Are you sure you want Cain in the White House?

[steveox]

Herman Cain's connection to billionaires

IOWA CITY, Iowa (AP) — Republican presidential hopeful Herman Cain has cast himself as the outsider, the pizza magnate with real-world experience who will bring fresh ideas to the nation's capital. But Cain's economic ideas, support and organization have close ties to two billionaire brothers who bankroll right-leaning causes through their group Americans for Prosperity.

Cain's campaign manager and a number of aides have worked for Americans for Prosperity, or AFP, the advocacy group founded with support from billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch, which lobbies for lower taxes and less government regulation and spending. Cain credits a businessman who served on an AFP advisory board with helping devise his "9-9-9" plan to rewrite the nation's tax code. And his years of speaking at AFP events have given the businessman and radio host a network of loyal grassroots fans.

The once little-known businessman's political activities are getting fresh scrutiny these days since he soared to the top of some national polls.

http://news.yahoo.com/long-ties-koch-brothers-key-cains-campaign-110518961.html


Sounds like another Bush politican

 

[dogtowner]

" lower taxes and less government regulation and spending" is what we need so if thatsa what he's selling its no wonder he's enjoying support.

 

[Gipper]

" lower taxes and less government regulation and spending" is what we need so if thatsa what he's selling its no wonder he's enjoying support.

Yes, but the left does not like lower taxes, less government regulations and spending. They want more of all that, which is why they are socialists and ignorant of history.

 

[dogtowner]

Yes, but the left does not like lower taxes, less government regulations and spending. They want more of all that, which is why they are socialists and ignorant of history.

They just want what they want irrespective of anything else. Reminds be of little children when they begin with their attempts ar rationalization and fits of pique.

 

[Rafael Norma]

"A joke," to kill "wet backs"

 

[Openmind]

"A joke," to kill "wet backs"

Yes! It is very "funny" that, anytime Cain makes a statement that "falls like passing wind in church," he has to notify all of us that "it was just a joke!"

 

[Alias]

The left is sure easily offended unless it's something they do themselves just as horrible.

 

[Openmind]

The left is sure easily offended unless it's something they do themselves just as horrible.

The "left" is not offended, just amazed than anyone who wants to be President can be that insensitive.

But the Latinos. . .that's an other issue!

Did you read about the Latino Republican Congressman who is leaving the party because of this "joke?"

 

[Rafael Norma]

an excerpt...

....As Ed Wyatt reported on Saturday from Tennessee:

The remarks, which came at two campaign rallies as part of a barnstorming bus tour across the state, drew loud cheers from crowds of several hundred people at each rally. At the second stop, in Harriman, Tenn., Mr. Cain added that he also would consider using military troops “with real guns and real bullets” in the border to stop illegal immigration.

no comments...

 

[Openmind]

an excerpt...

no comments...

Yes, a "few hundreds people" may sheer. . . in the heat of excitement. . . for Cain's crazy notions. . .
But NO reasonable, rational person (especially "Christians?") would really vote for that kind of disregard for human life.

And, If you say something once,. . .it MAY be a joke. If you repeat it with little encouragement from extremists. . . it is a LOT MORE than a joke. . .or it is a very negative one, that is not worthy of a Presidential candidate.

 

[dogtowner]

Considering the caliber of criminals involved it only makes sense to arm any military presence to the teeth at the border. He could have called for land mines.

 

[steveox]

Yes! It is very "funny" that, anytime Cain makes a statement that "falls like passing wind in church," he has to notify all of us that "it was just a joke!"

Openmind why not YELL FIRE In a Movie theater and when manager calls the cops you tell them it was a joke see if the officers laugh.

 

[Openmind]

Openmind why not YELL FIRE In a Movie theater and when manager calls the cops you tell them it was a joke see if the officers laugh.

amazing! for once we agree on something!

 

[Dr.Who]

Yes, a "few hundreds people" may sheer. . . in the heat of excitement. . . for Cain's crazy notions. . .
But NO reasonable, rational person (especially "Christians?") would really vote for that kind of disregard for human life.

Lets suppose for the sake of argument that building a killer electric fence was a serious proposal, and lest suppose that arming border agents (they are already armed) and instructing them to use deadly force in the right circumstances were also a serious proposal. The only people who would get killed were people who crossed the border illegally and touch the clearly marked fence or who advanced against an agent and cause that agent to use deadly force in ways no different than police all across the country do everyday.

Now lets compare that to a candidate who voted for legislaton that would allow a baby who was living and breathing and clearly born to be placed on a shelf in a linen closet and allowed to die of either dehydration, or starvation, or cold, or some other kind of exposure. I want to state again so there is no misunderstanding: the babies were born, alive, breathing, viable, human, and persons in every sense of the words.

Which one has the greater disregard for human life? Which candidate made a campaign statement which may or may not be followed up on and which one actually voted for the legislation?

 

[Openmind]

Lets suppose for the sake of argument that building a killer electric fence was a serious proposal, and lest suppose that arming border agents (they are already armed) and instructing them to use deadly force in the right circumstances were also a serious proposal. The only people who would get killed were people who crossed the border illegally and touch the clearly marked fence or who advanced against an agent and cause that agent to use deadly force in ways no different than police all across the country do everyday.

Now lets compare that to a candidate who voted for legislaton that would allow a baby who was living and breathing and clearly born to be placed on a shelf in a linen closet and allowed to die of either dehydration, or starvation, or cold, or some other kind of exposure. I want to state again so there is no misunderstanding: the babies were born, alive, breathing, viable, human, and persons in every sense of the words.

Which one has the greater disregard for human life? Which candidate made a campaign statement which may or may not be followed up on and which one actually voted for the legislation?

You are bringing back the abortion issue, but in a very outrageous fashion .. .again!

NO ONE, NO legislation is preconizing to leave a "breathing, living child on a shelf." I am not saying that this incident didn't happen. . .what I am saying (and you KNOW this) is that there will be "wrong" done at times, but those "wrongs" are usually far beyond the law.

In fact, I am willing to go look for the "conclusion" of that sad accident.

Here is one occurence. . .which had NOTHING to do with legal abortion, and everything to do with murder (which could have been prevented by early abortion!)

Mother left newborn to die in closet, prosecutors say - Chicago Tribune articles.chicagotribune.com/.../ct-met-mother-murder-newborn-2010...Cached
You +1'd this publicly. Undo
Feb 22, 2010 – An Edgewater woman was charged with murder after she induced labor, wrapped her newborn daughter in a robe, placed her in a plastic bag, ...

And here is a Factcheck.org analysis:

‘Born Alive’ Baloney
An abortion survivor claims she would have died if Obama had his way. She's wrong. But Obama's counterattack misfires too.
Posted on September 24, 2008

Summary
A anti-abortion group is running an ad featuring a woman who says she survived a failed abortion and that "if Barack Obama had his way, I wouldn't be here." She's wrong. If she'd been born in Illinois, Illinois law would have protected her with or without the "born alive" legislation that Obama opposed and that this group supports.

The Obama campaign countered with its own false ad. It accused McCain of wanting to ban abortions even in cases of rape or incest, when in fact McCain has long supported such exceptions. Obama's ad also attributes the "born alive" attack ad to McCain, when it actually was sponsored by an independent group.
Analysis
A new ad by an anti-Obama group calling itself BornAliveTruth.org features Gianna Jessen, who says that she was "born 31 years ago after a failed abortion." Jessen is speaking out against Obama's opposition to Illinois "born alive" legislation, which seeks to secure human rights and mandate medical care for fetuses who show signs of life after failed abortions, whether or not they can plausibly survive outside the womb.


⬐ Click to expand/collapse the full transcript ⬏


BornAliveTruth.org Ad: "Gianna"

Jessen: Can you imagine not giving babies their basic human rights, no matter how they entered our world? My name's Gianna Jessen, born 31 years ago after a failed abortion. But if Barack Obama had his way, I wouldn't be here. Four times Barack Obama voted to oppose a law to protect babies left to die after failed abortions. Senator Obama, please support born alive infant protections. I'm living proof these babies have a right to live.
Announcer: BornAliveTruth.org is responsible for the content of this advertisement.

"I Wouldn't Be Here"

In the ad, Jessen says that "if Senator Obama had his way, I wouldn't be here." She's wrong. Anyone born in Illinois under the same circumstances as Jessen (who was actually born in California) would have been protected under the state's law as it stood, with or without the legislation that Obama opposed. Jessen's mother had an abortion in her third trimester, at 29-and-a-half weeks according to Jessen's biographer. This means she had an excellent chance of surviving outside the womb. And Illinois law has long stated that if an abortion is performed when the fetus is deemed to be viable, the doctor must:

■Choose the method of abortion least likely to harm the fetus.
■Have in attendance a second doctor who can immediately take over care of the child if it's born alive.
■Use every available means to keep any born-alive child living and healthy.
To do otherwise constitutes a Class 3 felony, which carries a sentence of two to five years in prison. That's been the law in Illinois since 1975, two years before Jessen was born. What Obama voted against was legislation that would have extended the law's protection to any aborted fetus that shows any sign of life, even if doctors are certain that it cannot survive.

A review of the literature shows that fetuses are generally considered viable – that is, capable of surviving outside the womb – after 26 weeks, and sometimes even earlier. Fetuses older than 28 weeks have a good average survival rate, and one 2006 study puts the odds at 90 percent or higher. Illinois law does not specify exactly when viability occurs, but at 29-and-a-half weeks, Jessen would not have been a close call.

Groups like BornAliveTruth.org say laws like the one that applied in Illinois leave discretion to the physician. As the anti-abortion group puts it, they cover fetuses who "are considered viable – by the very doctor aborting them." That's a fact, and reasonable people might agree or disagree on the merits of relying on a physician's discretion. But for Jessen to claim that she "wouldn't be here" without the legislation Obama opposed is false. Jessen's life would have been protected under Illinois law with or without any of the "born alive" bills Obama opposed in 2001, 2002 and 2003.

For the record, Obama says he would have supported "born alive" legislation in Illinois if framed in a way that did not pose a threat to abortion rights granted by the Supreme Court in its Roe v. Wade decision. Abortion-rights groups opposed the two early bills, saying they could be used to challenge a woman's right to an abortion. For more on that, and on claims by anti-abortion activists that Obama supports "infanticide," see our previous article on the subject.

There will be criminals in every corners of society. . . blaming the PRESIDENT for voting for against a bill when he was a senator one is unfair and ridiculous. AND YOU KNOW IT!

And. . .did you look at the COST of that "fence" Cain is preconizing? $2,000 miles, at a cost of $4 million per mile, for a "project" that couldn't possibly be completed before at least 20 years!

I didn't know you were that much of a "dreamer!"