark
    Cleveland Buck;932325 wrote:Ron Paul didn't say anything about it.
    I said the Ronulans are jumping on it. Its on the daily paul forums. I did not say Ron Paul personally said anything about it. I suggested he would be served best just sticking to his message.
  • O-Trap
    majorspark;932332 wrote:I said the Ronulans are jumping on it. Its on the daily paul forums. I did not say Ron Paul personally said anything about it. I suggested he would be served best just sticking to his message.
    And he is, so he's best served doing what he's doing, then.
  • majorspark
    O-Trap;932356 wrote:And he is, so he's best served doing what he's doing, then.
    Thats what I said.
  • O-Trap
    majorspark;932375 wrote:Thats what I said.
    Fair enough. By saying he would be "better served" doing something traditionally comes when it's not something said person is already doing.

    However, I get what you're saying now, and naturally, I agree.
  • BGFalcons82
    The more I hear Romney, the more I hear Obama-lite. We can pretty much count on him keeping ObamaKare unless the SCOTUS applies the Constitution to it.

    Oh wait...it's his turn now, isn't it? Damn Republicans.
  • Cleveland Buck
    Romney might be even more liberal than Obama, or at least govern that way because he is essentially a Democrat with the support of Congressional Republicans. He would be able to pass anything he wants.
  • majorspark
    Romney is the one republican candidate I may not be able to vote for in the general election. And Cleveland Buck is right he will likely get more crap through congress than Obama.
  • BoatShoes
    Cleveland Buck;932831 wrote:Romney might be even more liberal than Obama, or at least govern that way because he is essentially a Democrat with the support of Congressional Republicans. He would be able to pass anything he wants.
    This is a good point and likely true. See Medicare Part D and No Child Left Behind. Both were much larger expansions of the welfare state than Obamacare. Republicans and even the "true conservatives" in the TEA Party (not counting Ron Paul guys) never hold Republicans to the same standard they hold Democrats. In fact, Milton Friedman did research that showed that government spending decreases the most with Democratic Presidents and Republicans in Congress. Once Romney gets elected he'll say he has to "respond to all Americans" and won't be cow-towing to Conservatives and faking it anymore. If the Tea Party gets behind Mitt Romney they can't be taken seriously.
  • O-Trap
    BoatShoes;932893 wrote:(not counting Ron Paul guys)
    We tend to piss everybody off. It's why we have no friends and why Paul is a difficult candidate to elect (both of the parties responsible for the state of affairs we're in now have problems with Libertarian positions ... understandably so).
  • jhay78
    BoatShoes;932893 wrote: If the Tea Party gets behind Mitt Romney they can't be taken seriously.
    ,

    Very true. If that happens, we're toast.

    The fact that Romney is demagoging, like a Democrat, any attempt at explaining the need to reform Social Security shows me where his heart lies. The fact that he still defends the individual mandate in Romneycare tells me more. He pretty much neuters any argument conservatives have against Obama, which is why I think it would actually be harder for him to beat Obama than it would for someone else with bolder conservative ideas.
  • jhay78
    Republicans and even the "true conservatives" in the TEA Party (not counting Ron Paul guys) never hold Republicans to the same standard they hold Democrats.
    The next sign I see at a Tea Party rally saying "George W. Bush is my hero" will also be the first.
  • O-Trap
    jhay78;932951 wrote:,

    Very true. If that happens, we're toast.

    The fact that Romney is demagoging, like a Democrat, any attempt at explaining the need to reform Social Security shows me where his heart lies. The fact that he still defends the individual mandate in Romneycare tells me more. He pretty much neuters any argument conservatives have against Obama, which is why I think it would actually be harder for him to beat Obama than it would for someone else with bolder conservative ideas.
    I've gotta say that I agree with a lot of this.

    Not a fan of most Republican candidates right now, but of all of them, none scares the begeezes out of me like Romney. He's a fiscally liberal interventionist ... basically the categorical opposite of Ron Paul (which is why I think it's funny that they stand on the same stage for these debates under the banner 'Republican').
  • O-Trap
    jhay78;932952 wrote:The next sign I see at a Tea Party rally saying "George W. Bush is my hero" will also be the first.
    It seems like Bush is still a popular person to distance oneself from, even among republicans, so that's no surprise. The guy did, after all, have his own little stimulus package.
  • jhay78
    O-Trap;932955 wrote:It seems like Bush is still a popular person to distance oneself from, even among republicans, so that's no surprise. The guy did, after all, have his own little stimulus package.
    Nothing says conservative like "I've abandoned free-market principles to save free market", or something to that effect, which he uttered after one of the bailouts or stimulus thingys.
  • O-Trap
    jhay78;932959 wrote:Nothing says 'republican' like "I've abandoned free-market principles to save free market", or something to that effect, which he uttered after one of the bailouts or stimulus thingys.
    FIFY ;)
  • I Wear Pants
    Well I mean at some point you have to abandon free market principles because the unfettered free market breaks itself down in the long run. We've all played Monopoly.