Shared publicly  - 
 
The resident blowhard on FoxNews, Bill O'Reilly actually just asked an interesting question:

Has anyone heard a Conservative claim that any attacks on Herman Cain are Racist in nature?

I believe this is a very important question, considering that if you say anything about Obama, the left is ready to scream racism from every tree top.

Funny how different people can see things in a different way. We see Herman Cain as an Individual, not just a member of an unassailable disadvantaged special interest group.

I'm just sayin.....

As always; argue the point. If you call names, or deflect from my topic, I will blast your comments (and likely you) from my thread.
5
2
Jim Geraghty's profile photoLaura Topliffe's profile photoAlex Grossman's profile photoAcadia Einstein's profile photo
85 comments
 
No, the only ones I see mentioning Herman Cain and racist in the same sentence are Liberals.
 
Your third word and final paragraph confuse me.
 
Are people claiming that there are racists against Cain? I know there are people who think he is an idiot, but so are most of the other candidates trying for the nomination.
 
I heard Sharpton and another guest on the Lawrence O'Donnell show take him to task for trying to "call Cain out" on what he did during the civil rights movement. They both said that they dont like his politics and if he lied about his past that was viable. But they both pointed out that ODonnell had no right to question what a black man did in the South during the Freedom Rides.
 
+Jim Geraghty Cain is being attacked by liberals all day. But no one says "Oh you're a racist, attacking Herman Cain."

But say one bad word about Obama and liberals are in your face, calling you a racist.
 
+Jim Geraghty Does that include the current president? On a serious note it's only people afraid that Cain might make a better President that would call into question his race, liberals I point at you. If you listen to the man he may be the most intelligent of the bunch. At least he has the balls to listen to people and make changes if he's wrong.
 
The only thing I hear from the left is that he's a wholly owned subsidiary of the Koch Brothers. And that happens to be true. Any talk of liberals calling him racist seems to come from right wing fantasyland.
 
May be because I am a member of many black republican groups online, but I have heard a lot of commentary about racism directed towards Cain. Especially after that O'Donnell interview. 
 
Can any of you give me an honest comparison of what right wing nutjobs said about Obama that was considered racist and then give some examples about what the left said about Cain, do you have concrete examples or are you just blowing smoke up our collective asses?
 
+Jamara Geechie Newell I think the O'Donnell thing was a mess. I am also a white guy and can't presume to interpret racism the same way a black person would so I defer.
 
+Jim Geraghty Jim, did you read the last line of my post? I blocked you once before.....No invective. I'm doing all I can to follow that policy. Do the same, or go away.
 
+Jim Geraghty That's the problem, no one has said anything that is racist. Just the act of speaking disparingly about Obama is "racist" to liberals.
 
What did I say that offended you?
 
That's not true, +Laura Topliffe. People say he has "destroyed jobs" all the time, but I don't see anyone saying that's racist. What's racist is obsessing over his established place of birth and claiming he's a "secret Muslim." And even if you don't think that's racist, you'd be hard pressed to argue that it's not at least xenophobic and still look rational. Xenophobia isn't better.
 
Laura, where did you get that information? What liberal told you that, or is that just an opinion? Give me some concrete examples, instead of unfounded accusations.
 
I keep hearing echos of right wing media, no facts or evidence to back up any of these claims.
 
+Jim Geraghty Right-wing Nut jobs? My point,(and it might not be fair) is that I am working on removing the venom from my posts, starting with myself. It does me no good to go into attack mode, if it means my point will be obscured. I am asking the same from those who post on my threads, because I probably have a worse temper than all of you, and I am trying to improve.
 
+Laura Topliffe I've never heard anybody call someone racist for criticizing Cain. But then, the criticisms of Cain focus on his ideas and personality. I do believe that Birtherism was code for racism, but that's my personal opinion and Birtherism was, for the most part, not a mainstream point of view.
 
Now, Perry might have a touch of racism in his bones, raised with a hunting camp named "Niggerhead". I might be jumping to conclusions, so correct me if i am wrong. Is that still a common phrase in the deep south?
 
Liberals don't like it when their puppet king is bashed for his inability to govern.
 
The problem is one side want to pretend racism doesn't exist and the other that it infects everything, both are political correct positions. Those positions stem from the fallacy that racism is some sort evil on the level of rape or murder. Racism is as American as apple pie and is almost as natural to people as eating. Long as you ain't hindering another's prosperity you can dislike people cause their size, smell, color, height, or just because they talk funny or whatever rubs you the wrong way.
 
+Alex Grossman What it Racist the first time it happened; when Democrats went after John McCain? Come on, Alex, that was weak dude.
 
LOL, so these types of insults are "Kendall Approved," ...We knew you were White from those tights you are wearing.
OOPS, is that Racist? LOL.
 
The sad part is I will never disagree that racism exists in this day and age. I'm fortunate to have grown up in household that didn't hold those ill feelings and I hope to pass it on. It's wiser to judge a person by their actions than their physical appearance.
 
Now I can say exactly what Maxine Waters said in that above link, and I would be called a racist and Uncle Tom-ette. Maxine Waters says it and she's sensitive to the cause. Yep, no racism there. /end sarcasm.
 
JC, explain the difference between what, Little Wayne and Hermain Cain? Better ask that question of 50Cent...
 
+Jim Geraghty Very simple. Nobody owns words, or language. I listen to Lil Wayne often, because I like his beats, and his rhymes. BUT, as long as he uses the "N" word with impunity, I refuse to become offended by ANYONE who uses the word. Historical relevance aside, it is hypocrisy of the worst order, and a club of phony righteous indignation that white people have allowed to bully what might have been honest debate in to silence.
 
+Jim Geraghty And, as for my dude +Acadia Einstein, if he or I don't insult each other in humor on a daily basis, one of us has likely died. You might check out some of his artwork pertaining to moi.
 
+J.C. Kendall what I've heard is Conservatives reflecting the fact that they were called 'racist' for opposing Obama and that to be even-handed those same people should call those who oppose Cain 'racist'.
Also, I think +Alex Grossman illustrates the point of every opposition to Obama being called 'racist', not that I support the 'birther' notion, but your first knee jerk response should not be 'Racist!'
 
+J.C. Kendall thanks, sir!
I disagree with you about the n-word. What a group calls themselves is their choice. I hear the Irish call each other Mick sometimes. If I went to a Southie bar using that word i doubt it would turn out well. Being from the east coast I also hear Italians call each other ginnny and so on sometimes. I doubt it would turn out pretty if I decided to go to Bensonhurst calling folks wops. 
 
Lane, I ain't worried about pc... just a common ground where we all spring off from.
 
All I can say is nein, nein and NEIN! Hope I haven't offended any KKK members of any color...
 
+J.C. Kendall Was what racist the first time it happened? There was never any serious attempt to charge against McCain about his being born in the canal zone (aside from the fact that under the Immigration and Nationality Act there is no question whatsoever about someone being born either in the Canal Zone or to American citizen parents being an American citizen at birth and therefore a natural born American -- see Sections 301 and 303 of the INA -- the benefits of having studied and adjudicated cases under the INA when I was a Consular Officer).

On the other hand, there was a large and serious attempt to focus on Obama's birth, to the point it got a label and it was a focus of discussion on talk radio and among candidates. When people are focusing on something silly like that, instead of issues (especially when there are so many legitimate issues to take Obama to task for), then yes, I do believe it was code for racism among a large segment of people supporting that cause. Feel free to disagree, but this is a widely held belief given the lack of any kind of substance behind the charge that Obama was not a natural born American.
 
+Jamara Geechie Newell I hear ya. I was speaking only for myself. I cant keep up with what offends and what doesn't. I've giving up and issuing a blanket apology, and moving on.
 
Yeah you talking about an individual and your a woman. Me in a bar in bensonhurst calling Italian Dagos. Not a good idea.
 
+Alex Grossman I think a lot of that talk came about because Obama was so quiet about answering their claims. If he had just come out with the original birth certificate, then it would have been mute and his critics would have gone after him in the other areas you talk about.
 
+Alex Grossman I do agree that there are bigger fish to fry in regards to President Obama, I do still have doubts he is a US citizen. That does make me a racist? (Oh wait, per my sorority sisters, yes. Uncle Tom-ette and all) <smh>
 
+Alex Grossman the charge of racism is hurled at anyone on the right when they disagree w/ the Left about anything concerning an person who is other than white. It happens all the time and to say that it is other wise is to be either ignorant of the facts or disingenuous.
I am always suspicious of someone's 'discerning' of a code-word for racism. Always.
 
Indeed +J.C. Kendall folks are hyper sensitive. I only hear whites use the word nigger online, never in real life , so I can't say I find it too be a real issue. I can worry about what I say to others and what they say to me in my face. 
 
+Alex Grossman Might that be because when Obama was running for his first election in Chicago, he described himself in person and in the press as Kenyan-born? Something the media knows damn well but has suppressed on orders from the DNC? But let me be clear, I could not care less at this point whether he is a natural-born citizen or not. I care more about where he is going than where he has been. Next year, on my 50th birthday, he is getting the fuck out of the White House. That is all I care about when it comes to him.
 
+Nick Beenham There have been enough doubts raised for me, yes sir. But he's in office now, so we need start focusing on the horrible job he's doing there to get him removed via election at this point.
 
She couldn't control her husband from cheating, you think she could run this country? ROFL
 
+Bob Hicks I don't think that any charge of racism is legitimate when people are criticizing someone based on substance - in other words, criticizing him based on policy differences, goals, ideas, etc. People calling people racist under those circumstances are indeed reaching.

I do think that Birther charges are different as they do not apply to substance. I mean, even if you somehow doubt that he was born in Hawaii (and the birth announcement in the newspaper documents that along with the birth certificate), having an American citizen mother also makes you a natural born American under the INA. It was a silly waste of time and distraction when people could have been discussing serious differences in policy. With no real substance behind the charge questioning his American citizenship, why were people bothering with wasting time on it? Some, due to lack of information, may have had genuine doubts. But, as I said, I believe that many supporting the Birther charges were doing so as a cover for racism. I would love there to be no racism in the world. But, I have in my life had to experience both racism due to my being half latino and also anti-semitism. I have not let this define me or keep me from espousing a classical liberal outlook on politics (fiscal conservative, social liberal) or keep me from focusing on the individual and not on their being part of some kind of group identity. But I have to categorically state that racism still exists.
 
+Nick Beenham Have you seen either side propose anything other than 9-9-9? At least the man has a plan and that says more than anyone else at this point.
 
She hasn't shown much to even win an election other than the democrats in NY and being a senator for term has shown to be a bust.
 
Abortion isn't a priority, the economy and jobs are, and that's where he can do better than what's in office now. At least Cain knows how to run a business and make it succeed.
 
You haven't seen the changed the 9-9-9 plan have you? He's eliminated tax on the "poor". Check for the updated version. So your post holds no water. Goes back to where I said he listens and changes when he's been proven wrong.
 
As fascinating as I find this conversation, I'm off to talk baseball to my pops. Have a good evening, ladies and gents. 
 
I have yet to find a single person against 9-9-9 who can explain it with any accuracy at all. Even with Google at their disposal.
 
+Bob Hicks That is such a crud piece if ever there was one. If you could prove to me I support Cain not for his knowledge of how to do business but because he's a Black Republican, then you know me better than myself or should I say the author of that lame story does.
 
LOL, what gives me the giggles is that the birthers make a big deal about nothing while Rome was burning. The birthers are not candidates for the Mensa Club, that is for sure. I think that whole birth thing was a media generated Glenn "Crybaby" Beck fart and was just a distraction from the state of the economy that was left by Bush and Co., whose tights were surly to tight...
 
I'll agree that any tax loophole and deduction needs to be eliminated. That would wipe the smile of many faces who don't want to pay their share. Maybe the only exception may be the homestead deduction. But I think we'd all agree our tax system needs revisiting and our government needs to spend a hell of lot less.
 
As for 9-0-9 it only eliminates income tax for those making under 22k a year. But it's known that a lot of details still need ironing out. But as it the tax system sits now, it has to change.
 
If his predecessor didn't give funding for the drones, Obama never would have been able to have them at his disposal.
 
Besides having a war keeps a number of americans employed. Do you think those weapons are built overseas? Call that government job subsidy.
 
+Alex Grossman I think National Review is in the Romney camp and has been for the past 5 years. They have zero credibility, and I stopped reading them long ago.
 
+J.C. Kendall But what about the critique itself? Did you read it? Do you have information that counters the argument presented therein? That's what I'm trying to find out.
 
+J.C. Kendall on the 9-9-9 plan, I oppose it for one simple reason. I refuse to allow the fedgov an income tax and a sales tax. Get rid of the income tax, and I'll support a sales tax, not before.

Although I also wonder if a federal sales tax would be considered a direct tax, and thus, require apportionment?


On a slightly different note, I want to see cuts, and Mr Cain has been quite silent on specifics there.
 
Oh and before you go knocking me for war, my family and some friends have served or serving now in the military. Some have been in both Iraq and Afghanistan. I pray every night for every soldier that has defend and is defending my freedoms and safety.
 
+Jim Richardson They have but I don't trust any of them. Career politicians don't float in my view.
 
+Alex Grossman I just dont read them. I wont. I know their biases. They are GOP establishment, and therefore of no interest to me. As for 999; if you want to ever get rid of an income tax, a sales tax will almost certainly have to be implemented first. There is no way to simply switch from one thing to other without a proof-of concept realized as fact. Big switches are rarely implemented correctly. Ask Reed Hastings.
 
Hey! I just realized that I could have been Mexican. You are all racists against me.
 
+J.C. Kendall Whether or not we like NRO, I think they present a valid criticism of the 999 plan that Cain needs to address or else he lets others frame the debate. To quote from the critique:

This tripartite scheme makes for a succinct slogan but has little else to recommend it. In particular Cain’s inability to choose between a sales tax and a VAT is puzzling. The two are very similar in their economic effects. The chief advantage of the sales tax over a VAT is that the latter is considered easier for governments to raise, because it is hidden. The chief advantage of the VAT over the sales tax is that it is easier to enforce without stimulating black markets. (Another is that it reduces the risk of taxing business-to-business purchases.) Opting for both as a transitional step means courting the danger of a VAT with none of its rewards: In the first stage, the government would get a new money machine, and in the second it would supposedly destroy that machine and opt for something hard to enforce.


The two-stage scheme is self-defeating in another respect as well. The 30 percent national sales tax, whatever its other merits, would be significantly softer on the poor than the 9-9-9 transitional step, since the larger sales tax includes a “prebate” check to all Americans to exempt the basic necessities of life from being taxed, while 9-9-9 includes no similar provision. Leaving aside whether a major tax increase on people at the bottom of the income scale is a good idea, what is the point of first raising their taxes and then cutting them?

Cain envisions his presidency as featuring a quick move to the 9-9-9 plan followed by an educational campaign about the virtues of the national sales tax. He will have to move fast, since he is counting on the massive economic boom he expects his plan to create to enable him to balance the budget in his first year. None of this sounds very achievable, but let’s indulge the candidate. Even if one believes, as we do, that the mortgage-interest deduction should be set on a path to extinction, does its immediate abolition in the midst of a weak housing market seem wise?

And while the plan promotes new savings, it attacks existing wealth. In particular, it is a plan likely to arouse the ire of retirees. They have paid income taxes their whole lives and would now have to pay additional sales taxes on their savings when they try to spend them. On balance, of course, retirees would continue to receive a large net transfer of funds from the federal government. But why fight them in a bad cause?

A better way to tax consumption would be to start with an income tax and then exempt the returns to capital. This approach may have less superficial appeal than the alleged “simplicity” of 9-9-9. But it would run none of the risks of a VAT, it would leave home values unaffected, and it would give seniors no reason for concern. And it could conceivably happen, unlike 9-9-9.

I think their concluding paragraph in particular has appeal and practicality.
 
+J.C. Kendall Burying one's head in the sand isn't an effective tool for countering criticism that many in the public may find valid. The only way to counter criticism is with facts and one can't do that without reading the critique. That's why I'm surprised you won't read it since you strike me as someone who is not only intelligent, but also interested in responding to criticisms people may have regarding a candidate you support so as to help convince them that he is someone they should support. Arguing that a criticism is coming from a "RINO" (a term I dislike, by the way, as it is meant to shut off debate by categorizing the person or entity as not worthy of consideration), is not a substantive, fact based, intellectual response.

And I've never heard anybody before claim that National Review, a conservative journal of long standing in this country, is somehow not conservative enough now to be considered part of the Republican mainstream.
 
+Alex Grossman Alex, you are beginning to annoy me. I happen to be a gold-star contributer on National Review. I know those people quite well. I decided months ago, that I would no longer participate in their zeal to see Mitt Romney elected President. Now, I would never chastise you for not wishing to read something from an author or a source you do not trust. There is a point, where one needs to know when to back off. I have made my position clear.
 
I guess that guy thought I'd already gone to bed?
 
+Aaron Howell No need to dance around it with me, my young friend. I am a black man, unhappy with the performance of my people as a race. As a people, we can do better, that 90+ percent of us would ever be a reliable, unquestioning vote to any political party suggests thinking of a non-independent nature. Any culture that tramples the concept of the individual, is not a proud culture by any means.
Add a comment...