Amen. I also guffaw with mirth when I hear Governor [del]Ken Doll[/del] Romney downplaying his term as governor and shifting his focus on his non-political experience. One of his complaints about Perry (when he was still winning) was that he had been a governor for too long. I’m sorry – but how long did we spend haranguing Obama for being inexperienced, and now you asshats are trying to run a guy based on inexperience? Oh, forgiveness please, when it’s their nominee he’s just “outside of Washington” or whatever silly term employed to dress up political inexperience as an attribute since their new thing indiscriminate government bashing.
Cain explained today , as he was condemning the Wall Street marches, that if you are not employed or rich it is your own fault. Sure everybody could be rich. What a poor grip on reality that shows.
The guy who asked the question excluded generals. And I didn’t say that either Wilkie or Parker were great picks (although Wilkie probably would have made a decent enough President). The guy asking the question just asked if they existed.
I looked through the posts of Jas09 and he never says a word about generals. I think you’re mixing him or her up with other posters.
At a bare minimum, a seat in the House of Representatives, if the candidate has enough else to recommend him or her (though I can’t think of anyone specific who does). Preferably a senator, governor, or vice president.
Yeah, I didn’t but should have. Either way I think the point is clear. The trend is very much towards political experience. We’ll see how long Cain stands up to front-runner status and examination.
the poor grip on reality is expecting to exist off government handouts or forced revenue sharing.
Well, who’s fault is it?
If you do succeed in this country, is it only by their good graces?
So you agree with this statement: “If you don’t have a job and aren’t rich, blame yourself”?
You honestly can’t think of a single reason why a person might be unemployed or not rich that is not their own fault?
To bring it back to the subject of the thread - do you believe that, even if it were true, saying such a thing is a sign of a person ready to win a national election?
If you are able to work in the first place (which is the premise behind their main gripe), absolutely. The unwilling poor, such as mentally and physically disabled citizens, are my exception. The government can give them benefits; I don’t mind my tax dollars going towards that. Just make sure they are rightfully disabled.
I just identified two.
It appeals to his electorate - the conservatives, such as myself. I like that he called them on their bullshit. Frankly, I’m tired of politicians pandering to this nonsense. You know, over a hundred million Americans do have jobs. Did Wall Street issue them a free pass? When do I get mine?
I have a job, I didn’t have a problem finding a job (or a second one in this recession), and I don’t look to place blame on anyone aside from myself when shit hits the fan. That sort of thinking is ridiculous. No one is holding me, you, or anyone down. No one gives a shit that I make it or break it aside from myself or immediately family so to suggest that Wall Street, or anyone for that matter, is preventing me from getting a job or responsible for my financial hardships is pure lunacy.
Again, the jobs are out there. If you don’t have the requirements or qualifications or it’s beneath you to flip burgers at McDonalds, then yes, it is absolutely your fault. Quit trying to paint your failure in society as anything but that: your failure.
This is why we cannot afford to elect conservatives. They are bad at math.
I think you missed the part of his quote that I’m taking issue with. I will repeat it, with emphasis: “If you don’t have a job and aren’t rich, blame yourself”. It seems unlikely that one can get rich flipping burgers at McDonalds.
The fact remains that there are many people for whom their current economic situation is directly related to shenanigans on Wall Street. There are even more that have seen their retirement savings, college savings, etc basically flat for 10 years in no small part because of excessive speculation and risk-taking by the financial sector. Drawing attention to the fact that nobody has been held accountable in any meaningful way is neither whining nor demanding redistribution.
Finally, “calling it like it is” and “speaking truth to power”, while admirable, gets you at most 30% of the country. You cannot win an election by calling anyone who isn’t rich lazy. Just as Rick Perry found out you can’t even stay the front-runner in a GOP primary by calling Social Security a Ponzi Scheme. These are basic political realities that a seasoned national campaigner would know. Cain might be able to get away with this now, when he’s just starting to be on the radar, but he will soon be under the same scrutiny that Perry was.
It’s a start.
Anyone can get rich, period. There is nothing prohibiting such.
Did they not know that you can make and lose money in the stock market?
Where did he call them lazy?
Or associating yourself with a hunting reserve that was referred to as Nigghead.
Oh well.
What are you insinuating? That there are no jobs available? That there aren’t enough jobs for everyone?
Everyone cannot get rich, period. Cain claimed otherwise. Poor math skills.
There are not enough jobs for everyone who wants one. If you claim otherwise, you simply haven’t done the math.
Perhaps you should clarify the term “rightfully disabled” at the end of that last sentence.
Reminds me of that “make sure he’s really dead” joke.
Disabled by legal government order, of course.
Prove otherwise.
So you can’t create jobs? I can’t start my own business?
Actually disabled may have been better? Someone that isn’t faking injuries or conditions simply for the paycheck.
Everyone can’t get rich for the same reason everyone can’t be above average.