View Full Version : Cain Reassessing Candidacy Amid New Allegations
Herman Cain told members of his campaign staff on Tuesday that he was reassessing whether to proceed with his presidential campaign, an aide confirmed, a day after an Atlanta woman disclosed details of what she said was a 13-year affair with him.In a morning conference call with his advisers, Mr. Cain said that he would make a decision in the coming days about whether to stay in the race after his campaign was rocked by another round of allegations about his sexual conduct.The call, which was first reported by National Review, came as Mr. Cain was heading to Michigan for a campaign stop on Tuesday evening. He said that he was discussing the future of his campaign with his family and was considering his options.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/29/cain-reassessing-candidacy-as-new-allegations-emerge/?hp
Note: November 29, 2011, 11:53 am
geetrue
11-29-11, 05:26 PM
Here's the real story ...
Perhaps Ginger is not a woman
Cain said, "I did not have sex with that woman" :know:
flatsixes
11-29-11, 05:30 PM
Meanwhile, Mrs. Herman Cain is reportedly reassessing whether castrating Mr. Cain would violate the terms of the couple's prenuputual agreement.
Cue Robert Johnson
I gotta keep movin
I gotta keep movin
Blues fallin down like hail
Blues fallin down like hail
Umm mmmm mmm mmmmmm
Blues fallin down like hail
Blues fallin down like hail
And the days keeps on worryin me
theres a hellhound on my trail
hellhound on my trail
hellhound on my trail
God help you, Herman Cain.
Platapus
11-29-11, 05:53 PM
I would like to see some evidence. If the affair has been going on for 13 years there must be something to bring this past the "he said - she said" level.
From the statement released by Cain's lawyer regarding the alleged affair:
"Rather, this appears to be an accusation of private, alleged consensual conduct between adults - a subject matter which is not a proper subject of inquiry by the media or the public."
Source:
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/11/cain-denies-affair-his-lawyer-says-should-be-private/45474/
The lack of outright denial and the curious inclusion of the phrase "an accusation of private, alleged consensual conduct between adults" points more to a hedging against the possibility the accuser may indeed have strong evidence to support her allegation. Cain may spout off and bluster all he likes to the media, but the truth is apprently out there; what started out a smoke with no fire has now taken on a healthy, hot glow...
And, somewhere, Bill Clinton is having a good laugh...
geetrue
11-29-11, 06:48 PM
OMG this might mean that Romney wins the Republican nomination on default :yep:
Platapus
11-29-11, 07:30 PM
From the statement released by Cain's lawyer regarding the alleged affair:
Source:
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/11/cain-denies-affair-his-lawyer-says-should-be-private/45474/
The lack of outright denial and the curious inclusion of the phrase "an accusation of private, alleged consensual conduct between adults" points more to a hedging against the possibility the accuser may indeed have strong evidence to support her allegation. ...
So all of a sudden we have a Republican saying that what happens between consenting adults in the privacy of the home is not anyone else's business. :hmmm:
Not that I would ever have dreamed that Cain would have ever gotten the nomination in the first place, but this accusation, if demonstrated to be true, is probably the end of his campaign.
Platapus
11-29-11, 07:32 PM
OMG this might mean that Romney wins the Republican nomination on default :yep:
One of the news commentators was reporting that the supporters of Cain would, in his opinion, go to Newton instead of Romney.
So any supporters of Cain that would abandon him because of his cheating on his wife would move their support to Newton? :06::doh:
Not sure I follow that logic. :D
So any supporters of Cain that would abandon him because of his cheating on his wife would move their support to Newton? :06::doh:
Not sure I follow that logic. :D
You know, the lesser of two philanderers... :DL
frau kaleun
11-29-11, 07:59 PM
You know, the lesser of two philanderers... :DL
At this rate, John Edwards should be announcing his run for the Republican nomination any day now. :O:
Gosh, if only Arnold were a native-born citizen...
the_tyrant
11-29-11, 08:24 PM
Gosh, if only Arnold were a native-born citizen...
http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/N/9/arnold_then_now.jpg
:cry:
Torplexed
11-29-11, 08:32 PM
Looking at the kind of action Cain was getting as a pizzeria CEO makes you wonder how he would have made out as the Chief Executive.
And, somewhere, Bill Clinton is having a good laugh...
I've noticed Cain has lately adopted that same famous Clinton tone as in "I did not have..."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15950374
Note: Update record,30 November 2011 Last updated at 01:05 GMT
geetrue
11-30-11, 02:41 PM
One of the news commentators was reporting that the supporters of Cain would, in his opinion, go to Newton instead of Romney.
So any supporters of Cain that would abandon him because of his cheating on his wife would move their support to Newton? :06::doh:
Not sure I follow that logic. :D
The republicans are shooting themselves in the foot so bad Sarah could make a come back.
Didn't Newt have a divorce after making fun of Clinton's little affair?
He was getting paid money not to be a lobbiest according to him???
But this about Cain ... all I see on the news now days are men lying about something they didn't do.
It was probably that way when I couldn't tell, uh?
AVGWarhawk
11-30-11, 02:49 PM
Is it 'sexual harassment' that smeared Cain last week? What happened to these women who got in front of the camera saying Cain was all over them like a cheap suit? Interesting nothing else is said or pursued.
Now we have this woman and an affair....
Extra-marital affairs are not against the law as far as I know. Of what reason does this woman have for coming out and stating she was having a good time with the pizza guy? What good does it serve?
Moving along.....
http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/7156/cain2popup.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/696/cain2popup.jpg/)
"It was pretty simple," Ginger White said of the affair she recounted having had with Mr. Cain. "It wasn't complicated."
Is it 'sexual harassment' that smeared Cain last week? What happened to these women who got in front of the camera saying Cain was all over them like a cheap suit? Interesting nothing else is said or pursued.
The object was to sink his candidacy. Mission accomplished. No need to keep them in the limelight any longer and run the risk of someone digging too deep and finding out the allegations were mostly trumped up fluff.
Iron Budokan
11-30-11, 03:15 PM
You can start the egg-timer on this guy's candidacy. He's done.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/11/30/us/politics/ups-and-downs-of-the-cain-candidacy.html?ref=politics
Takeda Shingen
11-30-11, 03:32 PM
Honestly, he was never a serious candidate to begin with. If this was an effort to sink the SS Cain, then it was effort poorly spent. He would have fizzled out once campaign season proper began.
It's been clear since the beginning that Romney was, and is, going to be the candidate.
AVGWarhawk
11-30-11, 03:37 PM
The object was to sink his candidacy. Mission accomplished. No need to keep them in the limelight any longer and run the risk of someone digging too deep and finding out the allegations were mostly trumped up fluff.
Exactly!
So what if he dipped his wick. I wonder if they really feel Cain is still a threat? :hmmm:
AVGWarhawk
11-30-11, 03:39 PM
It's been clear since the beginning that Romney was, and is, going to be the candidate.
I have my reservations on Romney being their boy. There are many questions....running mate for one. :hmmm:
Takeda Shingen
11-30-11, 03:49 PM
I have my reservations on Romney being their boy. There are many questions....running mate for one. :hmmm:
Oh, I am certainly not a Romney supporter either. Politically, the guy is a loser, like John Kerry in 2004. And, like Kerry, the unfortunate reality is that Romney is the strongest guy in the field, which says very little for the strength of the candidates. So we'll have 4 more years of Obama, after which the candidates from both Team R and Team D can run on the platform 'Getting our Nation off the Barter System'.
So what if he dipped his wick. I wonder if they really feel Cain is still a threat? :hmmm:
So, I'm going to guess, you supported Clinton, too? I know, I know, the difference is Clinton lied under oath. If you take the position of "So what if he dipped his wick", then the implication is you have some belief there is truth to the allegations. If so, then Cain's denials are also lies, albeit not under oath. Still, would you really want to vote for a candidate who openly lies (and badly, at that)? "Lie a little, lie a lot"... :hmmm:
AVGWarhawk
11-30-11, 03:57 PM
Oh, I am certainly not a Romney supporter either. Politically, the guy is a loser, like John Kerry in 2004. And, like Kerry, the unfortunate reality is that Romney is the strongest guy in the field, which says very little for the strength of the candidates. So we'll have 4 more years of Obama, after which the candidates from both Team R and Team D can run on the platform 'Getting our Nation off the Barter System'.
I would not agree Romney is the strongest guy in the field. I believe Newt is the strongest in the field when it comes to working knowledge and self-assuredness. I think in a real debate with Obama he would win handedly. Romney is a bit more likable than Newt who is stiff. If it was down to these two Newt would be my choice.
AVGWarhawk
11-30-11, 04:02 PM
So, I'm going to guess, you supported Clinton, too? I know, I know, the difference is Clinton lied under oath. If you take the position of "So what if he dipped his wick", then the implication is you have some belief there is truth to the allegations. If so, then Cain's denials are also lies, albeit not under oath. Still, would you really want to vote for a candidate who openly lies (and badly, at that)? "Lie a little, lie a lot"... :hmmm:
Clinton was ok in my book. Supported him? Nope, I did not vote for him. It does not matter if I believe there is truth or not to Cains current debacle. It is not any of my business if he has had an affair. It is not against the law. As far as openly voting for a candidate that lies....it has gone on for decades. I mean come on....Clinton hit the joint but did not inhale? Sure...:doh: There has been lies in Oval Office. Ask Oliver North how he ended up where he did. Ask Holder what he knew and did not know about Fast and Furious. Think Obama knew about it? I'm guessing he did. The list goes on.
geetrue
11-30-11, 04:17 PM
Romney is the only logical choice left, unless someone new comes on the playing field. I saw him playing up to that NJ gov trying to get his support (which he did) and my thought is that he already made a deal to be his VP canidate.
Newt can't hold up under close scrunity of millions in lobby money and then state he was not taking their side in convincing others to do things his non lobby money was coming from, especially the health care money to be in favor of them and then deny he was a lobby person.
As the field narrows Romney is the most clean person running.
He lost last time in Iowa and may very well lose there again this time.
A very big effort is in vogue to defeat Romney in Iowa.
LDS is a cult, but most people don't even care
Obama already said that he is waiting to see who the last one on the island will be.
Like Takeda said, "I am not a Romney supporter"
I am not either, but when you only have a couple of choices left, like in football, only one side can win.
As far as openly voting for a candidate that lies....it has gone on for decades. I mean come on....Clinton hit the joint but did not inhale? Sure...:doh: There has been lies in Oval Office. Ask Oliver North how he ended up where he did. Ask Holder what he knew and did not know about Fast and Furious. Think Obama knew about it? I'm guessing he did. The list goes on.
So, perhaps, the key here is to vote for the candidate who lies the best?... :DL
AVGWarhawk
11-30-11, 04:20 PM
"Write in" vote. :03:
AVGWarhawk
11-30-11, 04:20 PM
So, perhaps, the key here is to vote for the candidate who lies the best?... :DL
Or who gets away with it! :rotfl2:
Bilge_Rat
11-30-11, 04:30 PM
To me its pretty clear that Romney will be the GOP nominee and the Obama campaign has come to same conclusion.
Can Romney win the general election? I think he has a good shot. It's probably 50/50 at this point. We are still 11 months away, anything can happen.
What is crystal clear though is that Cain has no chance to win (if he ever had one) and that Gingrich is a long shot at most.
Gingrich may have the intelligence, but he has way too much baggage. Without getting into his lobbying activities, just the fact that he was cheating on his 2nd wife with his now 3rd wife, while he was driving the Clinton impeachment along (for adultery) gives endless fodder for negative stories/ads.
mookiemookie
11-30-11, 04:37 PM
To me its pretty clear that Romney will be the GOP nominee and the Obama campaign has come to same conclusion.
Can Romney win the general election? I think he has a good shot. It's probably 50/50 at this point. We are still 11 months away, anything can happen.
What is crystal clear though is that Cain has no chance to win (if he ever had one) and that Gingrich is a long shot at most.
Gingrich may have the intelligence, but he has way too much baggage. Without getting into his lobbying activities, just the fact that he was cheating on his 2nd wife with his now 3rd wife, while he was driving the Clinton impeachment along (for adultery) gives endless fodder for negative stories/ads.
I agree with this assessment. At some point the GOP powers that be need to realize they should run the candidate that gives them the best chance to topple the other guy.
Platapus
11-30-11, 05:21 PM
An Obama/Romney race would hardly be a slam dunk for either of them.
Justified or not, Obama's rankings are sinking and there does not seem to be anything in the near future to give them a big boost and several things that could plummet them even lower faster.
The RNC needs to work on the branding of Romney so that he truly represents the RNC's agenda.
The question will be, as always, will the public think that Romney is significantly better than Obama. Not just different, but better. Romney can't run on an "I am not Obama" platform.
And just like 2008, who the RNC chooses for VP can have a significant impact. Has there been any rumours about who the RNC is considering for VP?
I don't think any of the seven dwarfs would be a good choice with the exception of Huntsman. Although I strongly disagree with some of what Huntsman is saying, I still think he is the best of a mediocre lot.
But Romney will be a good strong candidate and could win this.
It will be interesting to watch those two debate. :yep:
Sea Demon
11-30-11, 05:40 PM
An Obama/Romney race would hardly be a slam dunk for either of them.
Justified or not, Obama's rankings are sinking and there does not seem to be anything in the near future to give them a big boost and several things that could plummet them even lower faster.
The RNC needs to work on the branding of Romney so that he truly represents the RNC's agenda.
The question will be, as always, will the public think that Romney is significantly better than Obama. Not just different, but better. Romney can't run on an "I am not Obama" platform.
And just like 2008, who the RNC chooses for VP can have a significant impact. Has there been any rumours about who the RNC is considering for VP?
I don't think any of the seven dwarfs would be a good choice with the exception of Huntsman. Although I strongly disagree with some of what Huntsman is saying, I still think he is the best of a mediocre lot.
But Romney will be a good strong candidate and could win this.
It will be interesting to watch those two debate. :yep:
I don't see the independents supporting Obama like they did last time. Obama is a very weak candidate, and has little to nothing to run on. The major thing he got in a lameduck session of Congress (Healthcare law) makes millions of voters mad and energizes his opposition. While I wouldn't like to see Romney, I believe even he could knock off Obama. I think the left pushes him because they believe he represents the best chance for them to win, or if he wins, he is the least threat to their ideology. Romney is not the shoo in for the nomination that everybody thinks he is. There is still plenty of time for his support to wane.
As weak as some of these GOP contenders are, Obama is every bit as weak. And in many ways weaker. It's going to be turnout, and who wins support of the independents. And right now, Obama loses that.
Platapus
11-30-11, 05:58 PM
But, let me remind you of an axiom about elections
For the incumbent to be replaced both of the following must occur
1. The citizens are significantly dissatisfied with the incumbent
and
2. The challenger offers the citizen a significant improvement
We may has state 1 already, but state 2 has not been demonstrated.
This is why the democrats lost in 2004. Most people were dissatisfied with Bush, but the DNC and Kerry did not offer anything significantly better. Running on a "I am not Bush" platform did not get Kerry elected.
Now the tables are switched. The RNC has the advantage of state 1 (perhaps) but state 2 is solely up to them. Remember the Republican party is not exactly enjoying a stellar reputation with the people either.
I am not Obama or even I am not a Democrat probably won't work. :nope:
And in elections, ties usually go to the incumbent.
Independents may not want to support Obama, but Independents will not vote for a candidate they don't want. How many Independents and Republicans voted against McCain/Palin last time (raising hand).
This election may be decided not on who the Independents want, but on who the Independents don't want.
Which is a messed up way to run a national election. :nope:
Takeda Shingen
11-30-11, 06:02 PM
But, let me remind you of an axiom about elections
For the incumbent to be replaced both of the following must occur
1. The citizens are significantly dissatisfied with the incumbent
and
2. The challenger offers the citizen a significant improvement
We may has state 1 already, but state 2 has not been demonstrated.
This is why the democrats lost in 2004. Most people were dissatisfied with Bush, but the DNC and Kerry did not offer anything significantly better. Running on a "I am not Bush" platform did not get Kerry elected.
Now the tables are switched. The RNC has the advantage of state 1 (perhaps) but state 2 is solely up to them. Remember the Republican party is not exactly enjoying a stellar reputation with the people either.
I am not Obama or even I am not a Democrat probably won't work. :nope:
And in elections, ties usually go to the incumbent.
Independents may not want to support Obama, but Independents will not vote for a candidate they don't want. How many Independents and Republicans voted against McCain/Palin last time (raising hand).
This election may be decided not on who the Independents want, but on who the Independents don't want.
Which is a messed up way to run a national election. :nope:
I am a registered Republican and my Obama vote was certainly one against McCain/Palin. I can see myself doing exactly the same with this time around, especially given the current field of candidates. Never been one of those 'my party, right or wrong' kind of guys. I already have an ineffective politican in the White House. Why do I want to vote to replace him with another who is beholden to a policy that is just as inflexible and no more effective?
geetrue
11-30-11, 06:10 PM
And just like 2008, who the RNC chooses for VP can have a significant impact. Has there been any rumours about who the RNC is considering for VP?
:yep:
Not sure if it's up to the RNC ... Romney has already leaked his pick
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/politics/romney_says_christie_on_his_vp_shortlist_kKanlkYkT c8At8h87qDOLK
Takeda Shingen
11-30-11, 06:13 PM
It's always up to the committee. Once a candidate gets the nomination, he or she doesn't get to use the bathroom without their respective party committee's approval.
I am not a Democrat probably won't work.
Yeah I agree it won't work in the presidential election but,... given the huge anti-incumbent feeling at the moment it, as well as "I am not a Republican" mantra just might work in the Congressional and Senate races.
Platapus
11-30-11, 06:22 PM
Yeah I agree it won't work in the presidential election but,... given the huge anti-incumbent feeling at the moment it, as well as "I am not a Republican" mantra just might work in the Congressional and Senate races.
Not gonna disagree with you on that one.
As an Election Officer, I expect a lot of write-in votes for "none of these buttheads" :D
Platapus
11-30-11, 06:24 PM
Not sure if it's up to the RNC ... Romney has already leaked his pick
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/politics/romney_says_christie_on_his_vp_shortlist_kKanlkYkT c8At8h87qDOLK
Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio.
As a person living in Virginia, I would not want my worst enemy to have McDonnell as their running mate.
Christie? Hmmmm Not a bad choice.
I don't know that much about Rubino. Is he a good guy?
nikimcbee
11-30-11, 06:25 PM
On the flip side, what do you guys think about the DNC getting someone to run against BHO or getting him to step down? Enter HRC:hmmm:
There are more and more news stories regarding this (from the left). What do you think?
Given the firmness with which he refused to run for president I seriously doubt Christie would be any more interested in being Romney's Veep.
Takeda Shingen
11-30-11, 07:37 PM
Given the firmness with which he refused to run for president I seriously doubt Christie would be any more interested in being Romney's Veep.
Actually, Christie nearly ran after all, only pulling back at the last minute. Local media was all over it down here. I suppose that he saw it as being more potentially damaging in the long run if he were to enter now.
Platapus
11-30-11, 08:34 PM
On the flip side, what do you guys think about the DNC getting someone to run against BHO or getting him to step down? Enter HRC:hmmm:
There are more and more news stories regarding this (from the left). What do you think?
When was the last time a party decided not to endorse their incumbent when the incumbent wanted to run?
Has it ever happened?
Bilge_Rat
12-01-11, 09:05 AM
When was the last time a party decided not to endorse their incumbent when the incumbent wanted to run?
Has it ever happened?
Happens frequently at the house and senate level. I am not aware of it in presidential races, certainly not since WW2.
Reagan ran against Ford in 76, but Ford still got the nod, same with Carter vs Kennedy in 80.
Probably the only close example would be when LBJ decided not to run for re-election in 68 after a strong showing by opponents in Dem primaries.
This year however, the Democratic Party is incredibly disciplined compared to previous cycles, something they are not usually known for. I dont see any credible Democratic challenge for Obama.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15969378
Note: Update record,30 November 2011 Last updated at 19:42 GMT
Skybird
12-01-11, 11:09 AM
Latest news: Bachmann threatens to close US embassy in Teheran.
:har:
What did Der Spiegel title yesterday about the Republican lineup of candidates? "A club of liars, demagogues and ignoramuses".
The current crop of candidates have shown such a basic lack of knowledge that they make George W. Bush look like Einstein. The Grand Old Party is ruining the entire country's reputation.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,800850,00.html
I have the solution to the mess: Paris Hilton for president! She has more wits - no joke - than all those republican forerunners alltogether, I bet!
What did Der Spiegel title yesterday about the Republican lineup of candidates? "A club of liars, demagogues and ignoramuses".
The current crop of candidates have shown such a basic lack of knowledge that they make George W. Bush look like Einstein. The Grand Old Party is ruining the entire country's reputation.
Not very accurate to claim that Romney and Gingrich are not knowledgeable. You still taking Der Spie3el as gospel?
Skybird
12-01-11, 12:18 PM
You still taking Der Spie3el as gospel?Never did, as I have so often explained to you. I take it as the only major German newspaper/magazione of the popular formats publishing a big international edition in English. For some months, two or three years ago, Die Welt also did that, but stopped to do so.
Would you appreciate the many headline threads by Vendor - if they all would be in original Gaelic language only? ;)
Never did, as I have so often explained to you.
Well no offense Skybird but when you quote something without indicating that you disagree with it the reasonable assumption is that you do agree with it. All I was trying to point out that Gingrich and Romney do not fit Speigels stereotype. Would you agree?
Skybird
12-01-11, 12:49 PM
Well no offense Skybird but when you quote something without indicating that you disagree with it the reasonable assumption is that you do agree with it. All I was trying to point out that Gingrich and Romney do not fit Speigels stereotype. Would you agree?
Actually when leaving a link pretty much uncommented, I either agree with a Spiegel - or other source - comment I post, or I think it is speaking for itself. It makes no sense to write long essays if the article I link to imo is correct or says most of the important things. I tend to add comments when I think more specifications or explanations on where I disagree are needed.
In this case, I think all the Republican candidates on display are representative for the best of the best of idiots the Republican party has to offer. The article has all laughs at their costs - and they deserve them.
Your gospel remark was a statement of a more general direction than just the context you now claim.
mookiemookie
12-01-11, 12:56 PM
I think Spiegal's right on in their assessment, however they leave something out:
They lie. They cheat. They exaggerate. They bluster. They say one idiotic, ignorant, outrageous thing after another. They've shown such stark lack of knowledge -- political, economic, geographic, historical -- that they make George W. Bush look like Einstein and even cause their fellow Republicans to cringe.
That's every politician, R or D. They're all circus clowns.
Actually when leaving a link pretty much uncommented, I either agree with a Spiegel - or other source - comment I post, or I think it is speaking for itself. It makes no sense to write long essays if the article I link to imo is correct or says most of the important things. I tend to add comments when I think more specifications or explanations on where I disagree are needed.
In this case, I think all the Republican candidates on display are representative for the best of the best of idiots the Republican party has to offer. The article has all laughs at their costs - and they deserve them.
So in other words you do agree with the article. Was that so hard to say?
Your gospel remark was a statement of a more general direction than just the context you now claim.
In the 6 or 7 years i've known you not once have I seen you disagree with Speigel. Not saying you haven't but that I have never seen it. To me that justifies the gospel quote. Sorry if my use of religious terms offends you.
Skybird
12-01-11, 04:31 PM
So in other words you do agree with the article. Was that so hard to say?
Was it so hard to see in the first? ;)
Was it so hard to see in the first? ;)
Well yes because I figured you were smarter than to actually believe that!
No way could anyone accurately describe either Romney or Gingrich as "displaying a basic lack of knowledge" or "Ignoramuses". Both of them are very intelligent people with many accomplishments. There is plenty to dislike about either of them for without having to resort to falsehoods.
Speigel is doing what foreign news always does when it reports on my countries politics. Misrepresent, over-simplify, stereotype and generally leave the reader with a completely inaccurate impression of the subject or situation. I am not claiming that our media reports Europeans any more accurately though which is why I generally refrain from using domestic media when talking about your side of the pond. You might consider doing the same.
Back on to the topic...
...And the hits just keep on coming:
Herman Cain says wife didn't know about payments to Ginger White
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-cain-interview-20111201,0,5753490.story?track=rss
It's is going to be interesting to see what happens when Cain meets his wife face-to-face at the end of the week...
http://idratherlaugh.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/wife-rolling-pin.jpg
Skybird
12-01-11, 06:54 PM
Then there's Newt Gingrich, the current favorite. He's a political dinosaur, dishonored and discredited. Or so we thought. Yet just because he studied history and speaks in more complex sentences than his rivals, the US media now reflexively hails him as a "Man of Ideas" (The Washington Post) -- even though most of these ideas are lousy if not downright offensive, such as firing unionized school janitors, so poor children could do their jobs.
Pompous and blustering, Gingrich gets away with this humdinger as well as with selling himself as a Washington outsider -- despite having made millions of dollars as a lobbyist in Washington. At least the man's got chutzpah.
The hypocrisy doesn't end here. Gingrich claims moral authority on issues such as the "sanctity of marriage," yet he's been divorced twice. He sprang the divorce on his first wife while she was sick with cancer. (His supporters' excuse: It's been 31 years, and she's still alive.) He cheated on his second wife just as he was pressing ahead with Bill Clinton's impeachment during the Monica Lewinsky affair, unaware of the irony. The woman he cheated with, by the way, was one of his House aides and 23 years his junior -- and is now his perpetually smiling third wife.
Americans have a short memory. They forget, too, that Gingrich was driven out of Congress in disgrace, the first speaker of the house to be disciplined for ethical wrongdoing. Or that he consistently flirts with racism when he speaks of Barack Obama. Or that he enjoyed a $500,000 credit line at Tiffany's just as his campaign was financially in the toilet and he ranted about the national debt. Chutzpah, indeed.
Yet the US media rewards him with a daily kowtow. And the Republicans reward him too, by having put him on top in the latest polls. Mr. Hypocrisy, the bearer of his party's hope.
"I think he's doing well just because he's thinking," former President Clinton told the conservative online magazine NewsMax. "People are hungry for ideas that make some sense." Sense? Apparently it's not just the Republicans who have lost their minds here.
Which leaves Mitt Romney, the eternal flip-flopper and runner-up, who by now is almost guaranteed to clinch the nomination, even though no one in his party seems to like or want him. He stiffly delivers his talking points, which may or may not contradict his previous positions. After all, he's been practicing this since 2008, when he failed to snag the nomination from John McCain. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
As an investor, Romney once raked in millions and, like Cain, killed jobs along the way. So now he says he's the economy's savior. To prove that, he has presented an economic plan that the usually quite conservative business magazine Forbes has labeled "dangerous," asking incredulously, "About Mitt Romney, the Republicans can't be serious." Apparently they're not, but he is, running TV spots against Obama already, teeming with falsehoods.
Well. That'S just that. I am not their biography writer and so forgot so many quotes of theirs and news references that made them look like stupids. But I remember that they left me so often just shaking my head, wide grin on my face. So I have no intention to see them being excluded from the flattery list of adjectives Der Spiegel used on the Reps' candidates. That has little to do with anti-americanism or stereotypes, but with lack of integrity in the candidates, lack of ethics, lack of scruples and also a lack of reasonable ammount of intelligence.
kraznyi_oktjabr
12-01-11, 07:04 PM
It's is going to be interesting to see what happens when Cain meets his wife face-to-face at the end of the week...It maybe meeting his ex-wife if all (or even most of) these stories about Mr. Cain's loyalty prove to be correct...
http://idratherlaugh.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/wife-rolling-pin.jpgIs that your girlfriend Vienna? :D
Takeda Shingen
12-01-11, 07:07 PM
Sky, I'm not so sure about Gingrich's alleged racism, but the rest of what you quoted is, in my opinion, an accurate depiction of the two of them. Of course, I don't identify with either of them or their philosophy, so I may be less willing to play apologist for them than others.
Those two quotes prove my point.
For example:
even though most of these ideas are lousy if not downright offensive, such as firing unionized school janitors, so poor children could do their jobs
What Gingrich actually advocated was allowing kids to earn money helping to clean up their school. My first job was raking leaves and sweeping floors at May A Gallagher Junior High School when I was a kid. Darn good money for a 13 year old. Eliminating just one high paying low performing union janitor job would provide a bunch of kids like me a hard to find source of income, not to mention teaching us a few valuable lessons about the value of a buck.
But oh no. Speigel, deems that "offensive". That makes me believe that rags like der Speigel are what is wrong with our society.
Sky, I'm not so sure about Gingrich's alleged racism, but the rest of what you quoted is, in my opinion, an accurate depiction of the two of them. Of course, I don't identify with either of them or their philosophy, so I may be less willing to play apologist for them than others.
But apparently you aren't above making snide comments about those who you think do identify with them right?
Takeda Shingen
12-01-11, 07:23 PM
But apparently you aren't above making snide comments about those who you think do identify with them right?
I have my own individuals for whom I do play apologist. I am able to admit this freely. Now, tell me who is being snide.
http://idratherlaugh.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/wife-rolling-pin.jpg
Is that your girlfriend Vienna? :D
No, I have been very fortunate to have avoided that type. I have only one ex-wife and, although we have drifted apart over the years, we were on friendly terms. I have also been fortunate to have not had any rancourus partings with my oter long term realtionships. I have shied away from serious relationships in recent years because I discoverd a distubing pattern: my first wife has blonde hair, blue eyes and is left-handed (I just realized, if I were still married to her, next year would have been our 40th wedding aniversary :o; my next serious relationship (over 7 years long) was with a lady who had blue eyes, was left-handed, and blonde (though at the time I met her, her hair was dyed red); my last serious relationship was with a model from Belgium (Flemish is a beautiful language when a beautiful woman whispers it in your ear). One day, I noticed she was writing with her left hand, someting I hadn't really noticed before. Then it occurred to me she was also blonde and had blue eyes. I had inadvertently settled on a type of woman. After her. I decided I would either seek a right-handed brunette or an ambidextrous redhead; I still haven't found the right one yet...
Anyway, I belive you may be right:
It maybe meeting his ex-wife if all (or even most of) these stories about Mr. Cain's loyalty prove to be correct... :DL
Platapus
12-02-11, 06:04 AM
So you are advising staying away from sinister women?
:D
Skybird
12-02-11, 06:35 AM
Those two quotes prove my point.
For example:
What Gingrich actually advocated was allowing kids to earn money helping to clean up their school. My first job was raking leaves and sweeping floors at May A Gallagher Junior High School when I was a kid. Darn good money for a 13 year old. Eliminating just one high paying low performing union janitor job would provide a bunch of kids like me a hard to find source of income, not to mention teaching us a few valuable lessons about the value of a buck.
But oh no. Speigel, deems that "offensive". That makes me believe that rags like der Speigel are what is wrong with our society.
For a 13 year old kid who is still a kiod and no part of the adult working force, it is pocket money. For the adult doing the joib for low wage, probably, but still as a formnal job - it is the basis of his living and income.
I have worked in a storehouse for years, and saw that happening to. Trained staff got firted when becoming too old (avoidjg pensions), or when organising in any way the trust leadership saw as interference with its own god-like status. To replace them, school-boys and girls and young students got hired for the most, wortking a few hours per week only and with much smaller social insurance obligations and with smaller wages per hour.
And then there is the big rest of what is written about Gingrich - and which you comfortably ignore - while years ago having made oh so big a story of Clinton and Levisnky and how untrustworthy a president is when he does lie about having had a BJ in office.
You asked why I did not comment ont he article, and then did a lot of typing yourself trying to get me entangled in something. But the simple fact that you started with is that were you started with me not commenting and being oin love with the gospel the Spiegel is for me, you could have been so much clearer yourself - by simply saying that you think the descriptions are false and the arguments are fakes and that you thereforedo not agree, and that you probably like Gingrich. But no, some sneaking was what followed, some attempt of trapping...
Okay, you do not like Der Spiegel, I know that since years. Next time simply say so, but don't play games. ;) I did not buy it from the beginning on. Me, I think Spiegel has it right in some of their essays, and is very wrong in others. They can be very independent in their analysis, and even conservative, hostile to the left, or the govenrment as well. Then another author of theirs gets published, and they make themselves sound terribly left and europhile again.
Seen that way De rSpiegel covers a wider variety of the spectrum of poltical oipinions maybe, than most other newspapers (or weekly magazines, which the printed Spiegel in reality is).
And then there is the big rest of what is written about Gingrich - and which you comfortably ignore - while years ago having made oh so big a story of Clinton and Levisnky and how untrustworthy a president is when he does lie about having had a BJ in office.
I never said Gingrich was a Saint. I just said that your Speigel article twists things. You seem to easily get upset when people question your sources.
You asked why I did not comment ont he article, and then did a lot of typing yourself trying to get me entangled in something. But the simple fact that you started with is that were you started with me not commenting and being oin love with the gospel the Spiegel is for me, you could have been so much clearer yourself - by simply saying that you think the descriptions are false and the arguments are fakes and that you thereforedo not agree, and that you probably like Gingrich. But no, some sneaking was what followed, some attempt of trapping...
Pure fantasy Skybird. All I said was:
Not very accurate to claim that Romney and Gingrich are not knowledgeable
That is not clear enough for you?
Okay, you do not like Der Spiegel, I know that since years. Next time simply say so, but don't play games. ;) I did not buy it from the beginning on. Me, I think Spiegel has it right in some of their essays, and is very wrong in others. They can be very independent in their analysis, and even conservative, hostile to the left, or the govenrment as well. Then another author of theirs gets published, and they make themselves sound terribly left and europhile again.
Oh c'mon, you quote Speigel like an evangelist quotes the Bible. I don't particularly care what that rag says or who they are hostile to, but I will reserve the right, as I did here, to comment on the trash they print when I see it quoted here.
Takeda Shingen
12-02-11, 09:44 AM
I don't particularly care what that rag says or who they are hostile to....
Seems to me that you care quite a bit. A link to Der Spiegel is like red to a bull for you.
Seems to me that you care quite a bit. A link to Der Spiegel is like red to a bull for you.
Thank you for your opinion Mister Moderator.
For a 13 year old kid who is still a kiod and no part of the adult working force, it is pocket money. For the adult doing the joib for low wage, probably, but still as a formnal job - it is the basis of his living and income.
Oh and by the way. The school system does not exist to provide someone with a high paying union janitor job. Teaching a whole generation of teenagers the value of a buck is a far better use of the money.
AVGWarhawk
12-02-11, 10:42 AM
Unions....sorry...I don't like them either.
mookiemookie
12-02-11, 11:20 AM
Unions....sorry...I don't like them either.
Then by extension you're not fond of a five day work week, child labor laws, employer sponsored health insurance and workplace safety laws. The Triangle Shirtwaist factory did not sound like a fun place to work.
Takeda Shingen
12-02-11, 11:31 AM
Withdrawn. I'm better than that.
Then by extension you're not fond of a five day work week, child labor laws, employer sponsored health insurance and workplace safety laws. The Triangle Shirtwaist factory did not sound like a fun place to work.
Well if he is then by extension you must be fond of preventing people from working unless they kick back a big chunk of their salary to the mob, er I mean the union, bribing politicians to award ridiculously generous terms on labor contracts that the taxpayer is forced to fund regardless of the local economic situation, promotions and retention based on seniority and not merit, lazy, sloppy, truculent workers, violence against non union workers and all the other negatives that unions bring to the workplace. If you want to expound on 100 year old positives then you also have to include the more modern negatives that go with it.
As for the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory I do see your point, it sure doesn't sound like a place to work, on the other hand I understand that working at the Station Night Club was a hoot. Fire safety laws are always the result of an injury or tragedy forcing politicians to do something. They are not union creations.
Platapus said:
So you are advising staying away from sinister women?
Not at all. There is a place for the lefties of the world; I just tend to want to avoid pattern or habit in my personal life; and in the other sense of 'sisniter', some of my most fondly remembered 'relationships' invovled some rather 'sinister' ladies... :DL
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15996701
Note: Update record,2 December 2011 Last updated at 16:59 GMT
Well, Cain has gone from a Clintonesque "I did not have sexual relations..." to "Yes, I knew her, but not well..." to "Yes, I gave her money..." to "I've got to apologize to the wife...". For someone who claimed to be innocent, the peeling off of layers has gotten precariously close to a very rotten core. I think his 15 minutes are over, now... :yep:
http://powerwall.msnbc.msn.com/politics/cains-shaky-marriage-shaken-anew-1708074.story
Cain wants a woman for his manhood demanded it,no big deal :arrgh!:
Apparently, he's got the women, he's just not going to get the presidency...no big deal...
No, he jumps off in a couple off days ...me thinks.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/29/who-will-benefit-from-cains-troubles/
Madox58
12-02-11, 05:16 PM
Unions....sorry...I don't like them either.
I'll vote with you on this statement!
Right now, all my friends and family that have been Union are looking for jobs.
Many lost all everything along with thier job and retirement 'saveings'.
Me? I don't work everyday for alot of reasons.
But I never go to sleep worrying if I'll still have a job tomorrow.
And I don't fork money over to an entity that claims they will protect/help me when the crap hits the fan!
Unions started out for the right reasons.
They quickly became arrogent and over demanding.
Sometimes you have to pay the piper, and today's economy says Unions have to pay thier just dues.
Accordimg to a report just on the telly, Cain is going to announce his decision on Saturday (US time)...
Well, I guess he can always get a job on Fox News...it seems to be where all the other GOP shipwrecks go... :DL
Madox58
12-02-11, 06:13 PM
No doubt an attempt to save face kind of move.
:nope:
I kind of liked the guy until all the crap came out.
I even gave him the benefit of doubt at first.
Once he stated he would talk to his Wife?
Stick a fork in him and call him done.
frau kaleun
12-02-11, 06:38 PM
Stop! Hammer time:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cx723-n1wPA
Tribesman
12-02-11, 08:04 PM
Stop! Hammer time:
Did he give her a pearl necklace?
geetrue
12-02-11, 09:33 PM
I never thought two black men would fight it out for the same office anyway ...
You would need a lie detector on your TV set with a system of bars
telling you how big it is ................
Not a bad idea for whoever runs against Obama now that I think about it :yep:
http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/1606/57101321cainwifelogi.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/705/57101321cainwifelogi.jpg/)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16014203
Note: Update record,3 December 2011 Last updated at 02:13 GMT
Platapus
12-03-11, 08:43 AM
Stop! Hammer time:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cx723-n1wPA
You are so horrible
Horribly funny that is. :yeah:
Platapus
12-03-11, 08:47 AM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16014203
Because my wife and family come first. I've got to take that into consideration."
What a nice man. He puts his wife and family first.
What, do you think: will Cain pull a teary-eyed "I have sinned!" tele-evangilist stance, an "I'm doing this for my family" with the 'loyal wife' standing silently by his side (who will probably dump his sorry heiney sometime soon), or will he be bluster and false bravado blaming the media and his enemies (real and imagined) while failing to acknowledge he is the architect of his own demise... :hmmm:
I'll have a super supreme with extra cheese, hold the excuses.
You want pizza with that order?...
Hm, didn't think about that.
It official!!: Cain's out...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsaTElBljOE
He sure seemed straight what with all that ... oh wait ... that's not what you meant.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16019624
Note: Update record,3 December 2011 Last updated at 19:41 GMT
Rockstar
12-03-11, 04:10 PM
In case anyone is wondering why he "suspended" instead of "ended", this way he can continue to legally receive federal matching funds for a nonexistent campaign all through 2012. Yes indeed Herman, America DOES deserve more than that. :down:
What, do you think: will Cain pull a teary-eyed "I have sinned!" tele-evangilist stance, an "I'm doing this for my family" with the 'loyal wife' standing silently by his side (who will probably dump his sorry heiney sometime soon), or will he be bluster and false bravado blaming the media and his enemies (real and imagined) while failing to acknowledge he is the architect of his own demise... :hmmm: answer to your question found here --------> http://www.c-span.org/Events/Herman-Cain-To-Speak-About-Candidacy/10737426004/
.
Platapus
12-03-11, 04:17 PM
I hope the IRS and the FEC is watching this guy closely and auditing his accounts carefully.
Rockstar
12-03-11, 04:20 PM
hehehe Cain ends er I mean suspends his candidacy with a quote from the Pokemon Movie "Just look inside and you will find just what you can do."
Wheeeeee! :woot::har:
.
Platapus
12-03-11, 04:36 PM
http://www.c-span.org/Events/Herman-Cain-To-Speak-About-Candidacy/10737426004/
.
I am at peace with my wife and she is at peace with me.
I am glad they reached an understanding. I wonder how much the settlement was?
Platapus
12-03-11, 05:02 PM
In case anyone is wondering why he "suspended" instead of "ended", this way he can continue to legally receive federal matching funds for a nonexistent campaign all through 2012. Yes indeed Herman, America DOES deserve more than that. :down:
According to the FEC regulations there is no such thing as "suspending" a campaign. So as far as the FEC is concerned, nothing has changed. From a legal standpoint, he is still a candidate.
So what Cain is saying, basically, is that he will continue to ask for money but he won't be actually doing anything. He will also continue submitting financial reports to the FEC.
I wonder when the first lawsuit will be filed from people who contributed?
FEC regulations: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2011-title11-vol1/html/CFR-2011-title11-vol1.htm
soopaman2
12-03-11, 05:30 PM
I am surprised no one blamed Obama for this yet.:haha:
Upon entry he sounded great. When asked to elaborate you saw how false he was.
I read something in another article about him wanting to protect his family.
You should have thought about your family before you cheated, what a jack ass.
So long Herman"see we don't hate black people" Cain.
Too bad Newt is getting eaten by his own, he is the only one making sense anymore.
http://youtu.be/m7zLmop18hQ
em2nought
12-04-11, 12:44 AM
Obama wins. :down:
Platapus
12-04-11, 08:09 PM
Obama v. Romney? That will be interesting and close
Obama v. Newton? Like the last election not so much a win for Obama but more a loss for Newton.
Maybe sometime in my lifetime there will be an actual presidential election with two (or three) candidates where I can actually choose who I like more vice who I like less.
A boy can dream.
em2nought
12-04-11, 10:55 PM
Help us Ron Paul, you're our only hope! :arrgh!: Someone that doesn't drink the koolaid.
geetrue
12-05-11, 07:50 PM
Obama v. Romney? That will be interesting and close
Obama v. Newton? Like the last election not so much a win for Obama but more a loss for Newton.
Maybe sometime in my lifetime there will be an actual presidential election with two (or three) candidates where I can actually choose who I like more vice who I like less.
A boy can dream.
More and more people seem to be headed in the same direction you have pointed out ...
a third party perhaps in 2016 consisting of the 99% wandering souls putting their money where their mouths are or shall we say tents.
Yet, let us not forget that a third party, popular or not, can take votes from one of the other parties running for the same office.
Didn't this happen to Gore or Kerry?
In the past this has changed the outcome of the election even though the third party on the ballot did not win.
mookiemookie
12-05-11, 09:47 PM
In the past this has changed the outcome of the election even though the third party on the ballot did not win.
Which is exactly why the two major parties and all of their political clout, money and resources will be aligned against any third party that's deemed a threat. They'll undermine it, media blitz it, create a false narrative about it, discredit it, smear it and suffocate it any way possible. Team R & Team D have a stranglehold on politics and it's never gonna change.
and who is the real winner in elections anyway.....the media makes off like a bandit with a large amount of money spent by these campaigns....it's in the best interest to make mountains out of mole hills because it just lines their pockets.
Which is exactly why the two major parties and all of their political clout, money and resources will be aligned against any third party that's deemed a threat. They'll undermine it, media blitz it, create a false narrative about it, discredit it, smear it and suffocate it any way possible. Team R & Team D have a stranglehold on politics and it's never gonna change.
I don't think we've ever seen a real third party in this country. Third parties as we know them tend to be formed from the fringe. Groups dissatisfied with the state or actions of the main party but still within the same ideological wing.
As such i'd think it'd be more accurate to say that both major parties will do all those dirty tricks to a third party that threatens to take more votes from their side rather than the other. When the third party threatens the opposition they're happy to sit back and let it happen. They might even quietly help the third party to keep it viable long enough to draw those votes away.
Platapus
12-06-11, 08:25 PM
Federal elections in the US are decided by a plurality and not a majority. However, culturally we like clear winners and losers. This is especially true for the elections for POTUS. Our electoral college is set up to simulate a majority win, when, in fact it is decided by a plurality win.
This is why most states (48) have a "winner take all" when it comes to electoral votes. This is attractive in a two person race. One will be a clear winner and the other a clear loser. Even when there is a third candidate, electoral races are seldom close.
In the last 50 years, while there have been some very very close popular-vote races for president, the closest electoral-vote was in 2000 with Bush getting 271 and Gore getting 268.
The other races, despite being close in popular vote had a significant difference in electoral votes (double digits). This makes a lot of people feel comfortable as it gives the impression that the nation has spoken with a firm opinion... when it may not have.
I think culturally, the US would have a problem with a president being elected with a 40% plurality and the other candidates having 31% and 29% plurality. We like to think that our presidents are elected by a majority and they are. Just not a majority of popular votes. They are elected by a plurality of popular votes disguised as a majority of electoral votes.
I think that is the primary obstacle to a true third party. We would either have to change the election rules or accept run off elections like many other countries do.
Personally I like the idea of run off elections. But then I also like majority voting too. :yeah:
Sailor Steve
12-06-11, 08:33 PM
I think culturally, the US would have a problem with a president being elected with a 40% plurality and the other candidates having 31% and 29% plurality. We like to think that our presidents are elected by a majority and they are. Just not a majority of popular votes. They are elected by a plurality of popular votes disguised as a majority of electoral votes.
But to win one candidate must still obtain 270 electoral votes. With 538 possible electoral votes, 40% is only 215 and not enough to win.
But to win one candidate must still obtain 270 electoral votes. With 538 possible electoral votes, 40% is only 215 and not enough to win.
Not necessarily. If none of them get more than 269 electoral votes the 12th Amendment sends the matter to the House of Reps where each state delegation gets one vote. They keep balloting for the top three candidates until one of them gets at least 26 votes.
Such an event would be enormously entertaining to watch i'd bet! :DL
Sailor Steve
12-06-11, 09:37 PM
Not necessarily. If none of them get more than 269 electoral votes the 12th Amendment sends the matter to the House of Reps where each state delegation gets one vote. They keep balloting for the top three candidates until one of them gets at least 26 votes.
Such an event would be enormously entertaining to watch i'd bet! :DL
Very true, and thanks for the reminder. I completely blanked on the 'House' rule.
And for those who don't know, it did happen once, back in 1800. The rule then allowed for the Electors (the Electoral College guys who actually cast the votes) to cast two ballots, for two different candidates, one of whom could not be from their home state. The electors were appointed by the State Legislatures in those days. Well, actually they still are; it's just that all the states these days allow the people to vote for which candidate's electors will go to the final poll. The electors are not legally bound to vote for the candidate they represent, but they know what's good for them and mostly toe that line.
Anyway, back in 1800 Jefferson beat Adams handily (it was a very nasty race, but that's another story). The plan was that each Jefferson elector would cast one vote for Jefferson and one for the other Republican candidate, Aaron Burr. A couple of the Burr votes were to be diverted to a subsidiary candidate so Jefferson would be the clear winner, but apparently all the Jefferson electors were afraid that if too many votes were thus diverted it might misfire and Adams might win. They all cast their second votes for Burr, and Jefferson and Burr tied with 73 votes each. Burr had indicated to Jefferson that he would cheerfully announce that he was only running for vice-president, but he never quite got around to saying so publically.
So It went to the house, and time after time (thirty-five times in all) Jefferson got more votes than Burr, but never a clear majority. The Federalists in the House refused to vote for Jefferson, and the stalemate continued. Alexander Hamilton, Jefferson's sworn enemy, told his friends that, while Jefferson might be wrongheaded he still loved his country, but Burr loved only himself. Finally two Federalists, still refusing to vote for Jefferson, did abstain from voting at all, and this put Jefferson one vote over the required majority.
First Result: Burr and Hamilton became the bitterest of enemies, leading indirectly to the duel four years later that would see Hamilton dead.
Second Reult: Burr became vice-president, but was forever persona-non-grata to the Republican party, being dismissed from the ballot in 1804.
Third Result: The 12th Amendment to the Constitution, which provides that the electors from that time cast two votes, one for president and one for vice-president.
Thanks again for the reminder, Dave. :sunny:
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.