Would you vote for Herman Cain?

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

I would vote ABO. It really doesn't matter who the nominee is to me. I will be ABO.

[ugonow]

I think a lot of people felt the same way about McCain/Palin........

[Deleted]

Agree. By then we will have had almost 4 years of Obama. Unless some miracle happens between now and then, how can he win again? It would have to be the anti- R voters, or the race voters..... unless Cain wins, then the race voters will be confused... that would be interesting to watch..
;D

[NoMoreLunacy]

Jun 15, 2011 13:09:25 GMT -5 @financialtexan said:

Jun 15, 2011 12:12:08 GMT -5 NoMoreLunacy said:

Scroll up about half a page.

I still don't see where you've stated that the "Religious Discrimination" Clause is in the actual Constitution.

Go research the 14th Amendment.

[Deleted]

Jun 15, 2011 13:35:51 GMT -5 NoMoreLunacy said:

Jun 15, 2011 13:09:25 GMT -5 @financialtexan said:

I still don't see where you've stated that the "Religious Discrimination" Clause is in the actual Constitution.

Go research the 14th Amendment.

I get why you're saying it's in there although SPECIFICALLY the 14th Amendment says nothing about religion.

Here's a question for you: Why is Religious Discrimination bad while Racial Discrimination (Affirmative Action) good?

[ugonow]

Article VI
All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

[Deleted]

So-- why the smear on Cain?? Here are 3 candidates saying basically the same thing. This is basic common sense, and something ANY president should demand.

[diamonds]

Jun 15, 2011 12:05:55 GMT -5 @krickitt said:

Presidents can APPOINT anyone they wish. Look at the wild gang Obama appointed!! All gone now, for the most part. I would prefer a Cain appointed team any day over an appointed Obama team. We've SEEN what they can do, and many of us don't like it. Cain is a strong businessman, and a businessman knows you are only as good as the people you surround yourself with. LOOK what happened when Obama surrounded himself with radicals. Not good.

You mean like Van Jones, the commie who wasn't even vetted or tax-cheat Tim Gheithner, or Eric Holder who never gives direct answers because he doesn't know. Obama is a 100% Chicago machine man as I was born and raised there. I would vote for anyone that runs against Obama with his "Meaningless Hope and Change!" 14 million Americans out of work now and what happened to the "summer of recovery"? Cash for Clunkers, that's about it!

[wyouser]

At the very least , it would be difficult for anyone to play the "race" card in a Obama v Cain race.....Id still love to see that debate!!

[diamonds]

Jun 15, 2011 15:21:28 GMT -5 @krickitt said:

So-- why the smear on Cain?? Here are 3 candidates saying basically the same thing. This is basic common sense, and something ANY president should demand.

krickitt: Great vdeo...I totally agree...nothing wrong with what Cain said or the others said....k to you!!!!

[ugonow]

www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=309277



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does Cain's test for Muslims fail the Constitution?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: June 10, 2011
1:00 am Eastern

© 2011
This week I received a piece in which the Tea Party Nation's Judson Phillips heaps praise upon Herman Cain as someone who "stands in face of political correctness and says what needs to be said":

On the Glenn Beck show, Herman Cain said he would require proof from Muslims they were loyal to America before they work for the United States government. Here is a transcript of the conversation:
BECK: So wait a minute, are you saying that Muslims have to prove, there has to be a loyalty proof?

CAIN: Yes, to the Constitution of the United States of America.

BECK: Well, would you do that to a Catholic or a Mormon?

CAIN: No, I wouldn't, I wouldn't because there is a greater dangerous part of the Muslim faith than there is in these other religions. I know there are some Muslims who talk about but we're a peaceful religion. …

I'm sure that if anyone asked him Mr. Phillips would emphatically profess to believe that the first duty of the president of the United States (and all other high government officials in the United States) is to abide by the oath or affirmation by which they are bound to support the U.S. Constitution. The paragraph of Article VI that specifies this obligation goes on to make it unequivocally clear, however, that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

Both Judson Phillips and Mr. Cain are right to defy the irrational notion that we should require our police or national security forces to ignore the palpable fact that threats against the United States today are largely being fomented in the Muslim world. How can the defenders of either our domestic peace or our national security maintain the vigilance needed to keep America safe if we stupidly command them to shut their eyes to what is now the salient characteristic of those most determined to attack us?

But is physical safety the only thing that they defend? Is it even the principal or most important thing? The oath of public service the Constitution requires gives paramount importance to supporting its provisions for the organization and exercise of government power. Among those provisions are prohibitions and limitations intended to constrain the exercise of power within boundaries that respect the unalienable rights with which all people are endowed by the Creator. Foremost among them is the right of all individuals to live according to a sense of religious obligation determined by their own conscience, free of coercive prohibition by government power.

Herman Cain is certainly aware that the First Amendment withholds from the U.S. government the power lawfully to prohibit the free exercise of religion. But has he thought at all about the connection between that provision and the one that says that no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification for "any office or public trust under the United States"? Mr. Cain apparently believes that in today's world Americans have good reason to distrust any follower of Islam. But the Constitution explicitly prohibits officials of the U.S. government from applying religion as a criterion for public trust, whatever their individual inclinations. This means that whatever his personal predilections, as president of the United States Mr. Cain (and anyone else elected to that office) would be required to set aside his personal views. He could not as a matter of public policy take the position that an office or public trust under the U.S. government (including a seat on the Supreme Court) would be withheld from someone of the Muslim or any other religion until they dispelled to his satisfaction some prejudice (however justified it seems to him, to me or to anyone else) as to their loyalty.

Does this mean that we must simply ignore the fact that adherence to Islam is chief among the characteristics of those who pose a threat to U.S. security in today's world? It doesn't. It does require, however, that U.S. government officials take account of that fact by ways and means that do not treat adherence to Islam as prima facie evidence of disloyalty. Instead, each individual should have to submit to a thorough background investigation. Any questions about their loyalty should be based on the facts that investigation develops as to their words and actions as individuals.

(Column continues below)





But Alan, you say, that's what's supposed to happen already, isn't it? Don't existing laws make provision for such background checks? I think that by and large they do. You see, this isn't the first time America has faced grave threats to its security. It's not the first time people have been tempted to resort to shorthand group prejudgment as a substitute for carefully developing and evaluating the facts about each individual's words and actions. Political correctness isn't the only motive for regretting the ill treatment of Japanese Americans during the World War II era. But what decent American sensibility may demand in general, the U.S. Constitution explicitly demands when it comes to religion. We must judge people as individuals, not as groups or denominations.

Perhaps because I am a Roman Catholic, I am sure that the issue this constitutional provision addresses is not merely an abstraction. There are some people in America today who believe that by itself the fact of my religious denomination proves that I cannot be loyal to the United States. I thank God there are so many decent people whose common sense leads them to do as a matter of course what the Constitution declares to be the Supreme Law of the Land when it comes to using the U.S. government's power.

As a matter of fact, however, the Constitution may not govern what people do with their secret ballot. I believe in letting conscience be my guide. To be sure it is a conscience formed and informed by my religious faith. Thanks to God's providence, in the voting booth no human law can interfere with the free exercise of religion. As it turns out, the instruction of my Christian faith agrees with the U.S. Constitution. My judgment of others should not be based on their denomination or any other prejudicial label. As I am called a follower of Christ, I follow His direction. He said "by their fruits ye shall know them." Judging others by their fruits, in light of God's justice, it is possible to apply the common sense derived from the combination of good faith and experience. Is it simply a coincidence that this is just what the Constitution also requires of a U.S. president?"

[ugonow]

www.theblaze.com/stories/herman-cain-vows-he-wont-appoint-muslims-if-he-becomes-president/ Surprised The Blaze took such liberties with his statement.

[NoMoreLunacy]

Jun 15, 2011 16:06:01 GMT -5 diamonds said:

Jun 15, 2011 12:05:55 GMT -5 @krickitt said:

Presidents can APPOINT anyone they wish. Look at the wild gang Obama appointed!! All gone now, for the most part. I would prefer a Cain appointed team any day over an appointed Obama team. We've SEEN what they can do, and many of us don't like it. Cain is a strong businessman, and a businessman knows you are only as good as the people you surround yourself with. LOOK what happened when Obama surrounded himself with radicals. Not good.

You mean like Van Jones, the commie who wasn't even vetted or tax-cheat Tim Gheithner, or Eric Holder who never gives direct answers because he doesn't know. Obama is a 100% Chicago machine man as I was born and raised there. I would vote for anyone that runs against Obama with his "Meaningless Hope and Change!" 14 million Americans out of work now and what happened to the "summer of recovery"? Cash for Clunkers, that's about it!

Let's bust the govt unions. That will create more jobs.

[NoMoreLunacy]

Jun 15, 2011 13:56:25 GMT -5 @financialtexan said:

Jun 15, 2011 13:35:51 GMT -5 NoMoreLunacy said:

Go research the 14th Amendment.

I get why you're saying it's in there although SPECIFICALLY the 14th Amendment says nothing about religion.

Here's a question for you: Why is Religious Discrimination bad while Racial Discrimination (Affirmative Action) good?

I am no fan of Affirmative Action. I think there should be a different type of Affirmative Action, one where the poor regardless of skin color gets the same benefits as today's AA recipients.

[NoMoreLunacy]

Jun 15, 2011 15:21:28 GMT -5 @krickitt said:

So-- why the smear on Cain?? Here are 3 candidates saying basically the same thing. This is basic common sense, and something ANY president should demand.

Any President should demand that the US constitution should be trashed?

[privateinvestor]

Herman Cain is a joke and has about as much chance of becoming our next president as NoMoreLunacy does IMHO

The guy made a few bucks making a lot of pizzas for @ 30 years and he wants to be a president of the USA....yea right..
Romney, leader of the GOP pack
Regarding the GOP contest to challenge Obama in November 2012, Romney leads the Republican pack — and by a sizable margin.

In a 10-candidate trial heat, Romney gets support from 30 percent of GOP primary voters. He’s followed by Palin at 14 percent, ex-pizza chain head Herman Cain at 12 percent, Perry at 8 percent, Paul at 7 percent and Gingrich at 6 percent. Next come Pawlenty and Santorum at 4 percent, Bachmann at 3 percent and Huntsman at 1 percent.




www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43415910/ns/politics-white_house/t/poll-less-half-gop-primary-voters-satisfied-field/

[billisonboard]

Jun 15, 2011 11:59:47 GMT -5 @financialtexan said:

Jun 14, 2011 19:49:09 GMT -5 cme1201 said:

Where does the constitution specifically forbid religious discrimination?

I was wondering the same thing.

Then let me post this again:

Jun 15, 2011 0:34:57 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jun 14, 2011 19:49:09 GMT -5 cme1201 said:

Where does the constitution specifically forbid religious discrimination?

Article. VI.
...
...; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

Any other questions?

[Deleted]

caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2011/06/25/iowa-poll-romney-bachmann-in-lead-cain-third-others-find-little-traction/

Romney/Bachmann tied, Cain, of little name recognition, in 3rd place. That says a lot at this stage of "the game."

[Deleted]

This message has been deleted.

stupid board...

[Deleted]

dailycaller.com/2011/06/26/cbs-ignores-herman-cain%E2%80%99s-performance-in-iowa-poll/

CBS ignores Herman Cain’s performance in Iowa poll
Published: 11:17 AM 06/26/2011 | Updated: 11:46 AM 06/26/2011

CBS omitted Herman Cain’s performance in a new Iowa poll of GOP presidential contenders despite his third place finish.

On Sunday’s “Face the Nation,” moderator Bob Schieffer correctly said former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Minnesota Rep. Michelle Bachmann finished first and second in the poll. But then he passed over Cain, incorrectly saying Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich polled next after the two front-runners. (Herman Cain bashes Mitt Romney for playing ‘political games’ with Daily Caller/ATR/YouTube debate)

Here’s the transcript of Schieffer discussing the poll with Bachmann, a guest on his show.

“Iowans awoke to the news this morning that you and Mitt Romney are the big favorites among Iowa caucus goers. Iowa, of course, is the first contest for the Republican nomination. The polls shows that Romney has 23 percent, you have 22 percent, with a margin of error of plus or minus 5 percent. That means the two of you are statistically tied. Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul are next with 7 percent. Here’s the big surprise, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who has put in a lot of time and effort out there is behind even Gingrich.”

Actually, next in the poll was Herman Cain at 10 percent. Cain, who has never held elective office before, is the former CEO of Godfather’s Pizza.

Here are the Des Moines Register poll results — its first of the election season:

Mitt Romney: 23 percent
Michele Bachmann: 22 percent.
Herman Cain: 10 percent.
Newt Gingrich: 7 percent
Ron Paul: 7 percent
Tim Pawlenty: 6 percent
Rick Santorum: 4 percent
Jon Huntsman: 2 percent

***** News loves to ignore Herman*****

[privateinvestor]

Former Godfather’s CEO Herman Cain, who has never held public office but has found a following among tea party supporters, comes in third, with 10 percent at the Iowa polls. But not sure this means very much except he did better than Gingrich & Pawlenty

[Deleted]

Well, it does mean people are sick of lying politicians..........