Thursday, November 10, 2011

Cain INNOCENT?


An Atlanta TV station interviewed an expert in a State of the Art software program which has a 95% accuracy rate (Polygraph is 70% accurate) in predicting from one's voice and other considerations (explained at end of short video above) if someone's lying.
He says Cain is definitely not lying.  Bialek is.  Very interesting video.

I find it a little odd that women accusing him are only those who say something happened during his 3-year stint with the National Restaurant Association........at least that's all I can find.  Maybe he only went off character for 3 years? :-)

What do you think of the video?   Try to put politics and your own agenda about Cain aside...think rationally and honestly.
z

129 comments:

Ducky's here said...

The software can analyze a video accurately? I would expect it needs a live interview.

MK said...

I don't trust the objectivity of the media. Way too many hidden agendas and biases at play for us to be told the truth.

It's sad but i don't think the truth matters anymore, whether he did it or not is irrelevant, he's a black man and he's a conservative, therefore he's guilty until proven innocent and even then, the smears won't end.

Z said...

The video is persuasive, Ducky...watch the whole thing. NO, the software is not the only thing.

MK.....the truth seems not to matter anymore, you're right. It's the leftwing agenda or nothing lately.
But, I think people are catching on to that.

DaBlade said...

Unless that expert is found to be a Cain operative, I find this analysis to vanquish any remaining doubt I might have had. And I really don't think this guy works for Cain. I had to take the traditional lie detector test about 30 years ago during an interview process for becoming a cop. While I passed this round of the process, I didn't get that job (glad I didn't). After the interview, the dude let me try to beat the test using the"pick a card" trick. I couldn't do it. I trust these results.

Z said...

DaBlade, that's excellent background for this. Thanks very much.
Your profession is one of ascertaining truth, too, (amongst the COnservatives, anyway), so that adds to my thanks that you agree with the guy....and Mr. Cain.

Average American said...

I believe it, and I especially believe that it is more accurate than a lie detector test. Those things can give VERY bogus results. There is also software that can identify voices--even disguised voices, almost as conclusively as dna.

Ticker said...

'
The hipocracy of it all is that the LSM expected Cain to remember every detail immediately regardless of how long ago such supposedly occurred. However when the women were asked about the situation they said, they didn't remember all of the details, just a few or some only sketches of what may or may not have happened.

Now tell me , What is wrong with that kind of "reasoning"?

Sneaky Saint Santorum was grinning like a crap eating dog last night when the LSM panel hit Cain with the questions on the alleged inappropriate actions.
That lil turd probably had something to do with it or Tony Perkins and his American Taliban buddies over at AFA who hate Cain.

Lisa said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lisa said...

Whoever is behind this at this point doesn't matter really. What matters is how the media is handling it in comparison to how they attacked Clinton's' accusers. I wouldn't find it so odd that one of the accusers live in the same bldg as Axelrod but the clincher is that the other accuser works in the Obama administration.
Either way if it was up to the left, Black Conservatives would have to drink from separate water fountains.
(I got that idea from Mal)

Leticia said...

I believe Bialek is a liar. First of all, I am convinced that any person who has ever experienced a traumatic event such as a sexual assault or physical assault, can easily recall every single detail with vivid and perfect clarity, right down to smells and the clothes the perp was wearing at the time of the assault.

I don't doubt the validity of the test.

liberaldude said...

Yeah, let's believe a flim-flam man to try to spin this obvious guilt. I he was innocent, whey did he pay $45k to one women? A legal settlement pretty much proves guilt.

If Bialek was lying why didn't she sell this story right from the beginning rather than hiring a lawyer?

He's guilty. He's toast.

Thanks for the story, Mitt. Lol!

Mustang said...

I think it's possible that liberal dude isn't even from this planet. I wonder how he came down on the "I did not have sex with that woman ... Miss Lewinski!"

Never mind; I think I know that answer.

Trixie said...

Liberaldude or anyone reading, anyone can accuse anyone, anytime of anything, but that doesn't make it true. I know a business owner who had 2 employees who were dating (against company policy), and when they broke up, she accused the guy of sexual harassment. To make it "go away" the owner fired the guy and gave the woman $10,000. Doesn't mean the charge was true.

beamish said...

Herman Cain couldn't convince his own legal team at the National Restaurant Association that allegations against him from two different women were bogus, so they paid out settlements.

If Herman Cain's "good character" schtick wasn't enough for his own lawyers, why should I believe him?

Given that Cain is still voluntarily a minister associated with a church heavily involved with Jesse Jackson's left-wing political activism and racial agitation on behalf of the Democratic Party, I'm neither shocked that he's turning out to be a scumbag nor compelled to imagine some Twilight Zone world where he's actually a conservative in need of my defense.

Trixie said...

REMINDER: Try to put politics and your own agenda about Cain aside...think rationally and honestly.

Elmers Brother said...

As I understand it, there weren't settlements paid out. It was severance pay. Big difference.

Chuck said...

I don't usually read Ann Coulter but clicked on her today. She made some interesting points.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=47438

Take a look, it's worth the time.

I had actually cooled on Cain a bit before this broke but this story stinks

DaBlade said...

"A legal settlement pretty much proves guilt."

liberaldude, I'm not sure if you are being serious or this is sarcasm. I remember being incensed at my company for settling with a former employee suing for wrongful discharge. They paid this guy $50k in "go away" money. I was mad because it was me who fired him. I never took pleasure in this, but if you knew me, then you'd know that if I fired someone (after getting an approval from company attorneys first, I might add) they had it coming. I was prepared to go to court, but the company figured it was chaper and easier to settle. The fact that this settlement is only for $45k gives me MORE confidence there was nothing there. Peanuts!

beamish said...

REMINDER: Try to put politics and your own agenda about Cain aside...think rationally and honestly.

I don't know how to think any other way but rationally and honestly.

What we have is a 15+ year record of Washington lobbying, campaigning, and political activism from Cain undercutting the premise that he's an "outsider."

What we have is an associate minister from a church with a leadership that just happens to be a hotbed of Democratic Party left-wing activism with abso-freaking-lutely no reason on the merits to assume he's a conservative trying to sell us the idea that he's a conservative.

What we have is a candidate for President who "doesn't remember" that his ethical failures at the National Restaurant Association was a a liability to them to the tune of nearly $100,000.

What we have is a candidate for President who, when faced with questions about settlements made to pay off people he clearly couldn't convince his legal team he didn't sexually harass, immediately tries to blame Rick Perry instead of, say, his own filthy hands.

It's just another one of those stark differences between actual conservatives and Tea Party zombies.

beamish said...

liberaldude, I'm not sure if you are being serious or this is sarcasm. I remember being incensed at my company for settling with a former employee suing for wrongful discharge. They paid this guy $50k in "go away" money. I was mad because it was me who fired him. I never took pleasure in this, but if you knew me, then you'd know that if I fired someone (after getting an approval from company attorneys first, I might add) they had it coming. I was prepared to go to court, but the company figured it was chaper and easier to settle. The fact that this settlement is only for $45k gives me MORE confidence there was nothing there. Peanuts!

Not to get into your "personal failings," DaBlade, because you're not running for President, but was it really "cheaper and easier" for them to settle with the person you fired and implicitly smear your character in doing so? You didn't threaten to sue them to get your good name back? I guarantee your company knows how many "peanuts" you cost them.

That's the problem I have with the "Herman Cain is the victim" premise.

A honest person would have raised hell, and failing that, would have sued the crap out of the company that implied that honest person did wrong by paying out a false accuser.

But we're not talking about an honest person. We're talking about Herman Cain.

Z said...

Beamish, you're beginning to sound unhinged.
I won't go into how many lawsuits like this are paid just to avoid the mess; but don't be naive. it happens every single day.
It's wrong, and it's awful but it happens. and reputations aren't usually ruined because the payoff, small as it might be, buys the silence of the wrongful suer.
It STINKS but it's life.

And trust me, DaBlade nor anybody else here needs input from you on their 'personal failings'...

beamish said...

I don't usually read Ann Coulter but clicked on her today. She made some interesting points.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=47438

Take a look, it's worth the time.


Man, my eyes hurt from rolling them.

So, let me get Coulter's logic straight. The National Restaurant Association is RACIST for paying out sexual harrassment settlements on behalf of Herman Cain's accusers?

beamish said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
beamish said...

Beamish, you're beginning to sound unhinged.

Oh, well let me wave pom-poms for Donald Trump to get back in your good graces then.

I won't go into how many lawsuits like this are paid just to avoid the mess; but don't be naive. it happens every single day.

I'll go into how many lawsuits were paid to avoid the mess on today's single day...

ZERO.

Hyperbole much?

Z said...

beamish, can you quote where Coulter says they're racist for having settled?
What she seems to imply (and I was posting this article tomorrow..) is that it's odd that Cain only abused women during his 3 yr stint with the NRA.
paying settlements is Standard Operating Procedure.

She makes a lot of sense in this article; you can rest your eyeballs now.
Man, your hate for Cain is palpable! RELAX :-)

Craig said...

State of the Art software program which has a 95% accuracy rate

According to the people who sell them.

The National Institute of Corrections has published a research study on voice stress analysis (VSA) conducted by the Oklahoma Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services with support from the National Institute of Justice. From the abstract (emphasis added):

…The goal of this study was to test the validity and reliability of two popular VSA programs (LVA [Layered Voice Analysis] and CVSA [Computer Voice Stress Analyzer]) in a “real world” setting. Questions about recent drug use were asked of a random sample of arrestees in a county jail. Their responses and the VSA output were compared to a subsequent urinalysis to determine if the VSA programs could detect deception. Both VSA programs show poor validity – neither program efficiently determined who was being deceptive about recent drug use. The programs were not able to detect deception at a rate any better than chance….


Study

FairWitness said...

Z, this whole thing is an outrageous lie and concoction from President Obama. It's right out of his political modus operandi, implemented by David Axelrod. This broad lived in Axelroad's Chicago building with him, for heaven's sake. He and the President have been pulling these gutter smears since Barack Obama started running for office. THERE IS NO TRUTH IN ANY OF THIS!

They want to use the racist charge against anyone who doesn't vote to reelect Obama and if Herman Cain is the Republican nominee OR VICE PRESIDENT pick, that tactic is dead. So they're trying to destroy an excellent, self-made, honorable man. They have no honor, no decency, no shame! I hope Republicans don't fall for this.

Z said...

no problem about good graces, trust me. I can't STAND Donald Trump and I'd still vote for him yesterday against Obama if I could, by the way.

And, you can use hyperbole to find me 'wrong', sure....sorry, went too far! Maybe every week, okay?

believe what you want.

Z said...

Craig, that's information from 2007....
This guy stakes his reputation on what they're doing now, but I'm sure you'll find a later article!
Happy digging!

beamish said...

beamish, can you quote where Coulter says they're racist for having settled?

"This time, Obama's little helpers have not only thrown a bomb into the Republican primary, but are hoping to destroy the man who deprives the Democrats of their only argument in 2012: If you oppose Obama, you must be a racist."

It's very clear to me Coulter finds Cain's skin color convenient. It's as if she accepts and embraces the premise that opposition to Obama can only be racial in nature and that Cain is the prescribed cure for such notions and without him she'll be back to being a "racist."

Never mind that Cain isn't a conservative by any stretch of even the most lucid of imaginations, she's implying Cain to be the token negro anti-Obama antidote. Any black person would do, but she's stuck with Cain.

What she seems to imply (and I was posting this article tomorrow..) is that it's odd that Cain only abused women during his 3 yr stint with the NRA.

No, we only have Cain's personnel records from those 3 - 4 years. We don't have personnel records from any of Cain's other employers.

Another way of saying this is "100% of the records AVAILABLE show Cain is a serial sexual harrasser."

Jan said...

Beamish:

I'm surprised that you don't believe that many lawsuits are settled for no other reason than that it will cost less in the long run, than something long and drawn out over time.

Many in the medical field are, and I know in my husband's business, they are, too.

I see no reason why ones involving false accusations wouldn't be, either.

I don't feel that Cain's accuser is beyond reproach, in any sense of the word.

In my own research of her, I've found several legal judgements against her, including liens, the IRS, and at least one Chapter 7 bankruptcy.

It's hard not to believe that she has an ulterior motive in her claim against him.

I don't even believe that any of the other Republican candidates brought this to light, either.

In my opinion, it's just another underhanded move, orchestrated entirely by those determined to see that the present administration stays in.

Heaven help us all, if it does.

Z said...

FW, they'll probably win, though.
Remember all the Black Hillary supporters from Chicago who worked TX precincts during the primary? I had it on my blog...
They were, along with Gloria Allred and some white Chicago Hillary workers, saying that old people had been told to go home if they weren't voting for Obama and they went home...
There was story after story of voter intimidation and Allred was furious and..then it "went away"...poof!
the libs won again!

Hell, there are people who STILL think two huge Black guys with camouflage on, holding night sticks, and giving everybody the silent treatment, weren't INTIMIDATING VOTERS :-)
And HOlder let them off the hook! You can't have invented this 20 years ago in AMerica....

FairWitness said...

True enough, Z. But Democrats aren't running the Republican Party or Conservatives. They can't force us to sweep this crap under the rug. They may have been able to pull that off with their own party, but they aren't in charge of ours.

Z said...

beamish, seems that you read a different article because you sure come up with some bizarre conclusions for Coulter! but GOOD FOR YOU :-)
OH!< and you think that if he'd harassed anybody else in the other 40 years of working, that would have stayed silent NOW or EVER? REALLY?

Jan, that's astonishing...I'm curious, too, that a woman with such financial problems can live in a building Axelrod lives in$$$

Z said...

FW, they can't, no, but they can sure misinform the American public which isn't as into looking into both sides of most issues as the rest of us are.
I hope I'm wrong!!

beamish said...

no problem about good graces, trust me. I can't STAND Donald Trump and I'd still vote for him yesterday against Obama if I could, by the way.

I'll be voting for the most conservative candidate at the end of the trail. I hope that isn't Obama.

And, you can use hyperbole to find me 'wrong', sure....sorry, went too far! Maybe every week, okay?

My point is that no, companies don't generally pay money to silence false accusers every day, every week, or whatever. They'd all go broke in no time.

believe what you want.

Stay sane.

Chuck said...

Actually there have been more former Cain employees (including his longtime secretary) who have come out and said he was not like this than there are accusers.

I suppose that is irrelevant? We only believe the gold diggers I guess.

Why haven't more women come out of the woodwork yet? Not one single woman from his other years in the work place? This isn't incredible?

As to settling lawsuits to get out of a legal hassle, this is a long honored tradition in the legal profession.

I read years ago that Jesse Jackson had a cottage industry going in which they would sue companies for "racial discrimination" knowing that the company would settle out of court to avoid the bad publicity.

Beamish, you are either so angry at Cain that you are not seeing that this practice goes on or you are incredibly naive.

beamish said...

Jan,

I'm surprised that you don't believe that many lawsuits are settled for no other reason than that it will cost less in the long run, than something long and drawn out over time.

I'm surprised that you believe the multi-million dollar National Restaurant Association pays people not to take Herman Cain's alleged ethical lapses to court, no doubt fearing the legal heat that could be brought by someone making less than $40,000 a year.

Somewhere on the chart between moron and imbecile, there's a Tea Party brewing.

I'm sorry. To believe this is a left-wing conspiracy bringing Herman Cain down, instead of say, his guilt, is really digging your nails into the debris of his sinking ship.

beamish said...

beamish, seems that you read a different article because you sure come up with some bizarre conclusions for Coulter! but GOOD FOR YOU :-)

Reading comprehension is your friend. Coulter's defense of Cain amounts to "Obama's picking on our Uncle Tom."

Sickeningly insightful into Coulter's mind, actually.

OH!< and you think that if he'd harassed anybody else in the other 40 years of working, that would have stayed silent NOW or EVER? REALLY?

The night is young.

You have faith in Herman Cain. I'll stick to conservatives.

Jan said...

"I'm surprised that you believe the multi-million dollar National Restaurant Association pays people not to take Herman Cain's alleged ethical lapses to court, no doubt fearing the legal heat that could be brought by someone making less than $40,000 a year."

Well, yeah, Beamish...knowing that most people filing lawsuits like that have attorneys who do it on contingency, and get a whopping piece of the pie. Pun intended. :)

"Somewhere on the chart between moron and imbecile, there's a Tea Party brewing."

I'm sorry...maybe, I'm just not smart, but that went right over my head.

"I'm sorry. To believe this is a left-wing conspiracy bringing Herman Cain down, instead of say, his guilt, is really digging your nails into the debris of his sinking ship."

Well, Beamish, that's not what I'm doing. I, honestly, believe what I believe, and I don't think that woman is telling the truth.

And besides, I wouldn't say that his ship is sinking.

It ain't over, 'til it's over...or the fat lady sings.

We'll just have to wait and see who the fat lady might be.

beamish said...

Beamish, you are either so angry at Cain that you are not seeing that this practice goes on or you are incredibly naive.

I don't buy that Herman Cain as associate minister of a church that happens to be one of the most extremely politically active hotbeds of left-wing shilling for the Democratic Party is a conservative.

I don't buy that Herman Cain as Washington lobbyist, campaigner, and candidate (once for Senator, twice for President) for over 15 years is a "political outsider."

I don't buy that the legal department at the National Restaurant Association looked at the case forming against Herman Cain from multiple accusers and said "They've got nothing. Let's pay them."

Your mileage may vary.

Mustang said...

Coulter nails it.

Left to the state-run media, we wouldn't know any of this. Coulter deserves a medal ...

beamish said...

And besides, I wouldn't say that his ship is sinking.

As long as the debris remains afloat...

beamish said...

Mustang,

Coulter nailed what? That the only publicly available personnel records from Herman Cain's career show he's a serial sexual harassment liability?

net observer said...

beamish, what is the leftist church Cain attends?

Impertinent said...

"I won't go into how many lawsuits like this are paid just to avoid the mess..."


And we all have to ask...where is NOW? The scumbag , low life "woman's representative" against all things feminine?

Well...apparently...if it's a conservative accused....the woman and the accusee.....can go to hell.

And be ignored. Rape.....molestation. assault, and bothersome behavior....is forgiven for the libbie....cause.

beamish said...

beamish, what is the leftist church Cain attends?

That would be the Antioch Baptist Church North in Atlanta, Georgia, a black mega-church congregration affiliated with Jesse Jackson's Rainbow PUSH Coalition and one of the most favored campaign stops of national Democrat candidates every election. Where the pastor claims Malcolm X as an influence.

Quid pro quo... what's "conservative" about Herman Cain?

Z said...

net, Ticker knows this church extremely personally, please don't believe only what you'd like to believe. thanks

See Ticker's comments above.

beamish said...

"Sneaky Saint Santorum was grinning like a crap eating dog last night when the LSM panel hit Cain with the questions on the alleged inappropriate actions.
That lil turd probably had something to do with it or Tony Perkins and his American Taliban buddies over at AFA who hate Cain."
- Ticker, on how Senator Santorum's smile proves the moon landings were faked.

Z said...

I don't Twitter or do Facebook...but I find it fascinating that Gingrich is "trending" #1 right now.
fingers crossed here...

beamish said...

Attagirl ;)

FrogBurger said...

I have the gut feeling this'll go away in 2 weeks.

This whole story is actually convenient for Obama b/c it makes us forget his connection with OWS.

beamish said...

I have the gut feeling this'll go away in 2 weeks.

I'd give it a month. Forgetting that you're a documented corporate sexual harassment suit liability until it blows up in your face isn't quite like pledging to go to Washington and shut down the Department of Oops, I forgot.

Who's going to drop out first? Cain or Perry?

net observer said...

"quid pro quo?"

beam, my question was nothing more than curiosity. I really wanted to know which church you were talking about. Thanks for the answer.

As far as what is or isn't conservative about Herman Cain, to be honest, I couldn't care less. But he certainly claims conservatism as his political philosophy. And he typically sounds like one, most of the time.

But I'm intrigued by your apparent irritation over Cain's church affiliation. I'm curious again. What if his church was 50/50, Dem/GOP? Would that be okay?

And for what it's worth, I think Malcolm X's redemptive story, self-corrective instincts and ultimate courage make for an excellent role model.

beamish said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
beamish said...

As far as what is or isn't conservative about Herman Cain, to be honest, I couldn't care less. But he certainly claims conservatism as his political philosophy. And he typically sounds like one, most of the time.

As a conservative (fusionist), I do happen to care when someone claims to be a conservative when they most certainly and emphatically are not conservatives.

It's gotten so farcical that the extreme left-wing Tea Party 'movement's' top two candidates, Cain and Perry, are documentable advocates of the TARP bailouts, the alleged impetus of Tea Party protests to begin with!

I suppose it's easy to surrender your first principle if you f'in didn't have any to begin with.

I'm sick of the Tea Party 'movement' being labeled as "conservative." Conservatives don't deserve to be smeared like that.

But I'm intrigued by your apparent irritation over Cain's church affiliation. I'm curious again. What if his church was 50/50, Dem/GOP? Would that be okay?

You've missed my point. Herman Cain is an associate minister at this church. He's not just some dude that takes a pew. He's in the leadership hierarchy of this church that has devoted itself to Democratic Party / Rainbow PUSH coalition activism for decades.

And for what it's worth, I think Malcolm X's redemptive story, self-corrective instincts and ultimate courage make for an excellent role model.

As long as you're not one of the people the thug Malcolm X robbed, beat, raped, pimped out or had killed along the way, he's a regular Horatio Alger figure LOL!

beakerkin said...

Z

I am not a fan of lie detector tests
and I am somewhat hesitant with the technology that is not proven.

1) Harassment lawsuits are a mess and basically like most legal processes it is subject to whims and the quirks of those uphloding the system.

2) I have witnessed people making false allegations against others conveniently timed when promotions
are being made. What is amazing is that those who do this are always mediocre to begin with.

3) What constitutes harassment is unclear? I am not limiting this to sexual harassment here. If Herman Cain had a picture of Abe Lincoln on his desk as a federal employee this violates a certain law as well.

I believe Cain is being truthful.

Thersites said...

As a conservative (fusionist)...

Bwah-ha-ha-ha. Fusionist. That's funny. What are you fusing, beamish?

Thersites said...

I suppose it's easy to surrender your first principle if you f'in didn't have any to begin with.

And your 1st principle is... ???

Thersites said...

...elect Mitt Romney.

"It's his turn in 2012, and Jon Huntsman's in 2016"

Thersites said...

The beamish 1st principle of "conservative fusionism" - If you lose the Republican nomination this time around by the largest margin, it's your turn to win it next time around.

Thersites said...

Well beamish, that certainly does explain all of the RNC's mediocre candidates since 1988.

Speedy G said...

The conservative fusionist motto: "Extremism in the pursuit of mediocrity is no vice."

It almost sounds Goldwaterish...

Mark said...

Also...All the allegations against him are coming out of Chicago. Cain has worked several places, but never in Chicago. But, David Axelrod, Rahm Emmanuel, Barack Hussein Obama...

Reach your own conclusions.

Speedy G said...

Chicago indeed...

beamish said...

Bwah-ha-ha-ha. Fusionist. That's funny. What are you fusing, beamish?

I'm not surprised that a left-wing Naderite Teabagger such as yourself has never heard of fusionism, FJ.

Joe said...

Mustang: "I wonder how he came down on the "I did not have sex with that woman ... Miss Lewinski!"

It doesn't matter how he came down on that event.

BJ Clinton was the first all-white black president, and a Democrat, therefore, it only matters what he said, not what he did.

Herman Cain is a Black liberal, therefore if a white woman accuses him of anything, he is guilty by accusation...fact or not.

I find the women without credibility, lie detector or not.

The real question is, "Who put them up to this? Was it a liberal or someone from Perry's or Romney's campaign?"

beamish said...

The beamish 1st principle of "conservative fusionism" - If you lose the Republican nomination this time around by the largest margin, it's your turn to win it next time around.

If that were the case, Orrin Hatch would have been the 2008 GOP candidate and we'd be looking at Ron Paul as the 2012 candidate.

Get some coffee, FJ. I'll wait.

Speedy G said...

Fusionism is an American political term for the combination or "fusion" of traditional conservatives with some libertarians and some social conservatives, forming the American conservative movement.

...

I'm sick of the Tea Party 'movement' being labeled as "conservative." Conservatives don't deserve to be smeared like that.

Okay, so what part of the "fusionism" aspects of conservativism do YOU claim to be practicing with all you repeated statements intended to alienate libertarians like Ron Paul and the social conservatives in the Tea Party? Jes' wondrin' what "dimension of reality" that you keep phase-shifting in an out of.

Speedy G said...

*foot tapping...*

beamish said...

And your 1st principle is... ???

Don't mistake turds for candy bars.

Speedy G said...

...and fusionists for isolationist separatists

Paul has campaigned for President of the United States twice before, first during 1988 as the nominee of the Libertarian Party and again during 2008 as a candidate for the Republican nomination.

beamish said...

Okay, so what part of the "fusionism" aspects of conservativism do YOU claim to be practicing with all you repeated statements intended to alienate libertarians like Ron Paul and the social conservatives in the Tea Party? Jes' wondrin' what "dimension of reality" that you keep phase-shifting in an out of.

If Ron Paul's a libertarian, then William Shatner is a Catholic Pope.

Setting aside mistaking neo-Nazis and SAVAK agents for libertarians for a moment, are we talking about the "social conservatives" for considering illegal immigrants to be Texans in calculating their college tuition costs, or the "social conservatives" for Rainbow PUSH affirmative action lawsuits, or the "social conservatives" for milking welfare to turn your home into a foster care mill?

Shouldn't a "conservative movement" contain, you know, conservatives?

Speedy G said...

You mean like Newt?

Bwah-ha-ha-ha.

Speedy G said...

Closed Captioned for the "conservatism impaired"

Speedy G said...

The point is, beamish, that some compromises will be made no matter who the candidate is. That's what "fusionism" is. It's not "my conservative" or nothing. And it's CERTAINLY not, "It's Mitt's turn."

Speedy G said...

Trust Republican primary voters to sort it out. They can AND WILL.

beamish said...

...and it's just a coincidence that that "translation" video embeds in a David Icke playlist.

Reaching really hard to fight the UFO lizard people, ain'tcha FJ?

Vote for Cain, or Jesse Jackson will sue you.

beamish said...

The point is, beamish, that some compromises will be made no matter who the candidate is. That's what "fusionism" is. It's not "my conservative" or nothing. And it's CERTAINLY not, "It's Mitt's turn."

The key to denying Mitt Romney the GOP nomination is to back a conservative.

When is the Tea Party going to do that?

FrogBurger said...

Beamish, are you hanging out with Charlie Sheen these days?

Speedy G said...

Breaking up the election coalition prior to the election isn't a very smart election strategy, beamish. Purism in the pursuit of an ideal candidate is a MAJOR political vice, in a democracy.

beamish said...

Trust Republican primary voters to sort it out. They can AND WILL.

And if / when they choose Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, or Rick Santorum over the Tea Party's favored leftists, will we stop hearing from Teabaggers?

I hope so.

Speedy G said...

Just about every Republican candidate short of some obvious stooges like Huntsman and Romney are "conservative enough" for me.

Speedy G said...

Newt and Rick are fine. With Romney, I stay home.

beamish said...

Breaking up the election coalition prior to the election isn't a very smart election strategy, beamish. Purism in the pursuit of an ideal candidate is a MAJOR political vice, in a democracy.

No worries. I've never been in a coalition with leftists like the Tea Party, so fat chance I'll have a hand in breaking it up.

They're doing a splendid job of that on their own. Cain supporters are calling Perry supporters "racists" and Perry supporters are calling Cain supporters "tokens."

Me, I'm just calling leftists "leftists."

Speedy G said...

...and keep calling them "Teanaggers" and I won't be the ONLY one staying home.

Speedy G said...

lol!

The RNC w/o the Tea Party will be about as viable a political force as the Bull Moose Party in 2012.

beamish said...

Beamish, are you hanging out with Charlie Sheen these days?

Nah. He seems to be a Ron Paul supporter.

beamish said...

...and keep calling them "Teanaggers" and I won't be the ONLY one staying home.

Promise?? :)

Speedy G said...

btw - I don't think that anything short of shooting Romney in his "pocket Book of Mormon" just prior to the convention will rally enough "moose" to pull a century late TR election.

beamish said...

The RNC w/o the Tea Party will be about as viable a political force as the Bull Moose Party in 2012

The Tea Party without the RNC looks like the Ron Paul - Cindy Sheehan orgy tent in Zucotti Park.

Speedy G said...

...as I and millions like me will be home watching re-runs of it on election day....

Speedy G said...

The Tea Party without the RNC looks like the Ron Paul - Cindy Sheehan orgy tent in Zucotti Park.

...and what part of "not staying home watching the boob tube," don't you still get?

FrogBurger said...

Nah. He seems to be a Ron Paul supporter.

You've got humor for sure but I must say you've lost me with your comments. Nothing is making sense anymore to me. That's maybe because I'm not a genius, though.

Speedy G said...

The OWS crowd in Zuchini Park will ALL be voting in November of 2012. It's no coincidence that the WH and Democrats are pandering to them. Only a fool would ignore them... and a BIGGER fool, alienate them further.

Speedy G said...

That's maybe because I'm not a genius, though.
There's a thin line between genius idiocy... and beamish keeps crossing it.

beamish said...

You've got humor for sure but I must say you've lost me with your comments. Nothing is making sense anymore to me. That's maybe because I'm not a genius, though.

Perhaps.

But it doesn't take a genius to figure out an 11th Hour ex-Democrat Republican for Hillarycare (Perry) and a Rainbow PUSH affirmative action gunsel (Cain) aren't conservatives.

beamish said...

...and what part of "not staying home watching the boob tube," don't you still get?

The part about how protesting that Mexicans are stealing your Medicare under mispelled homemade signage for a few hours a month makes one a "conservative."

Speedy G said...

...and alienating them, a "conservative fusionist". lol!

beamish said...

The OWS crowd in Zuchini Park will ALL be voting in November of 2012. It's no coincidence that the WH and Democrats are pandering to them. Only a fool would ignore them... and a BIGGER fool, alienate them further.

Is that why all the leftists - the unions, the neo-Nazis, the Ron Paulites, etc. are camping with them?

beamish said...

...and alienating them, a "conservative fusionist". lol!

Alienate them? I've done little more than inform the drunks that they reek of alcohol.

Maybe in the far left dialectical materialist circles you travel in, FJ, anyone can claim to be anything and poof! they are.

But you'll find that conservatives, once you get to know them, are real sticklers on the meanings of words.

Speedy G said...

You mean like "fusionist"? lol!

beamish said...

Precisely.

So who's the Reagan figure of the Tea Party?

I'm trying to picture a Cain or Perry figure sitting across the table from Gorby at Reykjavik, and it's just not pretty.

The Absolute Marxist said...

Either one of those two looks infinitely better than Romney sitting opposite.

And if you're not seeing a Reagan in the current candidate list, then best look in the mirror for the person to blame for the absence.

beamish said...

Either one of those two looks infinitely better than Romney sitting opposite.

Cain at Reykjavik: "999. Nine. Nine. Nine."

Perry at Reykjavik: "I don't know how long I can hold Texas back from whoopin' your ass."



And if you're not seeing a Reagan in the current candidate list, then best look in the mirror for the person to blame for the absence.

Oh, I fully intend to write my own name in if Romney gets the GOP nomination.

The Absolute Marxist said...

Vote for me...because ALL of the American people DESERVE RomneyCare.

beakerkin said...

I share some of Mr. B's frustration with the Tea Party, just from another angle.

You won't find Reagan in a Tea Party because he really was a company man.The Tea Party at times is divisive and leads to some less than stellar candidates. Reagan valued unity even when the candidates were less than perfect.

I am somewhat displeased with the Ron Paul wing of the Tea Party. That being said his supporters are not as numerous at events as his cultists present.

Our problem is that while Reagan included people many of us are pushing people out. Now some have stated that I am doing this by tossing the Paul cultists under the bus. I do not want his band of bigots in my party. There are floor minimum standards in the GOP and Paul doesn't make the cut

I will support any GOP candidate against Obama not named Ron Paul

Z said...

Marxist, you said "And if you're not seeing a Reagan in the current candidate list, then best look in the mirror for the person to blame for the absence."

Ridiculous...I see your point and I agree to an extent, but it's not like we HAVE Reagans our there who'd want to run or that we have an America which would even appreciate him anymore. Ya, 50% of us, MAYBE...but, really?
With the idiot indoctrination in our schools, the astonishing bias of the leftwing media?

Did you hear Jay Carney now ridiculing the Republicans and Democrats pushing on the White House for more Solyndra information with "would that the Republicans would be this relentless about JOBS"...what UTTER BULL S*** (sorry, but this SO ticks me off)...

THey ARE that relentless but the mainstream media's not allowing their message out there; I'm blogging on this very soon, maybe even this afternoon.

Most people don't remember this, I haven't found anybody who does, but I remember my head spinning around when, shortly after Obama came to the WH, I heard the WH had hired bigwig TV producers to work THERE, full time. CNN, Network people.........they're MORE than adept at the Alinsky message and I believe they're the ones with the amazing talent to obfuscate with the kind of crap Carney said above.
VERY compelling, VERY VERY seductive words.

By the way, how the HECK much paperwork does a White House need on a company like Solyndra and it's funding? More than EIGHTY FIVE THOUSAND PAGES? WHY?????

beamish said...

because ALL of the American people DESERVE RomneyCare.

And if their state wants it, they can have it and pay for it too.

Hmmm. Rick Perry loved Hillarycare, an even worse proposal.

The Absolute Marxist said...

There are tens of thousands of Reagan's out there. When we need them, they will come. Just as Churchill came.

Z said...

Churchill didn't have to fight this media

Thersites said...

When the crises comes, the old media will be thrown out of the way.

Bob said...

I never thought Cain did all those dirty deeds, but I always felt it was possible. Now, maybe I can say, I told you so.

Too bad for Herman, though. Whoever framed him has succeeded in Cain's poll numbers dropping.

Who paid Gloria Allred, and how much was she paid?

Z said...

exactly, Bob. ANd WHY an attorney?
The accuse wouldn't say if she'd do a book, etc., but left it open, she said she was leaving it open, that straightforwardly.
I guess that's where ALlred will get her cut, though the accuser DOES live on Lake Shore Drive in the same bldg as Axelrod, so her fiancee could be helping her.
Allred apparently takes no cases for less than a million.

But, she COULD do it for free, considering she probably got paid pretty well to stop her whining about how the Obamas had intimidated people from voting for Hillary at many of the precincts.

Average American said...

Beamish, even if ALL of your ramblings on this post were true, Cain would still be far far superior to the current White House occupier.

beamish said...

Beamish, even if ALL of your ramblings on this post were true, Cain would still be far far superior to the current White House occupier.

Why? We already have an unqualified black leftist from a radical church in office.

Speedy G said...

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Cain certainly looks "qualified" to me.

net observer said...

"As long as you're not one of the people the thug Malcolm X robbed, beat, raped, pimped out or had killed along the way, he's a regular Horatio Alger figure LOL!"

You could probably say something similar about the founding fathers since several of them were slave-owners. More than likely, at least one of them raped somebody, beat somebody, 'pimped out' somebody, and/or had somebody killed along the way.

But I suspect you wouldn't see as much humor there.

Perhaps the mature way to look at someone's life is fully and within an honest context.

Z said...

actually, I'm a bit of a Malcom X admirer, between you guys and me...always have been.
I still get upset at how he was killed in front of his children.
I still admire him for having seen the real Islam in Saudi Arabia and coming back and warning his friends.

Who WOULN'T have fought for civil rights in those days? WHO WOULDN'T??? HOW COULD HE NOT?

As for founding fathers and slaves....that probably irks me more than anything people use in the civil rights conversation; ya, see it in CONTEXT. And no, MANY slave owners did NOT beat or rape or pimp.

SOME owed money to their slaves to whom they'd given land to farm themselves......much to read on that subject.

Elmers Brother said...

...at least one of them raped somebody,...

If you're referring to Thomas Jefferson, it turns out it was more likely his brother who produced the child from a slave.

beamish said...

Perhaps the mature way to look at someone's life is fully and within an honest context.

Prior to Malcolm X's career as a racial agitator advocating violence and black separatism, he was a burglar, thief, rapist, pimp, murderer, thug and homosexual prostitute.

From which of these does Herman Cain's Rainbow PUSH-aligned clergymen draw inspiration?

beamish said...

Cain certainly looks "qualified" to me.

No more qualified than Jerry Sandusky.

Z said...

Actually, it's MEDGAR EVARS I was a fan of.

And I still understand Malcolm X in that context. I also don't believe everything I hear about anybody.

net observer said...

beam,

Malcolm X consistently grew to renounce, categorically, the ugly aspects of his past. He was killed specifically because he spoke out against NOI leader Elijah Muhammad and his hypocrisy, fully aware of the dangers therein. This is why I referenced Malcolm's "redemptive and self-corrective qualities". The fact that he was willing to, in essence, give his life to massively turn around his life and message is extremely laudable.

RE: Herman Cain. I can't tell you why Cain admires Malcolm X. I don't know the guy that well. Perhaps you should ask someone who does.

Z,

Sometimes, I have to go by the odds.

There were 55 founding fathers. Almost half of them owned slaves. Hundreds of them.

Can I prove that at least one of them, on at least one occasion, beat, raped, pimped out and/or killed at least one slave? I'm pretty sure I could if I had to.

But who on Earth is prepared to place a bet that NONE of the founding fathers who owned slaves EVER committed ANY of those acts? Raise your hand, please.

I wasn't trying to denounce the Founders or take them out of context, Z. Frankly, I'm one of the few people I know who stresses the importance of context. I wish more people did.

I only used the Founders example to illustrate the wholesale intellectual dishonesty of beam's rants on Malcolm X.

beamish said...

RE: Herman Cain. I can't tell you why Cain admires Malcolm X. I don't know the guy that well. Perhaps you should ask someone who does.

I didn't say Herman Cain admires Malcolm X. I said he attends and is an associate minister at a church headed by someone who lists Malcolm X as an influence and offers his church as a backdrop / stage exclusively to Democratic candidates seeking election (non-profit status be damned...)

My question would be whether or not that "brainwashing of blacks to vote Democrat" that Herman Cain claims actually occurs at the church that he is an associate minister of and that shills for Democrats and supports Jesse Jackson's Rainbow / PUSH coalition.

(Further on that, if Herman Cain got his exec position at Burger King through Pillsbury on his own merits, or if his friends behind Jesse Jackson's threatened shakedown affirmative action lawsuits against Pillsbury going on around the same time had something to do with it.)

On the Malcolm X question, I wonder if Herman Cain would be real about him, or sugar-coat him into an "influential figure" as well.

I only used the Founders example to illustrate the wholesale intellectual dishonesty of beam's rants on Malcolm X.

And it was an epic fail because I didn't assert any of the Founding Fathers into the discussion of Malcolm X's actual history. I think you'd be hard pressed to name a Founding Father that has Malcolm X's criminal record, background, or ideology, if "wholesale intellectual honesty" were your actual goal.

net observer said...

RE: Malcolm X.

beam, at this point, you're making me laugh.

You continue to avoid the last days of Malcolm's life obviously because you know it obliterates your argument.

Malcolm X was assassinated at the age of 39, when he had long-relinquished street crime and was also strongly (and openly) doubting his previous views on racialism.

The man would be in his mid-80s today. I seriously doubt that he would have spent his next 40-plus years in the pimp game. There's no serious evidence to support that.

Again, Malcolm X is dead specifically because he spoke out against the immorality and hypocrisy of the NOI's leader, knowing full well that it could get him killed -- and fast. If Malcolm's character, at that point, was anything like what you're suggesting, he probably would have acted more like those cowards at Penn State. i.e., "hear no evil, see no evil, etc."

It's not like he was on his death bed and suddenly decided to get religion to avoid Hell. It was his morality that GOT him killed.

Moreover, it doesn't matter that you didn't bring up the Founders. And it doesn't matter if I can't call out a Founding Father whose life resembled Malcolm's. That's all very immaterial.

This is about your ostensible (and frankly, rather odd) refusal to deal with this subject within a logical context.

My original point was quite simple: It would be silly for me to attempt to nullify the profundity of the Founders by emphasizing their histories of slave-ownership. Much like it's silly for you to nullify Malcolm's most common posthumous image based on who he was before (and sometimes long before) he was killed.

Especially when the REASON he was killed WAS his integrity lol

Z said...

Ya, but net...if the things Malcolm did that a Jewish newspaper I found when I Googled him wrote are true (things Beamish discusses), then we can't compare the founding fathers to him in ANY way.
The things Malcolm did (homosexual pimp, black separatist, thief, etc.) are not things ALL people did. It's not CONTEXTUAL to the times.
MOST people had slaves in the day...MOST people in Malcolm's day weren't homosexual pimps, thieves or separatists, you know?

I still can't hate Malcolm. I can't hate anybody who did all he could for racial equality. I, too, had heard what you write here about NOI. But, I had heard that he'd gone to Arabia and come back VERY against Islam in general...but the Jewish news I read didn't agree. I started doubting their reportage because it was SO negative that nobody could live down to their impressions of him, and I do remembering admiring a lot about him...........

I found it the Jewish report: http://jtf.org/america/america.malcolm.x.homosexual.htm

check it out......they hate him from up one side and down the other.

beamish said...

You continue to avoid the last days of Malcolm's life obviously because you know it obliterates your argument.

How so? The last days of his life merely transformed Malcolm X from a convicted criminal preaching violence and racial separatism into a convicted criminal silenced with buckshot embedded in his face.

Malcolm X was assassinated at the age of 39, when he had long-relinquished street crime and was also strongly (and openly) doubting his previous views on racialism.

He severed ties with the Nation of Islam over Elijah Muhammad's "sexual immorality" (rather harsh condemnation coming from a known rapist and homosexual prostitute, eh?) and goes to Saudi Arabia in 1964 to find "true Islam." Ten months after that, he's assassinated.

Moreover, it doesn't matter that you didn't bring up the Founders. And it doesn't matter if I can't call out a Founding Father whose life resembled Malcolm's. That's all very immaterial.

Actually, you attempted a blanket swipe at the Founding Fathers trying to formulate a moral equivalency argument because nothing redeeming came to your mind in regards to Malcolm X's history as a criminal thug preaching violence.

This is about your ostensible (and frankly, rather odd) refusal to deal with this subject within a logical context.

My original point was quite simple: It would be silly for me to attempt to nullify the profundity of the Founders by emphasizing their histories of slave-ownership. Much like it's silly for you to nullify Malcolm's most common posthumous image based on who he was before (and sometimes long before) he was killed.


But Malcolm X's "most common posthumous image" IS that of a racist firebrand, anti-Semite, and being a part of the same thugs, pimps, and criminals that put him to death. You want to call a mulligan for the last NINE MONTHS of his personal life, I consider his legacy left behind from his entire life. There is no greater "logical context" than that.

Malcolm X is remembered and celebrated for his radicalism and violent rhetoric, even today.

Thus, going back to my original question:

"Prior to Malcolm X's career as a racial agitator advocating violence and black separatism, he was a burglar, thief, rapist, pimp, murderer, thug and homosexual prostitute.

From which of these does Herman Cain's Rainbow PUSH-aligned clergymen draw inspiration?"

We're talking about a thug [Malcolm X] that was critical of Martin Luther King even after his March on Washington resulted in Republicans finally wrenching the arm of racist President LBJ into signing their Civil Rights Act.

That Malcolm X had a "change of heart" (a dubious assertion at best) in the last nine months of his life does not serve to nullify his whole life and the legacy thereof.

When someone lists Malcolm X as an influence, it is generally because of the bulk of his life in racial agitation and violent rhetoric, not because he broke up with his boyfriend Elijah Muhammad.

net observer said...

Well, beam, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree =)

To be honest, I'm not even sure we're talking about the same thing at this point. I don't know anyone who has ever denied Malcolm's ugly past, including Malcolm. His autobiography discussed much of it.

Malcolm's ugly past is talked about a LOT -- by EVERY end of the political spectrum.

Oftentimes, people like me are more than happy to point out that part of his life, mainly because it so cogently demonstrates how drastically a person CAN change over a relatively short period of time.

While I fully recognize the futility of my efforts, I will nevertheless repeat once again, Malcolm had obviously (not dubiously) turned his life around and was continuing to turn his life around in other areas, up until he was assassinated, specifically because of his legitimate moral outrage at a man who could (and basically did) cause his death.

Apparently, a brave move like doesn't amount to anything in your view. So be it.

Still, I hasten to ask, what if Malcolm were NOT killed, and in turn, spent his next 39 years as a saint -- by YOUR definition? Would that make him better in your eyes? Or is it all basically a matter of "once a thug, always a thug"?

Or, maybe it's a case of calculating the number of years a person spent doing x versus y? It's like, how DO you judge?

We've all heard of Old South white segregationists reforming/reconsidering their views in their latter years. Do you see them as the same scum before and after their turnaround? I certainly don't.

"When someone lists Malcolm X as an influence, it is generally because of the bulk of his life in racial agitation and violent rhetoric."

Okay beam, on this particular point, frankly, I don't think you know what you're talking about. Far too many people admire Malcolm X's story to assume that the vast majority of those who list him as an influence are thinking like that.

I'll even make this a tad personal. I remember being a young college student during the 80s, and I remember my friends and I being influenced by someone who was arguably even MORE controversial than Malcolm X: Louis Farrakhan. While I'm not particularly proud of that fact today, I can assure you that Farrakhan's influence on us at that time was almost entirely about pride and a desire to ameliorate your community. Believe it or not, it had really nothing to do with any desire to be violent and relatively little to do with any notions of racial separatism. Not for the majority of us.

beam, it's not so odd for normal, decent people to be influenced by controversial figures. Oftentimes it's not the controversial ideas that people find attractive; it's the NON-controversial ideas.

Obviously, I admire Malcolm X. Not in an extreme way, but generally, I do. Dare I say, there's no one on this board who believes more in harmony among humankind than I do.

I seem to recall Clarence Thomas admitting that he admired Malcolm X. Bottom line, a whole lot of smart, decent blacks -- left, right, center and apolitical -- admire Malcolm X. And it's not because he pimped gay men, and it's not because he hated white people.

Having said all that, I will still concede THIS much to you: Indeed, many, MANY misguided so-called followers of Malcolm X fit your description quite well. But those particular people are, in my view, nothing more than another form of willful ignorance. In fact, they have a lot in common with you. These are people who would rather expunge the man Malcolm had become and was becoming and remain cemented in who he once was.

It all strikes me as quite superficial, self-serving and revisionist.