God Spoke to Cain?

deathwizard said:

I don't buy this. It's apples and oranges. The "God talks to me" thing is a danger sign from day one, especially to anyone who has or hopes to have power.

Click to expand...

Cain's a scumbag, Jim, at least imho. I doubt he believes a word of what he said. If that's what you mean as a danger sign, you'll get no argument from me. . . .

Bird of Prey said:

Cain's a scumbag, Jim, at least imho. I doubt he believes a word of what he said. If that's what you mean as a danger sign, you'll get no argument from me. . . .

Click to expand...

For me, the danger sign is if he does believe it.

Vince524 said:

And I'm not really defending Cain as a whole here. Just amused at how, because we don't like him, we can read so much into such a statement.

Click to expand...

Not liking (or liking) Cain has nothing to do with how statements about personal conversations with deities are perceived.

I don't have a horse in this race and don't really care who wins the various and assorted elections that keep this board entertaining (other than people I know have to live with the outcome), but ANY politician who says what Cain said is going to elicit the same reaction from me, and likely a few others.

Vince524 said:

Ok, I'm assuming by that statement you're referring to the Obama one.

And I'm not really defending Cain as a whole here. Just amused at how, because we don't like him, we can read so much into such a statement.

Click to expand...

Equally amusing is how those who do like him, can make excuses for just about anything he says or does.

I challenge you to find a single defensible statement from Herman Cain during the entirety of his campaign for the GOP nomination. One does not have to be prejudiced against Republicans to see Cain for the self-absorbed, egotistical crook he shows himself to be so obviously every single time a camera or a microphone gets pointed at him.

Anyone who says to me that God told them they should be president has guaranteed my vote for his/her opponent. I'm not prejudiced against religious people. I'm prejudiced against zealots, and I'd vote against someone who thought they were on a mission from God, just like I'd vote against someone who outlined their plan to tear down the government and replace it with some bizarre scheme of their own or Ayn Rand's making.

But when someone like Herman Cain, with his background and record of statements and behavior, says a thing like that, I really cannot understand how anyone could think he's not full of crap, even for a moment. You might want to get your bullshit detector calibrated or something.

Bird of Prey said:

Bbird, I may share your opinion, but I do object to Vince's point being erroneously characterized as a red herring. The quick, public forgiveness for Obama's snarky comment is legitimate support in a counter arena for Vince's contention. . . .

Click to expand...

No it's not. Not even close.

The stink over Obama's comment was that he was insulting a significant, though marginalized, portion of the voting population. It was "quickly forgiven" because it didn't call into question his sanity or whether or not he was pandering and, really, there was some truth to what he said. It quickly passed because it really wasn't that huge of a deal and didn't call into question his mental state.

That does not, in any logical way, compare with Cain (and Bachmann, per Rugrat's link) claiming that he was given a directive from an invisible being (whose existence is questionable, at best) to run for the most powerful position in the world.

No matter how you try to rhetorically twist the facts into an argument pretzel, the two are not in any way logically connected.

Opty said:

The "God and guns" quote has zilch to do with Cain's claim that God gave him a direct order.

But, it's nice to see a red herring this time of year.

Click to expand...

I wasn't claiming it did. I was used it when someone said Obama wouldn't ever say anything so controversial. He did and it was.

Other than that, and the fact that they both involve the Almighty, I wasn't trying to make any other comparison.

Bird of Prey said:

Bbird, I may share your opinion, but I do object to Vince's point being erroneously characterized as a red herring. The quick, public forgiveness for Obama's snarky comment is legitimate support in a counter arena for Vince's contention. . . .

Click to expand...

I have to interject that I disagree with this point. Obama's statement was not a claim of special privilege or authority. He was expressing an opinion about people, and whether one liked his opinion or not, it was nothing more than an opinion as open to argument as any other.

Cain, on the other hand, is claiming that he has a divine endorsement. That sort of claim is calculated to discourage challenges to his qualifications or fitness for the job. It serves double duty by encouraging the more gullible believers to bypass any real scrutiny of him and by intimidating others into not challenging him to strongly. Further, it is a claim which, in this context, shows a lack of regard for the nature of the US and its people, the nature of national office in the US, or the content and requirements of the Constitution.

The difference between the effect of a candidate making such a claim, and a candidate merely expressing some mild disdain towards some people -- and even that is arguable about Obama's comment -- must be clear.

I don't see how claiming a conversation with a divine being and a command to do something by said being can be compared to anything else, personally. Except maybe David Berkowitz. And I certainly don't want someone who believes that to have a hand on the big red reset button.

Opty said:

No it's not. Not even close.

The stink over Obama's comment was that he was insulting a significant, though marginalized, portion of the voting population. It was "quickly forgiven" because it didn't call into question his sanity or whether or not he was pandering and, really, there was some truth to what he said. It quickly passed because it really wasn't that huge of a deal and didn't call into question his mental state.

That does not, in any logical way, compare with Cain (and Bachmann, per Rugrat's link) claiming that he was given a directive from an invisible being (whose existence is questionable, at best) to run for the most powerful position in the world.

No matter how you try to rhetorically twist the facts into an argument pretzel, the two are not in any way logically connected.

Click to expand...

Wrong. You're missing the point. Obama's sneer at "God" and guns was equally as reprehensible as what Cain said regarding his Almighty "directive." I don't believe for a minute that either one of them were actually sincere, hence that makes both their comments precisely on the same level: controversial, phony and a disgusting demonstration of bootlicking to the extreme in their bases. . . .

Bird of Prey said:

Wrong. You're missing the point. Obama's sneer at "God" and guns was equally as reprehensible as what Cain said regarding his Almighty "directive." I don't believe for a minute that either one of them were actually sincere, hence that makes both their comments precisely on the same level: controversial, phony and a disgusting demonstration of bootlicking to the extreme in their bases. . . .

Click to expand...

Sorry, but you're the one who is wrong on this one. See Don's post above.

Bop said:

Wrong. You're missing the point. Obama's sneer at "God" and guns was equally as reprehensible as what Cain said regarding his Almighty "directive." I don't believe for a minute that either one of them were actually sincere, hence that makes both their comments precisely on the same level: controversial, phony and a disgusting demonstration of bootlicking to the extreme in their bases. . . .

Click to expand...

Given how outnumbered you are in your opinion, I suggest that it's perhaps you who is missing the point and you who is wrong.

God seems now to be telling Cain, and Bachmann earlier, that:

"You misunderstood what I told you."

caw

Maybe he's just hedging his bets by telling a bunch of them to run.

Opty said:

Given how outnumbered you are in your opinion, I suggest that it's perhaps you who is missing the point and you who is wrong.

Click to expand...

Perhaps, but I doubt it. It's not the first time and won't be the last that many - often the majority - failed to see the issues objectively. And for sure, popular opinion is not a reliable judge of the truth. . . .

Bird of Prey said:

Perhaps, but I doubt it. It's not the first time and won't be the last that many - often the majority - failed to see the issues objectively. And for sure, popular opinion is not a reliable judge of the truth. . . .

Click to expand...

So in your view, your interpretation of Obama's and Cain's comment is a matter of fact, and all the rest of us are just too biased to see it? It's not a matter of you having an opinion that the two comments are comparable based on a standard provided by you, while the rest of us argue that your standard for interpretation is not the only one available and that by other standards, explained in the dissenting posts, your opinion doesn't hold up?

How's this.

If Cain simply meant that he felt that God wanted him to run, as opposed to hearing an actual voice say it, then can we say that it's no big deal?

If on the other hand he did mean that God actually said to him, "Yo Herman!! I need you to run for the White House. And can you send up a pizza with pineapple on it? Thanks. Almighty out." Then yeah, he's as loony as a Trekker who get's an invite to a William Shatner roast.

However, I maintain that if someone more well liked had said this, it would be shrugged off.

I am not suggesting that Cain should be more well liked.

muravyets said:

So in your view, your interpretation of Obama's and Cain's comment is a matter of fact, and all the rest of us are just too biased to see it? It's not a matter of you having an opinion that the two comments are comparable based on a standard provided by you, while the rest of us argue that your standard for interpretation is not the only one available and that by other standards, explained in the dissenting posts, your opinion doesn't hold up?

Click to expand...

The argument that people are wrong predicated on what other or "most people" think is not a legitimate argument in any debate. I made that point very clearly. Whether I am right or wrong is immaterial, but to argue that I'm wrong based on how many people think otherwise is flat out silly. I mean, do we really have to have a history lesson to know how fallacious that contention is?? It has nothing to do with me personally. It has to do with an absurd premise that a group of people thinking something must be right, when we already know that it's simply not necessarily true. That was the essence of my opposition, which I found ridicuous. . . .

Vince524 said:

How's this.

If Cain simply meant that he felt that God wanted him to run, as opposed to hearing an actual voice say it, then can we say that it's no big deal?

Click to expand...

Nope. I'd still worry that some day his god would want him to push a big red button, start a war against some other god's followers, or decide that his god really didn't want women to have reproductive controls, or that people should drive on the other side of the street, or that chewing gum in public should be illegal.

Doing anything in politics because it is the will of a deity is not acceptable.

Had he said "I think I can make a change for the better," sure, knock yourself out. Have atter. Go hard. Helluva better reason than because it's what your imaginary friend wants you to do. Whether he said that to you directly, or merely implied it with his presence.

Vince524 said:

How's this.

If Cain simply meant that he felt that God wanted him to run, as opposed to hearing an actual voice say it, then can we say that it's no big deal?

If on the other hand he did mean that God actually said to him, "Yo Herman!! I need you to run for the White House. And can you send up a pizza with pineapple on it? Thanks. Almighty out." Then yeah, he's as loony as a Trekker who get's an invite to a William Shatner roast.

However, I maintain that if someone more well liked had said this, it would be shrugged off.

I am not suggesting that Cain should be more well liked.

Click to expand...

"I prayed and prayed and prayed," Cain told about 100 members of the Georgia Young Republicans in Atlanta on Saturday. "I'm a man of faith, I had to do a lot of praying for this one, more praying than I'd ever done before in my life. And when I finally realized that it was God saying that this is what I needed to do, I was like Moses. 'You've got the wrong man, Lord. Are you sure?'"

Click to expand...

Quite frankly, I could care less whether he heard an actual voice or not. He set aside his rational facility, and on the basis of his belief, decided God was telling him what to do.

And he decided to do it against his own personal analysis of the situation.

Yeah, that scares me. What if he decides he's really, really called to push the red button, again against his own personal best judgement?

Vince524 said:

How's this.

If Cain simply meant that he felt that God wanted him to run, as opposed to hearing an actual voice say it, then can we say that it's no big deal?

If on the other hand he did mean that God actually said to him, "Yo Herman!! I need you to run for the White House. And can you send up a pizza with pineapple on it? Thanks. Almighty out." Then yeah, he's as loony as a Trekker who get's an invite to a William Shatner roast.

However, I maintain that if someone more well liked had said this, it would be shrugged off.

I am not suggesting that Cain should be more well liked.

Click to expand...

If Cain said or meant to say that he believed in his heart that the God of his Faith wanted him to run, I would have no problem with that at all.

If he said that he heard God's voice tell him this, then we'd all better start building our nuke shelters if he were to become president.

Why? Because at best it would be a lie that he heard the voice. And at worst a paranoid delusion.

Bird of Prey said:

The argument that people are wrong predicated on what other or "most people" think is not a legitimate argument in any debate. I made that point very clearly. Whether I am right or wrong is immaterial, but to argue that I'm wrong based on how many people think otherwise is flat out silly. I mean, do we really have to have a history lesson to know how fallacious that contention is?? It has nothing to do with me personally. It has to do with an absurd premise that a group of people thinking something must be right, when we already know that it's simply not necessarily true. That was the essence of my opposition, which I found ridicuous. . . .

Click to expand...

It's not based on what most people think. It's based on logic and facts. You seem to be blind to them. Others here seem to not be.

So, how's this:

You are 100% wrong in your interpretations in this thread. Factually, logically, wrong. I know I'm wasting my time pointing that out to you, but I felt compelled to nonetheless.

Don said:

What if he decides he's really, really called to push the red button, again against his own personal best judgement?

Click to expand...

Then he thinks Cheney is God?? Look, that may be Herman's attempt at political jockeying, but thankfully, iit's a big red flag for independents which makes him completely unelectable. Hence Don, methinks the point is moot. And btw, I don't believe - given his history as the pizza magnate - that Cain has any great affinity for God in the religious sense of the word. I certainly don't think he's interested in a "Higher" opinion. . . .

Opty said:

It's not based on what most people think. It's based on logic and facts. You seem to be blind to them. Others here seem to not be.

So, how's this:

You are 100% wrong in your interpretations in this thread. Factually, logically, wrong. I know I'm wasting my time pointing that out to you, but I felt compelled to nonetheless.

Click to expand...

Lol!! What an astute argument!! "You're wrong because I said so." Signed Opty. Lol!!

MOD Note:

OK.

So a bunch of folks are wrong because one person says so.

And that person is wrong because someone else said so.

We clear on this now?

Good, move on or take a walk.

ETA: Folks, these are opinions. Opinions that, in this case, can't be argued successfully without arguing faith. There's a different forum for that.


/Williebee

MOD Note: On second thought, let's give this one a break for a bit.