Cain Proves That The G.O.P. Lacks A Moral Compass

[duke]

Cain Proves That The G.O.P. Lacks A Moral Compass FiegerTime - Geoffrey Fieger's Blog|Geoffrey Fieger

Although the political-media complex is perseverating on the idea that the current panel of G.O.P. candidates don’t represent the best and brightest of their Party, the truth is that they accurately reflect the current character of the G.O.P. When one considers the fact that Herman Cain is the front runner even though has a legal record of serial sexual-harassment, and now is publicly accused of what amounts to a sexual assault, can there be any doubt that the G.O.P. has no moral compass? How does one explain the fact that his fund-raising has actually INCREASED since his legal history of sexual harassment was revealed, other than the fact that the Republican base actually wants to reward immoral and illegal actions? Where most men would want to punch out a guy if he did that to their wife or daughter, Republicans seem to relish the thought.

Look across the entire panel of candidates and you see a consistency of moral vacuum wrapped in self-righteousness to rival any of the Pharisees Jesus condemned. Romney is apparently devoid of any principle other than political ambition with policies and positions that blow whichever way the polls go. Perry has no second thoughts about executing innocent prisoners or spending time at his family retreat called “niggerhead”. Tea Party participants in the debates boo an American soldier fighting for their freedom and advocate euthanasia on uninsured people – all this with the silent support of these candidates.

Perhaps the most telling indicia of their lack of moral foundation is their insistence on policies abandoning the most weak and vulnerable in our society in favor of pandering to the richest and most powerful. Dr. Martin Luther King, the last great moral voice in American society, once pointed out the immorality of spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on average to kill a single Vietnamese soldier and less than sixty dollars per child on America’s poorest children. Imagine what that number will be if any one of the G.O.P. candidates wins the Presidency!

It would be in the interest of the Country, let alone their Party, if the Democrats could only articulate a moral platform of support for the poor and middle-class to contrast with the G.O.P. instead of the lukewarm strategy of the politically safe.

fiegertime.wordpress.com/2011/11/08/cain-proves-that-the-g-o-p-lacks-a-moral-compass/

[osrb]

Maybe he can use the Clinton line "they are all nuts or sluts". The Dems lost ALL credibility on this subject.

[Justin Thyme]

Herman Cain is the front runner even though has a legal record of serial sexual-harassment

This statement is not true. There was a settlement agreement between the National Restaurant Association that paid a couple of women a severance without admitting guilt or responsibility with a non-disclosure agreement that neither party would talk about it but this never went before a judge. No court was involved in the settlement.

[osrb]

Com'on JT you know dookie has never let the truth get in the way of his fiction.

[Warkitty]

and then he lied about it. He didn't remember any such settlement till the next day when he suddenly just remembered it. Yeah. Pull the other one.

[osrb]

We know that in many cases even where there is no evidence or credibility people are paid just to go away. Some people are just overly sensitive and find slight in everything. It is easy to make accusations toward someone of anything, just because there is an accusation does not mean there is merit.

As far as not remembering many times I do not remember things only to realize later that I do remember. I guess I am just old and senile.

[el Gusano]

Justin Beiber (sp?) is going through something similar at the moment, except his former company isn't handling it for him quietly, he's handling it.

I can think of many other reasons to detest Justin Beiber, but unsubstantiated claims against him isn't one of them.

[Justin Thyme]

Nov 9, 2011 7:37:55 GMT -5 Warkitty said:

and then he lied about it. He didn't remember any such settlement till the next day when he suddenly just remembered it. Yeah. Pull the other one.

To me that's the only thing that gives any credibility to the claims.

[creekcat62]

Did President Clinton prove that the Democrats lack a moral compass? He lied as well.

[Conservator]

Many different aspects of this to debate on... whether he's guilty or not, whether it will ruin his chances of being the 2nd black President... but to pull from it that this "proves" the GOP has no moral compass? Until there is a shred of evidence, one could say the GOP thinks of him as innocent til proven guilty? That's what would be proper, no? One claim is questionable, but 3 or 4 or 5 gives it a lot more credibility in the mind of public opinion. It will or has ruined his chances and we'll never know if it was a big conspiracy or not..

[ssmynkint]

but to pull from it that this "proves" the GOP has no moral compass?

Ridiculous assumption on the face of it.
At most (and I think increasingly likely) it is a reflection on Cain, just as Clinton's antics reflected on him. And the issues for both are that they used their position of power to exploit others and lied, Clinton under oath.
If Clinton's actions made him unfit, it's hard to argue that Cain's don't too, and v.v.
Do we want a sexually amoral man leading us?
Are other types of amorality acceptable?

[Half-Tard]

9 sluts 9 inches 9 times 999 I get it now

[BlackFox]

As one of the more "liberal" leaning posters on here ( even though I still contend that the Republican Party left ME, not the other way around), I don't think the Cain situation says anything about the GOP.

I DO believe that you guys have got some really shitty choices out there though and that it looks inevitable for Romney who will be killed in the general because of his serial flip flopping and the fact that he's not Jesusy enough.

[Warkitty]

I would so rather a "not jesusy enough" type to a "Jaysus will come again durin mah time if'n I have to usher in the apocalypse myself" type.

[Conservator]

Well, Perry (your #1 Jesusy candidate) was in a downward spiral anyway, but last night, your "worst nightmare of a candidate" just stepped in a steamin' hot TX size pile of DUHng.

[Conservator]

Watch out for Newton though... He's on the rise. Talk about a moral compass!
Who would name their kid after a cookie anyway... excuse me, a fruited cake.

[BlackFox]

Nov 10, 2011 8:49:44 GMT -5 Warkitty said:

I would so rather a "not jesusy enough" type to a "Jaysus will come again durin mah time if'n I have to usher in the apocalypse myself" type.

Me too. As it stands though, I'll probably stick with Kenyan, Muslim, Socialist usurper.

[BlackFox]

Nov 10, 2011 9:04:08 GMT -5 Conservator said:

Watch out for Newton though... He's on the rise. Talk about a moral compass!
Who would name their kid after a cookie anyway... excuse me, a fruited cake.

I agree, he's the next flavor of the month. At the right time too.

He's drippin' Jesus now, but he'll really put the "forgiveness" factor to the test with Evangelicals.

[osrb]

Too bad the best people do not have a chance (Ron Paul and Gary Johnson). We are for now stuck with between power hungry Idiots. People who are more interested in power then really caring about the people.

[Justin Thyme]

Nov 10, 2011 9:32:31 GMT -5 osrb said:

Too bad the best people do not have a chance (Ron Paul and Gary Johnson). We are for now stuck with between power hungry Idiots. People who are more interested in power then really caring about the people.

A friend made this observation about the Republican candidates yesterday:

The smart ones are unelectable and the electable ones are idiots. (And then there's Romney, who's smart &electable but a conceptual vacuum.)

I tend to agree with him.

[Warkitty]

The party fosters a culture of anti-intellectualism. Is it any surprise the smarter candidates are unelectable as a result?

[Conservator]

Nov 10, 2011 9:57:33 GMT -5 Warkitty said:

The party fosters a culture of anti-intellectualism. Is it any surprise the smarter candidates are unelectable as a result?

nice.

Not sure what you even mean about why "the smarter candidates are unelectable as a result"...? The unelectable (which is debatable) according to the media are possibly Newt and Herman Cain. Newt's the smartest one on the panel and has a bit of a dark past - which some may overlook, but in a general election the left leaning mainstream would dig up big time. And Cain, well we're seeing that unfold right now with more alleged victims coming forward... How is that as a result?

[Justin Thyme]

Gary Johnson appears to me to be the only one that is acknowledging facts. The rest seem to only believe in what it takes to get elected, even Ron Paul. My litmus test on this is global warming/climate change. It is happening, there is proof it is happening and there is overwhelming evidence that man is contributing (I will stop short of saying causing) to it. Gary Johnson is the only one without blinders on for this and he's been shut out of most of the debates. And I shouldn't say he is unelectable because I think he could well win against Obama but he is un-nominatable as the Republican candidate.

Why? Because some powerful Republicans believe that if the facts about global warming/climate change are acknowledged that will result in expensive emissions controls and carbon sequestering for their corporate buddies. The sad part is that isn't the case.

[Warkitty]

I see, you go for my comment which is a direct correlation to Justin's statement that he agrees the smart candidates are unelectable. I take it you disagree that the smart ones are unelectable?

Fact is, the party often makes jabs about the "intellectual elite" and grooms candidates to appear more "Joe the Plumber" common man intellect than "hey, this guy's smarter than us, that's a good thing!" Yes, right now they're getting attacked for other things, but if they got past that they'd be castigated by their own party for being "too elitist."

Or are you claiming that ISN'T a trope used against their opponents?

[Conservator]

" I take it you disagree that the smart ones are unelectable?" Yes and no. I think Newt could actually win against Obama... But then again, I think almost all of them could/would have a good chance to beat him. Newt would tear Obama a new one in a debate. But I do agree that the better candidates (policy-wise) are not as good on stage... Some too old, some not pretty enough, some not good enough orators... Could make great Presidents, but in this day and age of media - the 'on stage' is a large factor. Then there's the system we have where a true middle of the road candidate (Dem or Rep) wouldn't get through a Primary because of how polarized the system (and/or the citizens) have become.
As for the GOP "party fosters a culture of anti-intellectualism" Not only is that a broad ass brush to swing, I don't think that's the reason some are less "electable" than others. If you were just joking, than I get yur point.

[osrb]

The problem is that the Dems think they are intellectuals because they are lawyers who have for the most part never had a real job. They think that because they spent there lives twisting words with sole purpose making others look bad and making their selves look good. People like Gary Johnson spent his life working building a business dealing in real life. BO, Reid, Polosi have never had real jobs that is why they have NO concept on what it takes to make things better.

[creekcat62]

Nov 10, 2011 8:36:53 GMT -5 BlackFox said:

I DO believe that you guys have got some really shitty choices out there though and that it looks inevitable for Romney who will be killed in the general because of his serial flip flopping and the fact that he's not Jesusy enough.

Shitty choices? Somehow I don't think shitty really sums them up for me. It's beyond shitty. If Newt becomes the frontrunner, then it becomes even more so.

[BlackFox]

Nov 10, 2011 11:41:59 GMT -5 Conservator said:

I think Newt could actually win against Obama... But then again, I think almost all of them could/would have a good chance to beat him. Newt would tear Obama a new one in a debate.

I hope he gets the nomination just so you can get a chance to see how wrong you are.

Remember when the republicans invited Obama to their retreat, and he went in there and handed their asses to them? Yea, I think you may be selling this Ivy league constitutional scholar a little short. By the way, those exchanges weren't scripted and there was no telepropter.

Gingrich does look really smart in a room full of idiots though.

[Conservator]

Wow, you and JT really slammin' the door on who I thought was both of your (at one time) favorites... Ron Paul.

[BlackFox]

Nov 10, 2011 14:13:03 GMT -5 Conservator said:

Wow, you and JT really slammin' the door on who I thought was both of your (at one time) favorites... Ron Paul.

Reality. Just like what has been stated above, it's not that there aren't a couple of good candidates, it's just that the good ones have been marginalized.