Forget who is behind bringing these 12-year-old allegations forward at this particular juncture (ladies and gentlemen, place your bets. I'll wager even money that it was Perry and not Romney).
Politics is a dirty business. Nothing's too low.
So as we know, sexual harrassment charges were leveled against Herman Cain a dozen years ago by not one, but two women.
This was during his tenure at the helm of the National Restaurant Association.
Cain's memory of the events has been fogy but clearly of late. Sort
Oddly, however, he says he doesn't remember a SETTLEMENT (he's feigning innocence, claiming settlement is the same as "agreement." Well yeah, I suppose it is. An agreement where MONEY IS PAID.
Is it just me, or does Cain remind you of Clarence Thomas?
Or Arnold Schwarzenneger??
He's a central banker. What'd you expect?
Well, for an outsider he seems to have pickd up the art of selective memory very well. That's a common politician trick...
That is too true! The Koch Bros are behind this guy, so they might have provided what training he could process. I can't wait until the clown car empties down to one clown.
You know what is sad is that the Rs are playing right into President Obama's hands - they are going to destroy each other and fling so much blood that all those that have wavered over the last few months will think 'Better the devil you know'.
Personally if I could vote (Green card holder), Mickey Mouse would definitely be at the top of my list this year.
Bill Clinton, anyone remeber that? No? He sexually assaulted an intern with a foreign object--an illegal Cuban cigar--lied and lied and lied, and still got re-elected.
Fact is, nobody cares.
Running around rasing hell about Cain like he commited bloody murder when really it's total nonsense.
People do care. It speaks to the man's moral character.
Clinton messed up.
DO I care if he had a little hanky panky in the Oval Orifice? No.
But his cover up was worse than the act itself.
Cain is messing up by not sticking to his story.
THe seeds of doubt and mistrust (possibly also mysogyny) have been firmly planted. He won't survive this.
There is some indication that Monica actually assaulted Clinton. One of her friends quoted her as saying before she left Los Angeles, "I've got my knee pads on and I'm headed for the White House." And after she got to the White House I seem to recall reading something about her habit of snapping her thong whenever she got near Clinton.
So it is your contention that the man occupying the most powerful post in the world not only lacked sufficient character to resist a trashy come on by a trashy girl but lacked the will to dismiss her back to her trashy little California world and was so weak as to succumb to a tasteless, powerless, intern's sexual advances.
We are lucky to have squeaked by without being invaded by Nazi regalia clad German Dominatrices and the resultant subjugation of the entire Democrat Party (even though bondage is the condition most desired by Democrats) - given the lack of character and spine so thoroughly displayed by their leader.
That is what you are saying, isn't it, by contending that Monica Lewinsky assaulted Bill Clinton.
No, it's not. Try getting a sense of humor for a change.
I laugh constantly at the idea that those who gladly elected and doggedly defended a man who routinely used women like kleenex find the chutzpah to criticize any supposed transgression by any other political figure. Feh!
The absurdity of liberals, liberalism and, what passes for, liberal political thought makes me laugh. I laughed when I read "Rhinoceros" and "Waiting for Godot." The absurd often entertains me, luckily. It must be why I keep reading and writing on these forums.
Thanks for proving my point once again.
The Dems could care less about either man's sex life. We are not obsessed with bodily functions and interactions the way Republicans are.
We do care about performance (no pun intended there).
Clinton will still go down (again, no pun intended) in history as one of the best presidents. Period.
It's not the Dems sabotaging Cain with this revelation.
It's .... drumroll please .... one of his fellow Republicans. Gasp!!
Who cares how many women crawl from the woodwork with these allegations? This wouldn't be an issue if we were talking about democrats, they almost have to have this kind of stuff on their resume's to run for public office.
The women are coming forward they are Paula Jones, Kathleen Willie and Juanita Broderick.
Just wait. Linda Tripp will be next!
Linda Tripp wasn't sexually assaulted but she was destroyed by the liberal media. If your skin is white and you are a Democrat mentored by that great egalitarian William J. Fullbright then you can do what you want, assault who you want, violate all notions of decency and decorum and even commit rape and perjury. Democrats and liberals will swallow any foul meal as long as it comes from another liberals kitchen.
Snort if you like but no president has ever shown the kind of callousness and brutality toward women that Clinton did and you all gave him a pass when he should have been pilloried.
Snort was *snort* as in laughing.
You immediately jump on the defensive and have to turn it around and accuse the "liberal media." (Yes, NPR is always all over sex scandals!
A large number of women have been sexually assaulted by powerful politicians on both side of the aisle.
Anita Hill. Remember her?
How about all the women groped by Ahnold but hushed up -- with the complicity of his long-suffering wife Maria -- so he could become governator?
But the most famous -- and she wasn't assaulted, she was a willing participant -- is good old Monica Lewinsky.
Linda Tripp is a snitch. She destroyed her friend and the president. Who did she think she was helping? Kenneth Starr maybe?
Oh well. She got her 15 minutes of infamy.
Linda Tripp ruined her own reputation while trying to bring Clinton down!
Actually, it was the Republicans who gave Clinton a pass. They could have convicted him, but made a political calculation (miscalculation as it turns out) that it would be better to leave a weakened Clinton in office; a president they could walk all over. Didn't turn out so well for them did it?
You forgot the other phrase that Cain uses so often:
It was just a joke!
I think if he used this phrase instead of, "I don't recall", he might have fared a bit better.
Sexual harassment? It was just a joke taken out of context!
If you mean demonizing a human being with dark skin simply because they hold conservative values then you are spot on!
Both! But worse, he is so dim minded. His gaffes on Libya, and that stupid "Uz becky becky becky" comment made me sick.
I think Cain has messed up here. And I agree that it was probably Perry behind it - not Romney. BTW, did you see Perry in that NH speech??? STRANGE!
He went to the Howard Dean school of campaigning.
I need a translator for Rick Perry. He mangles his words like no other -- and that includes George W. Bush, and he just acts weird when he's got a microphone in front of him. I suspect a drug problem exacerbated by the stress of a campaign and the national spotlight.
Just what America needs -- another substance abusing swaggering with attitude cowboy for Christ.
Apparently you conveinently forgot about Obama's admitted struggles with drug abuse.
I you're talking about cigarettes he's just gotten a clean bill of health from his doctor.
I he was a heavy user in the past he hasn't been in quite awhile.
He is not an addict in the way Bush is and always will be (it's with ya for life).
I don't know about Perry and drug use. He could certainly use a Valium!
Did you forget Obama's admitted abuse of cocaine? He admitted it in one of his books, I believe.
Maybe we should look carefully at the side of his hand to check for residue. That would explain some of the decisions he's made over the last three years.
Obama's not a cokehead.
He's way, way too controlled in his speech and actions.
More likely after 3 years with the "Just Say NO" Congress he's on Prozac.
I sure would be!
An ego of sufficient size precludes the need for pharmacological solutions.
You probably already know but I was joking, MM. I don't think he's a coke head now. I do believe his past use had long-term effects though judging from the stupidity and lack of good judgment he now exhibits.
It's a Texas thing - no offense to the Texasbeta
Yeah, I wonder what he'd been smoking or drinking.
As a manager it is quite likely he was not involved in or even informed of the settlement as part of the impartiality procedures.
Even though the subject of the procedures was HIS conduct?
Well, psycheskinner, your interpretation is as plausible as any/every explanation Mr. Cain himself has offered to date!!
Cain: "I am above such details. If the settlement was not for $999 I don't recall it."
The thing is the company has to bend over backwards to show the manager did not influence the proceedings. In a litigious setting this can mean not even telling them what it was. I've seen it happen.
Except he did know about it. He has now admitted that there was a settlement, he just didn't understand that an agreement and a settlement were the same thing. He knew there were allegations against him, and he knew the settlement/agreement with the accusers including a monetary package (he remembered it being "3 to 6 months salary", it was actually 1 year's pay).
Feigning ignorance in these matters doesn't work because Cain keeps denying any memory of this and then later on (in some cases the same day) admitting he does in fact remember the details of the case.
What he says is that he found out about what the actual deal was after it was raised in the media. First he said that was no monetary settlement that he knew of, but he had not been involved in the agreement--and if there was one it could not be for much as he did not admit and was not found guilty. Then he said he discovered there was a monetary settlement. No obvious lie there.
now there's a third accuser...
AP Exclusive: Third worker says Cain harassed her
http://hosted2.ap.org/OHCAN/CREPnewswir … d6f86fa009
This might help Cain, because now he can refer to all the allegations as if they were being made in the present. He can say things like "these allegations are just part of a witch hunt against me, a presidential candidate" instead of saying "those allegations that were made long before I became a presidential candidate were part of a witch hunt, even though we did reach a monetary settlement with the accusers".
That reminds me (for some odd reason) of the conspiracy of Barack Hussein Obama's mother to give birth to him in Kenya and smuggle him into Hawaii and forge a birth certificate because she knew that one day four+ decades later he would run for President and would need to fool the voting public into believing he was born in the USA.
Or maybe she just knew he'd be better off as a U.S. citizen.
Just to clarify, as the son of a U.S. citizen (his mother), Barack Obama was a United States citizen at birth no matter where in the world he was born. A quick trip to Kenya would have been dangerous (given how far into her pregnancy she was) and completely unnecessary, except of course for maintaining little Barry's eligibility to become president decades later.
Another one bites the dust.
Republicans sure do love their roadkill.
Life cycle, interesting. Another day in politics and another one bites the dust. Well put,
The party of cannibals.
It's sad but also funny. Especially when you consider the whole "right to life" platform. Guess if you are a political candidate with any hope of beating out "their" guy, you don't have a right to live...
(Not that I am defending Cain here. Surely NO ONE at Hub Pages would suspect that. He brought this on himself).
Powerful men can never have all the power they want, that is like asking the wealthy how much money they want. The reply, one more dollor then they have.
Far be it from me to side with Mr Cain, where there is smoke, there is fire. Stand back and watch it blase out of control.
As for the rest of the Republicans, let he without sin cast the first stone.
Be well and hold their feet to the fire...
Should Obama's feet be rubbed with lavender and frankincense?
I so totally agree with you Teddlelonmr. No one is ever really satisfied with what they have, no matter how rich or how powerful. As for Herman Cain....from what I hear, he had 10 days to consider a reasonable response before this went public, yet he he came out fumbling and bumbling. What does say about his ability to lead?
Rick Perry isn't much better I would vote for him either. Check this out. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OG-VMK7L0cc
Here is another link: http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/201 … lind-spot/
All of them have dirty laundry
True, no one is perfect, my wife tells me I snor, but I am a good cook.
As for Perry, he is yesterdays news. ,.
That computer voice freaked me out. I stopped listening to it less then halfway thru. sorry
Whether or not these allegations are true - none of the current candidates have what it takes to be president. They are midgets compared to any historical president.
I find it truly sad that a great nation with over 300 million people can only field this bunch of yahoos as potential Presidential Candidates. There should be thousands of better qualified people instead of crazy Bachman, a pizza ceo who has never held public office (and the Republicans complained that Obama lacked experience!), a swaggering unintellectual Texan who has a reputation for kickbacks and cronyism, and Mittens (the best of a mediocre bunc, apparently).
Where are the thousands of better qualified patriots who no doubt are out there? Why doesn't someone with some actual substance come forward, or has America declined so far that this is the best that it can put forward? I hope not.
Honestly. Could there be anything more rediculous then this guy? All Cain, Bachman, Perry, etc, are doing is making themselves look so absolutely rediculous to the point that Mitt Romney now looks like a shining star via comparison. I'm starting to think that's the strategy here. They are really all a team and it's kind of the same as when a decent looking girl hangs around with some serious ugly fattie's, therefore making her decentness appear as hotness via comparison.
I don't think he realizes that he's coming off as a stupid individual who can't take responsibility. And I agree with MDonaldson, he, Perry and Bachman are making it very easy for Romney to slip in and take the nomination like that.
Now this is very interesting. For the party that's all about moral values, documented sexual harassment sure doesn't seem to be a problem (unless it's Bill Clinton, then it's a BIG problem).
I particularly like the stat for Tea Partiers. I guess all the TPers care about is balancing the budget (frugality, yes. Faith and family values, not so much).
http://news.yahoo.com/teflon-candidate- … 00155.html
* For now, 69 percent of Republicans say the story about Cain does not make a difference in their vote.
* Some 55 percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents say they don’t regard the harassment charges as serious.
* Among Cain supporters, 22 percent say the story is serious.
* Among those not supporting Cain, the number is 44 percent.
* Among Romney supporters, 49 percent call the Cain charges serious.
Among Republicans who stated a preference, a substantial majority – 69 percent – say they could switch to another candidate.
And 45 percent say there’s a “good chance” of it.
Strong tea party supporters are among those most likely to support Cain over Romney, 36 percent to 21 percent.
And they’re among those least likely to see the alleged harassment as serious. Only 20 percent of tea partyers reported they see it as serious.
I wonder how many (if any) of the people's openion will change about Herman Cain. Especially now that one of the victims of his alleged unwanted sexual advances has spoken out through her attorney?.
Clarence Thomas is still a Supreme Court Justice.
And Arnold Schwarzenneger is out there making movies again.
So probably not.
Just goes to show you...a lot of these family values people really have no values at all when it comes to intregity and honor.
I see where you're going with this, carol3San.
They have family values alright.
It's not about sex (unless it's a Dem in the hot seat). The key is does the sex end up in a pregnancy? If it does, THEN it becomes an official family values (FV)issue.
Republicans aren't jumping all over this Cain sex thing because they think he is going to be the Great Black Hope whose outsider status (ha) as a pizza magnate plus a catchy 9-9-9 plan is going to solve the financial crisis and set us all free.
And they laugh at the rest of us for buying Obama's "Change we can believe in."
And do you believe in the whole "Change we can believe in" thing, MM?
Yes, I think Cain would be a good candidate but It has nothing to do with his skin color.
Past tense, LH.
"Change we can believe in" was 2008.
I think you know I never drank the koolaid.
Pardon me if I'm skeptical of Cain.
I did drink the Ahnold koolaid here in California.
Like it or not, politics is NOT a private sector business.
The president (or in his case, the governator) is NOT the CEO.
I have come to believe it takes a strong, experienced, principled INSIDER to herd the cats and make ANYTHING happen inside the walls of the Capitol.
I should probably clarify what I *meant* as I can see where it looks like I was including myself in the "those of us..."
What I meant was 999 is no more substantive than change we can believe in.
It's branding. That's all.
The same people who decried Obama as an outsider are now looking at another outsider.
I guess the net positive is if it comes down to Obama v. Cain NO ONE can play the race card (although some will try).
I've read enough of your stuff that the last thing I would think is you're a Kool-aide drinker.
I'm skeptical of them all until they prove themselves. As for the 9-9-9 thing, it's just Cain's way of having an idea of how to fix the mess we're in.
If only our economic quagmire were as simple to fix as 9-9-9!!!
9-9-9 is definitely not a fix. It brins more financial pain to the poor and the middle class than ever before in the history of this country. Even Herman cain himself had to conceed that it wasn't fair. That's why he changed it to 9-0-9.
What do you expect from a pizza magnate, something thoughtful that will work? Not likely.
The tax code is thousands of pages of regulations and rules. Compliance with that cyclopian spate of fecal matter costs everyone - even the poor - billions in capital that could easily be used to expand business, purchase capital goods, build new plants, transfer accountants from compliance to investment and management, hire people to shred all the detritus required by the IRS to be stored for a decade.
Every time any kind of devolution of power from the IRS to the tax payer is suggested liberal feather heads shout "No! unfair to poor. Favors the rich." It is an very old and very useful argument because those predisposed to see their fellow citizens as the enemy willingly seek the oppression of their fellows in the name of "fairness."
Thanks, anyway, Hermie. I'll wait for the one AFTER 9-0-9.
Thank you, Willie Nelson, exceptional American!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_N3USic … re=related
I don't get how anyone can take Cain seriously as a Presidential candidate.
Seriously, President Herman Cain?
The GOP's inability to produce an electable candidate shows what divisive politics does to a party.
The party of cannibals.
Seemingly unquenchable thirst for blood.
And since they lack guts of their own, they rip open anyone within knife range and gut them and munch down.
Have you seen Cain's poll numbers or his fund raising? This ersatz scandal has done almost nothing to harm his numbers and pumped his campaign with money.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/ … nd-raising
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls … -1452.html
Ya think maybe somebody -- or somebodies -- might be behind this?
Nothing happens in the GOP spontaneously or by accident.
Herman Cain is not catching fire with the electorate.
This is all being engineered.
Hmmm. I wonder who might be behind such a not-so-transparent move?
And how coincidental (NOT!) that suddenly we're seeing, out of the seeming blue, a pairing of Herman and Newt.
Nothing happens in God's world by accident, especially when you substitute the word "Koch" for God.
Couldn't be the liberal Politico taking a hit on the black man.
I've heard recently he's another Koch brothers puppet. I read something the other day, but can't find it, but I did find this article, http://www.ology.com/politics/herman-ca … h-brothers
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politic … e-1.972623
Ah, but those are MEDIA stories. And we know who owns/runs the media, right (oops, I mean left:lol:).
Maybe the Koch Brothers don't exist and they, too, are a concoction of the communists who are trying to take over our country to distract us from their evil agenda.
Kind of the bogeyman behind the bogeyman behind the bogeyman....
THE VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY
couldn't be the personal slant that news people who just happen to be liberal are willing to put on a story. more than one person has been taken in by a story they wanted to believe.
But believe it the evil Koch brothers stripping the will from all just to bring about the apocalypse and the arrival of their master Lucifer to consume the holy liberals in hell fire.
The only one left will be the oh so objective journalist Chris Matthews because it is just hard to beat a man who gets a tingle up his leg.
Better sleep with the lights on tonight one of the Koch brothers may be lurking in the dark.
The Tea Party has all but destroyed the Republican Party.
Hahaha! I mentioned Clearance Thomas too! But, more so because I believe that Cain will walk away politically unscathed from the questions. I just don't see his party walking away from him for this. I don't even see his Christian Base walking away from him (regardless of the fact that infidelity is contrary to the "sanctity of marriage").
All this chat is making me thirsty...
any of you sexy ladies want a coke?
"Cain's comments came as the latest woman to go public with the accusations — Karen Kraushaar, one of two who settled sexual harassment claims while they worked at the National Restaurant Association while it was led by Mr. Cain — set in motion plans to appear with other women who have accused Mr. Cain of inappropriate behavior.
'Ms. Kraushaar, 55, who now works as a spokeswoman for one of the three inspectors general at the Treasury Department, told The New York Times: “When you are being sexually harassed in the workplace, you are extremely vulnerable. You do whatever you can to quickly get yourself into a job someplace safe, and that is what I thought I had achieved when I left.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/09/us/po … ve-on.html
The GOP is self-destructing, even more than the Democrats.
Did Cain say he was being targeted by Democrats? Swiftboating is a uniquely Republican dirty trick! I hope he enjoys the ride, provided by his good fellow Republican friends.
There is a "rumor" that Obama had several sexual harrassment cases brought against him by men and women while attending Occidental college.
That is the reason he passed an executive order to keep those allegations secret!
This is true, I can vouch for it for I heard the rumor firsthand from somebody who knows someone that was there.
It occured at Occidental College "While squatting in an apt Barry Soreoto Aka Barrack Hussein Obama Aka Barry Obama aka Barrack Obama aka....
Made several sexual advances towards other fellow apartment squatters. Although no one has come forward, it is my belief that this entire story is credible and should haunt our medias'a airwaves for weeks and weeks.
Keep us posted. Names, faces, details and photos would be helpful.
What is the fun in spreading rumors if you have to provide facts to back them up?
There are no facts.
All is conjecture and manipulation of evidence.
Are you still talking about the rumors about the idiot in the White House or the lack of facts other than hearsay evidence against Cain?
A settlement with one of his accusers over a decade before he became a national political figure is hardly hearsay evidence. Either he was guilty or there was enough evidence to make him look guilty in court.
Correct, DB. Just like the banks who pay out billions to settle SEC fraud charges without admitting nor denying guilt, of course.
This is a settlement that Cain said he had no part in.
Where's the evidence? I mean, other than Dems having an orgasm over the idea of getting a him to quit, where is the evidence against Cain?
I am being a metaphysical smarta$$, Longhunter.
The answer to your questions is: Yes.
I believe it's a fact that the restaurant lobbying organization paid out money to make at least two of the accusations go away.
Neither Obama’s image or name appear in any Occidental yearbooks or the weekly student newspaper for the years he attended. The picture featured on this page is the only one we have of the president; it was sent in with his Occidental application.
conjecture and manipulation of evidence = Modern journalism, the days of investigative reporting is extinct!
Settlements are not uncommon when problems come up, and the fact that there was a settlement doesn't say anything about guilt. Many large companies I've worked with, for instance, had a set limit that they would be willing to settle for, for almost any kind of charge or accusation. It's just easier and cheaper for them to pay a settlement than go through the legal proceedings.
It can be much cheaper to throw a few thousand at a person then to pay several thousands in legal fees.
In the abstract that is true, RB.
Typically in employment situations tho, the employer holds the cards.
The deck is already stacked against the employee in terms of litigation.
Gotta read that employment contract and the employer's grievance policy carefully. There's fine print.
Complaints often must be handled through arbitration so will not go through court (although the threat of media exposure can be leverage if the grievance is "sexy" (read: big, bad) enough).
It's not that easy to extract a financial settlement from an employer.
Remember, the onus is on the accuser, not the defendant.
It might not be as difficult as you think. Employers are smart, and understand how costly these things can be even if they end up winning in court.
Here's an example of costs:
31,000 harassment complaints to the EEOC. About 7,000 settled with the EEOC for $98 million. That's about 14,000 per settlement, and that includes settlements with no monetary payout(policy change, etc). In addition, there were 1,300 'right to sue' findings, where the person is given permission to sue the employer in court. Those are the cases that can cost millions.
If the employer doesn't agree to mediation and the EEOC issues a right to sue, the company's name will be listed on the EEOC website and kept on record. And of course, none of this includes settlements that are reached before an EEOC complaint is filed.
It's nasty business for employers, and the EEOC regularly wins 6 digit settlements for employees.
At the very least it says that a complaint was filed. Two complaints, actually. I worked more than 40 years in private company and government offices and never had a complaint filed against me nor did anyone in any of the offices so far as I'm aware. Why are you trying to defend that obviously unqualified candidate, anyway?
At least what he did was more innocuous than Gingrich screwing his secretary while his wife was in the hospital dying of cancer. Of course at the time he was exhausted from working so hard to impeach Clinton for his seance with Monica.
I'm not trying to defend him, I'm just saying that a settlement doesn't equal guilt. For instance, the last company I worked for, which was a great company, about 400 employees, had 3 harassment lawsuits in the last year I was there, that I knew of. I also know that one of the was 100% not true(I witnessed the supposed harassment). The company settled them all in the same manner, just because it's easier, cheaper, and no bad press for something that didn't happen.
No, it's not cheaper. The more they pay the more complaints they get as the word spreads and the more they pay. [I'm not denying that many companies do pay off rather than going to the trouble and cost of defending themselves.]
However, the worse their case the more likely to settle rather than go to court. Usually they make a calculation comparing the cost of settling versus the likely cost if they lose the case and the odds of losing.
That's why the settlements come with gag orders. If someone talks about the settlement, they can be prosecuted. If a company does it right, most people don't have any idea it happened. Everyone usually agrees for the employee to quit, a story is agreed on, and glowing recommendations are given.
I know not every company is the same, but that's been my experience. Too many lawyers have seen frivolous lawsuits that cost millions, when a problem like this can go away for some thousands.
Yes, you're right.
Settlements that come with gag orders are hush money!
Shut up and go away. Quietly.
Perhaps there are actually a lot more employment case settlements than we know about. So how would we know if there's a gag order?
It's standard to include a gag order with any settlement, no matter the veracity of the claim.
Some of these victims could be in breach of the settlement terms, but it would look bad for someone to prosecute them now.
Some of these victims could be in breach of the settlement terms, but it would look bad for someone to prosecute them now.
Prosecute them for breaking the gag order?
That threat could serve to keep them from whistleblowing
So by coming forward they're exposing themselves to prosecution.
Why would a woman do that?
From what I am watching he appears to be guilty. A lot of them have done things they don't want the public to know about. Cain is just the latest that is having his dirty laundry aired in public. I say throw them all out. Republicans and Democrats.
In the end, facts won't matter when it comes to Mr. Cain . . .
<TOS violation, snipped>
Facts didn't matter when Obama was elected. We knew nothing about him then and VERY little more now. We already know more about Cain than The One and, from what I do know, I'd vote for Cain in a heartbeat. Of course, I would vote for anyone over Obama.
If there's a lynching going on, it's coming from within his own party.
Oh, I wouldn't put anything past Romney or Perry although I don't think Perry is smart enough to come up with all this about Cain.
Obama's people are loving it. If Cain is the GOP nominee, it would take the race card Obama loves to play right off the table.
Obama LOVES to play the race card huh? Tell me a single time when Obama used race, just once.
After that, I'll tell you exactly when Cain did so in the last 2 weeks.
I guess what I should have said was Obama's people - the mainstream media that he's bought and paid for - love to play the race card.
And in answer to one of your other questions, no, I haven't read any of Obama's so-called books as I don't waste what little time I have to read lately on BS that I have no interest in. His actions say enough that I don't have to waste time on drivel he didn't even write.
The only thing I want to read about Obama is about his departure from D.C. on January 20, 2013.
The "race card" or racial politics is cynical and lazy. Black people have been staunch Democrats for decades, even when southern Democrats blocked civil rights and voting rights. Even when good Democrats like Robert Byrd were recruiters for the KKK. It isn't necessary to make a racial appeal to Blacks for their vote. The economic incentives and propaganda presented by cynical and manipulative Democrats has, long ago, guaranteed that Republicans will forever be seen as race haters.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/earl-ofar … 66592.html
Obama has indeed played the race card.
If you think Obama plays the race card you are not alone. The most brilliant and perfect Bill Clinton thinks so, too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBlBIAt4 … re=related
Michelle even knows how to deal from that deck.
You know her, an Ivy Leaguer with the grammar of GWB, or is she slumming. Like Barry to avoid "sounding white?"
But she isn't the only one dropin' her "g"s so she can get some more respect from y'll.
The News Media is replete with those more than willing to play the card for him.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/ass … 38340.html
Definitely, he's pissed someone off somewhere. Scrutinizing what he might do if he became Prez should throw some light on the matter.
Like his lack of understanding of he basics, the fact that his tax plan has been so flawed that even his campaign has changed it twice over the last 2 months? Only in this day and age could someone so embarrassing be supported by so many...all of which the rest of us are embarrassed by.
I thought lack of understanding of the basics underpinned all conservative mindsets.
You've got me there...I really do believe that. Not kidding at all.
Because you didn't take the time to read the COUNTLESS information about Obama, you claim "we" didn't know anything about him? Did you read his book even? Ridiculous. Don't blame us for your laziness.
Do you mean the book written by Bill Ayers for Obama to add his name to it? That book?
Three years in office, can you find even one student that has stated they attended a class taught by Harvard Law Professer Barry Obama? How about classmates that were in school with him?
Can you find one thing created by Obama during his college years maybe an editorial in the Harvard Law Review perhaps? Was he not the editor?
Anything? besides the ghost written books that he placed his name upon, can you find even a smidgen of something created by the Dictator?
He is a legend in his own mind with a blood covered Nobel to prove it. He is a wannabe dictator, a conspirator to murder as well as being guilty on many occasions of breaking his Oath of Office. We know the man, he is a bloodthirsty tyrant that would annihalate millions if it meant getting his agenda through.
The banking party will replace him with someone even worse, since the agenda is going at full speed now. Nothing will stop them, all they need now is a marionette that will seal down the Country under Martial Law. There will be another false flag operation conducted by the F.B.I to fool the majority of people in to believing that Martial Law will keep them safe.
But! I know how cut and dry United states politics are to you and how your professers taught you the indoctrination of the lemming. So my words will just be brushed off, for the messiah has arrived and his flock will not see the sheepdogs.
Ah...one of the conspiracy lunatics. Nice. We'll address your post point by points, because you display your lack of effort, your laziness to actually check anything. It is pathetic really.
Bill Ayers and the writing of the book.
This myth was proposed by Jack Cashill who writes for the daily lie machine WorldNetDaily. Now, most people would disregard it at that point, but not you buddy. You don't care what is accurate, just what confirms your self delusion. There is not a shred of evidence pointing to Ayers writing the book, even the brother in law of a Republican congressman who was hired, Peter Millican, to prove Ayers wrote it came out claiming there was no evidence, the writing style didn't match, the word choice didn't match and that it was a "totally confidence that it was false." Ayers has joked about it once on camera...and if you can't gather sarcasm out of that video, then you are far, far beyond saving. In fact, based upon your post, you are already far beyond saving.
Nobody knew him at Harvard huh? A myth? Try Cassandra Butts. He was the President of the Harvard Law review. Did you check any of the Harvard Law Reviews? Did you look up Cassandra Butts? Did you check on the people who worked with him at the Harvard Law Review like Bradford Berenson? What about Christie Spurrell? What about his professors like Laurence Tribe? Of course you didn't. Because again, you don't want the truth. You want to follow chain emails based upon flat out lies and playing on the reader's laziness, which you are the prime mark.
In fact, the further you go...claims of tyranny, murder and martial law are outright evidence that you are out of your mind. You are dangerous, not because your ideology is different, but because you literally haven't the mental faculties to differentiate between tangible fact and flat out lunacy. Slaughter millions huh? Based upon what? Conspirator to murder? Really? How? Sir, you are dangerously out of your mind...I wouldn't let you walk my dog much less take you even remotely serious. On a serious note, AV, you need some therapy and I don't mean mild talk it out therapy. A mind so filled with this kind of self delusion is very concerning.
You are consistent! You cannot get your point across without personal attacks. That just shows a lack of articulation. I do not blame you, you poor thing. I blame your overpaid, irresponsible, professers for not giving you the proper direction. You should request a refund on your tuition.
Most people can have a civil discussion even with disagreement. You on the other hand do not play well with others. For that I blame your parents for not providing the proper discipline.
Maybe you should take the time to read Hubpages TOS. OH!!! that's right you feel that rules do not apply to you cuz you are on a much higher level then the rest of humanity. Thats OK, I understand no one taught you.
>>>>>>>>Bill Ayers Admits For Second Time He Wrote Obama's 'Dreams From My Father<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-shepp … z1dX4SPSV3
I will not miss you!
He was probably joking but if Nidal Malik Hasan (Fort Hood shooter)claimed that he wrote George (the butcher) Bush's latest book it would have had much different reactions.
Now this is edging into what could be a fun topic:
Famous people who wrote "autobiographies" and the people we suspect really wrote them.
I think I will go start that thread right now.
Thanks, RB, for the idea. Unless you want to go start the thread -- I don't want to usurp a fun idea (or what I think is a fun idea, anyway).
P.S. This is the second time I've seen it suggested that someone should ask for their tuition money to be refunded. The other recipient of this suggestion was... none other than yours truly. Wish I could remember who said it. Wasn't you, that much I know:
Longhunter, your bias is noted, but you seem to have missed the point of the cartoon. Cain is his own worst enemy because his glib and thoughtless comments have already "lynched" him. The man is a fool and knows nothing about leading a democracy in a complex world—all he knows is oversimplified sloganeering and snake oil.
Is it possible -- remotely or otherwise -- that ALL of this is just the denouement of the grand GOP plan?
The election season is so prolonged (like agony) that the GOP puppetmasters have engineered this month by month, candidate by candidates?
The cast of characters this year is just so over the top.
Has there ever been a bunch with such colorful characters as Bachmann, Perry,and Cain? Not to mention the Sarah sideshow (where'd she go, anyway??)
It's gotta all be a charade leading to the inevitable.
I looked (scanned first 10 results) but couldn't find anything linking Karl Rove to any 2012 candidate. Is he perhaps the man behind Romney and all this distraction and swiftboating???
"The man is a fool and knows nothing about leading a democracy in a complex world—all he knows is oversimplified sloganeering and snake oil.
Perfect description of the idiot in the White House.
He should've been honest from the get go, or at least said everything that would eventually become publically known. Holding back like this makes him appear suspicious and dishonest. Of course this isn't an ideal situation for him, but the manner is which he's dealt with it hasn't helped his cause. He should disclose everything that he thinks might come out and that way he can at least attempt to move beyond it.
He should only disclose everything if there is something to it. If there is actually nothign to it it serves as a more valuable political tools to let it all play out. If vindicated in the end the press will, the lawyers and the politicians will all appear as if they were out to get the black man or return him to his proper place, on the Democrat plantation.
For Democrats he is already tainted because he has dared to shed his bonds. Much like Clarence Thomas, Democrats will never find him acceptable and will do everything they can to destroy him his whole career long. Why, because he is a powerful black man who is not a Democrat.
If there is nothing to the allegations, his silence serves him. If there is something to them, playing the hand out as long as he can merely makes his attackers appear vindictive.
Bill Clinton assaulted Kathleen Willie, Paula Jones and even raped Juanita Broderick and Democrats have dismissed all of that in the name of politics. So for the Democrat there is no morality in politics. Perhaps it would serve Herman Kain best if the allegations prove true to switch parties - he could be President someday if he doesn't keep it in his pants.
Shed his bonds? Democrats don't like Cain because of his ideas and because he works for AFP. It has nothing to do with his race. His ideas are directly opposed to our ideas, and comically, his ideas don't make sense to anyone, even his own party.
Cain should be honest if there is something to it? How is there not something to it? He lied 4 times in 1 week about the first two, only to directly contradict himself the following Sunday. The Bialek woman...he claimed to have never met her, then admitted that he hugged her a few weeks before. Seriously man. I don't know if he sexually harassed anyone, I really don't. I honestly don't know a single Democrat who cares if Cain harassed women. His ideas and policy decisions that he wants to put forth occupy our minds, as they are ridiculous. The media and the soundbyte crowd is eating this up, while hardcore politicos could care less. Until he is proven guilty, who cares? Clinton was not proven guilty.
Juanita Broderick? The woman who claimed in a sworn affidavit that the entire story was a lie. Then recanted?
Five people have stated that Broaddrick told them about a rape shortly after it allegedly occurred. Of these, two were Broaddrick's co-worker Norma Kelsey and her sister; Slate Explainer proposes that they may have a grudge against Clinton for commuting the sentence of the man who killed their father, noting further that a third corroborator is Broaddrick's current husband, who was involved in an extramarital affair with her at the time. Broaddrick did not tell her then-husband of the alleged assault at the time.
The FBI looked into it, and found no evidence. Did it happen? You are convinced it did, without proof whatsoever, in direct contradiction to how you are handling Cain's accusations, thus proving that the truth isn't what is motivating you, but your political ideology.
The Final Report of the U.S. Office of the Independent Counsel report noted that "Willey gave false information to the FBI about her sexual relationship with a former boyfriend, and acknowledged having lied about
it when the agents confronted her with contradictory evidence. Following Willey’s acknowledgment of the lie, the Independent Counsel agreed not to prosecute her for false statements in this regard." According to Independent Counsel Robert Ray’s report, "Willey’s [Paula] Jones deposition testimony differed from her grand jury testimony on material aspects of the alleged incident."
The case resulted in a settlement, and the only violation Clinton was found guilty of was lying about Lewisnky in the court documents. Jones later boxed Tanya Harding in Celebrity Boxing, got a nosejob paid for by a donor, and posed in Playboy. Seems a bit sketchy.
HOWEVER, despite no conviction, no proof, and legal proceedings to the contrary, you believe ALL of the accusations against Clinton, yet dismiss Cain's. That's pretty transparent sir and pathetic.
by Robephiles5 years ago
I saw this clip from the Rachel Maddow show. I think she is being somewhat fastidious because in order for her thesis to be true Cain would have had to organized his own sexual harassment scandal, which would have...
by preacherdon5 years ago
I am not justifying Herman Cain's behavior, but the media acts like he is the first womanizing politician. They willingly forget that Clinton had many scandals during his run for office and while he was in office. What...
by Pamela Lipscomb5 years ago
I kind a feel sorry for the poor guy. I don't think he would be foolish enough to run for president knowing he had all this stuff in the closet. I wonder if his closest competitor, Mitt is digging up this...
by Ralph Deeds5 years ago
Herman Cain gave Amanpour an earful when he said what she skirted in her question about Perry and his hunting ranch bought in the 1980s that had a big rock that was painted over. Cain said I’ll say what you...
by Holle Abee5 years ago
I'm really on the fence with this. Part of me says that if 4 women are making these claims, there has to be something to it. But the "victim" who's been the most vocal seems like sort of a nut, and I read that...
by Evan G Rogers5 years ago
Is anyone else annoyed with the amount of flip-flopping and idiocy that this Herman Cain is doing?-Political ads with "guy smoking to make a dramatic point at the end", followed by "please don't...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.