http://videosift.com/video/Herman-Cains-9-9-9-plan-Occupy-Wall-Street

@~1:15 "If you take a look at a wealthy person, ALL of the money that is earned... is ultimately going to be spent."

This trickles down how? Be either spending/investing in consumer goods or publicly traded ventures/securities? That's such a weak correlation and yet he makes it sound like it's a foregone conclusion. What about overseas tax shelters and foreign investments? What about the knee-jerk reaction of Wall Street investors to see stock and hold onto cash when the market dips? He does not provide a complete explanation.

. . .


@~2:30 "That money is used to grow the economy, to produce goods, to provide services, to create jobs... they're not using it to benefit themselves, they're using it to benefit society."

Sarcasm -> So when rich people buy things, they aren't doing enjoying it. That's why we say "money can't buy happiness." When they buy that 12th sports car, they're taking on that hardship for their country. Weep. <- end sarcasm. The rest of us need to buy stuff too, and as wages for the middle and lower income majority stagnate or worse, the top tier has enjoyed a boom.
. . .

@~4:10 "Any money that is diverted from savings [read as equities and bond investments in the domestic market] to government is money that would have been used to produce private sector jobs and grow the economy and instead the money goes to the government."

He states that liberals miss the bigger picture when they argue that the top should pay more taxes. He goes on here to describe the government is a black hole, where all taxes are simply wasted. What about social security, medicare and the damn debt? Honestly, it astounds me that he doesn't make the connection between the generally accepted idea that the debt needs to be paid but instead of taxing from more from the most successful individuals, he seems to side with the Republican fiscal policy of accomplishing this through budget cuts alone. This is a contributing factor to global perception America's quality of life: it doesn't even make the top 10 anymore in the Nation Ranking Quality of Life Index.

. . .

@~10:30 "The protesters [OWS] should be protesting the White House. Capital Hill... That's what's failed them. It's not Captialism, but the lack of Capitalism."

So the government is too big, and we need to cut spending and stop over regulating so Capitalism can frolic freely in the forest. Sounds so me like hasty Obama blaming. I think the mortgage-backed securities practices and resulting global crisis are a perfect example of unfettered Capitalism at work. Republicans can't have it both ways, no matter how matter-of-fact you say it. This fallacy is a major sticking point for me and a major contributor to my personal ideological opposition to the Republican viewpoint. All allegations of racism aside, ignoring the shocking gun toting and violent rhetoric of hard-line Tea Party demonstrators, saving all the ridiculous comments made by the GOP candidates recently, I just see the party trying to hide their allegiance to corporations. They do this by forming ludicrous allusions to "the State-run death camps" and distracting people from the real issue of wealth disparity by talking about inflammatory topics like "Don't Ask Don't Tell."

I don't even blindly follow the Democratic dogma. They can't come out of this squeaky clean either. I'd wager they're just about as pampered and subsequently influenced by lobbyists as their Republican counterparts, although they seem to maintain their "just and true, pro-underdog" image to a large extent. I hope OWS results in the end of this corporate crony-ism.

^He didn't say Conservatives are better. I think it tends to be a foregone conclusion that Neocons are the bottom of the barrel.

Well, I completely disagree with you. I don't know how you twist your logic to arrive at "Nobody has ever won a fight against someone who wasn't defenseless."
Were Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan defenseless in World War 2?

"Defenseless" implies not having remotely enough defenses. "Defenseless" implies the outcome is a foregone conclusion.

Here's a good dictionary definition, from WordNet "defenselessness - the property of being helpless in the face of attack" and from wictionary "Lacking any form of defense".

So don't patronize me to "consider the meaning of the words more closely". You're completely wrong, ok? It doesn't mean "not having enough defense". It means a fundamental lack of defense.

And I didn't say that someone's response to a leg sweep determines the attacker's morality. Their capacity to respond has a bearing on the morality, and I stand by that. Bullying the weak and infirm is less moral than bullying the strong.

Yeah, I thought it was a foregone conclusion animals experienced emotions. Part of the master/animal relationship is based on fear and reward. But, certainly, just because you experience emotions doesn't mean you have a grasp of reason, and certainly I wouldn't confuse instinctual intuition with reason.

I've heard from many animal lovers that dogs or cats are just as smart as us if not smarter. If this were so, my cat would've packed his Meow Mix and set off on his own years ago. He would've learned to build a complex structure for him to live. Et cetera. Et Cetera.

I do love animals. They are sweet, empathetic, wonderful creatures, and also none too bright.

Of all the contrived "Shoot-out" style features that Top Gear and Fifth Gear stage, this has got to be the lamest with the absolute most foregone conclusion. Yawn, but still an upvote.

Begging the question is when you include your argument as a foregone conclusion within a question, thus forcing your opponent to agree with you if he or she answers the question.

Example: Why do liberals hate America.

No problem, I was looking through my bookmarked posts and saw that neither of those had made it through yet, so it was pretty much a foregone conclusion.

In reply to this comment by RedSky:
Thanks for the promotes man

^ I didn't realize the election in Canada was a foregone conclusion.

Because the "most skilled" could mean many different things. If you knew who the most skilled was before a contest began, and that was the only way to judge merit, then why compete? Hand the medal to the most skilled (mathematically and scientifically verified of course) and then move on to the next award ceremony. Dealing with chance, and changing circumstances is something that cannot be predicted and measured. To suggest a 'lesser skilled' competitor has no chance of winning ignores all evidence to the contrary.

As far as why would I bother supporting a 'lesser skilled' competitor, well, honestly, I don't mind losing. The one who wants it the most and works the hardest for it, the one who does not quit despite the odds or what those who live and die by them say, the one who continues, perseveres, and finishes regardless of his place is the one that deserves my admiration.

The one who had been told he was going to win, knew he was going to win, and felt there was no chance of losing has risked nothing, and thereby gained very very little with his accomplishment.

That is why I would root for the underdog, or less skilled, in a test of skill. I don't cheer the sun when it rises every day because it is a foregone conclusion and therefore, it is an event of little (though not empty of) excitement.

Now if a guy were to say that through force of will he could keep the sun from rising for a few seconds. Well, despite my better judgment, I'd have to root for him just a little.

I would hope that explains my point of view. And I would hope you'd be less likely to label those who's experience differs from yours as 'insane' in the future. But again, to each his own.

In reply to this comment by gorillaman:
I don't know why you would want a test of skill to be won by anyone but the most skilled. Insanity, presumably.

In reply to this comment by Lolthien:
To only support the most 'competent' contender is to only root for the favored athlete in any competition.

And that my friend, is decidedly un-American ;-)

Rooting for the underdog, ESPECIALLY from your own country, is a well practiced tradition than pays off so much more rarely than pulling for the dominant player, but when it pays off, it pays off big.

Talent gets you to the Olympics, but in a close race, heart wins it everytime.

Dude, the "left" does NOT EXIST.

I wish that were the case.

you CANNOT group people into two halves.

You mean, like, the "haves" and "have-nots"?

Every time you say "the left" or "liberal" you sound like a fucking twat. Nobody knows what you mean by "left". Apparently to you it means "wrong", as in the opposite of "right". LOL.

Now now, no need to be profane or anti-fane. YOU may not know what a leftist is but a great many people do know what is meant by 'the left', leftist, socialist, etc. Obviously the term differs slightly from country to country. Both major parties in Britain are socialist; one is more conservative than the other.

The paradigm to replace "right" and "left" is "statist" versus "small-l" libertarian. It's not quite there yet, and in the meantime, "onservatism versus liberalism", or "right vs. left" will do.

I ask you this... where do you classify me? I like small government and nationalised healthcare. Yes you can have both. It doesn't

take much governmental apparatus to collect money and give it to hospitals.

You can have "both", but only for a very limited time, then it's over, and government balloons exponentially. Happens every single time it's been tried.

So am i "right" or "left"?

I don't believe gay marriage is the same as heterosexual marriage. I think abortion should be allowed, but restricted. I think

governments waste huge amounts of money. I think we need a government. I hate evil corporations. I agree with the principle of

property ownership. I love guns but I think they should be banned or at least restricted much more than they are in the USA. I served

in the RAF but I am a pacifist. But I would fight for my family. I opposed the war in Iraq for economic, constitutional and

humanitarian reasons. I hate the BBC, FOX, MOVEON, DISNEY, MTV, TYT, CONSERVAPEDIA, THE NATION, and i find DEMOCRACY

NOW intensely boring and annoying. I am agnostic about god.

SO fucking figure that out. Am I on the right? Or the left?

My interpretation? Generally speaking, I'd say you're left-leaning on most issues. You have an unexamined hostility towards capitalism and corporations, and while you're aware that government is wasteful and corrupt, you'd rather they wield the difference of power rather than 'the people'. You despise the major brands of media influence yet, like all artists, are frustrated because whether you support or oppose The Machine, you're still orbiting its imaginary center.

A pacifist is defined as "a person who believes in pacifism or is opposed to war or to violence of any kind." That being the case, you're employing a paradox by stating you'd wound or kill to defend your family. In other words, idealism ends when enemies present viable threats. What I find amusing is, if some wacko outside your window yelled, "I have a gun and I'm going to shoot you!" you wouldn't hesitate to grab your own gun, whether the wacko "proved" he actually had a gun or not. That's not paranoia, it's common sense. But when a wacko like Saddam announces he's got a gun, and he's proven in the past he'll use it indiscriminately, and all your neighbors also believe he will use the gun, the anti-war left would rather you just ignore the situation. WTF.

I think you have a young, unexamined yet comfortable worldview, and though you claim to chortle at "2 opposing sides" you tend to view things in black and white. Iraq good, USA bad. UN good, USA bad. War is always wrong. Torture is always wrong. Corporations are always evil. Those seeking "social justice" are always good and working for the best interest of all and NEVER for self-gain.

And as for your declaration that "inevitable genocide" is "unacceptable"... wow.

To leave Iraq before it's stabilized delivers it unto chaos. The left (statists) have made it clear they don't give a shit about any resulting genocide. Like spoiled children, they want what they want and that's that, don't care about anything else.

Based on your worldview, were I you I'd reach the exact same conclusions about the Iraq war that you have. The difference then, is that I'm taking into account all possible outcomes, not just the ones I'd like to see happen. Had we not taken out Saddam, he'd probably have died at a ripe old age and his thug sons would've taken over and Iraq would still be a backwards hellhole.

Think of it like this dude, although maybe you can twist words into comebacks, maybe you're not actually making a point, you're just "debating"... the way you have been trained to debate, i.e. with 2 sided arguments.

You and many others on the sift want 'wiggle room' for those times uncomfortable facts and logic make themselves known, and this wiggle room is usually provided by suggesting that "no labels apply" or that their unique views exist outside of categorization.
Liberalism is a starting point, not the finish line.

It's kinda like you live in a dictatorship and you have been brainwashed to think like that.

Once your eyes are opened and knowledge and experience received, you can't go back to being a leftist, because you won't be able to 'unsee' the inherent flaws in what amounts to an unworkable and unjust system even less fair than capitalism.

So you don't like "2-sided arguments"...all right then, have you ever gone beyond your own foregone conclusions and considered Iraq just might benefit in the long run, that the US has given them an opportunity to make their fledgling government work and given their people a real shot at self-determination? It's something the UN has never done for any country.

I'm not upset by opposing points of view, and once again, I never picked up a keyboard to change anyone's mind. We're all working thru the thing.

This man is so intelligent and astute on virtually every single thing he says, he really should have been voted in (let's be honest and assume it's a foregone conclusion)

Coolhund -

I too appreciate your comments. But I would like to ask, how do you know that casualties would go up if the US pulled out of Iraq? I don't think that anyone actually knows the answer to that question.

Here we have someone who has been there for a tour of duty, spent time with the locals, and has come to the exact opposite conclusion. I am assuming that you haven't been there (neither have I).

I think it can be reasonably argued that casualties would go down if the US were to leave. Much of the violence would seem to be directed at the US military and their supporters. The US occupation (it's not a war) serves as a potent recruitment tool for extremist organizations as well as ready targets for attacks.

Ultimately the situation in Iraq will need to be solved by the people of that country. Frankly, I believe that the "solutions" that may be deemed acceptable to the Iraqis may not be compatible with US aims there.

The argument that we must stay or "things will get much worse" serves quite nicely the original intent and purpose of this entire misadventure in my opinion - that is, a permanent US presence in the Middle East, right on top of a big ol' pool of black gold.

Frankly, the presentation of this position (US gone=chaos) as a foregone conclusion, the complete lack of credibility of the current occupant of the oval office and the expediency of this claim to their purposes (I believe) makes this "truth" highly suspect.

I would agree that the cop has the right (perhaps the duty) to check the vehicle out - but to stand there and verbally abuse the guy was completely out of line.

Not to mention the other bogus reasons sited that were clearly disproved by the video. And making up charges? This cop should at the very least lose his job and never find employment in this field again.

Lawsuit should be a foregone conclusion and goes without saying.

Great !

A little link to the well known "Foregone Conclusion" song :
http://www.videosift.com/story.php?id=1182