The First Black Republican Presidential Nominee Will Be.....

[Faun]

Perry in turn lost the momentum following poor performances in the September debates, and the third major opponent to Romney's lead, Herman Cain, surged after the sixth debate on September 22. In November, Cain's viability as a candidate was seriously jeopardized after several allegations of sexual harassment surfaced in the media. Although Cain denied the allegations, the fallout from the controversy forced him to suspend his campaign on December 3, 2011.

And that was it for Cain.

Yes. Very sad. But the point remains. The GOP voters were quite happy with him, until he was destroyed by the media.

Thus disproving your sides delusional claim of Evul Wacism.

Liar.

You disproved no such thing. In an average of the polls, Cain never garnered greater than 26% of GOP support. That is nowhere near enough to win the party's nomination and in no way proves there aren't so many racists in the GOP, that's it's virtually impossible for a black candidate to win in that little tent party.

1. THe frontrunner in a big field, is the person that has garnered the most support, despite the support being split among many candidates. That a person might not have a majority, does not mean that he is not the frontrunner, not the strongest candidate, nor the choice of the biggest portion of voters.

2. YOur point about the possibility of secret racism among the voters, as a reason for them choosing to support other primary candidates, instead of all the other possible reasons is completely unsupported. You are assuming that, based on nothing but your hatred of people who oppose you.

It matters not that it was a big field. That he briefly led the pack is not evidence he would have won. On an average of the polls, he peaked at about 26%. At one point, Perry led the pack with about 32% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him. At one point, Paul led the pack with about 34% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him either. At one point, Gingrich led the pack with about 35% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him either.

At one point, Romney led the pack, then he didn't, then he did again, then he didn't again, then he did again, then he didn't again, then he did again, then he didn't again, and then finally he did and for good.

Leading the pack is not a ticket to the nomination until the end.

But you proved at least ¼ of Republicans are not racist.

Bully for you.

Leading the pack, is evidence that he was a serious contender.


IF the GOP was half as Evul Wacist as you dems like to pretend, that would never have ben the case.


You know it. But you are too dishonest to admit it.

No, it's not evidence of that. Again, that year alone, Romney, Gingrich, Cain, Paul and Perry all led at one point. Cain was the least supported among that group never enjoying more than 26% support from his party and Cain being the first of that group to bail.

And they were all serious contenders. None of them had any quality that would have made them secretly unacceptable to the party's voters as a whole.


That is the point.


Your delusion of being a hero, fighting Evul Wacists, is debunked.


Give it up. YOu are looking pathetic.

Bullshit. At one brief period during this election, Warren was the front runner. She was never a serious candidate; eventually pulling a whopping 81 delegates.

Cain was.


Your delusion of being a hero, fighting Evul Wacists, is debunked.

LOL

Says you. Reality says he never had more than about a quarter of the party's support and he was the first Republican candidate that year to drop from the race.

Real serious.

He got ahead and was dogpiled and destroyed. Happens to the best of them.


That you pretend it says something bad about him, instead of just being something that happens,


is you being dishonest in the defense of your fantasy.


THe fantasy you have, of you being this cool Hero, fighting against Evul Wacist Supervillains.

Of course it says something bad about him. Your denial of that doesn't alter reality.

What are you talking about? How in the world does that say anything "bad" about Cain?

It says he was such a defective candidate, he couldn't maintain his campaign.

No one "maintains" a campaign between elections. They choose whether or not to try again when the next election comes around.


Not trying again, is only "something bad" if you believe that his likely benefit to the country would have been worth the effort or cost to himself and his campaign workers.


You are grasping at straws, to justify dismissing this guy, who was the frontrunner at one point.

And that fact that he was the front runner, is strong evidence that your view of us as a bunch of "Evul Wacist" is just a self serving delusion.


You are not, a Hero fighting Evul Wacist supervillains.


You are just a partisan looking for excuses to be rude and dismissive to people who disagree with you on politics.

He was already campaigning for the Republican nomination for president. Who the fuck are you kidding?

Your words are not making sense. I think you forgot what argument you were making and accidentally starting making a different one.


EIther way, your need to find fault with Cain, is silly and irrelevant. He was the frontrunner of the gop, which is strong evidence that your claim of Evul Wacism, is incorrect.

I wasn't the one finding fault with Cain. It's his supporters who found that. They abandoned him and he dropped out of the running.

 

[Correll]

Is that the sort of proof you'd present today to get a passport? A page from a biography?

Seems relevant to me, that a man who wanted to be President of this country, was ashamed to be born in this country to the point he lied about it.

Oh? What lie did he tell?

That he was born in Kenya

Quote him saying that....

It's in his bio.

 

[Faun]

Is that the sort of proof you'd present today to get a passport? A page from a biography?

Seems relevant to me, that a man who wanted to be President of this country, was ashamed to be born in this country to the point he lied about it.

Oh? What lie did he tell?

That he was born in Kenya

Quote him saying that....

It's in his bio.

... as opposed to his autobiography.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Agreed. What are "black interests"?

If whites have white interests and blacks have black interests and you know this, why press for clarification?

You see, to me, by asking the question as to what white interests are, the implication seems to be that if a white person says "white interests", he is being either selfish, racist, or both.

Since the inception of this country "white interests" were considered American interests -- if those interests ran counter and to the detriment of let's say "white women" or women in general-- oh well...... fuck em....

However, that doesn't mean women working to bring about policy outcomes in their interests are "ANTI WHITE" or "ANTI AMERICAN" does it?

Do you refer to the women's suffrage movement as anti white or anti american??

However it seems as tho when black folks work to politically bring about policy outcomes in their interests - which in many cases means working to eliminate the system that was put in place against them.....those conservatives who supported that system are more likely to call that being anti-white....when in reality, it is being Pro-American.....Anti-American would be that system we are eliminating.....that system that "conservatives" whine about when they see it being eliminated....

 

[Correll]

The democrats didn't do that. But you are evidence of why blacks won't vote republican.

He told his publisher he was "born in Kenya" he told his colleges and universities, his grandmother said he was born in Kenya, so did his half brother, are they all lying?

All those stories have been debunked. The only people that continue believing them are white racists that still hang on to the birther lie.

Debunked?

Obama was the first birther, Hillary was the second

More debunked bullshit.

LOLz. It's not "debunked" just because you don't like it

It's debunked because it's been proven to be untrue.

No, the publishers made up a story that can't be true and you're just a follower

The story was debunked. You have chosen to believe a lie, because you could not deal with the fact that a black man was running America.

Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya and that sat there for 20 years. Much later, when it was obvious that Obama had told even his colleges and Universities about his Kenya birth, Obamaroids panicked. They sealed his foreign student educational records, but what to do about the bio he submitted to his publisher? They made the publisher fall on her sword.

See, apparently, all of the authors send in their own biography. Look on the page with Barack "born in Kenya" Obama and you see 2 other writers, neither of whom described where they were born, only Barack did that.

Now, we're to believe that the publisher of her own accord felt that "the first African American President of the Harvard Law Review" was somehow insufficient and she took it upon herself to find out where Barack "born in Kenya" Obama was born and raised, and - darn it- she got it wrong.

You're gullible.

"Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya"

LOL

What a pity. Even after all these years, you still can't prove that.

It's a pretty reasonable explanation for the evidence. Why are you acting like it is not?


Oh, because you NEED to believe that the only possible reason for opposition to anything you support, is


"Evul Wacism".

Because it's been debunked.

You guys say that about everything and anything that you don't like. It doesn't actually mean anything any more.

Long before he wanted to be President, he was telling people he was born in Kenya.

Believing him, is not Evul Wacism.

No, this was truly debunked. The person who edited his bio and put that in came forth with a mea culpa.

i'm sure they did.

 

[Faun]

The democrats didn't do that. But you are evidence of why blacks won't vote republican.

He told his publisher he was "born in Kenya" he told his colleges and universities, his grandmother said he was born in Kenya, so did his half brother, are they all lying?

All those stories have been debunked. The only people that continue believing them are white racists that still hang on to the birther lie.

Debunked?

Obama was the first birther, Hillary was the second

More debunked bullshit.

LOLz. It's not "debunked" just because you don't like it

It's debunked because it's been proven to be untrue.

No, the publishers made up a story that can't be true and you're just a follower

The story was debunked. You have chosen to believe a lie, because you could not deal with the fact that a black man was running America.

Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya and that sat there for 20 years. Much later, when it was obvious that Obama had told even his colleges and Universities about his Kenya birth, Obamaroids panicked. They sealed his foreign student educational records, but what to do about the bio he submitted to his publisher? They made the publisher fall on her sword.

See, apparently, all of the authors send in their own biography. Look on the page with Barack "born in Kenya" Obama and you see 2 other writers, neither of whom described where they were born, only Barack did that.

Now, we're to believe that the publisher of her own accord felt that "the first African American President of the Harvard Law Review" was somehow insufficient and she took it upon herself to find out where Barack "born in Kenya" Obama was born and raised, and - darn it- she got it wrong.

You're gullible.

"Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya"

LOL

What a pity. Even after all these years, you still can't prove that.

It's a pretty reasonable explanation for the evidence. Why are you acting like it is not?


Oh, because you NEED to believe that the only possible reason for opposition to anything you support, is


"Evul Wacism".

Because it's been debunked.

You guys say that about everything and anything that you don't like. It doesn't actually mean anything any more.

Long before he wanted to be President, he was telling people he was born in Kenya.

Believing him, is not Evul Wacism.

No, this was truly debunked. The person who edited his bio and put that in came forth with a mea culpa.

i'm sure they did.

Why wouldn't they?

 

[Correll]

Perry in turn lost the momentum following poor performances in the September debates, and the third major opponent to Romney's lead, Herman Cain, surged after the sixth debate on September 22. In November, Cain's viability as a candidate was seriously jeopardized after several allegations of sexual harassment surfaced in the media. Although Cain denied the allegations, the fallout from the controversy forced him to suspend his campaign on December 3, 2011.

And that was it for Cain.

Yes. Very sad. But the point remains. The GOP voters were quite happy with him, until he was destroyed by the media.

Thus disproving your sides delusional claim of Evul Wacism.

Liar.

You disproved no such thing. In an average of the polls, Cain never garnered greater than 26% of GOP support. That is nowhere near enough to win the party's nomination and in no way proves there aren't so many racists in the GOP, that's it's virtually impossible for a black candidate to win in that little tent party.

1. THe frontrunner in a big field, is the person that has garnered the most support, despite the support being split among many candidates. That a person might not have a majority, does not mean that he is not the frontrunner, not the strongest candidate, nor the choice of the biggest portion of voters.

2. YOur point about the possibility of secret racism among the voters, as a reason for them choosing to support other primary candidates, instead of all the other possible reasons is completely unsupported. You are assuming that, based on nothing but your hatred of people who oppose you.

It matters not that it was a big field. That he briefly led the pack is not evidence he would have won. On an average of the polls, he peaked at about 26%. At one point, Perry led the pack with about 32% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him. At one point, Paul led the pack with about 34% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him either. At one point, Gingrich led the pack with about 35% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him either.

At one point, Romney led the pack, then he didn't, then he did again, then he didn't again, then he did again, then he didn't again, then he did again, then he didn't again, and then finally he did and for good.

Leading the pack is not a ticket to the nomination until the end.

But you proved at least ¼ of Republicans are not racist.

Bully for you.

Leading the pack, is evidence that he was a serious contender.


IF the GOP was half as Evul Wacist as you dems like to pretend, that would never have ben the case.


You know it. But you are too dishonest to admit it.

No, it's not evidence of that. Again, that year alone, Romney, Gingrich, Cain, Paul and Perry all led at one point. Cain was the least supported among that group never enjoying more than 26% support from his party and Cain being the first of that group to bail.

And they were all serious contenders. None of them had any quality that would have made them secretly unacceptable to the party's voters as a whole.


That is the point.


Your delusion of being a hero, fighting Evul Wacists, is debunked.


Give it up. YOu are looking pathetic.

Bullshit. At one brief period during this election, Warren was the front runner. She was never a serious candidate; eventually pulling a whopping 81 delegates.

Cain was.


Your delusion of being a hero, fighting Evul Wacists, is debunked.

LOL

Says you. Reality says he never had more than about a quarter of the party's support and he was the first Republican candidate that year to drop from the race.

Real serious.

He got ahead and was dogpiled and destroyed. Happens to the best of them.


That you pretend it says something bad about him, instead of just being something that happens,


is you being dishonest in the defense of your fantasy.


THe fantasy you have, of you being this cool Hero, fighting against Evul Wacist Supervillains.

Of course it says something bad about him. Your denial of that doesn't alter reality.

What are you talking about? How in the world does that say anything "bad" about Cain?

It says he was such a defective candidate, he couldn't maintain his campaign.

No one "maintains" a campaign between elections. They choose whether or not to try again when the next election comes around.


Not trying again, is only "something bad" if you believe that his likely benefit to the country would have been worth the effort or cost to himself and his campaign workers.


You are grasping at straws, to justify dismissing this guy, who was the frontrunner at one point.

And that fact that he was the front runner, is strong evidence that your view of us as a bunch of "Evul Wacist" is just a self serving delusion.


You are not, a Hero fighting Evul Wacist supervillains.


You are just a partisan looking for excuses to be rude and dismissive to people who disagree with you on politics.

He was already campaigning for the Republican nomination for president. Who the fuck are you kidding?

Your words are not making sense. I think you forgot what argument you were making and accidentally starting making a different one.


EIther way, your need to find fault with Cain, is silly and irrelevant. He was the frontrunner of the gop, which is strong evidence that your claim of Evul Wacism, is incorrect.

I wasn't the one finding fault with Cain. It's his supporters who found that. They abandoned him and he dropped out of the running.

Your words from above, "of course it says something bad about him".


EIther way, your need to find fault with Cain, is silly and irrelevant. He was the frontrunner of the gop, which is strong evidence that your claim of Evul Wacism, is incorrect.

 

[Faun]

Perry in turn lost the momentum following poor performances in the September debates, and the third major opponent to Romney's lead, Herman Cain, surged after the sixth debate on September 22. In November, Cain's viability as a candidate was seriously jeopardized after several allegations of sexual harassment surfaced in the media. Although Cain denied the allegations, the fallout from the controversy forced him to suspend his campaign on December 3, 2011.

And that was it for Cain.

Yes. Very sad. But the point remains. The GOP voters were quite happy with him, until he was destroyed by the media.

Thus disproving your sides delusional claim of Evul Wacism.

Liar.

You disproved no such thing. In an average of the polls, Cain never garnered greater than 26% of GOP support. That is nowhere near enough to win the party's nomination and in no way proves there aren't so many racists in the GOP, that's it's virtually impossible for a black candidate to win in that little tent party.

1. THe frontrunner in a big field, is the person that has garnered the most support, despite the support being split among many candidates. That a person might not have a majority, does not mean that he is not the frontrunner, not the strongest candidate, nor the choice of the biggest portion of voters.

2. YOur point about the possibility of secret racism among the voters, as a reason for them choosing to support other primary candidates, instead of all the other possible reasons is completely unsupported. You are assuming that, based on nothing but your hatred of people who oppose you.

It matters not that it was a big field. That he briefly led the pack is not evidence he would have won. On an average of the polls, he peaked at about 26%. At one point, Perry led the pack with about 32% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him. At one point, Paul led the pack with about 34% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him either. At one point, Gingrich led the pack with about 35% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him either.

At one point, Romney led the pack, then he didn't, then he did again, then he didn't again, then he did again, then he didn't again, then he did again, then he didn't again, and then finally he did and for good.

Leading the pack is not a ticket to the nomination until the end.

But you proved at least ¼ of Republicans are not racist.

Bully for you.

Leading the pack, is evidence that he was a serious contender.


IF the GOP was half as Evul Wacist as you dems like to pretend, that would never have ben the case.


You know it. But you are too dishonest to admit it.

No, it's not evidence of that. Again, that year alone, Romney, Gingrich, Cain, Paul and Perry all led at one point. Cain was the least supported among that group never enjoying more than 26% support from his party and Cain being the first of that group to bail.

And they were all serious contenders. None of them had any quality that would have made them secretly unacceptable to the party's voters as a whole.


That is the point.


Your delusion of being a hero, fighting Evul Wacists, is debunked.


Give it up. YOu are looking pathetic.

Bullshit. At one brief period during this election, Warren was the front runner. She was never a serious candidate; eventually pulling a whopping 81 delegates.

Cain was.


Your delusion of being a hero, fighting Evul Wacists, is debunked.

LOL

Says you. Reality says he never had more than about a quarter of the party's support and he was the first Republican candidate that year to drop from the race.

Real serious.

He got ahead and was dogpiled and destroyed. Happens to the best of them.


That you pretend it says something bad about him, instead of just being something that happens,


is you being dishonest in the defense of your fantasy.


THe fantasy you have, of you being this cool Hero, fighting against Evul Wacist Supervillains.

Of course it says something bad about him. Your denial of that doesn't alter reality.

What are you talking about? How in the world does that say anything "bad" about Cain?

It says he was such a defective candidate, he couldn't maintain his campaign.

No one "maintains" a campaign between elections. They choose whether or not to try again when the next election comes around.


Not trying again, is only "something bad" if you believe that his likely benefit to the country would have been worth the effort or cost to himself and his campaign workers.


You are grasping at straws, to justify dismissing this guy, who was the frontrunner at one point.

And that fact that he was the front runner, is strong evidence that your view of us as a bunch of "Evul Wacist" is just a self serving delusion.


You are not, a Hero fighting Evul Wacist supervillains.


You are just a partisan looking for excuses to be rude and dismissive to people who disagree with you on politics.

He was already campaigning for the Republican nomination for president. Who the fuck are you kidding?

Your words are not making sense. I think you forgot what argument you were making and accidentally starting making a different one.


EIther way, your need to find fault with Cain, is silly and irrelevant. He was the frontrunner of the gop, which is strong evidence that your claim of Evul Wacism, is incorrect.

I wasn't the one finding fault with Cain. It's his supporters who found that. They abandoned him and he dropped out of the running.

Your words from above, "of course it says something bad about him".


EIther way, your need to find fault with Cain, is silly and irrelevant. He was the frontrunner of the gop, which is strong evidence that your claim of Evul Wacism, is incorrect.

Well his GOP supporters abandoned him upon claims of sexual harassment surfaced.

 

[Correll]

Agreed. What are "black interests"?

If whites have white interests and blacks have black interests and you know this, why press for clarification?

You see, to me, by asking the question as to what white interests are, the implication seems to be that if a white person says "white interests", he is being either selfish, racist, or both.

Since the inception of this country "white interests" were considered American interests -- if those interests ran counter and to the detriment of let's say "white women" or women in general-- oh well...... fuck em....

However, that doesn't mean women working to bring about policy outcomes in their interests are "ANTI WHITE" or "ANTI AMERICAN" does it?

Do you refer to the women's suffrage movement as anti white or anti american??

However it seems as tho when black folks work to politically bring about policy outcomes in their interests - which in many cases means working to eliminate the system that was put in place against them.....those conservatives who supported that system are more likely to call that being anti-white....when in reality, it is being Pro-American.....Anti-American would be that system we are eliminating.....that system that "conservatives" whine about when they see it being eliminated....

In the context of the above posts, I made no comments on blacks interests being inherently "anti-white"or "anti-American".


I just referred to the idea of all people having an equal right to have interests and to seek to have the represented in the discussion of policy.


Grumble disagrees. He wants to just defer to blacks.

 

[Correll]

The democrats didn't do that. But you are evidence of why blacks won't vote republican.

He told his publisher he was "born in Kenya" he told his colleges and universities, his grandmother said he was born in Kenya, so did his half brother, are they all lying?

All those stories have been debunked. The only people that continue believing them are white racists that still hang on to the birther lie.

Debunked?

Obama was the first birther, Hillary was the second

More debunked bullshit.

LOLz. It's not "debunked" just because you don't like it

It's debunked because it's been proven to be untrue.

No, the publishers made up a story that can't be true and you're just a follower

The story was debunked. You have chosen to believe a lie, because you could not deal with the fact that a black man was running America.

Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya and that sat there for 20 years. Much later, when it was obvious that Obama had told even his colleges and Universities about his Kenya birth, Obamaroids panicked. They sealed his foreign student educational records, but what to do about the bio he submitted to his publisher? They made the publisher fall on her sword.

See, apparently, all of the authors send in their own biography. Look on the page with Barack "born in Kenya" Obama and you see 2 other writers, neither of whom described where they were born, only Barack did that.

Now, we're to believe that the publisher of her own accord felt that "the first African American President of the Harvard Law Review" was somehow insufficient and she took it upon herself to find out where Barack "born in Kenya" Obama was born and raised, and - darn it- she got it wrong.

You're gullible.

"Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya"

LOL

What a pity. Even after all these years, you still can't prove that.

It's a pretty reasonable explanation for the evidence. Why are you acting like it is not?


Oh, because you NEED to believe that the only possible reason for opposition to anything you support, is


"Evul Wacism".

Because it's been debunked.

You guys say that about everything and anything that you don't like. It doesn't actually mean anything any more.

Long before he wanted to be President, he was telling people he was born in Kenya.

Believing him, is not Evul Wacism.

No, this was truly debunked. The person who edited his bio and put that in came forth with a mea culpa.

i'm sure they did.

Why wouldn't they?

oh, they surely should. ANy resistance to the Agenda, is likely to get them destroyed.

 

[Faun]

The democrats didn't do that. But you are evidence of why blacks won't vote republican.

He told his publisher he was "born in Kenya" he told his colleges and universities, his grandmother said he was born in Kenya, so did his half brother, are they all lying?

All those stories have been debunked. The only people that continue believing them are white racists that still hang on to the birther lie.

Debunked?

Obama was the first birther, Hillary was the second

More debunked bullshit.

LOLz. It's not "debunked" just because you don't like it

It's debunked because it's been proven to be untrue.

No, the publishers made up a story that can't be true and you're just a follower

The story was debunked. You have chosen to believe a lie, because you could not deal with the fact that a black man was running America.

Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya and that sat there for 20 years. Much later, when it was obvious that Obama had told even his colleges and Universities about his Kenya birth, Obamaroids panicked. They sealed his foreign student educational records, but what to do about the bio he submitted to his publisher? They made the publisher fall on her sword.

See, apparently, all of the authors send in their own biography. Look on the page with Barack "born in Kenya" Obama and you see 2 other writers, neither of whom described where they were born, only Barack did that.

Now, we're to believe that the publisher of her own accord felt that "the first African American President of the Harvard Law Review" was somehow insufficient and she took it upon herself to find out where Barack "born in Kenya" Obama was born and raised, and - darn it- she got it wrong.

You're gullible.

"Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya"

LOL

What a pity. Even after all these years, you still can't prove that.

It's a pretty reasonable explanation for the evidence. Why are you acting like it is not?


Oh, because you NEED to believe that the only possible reason for opposition to anything you support, is


"Evul Wacism".

Because it's been debunked.

You guys say that about everything and anything that you don't like. It doesn't actually mean anything any more.

Long before he wanted to be President, he was telling people he was born in Kenya.

Believing him, is not Evul Wacism.

No, this was truly debunked. The person who edited his bio and put that in came forth with a mea culpa.

i'm sure they did.

Why wouldn't they?

oh, they surely should. ANy resistance to the Agenda, is likely to get them destroyed.

LOL

You sound insane.

What resistance? Had she not edited his bio, she would have remained silent on the matter.

What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?

 

[Correll]

Perry in turn lost the momentum following poor performances in the September debates, and the third major opponent to Romney's lead, Herman Cain, surged after the sixth debate on September 22. In November, Cain's viability as a candidate was seriously jeopardized after several allegations of sexual harassment surfaced in the media. Although Cain denied the allegations, the fallout from the controversy forced him to suspend his campaign on December 3, 2011.

And that was it for Cain.

Yes. Very sad. But the point remains. The GOP voters were quite happy with him, until he was destroyed by the media.

Thus disproving your sides delusional claim of Evul Wacism.

Liar.

You disproved no such thing. In an average of the polls, Cain never garnered greater than 26% of GOP support. That is nowhere near enough to win the party's nomination and in no way proves there aren't so many racists in the GOP, that's it's virtually impossible for a black candidate to win in that little tent party.

1. THe frontrunner in a big field, is the person that has garnered the most support, despite the support being split among many candidates. That a person might not have a majority, does not mean that he is not the frontrunner, not the strongest candidate, nor the choice of the biggest portion of voters.

2. YOur point about the possibility of secret racism among the voters, as a reason for them choosing to support other primary candidates, instead of all the other possible reasons is completely unsupported. You are assuming that, based on nothing but your hatred of people who oppose you.

It matters not that it was a big field. That he briefly led the pack is not evidence he would have won. On an average of the polls, he peaked at about 26%. At one point, Perry led the pack with about 32% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him. At one point, Paul led the pack with about 34% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him either. At one point, Gingrich led the pack with about 35% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him either.

At one point, Romney led the pack, then he didn't, then he did again, then he didn't again, then he did again, then he didn't again, then he did again, then he didn't again, and then finally he did and for good.

Leading the pack is not a ticket to the nomination until the end.

But you proved at least ¼ of Republicans are not racist.

Bully for you.

Leading the pack, is evidence that he was a serious contender.


IF the GOP was half as Evul Wacist as you dems like to pretend, that would never have ben the case.


You know it. But you are too dishonest to admit it.

No, it's not evidence of that. Again, that year alone, Romney, Gingrich, Cain, Paul and Perry all led at one point. Cain was the least supported among that group never enjoying more than 26% support from his party and Cain being the first of that group to bail.

And they were all serious contenders. None of them had any quality that would have made them secretly unacceptable to the party's voters as a whole.


That is the point.


Your delusion of being a hero, fighting Evul Wacists, is debunked.


Give it up. YOu are looking pathetic.

Bullshit. At one brief period during this election, Warren was the front runner. She was never a serious candidate; eventually pulling a whopping 81 delegates.

Cain was.


Your delusion of being a hero, fighting Evul Wacists, is debunked.

LOL

Says you. Reality says he never had more than about a quarter of the party's support and he was the first Republican candidate that year to drop from the race.

Real serious.

He got ahead and was dogpiled and destroyed. Happens to the best of them.


That you pretend it says something bad about him, instead of just being something that happens,


is you being dishonest in the defense of your fantasy.


THe fantasy you have, of you being this cool Hero, fighting against Evul Wacist Supervillains.

Of course it says something bad about him. Your denial of that doesn't alter reality.

What are you talking about? How in the world does that say anything "bad" about Cain?

It says he was such a defective candidate, he couldn't maintain his campaign.

No one "maintains" a campaign between elections. They choose whether or not to try again when the next election comes around.


Not trying again, is only "something bad" if you believe that his likely benefit to the country would have been worth the effort or cost to himself and his campaign workers.


You are grasping at straws, to justify dismissing this guy, who was the frontrunner at one point.

And that fact that he was the front runner, is strong evidence that your view of us as a bunch of "Evul Wacist" is just a self serving delusion.


You are not, a Hero fighting Evul Wacist supervillains.


You are just a partisan looking for excuses to be rude and dismissive to people who disagree with you on politics.

He was already campaigning for the Republican nomination for president. Who the fuck are you kidding?

Your words are not making sense. I think you forgot what argument you were making and accidentally starting making a different one.


EIther way, your need to find fault with Cain, is silly and irrelevant. He was the frontrunner of the gop, which is strong evidence that your claim of Evul Wacism, is incorrect.

I wasn't the one finding fault with Cain. It's his supporters who found that. They abandoned him and he dropped out of the running.

Your words from above, "of course it says something bad about him".


EIther way, your need to find fault with Cain, is silly and irrelevant. He was the frontrunner of the gop, which is strong evidence that your claim of Evul Wacism, is incorrect.

Well his GOP supporters abandoned him upon claims of sexual harassment surfaced.

Correct. But before that, they were happy to support him, thus undermining your belief in Evul Wacism.



Black guy running for President with a fairly radical and conservative platform, and conservative republicans were drawn to him in fairly large numbers.


A historical event that conflicts with your view of the GOP.

 

[Correll]

The democrats didn't do that. But you are evidence of why blacks won't vote republican.

He told his publisher he was "born in Kenya" he told his colleges and universities, his grandmother said he was born in Kenya, so did his half brother, are they all lying?

All those stories have been debunked. The only people that continue believing them are white racists that still hang on to the birther lie.

Debunked?

Obama was the first birther, Hillary was the second

More debunked bullshit.

LOLz. It's not "debunked" just because you don't like it

It's debunked because it's been proven to be untrue.

No, the publishers made up a story that can't be true and you're just a follower

The story was debunked. You have chosen to believe a lie, because you could not deal with the fact that a black man was running America.

Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya and that sat there for 20 years. Much later, when it was obvious that Obama had told even his colleges and Universities about his Kenya birth, Obamaroids panicked. They sealed his foreign student educational records, but what to do about the bio he submitted to his publisher? They made the publisher fall on her sword.

See, apparently, all of the authors send in their own biography. Look on the page with Barack "born in Kenya" Obama and you see 2 other writers, neither of whom described where they were born, only Barack did that.

Now, we're to believe that the publisher of her own accord felt that "the first African American President of the Harvard Law Review" was somehow insufficient and she took it upon herself to find out where Barack "born in Kenya" Obama was born and raised, and - darn it- she got it wrong.

You're gullible.

"Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya"

LOL

What a pity. Even after all these years, you still can't prove that.

It's a pretty reasonable explanation for the evidence. Why are you acting like it is not?


Oh, because you NEED to believe that the only possible reason for opposition to anything you support, is


"Evul Wacism".

Because it's been debunked.

You guys say that about everything and anything that you don't like. It doesn't actually mean anything any more.

Long before he wanted to be President, he was telling people he was born in Kenya.

Believing him, is not Evul Wacism.

No, this was truly debunked. The person who edited his bio and put that in came forth with a mea culpa.

i'm sure they did.

Why wouldn't they?

oh, they surely should. ANy resistance to the Agenda, is likely to get them destroyed.

LOL

You sound insane.

What resistance? Had she not edited his bio, she would have remained silent on the matter.

What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?

if she had denied making a mistake, and said that Obama told her that, she would have been seen by people like you, as siding with the Evul Wacist Birthers.


And you people would make her pay for that.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Agreed. What are "black interests"?

If whites have white interests and blacks have black interests and you know this, why press for clarification?

You see, to me, by asking the question as to what white interests are, the implication seems to be that if a white person says "white interests", he is being either selfish, racist, or both.

Since the inception of this country "white interests" were considered American interests -- if those interests ran counter and to the detriment of let's say "white women" or women in general-- oh well...... fuck em....

However, that doesn't mean women working to bring about policy outcomes in their interests are "ANTI WHITE" or "ANTI AMERICAN" does it?

Do you refer to the women's suffrage movement as anti white or anti american??

However it seems as tho when black folks work to politically bring about policy outcomes in their interests - which in many cases means working to eliminate the system that was put in place against them.....those conservatives who supported that system are more likely to call that being anti-white....when in reality, it is being Pro-American.....Anti-American would be that system we are eliminating.....that system that "conservatives" whine about when they see it being eliminated....

In the context of the above posts, I made no comments on blacks interests being inherently "anti-white"or "anti-American".


I just referred to the idea of all people having an equal right to have interests and to seek to have the represented in the discussion of policy.


Grumble disagrees. He wants to just defer to blacks.

I know yo sissy ass likes to jump in the middle of other people's conversations.....but this was directed at what someone else said, not you pussy....

 

[Faun]

The democrats didn't do that. But you are evidence of why blacks won't vote republican.

He told his publisher he was "born in Kenya" he told his colleges and universities, his grandmother said he was born in Kenya, so did his half brother, are they all lying?

All those stories have been debunked. The only people that continue believing them are white racists that still hang on to the birther lie.

Debunked?

Obama was the first birther, Hillary was the second

More debunked bullshit.

LOLz. It's not "debunked" just because you don't like it

It's debunked because it's been proven to be untrue.

No, the publishers made up a story that can't be true and you're just a follower

The story was debunked. You have chosen to believe a lie, because you could not deal with the fact that a black man was running America.

Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya and that sat there for 20 years. Much later, when it was obvious that Obama had told even his colleges and Universities about his Kenya birth, Obamaroids panicked. They sealed his foreign student educational records, but what to do about the bio he submitted to his publisher? They made the publisher fall on her sword.

See, apparently, all of the authors send in their own biography. Look on the page with Barack "born in Kenya" Obama and you see 2 other writers, neither of whom described where they were born, only Barack did that.

Now, we're to believe that the publisher of her own accord felt that "the first African American President of the Harvard Law Review" was somehow insufficient and she took it upon herself to find out where Barack "born in Kenya" Obama was born and raised, and - darn it- she got it wrong.

You're gullible.

"Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya"

LOL

What a pity. Even after all these years, you still can't prove that.

It's a pretty reasonable explanation for the evidence. Why are you acting like it is not?


Oh, because you NEED to believe that the only possible reason for opposition to anything you support, is


"Evul Wacism".

Because it's been debunked.

You guys say that about everything and anything that you don't like. It doesn't actually mean anything any more.

Long before he wanted to be President, he was telling people he was born in Kenya.

Believing him, is not Evul Wacism.

No, this was truly debunked. The person who edited his bio and put that in came forth with a mea culpa.

i'm sure they did.

Why wouldn't they?

oh, they surely should. ANy resistance to the Agenda, is likely to get them destroyed.

LOL

You sound insane.

What resistance? Had she not edited his bio, she would have remained silent on the matter.

What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?

if she had denied making a mistake, and said that Obama told her that, she would have been seen by people like you, as siding with the Evul Wacist Birthers.


And you people would make her pay for that.

Why would she deny making a mistake? Again, she would have simply stayed quiet. Who even knew she edited his bio until she admitted it? Again, you sound insane.

You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?

 

[Correll]

Agreed. What are "black interests"?

If whites have white interests and blacks have black interests and you know this, why press for clarification?

You see, to me, by asking the question as to what white interests are, the implication seems to be that if a white person says "white interests", he is being either selfish, racist, or both.

Since the inception of this country "white interests" were considered American interests -- if those interests ran counter and to the detriment of let's say "white women" or women in general-- oh well...... fuck em....

However, that doesn't mean women working to bring about policy outcomes in their interests are "ANTI WHITE" or "ANTI AMERICAN" does it?

Do you refer to the women's suffrage movement as anti white or anti american??

However it seems as tho when black folks work to politically bring about policy outcomes in their interests - which in many cases means working to eliminate the system that was put in place against them.....those conservatives who supported that system are more likely to call that being anti-white....when in reality, it is being Pro-American.....Anti-American would be that system we are eliminating.....that system that "conservatives" whine about when they see it being eliminated....

In the context of the above posts, I made no comments on blacks interests being inherently "anti-white"or "anti-American".


I just referred to the idea of all people having an equal right to have interests and to seek to have the represented in the discussion of policy.


Grumble disagrees. He wants to just defer to blacks.

I know yo sissy ass likes to jump in the middle of other people's conversations.....but this was directed at what someone else said, not you pussy....

Ghost was addressing a point that came up between Grumble and me.


i don't know why you are flipping out.


Does it upset you when I make fun of your world view with my use of "Evul Wacism"?

 

[Correll]

The democrats didn't do that. But you are evidence of why blacks won't vote republican.

He told his publisher he was "born in Kenya" he told his colleges and universities, his grandmother said he was born in Kenya, so did his half brother, are they all lying?

All those stories have been debunked. The only people that continue believing them are white racists that still hang on to the birther lie.

Debunked?

Obama was the first birther, Hillary was the second

More debunked bullshit.

LOLz. It's not "debunked" just because you don't like it

It's debunked because it's been proven to be untrue.

No, the publishers made up a story that can't be true and you're just a follower

The story was debunked. You have chosen to believe a lie, because you could not deal with the fact that a black man was running America.

Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya and that sat there for 20 years. Much later, when it was obvious that Obama had told even his colleges and Universities about his Kenya birth, Obamaroids panicked. They sealed his foreign student educational records, but what to do about the bio he submitted to his publisher? They made the publisher fall on her sword.

See, apparently, all of the authors send in their own biography. Look on the page with Barack "born in Kenya" Obama and you see 2 other writers, neither of whom described where they were born, only Barack did that.

Now, we're to believe that the publisher of her own accord felt that "the first African American President of the Harvard Law Review" was somehow insufficient and she took it upon herself to find out where Barack "born in Kenya" Obama was born and raised, and - darn it- she got it wrong.

You're gullible.

"Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya"

LOL

What a pity. Even after all these years, you still can't prove that.

It's a pretty reasonable explanation for the evidence. Why are you acting like it is not?


Oh, because you NEED to believe that the only possible reason for opposition to anything you support, is


"Evul Wacism".

Because it's been debunked.

You guys say that about everything and anything that you don't like. It doesn't actually mean anything any more.

Long before he wanted to be President, he was telling people he was born in Kenya.

Believing him, is not Evul Wacism.

No, this was truly debunked. The person who edited his bio and put that in came forth with a mea culpa.

i'm sure they did.

Why wouldn't they?

oh, they surely should. ANy resistance to the Agenda, is likely to get them destroyed.

LOL

You sound insane.

What resistance? Had she not edited his bio, she would have remained silent on the matter.

What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?

if she had denied making a mistake, and said that Obama told her that, she would have been seen by people like you, as siding with the Evul Wacist Birthers.


And you people would make her pay for that.

Why would she deny making a mistake? Again, she would have simply stayed quiet. Who even knew she edited his bio until she admitted it? Again, you sound insane.

You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?

Because she likely did not make any mistake.

 

[Faun]

Does it upset you when I make fun of your world view with my use of "Evul Wacism"?

Not me personally, I disregard that as a desperate argument ad absurdum.

 

[Faun]

The democrats didn't do that. But you are evidence of why blacks won't vote republican.

He told his publisher he was "born in Kenya" he told his colleges and universities, his grandmother said he was born in Kenya, so did his half brother, are they all lying?

All those stories have been debunked. The only people that continue believing them are white racists that still hang on to the birther lie.

Debunked?

Obama was the first birther, Hillary was the second

More debunked bullshit.

LOLz. It's not "debunked" just because you don't like it

It's debunked because it's been proven to be untrue.

No, the publishers made up a story that can't be true and you're just a follower

The story was debunked. You have chosen to believe a lie, because you could not deal with the fact that a black man was running America.

Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya and that sat there for 20 years. Much later, when it was obvious that Obama had told even his colleges and Universities about his Kenya birth, Obamaroids panicked. They sealed his foreign student educational records, but what to do about the bio he submitted to his publisher? They made the publisher fall on her sword.

See, apparently, all of the authors send in their own biography. Look on the page with Barack "born in Kenya" Obama and you see 2 other writers, neither of whom described where they were born, only Barack did that.

Now, we're to believe that the publisher of her own accord felt that "the first African American President of the Harvard Law Review" was somehow insufficient and she took it upon herself to find out where Barack "born in Kenya" Obama was born and raised, and - darn it- she got it wrong.

You're gullible.

"Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya"

LOL

What a pity. Even after all these years, you still can't prove that.

It's a pretty reasonable explanation for the evidence. Why are you acting like it is not?


Oh, because you NEED to believe that the only possible reason for opposition to anything you support, is


"Evul Wacism".

Because it's been debunked.

You guys say that about everything and anything that you don't like. It doesn't actually mean anything any more.

Long before he wanted to be President, he was telling people he was born in Kenya.

Believing him, is not Evul Wacism.

No, this was truly debunked. The person who edited his bio and put that in came forth with a mea culpa.

i'm sure they did.

Why wouldn't they?

oh, they surely should. ANy resistance to the Agenda, is likely to get them destroyed.

LOL

You sound insane.

What resistance? Had she not edited his bio, she would have remained silent on the matter.

What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?

if she had denied making a mistake, and said that Obama told her that, she would have been seen by people like you, as siding with the Evul Wacist Birthers.


And you people would make her pay for that.

Why would she deny making a mistake? Again, she would have simply stayed quiet. Who even knew she edited his bio until she admitted it? Again, you sound insane.

You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?

Because she likely did not make any mistake.

Why would she put that in there then?

You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?

 

[Correll]

Does it upset you when I make fun of your world view with my use of "Evul Wacism"?

Not me personally, I disregard that as a desperate argument ad absurdum.

I was not asking you. I was asking the other lefty, the one that flipped out for no obvious reason.