Sharon Bialek accuses Herman Cain of groping her [Archive]

tater

11-08-11, 09:24 AM

I have no problem with investigating such allegations. What I want is for them to be equal, regardless of party. In amount of coverage (scaled to the position of the persons involved, clearly if the accusation is vs the president, it is more time-worthy than someone who has not yet even won a primary) as well as the tone of coverage. There were numerous charges against Clinton, for example, including one that went well beyond harassment.

If the guy has 4 such accusations, though, it's starting to look like a pattern (as did Clinton, though his political allies who are supposed to be defenders of women's rights systemically ignored all the accusations).

I have a cousin who is an attorney, and he said that workplace sexual harassment suits are an industry to the extent you can't take any of them as true without physical evidence at this point (which is virtually none of them).

sidslotm

11-08-11, 12:44 PM

Crap and fan come to mind.

:har: :rotfl2: :haha:

AVGWarhawk

11-08-11, 01:16 PM

“She wouldn’t be the type to make false allegations,” brother-in-law Ned Kraushaar, a Georgia software consultant, told The Daily. “This happened [more than] 10 years ago. It’s not like she wanted to try and hurt the Republican Party.”

Then what was she trying to do? :hmmm:

http://www.thedaily.com/page/2011/11/08/110811-news-cain-accuser-1-3/

Jimbuna

11-08-11, 03:12 PM

Then what was she trying to do? :hmmm:

http://www.thedaily.com/page/2011/11/08/110811-news-cain-accuser-1-3/

Put the record straight :DL

AVGWarhawk

11-08-11, 03:14 PM

Put the record straight :DL

What records? :hmmm: There are no records. It is a she said he said as I see it.

I wonder how many other women will step out. Cain looks like a serial groper to me.

tater

11-08-11, 03:29 PM

I am unaware that any of the others even said there was contact.

This seems pretty fishy, frankly. I'm fine with investigating, but since the investigating will be done by the media, how about they do it with the same effort and tone they put to the 4 (?) accusers (not counting Lewinsky, a case of clear sexual harassment (any sexual contact with someone who works for you is off limits)) of Clinton. One of whom accused rape as I recall.

It's been a while, but I clearly recall a tone of suggesting the accusers were trailer trash in for the money, or with a political axe to grind. That's never said when the accused is on the right, the tone is of the accusers as whistle-blowers in this case.

The latest woman's choice of bottom-feeders is telling. Alred only takes cases on one side. She refused to represent on of Clinton's accusers (who I think claimed she could ID his prick).

Tribesman

11-08-11, 03:33 PM

It's been a while, but I clearly recall a tone of suggesting the accusers were trailer trash in for the money, or with a political axe to grind. That's never said when the accused is on the right, the tone is of the accusers as whistle-blowers in this case.

you don't even have to travel very far to see that your claim is bollox:doh:

Jimbuna

11-08-11, 03:48 PM

What records? :hmmm: There are no records. It is a she said he said as I see it.

I wonder how many other women will step out. Cain looks like a serial groper to me.

I would say she is possibbly cutting her first record/disc :DL

Rockstar

11-08-11, 04:15 PM

Lets see here we have allegations, no proof, sex, race and a guy running for POTUS...what more could you want?...cha ching! What media outlet is the least bit concerned about truth, guilt or innocence. When Cain is no longer worth it, big media will cut bait and he'll slowly sink to the bottom... then on to the next Big Story!

I'll say this, one thing is certain when the dust has settled. Cain will have become an unfavorable candidate in the eyes of women voters. Mission Accomplished

AVGWarhawk

11-08-11, 04:15 PM

I would say she is possibbly cutting her first record/disc :DL

:har::har::har::har:

AVGWarhawk

11-08-11, 04:16 PM

Lets see here we have allegations, no proof, sex, race and a guy running for POTUS...what more could you want?...cha ching! Not one media outlet is in the least bit concerned about truth, guilt or innocence. When Cain is no longer worth it, big media will cut bait and he'll slowly sink to the bottom... then on to the next Big Story!

I'll say this though, out of all of this media hype and sensationalism one thing is certain. Cain will have become an unfavorable candidate in the eyes of women voters.

But why? Why would big media want to sink Cain? Who is behind it?

PS...women still love Bill Clinton.

tater

11-08-11, 04:30 PM

you don't even have to travel very far to see that your claim is bollox:doh:

You lived in the US during the Clinton administration, did you? You followed the news?

I don't even remember the names of Clinton's accusers. But there were even lawsuits. The news even reported on clinton being "teflon," here. Women's groups never chimed in to help stamp out sexual harassment, etc.

I'm sure at some point someone in conservative media will do a lexis/nexis search and do story counts on Clinton vs Cain. And Cain is not president, so his coverage should be an order of magnitude lower than it would be for a President to be accused of rape, etc.

Every single time there is a study of the way the US media covers politicians, it shows that they are harder on the right. This is unsurprising given that something like 80% of reporters are self-identified as liberals or democrats. They point to Fox as if that balances everything, but while Fox owns the cable news market, their total viewers is a small fraction of the network news.

The idea that the press gave Clinton a pass on his pre-presidential extracurricular sex life is uncontroversial.

tater

11-08-11, 04:42 PM

But why? Why would big media want to sink Cain? Who is behind it?

PS...women still love Bill Clinton.

I don't think there is a conspiracy in the press. I think reporters are always gunning for "their side." The vast majority of reporters are well left of the US center. I know several reporters, all would agree (at the NYT, NPR, the local paper, and Bloomberg). (I found an msnbc report of political contributions by reporters... you can read the full list, but counting the Rs vs Ds is left as an excercise for the reader (you have to wade through many Ds to get to a single R) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113455/ns/politics/t/list-journalists-who-wrote-political-checks/#.Trmp-GBlp7J ).

I think that if the majority were right of center, coverage would be slanted to the right. All news is biased.

It should be possible for someone that knows how to do story counts (there are systems in place to do word, story, etc counts on the news media) to compare the volume of coverage on Cain vs, say, Obama's association with domestic terrorist Bill Ayres. Or Obama losing all his records from his time as a lawyer and state rep. Or his lack of college transcripts, etc, ad nauseum.

I'm fine with digging up dirt on ALL OF THEM, as long as it is done with equal fervor.

I think some of the Cain crap sounds fishy, but I also think too many and it starts smelling of a pattern on his part, too. I am not a Cain defender, I just want equal digging. Look at the number of reporters sent to turn over rocks in Alaska vs Palin (who I actively dislike, BTW). She was getting more "investigation" to try and cut her off at the knees than Obama got running at the front of the ticket***8212;and WAY more than Biden ever got (and they needed to do nothing at all to smear Palin other than let her open her mouth and make some dumb statement out loud).

AVGWarhawk

11-08-11, 04:55 PM

I agree Tater. For me this is a railroad job. Were is the paperwork showing settlements? The seed has been planted in the heads of the voters. His campaign will be on a thread.

Dread Knot

11-08-11, 05:10 PM

A more recent and blatant example would be former democratic presidential frontrunner John Edwards. The story of his relationship (and child) with a staffer was aggressively squelched by the mainstream media and press (including the New York Times). Edwards was their boy. It took the National Enquirer of all media institutions to bring the story to light. He's political persona non grata now.

mookiemookie

11-08-11, 05:12 PM

You lived in the US during the Clinton administration, did you? You followed the news?

I don't even remember the names of Clinton's accusers. But there were even lawsuits. The news even reported on clinton being "teflon," here. Women's groups never chimed in to help stamp out sexual harassment, etc.

I'm sure at some point someone in conservative media will do a lexis/nexis search and do story counts on Clinton vs Cain. And Cain is not president, so his coverage should be an order of magnitude lower than it would be for a President to be accused of rape, etc.

Every single time there is a study of the way the US media covers politicians, it shows that they are harder on the right. This is unsurprising given that something like 80% of reporters are self-identified as liberals or democrats. They point to Fox as if that balances everything, but while Fox owns the cable news market, their total viewers is a small fraction of the network news.

The idea that the press gave Clinton a pass on his pre-presidential extracurricular sex life is uncontroversial.

So if it's all the big bad media giving Team D a pass on these sort of things, how is it that David Vitter still has a job and Eliot Spitzer and Anthony Weiner don't?

Or maybe you're wrong and the media loves a good sex scandal, regardless. As Tribesman said - bollox.

vienna

11-08-11, 05:19 PM

I think some of the Cain crap sounds fishy, but I also think too many and it starts smelling of a pattern on his part, too. I am not a Cain defender, I just want equal digging. Look at the number of reporters sent to turn over rocks in Alaska vs Palin (who I actively dislike, BTW). She was getting more "investigation" to try and cut her off at the knees than Obama got running at the front of the ticket—and WAY more than Biden ever got (and they needed to do nothing at all to smear Palin other than let her open her mouth and make some dumb statement out loud).

I also believe in equal digging. But, as you pointed out, there appears to be a pattern emerging. Some troubling aspects have also arisen. One of the women involved in this story actually had to get a waiver on a confidentaility agreement signed as part of her settlement with the Restaurant Association to be able to make a statement about her case. She then made a statement through her attorney affirming the incident, but made the statement anonymously and has stated she has no intention of pursuing the matter either in the media or in the courts. This is a highly unusual occurance and lends credence to her allegations as she appears to merely be affirming the facts as she experienced. She has no known connection to any "enemies" of Cain and it doesn't help Cain that she is also a registered Republican.

Then there is the matter of Cain's handling of the reports. First he denied it ever happened at all. Then he said, well, something happened but no claims were filed. Then he said, yes there were claims but no settlements. Then there was money paid, but it was severance, not a settlement. Then It wasn't really severance, it was a settlement, but for a small amount. Then the amounts were actually substantial. Then he said.... and it goes on and on... Cain's memory seems to switch on and off faster than he can think up his next excuse. The situation has gotten to the point where he is verging into Clinton-esque "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is." parsing of his version of the (no pun intended) affair.

The question that really needs to be asked by anyone thinking of voting for Cain, or any other candidate, for that matter: Is he/she really an outsider and a "breath of fresh air", or is he/she just another political wanna-be carrying the poltical stench of duplicity, opportunism, and business as usual? As the Who song says, "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss"...

tater

11-08-11, 05:40 PM

So if it's all the big bad media giving Team D a pass on these sort of things, how is it that David Vitter still has a job and Eliot Spitzer and Anthony Weiner don't?

Or maybe you're wrong and the media loves a good sex scandal, regardless. As Tribesman said - bollox.

Without story counts, etc, there is no data. I'm interested in actual word counts on stories—and given a pre-primary candidate is a lower character than a sitting senator, president, etc, it should be way lower than people in those positions with similar allegations.

In the case of Wiener, there were PICTURES on the net. If there was actual, you know, evidence, I'd have a different opinion about this cain thing. The idea that women don't lie about this is absurd. Without actual evidence, the benefit of the doubt is to the accused, period. This goes for Clinton, too. But again, you have to hold every single one to the exact, same standard. That means identical coverage, identical tone—scaled to stuff like, say, actual evidence. Meaning that when you have pictures of sexting, it's no longer a he said, she said, it's a simple FACT.

Wiener would still have a job, except he lied about it. Once you look the camera in the eye a few times and tell a whopper, you are toast. Same will be true of Cain if anyone has actual evidence. His resignation was his won choice.

Spitzer was found out because they thought he was taking bribes because of odd expenditures, and caught him on a wire tap. They also thought he used campaign funds for liaisons. Again, real evidence. He resigned likely out of fear more would come out.

Vitter was had his name in the phone list of that DC madam scandal. He apologized with his wife there. Since he didn't make it into a bigger story by trying to run away, he managed to keep his job. It's not like it wasn't covered.

Bilge_Rat

11-08-11, 06:05 PM

It may be true, it may not be true, only he knows for sure. Part of the problem may be generational, since Clinton, Clarence Thomas, Dominic Strauss Kahn, all had the same issue. They grew up in a time when a lot of behavior towards women, which would now be considered to be sexual harassment, was tolerated.

However, the larger issue for republicans is who has a better chance to beat Obama: Cain or Romney. Cain, even if he survives this, will now be carrying some heavy baggage going into the election. Yes, Clinton managed to survive this in 92, but does the GOP want to take a chance in 2012?

Obama and his advisers probably can't believe their good luck. The Republicans have a real shot in 2012, but they seem intent on picking a candidate which Obama has a good chance of beating.

Tribesman

11-08-11, 06:12 PM

Without story counts, etc, there is no data. I'm interested in actual word counts on stories
Now you sound like Glenn Beck:rotfl2:

But why? Why would big media want to sink Cain? Who is behind it?

Just look at the pile of people Cain has blamed, his friends, his associates his employees, his campaigners, his party, his fellow candidates ....but for tater and Beck its obviously the "liberal media";)

August

11-08-11, 06:56 PM

I also believe in equal digging. But, as you pointed out, there appears to be a pattern emerging. Some troubling aspects have also arisen. One of the women involved in this story actually had to get a waiver on a confidentaility agreement signed as part of her settlement with the Restaurant Association to be able to make a statement about her case. She then made a statement through her attorney affirming the incident, but made the statement anonymously and has stated she has no intention of pursuing the matter either in the media or in the courts. This is a highly unusual occurance and lends credence to her allegations as she appears to merely be affirming the facts as she experienced. She has no known connection to any "enemies" of Cain and it doesn't help Cain that she is also a registered Republican.

Lend credence? If she is anonymous then how do we know if any of her claims are true? How could anyone know who she is connected with, or how she votes? She is a phantom as far as i'm concerned.

Then there is the matter of Cain's handling of the reports. First he denied it ever happened at all. Then he said, well, something happened but no claims were filed. Then he said, yes there were claims but no settlements. Then there was money paid, but it was severance, not a settlement. Then It wasn't really severance, it was a settlement, but for a small amount. Then the amounts were actually substantial. Then he said.... and it goes on and on... Cain's memory seems to switch on and off faster than he can think up his next excuse. The situation has gotten to the point where he is verging into Clinton-esque "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is." parsing of his version of the (no pun intended) affair.

The question that really needs to be asked by anyone thinking of voting for Cain, or any other candidate, for that matter: Is he/she really an outsider and a "breath of fresh air", or is he/she just another political wanna-be carrying the poltical stench of duplicity, opportunism, and business as usual? As the Who song says, "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss"...

I agree. This is the only credible bad mark against Cain so far imo. I think it shows a serious lack of character not to have come clean right away, not to mention extraordinarily bad judgement. Now even if he is getting bad advice, which seems obvious, I expect my president to be better than that.

vienna

11-08-11, 07:24 PM

Lend credence? If she is anonymous then how do we know if any of her claims are true? How could anyone know who she is connected with, or how she votes? She is a phantom as far as i'm concerned.

Well, lets see...the Restaurant Association doesn't dispute the settlement and her lawyer doesn't seem to be the Gloria Allred type so there seems to be some substance to the phantom...but, wait, There's More!!!...

This Just In! The Phantom Speaks!:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57320946-503544/herman-cain-id-take-lie-detector-test-to-rebut-sharon-bialek-claims/

Bialek is the fourth woman to claim that Cain has acted inappropriately with her -- but the first to do so publicly. The identity of another of Cain's accusers, 55-year-old federal employee and registered Republican Karen Kraushaar, was revealed by iPad newspaper The Daily on Tuesday. A number of media outlets, including CBS News, had previously withheld Kraushaar's name at her request.

Kraushaar's attorney said last week that Kraushaar "stands by the complaint that she made" of "inappropriate behaviors and unwanted advances" by Cain, though he did not get into specifics.

After her name was revealed Tuesday, Kraushaar told CBS News that she is interested in holding a press conference with all of women who claim Cain sexually harassed them.

This sound familiar to anyone?:

"The Democrat machine in America has brought forth a troubled woman to make false accusations," said Cain, who did not offer support for the claim that "the Democrat machine" was behind Bialek's decision to go public. Bialek says she is a Republican and member of the Tea Party.

[Bolding is mine...]

Hmm...
Doesn't this have the faint scent of another phrase, oh... I don't know...maybe something along the lines of "...a vast right-wing conspiracy.."? Seems the GOP mocked her for being alarmist and weak (you know, just like a woman..) at the time she uttered those words. Has Herman Cain abandoned emulating Bill Clinton and has taken up the lead from Hillary? If the wheels haven't fallen off the Cain Cart, they are seriously wobbling...

As Jimbuna noted in a previous post in this topic:

Crap and fan come to mind.

magicstix

11-08-11, 07:37 PM

This will be my get rich quick scheme. A Republican touched me inappropriately. Now can I have gobs of money and attention?

August

11-08-11, 07:43 PM

mookiemookie

11-08-11, 07:52 PM

Yes Herman, the "Democrat machine" dangled those women in front of you back in the mid-90's because they knew you couldn't resist fondling them. The Democrat machine also kept your hush money under wraps for years until the perfect time to strike.

This is totally the work of the same Democrat machine that faked Obama's birth certificate and birth announcements in the 1960's newspapers and made Larry Craig like to get his jollies in men's rooms.

That Democrat machine thought that his followers would say, "You know, I agree with Cain that Planned Parenthood exists in order to kill black babies, but his asking 'personal questions of a sexually suggestive nature' to his employees is just too crazy for me."

Puuuuuhhhhhleeeze.

vienna

11-08-11, 08:05 PM

Wow, that Democrat Machine really works hard! Hope they got overtime...:DL

Gerald

11-08-11, 08:22 PM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15641636

Note: Update record,8 November 2011 Last updated at 23:19 GMT

Takeda Shingen

11-08-11, 08:26 PM

Who knows. If the phantoms are materializing as vienna reports and they check out then Cain is toast. Bill Clinton proved that the American voter will put up with a sexual predator CiC but not a liar.

'Predator' implies that the women that Clinton had sexual relationships with were underage. I was not aware that this was the case, so either I am misinformed or you are taking a political cheap shot. I'd say the likelyhood of either is about 50-50.

Directly relating to the subject at hand, I believe that the arc of Cain's run has passed it's zenith; not due as much to the controversy but rather to his choleric response to it. Politics is a horrible and ugly profession; one that I cannot understand the appeal of. People are going to say nasty things about you and your family. Some will be true. Some will not be true. However, from what I have observed, success at the highest level this profession is largely due to one's ability to handle this sort of thing. LBJ had it. Nixon had it. So did, Clinton, Reagan, Carter and both Bushes. Even Obama is able to do it. Cain, like Palin, does not seem able to cope with it. Perhaps he is too undisciplined. Perhaps he is too decent a person to stand for it. Whatever the reason, it is proving to be his political undoing.

Politics hates good men, and that is what I hate about politics.

AVGWarhawk

11-08-11, 08:37 PM

'Predator' implies that the women that Clinton had sexual relationships with were underage

I don't believe predator implies underage. Predator hunts down what he/'she likes.

Takeda Shingen

11-08-11, 08:41 PM

I don't believe predator implies underage. Predator hunts down what he/'she likes.

When prefaced with 'sexual' it implies that the object of the 'affection' is underage, yes.

CaptainHaplo

11-08-11, 09:07 PM

Now you sound like Glenn Beck

So expecting real data - aka facts - makes someone a loon. Accusation is enough for you then. Got it.

Yes Herman, the "Democrat machine" dangled those women in front of you back in the mid-90's because they knew you couldn't resist fondling them. The Democrat machine also kept your hush money under wraps for years until the perfect time to strike.

So with the reality that the first public accuser has a history of job and financial trouble, lives beside a well known democratic operative, is represented by a pure political hack, the fact that the second public accuser filed a complaint that was investigated and found to be without merit (which Cain had nothing to do with the investigation), and 2 anonymous sources - you have already decided that he "couldn't resist fondling them." So in other words, you have already condemned the man as guilty - without a shred of evidence to support the allegations.

Oh - and lets not forget - how come none of this came up 7 years ago when Cain was running for the Senate in 2004? Its not like politics got dirty in that time frame....

This is a fabricated character assassination of the worst kind. What is worse, those with a political axe to grind don't care - as long as the conservative black guy gets put back down where he belongs.

Absolutely disgusting.

mookiemookie

11-08-11, 09:15 PM

August

11-08-11, 09:30 PM

'Predator' implies that the women that Clinton had sexual relationships with were underage. I was not aware that this was the case, so either I am misinformed or you are taking a political cheap shot. I'd say the likelyhood of either is about 50-50.

I'd say you were misinformed as "Predator" implies no such thing. You're saying that a serial rapist is not a sexual predator?

Bill Clinton was a much milder version but he was a sexual predator nonetheless.

Takeda Shingen

11-08-11, 09:33 PM

I'd say you were misinformed as "Predator" implies no such thing. You're saying that a serial rapist is not a sexual predator?

Bill Clinton was a much milder version but he was a sexual predator nonetheless.

Type 'sexual predator' into Google and see what you get. That is unless you were claiming that Clinton had raped these women. At the very least, you are stretching the term to prove a political point. I though you above this sort of thing, but perhaps I have misjudged you. Wouldn't be the first time that I was wrong about someone.

August

11-08-11, 09:34 PM

Type 'sexual predator' into Google and see what you get. That is unless you were claiming that Clinton had raped these women. At the very least, you are stretching the term to prove a political point. I though you above this sort of thing, but perhaps I have misjudged you. Wouldn't be the first time that I was wrong about someone.

Oh get off your high horse pal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_predator

Takeda Shingen

11-08-11, 09:35 PM

Oh get off your high horse pal.

I could turn that one right around on you. How many times have you accused people of playing these very sort of semantics?

EDIT in response to your edit:

From the Wiki (emphasis mine):

A sexual predator is often used to refer to a person who habitually seeks out sexual situations that are deemed exploitative. However, in some states, the term "sexual predator" is applied to anyone who has been convicted of certain crimes, regardless of whether or not there is a history of similar behavior.

Exploitative:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exploitative

It is, at best, difficult to label consensual relations between adults as exploitative. I suppose that you would argue that the power inherent in Clinton's position implies exploit, but I see that line of argument as tenuous at best.

August

11-08-11, 09:38 PM

I could turn that one right around on you. How many times have you accused people of playing these very sort of semantics?

Go right ahead.

Takeda Shingen

11-08-11, 09:51 PM

Go right ahead.

A simple read of your post history will find a number of statements. If you are going to conveniently forget about your complaints regarding people splitting hairs in order to prove a point, there is no point in attempting to engage you in discussion. After all, both you and I know that those complaints are there; it is silly for us to pretend that they are not. If you are so concerned with being 'right' that you are prepared to sacrifice intellectual honesty, then I have no time for you.

Somebody's stock just lost a hefty amount of value in my book. :cry:

August

11-08-11, 10:42 PM

Somebody's stock just lost a hefty amount of value in my book. :cry:

Oh woe is me! Cause you know my entire world revolves around your opinion of my opinion of Bill Clinton. :roll:

So what has put the burr under your saddle about me suddenly?

First you come off with some lame redefinition of a commonly used term and then you try to split hairs once your inaccuracy is brought to light.

Well tell me Mister Judgement, what was so consensual about Clinton exposing himself to Paula Jones? What was so consensual about him groping Kathleen Wiley? What was so consensual about him raping Juanita Broaddrick?

He paid Paula Jones 20 times what the National Restaurant Association supposedly paid this Karen Kraushaar woman and you question my fairness. Ain't that a hoot.

1480

11-08-11, 11:14 PM

I could turn that one right around on you. How many times have you accused people of playing these very sort of semantics?

EDIT in response to your edit:

From the Wiki (emphasis mine):

Exploitative:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exploitative

It is, at best, difficult to label consensual relations between adults as exploitative. I suppose that you would argue that the power inherent in Clinton's position implies exploit, but I see that line of argument as tenuous at best.

Exploitative is for anyone in a position of authority or respect, uses said status for personal gain. Personal gain can mean, money, influence, sex, favors and the list can go on.

Takeda Shingen

11-08-11, 11:23 PM

Exploitative is for anyone in a position of authority or respect, uses said status for personal gain. Personal gain can mean, money, influence, sex, favors and the list can go on.

A comparison that I labeled tenuous. As we are discussing matters of a sexual nature, we must confine ourselves to sexual matters. After all, one must concede that Clinton would have little to gain in material or political capital. We could only assume that his motives were purely physical.

Sea Demon

11-09-11, 12:44 AM

You know how much the right rolls their eyes when those on the left play the race card? Yeah, you're straying into that territory here.

I disagree with your remarks completely. Haplo is correct. Liberal Democrats are deathly afraid of hard working, independant, conservative minded, and accomplished people of color. Independant, responsible, and conservative minded people of color are dangerous to liberals as they fear the idea may spread to other minorities. They simply cannot allow it. Liberal Democrats truly believe that people of color need to be weak and dependant on government as a matter of course(i.e. live on the Democrat plantation). If a person of color succeeds without government(i.e."affirmative action") and seeks to advance on their merits in politics, education, or business....liberals will seek to discredit and if necessary destroy the character of that person. It's been done before.

Liberals simply are not the tolerant, compassionate people they claim they are.

CaptainHaplo

11-09-11, 01:08 AM

Where there's smoke, there's fire, Hap. If bringing about random unfounded accusations of sexual harassment were an effective means of taking out your political opponents, then it would be standard practice. It's not, so reason says there's gotta be something to it.

A single, unfounded accusation almost derailed the last conservative, successful black man in line for a major role in government. His name was Clarence Thomas.

If one almost did the job last time - how effective would 3 or 4 be?

Where there smoke there is fire? Careful with that - or you will have Obama on the fast track to being impeached due to the scandals he and his administration have been party to.....

This is a country of innocent until proven guilty. Clinton had semen on a dress. Edwards had a love child....

There is no proof of anything against Cain - and a lot of reason to be suspicious of the accusations.

Political witch hunt.... the politics of personal destruction. Same old liberal playbook.....

antikristuseke

11-09-11, 02:51 AM

Same old partisan politics playbook more like, mud slinging in US politics is common for both parties, at least as far as I can tell.

Business as usual or SNAFU to be even more brief.

Tribesman

11-09-11, 03:07 AM

So expecting real data - aka facts - makes someone a loon. Accusation is enough for you then. Got it.

That is hilarious given what it relates to, did you just see the comparison with Beck and get offended?
In case you missed it the "real data" was meaningless information that has no bearing whatsoever on the claim that had been made:yep:

Tchocky

11-09-11, 06:40 AM

Whatever is happening here, and lets be clear we don't have all the facts - it is DEFINITELY SPECIFIC to the political orientation of the person concerned, and further illustrates the venality and downright grubby opportunism of whatever political philosophy he/she subscribes to.

It makes me sick.

Bubblehead1980

11-09-11, 06:43 AM

Here is most likely what happened with Cain and this skanky Bialek woman, who was possibly not bad looking 15 years ago but looks a bit run down, I've noticed most women don't age well lol.

Anyways, assuming Cain does actually know her, she got in touch with him wanting a job and given the type of woman she seems to do, did some flirting over dinner and drinks and Cain made an advance after dinner, drinks, and upgrading her to a suite.They either had a consensual encounter with her assuming she would in fact get a job and it did not materialize, she told a false version to a friend or two and her boyfriend at the time.Left disgruntled and still living a financially unstable life suing for a living, with Cain's rise to the top of the polls, she smelled blood and decided to go for it.

I personally could care less, so he tried to score some ass and most likely did, and she is angry because she got nothing out of it.Well that is what she gets for being a whore.

The others are all most likely the same or total bs.The woman who filed a complaint about the "my wife is your height" remark and gesture is a total idiot.Some women are just too sensitive.Esp in the 90's on the hill of the Anita Hill thing etc

A lot of this boils down to one thing....

Liberals do not want an intelligent, conservative, black businessman to get the nomination because they are scared of Herman Cain. Cain represents the best of America and how someone from his backround and esp being a black man born in the south in the 40's, living through the days of ACTUAL recism moved up on his own and refused to be a victim.

Like Cain has put it many times, he is no on the Democratic Plantation and it is driving many people crazy.They will do what they can to bring him down, just hope Americans are not stupid enough let something like bs "harassment" charges rob of us of such a great candidate.Then again, most of us did elect obama so would not shock me.

Tchocky

11-09-11, 06:46 AM

I personally could care less, so he tried to score some ass and most likely did, and she is angry because she got nothing out of it.Well that is what she gets for being a whore.
Law school, was it?

mookiemookie

11-09-11, 07:12 AM

There is no proof of anything against Cain - and a lot of reason to be suspicious of the accusations

Except by his own admission there was (his words) "some sort of settlement or termination." Convenient how that evidence is glossed over and ignored in your world. People don't enter into "some sort of settlement or termination" unless there's something to settle or terminate over.

Law school, was it?

So in one post he calls a woman skanky, a piece of "ass," a whore, says that women don't age well and are too sensitive.

Oh bubbles, I hope you're studying the sexual harassment cases very well. The way you talk, you'll most likely be at the center of one someday. :rotfl2:

Takeda Shingen

11-09-11, 08:03 AM

Like Cain has put it many times, he is no on the Democratic Plantation and it is driving many people crazy.They will do what they can to bring him down, just hope Americans are not stupid enough let something like bs "harassment" charges rob of us of such a great candidate.Then again, most of us did elect obama so would not shock me.

I have said this before, but I cannot understand how one can post everything that came before the paragraph that I quoted and then move on to claim intellecutal superiority. I just feel that it bears repeating. Carry on.

August

11-09-11, 08:23 AM

Bilge_Rat

11-09-11, 08:41 AM

The theory that the Democrats are behind this makes no sense. If they were behind this, they would wait until Cain was nominated and would divulge it next september, just in time to put the final nail in.

Using it now just discredits Cain and makes it more likely that Romney will be nominated, a candidate who has a much better chance of actually beating Obama.

Dread Knot

11-09-11, 08:53 AM

Takeda Shingen

11-09-11, 09:05 AM

As much as I like his unconventional style, I think Cain is finished as a serious presidential candidate. At this point you have to assume that there are other women ready to come forward, but who have been told by someone inside either the Romney or Obama camps to hold off until the appropriate moment. Politics is war and Cain is a mortally wounded animal. However he's useful to Romney right now, as he sucks oxygen out of the room and prevents Paul or Perry from getting any press. Newt is a distraction, at best.

I don't see Paul, Perry or Gingrich as viable at all. Each of them has their own bagage that hinders any widespread support, so it is dubious that any press from them would sway many people at this point. However, I will agree with your central argument in saying that Cain's [probable] demise in the race makes Romney the de facto Republican nominee.

mookiemookie

11-09-11, 09:33 AM

Bill Clinton paid Paula Jones almost a million dollars and still you liberals defended him. Convenient how that evidence is glossed over and ignored in your world.

I didn't ignore it, I didn't gloss over it, and I didn't defend it. I've made no mention of Clinton at all. What on earth are you even talking about? "You liberals"...like I'm the spokesperson for some collective hivemind. :roll:

If you want to make snippy comments to a liberal for defending Bill Clinton's sexual harassment suits, then you might want to direct them at a liberal who...um...you know, actually defended Bill Clinton's sexual harassment suits.

Gerald

11-09-11, 10:22 AM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15641636

Note: Update Record,8 November 2011 Last updated at 23:19 GMT

AVGWarhawk

11-09-11, 10:26 AM

When prefaced with 'sexual' it implies that the object of the 'affection' is underage, yes.

No, it doesn't.

Takeda Shingen

11-09-11, 10:42 AM

No, it doesn't.

Excellent rebuttal.

AVGWarhawk

11-09-11, 10:46 AM

Excellent rebuttal.

Show me the money. :hmmm: Where is it found that sexual+predatory means underage. Or implies it.

Takeda Shingen

11-09-11, 10:52 AM

Show me the money. :hmmm: Where is it found that sexual+predatory means underage. Or implies it.

Again, go ahead and do a Google search for 'sexual predator'. Then come back and tell me how you think our society uses this term.

AVGWarhawk

11-09-11, 11:24 AM

CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENDERS
A SEXUAL PREDATOR is defined as a person who has been convicted of, or pleaded guilty to, committing a sexually oriented offense and who is likely in the future to commit additional sexually oriented offenses. Offenders can be classified as sexual predators in one of the following ways:

1. The Offender is convicted of a sexually violent offense with a sexually violent predator specification, (or)
2. The sentencing court, after holding a sexual predator hearing pursuant to O.R.C. 2950.09, determines that the offender is a sexual predator.

http://publicsafety.ci.akron.oh.us/police/news/offender.html

How society(general public) NCI/Criminal mind or media uses the term believe it implies underage.

AVGWarhawk

11-09-11, 11:49 AM

By legal definition, a sexual predator is a person who has been convicted of or pled guilty to committing a sexually oriented offense, and who is likely in the future to commit additional sexually oriented offenses.

http://www.enotes.com/sexual-predation-characteristics-reference/sexual-predation-characteristics

I have not found any article specifically on "sexual predator" indicating or implied underage. I think the stigmata is there because it is generated by the media in the form of news and TV programs.

I still stand by more original retort. :hmmm:

Tribesman

11-09-11, 11:54 AM

Law school, was it?

But remember it is law school where all the lecturers don't know anything and all the texts are wrong and part of a liberal conspiracy and all the students apart from dear bubbles are unintelligent drones who are barely able to speak and are unable to think.:yeah:

Don't do half measures when it comes to illustrating Bubbles:rotfl2:

Takeda Shingen

11-09-11, 11:57 AM

http://publicsafety.ci.akron.oh.us/police/news/offender.html

How society(general public) NCI/Criminal mind or media uses the term believe it implies underage.

Exactly my point. The public at large regards the term as relating to sexual deviancy, specifically directed at the exploitation of minors. By labeling Clinton as a sexual predator, an effort is made to use this perception to cast him in a negative light. While there are many things that are wrong with Clinton and his term as president, pedophilia was not among them. This is the type of 'character assasination'--a term coined, with no small amount of irony, by those on the right and a tactic decried by numerous members of these forums; some in this very thread. Seems to me that it is a rather insincere form of argument.

August

11-09-11, 12:25 PM

I didn't ignore it, I didn't gloss over it, and I didn't defend it. I've made no mention of Clinton at all. What on earth are you even talking about? "You liberals"...like I'm the spokesperson for some collective hivemind. :roll:

If you want to make snippy comments to a liberal for defending Bill Clinton's sexual harassment suits, then you might want to direct them at a liberal who...um...you know, actually defended Bill Clinton's sexual harassment suits.

Right mookie. You never characterized bill clintons legal troubles as a republican witch hunt like every other liberal on these boards... :roll:

AVGWarhawk

11-09-11, 12:41 PM

Exactly my point. The public at large regards the term as relating to sexual deviancy, specifically directed at the exploitation of minors. By labeling Clinton as a sexual predator, an effort is made to use this perception to cast him in a negative light. While there are many things that are wrong with Clinton and his term as president, pedophilia was not among them. This is the type of 'character assasination'--a term coined, with no small amount of irony, by those on the right and a tactic decried by numerous members of these forums; some in this very thread. Seems to me that it is a rather insincere form of argument.

I'm not sure if the public at large regard the term as relating to a minor but, we can say the news will drill a story involving sexual activity with minors into the ground. Look at Penn State. This story will be repeated and followed for weeks. A school teacher involved with a minor. All over the news. A possible serial rapist gets a spot today and is dismissed tomorrow. As far as Clinton and describing him as sexual predator and know his story we can say that most would not associate the story to sexual activity with minors. We can say he is a sexual predator. It is a character assassination. Nothing more. Politico should have some strong evidence on Cain (I don't believe they do). If not, Politico would have destroyed this man, campaign and life.

mookiemookie

11-09-11, 12:44 PM

Right mookie. You never characterized bill clintons legal troubles as a republican witch hunt like every other liberal on these boards... :roll:

Depends on which legal troubles you're referring to. The Monica Lewinsky case? Yeah, that was a witch hunt and I could have said as much on these boards in the past. I don't remember. It's also irrelevant to the matter at hand as it was also consensual sex.

The sexual harassment cases? Never said anything about them. But i'm sure he did it and that makes him as big a scumbag as Cain.

1480

11-09-11, 12:57 PM

David Gregory, noted progressive media host had the following to say about the GOP in regards to Cain:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/11/09/david_gregory_no_grand_wizard_in_gop_right_now_to_ force_cain_to_go_away.html

David Gregory, NBC News: "Well there is no, you know, Grand Wizard in the party right now who can really force the issue. I've talked to Cain's advisers in Iowa, they think their support is still strong there, that it's not falling. There may be cracks in the foundation according to pollsters I'm talking to, that his numbers may be starting to shift but right now core support remains there."

Open mouth insert hoof

Takeda Shingen

11-09-11, 01:00 PM

I'm not sure if the public at large regard the term as relating to a minor but, we can say the news will drill a story involving sexual activity with minors into the ground. Look at Penn State. This story will be repeated and followed for weeks. A school teacher involved with a minor. All over the news. A possible serial rapist gets a spot today and is dismissed tomorrow. As far as Clinton and describing him as sexual predator and know his story we can say that most would not associate the story to sexual activity with minors. We can say he is a sexual predator. It is a character assassination. Nothing more. Politico should have some strong evidence on Cain (I don't believe they do). If not, Politico would have destroyed this man, campaign and life.

I think that I have adequately demonstrated that the association with minors is, in fact, the overall public perception. As for the rest of your post, we are in agreement. The sensationalism of the media will drive, and continue to drive, these stories into the collective conscience of America. Just what evidence there is against Cain we do not know, and I would like to think that his categorical denial is an indication that this is a smear attempt. However, strange things happen to people when they enter politics and he wouldn't be the first politician to tell an out-and-out lie. Time will tell in terms of the validity of the allegations, but I think that his run for President is over.

EDIT: 1480, that sort of language (Grand Wizard) is image building language in the very same vein as we were discussing. It is distasteful and shows clear bias on the part of Mr. Gregory. Meet the Press comes on at 10:30 here, and I used to watch it with Tim Russert for the first half hour before switching to The McLaughlin Group at 11:00. Now I watch This Week, as I find Gregory utterly distasteful in his bias.

AVGWarhawk

11-09-11, 01:07 PM

WASHINGTON (AP) — A woman who settled a sexual harassment complaint against GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain in 1999 complained three years later at her next job about unfair treatment, saying she should be allowed to work from home after a serious car accident and accusing a manager of circulating a sexually charged email, The Associated Press has learned.

Kraushaar said Tuesday she did not remember details about the complaint and did not remember asking for a payment, a promotion or a Harvard fellowship. Bennett, her lawyer, declined to discuss the case with the AP, saying he considered it confidential. Kraushaar left her job at the immigration service after dropping the complaint in 2003, and she went to work at the Treasury Department.

http://news.yahoo.com/ap-exclusive-accuser-filed-complaint-next-job-080946066.html

Gee..she can't remember? Sexual predators and habitual filers of false claims. No one can remember a damn thing. :shifty:

AVGWarhawk

11-09-11, 01:17 PM

I think that I have adequately demonstrated that the association with minors is, in fact, the overall public perception.

Statistical proof is in the pudding. :O:

August

11-09-11, 03:34 PM

Depends on which legal troubles you're referring to. The Monica Lewinsky case? Yeah, that was a witch hunt and I could have said as much on these boards in the past. I don't remember. It's also irrelevant to the matter at hand as it was also consensual sex.

Well a lot of people tried to make it out to be about that but no it wasn't about consensual sex. It was about lying under oath in a court of law.

The sexual harassment cases? Never said anything about them. But i'm sure he did it and that makes him as big a scumbag as Cain.

Here we can agree. To keep my vote Cain needed to come clean. Instead he pulled a Bill Clinton. Remember him wagging his finger in Americas face on TV self righteously lying through his teeth? To me that's as bad as perjury.

Sailor Steve

11-09-11, 03:43 PM

Well a lot of people tried to make it out to be about that but no it wasn't about consensual sex. It was about lying under oath in a court of law.
No, it was about lying under oath to Congress, which is different, especially for the president. He was impeached for that very thing, and the impeachment failed. End of story. Had the impeachment succeeded, he could then have been put on trial, and if convicted fined and/or imprisoned.

Here we can agree. To keep my vote Cain needed to come clean. Instead he pulled a Bill Clinton. Remember him wagging his finger in Americas face on TV self righteously lying through his teeth? To me that's as bad as perjury.
And here I agree as well. The court in this case is the voter, and while voters can't remove someone from office they can certainly keep him from getting in.

August

11-09-11, 04:13 PM

No, it was about lying under oath to Congress, which is different, especially for the president. He was impeached for that very thing, and the impeachment failed. End of story. Had the impeachment succeeded, he could then have been put on trial, and if convicted fined and/or imprisoned.

Actually it was the other way around. He was fined and while not imprisoned he was disbarred.

In his deposition for the Jones lawsuit, Clinton denied having "sexual relations" with Lewinsky. Based on the evidence provided by Tripp, a blue dress with Clinton's semen, Starr concluded that this sworn testimony was false and perjurious. During the deposition, Clinton was asked "Have you ever had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, as that term is defined in Deposition Exhibit 1, as modified by the Court?" The judge ordered that Clinton be given an opportunity to review the agreed definition. Afterwards, based on the definition created by the Independent Counsel's Office, Clinton answered "I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky." Clinton later stated, "I thought the definition included any activity by [me], where [I] was the actor and came in contact with those parts of the bodies" which had been explicitly listed (and "with an intent to gratify or arouse the sexual desire of any person"). In other words, Clinton denied that he had ever contacted Lewinsky's "genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks", and effectively claimed that the agreed-upon definition of "sexual relations" included giving oral sex but excluded receiving oral sex.[24]
Two months after the Senate failed to convict him, President Clinton was held in civil contempt of court by Judge Susan D. Webber Wright.[25] His license to practice law was suspended in Arkansas for five years and later by the United States Supreme Court.[26] He was also fined $90,000 for giving false testimony.[27]

1480

11-09-11, 04:17 PM

The media is using this as obfuscation so no will pay attention to what could be potentially the downfall of this administration. Attorney General is being set up to commit perjury, if that hasn't already been established.

Yet a guy may or may not have said "nice azz toots" and its front page. Un-efffing real. And who says the media is not in bed with Obama :har:

AVGWarhawk

11-09-11, 04:25 PM

To keep my vote Cain needed to come clean. Instead he pulled a Bill Clinton. Remember him wagging his finger in Americas face on TV self righteously lying through his teeth? To me that's as bad as perjury.

The crap is coming out of the woodwork. These women, at least two, are on very shaky ground. Both look to be either gold diggers or working the system with the use of 'sexual harassment' to get monetary compensation. Furthermore, these women accepted cash apparently. If they did then case closed. Why after 14 years start talking about it? Were they so scared by the episode that the cash settlement just did not help in that respect. It is a total crock.

Read this article

http://news.yahoo.com/ap-exclusive-a...080946066.html

Apparently she can't remember anything either but will jump the bandwagon.

Cain....guilty until proven innocent. :88)

Gerald

11-09-11, 04:34 PM

Cain was in love and wanted a lie, and she does not bang on it.

Tchocky

11-09-11, 04:55 PM

The crap is coming out of the woodwork.

Stephen Colbert the other night - "..and I believe his woodwork coming out is one of the things he's being accused of"

geetrue

11-09-11, 05:14 PM

Cain is a hard person to read ... he is either good or evil

His forehead looks like he is hiding something that blinds his eyes

spells two faced to me

Can you imagine two black men running for the same office and one of them has something to hide?

but which one is it?

lol :haha::har:

CaptainHaplo

11-09-11, 06:56 PM

So the first accuse has some "financial" issues, the second public accuser filed another complaint 3 years later at another job demanding a 12-16k raise, the ability to work from home, and a year fellowship at harvard - all on the company dime - for something she now says was a "minor" concern about an email that she later dropped. Can anyone say golddiggers?

August

11-09-11, 07:09 PM

vienna

11-09-11, 07:51 PM

In all the discussions, the fault for Cain's troubles has been laid at the "liberal media", or the "Democrat Machine", or some other non-GOP source. But, consider this: thus far all the accusers have been noted as registered Republicans and/or Tea Party members. Does it not seem possible Cain may be being attacked by perhaps an organized effort within the GOP, quite possibly by the GOP leadership or establishment? Given what the early on press about Cain described, the entrenched GOP establishment may have more to be concerned about if Cain were to lead a GOP ticket in 2012 than the Democrats (who I beleive would welcome a an opponent like Cain) or the "liberal media" (who would have a feast with Cain in office). He may, in fact, be experiencing sabotage from within... :hmmm:

Tchocky

11-09-11, 08:02 PM

I strongly doubt that this is in any way organised from within the GOP. The reason that the other candidated were being so laid-back and not laying into Cain for this kind of thing is because they do not, have not, and will not consider him to be a credible front-runner.

Speaking as a disciplined lefty, whose fear of conservative, articulate minority politicians KNOWS NO BOUNDS, I'm glad he's having trouble.

CaptainHaplo

11-09-11, 10:01 PM

Its not a right wing conspiracy. Gloria Alred? The first public accuser is the neighbor of a major dem activist that put her in touch with Gloria. The second person is working in government - and what administration is in power?

This is a leftist character assassination attempt - and its blowing up in their face with the more details that emerge about the accusers. Financial troubles, history of complaints with outsized demands, and none of this was around in 2004 when Cain ran for the senate... .yea ok.

@TCHOCKY - why does your fear of an articulate, conservative minory know no bounds?

mookiemookie

11-09-11, 10:19 PM

My theory is that since Cain was emerging as the spoiler to Rove's chosen candidate (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/189447-cain-says-rove-attacking-his-campaign-to-help-romney), Mitt Romney, Rove leaked the info on the sexual harassment case settlements to Politico.

You know the funny thing about some of these righties? They bang the "personal responsibility" drum and then, when they're caught doing something wrong, all of a sudden the persecution complex kicks in and everything's someone else's fault. Look stupid in an interview? Oh it's the "gotcha media." Their candidate gets his butt kicked? Gotta be voter fraud or white guilt. Sexual harassment suit settlements in someone's past? Oh, attack the victims and call it a left wing conspiracy. It's like watching some bizarre psychological experiment, seeing the mental gymnastics involved in twisting the obvious explanation (Perry or Romney campaigns) into a left wing conspiracy to "keep the black man down."

Some people will actually defend Cain's idea that Planned Parenthood exists solely to kill black babies, but they think the idea that he made some lecherous passes at women is just too far fetched. :rotfl2:

Torplexed

11-09-11, 11:12 PM

I blame Bush....with a lower case b. :D

CaptainHaplo

11-10-11, 12:59 AM

Some people will actually defend Cain's idea that Planned Parenthood exists solely to kill black babies, but they think the idea that he made some lecherous passes at women is just too far fetched. :rotfl2:

At not time did he ever say that was their "sole" or only purpose.

Some people will ignore the highly questionable timing, source and players in the accusations. Some will throw the policy of innocent until proven guilty out the window. Some will even refuse to accept that the media - which is primarily left leaning at the least - continues to make the accusations (without any basis in proof) the main focus - while ignoring factual stories like the attorney general lying to congress, the VP and his staff pushing for bad loans to "green energy" companies, OWS being funded by spinoffs of ACORN who pay for the protests using funds collected fraudulently.

What is worse - is that some will refuse to acknowledge what others will speak out loud - that they fear a conservative, articulate self made man of color. Tchocky had the guts to admit it. A "hard working" successful black man who embraces the rewards that work and personal responsibility provide is anathema to the leftist ideology. Its a danger.

Some just can't seem to admit that they fear the same. So they are willing to crucify a man like Cain because of accusation. He was an uppity "Negro" who dared to rise above his station, dared to step off the democratic plantation, so without one shred of evidence, with highly suspect sources and connections and timing, you already decide his guilt.

But its all the tea party that wants to hang blacks from the trees...... Yea right. Who is lynching the black man? Its not the tea party - its the media.

It was the tea party that represented and encouraged "violence" by bringing GUNS (gasp!) to rallies - while the OWS movement is pure and clean as driven snow - nothing to see here but a few documented sexual assualts (which are apparently much nicer and better than mere alleged harrassment) and beating up of old people....

Take off the blinders. They really are not becoming.

Bubblehead1980

11-10-11, 01:46 AM

Except by his own admission there was (his words) "some sort of settlement or termination." Convenient how that evidence is glossed over and ignored in your world. People don't enter into "some sort of settlement or termination" unless there's something to settle or terminate over.

So in one post he calls a woman skanky, a piece of "ass," a whore, says that women don't age well and are too sensitive.

Oh bubbles, I hope you're studying the sexual harassment cases very well. The way you talk, you'll most likely be at the center of one someday. :rotfl2:

Mookie, why such a politically correct drone? I only stated the obvious truth, Bialek might as well have had "SLUT" wait, no, "DUMB SLUT" written all over her forehead. Truth, most women don't age well.A few do but overall no. Are women in general, more sensitive and emotional creatures? absolutely. The things above are just the truth.

lol well no doubt I will be at the center of something like that one day but that is fine because ignoring the truth is never a good thing.

Tribesman

11-10-11, 02:30 AM

. Tchocky had the guts to admit it.
Tchocky is taking the piss:rotfl2:

mookiemookie

11-10-11, 07:10 AM

Tchocky had the guts to admit it.

I think you missed the point of his post.

Hottentot

11-10-11, 07:56 AM

Sure guys, blame sarcasm :roll::roll::roll:.

Dread Knot

11-10-11, 08:17 AM

Well, between Cain's alleged women troubles and Rick Perry's almost comical brain freeze during the debates last night, it's becoming pretty obvious who the Republican candidate for 2012 is going to be. :yawn:

Bilge_Rat

11-10-11, 08:46 AM

and Mitt (who I also backed in 08) is looking good...

President Barack Obama is neck-and-neck with Mitt Romney in three key battleground states, a new poll showed Thursday.

While Herman Cain is the other Republican presidential hopeful topping recent polls, Obama is leading the former CEO of Godfather's Pizza in the three swing states.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68051.html

Takeda Shingen

11-10-11, 11:29 AM

Mookie, why such a politically correct drone? I only stated the obvious truth, Bialek might as well have had "SLUT" wait, no, "DUMB SLUT" written all over her forehead. Truth, most women don't age well.A few do but overall no. Are women in general, more sensitive and emotional creatures? absolutely. The things above are just the truth.

lol well no doubt I will be at the center of something like that one day but that is fine because ignoring the truth is never a good thing.

Truth is a very relative thing, even moreso in what you have said above. I would correct your statement closing the first paragraph as 'the things above are just my perceived truth'. That being said, and in light of your recent delve into quasi-misogyny, I'd say that you must be a real hit with the ladies.

Again, what was that about intelligence?

Gerald

11-10-11, 11:48 AM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15667895

Note: Update record,9 November 2011 Last updated at 22:16 GMT

Tribesman

11-10-11, 12:08 PM

in light of your recent delve into quasi-misogyny, I'd say that you must be a real hit with the ladies.

Misogeny is a liberal conspiracy and as for the ladies ...well they are just SLUTS who are over sensitive and emotional and ugly and ...they don't talk to bubbles:rotfl2:

antikristuseke

11-10-11, 04:02 PM

Take off the blinders. They really are not becoming.

Are you familiar with the concept of irony?

Gerald

11-10-11, 05:08 PM

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/10/snag-in-joint-news-conference-for-cain-accusers/?scp=2&sq=cain&st=cse

soopaman2

11-10-11, 05:58 PM

I am to be non judgmental.

Too many liars and potential book writers.

These women were hunky dory until he got popular.

So I ask, is this a Romney or Perry ressurection?

I can't blame Obama. the republican field is a joke, he (BO) doesn't need to do anything.

Bubblehead1980

11-10-11, 06:08 PM

Truth is a very relative thing, even moreso in what you have said above. I would correct your statement closing the first paragraph as 'the things above are just my perceived truth'. That being said, and in light of your recent delve into quasi-misogyny, I'd say that you must be a real hit with the ladies.

Again, what was that about intelligence?

Love how it gets personal. I have no problems getting a date Takeda, but also no problem telling the truth because I despise "political correctness" even if SOME want to say it's misogyny.

Political Correctness says anything not favorable to a person of color, regardless of truth is racist.PC says if its not favorable to a woman, it's sexist, misogynistic etc

I attend classes now and have in the past with plenty of PC drones but a few are willing to speak the truth. I will never forget when I had a black female student back during my undergrad days when we were discussing a an alleged sexism controversy by Larry Summers when he was at Harvard I believe it was, actually had one female willing to stand up and agree after I made the point that women do, for the most part, tend to be more emotional and sensitive than men.I could see plenty of females getting angry but it's the truth!!!!! Really was great to see one stand up and agree.This girl was not the only one but was the only female willing to admit it.

I mentioned she was black because in a later discussion she agreed with me and a few others but not most that there is just as much racism among the black community in the US as whites etc. This girl was no conservative, she was liberal but one of the few who were willing to admit the TRUTH.Plenty of people know the truth but just don't have the guts to admit it and then some are in denial or too ignorant to see it.However, most know the truth about various things, the culture of political correctness has stifled many people's willingness to embrace and discuss various things for fear of being labeled "racist, sexist" etc etc etc

The truth shall set you free....

Takeda Shingen

11-10-11, 06:53 PM

Love how it gets personal. I have no problems getting a date Takeda, but also no problem telling the truth because I despise "political correctness" even if SOME want to say it's misogyny.

Political Correctness says anything not favorble to a person of color, regardless of truth is racist.PC says if its not favorable to a woman, it's sexist, misogynistic etc

I attend classes now and have in the past with plenty of PC drones but a few are willing to speak the truth. I will never forgot when I had a black female student back during my undergrad days when we were discussing a an alleged sexism controversy by Larry Summers when he was at Harvard I believe it was, actually had one female willing to stand up and agree after I made the point that women do, for the most part, tend to be more emotional and sensitive than men.I could see plenty of females getting angry but it's the truth!!!!! Really was great to see one stand up and agree.This girl was not the only one but was the only female willing to admit it.

I mentioned she was black because in a later discussion she agreed with me and a few others but not most that there is just as much racism among the black community in the US as whites etc. This girl was no conservative, she was liberal but one of the few who were willing to admit the TRUTH.Plenty of people know the truth but just don't have the guts to admit it and then some are in denial or too ignorant to see it.However, most know the truth about various things, the culture of political correctness has stifled many people's willingness to embrace and discuss various things for fear of being labeled "racist, sexist" etc etc etc

The truth shall set you free....

Again, your perceptions. I leave them to you, but there are perception, not truth.

It is an interesting thing, reading your posts. Not going to reply to your argument; it's all ideology, polemics. It's what's wrong with our country today. However, I will add that you are quick to label, to assign a title to everyone and everything. People are drones, sluts, stupid. You're quick to dismiss, to judge, to ridicule. And yet, you recoil so when the same treatment is applied to you. You call it 'personal', insulting. What you fail to see is that your rush to cover all with the broad brush is what causes the retort; causes your misjudgement. You're in such a hurry that you can't see what is in front of you. I do understand; you are young, you think you know everything. After all, I was once young and thought that I knew everything too. I was a lot like you; brash, condescending, loud and equally misguided. What you'll, hopefully, come to discover is that a little patience, thought and empathy will get you, and whatever cause you follow, a lot further than that little bullhorn you keep barking into.

soopaman2

11-10-11, 07:09 PM

Again, your perceptions. I leave them to you, but there are perception, not truth.

It is an interesting thing, reading your posts. Not going to reply to your argument; it's all ideology, polemics. It's what's wrong with our country today. However, I will add that you are quick to label, to assign a title to everyone and everything. People are drones, sluts, stupid. You're quick to dismiss, to judge, to ridicule. And yet, you recoil so when the same treatment is applied to you. You call it 'personal', insulting. What you fail to see is that your rush to cover all with the broad brush is what causes the retort; causes your misjudgement. You're in such a hurry that you can't see what is in front of you. I do understand; you are young, you think you know everything. After all, I was once young and thought that I knew everything too. I was a lot like you; brash, condescending, loud and equally misguided. What you'll, hopefully, come to discover is that a little patience, thought and empathy will get you, and whatever cause you follow, a lot further than that little bullhorn you keep barking into.
:o

I wish I had the eloquence, and lack of insulting rhetoric you have.

The true problem with America is the infighting.

But Daimyo-Sama, that point will never be taken here.:)