Herman Cain

[trplnkl]

I'm not even opposed to campaign gimmicks. They are a fact of life, but isn't it better to see them for what they are? It's intellectual idiocy not to, don't you think?

IMO, it would be intellectual idiocy to assume something is a gimmick that is a serious plan. I don't know how serious Cain is about 999, he sure sells it as a serious idea that he would try to implement. Thus, not on the same level as " Hope & Change" or " I like Ike".

 

[moreluck]

You Gotta Have a Gimmick (classic)..........

You Gotta Have A Gimmick - from "Gypsy" - YouTube

 

[bbsam]

IMO, it would be intellectual idiocy to assume something is a gimmick that is a serious plan. I don't know how serious Cain is about 999, he sure sells it as a serious idea that he would try to implement. Thus, not on the same level as " Hope & Change" or " I like Ike".

I don't think I assumed it was a gimmick. I asked if the fact that even a republican congress wouldn't approve it is evidence that it is a gimmick. What good is a "plan" if it stands no chance of passage? Wouldn't a serious plan like Paul Ryan's be more appropriate for republican candidates to embrace if they are serious about fiscal change? It may not even have much of a chance at passage, but it has alot more for candidates to debate and as such makes me more convinced that Cain doesn't want 999 to be discussed or debated beyond having something to point to as a "plan".

 

[UPS Lifer]

Cain has captured the hearts and attention of people for the following reasons. He is a plain talker. He doesn't take himself to seriously. He has charisma and is a great speaker, who can speak with passion and excitement. He also is brilliant and he gets it. He is a successful leader. He has a revenue neutral plan that can and will be tweaked but is much different from the same old thing.

 

[The Other Side]

Cain has captured the hearts and attention of people for the following reasons. He is a plain talker. He doesn't take himself to seriously. He has charisma and is a great speaker, who can speak with passion and excitement. He also is brilliant and he gets it. He is a successful leader. He has a revenue neutral plan that can and will be tweaked but is much different from the same old thing.

Yeah, the hearts and minds of who? 27% of the GOP? He's a plain talker? Seriously? Where have you heard him say about is 999 plan, that it includes the ABOLISHMENT of the minimum wage? Where does he say he wants all states to be "right to work" states as in "RIGHT TO WORK FOR LESS MONEY STATES"....?

Where is the plain talk about this ? Why is this information hidden in his agenda?

Who would be behind this plan other than the KOCH brothers who have pushed an agenda for these exact reasons over the last 20 years?

You say he was a successful leader, but where? Godfathers pizza? When he was appointed CEO of godfathers, the chain had 914 stores, in less than 2 years, he took the chain down to 420 stores. Is this the kind of success story you want to back? A reduction in size and profitability. When he asked the board of directors of godfathers to gather investors to buy the chain from pillsbury, it was losing money. After they bought it, in less than 6 years, the board FORCED CAIN to resign. and he did.

Where is this leadershp you support?

Its been a losing strategy for CAIN. Not one employer he has worked for has been successful.

Yes he has money, but how did he earn it? He ripped off the employees of Aquila until he was sued and forced to repay 35 million dollars to the employees.

I dont see the experience? Maybe you can point out some other jobs where he was successful.

Peace.

 

[Lue C Fur]

Admit it TOS...you dont like him cause he is Black and would be the first African American President if he gets elected.

 

[moreluck]

Yeah, the hearts and minds of who? 27% of the GOP?
.

And if he would become the candidate, he'd get Mitt's percentage and Newt's percentage, and Bachman's, and Perry's, and so on. So you're short sided thinking is a bit off, but we are used to it!

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

And if he would become the candidate, he'd get Mitt's percentage and Newt's percentage, and Bachman's, and Perry's, and so on. So you're short sided thinking is a bit off, but we are used to it!

You would think so but this may not necessarily be true.

 

[moreluck]

Yeah, the hearts and minds of who? 27% of the GOP? He's a plain talker? Seriously? Where have you heard him say about is 999 plan, that it includes the ABOLISHMENT of the minimum wage? Where does he say he wants all states to be "right to work" states as in "RIGHT TO WORK FOR LESS MONEY STATES"....?

Where is the plain talk about this ? Why is this information hidden in his agenda?

Who would be behind this plan other than the KOCH brothers who have pushed an agenda for these exact reasons over the last 20 years?

You say he was a successful leader, but where? Godfathers pizza? When he was appointed CEO of godfathers, the chain had 914 stores, in less than 2 years, he took the chain down to 420 stores. Is this the kind of success story you want to back? A reduction in size and profitability. When he asked the board of directors of godfathers to gather investors to buy the chain from pillsbury, it was losing money. After they bought it, in less than 6 years, the board FORCED CAIN to resign. and he did.

Where is this leadershp you support?

Its been a losing strategy for CAIN. Not one employer he has worked for has been successful.

Yes he has money, but how did he earn it? He ripped off the employees of Aquila until he was sued and forced to repay 35 million dollars to the employees.

I dont see the experience? Maybe you can point out some other jobs where he was successful.

Peace.

You can't see the work experience when there's plenty of it......yet you saw Barack as having just tons of experience where none existed. Amazing!

 

[moreluck]

You would think so but this may not necessarily be true.

I don't think I'm alone.......whoever turns out to be the GOP candidate I am voting for.

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

I don't think I'm alone.......whoever turns out to be the GOP candidate I am voting for.

That's not what you said---you said that whoever is the candidate gets the percentages of the others. This is not necessarily the case.

 

[menotyou]

I don't see me voting for Obama, again.

 

[moreluck]

That's not what you said---you said that whoever is the candidate gets the percentages of the others. This is not necessarily the case.

What I mean is.....it probably would be the case.............if you are a Republican, I'm pretty sure you will vote for the GOP candidate and not Obama. For instance, I may have been for Newt, but if he doesn't make it, me and all the others for Newt will vote for the GOP choice and therefore, Newt's percentage would go to the GOP candidate. That's what I was saying.

 

[moreluck]

What I mean is.....it probably would be the case.............if you are a Republican, I'm pretty sure you will vote for the GOP candidate and not Obama. For instance, I may have been for Newt, but if he doesn't make it, me and all the others for Newt will vote for the GOP choice and therefore, Newt's percentage would go to the GOP candidate. That's what I was saying.

The most important thing I'm saying is that TOS 27% is wrong and short-sided.

 

[The Other Side]

And if he would become the candidate, he'd get Mitt's percentage and Newt's percentage, and Bachman's, and Perry's, and so on. So you're short sided thinking is a bit off, but we are used to it!

The short sightedness lies with you and the others. ITS THE SAME 27% that MITT HAD, THAT PALIN HAD, THAT BACKMAN HAD, THAT PERRY HAD. No matter what you guys say, there is no front runner. The GOP candidates are not separating themselves from each other, not one candidate can speak for the majority of GOP voters.

As one candidate rises, all the others are falling. Thats flavor of the month. As they fall someone (NO FAULT of their own) rises to the top until they are exposed and then they will fall as well. For CAIN, he was and is a nothing candidate, but fortunately for him, PERRY =FAILED / ROMNEY =is FAILING / NEWT = is worthless / SANTORUM= a non factor / PALIN = FAILED / BACHMAN= FAILED / HUNTSMAN = WHO? / JOHNSON=oblivious and all thats left for CAIN is to self destruct.

CAIN is the flavor of the month because all the other flavors are tasting sour. CAIN's turn at the top will be short lived. His 999 plan is B.S. from the jump, and as the details emerge, its getting less and less liked by the GOP.

Now that his idea of eliminating the minimum wage is out there, he has to defend it or flip flop on it. This will surely kill his chances.

Peace.

 

[trplnkl]

You say he was a successful leader, but where? Godfathers pizza? When he was appointed CEO of godfathers, the chain had 914 stores, in less than 2 years, he took the chain down to 420 stores. Is this the kind of success story you want to back? A reduction in size and profitability. When he asked the board of directors of godfathers to gather investors to buy the chain from pillsbury, it was losing money. After they bought it, in less than 6 years, the board FORCED CAIN to resign. and he did.

As par for the course you play loose with the facts and distort the truth.
LINK
"1986, several franchises of Godfathers Pizza plummeted. And the pizza chain struggled to beat its competitors. So, Pillsbury selected Herman Cain to be the new president of Godfather’s. Cain had previously rescued some Burger King chains from bankruptcy; thereby earning him a remarkable reputation. And with his leading abilities, he managed to settle some lawsuits, eliminated non-profitable units, introduced more products, and arranged for delivery services. As a result, the pizza chain gradually went back to its feet. Plus, newer pizzas attracted more customers. The mouthwatering bacon cheeseburger pizza and fruit-filled cherry and apple dessert pizzas were introduced.

Moreover, Godfather’s Pizza focused on a one-number delivery system to compete with other pizza chains’ home delivery systems. Fortunately, this system had worked and Godfather’s eventually expanded. Furthermore, several humorous commercials were aired. This was the pizza chain’s attempt to increase public awareness of its products and add a fun concept. Godfathers Pizza also introduced products to pubic schools. It developed fun games that were related to pizzas. So, teachers used these games to encourage young students to master mathematical basics. And the students who performed well were given rewards."





I don't guess you have any credible evidence that proves Cain was forced out of Godfathers?

 

[The Other Side]

As par for the course you play loose with the facts and distort the truth.
LINK
"1986, several franchises of Godfathers Pizza plummeted. And the pizza chain struggled to beat its competitors. So, Pillsbury selected Herman Cain to be the new president of Godfather’s. Cain had previously rescued some Burger King chains from bankruptcy; thereby earning him a remarkable reputation. And with his leading abilities, he managed to settle some lawsuits, eliminated non-profitable units, introduced more products, and arranged for delivery services. As a result, the pizza chain gradually went back to its feet. Plus, newer pizzas attracted more customers. The mouthwatering bacon cheeseburger pizza and fruit-filled cherry and apple dessert pizzas were introduced.

Moreover, Godfather’s Pizza focused on a one-number delivery system to compete with other pizza chains’ home delivery systems. Fortunately, this system had worked and Godfather’s eventually expanded. Furthermore, several humorous commercials were aired. This was the pizza chain’s attempt to increase public awareness of its products and add a fun concept. Godfathers Pizza also introduced products to pubic schools. It developed fun games that were related to pizzas. So, teachers used these games to encourage young students to master mathematical basics. And the students who performed well were given rewards."





I don't guess you have any credible evidence that proves Cain was forced out of Godfathers?

2 points Trippy.

First, isnt that what I said only I left out the "fluffy explanation"? I stated.... CAIN took control of Godfathers with 914 stores, and in less than 16 months, reduced that to 420 stores. Pretty simple. No need to make excuses. A reduction is a reduction and in no way demonstrates success.

You said " And with his leading abilities, he managed to settle some lawsuits, eliminated non-profitable units, introduced more products, and arranged for delivery services."

Now, this sounds more problematic than successful. Lawsuits? Which ones? Or do you mean the ones where the franchisees sued HIM and Pillsbury for ruining their businesses? He eliminated non profitable units, isnt that the same as going from 914 to 420? And, why, if the chain was profitable when Pillsbury bought the chain, why did it have non profitable units after CAIN was put in charge?

The Godfathers chain was purchased by Pillbury by default as it was a part of another company called diversified foods, and that company had burger king stores that pillsbury wanted. Godfathers was a part of diversified and came with the deal.

Pillsbury didnt put CAIN in charge of the burger king part of the deal, and instead put him in charge of Godfathers. Soon afterwards, the chain was losing money, franchisees were not getting support from pillsbury and the lawsuits began.

CAIN did in fact shut down 494 stores and put all those employees on the goverment unemployment lines. By the time CAIN and his board put together investors to buy the chain from pillsbury, they were losing there ashes. The chain was unable to secure loans for expansion or correction and private money had to be found.

This is where he leaves the tracks. After purchasing the chain in late 1988, CAIN remained as CEO until 1996 when he resigned at the request of the executive board.

After he resigned, the chain grew back to 636 stores and showed a profit. Here's some insight:

As of Oct 18, 2011, PolitiFacts[1] had checked out 19 statements by Herman Cain. It judged him telling the truth zero times, “mostly true” 3 times, “half truth” 4 times, “mostly false” 3 times, “false” 7 times, and “pants on fire” 2 times.” That’s 16 out of 19 half truths or worse, which means 84% of Cain’s statements have been judged half truths or worse. Politifacts is obviously willing to call Cain out when he lies.


This was six months before Pillsbury announced it was selling the company. Cain predicted Pillsbury would not sell the company and he claimed the “the segment is growing quickly.” Instead of talking about how tough the pizza business was, as the PolitiFact article claims, Cain was talking about how quickly the pizza business was growing.
The PolitiFacts article is particularly clueless when it says, “Two years after Cain was named chief executive officer, Pillsbury decided to get out of the pizza business and sell Godfather’s. Cain and his management team decided to buy the chain in a leveraged buyout for an undisclosed sum.”
First, Pillsbury did not decide to get out of the pizza business. It still continued to have its frozen pizza business. Second, the only reason that Pillsbury decided to sell Godfather’s Pizzas was because Cain had failed to deliver on his promise to turn the company around. After waiting two years, they stopped believing Cain’s Mosaic promises of a bright future just around the corner. They put Godfather’s Pizzas up for sale because he was continuing to lose money.



This is from the Wall Street Journal of March 18[SUP]th[/SUP] 1988.

Pillsbury Co. reported a $107.8 million loss for its third quarter ended Feb. 28, and disclosed it is negotiating to sell its 580 unit Godfather’s Pizza chain.
The earnings report came after a second day of frenzied trading in Pillsbury stock, fueled by speculators and various unconfirmed takeover rumors.
Pillsbury’s loss compares with earnings of $48.5 million, or 56 cents a share, in the year-earlier quarter. Revenue fell 2% in the latest period to $1.50 billion from $1.53 billion. The revenue decline came from Pillsbury’s restaurant business.
The troubled food and restaurant concern had write-offs for restructuring in the quarter of $140.9 million, $50 million more than Minneapolis-based Pillsbury had said it expected to write off earlier this year.
Pillsbury’s decision to sell Godfather’s is the latest move in a series of efforts to improve its restaurant group’s performance. In the latest quarter restaurants were responsible for pretax losses of $113.1 million. Pillsbury’s Steak & Ale and Bennigan’s chains also are considered by some analysts as candidates for the auction block.
While the company didn’t indicate what price it hoped to receive for Godfather’s, Pillsbury paid nearly $400 million for the struggling chain in 1985.
​

It was only when they were unable to find a buyer for the company that they finally sold it to Cain and his management group. The purchase prize was not disclosed, but some original estimates of $30 million appear to have been accurate. It is hard to imagine that Cain just decided to buy the company. It is pretty clear that Cain was desperate. He was 42 years old and essentially being fired by Pillsbury. His record would show a major management failure in running Godfather’s. It is hard to see where he could have gotten a job with his eclectic background. He hadn’t worked in computer science for seven years, basically a lifetime in computers. As a manager, he had some success at Burger King, but a major failure at Godfather’s. Fast Food restaurants were in a slump generally and management positions were shrinking. Buying the company in a buy-out was the only option that he really had to keep himself off the unemployment line.
In the two years that Cain managed Godfather’s Pizza for Pillsbury, 1986-1988, sales fell from $275 million to $242.5 million. The number of stores fell from 640 to 563. There is only one quarter during this time that there is any report of profits. On Oct 5, 1987, there is a report in Nation’s Restaurant’s News that Godfather’s “’moved solidly into the black,’ the company said.” There were no report after that of Godfather’s making a profit and Pillsbury put it up for sale five months later.



In the two years that Cain managed Godfather’s Pizza for Pillsbury, 1986-1988, sales fell from $275 million to $242.5 million. The number of stores fell from 640 to 563. There is only one quarter during this time that there is any report of profits. On Oct 5, 1987, there is a report in Nation’s Restaurant’s News that Godfather’s “’moved solidly into the black,’ the company said.” There were no report after that of Godfather’s making a profit and Pillsbury put it up for sale five months later.
PolitiFacts failed to indicate these important facts which would indicate how Cain did in his promise to turn the company around for Pillsbury. Two years before Cain took over, Godfather’s had fallen from third to fourth place in sales for U.S. Pizza Restaurants. Cain promised to bring it back to number three. When Pillsbury sold it to Cain and his management team, it had fallen from fourth to sixth place[iii]. Certainly no turnaround happened in the first two years that Cain took over. By the time he was forced to resign in 1995, Godfather’s had fallen further to eight place [iv].
By selling the company to Cain for a fraction of what they had paid for it, Pillsbury was getting rid of both Godfather’s and Cain.
An article published in Bloomberg Businessweek on June 6, 2011[v], the same week that PolitiFacts published its article, got it right. It noted that he closed 20 percent of the company’s 640 restaurants and fired 300 to 400 people. This excellent article by Tim Jones says, “He is a politician, just one who hasn’t held office. And like most politicians’ log cabin stories, Cain’s oft-told tale of how he rescued Godfather’s is kind to its hero and notable for what it leaves out.” He notes that Cain “has not released details of the company’s performance under his leadership” and ends by correctly stating:

The bottom line: Though Cain says he would revive the economy as he did Godfather’s Pizza, it’s not clear the chain improved much when he was CEO.
​

The facts point to the fact that PolitiFacts should have reported that Cain’s statement that Godfather’s was going bankrupt and he turned it around was mostly a lie, if not a complete lie.

Fact Checking the Fact Checkers: Herman Cain and Godfather’s Pizza – Part 3 � Notes to Aphrodite


So trippy, you cant believe everything herman cain says. Facts just dont support his claims.

Peace.

 

[trplnkl]

2 points Trippy.

First, isnt that what I said only I left out the "fluffy explanation"? I stated.... CAIN took control of Godfathers with 914 stores, and in less than 16 months, reduced that to 420 stores. Pretty simple. No need to make excuses. A reduction is a reduction and in no way demonstrates success.

You said " And with his leading abilities, he managed to settle some lawsuits, eliminated non-profitable units, introduced more products, and arranged for delivery services."

Now, this sounds more problematic than successful. Lawsuits? Which ones? Or do you mean the ones where the franchisees sued HIM and Pillsbury for ruining their businesses? He eliminated non profitable units, isnt that the same as going from 914 to 420? And, why, if the chain was profitable when Pillsbury bought the chain, why did it have non profitable units after CAIN was put in charge?

The Godfathers chain was purchased by Pillbury by default as it was a part of another company called diversified foods, and that company had burger king stores that pillsbury wanted. Godfathers was a part of diversified and came with the deal.

Pillsbury didnt put CAIN in charge of the burger king part of the deal, and instead put him in charge of Godfathers. Soon afterwards, the chain was losing money, franchisees were not getting support from pillsbury and the lawsuits began.

CAIN did in fact shut down 494 stores and put all those employees on the goverment unemployment lines. By the time CAIN and his board put together investors to buy the chain from pillsbury, they were losing there ashes. The chain was unable to secure loans for expansion or correction and private money had to be found.

This is where he leaves the tracks. After purchasing the chain in late 1988, CAIN remained as CEO until 1996 when he resigned at the request of the executive board.

After he resigned, the chain grew back to 636 stores and showed a profit. Here's some insight:

As of Oct 18, 2011, PolitiFacts[1] had checked out 19 statements by Herman Cain. It judged him telling the truth zero times, “mostly true” 3 times, “half truth” 4 times, “mostly false” 3 times, “false” 7 times, and “pants on fire” 2 times.” That’s 16 out of 19 half truths or worse, which means 84% of Cain’s statements have been judged half truths or worse. Politifacts is obviously willing to call Cain out when he lies.


This was six months before Pillsbury announced it was selling the company. Cain predicted Pillsbury would not sell the company and he claimed the “the segment is growing quickly.” Instead of talking about how tough the pizza business was, as the PolitiFact article claims, Cain was talking about how quickly the pizza business was growing.
The PolitiFacts article is particularly clueless when it says, “Two years after Cain was named chief executive officer, Pillsbury decided to get out of the pizza business and sell Godfather’s. Cain and his management team decided to buy the chain in a leveraged buyout for an undisclosed sum.”
First, Pillsbury did not decide to get out of the pizza business. It still continued to have its frozen pizza business. Second, the only reason that Pillsbury decided to sell Godfather’s Pizzas was because Cain had failed to deliver on his promise to turn the company around. After waiting two years, they stopped believing Cain’s Mosaic promises of a bright future just around the corner. They put Godfather’s Pizzas up for sale because he was continuing to lose money.



This is from the Wall Street Journal of March 18[SUP]th[/SUP] 1988.

Pillsbury Co. reported a $107.8 million loss for its third quarter ended Feb. 28, and disclosed it is negotiating to sell its 580 unit Godfather’s Pizza chain.
The earnings report came after a second day of frenzied trading in Pillsbury stock, fueled by speculators and various unconfirmed takeover rumors.
Pillsbury’s loss compares with earnings of $48.5 million, or 56 cents a share, in the year-earlier quarter. Revenue fell 2% in the latest period to $1.50 billion from $1.53 billion. The revenue decline came from Pillsbury’s restaurant business.
The troubled food and restaurant concern had write-offs for restructuring in the quarter of $140.9 million, $50 million more than Minneapolis-based Pillsbury had said it expected to write off earlier this year.
Pillsbury’s decision to sell Godfather’s is the latest move in a series of efforts to improve its restaurant group’s performance. In the latest quarter restaurants were responsible for pretax losses of $113.1 million. Pillsbury’s Steak & Ale and Bennigan’s chains also are considered by some analysts as candidates for the auction block.
While the company didn’t indicate what price it hoped to receive for Godfather’s, Pillsbury paid nearly $400 million for the struggling chain in 1985.
​

It was only when they were unable to find a buyer for the company that they finally sold it to Cain and his management group. The purchase prize was not disclosed, but some original estimates of $30 million appear to have been accurate. It is hard to imagine that Cain just decided to buy the company. It is pretty clear that Cain was desperate. He was 42 years old and essentially being fired by Pillsbury. His record would show a major management failure in running Godfather’s. It is hard to see where he could have gotten a job with his eclectic background. He hadn’t worked in computer science for seven years, basically a lifetime in computers. As a manager, he had some success at Burger King, but a major failure at Godfather’s. Fast Food restaurants were in a slump generally and management positions were shrinking. Buying the company in a buy-out was the only option that he really had to keep himself off the unemployment line.
In the two years that Cain managed Godfather’s Pizza for Pillsbury, 1986-1988, sales fell from $275 million to $242.5 million. The number of stores fell from 640 to 563. There is only one quarter during this time that there is any report of profits. On Oct 5, 1987, there is a report in Nation’s Restaurant’s News that Godfather’s “’moved solidly into the black,’ the company said.” There were no report after that of Godfather’s making a profit and Pillsbury put it up for sale five months later.



In the two years that Cain managed Godfather’s Pizza for Pillsbury, 1986-1988, sales fell from $275 million to $242.5 million. The number of stores fell from 640 to 563. There is only one quarter during this time that there is any report of profits. On Oct 5, 1987, there is a report in Nation’s Restaurant’s News that Godfather’s “’moved solidly into the black,’ the company said.” There were no report after that of Godfather’s making a profit and Pillsbury put it up for sale five months later.
PolitiFacts failed to indicate these important facts which would indicate how Cain did in his promise to turn the company around for Pillsbury. Two years before Cain took over, Godfather’s had fallen from third to fourth place in sales for U.S. Pizza Restaurants. Cain promised to bring it back to number three. When Pillsbury sold it to Cain and his management team, it had fallen from fourth to sixth place[iii]. Certainly no turnaround happened in the first two years that Cain took over. By the time he was forced to resign in 1995, Godfather’s had fallen further to eight place [iv].
By selling the company to Cain for a fraction of what they had paid for it, Pillsbury was getting rid of both Godfather’s and Cain.
An article published in Bloomberg Businessweek on June 6, 2011[v], the same week that PolitiFacts published its article, got it right. It noted that he closed 20 percent of the company’s 640 restaurants and fired 300 to 400 people. This excellent article by Tim Jones says, “He is a politician, just one who hasn’t held office. And like most politicians’ log cabin stories, Cain’s oft-told tale of how he rescued Godfather’s is kind to its hero and notable for what it leaves out.” He notes that Cain “has not released details of the company’s performance under his leadership” and ends by correctly stating:

The bottom line: Though Cain says he would revive the economy as he did Godfather’s Pizza, it’s not clear the chain improved much when he was CEO.
​

The facts point to the fact that PolitiFacts should have reported that Cain’s statement that Godfather’s was going bankrupt and he turned it around was mostly a lie, if not a complete lie.

Fact Checking the Fact Checkers: Herman Cain and Godfather’s Pizza – Part 3 � Notes to Aphrodite


So trippy, you cant believe everything herman cain says. Facts just dont support his claims.

Peace.

Fact checker is a left wing arm of Soro's right? Maybe not but they only seem to do hack jobs on republicans. It also appears they have a little rivalry with politifacts.

I didn't say anything other that what is typed in brown. I like to make sure you can tell the difference in what I say and what the source says. Unlike "some" people on here I don't try to pretend to be smarter than everyone else. I posted part of the article that disputed your ranting. I provided a link.
Either you accept the source or not, that is up to you.

BTW, I respectfully ask that you stop using "trippy" when addressing me.

Another BTW, I don't believe everything anyone says.

 

[wkmac]

As of Oct 18, 2011, PolitiFacts[1] had checked out 19 statements by Herman Cain. It judged him telling the truth zero times, “mostly true” 3 times, “half truth” 4 times, “mostly false” 3 times, “false” 7 times, and “pants on fire” 2 times.” That’s 16 out of 19 half truths or worse, which means 84% of Cain’s statements have been judged half truths or worse. Politifacts is obviously willing to call Cain out when he lies.

Seems Cain is stretching the definition of truth again.

Did Herman Cain Just Lie To Piers Morgan?
Herman Cain, a top tier Tea Party candidate running for a shot at the Republican nomination for President revealed a previously undiscovered inconsistency in a recent interview on CNN. Cain said in the interview “I ran for US Senate in 2004 and came in an impressive second”. Piers then questioned him about whether the second place finish was actually “impressive or unimpressive”. Cain responded that “I almost pulled it off. I came within 2 percentage points”.
But after a fact check it has come to light that Cain’s statement was far from accurate. Cain actually got 26% of the votes out of a 3-way race with the victor receiving 53%. That was not a difference of “2 percentage points” as he claimed but actually a difference of 27% between Cain and the winner. The 3rd candidate in the race received just 20%.

What Cain is doing is not nothing new or what other candidates of all parties do also. They take circumstances and twist them into a new truth and that's what goes out for public consumption. Why do you think politicians have so many PR folks, advisors, speech writers, etc.? I mean us normal folk would lie our asses off if we had a whole staff of folk to keep up with it all so the story was always consistent.

We're such FVKING SUCKERS!

 

[klein]

I said no one could pay me enough....what does that even have to do with UPS ?? It's my personal opinion.

klein move to Australia.
They have not have a recession in 20 years.
Seems that they know how to manage their banking system better than anyone.

Seems Cain is stretching the definition of truth again.



What Cain is doing is not nothing new or what other candidates of all parties do also. They take circumstances and twist them into a new truth and that's what goes out for public consumption. Why do you think politicians have so many PR folks, advisors, speech writers, etc.? I mean us normal folk would lie our asses off if we had a whole staff of folk to keep up with it all so the story was always consistent.

We're such FVKING SUCKERS!

When I first seen your thread and the Piers Morgan part - I thought it was because of the lie of his childhood.
He was on the show, saying how poor he was going to school and mostly getting peanut butter and jam sandwiches and a piece of fruit for lunch, and only the odd time meat, and once a week (friday's $5.00).

Gee, that's not poor to me ! First of all as a kid, who wanted meat sandwiches, anyways ?
Secondly, $5.00 for pocket money once per week in those days, seems a lot to me.
I was happy with a quarter back then (bought me a bag of chips and a pop) or even a whole bag of bulk candies (2 for a penny).
Chocolate bars were 5 cents !
Remember the snack pack at KFC ? (drumstick, thigh, fries, and salad) was $1.00 when I was 10 years old.

He also didn't show any emotion whatsover when telling his "poor" childhood.
Trust me, I know it first hand, and it does get emotional when told.