Cain being dumb.

[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.

look i know you are stupid, but ill explain this anyways.
Cain is running for President, regardless if he really is or not with his end game, he is running. See when you run for president you have to go onto media talk shows to promote yourself. Therefore making NEWS about about your personal opinion about policies.

See when you do this people are going to form opinions based off what you said, how you said it, and when you said it. There is no derangement going on here you dumb fuck. You cant just toss whatever labels you want to something as if they are remotely true.


Its not a "derangement" When Palin, Obama, Cain, Clinton, Perry, Mitt, or any other politician make a policy statement.

I know you are too stupid to understand how the game works. The handle "clevergirl" is a lie. There is nothing clever about you.

The statement he is contradicting himself is false... he stated what he believes. When he says a woman can do what she wants is not equal to his saying abortion should be legal. You can go shoot someone- but that does not mean it should be legal to do so. He handled the questions poorly- no doubt- but it IS derangement syndrome when thread after thread are merely attempts to attack and not discuss.

I know I am more clever then you. You are just an angry leftist who can't actually discuss anything, but needs instead to scream and yell and call names. You should hardly think yourself better or smarter then anyone.

 

[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.

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.

I'm sure that is what he said... which wasn't my point.

I think abortion does represent a major philosophical issue for conservatives. On one hand, you want government to be less intrusive, but on the other you want to protect the sanctity of innocent life.

But to acheive your goal, you'd need a police state. And no one would go along with that.

Clearly, laws against prostitution haven't worked. Prohibition didn't work. The war on Drugs isnt' working and gun laws don't work. A law against abortion would be equally ineffective.

If he doesn't have an easy answer, it's probably because there isn't one.

 

[G.T.]

'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?

Because these are very real terms.

"Illegal" means against the Law.
"Legislators" write the law.
Legislators are "Government."

Therefore, you can't say it SHOULD BE *Ill*egal.................but the government SHOULDN'T get to decide if a woman gets one or not.

This isn't really that profound of a contradiction, either. It's a pretty clear/blatant one.

 

[G.T.]

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.

I'm sure that is what he said... which wasn't my point.

I think abortion does represent a major philosophical issue for conservatives. On one hand, you want government to be less intrusive, but on the other you want to protect the sanctity of innocent life.

But to acheive your goal, you'd need a police state. And no one would go along with that.

Clearly, laws against prostitution haven't worked. Prohibition didn't work. The war on Drugs isnt' working and gun laws don't work. A law against abortion would be equally ineffective.

If he doesn't have an easy answer, it's probably because there isn't one.

Well, you started your first response by saying "I'm not seeing a big contradiction here,"

while, if you watched the video, it's a 110% clear contradiction.

 

[Ropey]

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.

Clearly he needs more work, but he's young enough and powerful enough to push ahead.

 

[percysunshine]

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?

Because these are very real terms.

"Illegal" means against the Law.
"Legislators" write the law.
Legislators are "Government."

Therefore, you can't say it SHOULD BE *Ill*egal.................but the government SHOULDN'T get to decide if a woman gets one or not.

This isn't really that profound of a contradiction, either. It's a pretty clear/blatant one.

You don't buy that he was refering to the Roberts opinion. I think he was.

 

[G.T.]

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?

Because these are very real terms.

"Illegal" means against the Law.
"Legislators" write the law.
Legislators are "Government."

Therefore, you can't say it SHOULD BE *Ill*egal.................but the government SHOULDN'T get to decide if a woman gets one or not.

This isn't really that profound of a contradiction, either. It's a pretty clear/blatant one.

You don't buy that he was refering to the Roberts opinion. I think he was.

He wasn't making a reference. He was stating his personal opinion, because the questions sequentially started with "do you think"

he said BOTH

he thinks it should be illegal
he thinks the law has no right to intervene


UMMMMM, herrowwww?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Abortion isn’t the issue per se. It’s about privacy rights, substantive due process, and if or when it’s appropriate for government to preempt those rights. For decades now the right has taken a contradictory stance on the issue: on the one hand advocating government restriction with regard to individual liberty, yet on the other advocating government involvement in this most private and personal of issues. They can’t have it both ways, that’s not how the rule of law works. In the video Cain exhibited once again the right’s contradictory stance on the issue.

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.

Perhaps, but again what Cain may have intended to say is not the issue; it’s his inability to articulate his thoughts. Cain supporters may think it unfair or irrelevant, but the inability of a presidential candidate to express himself clearly is a legitimate criterion to evaluate a politician.

 

[Avorysuds]

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

I admit, I'd like to see Cain go against Obama just to watch the Republican party lose and end up disbanding.

Cain is the stupidest person I have ever seen get this far while running for President. Cain is an embarrassment to the process, he lacks positions on 99% of the issues and the few issues he has any position on seem to evolve day to day.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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?

Yeah, I can't figure out what position he was trying to take either. It sounds like he is pro-life with no exceptions, but then he keeps going back to the statement on how the government shouldn't be deciding this.

 

[clevergirl]

look i know you are stupid, but ill explain this anyways.
Cain is running for President, regardless if he really is or not with his end game, he is running. See when you run for president you have to go onto media talk shows to promote yourself. Therefore making NEWS about about your personal opinion about policies.

See when you do this people are going to form opinions based off what you said, how you said it, and when you said it. There is no derangement going on here you dumb fuck. You cant just toss whatever labels you want to something as if they are remotely true.


Its not a "derangement" When Palin, Obama, Cain, Clinton, Perry, Mitt, or any other politician make a policy statement.

I know you are too stupid to understand how the game works. The handle "clevergirl" is a lie. There is nothing clever about you.

The statement he is contradicting himself is false... he stated what he believes. When he says a woman can do what she wants is not equal to his saying abortion should be legal. You can go shoot someone- but that does not mean it should be legal to do so. He handled the questions poorly- no doubt- but it IS derangement syndrome when thread after thread are merely attempts to attack and not discuss.

I know I am more clever then you. You are just an angry leftist who can't actually discuss anything, but needs instead to scream and yell and call names. You should hardly think yourself better or smarter then anyone.

sigh then you are quite stupid, because all GT has done is try to alk about Cains statement. Your poor understanding of CDS is sad.

you at first posted nothing more than a sad deflection.

Yeah Cain looks like he is all over the map on this statement. it really doesnt matter, he is not in that game to win, just make more money.

The only one that sounds stupid is you. It has been stated in this thread that Cain contradicts himself- he doesn't.

Likewise, that you think he is in this contest to just make more money- you don't just sound stupid, you are stupid for certain

At least we can agree he handled the question poorly... and so I say again, BFD.

 

[Avorysuds]

What I really wana know is what are the other options to abortion if a woman is raped or in the case of incest...

Cain is so fucking stupid I can’t find the words to make fun of him.

 

[Avorysuds]

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?

Yeah, I can't figure out what position he was trying to take either. It sounds like he is pro-life with no exceptions, but then he keeps going back to the statement on how the government shouldn't be deciding this.

Cain is trying to seem like that small Government minded Candidate by saying it's not Governments right/authority to make the abortion decision for people.

Then Cain tries to play the role of "I'm the most pro life mother fucker on the stage" card, and to do that Cain has to say he would want abortions to be illegal...

Now the problem…

Cain is too stupid to see he can’t be that Small Government "conservative" at the same time as telling us the he would absolutely tell you what you can and can’t do if he had the chance/power.

Cain needs to stick to signing his name on books.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Well personally, I don't know why they are talking about abortion anyway. It's a stupid issue to be discussing. Our economy is in the toilet and not improving. Our country is on the decline. Those are the things they need to be asking these candidates about, not these stupid, divisive social issues. Who gives a shit? We have real problems going on right now. Anybody who is going to vote for Cain or Obama or who ever based on their abortion stance should have their ass kicked. Abortion is not going to become illegal.

 

[clevergirl]

What I really wana know is what are the other options to abortion if a woman is raped or in the case of incest...

Cain is so fucking stupid I can’t find the words to make fun of him.

He is entitled to his opinion- and it is one many people hold. That position being one of pro life. The question that begs itself to be answered is, if you believe that a human being exists at conception, how could you not be against abortion, except in the case of threat to life of the mother? Cain and others feel that the baby of a rapist is still a baby. We do not kill people because of what others have done. Cain's position is more consistent than mine.. I would support law that allows women to abort in case of rape.

Pre Roe V Wade there were states that allowed abortion only in the case of risk to the mothers life. Some states, such as CA, also allowed for rape; btw incest is technically rape. Statistically less then 3% of all abortions are due to rape. Less then 1% are due to risk of life. This means that 97% of all abortions are for convenience.

 

[rightwinger]

The guy can't answer a question...

Everything is apples and oranges and you don't know which Cain wants

 

[Avorysuds]

Well personally, I don't know why they are talking about abortion anyway. It's a stupid issue to be discussing. Our economy is in the toilet and not improving. Our country is on the decline. Those are the things they need to be asking these candidates about, not these stupid, divisive social issues. Who gives a shit? We have real problems going on right now. Anybody who is going to vote for Cain or Obama or who ever based on their abortion stance should have their ass kicked. Abortion is not going to become illegal.

I'm pro choice, I don't give a fuck either but Cain only has 999, or wait... 909... or... what is it today?

 

[WatertheTree]

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?

how is it this moron can be in the position he is today?

 

[newpolitics]

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

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.

cain's inability to answer a straight-forward question is an issue

 

[rightwinger]

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.

cain's inability to answer a straight-forward question is an issue

That would depend on whether you are an apple or an orange