When I was young boy, at the age of five,
my mother said I's gonna make fortune sellin' pizza pies!
But now I'm a CAIN, way past 21,
I want you believe me, baby, I had lots of fun!

I'm a CAIN.  I spell it C-A-I, child-N!

I, uh, was gonna write a fully Mannish Boy parody about Herman, but I read the f'real lyrics, and, like, who needs to?
:-\\

Sounds like Herman is the pepperoni king.  ;)

Sounds like Herman is the pepperoni king.  ;)

..but not sliced on a pizza?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oM5UGU-xc14



Cat

..but not sliced on a pizza?


You'd have to ask his mohel.  ;D

You'd have to ask his mohel.  ;D

Think he'd give away any tips?

Think he'd give away any tips?


Big Cheese

Free refills

Guess I don't have much longer to use this one, so I'll play it while I can:

http://s3.amazonaws.com/kym-assets/photos/images/original/000/211/203/women-for-cain-thumb-615x115-70949.jpg

He had 99 problems, but bitches were #1, 7, 29 and 89.

http://k.wigflip.com/wdoaJm2f/roflbot.jpg

On the other hand, he who laughs most profitably, laughs best.  (Even though events in an unrelated thread mean that I don't really feel like laughing at the moment.)

Guess I don't have much longer to use this one, so I'll play it while I can:

http://s3.amazonaws.com/kym-assets/photos/images/original/000/211/203/women-for-cain-thumb-615x115-70949.jpg

He had 99 problems, but bitches were #1, 7, 29 and 89.

http://k.wigflip.com/wdoaJm2f/roflbot.jpg

On the other hand, he who laughs most profitably, laughs best.  (Even though events in an unrelated thread mean that I don't really feel like laughing at the moment.)


http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/hotchicksforcain.jpg

Women For Cain 2012


Dan

Cain always has to prove he's Abel!

"Well, he's "suspending" his campaign.  That way he can still keep the gears grinding and the money coming in.  The celebrity is too great to pass up and go back to a straight job in Georgia!
::)

Now what will all the blacks who would have voted for him because he is black do?  I guess they will have to vote for Obama, because he is black, because we all know that black people don't make informed decisions.  ::)

Now what will all the blacks who would have voted for him because he is black do?  I guess they will have to vote for Obama, because he is black, because we all know that black people don't make informed decisions.   ::)

Something like 85%- 95% of blacks will vote Democrat, here are the figures I have researched:

1972: 82% for McGovern
1976: 85% for Carter
1980: 86% for Carter
1984: 88% for Mondale (Jesse Jackson got 77% of black vote in the Dem Primary)
1988: 76% for Dukakis (Jesse Jackson got 90% of black vote in the Dem Primary)
1992: 83% for Clinton
1996: 84% for Clinton
2000: 87% for Gore
2004: 89% for Kerry
2008: 95% for O'bama

I will not state that Blacks are making "uninformed" votes or not.  What I will say is that they are throwing their votes away, much the same that Organized Labor throws its campaign money away every year on Democrats.  Since Labor (via money) and African Americans (via voting record) have declared a long-held blind allegiance to the Democratic Party, the Dem's don't really have to do anything for them... they already have the vote.  And the Repubs don't have to worry about reaching out because the track record, from a voting standpoint, indicates it does not matter.

The only place where the black vote (over the past few decades) has been of any relevance has been in selecting the Democrat nominee.  At the end of the day it was the WHITE and HISPANIC  vote dynamics that elected O'bama, because him (or any Dem for that matter)  having the black vote was already a foregone conclusion; he had that in the bag and everybody knew it.

The upshot? For a mercenary politician, the white (and hispanic)  vote is something worth fighting over... Dems and Repubs have found that they can do things in their campaigns and policies once in office to swing it one way or another.  But the black vote is a "lost cause" for the Repubs and a "gimme" for the Democrats and so it becomes pretty much an irrelevant factor in election planning, other than simply maximizing (or minimizing) the turnout of black voters.

Richard Nixxon (who by the way got ~32% of the black vote in '60) once said "Unpredictability is the greatest asset or weapon a leader can have and unless he is unpredictable, he's going to find he loses a great deal of his power."  The black vote has done just that... it predictably votes for Democrats without fail (and for Black Democrats almost exclusively) and so has forfeited its power in the arena of true change.

Something like 85%- 95% of blacks will vote Democrat, here are the figures I have researched:

1972: 82% for McGovern
1976: 85% for Carter
1980: 86% for Carter
1984: 88% for Mondale (Jesse Jackson got 77% of black vote in the Dem Primary)
1988: 76% for Dukakis (Jesse Jackson got 90% of black vote in the Dem Primary)
1992: 83% for Clinton
1996: 84% for Clinton
2000: 87% for Gore
2004: 89% for Kerry
2008: 95% for O'bama

I will not state that Blacks are making "uninformed" votes or not.  What I will say is that they are throwing their votes away, much the same that Organized Labor throws its campaign money away every year on Democrats.  Since Labor (via money) and African Americans (via voting record) have declared a long-held blind allegiance to the Democratic Party, the Dem's don't really have to do anything for them... they already have the vote.  And the Repubs don't have to worry about reaching out because the track record, from a voting standpoint, indicates it does not matter.

The only place where the black vote (over the past few decades) has been of any relevance has been in selecting the Democrat nominee.  At the end of the day it was the WHITE and HISPANIC  vote dynamics that elected O'bama, because him (or any Dem for that matter)  having the black vote was already a foregone conclusion; he had that in the bag and everybody knew it.

The upshot? For a mercenary politician, the white (and hispanic)  vote is something worth fighting over... Dems and Repubs have found that they can do things in their campaigns and policies once in office to swing it one way or another.  But the black vote is a "lost cause" for the Repubs and a "gimme" for the Democrats and so it becomes pretty much an irrelevant factor in election planning, other than simply maximizing (or minimizing) the turnout of black voters.

Richard Nixxon (who by the way got ~32% of the black vote in '60) once said "Unpredictability is the greatest asset or weapon a leader can have and unless he is unpredictable, he's going to find he loses a great deal of his power."  The black vote has done just that... it predictably votes for Democrats without fail (and for Black Democrats almost exclusively) and so has forfeited its power in the arena of true change.


This has only been the case since the Truman admin.  Before that, blacks voted for the party of Lincoln, which is one reason that the "solid  south" suppressed the black vote.  The  Rebups  tossed the black vote away in order to convert the south.  That was Nixxon's "southern strategy.

Now what will all the blacks who would have voted for him because he is black do?  I guess they will have to vote for Obama, because he is black, because we all know that black people don't make informed decisions.   ::)



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYDGMt68K6o


::) ::) ::) ::) ::)




Cat

This has only been the case since the Truman admin.  Before that, blacks voted for the party of Lincoln, which is one reason that the "solid  south" suppressed the black vote.  The  Rebups   tossed the black vote away in order to convert the south.  That was Nixxon's "southern strategy.


Nevertheless it is a poor strategy by the African American voting bloc.  (I realize there is not really a monolith, but the voting record, en masse, is monolithic).

Until the AA voting sector "plays the field", so to speak, it will be never get "asked to the prom" by the Republican policy makers, and it will be sitting unattended-to while the Dems dance with other peoples' dates.  Taken for granted by one side and ignored by the other.

About twelve years ago, an associate of mine, and me, were involved in a situation that was established as a pure voting-type arrangement within our company.  Each person had "x number" of votes.  If you placed votes for one sort of decision, you had spent votes that you could not place for another. (A really stupid way to manage a business but hey I did not make up those rules, I just had to maximize for the best outcome).

So, Elaine and I withheld our votes from a decision that we fully supported, because we knew it would pass with a majority anyway.  When it came time to 'vote' on another subject (that we actually wanted less, but still wanted), we cast all our votes for it and won.  It drove everybody else (who did not want what she and I had forced through) absolutely nuts.  From that point forward, unconvinced that they could simply count on our votes for the issues, they came to the two of us and negotiated.

Our unpredictability gave us the power.

The AA voting community has shot its wad on the Democratic party.  Until the AA community shows the Dems that they can vote for somebody else, there is little incentive for the Dems to pay mcuh more than superficial attention to the AA voting bloc's policy desires.

::) ::) ::) ::) ::)




Cat


FOX News is the sole source of political information for millions and millions of people.  Did you ever think about that while you're watching Ann Coulter.  Did you ever really think about it?  Maybe it's better not to.  Could drive a man to drink!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/02/buck.gif

Nevertheless it is a poor strategy by the African American voting bloc.  (I realize there is not really a monolith, but the voting record, en masse, is monolithic).

Until the AA voting sector "plays the field", so to speak, it will be never get "asked to the prom" by the Republican policy makers, and it will be sitting unattended-to while the Dems dance with other peoples' dates.  Taken for granted by one side and ignored by the other.

About twelve years ago, an associate of mine, and me, were involved in a situation that was established as a pure voting-type arrangement within our company.  Each person had "x number" of votes.  If you placed votes for one sort of decision, you had spent votes that you could not place for another. (A really stupid way to manage a business but hey I did not make up those rules, I just had to maximize for the best outcome).

So, Elaine and I withheld our votes from a decision that we fully supported, because we knew it would pass with a majority anyway.  When it came time to 'vote' on another subject (that we actually wanted less, but still wanted), we cast all our votes for it and won.  It drove everybody else (who did not want what she and I had forced through) absolutely nuts.  From that point forward, unconvinced that they could simply count on our votes for the issues, they came to the two of us and negotiated.

Our unpredictability gave us the power.

The AA voting community has shot its wad on the Democratic party.  Until the AA community shows the Dems that they can vote for somebody else, there is little incentive for the Dems to pay mcuh more than superficial attention to the AA voting bloc's policy desires.


You may be right, but my point is that the Rupubs did the same thing and lost the black vote by out racist-ing the racists to win the south.  Do the name Strom Thurman ring a bell?  The classic racist dem - the Dixicrate

I will not state that Blacks are making "uninformed" votes or not.

Why should they be different to the rest the voting population?

..and I don't just mean in the US.  The overwhelming majority of voters don't really think about who they're going to vote for.

You may be right, but my point is that the Rupubs did the same thing and lost the black vote by out racist-ing the racists to win the south.  Do the name Strom Thurman ring a bell?  The classic racist dem - the Dixicrate


Lest we forget the late Senator Robert Byrd, after whom everything in West Virginia is named.  Byrd was a card-carrying member of the KKK.

NOT ONLY WAS HE A MEMBER, he was founder of a 150-member branch.  He also led a filibuster against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (along with Al Gore Sr.) , and as late as 2001 was still using the dreaded 'n-word'.

-FDR imprisoned Japanese Americans

-The Democrat governor of Arkansas called out police to prevent desegregation of Little Rock's schools.  Republican president Dwight Eisenhower sent in the National Guard to protect the rights of the students.

-Speaking of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it was opposed by 40% of house democrats and supported by 80% of house republicans.  Dems also filibustered the 1957 Civil Rights Act; in both cases it took Republican Everett Dirksen to break the logjam.

Democrats would like to revise history and make one think that they are the traditional standard bearer for civil rights... the record says otherwise.

Lest we forget the late Senator Robert Byrd, after whom everything in West Virginia is named.  Byrd was a card-carrying member of the KKK.

NOT ONLY WAS HE A MEMBER, he was founder of a 150-member branch.  He also led a filibuster against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (along with Al Gore Sr.) , and as late as 2001 was still using the dreaded 'n-word'.

-FDR imprisoned Japanese Americans

-The Democrat governor of Arkansas called out police to prevent desegregation of Little Rock's schools.  Republican president Dwight Eisenhower sent in the National Guard to protect the rights of the students.

-Speaking of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it was opposed by 40% of house democrats and supported by 80% of house republicans.  Dems also filibustered the 1957 Civil Rights Act; in both cases it took Republican Everett Dirksen to break the logjam.

Democrats would like to revise history and make one think that they are the traditional standard bearer for civil rights... the record says otherwise.


You're a bright fellow.  You know the difference between the Democratic party of 1961 and the Democratic party of 2011.  I'm too tired of pointing out the obvious to do it again, especially to somebody who knows better.
::)

Democrats would like to revise history and make one think that they are the traditional standard bearer for civil rights... the record says otherwise.


In other words, the Democratic Party is doing the same thing to black voters as the Republican Party has been doing to fiscal and social conservatives since Reagan?  (Bush II had the Presidency and the Senate and Congress for years.  Why did spending explode?  Why is abortion still legal?)

Since this is a pop culture board, the question isn't about the Republicans' civil rights strategy 50 years ago, it's about what have you done for me lately?

They've done some nice things for me lately, but I'm a top-quintile-of-income white dude.  And because I didn't call 2008 correctly, even I didn't get my money's worth.  If someone put a gun to my head and told me to choose between (R) or (D), and I actually thought my vote would change the outcome of an election, I'd tell them to pull the trigger.

abortion still legal?)


I know Darth Vader's really got you annoyed
But remember, if you kill him, then you'll be unemployed"
Oh, my Yoda
Yo-yo-yo-yo Yoda

I know Darth Vader's really got you annoyed
But remember, if you kill him, then you'll be unemployed"
Oh, my Yoda
Yo-yo-yo-yo Yoda


"Sorry, you can't repeat a karma action without waiting 24 hours."

http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/4/2010/05/click_click_click_comic.jpg

I keep clicking the damn button, but nothing happens.

http://www.borowitzreport.com/2011/12/03/a-farewell-from-herman-cain/

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;)


December 2, 2011

A Farewell from Herman Cain
...
My Final Thoughts
...
Dear Friend,

And when I say “friend,� I mean it in the normal way, not “someone I’ve been sleeping with for 13 years.� Unless, of course, I have been sleeping with you for 13 years. In that case, I do mean it that way.

It is with a heavy heart that I have decided to end my inspirational quest for the White House. After much reassessing and reconsidering, I have decided to spend more time being screamed at by my wife. And by “more time,� I mean 24 hours a day, stopping only for bathroom breaks.

But before I go, let me share with you my final thoughts on my campaign. After months of crisscrossing this great land of ours and participating in over three hundred televised debates, I am being disqualified because of an extramarital affair. And that raises the following question: are you fudgeing kidding me?

I mean, let’s get real. I never heard of Libya. I didn’t know whether that CNN dude’s name was Wolf or Blitz. And my only training for running the #1 nation in the world was running its #8 pizza chain. Yet none of that, I repeat, none of that disqualified me. In fact, I was the front-fudgeing-runner, as long as I kept my 9-9-9 in my pants. (I have no idea what I meant by that -- I just like saying 9-9-9.)

But here’s the part that really kills me. You’re kicking me to the curb because I was messing around, and instead you’re going with… Newt Gingrich? I repeat: are you fudgeing kidding me? Oh, I know what you’re saying: you love Newt because he’s an “intellectual.� Well, Newt Gingrich is the intellectual of the Republican field the way Moe was the intellectual of the Stooges.

And that leads me to my final point: you disgust me, America. Right now if I had my way, I’d up and move to another country. I really, truly would. Only I don’t know where any of them are, and my wife won’t let me leave the house.

Goodbye forever,

Herman

You're a bright fellow.  You know the difference between the Democratic party of 1961 and the Democratic party of 2011.  I'm too tired of pointing out the obvious to do it again, especially to somebody who knows better.
::)


I'm not the one who brought up Strom Thurmond... but I did respond by providing an analysis of his contemporary Dems and Repubs.  There was little difference between Thurmond and Byrd except for the party to which they belonged.

Besides... look at the cities in the United States that are amongst the most segregated... Los Angeles... Detroit... Chicago... Philly... even Picksburgh.  These cities and their local governments have been almost exclusively DEMOCRAT-governed and they are cesspools of discrimination.  If the Democratic party had the 'secret sauce' why are these towns, which are staunch Democratic strongholds, such terrible locations to be a minority?

I stand by my initial premise: The black 'voting bloc' will never be taken seriously as long as it devotes the vast, vast majority of its voting power to one party.  Such a pity, because its size would enable it to extract real concessions in the political process if a real strategy were pursued.

I'm not the one who brought up Strom Thurmond... but I did respond by providing an analysis of his contemporary Dems and Repubs.  There was little difference between Thurmond and Byrd except for the party to which they belonged.

Besides... look at the cities in the United States that are amongst the most segregated... Los Angeles... Detroit... Chicago... Philly... even Picksburgh.  These cities and their local governments have been almost exclusively DEMOCRAT-governed and they are cesspools of discrimination.  If the Democratic party had the 'secret sauce' why are these towns, which are staunch Democratic strongholds, such terrible locations to be a minority?

I stand by my initial premise: The black 'voting bloc' will never be taken seriously as long as it devotes the vast, vast majority of its voting power to one party.  Such a pity, because its size would enable it to extract real concessions in the political process if a real strategy were pursued.


The problem is, if we dilute that same voting block we don't get anything at all from either side, not that we get much now, but a bone with a little bit of marrow is better than no bone at all.

I will add that I was raised in a straight ticker, Republican household.  My grandfather the son parents born in slavery, my grandmother raised in a northern household that remembered the Draft riots, with uncles who fought in the USCT.  The old habit died hard, but it died.

http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lvl8r3ee291qavqqoo1_500.gif

wonkette is the best.

http://www.borowitzreport.com/2011/12/03/a-farewell-from-herman-cain/

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;)


December 2, 2011

A Farewell from Herman Cain
...
My Final Thoughts
...
Dear Friend,

And when I say “friend,� I mean it in the normal way, not “someone I’ve been sleeping with for 13 years.� Unless, of course, I have been sleeping with you for 13 years. In that case, I do mean it that way.

It is with a heavy heart that I have decided to end my inspirational quest for the White House. After much reassessing and reconsidering, I have decided to spend more time being screamed at by my wife. And by “more time,� I mean 24 hours a day, stopping only for bathroom breaks.

But before I go, let me share with you my final thoughts on my campaign. After months of crisscrossing this great land of ours and participating in over three hundred televised debates, I am being disqualified because of an extramarital affair. And that raises the following question: are you fudgeing kidding me?

I mean, let’s get real. I never heard of Libya. I didn’t know whether that CNN dude’s name was Wolf or Blitz. And my only training for running the #1 nation in the world was running its #8 pizza chain. Yet none of that, I repeat, none of that disqualified me. In fact, I was the front-fudgeing-runner, as long as I kept my 9-9-9 in my pants. (I have no idea what I meant by that -- I just like saying 9-9-9.)

But here’s the part that really kills me. You’re kicking me to the curb because I was messing around, and instead you’re going with… Newt Gingrich? I repeat: are you fudgeing kidding me? Oh, I know what you’re saying: you love Newt because he’s an “intellectual.� Well, Newt Gingrich is the intellectual of the Republican field the way Moe was the intellectual of the Stooges.

And that leads me to my final point: you disgust me, America. Right now if I had my way, I’d up and move to another country. I really, truly would. Only I don’t know where any of them are, and my wife won’t let me leave the house.

Goodbye forever,

Herman


Love it!

http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/cain-campaigned-summed-up-in-99-9-seconds/6tdawbw




Cat

I'm not the one who brought up Strom Thurmond... but I did respond by providing an analysis of his contemporary Dems and Repubs.  There was little difference between Thurmond and Byrd except for the party to which they belonged.

Besides... look at the cities in the United States that are amongst the most segregated... Los Angeles... Detroit... Chicago... Philly... even Picksburgh.  These cities and their local governments have been almost exclusively DEMOCRAT-governed and they are cesspools of discrimination.  If the Democratic party had the 'secret sauce' why are these towns, which are staunch Democratic strongholds, such terrible locations to be a minority?

I stand by my initial premise: The black 'voting bloc' will never be taken seriously as long as it devotes the vast, vast majority of its voting power to one party.  Such a pity, because its size would enable it to extract real concessions in the political process if a real strategy were pursued.


I only wish more African Americans voted in the first place. 

The Republican Party is not trying to woo the "black voting bloc."  The GOP is trying suppress the black vote.

I do think the Democratic Party takes African Americans for granted.  I give no alibis for stinking Democratic political machines in the big cities.  However, if the Republicans want those votes, they have to urban blacks that they have something better to offer.  Obviously, Republicans are not even interested in making such a pretense.  The GOP is doing with caging and fraud what the old Dems used to do with literacy tests and Klansmen. 
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/12/evil7.gif

The Republican Party is not trying to woo the "black voting bloc." 

I do think the Democratic Party takes African Americans for granted.  http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/12/evil7.gif


Precisely my point.


  The GOP is doing with caging and fraud what the old Dems used to do with literacy tests and Klansmen. 
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/12/evil7.gif

I'll speculate that you have not been reading about the fraud associated with the petitions to get O'bama on the Indiana primary ballots in 2008; a full blown investigation is underway.

I'll speculate that you have not been reading about the fraud associated with the petitions to get O'bama on the Indiana primary ballots in 2008; a full blown investigation is underway.




The results to be posted on the backs of unused copies of Obamas Kenyan birth certificate.

Precisely my point.

I'll speculate that you have not been reading about the fraud associated with the petitions to get O'bama on the Indiana primary ballots in 2008; a full blown investigation is underway.


Whether it is so or it ain't so misses the point....to wit,

Why the hell would African Americans vote Republican?
::)

I stand by my initial premise: The black 'voting bloc' will never be taken seriously as long as it devotes the vast, vast majority of its voting power to one party.  Such a pity, because its size would enable it to extract real concessions in the political process if a real strategy were pursued.


Because the only other recent example - when a voting bloc composed of Christian evangelicals devoted the vast, vast majority of its voting power to one party over a 40-year time span - never enabled it to extract real concessions in the political process either, right? :)

Because the only other recent example - when a voting bloc composed of Christian evangelicals devoted the vast, vast majority of its voting power to one party over a 40-year time span - never enabled it to extract real concessions in the political process either, right? :)


karma chameleon!

Because the only other recent example - when a voting bloc composed of Christian evangelicals devoted the vast, vast majority of its voting power to one party over a 40-year time span - never enabled it to extract real concessions in the political process either, right? :)


Are you saying that the Christian evangelicals never extracted concessions? ???

Are you saying that the Christian evangelicals never extracted concessions? ???


http://virulentwordofmouse.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/sarcasm.jpg

Are you saying that the Christian evangelicals never extracted concessions? ???


On the upside, Danoota&Me beat me to it, and she spared us all the implied facehoof I would have used, so you've got that going for ya.  On the downside, because I've already gotten my lulz outta this one, that means I gotta take this post seriously, so here's the deal:

Goldwater rejected religious fanatics outright (exactly how Democratic Segregationists rejected the blacks back in the day and enabled Nixon's Southern Strategy).  But he lost in the general.

Reagan and Bush I took the votes of the fanatics, promising bans on abortion (or whatever the fundies cared about in the 80s), but only paid them lip service (exactly how Clinton I and Obama have done for the black community whenever in power).  And they won in the general.

Although it took the social conservatives two generations to do it - starting with Bush II courting them under Rove's influence in 2000 and 2004, progressing to McCain being forced to bet on Palin in order to secure their votes in 2008, and to the insanity of the 2011 primary debate reality show.  And even McCain got a tough fight for his money.

In the past 50 years, a core constituency - evangelical Christians - who make up less than 15% of the electorate has managed to completely dominate the (R) wing of the Party.  Even though abortion is still legal, and the biology textbooks haven't been burned in favor of the Bible.

So why can't a core constituency - people with a little more melanin in their skin than I have - and who also make up less than 15% of the electorate manage to pull the same stunt and hijack the (D) wing of the Party?  Even though I, as a white dude, have never worried about catching a stray bullet from a drive-by shooting?

This is what kept me voting (D) for twenty years:

You can either vote for --

Really bad sh*t (D)

or

Extremely bad sh*t (R)

BUT you can't vote for No Sh*t.

::)

BUT you can't vote for No Sh*t.

::)

..and not voting for sh*t just lets worse sh*t happen.