A Question That Must Be Asked: Did Hermain Cain Ever Benefit From Affirmative Action?

[Dot Com]

It is a question that we Americans, especially white Americans who work and pay taxes need to know. We have seen what the catastrophic results of a black man who benefited from affirmative action has done to America. It is the most needed question that needs to be answered. The question was never directly asked to Obama by the jewish dominated media if he benefited from affirmative action but as we all now know, he was. Obama's rise was a direct result of it and with the help of the media not vetting his true past, especially his credentials like grades and how he got into college. The same needs to be done with Cain. You have to ask yourself this, does anyone else think the rise in support for Herman cain seems a bit fabricated? The relentless media attention and poll changes makes it seem like something is trying to place Cain at the top or near the top. The way I see this, Cain will try and "out-Black" Obama, and if they do pick him then the whole election is going to be about race. The Obama camp will call Cain an "Uncle Tom" and question his "Black" credentials because he's a rich CEO (Was it by affirmative action?). Then the Cain camp might fire back by bringing up the fact that Obama's an affirmative action beach boy from Hawaii. The whole election will come down to "Our guy is Blacker than your guy!"

A hypothetical match-up between Cain and Obama would be the biggest American debacle of all time with white Americans caught in the crosshairs of black violence, and if it happens then these Repub voters will be to blame for not wanting Palin as their president who never benefited from affirmative action with credentials running a government far greater than Cains and Obama's. Watch these polls Americans, the jews are manipulating them. For example, the jewish dominated MSM on TV always ask for opinions and show what they want. They could have asked 100 people about illegal immigration in which 90%+ say they need to clamp down. They'll show you 4 to 6 clips of people in which looks like 50/50 on the news just to numb the mass. Nice and balanced art of propaganda. Again remember, Cain recently was way behind in the polls until he declared himself a huge supporter of the Zionist bandit state named Israel, then he shot to the top.

My fellow tax paying working Americans and retirees, you are witnessing affirmative action happen before your eyes with Cain but the question that remains, did he benefit from it in the past? We need to know because I believe he did and even if he didn't, a black man has proven that they are incapable of running a country as factual history has proven. Even though Cain is a republican, a "DARK CLOUD" with remain over America if he is elected president.......just as it has with Obama. He will always side with his brothers over whites in any crisis. Cain is not the answer to America.

Affirmative action - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

still upset about sarah fucking the darkies, huh?

He's got to be DEVASTATED He even put up a butt-hurt avatar similar to Stephanies

 

[Foxfyre]

I did not lie. I stated my view after reading some articles. I never said Cain didn't deserve his promotion, or he has no personal accomplishments. I merely state that he has benefited from civil rights policies like AA. I stated Cain, Powell and Obama all benefited from AA and all are worthy of their positions.

You are the one that thinks AA would hire unqualified candidates. I don't. It merely levels the playing field.

I wouldn't vote for Cain for many reasons, but none have to do with his race. I think he's a loud mouthed bore.

You always attack my sources. That's what I don't bother offering them. Unless the source is one of your favorite right wing ones, you don't respect it.



You mistate my view.

Would you like me to post everything you have said on this thread? I can you know. I attack anybody's sources when they are clearly not credible or cannot be backed up. You are not the only one who does that. You clearly said Herman Cain was spoonfed his success. That doesn't sound like somebody 'qualified to me'.

And you have yet to rescind your clearly false statements about his record. Until you do that you will have no credibility in your arguments at all.

Cain benefited from civil rights legislation and AA. You are the one who thinks AA means he couldn't have been qualified. I don't.

I think he's interesting, but I would not vote for him for many reasons.

You continue to try and bait me but I'm not falling for it.

I appreciate you fact checking my posts and I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong.

Until I find other sources, I concede that your dates have more credence then mine do. I trusted WAKE UP BLACK AMERICA. That's just the kind of gal I am. I had no reason to think they mistated Cain's record.

You can attack my sources, but I am free to hold my own opinions and to know that you consistently favor a right wing view. I don't trust you, frankly.

You would come across a lot less partisan and looney tunes if you would fact check more of your own statements. I don't say something hateful about somebody without some pretty good evidence to back it up. After you started out magnanimously stating you would not engage in character assassination, you went on to engage in character assassination pretty emphatically. And when several members asked you to back up your claims, you refused to do so.

Again I don't think Wake Up Black America gave you any evidence whatsoever. There was one member making an especially hateful post there re Herman Cain that was not supported by much of anybody else. And you consider that a valid source to be trusted? And you wonder how you get yourself into so much hot water on these threads.

But let's review:

You said of Cain:

Post #88

The point is to discuss the topic. I'm pointing out that the candidate benefited from the policy he won't support. Some hypocrisy there, possibly

but you repeatedly refused to show any evidence for the statement.

In Post #93 you said

I'm saying, that Mr Cain is against affirmative action, yet he benefited from it. So, it seems to me the message he gives is, "I got mine, who cares about the rest of you."

In Post #104 you said:

He benefited from the civil rights movement put together by all those "brainwashed" blacks he talks about.

Too bad he didn't participate.

Cain uses hateful rhetoric. Another reason I dislike him

In Post #10 you said:

He benefited from a system he now wants to tear down because he personally has no more need of it.

You may try to address my point.

Herman Cain uses hateful rhetoric and you support him. Cain wants the Government to ban everything that's against his religious beliefs while at the same time he's saying he's small government. Some real disconnects there.

He has no problem using the Christian Bible as a weapon to enforce his religious beliefs on the rest of America, but is afraid of “Sharia law?”

Cain campaigns on economy and small government, but once he gets in office he will focus on making Evangelical Christianity the law of the land. During the campaign he talks about how he is going to protect U.S. jobs and reduce my taxes, but one he gets in office he wants to dictate whether or not I have access to birth control and who I can marry.

In Post #118 you said:

Cain received an affirmative action promotion at Pillsbury. They promoted him because they were being sued for racial discrimination, a case that Pillsbury lost. With affirmative action helping him and Pillsburys money he couldn't go wrong. When Pillsbury bought Godfathers Pizza they were intended to buy just Burger King stores. Godfathers Pizza was not the major reason for the acquisition. Pillsbury, not Herman Cain saved Godfathers Pizza. After Cain took over he never posted any profits and loss statements.

In Post #121 you said:

Cain received an affirmative action promotion at Pillsbury. They promoted him because they were being sued for racial discrimination, a case that Pillsbury lost. With affirmative action helping him and Pillsburys money he couldn't go wrong.

In Post #122 you said:

Herman Cain was in college during the civil rights era in the 60′s. When federal civil rights laws were codified, Cain benefited from them on the way to his lofty perch as Godfather’s Pizza CEO. At no point have I ever heard of Cain saying he was going to pass up civil rights programs or not take advantage of them because he thought the playing field was level.

In Post #143 you said:

When Cain was promoted at Pillsbury, Pillsbury had just lost a racial discrimination suit. Are you telling me this had no effect on his promotion?

In Post #146 you said:

I'm not going to waste MY time trying to prove anything to you. I'm stating my opinion. I am no longer going to try and provide proof to any of you.

In Poar #147 you said:

Moreover, it is quite a valid to suggest that, being that Cain was the benefactor of A.A. policies, also backed by Pillsbury, one of the largest foodstuffs company's (now General Mills-Smuckers) in the world, hell, only a a person of total incompetence could fail. Basically, Cain was spoon fed his success.

In Post #153 you said:

Cain was promoted after the lawsuit. Wake up.

In Post #163 you said:

One is already president and will be reelected in 2012. The other is a right wing show pony that will be casually discarded as soon as his usefulness ends.

Vote for Cain. His qualifications are pizza.

I have no problem someone benefiting from affirmative action. Colin Powell said he used affirmative action. I have a problem with Cain claiming affirmative action had NOTHING to do with his success.

Post #165

Obama worked his way through school and graduated at the top of his class, spending years paying off his debts while also self-identifying with people of color and dedicating himself to fighting to improve their condition. Most of Obama's personal wealth was earned from two successful books about his life. Cain decided the way to "overcome" racism was to embrace it and amass a personal fortune by becoming the standard-bearer for those who promote racism and culture wars to exclude and disenfranchise people of color.

One is already president and will be reelected in 2012. The other is a right wing show pony that will be casually discarded as soon as his usefulness ends.

There is more, but the gist should be pretty obvious.

 

[Dot Com]

Keep us updated USAR

 

[Cecilie1200]

barack obama, after 3 years still doesn't have the experience or qualifications to be President. He is a divider with his rhetoric.

Obviously, I disagree.

I am proud of the way I can hold my own in this discussion.

As usual, I'm outnumbered. I've said my peace for the day. Have fun.

You're proud of holding your own???? You are not outnumbered because people like to pick on you. You are outnumbered because you're wrong.

Please stay around long enough to answer the PM I sent you. Then, have a great day in Never Never Land.

Apparently, we're defining "holding your own" as "marching in, making insane, unsubstantiated assertions, then repeating them over and over until finally getting your frillies in a wad because people DARE to insist you prove them, and flouncing off in a huff while pretending that retreat is really taking the high ground."

I swear, the DNC must buy its braindead members dictionaries in bulk shipments from Bizarro World. Of course, ignorant twats like Sky have always made me suspect there's a secret lobotomy operation in the back room of DNC headquarters. Makes me ashamed to share the same reproductive plumbing.

 

[Cecilie1200]

When in doubt, call your opponent a liar. Nice one, Fox. Keep going. You're on a roll.

Your opinion of me has NOTHING to do with this discussion. Get back to the topic. You claim Cain did not benefit from the Civil Rights Act. I say he did.

You stated without qualification and without any possibility of being misunderstood that Cain was hired by Pillsbury AFTER 1984 and after Pillsbury was sued on a civil rights issue. Almost EVERY big company at that time was being sued re something or other re civil rights, but that is irrelevent.

I clearly showed that Pillsbury hired and promoted Herman Cain well before the lawsuit was filed and well before the period that the lawsuit covered.

You have yet to acknowledge that. I didn't call you a liar. I said you are stating or repeating a lie and even gave you an out for that being intentional.

You can either own up to that or I will have every reason to believe you intentionally lied.

She didn't just say after Pillsbury was sued. She said after Pillsbury lost:

When Cain was promoted at Pillsbury, Pillsbury had just lost a racial discrimination suit. Are you telling me this had no effect on his promotion?

Even if it can be shown that he received some particular promotion in 1984 later in the year than when the lawsuit was filed, the fact remains that he was working his way up the ladder before 1984, based on qualifications.

Don't be ridiculous. He's black. How dare you assume he has any merit or ability - or, indeed, any worth as a human being whatsoever - outside of his skin color? According to liberals, all black people are NOTHING other than their skin pigmentation, and it's racist of you to think of them as thinking, capable human beings just like everyone else.

Where do you get off trying to see past his blackness, or thinking that anyone else ever has? Shame on you.

(If you can't see the sarcasm dripping off of this post, you're obviously a liberal.)

 

[Foxfyre]

You have a bad opinion of AA, I don't.

I have a bad opinion of a program which says that police departments must hire unqualified people because not enough of the qualified people were black.

Even the NAACP in Dayton has a bad opinion of a program which would put public safety in the hands of people who fail exams.

You don't?

Of course you're entitled to your opinion.

However, when you claim that AA doesn't result in the hiring of unqualified people, expect rebuttal.

Most especially when I have actually been in the position of having to hire the unqualified specifically because of Affirmative Action. So we took a chance on two young things that promptly advised their supervisors that they would not be doing some of the assigned tasks that they didn't want to do. (One of those tasks was supervising the playground when the kids went out to play which ALL the pre-school staff was expected to do and the other was clean up after the crafts classes which the two were specifically hired to do.)

And when I suggested the young ladies might wish to find another line of work, I received a telephone call from their attorney. I knew we had an excellent case and I knew we didn't have the money to fight for it. We were between the rock and a hard place big time. So we put up with them until their contract ran out.

I have had other staffers, including senior staffers, who were black, competent, capable, and so very very good at their jobs. And I hired them because of their track record and credentials, not because of Affirmative Action.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Would you like me to post everything you have said on this thread? I can you know. I attack anybody's sources when they are clearly not credible or cannot be backed up. You are not the only one who does that. You clearly said Herman Cain was spoonfed his success. That doesn't sound like somebody 'qualified to me'.

And you have yet to rescind your clearly false statements about his record. Until you do that you will have no credibility in your arguments at all.

Cain benefited from civil rights legislation and AA. You are the one who thinks AA means he couldn't have been qualified. I don't.

I think he's interesting, but I would not vote for him for many reasons.

You continue to try and bait me but I'm not falling for it.

I appreciate you fact checking my posts and I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong.

Until I find other sources, I concede that your dates have more credence then mine do. I trusted WAKE UP BLACK AMERICA. That's just the kind of gal I am. I had no reason to think they mistated Cain's record.

You can attack my sources, but I am free to hold my own opinions and to know that you consistently favor a right wing view. I don't trust you, frankly.

You would come across a lot less partisan and looney tunes if you would fact check more of your own statements. I don't say something hateful about somebody without some pretty good evidence to back it up. After you started out magnanimously stating you would not engage in character assassination, you went on to engage in character assassination pretty emphatically. And when several members asked you to back up your claims, you refused to do so.

Again I don't think Wake Up Black America gave you any evidence whatsoever. There was one member making an especially hateful post there re Herman Cain that was not supported by much of anybody else. And you consider that a valid source to be trusted? And you wonder how you get yourself into so much hot water on these threads.

But let's review:

You said of Cain:

Post #88
but you repeatedly refused to show any evidence for the statement.

In Post #93 you said


In Post #104 you said:


In Post #10 you said:


In Post #118 you said:


In Post #121 you said:


In Post #122 you said:


In Post #143 you said:


In Post #146 you said:


In Poar #147 you said:


In Post #153 you said:


In Post #163 you said:

One is already president and will be reelected in 2012. The other is a right wing show pony that will be casually discarded as soon as his usefulness ends.

Vote for Cain. His qualifications are pizza.

I have no problem someone benefiting from affirmative action. Colin Powell said he used affirmative action. I have a problem with Cain claiming affirmative action had NOTHING to do with his success.

Post #165

Obama worked his way through school and graduated at the top of his class, spending years paying off his debts while also self-identifying with people of color and dedicating himself to fighting to improve their condition. Most of Obama's personal wealth was earned from two successful books about his life. Cain decided the way to "overcome" racism was to embrace it and amass a personal fortune by becoming the standard-bearer for those who promote racism and culture wars to exclude and disenfranchise people of color.

One is already president and will be reelected in 2012. The other is a right wing show pony that will be casually discarded as soon as his usefulness ends.

There is more, but the gist should be pretty obvious.

I'm encouraged by today's posting actually. I know I'm partisan. I am a liberal, so what? I am not ashamed to be liberal. I have fought for equal rights my whole life and my life experience informs my views.

You're right, I could fact check my comments first, but I'm not a journalist. When I have a conversation with friends they aren't continually asking me to back up my views with hard evidence. We just talk.

That's all I'm doing. Some folks here think there is only one right way to look at current events, as if opinion had to be based always on fact. I bring to my views a lifetime of living just like everyone else does. What some folks want to do is continually pigeon hole me, and it doesn't work.

I have numerous different feelings about Cain, and like it or not. I express them.

This is not a serious debate forum. I doubt I would last long in a serious debate forum. My impression is we are everyday folks from all walks of life who are plugged into the issues of our day.

I think you're one of those folks, Fox, that thinks there is only one way to look at anything and that's YOUR way, which you think is ALWAYS the right way. Your view is your view and my view is my view. Isn't it fun to share that?


I've enjoyed talking to all of you today. One thing I'm doing differently is not trying to convince anyone that I'm right and you are wrong.

I'm telling you my views and why I think and feel the way I do.

 

[Sky Dancer]

You have a bad opinion of AA, I don't.

I have a bad opinion of a program which says that police departments must hire unqualified people because not enough of the qualified people were black.

Even the NAACP in Dayton has a bad opinion of a program which would put public safety in the hands of people who fail exams.

You don't?

Of course you're entitled to your opinion.

However, when you claim that AA doesn't result in the hiring of unqualified people, expect rebuttal.

Rebutt as much as you like. AA is a necessary program, and one that should continue in some form until we have full equity in hiring.

That's my position and I stand the authority of my own experience.

 

[Sky Dancer]

You stated without qualification and without any possibility of being misunderstood that Cain was hired by Pillsbury AFTER 1984 and after Pillsbury was sued on a civil rights issue. Almost EVERY big company at that time was being sued re something or other re civil rights, but that is irrelevent.

I clearly showed that Pillsbury hired and promoted Herman Cain well before the lawsuit was filed and well before the period that the lawsuit covered.

You have yet to acknowledge that. I didn't call you a liar. I said you are stating or repeating a lie and even gave you an out for that being intentional.

You can either own up to that or I will have every reason to believe you intentionally lied.

She didn't just say after Pillsbury was sued. She said after Pillsbury lost:

When Cain was promoted at Pillsbury, Pillsbury had just lost a racial discrimination suit. Are you telling me this had no effect on his promotion?

Even if it can be shown that he received some particular promotion in 1984 later in the year than when the lawsuit was filed, the fact remains that he was working his way up the ladder before 1984, based on qualifications.

Don't be ridiculous. He's black. How dare you assume he has any merit or ability - or, indeed, any worth as a human being whatsoever - outside of his skin color? According to liberals, all black people are NOTHING other than their skin pigmentation, and it's racist of you to think of them as thinking, capable human beings just like everyone else.

Where do you get off trying to see past his blackness, or thinking that anyone else ever has? Shame on you.

(If you can't see the sarcasm dripping off of this post, you're obviously a liberal.)

You sure hate liberals, don't you? Are you a fan of Ann Coulter?

I think Herman Cain is interesting. He is successful, but I don't think he's a good candidate for President. There are many reasons I wouldn't vote for him, none of them have anything to do with his skin color. It's his positions I oppose, not his race.

I am not the racist you portray me as. Shame on you for characterizing all liberals as racist. That's as dumb as saying all conservatives are racist.

You aren't speaking the truth of the liberal position on racial equality.

But it is a good flame bait post, I'll give you that.

 

[Sky Dancer]

You have a bad opinion of AA, I don't.

I have a bad opinion of a program which says that police departments must hire unqualified people because not enough of the qualified people were black.

Even the NAACP in Dayton has a bad opinion of a program which would put public safety in the hands of people who fail exams.

You don't?

Of course you're entitled to your opinion.

However, when you claim that AA doesn't result in the hiring of unqualified people, expect rebuttal.

Most especially when I have actually been in the position of having to hire the unqualified specifically because of Affirmative Action. So we took a chance on two young things that promptly advised their supervisors that they would not be doing some of the assigned tasks that they didn't want to do. (One of those tasks was supervising the playground when the kids went out to play which ALL the pre-school staff was expected to do and the other was clean up after the crafts classes which the two were specifically hired to do.)

And when I suggested the young ladies might wish to find another line of work, I received a telephone call from their attorney. I knew we had an excellent case and I knew we didn't have the money to fight for it. We were between the rock and a hard place big time. So we put up with them until their contract ran out.

I have had other staffers, including senior staffers, who were black, competent, capable, and so very very good at their jobs. And I hired them because of their track record and credentials, not because of Affirmative Action.

Ugh. I'd would hate to have you as a boss.

 

[Liability]

I have a bad opinion of a program which says that police departments must hire unqualified people because not enough of the qualified people were black.

Even the NAACP in Dayton has a bad opinion of a program which would put public safety in the hands of people who fail exams.

You don't?

Of course you're entitled to your opinion.

However, when you claim that AA doesn't result in the hiring of unqualified people, expect rebuttal.

Most especially when I have actually been in the position of having to hire the unqualified specifically because of Affirmative Action. So we took a chance on two young things that promptly advised their supervisors that they would not be doing some of the assigned tasks that they didn't want to do. (One of those tasks was supervising the playground when the kids went out to play which ALL the pre-school staff was expected to do and the other was clean up after the crafts classes which the two were specifically hired to do.)

And when I suggested the young ladies might wish to find another line of work, I received a telephone call from their attorney. I knew we had an excellent case and I knew we didn't have the money to fight for it. We were between the rock and a hard place big time. So we put up with them until their contract ran out.

I have had other staffers, including senior staffers, who were black, competent, capable, and so very very good at their jobs. And I hired them because of their track record and credentials, not because of Affirmative Action.

Ugh. I'd would hate to have you as a boss.

?? Because you think the attitude of the women she describes is meritorious?

 

[Foxfyre]

I have a bad opinion of a program which says that police departments must hire unqualified people because not enough of the qualified people were black.

Even the NAACP in Dayton has a bad opinion of a program which would put public safety in the hands of people who fail exams.

You don't?

Of course you're entitled to your opinion.

However, when you claim that AA doesn't result in the hiring of unqualified people, expect rebuttal.

Most especially when I have actually been in the position of having to hire the unqualified specifically because of Affirmative Action. So we took a chance on two young things that promptly advised their supervisors that they would not be doing some of the assigned tasks that they didn't want to do. (One of those tasks was supervising the playground when the kids went out to play which ALL the pre-school staff was expected to do and the other was clean up after the crafts classes which the two were specifically hired to do.)

And when I suggested the young ladies might wish to find another line of work, I received a telephone call from their attorney. I knew we had an excellent case and I knew we didn't have the money to fight for it. We were between the rock and a hard place big time. So we put up with them until their contract ran out.

I have had other staffers, including senior staffers, who were black, competent, capable, and so very very good at their jobs. And I hired them because of their track record and credentials, not because of Affirmative Action.

Ugh. I'd would hate to have you as a boss.

That's good because I won't be offering you a job.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Most especially when I have actually been in the position of having to hire the unqualified specifically because of Affirmative Action. So we took a chance on two young things that promptly advised their supervisors that they would not be doing some of the assigned tasks that they didn't want to do. (One of those tasks was supervising the playground when the kids went out to play which ALL the pre-school staff was expected to do and the other was clean up after the crafts classes which the two were specifically hired to do.)

And when I suggested the young ladies might wish to find another line of work, I received a telephone call from their attorney. I knew we had an excellent case and I knew we didn't have the money to fight for it. We were between the rock and a hard place big time. So we put up with them until their contract ran out.

I have had other staffers, including senior staffers, who were black, competent, capable, and so very very good at their jobs. And I hired them because of their track record and credentials, not because of Affirmative Action.

Ugh. I'd would hate to have you as a boss.

That's good because I won't be offering you a job.

I'm sure you wouldn't hire me because of my political views.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Most especially when I have actually been in the position of having to hire the unqualified specifically because of Affirmative Action. So we took a chance on two young things that promptly advised their supervisors that they would not be doing some of the assigned tasks that they didn't want to do. (One of those tasks was supervising the playground when the kids went out to play which ALL the pre-school staff was expected to do and the other was clean up after the crafts classes which the two were specifically hired to do.)

And when I suggested the young ladies might wish to find another line of work, I received a telephone call from their attorney. I knew we had an excellent case and I knew we didn't have the money to fight for it. We were between the rock and a hard place big time. So we put up with them until their contract ran out.

I have had other staffers, including senior staffers, who were black, competent, capable, and so very very good at their jobs. And I hired them because of their track record and credentials, not because of Affirmative Action.

Ugh. I'd would hate to have you as a boss.

?? Because you think the attitude of the women she describes is meritorious?

Nope. I didn't say that. I wouldn't work for Foxfyre because she has such a low opinion of liberals. I doubt she would hire me based on my views. She doesn't think liberals are intelligent or skilled. I imagine she'd only hire evangelicals. Of course I don't know her at all. I'm only basing my opinion on her posts here.

 

[Foxfyre]

Cain benefited from civil rights legislation and AA. You are the one who thinks AA means he couldn't have been qualified. I don't.

I think he's interesting, but I would not vote for him for many reasons.

You continue to try and bait me but I'm not falling for it.

I appreciate you fact checking my posts and I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong.

Until I find other sources, I concede that your dates have more credence then mine do. I trusted WAKE UP BLACK AMERICA. That's just the kind of gal I am. I had no reason to think they mistated Cain's record.

You can attack my sources, but I am free to hold my own opinions and to know that you consistently favor a right wing view. I don't trust you, frankly.

You would come across a lot less partisan and looney tunes if you would fact check more of your own statements. I don't say something hateful about somebody without some pretty good evidence to back it up. After you started out magnanimously stating you would not engage in character assassination, you went on to engage in character assassination pretty emphatically. And when several members asked you to back up your claims, you refused to do so.

Again I don't think Wake Up Black America gave you any evidence whatsoever. There was one member making an especially hateful post there re Herman Cain that was not supported by much of anybody else. And you consider that a valid source to be trusted? And you wonder how you get yourself into so much hot water on these threads.

But let's review:

You said of Cain:

Post #88
but you repeatedly refused to show any evidence for the statement.

In Post #93 you said


In Post #104 you said:


In Post #10 you said:


In Post #118 you said:


In Post #121 you said:


In Post #122 you said:


In Post #143 you said:


In Post #146 you said:


In Poar #147 you said:


In Post #153 you said:


In Post #163 you said:


Post #165

Obama worked his way through school and graduated at the top of his class, spending years paying off his debts while also self-identifying with people of color and dedicating himself to fighting to improve their condition. Most of Obama's personal wealth was earned from two successful books about his life. Cain decided the way to "overcome" racism was to embrace it and amass a personal fortune by becoming the standard-bearer for those who promote racism and culture wars to exclude and disenfranchise people of color.

One is already president and will be reelected in 2012. The other is a right wing show pony that will be casually discarded as soon as his usefulness ends.

There is more, but the gist should be pretty obvious.

I'm encouraged by today's posting actually. I know I'm partisan. I am a liberal, so what? I am not ashamed to be liberal. I have fought for equal rights my whole life and my life experience informs my views.

You're right, I could fact check my comments first, but I'm not a journalist. When I have a conversation with friends they aren't continually asking me to back up my views with hard evidence. We just talk.

That's all I'm doing. Some folks here think there is only one right way to look at current events, as if opinion had to be based always on fact. I bring to my views a lifetime of living just like everyone else does. What some folks want to do is continually pigeon hole me, and it doesn't work.

I have numerous different feelings about Cain, and like it or not. I express them.

This is not a serious debate forum. I doubt I would last long in a serious debate forum. My impression is we are everyday folks from all walks of life who are plugged into the issues of our day.

I think you're one of those folks, Fox, that thinks there is only one way to look at anything and that's YOUR way, which you think is ALWAYS the right way. Your view is your view and my view is my view. Isn't it fun to share that?


I've enjoyed talking to all of you today. One thing I'm doing differently is not trying to convince anyone that I'm right and you are wrong.

I'm telling you my views and why I think and feel the way I do.

There is a world of difference in having a conversation with friends no matter how wrong headed, bigoted, hateful, or prejudiced you might be and in posting the wrong headedness, bigotry, hatefulness, and prejudice as fact on a message board where impressionable minds might see and believe it or copy and repaste it for others. Sort of like you did. The ethical problem with that is that the person of whom the erroneous information, bigotry, hatefulness, and prejudice is directed is a real person. And too often the ignorant and gullible will believe the often repeated lie.

When that person doesn't deserve that kind of thing, more ethical people will set the record straight.

Stating your opinion is one thing. Stating things as fact without qualification is quite another most especially when there is potential to bear false witness and hurt somebody.

If you think this isn't a serious debate forum, I wonder why you take it so seriously?

 

[Liability]

Ugh. I'd would hate to have you as a boss.

?? Because you think the attitude of the women she describes is meritorious?

Nope. I didn't say that. I wouldn't work for Foxfyre because she has such a low opinion of liberals.

People usually don't hire or fire people based on their political inclinations. I doubt Foxfyre would, either.

I have several very dear friends who happen to be Orthodox. Libs, that is.

They think my political views are wrong-headed. Likewise, I deem their political views to be largely wrong-headed. Well motivated, but ultimately baseless. I don't like them any less as friends on that account, and they seem content not to like me any less on that basis, either.

If I could, I would hire any one of them. Hard working. Smart. Diligent. And I'm sure they would hire me if the situation were reversed for mostly the same reasons.

That said, if your work product is as lazy and shiftless as your thought process, you'd never last a day in any difficult field where others have to count on you to get the work done well.

 

[Sky Dancer]

?? Because you think the attitude of the women she describes is meritorious?

Nope. I didn't say that. I wouldn't work for Foxfyre because she has such a low opinion of liberals.

People usually don't hire or fire people based on their political inclinations. I doubt Foxfyre would, either.

I have several very dear friends who happen to be Orthodox. Libs, that is.

They think my political views are wrong-headed. Likewise, I deem their political views to be largely wrong-headed. Well motivated, but ultimately baseless. I don't like them any less as friends on that account, and they seem content not to like me any less on that basis, either.

If I could, I would hire any one of them. Hard working. Smart. Diligent. And I'm sure they would hire me if the situation were reversed for mostly the same reasons.

That said, if your work product is as lazy and shiftless as your thought process, you'd never last a day in any difficult field where others have to count on you to get the work done well.

My work process is brilliant. You make the same assumptions about me that I make about Fox. It's so stupid, really. None of us know each other in RL. We only know our poliitical positions.

I have great affection for Fox and I admire her intellect. She doesn't feel that way about me. I doubt the woman would have me in her house, let alone hire me, regardless of my experience and qualifications.

I wouldn't want Fox as a boss because she wouldn't appreciate my spirit and creativity. I think she'd try and crush my spirit. That wouldn't make me able to do my best work.

 

[Dot Com]

Where is USAR? I wanted to thank him for keeping us informed

 

[Sky Dancer]

You would come across a lot less partisan and looney tunes if you would fact check more of your own statements. I don't say something hateful about somebody without some pretty good evidence to back it up. After you started out magnanimously stating you would not engage in character assassination, you went on to engage in character assassination pretty emphatically. And when several members asked you to back up your claims, you refused to do so.

Again I don't think Wake Up Black America gave you any evidence whatsoever. There was one member making an especially hateful post there re Herman Cain that was not supported by much of anybody else. And you consider that a valid source to be trusted? And you wonder how you get yourself into so much hot water on these threads.

But let's review:

You said of Cain:

Post #88
but you repeatedly refused to show any evidence for the statement.

In Post #93 you said


In Post #104 you said:


In Post #10 you said:


In Post #118 you said:


In Post #121 you said:


In Post #122 you said:


In Post #143 you said:


In Post #146 you said:


In Poar #147 you said:


In Post #153 you said:


In Post #163 you said:


Post #165


There is more, but the gist should be pretty obvious.

I'm encouraged by today's posting actually. I know I'm partisan. I am a liberal, so what? I am not ashamed to be liberal. I have fought for equal rights my whole life and my life experience informs my views.

You're right, I could fact check my comments first, but I'm not a journalist. When I have a conversation with friends they aren't continually asking me to back up my views with hard evidence. We just talk.

That's all I'm doing. Some folks here think there is only one right way to look at current events, as if opinion had to be based always on fact. I bring to my views a lifetime of living just like everyone else does. What some folks want to do is continually pigeon hole me, and it doesn't work.

I have numerous different feelings about Cain, and like it or not. I express them.

This is not a serious debate forum. I doubt I would last long in a serious debate forum. My impression is we are everyday folks from all walks of life who are plugged into the issues of our day.

I think you're one of those folks, Fox, that thinks there is only one way to look at anything and that's YOUR way, which you think is ALWAYS the right way. Your view is your view and my view is my view. Isn't it fun to share that?


I've enjoyed talking to all of you today. One thing I'm doing differently is not trying to convince anyone that I'm right and you are wrong.

I'm telling you my views and why I think and feel the way I do.

There is a world of difference in having a conversation with friends no matter how wrong headed, bigoted, hateful, or prejudiced you might be and in posting the wrong headedness, bigotry, hatefulness, and prejudice as fact on a message board where impressionable minds might see and believe it or copy and repaste it for others. Sort of like you did. The ethical problem with that is that the person of whom the erroneous information, bigotry, hatefulness, and prejudice is directed is a real person. And too often the ignorant and gullible will believe the often repeated lie.

When that person doesn't deserve that kind of thing, more ethical people will set the record straight.

Stating your opinion is one thing. Stating things as fact without qualification is quite another most especially when there is potential to bear false witness and hurt somebody.

If you think this isn't a serious debate forum, I wonder why you take it so seriously?[/QUOTE]

I don't take it as seriously as you think I do. I use the forum in a very specific way that no one has ever asked me about. I use it to clarify my views. I use it to learn. Even when you think I'm not paying attention Fox, I read your posts and your "fact checking". I like you. You loathe me.

You take the forum DEAD seriously. Look at that moralistic tone in this very post, with the "do not bear false witness" crap.

I post my opinions and I tell people why I hold those opinions.

You think you are more ethical than I am. You continually assert that you are a superior human being. As if, your right wing views make you a loftier higher form of human thatn a liberal.

You're not a better person than I am. We both breathe and we both have red blood.

I have value and worth, even if you think I don't.

 

[Liability]

Nope. I didn't say that. I wouldn't work for Foxfyre because she has such a low opinion of liberals.

People usually don't hire or fire people based on their political inclinations. I doubt Foxfyre would, either.

I have several very dear friends who happen to be Orthodox. Libs, that is.

They think my political views are wrong-headed. Likewise, I deem their political views to be largely wrong-headed. Well motivated, but ultimately baseless. I don't like them any less as friends on that account, and they seem content not to like me any less on that basis, either.

If I could, I would hire any one of them. Hard working. Smart. Diligent. And I'm sure they would hire me if the situation were reversed for mostly the same reasons.

That said, if your work product is as lazy and shiftless as your thought process, you'd never last a day in any difficult field where others have to count on you to get the work done well.

My work process is brilliant. You make the same assumptions about me that I make about Fox. It's so stupid, really. None of us know each other in RL. We only know our poliitical positions.

I have great affection for Fox and I admire her intellect. She doesn't feel that way about me. I doubt the woman would have me in her house, let alone hire me, regardless of my experience and qualifications.

I wouldn't want Fox as a boss because she wouldn't appreciate my spirit and creativity. I think she'd try and crush my spirit. That wouldn't make me able to do my best work.

What I SAID was that IF your Work Product is as lazy and shiftless as your THOUGHT process.

Your thought process (as you just unwittingly proved yet again) is quite muddled and slovenly.

What you are actually saying is that you wouldn't work for a woman with whose politics you disagree.

Very narrow minded of you. I am not surprised at this point.