• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Herman Cain for President?

mhaze said:
How soon may we know, High Priest of the Progs?

We eagerly again Words to Repeat, and read Daily Kos and Media Matters hoping they will be there soon. Our small minds are blank slates hungry for more hate. We pray that you soon will tell us, O Wise Ones.
Click to expand...

I don't want to engage in a tu quoque falacy. I just want to get a better understanding of your perspective. Do you think that the folks on the right eagerly wait for Mr. Limbaugh, Miss Coulter, and Fox News to tell them who to hate in the same way that the liberals wait for instructions on who to hate, or are the right-wing rank and file independent thinkers who carefully weigh all available evidence before reaching a political position?[/QUOTE]
 
mhaze said:
Except that (as is common) to support the conclusion that creates the propaganda value you want, you have to misread the original facts. Others who want to get on your bandwagon will perhaps help you and support the lie.

After a while, some people might believe it.

But to me, it looks more like you just making a dumb mistake. So now you can go back and argue that the grammar, syntax and style of the statements by Cain support your argument, and then I can step you through them and show you where they don't.

You'll likely argue that the newspaper article is sufficient to prove your point (it doesn't so that's a dismal fail) and I'll argue that you need a transcript or video of the speech.

But for effective propaganda it's likely adequate, because whether the argument is true or not doesn't matter. It's just a matter of repeating the lie that matters.
Click to expand...

Here is a clip of the video of the presidential announcement speech:
http://thinkprogress.org/2011/05/23/cain-reread-constitution/ along with a transcript of the words surrounding the much discussed quote.


Now, just so that I cannot be accused of taking things out of context, here is a much longer clip of that part of the speech.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bo9c42xs9l0
At 8:40, you will notice that Mr. Cain mentions the Declaration of Independence twice. However, I will have to side with the posters who conclude that mentioning the Constitution at least three times before talking about "life, liberty, pursuit happiness," does give the decided impression that he is confusing the two.

[Mr. Cain might have lifted this part of his speech from previous speeches he has made. I have not studied them enough to see if he is more clear or less clear in those other instances]
 
Last edited:
The tokenism on the right always amuses me.

If a black guy who favored segregation in 1960 was promoted by the Dixiecrats (see what I did there?), would that make their pro-segregation stance non-racist?
 
mhaze said:
Except that (as is common) to support the conclusion that creates the propaganda value you want, you have to misread the original facts. Others who want to get on your bandwagon will perhaps help you and support the lie.

After a while, some people might believe it.

But to me, it looks more like you just making a dumb mistake. So now you can go back and argue that the grammar, syntax and style of the statements by Cain support your argument, and then I can step you through them and show you where they don't.

You'll likely argue that the newspaper article is sufficient to prove your point (it doesn't so that's a dismal fail) and I'll argue that you need a transcript or video of the speech.

But for effective propaganda it's likely adequate, because whether the argument is true or not doesn't matter. It's just a matter of repeating the lie that matters.
Click to expand...

Got a link to the full speech? I will concede that the only thing labeled as a direct quote was "Keep reading. Don't stop at "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness". If you can link to the full speech, and it shows evidence that Mr. Cain actually knows that "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" isn't in the Constitution, I'd be happy to see it. If the newspaper article is correct in it's representation of what he said, he's apallingly ignorant of the document he's imploring everybody to read.
 
mhaze said:
Black enough? No, that's a simple matter. He's had a white hippie mom and a black communist dad.

So someone who is really black, has to be spun as ....

Not really black. Got it?
Click to expand...

Please cite a progressive politician making the argument that Herman Cain is not black. If you can do so, maybe your argument would have actual merit, as opposed to just being an excuse to say that liberals are playing the race card--by playing the race card pre-emptively, as it were.
 
CORed said:
Got a link to the full speech? I will concede that the only thing labeled as a direct quote was "Keep reading. Don't stop at "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness". If you can link to the full speech, and it shows evidence that Mr. Cain actually knows that "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" isn't in the Constitution, I'd be happy to see it. If the newspaper article is correct in it's representation of what he said, he's apallingly ignorant of the document he's imploring everybody to read.
Click to expand...

post #43 has a link to both a video and a partial transcript.
 
Ladewig said:
Here is a clip of the video of the presidential announcement speech:
http://thinkprogress.org/2011/05/23/cain-reread-constitution/ along with a transcript of the words surrounding the much discussed quote.


Now, just so that I cannot be accused of taking things out of context, here is a much longer clip of that part of the speech.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bo9c42xs9l0
At 8:40, you will notice that Mr. Cain mentions the Declaration of Independence twice. However, I will have to side with the posters who conclude that mentioning the Constitution at least three times before talking about "life, liberty, pursuit happiness," does give the decided impression that he is confusing the two.

[Mr. Cain might have lifted this part of his speech from previous speeches he has made. I have not studied them enough to see if he is more clear or less clear in those other instances]
Click to expand...

Thank you. The actual speech certainly gives the impression that he thinks the two phrases he cites are in the Constitution, not the Declaration of Independence. If anything, it is more damning than the newspaper article in that respect. If he actually does know the difference, the way he structured his speech is most unfortunate (which is a nice way of saying he made himself look like an idiot).
 
The GOP won't have a black presidential candidate, because a large portion of their base is racist.
 
Ladewig said:
....Now, just so that I cannot be accused of taking things out of context, here is a much longer clip of that part of the speech.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bo9c42xs9l0
At 8:40, you will notice that Mr. Cain mentions the Declaration of Independence twice. However, I will have to side with the posters who conclude that mentioning the Constitution at least three times before talking about "life, liberty, pursuit happiness," does give the decided impression that he is confusing the two......
Click to expand...

That's the actual speech. Thank you. We really don't need the clips from the likes of "Think Progress" presented as actual, real things. They really suggest to you what you should think, instead of encouraging critical thinking independantly.

After mentioning the Dec twice, then the Constitution, Cain he does not clarify the LLPH and it's origin when he clearly is referring back to the DI. That is a valid criticism of the speech.

However, to focus on one interpretation of that <<that he's an idiot>> serves the propaganda aim of stereotyping him, casting him as an enemy, and ridiculing him. Other interpretations <<he forgot>> <<that was left out of the prepared speech>> <<he thought it was obvious>> are clearly available.

Nope. We'll focus on the interpretation of as Saul Alinsky aim of pinning the opponent and putting him on the defensive.

Except....it ignores every single thing he said in the speech. You have ignored THE ENTIRE CONTENT, in favor of ridicule. Yep...that's the propaganda method.

;)

I'd be much less inclined to say this if Cain's remark on LLPH was discussed as one of a dozen elements of the speech. But it isn't, and that's telling as to motive, and purpose.
 
mhaze said:
That's the actual speech. Thank you. We really don't need the clips from the likes of "Think Progress" presented as actual, real things. They really suggest to you what you should think, instead of encouraging critical thinking independantly.

After mentioning the Dec twice, then the Constitution, Cain he does not clarify the LLPH and it's origin when he clearly is referring back to the DI. That is a valid criticism of the speech.

However, to focus on one interpretation of that <<that he's an idiot>> serves the propaganda aim of stereotyping him, casting him as an enemy, and ridiculing him. Other interpretations <<he forgot>> <<that was left out of the prepared speech>> <<he thought it was obvious>> are clearly available.

Nope. We'll focus on the interpretation of as Saul Alinsky aim of pinning the opponent and putting him on the defensive.

Except....it ignores every single thing he said in the speech. You have ignored THE ENTIRE CONTENT, in favor of ridicule. Yep...that's the propaganda method.

;)

I'd be much less inclined to say this if Cain's remark on LLPH was discussed as one of a dozen elements of the speech. But it isn't, and that's telling as to motive, and purpose.
Click to expand...

The rest of it was pretty dumb, too.

I will tentatively agree that individual misstatements aren't very revealing, especially in a live speech. When the overall content of his speech is analyzed, however, the most cheritable interpretation is that he was tossing red meat to a hungry crowd that just wanted to hear customary talking points. There was nothing substantive offered.

It appears his "vision" was hampered by the dark shades.
 
Last edited:
TraneWreck said:
The rest of it was pretty dumb, too.

I will tentatively agree that individual misstatements aren't very revealing, especially in a live speech. When the overall content of his speech is analyzed, however, the most cheritable interpretation is that he was tossing red meat to a hungry crowd that just wanted to hear customary talking points. There was nothing substantive offered.

It appears his "vision" was hampered by the dark shades.
Click to expand...

Suit yourself.

The country has serious problems and people are willing to listen to people that may have answers. No one would expect you to say anything other than derogatory comments about this guy, who is on the opposite end of the political spectrum from you.

All I was indicating is that if a speech was points 1-15 and a bunch of opponents of that guy focus on 7.1(a) item, they will be out of touch with most regular people, who looked at....well....

1-15

But, proceed. Take a shred of truth, that is the best thing to build a big lie around. Then repeat it over and over. That's the tried and proven method.
 
mhaze said:
Suit yourself.

The country has serious problems and people are willing to listen to people that may have answers. No one would expect you to say anything other than derogatory comments about this guy, who is on the opposite end of the political spectrum from you.

All I was indicating is that if a speech was points 1-15 and a bunch of opponents of that guy focus on 7.1(a) item, they will be out of touch with most regular people, who looked at....well....

1-15

But, proceed. Take a shred of truth, that is the best thing to build a big lie around. Then repeat it over and over. That's the tried and proven method.
Click to expand...

Again, 1-15 were **** ideas. You can claim political bias, but pick your favorite part of his "vision" and start a new thread on it. Let's see how sturdy it is.

The country has a problem with dumbassery masquerading as legitimate thought. Cain is eagerly contributing to this nonsense.
 
TraneWreck said:
Again, 1-15 were **** ideas. You can claim political bias, but pick your favorite part of his "vision" and start a new thread on it. Let's see how sturdy it is.

The country has a problem with dumbassery masquerading as legitimate thought. Cain is eagerly contributing to this nonsense.
Click to expand...

Or on the contrary, I may be cautioning against your contributions, and those of others on this thread, when I said...

...proceed. Take a shred of truth, that is the best thing to build a big lie around. Then repeat it over and over. That's the tried and proven method.

The thing is, when I see the smears and personal attacks, I get suspicious....like, what is it you are scared to actually discuss?

But that's just me. Don't pay any attention to me. Continue with the tried and proven method. Lying.

;)
 
If Herman Cain somehow managed to get the GOP nomination (and there's no chance he will) Obama would still win 90+% of the black vote.
 
mhaze said:
...gibbberish...

The thing is, when I see the smears and personal attacks, I get suspicious....like, what is it you are scared to actually discuss?
Click to expand...

Did you read the part where I requested that you pick your favorite of the substantive points this gentleman makes, start a thread about it, and we can carry on the debate?

That would derail this thread, but it's an odd perversion of your mind that interprets a challenge to defend substantive claims as being scared to discuss.

I say that this Cain fellow just regurgitated bad ideas that the right has been spewing out for the last decade or so. His Declaration/Constitution error was the least of the problems with that speech.

Now, if you want to defend that speech, go for it. Pick something you thought was particularly good, and we'll talk about it, just not in this thread.

mhaze said:
But that's just me. Don't pay any attention to me. Continue with the tried and proven method. Lying.

;)
Click to expand...

This is a bizarre defense mechanism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom