Herman Cain: Another Country Club Conservative Elitist

Post Reply New Topic

Not all lefties have to agree with liberal USSC justices. Lefties don't rely on Party higher-ups to inform them on their views. Also, the job of the USSC is to determine whether a particular action violates the constitution, not to determine whether the action is right or wrong. They can't just arbitrarily decide one case of eminent domain is wrongful while another is legit without reference to past cases. There are many government actions that I view as wrong but not necessarily unconstitutional.

But I thought you said it was Conservatives that liked to use eminent domain to take people's property away in order to give it to big business. Yet, it was the Conservative Members of the Supreme Court that said this was an abuse of power.

Oh, absolutely, I try no to waste my time with the low-hanging fruit if at all possible, they're more like trolls to me and I observe the non-feeding rule. M_P to me is a smart guy who shoots himself in the foot with the sloganeering and hyperbole because he thinks he'll be ignored if he's not obnoxious, a notion I've spent considerable time trying to disabuse him of. If you go back a ways, you'll see that I started really butting heads with him not so much because we disagree politically, but because I persisted in pointing out the flaws in his methods, and because he keeps trying to pigeonhole me as some sort of right wing extremist in disguise. He's not unique as I've actually argued with quite a number of people here about effective political debate strategy and not painting themselves into ideological corners, most of them haven't taken it quite so personally though.

This particular case was more me riffing off of Raptor's post than anything, I was feeling mischievous and opportunity presented itself.

I never said he did, though he did obviously create it to bait someone. Perhaps you should spend a little more time reflecting on your own enormous inferiority complex rather than speculating about my ego. Look through your posts; if I say I have a job and a wife, you interpret that as rubbing your nose in you not having those things, if I say I used logic, you twist that into accusing you of not using it, so on and so forth. It's a pretty clear pattern that explains a lot about your rage-posts and defensive posturing; no one can say something positive about themselves without you taking it as a slight against you personally, it's glaringly obvious once you see the pattern. Hence why I'm not going to bother trying to argue with you about the size of my ego or whether I'm being cocky; you're not capable of being objective at this time and will likely lash out no matter what I say. I trust in my record and reputation here and don't feel the need to rebut accusations that are obviously false.

I see a proliferation of rightwingers claiming that Herman Cain's philanthropy and nouveau riche status exclude him from being a country club conservative elitist.

Okay, so by that same argument, that George Soros, Michael Dukakis, and various left-leaning professors who started off in the working class or lower-middle class can't be members of the "liberal elite" or are not "latte leftists"?

Is it just me or does this make no sense at all?

He is implying that Herman Cain acts like an elitist when the man does not act like one.

Well yes but WFT is that supposed to be telling anyone?
The left is really in a panic over NEXT year's elections.

Did it ever occur to you that maybe he created this thread because he passionately dislikes the condescension displayed by people like Herman Cain, as demonstrated in the posted advertisement? The message seems to be that black men who vote for Democrats are lazy, gambling addicted, wife cheating, welfare abusing losers. It's quite clear a lot of members here share a similar passionate dislike for Obama and even you jumped on that band-wagon. It goes both ways.


Looking at the context of your posts, as compared with the context of hundreds of other internet posters I've encountered over the years who use a similar style of discourse when they are trying to inflate themselves in a debate, it wasn't an unreasonable assumption for me to make. There is no other explanation for the faux-nonchalant "I really don't have time to be fighting over the internet with the likes of you, but you know what, I'm going to anyway" routine. I don't envy your job or the fact that you have a wife (I don't intend to marry), but that is a rather clever trick you pull in trying to accuse me of such. Your claims to superior logic and debate prowess annoy me because you fail to back them up. You're obviously one of the better writers here. You're more articulate than 99% of people. However, you've made all kinds of logically flawed arguments.


You mean me reacting to Fnord basically telling a bunch of people "I've had a harder life than anyone here and look what I've accomplished. Therefore you don't have the right to ever feel depressed or complain about anything". I don't have a problem with people who have a positive self-image. I have a problem with people who see fit to judge others for not being exactly like them. That IS arrogant.


If you're not intentionally cocky, maybe you should work on your style.

I'm sure Herman Cain is just annoyed at the fact the left has been calling all kinds of things ranging from an "Uncle Tom" to an "Oreo," personally I don't blame him for being a little impolite to people like that.



marshall to be honest, you've been coming across as being rather obnoxious lately.



marshall, it is quite possible that Fnord has had a hard life, and I got news for you, you're not the only one that has had it rough marshall. I don't know what Fnord has been through, but belittling him when you know absolutely nothing about him (which you tend to do to Dox47, Fnord, myself, and about anyone else that disagrees with you), is the height of arrogance. Yeah sometimes I will say some things that will tweek people's noses, say something sarcastic, etc., however I don't view anyone here to be somehow inferior to me. Likewise I don't think of anyone here as being superior to me either.



I don't think you have any room to talk.

Well the OP didn't call him any of those names. He called him a "Country Club Conservative" which he applies to basically any conservative. I don't see what the big deal is.


Read again. I've never claimed I had it rougher than others or expressed doubt that Fnord had a hard life. I'm explaining to Dox47 why I lost my temper with Fnord as he brought it up. In any case I'm done with this.

Let me spell it out as simply as possible.

• Conservatives say Herman Cain *can't* be a country club elitist because he worked his way up to earn his fortune. Others say that he also gives to charity, thus can't be an elitist.
• George Soros, Michael Dukakis, and various Professors (regardless of their early family socioeconomic background) have been labeled as "limousine liberals" or "latte leftists" or "liberal elitists".
• George Soros wasn't born rich, was rather impoverished when he emigrated to England and started university, worked a variety of jobs to sustain himself, and pretty much* made his financial fortunes by himself. Soros also gives to charities, so by the logic of various conservatives in this thread he can't be an elitist.
• Michael Dukakis also worked his way up from being the child of recent immigrants to being a central figure in the political establishment. So he, can't be a "liberal elitist" by the logic of several conservatives in this thread.
• Many Professors worked their way up from poorer beginnings. Elizabeth Warren (whom some Scott Brown staffers have been chastising as a "Harvard Elite") worked her way up, having waited tables at the age of 13. So, the logic of various Herman Cain apologists means that she can't be an elitist.

*No-one is completely self-made, of course.

You don't really understand the American Culture Wars. The conservative notion of elitism has little to do with wealth and much to do with being "overly educated". The educated lower-class, i.e. struggling bohemian artsy-fartsy types, are considered lower class elitists. Meanwhile wealthy people like Ronald Reagon and George W. Bush are not elitist because they can do the "down-to-earth folksy charm" act. So conservative anti-elitism should be more correctly called anti-intellectualism.

Last edited by marshall on 04 Oct 2011, 11:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I'm not saying the OP did, I'm saying the people that are expecting handouts from Cain have called him that.



You've been losing your temper an awful lot lately.

@ Master_Pedant

Sorry but he wouldn't qualify as a Country-Club Elitist because he has actually ran small businesses on an operational level, that means he's actually cooked Pizzas, not simply sat back in an office smoking like some sort of corporate fat-cat.

I assume you are referring to the 80-90% of blacks that vote Democrat. They're ALL on welfare? They ALL gamble away their money or spend it on getting drunk, and then cheat on their wives? Only the 10-20% who vote Republican actually have respectable jobs? Right? The rest either deal drugs or live off the dole while sitting around getting drunk and high? They were all bitter and liked to call Herman Cain bad names, so Herman Cain turned around and decided to make a ridiculous campaign ad to mock them into seeing the error of their ways and voting Republican?

I find it ironic that Joe Biden and George W. Bush have been called "Men most Americans could have a beer with" given that they're both teetotallers.

Ironically enough, the politician most Canadians would like to have a beer with was a bicycling professor.