Herman Cain for US President?

Anything else you want to talk about.
Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 769
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: Herman Cain for US President?

Post by Byron Angel » Wed Oct 31, 2012 11:51 am

RF wrote:I'm not convinced of their wisdom. They failed to find a solution to the issue of centralised federal government verses devolved local or state control, which these issues of the ''popular vote'' generally revolve. Even a bloody civil war couldn't produce a complete solution, except the doctrine of holding the country together by force.

.... They chose the optimal political form conceivable to provide a prudent degree of government order while protecting the citizenry from an autocratic and onerous goverment. They are also credited as the first statesmen to establish the concept of citizen rights as inherent and inalienable as opposed to being derived from government. They also anticipated the possibility that government, despite their best efforts, might nevertheless evolve into an oppressor to its citizens and recognized the inherent right of the people to rise up, revolt and seek to reform or replace it.

The founding fathers cannot be held responsible for the following two plus centuries of progressive efforts to "improve" things by making government an "agent of social change".

B

ede144
Member
Posts: 142
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 5:09 pm

Re: Herman Cain for US President?

Post by ede144 » Wed Oct 31, 2012 3:05 pm

I believe the founders made it well. Compare the numbers of wars in the US with numbers in Germany, France and UK.
Regards
Ede

User avatar
frontkampfer
Member
Posts: 226
Joined: Thu May 10, 2007 2:35 am
Location: Phillipsburg, NJ - USA

Re: Herman Cain for US President?

Post by frontkampfer » Wed Oct 31, 2012 11:44 pm

Byron Angel wrote:
RF wrote:I'm not convinced of their wisdom. They failed to find a solution to the issue of centralised federal government verses devolved local or state control, which these issues of the ''popular vote'' generally revolve. Even a bloody civil war couldn't produce a complete solution, except the doctrine of holding the country together by force.

.... They chose the optimal political form conceivable to provide a prudent degree of government order while protecting the citizenry from an autocratic and onerous goverment. They are also credited as the first statesmen to establish the concept of citizen rights as inherent and inalienable as opposed to being derived from government. They also anticipated the possibility that government, despite their best efforts, might nevertheless evolve into an oppressor to its citizens and recognized the inherent right of the people to rise up, revolt and seek to reform or replace it.

The founding fathers cannot be held responsible for the following two plus centuries of progressive efforts to "improve" things by making government an "agent of social change".

B
Byron,

Spot on!
"I will not have my ship shot out from under my ass!"

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7525
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Herman Cain for US President?

Post by RF » Thu Nov 01, 2012 10:34 am

Byron Angel wrote: The founding fathers cannot be held responsible for the following two plus centuries of progressive efforts to "improve" things by making government an "agent of social change".
I don't blame them for that at all.

In their deliberations in framing the US Constitution in the late 1780's the issue of a strong central government versus autonomous states was argued and debated to destruction and they couldn't agree a definitive answer.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7525
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Herman Cain for US President?

Post by RF » Thu Nov 01, 2012 10:43 am

ede144 wrote:I believe the founders made it well. Compare the numbers of wars in the US with numbers in Germany, France and UK.
Regards
Ede
Well, are we including all the conflicts initiated by the USA? The US was the only country out of the four above to have a bloody civil war since 1787.

Germany in its lifespan initiated two wars that grew into world wars.

France in that lifespan declared war once - in 1939.

The UK declared war twice - on Germany. The other wars involving the UK were started by the other side, for example Italy, Japan and Argentina commencing hostilities against British held territory.

The USA by comparison has started wars with France, Britain, Mexico, Spain, Germany and has intervened in numerous armed conflicts within Latin America and in Africa and the Middle East, not to mention intervention in Vietnam and Cambodia. It has threatened to go to war with PR China in defence of Taiwan.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 769
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: Herman Cain for US President?

Post by Byron Angel » Thu Nov 01, 2012 11:41 am

RF wrote:
ede144 wrote:I believe the founders made it well. Compare the numbers of wars in the US with numbers in Germany, France and UK.
Regards
Ede
Well, are we including all the conflicts initiated by the USA? The US was the only country out of the four above to have a bloody civil war since 1787.

Germany in its lifespan initiated two wars that grew into world wars.

France in that lifespan declared war once - in 1939.

The UK declared war twice - on Germany. The other wars involving the UK were started by the other side, for example Italy, Japan and Argentina commencing hostilities against British held territory.

The USA by comparison has started wars with France, Britain, Mexico, Spain, Germany and has intervened in numerous armed conflicts within Latin America and in Africa and the Middle East, not to mention intervention in Vietnam and Cambodia. It has threatened to go to war with PR China in defence of Taiwan.

..... You've actually left quite a few conflicts off your list - particularly with respect to Great Britain, which hardly saw a single decade of continuous peace between 1794 and 1918. Or do the Napoleonic Wars and all those colonial wars not count?

Then there is France, - wasn't there a fellow named "Napoleon Bonaparte" who is rumored to have caused some trouble in Europe for twenty years or so? France also fought her own series of colonial wars throughout the 19th century, along with involvment in the War of Italian Unification against Austria Hungary, then war with the German states in 1870

And, leaving aside the carefully crafted cropping of the German timeline to consider only the post-unification period, let's talk about Prussia between 1787 and German unification - theyt fought France and lost, then fought France again. Then, after the fall of Napoleon, Prussia fought Denmark, Austria, France again, with a civil war thrown into the mix for good measure. Then, after unification, there was WW1, another civil war, plus an intervention against the Bolsheviks in Poland and the Baltic countries.

No one is trying to argue that America has been any sort of paragon of pacifism, but let's please dispense with the disingenuous efforts to paint the USA as some unique sort of war-mongering state. It is nothing of the sort. In any case, this really has absolutely nothng to do with the form of national government established by the US Constitution. In fact, one of the basic precepts of the founding fathers was to "avoid foreign entanglements".

B

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7525
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Herman Cain for US President?

Post by RF » Thu Nov 01, 2012 7:15 pm

Byron Angel wrote: ..... You've actually left quite a few conflicts off your list - particularly with respect to Great Britain, which hardly saw a single decade of continuous peace between 1794 and 1918. Or do the Napoleonic Wars and all those colonial wars not count?
That is entirely correct - and yes, they do count. These are instances where Britain was attacked as opposed to initiating those conflicts, just as for example I made no mention of the USA declaring war on Japan after the attack on Pearl Harbor because the US was the victim of an attack.
Then there is France, - wasn't there a fellow named "Napoleon Bonaparte" who is rumored to have caused some trouble in Europe for twenty years or so? France also fought her own series of colonial wars throughout the 19th century, along with involvment in the War of Italian Unification against Austria Hungary, then war with the German states in 1870


Whilst I did make mention of Madisons' war of 1812 and the prior war on France under John Adams' presidency, I was really thinking of the post-European settlements of circa 1818, when yes the 49th parallel was agreed as the Canadian border.
And, leaving aside the carefully crafted cropping of the German timeline to consider only the post-unification period, let's talk about Prussia between 1787 and German unification - theyt fought France and lost, then fought France again. Then, after the fall of Napoleon, Prussia fought Denmark, Austria, France again, with a civil war thrown into the mix for good measure. Then, after unification, there was WW1, another civil war, plus an intervention against the Bolsheviks in Poland and the Baltic countries.
Yes, again that is true. The wars resulting in the unification of Germany were generally localised affairs which didn't spread into a full scale continental war.
That was an entirely different gredation to the starting of WW1 and WW2 which I mentioned. And intervention against the bolsheviks was in defence of their own interests and was indirectly supported by the US.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7525
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Herman Cain for US President?

Post by RF » Thu Nov 01, 2012 7:35 pm

Byron Angel wrote: No one is trying to argue that America has been any sort of paragon of pacifism, but let's please dispense with the disingenuous efforts to paint the USA as some unique sort of war-mongering state.


I wasn't trying to argue that - I was trying to establish the point that the USA has been the initiator of conflicts as had the other three countries mentioned, probably to the same overall degree. I repeat the point that I have made many times before on this forum, I am pro-US and believe that the USA in general is a force for good and in protecting my liberty, even though I am not an American. That is now and here we talk about the past.
In any case, this really has absolutely nothng to do with the form of national government established by the US Constitution. In fact, one of the basic precepts of the founding fathers was to "avoid foreign entanglements".B
I absolutely agree. Indeed the founding fathers originally were opposed to the existence of a standing army.

The problem for the founding fathers, as John Adams came to realise in his presidency, is other peoples wars spreading on to your doorstep, particulary for a maritime power which the US was right from the very start. And in an assertive defence can lie the genesis for aggressive war against your neighbours. That can happen to any country, regardless of political system.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

ede144
Member
Posts: 142
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 5:09 pm

Re: Herman Cain for US President?

Post by ede144 » Fri Nov 02, 2012 9:37 pm

Sorry guys but I made my point not clear enough. I was actually thinking of the civil war and comparable conflicts in European countries. Take the French revolution and the German war of 1618- 1648. Both conflicts were much more devastatingthan The American Civil War. Same apply to England.
So the founders of the Us took some wise decisions and the first rulers refuse to step over th constitution. Whichb could not been said from a certain French Consul.
Regards
Ede

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7525
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Herman Cain for US President?

Post by RF » Sun Nov 04, 2012 6:53 pm

ede144 wrote: I was actually thinking of the civil war and comparable conflicts in European countries. Take the French revolution and the German war of 1618- 1648. Both conflicts were much more devastatingthan The American Civil War. Same apply to England.
Regards
Ede
If you are referring to the English Civil Wars of the 1640's and early 1650's then I would have to disagree.

Whilst there was heavy loss of life during the English Civil War, there wasn't anywhere near the same level of destruction to property, industry, infrastructure or communications that the Confederate States suffered in the US Civil War. England in the 1650's and 1660's picked itself up pretty quickly and there was no lasting legacy of that war on any part of Englands' economy. London for example was completely untouched by the coflict.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7525
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Herman Cain for US President?

Post by RF » Wed Nov 07, 2012 9:01 am

So Michael Whites' comment ''Americans would like to vote out Obama but Romney makes it difficult'' has proved to be exactly right.

Once again the Republican Party selected the wrong person to run for president.

At least now losers don't get a second chance (unless of course you are like Richard Milhous Nixon) so hopefully this is the last we see of Romney. Reagan won Massachussetts twice, Romney in his home state came nowhere near.....

Four years to find the right man - or woman. Is the Republican Party up to it?

And of course the result is good news for our very own Tony Blair of a Prime Minister. Nobody in Washington to put him in his place.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 2955
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Herman Cain for US President?

Post by Dave Saxton » Thu Nov 08, 2012 4:01 pm

I think this election result was decided four years ago with the initial election of Obama. It is very difficult to defeat a sitting president, regardless of how incompentent they are, especially if they have the "cult of personality". I tryed to tell people that then, to not get caught up in the moment, because this guy is a radical, and we may be stuck with him for a terrible 8 years. Bush Sr was one term because of Perot, and Carter was one term because of Iran, Johnson didn't run because of Vietnam, JFK was killed, but chances are great the sitting president will be re-elected. Look at FDR and hence the ammendment to restrict presidents to 2 terms. I respect Romney for stepping forward and attempting to help the country despite the odds against him. I think he was the man we needed at this time. I think anybody else besides Romney, with the exception of perhaps Cain, would have been wiped out anyway. Hence the demos and their supporters in the media made sure Cain was forced out.
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7525
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Herman Cain for US President?

Post by RF » Thu Nov 08, 2012 8:09 pm

Looking at the figures Dave, the election was pretty close. A small switch in votes in Ohio, Virginia, Florida, Colorado, New Hampshire would have swung it the other way.

We don't know how Santorum would have made out; Cain is simply too elderly and Obama looked a lot weaker than last time round.

The election should in my view have been for the Republicans taking, only they have the religous fruitcakes as a millstone round their neck driving away hispanic and Afro-American support.
Get rid of the religous extreme and appeal to all Americans - that is the way to winning. The problem is finding a candidate of that ilk.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

User avatar
frontkampfer
Member
Posts: 226
Joined: Thu May 10, 2007 2:35 am
Location: Phillipsburg, NJ - USA

Re: Herman Cain for US President?

Post by frontkampfer » Fri Nov 09, 2012 3:33 am

There was nothing extreme in Romney's campaign. The media won it for barry. They were the willing partners in this whole mess. They killed stories that were unfavorable to him and did everything they could to make Romney look as bad as possible. The democrat party is the party of takers and they give to those who want to milk from the government udder. This will spiral downward and we will become Greece. Welcome to the post-constitutional republic of the US. Witness the decline of this country as sure as the Roman Empire fell!
"I will not have my ship shot out from under my ass!"

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7525
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Herman Cain for US President?

Post by RF » Fri Nov 09, 2012 8:57 am

frontkampfer wrote:There was nothing extreme in Romney's campaign.
That depends on what you call extreme. To me any person actively involved in promoting a religion - whatever that religion is as I am atheist - is unattractive. That was my main objection to Romney. You may say that he didn't push his religion during his campaign, but it was always in the background and was used where it was to his advantage, such as in Utah where he achieved some 70%+ of the vote.

The hispanic vote is rapidly growing, and a larger proportion of it is leaning towards the Republican values of anti-socialism, self-reliance and private enterprise, especially in the southern and western states, yet a large part of the Republican Party doesn't want their support because they are not within the WASP stereotype. The handling of the immigration issue was handled with a bullet headed insensitivity. Romney couldn't even win in Florida, whereas Jeb Bush won the goverorship with ease. Romney couldn't carry the state of California yet Arnie could. Romney couldn't carry his home state, yet Reagan did so twice.
The Republicans threw away this election. To me Obama looked a lot weaker than four years ago, when he allowed the media to promote him on the basis of his alleged skin colour. That bias was lacking this time and he looked vulnerable.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

Post Reply