Posted on 11/21/2011 5:59:37 AM PST by TBBT
I was actually fully in the tank with GWB in 2000. Of course he didn’t turn out to be the conservative he campaigned as, but I did go into the voting booth that year voting for someone instead of picking a lesser of 2 evils.
“Cain is not privy to classified intelligence, how is he suppose to know the answers to many of these questions when he doesn’t have all the information”
99% of freepers know Taleban is not in Libya, they know about Palestinian right to return BS and they can give some plausible answers to many other important topic (foreign policy and economy). You don’t need classified information for these sort of questions.
POTUS candidate simply cannot go on and always answer about asking advisors. I think Cain may still be able to get back on track, but it would require him to get up to date asap. I think 2-3 days sitting down with expert (or average freeper) would be enough.
So the Communists would like us to believe. If the amerifan people have learned anything from the last general election, they must have learned not to trust or believe the anti-American media.
May the delegates remain true to the people’s principle’s and not vote in a self serving career politician!
Herman Cain is still one of the front runners, if not the front runner! He is still winning polls all over the place, but they don’t want the general public to know that.
So it is up to us to let them know, as long as we are still free.
What kind of asinine statement is that? Oh I get it you like the guys that says, "I cheated on my wife because I love America".... Once that gets out by the Obama camp, then he will lose. Can't believe you would vote for a guy that believes in the LIE of man made global warming.
It's not heresy to be thinking about this reality....and I look at political reality.
Leni
Thanks for your response and candid, thoughful discourse. I happen to disagree and believe he can beat Obama.
Pretty soon, in a few weeks we will all see who the people are going to actually vote for. Those will be the polls that count. First in the primaries.
In the end, we simply must defeat Obama. I believe that Cain can...but he is not the only one. He does, however, at this point, have my support.
The Perry folks are still hoping they can talk back the fair weather supporters that fled to Cain as soon as Perry screwed up his debate performances.
I bet the Bachmann folks are still hoping the can talk back the fair weathe supporters that fled to Perry when she got trashed for not being nice enough, and for eating a hot dog.
Romney just appears to be happy that the fair weather supporters are out there, and swarming from candidate to candidate.
>>The Perry folks are still hoping they can talk back the fair weather supporters that fled to Cain as soon as Perry screwed up his debate performances.<<
Why the “fair weather supporters” dig? I switched from Perry to Cain because I was looking for someone who held the same principles as Perry (and Bachmann) but who looked like he could beat Romney the way the race was shaping up. Perry’s debate performance wouldn’t have driven me away, but the reaction of others to his debate performance did accomplish that.
As for Romney, he’s toast, but hasn’t realized it yet...
In fact, now that I’ve seen enough of Cain to be almost certain that Perry would be a better choice, I find myself hoping that Perry starts to climb in the polling again. But in a primary, people are going to cast their votes where they think they will have the largest impact. Why waste a vote on someone polling at 2%? If Perry, through dogged effort on talk shows, advertising, and maybe a couple of at least average debate performances, starts up in the polls again, people will start to again consider him seriously.
Essentially, I think both Cain and Perry are lightweights when it comes to handling policy questions, but they both hold the core principles (and will act on them generally) that would make either of them a better President than Gingrich, and far better than Obama. They are also both genuinely likeable people, especially compared to Romney, Gingrich, Bachmann, and Obama. And that’s worth a lot.
The person I replied to used that term. I was simply continuing his comment, noting that EVERY candidate’s supporters believes the people who left the candidate did so for insufficient cause, and hopes they will come back. The other posterr hoped people would come back to Cain.
I am WIDE AWAKE and last night I sent another donation to the man that’s winning this race, the man that actually has the talent, ideas and clear plan to save what’s left of our country..... NEWT GINGRICH.
President Newt Gingrich.... it’s going to happen.
Probably not worth the effort to explain it to someone like you, but it is exactly the same kind of “asinine” statement as the one to which it was a response . . . which is the reason for the second comment in that post.
What a sweet couple. /sarc.
Careful here!
There's a huge difference between acknowledging global warming cycles -- which, yes, most people have at least heard of the Ice Age -- and buying into MAN-MADE global warming that would lead to catastrophic climate "change."
Man-made climate change certainly was NOT accepted by "all" or even a majority of conservatives by 2008 (or previously). As I posted earlier, check the discusson on talk radio, for one thing.
Moreover, conservatives were NEVER for what Newt was pushing here: spending TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS on a wild-goose chanse of yet another Liberal hoax based on their tripe about man's power to screw up the entire cosmos with the gasoline engine.
Considering the links I already posted to you, confab, including the Brits saying 2008 was the year man-made global warming was finally completely disproved and Rush's excellent rant against man-made warming in Feb. of that year (one of MANY, I might add), I don't see how you can argue that the anecdotal evidence that one poster thinks EVERYBODY thought global warming was real(not even specifying MAN-MADE GW) is a counterveiling point.
No. We all did not think that.
Gingrich joined the crooks in pushing the scam.
Okay, maybe not ALL but were you 100% as sure when all the global warming crap started? I didn’t want to believe it, but there they were all those scientists, the “hockey stick”chart, the melting icebergs, the polar bears all telling us that there may be something to it. I really wasn’t sure who was right until some reputable scientists came out very loudly against it. Then it all came unraveled...
I really saw it for the farce that it was when they pulled that stupid “Carbon Credits” con on us. That was ny AHA moment. I give you props if you caught on sooner.
Note: Newt’s ad with Pelosi was made in 2008, years after global warming and cap and trade were being exposed as a corrupt scheme.
I’ve been a skeptic since Al Gore’s 1992 book claiming global warming was the world’s greatest threat. It was not hard to see that the focus of his efforts and others had more to do with redistributing wealth and manipulating energy markets than it did about keeping the world’s population safe from floods. Funding of special interest groups and propaganda campaigns pushing the “science” was coming from a small group of interests (e.g. Exxon Mobil) poised to benefit from the proposed “solutions” (e.g. billions of taxpayer money for “green” energy research, restrictions on existing energy sources, more regulation of business, etc.). Proposed legislation in approx 2001 gave plenty of specifics of how misguided their effort was, again directed at big government and billions for special interests rather than safety of the planet and its people. That legislation included lots of gory details of how a cap-and-trade scheme would be introduced. In 2003, Rep. Jim Inhofe was publishing evidence and sponsoring testimony of renown scientists on the House floor exposing it as the hoax it is. In 2003, the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) was opened to trade carbon credits. Who was behind the CCX? None other than the alumni of the corrupt Michael Milken gang, along with those special interest companies who had been funding the propaganda campaign.
I could go on, but I think you get the idea. In short — all signs pointed to a massive scam. I’m glad you saw the light when you did. There are plenty of people who still haven’t bothered to evaluate the facts, instead relying on the media and the corrupt alarmists perpetuating the scam.
But yes — I was 99% sure from day one that global warming was not what it was presented to be. And I was not alone. Over the years, enlightened FReepers were in the majority of calling out global warming as a giant hoax. Hence my taking exception to your use of the word “all of us”. Even “most of us” would not have been supported by history, IMO.
Wow! You were really on top of this. Maybe I missed the boat because I had 2 toddlers in 2003. I really didn’t start paying attention to politics (or anything other than dinosaurs or Thomas the tank engine) until about 2007. What really raised a red flag for me was how hard many of the politicians were pushing for it but I wasn’t completely sure until Glenn Beck had Lord (can’t remember his last name). He was a British fellow who really opened my eyes to the scam. Just curious... the cal in your name, does that stand for California? If it does I’m REALLY impressed! That is one of the most pro-warming areas (outside of D.C.) in the country.
Wow! You were really on top of this. Maybe I missed the boat because I had 2 toddlers in 2003. I really didn’t start paying attention to politics (or anything other than dinosaurs or Thomas the tank engine) until about 2007. What really raised a red flag for me was how hard many of the politicians were pushing for it but I wasn’t completely sure until Glenn Beck had Lord (can’t remember his last name). He was a British fellow who really opened my eyes to the scam. Just curious... the cal in your name, does that stand for California? If it does I’m REALLY impressed! That is one of the most pro-warming areas (outside of D.C.) in the country.
However, the Left often snuck in the part about the warming being MAN-MADE, and they did so in such a way that they conflated scientific information on "normal" warming cycles and that supposedly caused by man and fixable by man.
This, the argument that global warming was man-made rather than a normal or at least unalterable natural cycle, was the aspect that was disputed very early by a lot of people, including Rush. Basically, the Left has been constantly throwing out theories of environmental catastrophe because of MAN for decades, including in the '70s a coming catastrophic ice age!
Rush and many others used to talk extensively about Michael Crichton's 2004 (!) novel, State of Fear.
About the novel:
[Crichton] spent three years researching "State of Fear." It's a thriller with footnotes, graphs and scientific references. In it he argues that the threat of global warming has been exaggerated by environmentalists.
"I'm saying that environmental organizations are fomenting false fears in order to promote agendas and raise money," he said.
[snip]
Crichton agrees the Earth is getting warmer. But he says there is little to worry about because the climate is always changing and there is no evidence to determine if the changes are manmade or natural. In fact he says, climate scientists admit they can't predict what temperatures will be in 100 years.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.