Cain being dumb.

[percysunshine]

Not sure what that has to do with the video, but alrighty then!~

Some times people are a bit subtle.

Yes I understand but your statement implies that because I pointed out that Cain contradicted himself, I personally feel the Government is infallible. It was an unfounded sarcasm.

I didn't imply anything about you. I implied that it is possible for a person to disagree with a law and still respect that it is a law. Roberts got it right in his confirmation hearing before the Senate.

 

[clevergirl]

Your guy's dumber than our guy. Such intelligent political 'debate'. It's no wonder the country is such a clusterfuck... too many fucking idiots think 'gotchas' are more important than policies.

This is just derangement angst...they know their guy is gonna lose.

 

[G.T.]

Some times people are a bit subtle.

Yes I understand but your statement implies that because I pointed out that Cain contradicted himself, I personally feel the Government is infallible. It was an unfounded sarcasm.

I didn't imply anything about you. I implied that it is possible for a person to disagree with a law and still respect that it is a law.

Ahh, so you don't think he's contradicting himself.

Watch the frakkin video.

He doesn't want the Government to be able to make the decision, for a woman. BUT, he also wants it to be illegal. That's a contradiction.

 

[G.T.]

Your guy's dumber than our guy. Such intelligent political 'debate'. It's no wonder the country is such a clusterfuck... too many fucking idiots think 'gotchas' are more important than policies.

This is just derangement angst...they know their guy is gonna lose.

My guy isn't running yet.

 

[clevergirl]

Even when Repubs know they cant win they still talk this way.

You lefties are the ones needing to attack the competition...if Obama is such a shoe in, I would expect less obsession with non-issues.

Based upon your post, I've determined that you are not a clever girl.

Based upon your lack of substantive issues to debate, your ability to determine why fuzz is in your naval, should keep you more than occupied this election cycle.

 

[California Girl]

Your guy's dumber than our guy. Such intelligent political 'debate'. It's no wonder the country is such a clusterfuck... too many fucking idiots think 'gotchas' are more important than policies.

No one debated anything, its just a video of Cain. Boy, you guys are sensitive as hell. He said something dumb, cant it just be dumb or does everything have to be republican dumb and democrat dumb?

Pelosi said vote for it to find out whats in it. Pretty dumb. See how I did that? Now you try.

"You guys"? As far as I am aware, albeit I am a twin, I am an individual.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Your guy's dumber than our guy. Such intelligent political 'debate'. It's no wonder the country is such a clusterfuck... too many fucking idiots think 'gotchas' are more important than policies.

No one debated anything, its just a video of Cain. Boy, you guys are sensitive as hell. He said something dumb, cant it just be dumb or does everything have to be republican dumb and democrat dumb?

Pelosi said vote for it to find out whats in it. Pretty dumb. See how I did that? Now you try.

"You guys"? As far as I am aware, albeit I am a twin, I am an individual.

You learned a new word! Point is Cain said something dumb and you cried about it, write to Cain and tell him to stop doing that if it upsets you so.

 

[percysunshine]

Yes I understand but your statement implies that because I pointed out that Cain contradicted himself, I personally feel the Government is infallible. It was an unfounded sarcasm.

I didn't imply anything about you. I implied that it is possible for a person to disagree with a law and still respect that it is a law.

Ahh, so you don't think he's contradicting himself.

Watch the frakkin video.

He doesn't want the Government to be able to make the decision, for a woman. BUT, he also wants it to be illegal. That's a contradiction.

I watched the video. He is taking Justice Roberts position that it is decided law that he disagrees with. Should I assume that you agree with every law the government passes? I doubt that is the case.

 

[clevergirl]

What's that all got to do with this specific deer in the headlights video?

Save that other shit for a thread about that other shit. This thread is about Cain's inability to comprehend his *own* stance on abortion.

It has to do with the obsessive derangement syndrome anytime a GOP candidate resonates.

You can be personally anti abortion and still uphold the law- and even wish the law to change. Abortion is not murder, though it cannot be argued it is not killing a human life. Indeed prior to Roe it was manslaughter- Cain may have stated this poorly- so what. Politicians and judges have to uphold laws they disagree with and do so every day. Get a grip and discuss relevant issues.

You're not that clever.

You've missed the point, it flew by ya.

Cain said he didn't want the government to be able to make the decision, for the woman................................but also said he wants it illegal.

If you don't see the contradiction there, hey.................dasskoo

BFD- so he did not state his position well. We know he is not pro abortion. We know he'd support a woman's' right to choose while abortion is still legal. And we know he'd like to see the law change like every other anti abortion proponent. But yeah I mean like WOW he stated it badly...

Can you shake it off yet and put it back in your pants yet?

 

[Cuyo]

You lefties are the ones needing to attack the competition...if Obama is such a shoe in, I would expect less obsession with non-issues.

Based upon your post, I've determined that you are not a clever girl.

Based upon your lack of substantive issues to debate, your ability to determine why fuzz is in your naval, should keep you more than occupied this election cycle.

What's to debate? The guy's an idiot. This is not the only reason he's an idiot, of course, but it does happen to be the topic of the thread.

 

[G.T.]

I didn't imply anything about you. I implied that it is possible for a person to disagree with a law and still respect that it is a law.

Ahh, so you don't think he's contradicting himself.

Watch the frakkin video.

He doesn't want the Government to be able to make the decision, for a woman. BUT, he also wants it to be illegal. That's a contradiction.

I watched the video. He is taking Justice Roberts position that it is decided law that he disagrees with. Should I assume that you agree with every law the government passes? I doubt that is the case.

I don't get the same information out of that video.

He said it "should be illegal"
He said the Government "shouldn't get to decide"

Words have meaning.

 

[G.T.]

It has to do with the obsessive derangement syndrome anytime a GOP candidate resonates.

You can be personally anti abortion and still uphold the law- and even wish the law to change. Abortion is not murder, though it cannot be argued it is not killing a human life. Indeed prior to Roe it was manslaughter- Cain may have stated this poorly- so what. Politicians and judges have to uphold laws they disagree with and do so every day. Get a grip and discuss relevant issues.

You're not that clever.

You've missed the point, it flew by ya.

Cain said he didn't want the government to be able to make the decision, for the woman................................but also said he wants it illegal.

If you don't see the contradiction there, hey.................dasskoo

BFD- so he did not state his position well. We know he is not pro abortion. We know he'd support a woman's' right to choose while abortion is still legal. And we know he'd like to see the law change like every other anti abortion proponent. But yeah I mean like WOW he stated it badly...

Can you shake it off yet and put it back in your pants yet?

ur corny


he didn't state it badly, he stated it contradictory.

 

[percysunshine]

Ahh, so you don't think he's contradicting himself.

Watch the frakkin video.

He doesn't want the Government to be able to make the decision, for a woman. BUT, he also wants it to be illegal. That's a contradiction.

I watched the video. He is taking Justice Roberts position that it is decided law that he disagrees with. Should I assume that you agree with every law the government passes? I doubt that is the case.

I don't get the same information out of that video.

He said it "should be illegal"
He said the Government "shouldn't get to decide"

Words have meaning.

'Context' is a word. Cain is no different than you. You can look at both sides of a debate.

 

[Article 15]

The guy with the white hair at 0:55 is priceless.

 

[G.T.]

I watched the video. He is taking Justice Roberts position that it is decided law that he disagrees with. Should I assume that you agree with every law the government passes? I doubt that is the case.

I don't get the same information out of that video.

He said it "should be illegal"
He said the Government "shouldn't get to decide"

Words have meaning.

'Context' is a word. Cain is no different than you. You can look at both sides of a debate.

You can't agree with both sides though, as he did. He wants it illegal, yet he doesn't want the Government telling the woman what she can or cant do.

I mean, a self-contradictory approach to policy can't get much clearer than this.

They say partisanship gives people blind spots. Perhaps, in this case, people fail to see that he is blatantly contradicting himself, for that reason. Just an observation. I've no knowledge of your partisanship or non partisanship.

 

[JoeB131]

Confused Cain Says Abortions Should Be Both Legal And Illegal - YouTube

The Government shouldn't be able to interfere in the woman's choice, yet it should be illegal

Gee, I wonder if that's a conflict of interest?

I'm not seeing a big contradiction here.

When abortion was illegal, the government did a HORRIBLE job of preventing it.... in fact, there were probably as many illegal abortions before Roe v. Wade as there were legal ones afterwards. There certainly wasn't a huge drop in the birth rate in 1973, which is what one would have expected.

I think what he's trying to say, and I wish he'd have said it more articulately, is that we need to change attitudes rather than changing laws.

 

[Ropey]

Cain is a threat to Obama. What else explains the derangement with Cain? He's a successful man who is connecting with the people. He is running for president with very little money at this time...and yet~

The majority of American's right now have Cain; Obama; and Romney in a statistical dead heat. That's not good, historically speaking, this early in a presidential race, against an incumbent.

poll

Maybe some of his straight shooting will rub off on the talking pointers.

 

[G.T.]

Confused Cain Says Abortions Should Be Both Legal And Illegal - YouTube

The Government shouldn't be able to interfere in the woman's choice, yet it should be illegal

Gee, I wonder if that's a conflict of interest?

I'm not seeing a big contradiction here.

When abortion was illegal, the government did a HORRIBLE job of preventing it.... in fact, there were probably as many illegal abortions before Roe v. Wade as there were legal ones afterwards. There certainly wasn't a huge drop in the birth rate in 1973, which is what one would have expected.

I think what he's trying to say, and I wish he'd have said it more articulately, is that we need to change attitudes rather than changing laws.

No, he blatantly said it should be illegal.
He also blatantly said that the government shouldn't get to decide.

Watch it again if you don't believe me.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Cain is a threat to Obama.

Not if he does something like that during the debates.

Cain may have stated this poorly- so what.

This is indicative of muddled thinking, of someone who doesn’t understand the legal ramifications of privacy rights, and lacks a rudimentary grasp of basic policy issues.

It is one of many reasons why Cain is not qualified to be president.

You lefties are the ones needing to attack the competition...if Obama is such a shoe in, I would expect less obsession with non-issues.

I don’t know about ‘lefties,’ but privacy rights and advocating government violate those rights are far from a ‘non-issue.’

I watched the video. He is taking Justice Roberts position that it is decided law that he disagrees with. Should I assume that you agree with every law the government passes? I doubt that is the case.

It’s highly unlikely Cain ‘understands’ it as settled law he disagrees with. And it’s appropriate to be concerned about such issues with a presidential candidate as he will be making judicial appointments, appointing judges and justices hostile to Griswold/Roe/Casey in an attempt to undermine privacy rights.

 

[percysunshine]

I don't get the same information out of that video.

He said it "should be illegal"
He said the Government "shouldn't get to decide"

Words have meaning.

'Context' is a word. Cain is no different than you. You can look at both sides of a debate.

You can't agree with both sides though, as he did. He wants it illegal, yet he doesn't want the Government telling the woman what she can or cant do.

I mean, a self-contradictory approach to policy can't get much clearer than this.

They say partisanship gives people blind spots. Perhaps, in this case, people fail to see that he is blatantly contradicting himself, for that reason. Just an observation. I've no knowledge of your partisanship or non partisanship.

Everything is relative. We can be both for and against something at the same time. You know, and accept, that as a world view. Why does that not apply in this circumstance?