Lincoln Douglas Debate on C-Span

Post Reply New Topic

It was between Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain, anyone else watch it, cause I thought it was the most thoughtful and mature debate we've seen in Presidential Politics in the last Decade.

It's rather refreshing to see two people that can debate each other without playing gotcha politics.

When those debates were held an audience consisting for farmers, mechanics, merchants and other just plain folks sat through and -understood- the issues being debated in a logical orderly fashion. No sound bytes. No name calling. Just one view against another being presented in a logical civil manner.

How low we have come since those days! And it is only 160 years.

ruveyn

from the sound of it, verbal fellatio is probably a more appropriate term rather than "debate"

I think Newt Gingrich won the debate, I think the American People won last night, and the left-wing drive-by media lost.


I think Cain held his own, but he doesn't have command of the issues like Gingrich does, wouldn't surprise me if Herman Cain could learn the issues, though.

I really think last night we saw the Republican Ticket for 2012, it would probably have to be Gingrich/Cain though.

If it was Gingrich debating Biden, the resulting performance of Biden would be so bad that Obama might be getting sympathy votes because of how thoroughly Biden's clock gets cleaned, by Newt Gingrich.

Cain is a trained applied mathematician. I can only wish he were not so deeply embedded in the Crony Capitalist Establishment. Ron Paul is much more independent of the Cronies than is Herman Cain.

ruveyn

You are confusing Cain with Romney.

Herman Cain was the chairman of a Federal Reserve bank, he is the epitome of a "crony capitalist". He supports TARP and wants to raise taxes, how is he any different than Mitt Romney?

The Federal Reserve wasn't pulling these shannigans when he was there.

Anyways.

http://www.c-span.org/Events/Cain-Gingr ... 737425199/

If you want to see the debate.

The Federal Reserve has been "pulling those shenanigans" for about 100 years now so no. Alan Greenspan, whom Herman Cain mentioned as the type of Fed Chairman he'd appoint, increased the money supply by like 65% and basically created the entire financial catastrophe we're in now by keeping interest rates artificially low. Now we have Bernanke who is even worse than Greenspan.

Here is Peter Schiff giving some thoughts on Alan Greenspan

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxDwnRGruPs[/youtube]

Short version, he thinks Alan Greenspan is worst American in our history and instead calling people 'Benedict Arnold' we should call them Alan Greenspan instead.

I'm not going to support Ron Paul, whom is a complete and total idiot for saying we should let the radical lunatics running Iran have a nuclear bomb.

The only way to stop that is to nuke Iran. Is this what you want done? If so, better to nuke them now than to wait. What do you think?

ruveyn

We could just take out Iran's Revolutionary Guard bases, have a bunch of weapons "accidentally" fall into the hands of the Iranian people that want to get rid of their current government and watch the results.

We already know it would result in a more pro-west government, and get rid of a major sponsor of terrorism.

Oh please! Those loose nukes would very soon fall into the hands of the various terrorist groups. Just what we need.

ruveyn

As far as we know, they don't have a working nuke quite yet...

You are a dolt who doesn't know anything besides what is spewed out of Fox News. Why are you bringing up Ron Paul or Iran when we we're discussing Herman Cain's cluelessness on economics? Are you conceding the point? I don't think I've ever seen a more shameless change of subject.

I'll enable you on the subject since you're just as clueless there as any other issue. The fact you think the Iranian people would support the US if you dropped some guns in there shows your "complete and total" ignorance of the history of Iran. There's a reason that theocracy is in power and that is because of how desperate the Iranian people were to rid themselves of our pet dictator the Shah. Their people would side with the Mullahs versus the US without thinking twice.

You know why we'd be able to bomb Iran if we wanted too? Because they have no real airforce. Most of the few aircrafts they do have are from the 70s or earlier. They have no aircraft carriers, their Navy doesn't really have capabilities beyond their coastal areas. The have no ICBMs or long range bombers. They are of no threat to the US. North Korea has nukes, China has nukes, Pakistan has nukes, Russia has a ton of nukes, and we deal with them just fine. A few more wouldn't change anything. It's not hard to to understand why Iran might want nukes when you look at a map and realize we have US troops completely surrounding them. Why would they give up their weapons program and join the community of nations? They saw what the west did to Gaddafi after cozying up to him for the past 8 years. They're not suicidal, quite the opposite, they're main concern is the survival of the current regime. This is all under the presumption that they're actually pursuing nuclear weapons or have the capability to even do so. Iraq certain wasn't capable but that didn't stop our government from lying about that.

Another thing, if you were smart you would know that Al Qaeda and the other Sunni Arab jihadists that we've come to conflict with in the last decade hate the Shi'a Iranian regime more than we do. If we dropped guns into Iran, who do you think we'd be arming? It would be Al Qaeda, just like what we did Libya except worse.

Actually it is more of the fact you don't have a point, if Herman Cain was really as clueless as you say he was, Godfather's Pizza would have been ran into the ground under his leadership, not made into a success story.



There have been some changes since the Carter years, the Iranian people have woken up, if you'll recall the movement Obama refused to support.



They are one of the biggest supporters of terrorism in the world. They just tried to assassinate the Saudi Arabian Ambassador in Washington D.C. that's an act of war.



Here is where you have screwed up on the analysis.

1. North Korea is scared to death of annoying China, which means that North Korea has to be careful how far it goes.

2. China's government may be made up of despots but they have some rationality to them, so they don't want to start lobbying Nukes. Same with Russia.

3. Pakistan we have to worry about due to their instability.

4. It was the Europeans that were doing business with Gaddafi.

5. Where did all the bio and chemical weapons in Iraq go, we know Saddam used Chemical Weapons on the Kurds after the 1st Gulf War? Or would you like to head to the Kurdish part of Iraq and tell them to their faces they weren't attacked with Chemical weapons, assuming they didn't kill you right off the bat, they might show you some of the grave sites.

6. The Iranian Government is made up of religious fanatics, rationality and fanaticism don't mix.