^^^^^

exactly. so lets say Kona decides its not worth busting his ass when he can only spend so much money per year and realizes that for those extra 5 hours a day he is working 60% of what he makes doesnt go to him anyway. F that. so he cuts back. at the end of the day he's still fine. his bills are still paid. but its the guys who count on Kona's business to support their families that are fucked. but all you hear about from this dumbdick president is that guys like Kona arent paying their fair share and should be taxed more. Meanwhile if Kona is banking $1mil per year and paying 400k or so in taxes how many families are sponging off him? how many lazy government workers salaries and pensions is that paying for? w/o the Kona's of the world who create businesses and jobs no one has anything. why try and take away from his success instead of making his life as a business owner and entrepreneur as easy as possible?

Quote: (10-14-2011 08:33 PM)Brian Wrote:  

First, Warren Buffett is a grade A asshole. if he wants to pay more in taxes he can send a big fat check over to the IRS. they wont reject it. and his tax rate is too low, but even still he just stroked a big fat check the irs was glad to have.

Secondly, I absolutely think any "carried interest" loophole tax benefits used by hedge funds should be closed. but instead of actually closing the carried interest tax loopholes Obama will bitch about millionaires and billionaires then raise taxes on everyone making over 250k and leave the carried interst loophole open. what percent of people making over 250k are actually hedge funders? .001%?? its deceptive. frankly its just a lie. but thats what he does.

thirdly, the reason i defend millionaires and billionaires is because i'm not a hater of successful people. most of them took risks, put their own capital on the line, worked their asses off, and ultimately succeeded. you want to start a business and be successful? go for it. start a hedge fund a raise capital. come up with a business idea. get told its impossible by 100 people until the 101st lets you borrow money. risk failure and bankruptcy. work 16 hour days 7 days a week for 10 years w/o a vacation. pay corporate taxes. hire people and give them a life, pay them a salary that lets them feed their families. why punish these people? they provide so many essential things to a society yet they are currently being demonized and classified as evil because 'they dont pay their fair share' when they are still paying a big amount and a great percentage of people PAY NOTHING AND WANT MORE FREE SHIT

Well this is where we differ.

The top 1% own 42% of the wealth.

Look at it this way:

There is a slice of pizza with 100 slices.

One guy steps up and takes 42 slices for himself.

Leaving the other 58 slices for the other 99 people.

You want to pat that guy on the back, tell him how great he is and defend your master.

I want to hit him over the head with a baseball bat and watch his grey matter leak on the sidewalk.

Quote: (10-14-2011 09:30 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

Quote: (10-14-2011 08:33 PM)Brian Wrote:  

First, Warren Buffett is a grade A asshole. if he wants to pay more in taxes he can send a big fat check over to the IRS. they wont reject it. and his tax rate is too low, but even still he just stroked a big fat check the irs was glad to have.

Secondly, I absolutely think any "carried interest" loophole tax benefits used by hedge funds should be closed. but instead of actually closing the carried interest tax loopholes Obama will bitch about millionaires and billionaires then raise taxes on everyone making over 250k and leave the carried interst loophole open. what percent of people making over 250k are actually hedge funders? .001%?? its deceptive. frankly its just a lie. but thats what he does.

thirdly, the reason i defend millionaires and billionaires is because i'm not a hater of successful people. most of them took risks, put their own capital on the line, worked their asses off, and ultimately succeeded. you want to start a business and be successful? go for it. start a hedge fund a raise capital. come up with a business idea. get told its impossible by 100 people until the 101st lets you borrow money. risk failure and bankruptcy. work 16 hour days 7 days a week for 10 years w/o a vacation. pay corporate taxes. hire people and give them a life, pay them a salary that lets them feed their families. why punish these people? they provide so many essential things to a society yet they are currently being demonized and classified as evil because 'they dont pay their fair share' when they are still paying a big amount and a great percentage of people PAY NOTHING AND WANT MORE FREE SHIT

Well this is where we differ.

The top 1% own 42% of the wealth.

Look at it this way:

There is a slice of pizza with 100 slices.

One guy steps up and takes 42 slices for himself.

Leaving the other 58 slices for the other 99 people.

You want to pat that guy on the back, tell him how great he is and defend your master.

I want to hit him over the head with a baseball bat and watch his grey matter leak on the sidewalk.

then what is stopping you? do it. beat him at his own game. but you dont want to put in the work. you want something for nothing just like the other lazy people who complain about how its not fair.

if the top 1% own 42% of the wealth how do you suggest changing that? are you another one of the 'redistribute the wealth' believers?

Quote:Quote:

The top 1% own 42% of the wealth.

Don't the top 1% also pay somewhere around 39% or higher tax rate? Or am I confusing this with corporate tax?

Quote:Quote:

Look at it this way:

There is a slice of pizza with 100 slices.

One guy steps up and takes 42 slices for himself.

Leaving the other 58 slices for the other 99 people.

You want to pat that guy on the back, tell him how great he is and defend your master.

I want to hit him over the head with a baseball bat and watch his grey matter leak on the sidewalk.

Ha. Funny.

The guy who took 42 slices of pizza also probably dished out the dough to buy that pizza.

I'm no defender of the rich, nor do I support the elite who stole. I went to high school with spoiled rich kids who complained about receiving $10,000 in music equipment and lived in 3-story mansions. They wouldn't survive in the real world without their expensive gadgets. They are like Marie Antoinettes. My home wouldn't turn on the heating during the winter because the power bill would skyrocket. I once remarked to a fellow student how I wished the weather would warm up so my home wouldn't be so cold. What she said surprised me:"Why don't you just turn on the air conditioning?" She didn't understand. How could she? Everytime I walked into a grocery store, coffeeshop, department store, and school, I would be thankful for the free heating. Without pain, there is no value. You don't know what you have until you lose it.

People think being poor is a bad thing. It just depends on how you look at it.

There are tradeoffs to being being rich and not rich.

We are not naive to the true nature of women as most rich guys are who fall prey to golddiggers.

Our hardships make us stronger people. We are more resilient, flexible, adaptable. We know how to survive.

Our finances are weak, but our character is strong.

Their gold weighs tons, but our hearts weigh more.

People here think that the wealthy are some kind of evil, masochistic, powerful beings. They're not. They're slobbering cowards who wouldn't make it in the real world. They hide behind their wealth because their wealth is all they have. Plus, don't you guys know that there are rich guys who still don't get laid?

I do, however, support people who make it on their own through hard work, strength, and persistence.

What is wrong with admiring successful people who made it on their own through hard work, strength, and persistence?

I wonder if every single person who succeeds in life is going to be labeled as someone who "rigged" the system and won "unfairly."

Envy and jealousy always follow success.

I do not hate the rich; I hate the injustice that the rich have gotten away with.

I don't give a f*** if their dumb spoiled teen daughter is driving BMWs. I went to college with f****** adults who complained that children of rich parents drove expensive cars. Instead of envy, I pity her. She will not survive in the real world. She is devoid of wisdom, common sense, and a grasp of reality.

Would you rather have someone give you a million dollars, or would you rather have someone give you the knowledge on how to make a million dollars?

Let's be honest here.

Certain people are born with higher IQs. Better physique. Better parental environment. Better families with better finances. Too bad. Life's not fair.

Some people are just more successful than other people.

Some people are lazy, while others have self-discipline.

Let us not hate success. Let us hate injustice.

Quote: (10-14-2011 08:33 PM)Brian Wrote:  

First, Warren Buffett is a grade A asshole. if he wants to pay more in taxes he can send a big fat check over to the IRS. they wont reject it. and his tax rate is too low, but even still he just stroked a big fat check the irs was glad to have.

How do you know he doesn't do this? Secondly, having a volunteer tax system where we send as much money as we feel we should pay can't possibly work in the real world, because 99% of people will feel they should pay very little or nothing. Nobody enjoys paying taxes and no matter how low the tax rate is, most people are always going to feel it's too high. It's like the when you see those Salvation Army people in front of the store, most people just walk right by even though they could easily put a dollar in the can. You can't run a nation off people contributing in taxes what they think they should, at least not on a large scale.

Quote:Quote:

thirdly, the reason i defend millionaires and billionaires is because i'm not a hater of successful people. most of them took risks, put their own capital on the line, worked their asses off, and ultimately succeeded. you want to start a business and be successful? go for it. start a hedge fund a raise capital. come up with a business idea. get told its impossible by 100 people until the 101st lets you borrow money. risk failure and bankruptcy. work 16 hour days 7 days a week for 10 years w/o a vacation. pay corporate taxes. hire people and give them a life, pay them a salary that lets them feed their families. why punish these people? they provide so many essential things to a society yet they are currently being demonized and classified as evil because 'they dont pay their fair share' when they are still paying a big amount and a great percentage of people PAY NOTHING AND WANT MORE FREE SHIT

I defend the right of wealthy people to get wealthy too. I'm not a communist. I too think if you worked hard, took risk, put in very long hours, brought value to the world in providing services and goods that better people's lives, you deserve to be rewarded handsomely. But how much of a reward? You look at how much CEOs made in the 1950s when America was the most anti-communist and strongest nation on earth as the last man standing after WWII. They might have made like 20x average salary and nobody was complaining. Maybe not so coincidentally it coincided with the greatest expansion of a middle class the world has ever seen and the highest standard of living. It was also a time when companies hired with the intention of keeping you for life. Pensions were common. Now CEO pay is like 400x or something like that? They'll eliminate anyone's job to save a nickle and think nothing of it and pension? Hah...better work for the government if you want a pension when you retire. Think about what has happened in the last 50 years. If someone wants a stable job and comfortable retirement like was common in the 50s, they are better off working for the government than a corporation.

I don't have a problem with having wealthy people, it's a matter of how much wealth is being hoarded and also how much political power those few super wealthy can exert over the rest of us. Halliburton had the Bush white house on speed dial. We do not.

Quote: (10-14-2011 10:07 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

Quote: (10-14-2011 08:33 PM)Brian Wrote:  

First, Warren Buffett is a grade A asshole. if he wants to pay more in taxes he can send a big fat check over to the IRS. they wont reject it. and his tax rate is too low, but even still he just stroked a big fat check the irs was glad to have.

How do you know he doesn't do this? Secondly, having a volunteer tax system where we send as much money as we feel we should pay can't possibly work in the real world, because 99% of people will feel they should pay very little or nothing. Nobody enjoys paying taxes and no matter how low the tax rate is, most people are always going to feel it's too high. It's like the when you see those Salvation Army people in front of the store, most people just walk right by even though they could easily put a dollar in the can. You can't run a nation off people contributing in taxes what they think they should, at least not on a large scale.

Quote:Quote:

thirdly, the reason i defend millionaires and billionaires is because i'm not a hater of successful people. most of them took risks, put their own capital on the line, worked their asses off, and ultimately succeeded. you want to start a business and be successful? go for it. start a hedge fund a raise capital. come up with a business idea. get told its impossible by 100 people until the 101st lets you borrow money. risk failure and bankruptcy. work 16 hour days 7 days a week for 10 years w/o a vacation. pay corporate taxes. hire people and give them a life, pay them a salary that lets them feed their families. why punish these people? they provide so many essential things to a society yet they are currently being demonized and classified as evil because 'they dont pay their fair share' when they are still paying a big amount and a great percentage of people PAY NOTHING AND WANT MORE FREE SHIT

I defend the right of wealthy people to get wealthy too. I'm not a communist. I too think if you worked hard, took risk, put in very long hours, brought value to the world in providing services and goods that better people's lives, you deserve to be rewarded handsomely. But how much of a reward? You look at how much CEOs made in the 1950s when America was the most anti-communist and strongest nation on earth as the last man standing after WWII. They might have made like 20x average salary and nobody was complaining. Maybe not so coincidentally it coincided with the greatest expansion of a middle class the world has ever seen and the highest standard of living. It was also a time when companies hired with the intention of keeping you for life. Pensions were common. Now CEO pay is like 400x or something like that? They'll eliminate anyone's job to save a nickle and think nothing of it and pension? Hah...better work for the government if you want a pension when you retire. Think about what has happened in the last 50 years. If someone wants a stable job and comfortable retirement like was common in the 50s, they are better off working for the government than a corporation.

I don't have a problem with having wealthy people, it's a matter of how much wealth is being hoarded and also how much political power those few super wealthy can exert over the rest of us. Halliburton had the Bush white house on speed dial. We do not.

you are absolutely right in that CEO pay has gotten completely out of hand.

Quote: (10-14-2011 10:01 PM)blurb Wrote:  

Quote:Quote:

The top 1% own 42% of the wealth.

Don't the top 1% also pay somewhere around 39% or higher tax rate? Or am I confusing this with corporate tax?

Don't confuse wealth and income. You can have a shitload of wealth, but pay very little or no tax on it. That's why Warren Buffett says he is paying a lower share of his wealth in tax than his secretary. Corporations are taxed but can often find so many loopholes that they get out of paying much. They might also get special tax breaks, like if some company decides to open a factory, they may get a local tax break as an incentive if there's a high unemployment rate and they really need jobs. People who make money off of money aren't taxed the way regular income is taxed.

Quote: (10-14-2011 10:15 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

Quote: (10-14-2011 10:01 PM)blurb Wrote:  

Quote:Quote:

The top 1% own 42% of the wealth.

Don't the top 1% also pay somewhere around 39% or higher tax rate? Or am I confusing this with corporate tax?

Don't confuse wealth and income. You can have a shitload of wealth, but pay very little or no tax on it. That's why Warren Buffett says he is paying a lower share of his wealth in tax than his secretary. Corporations are taxed but can often find so many loopholes that they get out of paying much. They might also get special tax breaks, like if some company decides to open a factory, they may get a local tax break as an incentive if there's a high unemployment rate and they really need jobs. People who make money off of money aren't taxed the way regular income is taxed.

this is partially correct but Buffett is paying a lower share of his income then his secretary since a good chunk of his income is thru capital gains and carried interest.

Quote: (10-14-2011 09:45 PM)Brian Wrote:  

Quote: (10-14-2011 09:30 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

Quote: (10-14-2011 08:33 PM)Brian Wrote:  

First, Warren Buffett is a grade A asshole. if he wants to pay more in taxes he can send a big fat check over to the IRS. they wont reject it. and his tax rate is too low, but even still he just stroked a big fat check the irs was glad to have.

Secondly, I absolutely think any "carried interest" loophole tax benefits used by hedge funds should be closed. but instead of actually closing the carried interest tax loopholes Obama will bitch about millionaires and billionaires then raise taxes on everyone making over 250k and leave the carried interst loophole open. what percent of people making over 250k are actually hedge funders? .001%?? its deceptive. frankly its just a lie. but thats what he does.

thirdly, the reason i defend millionaires and billionaires is because i'm not a hater of successful people. most of them took risks, put their own capital on the line, worked their asses off, and ultimately succeeded. you want to start a business and be successful? go for it. start a hedge fund a raise capital. come up with a business idea. get told its impossible by 100 people until the 101st lets you borrow money. risk failure and bankruptcy. work 16 hour days 7 days a week for 10 years w/o a vacation. pay corporate taxes. hire people and give them a life, pay them a salary that lets them feed their families. why punish these people? they provide so many essential things to a society yet they are currently being demonized and classified as evil because 'they dont pay their fair share' when they are still paying a big amount and a great percentage of people PAY NOTHING AND WANT MORE FREE SHIT

Well this is where we differ.

The top 1% own 42% of the wealth.

Look at it this way:

There is a slice of pizza with 100 slices.

One guy steps up and takes 42 slices for himself.

Leaving the other 58 slices for the other 99 people.

You want to pat that guy on the back, tell him how great he is and defend your master.

I want to hit him over the head with a baseball bat and watch his grey matter leak on the sidewalk.

then what is stopping you? do it. beat him at his own game. but you dont want to put in the work. you want something for nothing just like the other lazy people who complain about how its not fair.

if the top 1% own 42% of the wealth how do you suggest changing that? are you another one of the 'redistribute the wealth' believers?

You have no idea who you are talking to.

Nothing is stopping me.

This is what I do every day.

"but you dont want to put in the work."

False.

"you want something for nothing just like the other lazy people who complain about how its not fair."

False.

I just don't defend or worship a master.

Have fun giving back rubs.

Quote: (10-14-2011 08:33 PM)Brian Wrote:  

a great percentage of people PAY NOTHING AND WANT MORE FREE SHIT

"The best-known result of the GWB tax cuts is that virtually all the benefits were conferred upon people who didn't need them at all and who didn't use the money to, say, create more jobs or pay their workers better. Median weekly earnings fell more than 2 percent between 2001 and 2007. Meanwhile, people making over $3 million a year, who account for just 0.1 percent of taxpayers, got an average tax cut of $520,000, more than 450 times what the average middle-income family received."

On an interesting note, I see that people are failing to ask which politician is most qualified to lead. Which one knows about economics the best and will make the wisest economic policies? Who is the smartest? Who is an authority on how a business runs and how the economy works?

I see every politician offering advice on how to kickstart the economy, yet not one of them has a Ph.D in economics.

Go figure.

The closest ones with any real credibility when it comes to economics is Herman Cain who brought back a struggling pizza chain from bankruptcy and Mitt Romney who brought Bain & Company out of crisis and co-founded Bain Company that became highly profitable and one of the largest firms in the U.S.

Seems like these two cats know what they're talking about.

Barack Obama was a lawyer and worked as a community organizer.

Nancy Pelosi majored in political science.

Rick Perry was an animal scientist.

Michele Bachmann worked as an attorney for the IRS.

Ron Paul is a doctor.

Seems like everybody's an expert on economics these days.

No wonder America is screwed. We have poets and philosophers managing billions of tax dollars.

One of the greatest criticisms of democracy is that only the popular, instead of the most honest, qualifed, and competent leaders will get elected.

nothing is stopping you from what? bitching about the rich ? complaining they have 'too many slices of the pie?'

i'm not the one giving back rubs playboy. i'm out competing, and winning. and when i win i dont want to share the loot with the losers, and i especially dont want to share the loot with those who were too scared or too lazy to get in the game. playing Robin Hood just aint the role for me. if that what you want to do more power to you.

Quote: (10-14-2011 10:47 PM)The_CEO Wrote:  

Quote: (10-14-2011 08:33 PM)Brian Wrote:  

a great percentage of people PAY NOTHING AND WANT MORE FREE SHIT

"The best-known result of the GWB tax cuts is that virtually all the benefits were conferred upon people who didn't need them at all and who didn't use the money to, say, create more jobs or pay their workers better. Median weekly earnings fell more than 2 percent between 2001 and 2007. Meanwhile, people making over $3 million a year, who account for just 0.1 percent of taxpayers, got an average tax cut of $520,000, more than 450 times what the average middle-income family received."

Let me ask you a question, in all seriousness. If a guy makes $3million and pays $1mil in taxes do you think that $1 mil covers his 'fair' share?

Quote: (10-14-2011 10:13 PM)Brian Wrote:  

you are absolutely right in that CEO pay has gotten completely out of hand.

I don't understand this belief that so many people have. CEOs run private (non-governmental) companies. They get paid a lot to make a company profitable (and deliver a return on shares). For those companies that have public stock, the board members will typically vote on who will be CEO and how much he/she will receive in compensation. Government has absolutely nothing to do with this. Taxpayers have nothing to do with it. So why is it that CEO pay has "gotten completely out of hand" when it is not your money that is paying them? If you do not agree with their compensation, you vote with your feet and stop doing business with them.

The same applies to the big banks and this Occupy Wall Street shit. I'm all for the people taking to the streets and protesting when they feel an injustice by the government, but Wall St. is full of private (non-governmental) businesses. If Bank of America raises fees, why protest in the streets when there are so many alternatives with no fees who would love to have your business? Wall St took gov't money during the bailouts, but do we blame them or blame the politicians who gave it to them? Why not protest against the gov't in DC, right outside the White House and Congress vice going after businesses because their CEOs get paid a lot of money?

Quote: (10-14-2011 11:04 PM)Smitty Wrote:  

Quote: (10-14-2011 10:13 PM)Brian Wrote:  

you are absolutely right in that CEO pay has gotten completely out of hand.

I don't understand this belief that so many people have. CEOs run private (non-governmental) companies. They get paid a lot to make a company profitable (and deliver a return on shares). For those companies that have public stock, the board members will typically vote on who will be CEO and how much he/she will receive in compensation. Government has absolutely nothing to do with this. Taxpayers have nothing to do with it. So why is it that CEO pay has "gotten completely out of hand" when it is not your money that is paying them? If you do not agree with their compensation, you vote with your feet and stop doing business with them.

The same applies to the big banks and this Occupy Wall Street shit. I'm all for the people taking to the streets and protesting when they feel an injustice by the government, but Wall St. is full of private (non-governmental) businesses. If Bank of America raises fees, why protest in the streets when there are so many alternatives with no fees who would love to have your business? Wall St took gov't money during the bailouts, but do we blame them or blame the politicians who gave it to them? Why not protest against the gov't in DC, right outside the White House and Congress vice going after businesses because their CEOs get paid a lot of money?

some CEO's create a substantial amount of shareholder wealth and deserve to be compensated accordingly. Some dont. Take Merrill Lynch for example. Stan O'Neal ran a great company into the ground and walked away w/over $100million. The guy who ran Fannie Mae did the same and walked about w/9 figures. did they create value? of course not. the basically bankrupted companies yet made a fortune. these are both Wall St examples but it happens in lots of industries. the problem is that the board is basically stuffed full of yes men who give each other raises. heck, the board gets paid a lot to meet 2 times a year. they dont want to kill their own golden goose.

Quote: (10-14-2011 10:49 PM)blurb Wrote:  

One of the greatest criticisms of democracy is that only the popular, instead of the most honest, qualifed, and competent leaders will get elected.

I don't see how that is a criticism of a democracy. Seems more like a reflection of the people whom cast the ballot. Women notoriously vote based on looks (there are studies which document this).

America is a Republic, not a democracy, and our government is structured such that it is of the people, by the people and for the people. So all those so-called unqualified people are in fact qualified because they are American citizens and representing the interests of their districts or states.
We have departments within the government and advisers to the President where the real experts reside for economic matters, etc. Problem is those department heads become filled with politicians vice experts (Napolitano at DHS, Sebelius at HHS, etc).

In the end, it's not so much that we have incompetent or unqualified people; rather, we have politicians in charge of the departments and in Congress and the White House who are egomaniacs acting in self interest.

Quote: (10-14-2011 07:06 PM)OGNorCal707 Wrote:  

Quote: (10-14-2011 06:50 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

Question for people on Herman Cain:

I like the cat. He seems funny.

But then I read that he admitted to shying away from the Civil Rights Movement when he was the perfect age to be participating.

He basically stayed indoors while others fought.

I am not African-American so I am in no place to judge the guy.

I was curious to the brothers on here what they think of him on this point?

Seems to me to be a pretty weak move.

Can't America produce a politician with a decent resume and track record?

I'm not black so excuse me if I offend any of the forums' brothers or ruffle any feathers, but to me this Herman Cain guy is a textbook Uncle Tom.

Anyone have some more feedback on Herman Cain?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Cain

Quote: (10-15-2011 02:55 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

Quote: (10-14-2011 07:06 PM)OGNorCal707 Wrote:  

Quote: (10-14-2011 06:50 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

Question for people on Herman Cain:

I like the cat. He seems funny.

But then I read that he admitted to shying away from the Civil Rights Movement when he was the perfect age to be participating.

He basically stayed indoors while others fought.

I am not African-American so I am in no place to judge the guy.

I was curious to the brothers on here what they think of him on this point?

Seems to me to be a pretty weak move.

Can't America produce a politician with a decent resume and track record?

I'm not black so excuse me if I offend any of the forums' brothers or ruffle any feathers, but to me this Herman Cain guy is a textbook Uncle Tom.

Anyone have some more feedback on Herman Cain?

Bill Maher bets $1 million against 1 dollar that Cain won't win the nomination.

Hell, I don't think Cain has a realistic shot either but I'd take those odds.

that may be the most statistically retarded bet ever made

Quote: (10-15-2011 03:15 PM)Brian Wrote:  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Cain

Yeah, wikipedia very curiously omits his non-participation in the Civil Rights Movement.

I am very interested in peoples opinion.

What do you have to do to get a Herman Cain opinion around here?

Quote: (10-15-2011 10:19 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

Quote: (10-15-2011 03:15 PM)Brian Wrote:  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Cain

Yeah, wikipedia very curiously omits his non-participation in the Civil Rights Movement.

I am very interested in peoples opinion.

What do you have to do to get a Herman Cain opinion around here?

http://news.yahoo.com/long-ties-koch-bro...18961.html

G, here's an article detailing links between Cain and the Koch brothers and their advocacy group 'Americans for Prosperity'. Cain is just another conservative machine puppet and clown.

Quote: (10-15-2011 10:19 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

Quote: (10-15-2011 03:15 PM)Brian Wrote:  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Cain

Yeah, wikipedia very curiously omits his non-participation in the Civil Rights Movement.

I am very interested in peoples opinion.

What do you have to do to get a Herman Cain opinion around here?

Have you ever listened to his radio show? You would think Michael Savage was his long lost 3rd cousin.

Quote: (10-15-2011 10:19 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

Quote: (10-15-2011 03:15 PM)Brian Wrote:  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Cain

Yeah, wikipedia very curiously omits his non-participation in the Civil Rights Movement.

I am very interested in peoples opinion.

What do you have to do to get a Herman Cain opinion around here?

Lawrence O'Donnell asks Herman Cain about his non-participation in the civil rights movement.

Cain dismissed the issue as "incorrect" and "irrelevant" but he didn't offer any explanation for his non-participation besides saying that he started college in the fall of 1963. I don't see how that's supposed to explain anything given that that means he was in college at the height of the civil rights movement.

Quote: (10-15-2011 02:55 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

Quote: (10-14-2011 07:06 PM)OGNorCal707 Wrote:  

Quote: (10-14-2011 06:50 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

Question for people on Herman Cain:

I like the cat. He seems funny.

But then I read that he admitted to shying away from the Civil Rights Movement when he was the perfect age to be participating.

He basically stayed indoors while others fought.

I am not African-American so I am in no place to judge the guy.

I was curious to the brothers on here what they think of him on this point?

Seems to me to be a pretty weak move.

Can't America produce a politician with a decent resume and track record?

I'm not black so excuse me if I offend any of the forums' brothers or ruffle any feathers, but to me this Herman Cain guy is a textbook Uncle Tom.

Anyone have some more feedback on Herman Cain?

This doesn’t necessary make him an Uncle Tom without knowing more about him. Did he not participate because he was subservient to Whites or because protesting was going to fuck his money up? After all, there’s such a thing as fighting for the “Struggle” from behind the scenes and covertly. Maybe he has mentored countless of Black executives and helped them “come up” but for obvious reasons he can’t go out and brag about it without alienating the tea baggers. He did go hard after Perry over “NiggerHead-gate.” Something that I did not expect him to do. Although he’s no Obama in the oratory department he does hold is own against the other candidates.

Barry is going to win. I know that the past is no indication of future performance but anybody who has ever run for anything from Class president to The President knows that incumbency is a powerful thing. In the last 40 years only 2 presidents have lost a second term(Carter, Bush I) They were both defeated by likeable and extremely charismatic individuals(Reagan, Clinton ) i.e. Game. Romney is not even on the same league as Reagan and Clinton, he sounds like an annoying MetLife insurance salesman trying to sell you their crappy whole life insurance policy.

I actually think Cain might have a shot of winning the whole enchilada against Obama. He’s folksy, charismatic and likes to tell stories. He grew up poor in the South so he can relate to middle class /poor voters and has the credibility to bullshit them about upper mobility and the virtues of hard work. Also, as a Black Man he’s has a very non-threatening disposition and doesn’t shy away from criticizing Blacks. He reminds me of Danny Glover before he went Angry Black Man over the yellow the cabs and Morgan Freeman, two actors who were always typecast as Magic Negroes. Cain has been on top of the polls for about two weeks now, if he stays on message with that 9-9-9 shit and keeps the momentum going and no major skeletons are in his closet he will be the nominee.