Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 5 Badge!

The reporters here are much, much, much to kind to him. After he said he is the type of President that would want all the facts on hand before making a decision I'd have interrupted him and asked why then as a candidate has completely failed to even attempt to look for or remember any facts about Libya?

Your video, Herman Cain suffers major brain meltdown on Libya topic, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 4 Badge!

What the fuck are you on about? Theres a huge difference in what Obama does in that video, He's struggling to make a point, sure, and he forgets a few words, which is actually pretty rare coming from him, his speeches are pretty flawless, even the ones without teleprompters (BTW, do you even remember that last president?) But basically, he fails to make the point clearly, and he ends up mangling the sentence and loose the point, fair enough

But Cain doesnt trip up words or forget a phrase: He has no clue what to say, or even what his opinion is supposed to be on this topic, this extremely relevant, important topic, and he doesnt know what he himself thinks about it. And apparantly, he cant make up his mind until he knows what Obama thinks, so that he could "think" the opposite, but then he doesnt know what Obama thinks either, so he's fucked.
>> ^quantumushroom:

Don't the last 3.5 years speak for themselves?
If not, there's always this.

Obama without Teleprompter
You were warned, America. Not by the libmedia, of course.
Bonus! Algore at Monticello
CAIN/HYDRANT '12

>> ^Kofi:
Brain process:
Do I agree with Obama about Libya? Does not compute. Return up one level.
What did he do in Libya? Does not compute. Return up one level.
What is Libya? Does not compute. Return up one level.
Who is Obama? Does not compute. Return up one level.
How can I disagree with him without knowing the above? Does not compute. Return up one level.
Adjust jacket. Does not compute. Return up one level.
Say "Niggerhead"

And que QM's response to this video:
"I'd still rather than this guy than Nobama HUSSEIN BinBama. A fire hydrant could do a better job ................ ......... blah blah blah"

QM, I tend to disagree with many of your political comments, but I have to say that I think you are right about something. That is: Obama has not lived up to the (gigantic) expectations that people had for him. The "change" that was "hoped" for was not to the extent that was needed/expected.

That said, parties aside, what would you have wanted to see done differently over the last 4ish years? I don't mean who does what. I'm not asking for your favorite candidate or historical president. For a minute I'd like to pretend that that doesn't matter or don't exist, and presidents never have names. I'm just interested in what actions/decisions could have been taken/made that you might have approved of. What could have been done differently to land us in a better place for us both, and Americans in general?

And, again without giving any mention to political stripes, how would you make the world a better place?

>> ^quantumushroom:

Don't the last 3.5 years speak for themselves?
If not, there's always this.

Obama without Teleprompter
You were warned, America. Not by the libmedia, of course.
Bonus! Algore at Monticello
CAIN/HYDRANT '12

>> ^Kofi:
Brain process:
Do I agree with Obama about Libya? Does not compute. Return up one level.
What did he do in Libya? Does not compute. Return up one level.
What is Libya? Does not compute. Return up one level.
Who is Obama? Does not compute. Return up one level.
How can I disagree with him without knowing the above? Does not compute. Return up one level.
Adjust jacket. Does not compute. Return up one level.
Say "Niggerhead"

And que QM's response to this video:
"I'd still rather than this guy than Nobama HUSSEIN BinBama. A fire hydrant could do a better job ................ ......... blah blah blah"

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

http://videosift.com/video/Stuff-Twirling-in-my-head-5-min-of-Herman-Cain-on-Libya

Here is the full Libya part of the interview. It is amazing. Like watching a trainwreck.

Don't the last 3.5 years speak for themselves?

If not, there's always this.

Obama without Teleprompter

You were warned, America. Not by the libmedia, of course.

Bonus! Algore at Monticello

CAIN/HYDRANT '12



>> ^Kofi:

Brain process:
Do I agree with Obama about Libya? Does not compute. Return up one level.
What did he do in Libya? Does not compute. Return up one level.
What is Libya? Does not compute. Return up one level.
Who is Obama? Does not compute. Return up one level.
How can I disagree with him without knowing the above? Does not compute. Return up one level.
Adjust jacket. Does not compute. Return up one level.
Say "Niggerhead"

And que QM's response to this video:
"I'd still rather than this guy than Nobama HUSSEIN BinBama. A fire hydrant could do a better job ................ ......... blah blah blah"

http://videosift.com/video/Stuff-Twirling-in-my-head-5-min-of-Herman-Cain-on-Libya

Thought this might amuse you. Drowning in his own BS for 5 minutes.

Brain process:
Do I agree with Obama about Libya? Does not compute. Return up one level.
What did he do in Libya? Does not compute. Return up one level.
What is Libya? Does not compute. Return up one level.
Who is Obama? Does not compute. Return up one level.
How can I disagree with him without knowing the above? Does not compute. Return up one level.
Adjust jacket. Does not compute. Return up one level.
Say "Niggerhead"


And que QM's response to this video:
"I'd still rather than this guy than Nobama HUSSEIN BinBama. A fire hydrant could do a better job ................ ......... blah blah blah"

Christ, this man is a fucking idiot. You can tell by his body language that he has a sound-byte level of understanding about Libya.

Yeeeeeah,

Except the link that you posted doesn't compare wages by "equivalents". It compares what public employees make with the entire private sector. Well, serving big macs and pumping gas are certainly important jobs, but the jobs in the public sector are more specialized, and so they mostly require educated people.

The "study" that you linked to was created by an organization of business people who's whole purpose is to show exactly what they wanted. That is: to imply that public sector employees make more money. When you compare for equivalent jobs, and add education into the mix, there's no study you can site that shows that public employees earn more. Except for maybe custodians, and good for them, they deserve it. Most private employers I know would rather bitch about immigration during the day, and pay people an illegal wage to clean up their shit at night when no one is looking.

And the second "study" you link to, also created by a partisan, republican think-tank to present their opinions as facts, is exactly the same. One of the most interesting things completely left out of the equation is that they're including the benefits of public employees who are already retired, and who accumulated those benefits on a scale that is drastically different from the one used for employees today. Here, in Oregon, those people with tier one P.E.R.S (public employee retirement system) benefits are retiring right now, or have already retired. The "public" have decided over the last decade or so, that since those people worked their entire lives on a promise of those benefits, it would be dishonest to take them away and treat those employees entire lives of service as garbage. Maybe you feel differently. Either way, employees are paid on, and accrue benefits on, a scale that offers much, much less than the old. That's what should be taken into account regarding current wages in any study of current pay, but it's not. And there are a million non-partisan peer responses out there that show that for all the education data they use, their conclusions are false. Look them up yourself if you're so interested in facts.

The thing that really amazes me about your fight to screw people out of their promised wages to make life easier for yourself without actually having to do hard work for it is this: In the AEI study, which looks more credible than the first (but should still be seen as inflated at best, considering the authors) the amount the taxpayers could save by screwing over fellow citizens is... :

77 Billion dollars?

Seriously? As you said above: "700 billion. Only HALF of just the deficit... anyone that thinks that the only place we need to cut is ‘defense’ and that’ll fix it all it living in a dream world."

So that's your big plan? Slash and burn our social programs, putting millions of people out of work, paying the essential workers minimum wage, and leaving all the people who rely on those programs in the dark, causing an unemployment crisis unseen in the history of our country, to save less money than we spent on the recent conflict in Libya that we didn't even fight in?

77 Billion dollars is what you're saying is going to bring this country to it's knees? That's your "silver plated budget?" What a crock of shit.

As an American, you should be ashamed of yourself. You're risking real people's lives by playing the game you're playing. And all for an insignificant fraction of the budget you're claiming. The attack on unions goes not only against your own interests, but against the first and most important amendment to our constitution. If people want to speak up for their rights, and negotiate their terms, well, get used to it. That's what we do here in America, public employees or not. Benjamin Franklin was a public employee, who you have limited his right to express his opinions and negotiate?

If you have a problem with the things people ask for, figure out a solution and deal with it yourself. Stop trying to get the ignorant and greedy to form a big enough group that you can legislate away the rights of your neighbors.

Jesus Christ, you wanna talk wage disparity? Why don't you try looking somewhere where the wage disparity, even with the biggest pile of evidence you can accumulate, amounts at a few thousand dollars per person at best. And spare us all your "search for the truth." Don't like the way unions work? Let them go on strike. Let them strike until they give up and are forced to accept the truth. Don't try to act like you still want everything to get done, but for less money by simply legislating people's rights away. When you do that, you'll see this country crumble before your eyes.

Stop attacking the little people to get what you want. Focus on the ones pulling your own strings.

I hate to wrap up, but my eleven-month-old is crying. I tried to tell him to go get a job if he wants some food, but all he does is whine when I do that. And if I keep typing anyway, pretty soon I'll be hearing from you about how I "might" be abandoning my children and sleeping with the guy in the next tent over.

I agree with or accept everything you say here except I'm not clear on your meaning re: socialism vs. fascism. I'm not sure where your reference to fascism comes from. Are you saying that the Western countries are fascist, or that Libya will become a fascist state now that Gaddafi's gone? Also, do you consider ruling as a dictator and militarily crushing dissent more like socialism or fascism? You can't have fascist democracy, so I'm not sure where you're going with this. And as I said before, the country is still oil-rich, and may choose to continue to distribute the wealth in the form of free health care and so on as before.

I have little respect for the UN myself, and don't support their intervention in this case, so no, I wouldn't be OK with getting the UN to militarily support reel groups in the US.>> ^marbles:
It's called imperialism. Wall Street-London oligarchs run the world. They use mafia tactics to take and do what they want. And if a country's leader doesn't fall in line, then they are taken out.
Is that what this is, self-determination of the Libyan people? No, it's the determination of NATO using violent ideological extremist groups cultivated over the last 30 years by US and British intelligence in the eastern cities of Darnah and Benghazi.
Nothing about this benefits "the West". It benefits big oil interests, defense contractors, and megabanks.
If you don't understand how socialism is better than fascism, then this is a wasted conversation.
I don't put a lot of stock in anything the UN does or says. Nor do I think it has the authority to decide what one country can do to another. But this is were NATO supposedly got their authority to terror bomb and back the rebels in their "civil war". (Even though it violates the UN charter) Basically picking and choosing what international laws to follow when it suites your agenda is what the UN is for.
Using the US and NATO's rationale, China or some other country has the authority to bomb the US governmnet and support dissenting groups here. Are you ok with that?

>> ^marbles:

>> ^messenger:
I'd buy that the US and friends decided to back the rebels in Libya because they saw more financial benefit from it than, per your example, in Uganda. That doesn't mean that the Libyan people would have preferred not to have self-determination. Whatever perks they had under Gaddafi, they had only because Gaddafi himself decided they would, not because the people decided they would. And there's no reason after Gaddafi's gone that they can't still have them. The oil's still there, and it will still flow. If you're upset that this benefits the West, then OK, be upset, but don't conflate Western cynical gain with the new freedom of the Libyan people.
You're going to have to sell me on how having a dictator is better than having even a pseudo-democracy like we have.
Getting a human rights award from the UNHRC is the most cynical award possible. The council is a majority-decision court whose majority is made up of the worst human rights violators on the planet. It is dominated by countries who routinely commit gross human rights abuses against their own people, and have an understanding amongst themselves not to vote against one another, and can all avoid being held accountable.
It's called imperialism. Wall Street-London oligarchs run the world. They use mafia tactics to take and do what they want. And if a country's leader doesn't fall in line, then they are taken out.
Is that what this is, self-determination of the Libyan people? No, it's the determination of NATO using violent ideological extremist groups cultivated over the last 30 years by US and British intelligence in the eastern cities of Darnah and Benghazi.
Nothing about this benefits "the West". It benefits big oil interests, defense contractors, and megabanks.
If you don't understand how socialism is better than fascism, then this is a wasted conversation.
I don't put a lot of stock in anything the UN does or says. Nor do I think it has the authority to decide what one country can do to another. But this is were NATO supposedly got their authority to terror bomb and back the rebels in their "civil war". (Even though it violates the UN charter) Basically picking and choosing what international laws to follow when it suites your agenda is what the UN is for.
Using the US and NATO's rationale, China or some other country has the authority to bomb the US governmnet and support dissenting groups here. Are you ok with that?


You use words you don't understand the meaning of. You argue extensively for the benefits of socialism. You point repeatedly to Libya as a great example of it. You close by arguing for this as acceptable because the alternative is western based fascism.

Mussolini described fascism as something that "should more properly be called corporatism, for it is the merger of state and corporate power". In the west, the struggle continues between the power of the state and the power of corporations. The fight as separate entities each trying to influence one another. In Libya this was done away with, and corporations powers were nationalized into part of the state's power. You call that socialism, but Mussolini literally wrote the book on fascism and called it that instead.

>> ^messenger:

I'd buy that the US and friends decided to back the rebels in Libya because they saw more financial benefit from it than, per your example, in Uganda. That doesn't mean that the Libyan people would have preferred not to have self-determination. Whatever perks they had under Gaddafi, they had only because Gaddafi himself decided they would, not because the people decided they would. And there's no reason after Gaddafi's gone that they can't still have them. The oil's still there, and it will still flow. If you're upset that this benefits the West, then OK, be upset, but don't conflate Western cynical gain with the new freedom of the Libyan people.
You're going to have to sell me on how having a dictator is better than having even a pseudo-democracy like we have.
Getting a human rights award from the UNHRC is the most cynical award possible. The council is a majority-decision court whose majority is made up of the worst human rights violators on the planet. It is dominated by countries who routinely commit gross human rights abuses against their own people, and have an understanding amongst themselves not to vote against one another, and can all avoid being held accountable.

It's called imperialism. Wall Street-London oligarchs run the world. They use mafia tactics to take and do what they want. And if a country's leader doesn't fall in line, then they are taken out.

Is that what this is, self-determination of the Libyan people? No, it's the determination of NATO using violent ideological extremist groups cultivated over the last 30 years by US and British intelligence in the eastern cities of Darnah and Benghazi.

Nothing about this benefits "the West". It benefits big oil interests, defense contractors, and megabanks.

If you don't understand how socialism is better than fascism, then this is a wasted conversation.

I don't put a lot of stock in anything the UN does or says. Nor do I think it has the authority to decide what one country can do to another. But this is were NATO supposedly got their authority to terror bomb and back the rebels in their "civil war". (Even though it violates the UN charter) Basically picking and choosing what international laws to follow when it suites your agenda is what the UN is for.

Using the US and NATO's rationale, China or some other country has the authority to bomb the US governmnet and support dissenting groups here. Are you ok with that?